Massachusetts Immigration Lawyer Blog

In anticipation of a major snow storm, the Immigration Court in Boston will be closed on Friday,  February 8, 2013. The Immigration Judges will extend all filing deadlines and reschedule all deportation and bond hearings set for February 8, 2013. The court will be open normal hours on Monday, February 11, 2013.

I expect similar cancellations at the Boston and Lawrence District Offices of USCIS, but I've received no formal.

My law office will be closed at 1:00 PM on February 8, 2013 and the MBTA is scheduled to close at 3:30 PM

Stay warm, be safe. And, of course, call me if I can do anything at all to help you with your immigration needs.

As an attorney specializing in preparing winning I-601 hardship waivers, my law firm's Boston office is eagerly awaiting March 4, 2013, the first day that USCIS will begin accepting I-601A provisional waivers for unlawful presence with stateside processing.

The new I-601A waiver offers a procedure change that allows applicants to remain in the United States while waiting for a decision. This what is meant by "stateside processing." The I-601A waiver applies only to unlawful presence and is available only to those with U.S. citizen parents or spouses.

My sense is that the intended beneficiaries of the I-601A waiver are mostly those whom we immigration lawyers affectionately refer to as EWIs, i.e., people who either snuck into the U.S. or who otherwise entered the United States without being properly inspected or admitted. But it occurred to me that another group of people might also benefit.

I-601A for crewmen and others ineligible for adjustment of status

Married to a U.S. citizen? Through adjustment of status (I-485), a green card might be straightforward, even if, for instance, you have overstayed your B-1, B-2 visitor's visa or F-1 student visa. But, under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, if you entered as a crewman (including those with B, C, and D visas) or through TWOV (transit without visa) status, then you are ineligible for adjustment of status.

In my immigration practice, I meet with plenty of people who are married to U.S. citizens and are otherwise eligible for permanent residency through the adjustment of status (I-485) process. But they are disqualified because of the visa (often C-1 or D) that they used to enter the U.S.

Since adjustment of status is not available, crewman who entered the U.S. under the C-1 visa and D visa are stuck. Until the I-601A waiver came along, the only option was to leave the U.S. and apply for a visa at a US consulate with an I-601 waiver for unlawful presence. The problem with this approach is that it would require the waiver applicant to remain outside the U.S. indefinitely. And it could take years to get a decision on an I-601 waiver.

But now those C-1 and D visa overstays who are married to a U.S. citizen can take advantage of the stateside processing of the I-601A waiver for unlawful presence. This is a less onerous process because it allows the waiver applicant to be in the U.S. with their families while waiting for a decision.

If you overstayed your C-1 or D visa and are now married to a U.S. citizen, then the I-601A waiver might be just the option you've been waiting for. But whether you should apply for an I-601A is not a decision you should make without first consulting with an immigration lawyer. I've devoted my career to preparing well-documented I-601 waivers for various grounds of inadmissibility (e.g., fraud, misrepresentation, criminal, unlawful presence).

I-601A immigration lawyer Joshua Goldstein is ready to help you

If you're curious about the new I-601A waiver, call our Boston immigration law office today at 617-722-0005 to set up a consultation. Here's what Attorney Joshua Goldstein can do for you:

• help you weigh the benefits and costs of the I-601A waiver;
• outline in detail the I-601A waiver application;
• discuss with you the risks, including the risk of deportation, of applying for the I-601A waiver;
• sort out whether you are eligible for the I-601A waiver; and
• determine how best to show that your spouse or parent would suffer "extreme hardship."

We look forward to hearing from you!

Citizenship Lawyer Tip:  How to handle the N-400 question regarding trips abroad

As an immigration lawyer, my job is to deal with immigration problems. Naturalization, the process by which a permanent resident becomes a U.S. citizen, offers the perfect fix. Trade your green card for U.S citizenship and U.S. immigration laws will no longer apply to you.

So why would anyone with a green card who is eligible not apply for U.S. citizenship through the naturalization process? The reasons are often complicated. Sometimes, people are just lazy. Life is busy and the green card might seem sufficient. 

One common obstacle is that Form N-400 (Page 4, Part 7C) requires a naturalization applicant to list all trips since becoming a legal permanent resident or green card holder. This time period could go back more than the last 3-5 years. For some, it could be 10-20 years, which means that accurately answering this question might prove difficult or impossible.

