Tag: featured

Case Status Update: Conditions Removed- 10-Year Green Card Approved; Work Permit & Travel Document for Adjustment Applicant Approved; Work Permit Approval for Asylum Applicant

Conditions on Permanent Residence Removed, 10-Year Green Card Approved: Today we received another approval on a petition to remove conditions on permanent residence (Form I-751)! Our client. (hereinafter “X”), is a native and citizen of Myanmar. X entered the United States in 2002 as a minor on aV-2 nonimmigrant visa. X subsequently married a naturalized U.S. Citizen who was born in Burma. X’s wife filed a marriage petition on his behalf, and in February of 2014, he received his Green Card based on the marriage. Because the couple was married for less than 2 years at the time of the green card interview, X only received a 2-Year Green Card. So, X and his wife had to file a joint petition to remove conditions on his residency within 3 months of the expiration date of his Green Card. X and his wife timely filed the petition in December of 2015. X and his wife were waiting for the past year to be called in for an interview, but their marriage evidence was so strong that their case got approved last week without being called in for another marriage interview! X and his wife are happily living together in their newly purchased home in New Jersey, and because of how long the I-751 process took, X can already apply for his Citizenship!

Form I-797, Notice of Action - I-751 Approval Notice

Work Permit & Travel Document Approved: Today we received approval notices for a work permit and travel document for our client who is a native and citizen of Germany, (hereinafter “Y”). Y receive his EAD and travel document as an adjustment applicant. Y’s Green Card application is based on the marriage petition filed by his USC Wife. While Y waits for the approval notice, he can work legally in the United States with the Work Permit and leave and re-enter the country with the travel document as if he was a Green Card holder. Y and his wife should be scheduled for a Marriage Interview shortly.

Form I-797C, Notice of Action - I-131 Approval Notice

Form I-797C, Notice of Action - I-765 Approval Notice

Work Permit Approved for Asylum Applicant: We also received a work permit approval for our client who is a native and citizen of Nigeria, (hereinafter, “Z”). Z entered the United States less than a year ago and is the rider on her father’s timely filed Asylum Application. As a rider, Z is entitled to apply for a work permit as if she was the lead Applicant. Z and her family are awaiting their interview wit the Asylum Office.

Form I-797, Notice of Action - I-765 Approval Notice

**If you need help with your immigration filings, contact an experienced immigration attorney at The Shapiro Law Firm today to get started!**

(*please note that all identification information has been removed in order to protect our clients’ privacy and in order to fully comply with attorney advertising rules and regulations*)

Who Did President Trump 212(f) today? | UPDATE: DHS Statement on Compliance with Recent Court Order | 9th Cir. Court Denies Stay, Upholds Travel Ban Suspension

Who did Trump 212(f) today?

DHS Statement on Compliance with Recent Court Order

On February 4, 2017 the U.S. Department of Homeland Security issued a press release confirming that the agency has suspended all action regarding the Enforcement of President Trump’s Executive Order entitled, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” (“Executive Order”), in accordance with the District Court’s order enjoining and restraining enforcement of the Executive Order:

Release Date:February 4, 2017

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
Contact: 202-282-8010

WASHINGTON – In accordance with the judge’s ruling, DHS has suspended any and all actions implementing the affected sections of the Executive Order entitled, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.”

This includes actions to suspend passenger system rules that flag travelers for operational action subject to the Executive Order.

DHS personnel will resume inspection of travelers in accordance with standard policy and procedure.

At the earliest possible time, the Department of Justice intends to file an emergency stay of this order and defend the president’s Executive Order, which is lawful and appropriate. The order is intended to protect the homeland and the American people, and the president has no higher duty and responsibility than to do so.

The 9th Circuit Upholds Travel Ban Suspension

Washington, et al v. Trump: Yesterday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in President Trump’s appeal of the District Court’s decision to suspend the travel ban until the Court can have a full a hearing to decide if President Trump’s Executive Order entitled, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” is constitutional. All 3 Appellate Judges sided with the States.

