Categories
Global Pinoy

Know Your Rights in Case of ICE Arrest

Share this:

At the recently concluded American Immigration Lawyers Association conference held at New Orleans, representatives from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement indicated the lack of detention centers and beds. It was mentioned several times, that Trump’s policy on interior enforcement is being executed and they expect increase in apprehension.

If a non-U.S. citizen who is without legal status is arrested by ICE agent, what steps may be taken? What rights if any do they have at the time of arrest?

Below are the “Know Your Rights” information being disseminated by Immigration Legal Resource Center and certain non-profit organizations, which may be asserted if the inescapable ICE visit or arrest takes place.

You have the right to remain silent.

You can assert your fifth amendment right. You can refuse to speak to an ICE agent. Do not answer any questions, especially about your birth place, immigration status or how you entered the United States. Say that you want to remain silent until you speak with a lawyer.

You have the right to demand a warrant before letting anyone into your home.

The ICE agent may not enter your home without a warrant. You do not have to give permission for him to enter. It is okay not to open your door unless the agent shows you the warrant. If the warrant is presented to you, ask the agent to slip it under the door or through the window. Make sure it is signed by a judge with your correct name, address and date of birth.

You have the right to speak to a lawyer and the right to make a phone call.

It is important to have your attorney’s phone number handy. You will be entitled to make a phone call. If you do not know your attorney’s number, call a trusted friend or relative to coordinate with your attorney.

You have the right to refuse to sign anything before you talk to a lawyer.

There will be some documents that will be presented to you for signing after you are apprehended and taken into custody. Do not sign anything. If you sign without understanding the nature of the document, it is possible that you are signing a waiver of your rights to a lawyer or to a hearing. And if you waive these rights, it may result in your immediate removal without a hearing.

You have the right to refuse to show any documents before speaking with a lawyer.

When you are visited by an ICE agent, you do not have to give permission to search any of your belongings unless there is a warrant. You can ask to speak with a lawyer before you submit any documentation. Each case of an unauthorized individual is distinct and all non-U.S. citizens must be vigilant about their rights. During these challenging times, a legal advice from a professional immigration attorney becomes indispensable to figure out what legal options may still be available.

(Atty. Lourdes S. Tancinco is a San Francisco CA based immigration attorney at Tancinco Law Offices and may be reached at law@tancinco.com, facebook.com/tancincolaw, or at 1 888 930 0808 or at 1 415 397 0808.)

Categories
Updates

2 Filipinos spared from deportation due to PH war on drugs

Share this:

SAN FRANCISCO — Two Filipino immigrants, who served jail terms for drug offenses but were apprehended by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and placed on deportation proceedings, were recently granted protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) because they are potential targets of President Rodrigo Duterte’s lethal war on drugs.

One immigrant was immediately released after an immigration judge’s CAT ruling while the other remains in custody pending the written decision of the judge that could withstand an impending appeal of ICE against the still detained convict.

The two grateful Filipinos living in San Francisco chose to remain unidentified. Both men have families, are indigents and in their mid-30s. They are green card holders who were represented for free by legal advocacy group for Asians in San Francisco.

Their lawyer, Kevin Lo, is a staff attorney in the Immigrant Rights Program of the Asian Law Caucus. Lo chanced upon the two men when he visited the San Francisco immigration detention center and realized that the two Filipinos needed representation, as most people in immigration detention are usually not legally aided enough.

Claims for protection

“In evaluating the cases of the two Filipinos clients, we learned about the situation in the Philippines with President Duterte’s drug war. And when we realized that they had claims for protection under the Convention Against Torture, we decided to take their cases because we know the situation is pretty serious,” Lo shared.

“We decided to make the argument that drug addicts who are deported to the Philippines has a more then 50 percent chance to be added to government watch lists and subsequently killed,” Lo explained.

Asian Law Caucus sought the help of Vicente Rafael, professor of history in the University of Washington, specializing in Southeast Asian history. “Rafael became our source for the condition in the Philippines particularly the drug war being waged by President Duterte,” Lo said.

Rafael’s declaration together with another expert’s statement proved very helpful in securing the detainees’ protection from the judge.

