VIP Lawyer Network
Services 4 LawFirms
Connect to us
Make us Homepage
The leading immigration law publisher - over 50000 pages of free information!
Copyright © 1995-ILW.COM,American Immigration LLC.
« Letters of the Week: July 18- July 22 |
| Letters of the Week: Aug 1 - Aug 5 »
Please email your letters to firstname.lastname@example.org or post them directly as "Comment" below.
Posted at 01:21 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834521fa969e20153902abe5c970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Letters of the Week: July 25- July 29:
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
I am writing on behalf of an actress friend who holds a green card. My friend, a Chinese immigrant with minimal English comprehension, was entering the US after visiting family in Mexico (via Alaska Air) on May 31st , 2012 arriving around 830PM. She was treated very poorly by the primary passport inspector. She was yelled at and given attitude and afterwards had her documents rudely slammed in front of her before being asked to leave. Initially, as she walked up to the officer behind the counter with her documents, she was greeted with fierce, unwelcoming eyes. He gave her instructions in English which she could not understand. She followed with " English little". He then resumed by pointing his index finger at her face and yelling out "Listen, listen!" while continuing on with more instructions which she had no clue of. The officer then turned on a Chinese recording asking her where she had been. She replied: "Mexico" As this interaction continues on, he again yelled at her "Why, why?" This continues on for several minutes with shaking of the officer's head proceeded with slamming of her documents in front of her on the counter before motioning for her to leave. At the end of this interaction, my friend was so appalled at how unpleasant this officer was that she stood there for seconds before realizing that she had been shooed off.
My friend has been a law abiding green card holder over a decade. She visits the US every opportunity she has, at least twice a year and for the most part has been treated with the most courteous people while she is here.
I believe my friend was being unfairly subjected to disparate treatment based upon illegal factors such as her race, she was intimidated due to her lack of the English language. Although she has limited English comprehension, she noted that there were yelling, shaking of head and lots of rolling of the eyes. All of which are universal signs of being unfriendly and rude. As a result, she felt very intimidated and violated. This officer who represents the very first face of the United States of America to incoming visitors should be ashamed of his behavior. He was rude, hostile and unprofessional. After all, America, with its beautiful flag and vast land, really represent equality, justice and a land of opportunity for all.
We all realize that as passport inspectors, their job is to check and prevent the entry of any undesirables into our country. However, this is not an automatic license to be rude and arrogant. There's a huge difference between being efficient and doing a thorough job, and being rude and arrogant. I am fully cognizant that they have an important and stressful job to do but why must it be done in such an unpleasant way? Not only that, I am sorely disappointed and embarrassed that someone like him greets our foreign visitors who come in the US to spend money, helping with our economy. This officer is described to be a man in his 30s with black hair, thick black eyebrows, no glasses, no mustache weighing approximately 150 #.
I sincerely hope that not another visitor has to endure such a terrible experience while entering my country.
Jun 21, 2012 at 09:15 AM
Thanks for letting me know about other good stuff!
Jan 18, 2012 at 05:22 AM
I am very glad to get this information because I have a family in USA and if God help us we try to be together, thanks a lot
Aug 03, 2011 at 11:56 AM
USCIS made a change to form N-565 instructions that it initially rejected and stated that it would not make. The change is on the new form posted on their website and the supporting statement and table of changes are well hidden on the lesser known website: www.reginfo.gov
The following has been added:
NOTE: USCIS has no legal basis to change a name absent a legal document such as a marriage certificate, divorce decree, or a court ordered name change. In addition, USCIS is prohibited from making any changes to an incorrect date of birth if one has completed the naturalization/citizenship process and sworn to the facts, including the wrong date of birth.
Joe Whalen |
Jul 29, 2011 at 09:09 PM
The City of Victorville, CA and its Regional Center has filed suit against DHS/USCIS/CSC challenging its Termination. The CSC Dismissal of the MTR as to the Final Termination was certified to AAO on May 24, 2011. The suit was filed in DC District Court on July 15, 2011. The Complaint, Exhibits, and Coversheet are available through PACER (everything so far costs less than $4). The big document is the exhibits at 223 pages (PACER max amount of $2.40 applies). I think it was filed prematurely but they argue an exception to exhaustion. As this the 1st of a kind, I am watching it. Individual investors have gone to court but Spencer Enterprises as a RC sponsor was denied standing back then. This differs from the Golden Rainbow and RLILP also. Check it out...I have not finished reading every last word yet.
Joe Whalen |
Jul 29, 2011 at 07:42 PM
I am glad to see that Immigration Daily published a blog entry stating that ICE should not tolerate insubordination from law enforcement officers who refuse to obey lawful instructions such as ICE’s recent Prosecutorial Discretion Policy Memo when those instructions conflict with their personal beliefs. (ID 07/22/11: ICE Should Fire Insubordinate Agents by Jason Dzubow.)
Will Immigration Daily now apply this viewpoint to all ICE employees who decline to obey lawful instructions that conflict with their personal opinions? Please refer to ID 09/15/08:
“Conscience” May Thaw ICE-Cold Immigration Raids Strategy by Angelo Paparelli. This blog entry suggested that ICE agents should refuse to participate in immigration raids "in conformity with their faith and conscience." While I have a high opinion of Mr. Paparelli, I strongly disagree with this position. As I remember, the only other disagreement published in Immigration Daily came from David D. Murray.
Does Immigration Daily endorse the position expressed in Mr. Paparelli’s blog entry? If the answer is yes, what would Immigration Daily (and Mr. Paparelli) have to say if judges and other government officials refused to marry interracial couples "in conformity with their faith and conscience?"
If we allow armed law enforcement officers and other government employees to pick and choose which lawful orders they will obey and which ones they will disobey "in conformity with their faith and conscience" we risk replacing the rule of law with rule by bureaucratic whim. I oppose doing so in all cases regardless of the outcome.
Bruce R. Mulraney
Marina del Rey, CA
Bruce R. Mulraney |
Jul 26, 2011 at 06:58 AM
Washington State has canceled the non-lawyer immigration assistant profession after being authorized
for more than twenty years. Handed a monopoly to the lawyers in Washington State.
Reference: Senate Bill SSB 5023, effective October 20, 2011.
Grosvenor Anschell |
Jul 26, 2011 at 06:56 AM
Western District of Washington Dismisses Sex Offender’s Challenge to Denial of Alien Fiancee’s Visa Petition [I-129F for a K-1 Visa, Disqualified Petitioner]]
In Beeman v. Napolitan., No. 10-803 (W.D. Wash. May 17, 2011) (Jones, J.), the District Court dismissed a U.S. citizen’s challenge to the denial of a visa petition filed on behalf of his alien fiancee. Plaintiff, a registered sex offender, alleged USCIS exceeded its statutory authority and violated his right to due process and equal protection when it applied the immigration provisions of the Adam Walsh Act to his adult fiancee. The court held that USCIS’s statutory grant of “sole and unreviewable discretion” to determine whether a sex offender poses “no risk” to an intended beneficiary “could not be more specific or direct,” and granted the government’s motion to dismiss the case.
Contact: Sherease Pratt, OIL DCS at 202-616-0063
Above article from Immigration Litigation Bulletin (ILB) (see page 15):
District Court Decision:
USCIS Policy Memos:
Joseph Whalen |
Jul 26, 2011 at 06:55 AM
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
(URLs automatically linked.)
(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)
Name is required to post a comment
Please enter a valid email address