The Service has just published a guide for the new Parole in Place program.
Filing Guide for Parole in Place
IBLF will be contacting clients with further information if we believe that you might qualify or feel free to email us at [email protected]
Category: FAMILY
-
US Supreme Court Further Degrades Marriage
The court rendered a 6-3 verdict in the case between the Department of State v. Sandra Munoz, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 23-334, the Republican justices (the 3 Democratic dissenting) deciding that there is no constitutionally protected right to live with your spouse. This decision, reversing a 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals decision holding the opposite, allows the government to exclude without explanation the spouse of a US citizen, failing to act on a visa petition, and dismissing her seeking review of the delay and failure to act. The plaintiff, a US Citizen and civil rights lawyer, has been separated from her husband for over 9 years, apparently over State Department concerns that he “might” be a gang member. The Supreme Court decision means that there is no review of that determination, effectively declaring that marriage does not include the right to live with your spouse where you choose, and courts may not review government decisions abridging that right. This follows the trend of the court to restrict personal rights affecting families, such as abortion, without any evaluation of the human or social costs involved, and a blind eye to consequences that can be overcome for those of extreme wealth and means.
The legal system has traditionally been a protector of ordinary citizens who seek a level playing field in a world with wide discrepancies of opportunity and wealth, as well as the physical environment. This court further abandons that tradition, effectively saying “nothing to see here” and letting the government act on the basis of political or other unknown reasons to diminish the rights and value of an ordinary citizen. -
New Family Unity Executive Order (June 18, 2024)
Many have heard of the new policy announced by the Biden administration which will target one of the many sad injustices of current immigration system. This action, taken on the basis of his executive authority, may face legal challenges much as the DACA program has, but addresses a very real problem that most Americans want fixed. IBLF will be reviewing the program and attempting to match any clients who could benefit, but, in the meanwhile, you may gather some information from these links published by the government:
Process to Promote the Unity and Stability of Families | USCIS
There is no immediate urgency — the program won’t be in effect for a while, and the forms, details, and implementation will be delayed by necessary legal steps. It only affects those who have been in the US for over 10 years.
IBLF will be reviewing the program as it develops and possibly issuing new information when available. If you are interested, please drop me a line and I will put you on special mailing list for that.
Albert Z Lewis Jr., Attorney
The International Business Law Firm PC
910 17th Street NW – Suite 408
Washington DC 20006-2604
(202) 296-1111 / [email protected] (more…) -
Re-Starting DACA – Filing as a Dreamer!
Thanks to recent court action, those who are eligible under the original DACA rules can now file new applications, despite the President’s executive order attempting to terminate the program. To do so, forms I-821, I-765, I-765WS must be filed with a $495 filing fee to the appropriate address. Substantial documentary evidence of eligibility must also be provided or the application will be either denied or rejected, even if the applicant is truly eligible.
There are various online resources discussing eligibility and the filing, such as available through the Immigrant Legal Resource Center or the website Immigrants Rising. The USCIS page showing the changes to policy is located here.
Of course it is strongly recommended that you file with the assistance of a lawyer to avoid the problems and delays or denials that result from incomplete applications, and IBLF stands ready to assist you with this process. To setup a consultation with IBLF and get started, submit this inquiry form: Click Here.
-
4th Circuit Further Defines Family Asylum Group
A comprehensive decision, Sandra Hernandez-Cartagena v. William Barr (https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/191823.P.pdf) by the 4th Circuit overturning and remanding a denial of asylum by an immigration judge, affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), affirms the legitimacy of a family unit as an appropriate social group for asylum protection. The Fourth Circuit found that the BIA’s decision denying the asylum claim was ” manifestly contrary to the law and an abuse of discretion.”The immigration judge and the BIA decided the case based on an analysis that a young woman was targeted by a gang individually, raped and beaten because she could not pay extortion, even though her brother had also been injured and the stated purpose of the extortion was to get the parents to pay money to the gang. This decision provides a good analysis for the pleading and testimonial requirements that support such an asylum claim, a situation which often results in denials when the victim of such extortion does not understand the legal requirements for such a claim.
-
Unable to Depart US Due to Pandemic? Avoid Overstay!
Request “Satisfactory Departure”
Were you admitted to the United States under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP)? —> There is no provision of law that would allow you to extend your stay. However, if you are unable to depart before their current period of admission expires due to exigent circumstances, there is an option to request relief in the form of a Satisfactory Departure request. Both U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) have authority to handle these requests which grant an individual a period of 30 days in which to depart the U.S. without being considered to have overstayed their allotted time.
-
Head of Household
Tax – Head of Household (Considered Unmarried)
Many married people file their taxes as Head of Household in order to save money, not realizing that there are very strict requirments for such a status. In order for you to qualify as “considered unmarried” you must meet the following criteria taken directly from the IRS website:
Considered Unmarried
To qualify for head of household status, you must be either unmarried or considered unmarried on the last day of the year. You are considered unmarried on the last day of the tax year if you meet all the following tests.
- You file a separate return. A separate return includes a return claiming married filing separately, single, or head of household filing status.
- You paid more than half the cost of keeping up your home for the tax year.
- Your spouse didn’t live in your home during the last 6 months of the tax year. Your spouse is considered to live in your home even if he or she is temporarily absent due to special circumstances. See Temporary absences , later.
- Your home was the main home of your child, stepchild, or foster child for more than half the year. (See Home of qualifying person , later, for rules applying to a child’s birth, death, or temporary absence during the year.)
- You must be able to claim the child as a dependent. However, you meet this test if you can’t claim the child as a dependent only because the noncustodial parent can claim the child using the rules described later in Children of divorced or separated parents (or parents who live apart) under Qualifying Child or in Support Test for Children of Divorced or Separated Parents (or Parents Who Live Apart) under Qualifying Relative. The general rules for claiming a child as a dependent are explained later under Dependents .
Source: https://www.irs.gov/publications/p501#en_US_2018_publink1000220775Business Law
-
Family Can Be Social Group
Family Based Asylum Claim Explained – 4th Circuit
The 4th Circuit held: “The BIA and the IJ improperly focused on whether Gomez’s father and brother were threatened due to a protected reason in order to impute such protection to the whole family. This was in error. The correct analysis focuses on Gomez herself as the applicant, and asks whether Gomez was targeted because of her membership in the social group consisting of her immediate family. “
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Unpublished/152576.U.pdf
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
GOMEZ v. SESSIONS Case 15-2576 — Although unpublished, this provides guidance for those seeking asylum based on family persecution.