Pages
Stay In Touch
More
© 2009 Spar & Bernsteins 'Law link' Blog
Ask Brad is a regular feature of The Immigration Law Link blog, in which Spar & Bernstein president/immigration attorney, Brad Bernstein, offers his best answers to questions about immigration law.
Question: Hello Brad! My husband and I enjoy your honesty and positive attitude very much. Anyway, I am an American who spends four months per year here in Jamaica with my husband. We’ve been married for 4½ years. The problem is, since I am only in the U.S. for a portion of the year, and when I am there I am waitressing, I don’t earn enough to qualify as someone who can support my husband, according to the forms I’ve read from the immigration office. Do I have to get a family member, or can it be a friend, to sign an affidavit of support for us? Any advice would be much appreciated. Do they take into consideration the fact that I spend a large portion of my earnings traveling here to be with my husband? Thank you so very much.
Brad Bernstein: Thanks so much for the compliments. You can have a friend sign an affidavit of support. It does not have to be a family member. And, no, they do not take into consideration that you spend a large part of your earnings flying to Jamaica.
The Law Offices of Spar & Bernstein, 225 Broadway, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10007. Phone: 1-212-227-3636, 1-800-law-link, 1-800-529-5465 Email: info@lawsb.com
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer.
Radio host Laura Ingraham and Columbia University professor Marc Lamont Hill.
By the Staff of New York Immigration Attorneys
The Law Offices of Spar & Bernstein
Question: After a long-term relationship, earlier this year I married a U.S. citizen. I do not want to change my immigration status and do not wish to immigrate nor reside permanently in the United States since we both have steady jobs outside the U.S. and I do not want to leave my country. All I want is to be able to travel temporarily into the U.S. for pleasure and leisure as most tourists do, once or twice a year for a couple of weeks each time.
I want to know if I can just apply for a new B-1/B-2 tourist visa to travel into the U.S. or if my husband needs to file an I-130 petition for alien relative and I-129 and K visa thereafter instead –which I understand would be the right process if I ever wanted to adjust status or become a U.S. permanent resident.
Spar & Bernstein: This is up to the discretion of the consulate and then again up to CBP when you land in USA. Consulates have the discretion to issue you a B visa – despite your presumed immigrant intent – if they are convinced that you will return. This is true for all cases where a B (or F or similar) visa is sought while GC is pending or could be pending.
The Law Offices of Spar & Bernstein, 225 Broadway, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10007. Phone: 1-212-227-3636, 1-800-law-link, 1-800-529-5465 Email: info@lawsb.com
CNN’s Anderson Cooper talks with Arizona Sen. Russell Pearce and the Rev. Al Sharpton about Arizona’s immigration law.
By the Staff of New York Immigration Attorneys
The Law Offices of Spar & Bernstein
Question: I am a permanent resident now for eight years and I would like to apply for my citizenship. The problem is I am getting married to my child’s father in Jamaica and wondering whether, it is better to file for my husband after I got my citizenship or it is faster to file him as a spouse of a Lawful Permanent Resident?
Spar & Bernstein: I would recommend you file for your husband as a spouse of lawful permanent resident, and at the same time, you file for your citizenship. As the spouse of a lawful permanent resident, your husband will be filed for in the second preference category which currently has a wait of about three to four years before visas become available for him to obtain his green card. Naturalization takes about approximately 9 months in New York to process. Now, assuming your petition has been approved when you become a United States citizen, you can upgrade your petition to immediate relative status which would make a green card available to him shortly thereafter. The advantage of filing before you obtain your citizenship is that your visa petition has already made it through some of the bureaucracy before your naturalization. It is actually faster to get an approval for an upgraded petition than it is to file from scratch once you become a citizen. Also, there is never any guarantee that you would ever become a citizen. So, if you are waiting to file for your husband and you never become a citizen, you husband will never come to the United States. If you file for him as a legal permanent resident, than you know that the worst case scenario is that he will be here in about three to four years.
The Law Offices of Spar & Bernstein, 225 Broadway, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10007. Phone: 1-212-227-3636, 1-800-law-link, 1-800-529-5465 Email: info@lawsb.com
CNN’s Gabriela Frias talks to a United Farm Workers official, Maria Machuca, about the Arizona immigration law ruling.
![no_cash[1]](http://sblawlink.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/no_cash1.jpg "no_cash[1]")
Source: USCIS
WASHINGTON— U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that beginning October 1, 2010, domestic offices and U.S. territories, including the U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam, will no longer accept cash payment. Eliminating the acceptance of cash will reduce USCIS operating costs. As an alternative to cash, our customers may pay using checks (including personal checks), money orders, and credit cards. Checks and money orders must be made payable to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Processing of your application will not be affected by the use of an alternative payment method.
USCIS accepts credit cards in all Field Offices that accept payments. Accepted cards include Visa®, Mastercard®, American Express®, and Discover® Network.
USCIS International Operations offices, located in embassies internationally, may continue to accept cash. For more information on USCIS payment options, visit www.uscis.gov.
Opponents of Arizona’s immigration law are celebrating the judge’s ruling, but state leaders who supported the full law say they’ll battle on. MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer reports from Phoenix.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
We breathe a sigh of relief that what could’ve been a Thursday morning of utter madness became instead a day of great celebration and a victory for humanity.
We breathe a sigh of relief that a Arizona judge named Susan Bolton stood strong in the face of screaming voices, stuck true to the U.S. Constitution, and made the right decision.
We breathe a sigh of relief that the ugly likes of Sheriff Arpaio and Gov. Brewer aren’t unleashed with a law in their hands to inflict terror and pain and hardship on the brown-skinned people of Arizona, instead forced to stuff their jowls with a full helping of humble pie.
We breathe a sigh of relief, that, yes, SB 1070 has, mercifully, thankfully, beautifully, been reduced to nothing more than SB 1070 Lite.
And we especially breathe a sigh of relief that, in the end, what is right and just and good still matters.
By the Staff of New York Immigration Attorneys
The Law Offices of Spar & Bernstein
Question: I currently reside in NYC. I am aware that my brother, who is a U.S. citizen, can file a petition on my behalf. My question is whether an application for work authorization can also be filed?
Spar & Bernstein: Well, I’m glad your brother is filing for you. Unfortunately, you cannot obtain a work permit until your visa petition is approved, your date is reached on the visa waiting list and you are eligible to adjust your status under section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Should your brother file for you now, it will be approximately 10 years before your date is reached on the visa waiting list. Whether you are eligible for section 245(i) is another story. But even if you are, it is still 10 years.
The Law Offices of Spar & Bernstein, 225 Broadway, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10007. Phone: 1-212-227-3636, 1-800-law-link, 1-800-529-5465 Email: info@lawsb.com
Political strategists Donna Brazile and Nicolle Wallace weigh in on the Arizona immigration bill, SB 1070, part of which was blocked yesterday by Federal Judge Susan Bolton.
Source: American Immigration Council
Washington, D.C. – Today, Phoenix district court judge Susan Bolton enjoined key provisions of Arizona’s controversial immigration law, SB 1070. The judge recognized that the federal government has primary authority over making and enforcing immigration law, and that while states have limited authority in this arena, they cannot interfere with federal enforcement or undermine federal priorities.
The decision acknowledges the complex nature of immigration law and the harmful consequences of local police attempting to make immigration determinations. The judge also recognized the serious strain that the Arizona law would place on federal resources, which would detract from the federal government’s ability to enforce immigration laws in other states and target resources toward serious criminals.
The following is a statement from Benjamin E. Johnson, Executive Director of the American Immigration Council:
“It is clear that Judge Bolton has a strong grasp on the complexity of immigration issues and the challenges facing the state. She blocked the most controversial and troubling parts of the law that not only intrude on the Federal government’s authority over immigration, but were also likely to violate the civil rights of legal immigrants and U.S. citizens.
“While it is important to acknowledge that there are serious problems in Arizona, if Arizonans truly want to target human trafficking, human smuggling, and other serious crimes, they must focus their efforts and resources on those criminal networks, and nothing in today’s decision prevents them from doing so.
“Now the question is whether politicians at the state and federal level will stop playing politics and start solving problems. Arizona must start focusing on serious criminals and the federal government must assume its Constitutional duty of fixing the broken immigration system. America needs real solutions that make our communities safer, our border more secure, and finally fix our broken immigration system.”
Key parts of Arizona’s immigration law, SB 1070, that will NOT go into effect Thursday:
• The portion of the law that requires an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there’s reasonable suspicion they’re in the country illegally.
• The portion that creates a crime of failure to apply for or carry “alien-registration papers.”
• The portion that makes it a crime for illegal immigrants to solicit, apply for or perform work. (This does not include the section on day laborers.)
• The portion that allows for a warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe they have committed a public offense that makes them removable from the United States.
Federal Judge Susan Bolton grants an injunction on parts – the most controversial parts – of Arizona’s immigration law, SB 1070.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Here is the pdf link to Federal Judge Susan Bolton’s ruling today in the lawsuit against Arizona over its immigration law, SB 1070.
Click here.
Source: New York Times
By Randal C. Archibold
PHOENIX — A federal judge, ruling on a clash between the federal government and a state over immigration policy, has blocked the most controversial parts of Arizona’s immigration enforcement law from going into effect.
In a ruling on a law that has rocked politics coast to coast and thrown a spotlight on the border state’s fierce debate over immigration, United States District Court Judge Susan Bolton in Phoenix said some aspects of the law can go into effect as scheduled on Thursday.
But Judge Bolton took aim at the parts of the law that have generated the most controversy, issuing a preliminary injunction against sections that called for officers to check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws and that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times.
Judge Bolton put those sections on hold while she continues to hear the larger issues in the challenges to the law.
“Preserving the status quo through a preliminary injunction is less harmful than allowing state laws that are likely preempted by federal law to be enforced,” she said.
“There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens,” she wrote. “By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a ‘distinct, unusual and extraordinary’ burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose.”
Rap metal giants Rage Against the Machine headlined a concert benefiting organizations fighting Arizona’s unseemly immigration law, SB 1070.
![sheriff_arpaio[1]](http://sblawlink.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/sheriff_arpaio1-300x300.gif "sheriff_arpaio[1]")
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the blowhard who loves to tout himself as “America’s Toughest Sheriff,” just hours ago said that if there isn’t an injunction and Arizona’s SB 1070 immigration law takes effect, he’s “not going to put up with any civil disobedience,” that if protesters block his jail, he’ll put them right in it. And if that wasn’t kind and gentle and understanding enough, he told ABC’s “Good Morning America” that he doesn’t really get “what the big hype is” over this law. And if that doesn’t say it all about this nattering Neanderthal, nothing does.
On Larry King, filmmaker Michael Moore sounds off on Arizona immigration law, SB 1070, and says he has not only joined in on the boycott against the state but also doesn’t want his films shown there now.
Source: CNN
With scant hours to go before a controversial Arizona immigration law goes into effect, questions remained Wednesday about when a federal judge will rule on seven suits seeking to block its implementation.
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton has already said she feels no obligation to rule before the law goes into effect July 29. Bolton said she wants to make sure she gets the ruling right and will not be rushed into making a decision.
Bolton, a federal jurist since 2000, also said she could rule on parts of the Arizona law and does not have to reject or approve it in its totality.
