Tuesday, February 23, 2016

The Failure of the Immigration System for Dairy Farmers


immigration attorney nycI came across a terrific short documentary by Vice News that I would like to share with you and discuss. You may watch the documentary for yourself here.[1]

The documentary discusses the plight of dairy farmers in New York. As it highlights, working as low-wage labor on a dairy farm is hard and unglamorous work that very few Americans want to do. In fact, Vice News endeavored to find unemployed Americans who were interested in working on a dairy farm, and were markedly unsuccessful.

Unfortunately, our immigration system provides no solutions for dairy farmers. The H2A Temporary Agricultural Workers program only authorizes visas for temporary seasonal farm work only, and dairy farmers cannot participate. The lack of a legal immigration solution to staffing problems does not stop dairy farmers from relying upon immigrants to work on the dairy farms. There is no shortage of people from Mexico and Central America who are willing to take the risk to work in the United States without status or documentation, and dairy farmers are willing to take the risk of hiring these undocumented workers to stay in business.

The documentary highlights many of the ridiculous aspects of our immigration system and the immigration debate. One argument against increasing illegal employment immigration is that it allegedly harms American workers. However, there are many jobs, such as those involving monotonous manual labor on a dairy farm, that Americans are generally uninterested in. To be sure, most dairy farmers would look to hire workers who are not at persistent risk of being arrested and deported by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Furthermore, there are many good people from Mexico and Central America who are looking for a better life and are willing to take jobs that are left vacant by Americans to provide for themselves and their families.

The arguments for immigration solutions for dairy farms and the people working at them are manifold. Firstly, immigration solutions for employers such as dairy farms will greatly help these American businesses and allow them to fill vacancies without having to circumvent U.S. laws. There is no real argument that undocumented workers at dairy farms are taking jobs from U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents (LPRs). In situations such as this, the positions will either be filled by foreigners or left vacant.

Secondly, a legal immigration option will do a great service to foreigners who are willing to come to the United States and take jobs that Americans are not willing to do. The documentary highlights dairy farm workers who have otherwise abided by the law, worked hard, and have families in the United States. These people are so inclined to work in the United States that they are willing to live in constant fear of deportation to do so. What logic is there in not providing an immigration option for these otherwise law-abiding workers?

Finally, there is actually a compelling border security and immigration enforcement interest in providing immigration options to foreigners who are willing to do hard work in the United Sates such as working on a dairy farm. The documentary interviews to a former ICE agent who states that, in his opinion, this is a battle that cannot be won by the ICE. I fully concur. Regardless of whether we provide a legal immigration option for foreigners looking for work in places like dairy farms or other jobs that Americans do not want, there will be no shortage of foreigners who come to take the positions. In light of that, there is a compelling interest to give dairy farmers, and other such employers, the tools to legally petition for such workers and such workers immigration documentation. If the types of workers who are now undocumented are documented, immigration authorities will be able to keep track of the foreign workers. Accordingly be able to focus more immigration enforcement resources on those persons who pose a threat to us rather than on those who would gladly abide by reasonable immigration laws. This would benefit foreign workers, U.S. businesses, and the American people as consumers.

We cannot separate immigration enforcement from the compelling need to improve our immigration laws. There are certain mistakes that would incentivize illegal immigration, such as granting amnesty to those who are here illegally without first securing the border and patching holes in our system of immigration enforcement. However, providing opportunities for good people who want only to take jobs in the United States that Americans do not want creates no perverse incentives, but in fact strengthens our immigration system and American businesses. To be sure, providing immigration solutions for dairy farmers would do far more to advance the cause of immigration enforcement and American businesses than ICE's quixotic quest in upstate New York to detain and deport those who quietly engage in difficult work that Americans are uninterested in.

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

  1. Vice News, “The Worst Job in New York: Immigrant America,” (Jul. 23, 2014)

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

Monday, February 22, 2016

The European Refugee Experience


immigration attorney nycEurope has had well-documented troubles attempting to absorb the massive influx of migrants and refugees from Iraq, Syria, and North Africa. Besides the obvious terrorism concerns that were exacerbated by the atrocities in Paris, there have been increasing incidents of sexual assault that are attributable to some among the migrants and refugees from the Middle East and Africa. Most notable were the sexual assaults in Cologne on New Year's Eve.

I came across an interesting story in the Daily Caller that I will share with you [see article].[1] According to the story, a group of 51 refugees who had been previously ordered to leave Norway due to unspecified “bad behavior” decided to hit a night club just across the border in Murmansk, Russia. Unfortunately, rather than enjoy the offerings of the night club in a legal way, the refugees decided to engage in further “bad behavior” by groping and harassing women in the night club.

Alas for the refugees engaged in “bad behavior,” they learned the hard way that Russia apparently treats “bad behavior” differently than its neighbors across the border. A group of Russian men took the refugees aside for educational purposes, apparently stating that “Cologne is 2,500 kilometers south of here.” The attempts by the refugees to flee this education were reportedly in vain, and they were summarily beaten by the group of Russian men that did not look kindly upon “bad behavior.” Eventually, Russia police arrived to break up the lesson, but not before offering an extracurricular lesson of their own. Ultimately, 33 refugees were arrested and 18 were hospitalized. The Russian police decided to let the lesson slide and opted not to file a report. However, the police did confirm that there was a “mass brawl involving refugees.”

Most of the debate over the admission of Syrian refugees to the United States centers on terrorism concerns. In a recent CNN Presidential Town Hall, Senator Marco Rubio eloquently stated: “If we accept 10,000 Syrian refugees tomorrow, and 9,999 of them were good people, and one of them was an ISIS killer, we have a big problem.”[2] I could not agree with Senator Rubio more. From my experience with the refugee process, I do not think the United States is properly equipped for the task it has taken upon itself in seeking to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees in the next fiscal year. Furthermore, even with the best of procedures, Syria presents a unique set of challenges, such as the Islamic State reportedly having access to machines to print “authentic” Syrian passports and being able to give its militants stolen passports.[3]

However, the article about the absurd incident in Murmansk highlights the other concern with admitting large amounts of refugees: cultural considerations. When many people from a foreign culture enter a country all at once, it is less likely that they will be absorbed into the new culture and more likely they will bring whatever culture they are entering with-for better or for worse-in full to their new country. This is even encouraged by some. In 2008, the Islamist Prime Minister of Turkey, Tayyip Erdogan, thundered in Cologne (ironic in hindsight) in a speech to Turkish immigrants that “assimilation is a crime against humanity.”

