To contact us Click HERE
Approximately 44,000 files to be transferred to Archives Facility in San Bruno, California.
WASHINGTON—U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today announced the transfer of approximately 44,000 additional alien registration records, known as “A-Files,” to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
USCIS transferred the historical records from its San Bruno Federal Records Center to the permanent custody of the National Archives Pacific Region facility in San Bruno, Calif. It is anticipated that the transferred files will be available to the public beginning today. This is the fourth in a series of immigration file transfers initiated in June 2009, when USCIS and NARA formalized a schedule to relocate eligible A-Files for permanent preservation in the National Archives.
“It is imperative that we protect and treasure America’s immigration history,” said USCIS Director Alejandro Mayorkas. “The very fabric of our nation can be found in these files and we are pleased to work with our partners at NARA to ensure their preservation and access for future generations.”
The United States Government first began keeping the individual case files in 1944 to document the interactions between individual aliens and the U.S. government. A-Files are unique because they contain not only demographic information, but in many cases also include a number of other personal and historical documents, such as photographs, foreign birth certificates, marriage licenses and interview transcripts.
The A-Files being moved to the National Archives Pacific Region facility represent immigrants born between the 1860s and 1910. The top three countries of origin represented are Japan (42 percent), the Philippines (34 percent) and China (6 percent). A number of other countries are represented in the A-Files, including Mexico, Portugal and Canada.
In keeping with the 2009 schedule, A-Files located at the San Bruno Federal Records Center will be added to the holdings of the National Archives Pacific Region in San Bruno; all other A-Files will be transferred to the National Archives in Kansas City, Mo. as they become eligible.
USCIS currently maintains approximately 59 million A-Files. In addition to the A-Files that have been transferred to San Bruno, about 477,000 have been transferred to the permanent custody of the National Archives in Kansas City. About 90 percent of those files represent immigrants who came to the United States before 1960.
Once the A-Files are in NARA custody, they will be available to the public in National Archives research rooms and indexed in NARA’s online Archival Research Catalog. Copies of the A-Files can also be requested by mail.
For more information about A-File research at the National Archives, visit their website. Additional immigration information and links to resources related to genealogical research are available on USCIS’s website.
Source: USCIS
If you have immigration related questions, please feel free to contact our office
Sharlene Mae Bagon, Esq.BAGON LAW FIRM6700 Fallbrook Avenue
Suite 125HWest Hills, CA 91307Toll Free: (888) 992-2466Main Tel.: (818) 539-0120Fax: (888) 589-0804www.bagonlawfirm.com
30 Mayıs 2012 Çarşamba
USCIS to Centralize Filing and Adjudication for Certain Waivers of Inadmissibility in the United States
To contact us Click HERE
A new system will standardize process for Immigrant Visa Applicants Worldwide was released May 23, 2012.
WASHINGTON—Beginning June 4, 2012, individuals abroad who have applied for certain visas and have been found ineligible by a U.S. Consular Officer, will be able to mail requests to waive certain grounds of inadmissibility directly to a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Lock box facility. This change affects where individuals abroad, who have been found inadmissible for an immigrant visa or a non immigrant K or V visa, must send their waiver applications.
Currently, applicants experience processing times from one-month to more than a year depending on their filing location. This centralization will provide customers with faster and more efficient application processing and consistent adjudication. It is part of a broader agency effort to transition to domestic filing and adjudication; it does not reflect a change in policy or the standards by which the applications are adjudicated. Individuals filing waiver applications with a USCIS Lock box will now be able to track the status of their case online.
The change affects filings for:
During a limited six-month transition period, immigrant visa waiver applicants in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, will have the option to either mail their waiver applications to the USCIS Lock box in the United States or file in-person at the USCIS office in Ciudad Juarez. USCIS is aware of the pending caseload for applicants in Ciudad Juarez and is taking proactive steps to work through these cases. USCIS will significantly increase the number of officers assigned to adjudicate the residual cases filed before June 4, and those filed during the interim six-month transition period. USCIS has already begun to test this process and has transferred applications from Ciudad Juarez to other USCIS offices in the United States.
This change is separate and distinct from the provisional waiver proposal published in the Federal Register on Mar. 30, 2012.
For additional information on USCIS and our programs and services, please visit www.uscis.gov.
Source: USCIS
If you have immigration related questions, please feel free to contact our office
Sharlene Mae Bagon, Esq.BAGON LAW FIRM6700 Fallbrook Avenue
Suite 125HWest Hills, CA 91307Toll Free: (888) 992-2466Main Tel.: (818) 539-0120Fax: (888) 589-0804www.bagonlawfirm.com
WASHINGTON—Beginning June 4, 2012, individuals abroad who have applied for certain visas and have been found ineligible by a U.S. Consular Officer, will be able to mail requests to waive certain grounds of inadmissibility directly to a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Lock box facility. This change affects where individuals abroad, who have been found inadmissible for an immigrant visa or a non immigrant K or V visa, must send their waiver applications.
Currently, applicants experience processing times from one-month to more than a year depending on their filing location. This centralization will provide customers with faster and more efficient application processing and consistent adjudication. It is part of a broader agency effort to transition to domestic filing and adjudication; it does not reflect a change in policy or the standards by which the applications are adjudicated. Individuals filing waiver applications with a USCIS Lock box will now be able to track the status of their case online.
The change affects filings for:
- Form I-601, Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility.
- Form I-212, Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission into the United States after Deportation or Removal
- Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, (if file after a denial of a Form I-601 or Form I-212)
During a limited six-month transition period, immigrant visa waiver applicants in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, will have the option to either mail their waiver applications to the USCIS Lock box in the United States or file in-person at the USCIS office in Ciudad Juarez. USCIS is aware of the pending caseload for applicants in Ciudad Juarez and is taking proactive steps to work through these cases. USCIS will significantly increase the number of officers assigned to adjudicate the residual cases filed before June 4, and those filed during the interim six-month transition period. USCIS has already begun to test this process and has transferred applications from Ciudad Juarez to other USCIS offices in the United States.
This change is separate and distinct from the provisional waiver proposal published in the Federal Register on Mar. 30, 2012.
For additional information on USCIS and our programs and services, please visit www.uscis.gov.
Source: USCIS
If you have immigration related questions, please feel free to contact our office
Sharlene Mae Bagon, Esq.BAGON LAW FIRM6700 Fallbrook Avenue
Suite 125HWest Hills, CA 91307Toll Free: (888) 992-2466Main Tel.: (818) 539-0120Fax: (888) 589-0804www.bagonlawfirm.com
USCIS Issues Precedent Appeals Decision on P-3 Nonimmigrant Visa Petition
To contact us Click HERE
WASHINGTON—U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (USCIS) Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) today issued a binding precedent decision addressing the term “culturally unique” and its significance in the adjudication of petitions for performing artists and entertainers.
In the case at issue, the Skirball Cultural Center filed a P-3 non immigrant petition on behalf of a musical group from Argentina that was denied a performing artists’ visa for failing to establish that the group’s performance was “culturally unique” as required for this visa classification. Due to the unusually complex and novel issue and the likelihood that the same issue could arise in future decisions, the decision was recommended for review.
USCIS’s AAO approved the petition after its review of the entire record, which included expert written testimony and corroborating evidence on behalf of the musical group. The regulatory definition of “culturally unique” requires USCIS to make a case-by-case factual determination. The decision clarifies that a “culturally unique” style of art or entertainment is not limited to traditional art forms, but may include artistic expression that is deemed to be a hybrid or fusion of more than one culture or region.
Precedent decisions support USCIS’s commitment to consistency in the administration of immigration benefits. This is the third precedent decision issued since late 2010. Selected and designated as precedent by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), with the Attorney General’s concurrence, precedent decisions are administrative decisions that are legally binding on DHS components responsible for enforcing immigration laws in all proceedings involving the same issue.
The Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) publishes precedent decisions in bound volumes titled, “Administrative Decisions Under Immigration and Nationality Laws of the United States.” For more information on USCIS and its programs, please visit www.uscis.gov
Source: USCIS
If you need help on your visa applications, please feel free to contact our office
Sharlene Mae Bagon, Esq.BAGON LAW FIRM6700 Fallbrook Avenue
Suite 125HWest Hills, CA 91307Toll Free: (888) 992-2466Main Tel.: (818) 539-0120Fax: (888) 589-0804www.bagonlawfirm.com
In the case at issue, the Skirball Cultural Center filed a P-3 non immigrant petition on behalf of a musical group from Argentina that was denied a performing artists’ visa for failing to establish that the group’s performance was “culturally unique” as required for this visa classification. Due to the unusually complex and novel issue and the likelihood that the same issue could arise in future decisions, the decision was recommended for review.
USCIS’s AAO approved the petition after its review of the entire record, which included expert written testimony and corroborating evidence on behalf of the musical group. The regulatory definition of “culturally unique” requires USCIS to make a case-by-case factual determination. The decision clarifies that a “culturally unique” style of art or entertainment is not limited to traditional art forms, but may include artistic expression that is deemed to be a hybrid or fusion of more than one culture or region.
Precedent decisions support USCIS’s commitment to consistency in the administration of immigration benefits. This is the third precedent decision issued since late 2010. Selected and designated as precedent by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), with the Attorney General’s concurrence, precedent decisions are administrative decisions that are legally binding on DHS components responsible for enforcing immigration laws in all proceedings involving the same issue.
The Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) publishes precedent decisions in bound volumes titled, “Administrative Decisions Under Immigration and Nationality Laws of the United States.” For more information on USCIS and its programs, please visit www.uscis.gov
Source: USCIS
If you need help on your visa applications, please feel free to contact our office
Sharlene Mae Bagon, Esq.BAGON LAW FIRM6700 Fallbrook Avenue
Suite 125HWest Hills, CA 91307Toll Free: (888) 992-2466Main Tel.: (818) 539-0120Fax: (888) 589-0804www.bagonlawfirm.com
Temporary Delay in Issuance of I-129 Receipt Notices
To contact us Click HERE
Due to the high number of recently filed I-129 petitions with USCIS, customers may experience a longer than usual period of time to receive a receipt notice from USCIS. Usually, customers can expect to receive their receipt notice within 30 days of delivery confirmation. However, due to an unexpectedly high volume of I-129 petitions, it may be an additional two to four weeks before customers receive a receipt notice.
Customers who do not receive notification of receipt of an I-129 petition within 60 days of their delivery confirmation date may contact the appropriate Service Center via the email addresses listed on USCIS Web page.
Source: USCIS
If you need help on your visa applications, please feel free to contact our office
Sharlene Mae Bagon, Esq.BAGON LAW FIRM6700 Fallbrook Avenue
Suite 125HWest Hills, CA 91307Toll Free: (888) 992-2466Main Tel.: (818) 539-0120Fax: (888) 589-0804www.bagonlawfirm.com
Customers who do not receive notification of receipt of an I-129 petition within 60 days of their delivery confirmation date may contact the appropriate Service Center via the email addresses listed on USCIS Web page.
Source: USCIS
If you need help on your visa applications, please feel free to contact our office
Sharlene Mae Bagon, Esq.BAGON LAW FIRM6700 Fallbrook Avenue
Suite 125HWest Hills, CA 91307Toll Free: (888) 992-2466Main Tel.: (818) 539-0120Fax: (888) 589-0804www.bagonlawfirm.com
H-1B Count for Fiscal Year 2013 as of May 25, 2012
To contact us Click HERE
FY2013 H-1B Cap Count
Source: USCIS If you have any questions or need assistance with your immigration matter,
please do not hesitate to contact our office.
Sharlene Mae Bagon, Esq.BAGON LAW FIRM6700 Fallbrook Avenue
Suite 125HWest Hills, CA 91307Toll Free: (888) 992-2466Main Tel.: (818) 539-0120Fax: (888) 589-0804www.bagonlawfirm.com
FY2013 H-1B Cap Count
| Cap Type | Cap Amount | Cap Eligible Petitions | Date of Last Count |
| H-1B Regular Cap | 65,000 | 48,400 | 05/25/2012 |
| H-1B Master’s Degree Exemption | 20,000 | 17,500 | 05/25/2012 |
Source: USCIS If you have any questions or need assistance with your immigration matter,
please do not hesitate to contact our office.
Sharlene Mae Bagon, Esq.BAGON LAW FIRM6700 Fallbrook Avenue
Suite 125HWest Hills, CA 91307Toll Free: (888) 992-2466Main Tel.: (818) 539-0120Fax: (888) 589-0804www.bagonlawfirm.com
26 Mayıs 2012 Cumartesi
Buck Johns Marketing EB-5 Investors Elsewhere
To contact us Click HERE
The City Council Tuesday night will continue debating whether to take U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to court, fighting the agency's decision to terminate Victorville's visa investor program and cut off funds the city was counting on to finance its wastewater treatment plant.
Meanwhile, Inland Energy President William Buck Johns, hired by the city in 2009 to line up $25 million in loans from aspiring immigrants, has started marketing Victorville's investors to other EB-5 regional centers.
“We did meet with Buck (Johns) and there is talk that some of their investors would reapply under our program,” Henry Liebman, founder of EB-5 program American Life Inc. in Washington, said via email Monday.
Johns didn’t respond to a request for comment, and Mayor Ryan McEachron said the move was news to him.
USCIS approved Victorville's EB-5 regional center in July 2009, allowing the city and its marketing partners such as Inland to solicit foreign citizens willing to loan $500,000 toward qualified projects in exchange for temporary green cards. But Victorville's program became the first in the nation to be terminated in October, with USCIS citing concerns over whether it satisfied the agency’s strict requirement for job creation.
The city had formally accepted 17 loans through the program for a total of $8.5 million, though Economic Development Director Keith Metzler said only $7.5 million was transferred to Victorville before the termination. The other $1 million stayed in an escrow account managed by Johns, Metzler said.
Read More: Buck Johns marketing EB-5 investors elsewhere
USCIS Approves Six New EB-5 Regional Centers
To contact us Click HERE
USCIS has approved six new EB-5 Regional Centers in California, Georgia, Hawaii and Oregon under the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Pilot Visa Program. These centers will enable immigrants who are investing $500,000 or more the option of obtaining a temporary green card and a path to citizenship.
California
The California Golden Fund, with a geographic focus of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernadino counties, will focus on the following industries: accommodations; food services; professional, scientific and technical services; manufacturing; retail trade; and construction.
The Global Premier America Regional Center LLC, with a geographic focus of Los Angeles, Orange, Kern, Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Monterey, San Benito, Santa Clara, Alameda, Santa Cruz, San Mateo, and San Francisco counties, will focus on the following industries: retail trade; food services; and healthcare and social assistance.
The Inland Empire Renewable Energy Regional Center, LLC, with a geographic focus of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties, will focus on the following industries: administrative services; business support services; retail; distribution; education; construction; and engineering and design.
Georgia
The Georgia Regional Center, LLC, with a geographic focus of the metro Atlanta area (including Barrow, DeKalb, Lamar, Bartow, Douglas, Meriwether, Butts, Fayette, Newton, Carroll, Forsyth, Paulding, Cherokee, Fulton, Pickens, Clayton, Gwinnett, Pike, Cobb, Haralson, Rockdale, Coweta, Spalding, Dawson, Henry, Walton and Jasper counties), will focus on the development of student housing projects in greater Atlanta. This regional center has been approved to develop EB-5 investment projects that focus on student housing, real estate construction, education services and food services.
Hawaii
The Hawaiian Islands Regional Center, LLC, with a geographic focus of Hawaii, will focus on nursing care facilities; home health care services; management of companies and enterprises; and construction.
Oregon
The Oregon Regional Center, with a geographic scope of Oregon, will focus on the following industries: manufacturing; retail trade; professional, scientific and technical services; education services; healthcare and social assistance; and accommodations and food services.