In so deciding, the 9th Circuit found that at this early stage in the litigation, Trump is unlikely to succeed on the merits of the claim, meaning that the Executive Order is unlikely to be found constitutional. In contrast to the short District Court’s 6 page decision, the 9th Circuit issued a 23 page decision that addressed all of the issues brought up in Trump’s appeal.

Of note was the 9th Circuit’s clear admonition of Trump’s critique of the judicial branch:

  • The 9th Circuit was not happy with Trump’s contention that his actions as President are unreviewable by the Courts, citing to numerous precedential case law where the courts have declared acts of Congress and of the President to be unconstitutional.

  • The 9th Circuit also was not persuaded with Trump’s contention that his access to classified national security information precluded the courts from second-guessing him on these matters. The Court responded that it has been called upon many times in the past to review classified information to make a decision and it has no problem keeping that information secret.

As for the merits of the claim, the Court touched on the Establishment Clause briefly, only stating that in light of the “numerous statements by the President about his intent to implement a “Muslim ban” as well as evidence they claim suggests that the Executive Order was intended to be that ban,” the States raise some serious constitutional concerns including violations of the Establishment and the Equal Protection Clauses. When concerns of these nature are made, the courts can certainly look beyond the face of the challenged law to the see if the purpose of the law is discriminatory.

The courts are not saying that the States will succeed on these claims, merely that the States have passed the first procedural hurdle, and thus the courts will consider Trump’s intent and his past statements when deciding if his Executive Order is essentially a “Muslim Ban” despite the Order itself not using those words.

What is Next in the Litigation?

Trump is likely to appeal the denial of the stay to the U.S. Supreme Court. We should find out within the next few days if that is going to happen. If no appeal is taken, the case goes back to the District Court who will continue with the underlying case to decide if Trump’s Executive Order is unconstitutional.

If you are a national of a 212(f) country and are worried about how the travel ban will effect you, contact an attorney at The Shapiro Law Firm today for more information.

**Attorney Advertising** Please be advised that that all information provided above is general in nature and does not create an attorney-client relationship.**Attorney Advertising**

#PositivelyImmigration | Why Immigrants Are Essential to American Inventiveness and Economic Growth | Tech Companies Amicus Curie Brief in Opposition to travel ban explained

#PositivelyImmigration

The travel ban implemented by President Trump’s Executive Order has resulted in fierce opposition from notable tech companies such as Google, Twitter, Apple and Amazon. The tech companies have turned their fierce opposition into action by filing amicus briefs in opposition to the travel ban with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. One filing was joined by 97 different leading U.S. tech companies and non-tech companies from other sectors of the economy.

What is an Amicus Curie Brief?

“Amicus Curie” is latin for “friend of the court,” and refers to someone who is not a party to the litigation, but who believes that the court’s ruling will effect its’ interests. In other words, a party filing an amicus curie brief is not a plaintiff or defendant in the case, but nonetheless will be effected by the decision of the court.

In order to file an amicus curie brief, both parties to the litigation must consent to the filing or the court itself can allow the filing if an amicus party files a motion requesting such with the court.

Amicus curie briefs are meant to supplement the court with valuable information and legal arguments that may not have been brought up by the actual parties to the litigation.

The 97 U.S. companies who filed the amicus curie brief in Washington, et al v. Trump, Case No. 2:17-cv-00141-JLR, argue that, “the Order inflicts significant harm on American business, innovation, and growth…” by “threaten[ing] companies’ ability to attract talent, business, and investment to the United States.” The brief goes on to explain that immigrants are essential to American innovativeness, growth and inventiveness as evidenced by the high number of immigrant Nobel prize winners and the fact that immigrants with advanced degrees are 3 times as likely to file patents than U.S.-born citizens with the same level of education. The brief goes onto explain the positive impact that these immigrants have on their colleagues and our country as a whole before explaining exactly how the companies and our country are harmed by the travel ban.

Countless Studies Back up the Claims that Immigrants Positively Impact Multiple Facts of American Life.

