Annie Banerjee, an immigration lawyer based in the Houston area, offers insightful commentary about a crucial case involving a wronged Vietnam veteran.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled in the case of Padilla v. Kentucky, deciding that if an immigrant is wrongly advised by his criminal defense attorney about the immigration consequences of a crime that the pertinent information is prejudiced and cannot serve as grounds for automatic deportation. Padilla, a Vietnam veteran, had been a permanent resident for more than 40 years. He was charged with drug distribution charges in Kentucky and his criminal defense attorney had instructed him to plead guilty, and that such a pleading would have no immigration consequences. The state of Kentucky said that Mr. Padilla had no right to withdraw his plea when he learned of the deportation consequence. The attorney was wrong, and Padilla was sent for deportation. The March 31, 2010, Supreme Court decision reverses the Kentucky court and also rejected the federal government’s position (which had been adopted by several courts) that a noncitizen is protected only from “affirmative misadvice” and not from a lawyer’s failure to provide any advice about the immigration consequences of a plea.

Annie Banerjee, an immigration lawyer based in the Houston area, found this judgment particularly intriguing. “What is astonishing is that this conservative Supreme Court recognized that deportation laws are extremely harsh now. While once there was only a narrow class of deportable offenses and judges wielded broad discretionary authority to prevent deportation. Immigration reforms have expanded the class of deportable offenses and limited judges’ authority to alleviate deportation’s harsh consequences. Because the drastic measure of deportation or removal is now virtually inevitable for a vast number of noncitizens convicted of crimes, the importance of accurate legal advice for noncitizens accused of crimes has never been more important. Thus, as a matter of federal law, deportation is an integral part of the penalty that may be imposed on noncitizen defendants who plead guilty to specified crimes, “Banerjee explained.

According to Banerjee, criminal defense lawyers have an affirmative duty to learn and advise clients about the immigration consequences of a crime.

This Supreme Court decision was applauded by the American Immigration Council.

“The right to counsel is at the inner core of our criminal justice system,” concluded Banerjee.

To learn more, visit http://www.visatous.com.

A proposed law pending in the Arizona legislature, S.B. 1070, would oppress foreign nationals and U.S. citizens alike – especially if they don’t seem to some folks like “real Americans.”

Some are characterizing Senate Bill 1070 as “hate legislation.” Hitler would have liked it while his National Socialists were revving up their engines circa 1935. If it becomes law, Arizona will suddenly be transformed into an unfriendly place for foreign nationals and U.S. citizens alike. Provisions in the proposed bill would criminalize noncitizens and dehumanize anyone who might not look, act, speak, or smell like an American.

For instance, the law requires that it would be up to state officials to determine a person’s immigration status. If someone they encounter in the course of their work is “reasonably suspected” to be unlawfully present in the United States, their suspicions would suddenly become lawful vigilantism. All people in Arizona would be vulnerable to racial profiling, including U.S. citizens. But what exactly is “reasonable suspicion” of alienage? If a person speaks with too pronounced of a foreign accent, or has a skin color that appears to be beige, or possesses facial features suggestive of an Asian or Latino, or smells funny, should they be investigated with future intentions of deportation? If a school crossing guard notices a student who doesn’t speak English and has the look of a Laotian, who might have moved to Mesa from Bellevue, Washington, is the crossing guard now obligated to check the child’s papers or call his parents and ask about immigration status?

Senate Bill 1070 will also permit a law enforcement officer, without a warrant, to arrest a person if, according to the officer’s judgment, probable cause exists to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the individual removable from the U.S. Under such a scenario, what offenses might somehow emerge as deportation offenses? Under this Brave New World, “crimes” such as public urination, jaywalking, spitting on the sidewalk while glaring maliciously at the officer, or partial nudity might all become an unfortunate person’s last act prior to a slow boat to Yemen? Apparently, some ethically-challenged Arizona legislators are still unfamiliar with the U.S. Supreme Court’s March 31, 2010, decision in Padilla v. Kentucky which delineates how immigration law is so complex that trained consultants on immigration matters have difficulty deciding which offenses rise to the gravity of deportable.

A. Banerjee is a Houston immigration lawyer in Texas. Before selecting an immigration lawyer in Houston Texas, contact the Law Offices of Annie Banerjee by visiting their information filled web site at http://www.visatous.com.

In July of 2010, I decided to take a road trip to the red rocks of Sedona, Arizona. A few days of rest, relaxation and hiking from the daily grind of my law practice in Houston, Texas seemed inviting. So I packed up my 04 Lexus and headed West.

But long before the red rocks of Sedona loomed in the horizon, I was puzzled by a huge sign saying, “Heil Brewer— Death to Brown people.” Since I’m brown, I was kind of taken aback, and decided to watch my speed and obey all traffic laws. After all, this is still America, where I am a naturalized citizen, and I would be Ok, if I did not break any rules. Wrong. Within 15 minutes I heard the sirens behind me asking me to stop. I look behind me as I stopped, and there is a police car with pictures of Ms. Brewer and Ms Palin on the dashboard. Once the officer walks up to me, I said, “but officer I was well within the speed limit.”

