Author: tancincowp

Categories
Updates

USCIS Again Updates FY 2010 H-1B Numbers

Share this:

On June 5, USCIS again updated the current amount of H-1B visa
applications received for Fiscal Year 2010. According to USCIS, roughly
44,000 H-1B cap-subject visas have been received. Approximately 20,000
petitions that qualify for the advanced degree cap exemption have been
additionally filed. USCIS notes that they will continue to accept
cap-subject and advanced degree exemption petitions until they believe
a sufficient number have been received.

A total of up to 65,000 H-1B visas are allowed for Fiscal Year 2010,
along with an additional 20,000 visas for petitioners with a U.S.
master’s degree or higher. When the agency receives the necessary
number of petitions to meet these caps for FY 2010, it will issue a
notice to advise the public that the cap has been met by its specified
final receipt date. That final receipt date will be based on the date
that USCIS received the petition and not the date that the petition was
postmarked.

USCIS will then randomly select the number of petitions required to
reach the cap limits for the H-1B program for FY 2010 from all
petitions received on or before the specified final receipt date.
Cap-subject petitions not randomly selected will be rejected by USCIS,
as will those petitions received after the final receipt date.

Please note that petitions filed on behalf of H-1B workers who have
previously been counted against an annual cap will not count toward the
FY 2010 H-1B cap. USCIS will continue to process petitions for H-1B
workers (or those petitioning on their behalf) that wish to extend the
amount of time they may remain in the U.S., change their terms of
employment, change employers, or work concurrently in a second H-1B
position.

Categories
Updates

Department of Homeland Security Provides Temporary Relief for Certain Widows and Widowers of U.S. Citizens Facing Immigration Action

Share this:

Earlier this week Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) amended immigration regulations for widows and
widowers of U.S. citizens, and their unmarried children under the age
of 18, who live in the U.S. and who were married for less than two
years before their spouse’s death. Any immigration actions against
these individuals, according to the newly granted reprieve, will be
deferred for two years.

“Smart immigration policy balances strong enforcement practices with
common-sense, practical solutions to complicated issues,” said
Napolitano. “Granting deferred action to the widows and widowers of
U.S. citizens who otherwise would have been denied the right to remain
in the United States allows these individuals and their children an
opportunity to stay in the country that has become their home while
their legal status is resolved.”

In addition Napolitano provided guidance to USCIS to suspend
the adjudication of visa petitions and adjustments of status
applications filed for widows and widowers, in cases where the only
reason for a reassessment of the individual’s immigration status was
the death of their U.S. citizen spouse (in cases where they were
married for less than two years).

Finally, USCIS has received guidance to favorably consider requests for
the humanitarian reinstatement of immigration status in cases where
previously approved petitions for widows and widowers were revoked due
to regulations.

Categories
Global Pinoy

H2B Visa Holders Terminated Prematurely by US Employer

Share this:

Dear Atty. Lou,

I arrived in the US on February 5, 2008 and worked as a housekeeper here at South Carolina.  I was petitioned by an agency and was issued an H2B visa. My H2B visa expired on June 20, 2008 and requested our agency to renew it for six months or until December 15, 2008. Before the expiration of our visa, we were terminated by our petitioning agency on October 15, 2008.

There are twenty of us in the same situation and so we all separated and tried to find for a new agency that will petition us for our extension. I found another agency in Chicago and my extension was filed in October 2008. Before receiving any response from the USCIS, this agency again terminated our employment. Thereafter, we received news from our lawyer that our request for extension was granted until October 15, 2009 but that we are required to leave for the Philippines and return to the US with another visa stamped on our passport.

We do not want to go back yet to Manila. I owe creditors hundreds of thousands of dollars just to be able to pay for my recruitment and visa fees in 2008. I will not be able to pay this debt if  I return to the Philippines.

I consulted another lawyer and I was told that to depart as well. Why are we being asked to return to Manila if our H2B extension was granted?

