How to Apply for Naturalization if your American Spouse is Stationed Abroad

Filipino spouses of American citizens are generally eligible for permanent residency and, eventually naturalization based on their marriage. In general, a Filipino spouse may only be naturalized after showing that they have resided continuously as a green card holders within the United States for a certain prescribed period of time. These requirements are called the residency and physical presence requirements. The issue then arises, what about those Filipino citizens who are married to an American citizen, but the couple is living and raising a family in the Philippines. How are they expected to meet the residency and physical presence requirements under U.S. immigration law? 

To address this situation, Act 319(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides for an exception to the residency and physical presence requirements for a Filipino spouse of a U.S. citizen who is regularly stationed abroad under a qualifying employment. A qualifying employment abroad means that the American spouse must be stationed abroad for at least one year under an employment contract or order in any of the following entities or position: 

• Government of the United States (including the U.S. armed forces); 

• American institution of research recognized by the Attorney General; 

• American firm or corporation engaged in whole or in part in the development of foreign trade and commerce of the United States or a subsidiary thereof; 

• Public international organization in which the United States participates by treaty or statute; 

• Authorized to perform the ministerial or priestly functions of a religious denomination having a bona fide organization within the United States; or 

• Engaged solely as a missionary by a religious denomination or by an interdenominational organization having a bona fide organization within the United States. 

To qualify for naturalization under Act 319(B) of the INA, the spouse must establish that he or she meets the following criteria: 

• 18 years or older at the time of filing; 

• A lawful permanent resident at the time of filing of the naturalization application; 

• Continue to be the spouse of the U.S. citizen regularly stationed abroad in qualifying employment for at least one year; 

• Married to a U.S. citizen regularly stationed abroad in qualifying employment for at least a year; 

• Has a good faith intent to reside abroad with the U.S. citizen spouse upon naturalization and to reside in the United States immediately upon the citizen’s termination of employment abroad; 

• Establish that he or she will depart to join the citizen spouse within 30 to 45 days after the date of naturalization; 

• Understanding of basic English, including the ability to read, write and speak; 

• Knowledge of basic U.S. history and government; 

• Demonstrate good moral character for at least three years prior to filing the application until the time of naturalization 

• Attachment to the principles of the U.S. Constitution and well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the U.S. during all relevant period under the law. 

If you are a Filipino spouse of an American citizen who is working in the Philippines simply like to know more about the topic, you may contact an US immigration lawyer in the Philippine for more advice or information on the procedures for availing the exemption discussed above.

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.

Conviction of a Crime of Moral Turpitude: A Bar to a US Visa

Last January, Robin Padilla shared a video of Mariel Rodriguez and their baby daughter in the United States. He was unable to join them because, despite being granted executive clemency last November, he still does not have a U.S. visa. Considering the recent conviction of businessman Cedric Lee for the kidnapping of his daughter with actress-singer Vina Morales, one has to wonder, does the conviction of a crime automatically disqualify a person from receiving a visa to the United States? 

The short answer is it depends on the crime. If the crime involves moral turpitude, then a person convicted becomes ineligible to receive visa to the United States and to be admitted therein. This provision is not just limited to a conviction. Section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) also expands the ineligibility to include persons who admits to having committed, or who admits committing acts which constitute the essential elements of a crime involving moral turpitude (other than a purely political offense) or an attempt or conspiracy to commit such a crime.

But who decides whether a crime involves moral turpitude? What are the standards to be applied in determining whether a crime involves moral turpitude?

Under Section 22.21(a) of the Code of Federal Regulations, the Consular Officer must determine whether the crime involves a moral turpitude against the moral standards generally prevailing in the United States. 

In the Matter of Cristoval Silva-Trevino (26 I&N Dec. 826 (BIA 2016), the Board of Immigration Appeals held that the term “moral turpitude” generally refers to conduct that is “inherently base, vile, or depraved, and contrary to the accepted rules of morality and the duties owed between persons or to society in general.” It requires two essential elements: reprehensible conduct and a culpable mental state. 