Unfortunately, experience shows that it has been for worse in many European countries that admit huge numbers of migrants and refugees face an insurmountable challenge of assimilating the new arrivals into society. The results are often not encouraging. In November of 2015, Andrew McCarthy described at the National Review the case of Seine-Saint-Denis in France, where police killed Abelhamid Abaaoud, the mastermind of the Paris massacre. Citing compelling evidence, McCarthy explains how Seine-Saint-Denis, which has 600,000 Muslims (mostly immigrants from North Africa and the Middle East) out of 1.4 million inhabitants, now has 36 of its 40 departments designated by the French government as “sensitive urban zones,” that is places where French Law Enforcement treads lightly, if at all.[4]

In 2013, the Pew Research Center polled numerous predominantly Islamic countries about their views on a myriad of issues. While Syria was not among the countries polled, we can look at results from Iraq, which is also a source of the refugee and migrant issues. In the poll, 91% of respondents from Iraq stated that they believe Sharia Law should be the official law in their country. Of those who said Sharia should be the law of their country, 59% believed that it should only apply to Muslims while 34% believed it should apply to all people. 58% of these Iraqis said that stoning is the proper punishment for adultery and 42% that the death penalty is the proper punishment for leaving Islam.[5] These statistics are, of course, not to say that all people in Iraq have views harshly incompatible with Western values. Indeed, there are many courageous Iraqis who risked their lives helping the United States during the war and have yet to be duly compensated. But these numbers, along with many of the other ones from the survey, paint a stark picture of how different the values of many in this region are from the Western World.

In the context of the spate of sexual assaults apparently perpetrated by migrants and refugees throughout Europe, it is important to remember that the majority of the Middle East and North Africa view women very differently than the Western World. When allowed to enter Europe en masse without any vetting or plan to assimilate the new arrivals, Europe by effect brings some of the worst of many countries in the Middle East and North Africa to its own shores. The European experience is showing the folly of do-gooders who fail to think before afflicting their best intentions on the people who elected them.

Given our size and cultural diversity, we are far better equipped to assimilate foreigners than Europe is. Nevertheless, while 10,000 refugees would likely not lead to gangs of migrant rapists and sensitive urban areas stateside, as Senator Rubio said, it only takes one bad apple out of 10,000 for catastrophe. Whatever the good intentions of the supporters of this plan may be, the United States is ill-equipped to ensure that the chances are even as low as 1 out of 10,000 chance that a bad apple would make it through the refugee vetting process. Accordingly, given the situation in Syria and the flaws of our vetting system, I oppose the plan to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees.

We see many variations of the question of how people of faith can oppose admitting refugees. It is true that any person of good will must be sympathetic to the victims of atrocities being perpetrated by the variety of bad actors in the Syrian conflict and across the region. What we can do is help the countries of the region help themselves. But what we cannot do to help cannot compromise the safety of the United States, whether that is done by inadvertently admitting a terrorist or admitting young men who apparently need a lesson administered by Russian men to learn that sexual assault is unacceptable.

However, as I often do, I would like to point out that Donald Trump's proposal to ban Muslim immigration is absurd and counter-productive. The government has a duty to ensure that any person who is allowed into the United States is not a threat to the safety of its citizens or American values. If a person expresses sympathy to radical Islamist beliefs or extreme hostility to the United States and its values, he or she should not be admitted. At the same time, the normal immigration process, as flawed as it may be in many respects, does not present the same challenges as vetting 10,000 Syrian refugees. To be sure, there is a significant difference between admitting refugees or migrants from Syria and Iraq and admitting persons through the normal immigration process. For one, Muslim intending entrants are not monolithic. It would be ignorant to see Syria as the same as secular Muslim-majority countries such as Albania and Azerbaijan. The majority of Muslims who are citizens of western countries do not share the same theocratic preferences as the majority of the Iraqi citizenry. Provided that immigration enforcement is willing to ask the right questions and do its due diligence in the nonimmigrant and immigrant visa application processes, it has the tools to sift out malevolent persons seeking entry, whether they are Islamist or any other -ist that would threaten the safety of the American homeland.

I encourage people to carefully consider the issues, without deference to political correctness on one hand or frothing Trumpian populism on the other.

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

  1. J. Bojesson, “Refugees Go Clubbing In Russia, Harass Girls, Wake Up In Hospital The Next Morning,” Daily Caller, (Feb. 2, 2016), available at http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/04/refugees-go-clubbing-in-russia-harass-girls-wake-up-in-hospital-the-next-morning/ 
  2. http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2016/02/17/rush-transcript-senator-marco-rubiocnn-republican-presidential-town-hall-greenville-sc/ 
  3. T. Wyke, “Has ISIS got its own passport machine? US intelligence fear jihadists may be printing false Syrian identity documents to infiltrate the West,” Daily Mail, (Dec. 11, 2015), available at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3355673/Has-ISIS-got-passport-machine-intelligence-fear-jihadists-printing-false-Syrian-identity-documents-infiltrate-West.html 
  4. A. McCarthy, “France's No-Go Zones: Assimilation-Resistant Muslims Are the Real Refugee Problem,” NRO, (Nov. 18, 2015), http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427302/frances-fifth-column-muslims-resist-assimilation 
  5. Pew Research Center, “The World's Muslims: Religion, Politics And Society: Chapter 1: Beliefs About Sharia,” Pew, (Apr. 30, 2013), available at http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

Friday, February 19, 2016

Waivers for Fraud or Misrepresentation

immigration attorney nyc

Introduction:  Inadmissibility for Fraud or Misrepresentation of a Material Fact


Under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), an alien who is found to have procured or to have sought to procured a benefit under the INA through fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact is inadmissible for life.  However, under section 212(i) of the INA, there are limited waivers available from this very serious inadmissibility ground.  In this article, we will discuss in brief section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) inadmissibility and the limited waivers available in section 212(i).

Conditions for Inadmissibility for Fraud or Misrepresentation to Attach


The first condition for triggering section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) inadmissibility is for an alien to obtain a benefit or benefits under the INA by fraud or by willfully misrepresenting a material fact.  Accordingly, this inadmissibility ground only applies to non-U.S. citizens [INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i)(1)].  If inadmissibility is triggered due to misrepresentation, the misrepresentation must have been willful and of a material fact [INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i)(3)-(4)].  Thus, the misrepresentation must have been made in order to obtain a benefit under the INA.  If the misrepresentation was not in the context of obtaining benefits under the INA, it will not trigger section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) inadmissibility.


It is important to note that section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) does not cover every type of immigration fraud or misrepresentation.  

If an alien misrepresents him or herself as a U.S. citizen, he or she will instead be inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii).  While there is a limited circumstance-specific waiver available for section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) inadmissibility, the section 212(i) waiver only applies to inadmissibility for fraud or misrepresentation of a material fact under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i).

Furthermore, if an alien becomes subject to a final order for removal for document fraud in violation of section 274C of the INA, he or she will not be eligible for a section 212(i) waiver.  There is a very limited waiver for one of the six grounds of 274C inadmissibility in the context of a successful asylum or withholding of removal application.

