SC: Foreign divorce obtained by Filipino from foreign spouse now recognized

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court decided last Tuesday that a foreign divorce secured by a Filipino from their foreign spouse will now be considered as valid in the Philippines. 

The decision comes in relation to the case of Marelyn Tanedo Manalo, a Filipino, whose petition for divorce from her Japanese spouse, a certain Minoru Yoshino, was granted by the Japanese court on December 6, 2011. 

Manalo then filed a petition for cancelation of marriage on January 10, 2012 in a Dagupan court so that the foreign divorce can be recognized in the Philippines. However, the Dagupan court denied her petition ruling that Article 26(2) of the Family Code did not apply because it was the Filipino spouse that initiated the divorce. 

Article 26(2) provides that “where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law.”

Manalo then appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals who overturned the lower court’s decision ruling that Article 26 of the Family Code applies since the Japanese spouse is now already free to remarry thus Manalo must also be free to remarry. 

The appellate court held that it would be the unjust and discriminatory to hold the Filipino spouse to still be married to the foreign spouse who, because of the divorce, is no longer married to the Filipino spouse. 

The appellate court also held that the non-recognition of the divorce filed by the Filipino spouse would result in an “inconsistency between the recognition of the effectivity of the foreign judgment and public records in the Philippines.”

The Office of the Solicitor General appealed the decision of the appellate court to the Supreme Court, which, in turn, sustained the ruling, voting 10-3-1. The three dissenting magistrates were Associate Justices Mariano del Castillo, Estela Perlas-Bernabe, and Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa. Associate Justice Francis Jardeleza inhibited from the case while Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno is still on leave from her office. 

The decision comes in the wake of the passage of the divorce bill in the lower house of the Philippine Congress. 

On March 19, the lower house of Congress approved House Bill 7303 or “An Act Instituting Absolute Divorce and Dissolution of Marriage in the Philippines.” The bill aims to legalize divorce in the Philippines. 

The approved bill is now set to be received by the Senate. However, several senators have already stated their opposition to the bill. President Rodrigo Duterte has likewise expressed his opposition to divorce during the 2016 presidential debates. His opposition was reiterated by presidential spokesman Harry Roque just hours before the voting at the lower house. 

The Philippines and the Vatican are the only states in the world where divorce is not allowed.

Ryan Barshop

http://bridgewayimmigration.com/blog

Article Disclaimer: This article is made available by the lawyer publisher for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. Use of this article does not create an Attorney Client Relationship. This article does not offer or dispense legal advice. By using the article, the reader agrees that the information does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created. The article is not a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction. The information on the article may be changed without notice and is not guaranteed to be complete, correct or up-to-date. The opinions expressed at or through the article are the opinions of the individual author. The article should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your jurisdiction.

Fraud in Obtaining US Visas

Every year, hundreds of thousands of Filipinos apply for a U.S. visa, whether it be for tourist purposes or to become an immigrant to live out the American dream. However, some have found the process to be too long or the risk of denial to be too great. To ensure approvals, they look to other avenues for help in getting their U.S. visas approved so they can enter the United States. 

Some make use of visa agents who assure the approval of U.S. visas. Some visa agents provide their clients with documents such as fake passports or identities with an approved U.S. visa. They assure their clients that it is okay to travel under the fake documents. Other visa agents provide fake documents such as bank books, bank certifications, deeds of sale of real property, tax documents and business registration certificates to prove financial capacity to travel to the United States and to establish legitimate ties to their country of origin. Those seeking U.S. visas pay fees ranging from exorbitant, non-refundable fees for orientation, coaching and the fake documents. If they are successful in their visa applications, the applicants are required to pay their visa agents a “success fee,” which is just as exorbitant, if not more. 

In scenarios like these, it is not just the visa agencies that may be criminally charged. The applicants will also face consequences such as deportation for their use of fake documents.

On the other hand, some make use of recruiters who take advantage of the applicant’s economic needs. As it could take years for visas to be approved, it is hard to predict what needs will have to be met by the workers. Recruiters have the advantage of being able to move people around according to the demand. However, applicants don’t realize the underlying risks of signing with a recruiter. There are some instances where the applicant signs contracts wherein their recruiters take a percent of their salary or they are paid less than the minimum wage. The recruiters hold them hostage to their contracts through the constant threat of deportation. The workers become especially vulnerable due to their lack of knowledge and understanding of what it takes to get a new contract to maintain their visa. 

Applicants from the Philippines should be wary of visa agencies and recruiters that are using illegal means to obtain a visa to the United States. They should be more circumspect in choosing immigration consultants lest they fall victim to unscrupulous groups. In doing so, applicants should be informed that only licensed attorneys can legally offer immigration assistance. 

