We are extremely pleased to announce that our firm now has a new blog site! Please visit our new home for future posts!
Friday, October 16, 2009
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Evidence for an I-360 Battered Spouse Petition - Sometimes, less is more!
You may have heard this saying: Sometimes, less is more.
Today, we received a somewhat surprising approval for a client who had filed an I-360 visa petition as a battered spouse of a United States citizen. From the very beginning, the case had very little evidence. Often times, this is the situation, since the victim does not "keep" any evidence in anticipation of having to file a battered spouse claim with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("U.S. CIS"). In fact, the opposite is true - because the victim does not want to disclose the abuse or has never talked about it with anyone, he or she has no evidence, including any witnesses, to support a claim.
Our client, from the very beginning, was reluctant to talk about the abuse she had suffered. Understandably, she simply wanted to "put the past behind" her and she had repressed all the bad memories of her marriage to her abuser. Indeed, we found this case to be challenging, since we were dealing with no real evidence of abuse or "extreme cruelty" by her United States citizen spouse. All we had to go on was her word.
As lawyers, we always focus on evidence and corroborating a claim, especially a claim as delicate as abuse. The reality of practicing immigration law is that often times, claims must be made without any evidence. If a client simply does not have any evidence to put forward, the claim will often rest of the client's own statement or testimony. This is often true in cases involving a battered spouse claim or an asylum claim.
Over the summer, the U.S. CIS sent a notice to us informing that it was not convinced that our client's claim rose to the level of "extreme cruelty" or abuse by her husband. Of course, my client was shocked to hear this, but we had to explain to her why this was the case. How would the U.S. CIS really know what happened during the marriage of a victim and the abuser if there is no evidence to back up the claim? Why should the U.S. CIS believe a victim's claim without any corroborating evidence?
Notwithstanding lack of evidence, in response to the U.S. CIS notice, we replied and explained in detail why our client deserves to have her petition approved notwithstanding any corroborating evidence. Working closely with our client over course of several hours in several days, we prepared a reply to the U.S. CIS' notice doubting our client's claim. Our clients are worth spending our time on.
Much to our pleasant surprise, the petition was approved this week! Our client was speechless and overjoyed. She will now be able to pursue adjustment of status and obtain her permanent residency in the United States.
The lesson: Never give up on a case, no matter how hopeless it may seem in the beginning! And sometimes, less is more.
-Ruchi Thaker
Today, we received a somewhat surprising approval for a client who had filed an I-360 visa petition as a battered spouse of a United States citizen. From the very beginning, the case had very little evidence. Often times, this is the situation, since the victim does not "keep" any evidence in anticipation of having to file a battered spouse claim with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("U.S. CIS"). In fact, the opposite is true - because the victim does not want to disclose the abuse or has never talked about it with anyone, he or she has no evidence, including any witnesses, to support a claim.
Our client, from the very beginning, was reluctant to talk about the abuse she had suffered. Understandably, she simply wanted to "put the past behind" her and she had repressed all the bad memories of her marriage to her abuser. Indeed, we found this case to be challenging, since we were dealing with no real evidence of abuse or "extreme cruelty" by her United States citizen spouse. All we had to go on was her word.
As lawyers, we always focus on evidence and corroborating a claim, especially a claim as delicate as abuse. The reality of practicing immigration law is that often times, claims must be made without any evidence. If a client simply does not have any evidence to put forward, the claim will often rest of the client's own statement or testimony. This is often true in cases involving a battered spouse claim or an asylum claim.
Over the summer, the U.S. CIS sent a notice to us informing that it was not convinced that our client's claim rose to the level of "extreme cruelty" or abuse by her husband. Of course, my client was shocked to hear this, but we had to explain to her why this was the case. How would the U.S. CIS really know what happened during the marriage of a victim and the abuser if there is no evidence to back up the claim? Why should the U.S. CIS believe a victim's claim without any corroborating evidence?
