For more information, please contact our Houston Immigration Attorneys and our Houston Immigration Removal Lawyers at 713-492-0337 or visit our website at www.houston-immigratiopn-attorneys.com.

The Associated Press stated today that law suits have been filed against the controversial AZ’s illegal immigration law.  Ironically, the suit was filed by a Tucson police officer.  The officer argued that the new law is unconstitutional as it pre-empts federal statutes and also creates racial profiling.  Another suit filed by the National Coalition of Latino Clergy is also filed and similar arguments are made.  Sadly, even two of the state’s largest cities, Phoenix and Tucson are also considering filing separate law suits to block the enforcement of the new law once it comes to effect (i.e. obtaining injunctions from federal district courts). In addition to private law suits, other governmental entities, such as the U.S. Department of Justice, the city of Phoenix and Tucson are also considering filing their own suits.

Sadly, the state of AZ already seen the negative economic impact of the racially motivated law.  The city of Los Angeles announced last week that it will stop all business transaction with Arizona.  Fearful of being racially profiled, citizens and visitors have either moved out of the state (i.e. less spending in the state) or have chosen to visit a friendlier state.  Business in the hospitality and food service industries reported 30-40% less in gross income.  What this all means is that the State’s illegal immigration law has already seen the poison fruits of its own doing. The state will continue to lose revenues and starved simply because a few racist, elitists wanted to erase traces of ethnic diversity in their state.

Perhaps even more importantly, the new illegal immigration law will leave AZ with a much higher crime rate than previously.  Hiding behind the auspicious argument that the new law sought to eliminate/reduce the high rate of crime, “caused by illegal immigrants,” the state’s new law only aimed at providing a place for those who share the same racial point-of-view.  The fact of the matter is, the new law will have a chilling effect in the community.  Minorities will not call and report crimes or willing to be witnesses for fear of being racially profiled, jailed, or deported from the U.S.  AZ will become a haven or drug dealers, sex offenders, human smugglers, and other thugs and thieves, preying on the minorities.  CONGRATULATIONS governor Brewer.  One only hope that she will not become a victim of her own creation, the ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT FRANKENSTEIN.

The U.S. News stated that Houston is the 5th best place to find a job in this economy; and yet, people are still feeling the grunt of this economic downturn. Over the past 2 years, the recession has hit hard in many cities in this country. Texas, as a whole, and Houston, specifically, has fared better. Perhaps, people are still feeling a bit cautious and are more mindful of their spending than usual. Nevertheless, the economy in Houston has never bust or bubble. Read more about it  http://www.usnews.com/money/careers/slideshows/americas-best-places-to-find-a-job/5

In their latest racist ads., Quiznos advertised their $5 menu by depicting an old, Asian woman at a laundromat, eating a $5 bill.  Not only the ads. is disrespectful and tasteless, it stereo-typed Asians owning laundromats and dry-cleaners.  What is next?  South Asians (Indians and Pakistanis) owning convenience stores and hotels, African Americans owning barber shops, Vietnamese Americans owning nail shops, Mexican Americans owning taco stands and landscaping businesses?

Quiznos’ Management team should be ashamed of themselves for promoting racist, stereo-type ads.  The Marketing Managers and executives should be terminated.  Ask yourselves, Quiznos, do you really want people to think of Quiznos as a racist company?  Do your racist ads benefits Quiznos franchise-owners?

What is your opinion on Quiznos’s racist ads.?

The Supreme Court held today, March 31, 2010, that a criminal defense attorney must advise an immigrant criminal defendant the immigration consequences of the guilty plea. This is a corner stone to vacate previous convictions whereby noncitizen defendants plead guilty to a crime and are now facing or will be facing deportation. Please contact the Houston Immigration Lawyers at Pham & Cloves, PLLC at 713-492-0337 today for assistance in filing motions to vacate criminal convictions based on their lawyer’s ineffective of counsel.