Ryan Barshop

http://bridgewayimmigration.com/blog

Article Disclaimer: This article is made available by the lawyer publisher for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. Use of this article does not create an Attorney Client Relationship. This article does not offer or dispense legal advice. By using the article, the reader agrees that the information does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created. The article is not a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction. The information on the article may be changed without notice and is not guaranteed to be complete, correct or up-to-date. The opinions expressed at or through the article are the opinions of the individual author. The article should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your jurisdiction.

Changes in Immigration Policy

A series of small moves concerning the immigration policy of the US have been undertaken in the past week by the Trump administration. 

CNN reports the following actions made by the administration:

• Attorney General Jeff Sessions has issued a Decision directing the Board of Immigration Appeals to refer cases for his review when said cases have issues relating to when there is “good cause” to grant a continuance for a collateral matter to be adjudicated. Under this Decision, the Board’s decisions on the matter are automatically stayed pending the Attorney General’s review. 


• On 27 March 2018, President Donald Trump issued a Memorandum finding that the conditions in Liberia no longer warrant the extension of the Deferred Enforcement Departure (DED).  Due to the conflicts in Liberia, the DED was first authorized by President Clinton in 1999 to allow certain Liberian nationals and persons without nationality who last habitually resided in Liberia to remain in the U.S when they would otherwise have been deported. The DED for Liberians were repeatedly extended by President Bush and President Obama. 


• The Commerce Department announced that it will include a question on citizenship in the 2020 Census.


• The Immigration and Customs Enforcement announced a new directive wherein immigration officers will no longer default to trying to release pregnant women in immigration custody but will instead require a case-by-case evaluation.


• The State Department proposed that applicants for visas and alien registration be required to submit five years of identifiers for certain social media platforms, previously used telephone numbers, email addresses, and international travel.


• The Department of Homeland Security confirmed that the White House is reviewing a proposal requiring immigration caseworkers to consider a wider range of factors to determine whether an applicant is likely to become dependent on public assistance. The proposal seeks to define the term “public charge” as used in the Immigration and Nationality Act and to define the types of public benefits that are considered in the determinations. U.S. Law authorizes the rejection of immigrants if they are likely to become a “public charge.”


• The Department of Justice and the City of West Spring Palm Beach announced that it has reached an agreement regarding West Palm Beach’s Resolution Number 112-17. The City agreed to issue a memorandum stating its position that its local laws do not restrict information sharing with the DHS.

Immigration lawyers say that the greater scrutiny of visa applications have slowed down the process and have set the bar higher for longstanding categories of visas.

Ryan Barshop

http://bridgewayimmigration.com/blog

Article Disclaimer: This article is made available by the lawyer publisher for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. Use of this article does not create an Attorney Client Relationship. This article does not offer or dispense legal advice. By using the article, the reader agrees that the information does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created. The article is not a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction. The information on the article may be changed without notice and is not guaranteed to be complete, correct or up-to-date. The opinions expressed at or through the article are the opinions of the individual author. The article should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your jurisdiction.

U.S. To Require Visa Applicants To Disclose Social Media Handles

             

In a notice posted on March 30, 2018, the State Department is proposing to revise the collection of biographical information from nearly all visa applicants by requiring them to provide their social media identities on certain social media platforms during the five years preceding the date of application – with an option to list handles not explicitly required.

The proposal follows the Trump administration’s promise of “extreme vetting” of foreigners entering the U.S. to prevent terrorism. 

It is also an extension of the previous administration’s instructions to collect social media identifiers when the State Department determines “that such information is required to confirm identity or conduct more rigorous national security vetting.”

Greater attention was placed on immigrants’ social media use after it was revealed that one of the attackers of the 2015 San Bernardino terrorist attack had, under a pseudonym, advocated jihad in posts on a private social media account. Authorities did not find the account until after she was allowed entry into the U.S. 

If approved, approximately 15 million people will be affected annually, including applicants for permanent residency.

Some expressed their concerns on the proposal’s effects on freedom of speech and association and on privacy.

On a more practical note, critics also complain that the proposal would make it harder to legally immigrate to the U.S. as the proposal would make the process slower.

In addition, the State Department also proposes to require information on five years of previously used telephone numbers, email addresses, and international travel, and whether specified family members have been involved in terrorist activities, regardless of visa application. For applicants for Immigration Visa and Alien Registration, applicants will be required to disclose all prior immigration violations while applicants for Nonimmigrant visa will be asked whether they have been deported or removed from any country.

The State Department intends not to routinely ask the question of applicants for most diplomatic and official visa applicants.

Upon its publication, the public has 60 days, or until May 29, 2018, to comment on the proposal. 

Ryan Barshop

http://bridgewayimmigration.com/blog

Article Disclaimer: This article is made available by the lawyer publisher for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. Use of this article does not create an Attorney Client Relationship. This article does not offer or dispense legal advice. By using the article, the reader agrees that the information does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created. The article is not a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction. The information on the article may be changed without notice and is not guaranteed to be complete, correct or up-to-date. The opinions expressed at or through the article are the opinions of the individual author. The article should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your jurisdiction.