However, pursuing the American dream is still possible for person who are ineligible under Section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I). Persons who are ineligible to receive a visa and to enter the United States may still be admitted if the Attorney General consents to the person’s applying or reapplying for a visa, for admission to the United States, or adjustment of status and a waiver is granted to them. Under Section 212(h) of the INA, the Attorney General may, in his discretion waive the application of Section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I). The waiver may be granted if it is established to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that: 

1. The admission to the United States would not be contrary to the national welfare, safety, or security of the United States; and

2. The alien has been rehabilitated.

If person who is ineligible under Section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) is the spouse, parent, son, or daughter of a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, then the person must establish to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that the alien’s denial or admission would result in extreme hardship to the United States citizen or lawfully resident spouse, parent, son, or daughter of the ineligible person. 

A person who is ineligible may also qualify for a waiver if they are a Violence Against Women’s Act self-petitioner. 

Despite the availability of the waiver for ineligible persons, Section 212(h)(2) states that no waiver shall be provided in the case of an ineligible person who has been convicted of (or who has admitted committing acts that constitute) murder or criminal acts involving torture, or an attempt or conspiracy to commit murder or a criminal act involving torture. 

If you or anyone you know have any questions relating to ineligibility in receiving a visa to the at the U.S. Embassy in Manila, please contact a U.S. immigration attorney for more information.

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.

Trump’s immigration proposal could dash Filipinos’ “American Dream”

Filipino anti-U.S. activists sent a clear message ahead of U.S. President Donald Trump’s arrival in the Philippines: No, he isn’t welcome. But while many other Filipinos may share their contempt for Trump, they don’t share the anti-U.S. sentiment.

“Everyone’s dream — naman — is to go to the U.S.A.,” said U.S. immigrant-hopeful Jonalyn Caliwag.

It’s a dream that Caliwag’s mother and siblings, as well as close to 4 million other Filipinos, are living now. Filipinos make up the second largest Asian ethnic minority in America.

For those wanting to move to the United States, there is no more important building than the U.S. Embassy in Manila.

Caliwag was already approved as a minor petitioned by a parent living in the U.S. But then she turned 21, at which point she had to be moved to another visa category. Now she fears she may never set foot in the United States.

“From what I’ve seen in the news, Trump does not want more foreigners to be living in the U.S. So I’m worried my mother’s petition for me might never materialize or that I might have to wait a lot longer,” she said.

Earlier this month, Trump told Fox News he plans to also put a stop to chain migration, a policy that has allowed legal immigrants to apply for relatives to come to the U.S., as part of a plan to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals or DACA program.

But Ryan Barshop, a U.S. immigration attorney based in Manila, says it’s not likely to be a doomsday scenario for petitioned relatives.

“If they did end it and it was passed by Congress, you would have a grace period,” he explained.

“Okay, we’re gonna allow 18 months, let’s just say 18 months to two years, we’re gonna push through all the backlog in that 18 months to two years, get everybody in, and you’re also gonna have 18 months to two years to file.”

But Barshop conceded that doesn’t mean people won’t be hurt.

“Now, if it does change the system, will there be innocent parties? Absolutely, there’s no question about it, people are going to be hurt. In that situation, there are no winners,” he said.

Caliwag has waited close to 20 years to be reunited with her mother. She says she wouldn’t mind waiting another ten, as long as her family can be together again.

(Source: https://america.cgtn.com/2017/11/11/trumps-immigration-proposal-could-dash-filipinos-american-dream)
http://bridgewayimmigration.com

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.

Immigration and Filipino Divorce!

There are many myths and falsehoods you need to be aware of.

Here is a scenario - A USA Army Officer comes to the Philippines, meets a beautiful Filipina, and they legally marry in the Philippines. Following marriage, he applies for a spousal visa for her and they move to the USA. After 20 years of marriage, they decide to divorce while living in the United States. At the time of divorce, she was still a citizen of the Philippines having not ever naturalized as a US citizen.

The following are common questions about this couple’s scenario and the common Answers (right, wrong or myth):

1. Their USA divorce is invalid because she is Filipina and the Philippines does not allow divorce, her only option is annulment.
2. Their divorce is valid only in the USA.
3. She can never remarry in the Philippines.
4. If they have children, they will always have the same legal rights whether their parents divorce in the USA or not.

