Categories
Global Pinoy

Widow’s Remarriage: a Penalty to Obtaining Status?

Share this:

When it comes to immigration benefits from the federal government based on petitions by deceased spouses, widows are often confronted with the impact of a remarriage. If they were petitioned by a deceased spouse, but before adjustment of their status to lawful permanent residents unexpectedly fell in love with another, would they even consider re-tying the knot? What happens to a widow seeking immigrant status who decides to remarry after the U.S. citizen spouse’s death? Will she still qualify as a self-petitioning widow?

The Remarried Widow

Lucy met Henry, a U.S. citizen, while Henry was a student in Nevada.  After three years together, Lucy and Henry got married in 2004 in a simple civil ceremony in Las Vegas.  Since Lucy’s student visa was expiring, Henry filed a petition for Lucy with an application for adjustment of status to that of an immigrant.

A few months after filing the petition, Henry was hospitalized after collapsing in the gym. He suffered from aneurysm. Lucy was a widow at the age of 30. She stayed in the United States and waited for the result of Henry’s petition. Since her petitioner died, Lucy’s petition also was automatically revoked. At that time in 2005, Lucy could not file for a Self Petition as a widow because she was married to Henry for less than two years. The regulations then require her to be married for at least two years to file a widow self petition. She filed for reconsideration but the petition was nevertheless denied.

In 2011, Lucy’s friends introduced her to John, also a U.S. citizen. The latter would court Lucy and take her out on dates. A few months after being acquainted to each other, Lucy and John got married. Since Lucy had incurred unlawful presence, John immediately filed a petition for her so Lucy would be able to get her green card.  Unfortunately, Lucy and John found themselves arguing most of the time and their marriage ended in divorce only after being married for five months. Lucy decided that it would be best if she just depart for the Philippines where her family resides. To make sure that she does not encounter legal problems upon her departure, she consulted with a lawyer about her rights as a widow and as a divorced spouse. It was during this consultation that she discovered that she still has an opportunity to legalize her stay and obtain a green card through the petition of her first spouse, Henry. She thought that by re-marrying John, she lost her chance to obtain an immigrant visa through Henry. What can she do?

Self Petitions for Widows

One of the exceptions to the rule that “petition dies with the petitioner” is the widow of a U.S. citizen petition. Hence, even if the U.S. citizen spouse dies, the surviving spouse may still avail of the immigration benefits of obtaining the green card by filing a self-petition.

Prior to 2009, there exists what was referred to as the “widow’s penalty”. This was applied as a bar to widows who have not been married for two years at the time of death of their U.S. citizen spouses.  Widows who were married for less than two years were then prevented from applying for their green cards.

In 2009, the U.S. Congress has abolished the “widow’s penalty” for all applications pending on or after Oct. 28, 2009 and a widow(er) of a USC can now obtain residency if he or she was married at the time of the principal’s death and he or she petition’s for his or her green card within two years. There was also a transition period until Oct. 28, 2011 that allowed widow(ers) to file by that date if the citizen spouse died before Oct. 28, 2009, they were married for less than 2 years, and the widow(er) has not remarried.

The widow(er) petition is submitted on Form I-360. If the petition was filed as an I-130 and the petitioner dies, it is automatically converted into an I-360 petition if the widow(er) otherwise qualifies for an I-360. If the I-130 was denied based on the widow’s penalty, the petition may be re-opened and USCIS may re-adjudicate the petition.

Effect of  Remarriage

The USCIS takes the position that the regulations defining what constitutes a “widow” contains a caveat that the widow must not have re-married as a condition for the widow to avail of the immigration benefits under the 2009 law. But in the recent case filed in federal court, Williams v. DHS Secretary (13-11270Eleventh Circuit 2013), the Court ruled that the “remarriage bar” does not apply to widows whose cases are re-opened under the 2009 survivors law or section 204(l) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Applying the ruling of this case to Lucy, she will be able to obtain her immigrant visa despite her remarriage to John.