Super Confused H2B Employee

Dear Super Confused,

It is unfortunate that your employment with the petitioning agency did not continue as you had initially expected. During this economic downturn and when several businesses are not earning as much profits, several employees are often being terminated for the business to survive. H2B visa holders are not exempted from this situation.

Your second petition for the H2B visa may have been approved but that is different from the approval of a change of status. Your extension or change of status may have been denied and that is the reason you are being asked to return to Manila to get a new H2B visa.

H2B visas have limitations imposed by regulations. If the petition by the US employer is approved, the H2B visa is issued with validity of no more than one year. Extension of stay may be granted but no more tan 12 months and maximum of three years. After spending three years in the US on H2B, the employee may not seek extension, change status or be readmitted to the US under the H or L nonimmigrant classification unless s/he “has resided and been physically present outside the US for the immediately prior six months.”H2B is limited to 66,000 visas a year.

When a visa is expiring, the H2B visa holder may have his visa extended provided the each extension must again show the temporariness of the employer’s need. If at any time, it shows that the job has become a permanent in nature, the extension shall be denied.

The employee is required to reside outside the US for six months after three years on a H2B visa. No change of status to H or L visa may be permitted under the regulations. Also, if there is an immigrant visa that is approved on behalf of the employee, no extension of stay shall be granted.

Considering the restrictive nature of the H2B visa compared to other nonimmigrant working visas, there are a number of Filipinos on H2B visas that had fallen out of status for varying reasons. They are either terminated prematurely by their US employer or they refuse after three years to leave the US for six months to enable them to change their status. You may decide now on what to do base on this information that I have provided. Good luck.

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)

Categories
SideBar

Facing Foreclosure? What Can You Do?

Share this:

More homeowners are falling behind on mortgage payments.  According to the Mortgage Bankers Association, about 12 percent of the country’s 45 million home loans were delinquent or in some stage of foreclosure process during the first quarter of this year.

Experts are predicting that the number of foreclosures would probably keep on rising as more people loose their jobs.  Almost 6 millions jobs have been lost since the recession began last year and many economist are predicting that unemployment rates will rise to around 10 percent by next year.   

The previous wave of foreclosures were primarily sub prime loans involving investors who just dumped properties which had lost its value; or, involved homeowners who were never qualified, or, otherwise qualified under so-called “liar loans”.    The wave of foreclosures caused by sub prime loans is now being replaced by foreclosures on prime fixed-rate mortgages. For the first time, foreclosures on these prime loans now make up the largest share of new foreclosures. In the first quarter of this year around 6 percent of all prime loans were delinquent.  

Foreclosures on these prime loans affect homeowners who have had good credits and good jobs, but due to loss of employment, can now no longer afford to keep up with their monthly mortgage payments.  With millions of jobs lost, millions of homes are now likewise facing foreclosure.

So if you are facing foreclosure, what can you do?

The first thing to do is to call your lender and let them know the problem and find out what you can or can’t do about it.  Many people facing foreclosure never make that call and just hope for the problem to go away. It never does. You will lose your home.

Normally, lenders do not want your home. They want you to continue making house payments. Foreclosure proceedings cost lenders money and maintaining the house after foreclosure also costs money to the lenders. So it is often in everyone’s interest to agree on new terms that modify the current mortgage. However, nothing can start without that phone call. Oftentimes, it is very discouraging and time-consuming to call lenders. If you don’t know the person to call or the number to call, you can be put on hold or passed from one department to another for a very long time.  

You would want to avoid talking with a collection agency or a company’s collection department, as they may not want to work out new terms if they get paid only to collect your money.  Instead, you want to go directly to the lender’s “Loss Mitigation” department (some may call it the “foreclosure prevention department”) and discuss your financial situation.  If you qualify, these options may be available:

  • Forbearance Agreement – Some lenders may suspend payments for a short period of time and then you agree to pay based on your current financial status until you catch up.
  • Mortgage Modification – The lender may work out new terms and interest rates that allow the homeowner to have a lower monthly mortgage by reducing interest rates, or making a longer loan term, i.e., making a 30-year loan into a 40-year loan.
  • Refinancing – If you still qualify, working out a refinancing under Obama’s program may also be an option.
  • Short Sale – The lender may also permit you to do a short sale where the property is sold for less than the mortgage balance
  • Deed-In-Lieu – As a last resort, it may be best for you to give the house back to the lender. This may be better for your credit than an actual foreclosure.

