Atty. Robert Reeves

Motions to reopen now possible after leaving US

Monday, 10 August 2009 04:30 Atty. Robert Reeves & Nancy Miller

IT IS bad enough to be ordered deported when you know about the hearing. It is even worse to believe you are about to get a green card and find out that you may not be eligible because you have an existing deportation order. This can result from several different ways.

Many aliens were persuaded to file for asylum under the mistaken belief that it will result in obtaining employment authorization (EAD). Most asylum applicants do not qualify for the EAD and their cases are referred to the Immigration Court. If the court does not have their correct address, they will not be notified to attend the hearing. At the hearing, if the government proves that they are removable, the court can order the alien removed even if the alien is not in court. The process called being deported in absentia.

Fairness makes a return appearance in court

Wednesday, 05 August 2009 00:26 Atty. Robert Reeves & Nancy Miller

IN WHAT we would hope will be a portent of things to come, several positive cases have come down in the last few months from both the Ninth Circuit and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) concerning due process in court proceedings. These cases will be discussed in this article and the one to follow next week.

In Matter of Hashmi, the BIA held that motions to continue a removal proceeding in order to allow a family-based petition to be adjudicated should generally be granted if it appears that the approval would allow the alien to adjust status. The BIA stated that there are five factors to be considered in deciding whether to grant the continuance. They are: (1) whether the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) opposes the motion; (2) whether the family-based petition is approvable on its face; (3) whether the alien is statutorily eligible for adjustment of status; (4) whether the alien appears to be eligible for a favorable exercise of discretion by the Immigration Judge (IJ); and (5) the reason for the continuance and other relevant procedural factors.

Fairness makes a return appearance in court

Sunday, 02 August 2009 23:51 Atty. Robert Reeves & Nancy Miller

Court certifies nationwide CSPA class action lawsuit

Wednesday, 29 July 2009 09:08 Atty. Robert Reeves & Jeremiah Johnson

(2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

NEARLY three years ago Reeves and Associates published an article, regarding "Relief For Aged-Out Children Under Child Status Protection Act (CSPA)," discussing the scenario where children who "aged-out" retain their parent’s original priority date. Since then, Reeves & Associates has been a leader in establishing CSPA relief for families with aged-out children. Reeves and Associates has represented more than 100 aged-out children, many of whom have been approved for permanent residency. Some applications, however, were denied and other applications were left unanswered by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Because of inconsistent decisions, Reeves and Associates filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of immigrant families, Costello v. Chertoff, in the US District Court, challenging the USCIS’ failure to comply with certain provisions of the CSPA. On July 16, 2009, US District Court Judge James V. Selna issued a 21-page decision, granting Reeves and Associates’ motion to certify the lawsuit as a class-action and appointing Reeves & Associates as class counsel. Given USCIS’s strong opposition to Reeves and Associates’ motion for class certification, this recent development in the ongoing fight against USCIS’s unreasonable interpretation of the law is a significant step for immigrants who are trying to reunite with their families.

USCIS provides new guidance for marriage cases

Sunday, 19 July 2009 20:23 Atty. Robert Reeves & Joseph I. Elias

MARRIAGE to a US citizen is a well known path to permanent residency (the green card) as long as the marriage is not a sham. The process is relatively quick and even allows immigrants who are in the US and out of status to become permanent residents. Because of the immigration benefits associated with marrying a US citizen, there is a temptation for many immigrants to enter into a sham marriage. The immigration law and immigration service are not blind to this fact. The law and immigration policies are specifically set to detect and deter sham marriages. The penalty for violation is severe. An immigrant found to have entered into a sham marriage in order to obtain immigration benefits is banned for life from being petitioned as an immigrant. This can also result in criminal convictions for both parties.

The penalties serve as strong disincentives to entering into sham marriages. Nevertheless, the temptation is still there so other measures were developed to determine the bona fides of the marriage. If a couple has been married for less than two years at the time permanent resident status is granted, immigration law dictates that a conditional resident status be granted. This is a resident status valid for two-years only. On the second anniversary of conditional resident status, both spouses must file a joint petition to remove the condition. The joint petition must again prove to the government’s satisfaction that the marriage continues to exist and that it was not entered into for the purposes of obtaining an immigration benefit. Failure to file the petition to remove the condition will result in termination of resident status and typically leads to deportation proceedings. Again, these are strong disincentives to enter into a sham marriage.

Obama launches Immigration Reform

Sunday, 12 July 2009 23:04 Atty. Robert Reeves & Jeremiah Johnson

PRESIDENT Obama made a promise to "pursue genuine solutions day in and day out [including] immigration reform that will secure our borders, and punish employers who exploit immigrant labor; reform that finally brings the 12 million people who are here illegally out of the shadows by requiring them to take steps to become legal citizens." This past June, President Obama took the first step in fulfilling his promise and "launched" comprehensive immigration reform. Specifically, President Obama announced the formation of an immigration working group led by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. Although nothing concrete has come from the Whitehouse yet, President Obama indicated that it was time for "an honest discussion about the issues...identifying areas of agreement and areas where we still have work to do, with the hope of beginning the debate in earnest later this year." The President’s launch of comprehensive immigration reform gives reason for immigrants and their families to remain optimistic that the President is prepared to get to work and fulfill the promises made during his campaign.

Indeed, work has begun and comprehensive immigration reform appears achievable in the not too distant future. President Obama explains that "we’ve got a responsible set of leaders sitting around the table who want to actively get something done and not put it off until a year, two years, three years, five years from now, but to start working on this thing right now." During their work, legislators and policy makers need to be mindful of the key components of a comprehensive reform package that will ensure a successful piece of legislation.

New traps for aliens filing for a Green Card

Wednesday, 08 July 2009 00:18 Atty. Robert Reeves & Joseph I. Elias

THE United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) recently issued a policy memorandum binding to its officers regarding unlawful presence. The memorandum is supposed to merely consolidate and clarify all previous memos on the subject. Yet, the memo created a class of deportable immigrants who are in their final stage of the green card process. In one fell swoop, a whole new class of adjustment of status applicants are categorically at risk of deportation.

Adjustment applicants are officially deemed to be in a period of stay authorized by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Prior to the new memo, this was generally understood to mean that even if non-immigrant status lapsed, an adjustment applicant was "authorized to stay" and was not deportable while his adjustment application was in process.

K-1 visa holders can adjust after divorce

Sunday, 28 June 2009 21:37 Atty. Robert Reeves & Nancy Miller

K-1 (FIANCÉ) visa holders come to the United States full of hope. They are coming to marry the person they love and are looking forward to a new life in the United States. Sometimes, the marriage does not work out. Since the only way the non-citizen can adjust status is through the marriage to the K petitioner, the fiancé visa holder is left wondering what effect the divorce will have on their new life in this country.

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) had long held that those who enter the United States on a K-1 (fiancé) visa can only adjust their status to that of permanent resident if their marriage is still intact at the time of the adjustment. Given how long it takes for adjustment applications to be adjudicated in some parts of the country, that can result in many K-1 visa holders being denied adjustment and having to return home. Those who live in the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (which includes California) can adjust their status based on their marriage, even after the marriage ends in divorce.

Green card eligibility despite overstaying or unauthorized employment

Saturday, 20 June 2009 06:50 Atty. Robert Reeves & Jeff L. Khurgel

INDIVIDUALS in the United States who are not in valid immigration status are often faced with a tough choice - try to get a Green Card and risk alerting immigration authorities as to their presence or stay "under the radar" for the foreseeable future without lawful immigration status.

When deciding whether to proceed with an application for permanent resident status (Green Card), undocumented immigrants must be careful to examine the numerous grounds of inadmissibility. The consequence of being denied will result in deportation proceedings. Among the most common grounds of inadmissibility are overstaying a visa, violating the terms of a visa, unauthorized employment, certain crimes, and lying to obtain an immigration benefit.