Notwithstanding lack of evidence, in response to the U.S. CIS notice, we replied and explained in detail why our client deserves to have her petition approved notwithstanding any corroborating evidence. Working closely with our client over course of several hours in several days, we prepared a reply to the U.S. CIS' notice doubting our client's claim. Our clients are worth spending our time on.
Much to our pleasant surprise, the petition was approved this week! Our client was speechless and overjoyed. She will now be able to pursue adjustment of status and obtain her permanent residency in the United States.
The lesson: Never give up on a case, no matter how hopeless it may seem in the beginning! And sometimes, less is more.
-Ruchi Thaker
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Immigration Detention: Overview and Recommendations
On October 6, 2009, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"), an agency within the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") that is charged with enforcement of immigration laws, issued a comprehensive report discussing current detention standards and policies and recommendations for the future.
-Ruchi Thaker
-Ruchi Thaker
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Health Care for Undocumented Immigrants - Fact Check
With so much debate about health care and how it may or may not affect undocumented immigrants, the Center for American Progress is doing some fact-checking on the issue.
-Ruchi Thaker
-Ruchi Thaker
Monday, August 10, 2009
Immigration Reform 2010: Myth or Reality?
President Obama hopes to tackle immigration reform in early 2010.
-Irwin Berowitz
-Irwin Berowitz
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Naturalization Wrongfully Denied on Good Moral Character Grounds
A green card holder was referred to me by another lawyer in March of 2007, because the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") had denied him naturalization on the basis that he could not show the required good moral character to become a citizen as a result of a conviction he had almost 10 years before he filed his application for naturalization. Shockingly, in denying naturalization, the USCIS admitted that it was not supposed to look at the man’s life beyond the 5 years it was allowed to look at to determine good moral character, but it claimed that a conviction from 10 years ago was “relevant in determining [his] present moral character.” Of course, this man had no other convictions since that one conviction 10 years ago. So naturally, I was perplexed as to how his decade-old conviction was “relevant” in determining his present moral character.
This was a completely erroneous decision by the USCIS. It was erroneous because the USCIS looked beyond the 5 years immediately preceding the filing of the application (which is the time period USCIS is authorized to investigate, unless criminal activity has happened during the five years, in which case the USCIS can look outside the 5-year period). It was an erroneous denial because this man had a clean record for the 5 years USCIS was allowed to investigate, so there was nothing in his record to “trigger” an inquiry beyond the five years. However, the worst part was the fact that the USCIS was one hundred percent wrong in denying naturalization based on the fact that this man had a conviction (no matter how many years ago) that reflected poorly on his character.
Because I realized how wrong the USCIS was, I decided to help this man fight for his chance to become a United States citizen. I filed an appeal challenging the USCIS’ unfavorable decision. I explained to the USCIS that my client was not barred from becoming a United States citizen, because he was never “convicted” of a crime. This was a critical argument. What the USCIS had ignored was the fact that my client was adjudicated a “youthful offender” by the state of New York. Under New York law, a youthful offender adjudication is not a judgment of conviction for a crime or any other offense. Moreover, it is not a “conviction” for immigration purposes. Therefore, since my client was never “convicted” of a crime that could reflect poorly on his moral character, the USCIS had no basis to deny my client naturalization for "lack of good moral character" as a result of a “conviction.”
Normally, after an appeal is filed, there is an interview on the appeal. My client and I waited...and waited...and waited...and waited...for an interview notice. I filed nine follow up letters with the USCIS office in New York over the course of 2007, 2008, and 2009. Not only did we not get an interview notice, but the USCIS did not even acknowledge my communications or send a notice advising me of the status of the pending appeal.
Eventually, the USCIS decided to interview my client in early 2009. I went with him to the interview to make sure the officer understood why he was eligible for naturalization. It was clear to me that, even after I explained to the interviewing officer and directed to her to the law, she did not understand how my client was eligible to naturalize. She said to us: “We will let you know of our decision.”
