Immigration To The USA, Uncategorized, USCIS, Visas

Delivering Solutions For Your Future
Immigration in America, USA flag

Tag: New York Immigration lawyer

New Rule on Notices From USCIS

January 29, 2015

New Rule on Notices From USCIS  effective 01/27/2015

Author: New York Immigration attorney Alena Shautsova

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services  published its new rule on notices USCIS issues to applicants and petitions.  Notices are extremely important: they confirm the receipt of an application or petition; valid status in the US or a date for an interview. Currently, the notices are sent  to an applicant or petitioner and a copy is sent to an attorney of record.  USCIS now clarifies its rules in that:

” First, USCIS will clarify that it will send notices only to the applicant or petitioner when the applicant or petitioner is unrepresented. See new 8 CFR 103.2(b)(19)(i). Second, if USCIS has been properly notified that the person or entity filing the benefit request is represented by an attorney or accredited representative recognized by the Department of Justice, Board of Immigration Appeals, USCIS will send notices to the applicant or petitioner who filed the benefit request and to their attorney or accredited representative of record. See new 8 CFR 103.2(b)(19)(ii)(A). Third, if provided for in the applicable form, form instructions, or regulations for a specific benefit request, an applicant or petitioner may request that USCIS send original notices and documents only to the official business address of their attorney or accredited representative, as reflected on a properly executed Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Accredited Representative, with a courtesy copy being sent to the applicant or petitioner for their records.”

Finally, in case of electronic applications, the person has options: the notices may be sent electronically to both the applicant and the attorney or via mail.

Most importunately, the official documents such as EAD (work authorization card) or permanent resident card currently are being sent to the applicants only unless the applicant or self-petitioner designates  their attorney’s official address as the delivery address.

These rules of notice delivery may seem trivial, however when a notice is not delivered it causes delays, denials and frustration. For more information see http://www.aila.org/content/fileviewer.aspx?docid=50525&linkid=281897

 

 

 

 

Glitches in USCIS System

December 4, 2014

Glitches in USCIS System

Author: New York Immigration Lawyer

USCIS stands for the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services and is a government body that accepts and processes all petitions and applications related to any and all immigration benefits.

The process of communication with USCIS boils down to exchange of papers and on rare occasions, includes phone calls and infopass appointments.

That is why it is very important to submit correctly filled out forms; timely respond  to request of more evidence and organize the papers in the most convenient way for the adjudicator.

In cases that do not require an interview, the petitioner or applicant will never meet the person who makes a decision on his/her case. However, often, an applicant or an attorney would receive correspondence from the adjudicator: request for more evidence; notice of intend to deny, etc. Often such notices are mere duplicates of the instructions for the form submitted; sometimes a person gets a notice twice; or receives something that does not make a sense at all.

Recently, USCIS revealed that some of such notices are sent automatically due to the “glitches” in their system.  For the past year, the glitches are to blame for RFEs for I 864 affidavit of support form; double notices for fingerprint appointments and receipts of filing with the RFE in it (this one is a hybrid, a new “monster”  created by glitches).

The unfortunate thing is that an attorney or petitioner/applicant still has to address these babies of the glitches even if they do not make any sense, because, if for example, an attorney fails to respond to an RFE, the case almost surely will be denied on the basis of failure to response to an RFE, even if the RFE itself did not make any sense.

Glitches or not, submission to the USCIS is a serious matter, and should not be taken lightly as any mishap will result in frustration, loss of money and time!

 

 

 

DMV Denial of License

October 21, 2014

DMV Denial of License

New York Immigration lawyer Alena Shautsova

Have you recently moved from another state and had difficulties getting NY driver’s license? Were you totally confused? Were you blamed you are not a US citizen?

It happened to my client: a born US citizen who has spent several years in a different state, and when she came back to NY and decided to apply for NY driver’s license and report a change of her address, a lady at the DMV Manhattan office told her that …. she needs to present “more proof” that she in fact was a US citizen… hmm

My client actually presented a social security card; different state ID card; a US birth certificate; bank statements from different banks and utility bills. According to the DMV point system table she had enough points to get her NYS driver’s license.  Nevertheless, the clerk told her to apply for a US passport and come back…

The question was: did the DMV clerks look at their own point table? Or is it just anther document issued to confuse everybody and make people’s life more difficult?