The case of Williams v. DHS refers only to re-opened cases under section 204(l) of the INA where the U.S. Congress attempted to remedy the harsh effect of requiring a two year marriage for purposes of filing widow petitions. For the general petitioning process, it is important to emphasize that the widow should still not be remarried if they wish to get their green card through the deceased spouse.

There should be no penalty for remarrying especially during the latter part of life where one seeks companionship during one’s senior years. But like any life changing decisions, it is important that the widow(er) take time to analyze the legal consequences of the marriage on any rights, benefits, privileges they currently enjoy as widows, whether it be in the context of social security pensions, taxes, or in this case, immigration.

(Atty. Lourdes Tancinco may be reached at law@tancinco.com or at 721 1963 or visit her website at tancinco.weareph.com/old)

Categories
Updates

Chile Receives Designation As Visa Waiver Program Participant

Share this:

The Department of Homeland Security has designated Chile as a
participant in the Visa Waiver Program (VWP). Beginning May 1, 2014,
eligible Chilean nationals with an approved Electronic System for Travel
Authorization (ESTA) and e-passport will be able to enter the United
States without a nonimmigrant visitor visa.

“This announcement furthers our important partnership with Chile and
will benefit the security and the economies of both our nations,” said
Secretary of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson. “The addition of Chile to
the Visa Waiver Program will enable us to work together to maintain the
highest standards of security, while also facilitating travel for
Chileans visiting the United States.”

Categories
Updates

USCIS Publishes Updated H-2B Visa Numbers February 21, 2014

Share this:

On February 21, 2014, USCIS provided an update of the amount of
cap-subject H-2B visas received and approved by the federal agency for
the first and second halves of fiscal year 2014. According to USCIS, a
total of 33,337 beneficiaries have been approved for the first half of
fiscal year 2014, with an additional 3,751 petitions pending. 5,100
beneficiaries have yet been approved for the second half of fiscal year
2014; 7,108 petitions are pending.

Congressionally-based legislation limits the amount of H-2B visas
provided per fiscal year to a total of 66,000, with 33,000 allocated for
employment for the first half of the fiscal year and 33,000 allocated
for employment for the second half of the fiscal year. Unused numbers
from the first half of the fiscal year are made available for use by
employers seeking H-2B workers during the second half of the year.

Categories
Immigration Round Table

Reminder to DACA Recipients: Renew Early and Avoid Losing Your Authorization to Work

Share this:

On June 15, 2012, the Obama administration announced its “deferred action” program to young immigrants who were brought to the United States as children. Deferred action for young immigrants was referred to as the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (or DACA).

An individual granted DACA status does not provide any permanent resident status but has the effect of deferring removal action against an individual for two years. This means that if the DACA status was granted on June 30, 2012, it will be valid only until June 20, 2014.  With the expiration of DACA status coming up, what steps must be taken to renew one’s status as a DACA recipient? What will happen if the DACA recipient does not receive a renewal of his status?

DACA Granted by ICE

Roger was born in the Philippines and arrived in the United States when he was 8 years old. His father paid a travel agent in the Philippines for a passport with a visitor visa. This was handed to Roger to be used in his travel to the United States. Roger has been using an “assumed” name while in the United States.

In 2011, Roger was arrested for a minor traffic violation. He was convicted for a misdemeanor offense. He is now 26 years old and he was brought to the immigration court for his removal proceedings. While his case was pending, his lawyer applied for a DACA status. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement (or ICE) granted his DACA request and his case was administrative closed. Roger now has an employment authorization document which will expire on June 30, 2014. What should he do to avoid being placed back in removal proceedings?

One of the many requirements of DACA is that the individual must not have been convicted of a felony, a significant misdemeanor, three or more other misdemeanors and are not a threat to national security or public safety. In the case of Roger, he was convicted only for a minor traffic violation which is not considered a significant misdemeanor. He met all the requirements for DACA status and was granted employment authorization card. If he is working right now, it is important for Roger to start applying for the renewal of his DACA status to avoid losing his authorization to work and incurring unlawful presence.

On February 19, 2014, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services issued guidelines for renewal of deferred action by DACA recipients. It must be noted that the guidelines are only for those granted DACA by ICE. It does not apply to those who were granted DACA status by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Those granted deferred action by ICE are usually those who were in removal proceedings or have prior orders of removal.

Period to File

According to the USCIS guidelines, DACA recipients may request renewal of their deferred action 120 days prior to the expiration of their original 2 year period of deferred action. For example in the case of Roger, he was granted DACA on June 30, 2012. He can apply for renewal now since it is within the 120 days period for applying for renewal.

Individuals who received DACA through ICE—most of whom received DACA between June 15, 2012 and August 15, 2012, the period before USCIS began accepting I-821D applications—will be required to apply for DACA as if for the first time, providing proof that they meet all of the relevant guidelines. The form must be completed, properly signed and accompanied by supporting documentation to establish eligibility as if it was an initial application, a Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, filing fees totaling $465 ($380 fee for Form I-765 and $85 biometric services fee), and Form I-765WS.

The USCIS notice emphasized that those individuals who do not receive a renewal before the expiration of their original DACA grant will accumulate unlawful presence and loses work authorization. It is advisable to submit the DACA renewal applications early at least within the 120 period for filing.

Atty. Lourdes Tancinco may be reached at law@tancinco.com or at 1 888 930 0808 or visit her website at tancinco.weareph.com/old)

Categories
Global Pinoy

68 Years of Injustice and Still Counting

Share this:

It has been 68 years. 68 years since the Rescission Act of 1946 has been enacted. 68 years since thousands of Filipino World War II veterans have lived under a pall of injustice, and who to this day, have not received their promised due. 68 years of ongoing hardship and despite concerted action to correct the unjust treatment, most efforts have remained futile except for a few provisions adjusting some benefits. Despite the corrective amendments made subsequent, the harsh effect of the Rescission Act is still experienced by many veterans to this day.

George is a Filipino World War II veteran who is currently residing in California. He has a service-connected disability and is one of the few veterans who is receiving compensation from the U.S. Veterans Affairs office. In January 2014, he received a letter from the V.A. notifying him of its intention to reduce his benefits down to 50% of what he is currently receiving. What will be the reason for the reduction of this benefit? What steps should he take to ensure his compensation benefit is not reduced?

The 1946 Rescission Act

More than 250,000 Filipinos were conscripted to join the U.S. Armed Forces of the Far East during World War II. After the war, President Truman signed the Supplemental Surplus Appropriation Rescission Act and the Second Surplus Appropriation Rescission Act. These pieces of legislation are commonly known as the Rescission Act of 1946 and contain provisions that stripped our Filipino veterans of their well-deserved veterans benefits.

Under this law, the Filipino World War II veterans, the New Philippine Scouts, recognized Guerilla Units and all those who served under the command of the United States Armed Forces in the Far East (USAFFE) were denied eligibility for most veterans benefits including all non-service connected U.S. veteran benefits. It reduced by 50 percent the service-connected benefits that these targeted individuals may receive relative to their American counterparts. The specific Filipino veterans provision of the 1946 Rescission Act is codified in 38 United States Code Section 107(a). The denial of military benefits to Filipino veterans is a result of this 1946 enactment. To correct this iniquitous treatment and injustice to the veterans, legislation that outrightly repeals the 1946 Rescission Act needs to be passed by the U.S. Congress.

Amendment to Correct Injustice

For many years, Filipino American advocates in the United States attempted to correct the harsh effects of the Rescission Act. Several piecemeal legislation had been passed that provided some relief to some veterans but none that justly or completely addressed the veterans’ plight.

In 1999, the Filipino Veterans Improvement Act (P.L. 106-377) was passed into law that restored the 50% service-connected benefits back to 100%, but only for veterans residing in the United States. In 2009, a decade later, President Obama enacted the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Act where veterans residing in the United States are to be granted a one time payment of $15,000 for those U.S. citizen veterans and $9,000 for non-US citizen veterans in the Philippines. The United States government has yet to fully restore the rights, privileges and benefits guaranteed to, but were taken away from, Filipino soldiers of WWII.

Under the current state and in the absence of true equity legislation, U.S. Veterans Affairs examiners have to reference the various laws, understand which benefits apply to which specific class of Filipino veterans, just to determine the measure of the benefits that are to be received in any given application.

The case of George exemplifies this problem. It is true that the 1946 Rescission Act limited his benefits to the 50% rate for compensation benefits for Filipino veterans, but because this was corrected in 1999 under the Filipino Veterans Improvement Act for the Filipino veterans residing in the United States, his benefit should not be reduced. At the present time, George’s case is to be heard by the Board of the Veterans Appeals so he may present evidence of his residence in the United States and argue that he should rightfully receive 100% of his disability benefit.

Family Reunification

Every effort undertaken for the benefit of the Filipino veterans may no longer be felt by thousands of them as the population dwindles due to age, sickness, or outright despair. A significant number of the elderly veterans in the United States are resigned to their plight but grab on to the one real hope that at least in the near future, their adult children can immigrate and join them in the United States.

A bill called the Filipino Veterans Family Reunification Act of 2013 sponsored by Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI) and Rep. Colleen Hanabusa (D-HI1) will benefit descendants of the Filipino veterans. If this bill is passed into law, children of Filipino veterans may take advantage of the exemption from the numerical limitation set by the U.S. immigration quota system. This means that their petitions will all be processed outside the set quota and they need not wait for the priority dates to be current. This bill specifically mentions that it will apply even if the Filipino veteran is no longer living, as long as there is proof of the veteran’s naturalization as a U.S. citizen. Senator Hirono was able to tack this provision into the Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill which was passed by the Senate. Unfortunately, the House of Representatives has as yet to take active action in order to get the immigration reform bill passed.

The story of our Filipino veterans and their descendants had always been that of constant struggle. Countless Filipino Americans and their supporters are actively taking steps to try to correct the iniquities brought about by the Rescission Act 1946 and restore the rights of the Filipino veterans. But with the political and economic climate being what it is, it will be a long road ahead before Filipino veterans and their families could realize true justice. Hopefully, it will not take another 68 years.

(Atty. Lourdes Tancinco may be reached at law@tancinco.com or at 721 1963 or visit her website at tancinco.weareph.com/old)
 

Categories
Updates

Renewal Guidelines for Individuals Granted DACA Status from ICE Now Posted

Share this:

According to USCIS, some DACA recipients may request renewal of their
deferred action 120 days prior to the expiration of their original
two-year period of deferred action. This renewal request capability is
limited to a small group of DACA recipients, individuals who received
such status from Immigration and Customs Enforcement between June 15,
2012 and August 15, 2012.

The majority of DACA recipients received DACA through USCIS after August
15, 2012. However, individuals who received this status through ICE
during the period before USCIS began accepting Form I-821D will be
required to apply for DACA as if for the first time, including providing
proof they meet all the required guidelines for DACA status.

Categories
Immigration Round Table

Assisted Reproductive Technology and U. S. Citizenship

Share this:

Egg or Sperm Donor Need Not be From US Citizen to Obtain US Citizenship

For most married couples, raising kids of their own is a given. Unfortunately, some couples have fertility problems. Thus, options like adoption or undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART) are considered.  ART includes in vitro fertilization (transfer of fertilized human eggs into a woman’s uterus).  In vitro fertilization involves surgically removing eggs from a woman’s ovaries and combining them with a sperm in the laboratory, after which they are either returned to the woman’s body or implanted into another woman.
In the Philippines, surrogacy arrangements of any form are still considered invalid as being morally and religiously wrong. The same rule does not apply to other countries where surrogacy arrangements are recognized and regulated. While this surrogacy arrangement is considered void in the Philippines, there are some Filipino nationals who have the option of undergoing assisted reproduction technology in varying ways.

In an actual case, Maria who is of Filipino heritage and who is now a US citizen residing in California entered into a surrogacy arrangement with a woman in India. Maria’s egg cell was used together with the sperm of her US citizen husband. The fertilized egg was then implanted in the surrogate mother in India who carried the baby to term.  After the child was born, a U.S. passport was applied for at the U.S. Consulate in India and the child was issued a U.S passport.  The U.S. State Department clearly followed the rule that “the sperm or the egg donor must be a U.S. citizen in order to transmit U.S. citizenship to a child conceived through assisted reproductive technology.” The child’s application for U.S. passport was granted after a genetic link was proven to exist.  Sections 301 and 309 of the Immigration and Nationality Act regarding transmission of citizenship provides this rule. Hence, as in the case of Maria, even if the surrogate mother (woman from India who carried the child for nine months) is not a U.S. citizen, the child may still be considered as a U. S. citizen.

In a reverse situation where the fertilized egg is from a confidential donor and is implanted into the womb of a mother through ART, a problem will arise if the mother gives birth outside the US. Generally, a U.S. citizen mother who carries the fetus for 9 months expects the child who is born to be a U.S. citizen as well.  However, what about the situation where the egg or sperm donor (or both) is unknown (or kept confidential)?  Under the old rule, problems of citizenship may arise in these cases where the sperm or egg donor wishes to remain confidential or anonymous. In these cases, there will be no way to prove citizenship of the donor for purposes of transmitting citizenship to the child.

In a recent development released this month of February, the U.S. Department of State announced a major policy change to facilitate transmission of American citizenship to children born outside the United States using Assisted Reproductive Technology. There is no more requirement of a genetic link. According to the State Department, U.S. citizen mother can now pass on citizenship to children to whom they give birth regardless of whose egg or sperm was used for conception.

(Atty. Lourdes Santos Tancinco may be reached at 1 888 930 0808 or at law@tancinco.com or visit her website at tancinco.weareph.com/old)

Categories
Updates

USCIS Publishes Updated H-2B Visa Numbers February 14, 2014

Share this:

On February 14, 2014, USCIS provided an update of the amount of
cap-subject H-2B visas received and approved by the federal agency for
the first and second halves of Fiscal Year 2014. According to USCIS, a
total of 30,687 beneficiaries have been approved for the first half of
Fiscal Year 2014, with an additional 4,453 petitions pending. 4,063
beneficiaries have yet been approved for the second half of Fiscal Year
2014; 6,656 petitions are pending.

Congressionally-based legislation limits the amount of H-2B visas
provided per fiscal year to a total of 66,000, with 33,000 allocated for
employment for the first half of the fiscal year and 33,000 allocated
for employment for the second half of the fiscal year. Unused numbers
from the first half of the fiscal year are made available for use by
employers seeking H-2B workers during the second half of the year.

Categories
Global Pinoy

The Perils of Remarrying Your Ex-spouse

Share this:

After a divorce or annulment, it is not unusual that married couples sometimes reconcile and give their relationship a second chance by re-marrying. While remarriages of couples can be considered as good faith marriages, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services may consider these remarriages as a derogatory fact in obtaining future immigrant visas.  In what specific context does this occur?

Sid was married to Lorna in 1987. They have two children from their union. The employer of Sid sent him to the United States for “training” on a program for their company.  When Sid arrived in the United States, he bumped into Anna who was his former classmate in high school.  During his short stay in the United States, Anna and Sid developed an intimate relationship. After a few months, Sid divorced Lorna in a California court. After the decree of divorce was issued, Sid and Anna married in Reno, Nevada.

Anna filed an immigrant visa petition for Sid and his two minor children with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.  Sid was eventually able to obtain his green card; while his children also got their visas and arrived in the US. A short time after he was granted the green card, Sid’s affection towards Anna changed drastically. He rarely slept at their conjugal home and had less communications with Anna. When confronted, Sid finally revealed his intention to leave Anna and began living with his two minor children separately. Anna was distressed by the situation and felt used by Sid. She thought that her relationship with Sid was genuine and in good faith but there was nothing that she could do.  Anna cried about her situation and fell into a severe depression.

After a few years, Sid applied for U.S. citizenship and was approved. He also divorced Anna and continued residing with his minor children in an apartment he rented near his place of employment.  Sid later decided to return briefly to the Philippines where he re-married his first spouse, Lorna.  As soon as he got re-married to Lorna, he filed an immigrant visa petition for her so that they could reside again as a family in the United States.  What will happen to the petition of Lorna? Will Sid prevail in his plans of reuniting his family?

Sham Marriage

In order to determine whether Sid’s petition for her first wife will be approved the USCIS will examine the nature Sid’s marriage to Anna as that marriage was the source of his green card and later citizenship status. Sid’s marriage to the U.S. citizen spouse must have been entered into in good faith and should not be a sham marriage.

Relevant case law defines a sham marriage as a marriage that was entered into for the primary purpose of circumventing immigration laws with no intent of establishing a life together. It is a marriage that was entered solely for the purpose of obtaining a green card. Hence, the key in finding whether a marriage is fraudulent or a sham marriage is determining the “intent” of the married couple at the time of the marriage. Did they have the intent of establishing a life together at the time of the marriage?

The burden of showing whether the marriage is real lies with the beneficiary or the party seeking the green card. It requires proving a “state of mind” coupled with objective evidence. In assessing the evidence, USCIS will examine documentation submitted such as shared residence, co-mingling of funds, proof that the beneficiary is listed on U.S. citizen’s spouse insurance policies, property leases, income tax forms, bank accounts, etc.

In this actual case of Sid, he should convince the USCIS that his marriage to Anna was in good faith and was with the intention of establishing a life together. However, his acts after issuance of his green card show a contrary intention. Though he may have shown a genuine intention initially, his subsequent actions indicates that his real intention was to reunite his first family in the United States. Unknown to Sid, Anna and her family wrote declarations and letters to the USCIS alleging that Sid “used” Anna just to obtain his green card and that their marriage was entered into fraudulently from the beginning. Detailed testimonies were submitted to prove the sham marriage. Hence, despite a prior finding of good faith marriage, the legal consequences of a fraudulent marriages will still have adverse effects against Sid and his future petitions.

Consequences of Marriage Fraud

If Sid was still a green card holder, his status will have been revoked after the USCIS determination of a fraudulent marriage. Now that he is a U.S. citizen, he may run the risk of having his U.S. citizenship revoked as it was based on fraud.  This will prevent him from filing future petitions for immigration benefits.

Aside from the civil consequence of marriage fraud, there is a possibility that criminal charges can be filed against him.  If convicted of marriage fraud, he faces a penalty of up to five years imprisonment or a fine of $250,000 or both.

Marriage in Good Faith

Marital relationships if not based on genuine “love” may be complicated. Those who have seen cases similar to that of Sid may argue that this cannot be a fraudulent marriage but simply a case of bad marriage. In the immigration context, proving a real marriage from a sham marriage is a matter of credibility and evidence. If indeed it was a bad marriage, then the consequences mentioned above may not be applicable.  Whether or not it is, depends on the facts of the case and the available evidence to defend one position or the other.

(Atty. Lourdes Tancinco may be reached at law@tancinco.com or at 721 1963 or visit her website at tancinco.weareph.com/old)