In Padilla v. Kentucky, the U.S. Supreme Court held that criminal defense lawyers must advise their noncitizen clients about the risk of deportation if they accept a guilty plea. The Supreme Court held that current immigration laws impose harsh and mandatory deportation consequences onto criminal convictions, and that Congress eliminated from these laws the Attorney General’s discretionary authority to cancel removal in meritorious cases. The held that, “These changes to our immigration law have dramatically raised the stakes of a noncitizen’s criminal conviction. The importance of accurate legal advice for noncitizens accused of crimes has never been more important.”

For all questions related to immigration consequences based on criminal convictions, please contact the Houston Immigration lawyers and the Houston Deportation Attorneys at Pham & Cloves, PLLC at 713-492-0337.

]]> http://blog.veritaslegalgroup.com/2010/03/31/310/feed/ http://blog.veritaslegalgroup.com/2010/02/20/k-3-visa-processing-changes-by-dos-houston-immigration-lawyers-pham-cloves-pllc/ http://blog.veritaslegalgroup.com/2010/02/20/k-3-visa-processing-changes-by-dos-houston-immigration-lawyers-pham-cloves-pllc/#comments Sat, 20 Feb 2010 20:57:50 +0000 spham http://blog.veritaslegalgroup.com/?p=308

Department of State’s Changed Their Processing Procedures For K-3 Marriage Visas

Starting February 1, 2010, the Department of State (DOS) changed its procedures as to how it processes K-3 marriage visas in conjunction with I-130 immigrant petitions. Effectively, the DOS will no longer process K-3 marriage visas if the USCIS approves the K-3 visa application with the I-130 Immigrant Petition alien relative application at the same time. The National Visa Center (NVC), a private company that processes immigrant applications and transfer these applications to the U.S. consular offices abroad, will no longer process the K-3 visa if it receives application transfers from USCIS at the same time. Instead, NVC will process the immigrant visa and will contact the petitioner regarding the IR-1 or CR-1 immigrant visa.

K-3 nonimmigrant visas are marriage visas reserved for U.S. citizen to sponsor for their alien spouses. K-3 visas allow the foreign spouses to come to the U.S. to apply for adjustment of status rather than waiting for an immigrant visa to be processed abroad at the U.S. Consular Office. In most cases, a K-3 would allow the couple to reunite much sooner than if the spouse were to wait for an immigrant visa from the U.S. Consular offices. In processing an immigrant visa, the U.S. Consular officer must wait the FBI background check to clear prior to issuing the immigrant visa. Depending your country of origin and the commonality of your name, the background check usually takes months and sometimes even years.

The Houston immigration attorneys at Pham & Cloves, PLLC suspect that the administrative decision of the DOS will be challenged in federal court. The reason is that the administrative decision frustrates Congressional intent in enacting K-3 marriage visas under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Congress intended to allow alien spouses of U.S. citizens unite in the U.S. while waiting for their spouses’ adjustment of status application (green card application) to be approved by USCIS in the United States. If you or your family is being affected by the Department of State’s decision, please contact our U.S. immigration attorneys and our Houston immigration litigation lawyers at Pham & Cloves a call. We can help and will file suit in U.S. District Courts, if necessary, to protect your rights under the Immigration Nationality Act and reunite you with your family. Contact our Houston immigration litigation attorneys and our U.S. immigration lawyers today at 713-492-0337 or contact us online.

By The Houston Immigration Lawyers and the Houston Immigration Attorneys at

PHAM & CLOVES, PLLC

The Illegal Immigrant Reform And Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) stipulates crimes that are removable (deportable) for foreign nationals, including U.S. permanent residents. Among these crimes, those that are classified as “aggravated felonies” are most serious and will deprive the foreign national from many applications and waivers, including but not exclusive to Cancellation of Removal and I-601 extreme hardship waivers.

Under immigration law, “conviction” includes an admission of guilt, such as a “guilty” or “nolo contendre” plea. However, certain crimes that are convicted in Texas that are included in IIRIRA, INA §101(a)(43), are aggravated felonies only if a “term of imprisonment” of at least one year is imposed. For example, thefts, burglaries, and or assault offenses are considered a “crimes of violence;” and as such, an imposed imprisonment of at least 1 year or more would make these convictions aggravated felonies. In these instances, a deferred adjudication is considered as no sentencing of imprisonment.

Under the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, probations include deferred adjudications. However, deferred adjudication is not a pronouncement of sentence; and therefore, is not a “conviction.” The “pronouncement of sentence” comes only after an adjudication of guilt. Additionally, the “term of imprisonment” is not part of the Texas deferred adjudication statues. Conclusively, while a deferred adjudication is a “conviction: under immigration and naturalization law, it is not a conviction for an “aggravated felony” if INA §101(a)(43) required an imposed sentence of 1 year or more. If so, the foreign national may still be eligible for many immigration benefits, such as cancellation of removal or an extreme hardship waiver.

For more information regarding cancellation of removal, waivers, or deportation, or immigration consequences of criminal convictions, please contact our Houston Immigration Attorneys and our Houston Immigration Lawyers at PHAM & CLOVES, PLLC at 713-492-0337.

I usually do not rant and rambling on and on, especially in a blog.  However, I am making an exception today.  It never cease to amaze me as to how our tax money is “well-spent” by our government.  The latest evidence of how wasteful our government spend our tax dollars is a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) on January 25, 2010, In Matter of Rose, 25 I&N Dec. 181 (BIA 2010).  The BIA reversed its own decision a year ago, and remand the case to the immigration judge to make the decision in accordance to their new interpretation of the INA.

Mrs. Rose received her conditional green card through her U.S. citizen husband’s sponsorship in 1995.  Soon thereafter, Mr. Rose died.  After 2 years of her conditional residency, Mrs. Rose timely filed a petition to remove the conditions of residence, Form I-751.   In 1999, the INS (currently U.S.C.I.S) denied her application, stating that (1) she failed to file the application “jointly,” and (2) she was not qualified for a waiver of filing a joint petition.  Mrs. Rose was put in removal proceeding; whereby, she applied again with the immigration judge and was also denied.  Mrs. Rose timely filed her appeal with the BIA.  The BIA, after consideration, denied her appeal in January of 2009 (10 years after her 1999 denial by INS).    Mrs. Rose, through her counsel, timely filed a Motion to Reconsider to the BIA.  After their second evaluation, the BIA finally reversed its previous holding, and remand Mrs. Rose’s case to the immigration court for review accordingly.

INA section 216(d)(1) states that,

IN GENERAL.-In order for the conditional basis established under subsection (a) for an alien spouse or an alien son or daughter to be removed-

(A) the alien spouse and the petitioning spouse (if not deceased) jointly must submit to the Attorney General, during the period described in subsection (d)(2), a petition which requests the removal of such conditional basis and which states, under penalty of perjury, the facts and information described in subsection (d)(1), and

(B) in accordance with subsection (d)(3), the alien spouse and the petitioning spouse (if not deceased) must appear for a personal interview before an officer or employee of the Service respecting the facts and information described in subsection (d)(1).

(Emphasis added)

The INS and the immigration judge interpreted the statutes to say that if there is no joint petition, then the applying spouse must qualify for an “extreme hardship” waiver under the INA.  It does not take a genus to figure that the statute requires a “joint” petition and “joint” interview only if the spouse is NOT deceased.  In case a sponsoring spouse is deceased, how does someone file a “joint” petition?   If Congress did not intend for the surviving spouse to be able to file on her own, they would have not inserted (if not deceased) into the statute.  It is simple as that.  However, it takes our government over 10 years, more likely than not, 100’s of researching and working hours, and thousands of tax dollars, as well as thousands of dollars for Mrs. Rose, to come to a seemingly reasonable, straight-forward decision.

If you or your loved ones needs to file an application and petition to remove your conditions on a conditional green card, contact our Houston green card lawyers and our Houston green card application attorneys.  Our no non-sense attorney will get to the point and properly file for I-751 Petition to remove the  conditions of residence.