You may also want to get independent counseling. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has a list of certified counselors on its website that you can call.  You may also want to talk to legal professionals who can give you advise on all your rights and the legal options you can take.  

According to statistics, between 40 percent and 50 percent of the people actually foreclosed on have had no contact with their lender or a counseling agency.  The point is, you cannot just do nothing and hope that the problem will go away. It will not go away. You will loose your home. You need to be pro-active. Call your lender and/or talk to a legal professional to find out what all your available options are.
 
(Disclaimer: materials presented above are 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 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

Fraud Does Not Pay Too

Share this:

The US consular office in Manila is considered one of the high fraud posts and that a separate unit for fraud detection exists. Obviously, the purpose is to prevent applicants who committed fraud from receiving US visas.

For those who were able to obtain the visas and are in the US, considering the heightened enforcement measures of the Department of Homeland Security, even green card holders are put in removal/deportation proceedings because of prior fraud made on their applications for visas. There is no statute of limitation in prosecuting those who submitted fraudulent immigration applications. Despite lengthy passage of time, green card holders may still be held accountable for their fraud or misrepresentation.

Ria was petitioned by her lawful permanent resident mother in 1983. At the time the petition was filed, Ria was still single. However, in 1988 she married her long time boyfriend Jun. They have two sons born during the marriage. Ria was told by the Judge who solemnized the marriage, that the certificate of marriage shall not be registered and that it shall remain a secret marriage.

In 1993, Ria was called for the interview on her application for immigrant visa. She declared her two sons but indicated in the birth certificates of her sons that she is a single mother. Ria and her sons were able to immigrate to the US.

One month after the arrival of Ria in the US, she returned to the Philippines to marry Jun. She registered this marriage and upon her return to the US, she filed for a petition for Jun. Since she is a green card holder, her petition fell under the preference category and waited for seven years before Jun was called for the interview at the US Embassy. During the interview, extensive questioning was made and Jun’s application for immigrant visa was denied. The reason for the denial is that Ria’s first marriage in 1988 was discovered and that Jun was told that Ria was not supposed to receive her green card and so may not confer immigration benefit by petitioning him.

Jun and Ria have been separated for more than ten years. Ria was afraid to go back to Manila for fear that her green card will be revoked at the Port of Entry. Since they have been separated for a long time, Ria was left to take care of her teenager sons. Unfortunately, her sons did not pursue their education and became convicted felons for illegal drug use in the US. To add to the family hardship, Ria is now in removal/deportation proceedings for committing fraud and misrepresentation in obtaining her green card. Her case is still pending. Meanwhile, Jun found a new lover and is now living in Manila with his second family.

Fraud and Misrepresentation

There are many grounds for denial of admission to the US which are referred to as grounds for inadmissibility. One of the most popular grounds for denial is fraud and misrepresentation. Fraud to be a basis for denial of visa requires false representation with knowledge of its falsity, with intent to deceive an immigration officer and with the representation having been believed and acted upon by the officer.

Misrepresentation on the other hand does not require actual intent to deceive, it simply means false misrepresentation, willfully made, concerning a fact which relevant to the alien’s entitlement or request for immigration benefit.

Ria made a grave error in her desire to depart immediately for the US by misrepresenting her actual marital status. She relied on bad advice that she will be able to re-marry her husband and petition her eventually. This is a common error that is made by many applicants for immigrant visas and which is counterproductive. There may be some applicants who are able to get away with the fraud but there is no guarantee that the fraud will not be discovered.

Waiver of Fraud

There is a remedy for fraud which is called the “waiver”. This waiver if granted by the immigration examiner or immigration judge will serve to forgive the fraud. However, this does not come easy. There are eligibility requirements that must be proven to include “extreme hardship” to qualifying US citizen relatives. Extreme hardship is not a definable term of fixed meaning and that the elements depend on the facts of each particular case. The adjudicating officer exercises its discretion and it is not an affirmative application that is easily granted. It becomes necessary that the application be supported by substantial documents to make it approvable.

