Categories
Global Pinoy

What It Takes to Denaturalize a US Citizen

Share this:

One of our readers sent this email several times requesting that I respond in my column regarding the issues of submitting false documents to obtain US citizenship. Interestingly, she mentioned the falsity in detail that involves not just US immigration service but also some Philippine government agencies.

Dear Atty. Lou: I read your column in the inquirer.  Can you write me a column about a falsification of information to the US government and ended up becoming a US citizen?

Francis (not his real name) was a Chinese citizen with Alien Certificate of Registration (ACR) number.  His parents “deceived” the Philippine government that they are Filipino citizens even if they are Chinese citizens. They didn’t bother to pay yearly ACR dues.  Francis’ birth certificate stated he is a Chinese by birth. When he was studying in elementary, he just go to their family priest asked him to sign permission slip to enroll instead of getting study permit.

When he study in College, he will have to go to their family Compadre  in immigration and give few hundred pesos and he get a Birth Certificate and correction in his birth certificate that his father is a Filipino and that he is a Filipino even has Masteral degree.

He even went to work in San Miguel and after that CIS in Meralco.  Again if the company asked for his birth certificate, he will go to their family Compadre in immigration for correction in his BC  that he is a Filipino.

Francis was able to obtain a working visa to go to the US to work as a programmer for a US company in the mid-90s. He used his Filipino passport which he obtained using a false Filipino birth certification again by paying someone to issue him this passport.

After a few years working in the US he filed an application to file for his immigrant visa through his employer. As part of the application he attached his birth certificate as a Filipino citizen even if he is a Chinese citizen.
 
There are numbers of Chinese who may have gotten Filipino passports for travel purposes.  I even have one and  use a Filipino last name just to go abroad for vacation so that I don’t have to pay a lot of travel taxes  but when it comes to going to US , I can’t used this kind of passport because I might be deported .
 
But for Francis he used it to fool the US government that he is a Filipino. During the early 90s it is very easy to get Filipino passports without a BC attached and it is also easy to get a BC with change of citizen and paying higher price to get the Chinese last name for a Filipino passport and cheaper if it is a Filipino last name. With him, everything matches with his Filipino passport. This year he applied for naturalization to become an American Citizen. Is there a requirement to submit a birth certificate when applying for American Citizen?
 
What are the consequences of him submitting falsified documents to the Citizenship and Immigration Service during the green card application and naturalization application? If he is a US citizen now, may he still be held liable for submission of false documents?—Thanks, EL

Removal or Denaturalization

Fraud arises in the contexts of inadmissibility, removal or denaturalization situations. A green card holder who is discovered to have obtained his immigrant status through fraud is subject to deportation or removal proceedings based on fraud and misrepresentation. This will require proof that the misrepresentation was material to obtaining the status.

Willful misrepresentation is defined in FAM as simply a false misrepresentation, willfully made, concerning a fact, which is relevant to the alien’s entitlement. Not all misrepresentations or concealment will constitute fraud. It depends in what context is arises.

In the case of Francis, the allegation of “fraudulent” passport indicates that he concealed his real nationality. However, since he is now a US citizen, the US government has the burden of proving that the naturalization to US citizenship was procured through fraud and misrepresentation. In the Kungys v. United States 485 US 759 case, the Court determined that the misrepresentations made in the visa application process were not material to the naturalization process, and that the misrepresentations in the naturalization proceeding of the date and place of birth were not in themselves relevant to the naturalization process and were thus not material.

The revocation of naturalization is called “denaturalization” proceedings. This may be initiated against a naturalized US citizen if statutory grounds for its revocation exist. One of the grounds for denaturalization is the “illegal procurement or concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation”.

Denaturalization may occur in three ways (1) through a court proceeding; (2) through an administrative proceeding and as a (3) result of a criminal conviction for knowingly procuring naturalization by fraud where the sentencing judge strips the person of his or her citizenship.

The Department of Homeland Security has the authority to reopen naturalization 8 CFR Section 340 if the application is granted in error. DHS must prove that the evidence was not known at time naturalization granted. The US prosecutor may also initiate federal criminal against Francis if the evidence are beyond reasonable doubt that he had indeed defrauded the US immigration by submitting false documents.

