Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Finger Pointing and Inaction While Millions Wait for Immigration Reform


Contributed by Kim Tremblay, Associate Attorney

Advocates for immigration reform continue to put pressure onto the government to pass comprehensive immigration reform.  In the meantime, our elected officials are busy pointing fingers and teasing each other while millions of immigrants in the U.S. wait.  And wait.       

During a Rotary Club lunch in Ohio last week, House Speaker John Boehner blamed the House of Representatives’ inaction on immigration reform on his fellow Republicans, stating that they were complaining that doing so was just too hard.  His fellow GOP members criticized him immediately and blamed President Obama instead. 

This prompted Speaker Boehner to say he was just teasing and that the real blame lies with the President because he cannot be trusted to uphold the law that might be passed.

Although the Senate passed an immigration reform bill ten months ago and Speaker Boehner states he has been trying to move ahead with immigration reform, no immigration reform legislation has come up for a vote in the House.  Its members may not take the time to deal with the issue before the 2014 midterm elections.  Looks like more waiting, finger pointing, and possibly teasing, lie ahead.

Friday, April 25, 2014

EB-5 Visa Category Remains Current, But Worth Exploring Other Options

Contributed by Koby Polaski, Senior Attorney

When a client or potential client is exploring the different avenues through which he or she might immigrate to the United States – temporarily or permanently – the option of investing in a company in the United States often comes up.


The “traditional” investor visa that most have in mind when exploring this possibility is the EB-5. Perhaps the main advantage to the EB-5 is that it grants lawful permanent residence on day one, and the EB-5 visa category has traditionally remained “Current.” This trend looks like it will continue, as the Department of State’s Visa Bulletin for April 2014 states that the EB-5 category will remain current for the foreseeable future.  


However, despite the allure of permanent residency, the EB-5 has other requirements that are often impossible for an entrepreneur to satisfy. Two such requirements include a $1,000,000 investment and ten jobs for United States workers within two years. (If the investment is made in an area that has high unemployment (or a rural area), the investment requirement drops to $500,000.)


Although the EB-5 is often thought of as the only option for an intending immigrant looking to invest in a United States business, 2013 data from the Department of State revealed that it is not, in fact, the most sought after visa. The number of E-1 treaty trader and E-2 treaty investor visas filed in fiscal year 2013 was substantially higher than the number of EB-5s. In 2013, there were over 40,000 E-1 and E-2 visas issued, compared with only 6,434 EB-5 petitions. 


It is important to explore the pros and cons of each visa before deciding which to pursue.


Pros and Cons of the EB-5


As mentioned initially, the clear advantage to the EB-5 is that the applicant gains permanent residence upon issuance of the visa. However, the required investment is significant, as is the requirement that the business generate ten new jobs.


One way around the job creation requirement is for the investor to invest in a Regional Center, rather than directly investing his or her money. A Regional Center is an area designated by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services as eligible to receive immigrant investor capital. The Regional Center must focus on a geographical region within the United States and must strive to achieve a certain level of economic growth within this regional area. It must also create jobs – directly or indirectly – through capital investments made in accordance with the Regional Center’s business plan.


The major advantage to the Regional Center over direct investment is that the intending immigrant can take advantage of indirect job creation. Regional Centers can satisfy EB-5 job creation requirements by creating ten direct, indirect or induced full-time jobs. However, the risks that arise after investment are several; first, there is no guarantee that USCIS will approve the application for lawful permanent residence even after the investment; secondly, after investing in a Regional Center, the investor loses control over the investment because he has given his money to a third party – an investment vehicle that was created with the purpose of using EB-5 investors’ funds to create jobs on a larger scale. The upside to the Regional Center investment is that the EB-5 investor can gain permanent residence quickly without having to manage an investment or run a company’s operations.


E-Visa


The E-visa category encompasses treaty traders and treaty investors who come to the United States under a treaty of commerce and navigation between the United States and the country of which the treaty trader or investor is a citizen or national. The E-1 Visa, for Treaty Traders, allows the visa holder to work in the United States on a visa where more than 50 percent of the business is trade between the United States and the home country. The E-2 Visa, for Treaty Investors, is for visa holders who will direct the operations of an enterprise in which they have invested a substantial amount of money.

An advantage of the E-2 visa is that it is not subject to a cap, like the H-1B, or a numerical limitation, like the EB-5. The E-2 does not require a certain level of education, nor does it require a minimum investment. The investment must be substantial and cannot be “marginal.” An investment is considered marginal if it does not have the present or future capacity to generate more than minimal living for the investor and his family.


