Immigration Insider

To "L" in a Handbasket

A formidable number of weak L-1A visas were filed in Venezuela in the past decade, and it is small wonder the U.S. Nonimmigrant Visa team in Caracas casts a wary eye upon Intracompany Visa applications involving:

• a new U.S. enterprise with low job creation numbers
• a comparatively small Venezuelan parent/affiliate
• an entrepreneurial principal eager to see what he or she can do in the world's largest economy

To be blunt, the fraud was epidemic in the late 90's, and the only reason the situation has somewhat quelled is because most attorneys have come to belive that, with the above fact pattern, the consulate would likely deny the visa, notwithstanding the approved I-797.  (Not so, but more on that later.)

For me, this situation once again became a timely topic when we recently visited Caracas to discuss the E-5 Regional Center option with prospective Venezuelan clients.  As I mentioned in earlier posts, interest was strong -- how much of it was curiousity and how much was actual immigration planning remains to be seen.  But judging from the continuing buzz and follow ups, we certainly were not wasting our time there.  One recurring question, however, presented itself time and again:

"If I am ready to go to the U.S. now but the EB-5 approval will take close to a year, what can I do ?"

The answer to this question, of course, lies squarely in structuring of an appropriate non-immigrant visa.   But there are problems:

-Venezuela does not have a treaty of trade and commerce with the U.S., so the very useful E-1 and E-2 visas are not an option.

-Student visas, even for language studies, are subject to the Section 214(b) provisions requiring nonimmigrant intent...tough to prove when you have a pending EB-5 Immigrant Investor petition.

And so, we go back to the old reliable, 214(b)-free L-1 and H-1B (i.e., neither is subject to the applicant proving non-immigrant intent)...but they too have their problems:

-the H-1Bs remaining are flying the coop quickly and with a recovering economy, who says the 65,000 visas won't disappear on that next April Fools morning, as has been the norm till this past year?

-the L-1 abuse has left our legitimate small-company L-1 prospects in Venezuela wary and fearful of consular denials after getting their USCIS petition approved.

So here's what we are doing:  we are filing those small-company L-1s armed to the TEETH with bona fide evidence of legitimate business activity both in the U.S. and abroad, pre-empting the line of inquiry with powerful proof of the legitimacy of the enterprises...large OR small.  And we are getting them approved.

Sometimes showing the consular officer the Big Picture is all it takes...revolutionary!!

Why Are There So Many CRUMMY Immigration Attorneys?

I haven't written here in awhile and I hate to get back in the saddle via a RANT, but I am seriously upset: in the past two days, I have been approached by not one, not two, but THREE prospective clients sharing the same basic problem: their otherwise straightforward immigration case has been disemboweled and trashed by a licensed Florida attorney with absolutely no fundamental understanding of U.S. immigration law.

This is all part of a dark trinity which South Florida immigrants have long faced:

1. The tragic belief that countrymen will not rip you off (when, in fact, it is most often Colombians who rip off Colombians, Chinese who rip off Chinese...the nature of the con game...remember: "con man" is short for "confidence", and upon this they prey.)
2. The legal pandemonium that is Miami, where immigration is perceived as a profitable sideline by attorneys who have not a shred of knowledge about federal immigration laws and
3. A population of illegal or semi-legal immigrants too eager to believe in "shortcuts" and "inside connections" as a result of their own cultural backgrounds.

The saddest part is that in each of these three cases, a competent immigration attorney would have easily obtained the needed approval.  Instead, I am facing three tangled Penn Senator reels of absolute incompetence, chaotic birds' nests of convoluted support letters, improper petitions, and gaps in status.

If I was Immigration Judge Dread Florida Bar licenses would be shredding like confetti these days.  Grrr.

WIth Liberty and Justice...for SOME

The Fed's GAO office just released a statistical study of how political asylum applicants in the U.S. fare in their filings.  The results are simply more proof of what we already know...that the U.S. immigration is so hopelessly, pathetically, completely broken that the next President needs to make its reform one of his first initiatives in office...no matter HOW little mainstream Americans seem to care.  If we care about justice, we need to fix this and fix this NOW.

Before I point out the stats, I need to explain something to those of you who are not up to speed on the reality of political asylum applications.  You've probably heard the long-unresolved argument between those who distinguish between "political" refugees -- i.e., protected by asylum laws -- and "economic" refugees, who are not protected by such laws.  Nowhere are the political ramifications of this imprecise and arbitrary line-drawing more obvious than in the disparate treatment afforded to those who arrived on U.S. shores from Cuba, versus those who arrive from Haiti.  But the political refugee application process is messed up for a far more sinister reason: frivolous applications by those who have no business applying for asylum.

In the past decade, unscrupulous attorneys have taken to telling people from many comparatively peaceful countries and with absolutely no legitimate evidence of persecution that the asylum process was right for them...and, btw, it can get you an employment authorzation card.  KACHING!  I can't tell you how many of these applicants make up the total amount of asylum applications, but I've been approached by folks who have applied for asylum while hailing from countries ranging from the relatively  pacific Argentina to the definitely-not-asylum-worthy Canada (really).  So the system is clogged with ridiculous applications; invariably, they are denied and as the "victim" points an angry finger at the admittedly dishonest attorney who suggested asylum...

Reality check: in most cases, the "victim" is really a co-conspirator, trying to circumvent U.S. immigration law, plain and simple.  With no disrespect intended to anyone, it would appear to me that only the singularly stupid and profoundly clueless individual from a country like, say, Canada, could truly be a "victim" in these silly, baseless applications.  And in my experience, God tends to protect the profoundly clueless.

I'm not sure how these phony-baloney applications fit into the new GAO report, but I'll tell you this much: while current discretion parameters are obviously far too ample in defining legitimate, deserving asylum applicants, the entire process is tainted by a significant number of immigrants and the dishonest attorneys who are simply using the asylum application process the same way they filed false amnesty applications a decade and a half ago: a tool to buy time with no consideration to eligibility criteria whatsoever.

The main stats in the report:

-A petition filed in San Francisco is 12 times as likely to get approved as one filed in Atlanta.

-The greatest number of asylum petitions are submitted in New York...where COURTS ARE 420 TIMES MORE LIKELY TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION than other jurisdictions.

-Those represented by an attorney are twice as likely to get approved as those who are not.

-Those who have been detained by the USCIS are more likely to get approved.

-Male judges are 60% more likely to approve an asylum application than female judges.

Crazy stuff, huh?  Talk about a clear call for forum shopping...which is totally illegal!  I'll leave you with one final stat, quoted my the Miami Herald this morning:

"Records showed that in Miami, Judge Sandra Coleman denied 21.3 percent of the asylum applications she adjudicated between 2002 and 2007, while her colleague, Judge Mark Metcalf, denied 89.7."

Time to standardize asylum laws for uniform adjudication, Mr. President...whoever you are.