Considering US Department of Homeland Security’s restrictive policy against fraud, this agency is mandated to go after fraudulent applicants even to the extent of revoking a naturalization certificates. The email sender may just be speculating or may have proof that indeed Francis engaged in fraud in obtaining immigration benefits. Whatever it is, proving fraud in denaturalization proceedings requires a very high standard of proof.

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

Categories
Updates

E-Verify Now Required by Law for Federal Contractors and Subcontractors; USCIS Publishes Supplemental Guide on the Program

Share this:

USCIS has just published a supplemental guide for federal contractors
on the E-Verify system. The guide, published on September 8, 2009, is
available online at:
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/E-Verify/Federal%20Contractors/Supplemental%20Guidance%20for%20Federal%20Contractors%20082709%20FINAL.pdf

USCIS’ rule that all federal contractors and subcontractors are
required to use E-Verify, the government’s online portal to confirm the
identity and employment authorization of employees, went into effect on
September 8. The 22-page supplemental guide provides guidance on a
range of topics for contractors, including background information on
E-Verify and federal legislation related to the program, detailed
instructions for verifying new and existing employees, instructions for
how to verify your workforce, information on contracts, exemptions and
exceptions, and information for subcontractors and independent
contractors and affiliates.

The E-Verify program and legislation related to it have been fraught
with problems. Many groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and
other national trade organizations, have been quite vocal in their
opposition to the program. The program, however, is now active and
required for use by all federal contractors and subcontractors, with
the exception of a few exempt groups.

Categories
SideBar

Can Bankruptcy Eliminate All My Debts Or Only Some?

Share this:

The term used in bankruptcy court to mean elimination of a debtor’s obligations is a “discharge”.  A discharge in a bankruptcy filing releases the debtor from personal liability for certain debts. This means that the debtor will no longer be legally required to pay for debts that are discharged. The discharge is a permanent order from the bankruptcy court prohibiting the creditors from taking any form of collection action on the discharged debts.
    
So, which of debtor’s debts can be discharged and which debts cannot be discharged? Can ALL of a debtor’s debts be discharged?  
   
Most of an individual’s debts can be discharged in a bankruptcy filing. These debts that are ALWAYS discharged would mostly consist of the following:

(1) Credit card debts – the vast majority of bankruptcy filers are trying to get rid of credit card debts they can no longer afford to pay. Luckily, bankruptcy gives these debtors a new chance to start over again with a zero balance instead of being saddled with a negative balance.
(2) Medical bills – many people who have unexpected medical conditions which result in huge medical bills that are unaffordable. Millions have no medical insurance and many of us are just a sickness away from being obligated with medical bills we cannot afford.
(3)  Lease or contractual obligations – obligations under lease agreements, or contractual obligations (to buy, sell, pay, etc) will be converted into dischargeable debts in a bankruptcy filing and can be discharged.
(4) Lawsuit judgments – lawsuits are mostly about money judgments. If you are unable to pay for these money judgments, they can also be discharged in bankruptcy.
(5) Personal loans and promissory notes – money you borrowed with promissory notes or even with just oral promises are almost always dischargeable    

There are, however, different classes of debts.  One of these classes of debts is NEVER discharged. You will continue to owe on these debts even after bankruptcy filing. This class of non-dischargeable debts consists of the following:

(1)  Fines, restitutions and penalties that a federal, state or local government has imposed to punish you for violating a law.
(2)  Domestic support obligations such as child support or alimony
(3)  Certain tax debts
(4)  Intoxicated driving debts
(5)  Certain condominium or homeowner association fees
(6)  Loans from a retirement plan
(7)  Debts from a previous bankruptcy which were not discharged

There is also another class of debts that would be discharged in a bankruptcy filing unless the creditor successfully objects to the discharge. This class of debts would consist of the following:

(1)  Debts incurred through fraud or Malicious acts
(2)  Debts from a false written statement about your financial condition
(3)  Recent debts for luxuries where a creditor runs up his debts for luxury goods or services within 90 days before filing for bankruptcy
(4)  Recent cash advances within the 70 days before fling for bankruptcy
(5)  Debts from embezzlement, larceny or breach of fiduciary duty
(6)  Debts to creditors not listed in the bankruptcy filing 

There is also a certain class of debts that are not discharged unless the debtor can prove that he is within the exception. This class of debts is the following:

(1)  Student loans – there are certain conditions attached to the discharge of a student loan. Generally, the debtor pleads poverty based on current income and expense; his current financial condition is likely to continue for a significant period; the debtor has made good faith effort to repay the debt.
(2)  Regular Income taxes – certain income taxes can be discharged in bankruptcy if you meet certain conditions.
 
The main purpose a debtor files for bankruptcy is to get a discharge from debts he can no longer afford to pay. Therefore, to understand exactly what bankruptcy can do for a debtor, one needs to know which, if any, of the debts will still be owed after the bankruptcy case is over as not all debts will be automatically eliminated in a bankruptcy filing. 

(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

US and Mexico Work Together to Create New Cross Border Communications Network

Share this:

Earlier this week, the Departments of Homeland Security (DHS) and State
(DOS) announced that senior officials of the United States-Mexico
High-Level Consultative Commission on Telecommunications (HLCC) have
just signed a bilateral agreement that will support the creation of a
new cross-border communications network for law enforcement and public
safety officials to use to strengthen border security.

This agreement, signed on September 2, established a bilateral working
group in which DHS and Mexico’s Secretariat of Public Security (SSP)
will coordinate the installation and operation of the communications
network. Participating safety and law enforcement officers will be able
to coordinate cross-border collaboration on incident response and other
aspects of law enforcement through voice, data and video means.

Categories
Updates

Federal Contractors and Subcontractors Required to Use E-Verify As of September 8

Share this:

After a number of legal hold-ups, the E-Verify system is soon going to
be a required system for the verification of employee eligibility
verification for federal contractors and subcontractors. Effective
September 8, 2009, all companies with contracts with the federal
government and their subcontractors will be required to use E-Verify to
verify the employment eligibility of their employees. E-Verify compares
information entered into the I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification
Form against data in federal government databases.

The E-Verify system is free to use and was created by the Department of
Homeland Security in partnership with the Social Security
Administration.

Legislation requiring the use of E-Verify extends the use of the
E-Verify system to “covered federal contractors and subcontractors.”
This includes all contractors that have received funding from the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. All companies that receive
federal contracts after September 8 will be required to enroll in the
E-Verify system within 30 days of the contract award date. All new
hires, regardless of whether these employees will work on the federal
contract(s), will need to have their eligibility confirmed by the
E-Verify System.

Categories
Updates

DHS Issues Directive on Electronic Media Searches at U.S. Ports of Entry

Share this:

Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) announced today that the agency will begin new directives to
“enhance and clarify” oversight for searches conducted on computers and
other forms of digital media at U.S. ports of entry.

This new directive details the circumstances in which DHS agencies
(CBP, ICE) can conduct searches of electronic media at ports of entry;
these circumstances are similar to the justifications for searching
other “sensitive” material, such as briefcases, backpacks and notebooks.

“Keeping Americans safe in an increasingly digital world depends on our
ability to lawfully screen materials entering the United States,” said
Napolitano. “The new directives announced today strike the balance
between respecting the civil liberties and privacy of all travelers
while ensuring DHS can take the lawful actions necessary to secure our
borders.”

This directive, promoted today by DHS, comes just one day after the
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a Freedom of Information
Act lawsuit against the agency, asking for clarification of its search
policy and the impact that policy has had on the civil liberties of
travelers at U.S. ports of entry over the past year. This is the ACLU’s
second request for information; it’s first occurred in June of this
year.

ACLUE has commented that current policy allows for government agents to
read information on travelers’ laptops and other digital media, without
any particular and individualized suspicion. This includes information
such as personal financial data, photographs and web browsing history.

The new DHS directive, according to DHS, will “ensure training
materials and procedures promote fair and consistent enforcement of the
law relating to electronic media searches.” Travelers that are being
searched will also now receive material that lets them know the reasons
for the search, how the data discovered might be used and additional
information about the traveler’s constitutional and statutory rights.

