Asylum in USA, Immigration To The USA

Delivering Solutions For Your Future
Immigration in America, USA flag

EAD Clock and Transfer of Pending Asylum Case

July 12, 2016

EAD Clock and Transfer of Pending Asylum Case

Author: USA Asylum Attorney Alena Shautsova

Finally, there is a good news for asylum seekers. USCIS is adjusting its policy on stopping the employment authorization clock in case an applicant is filing his/her request to change the venue or transfer the case from one asylum office to another.

Previously, any request for transfer at any point of asylum case was considered by USCIS as a delay of the proceedings caused by the applicant and the EAD clock (the 180 day clock for employment authorization that starts to run once the case is filed) would be stopped, and often stopped permanently.

Recently, USCIS announced that in case of a transfer request the clock will be stopped only if the case had already been scheduled for an interview prior to the request. It is unclear, if the applicant should be aware of the scheduled date or not,  for the “punishment” to be imposed. However, the good news is that clock will be and should be restarted for all those cases were it was stopped in violation of this new policy.

The EAD clock is one of the most sensitive topic for asylum seekers. In many other countries, asylum seekers may enjoy different benefits while they are waiting for the resolution of their applications. The only benefit that they get in the US is a right to an employment authorization that  one can use after his/her case was pending for more than 180 days.

Sometimes, pro se applicants transfer their cases without knowing of the consequences of transfer. The new policy should help to eliminate this injustice and help those awaiting for their asylum cases to be resolved.

The other aspect of the issue is that the wait times for asylum interviews increased dramatically within the past few years. It is not uncommon for an asylum seeker to  wait for 2 years before he/she is called for an appointment with an Asylum officer. It means that if somebody moved within the first 6 months after filing the case, he lost his/her chance for an employment authorization for the whole time the case would be pending.  Hopefully, the new policy will help “movers” to avoid this consequences.

How to Avoid Mistakes While Representing Yourself in Immigration Court

March 3, 2016

How to Avoid Mistakes While Representing Yourself in Immigration Court

Author: New York Immigration lawyer

You ended up in Immigration court and do not know what to do…

The easy answer to this situation would be “hire an attorney!”, but sometimes an individual cannot afford an attorney, or believes that the first portion of a case can be done pro-se to reduce attorney’s fees.

First, if you cannot afford an attorney, try your best to find a low-bono or a pro-bono one. Some non-for profit organizations are offering free legal services, and local bar associations cab direct you to the pro-bono lawyers in the area. Also, law schools have legal clinics that take different type of matters and can help you as well.

However, if you are “stuck” by yourself, here are some tips.

  1. Stay away from FRAUD. As tempting as it can sound, or as persuasive as an “uncle” promised it to be, lying on Immigration applications and in Immigration court is never a good idea. It does not mean that you cannot advocate on your own behalf, explaining the impact of certain events and providing your point of view and research, let’s say, on country conditions. But, stating something that you know is not true, for purpose of obtaining Immigration benefits will make you permanently inadmissible into the United States.
  2. Read available memos, cases and practices and procedures. It is not easy, but it is not a rocket science. Start with the Immigration Practice Manual which outlines the basics of Immigration court procedures. Some non-for –profits publish excellent resources on various topics, such as U visas, VAWA, asylum, Cancellation or Removal… Those resources are available on Google and are free!
  3. Another common error encountered when dealing with former pro- se clients, is that they give too much information in there affidavits in support of their claims (If they submit one to begin with). The old saying, keep it simple goes a long way for affidavits. Focus on the reason you are writing the affidavit: if it is submitted, to prove a bona fide marriage write about your relationship and how it developed. It is always better to be concise and allow for later expansion of your testimony.
  4. At last, remember that each and every word is transcribed. Speak clearly and think before answering questions. Refrain from any type of vulgarity, and show respect to the judge who ultimately decides whether or not you are going to stay in the U.S, and the prosecutor. When you speak before the court, or to the prosecutor, your words have value. Trying to exemplify your knowledge of the English language is helpful at times to show the Judge you have a desire to learn the language of the country, but if you are not sure of the definitions of your words you are using, refrain from using them. One such example, is the word “moot”: the definition of the word in the Webster’s dictionary differs significantly from the meaning the courts give to this word, and without knowing it, one may misunderstand the entire proceedings.

And now, some practical tips:

 

  1. When you use ASYLUM as defense from removal, after you are asked to designate a country to be removed to in the event of denial of your case, you should respectfully decline to do so. The idea is that there is no country in the world where you feel safe, and hence, you do not wish to be removed to any country.
  2. Make sure your documents are filed on time, preferably before the deadline or a “call up date”.
  3. Check the status of your fingerprints: if possible, ask to expedite the clearance, and make sure nothing on your end is holding up the process.
  4. If you filed your asylum application with the Court and not USCIS, you must follow special procedure for ordering your own fingerprints by filing first three pages of I-589, and a copy of the instructions with USCIS. This is the only time fingerprints are not automatically ordered for you, but without this clearance, your application for asylum with the Immigration court might be denied.

Asylum and Gang Violence

May 5, 2015

Asylum and Gang Violence

Author: U.S. Asylum attorney Alena Shautsova

Asylum and Gang Violence

A claim of asylum connected to gang violence is one of the most common types unfortunately. Immigrants from El Salvador, Mexico and Ecuador are all coming to the U.S. in pursuant of a safe harbor. However, despite the obvious danger of gang violence, not every applicant who is afraid of gangs can succeed in a U.S. Immigration court.
For example, in two recent decisions, the courts came to the opposite conclusions. In one case, the court held a mother of a son who is being actively recruited by the gangs is subject to protection in the US , Hernandez-Avalos v. Lynch, 4/30/15. But in a different case, the court held that a young Salvadorian male who is being recruited by the gangs and resist joining them, is not subject to the protection in the US. Rodas-Orellana v. Holder, 3/2/15.
On its face, it seems that these two decisions are opposites and that something is going wrong… Well, what is going on here is the application of so called social visibility standard. An applicant who presents an asylum claim based on membership in a particular social group must show that the group he/she claims to belong to is socially visible. It is largely depends on the applicant’s attorney’s advocacy skills to persuade the court that the applicant in fact belongs to a group that has certain distinguished characteristics in the society it exists in, and that those characteristics are prominent enough for the “bad guys” to notice them and target members of this particular social group.
This demonstration is not an easy one as shown by the case examples above. In fact, in the first example the only thing that ‘saved’ the claim was the mother-son relationship between the applicant for asylum (claim was filed by mom) and the subject of gangs’ attention. So, the “group” mom was a member of, was …her own family. In the second example, the group was found by the judge too broad to be identifiable, and that is why the claim was denied.
It is obvious that asylum law is developing and is very, very complicated for an average asylum seeker to comprehend. We try to republish all important recent asylum decisions on our website’s Asylum Library: http://www.shautsova.com/immigration-usa/asylum-library.html

 

Glitches in USCIS System

December 4, 2014

Glitches in USCIS System

Author: New York Immigration Lawyer

USCIS stands for the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services and is a government body that accepts and processes all petitions and applications related to any and all immigration benefits.

The process of communication with USCIS boils down to exchange of papers and on rare occasions, includes phone calls and infopass appointments.

That is why it is very important to submit correctly filled out forms; timely respond  to request of more evidence and organize the papers in the most convenient way for the adjudicator.

In cases that do not require an interview, the petitioner or applicant will never meet the person who makes a decision on his/her case. However, often, an applicant or an attorney would receive correspondence from the adjudicator: request for more evidence; notice of intend to deny, etc. Often such notices are mere duplicates of the instructions for the form submitted; sometimes a person gets a notice twice; or receives something that does not make a sense at all.

Recently, USCIS revealed that some of such notices are sent automatically due to the “glitches” in their system.  For the past year, the glitches are to blame for RFEs for I 864 affidavit of support form; double notices for fingerprint appointments and receipts of filing with the RFE in it (this one is a hybrid, a new “monster”  created by glitches).

The unfortunate thing is that an attorney or petitioner/applicant still has to address these babies of the glitches even if they do not make any sense, because, if for example, an attorney fails to respond to an RFE, the case almost surely will be denied on the basis of failure to response to an RFE, even if the RFE itself did not make any sense.

