The new Information Services Modernization Program is replacing the current self-scheduled InfoPass appointment system that allows anyone to make an appointment on-line or at their local USCIS office to speak to an immigration officer regarding their pending case, get immigration resources or get answers to immigration questions. The new program is suppose to improves the timeliness of information and emergency services. Additionally, the new program should improve information efficiency for all classes of immigration applicants.
Effective March 4, 2019, the new Information Services Modernization Program will be rolled out to the Tampa and Orlando Field Offices. This means that in order to get information in-person, you first have to call 1-800-375-5283 and after speaking to an agent then you may or may not meet the guidelines to get “pre-authorized” for an appointment at your local immigration office to speak to an officer in-person.
Based on internal surveys, USCIS found that many users of the InfoPass self-scheduled appointment program could have saved time by calling the USCIS Contact Center or checking the USCIS website. In the long term, the new modernization efforts will help applicants save time by limiting the hassle of scheduling an in-person appointment. USCIS additionally hopes that by limiting in-person appointments, the service can better allocate resources and staff towards processing and adjudicating applications. For those who require in-person assistance, USCIS states that applicants will still maintain the right to schedule an appointment, and can receive assistance to do so through the new modernized information service program.
The new Information Services Modernization Program is basically replacing in-person customer support with over the phone assistance that involves long hold times on the phone and generic scripted answers to applicants. Instead of customer support modernization, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is going back to an antiquated system of navigating telephone prompts before speaking to a live person who has no background on immigration law and reads from a computer screen telling you your “case is pending” or “go to our website for more information”.
For more information on InfoPass or Information Services Modernization Program,
text | whatsapp | call 407-292-7730 or email email@example.com
FREE phone & in-office consultation – FREE Live Chat www.GailLaw.com
Gail made the process effortless. She’s very efficient and is confident because she knows what she is doing. Just listen and follow her guide. I’m so happy God Lead my husband and I to her firm. I appreciate you Gail!!!! Nothing but UP FROM HERE. Double blessings to you and your amazing God given gift. Best immigration attorney in Orlando.
You attended your interview at the U.S. Embassy for your immigrant visa (or green card) to the United States. All the proper documents have been submitted and you completed your medical exam, police clearance, affidavit of support. You are very excited yet nervous. At the end of the interview, the officer gives you a paper that states you have been found “inadmissible” or ineligible for the immigrant visa and you may file a waiver. Confusion sets in and then you seek legal advice from Immigration Attorney Gail S. Seeram. As seen in the attached photo – we get approvals for our clients Waiver I-601.
First, we need to determine
which ground of inadmissibility is
being used against the applicant to deny issuance of the immigrant visa (green
card). Individuals who are inadmissible
are not permitted by law to enter or remain in the United States. The U.S. Immigration
and Nationality Act sets forth grounds for inadmissibility. The general
categories of inadmissibility include health, criminal activity, national
security, public charge, lack of labor certification (if required), fraud and
misrepresentation, prior removals, unlawful presence in the United States, and
several miscellaneous categories (listed in detail at end of article).
Second, we file an Application
for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility (Form I-601) with supporting documents to prove
“extreme hardship” to the U.S. citizen or Permanent Resident
Third and most frustration step the in the process – WAITING. It can take up to one year for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to decide or adjudicate an application for a waiver I-601. If the waiver application is approved then the consular officer is informed and another appointment will be set at the U.S. Embassy for immigrant visa issuance. if the waiver application is denied, then you may consider an appeal or a motion to reopen or reconsider the decision (Form I-290B). Note, the entire waiver application process is more than filing Form I-601. There must be sufficient documentary evidence to prove the legal requirement of extreme hardship.
The phrase “extreme hardship” is
not defined in the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act. Ultimately, “extreme hardship” must
be evaluated on a case-by-case basis after a review of all the circumstances in
the case. Most common factors considered are (1) the age of the alien, both at
the time of entry to the United States and at the time of application for
suspension of deportation; (2) the age, number, and immigration status of the
alien’s children an d their ability to speak the native language and adjust to
life in another country; (3) the health condition of the alien or the alien’s
child, spouse, or parent and the availability of any required medical treatment
in the country to which the alien would be returned; (4) the alien’s ability to
obtain employment in the country to which the alien would be returned; (5) the
length of residence in the United States; (6) the existence of other family
members who will be legally residing in the United States; ( 7) the financial
impact of the alien’s departure; (8) the impact of a disruption of educational
opportunities; (9) the psychological impact of the alien’s deportation or
removal; (10) the current political and economic conditions in the country to
which the alien would be returned; (11) family and other ties to the country to
which the alien would be returned; (12) contributions to and ties to a
community in the United States, including the degree of integration into
society; (13) immigration history, inclu ding authorized residence in the
United States; and (14) the availability of other means of adjusting to
permanent resident status.
Grounds of Inadmissibility:
1. Inadmissibility Due to
Health concerns covers a range of situations. In general, they
those who have a communicable disease of public health significance, those
seeking immigrant status who has failed to receive necessary vaccinations
against vaccine-preventable diseases, those who have or have had a physical or
mental disorder with associated harmful behavior or harmful behavior that is
likely to reoccur. Harmful behavior is behavior that poses, or has posed a
threat to person or property, and those who are drug abusers or addicts.
2. Inadmissibility due to criminal reasons include
crimes involving “moral turpitude,”
violation of any controlled substance law, multiple criminal convictions,
drug trafficking, prostitution, commercialized vice, commission of a serious
crime in the United States where a person has asserted immunity from
prosecution, violations of Religious
Freedom, human trafficking, money laundering.
3. Inadmissibility due to
national security reasons include any person who a Department of State
consular officer, DHS immigration officer, or DOJ immigration judge, knows or
has reasonable ground to believe that the non-citizen seeks to enter the United
States to engage in espionage or sabotage, to attempt to overthrow the U.S.
government, has reasonable ground to believe that the non-citizen has
participated in any terrorist activities or has any association with terrorist
organizations, has reasonable ground to believe that the person presents a
threat to foreign policy or has membership in any totalitarian party or has
participated in Nazi persecutions or genocide is inadmissible.
4. Public Charge pertains to a person
being inadmissible if he or she is likely to be primarily dependent on the
government for subsistence.
5. Inadmissibility due to
lack of labor certification: This ground makes certain aliens who seek to enter
permanently (as immigrants) into the United States and to work inadmissible
unless the Secretary of Labor certifies that employment of the person will not
adversely affect the wages and working conditions of U.S. workers similarly
employed; and there are not enough U.S. workers willing, qualified, and
able to do the same work.
6. Inadmissibility due to
fraud or misrepresentation relates
to any person who sought admission to the United States, a visa or other
immigration travel or entry document, or any immigration benefit by fraud or
willfully misrepresenting a material fact is inadmissible.
7. Inadmissibility due to
prior removals or unlawful presence will bar
any person from returning to the United States because they have been in the
United States for a period in excess of 180 days, during a single stay, and
then departed the United States. Also, individuals who are barred from
returning to the United States because they had either been removed (or
excluded or deported) from the United States or departed the United States on
their own volition while a final order of removal was outstanding. Individuals
who were unlawfully in the United States for a total of one year (whether
accrued during a single stay or multiple stays) AND then, illegally (without
being inspected and admitted or inspected and paroled) reentered the United
8. Miscellaneous grounds of inadmissibility include persons who entered the country illegally (without being inspected and admitted or paroled), persons who failed to attend immigration and/or removal hearings, smugglers, student visa abusers, former U.S. citizens who renounced citizenship to avoid taxation, practicing polygamists, unlawful voters, and international child abductors and relatives of such abductors.
For more information on Waiver I-601,
text | whatsapp | call 407-292-7730 or email firstname.lastname@example.org
FREE phone & in-office consultation – FREE Live Chat www.GailLaw.com
Very detailed oriented. Follow her directions and asked questions if you are not sure about anything. She has a system in place to get things done correctly. Follow her system and you will have a greater chance for success.
In 2018, we saw a wave of anti-immigration policies, rules and proclamations intended to obstruct U.S. immigration.
Driving the news: The House and Senatefailed to reach a compromise on immigration legislation, leaving the Trump administration to use everything within its executive power to address the issue. Many of those efforts were blocked (at least temporarily) by the courts.
AT THE BORDER:
The Justice Department and Homeland Security announced a “zero-tolerance” policy in May that resulted in the traumatic separation of thousands of migrant children from their parents at the border. In the face of global backlash, Trump signed an executive order calling for an end to family separation. But it took government agencies weeks of chaos to reunite migrant families.
Record numbers of migrant children remain in Health and Human Services’ shelters and newly-built tent cities. Reports of ICE arresting potential caretakers is likely deterring others from coming forward to claim custody of the kids.
DHS also cracked down on foreign workers and students, introducing harsher penalties for student visaoverstays, increasing scrutiny for staffing companies that depend on H-1B visas and making it easier for immigration officials to deny visa applications and begin deportation proceedings.
