I Lost My Indian Passport — Help!

Recently, I have been getting referrals from clients about losing their passport from India. Now, losing an Indian passport is a greater deal than losing your US Passport, because there is an established procedure for recovery and reissue of a US Passport.

But recovery and reissue of an Indian Passport is another matter.

The fear of clients who contact me is that they will be turned into either ICE or USCIS because they are out of service. The good news is that there is now a procedure to reapply for a lost passport. However, it is complex.

In my experience, there is a better procedure if your application is filed as a walk-in rather than mailing in the application.

The next complexity is added because the Indian consulate does not update their website often. The result is that the information on the website is often unreliable or out of date. If my client is traveling from outside the consulate area, then I suggest planning the trip in advance to allow for contingencies, such as insufficient paperwork.

Contact us for further information.

See you in my next blog.

Nalini S Mahadevan, JD, MBA
Immigration Attorney St. Louis, Missouri
nsm@mlolaw.us

logo

The information is not meant to create a client-attorney relationship. This blog is for informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for legal advice. Situations may differ based on the facts.

Copyright 2014. All rights reserved.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

The Good Faith Criterion: Lessons Learned From US vs. M&D Masonry and Form I-9

In 2010, ICE alleged in two counts that M&D Masonry committed 364 violations against the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The first count charged that 277 of M&D’s employees didn’t correctly complete section 1 and 2 of Form I-9; the second count charged that M&D didn’t have proper paperwork for 87 additional employees. The company refuted ICE’s allegations, and protested to 40 of the 277 violations named in Count I, and six of the 87 violations named in Count II.

For Count I, the government contests that M&D failed to ensure that:

  • 34 employees signed the attestation in section 1 of Form I-9;
  • 60 employees checked a box in section 1;
  • three employees attested to only one status in section 1; and
  • 10 employees who attested to status as lawful permanent residents entered their respected alien numbers on the adjacent line.

For Count II, M&D failed to:

  • complete section 2 of Form I-9 properly;
  • sign section 2;
  • record the issuing authority for a List B document;
  • provide the document number for List A, List B, and List C documents; and
  • review both List B and C documents.

Additionally, M&D instead accepted unacceptable documents, and didn’t examine or authenticate many I-9 forms within three business days of the individual’s hire date.

Among the defenses, the company alleges that the proposed monetary fines are exorbitant and do not consider the M&D’s financial abilities; and that ICE’s enforcement practices are unreasonable and impulsive. On January 6, 2014, ICE revised its complaint and retracted 25 of the named persons in Count I. According to the US government, M&D supplied satisfactory evidence that demonstrated that those employees had been dismissed before ICE’s inquiry, and wasn’t within the purview of the audit.

Lesson 1

A newspaper article is actually what led ICE to inspect and fine M&D Masonry. On April 30, 2010 an article titled “Illegal hiring for airport construction?” was printed in the Atlanta Journal Constitution. The article cited a hiring foreman for M&D who said that the company was hiring people without sufficient work authorization. ICE conducted a worksite enforcement inquiry on May 7, 2010; subsequently, ICE served M&D with a Notice of Inspection (NOI) for current and past employee I-9 forms from May 7, 2007 to May 7, 2010, and for employment records, payroll data, and wage and hour reports. ICE then issued M&D with slew of other notices throughout 2010 and 2012, including a Notice of Technical and Procedural Failures (NTPF), a Notice of Suspect Documents (NSD), and a Notice of Intent to Fine (NIF).

Lesson 2 & 3

M&D was timely in their response to ICE, and filed a Request for Hearing a month after ICE issued the NIF.

After acquiring and studying M&D’s Wage Inquiry by Employer Number records—obtained from the Georgia Department of Labor—Count II of ICE’s allegations concluded that M&D failed to prepare I-9 forms for 87 employees. M&D’s violations in Count II are far more egregious than Count I because failure to properly prepare and/or present I-9 forms destroys the purpose of the INA.

Penalties

M&D believed that ICE should fine the company based on its financial means; however, the governing statute asserts that such consideration is only applicable in five certain circumstances; M&D did not fall within the scope of those circumstances. While some OCAHO cases have previously taken financial means into consideration when determining penalties in a case, such leeway is not required of the government.