One study that was conducted over a 60 year time period (from 1940-2000), found that geographic areas of the Untied States with a higher number of immigrants produced more inventions and patents. Parents are associated with economic growth. For more information, click here to read The Atlantic article titled, “Immigrants and American Inventiveness.”

In my first #PositivelyImmigration blog post, I also touched on the issue of immigrant inventiveness when I reported that 6 of the 7 Nobel prize winners in 2016 were foreign-born.

**Attorney Advertising** Please be advised that that all information provided above is general in nature and does not create an attorney-client relationship.**Attorney Advertising**

Case Status Update: Custody/ Visitation/ Family Offense Case in Brooklyn Adjourned until April

Case Status Update

Custody/ Visitation/ Family Offense Petition Case Adjourned until April: Last week, Attorney Shaffer represented a member of the U.S. Air Force, (hereinafter, Client “X”), in Brooklyn Family Court in response to a Petition to modify custody filed by his ex-wife. X and his ex-wife have been divorced since March 2010. X has been serving overseas since 2012. He is currently serving overseas at a Permanent Duty Station in South Korea.

X is the primary custodial parent of his and his ex-wife’s 10-year-old son. X is remarried now, and he, his new wife and his son all live on the military base together. When X was divorced, he was stationed in Texas and his ex-wife was living in Florida. The divorce was entered by a Texas Court.

So what is the problem here? X’s ex-wife was never happy with the court’s decision to award primary custody of their son to X, rather than to her. In the past, X has tried different tactics to remove custody from X, including making unsubstantiated and baseless claims to Administration for Child’s Services, (ACS), refusing to return the child after exercising her visitation rights, attempting pro se filings in various courts and even repeatedly calling X’s boss and falsely claiming that he kidnapped the couple’s son. Despite the fact that X has responded to every single false accusation successfully by simply producing the divorce decree, he has faced losing his job over the constant vexing phone calls from his ex. Kidnapping a child internationally is a very serious accusation, one that the U.S. military does not take lightly. Every time his ex-wife made this claim, the military was forced to remove X from his current duties and prove that he was not in violation of his divorce decree.

Skip to last summer when X first contacted us to help him stop his ex-wife from harassing him at work, who by that time started using fake names when calling the base to continue making accusations against X when his commanding officers recognized the name and stopped responding to her. The experienced matrimonial lawyers at The Shapiro Law Firm filed a Family Offense Petition against the ex-wife, instructing her to not to contact X at work, noting that she had an independent way to contact her son, as well as X, should she need to get in touch with X about the couple’s son.

Now before we filed anything against X’s ex-wife in the court, we had to make sure that our client was not violating his divorce decree in anyway. Since the divorce decree was from Texas, the language used in the order is not the same language used in New York orders. For example, the term “primary conservator” is used instead of “custodial parent.” Some of the terms used in the Texas standard custody/visitation language can mean more than 1 thing in New York- a parent can exercise a “period of possession” when exercising visitation rights OR whenever the child is in that parent’s “physical custody.” In New York, however, the term possession is not used and only the non-custodial parent can have “visitation.”

To make matters even more confusing, the Texas divorce decree appears to have conflicting provisions governing who is slated to act as the primary custodial parent when X is on certain military assignments. The order also states that X can choose the “primary residence of the child without regard to geographic location,” which indicates that regardless of what X is doing and where he is, he can also decide where is son is going to live, even if that means outside of the United States and even if it is not with X.

The above-stated facts do not even begin to scratch the surface of the confusing issues at play in this case, but what is important here is that the divorce decree was not clear regarding key provisions governing who is entitled to have physical custody of the child at certain times. In addition, because X was sent overseas after the divorce decree was entered, the divorce decree fails to adequately address how mom would exercise her visitation rights in this situation, which for example, calls for weekend visits every other weekend (it did not help that mom stopped paying child support, which prevented her from being able to obtain a passport this whole time).