“We [also] submitted a big stack of articles and pictures to show that in the Philippines drug convictions typically equal torture and death,” Lo explained. “If we haven’t been able to submit the country condition confirmation that intended to show that the government’s (drive against drug offenders) is true, the ruling may not have been granted and they could have been deported.”

Scheduled to testify again

Rafael is scheduled to testify by phone on another case, in Tacoma, Washington, largely along the same lines. Nearby Seattle was where an earlier case employing the CAT appeal protection lost.

Lo wants to make clear though that the CAT is usually the last thing that people try for because it doesn’t lead to any legal status; one can still be deported when conditions change. It is also not granted very often.

“For our clients, the judge said he won’t be deporting our clients. But once Duterte is no longer in power and the drug war is no longer happening, they can be deported. So, CAT is an acknowledgement that you are deportable, but for human rights reason, you are not going to be for now,” disclosed Lo.

He says its a form of relief that applies to other people in other countries with dangerous condition of human rights. “The Duterte situation is so extreme, so rare that the head of state will be so explicit and proud that he killed so many people that started back when he was mayor of Davao City.”

Unfair deportation system

Lo also stressed that the U.S. deportation system is so unfair because even if immigrant convicts spent only a few months in a U.S. prison, they are being deported even for drug crimes that are not serious.

“Current U.S. immigration law punishes drug crimes very heavily. It is kind of funny that we are criticizing Duterte for his war on drugs, while the U.S. war on drugs, although not be as bad, is pretty extreme too,” Lo lamented.

In the deportation process, ICE will request for travel documents from the Philippines and also will turn over a copy of the deportee’s criminal record. What that means is that the U.S. is explicitly telling the Philippines that the deportee is a drug abuser or trafficker. Under Duterte, it is very likely that the deportee will be added to the drug list.

Duterte supporter Atty. Arnedo S. Valera, a practicing immigration attorney, congratulated Lo and company for “creative legal representation” in finding a relief from deportation for these two Filipinos.

Legal aberration

However, he contended that “this ruling is a legal aberration and not the prevailing case law in almost all immigration courts in 50 States. For the last decade, based on specific and unique removal issues faced by Filipino immigrants, I have been successful in obtaining asylum alleging fear of even torture under the Aquino and Arroyo regimes.”

Most likely, these liberal rulings will be appealed by the government because the fact is, under the drug policy of the Duterte administration, drug addicts who surrender and are not engaged in selling drugs and other criminal activities are sent to rehabilitation centers for treatment and drug rehabilitation.”

Duterte critic and seasoned litigator Ted Laguatan says that the present Philippine government has developed a global reputation for being engaged in state-sponsored extrajudicial killings and human rights violations.

“Numerous documented reports and graphic pictures of Filipinos brutally murdered by police elements and so called ‘vigilantes’ many of whom are also police elements dressed in civilians, have been published in international publications. More than 8,000 killed since President Rodrigo Duterte sat in office,” reasoned Laguatan.

Laguatan says that while government apologists continue to deny that these killings are state-sponsored, there are so many recorded footages of President Rodrigo Duterte delivering speeches urging the police to continue with these killings and assuring them of his protection.

‘Duterte behind the killings’

“Anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows that Duterte is behind these killings as the styles or modes of executions are the same as those used by the notorious Davao Death Squad reputedly headed by Duterte when he was Mayor of Davao City. Moreover, the more than 8,000 killings are self-evident. They would not have happened if Duterte were not President. As such, more Filipinos in removal proceedings in Immigration Court will be using the United Nation’s Convention Against Torture (CAT) to prevent their removal,” Laguatan opined.

Another eminent immigration lawyer Lourdes Tancinco noted that with the current social political environment in the Philippines, the view of the outside world on the controversial war of drugs has an impact on the fate of Filipinos abroad.

“I am not surprised that it had reached the immigration courts involving Filipinos who are facing removal. It would not be difficult to find sufficient evidence for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) Act considering that substantial and factual information is available in regards to the increasing number of death of people involved in illegal drugs. The courts can rely on expert opinion or organizations like the UN Commission on Human Rights,” Tancinco said.

Tancinco noted that the challenge in employing CAT is proving whether the abuse is inflicted by, or at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official or any person acting in an official capacity.

By Jun Nucum, via @inquirerdotnet

Categories
Global Pinoy

Deadbeat Dad’s Restriction on Foreign Travel

Share this:

Joshua was petitioned by his U.S. citizen spouse, Jessica, in 2005. After ten years, their marriage ended in divorce. There are three children born from the relationship and all of them are minors. The court ordered that Joshua pay child support in the amount of $1,500 per month.

For one year, Joshua paid his child support regularly. However, Joshua was terminated from his employment and found it difficult to pay for his child support obligations. In 2016, his unpaid child support reached $35,000.

Meanwhile, depressed and unemployed, Joshua decided to return to the Philippines.

He applied for a U.S. passport but was denied. While he was issued a U.S. passport in the past, he was told a renewal of his U.S. passport was problematic because he owed child support. Desperate to depart for the Philippines, Joshua, upon advice of his friends, applied for dual citizenship and was issued a Philippine passport. He traveled back to the Philippines and stayed with his long time sweetheart for more than three months. When he was about to return to the United States, he found himself with only a Philippine passport. He was told that a mere Philippine passport without a U.S. visa was an insufficient travel document to go back to the States.

Joshua applied again for a U.S. passport. Will he be issued one by the State Department despite his child support arrearages?

Passport Denials

The U.S. Department of State has a Passport Denial Program that is designed to help states enforce delinquent child support obligations. Parents certified by a state as having arrearages exceeding $2,500 are submitted by the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) to the Department of State, which denies them U.S. passports upon application or the use of a passport service.

This program was established as a penalty for deadbeats who owe court-ordered child support. It also serves as an incentive for passport applicants who wish to travel to first settle their child support arrearages before taking a trip outside the United States.

Reporting Child Support Arrearages

The restriction on the issuance of a passport applies only if there is previous court intervention in the child support matter and individuals representing the child are utilizing state support collections services. If there is no court order of child support, enforcement through this program is not available.

Limited Passport

The rule restricting issuance of passports to persons who owe child support, like Joshua, is not absolute. There is an exception. Joshua could secure a passport limited in purpose only, that is, only to be issued and used for his “direct return” to the United States. He could not use this passport for any other purpose.

The regulations that restrict issuance of passports to deadbeats withstood constitutional challenges because there is governmental interest in ensuring that those who do not pay child support obligations remain within the jurisdictional authority of the United States. The exception allowing Joshua a limited passport back to the U.S. ensures that he would be within the jurisdiction of the courts to face, own up to, and hopefully comply with his child support obligations.

(Atty. Lourdes Santos Tancinco, Esq. is an immigration attorney with the Tancinco Law Offices, a San Francisco CA based law firm. She may be reached at 1 888 930 0808, law@tancinco.com, or facebook.com/tancincolaw.)

Categories
Global Pinoy

Why US consuls may revoke B2 visitor visas

Share this:

Once a non-immigrant visa is issued by a consular officer at the US Embassy, it may be used by the visa holder anytime during the validity period of the visa. There are also cases where an unexpired visitor visa may no longer be used for travel. This happens when derogatory information is received by the consular officer and the visa is prematurely revoked by the said consular officer.

Aida travels annually to the United States on a visitor (B2) visa. She stays at least for five months and departs for the Philippines thereafter. Information was received by the consular officer from a reliable source that Aida was engaged in unauthorized employment while on a visitor’s visa. Recently, as Aida was preparing to travel to the United States, she received a letter from the US Embassy requesting that she surrender her visa. She was taken aback to receive the notice, but nevertheless proceeded to the US Embassy in Manila. As she presented her visa, the consular officer marked REVOKED on it and she was given a document stating that the visa was denied under INA 214(b). Can Aida re-apply for another visa and travel again to the United States?

Circumstances

There are only certain circumstances under the regulations where consular officers are allowed to revoke a nonimmigrant visa: (1) ineligibility of the visa classification based on INA 214(b); (2) an immigrant visa is issued; (3) the visa has been physically removed from the passport in which it was issued or (4) the visa holder is subject to a Watchlist Promote Hit for an arrest or conviction of driving under the influence, driving while intoxicated or similar arrests/convictions (DUI) that occurred within the previous five years.

The most common ground for revocation is based on Immigration and Nationality Act 214(b). This is a provision of the law where the visa applicant is presumed to be an intending immigrant “until he establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer that he is entitled to the nonimmigrant visa status. A consular officer will have to base the revocation on clear evidence of intent to immigrate to the United States. Working and residing in the United States are signs that the visitor’s visa applicant has the intention to reside permanently in the United States and more importantly it is a violation of the terms of his visitor’s visa.

Required procedure

There is a required procedure for the revocation of the visa. The consular officer should notify the alien of the intention to revoke the visa and request the alien to present the travel document in which the visa was issued.

While the notice of intent to revoke a visa affords the alien the opportunity to demonstrate why the visa should not be revoked, there is no longer a procedure for reconsideration of the revocation. An applicant whose visa has been revoked may apply for another visa. Or, a consular officer may provisionally revoke a non-immigrant visa while considering the visa holder’s eligibility for a visa.

The consular officer will print or stamp the word “REVOKED” in large block letters across the face of the visa. A ground for the ineligibility, or derogatory information, is entered into a database called Consular Lookout and Support System (CLASS). And every time, an individual applies for a visa, this information is noted in this system and will affect the application for a new visa.

In the case of Aida, there will be an opportunity for her to apply for a new visitor visa but she has to overcome the inadmissibility ground, which is the main reason why her visa was revoked. Otherwise, she may want to consider filing for a waiver. Approval of this waiver is discretionary on the part of the consular officer and the rate of approval is low. Hence, one should refrain from violating the terms of his visa to avoid the complications of a possible visa revocation.

(Atty. Lourdes Santos Tancinco, Esq. is a San Francisco based immigration attorney and an immigrant rights advocate. She may be reached at 1 888 930 0808, law@tancinco.com or facebook.com/tancincolaw.)

Categories
Global Pinoy

Is warrantless search of electronic devices on entering US legal?

Share this:

When entering the United States, both non-U.S. citizens and U.S. citizens are not exempt from the current extreme vetting policy. Electronic devices such as mobile phones, laptops and their contents may be searched by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers without the necessary warrants.

James attempted to enter the United States using a visitor’s visa. He was asked about the purpose of his travel. There was probably something suspicious in his response and in his body language that precipitated the CBP inspector to refer him to further inspection. At his secondary inspection, he was asked to surrender his phone. He revealed his phone’s password and all his text messages were read by the inspecting officer. The information about his work and where he was going to proceed after entering the United States were revealed through the text messages. On the same day, James was charged with fraud and misrepresentation as to his real intent of coming to the United States. He was sent back to the Philippines on an expedited removal or what is commonly known as “airport to airport.”

Sidd Bikkannavar, a U.S. citizen, an employee of NASA, was traveling from his vacation abroad and did not expect to have difficulty entering the U.S. At his port of entry. He was asked to surrender his phone and his password. He was initially hesitant to comply with the request, but eventually he gave the CBP officer his password and this phone was taken away from him. He was not aware of what was searched by the CBP, but he is afraid that he had compromised sensitive information relating to his work at NASA.

National security interests
It is a well-settled rule that reasonable border searches are valid due to national security interests. Electronic devices refer to any devices that may contain information, such as computers, disks, drives, tapes, mobile phones and other communication devices, cameras, music and other media players, and any other electronic or digital devices. According to CBP policy, searches of electronic devices help detect evidence relating to terrorism and other national security matters, human and bulk cash smuggling, contraband and child pornography. They can also reveal information about financial and commercial crimes, such as those relating to copyright, trademark and export control violations. Finally searches at the border are often integral to a determination of admissibility under the immigration laws.

There has been a long-settled rule that warrantless searches at the border are permitted and do not violate 4th Amendment constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches. And since this is a legal activity, failure to cooperate with CBP will result in serious consequences. For the foreign national who is not a green card holder, CBP may deny entry to the United States. For the green card holder and U.S. citizens, it is possible that either of the following may occur: (1) detention of the person until he or she consents; (2) arrest of the person for obstruction of justice or (3) release of the person but seizure of the device in question. All these will result in a cumbersome experience for any traveler.

While warrantless search of digital devices may be frequently exercised by CBP, travelers to the United States may consider limiting the number of electronic devices they carry. And regarding to the content of mobile phones or laptops, there is a way to clean up your files, apps and messages if you wish to protect your information. The same may be done with your social media postings. These days, it is difficult to assert the right to privacy during international travels. But, there is a preventive measure one can take; that is, carefully choosing what you put in your luggage and on your electronic devices.

(Atty. Lourdes Santos Tancinco, Esq. is a San Francisco based immigration attorney and an immigrant rights advocate. She may be reached at 1 888 930 0808, law@tancinco.com or facebook.com/tancincolaw.)

Categories
Global Pinoy

Undocumented’s options – depart voluntarily or be detained

Share this:

Two weeks ago, Rey Galleon, a Filipino who had been residing in unlawful status for several years, was arrested by ICE and decided to depart “voluntarily” to avoid being incarcerated.

According to Galleon’s public statement, the ICE officers gave him the choice of leaving voluntarily or staying in jail for up to six months. For fear of being detained for six months, he chose to depart.

Will the case of Mr. Galleon be a common occurrence for 300,000 Filipinos who are undocumented?

Mandatory detention

Any person who is in the United States is entitled to due process rights under the U.S. Constitution. This includes anyone who is present in the United States in unlawful status. The constitutional protections of due process and equal protection are not limited to U.S. citizens; they also apply to every person regardless of immigration status.

Generally, this means that the right to legal counsel and to a hearing should be afforded a person. While these rights exist, ICE officers may continue to detain a person while awaiting a court hearing. This happens in particular cases where the law limits the exercise of this right to certain individuals who are subject to mandatory detention and those who are arriving aliens.

The following persons are subject to mandatory detention:

  1. those who have criminal inadmissibility grounds;
  2. those with convictions of multiple crimes of moral turpitude, aggravated felonies and controlled substances among others;
  3. those who are inadmissible based on terrorist activities.

Arriving aliens also may not be granted bond hearing and could remain in custody until removed. The law defines an arriving alien as one who is coming to the United States at a port of entry or are seeking transit through the United States at a port of entry.

Release on bond

If an individual is not subject to mandatory detention or is not an arriving alien, either the ICE sets the bond or the immigration judge decides whether an individual is subject to release on bond. Until the arrested individual is heard, he remains incarcerated unless ICE makes a determination of a release on bond.

Generally, ICE counsel will not object to a release on bond if the individual is not a flight risk and other factors exist to show that the individual will appear on the date set for hearing. There is a lot of discretion on the part of the immigration judge on whether the individual is released on bond. It is also during these times when the detainee decides to just depart instead of staying in jail to await the hearing before the immigration judge.

While those who are in unauthorized presence are lumped into one category as being “undocumented,” each case will be treated differently depending on the circumstances of each case.

Given that the DHS has been given additional resources to enforce immigration law not only against those with criminal convictions, but also anyone who is found to be in unlawful status, it is important for those concerned to make timely informed decisions.

Should they decide to stay, they have to know the risks and prepare themselves to take legal steps when ICE comes knocking at their doors. The risk involves incarceration until released on bond. If they are not willing to take the risk, then the difficult decision to depart voluntarily becomes imminent.

Categories
Updates

Expedited removal may be expanded under Trump

Share this:

Several advocates are distributing “Know Your Rights” literature to those who may possibly be affected by the enhanced enforcement of immigration law brought by Trump’s Executive Orders. One of the rights that one should know is the right to a hearing before an immigration judge. This is a constitutional due process right that may be asserted during apprehension and prior to removal.

There is one particular instance where there is no right to hearing, and that is during an expedited removal. Given the changes brought about by Trump’s Executive Order, will an extension of this process affect those who are present in the United States in unlawful status?

Expedited removal

For 20 years now, the expedited removal has been a process used by the Department of Homeland Security to fast track the removal of certain individuals at the ports of entry, who are in violation of immigration law relating to fraud or are unable to show proper legal documents to prove lawful status.