ICE fined M&D $332,813.25 for 339 violations, where each violation cost $981.75. Each violation incurred a baseline penalty of $935, also taking into account the employer’s 84% error rate. ICE heightened the penalties by 5 percent for the significance of the violations—over 100 I-9 forms were purportedly verified by signature stamp, although section I of the forms reflected various dates—and 5 percent for the size of the company: M&D had been in business for over 20 years, employed over 400 workers in a three year period, had a payroll of $4.3 million, and a large amount of contracted work. ICE handled the inclusion of unauthorized workers and absence of previous violations as neutral; ICE also lessened the penalties by 5 percent due to the good faith criterion.

ICE was charitable by applying the good faith criterion in M&D’s case. The good faith criterion is gauged by a study of whether the employer tried to comply with the INA obligations before the delivery of the NOI. Since M&D’s case isn’t the most extreme example of the INA violations, the penalties were lessened to a grand total of $228,300.

Takeaway

Incorrectly preparing and/or presenting a Form I-9 is one of the grievous paperwork violations an employer can make. Good faith is only taken into account when an employer actually attempts to determine its legal duties and yield to them. When judging suitable violations of the INA, the following must be favored:

  1. size of the employer;
  2. employer’s good faith;
  3. gravity of violations;
  4. whether an individual is an unauthorized alien; and
  5. employer’s history of previous violations.
See you in my next blog.
Nalini S Mahadevan, JD, MBA
Immigration Attorney St. Louis, Missouri
nsm@mlolaw.us

logo
The information is not meant to create a client-attorney relationship. This blog is for informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for legal advice. Situations may differ based on the facts.Copyright 2014. All rights reserved.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

Why Is I-94 so important?

Form I-94 and its Uses

This piece of paper that measures 4×5 inches is how a non-immigrant visa (NIV) holder proves that he or she has exited the country. Clients often call us because they were told when they re-entered the US that they did not surrender their Form I-94 on exit. The paper is also very important to international students because it shows that they are here for the duration of the status of their visa — i.e. they do not have to exit until their program is over, and this stay could, under the right circumstances, exceed the length of their stamped visa. The I-94 is also used for Form I-9 purposes, to record the foreign passport, visa and I-94 number, and serves as a List A document for purposes of worker identity and work authorization. No other document needs to be produced by the worker as eligibility to work, which protects both the employer and employee.

Now with the electronic I-94, the apple cart has been tipped! Years of procedure and practice are to be replaced by a new process that State DMVs, federal agencies and employers need to learn. Software has to be amended to accept electronic I-94 cards.  The good news is that a duplicate I-94 can be printed as long as the NIV is in the US; the I-94 record disappears as soon as the NIV exits the US.

Form I-102 should still be used to correct mistakes in the record (filing fee $330); however, US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) should be contacted in case of mistakes in the I-94 passport stamp. If CBP issued you Form I-94, I-94W, or I-95 with incorrect information (ex: misspelled name, incorrect date of birth, visa classification or date of admission), you should not file Form I-102. You will need to go in person to the nearest CBP port of entry (POE), or the nearest CBP deferred inspection office (DIO), to have the information corrected. For locations and hours of operation, visit CBP’s website at www.cbp.gov.

If you would like more information, please read my overview of electronic I-94.

More resources:
FAQ on what to enter to retrieve an I-94
How to obtain a copy of the new I-94
ICE I-94 Fact Sheet

See you in my next blog.

Nalini S Mahadevan, JD, MBA
Immigration Attorney
Lowenbaum Partnership, LLC
St. Louis, Missouri

The information is not meant to create a client-attorney relationship. This blog is for informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for legal advice. Situations may differ based on the facts.

Tara Mahadevan

Copyright 2013. All rights reserved.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

Negotiating I-9 Fines

In my previous blog, I wrote about OCAHO negotiating I-9 fines. To negotiate fines either with ICE or OCAHO, the employer must be willing to file a brief with OCAHO to request a hearing, and then ICE may be willing to ‘come to the table’.

Prior to the hearing, the employer and counsel must analyse each count against the company, either to accept or refute and prepare a brief accordingly. Both ICE and OCAHO consider the 5 factor test before negotiating a fine:

  1. The size of the employer’s business,
  2. The employer’s good faith,
  3. The severity of the violation(s),
  4. Whether individuals involved were unauthorized aliens, and
  5. A history of former violations by the employer.

Employers must be careful to tender only Forms I-9, which are for current employees, and refrain from tendering purged documents.

