Powers Law Group se ha asociado con la organizacion Ayuda Familias

Posted on by Carlos Gutierrez in Immigration Law Leave a comment

CONTACTO DE PRENSA: Oficina de Houston (713) 589-2085 | [email protected]rslaw.com
Houston, TX

A partir de las 5:00 p.m. EST del 26 de julio de 2018, en respuesta al incumplimiento por parte del gobierno de EE. UU. de una orden judicial federal impuesta por el juez Dana Sabraw para reunificar a todas las familias elegibles que han sido separadas, Powers Law Group se  ha asociado con Ayuda Familias.

Aunque el juez Sabraw ha notado el “progreso” del gobierno en la reunión de las familias, sabemos que aproximadamente 914 padres no se reunirán con sus hijos para el final del día. “En algunos casos, los padres no pueden ser encontrados o tienen antecedentes penales graves. En otros casos, ya han sido deportados sin sus hijos. Un pequeño número de estos ni siquiera han sido vinculados a sus niños.”

Cuando la noticia de las primeras familias afectadas por la separación familiar salió, la abogada de inmigración Ruby Powers sabía que tenía que abogar por aquellos que no podían abogar por sí mismos. Desde entonces, Powers Law Group ha ayudado a otros detenidos y sus familiares en los EE. UU. a encontrar representación legal alternativa, así como a brindarles información valiosa y conexiones con organizaciones que les han proporcionado alimentos, vivienda, vestimenta, etc.

Sus esfuerzos de apoyo han capturado audiencias en todo Estados Unidos ya que muchos están ofreciendo su propio dinero y recursos. Powers Law Group quiere informar a cualquier persona que esté dispuesta a donar su tiempo y recursos para conectarse con la organización Ayuda Familias, un nuevo socio de Powers Law Group e Immigrant Families Together. La asociación con Ayuda Familias nos permitirá proporcionar muchos voluntarios y recursos a madres y padres que buscan consejo sobre cómo reunirse con sus hijos y los pasos que siguen a la reunificación.

Dionne Ukleja con Ayuda Familias: “Como respuesta a esta necesidad, creamos un sitio web llamado ayudafamilias.org no solo para ayudar a los inmigrantes que necesiten ayuda, sino que también los podamos conectar con servicios integrales y voluntarios que también desean ayudarlos. El primer y el segundo paso de su viaje son la reunificación y el viaje, pero ¿qué ocurre cuando llegan a su destino final?

Hay tantas trampas que se han puesto sistemáticamente en marcha para hacer que este proceso sea lo más difícil posible. Proporcionaremos conexiones con abogados, traductores, terapeutas y, lo más importante, un defensor cultural para ayudarlos a aprender a navegar en su nueva comunidad. A través de nuestra experiencia reunificando a padres e hijos en asociación con Immigrant Families Together, hemos visto de primera mano las necesidades adicionales de esta población vulnerable y esperamos ayudarlos a continuar su viaje y darles la bienvenida a casa.”


Powers Law Group Partners With Ayuda Familias

Posted on by Carlos Gutierrez in family separation, Immigration Law, Immigration Trends Leave a comment
PRESS CONTACT: Houston Office (713) 589-2085 | [email protected]
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Houston, TX

As of 5:00 pm EST, July 26 2018, in response to the U.S. government’s failure to comply with a federal court order, imposed by Judge Dana Sabraw to reunify all eligible families it has separated, Powers Law Group has partnered with Ayuda Familias.

While Sabraw has noted the Government’s “progress” in reuniting the families, we know that approximately 914 parents will not be reunited with their children by the end of the day. “In some cases, the parents can’t be found or have serious criminal records. In other cases, they’ve already been deported without their children. A small number still haven’t been linked to children, let alone tracked down.”

When news of the first families affected by the ongoing family separation first broke, immigration attorney Ruby Powers knew that she had to advocate for those that couldn’t advocate for themselves. Since then, Powers Law Group has assisted other detainees and their family members in the U.S. in finding alternative legal representation, as well as providing them with valuable information and connections to organizations that have provided food, shelter, clothing etc.