Glitches or not, submission to the USCIS is a serious matter, and should not be taken lightly as any mishap will result in frustration, loss of money and time!

 

 

 

DMV Denial of License

October 21, 2014

DMV Denial of License

New York Immigration lawyer Alena Shautsova

Have you recently moved from another state and had difficulties getting NY driver’s license? Were you totally confused? Were you blamed you are not a US citizen?

It happened to my client: a born US citizen who has spent several years in a different state, and when she came back to NY and decided to apply for NY driver’s license and report a change of her address, a lady at the DMV Manhattan office told her that …. she needs to present “more proof” that she in fact was a US citizen… hmm

My client actually presented a social security card; different state ID card; a US birth certificate; bank statements from different banks and utility bills. According to the DMV point system table she had enough points to get her NYS driver’s license.  Nevertheless, the clerk told her to apply for a US passport and come back…

The question was: did the DMV clerks look at their own point table? Or is it just anther document issued to confuse everybody and make people’s life more difficult?

This client is a US citizen, and eventually, after visiting a different DMV  location, she was able to get her license.

Many non-citizens, however, experience the same issue. The government passed the Real ID act which requires the DMV offices to check for the lawful immigrant status before issuing an ID to the applicant. However, DMV clerks are not attorneys and often they lack training to ascertain if a person is in fact in lawful immigration status or status that allows a person to receive a state ID or driver’s license.  For example, another client of mine, an applicant for asylum was denied Chicago State ID because the clerk there decided that his documents showing pending case with the Immigration Court were not sufficient to prove authorized stay in the US…

At the same time, there are people without lawful immigration status who were able successfully to extend their 8 years DMV licenses even after the Real ID act…

Recently, New York City voted to issue Id-s to everybody, regardless of their immigration status.

Maybe, it is time to change the rules?

Solutions For Unaccompanied Minors

October 9, 2014

Asylum For Unaccompanied Minors

Author: New York Immigration attorney Alena Shautsova

Recent influx of children from South America posted serious questions in  front of the US government.  While the Obama administration promised an Immigration reform, it also decided to handle the cases of these children rather harshly: new immigration detention facility in Texas and surge dockets in Immigration courts do not look like measures that should address this crisis in a humane way.

Nevertheless, most of the children are eligible for some sort of relief. For example: asylum, Special immigrant juvenile status, U or T visa, and sometimes VAWA derivative status.

Most of the asylum claims of  unaccompanied children involve allegations of family or domestic violence or gang violence.

Special Immigrant Juvenile Status can be granted to those children who have a guardian or custodian in the US pursuant to a State judge’s court order. The child can submit application for SIJ as long as he/she is under 21 years old.

In New York, any person can serve as  a guardian, as long as he/she does not have disqualifying criminal convictions, and can demonstrate that he/she will be a suitable and reliable adult.

The fact that a child has one parent present in the US does not disqualify the child from the SIJ status.

Sometimes, the DHS issues an expedited order of removal against the child (for example, when the child is 18 years old, he/she can still qualify for SIJ status, but the Immigration treats him/her as an adult). Such an order will not be a bar to SIJ status. If, however, the child is placed in regular Immigration proceedings, and now is applying for SIJ, it is likely that the judge will not terminate the case until I 360 is approved.

Recently, the DHS has harshened its policies and practices of dealing with immigrant children: the DHS keeps these kids in detention, would refuse or set a very high bond; would issue  expedited orders of removal against those kids who turned 18…  However, it does not mean that there are no solutions for children and, if possible, a child or his/her family members should consult with an attorney to explore defenses to the removal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crime of Moral Turpitude in Immigration Court and Record of Conviction

February 25, 2014

Author: Criminal Immigration attorney Alena Shautsova

Crime of Moral Turpitude in Immigration Court and Record of Conviction

Conviction of crime of moral turpitude may cause a permanent resident to be deportable if committed within 5 years from the date of admission.  (Date of admission is the date when an alien was admitted to the US or paroled, but does not restart when an immigrant adjusts his or her status as per Matter of ALYAZJI, 25 I&N Dec. 397 (BIA 2011)).

However, what a crime of moral turpitude is, is decided in almost every case separately. Why? Because the term of “crime of moral turpitude” is a term of art.  The Immigration and Nationality act does not provide a definition to it, and courts look at the conviction to determine whether  a particular offense falls under the category of a CMIT.