Methodical analysis of the NIF (Notice of Intent to Fine), counts and legal basis is a must in order to be ready to negotiate with ICE and, if necessary, to request a hearing from OCAHO.

See you in my next blog.

Nalini S Mahadevan, JD, MBA
Immigration Attorney
Lowenbaum Partnership, LLC
St. Louis, Missouri

The information is not meant to create a client-attorney relationship. This blog is for informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for legal advice. Situations may differ based on the facts.

Tara Mahadevan

Copyright 2013. All rights reserved.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

Recent I-9 Fines Reduced by OCAHO

Recently, the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) has shown a trend of leniency towards companies that are found to be noncompliant with ICE‘s Form I-9 rules and regulations. ICE, on the other hand, isn’t always as forgiving as OCAHO, which can be expressly seen in ICE’s cases against March Construction, Inc., Forsch Polymer Corp., BKR Restaurants (DBA Burger King) and Barnett Taylor (DBA Burger King).

In order to determine a baseline fine for companies, ICE surveys five factors:

  1. The size of the employer‘s business,
  2. The employer’s good faith,
  3. The severity of the violation(s),
  4. Whether individuals involved were unauthorized aliens, and
  5. A history of former violations by the employer.

March Construction, Inc.

The construction company, March Construction, was found liable for a total of 103 violations after assessments made by both ICE and OCAHO. For March Construction, ICE determined a baseline fine of $770, but increased the baseline by 15% due to March Construction’s supposed lack of good faith, severity of violations and employment of undocumented workers. ICE requested $885.50 per violation for a total of $86,933.

OCAHO agreed with ICE on the severity of the violations, however found that ICE had no evidence that March Construction was actually employing undocumented workers. Also, the company’s ability to pay the fines is a major factor. OCAHO ultimately asked for a reduced sum of $17,120.

Forsch Polymer, Corp.

In June 2010, ICE issued a Notice of Inspection (NOI) to Forsch Polymer, asking for Forms 1-9 for all employees from the past year. The company sent ICE only 12 completed I-9s, and was consequently charged with 11 violations of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), among the violations were failing to properly complete an entire Form I-9 and certain sections of Form I-9. ICE requested a fine of $11,827.75.

However, OCAHO found ICE in error: OCAHO discovered that three of Forsch’s employees did not complete an I-9 within three days of being hired. OCAHO determined that this was the fault of ICE — ICE should have issued a notice and provided ample time for Forsch Polymer to correct these mistakes. OCAHO dismissed the allegations of the company’s failure to complete Forms I-9, but found ICE correct in finding fault with the employer for backdating several Forms I-9.

ICE sought a baseline fine of $935 per violation, aggravating the baseline penalties 5-15% for each violation due to the severity of violations, lack of good faith and employment of four unauthorized aliens. OCAHO ultimately asked for a reduced sum of $4,600.

Burger King

BKR Restaurants and Barnett Taylor both do business as Burger King restaurants, and were both issued NOIs on the same day in December 2007. BKR Restaurants was found liable for a total of 87 violations of IRCA for not having Forms I-9 ready for 22 employees, and improperly completing Forms I-9 for 65 employees. Barnett Taylor was issued similar charges for not having Forms I-9 ready for 74 employees, and improperly completing Forms I-9 for nine employees.

Both BKR Restaurants and Barnett Taylor gave reasons for their failure in properly completing and retaining Forms I-9 for their employees; however, neither restaurant had convincing evidence bolstering their claims. Although OCAHO has supported a trend of reducing penalty amounts, OCAHO still requires companies to provide adequate evidence  against ICE’s allegations. None of the companies’ explanations created a defense of impossibility, which can only be established if the Forms I-9 has been completed but then lost or destroyed in a burglary or fire.

No final penalties were brought upon either restaurant; instead, OCAHO gave both restaurants 30 days to make additional filings — allowing the companies to right their wrongs.

Lesson Learnt

Initiating, processing, maintaining and auditing procedures for companies and employers are absolutely vital to the health of a company. Such procedures will assist in minimizing and quantifying employer liability, and more importantly will assist and enable the counsel for the employer to craft a defense in the event of audit.

See you in my next blog.

Nalini S Mahadevan, JD, MBA
Immigration Attorney
Lowenbaum Partnership, LLC
St. Louis, Missouri

The information is not meant to create a client-attorney relationship. This blog is for informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for legal advice. Situations may differ based on the facts.