Considering the harsh effects on the visa applicant if the fraud is detected and is not waived, it behooves every prospective applicant for visa, who cares about family, to avoid engaging in fraud lest they are ready to suffer its severe consequences. Just like crime, fraud does not pay.

(Tancinco may be reached at law@tancinco.com or at 887-7177).

Categories
Updates

E-Verify Regulation Delayed Again

Share this:

USCIS has again delayed the final rule that would require federal
contractors and subcontractors to start using the organization’s
E-Verify system to electronically verify the employment eligibility of
their employees. According to a recent governmental posting, the
E-Verify regulation has been delayed to September 8, 2009.

The rule was originally published in November 2008 and was to have
become law in January 2009. However, the federal requirement had
received criticism from a number of groups, including the U.S. Chamber
of Commerce and the Society of Human Resource Management, who filed
suit to block the implementation of the requirement on the grounds that
it is unconstitutional.
.

Categories
Immigration Round Table

Very Ill Child Separated from Parents Due to Retrogression

Share this:

Dear Atty Lou,

I have been working here in the US as a Registered Nurse since January 2007 and got my green card in Aug 2007 through my employer’s petition which was done thru adjustment of status from B1/B2 visa to immigrant visa. My husband also got his green card at the same time thru the same process as my beneficiary.

However, the biggest dilemma that we have right now is our kids’ situation. They don’t have B1/B2 visas so they were left in the Philippines and have been waiting for their immigrant visas since 2006. Their priority date is Aug 25, 2006. Is there any other way of letting them come here in the US and wait here for their green cards? It’s very difficult for a family to be separated. We have five (5) kids ages 16, 13, 11(twins), and 9. One of the twins has cerebral palsy and needs urgent medical intervention because of his swallowing problem due to severe spasticity.

I know you understand how a mother suffers when she is away from her growing children. It hurts a lot to leave them there. Although I was able to visit them three times since I came here in April 2006, those short times were never enough to compensate for the pain of daily loneliness as if I were gutted.

Thank you Atty Lou and I hope to hear from you.

RN Mom in Dilemma

Dear RN Mom,

I understand how difficult it must be for you to be separated from your five minor children. The delay in the processing of their applications is due to the “retrogression” of the visas for employment based petitions under the third preference. For the last two years, the third preference petitions which includes Schedule A Nurses petitions retrogressed severely from “current” availability to unavailability due to three/fours years backlog. Early this year, RN petitions retrogressed to 2005. In fact, this month of June 2009, there are no available visas under the third preference for Filipino nationals.

Spouse and children of preference immigrant, including employment based petitions, accompanying or following to join the principal immigrant are entitled to the same status and the same order of consideration as the principal immigrant. The derivative classification of your children attaches immediately upon your approval of immigrant visa and requires no separate visa application. Since your priority date was 2006, while it became current in 2007, it is no longer current at the present moment as per visa bulletin issued by the US Department of State. You and your spouse are lucky to have obtained the visas in 2007 when there was no retrogression of the visas. Unfortunately, for your children, they are now caught in the retrogression and until the priority date of 2006 becomes current again they will not be processed for the immigrant visas.

In regards to your son who has a medical condition, you may want to try to apply for a humanitarian parole with the US Citizenship and Immigration Service. Generally, this type of visa is obtained to travel to the United States temporarily for emergent reasons. It has occasionally been sought on behalf of non-citizens needing urgent medical treatment in the United States. This humanitarian parole is granted only in cases involving grave humanitarian concerns and in exceptional hardship cases often involving separation of family members.

