Tuesday, October 29, 2013

Hardship Issues for the GLBT Immigrant Spouse in Removal Proceedings

Contributed by Bryon Large, Senior Attorney
 
The concept of hardship under United States immigration law is considered at varying levels, depending on the benefit an immigrant is seeking.  In removal (deportation) proceedings, relief from removal can be sought in some circumstances when various levels of hardship can be demonstrated to certain qualifying relatives, such as cancellation of removal.  The same is true when an immigrant is seeking a waiver of some ground of inadmissibility to the United States, through an I-601 waiver, for example.

Quite frequently, immigrants seek relief in the form of Cancellation of Removal.  To be successful, one must demonstrate that they have been present in the United States for at least ten years, been a person of good moral character during that time, have not committed a crime which would disqualify them from relief, and they must demonstrate that their resident or citizen spouse, parent, or child would suffer an “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” if they were to be deported.

Other forms of relief from removal require immigrants to file for inadmissibility waivers in conjunction with their residency applications, such as for unlawful presence, fraud, or criminal inadmissibility issues.  Those intending immigrants must file for a waiver of that ground of inadmissibility and, to do so, must demonstrate that their United States citizen or permanent resident spouse or parent would suffer an “extreme hardship” if the admission to the United States is refused.

Both “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” and “extreme hardship” are legal terms found in the Immigration and Nationality Act.  Both require a demonstration of different levels of hardship, and both require something more than a normal type of hardship one would suffer in similar circumstances.  “Extreme hardship” is a much lower standard than “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship,” which is contemplated to be a very difficult standard to reach.

GLBT immigrant spouses may have an easier time reaching this standard for a variety of reasons.  In general, the Immigration Judge or Officer will want to understand what type of hardship the U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse will suffer if the immigrant spouse is not admitted to the United States or is deported.  If the couple is going to live apart, what type of hardship will the distance create?  If the couple is going to move to the foreign national spouse’s home country, what type of hardship will this create?  The discussion on hardship goes much further than an emotional or economical argument in many cases. 

For same-sex couples, or for couples where one of the spouses is transgender, there are many issues not seen in cases presented by their opposite-sex couple counterparts.  First, legal relationship recognition can be a challenge, depending on the home country of the foreign national spouse.  In those countries where the relationship wouldn’t be recognized legally, it may be impossible for the U.S. citizen spouse to acquire lawful immigration status in that country.  Other difficulties associated with the lack of lawful recognition may also exist, such as inheritance rights, visitation rights when sick, etc.  Documenting these issues is important and highly relevant to the hardship inquiry in any legal review of hardship.

More important, however, is the case where it is culturally taboo and/or unsafe to be an “out” same-sex couple.  Living in a home together and, perhaps having a family, will usually create a highly visible relationship exposing both the foreign national and the U.S. citizen to harassment, discrimination, and physical harm.  Such treatment by government or non-government actors in the foreign country can be documented by news articles, State Department Country Conditions Reports, and other local sources.  This potential hardship to the U.S. citizen is a much lower standard that we look for when applying for asylum-related benefits based on persecution, and the question always focuses on the U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse.  Potential for harassment, discrimination, and physical harm based on sexual orientation and on the relationship itself can create varying levels of hardship that would be important for the Immigration Judge or Officer to review in looking at hardship.

Finally, if the U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse is HIV Positive, this can create unique hardship factors, as well.  The couple will want to spend time thinking about the availability of treatment (medical professionals and medication) in the foreign country, the ability to travel, the U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident’s current health conditions and amount of treatment required, and the stigma of HIV status being disclosed in the foreign country.  In many developing nations, access to healthcare can be inconsistent, difficult, and often costly.  This can create greater burdens on the U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, particularly considering the overall high quality of HIV treatment available in the United States.  If the U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse is in declining health, travel may become difficult, as well.  And there is an increased threat of visibility of the relationship if one is undergoing HIV treatment in the foreign country.  If the social stigma of HIV status is great, this may also lead to difficulty in finding work in the foreign country, which can become part of the hardship factors weighed by the government.