Tara Mahadevan

Copyright 2013. All rights reserved.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

Planning For the New Year: Form I-9 and E-Verify

With the new year approaching, employers can make some changes and improvements to processing and maintaining Form I-9s. There are Form I-9 best practices that employers should follow to avoid being fined by ICE in an audit. The following are methods to ensure that you, as an employer, are complying with Form I-9 guidelines that have been implemented by USCIS and enforced by ICE. Please also see my Form I-9 series.
  1. Train your team in-house on how to complete I-9 forms and use E-verify successfully.
  2. Don’t be creative while completing forms. If, for instance, the HR specialist forgot to date the form, or the employee did not fill in Section 1 fully — don’t attempt to back-date the form and ask to the employee to complete Section 1. There is always someone who knows the situation and is watching. You could be threatened with punishment, or other employees could rat you out.
  3. The days of the wild, wild west are gone. Today requires a culture of compliance with the rules and laws. It is too expensive for employers and companies to do otherwise.
  4. Hire outside counsel to conduct a year-end audit of all the new forms created since the beginning of the year. At a recent immigration conference, I heard that more than 85% of I-9 forms are filled incorrectly, which means that self-audit is probably not a good idea. Having another employee conduct an audit can be a tricky situation because he/she may not want to point out a superior’s mistakes. The best way is to engage outside counsel to perform the audit; this audit can be part of a wage and hour audit.
  5. Brainstorm about your on-boarding policies and your “exit” interviews. Review policies for document examination; and recording and re-verification of documents for various visa-based and non-visa-based employees. Aim for consistent employee procedures — this means creating a handbook for procedures. Ensure your employees review the handbook before they attempt to examine and record documents on the I-9.
  6. Beware of audits by other federal agencies — they share information and are looking to collect fines. A wage and hour audit can turn into an I-9 and E-verify audit nightmare.
  7. Audits take time and are an unproductive task: they cost company money and employee time, and lead to lost profits. Take the time to understand the I-9 process.
  8. Audits ruin company reputations — names of companies that are audited are made public on federal websites. ICE, OSC and DOL publish announcements of audits.   Sushi Zushi, a San Antonio restaurant, lost workers and shut down after an announcement of an ICE audit. Employees left in droves; without employees, the restaurant had to shut down 8 locations.
  9. The new I-9 will create new challenges. Allocate a budget for training and compliance.
  10. Reduce liability by purging old I-9s.

See you in my next blog.

Nalini S Mahadevan, JD, MBA
Immigration Attorney
Lowenbaum Partnership, LLC
St. Louis, Missouri

The information is not meant to create a client-attorney relationship. This blog is for informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for legal advice. Situations may differ based on the facts.

Tara Mahadevan

Copyright 2012. All rights reserved.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

ICE’s Official Guidelines for Electronic I-9 System Audits

In response to an electronic Forms I-9 provider, US Immigration and Customs (ICE) issued guidelines for maintaining an electronic I-9 system for employers.

In early October, ICE issued their official guidelines for assessing electronic Form I-9 systems in an audit. These guidelines tell Homeland Security Investigator (HSI) agents and auditors what Form I-9 information to gather from employers’ electronic systems – guidelines that also help HSI agents to determine I-9 related fines, based on electronic I-9 requirements.

Though ICE has been continually augmenting regulations for its two-year-old electronic I-9 system, storing Forms I-9 electronically is still an employer’s safest bet. Storing Forms I-9 electronically helps to minimize paperwork and paperwork errors; it also allows for easier management and incorporation of E-Verify, which saves time and prevents variances.

A New Framework

In an effort to streamline their I-9 audit procedures, ICE has created a new framework for assessing I-9 systems. If you’re sent a Notice of Inspection (NOI), these are the things you need to know:

1. Audit Trail

Full electronic I-9 compliance means employers must have an audit trail. ICE guidelines require an employer’s electronic system to make a secure and permanent record – and for this record to reflect the date of use, why it was used and what it was used for – when an electronic Form I-9 is created or changed. Since this is the number one investigative method for ICE, it should be an employer’s number one priority.

