The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) provides Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for immigrants to the United States who are unable to return to their home countries safely because of ongoing armed conflict, an environmental disaster or epidemic, or other extraordinary or temporary conditions. Within the designated time frame, an individual who is granted TPS will not be removable from the United States and will be qualified to obtain an employment authorization document (EAD). The individual may obtain authorization to travel as well.
TPS is a temporary benefit that does not lead to lawful permanent residency or any other immigration status. But an individual who applies for TPS simultaneously may apply for nonimmigrant status, file for adjustment of status based on an immigrant petition, or apply for any other immigrant benefit or protection so long as the individual meets the eligibility requirements.
Currently, the following countries are on the TPS designated list: El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Somalia, Sudan and South Sudan.
For a complete list of TPS of designated time periods, fees, applications and other important information, click here.
Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Friday, January 27, 2012
Washington State Poised to Legalize Same-Sex Marriage
The Associated Press reported that Washington will legalize same-sex marriage now that the state legislature has enough votes to pass the measure. If the bill passes, gay and lesbian couples will be permitted to get married as early as June 2012.
Opponents of gay marriage vow to file a referendum to challenge the bill once it is signed into law by Gov. Chris Gregoire. They will need to gather 120,577 signatures by July 6, 2012. The National Organization for Marriage has pledged to fight same-sex marriage laws in Washington state by announcing it will spend $250,000 "to help fund primary challenges to any Republican who crosses party lines to vote for same-sex marriage in Washington state."
However, a recent University of Washington poll revealed that support for same-sex marriage has increased in the state, with 43 percent of respondents supporting gay marriage, while 22 percent support "giving identical rights to gay couples but just not calling it marriage." The poll found that if the same-sex marriage bill passed, 55 percent of respondents said "they could vote yes to uphold the law" while 38 percent would vote to against it.
Washington will join Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Iowa, Vermont and the District of Columbia as the seventh state to allow same-sex marriage.
Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
Opponents of gay marriage vow to file a referendum to challenge the bill once it is signed into law by Gov. Chris Gregoire. They will need to gather 120,577 signatures by July 6, 2012. The National Organization for Marriage has pledged to fight same-sex marriage laws in Washington state by announcing it will spend $250,000 "to help fund primary challenges to any Republican who crosses party lines to vote for same-sex marriage in Washington state."
However, a recent University of Washington poll revealed that support for same-sex marriage has increased in the state, with 43 percent of respondents supporting gay marriage, while 22 percent support "giving identical rights to gay couples but just not calling it marriage." The poll found that if the same-sex marriage bill passed, 55 percent of respondents said "they could vote yes to uphold the law" while 38 percent would vote to against it.
Washington will join Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Iowa, Vermont and the District of Columbia as the seventh state to allow same-sex marriage.
Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Guidance for Immigration Asylum Cases Involving LGBTI Individuals
The USCIS has released a new training module called "Guidance for Adjudicating Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex (LGBTI) Refugee and Asylum Claims." The guidance has been in the works for two years in cooperation with Immigration Equality, a national organization that advocates for equality under U.S. immigration law for LGBTI and HIV-positive individuals .
The training module provides appropriately sensitive and helpful questions for officers to use and provides instructions on what types of questions should be avoided; LGBTI-specific examples of harm that constitute persecution in an individual's home country; possible one-year filing deadline exceptions (such as recently "coming out"); and instructions on how to deal with various complex issues (such as understanding that cultural norms in the LGBTI community in the individual's home country may differ from those in the U.S.; that LGBTI applicants are not required to meet pre-conceived stereotypes or "look gay" - a common issue that has arisen in asylum cases in the past; and that former opposite-gender marriages does not mean that the applicant is not lesbian or gay).
The Guidance Introduction said "Interviews with LGBTI or HIV-positive refugee and asylum applicants require the individual to discuss some of the most sensitive and private aspects of human identity and behavior - sexual orientation, gender identity, and life-threatening illness." The new training module will provide attorneys, advocates, and immigration officers with a government guideline similar to those issued for other types of asylum claims.
Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
The training module provides appropriately sensitive and helpful questions for officers to use and provides instructions on what types of questions should be avoided; LGBTI-specific examples of harm that constitute persecution in an individual's home country; possible one-year filing deadline exceptions (such as recently "coming out"); and instructions on how to deal with various complex issues (such as understanding that cultural norms in the LGBTI community in the individual's home country may differ from those in the U.S.; that LGBTI applicants are not required to meet pre-conceived stereotypes or "look gay" - a common issue that has arisen in asylum cases in the past; and that former opposite-gender marriages does not mean that the applicant is not lesbian or gay).
The Guidance Introduction said "Interviews with LGBTI or HIV-positive refugee and asylum applicants require the individual to discuss some of the most sensitive and private aspects of human identity and behavior - sexual orientation, gender identity, and life-threatening illness." The new training module will provide attorneys, advocates, and immigration officers with a government guideline similar to those issued for other types of asylum claims.
Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Commonwealth v. Clarke: Invoking Your Right To Remain Silent By Conduct
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) held that nonverbal expressive conduct can suffice to invoke the right to remain silent.
In Commonwealth v. Clarke, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) transit police arrested defendant Brandon M. Clarke for indecent assault and battery that had occurred at a train station. Clarke was taken to an interrogation room and informed that their conversation would be recorded. One of the officers explained verbally to Clarke his Miranda Rights and that he had a right to sign a written waiver of those rights.
