posted May 8, 2013, 8:17 AM by Randall Drew
 Employers Must Use Revised Form I-9, Employment Eligibility VerificationU.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services sent this bulletin at 05/07/2013 11:27 AM EDTU.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) reminds employers that beginning today they must use the revised Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification (Revision 03/08/13) N for all new hires and reverifications. All employers are required to complete and retain a Form I-9 for each employee hired to work in the United States. Read the News Release. |
posted Apr 17, 2013, 7:47 AM by Randall Drew
And so it begins....
Keep in mind, none of this may actually come to pass -- if it does, some things may be very different at the end of this process than when it started. Let's hope that something positive comes out of this process and that it happens sooner rather than later. ~Randall |
posted Mar 28, 2013, 11:39 AM by Randall Drew
CBP Announces Automation of Form I-94 Arrival/Departure Record
Eliminates Paper Forms, Streamlines Admission Process
(Thursday, March 21, 2013)Washington — U.S. Customs and Border Protection today announced that it has submitted to the Federal Register a rule that will automate Form I-94 Arrival/Departure Record to streamline the admissions process for individuals lawfully visiting the United States. Form I-94 provides international visitors evidence they have been lawfully admitted to the U.S. which is necessary to verify alien registration, immigration status, and employment authorization. The automation means that affected visitors will no longer need to fill out a paper form when arriving to the U.S. by air or sea, improving procedures and reducing costs. The change will go into effect 30 days after the rule is published in the Federal Register. “Automation of the I-94 will increase efficiency and streamline the admission process,” said CBP Deputy Commissioner David V. Aguilar. “Once fully implemented, the process will facilitate security and travel while saving CBP an estimated $15.5 million a year.” Travelers wanting a hard copy or other evidence of admission will be directed to www.cbp.gov/I94* to print a copy of an I-94 based on the electronically submitted data, including the I-94 number from the form, to provide as necessary to benefits providers or as evidence of lawful admission. ( www.cbp.gov/I94 ) As part of CBP’s work to bring advances in technology and automation to the passenger processing environment, records of admission will now be generated using traveler information already transmitted through electronic means. This change should decrease paperwork for both the officer and the traveler and will allow CBP to better optimize its resources. *The www.cbp.gov/i94 website will be live 30 days after the rule is published to the Federal Register. ( www.cbp.gov/I94 ) U.S. Customs and Border Protection is the unified border agency within the Department of Homeland Security charged with the management, control and protection of our nation's borders at and between the official ports of entry. CBP is charged with keeping terrorists and terrorist weapons out of the country while enforcing hundreds of U.S. laws. |
posted Mar 20, 2013, 7:06 AM by Randall Drew
The Department of Health and Human Services publishes the Poverty Guidelines every year. And every year USCIS takes way too long to publish their guidelines based on 125% of the Poverty Guidelines. It has now been almost two months since the Federal Register Posting and there is still no new form I-864P on the USCIS website. You might think USCIS would get some advance notice of the guidelines from DHHS and have the form ready ahead of time -- they don't. So I have posted them here ... make sure you doublecheck my math (I rounded up)!2013 POVERTY GUIDELINES FOR THE 48 CONTIGUOUS STATES AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Persons in family/household Poverty guideline. (USCIS = 125%) 1 $11,490 $14,363 2 $15,510 $19,388 3 $19,530 $24,413 4 $23,550 $29,438 5 $27,570 $34,463 6 $31,590 $39,488 7 $35,610 $44,513 8 $39,630 $49,538 For families/households with more than 8 persons, add $4,020 for each additional person then multiply by 1.25 |
posted Feb 27, 2013, 6:01 AM by Randall Drew
In connection with the release of certain individuals from immigration detention, ICE provided AILA with the following statement: "As fiscal uncertainty remains over the continuing resolution and possible sequestration, ICE has reviewed its detained population to ensure detention levels stay within ICE’s current budget. Over the last week, ICE has reviewed several hundred cases and placed these individuals on methods of supervision less costly than detention. All of these individuals remain in removal proceedings. Priority for detention remains on serious criminal offenders and other individuals who pose a significant threat to public safety.” From my perspective - it was a cruel waste of money and resources to be detaining people who do not pose a significant threat to the public safety in the first place. Particularly, if they have a family to support here in the United States. |
posted Feb 22, 2013, 7:00 AM by Randall Drew
The Supreme Court recently released its opinion in Chaidez v. United States. This case was about whether or not the Sixth Amendment guarantees of effective assistance of counsel (applied to warnings about deportation consequences of guilty pleas by the earlier case Padilla v. Kentucky,) could be asserted retroactively. In other words did Padilla, create a "new rule" which could only be used in cases where a plea was entered after the Padilla case (March 31, 2010) or was it simply applying an old rule to a new setting - deportation? If the latter, anyone who had entered a guilty plea (without being advised that it would lead to being deported) could seek to withdraw the plea and attempt to renegotiate the plea or go to trial.
Well, no surprise that the court took the path that would create the least amount of additional work for the lower courts - and leave settled the old cases where persons were allowed to plead guilty to charges great and small without being advised of the looming deportation proceeding in their future. It was a pragmatic "policy making" decision but not one without a legal foundation. When read together with Padilla, however, it seems clear that the Chaidez, dissent written by Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg falls closer to the true intent of the original Padilla opinion authored by Justice Stevens. Justice Stevens stated for the court in the Padilla case that because giving non-citizens warnings about immigration consequences of criminal convictions had been the standard of practice for at least 15 years:
It seems unlikely that our decision today will have a significant effect on those convictions already obtained as the result of plea bargains. For at [**298]least the past 15 years, professional norms have generally imposed an obligation on counsel to provide advice on the deportation consequences of a client's plea. See, supra, at 11-13.[12] We should, therefore, presume that counsel satisfied their obligation to render competent advice at the time their clients considered pleading guilty. Strickland, 466 U. S., at 689.
That paragraph and the one that follows it are entirely superfluous if the intent of Padilla was that it only be applied prospectively. But then Justice Stevens is retired and the person who took his spot -- Justice Kagan (who wrote the majority opinion in Chadiez) so there you go. |
posted Jan 28, 2013, 11:57 AM by Randall Drew
From CNN Politics
Washington (CNN) -- Undocumented immigrants would be able to seek legal status without first going home under a compromise framework floated Monday by a bipartisan group of senators, according to a source familiar with the plan.
The outline for a possible immigration reform bill reflects a mainstream Republican willingness to compromise on what President Barack Obama calls a top priority of his second term.
However, conservatives immediately voiced their opposition to providing undocumented immigrants a path to legal status, especially in the Republican-led House.
Read the senate plan
Framework of the Senate immigration reform deal |
posted Jan 19, 2013, 1:22 PM by Randall Drew
New - Q6: If my case is deferred, am I in lawful status for the period of deferral?A6: No. Although action on your case has been deferred and you do not accrue unlawful presence (for admissibility purposes) during the period of deferred action, deferred action does not confer any lawful status. The fact that you are not accruing unlawful presence does not change whether you are in lawful status while you remain in the United States. However, although deferred action does not confer a lawful immigration status, your period of stay is authorized by the Department of Homeland Security while your deferred action is in effect and, for admissibility purposes, you are considered to be lawfully present in the United States during that time. If you experience any difficulty obtaining a social security card or a New Hampshire ID card/Driver's license because you are a recipient of DACA employment authorization you should contact an immigration lawyer |
posted Nov 20, 2012, 12:50 PM by Randall Drew
We are pleased to welcome Jillian to practice here at Drew Law Office! She brings a great perspective and a great legal education to New Hampshire for the benefit of our clients! You can learn more about her by checking out the About Attorney Jillian LaCroix page right her on our web site. |
posted Nov 2, 2012, 6:54 AM by Randall Drew
Drew Law Office, PLLC is happy to note that the first of our DACA cases was approved last week and we expect more to be approved in the days ahead! DACA provides an opportunity for those persons who came to this country as children to obtain some temporary permission to remain in the United States (deferred action).In many cases, DACA can provide a recent graduate the documentation they need to get employment or continue their education. If you are interested or know someone who might qualify for DACA - you can call to schedule an initial consultation. We understand that many people may be waiting until after the election next week to decide whether to go ahead with applying for DACA. We look forward to speaking with you and answering your questions then. Esperamos verlos pronto y responder sus preguntas. |
|