This client is a US citizen, and eventually, after visiting a different DMV  location, she was able to get her license.

Many non-citizens, however, experience the same issue. The government passed the Real ID act which requires the DMV offices to check for the lawful immigrant status before issuing an ID to the applicant. However, DMV clerks are not attorneys and often they lack training to ascertain if a person is in fact in lawful immigration status or status that allows a person to receive a state ID or driver’s license.  For example, another client of mine, an applicant for asylum was denied Chicago State ID because the clerk there decided that his documents showing pending case with the Immigration Court were not sufficient to prove authorized stay in the US…

At the same time, there are people without lawful immigration status who were able successfully to extend their 8 years DMV licenses even after the Real ID act…

Recently, New York City voted to issue Id-s to everybody, regardless of their immigration status.

Maybe, it is time to change the rules?

Crime of Moral Turpitude in Immigration Court and Record of Conviction

February 25, 2014

Author: Criminal Immigration attorney Alena Shautsova

Crime of Moral Turpitude in Immigration Court and Record of Conviction

Conviction of crime of moral turpitude may cause a permanent resident to be deportable if committed within 5 years from the date of admission.  (Date of admission is the date when an alien was admitted to the US or paroled, but does not restart when an immigrant adjusts his or her status as per Matter of ALYAZJI, 25 I&N Dec. 397 (BIA 2011)).

However, what a crime of moral turpitude is, is decided in almost every case separately. Why? Because the term of “crime of moral turpitude” is a term of art.  The Immigration and Nationality act does not provide a definition to it, and courts look at the conviction to determine whether  a particular offense falls under the category of a CMIT.

In doing so, the courts follow the following analysis: first, they look at whether the statute a person was convicted of is divisible or not divisible. A statute is not divisible when it describes only one way to commit a crime. If the statute sets out a list of alternative ways to commit the crime, and where some of these “sub-violations” categorically meet the federal standard while others do not necessarily meet this federal standard, then the statute is divisible.  A statute categorically meets federal standard when every violation of a particular criminal statute meets the generic federal definition.

If a non divisible State statute mimics the Federal definition, there is no reason to look at the record of conviction: the person will be found guilty of crime of moral turpitude for Immigration purposes. If not, the State statue includes acts that will not be punished under the Federal law, then the person will be “off” federal hook for Immigration purposes.

As for divisible statute: most likely the court will look at the record of conviction, which consists of criminal charge, the plea agreement, and any plea or sentencing colloquy. The record of conviction does not include arrest reports, the pre-sentence investigation, the testimony of witnesses, etc. Shepard v. U.S., 544 U.S. 13 (2005); U.S. v. Kovac, 367 F.3d 1116, 1120 (9th Cir. 2004).

In addition, currently, in several Circuits the courts are permitted to look beyond the record of conviction to see if the person committed a CMIT under the Matter of Silva-Trevino.  This might present a problem for an immigrant who, essentially, will have to be re-tried in Immigration court for the same conduct he was tried in criminal court in. The court may look at any necessary and appropriate evidence to determine whether the foreign national’s conduct did, in fact, involve moral turpitude.

If you have questions regarding Immigration court proceedings, call office of Alena Shautsova 917-885-2261.

PAROLE IN PLACE: NEW IMMIGRATION POLICY

November 21, 2013

PAROLE IN PLACE FOR MILITARY FAMILIES

Who is eligible?

Spouses, Children and Parents of

  • Active duty Members of the U.S. Armed Forces
  • Individuals in the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve
  • Individuals previously served in the U.S. Armed Forces or Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve

The eligible individuals should not have criminal convictions and should submit the following documents:

  • Application for Parole on USCIS form I 131
  • Evidence of the family relationship
  • Evidence of the family member  belongs to the eligible group of the U.S. Armed Forces
  • Evidence of the additional favorable factors

Call Alena Shautsova, New York Immigration lawyer to get FREE PHONE CONSULTATION REGARDING PAROLE IN PLACE RELIEF: 917-885-2261