In order to show the audit trail, specific actions should be taken by an employer when creating and managing Form I-9. A thorough electronic I-9 system will record:

    • the creation of a form for an employee
    • personal information, employee testimony, electronic signatures and dates, any further documentation
    • any updated or altered information

Such a trail is needed so that ICE agents can determine whether an employer’s practices are in compliance with ICE regulations, and whether ICE must issue civil fines.

2. Software Provider & Operating Procedure

When an employer receives an NOI, ICE will ask for the name of the employer’s electronic I-9 system software provider. ICE needs this information so that the agents can gain a better understanding of how the system functions.

In an audit, the employer will have to provide a thorough explanation of their operating system. The employer should make ICE’s job as easy as possible; the employer’s chosen system should be simple and easy to use.

3. Indexing System

Indexing systems catalog employees by name and other attributes, which is helpful in the case of an ICE audit. Employers must make sure that their indexing systems have safeguards that can avoid duplication of employees or Forms I-9. Employers should steer away from systems that merge payroll, tax and employment verification with Forms I-9 – these different areas of information should be stored separately.

4. Electronic Signature

ICE’s regulations on electronic signatures are somewhat unclear. What is clear is that employers must develop a standard procedure for acquiring an employee’s electronic signature, and must guarantee that the signature on the Form I-9 is actually the employee’s. ICE will inspect electronic signatures to ensure that the “significance”– that the employee understands what he/she is signing – has been maintained.

5. Hardcopies

ICE regulations require that an employer’s operating system be able to produce hardcopies of electronic Forms I-9; the best systems will allow the employer to download a PDF version of electronic records.

6. System Demonstration

A system demonstration doesn’t seem like a necessity, but sometimes software vendors have a knack for misleading their customers. For a better user experience, some vendors have added fields, which are not on the original Form I-9; or they have moved fields around – i.e. fields from section 2 are in section 1. Such renderings can sometimes lead to accidental in compliance, and alter the meaning of the form.

Conclusion

While many employers are in favor of electronic I-9 systems – it reduces paperwork and is easily accessible – let us remember two cases. The first is the case of Abercrombie & Fitch, where the electronic I-9 system erased several employees’ records and the company was unable to produce them in reply to an NOI from ICE. The second is the case of UCSD Medical Center, where the electronic I-9 system prompted HR to ask for documents that were not required from naturalized citizens and permanent residents, leading to charges of document abuse and monetary fines.

Different electronic vendors have different programs – before entering into or storing Form I-9 electronically, the employer needs to do some due diligence to ensure the program follows compliance procedures mandated by ICE. It’s best to consult an immigration attorney when previewing an electronic system.

See you in my next blog.

Nalini S Mahadevan, JD, MBA
Immigration Attorney
Lowenbaum Partnership, LLC
St. Louis, Missouri

The information is not meant to create a client-attorney relationship. This blog is for informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for legal advice. Situations may differ based on the facts.

Tara Mahadevan

Copyright 2012. All rights reserved.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

Employer Liability on DACA Issues

Mike is 27 and has a GED; he is employed by XYZ company. He applies for an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) card under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Memorandum. When he goes to his boss at XYZ, he tenders the EAD as evidence of his newly minted status as being allowed to work legally. While DACA does not confer status on Mike, he is now allowed to work legally for XYZ. Many employer liability issues arise from this scenario.

Employer Liability

Firstly, as the employer, XYZ could have constructive knowledge of the employee‘s prior unauthorized status. Hence, the employer could be charged under Missouri Omnibus immigration law as ‘knowingly’ employing an unauthorized worker in the US. In addition, XYZ could be charged with violating Form I-9 laws.

Secondly, the employer may have other potential Form I-9 issues. Now that the employer has constructive knowledge of the employee not having work authorization in the US, the employer may have to seriously consider terminating the employee, or could potentially become liable of knowingly retaining an employee whose immigration status is under question.

However, an employer is not supposed to be an immigration document expert. If the employer previously employed a worker who provided false documents that appeared to be valid and to relate to the individual employee, then the employer may provide a “good faith argument” if there is an ICE audit.

Yet, if a prior employee now declares that he/she is eligible for DACA work authorization, the employer needs to make certain that this policy of terminating this ‘newly discovered’ unauthorized employee does not discriminate against other similarly placed employees in the employer’s workforce. In other words, the employer cannot have one policy towards ‘seemingly foreign looking individuals’ and another policy towards ‘seemingly US born individuals’ if both populations present with similar DACA-related issues. This is called national origin discrimination.