Officer: Where did you cross the border?

Me: Texas, I am a Texas resident

Officer: Laredo?

Me: No Officer, I am from Houston

Officer: Uh huh, How do you prove it?

Me: See, my driver’s license gives my Houston address. Same zip code as George H Bush

Officer: So you stole the car with the license?

Me: What…. I did not steal the car. If I was going to steal the car, why would I steal a Toyota?

Officer, You are under arrest

Me: For what?

Officer: For being an illegal and stealing a car….

Me: Are you not going to read me my miranda rights…. I want to see a lawyer, I want due process

Officer: Those are federal laws, they don’t work here in Arizona

Me: But I thought states cannot curb federal laws

Officer: You want to stay in jail forever?

Me: Sorry, Sorry Officer.

The next day I see a judge who says the fine is $20,000/- If I pay it I can go back to Houston.

I told the judge that I hadn’t committed any crime whatsoever.

The Judge told me, Since the Immigration bill was passed, Arizona is loosing money. That is our rate. You either pay this and leave the State, or stay jailed forever.

I wake up to the sound of my alarm clock. This was thankfully a nightmare. But it was oh so real. Bye Bye Sedona, there is a thousand places outside Arizona who could use my tourist dollars.

When you entered the US, you had to fill out either a white form if you entered with a visa, or a green form if you did not need a visa. Upon leaving the US, you are supposed to surrender that I-94 form to the US government. But sometimes that does not happen. For whatever reason, the airlines or whoever it is forgets to take the form. So now the US thinks you are in the country illegally, past the date stamped in the I-94, and you will have problems.

If this happens, please mail the I-94 back (certified mail) other documents to prove that you are out of the country, to:

DHS-CBP-SBU
1084 South Laurel Road
London, KY, 40744
USA

Documents to prove that you are out of the country can include, but is not limited to the following documents:

1. Original boarding passes you used to depart another country, such as Canada, if you flew home from there;
2. Photocopies of entry or departure stamps in your passport indicating entry to another country
3. after you departed the United States (you should copy all passport pages that are not completely blank, and include the biographical page containing your photograph); and
Photocopies of other supporting evidence, such as:

4. Dated pay slips or vouchers from your employer to indicate you worked in another country after you departed the United States,
5. Dated bank records showing transactions to indicate you were in another country after you left the United States,
5. School records showing attendance at a school outside the United States to indicate you were in another country after you left the United States, and
6. Dated credit card receipts, showing your name, but, the credit card number deleted, for purchases made after you left the United States to indicate you were in another country after leaving the United States.

For more information contact Houston Immigration Lawyer or Houston Immigration Attorney, Annie Banerjee

Lottery-picked employment-based visas go like hotcakes and professional people striving to come to America can easily be left out. But then there’s the Second Preference, albeit with some caveats.

Ever heard of the I-140 Educational and Work experience equivalency? Immigration is the only niche within the legal arena where quotas are still allowed. It is common knowledge that employment-based visas, such as the coveted H-1B, aren’t easily obtained by professionals wishing to immigrate to the United States from India and China. These are populous nations teeming with qualified professional people, and their national quotas get filled quickly resulting in lengthy wait times, especially for third preference visas. So it is only natural that everybody is striving for the Second Preference. Fine and dandy, but there are some caveats.

For instance, your experience must be post-degree and a pre-Petitioning Company. You say that you have experience in the same job at the petitioning company? This isn’t enough because if the employer is able to train the beneficiary, he’d prefer training an American – not you.

Oh, you have a Master’s Degree? If it’s not from the U.S., the problem of congruence can arise – as your Masters isn’t likely to match your Bachelors as a credential.

Did you know that evaluations are for advisory purposes only, and that the USCIS does not have to follow them? In the same vein, work experience can’t be substituted for years in a degree program – as the H-1B allows.

Recommendations by the Nebraska Service Center for Degree equivalency could also be pertinent.

If you do possess a U.S. master’s degree – if it’s in the field required, no additional documents would be required.

Your 4 year bachelor’s degree + 2 year master’s degree obtained in India with need to be “subbed” by degrees in the same or related fields to equal a U.S. master’s degree.

If you possess a 3 year bachelor’s degree + 1 year postgraduate diploma + 2 year master’s degree obtained in India, to become acceptable for educational preference you’ll require degrees in the same or similar field or a bachelor’s degree + one additional year of education, to measure up. If you have 5 years of progressive experience, this combination could be acceptable as a master’s degree equivalency.

A. Banerjee is a Houston immigration lawyer in Texas. Before selecting an immigration lawyer in Houston Texas, contact the Law Offices of Annie Banerjee by visiting their information filled web site at http://www.visatous.com.