---

Now the TRUTH

1. Because at the time of divorce, one of the parties was not a Philippines citizen, the divorce is valid even in the Philippines. However, because the wife was still a Philippines citizen at the time of the divorce, if she wants to remarry in the Philippines she must seek a Judicial Recognition of Foreign Judgment
   When is the judicial recognition of foreign judgment/ divorce decree applicable? It is applicable when one of the parties to the marriage is a foreigner; and, the foreigner obtains a valid divorce/ nullity of marriage in his/her country.
2. The divorce and all associated separation agreements including property and child rights are valid.
3. She may remarry if she gets an annulment or a Judicial Recognition of Foreign Judgement.
4. Myth, Parental rights may apply in certain conditions, but only when the two parties do not agree in writing during the divorce.

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.

You get what you pay for: The disadvantages of hiring a US immigration consultant versus hiring a US immigration lawyer.

In our last article, we discussed why hiring an immigration lawyer is a worthy investment.

Simply put, an immigration lawyer provides valuable legal assistance and services to clients seeking help with various immigration related cases that are, more often than not, complicated and confusing.

In the United States, an immigration lawyer is the only person authorized by law to offer and give legal advice and represent a client.

For those seeking a US visa or getting an immigration case resolved through the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), hiring a US immigration lawyer is undoubtedly the best option to ensure a smooth journey towards obtaining positive results.

Unfortunately, many applicants still choose to take a different route.

Those who are confident with their own capabilities to obtain the USCIS’ stamp of approval sometimes prefer to go through the application process pro se while those who cannot or do not want to rely on themselves to go through the process, but are hesitant to invest on a US immigration lawyer, choose to employ the services of an immigration consultant.

What is a US immigration consultant?

A US immigration consultant is anyone who provides assistance to applicants trying to obtain a US visa and those going through various applications related to immigration. The US immigration consultant can be anyone with either a vast or very little knowledge about immigration and its corresponding policies and regulations.

What can a US immigration consultant do for you?

The role of a US immigration consultant is limited to preparing paperwork such as filling out forms for applicants who cannot or do not want to fill out the forms on their own. The US immigration consultant, while filling out the forms for the applicant, can translate the questions for non-English speaking applicants and write their responses on the forms in English, if necessary.  Any services done beyond paperwork require the intervention and supervision of a qualified lawyer.

Are US immigration consultants legally authorized to render services?

Different states have different laws governing US immigration consultants. However, the United States does not have a standard process on certifying immigration consultants so there are currently no licensed US immigration consultants in existence with the exception of one state– California. In California, an immigration consultants are recognized by the state but it is mandatory for them to “register with the Secretary of State” and satisfy the state’s qualification requirements first before being allowed to render services to their clients.

Quite the opposite, some US states stipulate that no immigration consultant is legally authorized to render immigration services to anyone within the state unless he or she is a qualified lawyer.

What are the advantages of hiring a US immigration lawyer?

US immigration consultants are only allowed by law to render paperwork services and translation assistance and nothing else.

US immigration lawyers, on the other hand, have more functions that include giving legal advice and representing clients with the USCIS aside from rendering paperwork and translation services during the entire application process. US immigration lawyers are experts in their field of practice and are authorities on any subject pertaining to immigration which is a tremendous advantage to those going through complex US visa and other immigration related applications.

Who charges higher fees?

With the quality and variety of services offered by a US immigration lawyer, it goes without saying that he or she is legally allowed to charge higher fees.

US immigration consultants can only charge minimal fees per their respective states’ laws.

Who should I hire?

If you are still on the fence on who to hire for your immigration needs, just remember that your decision will greatly affect the outcome of your application.

Simply put, you get what you pay for.

You can opt to pay a US immigration consultant to fill out your application form for you or you can choose to invest on a qualified US immigration lawyer who understands immigration laws, who can and will represent you before the meticulous and quite intimidating USCIS if needed, who will tell you the correct forms to file, who will coach you with your responses especially during your interview, who will do the legwork for you, and most significantly, who will give you invaluable legal advice.

By: 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.

Expert: No reason to fear US travel amid Trump win

MANILA - Filipinos planning to travel or immigrate to the United States have nothing to worry about despite US President-elect Donald Trump’s promises to deport illegal immigrants, a lawyer said on Monday.

American immigration lawyer Ryan Barshop said Filipinos planning to travel, invest, and immigrate in the United States should not worry at this point since policies in the United States have not changed yet. 

“I see no problems with Filipinos applying for a US visa,” Barshop said in an interview on “Mornings @ ANC.”

US Embassy spokesperson Molly Koscina on Monday clarified that there has been no changes so far in the US visa policy and in the alliance between the two countries.

Barshop added that Filipinos who are worrying about immigration in the US should “wait and see” since there is nothing that can be done at present.

“Don’t act irrationally, wait and see what happens. Right now there is nothing we can do right now,” Barshop said.

Trump, during his campaign, promised to “put America first” which includes establishing new immigration controls and a crackdown on undocumented foreigners and stricter rules on issuance of visas.

The real estate mogul turned Republican nominee, has been criticized by Filipino and Filipino-Americans earlier this year after he tagged the Philippines as a terrorist country whose citizens should be barred from immigrating to the the US.

Barshop said legal immigrants have nothing to worry about at this point since Trump’s words on immigration are mostly campaign rhetoric and that the Republican nominee is “simply anti-illegal immigration.”

He also clarified that illegal immigrants in the US will not just be easily deported and will still be accorded due process which includes the right to be heard from an immigration lawyer, right to present evidence, and the right to present an argument on why you should not be deported.

(Source: http://news.abs-cbn.com/focus/11/14/16/expert-no-reason-to-fear-us-travel-amid-trump-win)
http://bridgewayimmigration.com

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.

Filipino-American Relations and Immigration to the United States

Despite the currently tenuous diplomatic relationship between the Philippines and the United States, there is little reason to believe that Filipino immigration to the U.S. will be jeopardized. While many of Filipino President Rodrigo Duterte’s recent comments and actions—such as referring to U.S. President Barack Obama as a “son of a whore” who can “go to hell” and shortly thereafter forging a robust economic partnership with China, to the dismay of the U.S. government—have raised questions about the future of Filipino-American relations, the countries’ bond runs much deeper than that of their current leaders.

The Philippines and the U.S. have endured rocky diplomatic periods in the past. Through these times, Filipino immigration to the U.S. has remained a constant, occurring in various legal forms since the turn of the nineteenth century, and even serving as a tool to mend differences. 

The Philippines was the U.S.’s first colony, purchased in 1898 from the Spanish (for $20 million). Shortly thereafter, violence between the nations struck. For example, in 1899, American troops outside of Manila killed three Filipino dissenters—who were advocating for independence—sparking three years of fighting that ended the lives of at least 20,000 Filipino rebels and 4,000 American soldiers.

At the time, the U.S. wished to avoid the public backlash that arose out of the conflict. It was eager control the narrative of its occupation—to portray itself as a liberator—and in part it saw immigration as a means to do so. In addition to establishing and controlling media, improving healthcare systems, and building public schools—through which the Americans could teach students about its government and principles—it began to sponsor Filipino students, often referred to as “pensionados,” to study in U.S. colleges and universities.

This initiated two trends in Filipino-American relations: 1) immigration occurring even in hard times, and 2) the U.S. responding to diplomatic issues and outright conflict by cultivating goodwill through immigration opportunities.

The U.S. has consistently had various commercial and geopolitical interests—ranging from economic partnerships to strategic military positioning—that has made a relationship with the Philippines practical. One of the ways the U.S. has cultivated and maintained a generally productive relationship with its Eastern ally—and in the process served its interests—is through immigration.

The U.S. has long seen Filipino labor as a necessary and exploitable resource. Beginning in 1906, and for decades to come, Filipino laborers migrated to the U.S. Like today, they mostly headed to California and Hawaii, where they worked on farms and plantations. Life was often difficult for these laborers, with many working for low wages in the agricultural sector, in canneries, and in the especially unenviable job of building railroads. However, they often persisted through hardship, remaining in the U.S. It is perhaps unsurprising that in both California and Hawaii, Filipinos currently make up the largest Asian minority group.

Today, there are roughly four million American citizens of direct Philippine descent in the U.S., with that number rapidly growing. Meanwhile, there are over 300,000 American citizens living in the Philippines.

Attaining work in the U.S. is still a possibility for Filipino immigrants. This can be done through attaining a J-1 Internship Visa or a full-time employment-based visa, of which roughly 140,000 per year are offered.

Of course, education and employment are not the only types of immigration opportunities available to Filipinos. Others involve fiancé and family-based immigration. In the aftermath of World War II, family-based immigration was especially prominent—largely due to U.S. service members stationed in the Philippines meeting their significant others. This led to a boom of Filipino-American families.

