PHAM & CLOVES, PLLC

TEXAS SENATE BILL 1677 - Allowing “Immigration Consultants” To Provide Immigration Services

The SB 1677 as it stands is a diaster waiting to happen.  If this Bill passes and becomes law, immigrants in Texas will suffer dire consequences including but is not exclusive to do the denial of many qualified applications, barred from immigration benefits, and even up to removals based on the lack of knowledge and experience by “immigration consultants.”  These so-called consultants are often time feed on immigrants’ vulnerability and provide legal services and counseling without proper knowledge, experience, and a bar license.  The consequences are devasting.  The following is a letter of my opposition to the ACLU and to oppose this legislation.  I suggest you write to your state Senators and Representatives on this issue.

Dear Ms. M:

My name is Steven Tuan Pham and I am an immigration attorney and managing partner of Veritas Legal Group, P.C.  I am writing this correspondence in response to SB 1677 and offer my opposition, including testifying in Austin if necessary.  As an immigration attorney who worked with indigent clients within the Vietnamese community, I have witnessed a number of incidents in which various “immigration consultants” advised clients in filing the wrong forms, as well as their qualifications and/or their rights to file applications for certain immigration benefits.  In addition to the cost for filing fees and payments to these consultants, these immigrants wasted time and were denied of benefits in which they should have gotten had they received proper information.  Because their level of education and their lack of English skills, many immigrants do not understand the differences between an “immigration consultant” and an immigration attorney.  As such, they relied on these “services” without obtain a second opinion from qualified attorneys.  In addition, I have previously worked with the Texas Attorney General’s office to investigate and prosecute some of these consultants and it has proven to be effective.  However, the problem still persists.

 Example: 

 A legal permanent resident (LPR) retained the services of an “immigration consultant” and filed an immigrant I-130 petition for his son, who was then over 21 and was not married.  This petition, in effect, is a family-based immigrant petition under the 2^nd preference, subcategory B.  The immigrant petition has been filed for 4 years and was close to having a visa available.  The LPR later filed a naturalization application and received an interview date.  Prior to the interview, the LPR received news that his son was getting married.  The immigration consultant advised the LPR to cancel the naturalization interview and go to Vietnam to attend the wedding and that the marriage would not have any negative consequences.  The consequence in which the son is married, but prior to the LPR being naturalized, is a disqualification of the previous I-130 petition.  Had the LPR naturalized prior to his son’s marriage, the previous I-130 petition would have been changed from 2^nd preference subcategory B to third preference. As such, a visa would have been available within a few months for both the son and his newly-wed spouse.  As it stands, the son is no longer qualified based on the previous I-130 petition.  4 years have wasted and the LPR will not have top get naturalized and refile the I-130 petition for his son and daughter-in-law.

 The current Bill is contradicting and will result in many immigrants being denied of benefits because of the lack of qualifications by these immigration consultants or notarios.  It is oxymoronic for a consultant to assist an immigrant in “filling out” applications without advising the immigrants which applications to fill and whether such person is qualified for the application.  Certainly, an immigrant who does not have English skills would inquire as to the forms necessary to file for certain applications or petitions and whether or not he or she is qualified.  As such, the Bill, as it stands, will have devastating consequences for the immigrant population. Further, the Bill is an invitation for fraudulent applications because immigration consultants do not face disciplinary actions by the State Bar.  In addition, if the USCIS deemed that any such application is a fraud, unbeknown to the applicants, the application would be denied, and depending on the fact, the immigrant could be removed from the U.S.

 The example above is based on a true story in Houston, TX.  Should you require more details in the matter stated above, as well as other examples, please contact my office directly by calling 832-484-9015, Est. 305.  Thank you for the opportunity to voice our opinion regarding this Bill. 

 Yours truly,

Veritas Legal GroupSteven Tuan Pham, Attorney
13700 Veterans Memorial Dr., Suite 100
Houston, TX 77014
Phone: 832-484-9015, Ext. 305
Fax: 832-286-0488
www.veritaslegalgroup.com |

www.houston-immigration-attorneys.com