Author: tancincowp

Categories
Updates

USCIS Announces the Availability of a New I-90 Form

Share this:

On June 14, 2010, USCIS announced that the availability of a new
version of Form I-90, the Application to Replace Permanent Resident
Card. This new version, which is dated 8/10/09, contains a number of
new, more user-friendly features. USCIS comments that it will accept
previous versions of the I-90 form for 45 days (until July 28, 2010).
After that date, all previous versions of the I-90 form will be
returned to the applicants with a note instructing them to use the
correct, current version of the form.

Applicants may file the
form electronically through e-filing or by mailing it to the USCIS
Phoenix Lockbox facility at one of the following two addresses:

U.S. Postal Service:

USCIS
P.O. Box 21262
Phoenix, AZ 85036

Express Mail/Courier Services

USCIS
Attention: I-90
1820 E. Skyharbor Circle S Floor 1
Suite 100
Phoenix, AZ 85034

Please note that if you are filing your form at the USCIS Lockbox
facility, you may request that USCIS provide you with an email or text
message notifying you that your application has been accepted. Simply
complete and file-in Form G-1145, the E-Notification of
Application/Petition Acceptance form, and attach it to the first page
of your I-90 application.

Categories
SideBar

How Do I Collect A Debt?

Share this:

Ever have someone borrow money from you and never paid it back? Or, have you ever co-signed for someone’s debt who defaulted on it and you are now responsible for that debt? Or, have you ever given someone your money to “invest” in a business opportunity and no accounting of profits/losses has been provided? That someone is now avoiding you and refuses to honor his obligation to you. What are your options to collect?  

The first thing most people normally do would be to consult with an attorney to file a collection lawsuit. However, for whatever reason, some may not be able to afford an attorney, or, the minimal amount of the debt does not justify the involvement of an attorney. In these cases, alternative options are open.      

The first option would be a collection lawsuit in small claims court. In small claims court, parties cannot be represented by attorneys and parties appear on their own before the judge. The process of going to small claims court is relatively simple. A one or two page complaint form is filled up.  Filing fees are paid. The Complaint is then mailed or served on the debtor.  The court then sets a hearing date at which time the creditor can present evidence about the debt being collected. Decisions are normally handed out immediately after the hearing.

The limitation to a small claims court action, however, is that the court can only issue a judgment below a certain amount. In California the jurisdiction of small claims court is only up to a maximum of $5,000.  Thus, if a creditor is owed $8,000 but files a claim in small claims court, only a judgment of $5,000 can be issued by the court.

The other options would be to go to mediation or arbitration with your debtor. If the debt is disputed or the terms thereof are not clear, then this option might be a viable choice. In mediation, a mediator tries to bring the parties together to a mutually acceptable solution. Each party normally has to compromise to arrive at a settlement. An arbitrator, on the other hand, is someone selected by the parties who will make a decision on the merits of the parties’ positions. The decision of the arbitrator may be binding or non-binding depending on the agreement of the parties.

Another option would be for you to contact a collection agency and have them do the collection for you.  However, collection agencies may or may not accept your case depending on their chances of getting it done; and, if they do accept it they normally charge a hefty fee of 50% of whatever is collected.

If you are the creditor collecting on a debt, getting a favorable judgment in small claims court or arbitration; or, settling in mediation may or may not result in you getting your money back. Getting a judgment or winning a case is not the end of it because you will still need to collect on it by executing the judgment: foreclosing on collateral, garnishing a debtor’s wages, or attaching a debtor’s properties. Thus, winning a case may not necessarily result in you getting your debt paid depending on whether or not debtor has available assets that you can run after.       
    
Good luck.

(DISCLAIMER: material presented above is intended for informational purposes only. It is not intended as professional advice and should not be construed as such. Rey Tancinco is a partner at Tancinco Law Offices, a professional corporation with offices in San Francisco, Vallejo, and Manila. The law office website is at: tancinco.weareph.com/old.  Rey Tancinco can be contacted at (800) 999-9096 or (415) 397-0808 or via email at: attyrey@tancinco.com

Categories
Global Pinoy

Forced to Sue the Country They Defended

Share this:

The Friday after Memorial Day three brave Filipino World War II veterans filed a lawsuit (De Fernandez vs. VA, et al) against the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs before the Federal District Court in San Francisco CA.  The impetus for filing by these plaintiffs was the denial of their veterans’ equity compensation of $15,000 despite their proven qualifying services during World War II.