Waiver for Inadmissibility for Fraud or Misrepresentation of a Material Fact


Recognizing the severity of 212(a)(6)(C)(i) inadmissibility (in particular in that it attaches for life), Congress created a limited waiver of inadmissibility in section 212(i) of the INA.  A section 212(i) waiver may be available, in the discretion of the U.S. Attorney General, when the following conditions are met:

  • When it is determined that the refusal of admission of the alien would result in extreme hardship to the citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse or parent of the alien; or
  • In the case of a Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) self-petitioner, when it is determined that the refusal of admission of the alien would result in extreme hardship to the alien or the alien’s U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse or child(ren).

First, we must note that the section 212(i) waiver is discretionary.  Even if the alien demonstrates that extreme hardship would occur to a qualifying relative, a section 212(i) waiver may be denied on other discretionary grounds (e.g., other mitigating factors or the nature of the severity of the underlying fraud or willful misrepresentation).

Also of note, in the majority of cases, demonstrating extreme hardship to the alien or to his or her citizen or permanent resident child(ren) are not grounds for a section 212(i) waiver.  However, factors relating to the alien’s children may support the assertion that his or her qualifying spouse or parent(s) would incur extreme hardship if the alien is refused admission.

If the alien is a VAWA self-petitioner, extreme hardship to the alien or his or her U.S. citizen or permanent resident children may be demonstrated to support eligibility for a 212(i) waiver.

“Extreme hardship” is a well-litigated aspect of immigration law.  Please see “see also” at the bottom of the article to find links to articles about demonstrating extreme hardship.

Who May Seek the Waiver?


Immigrant visa and adjustment of status applicants (family- or employment-based) and those seeking nonimmigrant K and V visas are eligible to apply for section 212(i) waivers.  Accordingly, an alien may seek a 212(i) waiver as a defense in immigration court proceedings in order to adjust or re-adjust status.  The section 212(i) waiver is only available to those applying for immigrant visas except in the case of applicants for K and V visas.  Therefore, it is impossible to obtain a 212(i) waiver in the context of applying for a nonimmigrant visa other than K or V.  However, there are limited circumstances in which nationals of Cuba may apply for a 212(i) waiver abroad outside of the context of an immigrant visa application of there are “exceptional and compelling circumstances that require the immediate filing.”

The applicant for a K visa may use extreme hardship to his or her U.S. citizen fiancée to support eligibility for a waiver.  However, if a section 212(i) waiver is granted in the K visa context, the waiver will be conditional until the K visa holder marries his or her nonimmigrant spouse.  If the marriage does not occur, the section 212(i) waiver will be void and the alien will again be inadmissible for fraud or misrepresentation of a material fact [8 C.F.R. 212(a)(4)(ii)-(iii)].

If a 212(i) waiver is obtained for a conditional permanent resident, the waiver will only be valid indefinitely until the conditions are removed from permanent residency [8 C.F.R. 212(a)(4)(iv)].  If status is terminated before the conditions are removed, the 212(i) waiver will become invalid.

Other Cases


Asylees and refugees seeking adjustment of status must seek waivers for fraud or willful misrepresentation under section 209 rather than section 212(i).  Legalization applicants for adjustment of status must apply for waivers under section 245A of the INA.  Special agricultural workers (SAW) applicants must apply under section 210.  The standard for a waiver in these categories is if the waiver would serve humanitarian purposes, promote family unity, or otherwise be in the public interest.

Section 212(d)(3) of the INA allows for the admission of aliens as nonimmigrants on a temporary basis who are inadmissible for fraud or misrepresentation of a material fact.  Conditions may be placed on such an alien’s admission.  In order to be admitted as a nonimmigrant, the alien must apply for a waiver through a U.S. consulate.  The waiver request will be adjudicated by Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

However, an applicant for a T or U visa must file a Form I-192 to apply for a waiver of inadmissibility.  The application is filed directly with USCIS.  USCIS may grant the waiver if it determines that granting such a waiver would be in the public interest.

Appealing the Denial of a Waiver


If a 212(i) waiver request is denied by a USCIS office, an appeal may be filed with the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO).  In order to appeal in this case, the applicant must file a Form I-290B with the USCIS office that issued the unfavorable decision.

If a 212(i) waiver is denied by an Immigration Judge, the applicant may appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).

Conclusion


It is important that any non-citizen in the United States is aware of section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) inadmissibility.  It is a particularly severe inadmissibility ground because it attaches for life.  While section 212(i) waivers are available for immigrant visa and adjustment of status applicants, demonstrating “extreme hardship” to a qualifying relative is a difficult task.  An alien who is charged with inadmissibility for fraud or misrepresentation of a material fact should consult with an experienced immigration attorney for assistance in determining if any remedies are available given the facts of the specific case.

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

Resources and Materials

Kurzban, Ira J. Kurzban's Immigration Law Sourcebook: A Comprehensive Outline and Reference Tool. 14th ed. Washington D.C.: AILA Publications, 2014. 171-73, Print. Treatises & Primers.

See Also:

Comprehensive Article on Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) Inadmissibility:


Articles on Extreme Hardship in Immigration Law:


Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

Wednesday, February 17, 2016

U Visa Law Enforcement Certification

immigration attorney nyc

Introduction:  U Visa Law Enforcement Certification


The U nonimmigrant visa category is for certain victims of particularly serious crimes who cooperate with law enforcement in the investigation or prosecution of the criminal activity.  To learn about U nonimmigrant visas, please see these full articles about applying for U status and the benefits of U status.

In order to be eligible for a U visa, the applicant must obtain what is called “law enforcement certification” on the Form I-918, Supplement B.  In this article, we will use the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (USCIS’) Law Enforcement Certification Guide (“LEC Guide”)[see guide] to review the requirements for law enforcement certification [PDF version].

What is Law Enforcement Certification?


Under section 214(p)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), a U visa petition must include a law enforcement certification signed by the law enforcement agency investigating or prosecuting the crime.  Under 8 C.F.R. 214.14(c)(2)(i), the law enforcement certification must be submitted within 6 months of the filing of the Form I-918 petition for U status.

The LEC Guide provides the following non-exhaustive list of persons and entities that may sign a law enforcement certification:

  • Federal, State, and Local law enforcement agencies;
  • Federal, State, and Local prosecutors' offices;
  • Federal, State, and Local Judges;
  • Federal, State, and Local Family Protective Services;
  • Equal Employment Opportunity Commission;
  • Federal and State Departments of Labor; and
  • Other investigative agencies.

In addition to being required by statute, the law enforcement certification attests to USCIS the following (per the LEC Guide):

  • The petitioner was a victim of a qualifying crime;
  • The petitioner has specific knowledge and details of the crime; and
  • The petitioner has been, is being, or is likely to be helpful to law enforcement in the detection, investigation, or prosecution of the qualifying crime.

In short, the law enforcement certification will serve as evidence that the U visa applicant was the victim of a qualifying particularly serious crime for purpose of U visa eligibility and that he or she is fulfilling her statutory and regulatory requirements to assist law enforcement in the investigation and/or prosecution of the criminal activity.

