Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Naturalize, Naturalization, Citizenship, Voting, Presidential Elections, DAPA, immigration Law, Green card lawyer, Immigration Denver, Immigration Law, Immigration lawyer, Immigration attorney
Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Naturalize, Naturalization, Citizenship, Voting, Presidential Elections, DAPA, immigration Law, Green card lawyer, Immigration Denver, Immigration Law, Immigration lawyer, Immigration attorney, seattle immigration attorney, seattle immigration attorneys, washington state citizenship lawyer, washington state citizenship lawyers, immigration and citizenship law, carol l edward, immigration attorney

Immigration Quicksand: A finding of Willful Misrepresentation for Some Non-Immigrants Who Decide to Immigrate Too Quickly

Many immigrants enter the United States as non-immigrants – as tourists on a B2 visa, through the Visa Waiver Program, as students, etc. Often, those “non-immigrants” will meet an U.S. citizen, fall in love, and decide to get married. Sometimes the non-immigrant has a long history with their new spouse, but didn’t decide to get married until shortly after entering the country on their non-immigrant visa. In other cases, a student may move to the U.S. for the purpose of continuing their education but due to changes in their financial situation, they may decide to look for employment instead, thereby violating the terms of their student visa.

U.S. immigration law draws a distinction between “non-immigrant intent,” which is the intention to remain in the U.S. temporarily before returning to the foreigner’s permanent residence, and “immigrant intent,” or the intention to reside in the U.S. permanently.  Many non-immigrant visa are only provided to those who swear to or can demonstrate non-immigrant intent.

Previously, the government applied what is known as a “30/60 day rule”: when a non-immigrant entered the country with a non-immigrant visa and within 30 days took steps that were not in line with their non-immigrant status, a presumption was drawn that the non-immigrant misrepresented their intention upon entry.  If, however, the steps were taken between 30 and 60 days after arrival, there was no such presumption.

If, for example, an exchange student came to the U.S. for the purpose of spending a semester at a U.S. university, but married a U.S. citizen just two weeks after arrival and then applied for lawful permanent residency (a “green card”), the government would presume that the student’s true reason for entering the country was to get married and adjust status.  Applying the 30/60 day rule, the government might determine that thee student had made a material misrepresentation by entering the country for the stated purpose of studying but with the actual purpose of applying for lawful permanent residency.  The government would then ask the student to either rebut that presumption with evidence to the contrary or they would require a waiver of the student’s misrepresentation, assuming they were eligible for such waiver.

Unfortunately, on September 1, 2017, the Department of Status (DOS) updated it’s manual to eliminate the “30-60 day rule.”  Instead, the Department of State is now applying a “90 day rule.”  The Department’s manual now states that if a non-immigrant “violate or engages in conduct inconsistent with his or her nonimmigrant status within 90 days of entry” the Department of State may presume that the person’s previous representations regarding their nonimmigrant intent, either at the time of application or at the time of entry, were willful misrepresentations.  (See 9 FAM 302.9-4(B)(3)).  A finding of willful misrepresentation can result in the revocation of a visa, or in a finding of inadmissibility to the United States as an immigrant.  In some circumstances, such a finding could result in lifetime inadmissibility to the United States.

The good news is that the United States Citizenship & Immigration Services (DOS) Policy Manual has not yet been updated to reflect this change. Additionally, two decades-old cases issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals state that even a finding of “preconceived intent” to immigrant is, by itself, outweighed by a citizen’s interest in their immediate relative’s application being granted. Some immigrants will have the option of departing the United States and applying for an immigrant visa from a U.S. consulate in their home country in order to avoid a presumption of immigrant intent and a determination of inadmissibility on misrepresentation grounds.

This change highlights the fact that immigration policy can change much more quickly than the law, and many immigrants will struggle to keep up with policy changes without the help of a competent immigration attorney.  Given the shifts described above, it would be wise for any non-immigrant who has taken steps toward U.S. residency within 90 days of their arrival to speak to a U.S. immigration attorney.

The new immigration order: A disaster in the making | Aretz and Chisholm Immigration LLC | 303-495-2013

The new immigration order: A disaster in the making | Aretz and Chisholm Immigration LLC | 303-495-2013

Some of the darkest chapters in U.S. history have involved forcibly relocating minority populations: the slave trade, the Trail of Tears, Operation Wetback and the internment of citizens and noncitizens of Japanese descent during World War II. Each was considered legal and justified in its time. Now they are condemned as assaults on the values that define our nation.