Naturally, these issues are case-specific, and reviewing which country the foreign national spouse is from is equally important.  GLBT persons will not find the same sorts of hardship in a place like France as they might in a place like Jamaica.  Careful review of that country’s laws, tradition, and culture, as well as careful review of the facts of the case come into play in determining each case’s strategy.  Identifying as GLBT can create unique hardship issues that are not necessarily seen in opposite-sex relationships.  It is important to spend time weighing those issues and determining how to present those factors in a light favorable to the hardship standard sought.

Please Please Don’t Plead (Before You Talk to an Immigration Lawyer)

Contributed by Aaron Hall, Senior Attorney

Our criminal justice system is set up to encourage the plea bargain process.  Those charged with crimes are often offered deals to lesser charges and promises that the prosecutor will recommend little or no jail time.  Facing the uncertainty of a trial and a possible conviction with harsher penalties, many people charged with crimes choose to take the plea offer.  Often, they take the plea offer very quickly because it seems to be the fastest way to get out of jail and get back to their families.

Unfortunately, this plea process often has disastrous consequences for noncitizens.  Criminal convictions can cause a noncitizen to be deportable, inadmissible, or ineligible for immigration benefits. 

One of the problems is that many of the players in the criminal justice system are unaware that the definition of the word conviction is very different for purposes of immigration than it is for many states.  For example, in Colorado, the state courts will often sentence a defendant to a deferred judgment and sentence.  The conviction is then withdrawn if the defendant complies with the terms of the deferred judgment and sentence for a period of time.  After that, the conviction is no longer on the defendant’s record in the eyes of the state of Colorado.  Under the definition of the word “conviction” for immigration, however, the conviction will always stay on the defendant’s record, even if he fully complies with the deferred judgment and sentence.

There is no easy way to know whether a certain type of conviction will affect one’s immigration status or potential for future relief.  In some cases, seemingly small misdemeanors can lead directly to a person’s deportation.  Whether convictions will cause immigration consequences for noncitizens will depend on the elements of the crime, the person’s criminal history, the person’s immigration history, and sometimes the circumstances surrounding the crime.  For noncitizens that get charged with any crime, it is vitally important that you or your criminal defense attorney consult with an immigration attorney with expertise in the immigration consequences of criminal convictions.  Pleading guilty to what sounds like a good deal may seem easier and more convenient at the time, but it can end up being the mistake of a lifetime.

If you want to consult with an attorney at our office about the immigration consequences of criminal charges, call us at 303-297-9171 to set up a consultation.

Tuesday, October 15, 2013

Managing Previous Opposite-Sex Relationships in Current Same-Sex Marriages

Contributed by Bryon Large, Senior Attorney

A recurring theme amongst immigration practitioners working on same-sex couple cases is how to handle previous heterosexual marriages and relationships.  The concern lies with the allegation of a previous fraudulent straight marriage, particularly where immigration benefits are involved, or whether the current marriage is a sham, seeking marriage solely for an immigration benefit.  Questions are likely to arise in current paperwork processing when one or both parties previously had opposite-sex relationships.  Children may even have been born into that relationship.

The federal government is no longer limited to a definition of marriage that excludes same-sex couples.  In short, marriage is marriage, so long as it is celebrated in a jurisdiction that recognizes the marriage.  The use of the term “gay marriage” is counter-intuitive to the long-fought battle of the GLBT community, and, legally speaking, the federal government should not be differentiating between marriages based on the gender of the spouses.  Possibly, comedian Liz Feldman said it best when she said, “It’s very dear to me, the issue of gay marriage.  Or, as I like to call it:  ‘marriage.’  You know, because I had lunch this afternoon, not gay lunch.  I parked my car; I didn’t gay park it.”  The agency has repeatedly advised that it will treat all marriages the same.  We, as practitioners and applicants, should do the same. 