So what did we learn here? Before you sign your divorce settlement agreement, make sure that you understand exactly what it says. Your attorney should be more than happy to explain! Do you think that you can move your child anywhere in the world with out your ex-spouse’s consent? Confirm that this is the case. Do you think that your ex-spouse is supposed to pay for all travel expenses in exercising his or her right to visitation? If you do not see it in your agreement, make sure you find out. Although we cannot anticipate every event that may occur in the future, it is worth taking the time to think about the future and ask your attorney how the decree will be enforced under those circumstances.

What next? Last week, we filed motions to dismiss the petitions to modify custody/visitation with court based on a lack of jurisdiction and a failure to state a claim (X’s ex-wife failed to properly register the out-of-state divorce decree with the New York court and failed to serve the attachments referenced in the Petition on X). If the court denies the motion, X’s ex-wife will have the burden of proving to the court that there has been a substantial change in circumstances that warrants the court to modify the original custody/ visitation order. With all of the information that we have on the case thus far, we are confident that X will win the case and continue to be the primary custodial parent of his son. We will also have a final order of protection entered against his ex-wife that will direct her from refraining from contacting X’s employer or any of his co-workers.

If you need help filing for your divorce or for custody/ vistation/ child support, contact an experienced family attorney at The Shapiro Law Firm today.

(*please note that all identification information has been removed in order to protect our clients’ privacy and in order to fully comply with attorney advertising rules and regulations*)

Who Did President Trump 212(f) today? | Update on Travel Ban

Who did Trump 212(f) today?

Who did Trump 212(f) today?

President Trump has face a wave of legal challenges since signing the January 27, 2017 Executive Order. As of today, President Trump has not named anyone new to the 212(f) country list and the courts have temporarily suspended any prohibitions against entering the United States, pursuant to the executive order, for foreign nationals from the 7 named countries (Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, Syria, Iraq, Iran and Libya).

What does a suspension on the “travel ban” mean?

The suspension on the “travel ban” means that no foreign nationals from the above-stated 7 countries can be denied entry into the United States based on the executive order.

The suspension is temporary. If the courts ultimately find that the Executive Order is constitutional, the travel ban will be put back into effect in full.

How did we get to the this point?

There has been a lot of talk about different states filing lawsuits to stop the travel ban. Here is a break down of the path taken by litigants that has gotten us to this point:

January 30, 2017: Washington State filed an emergency motion seeking to invalidate parts of President Trump’s Executive Order, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” along with a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), to prevent the federal government from enforcing the “travel ban” portions of the executive order. The motion is filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle.

February 1, 2017: Washington files an amended complaint, adding the states of Minnesota as a plaintiff.

February 3, 2017: The Honorable Judge Robart grants plaintiffs’ TRO, thereby suspending the execution of the “travel ban,” along with specific provisions of the Executive Order nationwide. Judge Robart granted the TRO because he found that the states proved that they are subject to immediate and irreparable injury as a result of the signing and implementation of the order, and that issuing a TRO is in the public interest.

Basically, this means that there are serious constitutional concerns here and the plaintiffs have a very strong argument that the travel ban is unconstitutional. So the courts have suspended the travel ban until the full case can be fully litigated in court.

February 5, 2017: The United States Appellate Court for the 9th Circuit denies the federal government’s appeal of Judge Robart’s decision to issue the nationwide TRO. The 9th Circuit Court further instructed both parties to file supporting briefs by 6PM EST on February 6, 2017. The briefs will only focus on whether or not the suspension of the travel ban should remain in effect while the court decides on the constitutionality of the Executive Order.

February 6, 2017: Washington and Minnesota submitted their supporting briefs to the 9th Circuit Court, along with 15 amicus curie briefs. The federal government also submitted their brief in support of lifting the travel ban.

February 7, 2017: The 9th Circuit Court will hear oral arguments at 6 PM EST from each decide before quickly reaching a decision regarding the District Court’s authority to issue a nationwide suspension of the travel ban.

Can the 9th Circuit’s ruling be appealed too?

Yes. The losing party can appeal the 9th Circuit’s decision to the United States Supreme Court. There has been indications from both sides that this will be the case after the 9th Circuit rules.