Her advocacy efforts have captured audiences across the United States as many are offering their own time money and resources. Powers Law Group wants to inform anyone that is willing to donate their time and resources to connect with the Ayuda Familias organization, a  new partner of the Powers Law Group and Immigrant Families Together. The partnership with Ayuda Familias will allow us to provide many volunteers and resources to mothers and fathers that are seeking counsel on how to be reunited with their children and the steps that follow reunification.

Dionne Ukleja with Ayuda Familias, “As a response to this need, we created a website called ayudafamilias.org to not only assist immigrants who need help, but connect them to wrap-around services and volunteers who wish to help them as well. The first and second steps of their journey are reunification and travel, but what happens when they reach their final destination?

There are so many pitfalls that have been systematically put into place to make this process as hard as possible. We will provide connections to attorneys, translators, therapists, and most importantly a cultural advocate to help them learn how to navigate their new community.  Through our experience reunifying parents and children in partnership with Immigrant Families Together, we’ve seen first hand the additional needs of this vulnerable population and we look forward to helping them continue their journey and welcoming them home.”


Newark İltica Bürosundan Güncel Bilgiler, NJ İrtibat Buluşması Notları Bize Neler Söylüyor?

Posted on by Carlos Gutierrez in Asylum, Immigration Law Leave a comment

-Yeni randevu sistemine göre Newark İltica Bürosu (ZNK) dosyaların öncelik sırasını şöyle açıklıyor:

ZNK’ya göre dosyalar 4 kategoriye ayrılmış durumda. Sonradan yapılan başvuruların önceliği var: a) mülakat için yeniden randevu verilen dosyalar; b) başvurudan itibaren 21 gün geçen dosyalar; c) başvurudan itibaren 43 ila 100 gün geçmiş olan dosyalar; d) daha yeni tarihli başvurulardan eski tarihli başvurulara doğru olmak üzere, başvurudan itibaren 100 günden fazla geçmiş olan diğer dosyalar. Bu durumun istisnaları şöyle 1) kısa bildirim dosyaları (başvuru sahiplerinin 3 haftalık bildirim hakkından feragat ettiği dosyalar) ve 2) Hızlandırılmış Dosyalar. ZNK şu gibi sebeplerle hızlandırma başvurusu yapılabileceğini belirtiyor: insani, sağlık ve diğer ciddi sebepler. Halihazırda yapılmış başvurular için, başvuru sahibi veya avukatı hızlandırma veya kısa listeye alınma talebinde bulunabilmektedir.

-İltica mülakatı sırasında müdahale ile ilgili olarak Newark İltica Bürosu (ZNK) avukatlar tarafından şu şekilde bir prosedürün izlenmesinin beklendiğini ifade ediyor:

ZNK mülakatların iltica memurları tarafından kontrol edilmesi gerektiğine ve durdurulamayacağına vurgu yapıyor. Ancak, ters giden bir şey varsa avukat soru sorabilecektir. Ayrıca mülakat usulünce yerine getirilmediği takdirde avukat nazikçe memurdan durmasını talep edebilecektir. İltica memurunun husumet gütmesi durumunda, avukatların bir amirle görüşmeyi talep etmesi beklenmektedir. Ayrıca yine avukatların yazılı olarak neler yaşandığını anlatması ve ilgililere ulaştırması beklenmektedir.

-Mülakat sonrasında karar verilmesinin neden 2 haftadan fazla sürdüğüne ilişkin soruya Newark İltica Bürosu (ZNK) şu cevabı vermektedir:

ZNK mülakat sonrasında 2 hafta içinde karar verilmesi uygulamasının değişmediğini ifade etmektedir. Ancak güvenlik soruşturmaları karar verilmesini geciktirmektedir. Memurlar kararlarını iki hafta içinde vermek durumundalar.

Newark İltica Bürosu (ZNK)’nun kabul oranı ile ilgili olarak aşağıdaki bilgi paylaşılmıştır:

2017 itibariyle, ZNK’nın kabul oranı %24’tür. Ülke ortalaması ise %36’dır. ZNK kendi oranlarının ülke ortalamasından aşağıda olmasını Newark İltica Bürosu’na yapılan başvuruların üçte birinin ülkeden çıkarılma sürecine (göçmenlik mahkemesi) girebilmek için yapıldığını bunun da oranı düşürdüğünü ifade etmektedir.