IN THE COURTS:
The Supreme Court upheld Trump’s travel ban, but blocked his asylum ban for migrants who cross the border illegally. The court did not take up the DACA case —protecting thousands of immigrants who came to the U.S. as children until at least next year.
Federal judges blocked (at least temporarily) administration efforts to end:
The right to asylum for those who cross the border illegally
ON THE GLOBAL STAGE:
The U.S. was one of a small number of nations to vote against the UN Compact for Migration and Compact for Refugees.
A wave of anti-immigration politics and rhetoric continued to sweep Europe, mirroring some of Trump’s 2016 platform.
Most recently, the U.S.cut a deal with a Mexico to keep migrants seeking asylum in the U.S. on Mexican soil until their applications are processed. The U.S. pledged billions of dollars in aid to Central American nations and southern Mexico.
Fiscal year 2018 broke records for the number of decisions (42,224) by immigration judges granting or denying asylum. Denials grew faster than grants, pushing denial rates up as well. The 42,224 decisions represented a 40 percent jump from decisions during FY 2017, and an 89 percent increase over the number of asylum decisions of two years ago.
In past year, 65% of cases received asylum denials. This is the sixth year in a row that denial rates have risen. Six years ago the denial rate was just 42.0 percent. See Figure 1. (For year-by- year figures, see Appendix Table 1 at the end of this report.)
What Do Immigration Court Asylum Grant and Denial Rates Really Mean?
Immigration judges’ decisions on asylum applications are not necessarily the same as the outcome of each case. A asylum denial does not automatically result in a deportation order. The individual could have qualified for some other form of relief, or was otherwise found by the immigration judge to not be deportable and was accordingly allowed to remain in the country.
Currently the government does not publish or provide public access to data that would allow complete tracking of the final outcome from all asylum cases. This occurs in part because multiple agencies are involved, often with separate tracking systems. Only a partial portrait is therefore available from Immigration Court data.
The situation is particularly confusing for unaccompanied children from Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador and other countries that do not directly border this country. While the Immigration Court generally has jurisdiction over their cases, their actual applications for asylum are typically submitted directly to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). If asylum officers at USCIS determine they are entitled to asylum, the Immigration Court will use the USCIS decision as a basis for closing the child’s case. However, the decision to allow them to remain in the country will not be recorded as a grant of asylum in the court’s records. This is because court records only separately track asylum decisions made by immigration judges.
Table 1 compares case outcome in FY 2018 for the top four nationalities seeking asylum, and compares these with asylum grant and denial rates.
Table 1. Asylum Grant and Denial Rates and Overall Immigration Court Case Outcomes in FY 2018
Asylum Decision Grant/Deny
All Asylum Applications
All Immigration Court Cases
Outcome: Can Remain in U.S.
Outcome: Can Remain in U.S.
Note that for El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala the proportion allowed to remain in the country is higher than the asylum grant rate. As a result, the proportion of those allowed to remain in the country is somewhat higher than the simple grant and denial rate suggests.
Of course, not all individuals from these three countries apply for asylum in Immigration Court. The last two columns in Table 1 include the outcome for all Immigration Court cases. The proportion of those allowed to stay from these three countries is somewhat higher even than on those submitting asylum applications to the court. This partially reflects the inclusion of favorable outcomes for many unaccompanied children’s cases who submit their application to USCIS rather than directly to the Immigration Court.
Judge-by-Judge Differences in Asylum Decisions
The outcome for asylum seekers continued to depend on the identity of the immigration judge (more…)
In light of President Trump’s refusal to sign a bill to prevent a #GovernmentShutdown that does not include border wall funding, a partial government shutdown is currently in effect. Approximately 25 percent of government functions are shut down. Immigration-related agencies that are impacted by the shutdown include the Department of Homeland Security and its immigration-related components (CBP, ICE, USCIS, CIS Ombudsman), the Department of Justice (EOIR), and the Department of State. See below for information as to how these agencies operated during prior shutdown periods. We will update this page with additional information from the agencies as it becomes available.
U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services: USCIS announced that a lapse in annual appropriated funding does not affect USCIS’s fee-funded activities. USCIS offices will remain open, and all individuals should attend interviews and appointments as scheduled. USCIS will continue to accept petitions and applications. Please attend your biometrics appointments, citizenship interviews and visa appointments.