When memory fails, or where documentation for older trips is hard to come by, listing all your international trips might be impossible. So what should you do? Would a good-faith attempt at reporting trips more than five years old be sufficient? Would USCIS deny your naturalization application if you are unable to disclose all of your trips outside the United States since becoming a permanent resident? What level of specificity and documentation would be sufficient when memory may be of no help and passport stamps may not exist?

A good faith effort to list all your trips abroad might suffice

According to recently published minutes of a meeting between the USCIS Boston District Office and the New England Chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, USCIS takes the position that it will accept a good-faith attempt at reporting the trips.
In most cases, this good faith effort will be sufficient.

A good faith attempt at disclosing trips abroad will not be sufficient where an immigration officer suspects abandonment. Permanent residents are required to permanently maintain residency in the U.S. So if you, as a green card holder, have been out of the United States for a long periods of time, or have traveled frequently outside the United States, or your pattern of international travel raises doubts as to whether you have continuously lived in the United States, then the approval of your naturalization application based on a good faith attempt may be insufficient. The abandonment issue is a huge red flag. If you've been living outside the U.S. while in green card status and have been coming back and forth, don't apply for naturalization without first reviewing your case with a capable immigration lawyer.

Consult with an immigration lawyer specializing in Citizenship and Naturalization

Interesting in applying for U.S. citizenship but worried because you can't recall all your trips abroad? Living abroad with your green card? Call me at 617-722-0005. Make an appoint to meet with me! In my years as an immigration lawyer, I've handled countless N-400 application for green card holders. I look forward to helping you achieve your immigration goals.

What address should I use for my immigration case?

As an immigration lawyer, I'm paranoid about making certain that USCIS and the Immigration Court have my clients' correct address. "What is your address?" seems to be a simple question but determining what address to use for your immigration case is a source of much confusion. In my immigration practice, I see clients making the same mistake over and over when it comes to address, especially when it comes to marriage based green cards and I-751 petitions.

To untangle the address issue, let's start with a look at the Immigration and Nationality Act. Under INA §101(a)(33), the term 'residence' means the place of general abode; the place of general abode of a person means his principal, actual dwelling. So when a USCIS officer or your immigration attorney asks you for your address, generally, what they mean is what is your residence. And "residence" means where you actually, really live.

Residence and address do not mean where you intend to live or where you want to live or where you would prefer USCIS think that you live. Your address for immigration purposes doesn't mean where you get your mail or an apartment where your name is on a lease. "Your address" is where you, in fact, live.

2 Examples of Address Mistakes in Immigration Cases

Let me give you two actual examples of mistakes concerning residence / address that I've seen in my immigration practice.

1. A man files an I-751 petition to remove the conditions on his permanent residency. His wife lives in Massachusetts. He lives and works outside the state but visits on weekends. His underlying immigration petition depends on proving that his marriage is based on genuine relationship. And if USCIS were to discover that the couple were no longer living together, it would look bad. So he tries to conceal from USCIS the fact that she no longer lives in Massachusetts with his wife.
   
   
2. An individual files an application for adjustment of status (I-485). He does not live in Massachusetts but would prefer that his immigration case be processed at the USCIS Boston District Office. So he lists his cousin's address on his immigration forms.

Here we see two examples of the same problem. "Your address", i.e., the address you list on your immigration form, should be the place where you live, not where you want USCIS to think that you live.

Consequences of Giving Immigration Authorities an Address where you don't actually live

In marriage-based green card cases and I-751 petitions to remove the conditions on residency and on some naturalization applications, applicants bear the burden of proving that their marriage to a US citizen is based on a relationship that is genuine. Cohabitation is a key factor. Form G-325A and the I-751 petition both require disclosure of your history of addresses. You should expect USCIS or an Immigration Judge to carefully scrutinize your addresses to determine whether you and your spouse have been cohabitating.

Again, USCIS views the address you list on the immigration form as your principal place of residence. So if you list your address as the same as your spouse's, when, in fact, you are living elsewhere, you've just given false information in your immigration case. You should expect USCIS to investigate thoroughly your address using available public information such as financial documents, tax records, social media and internet searches. And for fraud investigations, USCIS makes house visits and speaks with neighbors.

The bottom line is that in any marriage based immigration case, if you list an address on an immigration form where you don't actually live, you are putting your case at risk of denial by giving immigration authorities false information. But having your immigration case denied is not the worst case scenario. According to USCIS internal guidelines on deportation, immigration officers issue Notice to Appear in Immigration Court for cases involving fraud.

Immigration consequences of failing to notify USCIS and Immigration Court of your current address

A second but different problem is failing to update USCIS and Immigration Court with your change of address. Remember that under INA §265 you must inform immigration of your change of address within 10 days. Failure to do so is grounds for deportation (although in my entire career as an immigration lawyer, I've never seen the Department of Homeland Security actually try to deport someone for failing to comply with the address requirement).

If you have an immigration case pending with USCIS, I recommend that you file Form AR-11 online and keep a copy of what you file for your records to confirm that you properly changed your address. If you are in deportation or removal proceedings and have a case before Immigration Court, changing your address is a bit tricky and may require the services of an immigration lawyer. To change your address, you have to fill out Form EOIR-33 in triplicate and on blue paper. File the form with the clerk at the Immigration Court (I hand-deliver all court filings) and then you must serve a copy of the EOIR-33 on the Office of Chief Counsel. Again, I hand-deliver, always.

More questions about Immigration and Addresses?

If you have more questions about how residence and address may impact your immigration case, or any other issue, please call me at 617-722-0005. I'd be happy to meet with you to discuss this

Continue reading "Make this simple mistake and your immigration case will be in trouble" »

Boston Immigration Lawyer News

Our immigration system cries out for urgent reform. As an attorney who fights for immigrant rights, I'm happy to report that Election Night, progressive organizations, including the American Immigration Lawyers Association, are sponsoring a rally for comprehensive immigration reform to be held from 8:00 to 10:00 PM in South Boston, outside of the Convention Center in the Seaport District, outside of the Romney Headquarters.

Those impacted by our broken immigration system are invited to speak at an open microphone. The more, the better.

After you've rocked the voted, come join us at the rally tomorrow!

DREAM Act Immigration Lawyer News

Greetings from Nashville, Tennessee! I've come here from Boston to attend the National Convention of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). And today, we immigration attorneys awoke to some wonderful news:  the Obama Administration announced a new immigration directive, the so-called DREAM Act, which will help countless  undocumented young people who, through no fault of their own, were brought the US as young children. When this DREAM Act immigration memorandum was announced at the lawyers convention this morning, crowds of immigration lawyers attending literally stood up and applauded.

The program is effective immediately. And U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Department of Homeland Security will implement the DREAM Act program within sixty days.

To be eligible for DREAM Act work permit and protection from deportation under what is known as Deferred Action, you must:

• have come to the U.S. under the age of 16
• have continuously resided in the U.S. for at least 5 years preceding the date of the DREAM Act memo's announcement
• have been physically present on June 15, 2012, the date the DREAM Act immigration program was announced;
• Currently be in school, have graduated from high school, have obtained a GED certificate, or are an honorably discharged vet.
• Have not been convicted of a felony offense, "significant" misdemeanor offense, or multiple misdemeanor offenses.
• Not above the age of 30.

Immigration lawyers expect that some 800,000 young people in the US may be eligible to apply for Deferred Action under DREAM Act. If approved, DREAM Act benefits include work permits and stay from deportation.

In the coming weeks, more information about the DREAM Act immigration directive will be announced as the U.S Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) begins to implement this new program.

How a Boston Dream Act Immigration Attorney Can Help You

Whether you can use the DREAM Act to stop your deportation or get a work permit depends on whether you qualify. Don't take chances by trying to apply on your own, without the advice and guidance of an experienced immigration lawyer. Call our Boston immigration office today to discuss your case with one of our attorneys.

Deportation Defense of Kong Xin Chen

Kong's arrest and the prospect that he could be deported has visibly shaken his community in Marshfield, Massachusetts, drawing the attention of the Boston Globe, the Quincy, MA Patriot Ledger and other Massachusetts newspapers. Kong's case has earned the sympathy of state and congressional representatives and prompted his community to rally around him. His supporters have created a Free Kong Now Website, organized a fundraiser to help support his family and flooded my office with heartbreaking letters of support.

This afternoon I got off the phone with Kong's brother and he told me the amazing news: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has released Kong from jail! Very soon, he should be back in Massachusetts reunited with his family, friends and supporters, all of whom must be ecstatic at this wonderful and unexpected news.

While Kong's immediate release is certainly something to celebrate, the legal battle to stop his deportation and to gain immigration status in the United States is far from over.

Here's some background on what happened and why. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement released Kong on his own recognizance (without requiring an immigration bond) under what is known as an Order of Supervision. Kong's release didn't come about because of my exceptionally brilliant legal work. And it doesn't mean that Kong got any sort of special treatment from the immigration system. Instead, he was released as part of the standard custody review protocol that ICE is required to follow for all non-criminal immigration detainees who, like Kong, are subject to final orders of removal or deportation. After returning to Massachusetts, as a condition for his release, Kong will be required to report in periodically at the ICE office in Burlington.

An Order of Supervision means that Kong is free for the time being but it doesn't directly confer any immigration status. It's just an alternative to detention and a temporary reprieve from a certain fate. In other words, while immigration authorities are arranging travel documents so that can be Kong forcibly deported from the United States, he will not have to remain in jail.

Even though he is free from jail, without further legal advocacy, Kong can still be deported at any moment. As part of our deportation defense strategy, the next steps, as I see it, are to request that the Department of Homeland Security exercise favorable prosecutorial discretion in several forms. First, we will ask the Office of Chief Counsel in New York, New York to consider filing a joint motion to reopen his deportation order in Immigration Court. Next, we will ask U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Enforcement and Removal Operations, Boston Field Office in Burlington, Massachusetts to grant deferred action, as well as a stay of deportation.

For all of you who care about Kong and his family, for fans of Mandarin Tokyo restaurant, once the celebrating is over, I urge you to redouble your efforts. Keep doing whatever it is that you've been doing.

Many concerned friends in the Marshfield, Massachusetts community and fans of Mandarin and Tokyo restaurant have contacted me and asked me for information on Kong's immigration / deportation case and what they can do to help. As Kong's immigration and deportation defense lawyer, on my immigration blog I explained earlier the legal predicament that Kong is in and why a detailed letter of support is the best way to help him out.

Now, we are preparing a formal request to the attorneys from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement that they review Kong's case in light of recently issued prosecutorial guidelines and that they consider joining Kong in a motion to reopen his in absentia deportation order. Since Kong has an order of removal or deportation from an Immigration Court in New York (not Boston), our request must go to the New York office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Here are some relevant question about this deportation case:

Once we have requested that the attorneys from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement reopen Kong's order of removal, can we also simultaneously request an immigration bond hearing so that an Immigration Judge could release Kong from custody? Unfortunately, we can't. Kong's isn't eligible to ask for bond because right now he has a final order of removal or deportation, which is why reopening this order is our first step.

Where would an immigration bond hearing taking place? If--and only if--the Immigration Court decides to reopen his case, Kong's bond hearing would likely be in Alabama, which is where he is currently detained. And at that point there would be no way to get the Immigration Court to hold a bond hearing in Boston Immigration Court.

Will Kong remain in jail for a bond hearing? Yes. For the time being, Kong is legally required to remain in the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement unless or until (a) his order of deportation or removal is reopened (b) Kong successfully requests immigration bond and (c) someone pays his immigration bond.

Can we request to get Kong back in a Massachusetts immigration jail? If Kong's order of removal or deportation is reopened, then we can request that he be released on the payment of an immigration bond. After bonding out, we could request a change of venue to move his deportation case to Immigration Court in Boston, Massachusetts. Unfortunately, right now, with a final order of removal, Kong has no legal basis to demand that he be moved to a jail in Massachusetts.

Are you filing the motion to reopen based on him not getting proper notice? No. I've closely reviewed Kong's file in Immigration Court and based on my reading of his proceedings, the record shows that Kong's former lawyer had adequate notice of the hearing but, through miscommunication with his lawyer, Kong did not. Kong's lack of actual notice will be a discretionary factor in our request for a joint motion to reopen. But because his lawyer did have notice of the hearing, Kong, in my professional opinion, could not successfully move to reopen his deportation order based exclusively on his lack of notice. And it would be extremely difficult for Kong to pin the blame on his former lawyer since these events took place more than a decade ago. This is why I believe that the best strategy is to seek a joint motion to reopen.

Once we have submitted our formal request for a joint motion to reopen Kong's case, how long will it take for attorneys for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to make a decision on our request?  My understanding is that it typically takes their office 90 days to make a decision on such discretionary requests. And, again, there would be no way to get Kong released from custody while our request is being considered.

I heard that since Kong has been in the United States for more then 10 years he can automatically file for a hearing in Immigration Court without reopening his order of deportation or enlisting the cooperation of attorneys for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Is this true? No, it's not. Kong doesn't have the legal right to reopen his case based on his presence in the United States for 10 years or more.

One final point: Since Kong has a final order of removal or deportation, he could be returned to his own at any moment and without advanced notice. If he were to be returned, it would be extremely difficult--maybe impossible--to get him back to the United States legally. My understanding of immigration laws is that a joint motion to reopen would not automatically serve as a stay of deportation. But common sense tells me the attorneys for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement wouldn't agree to reopen his order of deportation, while deporting him at the same time.

Prosecutorial Discretion and Joint Motion to Reopen

To the friends of Kong Xin's family and supports of the Mandarin Tokyo restaurant in Marshfield, Massachusetts, thank you for agreeing to help with a letter of support. As the immigration lawyer who is preparing Kong Xin's deportation defense case, I'm writing to give you some background on his case and to offer guidance on how to make your letter of support have as much impact as possible.

Kong Xin is currently in jail in the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement because he has a in absentia order of removal or deportation from more than ten years ago. Kong Xin was ordered to be deported at a hearing he didn't attend. Through miscommunication with his former lawyer, Kong Xin missed his hearing because he never had actual notice of the time and date of the hearing.

Even though Kong Xin is married to a U.S. citizen and has U.S. citizen children, he cannot apply for a green card because he has this existing order of removal or deportation. To removal this obstacle, he needs the Immigration Judge to reopen his deportation order, which would allow him to apply for a green card through marriage and request a hearing that may allow him to be released upon the payment of an immigration bond.

As Kong Xin's immigration lawyer, I believe that the best strategy is to ask attorneys for the Department of Homeland Security to join Kong Xin in requesting that the Immigration Judge reopen his case. You may have heard in the news that the Obama Administration recently issued new guidelines for prosecutorial discretion in deportation cases. The stated goal is to prioritize the deportation of criminals, while treating more favorably those who present positive equities. Along these lines, we are asking attorneys from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to reopen Kong Xin's case out of the goodness of their hearts.

In support of our request, we would like a letter from you explaining why you believe the Department of Homeland Security should join Kong Xin in making this request. It is important for your letter to be based on your own personal experience and to be as detailed as possible. Your letter should address the following:

1. Discuss your relationship with Kong Xin. Describe how you met him, how long you have known him, and under what circumstances you interact with him. Please give examples from your own personal experience showing that Kong Xin is a good person who takes care of his family and contributes to his community.

2. Describe the extreme hardship that Kong Xin's wife and children would face if he were deported to China. While Kong Xin would certainly suffer, it is much more important to explain how Kong Xin's U.S. citizen family would suffer if he were deported. 

3. Describe how important Kong Xin is to you and your community and how his forced deportation and possible absence would negatively impact you and the community at large.

Make sure your letter includes your name, address, and whether you are a citizen or legal permanent resident of the United States. Your letter should be addressed to "Dear Sir or Madam" at:

U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Office of District Counsel
26 Federal Plaza - Room 1237
New York, New York 10278

Re: Request for Joint Motion to Reopen In Absentia Order of Removal
Kong Xin CHEN, A073-649-669
Detained

Do NOT send your letter directly to the Department of Homeland Security. Please send it to me by February 15, 2012 or as soon as possible thereafter. I will submit your letter, along with others, in a packet of other documentation. Your letter should be dated and signed in ink. Above your signature, please include the words: "Under the pains and penalties of perjury, I declare that this statement is true and correct to the best of my information and belief." Notarizing your signature would be helpful but is not essential or required.

Please feel free to email me if you have any questions. On behalf of Kong Xin and his family, I would like to thank you in advance for your help and cooperation.

Finally, at least for the time being, I do NOT recommend that you call a Massachusetts politician (e.g., Senator Scott Brown, Congressman Bill Keating) or alert the media. Our first and most important effort should be gathering as many high quality letters of support as possible. After we submit our formal request for prosecutorial discretion, we can shift our focus to media and congressional assistance.

I will be posting more information on Kong Xin's case as soon as I know more.

Boston Immigration Court News

This week, I had a detained deportation trial in Boston Immigration Court. My client, a permanent resident who had lived in the United States for over twenty years, was facing deportation to Pakistan, a country where he knew no one and didn't speak the language. He entered Boston Immigration Court in chains and an orange jumpsuit and walked out of court knowing that he would soon be a free man and a could continue his life in the U.S. with this green card.

Allow me to explain how I won the case:

The Department of Homeland Security had arrested my client and detained him at the Plymouth County House of Correction in Plymouth, Massachusetts. Interestingly, my client was arrested in Connecticut but because Hartford Immigration Court has not detained docket, he was transferred to a facility in Massachusetts so that his deportation trial could be placed on the docket of Boston Immigration Court. In Boston, Immigration Judge Steven Day exclusively handles the detained docket for all deportation cases in all of New England (Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, Connecticut, Massachusetts and New Hampshire).

My client was facing the prospect of being deported because of a criminal case that had concluded many years before. Initially, Immigration and Customs Enforcement charged my client with having a criminal conviction that was classified as "aggravated felony." But, after I reviewed the record of conviction (especially the plea colloquy), I realized that, in fact, he had pled guilty to a divisible statue. This means that he was convicted of a statute that included several different offense, some of the included offenses were aggravated felonies, while others were not.

Based on this research, I successfully challenged Immigration and Custom's Enforcements' allegation that my client had an aggravated felony conviction. This was a crucial victory because even though my client was still deportable, by eliminating the aggravated felony conviction, my client became eligible for relief in the form of cancellation of removal for certain lawful permanent residents.

Cancellation of removal is essentially a way of asking the Immigration Judge for a second chance. The standard is a balancing of the equities where the Immigration Judge weighs a range of factors including the severity of the applicant's criminal offense, the recency of the criminal record, the hardship imposed by a possible deportation, as well as any other positive or negative equities.

In support of my client's application for cancellation of removal, I prepared a detailed affidavit of his proposed testimony in Immigration Court. This gave my client an opportunity to tell his life story. Most importantly, he explained why he was unlikely to have problems with the law in the future. And, at the end of the deportation hearing, Boston Immigration Judge Steven Day granted the application for cancellation of removal, a hard won victory for my client.

If you or someone you know is facing deportation and needs and aggressive and effective attorney for representation in Boston Immigration Court, please call me. I'd be happy to review your case and help out outline a winning deportation defense strategy.

Boston Green Card Lawyer News

If you live in Massachusetts and are seeking a green card based on marriage, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has a new way of conducting adjustment of status interviews.

At issue is whether the marriage is based on a relationship that the couple entered into for genuine, bona fide reasons. Traditionally, an immigration officer would conduct the marriage-based green card interview by sitting down together with the husband and wife together at the same time. The officer would question the couple and try to figure out whether the relationship was genuine or fraudulent.

Now, the new procedure is to interview the husband and wife separately starting with the visa petitioner (U.S. citizen). The immigration officer asks both the husband and the wife the same question in separate interviews. There are no wrong answers--only same or different. The separate interviews are now standard procedure at USCIS Boston and Lawrence District Offices for all marriage-based green card adjustment of status cases.

As an immigration lawyer, my experience with the separate marriage-based green card interviews has been fairly positive. The questions seem reasonable, fair and designed to weed out marriage fraud and to make sure that the couple really know each other well, as any genuinely couple would.

I can offer you three general pieces of advice: first, make sure that you and your spouse know each other well. Don't hide important but potentially embarrassing personal information such as a divorce or a criminal history from your spouse. To get your green card, your husband or wife will need to know everything there is to know about you. The immigration process is not the time for secrets.

Second, if an immigration officer asks you a question, don't respond with a guess. If you don't know the answer, just say that you don't know! If you guess and your answer doesn't line up with your spouse's answer, the officer could conclude that your marriage is not based on a genuine relationship. If so, your immigration case could be referred to USCIS fraud unit and, eventually, be denied.

Third, hire an good immigration lawyer! I work with clients who are seeking a green card through marriage to prepare thoroughly or the adjustment of status interviews. I've handled countless cases and can help you fix problems before the immigration interview.

For more information about the marriage based green card process, please call my Boston immigration law office at 617-722-0005. I'd be happy to help.

Boston Immigration Court News

Boston Immigration Court has announced the appointment of a new Immigration Judge. Steven Day, a retired Marine and former appellate attorney with the Office of Immigration Litigation, will be filling the vacancy created when Immigration Judge Francis Cramer retired. As with custom, Immigration Judge Steven Day will complete in-house training program at for immigration judges and then serve temporarily at Immigration Court in Newark, New Jersey. Immigration Judge Steven Day is expected to begin hearing deportation cases in Boston starting in April.

In another big personnel change, Immigration Judge Eliza Klein will be leaving Boston Immigration Court and has accepted a transfer to the Chicago Immigration Court. This is a transfer she had requested. She will arrive in that Immigration Court during July. So, with Judge Klein's departure, it remains to be seen who will fill this vacancy on the bench in Boston Immigration Court.

It's official for immigration lawyers in Boston:  the Boston Globe is reporting that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be moving from the JFK Federal Building to South Boston. More precisely, the immigration office will be at 5 Channel Center, a building in the Fort Point Channel area of South Boston that used to be artist studios. The move will take place in 2012.

I consider myself to be an effective immigration lawyer. Want a green card? I can show you the options and assess your chances. Have some complicated legal issues but still interested in applying for naturalization to be a U.S. citizen? Or do you need an attorney to represent you in Immigration Court? I can help.

But, as I'm an immigration lawyer in Boston, sometimes I get downright stumped. Here are some frequently asked questions that I have no idea how to answer:

My grandparents/great grandparents/great great grandparents were born in Italy/Ireland. How do I, as a U.S. citizen, obtain Irish/Italian citizenship? The answer is . . . I don't know! I'm a U.S. immigration lawyer but don't know about the laws of foreign countries.

Where can I find a lawyer who can advise me about how U.S. citizens can obtain Irish/Italian citizenship? Again, I don't know the answer. But to find legal advice on issues of Italian or Irish law, I'd look for a lawyer based in Dublin, Milan, etc.

Would it be possible for me to leave the U.S., enter Canada and apply for immigration status there? I love Canada--everyone does. I just don't know anything about Canadian law. For advice on Canadian immigration law, look for a lawyer in Toronto, Montreal, etc.

At the airport, I was refused entry into the U.K. This was unfair. Can you help me do something about it? Again, as a U.S. lawyer, I can't advise you on issues of U.K. law.

The common thread, of course, as that I can only answers questions about U.S. immigration law. Few, if any, lawyers based in the U.S. are licensed to practice in and experts on immigration laws in foreign countries.

So I welcome your questions on topics within my area of expertise--green card, work permits, citizenship and Immigration Court. Just make sure your questions relate to U.S. immigration law.

Green Card Lawyer Boston

At a meeting in my immigration law office in Boston, a potential client recently asked me this question:

I'm interested in hiring an immigration lawyer to prepare my green card case. But is it risky to use an immigration lawyer? I'm concerned that if USCIS sees that I have an immigration lawyer, the immigration officer might get suspicious. By using an immigration lawyer, perhaps the officer will presume that my case has some problem or issue.

The notion that an immigration officer will suspect that your case has some problem simply because you have hired an immigration lawyer is utter nonsense--a complete myth. Everyone has the legal right to be represented by an immigration lawyer of their own choosing. In my experience, using an immigration lawyer never generates suspicion that your case has a problem.

Anyone can fill in your name and address on an immigration form. But only an experienced, effective immigration attorney can spot issues before they crop up. If you decide to prepare your immigration case on your own, without an immigration lawyer, you do so at your own peril. You may think that you don't need an immigration lawyer because you assume that your case is easy. But without an immigration lawyer, you can't be sure that you've seen all the relevant issues. You might need a complicated immigration waiver and not even know it!

So, you now know that if you need help with an immigration issue, you can feel free to hire me or consult with me without fear of reprisal!