– Belgelerin mülakat esnasında veya daha önce teslim edilmesi ile alakalı olarak Newark İltica Bürosu (ZNK) şu bilgiyi paylaşmıştır:

ZNK mülakattan 3 gün önce dosyaların memurlara dağıtımının yapıldığını bildirmektedir. Destekleyici mahiyetteki belgeler mülakattan bir hafta önce gönderilmelidir. Mülakat gününde destekleyici belge sunulması durumunda, ZNK mülakatı gerçekleştirmeyerek yeniden randevu verme hakkına sahiptir.

 İltica Bürolarında ICE veya CBP görevlilerinin bulunup bulunmayacağı, İltica Bürosu ile ICE arasında ne zaman işbirliği ve bilgi paylaşımı yapıldığı sorulduğunda Newark İltica Bürosu (ZNK) aşağıdaki cevabı vermiştir:

ZNK, ICE yada CBP görevlilerinin İltica Bürolarında konuşlandırılması şeklinde bir uygulama olmadığı yönünde teminat vermektedir. İltica Bürosu’nun yaptığı güvenlik soruşturmaları açısından, İltica Bürosu ICE’a bilgi sağlamadığı gibi ICE’in İltica Bürosu’na gelmek şeklinde bir girişimi olmamıştır.

ZNK kendileri tarafından yapılan güvenlik soruşturmalarında ICE’in dahil olmadığını ifade etmektedir. ICE’a bilgi verilmemektedir. Ancak bunun bir istisnası söz konusudur. O da başvuru sahibi hakkında yakalama kararı ya da diğer olumsuz bilgi (örneğin ulusal güvenlikle ilgili) olarak belirtilmektedir. Bu durumda ZNK, ICE’ı bilgilendirmek zorundadır. Fakat sadece ICE bilgilendirilmektedir, yerel polisin bilgilendirilmesi söz konusu değildir. Mülakat randevu bildirimi gönderilmesinin başvuru sahibini mülakata çağırmaktan başka bir amacı yoktur.

Sorularınız için bize (713) 589-2085 (TX) ya da (201)-210-8240 (NJ) nolu numaralardan yahut [email protected] adresine e-posta göndererek ulaşabilirsiniz.


USCIS ahora puede emitir NTA para la denegación de una aplicación: Lo que significa para Usted:

Posted on by Carlos Gutierrez in Immigration Law Leave a comment

Por la abogada Nadia Khalid

El 05 de julio de 2018, los Servicios de Ciudadanía e Inmigración de los Estados Unidos (“USCIS”) revelaron nuevas pautas de política con respecto a las emisiones de Aviso de comparecencia. Un Aviso de comparecencia (“NTA”), según lo define el USCIS, “es un documento entregado a un extranjero que los instruye a comparecer ante un juez de inmigración en una fecha determinada … la emisión de un NTA inicia un proceso de deportación contra el extranjero”. Si no se presenta para una NTA, puede tener como resultado procedimientos de deportación automáticos, lo que da como resultado una prohibición de entrada de 5 años a los Estados Unidos.

En el pasado, USCIS tuvo que consultar con el Servicio de Inmigración y Control de Aduanas (“ICE”) y con el Servicio de Aduanas y Protección Fronteriza (“CPB”) de EE. UU. para emitir un NTA.

Ahora, sin embargo, bajo esta nueva directriz, USCIS tiene autoridad para emitir NTAs sin consultar con ICE o CPB por cualquiera de las siguientes razones:

  • Negación de una aplicación;
  • Negación de un N-400 debido a una ofensa criminal previa;
  • Solicitudes que involucran fraude comprobado o tergiversación;
  • Abuso de los beneficios públicos por parte del solicitante;
  • Casos penales con una condena o cargo pendiente; y / o
  • Presencia ilegal como resultado de la denegación de una solicitud o petición.

 

Debido a esta nueva directriz de política, es imperativo que revele todo a su representante legal, incluidos delitos pasados, cargos penales, si ha recibido beneficios públicos o cualquier solicitud de inmigración rechazada en el pasado. Es igualmente importante comprender que si su solicitud es denegada por algún motivo, se puede emitir un NTA automático basado en la presencia ilegal como resultado de la denegación de dicha solicitud o petición.