One last thing thing to keep in mind…

A ruling by the 9th Circuit and (possibly the U.S. Supreme Court) that upholds the District Court’s suspension of the travel ban is definitely a huge loss to President Trump’s team, but it still does not mean that the courts will ultimately find the Executive Order to be unconstitutional. The scales will be tipped in favor of unconstitutionality, but a higher burden must be met before the Executive Order will be invalidated by the courts.

I will discuss this burden and what both sides need to prove to have a ruling in their favor in my next post in the series, “Who did Trump 212(f) today?”

If you are a national of a 212(f) country and are worried about how the travel ban will effect you, contact an attorney at The Shapiro Law Firm today for more information.

**Attorney Advertising** Please be advised that that all information provided above is general in nature and does not create an attorney-client relationship.**Attorney Advertising**

Case Status Update: 10-Year Green Card Approved!

10-Year Green Card Approved: Today Attorney Shaffer attended a marriage-based Green Card interview with a client, (hereinafter, Client “X”), who is a citizen and national of Trinidad and Tobago and her husband. X’s husband is also from Trinidad and Tobago and became a naturalized U.S. Citizen in 2012. X and her husband met in 2011 at her husband’s Uncle annual backyard BBQ party. X’s husband saw her at the BBQ and went over to introduce himself. The couple has been together ever since and wed in 2013. Since X has been married to a U.S. Citizen for over 2 year, her approval today means that she is approved for a 10-Year Green Card and will not have to file in 2 years to remove conditions since she is a permanent resident as of today.

What is next for X?

X’s husband will be filing I-130 petitions for X’s two sons who currently still live in Trinidad & Tobago so that the whole family can finally reunite. In 3 years, X will also be able to file for her naturalization and become a U.S. Citizen. We wish you all the best of luck!

News Release: U.S. Customs and Border Protection Information About the January 27, 2017 Executive Order

Executive Orders

The U.S. Customs and Border Patrol released further guidance on the Executive Order prohibiting foreign nationals from 7 countries from entering the United States. Click here for the full policy guideline.

Learn more about the President’s authority to issue the travel ban in The new ESinQuire™ Blog series. “Who did Trump 212(f) today?“

Who Did President Trump 212(f) today? | New ESinQuire Blog Series

Who did Trump 212(f) today?

Who did Trump 212(f) today?

Welcome, to the new The ESinQuire Blog series, “Who did Trump 212(f) today?”

What is 212(f)?

212(f) refers to section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, (“INA”). Trump cites to INA § 212(f) in his latest executive order entitled, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.”

212(f) essentially allows the President to unilaterally restrict or suspend entry of said foreign nationals into the United States.* So, the President can basically ban any non-U.S. Citizen from entering the Untied States at any time and the Supreme Court has very little power to review his decisions when challenged in court.. INA § 212(f) is entitled, “Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President,” and it authorizes the President to ban a non-citizen or group of non-citizens from entering the United States if he finds that allowing them in will be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

You may be surprised to learn that our law vests this vast power in the hands on one man or woman. As an immigration lawyer, I have read the INA a dizzying amount of times and I never even looked twice at this section. Presidents have invoked 212(f) in the past, even controversially so (see, Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, 509 U.S. 155 (1993)).

For example, INA 212(f) has been invoked to ban North Korean government officials; aliens whose actions “threaten the peace, security or stability of Libya;” and aliens response for “serious human rights violations.”

Trump, however, is arguably taking the President’s authority pursuant to 212(f) to a whole new level, specifically in regards to the sheer number of people potentially effected by it. By listing entire nations (all of which are of muslim majority), rather than specific groups of people, Trump has opened the door to Constitutional challenges.

Is INA § 212(f) Constitutional?

Good question. This specific issue has yet to be challenged in the Courts. Challengers will most likely find it hard to convince the Supreme Court to agree that 212(f), in general, is unconstitutional given the fact that the President has broad authority to enforce immigration laws Thus, 212(f) is seen simply as providing the President a vehicle to exercise his constitutional duty of enforcing the immigration law.