The biggest difference between the EB-5 and the E Visa is that the E Visa does not result in lawful permanent residence. The E Visa is a nonimmigrant visa that can be renewed indefinitely as long as the investor continues to operate the business venture. The E visa is initially valid for up to five years, with the possibility of two year extensions.


Ultimately, after weighing the pros and cons of each visa, only the individual investor can choose which option is right for him or her.

Thursday, April 24, 2014

Jeff Joseph Files Federal Lawsuit To Ensure Access To Justice For All Non-Citizens

Contributed by Jeff Joseph, Senior Partner

The Byron Rogers Federal Building  at 1961 Stout Street in downtown Denver houses numerous federal agencies including the immigration court.  Every day, non-citizens, their family members, and their lawyers are ordered to come to court to attend their removal hearings.  If they fail to show up, or even if they show up late, they can be ordered removed from the country in their absence. 

When they come to the federal building, these individuals have to go through airport-like screening, remove metal objects and shoes, and go through a scanner before entering the immigration court.  The legitimate purpose of this screening is to protect the public and the federal building from those who mean to do us harm. 

On Wednesday, April 16, 2014, however, these traditional security measures kicked into hypermode.  About a dozen large, uniformed, and well-armed men descended upon the Byron Rogers Federal Building.  Their mission?---Operation Shield.  If this sounds like something out of a Marvel Comic Book, think again.  These men were not superheroes.  They were Federal Protective Services officers. 

Operation Shield is an operation of the Department of Homeland Security designed to protect federal buildings against acts of terrorism.  Yet, these men were not responding to an actual threat of terrorism, nor even an implied act of terrorism.  Instead, they were there to check for the identification of every individual entering the federal building.  If individuals could not or would not present identification, these individuals had to subject themselves to criminal background checks in order to enter the building.
                                             
I know what you are thinking.  Why is it unreasonable to request the identification of individuals entering a federal building?  In the abstract, such a request seems reasonable.  However, non-citizens in removal proceedings do not have the choice of whether or not they can enter the federal building.  They are ordered to go to court and deported for failure to appear.  Additionally, many (most) non-citizens do not have government issued identification because the REAL ID act passed by Congress in 2005 prevents states from issuing identification unless the applicant can demonstrate lawful status.  Thus, if you are a non-citizen entering the federal building, you have no choice but to submit to a criminal background check in order to even attend your court ordered hearing.

Such a requirement is simply not fair.  As a result, Jeff Joseph, Senior Partner of Joseph Law Firm, P.C. filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Colorado Chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association and its member lawyers and clients challenging Operation Shield and the unlawful practice of ordering people to appear in immigration court and yet denying them entry unless they subject themselves to background checks.  On April 22, 2014 the Denver Post published an article, Denver Immigration Lawyers Sue For Access to Federal Court Building, regarding the federal lawsuit. 

Still not convinced?  Consider this as well.  Immigration Courts, like many other federal agencies and operations are open to the public.  In a free country, why should we have to present identification to access something that by law is open to the public?  The lead plaintiff in the case, David Kolko, a prominent Denver immigration lawyer was in Washington D.C. the week before this incident to lobby for immigration reform.  He visited the offices of the entire Colorado congressional delegation, the Supreme Court Building, and the Capitol.  Not once was he asked for ID.  Not even one time.  Yet, despite the fact that he is an officer of the court who regularly appears before the immigration court in Denver, he is mandated to produce ID or agree to undergo a criminal background check? 

Meanwhile, non-citizens who have no ID, can only access the justice system by voluntarily relinquishing their privacy to undergo an NCIC check to ascertain a criminal history.  And how, exactly, does such a criminal background check make us any safer from terrorism than we were 5 minutes earlier before the check was done?  There is simply no rational basis for the ID requirement in the first place.  It inhibits the equal access to justice.  No individual should be denied access to justice or intimidated because he or she tries to access a public court hearing.

On April 22, 2014, 6 days after the lawsuit was filed, Jeff Joseph, on behalf of the plaintiffs, settled the Temporary Restraining Order when Federal Protective Services agreed to immediately stop background checks and even ID requirements for anyone accessing immigration court.  The remainder of the federal case is pending while a more reasonable means of addressing security issues can be negotiated.

A “SHIELD” is something that is supposed to protect us from danger, risk or an unpleasant experience.  But a shield is also something that we can hide behind.  Federal Protective Services cannot and should not be able to hide behind Operation Shield as an excuse to invade our privacy rights in a free country under the guise of protecting us from terrorism.  It is simply not okay.