VA’s rationale for the denial of their claims is that these veterans’ names are not found on the “Missouri List” which is considered an authoritative source of reference for veterans. These war heroes and those similarly situated condemn the injustice in the lawsuit that was filed. VA very well knows that a 1973 fire at the National Personnel Record Center destroyed the “Missouri List” which contains 16 to 18 million official military personnel files. Most of those destroyed records are of personnel who were discharged from November 1, 1912 to January 1, 1960.

Aside from the fire, there are also those veterans who are not on list as they were dissuaded from putting their names on it. These veterans feared that the Japanese military might gain access to that information and put them and their families at risk of being killed during the war. This is a historical fact verified by testimonies of American veterans who fought side by side with the Filipino veterans.

The Plaintiffs

Three Fil-Am veterans and a non-profit organization are the named plaintiffs in this lawsuit. Mr. Romeo de Fernandez is a 91-year old veteran who was granted US citizenship based on his services as a US soldier during WWII.

Plaintiff de Fernandez was a Bataan Death March survivor who was captured and incarcerated at Camp O’ Donell Concentration Camp in 1942. He has records and discharge documents from the US Army. He received medals for his valiant service one of which is the American Defense Service Medial with a bronze star.

Despite de Fernandez’s decorated military service, the VA denied his claim for Veterans Equity Compensation Fund because his name does not appear on the “Missouri list”.

The same case applies to Plaintiff Ciriaco Dela Cruz. He was naturalized as a US citizen based on his service to the US military. He was with the  Batute Infantry Regiment, Bulacan Military Area, a Recognized Guerilla Unit. His military service was confirmed on February 14, 1992 by the Philippine government records, which certified that he is a “Sgt” on the approved Revised Reconstructed Guerilla Roster of the “H” Company Supplementary Roster. But just the same, his name is not on the “Missouri List” and VA denied his claim for the veterans equity compensation fund.

The San Francisco Veterans Equity Center joined the veterans as Plaintiff in this lawsuit. This non-profit organization, which helps veterans with their claims, received hundreds of claim denials based on the fact that the veterans’ names are not on the Missouri list.  Records at the San Francisco Veterans Equity Center also shows that even veterans who are on the list are sometimes denied based on questioned loyalty.

One of the Plaintiffs, Valeriano C. Marcelino, 88 years old, is a naturalized US citizen whose qualifying service during the war is confirmed by the National Personnel Record Center. His name appears on the Missouri list.  Yet, he received a notice of intent to deny his equity compensation based on the fact that the VA uncovered a copy of check from the ‘Yokohama Specie Bank Limited’ in the amount of P635 paid to “V. Marcelino”.  Based on this check, the VA now assumes that “V. Marcelino” is, in fact, the same person as the plaintiff “Valeriano Marceino” and now is denying his application based on his questionable loyalty.  

Plaintiff Marcelino is very much distressed by VA’s allegation; and, in the complaint that was filed, he states that he,  “ did not received (sic) this check because I did not served (sic) any pro-Japanese, pro-German or any anti-American unit. Additionally, Marcelino has supplied a copy of the signature on the back of the subject check and as well as his own, true signature, which upon comparison are significantly different from one another. Furthermore, Marceline explained that being a farmer all of his life, he had never seen a check made to his name until he came to the United States and received his first SSI check.”

Continuing Injustice

A veterans’ advocates from Washington DC called me on the day the lawsuit was filed. She asked me when will I ever stop working on this veterans issue. I was appalled by this question and responded that the work continues “as long as there is this continuing injustice” that needs to be rectified.

When President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on February 17, 2009, which contains this $198 million budget for the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation fund, most veterans and their families were elated. This was a compromise legislation that would somehow ameliorate more than six decades of injustice.

An allocation of $15,000 for US citizen veterans and $9,000 for non-US citizen veterans appear to be a generous grant from the US government especially during an economic recession. But what seemingly was a positive gesture turned out to be a nightmare for thousands of veterans, like the plaintiffs in this case. Thousands have been denied their just benefits because their names do not appear on the Missouri list. The Veteran’s Affairs should desist from denying rightful claims and adopt more reasonable standards for approving their applications.

For many of these veterans, there is not enough time left. For some, time has already run out.  Just the other day, a veteran’s relative informed me that his father’s $15,000 was finally received in the mail. The daughter did not know what to do with the check because the veteran had died a few days before the check was received. Many more veterans will undoubtedly suffer the same fate. How much more time does VA have to waste before rightfully adjudicating these claims?