Si está interesado en obtener más información sobre este nuevo memorando de política o sobre cómo podría afectar una solicitud o solicitud de inmigración pendiente o pendiente, no dude en comunicarse con nuestra oficina al 713-589-2085 o envíenos un correo electrónico a [email protected] para establecer una consulta.


USCIS Emite Nueva Política RFE

Posted on by Carlos Gutierrez in Immigration Law Leave a comment

Por la abogada Michele Strickland

Los Servicios de Inmigración y Ciudadanía de los EE. UU. (USCIS) publicaron un memorándum de política el viernes 13 de julio de 2018 anunciando su nueva política para denegar una solicitud, petición o pedido sin antes emitir una Solicitud de Evidencia (RFE) o Aviso de Intento de Denegación (NOID) cuando no se presentó la evidencia inicial requerida o la evidencia del registro no establece la elegibilidad.

Esta política entrará en vigor el 11 de septiembre de 2018 y se aplica a todas las solicitudes, peticiones y pedidos, a excepción de las adjudicaciones de Acción Diferida para Llegadas Infantiles (DACA), recibidas después de esa fecha.

“Durante demasiado tiempo, nuestro sistema de inmigración se ha empantanado con reclamos frívolos o sin mérito que ralentizan el procesamiento para todos, incluidos los solicitantes legítimos. A través de este cambio de política largamente retrasado, USCIS está restableciendo la total discreción de nuestros oficiales de inmigración para denegar solicitudes incompletas e inelegibles presentadas para recibir beneficios de inmigración “, dijo el Director de USCIS, L. Francis Cissna. “Hacerlo desalienta las solicitudes frívolas y las aplicaciones esqueléticas utilizadas para jugar con el sistema, garantiza que nuestros recursos no se desperdicien y, en última instancia, mejora la capacidad de nuestra agencia para adjudicar de manera eficiente e imparcial las solicitudes de beneficios de inmigración en plena conformidad con nuestras leyes”.

Desde 2013, USCIS emitió RFE y NOID cuando la evidencia presentada en el momento de la presentación no estableció la elegibilidad. La antigua política limitaba las denegaciones sin RFE o NOID a negaciones legales al estipular que las RFE debían emitirse a menos que no hubiera “ninguna posibilidad” de aprobación. USCIS declaró que esta política de “ninguna posibilidad” limitaba la capacidad de un adjudicador para usar su discreción.

Según el USCIS, la política anunciada el viernes restablece la autoridad del adjudicador para usar la discreción total para negar solicitudes, peticiones y solicitudes sin emitir primero un RFE o un NOID, cuando corresponda. Esta política tiene la intención de desalentar las presentaciones frívolas o incompletas utilizadas como presentaciones de “placeholder” o “marcador de posición” y alentar a los solicitantes, peticionarios y pedidores a ser diligentes en la recopilación y presentación de la evidencia requerida.

Si no se presenta toda la evidencia inicial requerida con la solicitud de beneficios, USCIS, a su discreción, puede denegar la solicitud de beneficios por no establecer la elegibilidad en función de la falta de evidencia inicial requerida. Los ejemplos de presentaciones que pueden denegarse sin enviar un RFE o NOID incluyen, entre otros:

  • Solicitudes de exención presentadas con poca o ninguna evidencia de respaldo; o
  • Casos en los que las reglamentaciones, el estatuto o las instrucciones de formulario requieren la presentación de un documento oficial u otra forma de evidencia que establezca la elegibilidad en el momento de la presentación y no existe tal presentación. Por ejemplo, una Declaración jurada de manutención (Formulario I-864), si es necesario, no se presentó con una Solicitud para registrar la residencia permanente o Ajustar el estado (Formulario I-485).