Categories
Updates

Global Entry Program Expands to 13 New Airports

Share this:

In order to streamline international travelers’ process to enter the
U.S. at a port of entry, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has
implemented a kiosk system, in which passengers can verify their
identities without having to wait in long lines. The ‘Global Entry’
program uses kiosks that look like ATMS to let international travelers
swipe their passports and scan their fingerprints. Such visitors can
complete the required identity verification processes to re-enter the
U.S. in a fraction of the time they have traditionally spent.

The Global Entry kiosks are being introduced this week in a total of 13
new airports across the U.S. and can be used only by U.S. citizens and
permanent legal residents. The kiosk system has been tested for the
past year in 7 airports and more than 15,000 travelers have signed up
for the program, which costs $100 and involves a detailed background
check. After rollout, a total of 20 airports will use the kiosk
verification technology.

Learn more or register online at: http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/trusted_traveler/global_entry/.

Categories
Immigration Round Table

Religious Worker Deadline to File is August 31, 2009

Share this:

Dear Atty. Lou,

My wife has a religious worker petition that was filed in 2007. This petition was approved by the US Citizenship and Immigration Services but we all fell out of status at the time we received the approval.

We received information in the news about a deadline for filing religious worker visa and would like to find out what this new regulation is about. We are also confused on the deadline for filing if it is August 31 or September 9. Please provide us important information about this matter.

Spouse of RW

Dear Spouse of RW,

You are referring to the US Citizenship and Immigration Services implementing guidelines that were released in June 2009 regarding the tolling of unlawful presence for certain religious workers.

A lawsuit was filed against the USCIS in regards to their policy of rejecting the concurrent filing of the I-360 Petition for Religious Workers and the I-485 Application for Adjustment of Status.  This is the case of Ruiz-Diaz v. United States, No. CO-71881RSL (W.D. Wash. June 11, 2009) where the USCIS was ordered to change its policy to waive unlawful presence for religious workers and afford them the opportunity to file for adjustment of status based on their approved I-360 or if their I-360 is still pending.

Pursuant to the district court’s order, three categories of individuals will receive protection from the accrual of unlawful presence and from unauthorized work during periods in which an individual was not permitted to concurrently file a religious worker Form I-360-based application for adjustment of status:

(1) any alien who concurrently filed a Form I-360 with a Form I-485 and/or Form I-765
and whose I-360 and I-485 applications were rejected pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §
245.2(a)(2)(i)(B) and who properly re-files5 the I-360 and I-485 applications with
appropriate fees and supporting documentation will have any period of unlawful
presence and unauthorized employment that began accruing after either filing of the
Form I-360 or November, 21, 2007, whichever is earlier, tolled until September 9,
2009, (i.e., 90 days from the date of the district court’s order);

(2) any alien who has a Form I-360 religious worker petition pending with USCIS as of
June 11, 2009, will have any period of unlawful presence and unauthorized
employment that began accruing after properly filing of the Form I-360 with
appropriate fees and supporting documentation, tolled until September 9, 2009;

(3) any alien who files a new Form I-360 religious worker petition with USCIS on or
after June 11, 2009, will have any period of unlawful presence and unauthorized
employment that began accruing after properly filing of the Form I-360 with
appropriate fees and supporting documentation, tolled until September 9, 2009.
Persons falling in categories 1 and 2 are immediately eligible to file a Form I-485, as well as Form I-765 applications. All persons who properly file their I-485 and I-765 on or after June 11, 2009 and have their applications receipted in by USCIS prior to September 9, 2009, also will have any period of unlawful presence or unauthorized employment tolled until USCIS issues a final administrative decision.

Based on the initial USCIS memorandum, affected religious workers beneficiaries were afforded initially until September 9, 2009 to file for their adjustment of status. However, because of the Visa Bulletin for the month September 2009 shows“unavailability” under the religious preference (fourth preference) the deadline was shortened to August 31, 2009. All adjustment of status applications by religious workers filed after August 31, 2009 will be rejected. This is an important reminder that all adjustment applications and employment authorization be filed right in time which is on or before August 31, 2009.

Also, class members in removal proceedings who are affected by this regulation may immediately seek termination of the proceedings so that they can file their adjustment applications with USCIS before the deadline.

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
Global Pinoy

Zero Tolerance Policy on Drug Use Must Be Changed

Share this:

Rolando migrated to the US with his family when he was three years old. His parents were busy working making both ends meet so they can send their children to school.  When Rolando turned 18 he started using illegal drugs.

He was arrested by the police during a drug bust and was charged with possession and use of illegal drugs. After serving his sentence, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents detained him while he faces charges of removal for his drug convictions. Rolando’s parents decided to take him back to the Philippines and he accepted a removal/deportation order from the immigration court.

Rolando is the only family member who is now residing in the Philippines. All his siblings are in the United States while he lives with his cousins in the province where his mother was from. He is now fully rehabilitated and wants to return to the US to start a new life. His US citizen sweetheart who was his former classmate in high school now wants to petition him for a fiancé visa and so they can get married in the US. Unfortunately, Rolando was told that he may no longer return to the US using his green card because of his prior case for possession and use of illegal drugs. Rolando is now at a loss and is resentful of having accepted an order of removal. Is he really barred from returning to the US for life?

Drug  Abuse

Section 212(a)(1)(A)(iv) of the Immigration and Nationality Act clearly bars a person who is determined to be a drug abuse or addict from receiving an immigrant or non immigration visa. The implementing regulations define “drug abuse” as the non-medical use of a substance listed in section 202 of  the Controlled Substances Act.

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA), Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, is the legislation that is referred to in immigration  to define illicit drugs. This Act is a consolidation of numerous laws regulating the manufacture and distribution of narcotics, stimulants, depressants, hallucinogens, anabolic steroids, and chemicals used in the illicit production of controlled substances

The usual waivers available to those who are otherwise inadmissible for certain crimes are not available to drug abusers except for those who can prove that hey have taken only a single instance of possession of “marijuana” in an amount under thirty grams which is less than an ounce.

Denying Visas through Admission

Applicants for visas are always encouraged to tell the truth on their applications. Hence, even during medical examinations, honest applicants may admit to taking illegal drugs once in their lifetime. Despite the length of time that passed since the taking of the illegal drugs, the immigration policy serves to bar the applicant from receiving the visas.

Different tests are being conducted and even if the tests shows a negative for drug use the physician may go further and ask  the applicant if he/she had use illegal drugs in the past.  Without the admission, the physician would not know whether the applicant had taken controlled substance in the past. Believing that honesty has its rewards, applicants admits to past use of drugs not knowing that their admission may mean the end of their dream to come to the US. This is the harsh reality on how this ground for inadmissibility is being applied to future immigrants in the US.

It is difficult if not totally devastating  for the applicant for immigrant visa to understand sometimes that by their own admission they have ended their dream of coming to the United States or being re-united with their immediate family.  For those who have admitted to taking a controlled substance as defined in section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act, the consequence is indeed not commensurate to the act of taking the drug especially if the applicant is in remission or had committed such acts several years back.  

Lost Option

The case of Rolando is different. Without admitting to past drug use, his records will reflect that he had a drug conviction in the US. Since there is zero tolerance on drug use as far as immigration policy is concerned, Rolando will be barred from returning to the US.
It is interesting to note that despite the fact that he migrated to the US, he was not able to naturalize to become a US citizen. Before he turned 18 years old, Rolando’s parents naturalized to become a US citizen and that they could have filed citizenship application for Rolando. Their failure to file for citizenship when Rolando was below 18 years made Rolando vulnerable to removal proceedings. Had he been a US citizen, he would still be in the US despite his illegal drug convictions.

Change in Policy

US agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation now allow applicants, who had in the past admitted to taking drugs many years back, to accept jobs as agents if they can show otherwise their competence to qualify for sensitive positions. Although many employers still take past drug use into account in hiring their employees, some federal agency’s policy had remained flexible and rejected the zero tolerance policy. Even elected officials including President Bush and Obama are allowed to hold highest political positions despite admissions of past drug use/experimentation during their younger days. If flexibility on past drug use has already been exercised by other federal agency, the immigration policy should likewise be changed.

The purpose of the immigration law is to promote family unity and the law must be amended to provide a statute of limitation in the application of this bar and to afford waivers for certain applicants. This will give family unity a much more important policy consideration. Past drug use especially for those rehabilitated should not have lifetime consequences. Everyone deserves a second chance.

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