Previous marriages, depending on the gender of the spouses, should be treated like any other previous marriage would be treated for any opposite-sex couple.  A mere suspicion of obtaining immigration benefits based on a sham marriage should be treated as they would in any other situation.  The government should look to the bona fides of each marriage and not spend time hashing out the sexual orientation of all of the parties involved.  Likewise, practitioners and applicants should be prepared to discuss the bona fides of each marriage, and not have to worry about hashing out the sexual orientation of each of the parties.  While seemingly idealistic, practitioners and applicants alike should return the government’s focus on the real issue – whether the marriage is bona fide.

People marry for a variety of reasons.  It is not uncommon for a gay or lesbian to have previously been in an opposite-sex relationship or marriage, and, possibly have children born of that marriage.  Many people are concerned that a previous relationship based on a different sexual orientation than the current relationship might give rise to a fraud investigation with USCIS.  Petitioners and applicants should be honest and forthright with immigration authorities always, and explain, as necessary and appropriate, any questions that the adjudicator might have.  Applicants and petitioners are advised to not conceal previous opposite-sex relationships, or any other fact that is relevant to the benefits sought.  Oftentimes, explanations can be simply the person’s life story and coming out story, where they tried to survive in opposite-sex relationships due to personal beliefs, religious beliefs, family pressure, or other reasons.

Immigration authorities are to look to the validity of the marriage and not the viability of the marriage.  Alternatively stated, immigration officers want to see that this is a “real” marriage from the beginning and not a sham marriage for the purposes of gaining an immigration benefit by fraud or deceit.  Immigration authorities are not to look at whether this is a marriage that is viable, or able to remain intact for a period of time.  Bad marriages or marriages that don’t work out are no less bona fide or real than marriages that last until death.  For those reasons, immigration officers will look to the intent of the parties and look at relevant evidence to determine whether it is a real marriage.

Also relevant is the fact that some people, although they identify as gay or lesbian, are legitimately bisexual, even if they are not comfortable expressing it or self-identifying in that manner.  Again, the focus here is on the marriage itself, not on the gender and sexual orientation of the parties to that marriage. 

Essentially, whether a previous marriage or relationship was opposite-sex or same-sex, the inquiry should be to the marriage or relationship itself, not to the gender or sexual orientation of the makeup of that relationship.  Applicants and adjudicators, alike, should treat a marriage as a marriage.  Only by removing gender and sexual orientation from the equation will we achieve true marriage equality.

Tuesday, October 1, 2013

Federal Government Shutdown

Contributed by Melanie Corrin, Senior Attorney

Immigration Law and Services are Federal in nature, and therefore the current government shut-down may have an effect on pending/potential immigration cases.  As of midnight last night, there are a number of things you need to know:

Department of Labor:

The Office of Foreign Labor Certification (OFLC) is not accepting or processing any applications or related materials (such as audit responses), it receives, including Labor Condition Applications, Applications for Prevailing Wage Determination, Applications for Temporary Employment Certification, or Applications for Permanent Employment Certification. OFLC's web site, including the iCERT Visa Portal System and the PERM system, has become static and is unable to process any requests or allow authorized users to access their online accounts.

DOL's Office of Administrative Law Judges will be unable to perform any case-related activities, including conducting hearings. Hearings that have been previously scheduled will therefore be cancelled prior to the date of the hearing, and they will not be rescheduled for hearing until an appropriations bill or continuing resolution takes effect.

Department of State:

The DOS will continue as many normal operations as possible; operating status and available funding will need to be monitored continuously and closely, and planning for a lapse in appropriations must be continued.  This will be updated as information comes in.  Consular processing is not currently affected.

Executive Office for Immigration Review:

Court functions that support the detained caseload will continue, but other functions are suspended.

The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) is processing emergency stay requests as well as cases where the alien is detained, including case appeals, motions, federal court remands, and bonds.

Immigration & Customs Enforcement:

ICE detention and enforcement operations shall continue.  ICE chief counsel trail attorneys will still work on the detained docket only during a shutdown.  The ICE Community and Detainee Helpline will remain operational.

United States Citizenship & Immigration Services:

All USCIS offices worldwide are open and individuals should report to interviews and appointments as scheduled. 

E-Verify is currently unavailable due to a government shutdown.

Please contact Joseph Law Firm, P.C. for more information on how your case is impacted. 

E-Verify Unavailable During Government Shutdown

Contributed by Amber Blasingame, Associate Attorney

Due to the government shutdown, US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)announced that E-Verify is unavailable as of October 1, 2013, as are customer support and related services.  USCIS has suspended certain rules and policies pertaining to entry and verification for employers during the emergency furlough as well as both employer and employee support services.  Once the government reopens, USCIS will provide guidance on accessing, verifying or reverifying, and reconfirming employment eligibility for employees that arose during the shutdown.

While E-Verify is inaccessible, employers are still responsible for executing and maintaining the I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification Form for all hires and current and former employees.  USCIS has suspended the three (3) day entry rule for employee employment eligibility verification using E-Verify only during the government shutdown.  If an employee is hired or was hired within three days of the government shutdown, the employer cannot enter the necessary information into E-Verify, but “must still complete the Form I-9 no later than the third business day after an employee starts work for pay.”  Additional guidance will be provided on entering the information later into E-Verify once the government reopens.

Specifically, the following E-Verify services will be inaccessible during the government shutdown:
 
      ·         Enroll any company in E-Verify
·         Verify employment eligibility
·         View or take action on any case
·         Add, delete or edit any User ID
·         Reset passwords
·         Edit your company information
·         Terminate an account
·         Run reports
·         View ‘Essential Resources.’(However, information, manuals, and resources are still available on-line)

Neither employers nor employees will be able to “resolve Tentative Nonconfirmations [(TNC)]” while the government is on emergency furlough.  USCIS has extended the period in which employer’s must resolve TNCs, and reports that “[d]ays the federal government is closed will not count towards the eight federal government workdays the employee has to go to SSA or contact DHS.”  Federal contractors who must comply with federal contractor rules are encouraged to contact their “contracting officer to inquire about extending deadlines.”

USCIS has also suspended all support services relative to E-Verify for the duration of the shutdown.  USCIS will be unable to respond to queries during this time.  Employers may send email queries, but USCIS will be unable to respond to the emails until the government reopens.  Any webinars or training sessions scheduled during the shutdown are cancelled and rescheduling will be determined when the government reopens.  The E-Verify Self Check is also unavailable on-line.

 USCIS warns employers that even though E-Verify and support services are unavailable, “Employers may not take any adverse action against an employee.”  Please consult the E-Verify User Manual concerning “interim case statuses.”

Mountain Businesses Need Professional Athletes

Contributed by Melanie Corrin, Senior Attorney

As Colorado ski areas gear up for the winter season, some staffing executives may be concerned over how to feel the gap of needed employees.  The population of Breckenridge, CO increases from 3,400 to 36,150 people during season! 

With increase in population, comes the need of a town and a mountain to cater to its customers.  Finding workers to fill that need is often difficult, and oftentimes the ski industry looks to foreign nationals to come and work in the United States.  Unfortunately, the immigration regulations allowing for seasonal workers are restrictive and difficult to navigate.  Add to the difficulty that the Immigration & Nationality Act only allows a total of 66,000 seasonal workers nation-wide each year, and many of our local ski areas are looking for other options.

Some positions in the ski areas don’t necessarily require only a seasonal need, but also a particular athletic skill set.  Many professional athletes are looking for a place to train during the season, and also to be eligible for employment.  This is where a P-1 visa for Professional Athletes or an O-1 visa for internationally acclaimed athletes might help for businesses who have missed the 66,000 cap, or have a different need in employment.  Now may be the time to see what other avenues may be available for that employee you were looking for, season is just around the corner.