Immigration Blog

Alexander J. Segal's picture

INA Sec. 214 (b) Based Refusals of Nonimmigrant Visa Are not Equivalent to Inadmissibility

There is a recurring confusion over the implications of section 214(b) and 212(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Both sections, although similar in their outcome—precluding entry into the U.S.—apply to different circumstances. A refusal under section 212(a) is comprehensive in nature because it precludes this individual's entry into the United States unless such inadmissibility is overcome. Once an applicant is refused under 212(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the applicant is deemed “inadmissible”. This means that the applicant has been denied entry into the U.S. This section applies to both immigrant and non-immigrant applicants. This denial of entry can only be overcome by the passage of time for whcih the entry is precluded, when such restriction is temporary or a waiver of inadmissibility prior to the passage of time or when the restriction is permanent as is the case, for instance, under INA Sec.212(a)(6(C)(i) with inadmissibility for fraud and/or misrepresentation.

Alexander J. Segal's picture

Article 3 of DOMA is Unconstitutional

This Wednesday, June 26, 2013, in a truly historic and dramatic 5-4 decision UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF SPYER, ET AL, with Justice Anthony Kennedy not only voting with the majority but actually delivering the decision of the United States Supreme Court, the Court overturned the §3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as unconstitutional. The Court upheld the underlying decision by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York that ordered the IRS to accord the plaintiff eligibility for the surviving spouse exception from estate tax under the United States Tax Code.

Wendy Barlow's picture

U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down DOMA

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling for LGBT rights today by striking down the Defense of Marriage Act's (DOMA) provision prohibiting the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages as unconstutional. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Windsor can found here. The decision concluded DOMA amounted to the “deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment.”

Wendy Barlow's picture

LGBT Groups Continue to Support Comprehensive Immigration Reform Despite Setback

The New York Times recently published an article by Julia Preston and Ashley Parker regarding continued LGBT support for an overhaul to the United States immigration system despite the failure to include a key provisions supported by gay rights advocates. The article was published by the New York Times on May 27, 2013 and can be found using the following link: “gay groups support immigration overhaul despite”.

Alexander J. Segal's picture

Employer-Employee Relationship in H1B Context

As I answer questions on MyAttorneyUSA, AVVO and LawQA, I frequently run into a situation when I am contacted by an individual who had not been allowed entry into the United States at the airport, despite having had a valid, properly issued H1B visa. After having been subjected to intense and somewhat technical questioning by the CBP officers on secondary inspection, the individuals are then found inadmissible, saw their visas canceled and, if they were lucky, offered an option to withdraw their application for admission in lieu of the expedited removal and five years of inadmissibility that follows in a case of such removal. They are told correctly that such withdrawal would allow them to avoid the five-year inadmissibility bar.

Eliza Grinberg's picture

Immigration Reform – How Will it Happen?

On April 12, 2013, a bipartisan group of eight Senators unveiled legislation that offers the most radical change of the nation’s immigration laws in nearly thirty years. Here is what they propose: At present, there are approximately 11 million illegal immigrants in this country. Most of them are hard-working people of good moral character, who have never been in trouble with the law. Such people could apply for a green card after 10 years of maintaining their good moral character, while in a provisional status, and then they will be able to file for naturalization (citizenship) in three years. Young people, who have benefited under the Dream Act provisions will be able to obtain green cards in five years, and be naturalized immediately thereafter.

Eliza Grinberg's picture

Agreement Reached in National Class Action Lawsuit

Asylum seekers would often fall into a limbo when they had to wait for months until USCIS's Asylum Office made a decision on their asylum applications. In waiting for the deicision, these potential refugees would not be allowed to work and had to survive for months and in essencewere pushed to work off the books to do so. AILA and its Legal Action Center have chalenged this situation in a class action, demanding that potential refugees who found themselves in such a situation would be allowed to work in the United States. A settlment has been reached in this case.

Alexander J. Segal's picture

Where to File Hardship Waiver Applications

Creation of the two separate regulatory systems for hardship waiver applications established recently by the Administration’s promulgation of the Provisional Waiver regulations rendered many people confused as to where to file waiver applications for individuals who are NOT eligible for Provisional Waiver and intent to navigate the ordinary, well-established waiver rout. People are especially confused because they are routinely told now that the U.S. consulate posts do not accept waiver applications any longer. As recently as yesterday, I received a call from a person from Georgia who, sounding very frustrated, complained of this confusion.

Alexander J. Segal's picture

Bankruptcy and Citizenship

COMMON MISINTERPRETATION Way too often, I run into a client who asks whether a Legal Permanent Resident is allowed to file for bankruptcy and more importantly, whether doing so would carry negative consequences for their potential bid for the US Citizenship through Naturalization process. This question comes from a common and widespread misconception, which is addressed in this article.

Wendy Barlow's picture

Reckless Conduct Due to Intoxication Can Constitute a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude

Criminal convictions can be detrimental to non-citizens; some criminal offenses make a non-citizen ineligible for immigration benefits while others require an alien to file a waiver. A non-citizen who has been convicted of committing a crime involving moral turpitude (also commonly referred to as CIMT) is ineligible to receive a visa and barred from admission to the United States. See INA §212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I). What criminal conduct involves moral turpitude? Neither the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) nor the Federal Regulations define the term “moral turpitude”. The Attorney General has held “moral turpitude” is intrinsic to an offense that necessarily involves ‘reprehensible conduct’ committed with some form of ‘scienter,’ such as specific intent, knowledge, willfulness, or 'recklessness'. Matter of Leal, 26 I&N Dec. 20, 21 (BIA 2012) citing Matter of Silva-Trevino, 24 I&N Dec. 687, 689 n.1 and 706 n.5 (A.G. 2008).

Pages