It is commonly referred to by Filipino travelers as “Airport to Airport” or “A to A,” referring to a case where a passenger at the port of entry in the United States is found inadmissible and is returned the same day of arrival (or the next available flight) to the country of origin. In these cases, the arriving alien is not entitled to a hearing, and a determination of a federal agent is sufficient to send the traveler back to his home country.

Expedited removal has been extended twice. The first expansion of expedited removal is in 2002 when it applied it to those who:

  1. entered the United States by sea, either by boat or other means;
  2. were not admitted or paroled in the United States (entered without inspection) and
  3. have not been continuously present in the United States for at least 2 years.

In 2004, the DHS expanded the application of expedited removal to non-citizens who are encountered within 100 miles of the border, and who entered the United States without inspection less than 14 days before they are encountered by immigration authorities.

Due process right to a hearing

President Trump’s Executive Order instructs the Secretary of Homeland Security to apply expedited removal to the fullest extent of the law. Section 11(c) of the Executive Order states in full: “Pursuant to section 235(b)(1)(A)(iii)(I) of the INA, the Secretary shall take appropriate action to apply, in his sole and un-reviewable discretion, the provisions of section 235(b)(1)(A)(i) and (ii) of the INA to the aliens designated under section 235(b)(1)(A)(iii)(II).”

Applying expedited removal to the fullest extent of the law means putting millions of unauthorized immigrants who have been in the United States for less than 2 years at risk of an expedited removal without a hearing even if apprehended beyond 100 miles from the border.

The DHS rules are still being developed and they will soon be published in the Federal Register. Yet, overzealous immigration officers may put anyone in expedited removal if apprehended and if unable to prove legal status and 2 years of physical presence.

The right to a hearing of those who have been residing in the United States extends even those who are without legal status. The Supreme Court had settled this issue many years ago. Should there be a deprivation of the right to a hearing because of the proposed expanded expedited removal, the Executive Order entitled “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements,” will be challenged in the judicial courts as being unconstitutional just like the executive order on the travel ban.

(Atty. Lourdes Santos Tancinco, Esq. is a San Francisco-based immigration attorney and an immigrant rights advocate. She may be reached at 1 888 930 0808, law@tancinco.com or facebook.com/tancincolaw.)

Categories
Global Pinoy

Renouncing US Citizenship 101

Share this:

Lawyer Perfecto Yasay’s nomination as Secretary of Department of Foreign Affairs was recently rejected by the Commission on Appointments on the issue of his U.S. citizenship. Why was his citizenship not revoked contrary to his testimony?

There are basically two methods of losing U.S. citizenship. The first is through voluntary act through a process called expatriation or renunciation. The other is through involuntary act of the naturalized citizen through “denaturalization.”

Voluntary Loss of Citizenship: Expatriation

A U.S.-born citizen or a naturalized U.S. citizen may voluntarily relinquish citizenship by performing certain acts. The following are indication of voluntary relinquishment if made with the intention of relinquishing citizenship:

(1) obtaining naturalization in or taking an oath of allegiance to a foreign state after age 18;

(2) entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S.;

(3) accepting, serving in or performing duties of any office, post or employment of a foreign government;

(4) making a formal renunciation of U.S. citizenship before a diplomatic or consular officer on a Department of State form;

(5) making a formal written renunciation in the United States but only when the U.S is in a state of war.

A certificate approved by the Secretary of State shall constitute a final administrative determination of loss of nationality or citizenship.

Involuntary Loss of Citizenship

Denaturalization is the process of losing citizenship involuntarily through a judicial proceedings and it applies only to those who received citizenship through naturalization. The proceedings may only be initiated by a U.S. Attorney in an action in a state or federal court competent to hear naturalization matters under INA Section 310. The basis for revocation may be the illegal procurement of citizenship or concealment of a material fact or willful misrepresentation.

The naturalized citizen may not file his own denaturalization but may provide information that will justify the revocation of his naturalization.

Presumptive Fraud

One of the grounds for revocation through denaturalization is fraud. Historically, prior to 1994, there were rules on presumptive fraud that may be imputed to the naturalized U.S. citizen as grounds for revocation.

A naturalized U.S. citizen who resumed a residence in the country of previous citizenship within 5 years of naturalization was presumed to have obtained his U.S. citizenship through fraud. The period was reduced to one year in 1986 and eventually this presumptive fraud was eliminated in 1994 through the enactment of the Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994 (INTCA Public Law 103-416).

