Articles Posted in Family Visas

We’re only four days away from the World Cup opener between South Africa and Mexico, so it’s a good time to cover some immigration related points. DOS alerted U.S. citizens traveling to or residing in South Africa to safety and security issues related to the FIFA World Cup from 06/11/10 to 7/11/10. This travel alert includes a section on immigration.

Scrutiny of foreign travelers arriving at South African ports of entry will be tightened during the World Cup. U.S. citizens should ensure they have two blank pages marked “Visas” in their passports as required for South African entry formalities. Those travelers with criminal records should consult the nearest South African Consulate or the South African Embassy in Washington, D.C., before traveling. Questions about carrying firearms or other unusual items into the country may also be directed to the nearest South African embassy or consulate. Any traveler coming from or passing through the so-called “yellow fever belt” of Africa and South America must carry certification of having received a yellow fever vaccination upon entry into South Africa.

More from the State Department here….

This is a great tip from AILA, many applicants are often confused about the I-751 receipt number. Be aware that the receipt number listed on a receipt notice for Form I-751, Petition to Remove the Conditions of Residence is not the actual receipt number for that case. In fact, if the receipt number shown on the receipt notice for the I-751 is tracked through the USCIS online case status, an error message will appear. The correct receipt number for an I-751 is listed on the I-751 biometrics notice.

Also a recap for the issue of Procedures for Parties Separated but Not Yet Divorced. Until last year, USCIS held that separated, but not yet divorced, conditional residents were ineligible to file I-751 waivers. According to a USCIS memo, things have changed.

The Memo provides that:

On 5/27/10, the Senate voted on four enforcement-only immigration amendments during debate on the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2010 (H.R. 4899).

The following amendments, which needed at least 60 votes to pass, were all rejected:

* Amendment 4214: Introduced by Senator McCain (R-AZ), would have added 6,000 more National Guard agents to the southern border. The amendment failed to pass 51-46.

Further to the Department’s proposed rule to amend the Schedule of Fees for Consular Services (Schedule) for nonimmigrant visa and border crossing card application processing fees, this rule raises from $131 to $140 the fee charged for the processing of an application for most non-petition-based nonimmigrant visas (Machine-Readable Visas or MRVs) and adult Border Crossing Cards (BCCs).

The rule also provides new tiers of the application fee for certain categories of petition- based nonimmigrant visas and treaty trader and investor visas (all of which are also MRVs).

Finally, the rule increases the $13 BCC fee charged to Mexican citizen minors who apply in Mexico, and whose parent or guardian already has a BCC or is applying for one, by raising that fee to $14 by virtue of a congressionally mandated surcharge that went into effect in 2009.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that it has redesigned the Permanent Resident Card—commonly known as the “Green Card”—to incorporate several

major new security features. State-of-the-art technology prevents counterfeiting, obstructs

tampering, and facilitates quick and accurate authentication of the card. Beginning today,

This past week we saw people from all walks of life debating about this unreasonable law. Even Arizona law enforcement personnel feel that this is going to create more harm than good. The shine of light to the Arizona law – if there is one – is that it has shaken our nation’s leaders into dealing with the need for immigration reform. In large numbers in Arizona and nationwide, people have turned out protesting the law. For more information about the new Arizona Law email me.

Arizona’s new immigration law is a bad idea whether you are an anti or a supporter of comprehensive immigration reform. The reasons are different for each but the idea of a state taking crazy measures points to the failure of congress and the administration to take meaningful action to correct what is becoming a system that is failing the immigrant community and our entire nation.

What does the Arizona law do?

Arizona’s law orders immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and requires police to question people if there’s reason to suspect they’re in the United States illegally.

I can’t remember so much controversy and anger over an immigration measure like the Arizona law passed in the past few days. The measure — set to take effect in late July or early August — would make it a crime under state law to be in the U.S. illegally. It directs state and local police to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are illegal.

The anger over Arizona’s new law cracking down on illegal immigrants grew stronger today as opponents used refried beans to smear swastikas on the state Capitol, civil rights leaders demanded a boycott of the state, and the Obama administration weighed a possible legal challenge. Immigration lawyers in Arizona are also gearing up to defend clients and take on some new kind of cases.

Under the new Arizona law, immigrants unable to produce documents showing they are allowed to be in the U.S. could be arrested, jailed for up to six months and fined $2,500. That is a significant escalation of the typical federal punishment for being here illegally.

People arrested by Arizona police would be turned over to federal immigration officers. Opponents said the federal government could thwart the law by refusing to accept them.

Activists are planning a challenge of their own, hoping to block the law from taking effect by arguing that it encroaches on the federal government’s authority to regulate immigration and violates people’s constitutional rights by giving police too much power.

The White House would not rule out the possibility that the administration would take legal action against Arizona. President Barack Obama, who warned last week that the measure could lead to police abuses, asked the Justice Department to complete a review of the law’s implications before deciding how to proceed.

Mexican President Felipe Calderon said the law is discriminatory and warned that trade and political ties with Arizona will be seriously strained by the crackdown.

Yet Arizona Governor is living in her own bubble. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer today deflected concerns that the state’s new immigration law will hurt economic development, saying many businesses have long wanted tougher action.

“I believe it’s not going to have the kind of economic impact that some people think that it might,” Brewer, a Republican, said.

Not all Arizona residents are siding with this. Mr. Gordon, Phoenix’s mayor and a Democrat, said his office hopes the City Council will authorize the city to file a lawsuit Tuesday. San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera urged policymakers in the city to stop dealing with Arizona and Arizona businesses. Leaders in Mexico and California also demanded a boycott, as did civil rights leader Al Sharpton. More opposition is expected both from inside and outside Arizona.

Continue reading

This Update is from AILA Rome Chapter, very important information for HIV infected immigrants and family members.

This Post will attempt to lend clarity to the dynamic process by which HIV infection is being removed as a ground of inadmissibility under INA 212(a)(1). Although the date for final removal of HIV infection from the list of communicable diseases of public health significance is just a few weeks away, DHS and DOS are at very different stages in their attempts to align their respective regulations to this welcome new reality.

On July 2, 2009, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register, announcing its intent to remove HIV infection from its list of communicable diseases of public health significance and inviting public comment on the issue. The Final Rule implementing this change was published on November 2, 2009; following a 60-day waiting period, the rule will become effective on January 4, 2010.

As you may know, USCIS requires photographs and fingerprints for certain applications, this process is called Biometrics. Until the Biometrics step is complete, an applicant can not proceed with the rest of the application, get his work permit or be scheduled for his Naturalization interview if it a Citizenship Application.

In many cases, applicants can not make it to the assigned fingerprints/biometrics date assigned by USCIS. Failure to show up can be detrimental to the case in hand, and can result in case termination.

A recent update from the San Diego AILA chapter may be useful to readers of this Blog and is applicable in all 50 states.