Tag: department of homeland security

Categories
Featured

New Registration Rule Now in Effect: Should You Register with the DHS?

New Registration Rule Now in Effect - Should You Register with the DHS
Share this:

A new federal rule requiring some non-U.S. citizens to register with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is now in effect as of April 11, 2025. This change may impact individuals who are in the United States without traditional immigration documentation—or who entered without a visa—and could carry serious consequences for those who don’t comply.

New Registration Rule Now in Effect - Should You Register with the DHS

If you or someone you know is unsure about whether this rule applies to them, keep reading to understand who needs to register, what it involves, and the potential risks for both action and inaction.

Who Must Register Under the New Rule?

Registration is a process of notifying the government of your presence in the U.S. as a noncitizen. The requirement to “register” is in our immigration laws but has been rarely used. President Trump announced they will use this requirement for all noncitizens. The law requires all noncitizens over age 14 who remain in the U.S. for 30 days or more to register. (The law instructs parents to register those that are under age 14.) The law requires people to register before the 30-day period ends. The government posted a new form on the USCIS website for those that are not yet registered to use, Form G-325R.

The majority of immigrants and visa holders do NOT need to take additional steps under this new rule, as they are already considered “registered.” The following documents count as registration:

  • A green card. If you are a permanent resident, you are registered
  • A work permit, even if it is now expired. If you have an employment authorization card, for any reason, you are registered.
  • An I-94. If you got an I-94 document, or received an I-94 electronically, when you entered the United States, you are registered. This includes entries with parole or a visa. If you got an I-94 when you got status, such as asylee, or U nonimmigrant, you are registered.
  • An NTA. If you were issued a Notice to Appear in immigration court, you are registered. If you were issued an Order to Show cause (OSC) or a referral to the immigration judge, you are registered.
  • A Border Crossing Card.
  • A Landing Permit as a crewman.
  • If you have applied for lawful permanent residence or temporary residence you are registered, even if that application was denied. (Forms I-485, I-687, I-691, I-698, I-700)

If you are already registered, you do not need to register now. Those who entered with visas are considered registered as they are provided with I-94s upon arrival or biometrics have already been taken at the time of the application for the non-immigrant or immigrant visa.

However, three key groups of individuals are covered by the new rule and must now register with DHS if they are in the U.S. for 30 days or more and are not otherwise registered:

  1. Canadian citizens who entered the U.S. by land for business or tourism, did not receive an I-94, and stayed 30 days or more.
  2. Foreign nationals who turn 14 years old while in the United States.
  3. Foreign nationals who entered the U.S. without inspection (for example, by crossing the border without being processed by immigration officials), and who remain in the U.S. for 30 days or more.

What Does Registration Involve?

If you’re required to register, here’s what you’ll need to do:

  • Create a personal myUSCIS account
  • Submit Form G-325R online, which collects biographic and immigration-related information
  • Appear for fingerprinting and photos (biometrics), if you are age 14 or older and not a Canadian visitor
  • Receive and carry a “Proof of Alien Registration” document at all times

For children under 14, a parent or guardian must complete the registration, but fingerprints are not required until the child turns 14.

Is There a Deadline to Register?

Yes—and it’s very important.

If you were already in the United States for 30 days or more on April 11, 2025, you were expected to register immediately. There is no 30-day grace period after that date.

For individuals who newly meet the 30-day requirement after April 11 (for example, new arrivals or children who recently turned 14), registration must be completed as soon as the 30-day mark is reached.

What Happens if I Don’t Register?

If you do apply for an immigration benefit with USCIS and have not registered, DHS could use a failure to register as a negative factor in deciding your case.

Failing to register or carry proof of registration can result in misdemeanor charges, including:

  • Fines of up to $5,000
  • Jail time (up to six months for failure to register, 30 days for failure to carry proof)
  • Potential removal (deportation) if you are in violation of immigration laws

Also, if you move, you are required to report your new address to DHS within 10 days. Failing to do so may lead to detention or removal proceedings unless the delay was not willful or was reasonably excusable.

Important Note: Registration Can Carry Risks

The registration form asks for your address, information about you, your family, and immigration status, among other things. If you have no immigration status, immigration enforcement will know you are in the U.S. and the government says they will take steps to deport you. You may be detained.

For some people, registering with DHS may involve disclosing sensitive information—such as a criminal record or the fact that they entered the U.S. without inspection. These individuals may become visible to immigration enforcement through the registration process.

Before registering, those who are undocumented, have pending immigration cases, or have any criminal history should speak with an experienced and trusted immigration attorney. Legal advice can help you understand the risks and determine the best course of action.

What Should You Do Now?

If you think this new rule may apply to you or a family member:

➤ Determine if you are required to register
➤ Create a myUSCIS account and complete Form G-325R if needed
➤ Consult with an immigration attorney, especially if you have legal or immigration concerns
➤ Keep a copy of your registration proof with you at all times

For many, this rule will not affect them directly—but for others, it is critical to determine consequences of registering and not registering and their effect on their specific case. If you have questions or concerns about your situation, we’re here to help. Tancinco Law offers confidential consultations to guide you through the new DHS registration process and help you stay informed and protected.

~

If you would like to know how to set an appointment with Tancinco Law, click here.

Categories
Updates

2023: The year of more H-2B visas

2023: The year of more H-2B visas
Share this:

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will add more H-2B visas in 2023, raising the cap by at least 64,000. This is on top of the regularly available H-2B visa count of 66,000.

The addition for H-2B visas targets additional seasonal workers as businesses continue to roar back with the decline of the pandemic.

Here is the breakdown: The H-2B supplemental includes an allocation of 20,000 visas to workers from Haiti and the Central American countries of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. The remaining 44,000 supplemental visas will be available to returning workers who received an H-2B visa, or were otherwise granted H-2B status, during one of the last three fiscal years.

Why does this matter? Let’s do a review first of what the H-2B visa is for.

What is the H-2B?

The H-2B visa is also known as the temporary nonagricultural worker visa.

These are given to non-Americans who would like to work for companies that would otherwise suffer “impending irreparable harm” if they did not employ non-citizens.

This can be American businesses in varying fields such as hospitality and tourism, landscaping, seafood processing, and others.

The conditions

Here are the conditions that need to be met for granting the visa:

  1. The employment needs to be for a limited period
  2. The limited period must be less than a year
  3. The employers must prove that there are not enough American workers to do the temporary work
  4. The employment of the non-Americans must not affect the wages for American workers posted in similar jobs

Those who wish to get an H-2B meanwhile need to get a job offer from an American employer that can meet the above criteria.

Applicants need to prove that they will return to their country after the temporary employment.

After the first limited period is complete, the employee can extend their employment for up to 3 years if the employer can prove that the employee is still needed.

Protection from exploitation

With concerns for exploitation and unfair working conditions, the US DHS and Department of Labor announced the creation of a new White House-convened Worker Protection Taskforce.

“We also will bolster worker protections to safeguard the integrity of the program from unscrupulous employers who would seek to exploit the workers by paying substandard wages and maintaining unsafe work conditions,” said Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro MAyorkas in a statement.

For advice on how to take advantage of this raising of the cap and to find alternate ways to work in the United States, reach out to a trusted immigration lawyer.

Categories
Updates

Latest Court Ruling Affects First Time DACA Applicants

Share this:

On July 16, 2021, a federal court Judge Andrew Hanen ordered the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to stop the processing and approval of new DACA applications. What is the impact of this decision on DACA recipients and those with pending DACA applications?

Jose turned 18 years old in January 2021.  When Jose was 5 years old, he was brought to the United States by his Aunt and his immigration status was never legalized. He practically grew up in the United States and completed his high school education and dreams, one day, of becoming a physician.

When President Biden was elected, Jose filed for protection under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. This is the first time that he applied for DACA.  The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services acknowledged receiving his application but no action has been taken so far.  On Friday, July 16, 2021, Jose learned that the Federal Court Judge ruled against new DACA applicants. What are the chances that he will be granted employment authorization and protection under DACA?

The DACA Program

In 2012 President Obama created a policy called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), calling for deferred action for certain undocumented young people who came to the U.S. as children. Applications under the program began on August 15, 2012. More than 800,000 DACA eligible individuals filed for protection and employment authorization under this DACA program.

Legal Challenges

DACA has always been the subject of legal challenges where certain States question the legality of the DACA program. When former President Trump took office, he immediately issued an order rescinding DACA. Several lawsuits were filed questioning the rescission of the DACA program.

On June 18, 2020, in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of University of California,the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Trump administration’s termination of the DACA program and ruled that the termination of DACA was “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). While it ruled against its termination, the Court did not rule on whether or not DACA itself is lawful, but merely held that the Trump administration did not follow the law when it tried to terminate the program. In Casa de Maryland v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security,  a federal judge in the U.S. District Court of Maryland ordered the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to reinstate the DACA program to its 2017, pre-termination status and to start accepting new applications.

On July 16, 2021, Judge Andrew Hanen, a federal judge in the State of Texas, issued a ruling declaring DACA as unlawful since, according to his decision, the Department of Homeland Security has no authority to create DACA and to prevent immigration officials from enforcing the removal provisions of the law.

Impact of the Decision: First Time DACA Applicants Adversely Affected

Jose’s application as illustrated above will be put on hold as a result of the recent decision.

Those who have received prior DACA protections and employment authorizations are not affected by the decision. Unfortunately, first time DACA applications will be placed on hold by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services which means that no new DACA applications will be approved at this time. The federal Court decision blocked USCIS from approving any new DACA cases. Hence, all individuals who have submitted DACA initial applications (those that never had DACA and are applying for the first time) and have not received an approval from USCIS will have their application held. This applies to all initial cases that were not approved prior to July 16, 2021.

What about individuals who already had prior DACA for the first time and are renewing? If an applicant was recently granted DACA for the first time, his/her DACA will remain valid and may be renewed.

Future of DACA

President Biden vowed to appeal the federal court decision. But while this is on appeal, the new DACA applicant’s fate will be put on hold. The more permanent solution is for Congress to pass the American Dream and Promise Act which bill is waiting to be passed.

President Obama emphasized the importance of passing legislation to protect our DREAMers.  On his Twitter posting, he said that “For more than nine years, DREAMers have watched courts and politicians debate whether they’ll be allowed to stay in the only country many of them have ever known, it’s long past time for Congress to act and give them the protection and certainty they deserve.”

Let us continue to strongly support our DREAMers, by calling and urging our representatives in Congress to pass the American Dream and Promise Act. Undeniably, our young DREAMers deserve better.

(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 , facebook.com/tancincolaw, or through her website www.tancinco.com)

Categories
Updates

DHS Withdraws October 2020 Affidavit of Support Rule

Share this:

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced on March 19, 2021 that proposed rule on affidavit of support dated October 2, 2020 will be withdrawn. This policy change is consistent with the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) commitment to reduce barriers within the legal immigration system. DHS and USCIS are committed to eliminating barriers that prevent legal immigrants from accessing government services available to them.

The 189-page October 2020 rule would have imposed higher qualifying and evidentiary requirements including production of bank information and credit reports. These requirements would have placed undue burden on the U.S. citizens petitioning their relatives who are signing affidavits of support. According to the USCIS, it is estimated that the cost of implementing these requirements on U.S. citizen petitioners is $2.4 billion over the next decade.

The withdrawal of this rule is just one of many policies that reverses the prior administration’s restrictive immigration rules. These changes are all consistent with President Biden’s Executive Order (EO) 14012, Restoring Faith in Our Legal Immigration Systems and Strengthening Integration and Inclusion Efforts for New Americans.

Both the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State are reverting to the public charge standard that had been in effect prior to the proposed changes.

Meantime, the DHS has reinstated the Form I-864W, Request for Exemption for Intending Immigrant’s Affidavit of Support, which allows certain applicants to seek exemption from the affidavit of support requirements. These applicants include: (1) individuals who have earned or can receive credit for 40 quarters of coverage under the Social Security Act (SSA); (2) children who will become U.S. citizens upon entry to the United States; (3) self petitioning widow/ers and (4) self-petitioning battered spouses and children. These applicants will be required to submit Form I-864W if seeking an exemption from the affidavit of support requirement.

Categories
Updates

The “Johnson Memo”: ICE to Prioritize Enforcement

Share this:

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Acting Director Tae Johnson released its ICE memorandum known as the “Johnson Memo” and laid out three priorities for enforcement:

  • national security,
  • border security and
  • public safety.

The new memo applies to every stage of enforcement, from deciding whether to arrest someone to deciding whether to deport them.

Presumed priorities are defined in the memo under these 3 categories.

For the third presumed priority under public safety, the individual must have been convicted of an aggravated felony or trigger the gang participation prong and must pose a threat to public safety. ICE officers are instructed to consider various factors before deciding to arrest or deport. These factors include: first, the extensiveness, seriousness, and recency of the criminal activity; and second, presence of mitigating factors, including, but not limited to:

  1. Personal and family circumstances;
  2. Health and medical factors;
  3. Ties to the Community;
  4. Evidence of rehabilitation; and
  5. Whether the individual has potential immigration relief available.

Prioritizing enforcement is a dramatic departure from the prior administration policy of deporting families who have lived for years in the United States, terrorizing immigrant communities and a reported increase in “collateral” arrests of individuals who were separated from their families.

The Johnson Memo is only an interim memo, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary will publish new rules for ICE officers, likely within 90 days. If you or any family member is at risk of removal or arrest, or has a final order of removal, it will be best to contact our office to determine if you fit the criteria for a presumed priority or not. Since this Memo does not completely take out ICE’s authority to apprehend, detain and remove individuals, one may want to have his or her case analyzed to determine whether it falls outside the presumed priority and if available reliefs are available.

Categories
Updates

Unauthorized Use of Social Security May Result in Removal

Share this:

Fernando entered the United States in 2010 without a valid visa. To be able to work in the United States, he used a social security number of another individual illegally. In 2015, he was convicted of the “use of an unauthorized social security number” in violation of federal law (42 USC 408(a)(7)(B). Later the Department of Homeland Security charged Fernando as being removable because his criminal conviction was considered as conviction of a crime against moral turpitude (CIMT). He was ordered removed by the Immigration Court as his cancellation of removal was denied. Fernando’s appeal to BIA was denied and on petition for review the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the BIA decision.

In a similar case pending with the Supreme Court, the Pereida, a long time resident of the United States with U.S. citizen children was put in removal proceedings. He has an underlying case of unauthorized use of social security number but his criminal conviction was a misdemeanor state offense of criminal impersonation under the Nebraska criminal statute. The immigration court ordered him removed considering the conviction as a crime against moral turpitude. BIA affirmed the immigration judge’s decision.  The case is still pending with the Supreme Court. Oral arguments were heard in October 2020 and no decision has yet been rendered.

Case to Case basis

While the two cases are similar in facts, the second case of Pereida was a state conviction while that of Fernando was clearly a federal crime. Legal arguments will be centered on whether the elements of the state crime corresponds to the federal offense listed on the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

Conviction for unauthorized use of social security number is a crime against moral turpitude and is a deportable offense. But each case is different. The underlying offenses must be analyzed on whether they clearly fall under the federal offense grounds for removal. Also, legal counsels should be able to look into any post-convictions relief if they are available to lessen or erase the immigration consequences of the crime.

On President Biden’s first day of office, he issued an Executive Order revoking Trump’s 2017 Executive Order on Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior. Thus, ICE, USCIS and CBP released a Memorandum focusing only on removing individuals who are threats to national security, border security and public safety. Conviction of a crime against moral turpitude for unauthorized use of social security is a fraud offense and does not fall under these priorities. However, without clear directives from ICE, favorable discretion may or may not be exercised to not enforce removal of those with misdemeanor offenses and with strong family ties.

Pathway to Citizenship 

In the meantime, it would be best for those still waiting to avail of the “pathway to citizenship” to be good citizens and to stay away from engaging in unlawful activities to avoid complicating future immigration applications. Or better yet, to have your case assessed if you have criminal case history to determine possible legal options of obtaining permanent resident status or availing of future options to “pathway to citizenship.”

Categories
Updates

Filipino Students Among Nationals with More Than 10% Overstay Rate: DHS Propose Rule to Limit Validity of F, J AND I visas to 2 Years

Share this:

On September 25, 2020, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a proposed regulation that would establish fixed end dates on students, exchange visitor visas and foreign media representatives.

 Under the proposal, individuals applying to either F or J status would be eligible to stay in the United States for the length of time indicated by the program end date noted in their Form I–20 or DS–2019, not to exceed 4 years. In some cases, international students and scholars would be limited to 2 years. Filipino students are included in the category of those with 2 years validity. 

Why are Filipino students being singled out for 2 years validity instead of 4 years?

The 2 years visa is proposed for Individuals who were born in or are citizens of countries designated as state sponsor of terrorism– Iran, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria. They also limited the validity period to 2 year of students who are citizens of countries with overstay rates exceeding 10 percent.  

According to the USCIS data, the Philippines has an overstay rate of 13.28% or a total of 1,452 students and exchange students who did not leave the country at the expiration of their visas.

The 2 year visa is subject to renewal by filing an application for extension on Form I-539. The extension could be approved by the USCIS if the program length goes beyond the minimum initially granted, additional time needed is due to a compelling academic reason, a documented medical illness or medical condition, or circumstances beyond the student’s control. USCIS considers failing classes as within the control of the student, so that academic challenges would no longer generally be a basis for extension.  

F and J nonimmigrants who are properly maintaining their status would be authorized to remain in the United States in F and J status until the end date on their Form I-20 or DS-2019, not to exceed a period of 4 years from the final rule’s effective date, plus a grace period of 60 days for F nonimmigrants and 30 days for J nonimmigrants. If they need additional time to complete their current course of study or exchange visitor program, including requests for post completion optional practical training (OPT) or STEM OPT, or would like to start a new course of study, they would have to apply for an extension of stay.

The proposed rule may not be finalized soon as it is still open for comments until October 26, 2020. It could probably be withdrawn if there is a change in presidential administration.

Categories
Updates

Refusal of Visas Based on “Public Charge” Ground

Share this:

For many years, an Affidavit of Support is an essential document before a visa may be issued to an applicant seeking to enter the United States. What happens if the the affidavit of support is found to be insufficient? Why are many visa applicants now being denied despite submission of Affidavits of Support? What are the new changes in policy regarding public charge?

Public Charge Finding

A non citizen may become a public charge for inadmissibility or deportability if s/he has become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence or is proven to have (1) received public cash assistance for income maintenance or (2) institutionalization for long term care at government expense. Only 3 types of public cash assistance benefits are referred to become a public charge: (1) Supplemental Security Income or SSI for the aged, blind and disabled; (2) Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) cash assistance, and (3) state and local cash assistance programs known as general assistance.

Affidavits of Support Plus Other Factors

Before new policies took place, an Affidavit of Support should be sufficient to overcome a public charge ground for denial of the visa. This is a document executed by the Petitioner who will attest that she has sufficient assets and income to support the visa applicant. If the petitioner is unable to show financial capacity to support, a co-sponsor may submit an affidavit of support. The petitioner or the sponsor shall demonstrate that she has the means to maintain an annual income equal to at least 125 percent of the Federal poverty line. In addition, she has to agree to provide support to maintain the sponsored visa applicant at an annual income that is not less than 125 percent of the Federal poverty income line.

Early this year, the U.S. Department of State changed the policy on Affidavits of Support. It added now a provision on 9 FAM 302.8-2(B)(2) that states that an Affidavit of Support is one of the positive factors taken into account in the totality of the circumstances test and is not in itself sufficient to protect an individual from a public charge determination. The other factors that are to be taken into account are the applicant’s age health, family status, assets, resources, financial status, education and skills.

In addition to the totality of circumstances test that is currently being used, it is anticipated that in the next few months, the new public charge policy of the Department of Homeland Security will be published and implemented. The worst part of the new rule that is USCIS will count benefits received by the petitioner U.S. citizen and take it against the visa applicant to show a finding of public charge.

In applying the amendments to the public charge policy, using the totality of circumstances test, there are cases now where a visa applicant is denied for public charge ground upon finding that the co-sponsor who executed the affidavit of support has no familial relationship to the visa applicant. This means that if the co-sponsor is a friend and not the relative of the visa applicant, even if there is proof of sufficient means to support the applicant, visa applications are being denied.

While this new policy is being implemented, there is no basis under the law to require a co-sponsor to be a relative. INA § 213A(f) or 8 CFR§213a.2 does not include a relationship requirement for a joint sponsor. In addition, the visa applicant should not be denied outright of their visas if initially there is a public charge finding. There should be an opportunity to augment the record by submitting additional evidence to show that the applicant will not be reliant on government welfare upon arrival in the United States. A visa applicant improperly denied based on public charge finding should not simply accept the decision without seeking a reconsideration and having the opportunity to submit additional documents to contest the denial.

(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, or through this website.)

Categories
Updates

Supreme Court Spares Filipino from Deportation: Sessions v. Dimaya

Share this:

On April 17, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a decision in the case of Sessions v. Dimaya ruling that the definition of the crime of violence as an aggravated felony is void for being vague. The Respondent (deportee) in this case is James Dimaya who is a Filipino citizen and a lawful permanent resident of the United States. Mr. Dimaya’s deportation case was terminated as a result of the Supreme Court ruling.

James Garcia Dimaya, who is citizen of the Philippines, was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1992. In 2007 and 2009, Dimaya was convicted under the California Penal Code for first-degree residential burglary; both convictions resulted in two years’ imprisonment. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), a non-citizen convicted of an aggravated felony is subject to deportation.

The INA definition of aggravated felony includes a ‘crime of violence,’ which is any offense that involves the use or substantial risk of physical force against another person or property. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) subsequently initiated deportation proceedings against Dimaya and claimed that his burglary convictions constituted crimes of violence under the Act. The Immigration Judge held that Dimaya was deportable and that burglary constitutes a crime of violence because it always involves a risk of physical violence. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. On appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the definition of crime of violence was struck down as being vague. The Supreme Court ruled the same way stating that the crime of violence provision was unconstitutionally vague and could therefore not be a basis of the deportation or removal.

Since the decision was rendered last week, several questions were raised by those who may potentially be affected by this Supreme Court ruling.

Among these questions are the following:

Why did majority the Supreme Court Justices rule in favor of the immigrant in this case?

Interestingly in this 5-4 ruling, the arguments raised were regarding a constitutional protection that is extended to immigrants or non citizens. The issue that was resolved was whether the law in question which is the definition of a crime of violence under 8 USC 16(b) met the constitutional standard for due process and that accused is aware of the conduct that is proscribed by the statute. If it is not then it is considered void for vagueness. After hearing the arguments, majority of the justices ruled that the definition of a crime of violence is unconstitutionally vague and therefore this particular provision may not be used as basis to deport an immigrant.

Clearly this is a precedent case decided by the Supreme Court – who will benefit from this decision?

This is a deportation/removal case where the basis for removal is a criminal conviction relating to a crime of violence as an aggravated felony. This decision affects favorably those who are charged with removal based on crime of violence as in this case which is the crime of burglary.

What is the impact of this Supreme Court decision on future removal/deportation cases?

Those who are similarly situated as Dimaya – meaning those who are being charged with deportation because of a “crime of violence” – may have their cases revisited, reopened and terminated. Again this case affects those who are in removal proceedings because of the vague definition of “crime of violence” under 8 USC 16(b). It does not affect those aggravated felonies where the definition is contained elsewhere in the Immigration and Nationality Act.

(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)