Immigration Visa Attorney Blog

Although the controversial Arizona immigration law will still go into effect tomorrow, portions of the law have been blocked by the Federal District Court Judge Susan Bolton. Judge Bolton has issued a preliminary injunction to "put on hold" the proposed part of the law that would require Arizona law enforcement to determine whether a person is here in the country legally or not. Mistaken arrests of US citizens have already been made since the law's proposal.

The Court ruled in favor of the preliminary injunction primarily on federal preemption grounds, as our nation's immigration law is a matter of federal jurisdiction. This means that immigration law is governed and enforced by the federal government, not by individual states in the union. It is expected that Arizona will appeal, allowing the Ninth Circuit to review the issue as the nation's debate over immigration continues to roar. --ecf

On the occasion of Pride Month, the US Department of State has announced a change in policy regarding the way that sex and gender reassignment are noted on US passports. The immigration law firm of Fong & Chun, long-time advocates for gay and lesbian immigrants, receive questions regularly about how gender is reflected on official documents.

Effective today, a US citizen applying for a US passport may present a letter from a physician that the applicant has had "appropriate clinical treatment for gender transition," and the new passport will be issued reflecting that new gender. A short-term passport can also be issued be those who are still transitioning.

If you have any questions about obtaining a US passport, please contact us. --jcf

For years now, Congress has debated whether to pass the DREAM Act. The DREAM Act would give a future to undocumented youth through a conditional path to citizenship and it would have legalized people like Tam Ngoc Tran who died earlier this week in a tragic car accident.

Tam was a native of Garden Grove, California, born in Germany to Vietnamese refugees. She was pursuing a doctorate at Brown University. She was a graduate of UCLA, and she was a tireless DREAM Act Advocate, having testified before Congress in favor of its passage.

Tam, herself was undocumented and found removable by an immigration judge who denied her and her family political asylum. On appeal, the Board of Immigration Appeals found that the family could not return to Vietnam because of fear of political persecution, so the US could not remove the family to Vietnam. Having been born in Germany, the government sought to remove her to her birthplace, yet Germany refused to grant her entry. Tam was stateless. The only home she knew was the United States.

This tragic accident took the life of another passenger, a fellow UCLA graduate and DREAM Act activist, Cinthya Felix. Fong & Chun, LLP offers condolences to the families of both Tam and Cinthya. --ecf

All immigration law attorneys must deal with foreign countries, unique international legal issues, and some quaint interpretations of law. The lawyers at Los Angeles' Fong & Chun are no exception, and in fact, this recent change affects some of our clients who do business in or own businesses in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI).

On 28 November 2008, "the United States" as defined for purposes of the Immigration & Nationality Act (INA) just got bigger, with the addition of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Although there are probably wrinkles I have not yet read in the treaty, this essentially puts the CNMI on the same footing as Puerto Rico. Here's the cute part:

Because the CNMI will become part of the "United States" as defined by §101(a)(38) of the INA, "residence or presence in the CNMI before 28 November 2009 shall NOT be considered residence or physical presence within the USA for INA purposes. Thus, on 29 November 2009, all persons physically present in the CNMI are considered "to be present in the United States without inspection, by operation of law."

Will these PWIs (present without inspection) be eligible to adjust status? Unclear? Are they working "abroad" for purposes of L visas? Yes, as it turns out. One thing is clear: Legal Permanent Residents (so-called "green" card holders) who wish to base a naturalization application based on physical presence in the CNMI will NOT be able to do so for pre-29 November 2009 periods of time. Isn't this esoterica fun? --jcf

Beginning January 4, 2010, applicants for visas or greencards will no longer be considered inadmissible for being HIV positive. Early last month, the Health and Human Services Department (HHS) removed HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) from the definition of a "communicable disease of public health significance."

This marks a major success by immigration advocates like Fong & Chun, LLP and HIV/AIDS health advocates. J Craig Fong was cited in a recent Los Angeles Times article as one of the few immigration attorneys in the nation who work with HIV positive immigrants and who has been extremely successful in HIV waiver applications with the USCIS to overcome this ban.

Fong & Chun, LLP applauds the Centers for Disease Control, the HHS, and USCIS in recognizing that the ban against nonimmigrant visa and permanent residency applications by HIV positive individuals was wrong. --ecf

Because the debates about Health Care Reform are taking so much of the Congress' energy, the Obama Administration believes that Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) will not be considered by the Congress until the beginning of 2010. The immigration law firm of Fong & Chun has many clients in Los Angeles, CA and throughout the nation who would benefit from the passage of CIR. In a recent article, President Obama restated his commitment to humane immigration law reform.

Two of the most anticipated provisions of CIR would be the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act (DREAM Act) and the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA).

The DREAM Act would allow the normalization of the immigration status of certain undocument students who were brought prior to age 16 to the United States by their parents or guardians. These students have lived and been educated in the USA, and it would be fundamentally unfair to deny them immigration status, when they did not come to the USA through their own decision, and when the USA is often the only country these students have ever really known.

UAFA would correct a long-standing inequity under immigration law and would permit US Citizens and Legal Permanent Residents to petition for and bring their permanent partners to the USA on the same footing and subject to the same conditions as traditional married couples.

Although CIR will not be debated in Congress until the beginning of 2010, we are still urging Americans to be ready to write both of their Senators and their Congressional Representative in support of CIR. Further, we are also asking Americans also to write their state governors and full city councils, encouraging them to contact Washington to urge passage of CIR.

For more information about CIR, also see the Fong and Chun blogs of
29 June 2009
26 June 2009
--jcf

A Southern California politician and some anti-immigrant activists are seeking to put a measure on the California ballot that would deny a "regular" California birth certificate to children born in the USA, if the parents are unlawfully present in the country.  The initiative would also limit the public benefits such citizen-children could receive.  The immigration law firm of Fong & Chun opposes this initiative.

Not only does this cynical, divisive initiative cripple the State's ability to look after all the children who reside in California, but the change it proposes violates the US Constitution.  Do not let a radical right-wing measure create second-class citizens!

Please contact your friends and family and urge them to oppose this mean-spirited and unconstitutional measure.

Immigration law firms like Fong & Chun, even though we're located in Los Angeles, often get embroiled in international politics. There has recently been controversy about whether US Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) would put "TAIWAN" as the country of former citizenship on US Naturalization Certificates.

Because the US Government recognizes the government of the People's Republic of China to be the "government of all of China," including Taiwan, some CIS employees have unilaterally insisted on putting CHINA on the Naturalization Certificates of new citizens who emigrated to the USA from Taiwan.  This controversy has been resolved

Chapter 22 of the US Code, section 3303 provides that Taiwan is considered a SEPARATE country for purposes of US immigration law. As a result, this clarifies that the use of TAIWAN on Certificates of Naturalization or Citizenship is acceptable.

If you have questions, please contact us.  --jcf