In New Jersey, driving while intoxicated in a school zone is a very serious offense with particularly severe penalties that go well beyond the typical punishment associated with a regular drunk driving offense. The offense is punished under Title 39:4-50(g), which provides for enhanced penalties when a violation under 39:4-50 occurs:
In an earlier article, we briefly discussed the impact of a drunk driving allegation on an individual's H-1b stamp or visa. Matters become even more complicated when the charges are criminal in nature. If one has been arrested or charged with a criminal offense-whether misdemeanor or felony-the issue becomes even more precarious. Being charged or worse, convicted, of a criminal offense poses a potential problem of admissibility for the foreign national, especially in the context of an H-1b specialty worker without a visa who has already left the United States. Since he/she will have to apply for a visa to re-enter, the charges will have to be addressed during the visa application process. If a consular officer determines that conviction of a charge constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude ("CIMT") or worse, an aggravated felony, the individual will be refused a visa unless the ground of inadmissibility can be overcome. In some cases, a conviction is not even necessary. Under current US immigration law, if an individual admits to having committed or admits to having committed acts that form the essential elements of 1) a crime involving moral turpitude (other than a purely political offense) or an attempt or conspiracy to commit such a crime, or 2) a violation of (or a conspiracy or attempt to violate) any law or regulation of a State, the United States, or a foreign country relating to a controlled substance (as defined in section 802 of title 21) is inadmissible.
It is a commonly misunderstood that an order of removal or deportation is tantamount to permanent banishment from the United States. While an order does bar an individual from re-entry, it does not necessarily mean that a person is forever banned from the United States. In some cases, an order prohibits re-entry for five years. In the vast majority of cases, however, an order bars admission for a period of ten years. The important thing to understand is that once an individual has spent the requisite period of time outside the United States, he or she will not be automatically barred from admission. Of course, there may likely be other grounds of inadmissibility that prohibit a person from coming, (e.g., unlawful presence, fraud, crimes), but the force of the removal order is attenuated and ultimately extinguished once the time period is over.
USCIS recently released new guidance pertaining to I-130 marriage cases that directly impacts spousal petitions involving minors. Under the new guidelines, the agency will begin scheduling in-person interviews for I-130 petitions involving minor spouses. Ordinarily, the parties to an I-130 are normally interviewed during the adjustment of status stage or, if the case is abroad, the foreign national is questioned regarding the marital relationship at the visa interview. Now, however, USCIS will begin conducting interviews at an earlier stage, that is, at the time the I-130 is adjudicated. At the interview, the petitioner or parties will be expected to furnish evidence that the marital relationship is genuine. Such evidence is often referred to as the "bona fides" of the marriage and can include such things as joint financial accounts, leases, insurance policies, and any other relevant evidence tending to prove that the marriage was entered into in good faith and out of genuine motivations. USCIS will also be determining whether the marriage was legally performed and whether the marriage is not outlawed in the jurisdiction where the couple resides or intends to reside, even if the marriage was valid in the jurisdiction where it was originally performed. So, for example, one state or country may permit marriages by minors under certain circumstances while others don't. If the couple will live in a state that would not recognize the marriage if performed in that state, that might pose a substantive obstacle in getting the I-130 approved.