In doing so, the courts follow the following analysis: first, they look at whether the statute a person was convicted of is divisible or not divisible. A statute is not divisible when it describes only one way to commit a crime. If the statute sets out a list of alternative ways to commit the crime, and where some of these “sub-violations” categorically meet the federal standard while others do not necessarily meet this federal standard, then the statute is divisible.  A statute categorically meets federal standard when every violation of a particular criminal statute meets the generic federal definition.

If a non divisible State statute mimics the Federal definition, there is no reason to look at the record of conviction: the person will be found guilty of crime of moral turpitude for Immigration purposes. If not, the State statue includes acts that will not be punished under the Federal law, then the person will be “off” federal hook for Immigration purposes.

As for divisible statute: most likely the court will look at the record of conviction, which consists of criminal charge, the plea agreement, and any plea or sentencing colloquy. The record of conviction does not include arrest reports, the pre-sentence investigation, the testimony of witnesses, etc. Shepard v. U.S., 544 U.S. 13 (2005); U.S. v. Kovac, 367 F.3d 1116, 1120 (9th Cir. 2004).

In addition, currently, in several Circuits the courts are permitted to look beyond the record of conviction to see if the person committed a CMIT under the Matter of Silva-Trevino.  This might present a problem for an immigrant who, essentially, will have to be re-tried in Immigration court for the same conduct he was tried in criminal court in. The court may look at any necessary and appropriate evidence to determine whether the foreign national’s conduct did, in fact, involve moral turpitude.

If you have questions regarding Immigration court proceedings, call office of Alena Shautsova 917-885-2261.

Asylum Interview Notes Must be Disclosed

December 6, 2013

Author: Asylum Attorney Alena Shautsova

Asylum Officers will have to share their notes they take at the time of the interview pursuant to valid FOIA requests.

The first step in asylum process in the US, is an interview with an asylum officer. During the interview, the officer decides if the applicant is credible, and if his/her story is consistent and truthful.  The officer takes notes at the time of the interview and often those notes determine the future of the applicant’s case.

The issue is that up until Martins v. USCIS lawsuit, the officers refused to share the notes with the applicant, and as such, the applicant had no opportunity to challenge officer’s determinations and conclusions.

Under the settlement agreement reached in Martins, USCIS must instruct all officers, employees, and agents involved in the processing of FOIA requests that asylum officer interview notes – the records reflecting information, instructions, and questions asked by officers and responses given by applicants in asylum interviews – are not by their nature and status protected by the deliberative process privilege as a general matter and thus are to be produced under FOIA. This training must be completed within three months of the settlement agreement. USCIS must demonstrate its compliance to the court with the settlement after 3 months.

It should add transparency to the asylum interview process and strengthen the due process rights of the applicants.

If you believe you need assistance with the asylum process, call law office of Alena Shautsova, US Asylum attorney 917-885-2261.

PAROLE IN PLACE: NEW IMMIGRATION POLICY

November 21, 2013

PAROLE IN PLACE FOR MILITARY FAMILIES

Who is eligible?

Spouses, Children and Parents of

  • Active duty Members of the U.S. Armed Forces
  • Individuals in the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve
  • Individuals previously served in the U.S. Armed Forces or Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve

The eligible individuals should not have criminal convictions and should submit the following documents:

  • Application for Parole on USCIS form I 131
  • Evidence of the family relationship
  • Evidence of the family member  belongs to the eligible group of the U.S. Armed Forces
  • Evidence of the additional favorable factors

Call Alena Shautsova, New York Immigration lawyer to get FREE PHONE CONSULTATION REGARDING PAROLE IN PLACE RELIEF: 917-885-2261

Asylum Clock Settlement

May 14, 2013

Author: US Asylum attorney Alena Shautsova

Asylum clock issues have been preventing many applicants for asylum from receiving EAD and being able to support themselves while their cases being considered by Asylum Officer or Immigration Court. Sometimes, the wait time for EAD can be as long as several years. Imagine, during all this time the person is not able to legally work and have to accept jobs below minimum pay, hide from authorities and being stressed out every time the judge asks about his/her job situation.
Read Post