As a deportation defense lawyer, it’s one of the most infuriating comments I hear armchair critics make about immigration reform.
“Well, I don’t get it. I don’t know why people can’t wait to enter the country legally. My ancestors had it tough, too, but they came in through proper channels.”
They overlook that was then. This is now.
A motion to reconsider asks USCIS to reexamine its decision based on the improper disregard or misinterpretation of applicable law.
In general, a USCIS I-290B motion to reconsider is filed after an immigrant has lost his case, but the government has made an error or law.
The legal error motion may cause the agency to correct its mistake, which was utilized as the basis in the prior determination.
A motion to reopen asks USCIS to reevaluate its decision based on new evidence or changed circumstances.
In general, a USCIS I-290B motion to reopen is filed after an immigrant has lost his case, but new facts and information emerge.
This evidence may enable an immigrant to seek relief which did not exist at the time of the unfavorable decision against him.
For immigrants, taking the oath of allegiance means they have crossed the final frontier of immigration law.
It represents a major turning point in their lives.
So what Is The Oath Of Citizenship?
“Is immigration causing cultural ghettos in cities?”
That was a question asked by Su-Lu Tan, a news reporter for the Australian Financial Review.
She added, “And should we be worried?”
In a broader sense, she was addressing assimilation, and by implication, segregation, in the U.S.
Shortly after President Biden took office, the Department of State announced the processing of fiancé visa petitions would be fully resumed.
As a K-1 visa lawyer who has helped U.S. citizens bring their spouses-to-be to the United States, I applauded the government’s policy revitalization.
This ended a four year effort to dismantle family immigration programs under the pejorative guise of eliminating illegitimate chain migration schemes.
The young lawyer stepped tenderly to the podium. His case was the first to be called on the 8:00 a.m. calendar.
He seemed three months out of law school.
As he spoke to the immigration judge, his voice squeaked. His motion was simple. He asked for a new hearing date.
Waiting my turn, I listened to his presentation.
He was a new associate in his office. His client’s hearing was four weeks away.
His employer believed the case presented complex issues and felt the need to personally handle the next hearing. However, his boss had a scheduling conflict and would be out of state.
The request seemed reasonable to me.
The judge blew a fuse.
I still remember my first immigration trial.
I worked hard to cover every angle in advance. At the end of the hearing, the judge threw a curve at me. (I’ve learned, since then, this is not uncommon.)
In the judge’s view, my client could not prove good moral character. He said she was disqualified because she had admitted using false documents in her court testimony.
I disagreed with the judge’s factual portrayal of her statements, as well as with the legal reasoning he used to connect two unrelated rules.
The judge asked if I had any cases to support my opposition. I did not, but this did not mean my position was incorrect.
Are immigrants a drag on the economy?
That’s what immigration opponents assert.
They argue, on the one hand, that immigrants steal jobs from Americans. On the other, they claim immigrants are free-loaders abusing scarce American resources, taking out more than they put into the nation’s economic system.
The two positions are contradictory. Either immigrants are stealing jobs and working, or not working and living off public benefits.
Morever, they’re wrong.
211 N. State Street, Ste. 210
Hemet, CA 92543
Tel: (951) 929-0782
Click for directions
198 N. Arrowhead Avenue
San Bernardino, CA 92408
Tel: (909) 467-6736
Click for directions