Wednesday, April 23, 2014

ALERT – Know Who Is Calling You


Contributed by Melanie Corrin, Partner 

Joseph Law Firm, P.C. wants to make sure you are aware of fraudulent activity that is happening nation wide.  Today, a client of ours called to let us know that yesterday he received a call on his personal cell phone from a man purporting to be a government immigration officer.  The person on the phone knew his home address and his cell number.  The caller ID said “911”.  The person said the government was taking action to deport him, and that they were going to deport his dependent too.  Thankfully the client hung up, called us, and did a Google search.  What came up was a number of sites regarding on-going threatening calls and scams. 

Please be careful, if anyone calls you saying they are an immigration officer, direct them immediately to us.  We will reach out and determine whether there is an issue.  Here is a link to an alert sent out by United States Citizenship & Immigration Service on this issue.

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

DACA Renewal Procedure: April Update

Contributed by Kim Tremblay, Associate Attorney


The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) accepted and approved the first applications for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) in August 2012.  As DACA is granted for two years, many early DACA grantees are starting to think about renewing their status in the fall. On April 9, 2014, USCIS announced that a new form for renewal would be available sometime in late May and issued some tentative guidelines for renewal.

Current DACA recipients should file their renewal applications 120 days before their current DACA expires.  They will have to use the updated form I-821D that USCIS will post in May to renew their DACA and file a form I-765 and I-765W as well.  USCIS will not accept renewals that are filed using the current I-821D form.  Applicants will have to submit documents pertaining to new removal proceedings or criminal incidents.      

What can DACA grantees do to prepare in the meantime?  First, they should check the USCIS website in May for renewal information.  They should put money aside for the $465 filing fee, and start gathering the supporting documents needed for renewal of the I-765 Employment Authorization Document.  They should also obtain paperwork regarding any new educational achievements or arrests, and consult an attorney if they have been arrested since obtaining DACA to confirm continued eligibility.  In addition, DACA applicants should contact their attorneys about six months before their status is set to expire.  This preparatory list is tentative, not exhaustive, but should provide applicants with a bit of guidance on how to start getting ready. 

Finally, individuals who think they qualify for DACA and have not applied still can do so and should consult and immigration attorney or accredited representative. 

Monday, April 14, 2014

Class Action Victory in Mandatory Detention Battle

Contributed by Aaron Hall, Partner


Khoury v. Asher, a new case out of the Western District of Washington has changed the lives and prospects for deportation defense for many of those held in immigration detention there.

By way of background, as a general rule, those who are arrested to be put into removal proceedings by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) are allowed to have a bond hearing.  If they post their immigration bond, they will be released from ICE custody and allowed to attend their immigration hearings outside of detention. 

However, certain categories of noncitizens are classified as “mandatory detention” and are ineligible for a bond.  The statue says that noncitizens that have certain categories of criminal convictions are subject to mandatory detention without bond when the noncitizen is released from criminal custody.  This law has become the subject of disagreement in federal courts where the noncitizen is not taken into ICE custody “when released” from criminal custody.  An example would be a person who has a drug conviction but finishes his time in jail and then is released and is not taken into ICE custody for a number of months or even years.  Federal courts have disagreed about whether a person in this situation is eligible for an immigration bond or whether he is subject to mandatory detention.  The latest big decision on this issue was in the Khoury case and came from Judge Richard A. Jones in the Western District of Washington, who certified a class and then granted declaratory relief to noncitizens seeking a bond hearing.

Judge Jones defined the class as, “All individuals in the Western District of Washington who the government asserts or will assert are subject to mandatory detention … and who were not taken into immigration custody immediately upon their release from criminal custody…”

All members of that class who are taken into ICE custody in the Western District of Washington will at the minimum receive an individualized bond hearing.  At this time, it’s unknown whether the Khoury decision will be appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  While the Fourth Circuit and the Third Circuit have held that mandatory Courts of Appeal have ruled otherwise, the Khoury decision represents continued momentum in district courts around the country, including in Colorado, with courts holding that in order to trigger the mandatory detention provisions, the noncitizen must be arrested by ICE upon release from criminal custody.  If there is a delay between release from criminal custody and ICE arresting the noncitizen, the district court are ruling that the noncitizen should be allowed to have a bond hearing.

If you know someone who is being held by ICE in “mandatory detention” and would like to have us evaluate whether he or she might have an argument to fight for a bond hearing, contact our office to set up a consultation.