 

Esto significa que todas las solicitudes enviadas a USCIS después del 11 de septiembre de 2018 deben estar completas en el momento de la presentación. Si no se incluye toda la documentación requerida y la evidencia probablemente resultará en una denegación, no está claro en este momento cómo sería el proceso de apelación. Es extremadamente importante que busque el consejo de un abogado de inmigración experimentado antes de presentar una solicitud al USCIS. Póngase en contacto con nuestra oficina de Houston al (713) 589-2085 o nuestra oficina de Nueva Jersey al (201) 210-8240 para programar una consulta con cualquiera de nuestros abogados con experiencia.


USCIS Issues New RFE Policy

Posted on by Carlos Gutierrez in Consular Processing Leave a comment

By attorney: Michele Strickland

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)  posted a policy memorandum, on Friday July 13, 2018 announcing its new policy to deny an application, petition, or request without first issuing a Request for Evidence (RFE) or Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) when the required initial evidence was not submitted or the evidence of record fails to establish eligibility. 

This policy is effective September 11, 2018, and applies to all applications, petitions, and requests, except for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) adjudications, received after that date.

“For too long, our immigration system has been bogged down with frivolous or meritless claims that slow down processing for everyone, including legitimate petitioners. Through this long overdue policy change, USCIS is restoring full discretion to our immigration officers to deny incomplete and ineligible applications and petitions submitted for immigration benefits,” said USCIS Director L. Francis Cissna. “Doing so will discourage frivolous filings and skeletal applications used to game the system, ensure our resources are not wasted, and ultimately improve our agency’s ability to efficiently and fairly adjudicate requests for immigration benefits in full accordance with our laws.”  

Since 2013 USCIS issued RFEs and NOIDs when the evidence submitted at the time of filing did not establish eligibility. The old policy limited denials without RFEs or NOIDs to statutory denials by providing that RFEs should be issued unless there was “no possibility” of approval. USCIS stated that this “no possibility” policy limited the ability of an adjudicator to use his or her discretion.

According to USCIS, the policy announced on Friday restores authority to the adjudicator to use full discretion to deny applications, petitions, and requests without first issuing an RFE or a NOID, when appropriate. This policy is intended to discourage frivolous or incomplete filings used as “placeholder” filings and encourage applicants, petitioners, and requestors to be diligent in collecting and submitting required evidence.  

If all required initial evidence is not submitted with the benefit request, USCIS, in its discretion, may deny the benefit request for failure to establish eligibility based on lack of required initial evidence. Examples of filings that may be denied without sending an RFE or NOID include, but are not limited to:     

  • Waiver applications submitted with little to no supporting evidence; or
  • Cases where the regulations, the statute, or form instructions require the submission of an official document or other form of evidence establishing eligibility at the time of filing and there is no such submission. For example, an Affidavit of Support (Form I-864), if required, was not submitted with an Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (Form I-485).

 

This means that all applications submitted to USCIS after September 11, 2018 must be complete at time of submission.  Failure to include all required documentation and evidence will likely result in a denial it is unclear at this time what the appeal process would be like as well.  It is extremely important that you seek the advice of an experienced immigration lawyer before submitting an application to USCIS. Contact our Houston office at (713) 589-2085 or our New Jersey office at (201) 210-8240 to schedule a consultation with any one of our experienced attorneys.


USCIS Can Now Issue NTAs for Denial of an Application: What it means for you

Posted on by Carlos Gutierrez in Immigration Law, Immigration Trends Leave a comment

By attorney: Nadia Khalid

On July 05, 2018, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) revealed new policy guidelines regarding Notice to Appear issuances. A Notice to Appear (“NTA”), as defined by USCIS, “is a document given to an alien that instructs them to appear before an immigration judge on a certain date…the issuance of an NTA commences removal proceedings against the alien.” Failure to appear for an NTA can result in automatic removal proceedings, resulting in a 5-year bar from entry to the United States.

In the past, USCIS had to consult with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CPB”) to issue an NTA.

Now, however, under this new guideline, USCIS has authority to issue NTAs without consulting with ICE or CPB for any of the following reasons:

  • Denial of an application;
  • Denial of an N-400 because of a previous criminal offense;
  • Applications involving substantiated fraud or misrepresentation;
  • Abuse of public benefits by the applicant;
  • Criminal cases with a conviction or pending charge; and/or
  • Unlawful presence resulting from the denial of an application or petition.