When the officer asked whether Clarke wanted to speak, Clarke responded by shaking his head back and forth to show he did not want to speak. The other officer explained that because Clarke does not want to speak, he is still not free to leave because he would still be charged and would have to appear in court. At that point, Clarke made statements showing that he was confused and eventually waived his rights.
The SJC held that the defendant expressed in a nonverbal manner that he invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent by shaking his head in a negative fashion. The police are required to "scrupulously honor" that right. The SJC concluded that "the detectives did not scrupulously honor the defendant's right to remain silent and thereby eliciting the incriminating response that is the subject of the defendant's motion to suppress, the motion judge was correct in concluding that the defendant's statements must be suppressed."
Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
In Commonwealth v. Clarke, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) transit police arrested defendant Brandon M. Clarke for indecent assault and battery that had occurred at a train station. Clarke was taken to an interrogation room and informed that their conversation would be recorded. One of the officers explained verbally to Clarke his Miranda Rights and that he had a right to sign a written waiver of those rights.
When the officer asked whether Clarke wanted to speak, Clarke responded by shaking his head back and forth to show he did not want to speak. The other officer explained that because Clarke does not want to speak, he is still not free to leave because he would still be charged and would have to appear in court. At that point, Clarke made statements showing that he was confused and eventually waived his rights.
The SJC held that the defendant expressed in a nonverbal manner that he invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent by shaking his head in a negative fashion. The police are required to "scrupulously honor" that right. The SJC concluded that "the detectives did not scrupulously honor the defendant's right to remain silent and thereby eliciting the incriminating response that is the subject of the defendant's motion to suppress, the motion judge was correct in concluding that the defendant's statements must be suppressed."
Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Foreclosure Thwarted by Glickman Turley
Glickman Turley LLP secured an injunction to prevent a foreclosure of a client's home the day before the auction. Arguing before Norfolk Superior Court, we noted that the lender had promised modification of the predatory loan on three separate occasions but failed to finalize the modification agreement each time. Additionally, the lender sent three mortgage payments back to the client once the loan was declared to be in default. Last summer, we sent a demand letter to the lender requesting the promised modification. The mortgagee did not respond. We also argued that the client did not get 150 days notice of the foreclosure from the assigned mortgagee as required under emergency legislation. The judge agreed that our client would suffer irreparable harm by letting the foreclosure proceed and that the balance of equity was on her side. The client will be making mortgage payments into an escrow account during the course of litigation. There have been a number of recent court decisions which has changed how foreclosures are managed in Massachusetts. Attorney General Coakley has been at the forefront of trying to help home owners under water. Lenders are now on notice that Massachusetts is promoting fairness to borrowers.
Supreme Court Ruled on GPS Tracking Devices
The New York Times reported that the Supreme Court decided on Monday that a Global Positioning Device (GPS) tracking system placed on a suspect's car by police violated his Fourth Amendment privacy rights. The Court ruled unanimously on this decision, with the majority agreeing with the rationale that the issue was the placement of the GPS device on private property.
The case, United States v. Jones, involved a Washington nightclub owner who was suspected of participating in a cocaine-selling operation. Antoine Jones's movements were tracked for a month when police placed the GPS device on his Jeep Grand Cherokee without obtaining a valid warrant. Jones had been sentenced to life in prison based on the evidence gathered by police, including the information gathered by the GPS.
Justice Scalia, who wrote the opinion, stated "The government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information. We have no doubt that such a physical intrusion would have been considered a 'search' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted."
Justice Alito, who concurred with the majority on the ruling, differed on the rationale: "We need not identify with precision the point at which the tracking of this vehicle became a search, for the line was surely cross before the 4-week mark. Other cases may present more difficult questions."
The lawyer for the defendant in this case said the ruling was a "signal event in Fourth Amendment history," according to the article.
Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
The case, United States v. Jones, involved a Washington nightclub owner who was suspected of participating in a cocaine-selling operation. Antoine Jones's movements were tracked for a month when police placed the GPS device on his Jeep Grand Cherokee without obtaining a valid warrant. Jones had been sentenced to life in prison based on the evidence gathered by police, including the information gathered by the GPS.
Justice Scalia, who wrote the opinion, stated "The government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information. We have no doubt that such a physical intrusion would have been considered a 'search' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted."
Justice Alito, who concurred with the majority on the ruling, differed on the rationale: "We need not identify with precision the point at which the tracking of this vehicle became a search, for the line was surely cross before the 4-week mark. Other cases may present more difficult questions."
The lawyer for the defendant in this case said the ruling was a "signal event in Fourth Amendment history," according to the article.
Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Comprehensive Review of Prosecutorial Discretion Policy Shows Positive Results
ICE prosecutors in Denver, Colorado have been racing to meet the mid-January deadline ordered by the Obama Administration to review 7,900 deportation cases before the immigration court, according to a report in The New York Times. They have identified over 1,000 undocumented immigrants who are in deportation proceedings that are not a security risk, allowing them to remain in the United States without legal status. Even though the deportation becomes closed and off the docket, it can be reopened at any time.
The policy is part of an effort by the Obama Administration to curb deportations of individuals who are considered low-priority cases, such as those with no criminal records, as well as those with deep ties to the United States. Through this policy, ICE is able to prioritize its resources to focus on deporting criminals such as gang members and sex offenders - those who pose a threat to society and security.
Running a case-by-case review has been a daunting task for the ICE prosecutors, but "they said they liked their newfound flexibility in pursuing cases - more like the routine practice of their peers in criminal courts," according to the report. Immigration court judges welcome the prospect of reduced backlogs.
Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)