It is important to remember that under 8 C.F.R. 214.14(a)(14)(iii), a person who was culpable in the crime in which he or she is a victim is ineligible for a U visa.

The Place of Law Enforcement Certification in the U Visa Petitioning Process


Law enforcement certification is necessary, but not sufficient, for U visa eligibility.  Ultimately, the decision on whether to grant a U visa is in the discretion of USCIS.  USCIS may decide to deny a U visa petition even if the applicant has obtained the requisite law enforcement certification.

However, the decision on whether to sign a law enforcement certification is solely in the discretion of the authority that is investigating or prosecuting the criminal activity in question.  Neither a crime victim nor USCIS may compel the law enforcement authority to sign a law enforcement certification.  If the law enforcement authority refuses to sign law enforcement certification, the U visa applicant will be ineligible for a U visa.

Requirements for Law Enforcement Certification


It is important to remember the purpose of the U visa category.  The U visa exists not only to provide immigration relief to victims of particularly serious crimes, but also as a powerful inducement to such victims to assist authorities in in the investigation and possible prosecution of the criminal activity.  Both components are necessary in order for a crime victim to be eligible for a U visa.  Accordingly, it is imperative that the crime victim comply with all reasonable requests for assistance from law enforcement.

However, there are limited situations in which the crime victim may have someone else provide information on his or her behalf.  These situations arise when the crime victim is under the age of 16, incompetent, or incapacitated at the time of his or her victimization.  In this situation, a parent, guardian, or “next friend” may provide information on the crime victim’s behalf (a “next friend cannot be a party to a legal proceeding involving the crime victim and does not qualify for immigration benefits by acting as a “next friend”).  However, it is important to remember that the parent, guardian, or next friend must possess information that will be of use to law enforcement.

In limited cases, the “indirect victim” of a particularly serious crime may be eligible for a U visa.  Under 8 C.F.R. 214.14(a)(14), the alien spouse or child(ren) under 21 years of age of the direct victim may qualify as indirect victims if the direct victim is deceased due to murder or manslaughter or is incompetent or incapacitated and thus unable to assist in the investigation of the criminal activity.  If the direct victim is under the age of 21, his or her parents or unmarried sibling(s) under the age of 18 may qualify as indirect victims.  The LEC Guide explains that the immigration status of the direct victim in such a case is not relevant.  The LEC Guide explains that in order for the parent of a direct victim under the age of 21 to qualify as an indirect victim for U visa eligibility, he or she will be required to possess information about the crime and be helpful to law enforcement.

Determining Helpfulness


The LEC Guide explains that in order to be eligible for a U visa, the applicant must comply with “all reasonable requests for assistance” by law enforcement.  Furthermore, this obligation does not end once law enforcement certification has been signed.  If the U visa applicant subsequently refuses to comply with a reasonable request for assistance, the law enforcement agency has the discretion to withdraw or disavow its law enforcement certification.  Furthermore, in order to adjust from U visa status to permanent resident status, the U visa holder must be found to have complied with all reasonable requests for assistance.

However, there is no specific requirement for “helpfulness” aside from having information that is useful to law enforcement authorities and complying with all reasonable requests for assistance.  In fact, law enforcement certification may be granted to an alien who was helpful to law enforcement in a case that was subsequently closed.

Law enforcement certification may also be granted when prosecution is unlikely.  Accordingly, there is no particular requirement that an alien testify against the perpetrator at trial.  However, if the crime victim is asked to testify, he or she may not unreasonably refuse to do so.

Law enforcement certification may be granted even if a different crime is prosecuted than the crime that the U visa applicant was a victim of.  The LEC Guide uses the example of a case where police determine in the course of a drug trafficking investigation that the drug trafficker’s alien wife is a victim of domestic violence (which is a qualifying crime for U visa purposes).  The wife in such a case would be eligible for law enforcement certification as the victim of domestic violence even if the domestic violence is not prosecuted and she is assisting law enforcement instead with the drug trafficking investigation.

Conclusion:  Law Enforcement Certification


The LEC Guide is useful for understanding how the law enforcement certification process works.  The victim of a particularly serious crime that is covered in the U visa rules should consult with an experienced immigration attorney for guidance.  During the U visa application process, it is important for the crime victim to be cooperative with law enforcement.  This is because the U visa in and of itself is in large part a reward for cooperating with law enforcement in the investigation of serious criminal activity.  Furthermore, it is important to remember that the obligation to assist law enforcement does not end when law enforcement certification is signed.  Rather, the alien’s continued cooperation with law enforcement is necessary in order for him or her to ultimately be eligible for adjustment to permanent resident status.

See Full Article:


Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

Please read our comprehensive articles to learn more:
Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

Tuesday, February 16, 2016

The Legacy of a Great Jurist: Antonin Scalia (1936-2016)


immigration attorney nycOn February 13, 2016, America lost one of the greatest legal minds in its history in Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. The national discourse quickly shifted to what will surely be the contentious process of selecting Justice Scalia's replacement. We will have plenty of time to discuss the effects of Justice Scalia's death and the importance of ensuring that he is replaced by a brilliant jurist who will carry on his legacy. For today, I would like to instead focus on the career of a great man and a great American who left us too soon.

JUSTICE SCALIA'S BIOGRAPHY


Justice Scalia was born in Trenton, New Jersey, on March 11, 1936. He obtained his law degree from Harvard Law in 1960. After working as a law professor, Scalia served in various capacities in the Nixon and Ford administrations. During the Carter administration, Scalia returned to academia. Of note to those interested in immigration law, Scalia served as the chairman of the American Bar Association's Section of Administrative Law from 1981-82. In 1982, Scalia was nominated by President Ronald Reagan, and subsequently confirmed by the Senate, to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In 1986, President Reagan nominated then-Judge Scalia to the United States Supreme Court to fill a vacancy created by the elevation of Justice William Rehnquist to Chief Justice. Scalia was confirmed by the Senate by a vote of 97-0 and took his seat on the Supreme Court on September 26, 1986.[1] Of note at the time, Justice Scalia was the first Italian-American Justice to serve on the Supreme Court (Justice Samuel Alito is now the second).