By1960, Filipino immigration to the U.S. was especially common, but it would grow even more so. That year, 105,000 Filipinos immigrated to the U.S. By 1980, that number would reach over half a million per year. By 2000, more than a million Filipinos immigrated annually, and since then that number has steadily increased.

The large number of Filipinos in the U.S. has helped to cool diplomatic tensions between the nations, such as those that arose in the 1990s, when growing anti-American sentiment ultimately forced the U.S. to withdraw its military from the Philippines. One of the major reasons for this relates to the amount of money that Filipinos in the U.S. send back to the Philippines. In 2013, global remittances to the Philippines through legal channels totalled a whopping USD $25.4 billion. According to the World Bank, this represented a staggering 9 percent of the Philippines’ gross domestic product (GDP).

This statistic informs why palpably tense American-Filipino relations may not correlate to a decline in immigration, particularly from the Filipino perspective. In the days after his most inflammatory remarks about Obama, Duterte admitted that he could not cut ties with the U.S., as “the Filipinos in the United States will kill me.” But given the amount of money channeled from the U.S. to the Philippines each year, it is highly probable that Filipinos back home would be upset with him as well.

From the American perspective, severing ties with the Philippines would not be beneficial. The U.S. recently signed an Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement with its former colony, once again giving it strategic military positioning near its greatest rival, China. Additionally, close diplomatic and business relations with the Philippines enables the U.S. to mitigate China’s economic might.

In effect, dissolving ties serves neither the U.S. nor the Philippines. This is certainly recognized by both nations, even if the rhetoric of their leaders reflects discord.

When one considers this fact, along with the continuously increasing number of Filipinos taking residence in the U.S. and the Philippines’ correlated reliance on remittances, there is little reason to believe that any diplomatic strife between the nations will correlate to diminished opportunities for Filipinos to immigrate. Additionally, recent comments by Duterte and U.S. President-elect Donald Trump suggest more solidarity than the Filipino leader has experienced with Obama. Overall, it is entirely reasonable to believe that regardless of existing tensions, Filipino immigration to the U.S. will remain unscathed.

By: 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.

How Trump's order affected green card holders

An immigration lawyer on Tuesday explained on Mornings@ANC how U.S. green card holders were affected by President Donald Trump's executive order on immigration.

Atty. Ryan Barshop said green card holders being blocked at airports due to Trump's order was a "mistake", but has since been resolved.

"It's simple. A lot of people didn't read the text, even the Border Control. Many of the Border Control agents did not read the text," he said.

He explained, nevertheless, that green card holders who stay too long outside the United States are presumed to have waived their green card and would be subject to "secondary inspection at the border." 

However, they may file for returning resident visa again in U.S. embassies or be repetitioned.

(Source: http://news.abs-cbn.com/video/overseas/01/31/17/how-trumps-order-affected-green-card-holders)
http://bridgewayimmigration.com

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.

US lawyer says Trump immigration order doesn't qualify as a ban

A US immigration lawyer said Trump is not permanently banning Muslims from the seven countries mentioned in his executive order. Instead, Washington just wants to buy time to fix its immigration-vetting system.

Lawyer Ryan Barshop said Trump's order is simply a pause.

The presidential directive bars citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen from entering the US for 90 days, suspends the admission of refugees for 120 days, and suspends indefinitely the Syrian refugee program.

"I don't want to look at the word 'ban.' The word 'ban' does not appear once. What we have to do is we have to detach ourselves from what's actually in the text of the (executive order from) what is just becoming hysteria," he said in an interview with "Mornings@ANC" Tuesday.

Barshop explained that the White House said it is placing a 90-day freeze on citizens of the countries "until we can get the vetting process under control."

"To call it a ban, we're not banning people from Indonesia, Pakistan, Egypt. We're simply putting a hold on those citizens from those countries until we get the vetting process under control," he said.

Barshop also clarified that the seven countries were previously designated by his predecessor, former President Barack Obama.

"During Obama's term, he selected seven countries, those on the list today, of significant security concerns. Before the executive order was signed both directors of CIA and FBI which is our equivalent of NBI, reported to the president, said we can't control vetting from these countries," he said. 

"We have serious security concerns, we have to do something we can't avoid catastrophe," he added.

(Source: http://news.abs-cbn.com/overseas/01/31/17/us-lawyer-says-trump-immigration-order-doesnt-qualify-as-a-ban)
http://bridgewayimmigration.com

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.