Lee & Garasia, LLC
  • Tel: 732-516-1717
  • Toll free: 888-404-5876
Experience, Accessibility, and Excellence for Over 20 Years
  • "Lee and Garasia are excellent lawyers, punctual and professional. They are dedicated to going above and beyond the usual level of service to meet your client's needs. Their staff is very knowledgeable, friendly and polite. I would highly... recommend this firm to anyone." Read More

  • "I would definitely recommend Mr.Lee and Garasia as an immigration attorney because they did a great job with my case i.e. of Adjustment of Status (i-485). Mr. Lee helped us in each and every detailed information and prepared to the best of it. It was all well done and would like to appreciate." Read More

  • "I would like to thank my lawyer Mr Lee & Garasia and the staff for all immense help and patience throughout this entire process, I really appreciate your constant attention to my case, as well to my questions and my concerns. You've really made this process much more comprehensive to me, which I greatly appreciate." Read More

  • "Mr. Lee and Ms. Garasia did a great job with my renewal of my permanent residence application. They help prepare the paperwork with such a great attention to details and accuracy. I will recommend the law firm every time." Read More

  • "Mr. Lee did a great job with the renewal of my permanent residence application. My case was very time sensitive and they worked really fast on my case with great detail and accuracy. I will recommend the law firm every time." Read More

  • "I would recommend Attorney Paris Lee for anybody who needs immigration consultation. Mr. Lee is THE lawyer who respects and cares clients. Mr. Lee is professional and honest. Bottom line, preparation for the results and NO BS!" Read More

  • "Stalin - Lee did a wonderful job, Got my wife her visa in one year. He is extremely helpful and knowledgeable. I would highly recommend him for all your immigration needs." Read More

  • "Hello. I appoint him as my immigration lawyer and that way he solved my cases was truly amazing. He was so honest and knowledgeable for his work.He solved my all family imigration issues and because of his effort we were able to get done our immigration work done successful. Thank you lee and garasia." Read More

  • "Lee & Garasia stand for accountability and responsibility. They are reliable, honest and are always constructively looking for a solution.. A big thanks :)" Read More

Edison Immigration & Naturalization Law Blog

What Happens If I Sneak Back Into the US After Being Deported? | I-871 Reinstatement

In general, most undocumented and illegal aliens apprehended inside the United States are entitled to a hearing before an immigration judge under section 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. However, this is not always the case. In some circumstances, a person who is caught by Immigration and Customs Enforcement may not be afforded an opportunity as procedural matter to see a judge, unless the individual is able to assert some sort of legal claim. It is critical to understand this because in many cases, a person will need to appreciate the risks of a certain course of action to remedy his/her status. For example, many people are not aware of or understand the doctrine of reinstatement. The regulations pertaining to reinstatement of removal orders can be found in Section 241(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Under the statute:

What Happens If I Don't Show Up For My Immigration Court Hearing in Newark?

Given the current climate and anti-immigrant sentiment these days, people placed into proceedings are understandably petrified of going to immigration court. There is a common misconception that once somebody summoned to court shows up, he/she will be summarily removed. This is not accurate at all. The whole point of going to court is to protect your constitutional due process rights and hold the government to its burden before an impartial judge. In fact, the consequences of not showing up for court without good cause are legally and practically more severe. If anything, an individual who does not show up is far more likely to be expelled without recourse than a person who sees the process through with competent counsel.

New Version of I-485 Adjustment of Status Form Starts August 2017

Many people are not aware that USCIS quietly released a new edition of the Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status. The new edition is dated 6/26/17 and must be used if filing on August 25, 2017 or anytime after. Before August 25, the older edition (edition date 01/17/17) may still be used. The I-485 is the form that must be submitted in connection with any application for a green card if the applicant is presently in the United States and wishes to change one's status to a permanent resident. However, it is important to note that the I-485 is not the only form that is ordinarily submitted to USCIS. In family based cases, for example, it will also be accompanied by the I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, if one has not already been filed and approved. (If already approved, the I-130 approval notice is usually submitted with the I-485.)

I-9 Job Form Can Implicate False Claim to US Citizenship Bar | Deportation

USCIS recently released a new version of Form I-9 (edition date 7/17/17). The I-9 is a form used by employers to verify the identity and employment authorization of anybody hired for employment, whether a US Citizen or not. The form is comprised of two parts: one which must be completed by the employee in which he or she attests to his/her employment authorization; and one by the employer who has certified that a review of certain documents pertaining to identity and work eligibility was conducted.

What Happens If I Don't Change My Address With Immigration? | AR-11

In this climate of increased immigration enforcement, more and more undocumented aliens are being picked up at an alarming pace. Those with outstanding removal and deportation orders are particularly at risk, as they are essentially considered fugitives by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the enforcement arm of the Department of Homeland Security. It is tempting for some in this situation to purposefully evade the immigration authorities by moving without informing the government. However, individuals should be cognizant of the legal consequences of such conduct. The penalties related to removal are codified in Immigration and Nationality Act Section 243 and penalize willful failure to depart the US pursuant to a removal order. INA 243(a)(1)(A) provides that any alien against whom a final order of removal is outstanding who "willfully fails or refuses to depart from the United States within a period of 90 days from the date of the final order" shall be fined or imprisoned not more than four years (and in some cases, 10 years). These penalties extend as well to those willfully fail or refuse to present oneself for removal, as well as to other people who connive, conspire, or take any other action "designed to prevent or hamper" another person's removal.

When Can Victims of Abuse and/or Extreme Cruelty File for Citizenship?

One of the most frequently misunderstood provisions of naturalization is the timing eligibility. While the vast majority of lawful permanent residents must apply after five years continuous residence, the immigration law also provides that some spouses of U.S. Citizens may apply after only three years. In general, the permanent resident spouse must demonstrate, among other things, that he/she has been a resident for three years; been physically present within the United States for at least half that time; and been living in marital union with the US citizen spouse for at least three years before filing. What happens though if a lawful permanent resident is abused by his/her citizen spouse? Or what if someone is granted lawful permanent residence after demonstrating that he/she has been the subject of abuse through a Violence Against Women ("VAWA") petition (filed on the I-360)? How does the immigration law treat these classes of people with respect to when they apply for naturalization?

Certificate of Citizenship Is Different From Certificate of Naturalization

On June 2, 2017, the Board of Immigration Appeals issued a precedent decision concerning the government's authority to administratively cancel a Certificate of Naturalization. The gist of Matter of Falodun, 27 I & N Dec. 52 (BIA 2017), is that the government need not institute judicial proceedings to cancel a certificate of citizenship, as it is required to do with respect to someone who is a US citizen through naturalization. Under section 342 of the Immigration and nationality Act (INA), the government may administratively cancel a certificate of citizenship that has been illegally or fraudulently procured. Simply put, someone holding a certificate of citizenship is not necessarily entitled to the same safeguards that someone holding a certificate of naturalization enjoys.

DACA Still Alive in 2017 | Dreamer Lawyer

On June 16, 2017, The New York Times, as well as other major media, reported that President Trump was, in effect, continuing a temporary reprieve for "Dreamers." Some have buoyantly interpreted this to mean that DACA will not be cancelled, which is not entirely accurate. Notwithstanding the Department of Homeland Security news release that states that DACA "will remain in effect," the Trump Administration quickly clarified that the ultimate fate of DACA remains under consideration. The intent of the news release, according to White House officials, was only to confirm that the executive action initiative (instituted by President Obama) was not being immediately rescinded-unlike the policy pertaining to parents of "dreamers," a program which is otherwise known as DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents), which was. If anything, the cancellation of DAPA is equally newsworthy, although it understandably was overshadowed by DACA news.

Supreme Court Case on Acquisition of US Citizenship For Children Born Out-of-Wedlock

The Supreme Court of the United States just recently issued an important decision regarding the acquisition of US Citizenship by children born abroad. In Sessions v. Morales-Santana, the high court ruled that the disparity in criteria applicable to those claiming US citizenship through an unwed citizen father as opposed to an unwed citizen mother was unconstitutional and violated the 5th Amendment's right to equal protection under the law. While recognizing the historical and gender-based notions that undergirded the different rules at the time, the Court held that no important governmental interest was served by perpetuating antiquated laws based on stereotypical notions that unwed fathers are less likely to assume responsibility for children born out of wedlock, thereby, as the obsolescent view goes, vitiating the connection between the foreign-born child and the US. As a consequence, the Court did not find a justifiable reason to continue allowing those claiming US citizenship through an unwed mother to show only one year of her continuous physical presence in the US, but those asserting citizenship through an unwed father to demonstrate, as per the general rule, ten years physical presence of the father in the US, at least five of which were after the age of reaching the age of 14. (The current physical presence rule, applicable to children born on or after November 14, 1986, is five years, two of which need to be after the age of 14.) In the case at hand, Mr. Morales-Santana's claim of acquisition through his unwed father had been denied because his foreign national father left the US without having lived here for five years after turning 14: in fact, he left only 20 days short of his 19th birthday, a fact that disqualifies him under 8 USC 1409(a) but would not under section 1409(c) which is the statutory exception that applies only to out-of-wedlock children born to unwed mothers.

Update on Immigration Interpreters| Can My Family Member Translate for Me?

In the middle of January 2017, USCIS released a Policy Memorandum concerning "The Role and Use of Interpreters in Domestic Field Office Interviews." The new memo (PM-602-0125.1) standardizes guidance on the use of interpreters agency wide in order to ensure that the rules are applied uniformly and fairly. It should be of particular importance to those summoned to appear at USCIS interviews who are not fluent in or able to communicate competently in English. (The policy does not apply to the following scenarios or situations, which have their own protocols: asylum interviews; credible fear screening interviews; NACARA related interviews; refugee interviews; interviews conducted at a USCIS overseas office; and interviews for which USCIS provides an interpreter.)


    • The National Advocates | Top 100 Lawyers
    • Rated by Super Lawyers | Angie Garasia | 5 Years
    • Avvo Rating 10.0 | Superb
    • Client Distinction Award martindale.com | 2016 Martindale-Hubbell Client Distinction Award
    • New Jersey State Bar Association | Paris Lee Chair - Immigration Section 2015-2016
    • Nationaly Recognized | Newsweek Nationwide Showcase | Top Attorneys 2013
    • New Jersey Chapter | American Immigration Lawyers Association | Angie Garasia | Chapter Chair 2015-2016
Email Us For A Response

Start Your Case Evaluation

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.


Lee & Garasia, LLC
190 State Route 27
Edison, NJ 08820

Map & Directions

icon phone732-516-1717 icon phone888-404-5876