Form I-9 Issues

The employer, under I-9 guidance, may have to terminate the employee who needs DACA employment authorization in order to continue working with the employee. The employer may have to terminate the employee and, if needed, rehire after new DACA-related employment authorization has been produced by the employee. The employer may also have to manage employer liability, and purge their employment records of all unnecessary I-9 documents in line with USCIS guidance.

See you in my next blog.

Nalini S Mahadevan, JD, MBA
Immigration Attorney
Lowenbaum Partnership, LLC
St. Louis, Missouri

Tara Mahadevan

Copyright 2012. All rights reserved.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

DHS Enforcement Actions — July 2012

On July 19, Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano spoke before the House Judiciary Committee, offering important information on how US immigration law enforcement would affect employers.

US Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Since January 2009, ICE has audited 8,079 employers who are suspected of “knowingly hiring” workers who do not have authorization to work in the US. The federal government has also debarred 726 companies and individuals from federal contracts; imposing and collecting more than $87.9 million in fines and sanctions against companies and their officers.

Sec. Napolitano said ICE will eliminate high-profile raids on worksites because such raids do little to improve public safety. The government now feels that deportation of criminal aliens and unauthorized workers is having little affect on employers’ willingness to hire these individuals. Instead, the government will renew and focus its efforts on Form I-9 inspections; civil fines; debarment; and employer education and compliance with current law.

USCIS, ICE and the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) have greatly increased their engagement with employers and the public through national and local stake holder meetings, webinars and newsletters. Self-check through E-Verify is also encouraged for individual employees. There are now 385,000 companies participating in E-Verify with more than 1.1 million hiring sites. E-Verify is also developing a robust customer service hotline; and increasing outreach staff to promote the E-Verify’s benefits, and educate employers and employees about rights and responsibilities.

Federal agencies receive information to prosecute employers through local police enforcement; traffic stops; criminal prosecutions and informers; and through employee complaints to ICE hotlines and OSC online complaint forms.

The Obama Administration is refocusing efforts on worksite compliance and arrests of unauthorized and criminal aliens, and deporting these aliens at great cost to their countries of origin.

See you in my next blog.

Nalini S Mahadevan, JD, MBA
Immigration Attorney
Lowenbaum Partnership, LLC
St. Louis, Missouri

Tara Mahadevan

Copyright 2012. All rights reserved.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

ICE Targets F-1 Visa Violators

ICE targets visa violators:

Forty immigration status violators, visa overstays and foreign students were arrested by special agents with US. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI). These violators disobeyed the conditions of their nonimmigrant visas during a 12-day operation that ended Friday, June 1.

Immigration Status Reviewed

Twenty-one men and 19 women were arrested by HSI’s Counterterrorism and Criminal Exploitation Unit (CTCEU), part of a national program designed to prevent terrorists and other criminals from exploiting the nation’s immigration system. In addition, CTCEU reviews the immigration statuses of known and suspected terrorists; combats criminal exploitation of the student and exchange visitor visa program; and leverages HSI’s investigative expertise to identify national security threats.

Countries Targeted for Removal for Overstay and Visa Violations

Those arrested are from the following 17 countries: Saudi Arabia(1), Yemen(1), Kenya(15), Azerbaijan(1), Zimbabwe(1), Zambia(1), Nepal(2), Nigeria(4), Gambia(2), Cameroon(3), Grenada(2), Thailand(1), Spain(1), Jamaica(1), Dominican Republic(1), Mexico(2), and Antigua and Barbuda(1).

The 40 arrested were encountered in Edmond, OK, and the following 12 north Texas Cities: Wichita Falls, Tyler, Lubbock, Amarillo, Abilene, Arlington, Prosper, Irving, Dallas, Plano, Carrollton And Mansfield. All have been processed for immigration removal proceedings.

Grounds for Removal

In addition to their immigration violations, three of those arrested falsely claimed US citizenship, which is a felony and results in being permanently barred from legally re-entering the US. A Mexican national was also arrested and charged for illegally re-entering the US after having been previously deported twice.

See you in my next blog.

Nalini S Mahadevan, JD, MBA
Immigration Attorney
Lowenbaum Partnership, LLC
St. Louis, Missouri

Tara Mahadevan

Copyright 2012. All rights reserved.

Any information here is not meant as legal advice, but strictly educational.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather