Texas Immigration Lawyer & Attorney : Kraft & Associates Law Firm : Visas, Green Card, Citizenship, Deportation : Dallas, Texas

NSEERS - NATIONAL SECURITY ENTRY-EXIT REGISTRATION SYSTEM

Special Registration Procedures

The United States set up a program known as the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) after September 11, 2002, for the protection of those residing in the United States. NSEERS is targeted specifically toward foreign nationals born in specific countries on or before November 15, 1986. Men and women from the following countries must register with NSEERS:

Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Egypt, Eritrea, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, North Korea, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen.

NSEERS is a way to keep track of certain people from one of these countries who would like to enter or leave the United States. There are more than 35 million immigrants registered in this system and they are required to register with immigration authorities at a port of entry or at the ICE office.

A foreign national who has to go through this procedure, must notify the authorities of any address changes, changes in employment and changes in schools attended. The notification has to be done within 10 days from the date the change takes place and after the foreign national has been in the United States for 30 days or more. Students can make their notification of address changes through Student and Exchange Visitor Information System.

It is possible that foreign nationals who have to register with NSEERS would have to show proof of their registration with NSEERS if they want to file a petition or application with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). If that person is unable to provide proof of registration, he or she would then be sent by the USCIS to an ICE office for an NSEERS interview to find out what can be done at that point.

Those who are in the United States on a nonimmigrant visa and who fail to register regularly or meet the requirements of NSEERS during their stay in the U.S. will be considered out of status. They are then subject to being arrested, being held in detention, given fines and/or being removed from the United States. This could also affect any future rights this person would have for coming to the United States. These decisions, however, are made on an individual basis and depend on the circumstances of that person's particular case.

United States citizens and lawful permanent residents, refugees, certain asylum applicants, those who have been granted asylum, diplomats and those who have been admitted into the U.S. with "A" or "G" visas are exempt from registering under NSEERS.

The good news for those who have to register with NSEERS, but have not gone through the process correctly, is that they are able to request a waiver for all or parts of the special registration requirements as long as this is done within one year. The request has to be made in letter form, and needs to be sent to the Customs and Border Protection (CBP). The CBP will give rulings only for requests that include relief from arrival or departure registrations. The request letter, which is sent to the director of the port of entry where the foreign national will be applying for entry, needs to be accompanied by a detailed description of the relief being requested, the name of the applicant, date of birth, a Fingerprint Identification Number and one passport style photograph. Along with all of these, any documents that support the person's application should be included.

It is important to note that if the waiver is not approved in writing prior to the interview or the person's departure date, the person needs to appear for the interview or report to the port of departure office.

In addition, if someone wishes not to go through the registration procedures on a regular basis, that person needs to provide a written explanation for why he or she should be excluded from the special registration procedures. The request needs to be sent to the INS district office in the area where that person is living. While that person is waiting for a response, all the special registration procedures need to be followed until the INS notifies the person in writing that the request has been approved.

For more information about immigration news, immigration laws, immigration policies, proposed immigration laws, border enforcement, green cards, citizenship, employment visas, family visas, naturalization, and other immigration subjects, please visit Immigration Law Answers and DFW Immigration Law Blog.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Dallas Morning News has a good article about the scarcity of work visas for unskilled labor, and the effect this shortage has on businesses seeking workers. Only 5,000 work visas are available every year for unskilled laborers.

The article quotes Doris Meissner, former commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service:

"There are only 5,000 visas in the system for people to come that way," said Ms. Meissner, now a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute. "There are probably 500,000 people added to the illegal population each year, and the large majority are unskilled. Things are so out of kilter."

Ms. Meissner's task force called for a restructuring of the chaotic visa system and stronger employment-based immigration policies.

Initially, the plan calls for:

• Temporary visas to be issued for short-term stays and work assignments.

• Provisional visas to allow employers to recruit foreign-born workers for permanent jobs and possible future immigration.

• And permanent immigration for those who graduate from provisional status.

The system initially would allow about 1.5 million visas a year.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

MSN Travel has a good online article about passport usage, passport protection, and the new  laws that require a passport for almost any type of travel that takes you out of the United States. The article begins:

At first glance, a U.S. passport is just a little booklet, about the size of a pocket notebook, a slim binding of heavy, baby-blue paper. But with this tiny document, you can visit almost any nation on Earth, earning approving nods from customs officials and collecting exotic stamps, one border post at a time. With a few notable exceptions--such as Cuba and North Korea--a U.S. passport is respected in almost every harbor and airport on the globe.

And recently, with the tightening of Homeland Security, your passport isn't just a ticket to places--it's your ticket back. If you're finally taking that romantic trip toEurope or you've bought tickets for an Asian adventure, your passport is mandatory for travel to most foreign countries. And beginning on Jan. 23, 2007, the document will become even more essential for zipping around North America. The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative will require that anyone who takes a flight to Canada, Mexico or the Caribbean must have a passport or other approved identity card.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Another lawsuit has been filed against the Texas city of Farmers Branch, in an effort to prevent the city from enforcing recently-passed laws dealing with immigrants.

This suit is brought by The American Civil Liberties Union of Texas and the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. They are attempting to block a city ordinance that would  fine apartment owners up to $500 a day for renting to illegal immigrants. The ordinance is to go into effect January 12, 2007.

The gist of the suit is that it will force families to break up, and it discriminates against Latinos. This lawsuit is the third to be filed against Farmers Branch since the new ordinances were passed late last year.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This information regarding litigation relating to ICE raids at Swift meat packing plants is from the AILF Web site:

On December 12, 2006, ICE officials arrested 1,282 noncitizen workers on administrative immigration violations at Swift meat packing plants around the country. Sixty-five individuals also have been charged with criminal violations related to identity theft or other violations, such as re-entry after deportation. ICE raided six Swift plants located in Greeley, Colorado; Grand Island, Nebraska; Cactus, Texas; Hyrum, Utah; Marshalltown, Iowa; and Worthington, Minnesota. ICE did not bring charges against Swift officials during the raids. This Litigation Clearinghouse Issue Page provides information about the federal court litigation related to the raids.

Developments

• Swift Employees File RICO Suit for Damages
• Union Brings Suit after Swift Raids
• Court Denies Preliminary Injunction to Stop Raids

Swift Employees File RICO Suit for Damages
Valenzuela v. Swift, No. 06-CV-2322 (N.D. Tex. filed Dec. 15, 2006)

On December 15, 2006, only three days after the raids on Swift factories, eighteen Swift employees filed a civil suit against Swift. The complaint alleges that Swift hired undocumented workers in an attempt to "illegally depress and artificially lower" the wages of its employees. The plaintiffs, who had the "legal right" to work at Swift, are suing for damages. The suit alleges that Swift's actions violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO). Complaint

Union Brings Suit After Swift Raids
Yarrito v. Meyers, No. 06-CV-2494 (D. Colo. filed Dec. 13, 2006)

On December 13, the United Food & Commercial Workers Union filed a petition for habeas corpus and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of Swift employees detained during the raids. Plaintiffs' suit alleges that the Department of Homeland Security's conduct in carrying out the Swift plant raids violated and continues to violate the detained Plaintiffs' right to be free from arbitrary prolonged and indefinite detention. Plaintiffs also claim that DHS violated their right to counsel by denying them access to counsel and any means to obtain counsel in a prompt and effective manner. The day the suit was filed, United States District Judge John Kane signed an Order to Show Cause why the Petitioners' Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus should not be granted. In the Order to Show Cause, the court ordered that the habeas applicants remain in custody and within the jurisdiction of the court until further order from the court. DHS' December 18, 2006 response to the Order to Show Cause outlined the purpose of the raid. According DHS, the "worksite enforcement action" was in response to an ICE investigation that revealed that a large number of workers at Swift's Greeley, Colorado compound were in the United States illegally and had obtained employment by stealing the identities of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents. DHS says that the "enforcement action" took place in a calm orderly fashion and that no Swift employees requested counsel. DHS also claims that the court lacks jurisdiction to grant the writ of habeas corpus. Specifically, DHS asserts that the union does not have standing as next friend, and because applicants and the Union have failed to exhaust administrative remedies. In addition, DHS asserts that Petitioners fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted because the government provided applicants with the requisite due process protections. Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Order to Show Cause Respondent's Memorandum of Law in Response to the Order to Show Cause

Court Denies Preliminary Injunction to Stop Raids
Swift v. ICE, No. 06-CV-314 (N.D. Tex. filed Nov. 28, 2006)

On November 28, 2006, Swift filed a complaint seeking judicial review of ICE's planned shut down of six of Swift's plants and the "mass removal" of suspected undocumented workers. The complaint alleges that ICE's plan "would have a direct impact on many legal workers, as well as suspected illegal workers, and would irreparably harm Swift by interfering with its legal business operations and by damaging its reputation." The complaint also outlines Swift's efforts to cooperate with ICE investigations and comply with the INA. The court held a closed hearing on December 6, 2006 to consider Swift's request for a preliminary injunction. On December 7, 2006, the court issued an order denying the preliminary injunction. The court concluded that it was unlikely that Swift would succeed on the merits of the case and that an injunction would impede ICE enforcement activities and would be contrary to the public interest. Upon the parties' stipulation, the court dismissed the case on December 14, 2006. Complaint Court's Order Denying Preliminary Injunction Defendants' Opposition to Preliminary Injunction Defendants' Appendix

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Columnist Ruben Navarrette Jr. has an opinion piece at CNN online today in which he attributes a sinister motive to the "spin" Immigration and Customs Enforcement put on the recent raids at Swift & Company's meat packing plants in several states. Navarrette objects to the depiction of the raids as a crackdown on identity theft. Excerpts from the article:

The worry used to be that illegal immigrants were stealing welfare. Then it was jobs. Now, we're told, they're stealing people's identities.

For as long as anyone can remember, illegal immigrants have been working with the aid of bogus Social Security numbers. And this was seen for what it was -- a violation of U.S. immigration law.

But last week, when Immigration and Customs Enforcement rounded up 1,282 illegal immigrants by raiding meat processing plants in six states -- Colorado, Texas, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota and Utah -- the operation was marketed as a crackdown on identity theft.

Why spin this as a crackdown on identity theft? That has a sinister ring to it, as if illegal immigrants were using stolen credit cards and withdrawing money from ATMs. More than likely, the extent of it was that people were using Social Security numbers that didn't belong to them so they could work at dirty jobs that Americans wouldn't do -- just as they have for generations, before the phrase "identity theft" entered the national lexicon.

Of course, if this were presented as an immigration crackdown, people might ask: Why were no charges filed against the employer -- Swift & Co? The world's second-largest meat processing company has "never condoned the employment of unauthorized workers, nor ... knowingly hired such individuals," Swift & Co. President and CEO Sam Rovit said in a statement.

Note the word: knowingly. Rovit didn't just fall off the meat wagon. He's read the statute. The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act made it a crime to "knowingly" hire illegal immigrants.

That's a monster loophole. Suddenly, whenever there is a raid, no one knows anything. Illegal workers? Who? What? Where?

It's cynical, and it's the sort of thing that makes it hard to believe that Americans are serious about combating illegal immigration. How can we be if we don't address the problem at its source?

For more information about immigration news, immigration laws, immigration policies, proposed immigration laws, border enforcement, green cards, citizenship, employment visas, family visas, naturalization, and other immigration subjects, please visit Immigration Law Answers and DFW Immigration Law Blog.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Texas Governor Rick Perry, normally an ultra-conservative, surprised most members of his conservative base yesterday. In a speech to border officials, Governor Perry said that  ideas such as a fence along the border, cutting off public education for illegal immigrants, and changing the law to take away birthright citizenship are "divisive."

Perhaps now that the election is over, and Perry won a multi-candidate race with far less than a majority of the total vote, he is moderating his political views in order to attract more of the Latino population.

Whatever his motivation, and whatever his sincerity, those of us who try to help immigrants appreciate his new positions.

The decision by the Supreme Court will certainly reduce the number of people who are deported from the United States each year for minor drug offenses. The Supreme Court also made it easier for some immigrants convicted of drug possession under state law to remain in the country.

For more information about immigration news, immigration laws, immigration policies, proposed immigration laws, border enforcement, green cards, citizenship, employment visas, family visas, naturalization, and other immigration subjects, please visit Immigration Law Answers and DFW Immigration Law Blog.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Immigration courts have often deported immigrants residing in the United States for minor drug offenses. This occurred because under the Immigration and Nationality Act any immigrant convicted of an aggravated felony was deportable. An aggravated felony included any felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act.

As a result of this, thousands of immigrants were deported from the United States. Minor drug convictions under state law were being used to remove aliens from the U.S. However, the U.S. Supreme Court decided on December 5, 2006, that immigration courts cannot deport aliens convicted of minor state drug offenses that are not felonies under federal law.

Immigration is currently regulated under federal law. Therefore, in order for a person to be deported, the offense committed must be considered to be an aggravated felony under federal law, regardless of its categorization under state law.

Currently, those who are convicted of misdemeanors (both felony and state) are allowed to apply for certain waivers if they are placed in removal proceedings. This is not an option for those who have been convicted of felonies. The Supreme Court now holds that the only time when a waiver is not available to an immigrant in deportation proceedings is for a crime that is a felony under federal law.

