Need Immigration Forms?
Our comprehensive immigration forms page includes forms from USCIS, DOL, DOS, EOIR. We strive to maintain the most updated versions of each form. Many forms are fillable. Some forms are available in other languages such as Chinese, Russian, or Spanish. To visit our forms page, see here. Best of all, all our forms are free.
November 5th Seminar On Investors
The agenda for the November 5th telephonic seminar is as follows:
The deadline to register for this session is Monday, November 3rd. For more info, including detailed curriculum,
speaker bios, and registration information, please see: http://www.ilw.com/seminars/october2003.shtm. For the fax version, please see: http://www.ilw.com/seminars/october2003.pdf
- Using the B-1, WB and Other, More Untraditional Nonimmigrant Options to
Establish the U.S. Enterprise
- Selecting the Best Approach: E-1, E-2, L-1, H-1B and O-1 options for
Entrepreneurs, Small Businesses and Global Companies
- Dare We Try? - Examining EB-5 Employment-Creation Investment Options
- Addressing and Resolving Ability-to-Pay Challenges for New Businesses
- Developing a Bullet-Proof Business Plan
- Representing the Venture Capitalist, the Investment Syndicate or the
- Transitioning the Entrepreneur to Green-Card Status Despite Matter of
Modular Container Systems, 89-INA-228 (BALCA July 16, 1991) and Obstacles
in the Forthcoming PERM Rule
- Deploying Best Practices for Jobs in the Financial-Services Industry
The Ten Dumbest Marketing Mistakes Law Firms Make
Larry Bodine writes "In my experience advising law firms across the country, I consistently find ten dumb mistakes the law firms make. See if you can recognize your firm in this parade of horribles, and get your marketing back on track."
Keep on top of the latest in immigration law! Attend ILW.COM seminars! You can attend ILW.COM phone seminars from the convenience of your office! For more info on the seminars currently available, please click here: http://www.ilw.com/seminars/
Immigration Law News
DOS Releases Proposed Refugee Admissions FY '04
The Department of State released the proposed refugee admissions program for FY 2004.
28 Irish Soldiers Posthumously Awarded US Citizenship
The USCIS posthumously naturalized twenty-eight Irish soldiers who were in the service of the US military during the Korean War.
Immigration Verification Is Required Prior To Aircraft Operation Training
Rep. Mica (R-FL) submitted a conference report reauthorizing programs for the Federal Aviation Administration, including immigration-related provisions.
DHS Declares War On Cleaning Ladies
An op-ed from The Hill writes "Taking time out from the war on terror and the war on drugs, President Bush, to the purple born, has declared war on cleaning ladies."
Special Re-registration Deadline Nears
The Newsday of Long Island reports "Immigrant advocates and attorneys say the government has failed to adequately notify men from mostly Middle Eastern countries that they must meet upcoming deadlines to reregister with federal authorities."
Attorney listings on ILW.COM are searched 200,000 times/year! Each attorney listed is searched an average of once each day! Just one new client will pay for the entire year's fee! Click here for more info: http://www.ilw.com/membership/
Help Wanted: Experienced Paralegal
A Toronto-based business immigration law firm is seeking a paralegal with experience in US business immigration matters. In this position, you will work with a team of paralegals and lawyers in providing business immigration services to business clients.
Qualified candidates should have a minimum 2-3 years of varied US business immigration experience, especially in H-1B processing, and labor certifications. Strong drafting skills, and the ability to manage a busy workload is expected.
Please e-mail or mail resumes to: email@example.com; BHG Box 64388, 220 East 42nd Street, 16th Floor, NY, NY 10017.
We are an equal opportunity employer.
Immigration Law Books
The successful practice of immigration law depends on having immigration statutes and regulations readily available. Immigration attorneys need look no further than Patel's complete reference library for their primary resource needs. Patel's library consists of (4) books: The Whole ACT—INA (Annotated), 20/22/28 CFRPlus, 8 CFRPlus, and Patel's Citations of Administrative Decisions under Immigration and Nationality Laws. Each book contains a detailed topical index, is annotated and is updated annually to reflect the latest changes in regulations. These four books constitute an indispensable library of primary resource materials for any immigration practitioner. For more information or to purchase these books see here.
We carry advertisements for Help Wanted: Attorney, Help Wanted: Paralegal, Help Wanted: Other, Positions Sought, Products & Services Offered, etc.
For information on advertising in the classifieds please click here
For a listing of current immigration events please click here
For services/products of use in your law practice please click here
Letters to the Editor
Here's an FYI to the editorial on the DHS name changes, I increasingly see CBP refering to itself as USCBP. It is only a matter of time.
Please let me write regarding important information to all immigration practitioners throughout the US concerning discipline of immigration practitioners under the new federal regulations.
The Cal. State Bar initiated disciplinary proceedings on purely immigration matters. I said they had no jurisdiction since new fed regs preempted under Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, etc. I only practice immigration law exclusively. The admistrative Judge of the CA State Bar Ct. placed me on involuntary inactive enrollment (not discipline). The BIA immediately suspended me from practicing in the BIA, Immigration Courts and INS. An adjudicating official found jurisdiction of State Bars and suspended me for a year. On appeal to the BIA, they expelled me. The OGC asked the BIA to publish their decision making it a precedent because there had not been any new guidence since Matter of Sparrow. That they had disciplined over a hundred attorneys and this case was the only one to reach this appellate level and that they did not foresee any other cases being appealed in the near future.They recently published an amended decision making it a precedent decision. In re Miguel Gadda, 23I&N Dec. 645(BIA 2003) Int. Dec. 3496. Do you have to be a member of a State Bar to practice immigration law? If you practice immigration law and are admitted to federal bars (Dist. Cts, Circuit Appeals Cts, US Supreme Court) are you still subject to discipline by State Bars simply because you acquired membership through the State Bars? Is this a marriage forever that cannot be dissolved? Are the new federal regulations valid in that they were supposed to revamp the disciplinary system? Do they allow dual discipline by the State Bars even though they espoused national uniformity? Did they really mean it when they said that the State Bars would no longer be involved in the discipline system of immigration practitioners because they had complaint forms, hearing proceedings, appeals and judicial review?
I feel this decision is important for all immigration practitioners throught the US, etc. I have pending cases in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the District Court for the Northern District of California regarding these issues. Please put this on ILW.COM and allow comments on these important issues which affect all immigration practitioners.
Now I know why Walmart commercials are always touting that they're rolling back prices, it's because they're also rolling back wages being paid to thousands of illegals.
In response to the wonderful letter by Irene Weiser of Stop
Family Violence I have only one thing to say - that it is indeed ironic
that we live in a country where our leaders can see fit to order life
support to be reconnected to a comotose woman in defiance of the wishes
of her next of kin, while essentially removing life support from a
woman who is very much alive and deserving of it, in defiance of a
significant lobby of American citizens, including many members of
Congress. In response to Mr. Alexander, I say, given his accurate
observations, wouldn't he then draw the inevitable conclusion that
Walmart either had no interest in finding a way to hire those workers
legally or to find US workers to fill those positions or it simply
wasn't possible, given the profit imperatives and the existent labor
pool in some areas where they operate. I think this case provides clear
evidence of what companies who may desire to abide by the law are up
against in terms of their ability to do so and continue to staff their
operations. Walmart is practically an institution on a par with church
in many communities throughout the heartland of this country, it's
where people gather on weekends, it's the only game in town in many
instances, and its alleged monopolistic business practices have come
under fire before. Willing or not, I don't think that even Walmart's
big machine is able to practice diligence with the contractors that
supply its workers, because the contractors are between a rock and a
hard place. There are not sufficient US workers out there who are
willing to take those jobs at those wages and working conditions , and
there simply are no current legal categories of immigration which
include the types of workers in question. You cannot get blood from a
stone! If you really want to witness the magnitude of the problem,
tell the government to bust all the contractors. After all, I believe
that they are the "employers" for purposes of maintaining I-9's on the
workers they supply or assign to companies like Walmart. Someone please
correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not believe that corporations are
responsible for keeping I-9's on their janitorial staff if that staff is
supplied by a contractor and is not directly employed by the
corporation. However, notwithstanding the lack of I-9 accountability,
corporations may still be liable for constructive knowledge. The
government already knows about these contractors, because they are among
the 245(i) employers whom the USCIS has pledged not to raid. (See my
Letter to the Editor of 9/26/2003). Now do you see the Catch-22.
In response to Irene Weiser, Stop Family Violence in New York, NY, who claims that Ms. Alvarado " . . . fled to the US in search of safety." Mrs. Weiser seems to be making a statement that says, "If battered women (men anyone?) of the world can enter the US, the US should provide them with permanent residence on the basis that their husbands (wives?) were cruel to them in their homeland." Hogwash - although I know I am bucking the trend. As a Guatemalan, and native Spanish speaker, should not Mrs. Alvarado not more appropriately have sought safe haven in a nearby Spanish speaking country, perhaps one to which she could have driven her family car (or oxcart), perhaps with children in tow? . . . i.e. Mexico, Honduras or Costa Rica, all of which are closer to her homeland. But no, she wanted to come to the USA (hey, who wouldn't) - because, let's face it, because it offers a better economic circumstance - but perhaps not the only economic circumstance. Ultimately, as the most affluent country in the world, the US has a humanistic duty to provide safe haven to bona fide refugees and asylees, and to grant them permanent residence. The trick is to decide who should be allowed this extraordinary relief and who should not, on a case-by case basis. While I believe it is abhorrible for any man, or woman, to brutalize their family, when it comes to immigration debate, let's call a spade a spade as to why Mrs. Alvarado fled to the US, instead of somewhere else (eight year ago gender-based relief was not as sophisticated as it is today, so presumably she did not come here specifically to take advantage of this, although I may be wrong if Mrs. Alvarado turns out to be an educated and informed woman. While understandably a press release will not go into factual detail, and is intended to incite pity, rather than the logic of law, Ms. Weiser fails to tell us whether Mrs. Alvarado knew that when she entered the US was a safe haven for gender-based asylees, whether she was educated, employed, rich, poor, obtained a tourist visa and entered the US legally, and even...if she took her children with her when " . . . she fled to the US in search of safety", after being refused "official protection by the Guatemalan police". To me, these are important facts to be used in analyzing Mrs. Alvarado's asylum case. Although admittedly this is not the law, I believe that as a matter of policy, it is insufficient to merely claim she was beaten in her home country, ergo, she deserves permanent residence in the US - this appears to be the norm in gender-based thinking . . . if they make it here, keep them here. Granted, Mrs. Alvarado appears in need of some sort of compassionate relief, but now that the US seems to have some sort of jurisdiction over the person of Mrs. Alvarado, as an alternative to asylum, could not the government of the US intervene with the government of Guatemala to seek justice on behalf of Mrs. Alvarado and then return her to Guatemala (and presumably to her child(ren) in her homeland? Or is this idea too far out of the box? But that's just one lawyer's point of view. Bleeding hearts will differ.
David D. Murray, Esq.
Newport Beach, CA
An Important disclaimer! The information provided on this page is not legal advice.
Transmission of this information is not intended to create, and receipt by you does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Readers must not act upon any information without first seeking advice from a
qualified attorney. Send Correspondence and articles to firstname.lastname@example.org. Letters and articles may be edited and may be published and otherwise used in any medium. Opinions expressed in letters and articles do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.