(The Tancinco Law Offices and the Cotchett, Pitre and McCarthy firm jointly filed this class action lawsuit.  Attorneys Pete McCloskey and Stuart Gross are the lead counsels. Copy of the complaint filed may be obtained from the www.cpmlegal.com. Tancinco may be reached at law@tancinco.com or at 887 7177)

Categories
Updates

USCIS Proposes Fee Increases for Immigration Applications/Petitions

Share this:

On June 9, 2010, USCIS proposed to raise fees for immigration
applications and petitions. These new fees will increase the average
cost of an immigration application and petition by roughly 10 percent;
there will, however, be no increases in fees for the application for
naturalization. USCIS has projected a $200 million deficit for 2010 to
2011; the goal of these fee increases is to close this budgetary gap.
According to USCIS, budget cuts of $160 million were not enough to
manage the agency’s $2.3 billion in annual costs. The agency projects
$2.1 billion in revenue without the fee increases.

Among the proposed fee increases is a rise in the cost of filing the following petitions:

1) I-140: Fee increase from $475 to $580
2) I-687: Fee increase from $710 to $1,130
3) I-765: Fee increase from $340 to $380

Comments on this proposed fee increase will be accepted by USCIS from June 11, 2010 to July 26, 2010.

Categories
Updates

CBP Deploys Remote Surveillance in the Detroit Border Patrol Section

Share this:

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) announced last week the deployment
of the Remote Video Surveillance System in the Detroit Border Patrol
Section. This new system is part of CBP’s Secure Border Initiative’s
Northern Border project; the goal of the greater initiative is to use
technology to secure the northern border against any illegal activity.

“The Northern Border Project technology deployment provides immediate
capability to help Border Patrol agents expand their ability to detect,
identify, classify, respond to and resolve illegal cross border
activity,” said Mark Borkowski, Executive Director of the Secure Border
Initiative. “At the same time, this deployment will provide lessons
learned that will enable CBP to design better-tailored, longer-term
technology options for the northern border.”

Each of these new security systems includes two day cameras and two
night cameras, enabling 24/7 monitoring. Ten systems have been deployed
in the Detroit region; an eleventh will be officially completed by the
end of this year.

Categories
SideBar

Do I Qualify Under the Means Test?

Share this:

Most consumer debtors who file for bankruptcy generally prefer to do so under Chapter 7 as it allows them to totally wipe out all their debts right away. Chapter 13, on the other hand, generally requires a debtor to pay their debts (or a portion of it) over a 5 year period. Hence, given the choice, chapter 7 would be a more beneficial solution to most consumer debtors as all debts are wiped out now and the debtor can start with a clean slate right away ….. rather than 5 years from now.

To qualify for a chapter 7 bankruptcy, however, a debtor must first pass the “means test”. The means test is a formula that is designed to keep filers with higher incomes from filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. These higher income debtors may use Chapter 13 to repay a portion of their debts, but may not use chapter 7 to wipe out all their debts.         

The “means test” requires debtors to fill up a bankruptcy form showing their monthly income and expenses. A debtor enters his monthly income and expenses on this form and then makes calculations based on the information entered. Many of the information needed to complete this form comes from the debtor himself. However, other information comes from the Census Bureau and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).  

If a debtor’s average income for the past 6 months is below the State’s median family income, then a debtor automatically passes the means test and would be qualified to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The median income is provided by the Census Bureau and is updated periodically.  In California, for example, the median family income for a single person is $47,969; for a 2-person family it is $64,647; for a 3-person family it is $70,638; while for a 4-person family it is $79,194.  Most consumer debtors in financial hardship who have been laid off from work, or have suffered reduced working hours, for example, would have no trouble meeting the median income threshold to qualify for Chapter 7.

If a consumer debtor, however, has an income that is above the median, then computations get more complicated. It then has to be determined whether the debtor has enough income left over after paying their “allowed” monthly expenses. The debtor may, or may not pass, the “means test” depending on how much income they have left over after paying for the “allowed” monthly expenses. It is not easy to make this determination because median income levels vary by State and by household size. Also, each county and metropolitan region has different “allowed” amounts for different categories of expenses such as basic necessities, housing and transportation. Luckily, there are software programs and online calculators to help with these calculations.

Pass the “means test” and a consumer debtor qualifies to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Fail and the option is limited to filing for Chapter 13.

(DISCLAIMER: material presented above is intended for informational purposes only. It is not intended as professional advice and should not be construed as such. Rey Tancinco is a partner at Tancinco Law Offices, a professional corporation with offices in San Francisco, Vallejo, and Manila. The law office website is at: tancinco.weareph.com/old.  Rey Tancinco can be contacted at (800) 999-9096 or (415) 397-0808 or via email at: attyrey@tancinco.com

Categories
Updates

U.S. and Mexico Restart Voluntary Program to Repatriate Mexican Nationals Apprehended in Parts of Arizona

Share this:

The United States and Mexico have again restarted the Mexican Interior
Repatriation Program (MIRP), now active for its seventh consecutive
summer. The program, which is a bilateral effort of the U.S. Department
of Homeland Security and Mexico’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and
Ministry of the Interior, returns Mexican nationals found in the Sonora
Arizona desert back to where they are from in Mexico.

First started in 2004, the goal of MIRP is to reduce the loss of lives
caused by the smuggling and trafficking of aliens across the
Arizona/Mexico border. Candidates for MIRP include persons who are
identified as at risk and vulnerable to heat or victimization by
criminal trafficking operations.

Under the program, Mexican nationals that are caught by U.S. border
patrol agents in the Yuma and Tucson regions of Arizona are taken to
DHS facilities and are offered the opportunity to voluntarily
participate in the program. Participants are then returned to their
home regions via plane and bus.

Over the past 6 years, more than 93,000 Mexican nationals have been repatriated under MIRP.

Categories
Updates

USCIS to Continue to Transition Form Intake to Its Lockbox Network

Share this:

In late May, USCIS announced that it will continue the process of
transitioning the intake part of a number of additional forms from
various Service Centers to its Lockbox network. This transition is a
part of USCIS’s larger goal to improve consistency and integrity in the
form intake process.

Forms scheduled to be transitioned to the Lockbox network include:

  • Form I-817, the Application for Family Unity Benefits (If you are filing this under section 301 of the Immigration Act of 1990)
  • Form I-526, the Immigrant Petition by Alien Entrepreneur
  • Form I-539,the Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status
    (applicable only for those forms filed separately from an I-129 form)
  • Form I-129F, the Petition for Alien Fiancé
  • Form I-140, the Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker

USCIS began this transition process in mid-May. At that time, Service
Centers began forwarding these applications to the Dallas and Phoenix
Lockbox facilities. In June, USCIS will post revised filing
instructions for these forms and will officially announce the revised
process.

Categories
Immigration Round Table

Child Turning 18 May File as Derivative Citizen

Share this:

Dear Atty. Lou,

I just became a US citizen last May 18, 2010. I have a daughter who is 17 years old and she will be 18 years old on October 25, 2010. She is also a green card holder. Right now, she is in the Philippines and studying.

We became permanent resident last September 1, 2004 when my mother petitioned me as a single mother. My daughter went back to the Philippines last July 2006. She has a re-entry permit which expired last December 2008. After that, I let her come here in the US for every six months. Last December 16, 2009 up to January 8, 2010, she was living with me here in Los Angeles.

Now, my problem is her citizenship. Is she carried or does she need to file her separate application for naturalization? My relatives said that I have to apply her citizenship before she turns 18 years old. Please help me Atty. Lou.

Thank you and God bless.

MRM

Dear MRM,

Your child who is still below 18 years old derives citizenship from you. As a US citizen parent, you may file for a certificate of citizenship for your minor child.

The requirements for the child to be issued the certificate are: (1) at least one parent is a citizen of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization; (2)the child is under the age of 18 years; (3) the child is residing outside of the United States in the legal and physical custody of the citizen parent, is temporarily present in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission and is maintaining such lawful status; and (4) (a) the US citizen parent of the child must have been physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or period totaling at least five years, at least two of which were after the parent reached 14 years of age, or (b) the US citizen parents of the US citizen parent  must meet the 5 years/two years physical presence requirement.

You may obtain a certificate of citizenship for your child by submitting an application on Form N-600 to the local USCIS office, together with the filing fee. The USCIS will then require the certificate of citizenship applicant, or the parent acting on the child’s behalf, to appear for examination under oath.

In the case of your daughter, the application must be filed soon so that the USCIS may act on the application before she turns 18 years old. If she is still in the Philippines, you may file on her behalf but that she has to appear during her examination. Your relatives are right when they informed you that you have to apply for her citizenship before she turns 18 years old. In the event that this application for certificate of citizenship is not filed before she turns 18 years old, then your daughter may still apply on her own behalf but should meet all the eligibility requirements including the physical presence requirement.

I hope this information is helpful.

Atty. Lou

(Lourdes Santos Tancinco, Esq is a partner at the Tancinco Law Offices, a Professional Law Corp. Her office is located at One Hallidie Plaza, Ste 818, San Francisco CA 94102 and may be reached at 415.397.0808; email at law@tancinco.com or check their website at tancinco.weareph.com/old. The content provided in this column is solely for informational purpose only and do not create a lawyer-client relationship. It should not be relied upon as legal advice. This column does not disclose any confidential or classified information acquired in her capacity as legal counsel. Consult with an attorney before deciding on a course of action. You can submit questions to law@tancinco.com)