Because of this new policy guideline, it is imperative that you disclose everything to your legal representative, including past offenses, criminal charges, receiving public benefits, or any past denied immigration applications. It is equally important to understand that if your application is denied for any reason, an automatic NTA may be issued based on unlawful presence resulting from the denial of said application or petition.

If you are interested in learning more about this new policy memorandum or about how it might affect a pending or past immigration application or petition, feel free to contact our office at 713-589-2085 or email us at [email protected] to set up a consultation.


What is Happening – A Humanitarian Crisis and Call to Action

Posted on by Ruby Powers in Deportation, family separation, immigration bill, Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Legislative Reform Leave a comment

What is Happening – A Humanitarian Crisis (Family Separation/Zero Tolerance)

I know we have been inundated as immigration attorneys with more changes in the last year and a half than most of the Obama Administration but I want to give you an update from what I have seen on the ground regarding family separation. I volunteered at Port Isabel 2 weeks after the AILA Annual Conference(https://tinyurl.com/y7qlax2h/), stayed in touch with those I visited as well as other volunteers, organized efforts, communicated updates with the media, took pro bono case work, sent my associate attorney to volunteer last week, and didn’t unplug during my annual vacation last week because of this.  I have been following the crisis on local, state, and national levels in many capabilities and all of them shirking my law firm management duties to serve a greater cause.

As you know, the Admin. charged parents with criminal illegal entry to separate their kids and to label their children as UACs to place in ORR facilities under the “Zero Tolerance” policy (on a large scale level starting May 7, 2018). ACLU’s efforts (see Ms. L. v ICE  +) and the public outcry (see E.O. of June 20) have been putting the Administration on notice to act to reverse it but it has been a due process struggle at every juncture as the Administration creates road blocks at each step of the way (see Matter of A.B., etc.)

What I saw was parents who were traumatized, they were lied to when they were separated from their children. They didn’t have the opportunity to speak with their young child until after the June 20 Executive Order, which meant a day or two before or a day or two after their credible fear interview. Would you want to give your whole life story over the phone to a Government that lied to you and ripped your child from you? Many come from countries that they don’t trust in the first place and why do we expect them to tell their secrets, they didn’t even tell their family, their spouse, their children, the a person on the other side of the phone while they are living with the trauma of separation? That is why we need to help them to create a class action lawsuit and give them more opportunities to fight for due process.

Many received negative credible fear interview results. Upon Immigration Judge review, there were often summarily kept with the same decision, often without the IJ even allowing the attorney to speak (Enter Article 1 vs Article 3 court discussion). But for the ACLU’s litigation, many would have been deported without their children by now. Let that sink in.

There were approx. 103 “tender age” separations including one mother I spoke with at Port Isabel detention center(PIDC) who was separated from her 5-month old baby she was breastfeeding.

Approx. 2,551 other minor children were separated and spread around the country.  This last group must be reunited by the Ms. L v Ice deadline given by Judge Sabraw of Thursday, July 26. Many of us who have seen the inner workings don’t believe this deadline will be met but progress has been expedited in the last few days.

Starting Friday, July 13th, 9 children were reunited with parents at PIDC and then later more parents were reunited. They were reunited after 30-60 days of separation, placed in a shelter for a day or two and then on their way. Oh, and given master calendar hearings in Harlingen for a month after their departure of detention even though they plan to relocated around the country. This is not specific to Port Isabel, I am hearing reports from other facilities like Arizona, etc.  I am afraid the Administration is setting many up for failure hoping the reunified parents and traumatized families will miss their deadlines and be deported in absentia.

Things are changes every minute. We are experiencing a tsunami with various points of collateral damage at each step of the way. Non-profits and organizations have not been able to keep up. Think travel ban 1.0 at the airports or for us in Houston, Harvey, and then take it to the next level because our Government knew they were traumatizing children, gutting asylum law, and creating chaos simultaneously  without a plan to fix it.  They were invoking trauma on children in the name of deterrence of asylum-seekers but all the while dodging asylum law obligations and general human rights mores.

Call to Action

  1. Take a pro bono case or two – these people need our help and they need it soon: I think the Admin wants them to get in absentia orders so let’s not let that happen. I know of grassroots efforts collecting information of the parents being reunited and I too have information of parents, if you want a lead on a case, I can help. ([email protected])
  2. Encourage your friends to donate to groups doing the best good, help in other non-legal ways and volunteer on a short-term basis:

 

  1. Let’s remind our US citizen friends and clients to register to vote and to actually vote. Put instructions on how to register and upcoming elections in your lobby and your social media. Bring it up in consultations.
  2. Be the voice for those who are not being heard –
    1. Advocacy tools and Op-ed templates: https://www.aila.org/advo-media/tools
    2. Speak to the media and journalists – give immigrants a voice and explain the situation as a subject matter expert.

Let’s do this!

Ruby L. Powers

Board Certified Immigration Attorney, Powers Law Group, P.C.

www.RubyPowersLaw.com

[email protected]

July 19, 2018


İltica Başvurusu: Davanızın Güvenilirliğini Etkileyen Faktörler

Posted on by Carlos Gutierrez in Asylum, Immigration Trends Leave a comment

Avukat: Nadia Khalid

Son birkaç ay içinde, iltica süreci, bir sığınmacının davasının güvenilirliğini ve / veya başarısını etkileyen faktörleri değiştiren sert değişiklikler ve yeni politika direktifleri yaşamıştır.  İltica görüşmeleri sırasında farkettiğimiz faktörlerden biri, alternatif vize statüsünden iltica talebinde bulunulmasına geçişin etkisidir. Örneğin, sona ermiş bir E-2 (yatırımcı vizesi) ‘den iltica başvurusu yapmaya geçiş.

Genel olarak, iltica başvuruları, Amerika Birleşik Devletleri’ne giriş tarihinden itibaren bir yıl içinde yapılmalıdır.  Ancak, bazı durumlarda, “olağanüstü şartlar” iltica başvurusunda bulunanlara, bir yıl geçtikten sonra da başvuru yapma imkanı verir. “Olağanüstü şartlardan” biri alternatif vize statüsüdür.  Ancak, alternatif bir vize statüsüne sahip olmak, başvuranın kendi takdirine bağlı olarak sığınma başvurusunda bulunmasına izin vermemektedir. Sığınma başvurusu, alternatif vize statüsünde olunsa bile, aşağıdakilere göre makul bir süre içinde yapılmalıdır: alternatif vize durumunun elde edildiği tarih; Ülkenizde iltica yapmanıza neden olan olayın gerçekleştiği tarih; iltica başvurusunda bulunduğunuz tarih; ve alternatif vize statünüzün süresinin dolduğu tarih. Bu nedenle asıl soru, mantıklı olan nasıl olur? Tecrübelerimize göre iltica memurları, ülkenizde iltica talebinde bulunmanızı sebep olan olayın ne zaman gerçekleştiğine ilişkin zaman çizelgesine  ve alternatif vize statüsüne sahip olsanız bile, ABD’ye giriş yaptıktan sonra makul olmayan bir süre sonrasında  sığınma başvurusu yapıp yapmadığınıza odaklanmaya başlamışlardır.

Bazı kişilerin iltica başvurusunu  alternatif vize statüsü gibi basit gördükleri gözardı edilmemelidir. Sığınma başvurularının büyük akışı dikkate alındığında, başvuranın sığınma talebini kanıtlamak için daha fazla inceleme yapılmıştır. Geçmişteki zulüm ve / veya gelecekteki zulüm korkusunun olup olmadığı, özellikle bir başvuru sahibinin alternatif vize statüsüyle gelmesi durumunda aşırı bir incelemeye tabi tutulmaktadır.

Bu incelemenin nedeni, zaman zaman makul sebeplerdendir. İltica bürosundaki memurlar,kişilerin kendi ülkelerinde çeşitli zulüm biçimlerinden kaçıp, iltica ile sunulan korumayı almak için değil, ülkede yasal statü sağlamak amacıyla iltica başvurusunda bulunduklarını görmektedirler.

Alternatif vize statüsünde ya da süresi dolmuş vize statüsünde iken sığınma talebinde bulunanlara tavsiyemiz şu şekildedir: bir iltica başvurusu yapmadan önce bir sığınma talebinin esaslarını araştırın ve anlayın. Sadece yasal statü elde etmek için iltica başvurusu yapmak iki tarafı keskin bir kılıçtır. Geçici olarak yasal statü elde edebilmekle birlikte, iltica mülakatları ve kararları her zamankinden daha hızlı bir şekilde sonuçlanmaktadır. Bir sonraki ay iltica talebinde bulunursanız, yüksek olaslıkla  birkaç ay içinde mülakata çağrılabilir ve iddianızın gücüne dayanarak  ya iltica onayı alabilir ya da mahkemeye yönlendirilirsiniz. Mahkeme süresi boyunca , aktif olarak sınırdışı edilme sürecindesinizdir. Ve mahkeme süreci, nihai karara itiraz etme seçeneği ile 2-4 yıl sürse de, bu karmaşık ve uzun sürece, iltica başvurusunu geçmiş ve gelecekteki zulümden kurtulmak için değil, sadece yasal statü almak için yaparak girmenin gereği yoktur.

Herhangi bir sorunuz varsa veya iltica talebinde bulunmayı düşünüyorsanız, lütfen 713-589-2085 numaralı telefondan bizi arayın ya da [email protected] adresinden bize e-posta gönderin. Şu anda bulunduğunuz veya elde etmeyi umduğunuz vize durumunuz için en iyi çözümü belirlemenize yardımcı olmayı umuyoruz.


Seeking Asylum: Factors Affecting the Credibility of Your Case

Posted on by Carlos Gutierrez in Immigration Law Leave a comment

By attorney: Nadia Khalid

 

In the past few months, the asylum-seeking process has experienced harsh changes and new policy directives which have changed the factors affecting the credibility and/or provability of an asylum seeker’s case.  One of the factors we have noticed while attending asylum interviews is the effect of switching from an alternate visa status to having asylum pending. For instance, switching from an E-2 that has expired to filing for asylum.

Generally, applicants for asylum must file for asylum within one year of entry to the United States. However, in some cases, asylum applicants have “extraordinary circumstances” which allow them to file for asylum past one year of entry. One of the “extraordinary circumstances” is alternative visa status. However, simply having an alternative visa status does not allow an applicant to file for asylum at their discretion. Filing for asylum, even while holding an alternative visa status, must be done in a reasonable amount of time in relation to: the date the alternative visa status is obtained; the date when the precipitating event in your home country occurs; the date when you apply for asylum; and the date when your alternative visa status expires.

Hence, the real question is what constitutes reasonability? In our experience, officers begun to focus on the timeline of when the precipitating factor occurred in your home country that made you seek asylum, and if you took an unreasonable amount of time after entry to the US to apply for asylum even though you have an alternative visa status.

This is important to consider as some people have come to view asylum as simply an alternative visa status. Given the large influx of asylum applications, there has been increased scrutiny to prove an applicant’s asylum claim. Whether there is past persecution and/or fear of future persecution is now weighed with extreme scrutiny especially when an applicant comes with an alternative visa status.

The reason for this scrutiny is, at times, reasonable. Officers see applications where asylum is filed for the sake of procuring legal status in the country, and not because they seek the protection offered by asylum to people who are fleeing their home country from various forms of persecution.

Our advice to those seeking asylum while on an alternative visa status or with an expired visa status is this: research and understand the components of an asylum claim before filing an asylum application. Filing for asylum for the sake of obtaining legal status alone is a double edged sword. While you may be able to obtain legal status temporarily, asylum interviews and decisions are being issued at a much faster pace than ever before.  If you file for asylum in the next month, there is a strong likelihood you will be issued an interview within a few months and based on the strength of your claim, you will either be recommended approval or referred to court. Once you are in court, you are in active removal proceedings. And while the court process can take 2-4 years with an option to appeal the final decision, it is still a very long and involved process to have to undergo if asylum was filed in the first place just for the sake of legal status and not for the sake of protection from persecution, past and/or future.

If you have any questions or are thinking about filing for asylum, please call our office at 713-589-2085 or email us at [email protected]. We hope to help you determine the best solution for whatever visa status you are currently on or hoping to obtain.


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 32 33   Next »

Facebook

YouTube

LinkedId