President Trump’s first executive order on immigration and the draft enforcement memos signed by Secretary of Homeland Security John F. Kelly promise to similarly tarnish our nation’s character. The memos call for expanding the nation’s deportation forces by 15,000 to round up, detain and deport the undocumented immigrants living among us. Instead of focusing on criminals, they make all undocumented people priorities for enforcement, and through a process called “expedited removal,” they severely reduce due process protections.

The policy is based on falsehoods about the threat and costs of undocumented immigrants. “The surge of immigration at the southern border has overwhelmed federal agencies and resources and has created a significant national security vulnerability to the United States,” stated Kelly’s memorandum.

Read More: Washington Post


Today marks one week since we learned that Donald Trump will become the 45th president of the United States. Most of us did not expect this result, and many of us feared it. Over the past year, Mr. Trump has said many hurtful and aggressive things against immigrants. He has talked about building a wall, banning Muslims, deporting millions of people, further limiting the already unworkable employment-based visa system, and cancelling DACA. As the Chair of the Colorado Chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), I am concerned for the futures of my clients, their families, and their employers, but I also see the incredible talent and heart of the immigration lawyers and community activists I work with in Colorado and across the country. In this time of insecurity, this is my message of hope and unity.

To the immigrant community: Many of you already have an AILA member as your lawyer, but even if you do not, know that we advocate for all of you. For more than 70 years, AILA has worked with leaders from both parties to promote a fair and just immigration system, one that reflects the values on which our country was founded. We will continue to do this by working with any federal, state, or local government that is developing policies that affect you. AILA has more than 14,000 members, and the hundreds of members in the Colorado Chapter are prepared to stand up against any laws or policies that violate our fundamental principles of fairness and due process. We will oppose any rhetoric that denies the important role immigrants have played in building this great nation. Our shared prosperity relies on the innovation and creativity of immigrants from all over the world, from all walks of life, and from all faiths and cultural traditions.

During the next few months, there will be many questions and few answers. While we wait to see what changes the next administration will make, I offer these practical suggestions:

  •   remain calm – do not make any important decisions based on fear;
  •   do not believe anyone who calls you claiming to be from ICE;
  •   beware of “notarios” or other “immigration experts” trying to benefit from the current uncertainty – only

    a licensed lawyer can give legal advice;

  •   if you have a lawyer, keep in touch and make sure he or she has your current contact information;
  •   if you have DACA, there is currently no change to the program, but you should consult with a reputable

    immigration lawyer before making any future decisions.

    To immigration advocates: We have faced challenges before, so we know the invaluable and unlimited resources at our disposal: the talents, ingenuity, passion, and persistence of over 14,000 AILA members and the community organizations and elected leaders with whom we collaborate. Looking forward, we must continue to support one another as we always have, coming together to share stories and inspiration, and taking every opportunity to advocate for fair and just treatment for all immigrants. Together we must promote this message of unity and perseverance to the federal immigration agencies, to Congress, to the courts, and to the public at large.

    Whatever challenges we might face in the next four years, AILA Colorado will continue to live our mission: to promote justice and advocate for fair and reasonable immigration law and policy.

    Katharine Speer Chair, AILA Colorado

Expansion of the Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver

Today, July 29, 2016, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will publish in the Federal Register a final rule expanding eligibility for the provisional unlawful presence waiver, filed on Form I-601A.  The new rule will take effect on August 29, 2016.

Since its launch in March 2013, many immigrants have utilized this waiver to minimize the time that they are separated from friends, family, work, and their community because they are able to apply for the waiver and receive approval before traveling abroad for consular processing.  For certain applications, the process that often results in many months of separation now can be completed in less than two weeks.  Additionally, because the waiver is discretionary, immigrants benefit from the knowledge that DHS has determined that they warrant a positive exercise of discretion before they leave the country, making their journey and application process far less risky.