The EB-5 Visa is an employment-based immigrant visa, created in the Immigration Act of 1990. Under this visa category, up to 10,000 immigrant visas can be offered each year to qualified individuals seeking to permanently remain in the U.S. based on their investment in a commercial business. In 1993, Congress began the Immigrant Investor Visa Program to better utilize this visa category. Through the creation of Regional Centers, the U.S. government hoped to increase the amount of people that would take advantage of this novel and economically advantageous method to immigrate to the United States, while creating jobs and economic growth for U.S. regions.
EB-5 Investor Centers Peak in New York, Across the Nation
To contact us Click HERE
Just a few years ago, there were only 11 Immigrant Investor Regional Centers in the United States. Today, there are nearly 150. In New York alone, four new centers were approved by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services this year alone. These centers, which enable foreign nationals from areas across the world to obtain green cards through major economic investments, are bringing new life to areas stunted by the economic downturn and are supporting growth in areas already established as economic centers – including New York City itself.
There’s the New York City Regional Center, which has raised $60 million for growth projects in the Brooklyn Navy Yard, as well as $65 for a Brooklyn-based film and TV studio. That center is now looking into even larger funded projects, including a nearly $250 million investment set to help develop a Brooklyn basketball arena.
There’s the New York Immigration Fund, which is currently pulling together investments for two NY hotels. And there are the Federal New York Metropolitan Regional Center, which is supporting the development of a medical center in Flushing, and the Manhattan Regional Center, which is attempting to raise funds to build a 385-room hotel in Manhattan and a major assisted-living establishment in Brooklyn.
These investments are lauded by many in the U.S. because immigrant investor visa-funded projects do not depend upon tax funds to support high growth projects. They, instead, depend upon foreign nationals who are looking for ways to establish permanent residency in the United States.
Foreign investors, who invest at least $500,000 into a project that leads to the establishment of 10 jobs for U.S. workers, are given temporary permanent visas which, if the projects are successful, can lead to permanent resident status and, eventually, citizenship.
Interest in the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Visa program continues to grow. At the end of July, an investment summit will take place in Boston, Mass., in which representatives from the U.S., China and Korea will discuss ways that investors and other stakeholders can take advantage of this major immigration and investment program. Such conferences and summits are taking place across the nation as more and more regional centers open and seek interested foreign national investors.
The EB-5 Immigrant Investor Visa Program: An Exceptional Opportunity to Invest in Major Hotel Projects in the United States
To contact us Click HERE
Posted in: EB-5,EB-5 Immigrant Investor,EB-5 Immigration,EB-5 Program,EB-5 Visa
The EB-5 Immigrant Investor visa program has been available for a number of years in different forms; the program, however, has received much more interest from foreign investors in China, India and other international locations in recent years. Funding from the EB-5 program has been used for a number of construction and investment projects, including major hotel projects. In recent years, the EB-5 program has been used to support projects to improve California’s W Hotel and Residences Hollywood (a major project with 305 luxury hotel rooms and nearly 150 private residences, as well as about 25,000 square feet of meeting space. In addition, EB-5 investors have funded construction of a Courtyard and a Residence Inn in New York, and a Westin Hotel in Flushing, New York.
The EB-5 immigrant investor visa program is an exceptional way for investors from China, India and beyond to invest in interesting projects in the hotel and other industries and obtain a path to citizenship. The program continues to grow. In the first half of Fiscal Year 2011, there were nearly 2,000 applications for EB-5 visas; the majority of these applications were from mainland China. In FY 2010, there were 1,885 applications.
Because the EB-5 immigrant investor visa program requires that investors provide at least $500,000 in funds and their investments lead to the creation of at least ten jobs for U.S. workers, the program is ideally situated for hotel investments, in which multiple employees are hired and maintained. This is a strong reason to investigate opportunities in the hotel industry, of which there are many.
What is the EB-5 program? The EB-5 visa is an immigrant visa created in 1990 for foreign nationals who invest in a business that will benefit the U.S. economy and create at least ten full-time jobs for U.S. workers. EB-5 applicants who are accepted for the program receive a visa; visas are also given to eligible spouses and children under the age of 21. The visa proffered is a conditional visa; if the investment project fulfills the requirements of the program after two years, the EB-5 immigrant may then receive permanent resident status and, after five years, apply for U.S. citizenship.
Posted in: EB-5,EB-5 Immigrant Investor,EB-5 Immigration,EB-5 Program,EB-5 Visa
New Proposed Bill Would Offer Temporary Visas for Foreign Residential Real Estate Investors
To contact us Click HERE
Posted in: EB-5,EB-5 Immigrant Investor visa program,Foreign Residential Real Estate Investors,New Proposed Bill
A new legislative bill introduced by Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Mike Lee (R-UT) proposes to offer a temporary residency visa to immigrants who spend at least $500,000 on a home in the United States. This bill, which received bipartisan support, will soon be considered by the U.S. Congress as a new way to stimulate a struggling U.S. housing market.
While not the same as the noted EB-5 Immigrant Investor visa program, which offers a path to citizenship for foreign nationals who invest at least $500,000 in a U.S. business enterprise that leads to at least 10 full-time jobs for U.S. workers, the newly proposed housing bill will provide a new and novel method for foreign nationals to enter and remain in the U.S. through investment.
The U.S. housing market is currently struggling; this new, proposed bill may give a boom to this market. In areas of the U.S. especially hurt by the recession, such as South Florida, Southern California and Arizona, many foreign nationals are currently purchasing homes. Immigrants from China, Canada and other nations are now taking advantage of favorable exchange rates and reasonable real estate costs in these and other areas of the U.S. In fact, just over 5 percent of all homes bought in Miami in July 2011 were purchased by foreign buyers. In Phoenix, that number is just a bit lower, at 4.3 percent. For the year ending in March 2011, foreign buyers were responsible for up to $82 billion in investments in U.S. real estate properties, an increase from the $66 billion reported the year before.
Current market analysts see many advantages to the U.S. economy from the Schumer-Lee bill, if approved by Congress and the President. Under the proposed bill, immigrants will need to invest at least $500,000 in U.S. residential real estate. This can be a house, condo or townhouse. Applicants are given the opportunity to invest part of the required $500,000 on a single home and the rest on other residential real estate property, such as a rental home.
These investors would then be given temporary, three-year visas to enter the U.S. Under this particular visa, however, foreign investors will not be able to work. They will have to obtain other visas to be able to work while in the U.S. (such as the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Visa). Supporters of the bill believe it will help spearhead growth in the U.S. real estate market, which has been struggling since the housing market bubble burst earlier this decade.
The bill has received support from many high-profile individuals, including Warren Buffet who recently told Charlie Rose (of PBS) that, “If you wanted to change your immigration policy so that you let 500,000 families in, but they have to have a significant net worth and everything, you’d solve things very quickly.”
Read More EB-5 Articles
Posted in: EB-5,EB-5 Immigrant Investor visa program,Foreign Residential Real Estate Investors,New Proposed Bill
23 Mayıs 2012 Çarşamba
An evening with two presidents
To contact us Click HERE
James --
On June 4th, you might be getting (in my opinion) the chance of a lifetime.
President Barack Obama and former President Bill Clinton are getting together for an event in New York City -- and they're inviting two grassroots supporters like you to join.
These guys are two of my heroes. President Clinton is committed to helping re-elect President Obama in November. He believes in our president, the progress we're fighting for, and the movement that folks like you are building.
Donate $5 or whatever you can today. You'll be automatically entered to spend a night in New York with President Obama and President Clinton.
These two are busy -- it's not easy getting two presidents in the same room. But they're looking forward to meeting grassroots supporters like you, so start thinking about what you'd ask them.
Get your name in today. We'll cover airfare and hotel:
https://donate.barackobama.com/Obama-and-Clinton
Thanks,
Messina
Jim Messina
Campaign Manager
Obama for America
On June 4th, you might be getting (in my opinion) the chance of a lifetime.
President Barack Obama and former President Bill Clinton are getting together for an event in New York City -- and they're inviting two grassroots supporters like you to join.
These guys are two of my heroes. President Clinton is committed to helping re-elect President Obama in November. He believes in our president, the progress we're fighting for, and the movement that folks like you are building.