JUSTICE SCALIA'S IMPACT ON READING LAW


Whether one agrees or disagrees with Justice Scalia's approach to reading law, there is no questioning that he was a legal thinker of immense consequence. There are three terms often associated with Justice Scalia's legal philosophy:
  • Originalism
  • Textualism
  • Strict Constructionism

In a speech delivered at the Catholic University of America on October 16, 1996, Justice Scalia described his way of reading the Constitution thusly [link]:

I belong to a school, a small but hardy school, called “textualists” or originalists.” … The Theory of originalism treats a constitution like a statute, and gives it the meaning that its words were understood to bear at the time they were promulgated. You will sometimes hear it described as the theory of original intent. You will never hear me refer to original intent, because as I say I am first of all a textualist, and secondly an originalist. If you are a textualist, you don't care about the intent, and I don't care if the framers of the Constitution had some secret meaning in mind when they adopted its words. I take the words as they were promulgated to the people of the United States, and what is the fairly understood meaning of those words.[2]

In Reading Law, a book that Justice Scalia coauthored with legal lexographer Bryan Garner, the two authors argued for textualism as follows:

Textualism will not relieve judges of all doubts and misgivings about their interpretations. Judging is inherently difficult, and language notoriously slippery. But textualism will provide greater certainty in the law, and hence greater predictability and respect for the rule of law. A system of democratically adopted laws cannot endure-it makes no sense-without the belief that words convey discernable meanings and without the commitment of legal arbiters to abide by those meanings.[3]

Underlying Justice Scalia's philosophy of reading law is “the belief that words convey discernable meanings.” Justice Scalia sought to read the constitution and statutes fairly, with respect to the fairly understood meanings that the words had at the time they were adopted. In a large sense, this is a dramatic oversimplification of Justice Scalia's legal philosophy. Justice Scalia and Garner spent over 500 pages in Reading Law listing a multitude of canons for interpreting judicial texts. However, for the purpose of a blog post, it is a suitable summary of Justice Scalia's ideas.

You will often see the term “strict constructionism” applied to Justice Scalia. However, Justice Scalia disputed any notion that he was a strict constructionist. For example, the following is an excerpt from his book “A Matter of Interpretation”:

Textualism should not be confused with so-called strict constructionism, which is a degraded form of textualism that brings the whole philosophy into disrepute. I am not a strict constructionist, and no one ought to be-though better that, I suppose, than a nontextualist. A text should not be strictly, and it should not be construed leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means.[4]

This is important to remember when reading about Justice Scalia. While many apply their own terms to his legal philosophy, Justice Scalia was in fact quite clear on what he saw as the proper way to read legal texts. Justice Scalia believed that words ought to be read as having the fairly understood meaning they had at the time the text was drafted. However, he believed that words and phrases should be read reasonably and in context. To read a text strictly would be to ignore the legal canons of interpreting texts, to read a text leniently would be to ignore the definite discernable meanings of the words in the text.

An interesting offshoot of Justice Scalia's philosophy of reading texts was his opposition to relying on what is called “legislative intent.” The idea behind legislative intent is that a court will use legislative history in order to determine the intent if the legislature in passing the statute. Justice Scalia categorically opposed the judiciary's reliance on legislative history. In “Reading Law,” Justice Scalia wrote:

My view that the objective indication of the words, rather than the intent of the legislature, is what constitutes the law leads me, of course, to the conclusion that the legislative history should not be used as an authoritative indication of a statute's meaning.[5]

In his speech at the Catholic University of America, Justice Scalia said:

…I don't use legislative history. The words are the law. I think that's what is meant by a government of laws, not of men. We are not bound by the intent of our legislators, but by the laws which they enacted, which are set forth in words, of course.[6]

Justice Scalia's opposition to the use of legislative history stems from two factors. First, Justice Scalia believed that the way to determine what a law means is to study the actual meaning of the words used in the text of the law. Ultimately, the thing that held meaning for Justice Scalia was the words that composed a law, not the intent of the legislators in drafting the law. In addition, Justice Scalia noted that legislative bodies are made up of many distinct members, and that it would be accordingly difficult to ascribe a single “legislative intent” to a statute.[7]

Nevertheless, Justice Scalia was often willing to not overturn decisions he disagreed with because of the concept of stare decisis, “to stand by things decided.” In A Matter of Interpretation, Justice Scalia responded to a critique from law professor Lawrence Tribe that Justice Scalia's acceptance of stare decisis stood at tension with his originalist legal philosophy:

The whole function of [stare decisis] us say that what is false under proper analysis must nevertheless be held to be true, all in the interest of stability. It is a compromise of all of our philosophies of interpretation, his no less than mine.[8]

Justice Scalia continued:

As I have explained, stare decisis is not a part of my originalist philosophy; it is a pragmatic exception to it.[9]

Whether Justice Scalia sought to overturn a line of precedent depended on the severity of the error in the previous decisions and whether there was a simpler way to reach a decision in the instant case that was consistent with the judicial canons. However, it is interesting to note that Justice Scalia would often compromise in letting stand past decisions he considered erroneous in the interest of stare decisis.

JUSTICE SCALIA'S DISSENTS


In addition to his great contributions to legal theory and textual interpretation, Justice Scalia was well known for his writing style. His opinions were well-reasoned, whether one agreed or not. However, he was perhaps known in the public for his witty, and often acerbic, dissents. I am loath to pick just one example, but for this post I will cite Justice Scalia's dissent in the PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 52 U.S. 661 (2001). In short, the question concerned a professional golfer with a muscular condition who sought to use a golf cart during the third round of the PGA Tour's qualifying tournament. The PGA Tour argued that walking was an essential part of golf. By a 7-2 majority, the Supreme Court found that the PGA Tour failed to adhere to the Americans with Disabilities Act in denying the golfer the use of a cart. Justice Scalia authored a dissent that was joined only by Justice Clarence Thomas. The following is an excerpt from the dissent:

If one assumes, however, that the PGA TOUR has some legal obligation to play classic, Platonic golf-and if one assumes the correctness of all the other wrong turns the Court has made to get to this point-then we Justices must confront what is indeed an awesome responsibility. It has been rendered the solemn duty of the Supreme Court of the United States, laid upon it by Congress in pursuance of the Federal Government's power “[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,” U.S. Const., Art I, §8, cl. 3, to decide What Is Golf. I am sure the Framers of the Constitution, aware of the 1457 edict of King James II of Scotland prohibiting golf because it interfered with the practice of archery, fully expected that sooner or later the paths of golf and government, the law and the links, would once again cross, and that the judges of this august Court would some day have to argue with that age-old jurisprudential question, for which their years of study in the law have so well prepared them: Is someone riding around a golf course from shot to shot really a golfer? The answer, we learn, is yes. The Court ultimately concludes, and it will henceforth be the Law of the land, that walking is not a “fundamental” aspect of golf.

