One of the most common predicaments that lawful permanent residents encounter are inconsistencies between what their names are and what names are reflected on their "green cards." This may happen, for example, when an individual who becomes a permanent resident subsequently gets married and wishes to assume her husband's last name. Ordinarily, a United States Citizen would just go ahead and take her husband's last name and report the change to all the necessary agencies. However, for the permanent resident, it is important that he/she bear a card that reflects the most up-to-date information. If the green card reflects the original last name, it is not likely-the way that things are going at New Jersey's Motor Vehicle Commission offices these days-that the person will be able to secure a license with the new name without the necessity of first getting a new green card issued with the new name. This type of situation will also happen, as another example, if a permanent resident goes through a name change process to change his/her name, (which in New Jersey involves filing a petition with the Superior Court of New Jersey, publishing the hearing date for the name change, getting the Order signed by a Judge, publishing the Order in the newspaper, and registering the change with the Department of Treasury).
The Crime of Harassment (NJSA 2C:33-4)
The Supreme Court has finally ruled on "priority date retention" issue raised by differing interpretations of a provision within the Child Status Protection Act, also known as the CSPA, for short. Unfortunately, the ruling does not favor "aged out" derivative children left behind. In Scialabba v. DeOsorio, decided on June 9, 2014, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that derivative beneficiaries who were not able to immigrate with their principal beneficiary parents because they turned 21 are not entitled to the same priority date accorded to their parents' cases when their parent(s) subsequently file for them. This Supreme Court ruling overturns the previous California Supreme Court ruling that 8 U.S.C. 1153(h)(3) of the CSPA applies to all aged out derivative beneficiaries and automatically converts their cases to the appropriate category with retention of the original filing, or priority date. The relevant meaning of the text litigated concerns the interplay between 8 USC 1153(1), (2), and (3). The statute reads:
Foreign nationals charged with drug-related crimes in New Jersey need to be aware that there may be consequences that extend far beyond the criminal penalties associated with the offense. In the immigration context, a conviction for a crime that involves controlled dangerous substances can not only potentially thwart an application for permanent residence but also result in an individual's removal from the United States.
The new form to renew Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (otherwise known as "DACA") is now out. The I-821D (version 6/04/14) will be used to process both initial as well as renewal applications.
The number 10 seems to be a momentous number that carries a lot of implications and consequences for many types of immigration applications and contexts. At the outset, it should be clarified that contrary to popular belief, there is no "10 year law" that entitles someone illegally in the United States to apply for a green card. For whatever reason, this is a very popular myth that is circulating amongst immigrant communities. Nonetheless, 10 years is a very significant milestone. Three of the most conventional ways in which the number ten means something occurs within the following situations:
Filing for a fiancé or K visa is a complicated process. There are a number of preliminary questions that need to be identified first before one considers proceeding along this path. If these issues are not addressed early on in the process, they could potentially come back to jeopardize a successful resolution. Some things that need to be brought to an attorney's attention prior to filing are:
An individual who enters the United States on a tourist or visitor's visa is ordinarily admitted for a period of six months. It is actually up to the Customs and Border Protection Officer at the port of entry how long he/she deems appropriate for the individual to remain in the US. While stays can be given up to six months, it is not uncommon to sometimes receive less than that (in some cases, two weeks or even just a few days). In any event, the foreign national must leave before the designated time or risk falling out of status and accruing "unlawful presence" which could endanger his/her ability to re-enter the United States in the future. Under certain circumstances, an individual who accrues more than six months but less than one year of unlawful presence may trigger a three-year bar to re-entry. If an individual accrues one year or more of "unlawful presence," it's even worse: that person is barred for ten years from re-entry once he/she departs the US.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recently announced a proposal to allow certain H-4 dependent spouses of H-1Bs to work with legal authorization. Under current regulations, H-4 dependents are not eligible for an Employment Authorization Documents (EAD). Given that most H-1B specialty workers are usually admitted for an initial period of three years, and more often than not, apply for a three year extension, their spouses often find themselves in the unenviable position of staying here in the US without being able to find meaningful work and contribute to their households. Not only has this proven to generate economic hardship for those H-1Bs already in the pipeline for permanent residence, it has actually deterred many skilled and talented workers from pursuing green cards here out of concern for their spouses. The government has finally recognized the detriment caused by the loss of these workers and proposed some interesting revisions that could affect an estimated 100,600 H-4 status holders in the first year of implementation alone.