Three months after the interview, my client called me and told me that he received an appointment for a Oath Ceremony to be sworn in as a United States citizen! Of course, USCIS did not bother to notify me, the attorney, even though it knew I represented my client. My client was extremely overjoyed and rightfully so! He had been waiting over two years for the USCIS to realize its mistake. I was confident from the beginning that this appeal would result in a victory.
I wish USCIS would review cases more carefully. Naturalization denials, such as the one my client received, are typical and boilerplate. Often, the denial makes no sense whatsoever. One would think that the naturalization unit of the USCIS would be “experienced” in legal issues dealing with eligibility for naturalization. But almost every time I go to a naturalization interview with a client, I am surprised by how little the interviewing officer knows about the legal eligibility requirements. A little common sense and training in dealing with these issues might be the remedy...just a thought!
-Ruchi Thaker
This was a completely erroneous decision by the USCIS. It was erroneous because the USCIS looked beyond the 5 years immediately preceding the filing of the application (which is the time period USCIS is authorized to investigate, unless criminal activity has happened during the five years, in which case the USCIS can look outside the 5-year period). It was an erroneous denial because this man had a clean record for the 5 years USCIS was allowed to investigate, so there was nothing in his record to “trigger” an inquiry beyond the five years. However, the worst part was the fact that the USCIS was one hundred percent wrong in denying naturalization based on the fact that this man had a conviction (no matter how many years ago) that reflected poorly on his character.
Because I realized how wrong the USCIS was, I decided to help this man fight for his chance to become a United States citizen. I filed an appeal challenging the USCIS’ unfavorable decision. I explained to the USCIS that my client was not barred from becoming a United States citizen, because he was never “convicted” of a crime. This was a critical argument. What the USCIS had ignored was the fact that my client was adjudicated a “youthful offender” by the state of New York. Under New York law, a youthful offender adjudication is not a judgment of conviction for a crime or any other offense. Moreover, it is not a “conviction” for immigration purposes. Therefore, since my client was never “convicted” of a crime that could reflect poorly on his moral character, the USCIS had no basis to deny my client naturalization for "lack of good moral character" as a result of a “conviction.”
Normally, after an appeal is filed, there is an interview on the appeal. My client and I waited...and waited...and waited...and waited...for an interview notice. I filed nine follow up letters with the USCIS office in New York over the course of 2007, 2008, and 2009. Not only did we not get an interview notice, but the USCIS did not even acknowledge my communications or send a notice advising me of the status of the pending appeal.
Eventually, the USCIS decided to interview my client in early 2009. I went with him to the interview to make sure the officer understood why he was eligible for naturalization. It was clear to me that, even after I explained to the interviewing officer and directed to her to the law, she did not understand how my client was eligible to naturalize. She said to us: “We will let you know of our decision.”
Three months after the interview, my client called me and told me that he received an appointment for a Oath Ceremony to be sworn in as a United States citizen! Of course, USCIS did not bother to notify me, the attorney, even though it knew I represented my client. My client was extremely overjoyed and rightfully so! He had been waiting over two years for the USCIS to realize its mistake. I was confident from the beginning that this appeal would result in a victory.
I wish USCIS would review cases more carefully. Naturalization denials, such as the one my client received, are typical and boilerplate. Often, the denial makes no sense whatsoever. One would think that the naturalization unit of the USCIS would be “experienced” in legal issues dealing with eligibility for naturalization. But almost every time I go to a naturalization interview with a client, I am surprised by how little the interviewing officer knows about the legal eligibility requirements. A little common sense and training in dealing with these issues might be the remedy...just a thought!
-Ruchi Thaker
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Asylee and Refugee Adjustment of Status - Q & A by the USCIS
Here is an updated Questions & Answers memo released by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services addressing frequent questions relating to filing of an adjustment of status application, work authorization application and travel permits for asylees and refugees.
-Irwin Berowitz
-Irwin Berowitz
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