EOIR Immigration Court: Detained cases and court hearings will proceed as scheduled. Non-detained docket cases will be reset for a later date after funding resumes. Immigration courts will issue an updated notice of hearing to respondents or, if applicable, respondents’ representatives of record for each reset hearing.
U.S. Custom & Border Protection: The www.cbp.gov website will not be updated during the government shutdown. Transactions submitted via this website might not be processed and we will not be able to respond to inquiries until after appropriations are enacted. Inspection and law enforcement personnel are considered “essential.” Ports of entry will be open; however, processing of applications filed at the border may be impacted.
Immigration and Custom Enforcement: ICE enforcement and removal operations will continue, and ICE attorneys will typically focus on the detained docket during a shutdown. The ICE Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) offices are unaffected since SEVP is funded by fees.
Department of Labor (DOL) will not be impacted by a government shutdown. (more…)
Trump administration enacted an interim immigration rule effective midnight November 9, 2018 and for the next 90 days, that invoke national security powers to prevent asylum seekers from entering the U.S. and prevents them from applying for asylum if they entered without paper (or valid visas). The strategy appears to be aimed at preventing members of a Central American caravan from entering the U.S. The president will use the same authority that he relied upon to ban travel from mostly Muslim countries just days after he became President. Trump is trying to use his executive discretion to override a specific thing that Congress wrote into the law.
The text of the Immigration and Nationality Act specifies that people may apply for asylum “whether or not” they enter the US at a port of entry. When someone enters the U.S., if he or she has a “credible fear” of persecution (in other words, that there’s a significant possibility they would be persecuted if deported based on her race, nationality, religion, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group), then he or she is allowed to go before an immigration judge. This can take some time, so the person is released on bond and can be granted work authorization while awaiting their day in immigration court.
If he or she is ineligible for asylum but still has reason to fear persecution, he or she can receive a lesser form of protection — called withholding of removal — that allows her to stay in the US but gives her no path to permanent legal status.
Trump interim rule or executive order will force asylum seekers to choose between having to wait for weeks or longer at overloaded ports of entry — unless they’re prevented by smugglers from coming to a port at all — and risking near-immediate deportation by crossing illegally and turning themselves in to Border Patrol.
It is near-certain that the policy will be subject to a lawsuit in the immediate future — maybe even before the policy even goes into effect at midnight Saturday. It is extremely likely that the policy will be put on hold by a federal judge ruling against the administration soon after that. (more…)
Next Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court (with Trump new appointee, Justice Kavanaugh) will decide Nielsen v. Preap and determine whether thousands of longtime U.S. residents face indefinite detention without a hearing. Nielsen is a class action brought by a group of immigrants in the Ninth Circuit who have been or are being detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226, a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act. That section authorizes federal authorities to detain any alien who may be subject to “removal”—the technical term for deportation. That term covers a lot of immigrants—border-crossers arrested after entering the U.S. illegally, tourists or students who have overstayed their visas, and lawful permanent residents who have committed certain crimes.
The issue to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court is whether a criminal alien becomes exempt from mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) if, after the alien is released from criminal custody, the Department of Homeland Security does not take him into immigration custody immediately.
The statute creates two classes of “removable” aliens—first, ordinary detainees who have NOT committed crimes but are facing removal on other grounds and second, “criminal aliens” facing removal because of criminal convictions.
For the “criminal alien” group, the statute says that “when the alien is released” from imprisonment, the government “shall take [him or her] into custody.” These immigrants get no bond hearing; they must be held in detention until their cases are resolved.
This is the issue in Nielsen v. Preap: It is not whether authorities can detain these aliens—they can. But does the statute really deny bond hearings to “criminal aliens” who have been released and has returned to a community, established a family and put down roots, and lived a blameless life since that brush with the law? In other words, can criminal aliens be detained indefinitely without bond ONLY when release from prison straight into ICE custody OR can criminal aliens be detained indefinitely without bond when release from prison straight into ICE custody AND even is released into the community and later apprehended by ICE.
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld President Trump Travel ban on travel from several predominantly Muslim countries, delivering to the president on Tuesday a political victory and an endorsement of his power to control immigration at a time of political upheaval about the treatment of migrants at the Mexican border.
In a 5-to-4 vote, the court’s conservatives said that the president’s power to secure the country’s borders, delegated by Congress over decades of immigration lawmaking, was not undermined by Mr. Trump’s history of incendiary statements about the dangers he said Muslims pose to the United States.
Below is a New York Times comparative of Travel Ban 1, Travel Ban 2 and Travel 3 (ultimately held to be lawful):