To be sure, Justice Scalia's flamboyant dissents rubbed some-most often those who disagreed with his perspective-the wrong way. But there is no question that a dissent with a paragraph that touches on the Platonic ideal of golf, a constitutional citation, and an edict of King James II will make for entertaining reading. Justice Scalia's style in his dissents drew attention to his views, and helped make what would otherwise be arcane legal issues interesting to laymen, law students, and lawyers alike. One may think reading this that Justice Scalia the process of writing opinions. However, this was not the case according to Justice Scalia in an interview given to C-SPAN that was transcribed in “The Supreme Court: A C-SPAN Book Featuring the Justices in their Own Words”:

I do not enjoy writing. I enjoy having written. I find writing a very difficult process. I sweat over it. I write. I rewrite, I rewrite again.[10]

In the same interview, Justice Scalia was asked if he preferred writing dissents. Although Justice Scalia preferred to write majority opinions, because commanding a majority is preferable to dissenting, Justice Scalia said the following about writing dissents:

[D]issents are more fun to write, I've got to say that, because when you have the dissent, it's yours. You say what you want, and if somebody doesn't want to join it, who cares?[11]

Of course, Justice Scalia's dissents were written for more than our amusement. While writing a dissent means that your views did not prevail in the instant case, the dissent is an opportunity to express the result that you would have liked to have seen. Justice Scalia certainly hoped that the opinions expressed in his dissents may be the opinions in the majority opinion in a subsequent case, but he wrote his dissents for a larger audience. Justice Scalia surely recognized that writing in an engaging and entertaining manner would make his opinions more accessible to the next generation of lawyers and judges and to the public at large. To this effect, Justice Scalia often succeeded even when he found himself in dissent by crafting colorful dissents that will be read for years to come.

JUSTICE SCALIA'S LEGACY


It is too soon to say what the ultimate legacy of Justice Scalia's work on the Supreme Court will be. However, there can be no doubt that Justice Scalia was a titan of the legal profession, and that his work on the Supreme Court for nearly thirty years distinctly impacted American law. While he is often known most for his dissents, Justice Scalia wrote many consequential opinions. For example, Justice Scalia authored the landmark decision in the District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), which held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes.

Although not all of his views have received widespread favor on the Court-for example Justice Clarence Thomas is the only other member of the Supreme Court who shared Justice Scalia's disdain for the use of legislative history-Justice Scalia forced litigators to make textualist and originalist arguments before the Supreme Court that would not have been necessary without a Justice Scalia to persuade. Furthermore, his brilliantly articulated and forceful views helped inspire a renaissance in conservative legal philosophy that continues to this day.

In addition to remembering his legacy in the law, let us also remember that he leaves behind a wife of 55 years, 9 children, 28 grandchildren, and many friends. Justice Scalia was by all accounts a good man, and he was undoubtedly a great American who rendered a tremendous service to his country.

Although they approached the law very differently, Justice Scalia's closest friend on the Court was Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Therefore, I cannot think of a better way to conclude this post that with an excerpt of Justice Ginsburg's touching statement remembering her friend and colleague:

From our years together at the D.C. Circuit, we were best buddies. We disagreed now and then, but when I wrote for the Court and received a Scalia dissent, the opinion ultimately released was notably better than my initial calculation.[12]

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

  1. See “Biographies of Current Justices of the Supreme Court”: available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx [link]
  2. A. Scalia, “A Theory of Constititution Interpretation,” (Oct. 18, 1996), available at http://web.archive.org/web/19970108070805/http://www.courttv.com/library/rights/scalia.html [link]
  3. A. Scalia and B. Garner, “Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts,” (Thompson/West. 2012), XXIX
  4. A. Scalia, “A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law,” (Princeton University Press. 1997), 23
  5. Id. 29-30
  6. A Theory of Constitution Interpretation
  7. A Matter of Interpretation. 32-37
  8. Id. 139
  9. Id. 140
  10. Ed. B. Lamb, S. Swain, and M. Farkas, “The Supreme Court: A C-SPAN Book Featuring the Justices in Their Own Words,” (PublicAffairs. 2010) 64
  11. Id. 65
  12. R. Savransky, “Ginsburg on Scalia: 'We were best buddies'” The Hill, (Feb. 14, 2016), available at http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/269458-ginsburg-on-scalia-we-were-best-buddies [link]

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

Monday, February 15, 2016

Understanding Donald Trump Supporters


immigration attorney nycI recently came across a very interesting question on Quora:

What if on the first year of Trump presidency, he doesn't deliver as he promised?” [see question]

I provided a long and detailed answer on Quora from the Republican perspective, but I would like to expand on it here since this is a very interesting question.

In the National Review's “Against Trump” issue, Thomas Sowell wrote:

In a country with more than 300 million people, it is remarkable how obsessed the media have become with just one — Donald Trump. What is even more remarkable is that, after seven years of repeated disasters, both domestically and internationally, under a glib egomaniac in the White House, so many potential voters are turning to another glib egomaniac to be his successor.[1]

I am certainly just as disturbed as Sowell that a sizable number of my fellow “Republicans” seem to be throwing their lots in with the “glib egomaniac” reality television star. It is even more remarkable that many of these were the same people who have spent years criticizing the many Americans who were swept up by the simple and empty phrases of the 2008 and 2012 Obama campaigns.

However, with respect to the question on Quora, it is important to note that Trump's support is still limited. Even in his best polls, he does not command anywhere close to a majority of the Republican electorate. Furthermore, even his large victory in New Hampshire only netted him about 35% of the Republican voters there. While it is clear that if Trump were to become President — which would have to occur without my help — he would have gained the votes of a wider swath of voters than those who currently support him in the Republican primaries, it is also important to not overstate the reach of the media-fueled Trump-mania. Trump is still broadly unpopular, even with Republicans, and all of us who seek what is best for the United States can only hope that his disgusting performance in the Republican debate in South Carolina on February 13 will help his supporters see the error in their ways.

It is fair to assume that the people who would have the highest expectations for a Trump presidency would be his core supporters, not those who would cast a ballot for him as the least of two or three evils while holding their noses. This led me to address an interesting question: why do these people support someone as clearly unqualified and unfit for the presidency as Donald Trump?

First, Trump offers the public empty promises with immense bombast. It is a sad fact that many voters are not looking for detailed and sober answers to the complicated issues facing our country. Rather, the people who are attracted to Trump are looking for broad promises that everything is simple and can be fixed by a “winner.” Many of Trump's supporters, just like many of President Obama's supporters in 2008 and 2012 and Bernie Sanders' supporters this year, are ready to accept the candidate who offers the broadest and cheapest promises wrapped in the most simplistic and populist agenda.

Trump is hardly a new phenomenon. Consider the spread of communism in the 20th century. Communist politicians sought to explain the world in very simple terms to the majority of people, terms which always set the problems at the feet of others and promised simple and sweeping solutions. It should have been immediately evident to most observers — communist country globetrotter Bernie Sanders not among them — that communism was a failure. Yet, it took seventy years of desolation in the Soviet Union and sixty-million dead for many people to understand the magnitude of communism's failure. What is more, even after the catastrophe of the Soviet Union and other communist failed states, we have countries like Venezuela where large numbers of people elect people who promise easy solutions and free things only to end up ruining their countries.