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)

Categories
SideBar

The General Motors Bankruptcy and Juan Dela Cruz

Share this:

This week GM filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in federal court.  This bankruptcy filing reflects GM’s steep revenue drop last quarter. It had previously posted $6 billion in losses during the first quarter of 2009 alone. GM showed that its revenue had dropped by nearly half largely because bankruptcy fears scared customers away from its showrooms

GM owes billions in debts.  It owes approximately $27 billion to its bondholders.  
It also owes billions more to its’ retirees and workers for health care, pensions and other benefits. Many billions more are owed to its suppliers; as well as a couple of billion dollars more to the federal government for its rescue package.

To survive, GM has filed for bankruptcy. In bankruptcy court, GM is forcing bondholders to take only 30 cents for every dollar that they are being owed in proposed equity swaps in bankruptcy court. Thus, obligations owed by GM to these bondholders will now be paid only 30 cents to a dollar and these bondholders will be paid not with cash but with GM stocks.   Same also with GM retirees and Unions which are also being forced to also take billions in GM stocks to cover retiree health care, pensions and other benefits due to its workers.  The federal government (meaning, us the taxpayers) also will be taking stocks in GM thus owning part of the company instead of being a creditor. Whether or not the federal government, bondholders and unions will be getting something from this arrangement ultimately will depend on whether or not GM will survive and how much it gets from this deal will depend on how much GM stocks rise or fall in the future.   

In addition to reducing its debt obligations, GM will be forced to sell some of its assets in order to raise capital; it will be forced to close factories to reduce expenses; and, around 2,600 of its 6,246 dealers will be forced to close to make the remaining dealerships more profitable.     

So, how is corporate GM different from individual Juan dela Cruz who may also be suffering from financial distress?  

Though GM may counts billions in debts, Juan dela Cruz will probably be counting in the thousands only. While GM may deal with bondholders as creditors, Juan dela Cruz maybe talking about the more familiar credit card debts. Though GM may talk about obligations to thousands of suppliers and thousands of creditors, Mr. Juan dela Cruz maybe talking only of 10 to 20 creditors. In any case, though there is a difference in the scale of the obligation and the number of its creditors, there is no difference at all between GM and Mr. Juan dela Cruz who is in financial trouble.  Both of them have obligations that they can no longer pay for.

While GM may talk about plunging revenues and quarterly profits/losses, Juan dela Cruz will talk about being laid-off, or getting reduced hours from hours from work, or getting cuts in overtime hours.  In both cases again, there is no difference between GM and the individual Juan dela Cruz.  Both are suffering reduced incomes thus contributing to their inability to pay for obligations.  

While GM may have Uncle Sam to give them billions in a rescue package, hopefully, Mr. Juan dela Cruz hopefully will have a friend or family who can also lend him some financial assistance in times of need.  Again, in both cases Uncle Sam and the family who lends Mr. Juan dela Cruz may or may not get paid depending on how Juan dela Cruz is able to cope with and rise up again from financial ruin.

So, how is the bankruptcy filing of GM any different from the bankruptcy filing of an individual Juan dela Cruz?  There is no difference. Though the numbers may be different, the remedies available are the same. The result will be the same. Bankruptcy protection available to GM in a Chapter 11 filing is also available to individuals in a Chapter 7 or 13 filing. Just as GM can force creditors to accept pennies on the dollar, Juan dela Cruz also has the same remedies available to wipe out obligations or to pay off debts with pennies on the dollar too.  Just as the bankruptcy filing will hopefully result in a more financially viable GM, a bankruptcy filing by Juan dela Cruz will also wipe out debts and hopefully put him in a position where he too can survive and prosper financially.  
 
(Disclaimer: materials presented above are 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 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

Unfair Treatment of Filipino Veterans Continues

Share this:

A letter received from a Filipino World War II veteran reader raises a major concern regarding the denials of many claims for lump sum benefit. He filed for lump sum benefit of $15,000 as a US citizen veteran with the US Department of Veterans Affairs. This is a claim for Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation  passed into law on February 17, 2009 by President Barrack Obama granting $15,000 or $9,000 to Filipino World War II veterans.

Just as the news of lump sum checks being received by veterans are announced publicly, many Filipino veterans’ claims are also being denied quietly for veterans who have no records of military service with the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) at St. Louis, Missouri.