Until the passage of this new rule, however, the provisional waiver was only available to immigrants who were the spouses, children, and parents of certain U.S. citizens, otherwise known as “immediate relatives.”  The waiver was further limited because the applicant had to prove that a U.S. citizen spouse or parent would experience extreme hardship upon denial of the immigrant’s admission to the United States; in other words, hardship to a spouse or parent who was a lawful permanent resident (“LPR” or “green card” holder) was not taken into consideration.

Beginning August 29, 2016, the rule will be expanded to include all individuals who are statutorily eligible for the unlawful presence waiver and who can establish extreme hardship to a U.S. citizen or LPR spouse or parent.  The expanded group of individuals includes the beneficiaries of family-sponsored and employment-based immigrant visa petitions, and Diversity Visa selectees, so long as they have a qualifying relative under the statute for purposes of the extreme hardship determination (a U.S. citizen or LPR spouse or parent).  Some additional changes were made to the regulation, including the elimination of a denial based on a “reason to believe” that another ground of inadmissibility exists.

DHS comments associated with the publishing of the final rule make it clear that this expansion is a benefit to the entire nation: it encourages the efficient use of government resources by streamlining a process that has previously been fraught with problems, it encourages eligible immigrant visa applicants to proceed forward with their visa processing and therefore integrate more quickly and fully into their U.S. community, and, most importantly, it minimizes the time that U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents are separated from their loved ones.  DHS estimates that approximately 100,000 individuals will become eligible under the new rule during the rule’s 10-year period of analysis.  The expansion is a welcome addition to our immigration system, and comes at a time when change is desperately needed.

Ignoring Alternatives & Increasing Detention of Families

Although the number of families being detained on the U.S.-Mexico border has dropped, the government is moving forward with plans to increase its capacity to detain families, with plans to open a new facility to house 2,400 women and children in Dilley, Texas, next month. Many of the women and children who would be housed in this facility are fleeing domestic abuse or gang violence. While Immigration and Customs Enforcement has the option of releasing individuals on bond or providing an ankle monitor, detention is clearly the preferred solution. Detention is not only an expense that falls on the shoulders of tax-payers; it also exposes detainees to the risk of sexual abuse. In fact, a complaint from earlier this month alleges recent sexual abuse in the Karnes City, Texas, facility, and other centers were previously closed after numerous allegations of abuse. Meanwhile, an alternative program from 2004 known as ISAP (Intensive Supervision Appearance Program) has proven to be widely successful, with 93% of participants showing up to their scheduled hearings on their own accord.

Bond determinations are made based on an assessment of an immigrant’s potential danger to the community and the risk that they will not attend their removal proceedings, but instead going into hiding. In many of these cases, women and children have come to this country seeking protection and have turned themselves in at the border. They have very few resources. The chance that they will post a bond and not attend future court hearings is highly unlikely. A denial of bond, or a very high bond, should be reserved for individuals with a criminal history who have already proven that they pose a danger to society, or that they are likely to not show up for a scheduled hearing.

Expense and risk are not the only issues that cause concern to many; detention in these remote facilities means less access to paid or pro bono legal services. Although detainees at the Artesia center are provided a list of pro bono services, the services listed are hours away and the detainees often have no means of contacting them. If they elect to hire private counsel, they will have to look elsewhere as well, as the nearest immigration attorney is approximately an hour away from the facility. Volunteer attorneys who have traveled to Artesia to offer pro bono services note that there is not even a business center in the town of Artesia where an attorney can make photocopies or send faxes.

In response to the proposed development of the Dilley facility, several prominent Democratic senators recently wrote a letter to the Secretary of Homeland Security. In that letter, found at, the senators wrote:

“The administration’s practice of opposing bond in all of these cases, even those cases in which credible fear has been established and where there is no evidence of danger to the community or risk of flight, furthers the injustice for those families detained and unnecessarily increases the demand for bed space. Concerns over flight risk can be ameliorated through Alternatives to Detention (ATD), which help ensure the appearance of asylum seekers in immigration proceedings and are more cost effective.”

From the outside, it certainly seems that inexpensive and humane alternatives are low on the administration’s priority list, and one can’t help but wonder why – or wonder what priorities are more important. Several Democratic senators, at least, are left wondering.

seattle immigration attorney, seattle immigration attorneys, washington state citizenship lawyer, washington state citizenship lawyers, immigration and citizenship law, carol l edward, immigration attorney