To be sure, the American public is savvier and better educated than countries where communism or communist ideas took hold. Yet, many voters are not beyond being bought by the same tricks used by third-rate leftist governments in places such as Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and others. Many who were sold by Twitter-ready slogans such as “Yes we can!” in 2008 have seen how the lofty promises and rhetoric of a campaign can be tempered by the realities of actually being the president of the United States. Even those who for some reason swear by the ostensible accomplishments of the Obama administration would have to concede that it has fallen well short of his campaign rhetoric in 2008.

In 2008, voters believed a man who had spent most of his adult life as a community organizer leading chants of “Yes we can!” (let us not forget, a phrase that was popularized in the popular children's show, Bob the Builder), and this year many of the people who scorned those voters in 2008 now support a reality television star who promises to make Mexico build a wall and walks around in a baseball cap that says “Make America Great Again!” Underlying Trump's empty slogan is the promise that he is rich and a winner, and therefore he will make America, and you, rich and a winner. How? To answer would be to reveal trade secrets. Just trust him because he is rich and a winner (he wants you to do this rather than to assess the substance of his positions and public statements).

Certainly, I think that Trump's core supporters would be very disappointed when they realize that Trump did not actually have any concrete ideas of how to make America great again, aside from trying to build a wall and starting a trade war with China. I can imagine that it would be rather disheartening to learn that your strongman was actually full of empty rhetoric rather than solutions. We can only hope that Trump's core supporters come to understand that a positive step toward making America great again is to vote for one of the four eminently qualified gentleman (Rubio, Bush, Cruz, Kasich) running against him (Iowa set an example) for the nomination before they have to learn that Trump is full of it the hard way.

Perhaps the Democratic primary provides a blueprint for how disillusioned Trump supporters would react to a failed Trump administration. As the media explains to us that Trump is unstoppable after obtaining 35% of the vote in New Hampshire, an actual self-described socialist with a long history of dalliances with the communist movement won 60% of the Democratic vote in New Hampshire. Like Trump, Bernie Sanders explains to voters that every problem is the responsibility of someone else, and that he will be able to radically redistribute wealth and create massive new “free” programs that will be in fact paid for in large part by his supporters' tax money. As I see it, the major difference between Trump and Sanders is that Sanders seems to, for better or worse, actually believe what he is saying. While Sanders has plenty of supporters who were too young to vote in 2008, it is possible that many Democrats decided after the disappointments of the Obama administration and its failure to “fundamentally transform America,” what is needed is someone with no record of accomplishment who promises to fundamentally transform America more dramatically than Obama did. To these voters, Hillary Clinton's promises of competence and building off the “successes” of the Obama administration are unappealing (they are to me too, but likely for different reasons). It goes to show that the response to disillusionment is not necessarily sobriety, but rather the acceptance of even more faddish movements in the future.

For the sake of this great country, I hope that we never have to find out how Trump or Sanders supporters would react to the failure of a Trump or Sanders administration. The Obama experience and history from around the world goes to show that in addition to the severe damage Trump or Sanders could do to the country, it is quite possible their supporters would not properly evaluate the mistake they made in supporting them in the first place.

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

  1. “Conservatives Against Trump,” NRO (Jan 21, 2016) http://c7.nrostatic.com/article/430126/donald-trump-conservatives-oppose-nomination

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

Friday, February 12, 2016

Early FY 2016 Statistics for Unaccompanied Alien Children Apprehended at the Border


immigration attorney nycThe Customs and Border Protection (CBP) released statistics comparing the number of unaccompanied alien children crossing the southwest border in early FY 2016 to the same period in FY 2015 [see CBP article]. In this article, we examine the news in the article and reproduce its interesting charts for your convenience.

NEWS AND NOTES FROM THE CBP


The CBP highlights actions that the broader Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) are taking to manage the spike in unaccompanied minors crossing the southwest border in FY 2016. The article notes that DHS and CBP are working together to address the needs of the unaccompanied children “without disrupting the vital national security of the Border Patrol.”

The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) at the HHS is working to increase its temporary capacity to house unaccompanied children. In November, the ORR increased its capacity from 7,900 to 8,400 beds, and it is preparing additional temporary bed space to respond to future contingencies.

The CBP states that it is working to address the underlying causes of and deter future increases in unauthorized migration. However, the CBP is balancing these border security goals with ensuring that those with legitimate humanitarian claims in the United States are permitted to seek immigration protection.

CHARTS


The following charts are courtesy of the CBP [see article].

Before looking at the charts particular to the southwest border, let us look at the CBP's chart for unaccompanied alien children encountered by fiscal year for the fiscal years 2009-2016:

UNACCOMPANIED ALIEN CHILDREN ENCOUNTERED BY FISCAL YEAR


The overall number [link] of unaccompanied alien children encountered at the border reached its height in FY 2014. That number, while still relatively high, declined in FY 201. Since FY 2013, the number of unaccompanied alien children from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras dramatically increased from the previous years on the chart. Additionally, FY 2013 also saw the highest number of unaccompanied alien children from Mexico. However, the number of unaccompanied children encountered from Mexico decreased in FY 2014 and hit is lowest point on the chart in FY 2016.

The chart only contains partial statistics for FY 2016. As we will see in the subsequent charts, the number of unaccompanied alien children is thus far outpacing FY 2015 in every sector over the same time period. Of note, the number of unaccompanied alien children from El Salvador and Guatemala has been very high thus far in FY 2016. Honduras has been quite high as well. However, the number of unaccompanied alien children from Mexico appears to be in line with the other years on the chart.

For the foregoing charts, please note that FY 2016 only covers the period from October 1, 2015 to January 31, 2016. FY 2015 covers the same time period for FY 2015.

SOUTHWEST BORDER UNACCOMPANIED ALIEN CHILDREN (0-17 YR OLD) APPREHENSIONS


Thus far in FY 2016 [link], CBP has apprehended more unaccompanied alien children in every sector than it did in the corresponding time period for FY 2016. The increases range from modest to extreme (take note of the nearly 700% increase in the Yuma Sector).

SOUTHWEST BORDER FAMILY UNIT APPREHENSIONS


Furthermore, FY 2016 [link] has also seen a dramatic rise in the number of family unit apprehensions from the same time period in FY 2015. In fact, the 171% increase in family unit apprehensions far outpaces the 102% increase in apprehensions of unaccompanied alien children. It remains to be seen whether these trends throughout the rest of FY 2016.

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

Thursday, February 11, 2016

Presidential Primary Updates: A Dark Day in New Hampshire


immigration attorney nycPRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY UPDATES: THE NEW HAMPSHIRE PRIMARIES


Where the results of the Iowa Caucuses were promising, the results of the New Hampshire Primaries were significantly darker. Not only did Trump win, but the best candidate in the race suspended his campaign in the aftermath. In this post, I will review the results of the New Hampshire primaries and look forward to the voting in South Carolina and Nevada for the Republicans and the Democrats.

Please read my recap of Iowa as well [see blog].

In full disclosure, I am a Republican.

REPUBLICAN NEW HAMPSHIRE PRIMARY


  1. Donald Trump (35.3%) [projected 10 delegates]
  2. John Kasich (15.8%) [projected 4 delegates]
  3. Ted Cruz (11.7%) [projected 3 delegates]
  4. Jeb Bush (11.0%) [projected 3 delegates]
  5. Marco Rubio (10.6%) [projected 3 delegates]
  6. Chris Christie (7.4%)
  7. Carly Fiorina (4.1%)
  8. Ben Carson (2.3%)

A DARK DAY: TRUMP WINS BIG


Where Trump received a setback in Iowa at the hands of Ted Cruz, he not only won a convincing victory in New Hampshire, but also did slightly better than most of the polls indicated. While Trump's win was expected, the manner in which he won was highly discouraging to those of us who hold out hope that the Republican voters will ultimately refrain from further inflicting Donald Trump on the party and the country [see blog: Trump and Amnesty]. If there is any silver lining, it is that there still seems to be a solid ceiling on Trump's support. However, time will tell if the Republicans will be able to coalesce around one of the qualified candidates instead of the ranting celebrity.

No candidate should take too much glee from the results of New Hampshire given Trump's substantial victory. John Kasich did well enough to continue on after staking his campaign on New Hampshire, and he now deserves our strong consideration as an electable conservative. Ted Cruz is relatively happy with his third place finish in New Hampshire given his low investment in the state and its inhospitable demographics. However, the third place can be owed more to a fracturing of the anti-Trump vote than a particularly surprising performance by Cruz. Nevertheless, Cruz now shifts to South Carolina where he expects to challenge Trump on more favorable ground. Jeb Bush did well enough to continue to South Carolina, but only securing 11% of the vote after expending massive resources on New Hampshire cannot be taken by itself as a great victory. New Hampshire proved to be a disaster for Marco Rubio, who lost all of the momentum and positive coverage he carried from Iowa with an awful debate performance stemming from his exchanges with Chris Christie and ultimately a weak fifth place showing. Instead of building on his strong showing in Iowa, Rubio was lucky to earn any delegates at all in New Hampshire by narrowly squeaking over 10%. There will be heavy pressure on Bush and Rubio to perform strongly in South Carolina and Nevada in order to show voters and donors that their campaigns are viable going into the big day of voting on March 1.

CHRIS CHRISTIE AND CARLY FIORINA WITHDRAW


To add insult to injury, the best candidate in the Republican field was forced to withdraw from the race after his poor showing in New Hampshire. I hoped that the voters of New Hampshire would give Christie the boost he needed to continue his campaign, but ultimately his spectacular showing in the New Hampshire debate seems to have hurt Rubio far more than it helped him. As a resident of New Jersey, I know what Christie has done in advancing strong conservative policies in a very liberal state, and I am confident he would have been able to do the same for the country. Unfortunately, over a third of the voters in New Hampshire think that Donald Trump should be the leader of the free world and ignored the candidate who was actually “telling it like it is.” I am disappointed that Christie will not be given a full hearing from the voters, but I suppose I can take solace in that the end of his Presidential campaign ensures that he will not be leaving office in New Jersey a year early.

Additionally, Carly Fiorna also suspended her campaign after the voting. While I found her to be an interesting candidate, she was never able to capitalize off the momentum she gained from a couple of solid debate performances early in the cycle. We can only hope that the withdrawals of Christie and Fiorina will help consolidate the vote of Republicans who do not see in Donald Trump a man who should be the face of the United States.

DEMOCRATIC NEW HAMPSHIRE PRIMARY


  1. Bernie Sanders (60.4%) [15 delegates]
  2. Hillary Clinton (38.0%) [9 delegates]

While the media will surely focus on the crazy Republicans who delivered Trump to victory in New Hampshire, I would like to note that over 60% of the voters in the Democratic New Hampshire Primary decided that the best option for the Presidency is a self-described “Democratic Socialist” with a track record of visiting communist dictatorships in the 1980s. While I do not envy the choices of the Democrats, Bernie Sanders winning anything is notable to me — and not in a good way.

That being said, as I noted in my analysis of the Iowa Caucuses, the first two states were particularly favorable to Sanders. Like Trump, he slightly out-performed most of his polls, but it is important to remember that he was the prohibitive favorite in New Hampshire. While Clinton has mounting problems with her various scandals and seems chronically incapable of winning the votes of any Democrats under the age of 30, limited polling data indicate that she holds commanding leads in both South Carolina and Nevada. Sanders did what he needed to do in New Hampshire, but he will have to show he can expand his appeal in states that appear to be more favorable to Clinton in order to be a real threat for the nomination.

LOOKING AHEAD


The Republicans and Democrats will both move to South Carolina and Nevada in the last week of February. On March 1, a slate of states will hold their votes on “Super Tuesday.” The results of South Carolina, Nevada, and the Super Tuesday states will go a long way toward answering questions in both primaries. I will post a new blog after the Republicans vote in South Carolina and Nevada about my thoughts on the outcomes and looking ahead to the Super Tuesday states.

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

Wednesday, February 10, 2016

H2B Cap Count Through February 1, 2016


immigration attorney nycThe H2B non-agricultural temporary worker program has a statutory cap under section 214(g)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 66,000 H2B visas per fiscal year. 33,000 H2B visa numbers will be allocated to H2B workers who begin work in the first half of the fiscal year (Oct. 1 — Mar. 31) and the other 33,000 will be allocated to workers who begin work in the second half of the fiscal year. If there are any unused H2B visa numbers from the first half of the fiscal year, they may be added to the 33,000 allocated for the second half of the fiscal year. However, if there are unused H2B visa numbers at the end of the fiscal year, they cannot be carried over into the next fiscal year. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has updated the number of H2B visa numbers allocated and the number of H2B petitions pending through February 1, 2016 [see USCIS's update].

Certain persons who are eligible for H2B visas are not counted against the H2B cap. Workers in the United States on H2B status who do the following will not be counted against the cap:

  • Obtain an extension of stay;
  • Change employers; or
  • Change terms and conditions of their employment.

Furthermore, under section 214(g)(2) of the INA, H4 derivative spouses and children of H2B workers will not be counted against the H2B cap.

The following categories of H2B workers are exempt from the H2B cap:

  • Fish roe processors, fish roe technicians and/or supervisors of fish roe processing;
  • Workers performing labor or services in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and/or Guam from Nov. 28, 2009 until Dec. 31, 2015 [see AFM 31.5(j)(3)]; or
  • For FY 2016 only, workers identified as “returning workers” who were previously counted against the annual H2B cap during FYs 2013, 2014, or 2015.

The following chart in the link shows the H2B visa statistics for FY 2016 through February 1, 2016.

The total number of H2B visa numbers allocated and pending H2B petitions is still about 1,000 below the H2B cap for the first half of FY 2016. As of February 1, USCIS may still allocate 13,345 H2B visa numbers for the first half of FY 2016.

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com