Mr. GT was inducted in the US Armed Forces in the Far East on November 17, 1941 when he was with the Infantry Regiment Philippine Constabulary. He was a Death March survivor and was able to escape from prison. He subsequently join the guerilla forces. His last unit was with the Armed Forces of the Philippines, Recovered Personnel Division. He has proof of his honorable discharge dated July 29, 1948.

When the Immigration Act of 1990 was passed granting US citizenship to Filipino World War II veterans, he applied for naturalization. His application was approved and Mr. GT was sworn in as a US citizen in 1997.

On March 3, 2009, he applied for lump sum benefit but his claim was denied by the Department of Veterans Affairs because his name is not listed on the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) at St. Louis, Missouri as having valid military service.

In his letter, Mr. GT states that “I am so unfortunate to learn that aside from my loyal active military service, fighting side by side with the American soldiers for the same cause of freedom then after all my service is of no recognition. I also read in the news that fifty (50) per cent of the records in Missouri were burned in 1973 that is why our record is no where to be found. With your kind assistance and consideration I am asking for your help on what to do with my lost record and I won’t be naturalized if I am not a genuine veteran of World War II.”

The problem encountered by this Filipino veteran represents the problems of a significant number of veterans who fought courageously during the war but have no actual records of their service on the list kept by St. Louis Missouri. For more than half a century there has never been a consistency in policy in regards to how they are to be treated for purposes of veterans’ benefits. When the lump sum benefit or the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation was passed early this year, many victorious celebrations were held as if the final resolution to this issue had finally arrived. After three months, frustrated veterans who could not find their names on the Missouri list are facing new legal challenges.

Verifying Service Records

This is not the first time that the Missouri list was questioned as being an accurate source of military service for the Filipino veterans. The issue on verification had been a contested matter during the period of time when the Filipino veterans’ applications for naturalization were being processed in the 1990s.

The US Immigration and Naturalization Service (now the US Citizenship and Immigration Services) lost in the case of Almero v. INS (9th Circuit 1994) and Serquina v. US (9th Circuity 1994) when it limited the naturalization to veterans whose names were  in the Missouri list. In the Almero and Serquina case, the court ordered the INS to accept official Philippine government records instead of US Army records to prove military service for purposes of naturalization.

Inaccurate Missouri List

The Missouri list relied upon by the US Veterans Affairs do not contain accurate record of the services of Filipino World War II veterans.

Lieutenant Colonel Edwin P. Ramsey, a West Point graduate and commander of over 40,000 guerilla troops in Northern Philippines during World War II testified during the trial in Almero case. He testified that records listing the names of his troops were created under wartime conditions in which his men were greatly outnumbered by the occupying Japanese forces. According to him, his command stopped keeping accurate rosters or lists when some of the rosters fell into the enemy hands and many of those named were executed.

Shortly after the war, Colonel Ramsey testified that he participated in the reconstruction of the list but nearly half of the Filipinos who served under his command were “derecognized’ for political reasons and their records eliminated. Other records were lost in a 1973 at the St. Louis Missouri center where the records were kept.

Since the Courts ruled against limiting the list of veterans to the Missouri list and were ordered to accept official Philippine government records, the legislation on naturalization was amended in 1998 to limit the sources of military records to those listed on final roster prepared by US Army departments or those contained on National Personnel Records Center at St. Louis Missouri. This amendment practically overturned the rulings in Almero and Serquina cases.

Verification for Lump Sum Benefits

Unlike the amendment of the legislation on naturalization in 1998, the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation or the lump sum law does not limit the sources of verifying military records. Subsection (d) of Section 1002 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 clearly defines those groups that are eligible to receive lump sum benefits. The Veterans Administration should not restrict the benefits of the few surviving veterans especially if they can prove their service with documents from the executive department under which they served, including Philippine government records.

This greatest generation has been through a lot and has long been deprived of their just recognition. To limit granting the benefits to the Missouri list is again an inequitable denial of rights of the aging Filipino veterans. Another injustice that must be immediately corrected.

(Tancinco may be reached at law@tancinco.com or at 887 7177)