The decision by the Supreme Court will certainly reduce the number of people who are deported from the United States each year for minor drug offenses. The Supreme Court also made it easier for some immigrants convicted of drug possession under state law to remain in the country.

For more information about immigration news, immigration laws, immigration policies, proposed immigration laws, border enforcement, green cards, citizenship, employment visas, family visas, naturalization, and other immigration subjects, please visit Immigration Law Answers and DFW Immigration Law Blog.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

(For simplicity, we will use the word "fiancée" whether speaking of a male or a female.)

Bringing your fiancée to the U.S. for marriage will require some sort of visa for him or her. In the United States, the only visa available for the purpose of marriage is a fiancée visa (K-1 visa). Unfortunately, there is no other visa available for those who want to enter the U.S. in order to get married.

In order to file a petition for your fiancée to enter the U.S. on a K-1 visa, the following requirements must be met:

1. You must be a U.S. citizen.
2. You must have met with your fiancée in person within the previous two years.
3. Both you and your fiancée are legally free to marry.
4. You meet certain minimum income requirements.
5. Your fiancée does not have a criminal record.
6. Your fiancée has not violated certain U.S. immigration laws.

You may also apply (on the same petition) to bring your fiancée's unmarried children, who are under age 21, to the United States. Legal permanent residents may not file petitions for fiancée visas, although they may petition for the immigration of their new spouse after the wedding

Once the visa petition is filed in the U.S., it takes approximately four to six months to obtain approval. Once the petition is approved, an interview will be scheduled for your fiancée in his or her home country. If the case is approved, your fiancée will be issued a K-1 visa in their passport.

Your fiancée must remain unmarried until the arrival of the fiancée in the United States. The marriage must take place within 90 days of your fiancée entering the United States. If the marriage does not take place within 90 days or your fiancée marries someone other than you (the U.S. citizen filing the petition), your fiancée will be required to leave the United States.

Finally, many people who intend on marrying in the United States try to obtain a tourist visa to enter the U.S. since the time it takes to obtain a tourist visa may be much less than that of a fiancée visa. However, if someone marries while visiting you on one of those visas, their legal status in the USA will be questionable, and they may be refused permanent resident status on the basis of visa fraud if Immigration Services believes that their aim of visiting United States was simply for marrying a U.S. Citizen.

The decision by the Supreme Court will certainly reduce the number of people who are deported from the United States each year for minor drug offenses. The Supreme Court also made it easier for some immigrants convicted of drug possession under state law to remain in the country.

For more information about immigration news, immigration laws, immigration policies, proposed immigration laws, border enforcement, green cards, citizenship, employment visas, family visas, naturalization, and other immigration subjects, please visit Immigration Law Answers and DFW Immigration Law Blog.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

According to an Associated Press story in today's Dallas Morning News, Citizenship and Immigration Services has released a new civics test for immigrants applying for U.S. citizenship. There are 144 revised questions. Excerpts from the story:

The draft questions will be tried out on immigrant volunteers in 10 cities early next year. Gonzalez was not ready to give specific dates. Applicants must verbally answer six of 10 questions right to pass the civics portion of the test. The questions will be tried out early next year in Albany, N.Y.; Boston; Charleston, S.C.; Denver; El Paso; Kansas City, Mo.; Miami; San Antonio; Tucson, Ariz.; and Yakima, Wash.

The government wants the citizenship test to require a better understanding of America's history and government institutions. It expects to spend about $6.5 million to make the changes, said Alfonso Aguilar, director of the citizenship office.

The redesign is aimed at making sure applicants know the meaning behind some of America's fundamental institutions, said Chris Rhatigan, an agency spokeswoman.

The questions will go into use in the pilot cities before advocacy groups get a chance to point out any problems or concerns. After the questions are tested, the agency plans to spend a year examining results and reviewing the questions with groups with expertise and interest in the tests.

Another possible question would delve into the history of the Civil War. Applicants are now asked, What was the Emancipation Proclamation?

Current applicants need to know that it freed the slaves. In the future, however, prospective citizens will need to have a deeper understanding of the Civil War and name one of the problems that led to it.

Immigration advocates want to ensure that the new test does not make becoming a citizen more difficult, while groups that want to control immigration want to ensure newcomers are not simply memorizing information.

My guess is that about half of native-born U.S. citizens would fail the proposed test.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks