Now that my firm is up and running, my law partner and I have started to see a very large trend in connection with the type of inquiries we receive. As you can probably guess by the heading of this particular post, many of the inquiries we get are regarding immigration issues.
We have generally received calls on two main areas of immigration law:
1. Removal Cases; and
2. Visa/Green Card Cases.
What is very interesting to me is that the processes for these types of cases is completely different from one and other. I will start by discussing the Removal cases first then move on to an abbreviated explanation of the Visa process.
Removal Cases
The process of removal has changed in the last few years. This can be attributed mainly as a security enhancement due to the effects of 9/11. However, with the change it has become increasing difficult to be a permanent or any visa'd alien in this country. Mainly because any felony now may result in the initiation of a removal proceeding. This is the case even in situations where the resident has been a law abiding citizen for many many years.
The process itself is similar to any other trial. The alien receives a notice that DHS (Homeland Security) has initiated removal proceedings and that the alien must show up for a Master Calender Hearing. At this hearing the alien is made aware of the ability to receive legal counsel, the legal assertions for removal by the DHS, and the schedule of the proceedings hearings. The trial-like proceedings continue to prove or disprove the alien's removal status.
One of the most popular options in the past to beat these proceedings was citizenship through marriage. However, this process has been made incredibly difficult for many as well. The burden of proof on the couple (and especially the alien in removal) is a bonafide relationship as proven by "clear and convincing" evidence. For the lay person this is essentially the highest evidentiary burden in existence. Therefore, it is pertinent that someone making this argument has direct evidence or shared living, bank accounts, etc. Without these forms of evidence it is more likely than not that DHS will refuse to grant the marriage petition.
Moving on...
Visas/Green Cards
The Visa process has also become more difficult to navigate since 9/11. In many ways, the rules have gotten tighter for those looking to receive entrance. For instance, family members are now sorted into categories of preference when it comes to visa issuance. To obtain an immigrant visa for a cousin is much more difficult than getting one for someone's mother. Additionally, the process, fees, forms, and documentation of support are often misleading and confusing. For example, most accepted initial petitions are then followed by a fee and filing of an affidavit of support. However, there are an upwards of 5 to 6 documents promulgated by the USCIS (who is in charge of immigration) entitled "Affidavit of Support." This makes the process difficult for someone who has little education or, as in many cases, zero understanding of the confusing requirements.
Therefore, my suggestion (even though semi-self-serving) is that you seek legal help with these matters because what may seem simple at first glance can become a mountain of paperwork. With the help of an attorney the process can be broken down into explainable chunks.
Monday, December 12, 2011
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Back In The Saddle
Well... it has been a very long time since I have sat down and written anything for this blog. This can be attributed to a number of things.
First, I got married last month (exactly to this day) to the love of my life who has been supportive of my decision to open a practice out of law school.
Second, I went a 10 day honeymoon with my wife to the paradise of Belize which I suggest to anyone who is willing to give it a try. However, it was after I returned from the trip that things began to run at light-speed. Before I had left my law partner and I had managed to get the shell of our firm set up. This included filing for and EIN and tax ID, filling for incorporation, developing a business plan, and submitting applications for financing or credit.
Everything was going great except that banks were unwilling to loan a start-up law firm ANY amount of money. In retrospect, Scott (my law partner) and I were asking for a pittance, but that didn't matter. Two brand spanking new attorneys were not going to receive any bank assistance unless they were able to put up a 1/4 of the start-up costs on their own. So after battling with banks over that for a couple of weeks we decided to start with what we had.
I am proud to say that, despite the ups and down over the last two months, Yoo & Osborne, PLLC is open for business. We are now launching a marketing plan that will cover a number of different demographics in our geographic area. Our firm can handle any case that a small firm is equipped for including, but not limited to, DUI defense, family matters, business planning, wills/estates, and other civil matters.
Again, I would like to thank everyone for their support through this entire process especially my wife Shirley and law partner Scott.
Be on the alert for more blog posts in the coming days.
First, I got married last month (exactly to this day) to the love of my life who has been supportive of my decision to open a practice out of law school.
Second, I went a 10 day honeymoon with my wife to the paradise of Belize which I suggest to anyone who is willing to give it a try. However, it was after I returned from the trip that things began to run at light-speed. Before I had left my law partner and I had managed to get the shell of our firm set up. This included filing for and EIN and tax ID, filling for incorporation, developing a business plan, and submitting applications for financing or credit.
Everything was going great except that banks were unwilling to loan a start-up law firm ANY amount of money. In retrospect, Scott (my law partner) and I were asking for a pittance, but that didn't matter. Two brand spanking new attorneys were not going to receive any bank assistance unless they were able to put up a 1/4 of the start-up costs on their own. So after battling with banks over that for a couple of weeks we decided to start with what we had.
I am proud to say that, despite the ups and down over the last two months, Yoo & Osborne, PLLC is open for business. We are now launching a marketing plan that will cover a number of different demographics in our geographic area. Our firm can handle any case that a small firm is equipped for including, but not limited to, DUI defense, family matters, business planning, wills/estates, and other civil matters.
Again, I would like to thank everyone for their support through this entire process especially my wife Shirley and law partner Scott.
Be on the alert for more blog posts in the coming days.
Friday, August 26, 2011
Can We Hold Criminals Liable For Investigatory Expenses?
Okay, it is very likely that I will take a large amount of flak for this post. I have prepared to get more hate e-mail like I did the day of the trial, but this post will focus on some developments in the Case Anthony trial (I know I will spare whipping the overkilled horse...trust me). While many of you know my views on our justice system and the outcome of her trial I just found an interesting report stating that the state of Florida is, in fact, suing Anthony for the reimbursement of investigatory services linked to searching for her daughter. You can see the story here.
If you read the story you see that the state is making a claim against Ms. Anthony for $293,123.77. And if you have any sense of how the legal system works you must be scratching your head like I did. Does Florida honestly believe she is going to pay this? At a minimum this is just an act to drain Anthony of any funds she may get from appearances, book deals, or a movie 9all of which have been proposed).
However, before she has to pay a judge will have to rule on the merits of the case and issue a judgement in favor of the state. MARK MY WORDS, any judge that issues that type of judgment will likely quit his/her job because it is political and public suicide. Not to mention the appeal-ability of this type of claim. I have done some research and was unable to find any state or federal precedent for this type of suit. Florida is trying to support its case by pointing to Anthony's convictions as a miscarriage and inhibition of the investigation leading to the exorbitant expenses. Yet, being that this case is unsupported by LAW it is very likely this claim will be tied up in the appellate courts for a very long time.
Alternatively, and additionally, do we really want the police to succeed on these types of claims? By allowing this form of restitution it may be that the police are just getting double paid for something they were under a duty to do in the first place. Again, this seems like a case where the state is attempting to capitalize on Anthony's projected fame.
I will be watching this issue pretty closely because it will open a HUGE can of worms for "celebrity bad boys and girls." The court appearance on the issue is slated for September 2, 2011.
If you read the story you see that the state is making a claim against Ms. Anthony for $293,123.77. And if you have any sense of how the legal system works you must be scratching your head like I did. Does Florida honestly believe she is going to pay this? At a minimum this is just an act to drain Anthony of any funds she may get from appearances, book deals, or a movie 9all of which have been proposed).
However, before she has to pay a judge will have to rule on the merits of the case and issue a judgement in favor of the state. MARK MY WORDS, any judge that issues that type of judgment will likely quit his/her job because it is political and public suicide. Not to mention the appeal-ability of this type of claim. I have done some research and was unable to find any state or federal precedent for this type of suit. Florida is trying to support its case by pointing to Anthony's convictions as a miscarriage and inhibition of the investigation leading to the exorbitant expenses. Yet, being that this case is unsupported by LAW it is very likely this claim will be tied up in the appellate courts for a very long time.
Alternatively, and additionally, do we really want the police to succeed on these types of claims? By allowing this form of restitution it may be that the police are just getting double paid for something they were under a duty to do in the first place. Again, this seems like a case where the state is attempting to capitalize on Anthony's projected fame.
I will be watching this issue pretty closely because it will open a HUGE can of worms for "celebrity bad boys and girls." The court appearance on the issue is slated for September 2, 2011.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Can Teenage Driving Laws Prevent Tragedy?
I would like to begin this post by saying that the following topic is the result of a close-to-home tragedy that occurred just over the river in Linwood, NJ. Some of you may know that a recent roll over car accident cost Linwood four high school football players. My heart and prayers are with the families of the players and the community at Linwood. An article about the players can be found on Sports Illustrated.
This brings me to the point of this article. Should there be teenage driving laws that restrict the number of passengers that a teenager may have in a vehicle while behind the wheel? This issue has been particularly hot lately and I personally have heard of proposed legislation in three states (New York, Pennsylvania, and Michigan). Currently each of these states have what I'll describe as an age cap ban which allows others 18 or 21 and older to ride plus an additional under 18 passenger. However, in New Jersey the only exception to the law is passengers that are dependents of the teenage driver.
In the Linwood case, there were eight passengers all under the age of 18; therefore, in violation of New Jersey law. However, from what I understand the cause of the accident is still in the wind (unknown). Commentators are not willing to say what everyone in the state legislature had lobbied. That is that the cause was too many distractions due to the number of teenagers in the vehicle. Personally, I think it is respectful not to criticize the actions of the deceased, but then how do we really tackle this issue.
Out of personal experiences (and the fact that I am not that far removed from teen-hood) I can tell you that there have been times when I have been distracted by friends in my car. Interestingly though, is that in the few accidents I have been in, I have never had another passenger in the car. For this reason alone, I feel that laws prohibiting the number of teen passenger in a vehicle operated by a teenager is practically worthless.
Additionally, if we look at other laws passed for traffic safety as a deterrent for certain vehicular activity we find that many laws are not followed closely. Cruising at 5 m.p.h. over the speed limit has become acceptable, talking and texting while driving, and even drinking then driving are all enforceable legislation, but seem to lack bite. Instead, we continue to see rising levels in fatal car accidents.
I don't believe the tragedy in Linwood could have been prevented by having less passengers in the vehicle, but does this mean the law in place was ineffective? You tell me.
Friday, August 19, 2011
Flash Mobs--All The Craze These Days
I am not sure how many people are aware of the recent rash of flash mobs of teens roving some of the major cities of the United States. Two cities that come to mind are Kansas City (the suspected birthplace of this activity) and right here in Philly.
So, what exactly are these teens doing that is causing such a fuss? Since May (in Philly), there has been a rise in violent random attacks by mobs on passersby. This has been attributed to many different things including teenage boredom, lack of facilities open late at night for teens, and, of course, poor parental supervision. Personally, I feel as though the last choice is totally incorrect; however, the mayor and others in control of local government disagree with me. So, their choice was to impose a curfew in Center City. Those under 18 must be out certain downtown areas after 9 p.m. unless they are accompanied by a parent or guardian (an not some random adult). Additionally, the teen may prove that he or she is on her way home or somewhere to meet an appropriate adult supervisor.
The next obvious question is, what are the penalties for violating the curfew? First, any teen found on the street after the curfew that is unable to meet the burden of proof described above will be taken into custody by police. The teen is transported to a local precinct or sub-station and put in a special holding area while the teen's parents are contacted. The teen and parent both face fines that increase if the teen is caught in violation again. Additionally (and arguably my least favorite part of this curfew), the parent or legal guardian of a teen will be subject to stiffer penalties if they do not report to the precinct or sub-station to retrieve their truant teen. To interject my feelings, I was raised under the adage "If you are picked up by the police don't expect to be bailed out until the morning." Honestly, I am not sure whether my parents were being serious or not but, I never thought of testing that theory.
Mayor Nutter has seriously cracked down on the mob violence in Center City, but I am not sure he is doing it in a legally appropriate manner. We all know of instances where stubborn teens wind up doing what they want (even against the wishes or demands of their parents or guardians). Parents should be held responsible for their children, but at what cost? Should there be a hearing to determine whether the child is acting out against the parent. It seems that fining a parent may not be a very strong deterrent.
In the first weekend of the curfew almost 70 teens were placed in custody at precincts or sub-stations. Many of the parents claimed that they did not know of the curfew, but, as many of you readers will think to yourself, ignorance of the law is no defense. Besides, it has been all over the TV, in the papers, on the radio, and I have personally heard talk of it in the suburbs that are not even affected by mob violence.
Is there a better way to deal with this? You decide.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE:
The Philadelphia PD reported that another 34 teens were detained for violating the curfew this past weekend.
So, what exactly are these teens doing that is causing such a fuss? Since May (in Philly), there has been a rise in violent random attacks by mobs on passersby. This has been attributed to many different things including teenage boredom, lack of facilities open late at night for teens, and, of course, poor parental supervision. Personally, I feel as though the last choice is totally incorrect; however, the mayor and others in control of local government disagree with me. So, their choice was to impose a curfew in Center City. Those under 18 must be out certain downtown areas after 9 p.m. unless they are accompanied by a parent or guardian (an not some random adult). Additionally, the teen may prove that he or she is on her way home or somewhere to meet an appropriate adult supervisor.
The next obvious question is, what are the penalties for violating the curfew? First, any teen found on the street after the curfew that is unable to meet the burden of proof described above will be taken into custody by police. The teen is transported to a local precinct or sub-station and put in a special holding area while the teen's parents are contacted. The teen and parent both face fines that increase if the teen is caught in violation again. Additionally (and arguably my least favorite part of this curfew), the parent or legal guardian of a teen will be subject to stiffer penalties if they do not report to the precinct or sub-station to retrieve their truant teen. To interject my feelings, I was raised under the adage "If you are picked up by the police don't expect to be bailed out until the morning." Honestly, I am not sure whether my parents were being serious or not but, I never thought of testing that theory.
Mayor Nutter has seriously cracked down on the mob violence in Center City, but I am not sure he is doing it in a legally appropriate manner. We all know of instances where stubborn teens wind up doing what they want (even against the wishes or demands of their parents or guardians). Parents should be held responsible for their children, but at what cost? Should there be a hearing to determine whether the child is acting out against the parent. It seems that fining a parent may not be a very strong deterrent.
In the first weekend of the curfew almost 70 teens were placed in custody at precincts or sub-stations. Many of the parents claimed that they did not know of the curfew, but, as many of you readers will think to yourself, ignorance of the law is no defense. Besides, it has been all over the TV, in the papers, on the radio, and I have personally heard talk of it in the suburbs that are not even affected by mob violence.
Is there a better way to deal with this? You decide.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE:
The Philadelphia PD reported that another 34 teens were detained for violating the curfew this past weekend.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Switched Blog Sites
I have been spending the last few hours moving everything over from Tumblr to Blogger. This is mainly due to Tumblr's persistent cutting of services to its users and changes to the interface that I didn't personally prefer. Anyway, this site seems to be a little more appropriate for my needs and will make it easier for me to keep you up to date.
Thanks,
Brad
Thanks,
Brad
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)