Donate $5 or whatever you can today. You'll be automatically entered to spend a night in New York with President Obama and President Clinton.
These two are busy -- it's not easy getting two presidents in the same room. But they're looking forward to meeting grassroots supporters like you, so start thinking about what you'd ask them.
Get your name in today. We'll cover airfare and hotel:
https://donate.barackobama.com/Obama-and-Clinton
Thanks,
Messina
Jim Messina
Campaign Manager
Obama for America
Laissez (Un)faire
To contact us Click HERE
http://verdict.justia.com/2012/05/21/how-the-debate-following-the-massive-jpmorgan-chase-trading-loss-reveals-the-laissez-faire-ideology-of-contemporary-american-conservatism?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=how-the-debate-following-the-massive-jpmorgan-chase-trading-loss-reveals-the-laissez-faire-ideology-of-contemporary-american-conservatism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sow_with_piglet.jpg
"Piggies" by the Beatles:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXdKlpBOvs0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sow_with_piglet.jpg"Piggies" by the Beatles:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXdKlpBOvs0
Let's throw a wet blanket on the Tea Party
To contact us Click HERE
 |
 Dear Jim,We're less than six months out from the election and the Tea Party isn't going away.In fact, it seems like the more extreme Tea Party Republicans get, the more support they get from the radical fringe, from corporations and SuperPACs funded by Karl Rove and the Koch Brothers.We just saw this in Indiana when the Tea Party defeated Dick Lugar in the Republican Senate primary.These guys want to make Congress even more extreme. We can't let them.Chip in with a monthly contribution of $5 to Take Down Tea Party extremists in November.I just got back from a two week trip to our offices in Florida and New Hampshire and I'm pleased to report that our campaigns are going strong.So many local activists are showing up that the offices keep running out of chairs!It's no secret why. Extremists like Joe Walsh and Allen West and Dan Lungren and Steve King actually want to destroy Medicare. They actually want to destroy Social Security. They are even blocking the Violence Against Women Act.We have to send a message that this is unacceptable in America.Every day I'm staring down our six month budget plan to do that — opening the last two offices, expanding our staff up from 30 to 60 organizers, and recruiting thousands more volunteers to get hundreds of thousands more voter contacts we need to make sure these guys are held accountable.We need your support to get there. With less than six months left, the best way you can help is by chipping in with a monthly contribution, to make sure we defeat Tea Party extremism in November.Chip in with a monthly contribution now, or make a one-time contribution if you prefer.Let's take them down. Thanks for everything you're doing.Mudcat Arnold, Campaign ManagerCREDO SuperPACPaid for by CREDO SuperPAC, www.credosuperpac.com, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. | |
A Primer on University Endowments and IP
To contact us Click HERE
Guest article: 10 facts:
http://www.onlineuniversities.com/blog/2012/05/10-surprising-facts-about-university-endowments/
U.S. university endowments:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colleges_and_universities_in_the_United_States_by_endowment
So Sue MeJim CastagneraInstitutions and individuals duel over intellectual property in an environment reminiscent of Jack London's Klondike.
If your campus is one of the so-called R-1 universities—the 63 members of the prestigious Association of American Universities and/or the additional 25 so classified by the Carnegie Foundation—not much in this article will be news. Your institutions have had big league grant management, technology transfer, and legal departments since Einstein was a pup.
However, just about every other four-year institution has galloped into the intellectual-property gold rush since 2000. The upshot is a shoot-em-up IP environment reminiscent of Jack London's Klondike.
Consider for example the case of New England College (NEC) v. Drew University [2009 Westlaw 3525596]. In the excerpted words of federal district court (NH) judge Joseph La Plante, "This case involves a dispute between two colleges over poetry in motion. The plaintiff, NEC has sued Drew and Ms. Anne Marie Macari, alleging that while Macari was serving as interim director of NEC's graduate poetry program, she secretly conspired with Drew to develop a similar program and to solicit NEC faculty and students to affiliate with Drew. NEC has brought claims of breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and intentional interference with various contractual and other relationships."
So sue me… over a cure for cancer, or patent rights to safe nuclear fusion… but over a poetry program?
What makes "poetry in motion" so special that the small liberal arts college in Henniker, NH drags a New Jersey school into a federal forum?
Here's another interesting wrinkle. According to the Associated Press, "In both programs, students complete most of their work at home and travel to campus only briefly to work with prominent poets."
Background and pre-trial activity
In March 2007 Macari was named graduate poetry interim director at NEC, where she was already a faculty member. NEC billed its offering as the only all-poetry program of its kind in the U.S., and believed that its program's attractiveness to students had dollar value.
According to testimony, about a month later, without informing NEC, Macari, met in New Jersey with Drew's president and others to discuss the possibility of developing a similar poetry program down there. Macari reportedly told the Drew folks she could bring a good faculty with her, including some of the poets affiliated with NEC's program.
Macari, who herself resided in New Jersey, returned to New Hampshire to direct NEC's summer poetry residency. While in New Hampshire, she spoke with various NEC faculty members about affiliating with Drew, and some of them expressed interest. Not surprisingly, she told no one else at NEC about her plans.
According to the published court opinion, more meetings between the professor and Drew personnel followed, revolving around such details as the list of NEC faculty prepared to jump ship; facilitation of student transfers from NEC to Drew in the wake of the faculty exodus; budgetary issues; and ultimate program approval by Drew's Academic Affairs Committee. A vote occurred in December 2007, after which Drew's chief liaison with Macari, Professor Peggy Samuels, wrote to her, "I'm glad we managed to get to this [p]oint before the Jan[uary] Res[idency] so that you can spread the word there a bit."
The word "there" in the Samuels message took on importance, when Drew later denied attempts to steal students. Although Drew's president apparently assured his NEC counterpart that no poaching would occur, "Samuels acknowledged at her deposition that "there" meant NEC, and that she was asking Macari to spread the word about Drew's new program," concluded Judge LaPlante. Other evidence indicated Macari contacted NEC students and some, along with faculty, relocated to Drew.
NEC's claims against Drew include breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and intentional interference with various contractual and other relationships. As this article goes to press the court's only decisions concern Drew's twice-denied motion to move the litigation from the Granite to the Garden State. Meanwhile, Drew's website continues to advertise …
The Drew University Master of Fine Arts in Poetry Program is a two-year, low-residency program for poets and poet translators. … The program offers some of America's most talented poets as faculty mentors who work one-on-one with our students.
The program is divided into short, intense residencies and mentorship semesters. During residencies, students and faculty come together on Drew's beautiful campus in Madison, New Jersey. Residencies consist of ten days of public readings, lectures, workshops, as well as close work and planning between students and mentors for the mentorship semester.
Alphabet soup wars
Does fighting over a poetry program seem a bit farfetched in an IP arena traditionally dominated by NIH, NSF, energy and defense grants? How about a battle over the letters "S" and "C"? To those uninitiated in legal property issues, nothing might seem to be more squarely in the public domain than the English alphabet. True enough. But extract two of the 26 letters, and sew them on a sweatshirt, and the grounds for a lawsuit may be laid.
In this case, the University of South Carolina filed an application to trademark a new logo for its baseball apparel:
The University of Southern California opposed South Carolina's registration application, arguing that the proposed emblem was confusingly similar to its own registered trademark: The U.S. Trademark Trials and Appeals Board concurred, refusing to register the South Carolina logo. The Gamecocks appealed, retorting that "SC" is uniquely identified with the Palmetto State. Au contraire, replied the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in January. While we "agree that 'SC' may refer to the State of South Carolina… the evidence offered by Southern California demonstrates 'SC' refers to many entities aside from the State. Indeed, South Carolina, in the context of another issue, submitted evidence showing that at least sixteen other universities and colleges represent themselves as 'SC.'"
The SC bottom line? "Because the Board did not commit reversible error, we affirm its decision to refuse registration of South Carolina's mark and its grant of summary judgment against South Carolina on its cancellation counterclaim."
Conclusions?
Hamlet, in one of his more decisivemoods, proposed to go to war "even for an eggshell . . . when honor's at stake." Apparently today's campuses will launch litigation assaults, even over a poetry program or a teaspoon of alphabet soup, when dollars are at stake.
Other current cases confirming this conclusion include:
Note that none of the foregoing cases involve patents. They underline the reality that intellectual property takes many forms, and all are potentially valuable. Trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, and an employee's fiduciary duty of loyalty all figure into the IP mix. Lest you conclude that patents have taken a backseat to a recent plethora of IP items, witness the ongoing war between Hewlett-Packard and Cornell University.
Their dispute involves allegations that "HP's PA-8000 family of microprocessors, and servers and workstations incorporating those processors, infringed a patent" owned by Cornell University. A trial jury recently awarded Cornell $184 million in damages. The federal judge cranked that staggering verdict back to $53 million. Nevertheless, HP appealed. Whatever the eventual outcome, patent litigation is alive and well in the realm of higher education IP.
In the words of Kelly Tillery, an IP attorney with Philadelphia's Pepper Hamilton law firm, "We are now in a perfect storm of IP litigation for three reasons: First, IP as a revenue-producing asset is more important today than it has ever been, and for many, it is more important than any real or personal property.
"Second, the severe economic downturn drives IP owners to squeeze all possible remuneration from their assets, including via litigation. It also drives some to cut corners and take risks by using, without authorization, the IP of others to trim expenses or gain revenue.
"And, third, litigation, even to defend the most innocent of accused infringers, is so expensive, that cases settle with payments that often are justified only by the potential litigation costs, and not because of real damages."
In other words, implies Mr. Tillery, look for more, not less intellectual-property litigation in the second decade of our litigious 21st century.
Jim is a university attorney and the author of Al Qaeda Goes to College [Praeger].
Read Jim Castagnera's Articles
http://www.onlineuniversities.com/blog/2012/05/10-surprising-facts-about-university-endowments/
U.S. university endowments:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colleges_and_universities_in_the_United_States_by_endowment
So Sue MeJim CastagneraInstitutions and individuals duel over intellectual property in an environment reminiscent of Jack London's Klondike.
If your campus is one of the so-called R-1 universities—the 63 members of the prestigious Association of American Universities and/or the additional 25 so classified by the Carnegie Foundation—not much in this article will be news. Your institutions have had big league grant management, technology transfer, and legal departments since Einstein was a pup.
However, just about every other four-year institution has galloped into the intellectual-property gold rush since 2000. The upshot is a shoot-em-up IP environment reminiscent of Jack London's Klondike.
Consider for example the case of New England College (NEC) v. Drew University [2009 Westlaw 3525596]. In the excerpted words of federal district court (NH) judge Joseph La Plante, "This case involves a dispute between two colleges over poetry in motion. The plaintiff, NEC has sued Drew and Ms. Anne Marie Macari, alleging that while Macari was serving as interim director of NEC's graduate poetry program, she secretly conspired with Drew to develop a similar program and to solicit NEC faculty and students to affiliate with Drew. NEC has brought claims of breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and intentional interference with various contractual and other relationships."
So sue me… over a cure for cancer, or patent rights to safe nuclear fusion… but over a poetry program?
What makes "poetry in motion" so special that the small liberal arts college in Henniker, NH drags a New Jersey school into a federal forum?
Here's another interesting wrinkle. According to the Associated Press, "In both programs, students complete most of their work at home and travel to campus only briefly to work with prominent poets."
Background and pre-trial activity
In March 2007 Macari was named graduate poetry interim director at NEC, where she was already a faculty member. NEC billed its offering as the only all-poetry program of its kind in the U.S., and believed that its program's attractiveness to students had dollar value.
According to testimony, about a month later, without informing NEC, Macari, met in New Jersey with Drew's president and others to discuss the possibility of developing a similar poetry program down there. Macari reportedly told the Drew folks she could bring a good faculty with her, including some of the poets affiliated with NEC's program.
Macari, who herself resided in New Jersey, returned to New Hampshire to direct NEC's summer poetry residency. While in New Hampshire, she spoke with various NEC faculty members about affiliating with Drew, and some of them expressed interest. Not surprisingly, she told no one else at NEC about her plans.
According to the published court opinion, more meetings between the professor and Drew personnel followed, revolving around such details as the list of NEC faculty prepared to jump ship; facilitation of student transfers from NEC to Drew in the wake of the faculty exodus; budgetary issues; and ultimate program approval by Drew's Academic Affairs Committee. A vote occurred in December 2007, after which Drew's chief liaison with Macari, Professor Peggy Samuels, wrote to her, "I'm glad we managed to get to this [p]oint before the Jan[uary] Res[idency] so that you can spread the word there a bit."
The word "there" in the Samuels message took on importance, when Drew later denied attempts to steal students. Although Drew's president apparently assured his NEC counterpart that no poaching would occur, "Samuels acknowledged at her deposition that "there" meant NEC, and that she was asking Macari to spread the word about Drew's new program," concluded Judge LaPlante. Other evidence indicated Macari contacted NEC students and some, along with faculty, relocated to Drew.
NEC's claims against Drew include breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and intentional interference with various contractual and other relationships. As this article goes to press the court's only decisions concern Drew's twice-denied motion to move the litigation from the Granite to the Garden State. Meanwhile, Drew's website continues to advertise …
The Drew University Master of Fine Arts in Poetry Program is a two-year, low-residency program for poets and poet translators. … The program offers some of America's most talented poets as faculty mentors who work one-on-one with our students.
The program is divided into short, intense residencies and mentorship semesters. During residencies, students and faculty come together on Drew's beautiful campus in Madison, New Jersey. Residencies consist of ten days of public readings, lectures, workshops, as well as close work and planning between students and mentors for the mentorship semester.
Alphabet soup wars
Does fighting over a poetry program seem a bit farfetched in an IP arena traditionally dominated by NIH, NSF, energy and defense grants? How about a battle over the letters "S" and "C"? To those uninitiated in legal property issues, nothing might seem to be more squarely in the public domain than the English alphabet. True enough. But extract two of the 26 letters, and sew them on a sweatshirt, and the grounds for a lawsuit may be laid.In this case, the University of South Carolina filed an application to trademark a new logo for its baseball apparel:
The University of Southern California opposed South Carolina's registration application, arguing that the proposed emblem was confusingly similar to its own registered trademark: The U.S. Trademark Trials and Appeals Board concurred, refusing to register the South Carolina logo. The Gamecocks appealed, retorting that "SC" is uniquely identified with the Palmetto State. Au contraire, replied the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in January. While we "agree that 'SC' may refer to the State of South Carolina… the evidence offered by Southern California demonstrates 'SC' refers to many entities aside from the State. Indeed, South Carolina, in the context of another issue, submitted evidence showing that at least sixteen other universities and colleges represent themselves as 'SC.'"The SC bottom line? "Because the Board did not commit reversible error, we affirm its decision to refuse registration of South Carolina's mark and its grant of summary judgment against South Carolina on its cancellation counterclaim."
Conclusions?
Hamlet, in one of his more decisivemoods, proposed to go to war "even for an eggshell . . . when honor's at stake." Apparently today's campuses will launch litigation assaults, even over a poetry program or a teaspoon of alphabet soup, when dollars are at stake.
Other current cases confirming this conclusion include:
- O'Bannon v. National Collegiate Athletic Association: On February 12th, the federal court for Northern California refused to dismiss a class action suit brought by former college athletes, who contend that the NCAA's licensing of their images to third parties, while refusing to let the former players do the same, violates U.S. antitrust statutes.
- Authors' Guild v. Google, Inc. and the Webcasters Settlement Act of 2009: Last year's settlement, seeking to resolve authors' and publishers' claims aimed at Google's posting of their texts on the web, and the federal statute signed into law last June to resolve proliferating webcasting disputes, are among the most significant efforts to reconcile traditional IP rights with the inexorable reach of the internet.
Note that none of the foregoing cases involve patents. They underline the reality that intellectual property takes many forms, and all are potentially valuable. Trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, and an employee's fiduciary duty of loyalty all figure into the IP mix. Lest you conclude that patents have taken a backseat to a recent plethora of IP items, witness the ongoing war between Hewlett-Packard and Cornell University.
Their dispute involves allegations that "HP's PA-8000 family of microprocessors, and servers and workstations incorporating those processors, infringed a patent" owned by Cornell University. A trial jury recently awarded Cornell $184 million in damages. The federal judge cranked that staggering verdict back to $53 million. Nevertheless, HP appealed. Whatever the eventual outcome, patent litigation is alive and well in the realm of higher education IP.
In the words of Kelly Tillery, an IP attorney with Philadelphia's Pepper Hamilton law firm, "We are now in a perfect storm of IP litigation for three reasons: First, IP as a revenue-producing asset is more important today than it has ever been, and for many, it is more important than any real or personal property.
"Second, the severe economic downturn drives IP owners to squeeze all possible remuneration from their assets, including via litigation. It also drives some to cut corners and take risks by using, without authorization, the IP of others to trim expenses or gain revenue.
"And, third, litigation, even to defend the most innocent of accused infringers, is so expensive, that cases settle with payments that often are justified only by the potential litigation costs, and not because of real damages."
In other words, implies Mr. Tillery, look for more, not less intellectual-property litigation in the second decade of our litigious 21st century.
Jim is a university attorney and the author of Al Qaeda Goes to College [Praeger].
Read Jim Castagnera's Articles
Tropical storms are starting early this year
To contact us Click HERE
Extreme (and not so extreme) swings in the weather occur all the time. We often experience warm days in the winter and cold days in the summer. So I guess we shouldn’t be all that surprised when Mother Nature decides to launch her first tropical storm thirteen days in advance of the scheduled start of hurricane season (June 1).
Yesterday gave up the first tropical system for the Atlantic season with the formation of Tropical Storm Alberto off the South Carolina Coast.
As of this afternoon, according to the National Hurricane Center, the center of the storm is located 90 miles southeast of Charleston, South Carolina and is moving toward the west-southwest at near 6 mph. Alberto is expected to slow down and move little through Monday, and after that it is expected to make a northeastward acceleration Monday night and Tuesday. On this track, the center of Alberto is forecast to remain offshore of the Carolina and Georgia coasts.
This early storm formation should encourage coastal residents in Georgia and the Carolinas to monitor weather conditions and take steps now to get prepared for potential severe weather. Tropical waves or tropical storms can bring heavy rains and high winds, so it’s important that you take steps to prepare your property and family.
In fact, all those who live in hurricane prone areas should heed this early storm as a sign to be prepared for the season. Visit Ready.gov/hurricanes (Listo.gov para español) to learn how to prepare your home and family for a hurricane or tropical storm.
Tropical Storm and Hurricane Preparedness and Safety Tips:
SUNDAY, MAY 20, 2012
Atlantic’s First Tropical System Comes Thirteen Days Early
Posted by Lars Anderson, Director of Public Affairs, FEMAExtreme (and not so extreme) swings in the weather occur all the time. We often experience warm days in the winter and cold days in the summer. So I guess we shouldn’t be all that surprised when Mother Nature decides to launch her first tropical storm thirteen days in advance of the scheduled start of hurricane season (June 1).
Yesterday gave up the first tropical system for the Atlantic season with the formation of Tropical Storm Alberto off the South Carolina Coast.
As of this afternoon, according to the National Hurricane Center, the center of the storm is located 90 miles southeast of Charleston, South Carolina and is moving toward the west-southwest at near 6 mph. Alberto is expected to slow down and move little through Monday, and after that it is expected to make a northeastward acceleration Monday night and Tuesday. On this track, the center of Alberto is forecast to remain offshore of the Carolina and Georgia coasts.
This early storm formation should encourage coastal residents in Georgia and the Carolinas to monitor weather conditions and take steps now to get prepared for potential severe weather. Tropical waves or tropical storms can bring heavy rains and high winds, so it’s important that you take steps to prepare your property and family.
In fact, all those who live in hurricane prone areas should heed this early storm as a sign to be prepared for the season. Visit Ready.gov/hurricanes (Listo.gov para español) to learn how to prepare your home and family for a hurricane or tropical storm.
Tropical Storm and Hurricane Preparedness and Safety Tips:
- Now is the time to be prepared if you live in a coastal area or could be affected by severe weather. Build your own emergency supply kit—personalized with the non-perishable foods you like, your medications, personal documents.
- Visit www.ready.gov or www.listo.gov for tips on creating your family emergency plan and putting together an emergency supply kit.
- Monitor local radio and television news outlets or listen to NOAA Weather Radio for the latest developments. Your local National Weather Service forecast office is the best place to find information about the weather that may affect your area, so check your local forecast at www.weather.gov or on your phone atmobile.weather.gov.
- A tropical storm watch means that tropical storm conditions are possible, in this case within 24 hours.
- A tropical storm warning means that tropical storm conditions are expected within 36 hours.
- A Hurricane watch means that hurricane conditions are possible within 48 hours.
- A Hurricane warning means that hurricane conditions are expected within 36 hours.
17 Mayıs 2012 Perşembe
ICE Arrested 80 Criminal Aliens in Georgia, Carolinas
To contact us Click HERE
On May 11, 2012, Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrest 80 criminal aliens in Georgia, Carolinas.
ATLANTA, Ga. – During a three-day targeted enforcement operation in Georgia and the Carolinas, officers with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) arrested 80 convicted criminal aliens.
Operation Cross Check commenced Monday and concluded Wednesday. All 80 taken into custody had prior criminal convictions. Many of the criminal aliens taken into custody had prior convictions for serious or violent offenses including: aggravated assault; indecent liberties with a minor; family violence; sexual battery of a minor; possession of cocaine; possession of marijuana with intent to distribute; and weapon used in the commission of a crime.
"The results of this targeted enforcement operation underscore ICE's ongoing commitment to public safety," said Felicia Skinner, Field Office Director of ERO Atlanta. "When we focus on the arrest and removal of convicted criminal aliens we get an immediate payback in our communities. Because of the tireless efforts and teamwork of ICE officers – along with our state and local law enforcement partners – there are 80 fewer criminal aliens in our neighborhoods in Georgia and the Carolinas."
Of those arrested, 20 were immigration fugitives, 14 re-entered the United States after a previous deportation and 46 were at-large criminals. The arrested aliens came from Mexico, Guatemala and the Dominican Republic. ERO arrested 33 in Georgia, 15 in South Carolina and 32 in North Carolina.
All 80 were arrested administratively for being in violation of immigration law, and all are being held in ICE custody pending immigration removal proceedings or removal from the United States.
Some of those arrested during this operation include:
This enforcement action was spearheaded by ICE's National Criminal Alien Program, which is responsible for locating, arresting and removing at-large criminal aliens. The officers who conducted the operation received substantial assistance from ICE's Law Enforcement Support Center located in Williston, Vt.
ICE is focused on smart, effective immigration enforcement that targets serious criminal aliens who present the greatest risk to the security of our communities, such as those charged with or convicted of homicide, rape, robbery, kidnapping, major drug offenses and threats to national security. ICE also prioritizes the arrest and removal of those who game the immigration system including immigration fugitives or those criminal aliens who have been previously deported and illegally re-entered the country.
Largely as a result of these initiatives, for three years in a row, ICE has removed more aliens than were removed in fiscal year (FY) 2008. Overall, in FY 2011 ICE removed 396,906 individuals nationwide – the largest number in the agency's history. Of these, nearly 55 percent or 216,698 of the people removed were convicted of felonies or misdemeanors – an 89 percent increase in the removal of criminals since FY 2008. This includes 1,119 aliens convicted of homicide; 5,848 aliens convicted of sexual offenses; 44,653 aliens convicted of drug related crimes; and 35,927 aliens convicted of driving under the influence. ICE achieved similar results with regard to other categories prioritized for removal. Ninety percent of all ICE's removals fell into a priority category and more than two-thirds of the other removals in 2011 were either recent border crossers or repeat immigration violators.
Source: Immigration & Customs Enforcement
If you have any immigration questions, please feel free to contact our office
Sharlene Mae Bagon, Esq.BAGON LAW FIRM6700 Fallbrook Avenue
Suite 125HWest Hills, CA 91307Toll Free: (888) 992-2466Main Tel.: (818) 539-0120Fax: (888) 589-0804www.bagonlawfirm.com
ATLANTA, Ga. – During a three-day targeted enforcement operation in Georgia and the Carolinas, officers with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) arrested 80 convicted criminal aliens.
Operation Cross Check commenced Monday and concluded Wednesday. All 80 taken into custody had prior criminal convictions. Many of the criminal aliens taken into custody had prior convictions for serious or violent offenses including: aggravated assault; indecent liberties with a minor; family violence; sexual battery of a minor; possession of cocaine; possession of marijuana with intent to distribute; and weapon used in the commission of a crime.
"The results of this targeted enforcement operation underscore ICE's ongoing commitment to public safety," said Felicia Skinner, Field Office Director of ERO Atlanta. "When we focus on the arrest and removal of convicted criminal aliens we get an immediate payback in our communities. Because of the tireless efforts and teamwork of ICE officers – along with our state and local law enforcement partners – there are 80 fewer criminal aliens in our neighborhoods in Georgia and the Carolinas."
Of those arrested, 20 were immigration fugitives, 14 re-entered the United States after a previous deportation and 46 were at-large criminals. The arrested aliens came from Mexico, Guatemala and the Dominican Republic. ERO arrested 33 in Georgia, 15 in South Carolina and 32 in North Carolina.
All 80 were arrested administratively for being in violation of immigration law, and all are being held in ICE custody pending immigration removal proceedings or removal from the United States.
Some of those arrested during this operation include:
- A national of the Dominican Republic, who was convicted of multiple drug possession and trafficking crimes in New York, deported and then illegally re-entered the United States.
- A national of Mexico, who was convicted of the following crimes: possession and distribution of marijuana; and use of a weapon in commission of a crime.
This enforcement action was spearheaded by ICE's National Criminal Alien Program, which is responsible for locating, arresting and removing at-large criminal aliens. The officers who conducted the operation received substantial assistance from ICE's Law Enforcement Support Center located in Williston, Vt.
ICE is focused on smart, effective immigration enforcement that targets serious criminal aliens who present the greatest risk to the security of our communities, such as those charged with or convicted of homicide, rape, robbery, kidnapping, major drug offenses and threats to national security. ICE also prioritizes the arrest and removal of those who game the immigration system including immigration fugitives or those criminal aliens who have been previously deported and illegally re-entered the country.
Largely as a result of these initiatives, for three years in a row, ICE has removed more aliens than were removed in fiscal year (FY) 2008. Overall, in FY 2011 ICE removed 396,906 individuals nationwide – the largest number in the agency's history. Of these, nearly 55 percent or 216,698 of the people removed were convicted of felonies or misdemeanors – an 89 percent increase in the removal of criminals since FY 2008. This includes 1,119 aliens convicted of homicide; 5,848 aliens convicted of sexual offenses; 44,653 aliens convicted of drug related crimes; and 35,927 aliens convicted of driving under the influence. ICE achieved similar results with regard to other categories prioritized for removal. Ninety percent of all ICE's removals fell into a priority category and more than two-thirds of the other removals in 2011 were either recent border crossers or repeat immigration violators.
Source: Immigration & Customs Enforcement
If you have any immigration questions, please feel free to contact our office
Sharlene Mae Bagon, Esq.BAGON LAW FIRM6700 Fallbrook Avenue
Suite 125HWest Hills, CA 91307Toll Free: (888) 992-2466Main Tel.: (818) 539-0120Fax: (888) 589-0804www.bagonlawfirm.com
My K1 Fiance Visa Timeline
To contact us Click HERE
As I have had quite a bit of interest shown in my post on the fiance visa processing and wait time, I thought that it might be useful to post a simple breakdown of my significant dates in the process and put together a K1 Fiance Visa timeline. It is not surprising that people get concerned about wait times and start wondering how long each stage of the process is supposed to take - applicants don’t get a great deal of information from the USCIS, in my experience, and it can sometimes feel like you have been forgotten, or your application has got lost in the system.
Once again, I think it wise to remind people that this is my own person experience of the K1 Fiance Visa process. As far as I am aware, my experience is fairly typical, but other people’s experience might be different. Processing times can vary according to factors such as how many other people happen to be applying at the same time as you, or if the USCIS are being more particular because they are responding to security concerns, or whatever.
The K1 Fiance Visa Timeline begins with the I-129 petition, which is submitted by the US citizen and ends with non-US citizen being issued with a K1 Fiance Visa. The bureaucracy doesn’t end there, however, as you still have to move to the USA, get married, then begin the I-485 Green Card application process in order to work and live in the USA indefinitely – this process is easier than the visa, but still a pain. (I will post a Green Card Timeline on here too, when I’ve got time).
Anyway, here is my K1 Fiance Visa Timeline:
March 2nd. I-129 Petition submitted by my fiancée (the US citizen) along with the I-129 Petition relationship proof.
March 13th. My fiancée receives a letter of receipt saying that the I-129 petition has been received.
July 2nd. My fiancée receives notification that I-129 petition has been approved and will be sent to the National Visa Center (NVC).
July 10th. My fiancée receives a letter stating that the NVC has received the approved I-129 petition and will be sending the information to the London Embassy within a week.
July 19th. I receive a letter from US embassy informing me to submit the K1 Fiance Visa forms.
August 11th. I sent off my K1 Fiance Visa application forms to the London Embassy along with my proof, including things like my UK Police Certificate, passport-style photos etc.
September 14th. I receive a letter sent to me inviting me to arrange a K1 fiance visa medical exam and giving me my K1Fiance Visa interview date.
September 30th. Attend K1 Fiance Visa medical exam in London
October 13th. Attend K1 Fiance Visa interview in London.
October 21st. K1 Fiance Visa delivered to my workplace, where I signed for it.
Once again, I think it wise to remind people that this is my own person experience of the K1 Fiance Visa process. As far as I am aware, my experience is fairly typical, but other people’s experience might be different. Processing times can vary according to factors such as how many other people happen to be applying at the same time as you, or if the USCIS are being more particular because they are responding to security concerns, or whatever.
The K1 Fiance Visa Timeline begins with the I-129 petition, which is submitted by the US citizen and ends with non-US citizen being issued with a K1 Fiance Visa. The bureaucracy doesn’t end there, however, as you still have to move to the USA, get married, then begin the I-485 Green Card application process in order to work and live in the USA indefinitely – this process is easier than the visa, but still a pain. (I will post a Green Card Timeline on here too, when I’ve got time).
Anyway, here is my K1 Fiance Visa Timeline:
March 2nd. I-129 Petition submitted by my fiancée (the US citizen) along with the I-129 Petition relationship proof.
March 13th. My fiancée receives a letter of receipt saying that the I-129 petition has been received.
July 2nd. My fiancée receives notification that I-129 petition has been approved and will be sent to the National Visa Center (NVC).
July 10th. My fiancée receives a letter stating that the NVC has received the approved I-129 petition and will be sending the information to the London Embassy within a week.
July 19th. I receive a letter from US embassy informing me to submit the K1 Fiance Visa forms.
August 11th. I sent off my K1 Fiance Visa application forms to the London Embassy along with my proof, including things like my UK Police Certificate, passport-style photos etc.
September 14th. I receive a letter sent to me inviting me to arrange a K1 fiance visa medical exam and giving me my K1Fiance Visa interview date.
September 30th. Attend K1 Fiance Visa medical exam in London
October 13th. Attend K1 Fiance Visa interview in London.
October 21st. K1 Fiance Visa delivered to my workplace, where I signed for it.
K1 Proof of relationship
To contact us Click HERE
A number of people have asked me what I used for proof of relationship for the K1 visa application, so I thought that I would post up what I used. In our case is was similar to the I-129 petition relationship proof that we used, when my wife put in the I-129 application (although we probably gave the USCIS more than they needed at that stage).
Basically from I learnt, the standard proof of ongoing relationship that they would accept were things like photos of my wife and I together and together with family, postmarked letters and emails that we had exchanged, telephone bills that showed we had spoken over the phone, and flight tickets that showed we had visited one another. You are allowed to censor out some of the more personal information from letters etc. I believe.
Anyway, the specific evidence that my wife and I used as K1 proof of relationship was:
Photos of us during a visit. There was a photo of the two of us together, a photo with the two of us with my fiancee’s daughter, and a photo of my fiancé with me and my family.
The plane tickets that were used for the flights across the Atlantic, and also the ferry tickets that we used on a day trip to France together.
Some of the cards that we had sent to each other by mail – birthday and postcards.
Some printouts of emails that we’d sent each other. Nothing too personal, of course.
Some printouts of MSN messenger and Skype conversations that we’d had together.
A phone bill to show that we had telephoned each other. (Although that didn’t happen more than a few times as we generally used Skype to communicate, basically because Skype was cheaper and also we could use webcams, which is more personal).
UPDATE
I mailed my proof of ongoing relationship to the London Embassy, which was the correct procedure at the time, but I think someone told me that visa applicants now have to take their proof in by hand when they attend their K1 Fiance Visa interview. The rules and guidelines can change at any time, so always double-check with the USCIS website to make sure that you are doing the right thing beforehand.
Basically from I learnt, the standard proof of ongoing relationship that they would accept were things like photos of my wife and I together and together with family, postmarked letters and emails that we had exchanged, telephone bills that showed we had spoken over the phone, and flight tickets that showed we had visited one another. You are allowed to censor out some of the more personal information from letters etc. I believe.
Anyway, the specific evidence that my wife and I used as K1 proof of relationship was:
Photos of us during a visit. There was a photo of the two of us together, a photo with the two of us with my fiancee’s daughter, and a photo of my fiancé with me and my family.
The plane tickets that were used for the flights across the Atlantic, and also the ferry tickets that we used on a day trip to France together.
Some of the cards that we had sent to each other by mail – birthday and postcards.
Some printouts of emails that we’d sent each other. Nothing too personal, of course.
Some printouts of MSN messenger and Skype conversations that we’d had together.
A phone bill to show that we had telephoned each other. (Although that didn’t happen more than a few times as we generally used Skype to communicate, basically because Skype was cheaper and also we could use webcams, which is more personal).
UPDATE
I mailed my proof of ongoing relationship to the London Embassy, which was the correct procedure at the time, but I think someone told me that visa applicants now have to take their proof in by hand when they attend their K1 Fiance Visa interview. The rules and guidelines can change at any time, so always double-check with the USCIS website to make sure that you are doing the right thing beforehand.
Opening a US bank account for non-US citizens
To contact us Click HERE
This my account of what happened to me, including my interpretations of the material that I found online. I originally wrote about this topic informally in the personal blog that I write for fun about being a British expat in America called: From Sheep toAlligators, but I thought that it would be useful to write a more formal account of my experience of opening a US bank account as a non-US citizen on this blog too, as it was very much part of the US immigration process for me.
Background
As far as I understand it, certainly in comparison to my home country of the UK, the USA had relatively relaxed rules regarding non-US citizens opening bank accounts up until the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001. After the attacks, new legislation was introduced to make it harder for people such as terrorists to have money sent to them from abroad. This new financial legislation formed part of the Patriot Act and effects the opening a US bank account for non-US citizens. Each bank then got their solicitors to draw up new rules which complied with the new legislation.
Advance preparation
I did some research before we went to the bank that I wished to join. Basically, there are banks that allow non-US citizens to hold accounts and banks that don’t. From my research on the internet, it said that I could join my wife’s bank as a joint account holder using a passport as proof of I.D. and I didn’t need a Social Security Number, which was good as I didn’t have one at that point in time. However, other research I did said that whatever the bank’s rules, in practice, you often end up being asked for an SSN. So my wife rang up her bank’s customer service to check the rules on proof of I.D. She was then passed from department to department, none of whom could tell her what the rules were. Eventually she got through to someone at the head office who told her the rules, which were the same as I’d read on the bank’s website.
Practical problems
One of the big problems is that the person who actually serves you in the bank generally doesn’t have much experience of non-US citizens opening an account and doesn’t understand the bank’s policy and they insist that you should have Social Security Number. They are afraid that they might be breaking the Patriot Act, not necessarily knowing that the Patriot Act is actually vague on this matter and that it is the bank’s solicitors who interpret the law and actually make the specific rules that they are supposed to be following.
The bank worker who dealt with us was young and very anxious and seemed confused. She disappeared for a long time and held a conference with the deputy manager. Then I was rejected. This was despite my wife and I explaining about reading the relevant rules on the bank’s website and what we were told by their Head Office over the phone. Unfortunately, our experience was very common according to the accounts that I read from expats and legal experts on the internet. It was still an upsetting experience though.
Eventual success
I could have gone to another bank and believe me I was sorely tempted to take my business elsewhere, but I wanted a joint account with my wife so it seemed like too much trouble. In the end I took a deep breath and applied for a Social Security Number (which I would have had to obtain sooner or later anyway). It took a few weeks to get one. Then my wife and I went back to her bank again. We chose a different branch this time, however, as we were still upset about being rejected previously. This time our bank worker seemed much more confident and friendly. We gave him all the relevant info, including my new Social Security Number. He did disappear for a time, but we were reasonably confident that everything would work out and sure enough, we were given the green light.
Background
As far as I understand it, certainly in comparison to my home country of the UK, the USA had relatively relaxed rules regarding non-US citizens opening bank accounts up until the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001. After the attacks, new legislation was introduced to make it harder for people such as terrorists to have money sent to them from abroad. This new financial legislation formed part of the Patriot Act and effects the opening a US bank account for non-US citizens. Each bank then got their solicitors to draw up new rules which complied with the new legislation.
Advance preparation
I did some research before we went to the bank that I wished to join. Basically, there are banks that allow non-US citizens to hold accounts and banks that don’t. From my research on the internet, it said that I could join my wife’s bank as a joint account holder using a passport as proof of I.D. and I didn’t need a Social Security Number, which was good as I didn’t have one at that point in time. However, other research I did said that whatever the bank’s rules, in practice, you often end up being asked for an SSN. So my wife rang up her bank’s customer service to check the rules on proof of I.D. She was then passed from department to department, none of whom could tell her what the rules were. Eventually she got through to someone at the head office who told her the rules, which were the same as I’d read on the bank’s website.
Practical problems
One of the big problems is that the person who actually serves you in the bank generally doesn’t have much experience of non-US citizens opening an account and doesn’t understand the bank’s policy and they insist that you should have Social Security Number. They are afraid that they might be breaking the Patriot Act, not necessarily knowing that the Patriot Act is actually vague on this matter and that it is the bank’s solicitors who interpret the law and actually make the specific rules that they are supposed to be following.
The bank worker who dealt with us was young and very anxious and seemed confused. She disappeared for a long time and held a conference with the deputy manager. Then I was rejected. This was despite my wife and I explaining about reading the relevant rules on the bank’s website and what we were told by their Head Office over the phone. Unfortunately, our experience was very common according to the accounts that I read from expats and legal experts on the internet. It was still an upsetting experience though.
Eventual success
I could have gone to another bank and believe me I was sorely tempted to take my business elsewhere, but I wanted a joint account with my wife so it seemed like too much trouble. In the end I took a deep breath and applied for a Social Security Number (which I would have had to obtain sooner or later anyway). It took a few weeks to get one. Then my wife and I went back to her bank again. We chose a different branch this time, however, as we were still upset about being rejected previously. This time our bank worker seemed much more confident and friendly. We gave him all the relevant info, including my new Social Security Number. He did disappear for a time, but we were reasonably confident that everything would work out and sure enough, we were given the green light.
Kaydol:
Yorumlar (Atom)