The Yasay Case

As a naturalized U.S. citizen, lawyer Yasay went through the voluntary relinquishment of his U.S. citizenship in June 2016. The Certificate of Loss of Nationality issued by the U.S. Department of State is the document that indicates the official loss of U.S. citizenship.

In 1993, prior to the immigration law being amended, he attempted to submit information through his Affidavit that he resumed residence to the Philippines within one year of becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen.

This is presumptive fraud that may result in revocation based on the law existing at that time. Unfortunately, no proof was submitted that the process of denaturalization was ever initiated by the U.S. Attorney General and, therefore, there was no loss of U.S. citizenship.

Yasay could have followed through the process with the U.S. Attorney General and not simply submit his affidavit. Given that he was not denaturalized in 1993, his official loss of U.S. citizenship only occurred in June 2016 when the U.S. Department of State approved his Certificate of Loss of Nationality.

For future politicians who want to serve in the Philippine government and but are U.S. citizens, knowing the exact procedure for giving up U.S. citizenship will preclude any legal barriers to entering the public office. Taking the stand that one never had U.S. citizenship because of one’s unilateral statement of “disqualification” shows either ignorance of the process, or is simply a convenient lie.

(Atty. Lourdes S. Tancinco is a San Francisco based immigration lawyer and immigrant’s right advocate. She may be reached at law@tancinco.com, facebook.com/tancincolaw, or 1 888 930 0808)

Categories
Global Pinoy

Are Green Card Holders and Visa Holders Safe to Travel With the Rewritten Travel Ban?

Share this:

An Executive Order titled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, which is the re-written travel ban, was signed by President Trump on March 6, 2017. The prior travel ban, Executive Order 13769 of January 27, 2017, will be revoked on March 16, 2017.

Travel Ban for Nationals of 6 Countries

For the next 90 days beginning March 6, 2017, foreign nationals from Sudan, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen who are outside the United States on the effective date of the order, do not currently have a valid visa on the effective date of this order, and did not have a valid visa at 5:00 eastern standard time on January 27, 2017, are not eligible to travel to the United States. The 90-day period will allow for proper review and establishment of standards to prevent terrorist or criminal infiltration by foreign nationals. As a result of this increased information sharing, Iraqi citizens are not affected by the Executive Order.

Green Card Holders and Visa Holders Exempt from the Travel Ban

Clearly, the Executive Order does not apply to certain individuals, such as lawful permanent residents of the United States; foreign nationals admitted to the United States after the effective date of the order. Those who are outside the United States with a document that is valid on the effective date of the order or any date thereafter which permits travel to the United States are also not affected by this executive order.

Normal Immigration Processing to Continue

In the prior travel ban contained in the Executive Order dated January 17, 2017 those entering with valid visas or green card holders were adversely affected. While this re-written travel ban specifically mentions that green card holders are exempt, there is a caveat that applies to all residents and visa holders entering the United States. It states that all normal immigration processing requirements shall continue to apply. This means that all grounds of inadmissibility if they exist will also affect certain green card holders who may have an immigration history of fraud or have criminal history that may render them inadmissible. The same rule applies to non-immigrant visa holders. If there is fraud or misrepresentation in obtaining the visa at the U.S. Embassy abroad, there is a possibility of an expedited removal at the port of entry.

It is important to remind non U.S. citizens that the political climate is very different and that all those attempting to enter the U.S. even if with valid visas must understand the consequences of past actions on their immigration status and their ability to enter the United States.

If no legal grounds exist to deny admission at the port of entry, then there should be no need to worry about traveling. Each case will be assessed by the immigration officer at the port of entry based on the individual’s immigration history. Note that the Department of Homeland Security officers at the Customs and Border Protection have wide discretionary authority whether to allow the entry of non US. citizens. Even if Filipino nationals are not affected by the travel ban, it is important to understand past actions and its impact on present immigration policies.

(Atty. Lourdes S. Tancinco is a partner at Tancinco Law Offices, a San Francisco based law firm, and may be reached at law@tancinco.com, facebook.com/tancincolaw, or 1 888 930 0808)