But that still does not mean that a President can use 212(f) to discriminate, right?

Right. Although it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will strike down the entire section of 212(f) as unconstitutional, hope lies in attacking the vague and ambiguous nature of the statue on a case-by-case basis. In other words, the fact that the law itself is constitutional does not automatically mean that enforcement of that law is also consitutional. How the law is enforced involves a separate constitutional question. Just like the law itself, the laws must be carried out in an equal and non-discriminatory manner.

So, a constitutional challenge to Trump’s 212(f) list will need to focus on the President non-discriminatory reason for concluding that allowing any foreign national from a particular country is “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

So, the new The ESinQuire Blog series, “Who did Trump 212(f) today,” will keep you up-to-date on President Trump’s list of countries whose citizens are now banned from the United States and break down both sides of the constitutional arguments surrounding the 212(f) country list.

Who did Trump 212(f) so far?

Now for the first 7 countries on Trump’s 212(f) list…Syria, Iraq, Sudan, Iran, Somalia, Libya, and Yemen.

Notably, the ban on Syrian nationals is the only country actually listed in Trump’s January 27 executive order, which suspends entry by Syrian refugees indefintely. Syria is named again, along with Iraq, Sudan, Iran, Somalia, Libya, and Yemen in a Fact Sheet released by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 2 days later to supplement the initial executive order and provide further guidance.

*The other sentence of this section instructs the Attorney General to suspend entry into USA to non-citizens who flew on a particular commercial airline if the attorney general finds that the airline failed to meet the requirements to detect fraudulent documents used by passengers.

If you are a national of a 212(f) country and are worried about how the travel ban will effect you, contact an attorney at The Shapiro Law Firm today for more information.

**Attorney Advertising** Please be advised that that all information provided above is general in nature and does not create an attorney-client relationship.**Attorney Advertising**

What You Really Want to Know | Episode #8 | I have a Conditional Green Card but I am no longer with my USC Spouse, will I lose it?

Transcript: Hi, I am Attorney Shaffer. Today on “What You Really Want To Know,” we answer the question, “I have a Conditional Green Card but I am no longer with my U.S. Citizen Spouse, will I lose my Green Card?”

The short answer is, It depends.

If you have a Conditional Green Card based on your marriage to a U.S. Citizen, that means that your Green Card is only valid for 2 years. So, within 90-days of the expiration date, you and your spouse must file a Joint Petition to Remove the Conditions on your Green Card. This is known as the I-751 petition. If the petition is approved, your “conditions” will be removed making you a full Permanent Resident and you will then receive a 10-Year Green Card.

But what happens if you are no longer with your spouse?

Unfortunately, “till death to us part” is not always the case, and it is a reality that is also recognized by immigration because many married couples do not make it to their 2-year anniversary. The good news is, there are a few exceptions that allow you to self-petition for your 10-Year Green Card, provided that your marriage is real. Even though your spouse will not be filing with you, you still have to show Immigration that you and your spouse continued to share a life together as a married couple since you received your 2-Year Green Card.

Once you prove that you entered into a bona fide marriage, you are also going to need to prove that either your U.S. Citizen Spouse:

1. died;

2. was abusive to you or your child, or;

3. that you are now officially divorced.

Whether you file alone or with your spouse, you will be required to appear for another interview with immigration. Like your first marriage interview, you will have to prove to the officer that you entered into the marriage in good faith. And this is going to prove even tougher if you file without your spouse and if your I-751 petition is denied, you will most likely end up in Removal/ Deportation Proceedings.

It is thus extremely, extremely important that you contact an attorney to assist you in both the filing of the I-751 and with the interview itself.

If you have a Conditional Green Card and need help filing for your 10-Year Green Card, contact an experienced immigration attorney at The Shapiro Law Firm today.

That is also for this episode of “What You Really Want To Know.” Thanks for watching!

**Attorney Advertising** Please be advised that that all information provided above is general in nature and does not create an attorney-client relationship.**Attorney Advertising**