Posted on August 27, 2015 in Personal Injury

It has long been known that drunk driving is a dangerous activity that can cause serious consequences, in both the legal aspect as well as in the personal lives of the individuals involved—particularly if this action contributes to a car accident. Those who choose to operate their vehicles while impaired can face criminal charges and a civil lawsuit if their actions lead to the injury of another or property damage.

Additional consequences can emerge depending on the circumstances, which can have financial effects as well as cause damage to the overall well-being of those involved. With all of these consequences in place, one may think that the incidence of drunk driving is nearly non-existent, but that cannot be farther from the truth. Drunk driving is an issue that almost every community across the country likely has to deal with in one aspect or another.

Shift in Perception

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on August 27, 2015 in Personal Injury

According to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, the number of truck crashes and fatalities is on the rise. In 2011 alone, 3,757 died in collisions with trucks and more than 80,000 Americans were injured. Though trucks make up less than five percent of all vehicles on U.S. roadways, per mile driven, those same trucks cause fatalities at rate that is 17 percent higher than that for regular passenger vehicles.

Size of Trucks: A Contributing Factor

Along with the number of trucks on the road, the size of trucks will also increase as well. In fact, some will be longer than passenger airplanes and weigh up to 20 times more than a family car. Given the size disparity between trucks and cars, when trucks crash, most of the people who are injured or die are the occupants of the cars, motorcycles, bicycles, and even pedestrians involved, as opposed to the truck drivers themselves.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on August 26, 2015 in Immigration

Immigration is a hotly debated topic nowadays, with viewpoints ranging all over the spectrum. However, the intensity of the debate can lead to serious misinformation being spread as fact, and it can have extremely negative effects on real people’s lives. One of the questions that has come up is the issue of whether undocumented immigrants even have rights to do things that most United States citizens consider elementary. The answer to such a question is important.

The Fourteenth Amendment

As far back as 1896, in the case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the Fourteenth Amendment was held to protect the rights of immigrants. To be sure, the majority opinion in the case stated that “The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens.” While this jurisprudence is a good foundation upon which to base law, the question then comes up as to what rights the Fourteenth Amendment actually guarantees.

The amendment itself states that no one will be denied equal protection under the law, nor anyone deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The latter is fairly self-explanatory, and has been alluded to in Supreme Court jurisprudence countless times, enforcing immigrants’ rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

The definition of ‘equal protection,’ on the face of it, is also easy to parse, but it has become more complex over the years. Certain rights are reserved for United States citizens, such as voting and possessing certain types of firearms. Also, rights and privileges may be denied to immigrants (both documented and otherwise) if it can be proved that the discrimination furthers an ‘important’ governmental interest by means that are substantially related to that interest. Still, despite these disadvantages, the fundamental rights are protected.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on August 19, 2015 in Immigration

On June 26, the landmark case of Obergefell v. Hodges was decided by the Supreme Court, granting marriage equality to homosexual couples. Among the many rights granted by a legal marriage, one of the most important is the ability to sponsor one’s spouse for immigration to the United States. This ruling will lead to an easier path for same-sex couples to obtain the appropriate legal documentation for immigration.

Getting a Fiance or Spouse Visa

The usual way to obtain a visa for one’s fiance is to apply for a K visa for them. A K visa is granted to couples who have not yet married, but intend to marry within 90 days of the foreign national’s arriving in the United States. Both halves of a couple must also be able to prove that they are free to marry (with no living spouses, or other potential issues) and that they have met in person (unless to do so would violate long-held cultural norms, such as in certain sects of Islam or Hinduism).

If a couple is already married, a U.S. citizen spouse may sponsor the other for permanent residence. Filing an I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, begins the process, coupled with an Application for Adjustment of Status if your spouse is already in the United States. This process can take months, and generally culminates in an investigation of your marriage to ensure its veracity.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on August 12, 2015 in Immigration

In late June of 2015, Secretary Johnson of the Department of Homeland Security granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to nationals of Nepal after a serious earthquake in their homeland. This means that all Nepali nationals who qualify may apply for TPS, therefore allowing them to remain in the United States for a period of time even after the expiration of their visas.

Temporary Protected Status is granted to nationals of specific countries at the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security, and can help those from countries experiencing strife to stay in a safe place while the problems in their country are addressed.

A Response to ‘Extraordinary and Temporary’ Events

Temporary Protected Status was established in 1990 by the Immigration Act. Originally, the Attorney General had the power to institute TPS, but it was transferred to Homeland Security in 2003. While TPS is active, nationals of the country in question may remain in the United States and apply for work authorization, but it is not a pathway to Lawful Permanent Resident status, as it cannot be renewed except by authorization of the Homeland Security secretary.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on August 05, 2015 in Immigration

When a person is granted the status of Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR, or ‘green card holder’), they are gifted with several new rights, but they also come with responsibilities that must be upheld. Many who attain LPR status have no idea of the obligations they now have, and it is important that you understand what is required lest you inadvertently break the law.

Privileges

The “rights” of LPRs are in reality more appropriately called privileges, because the U.S. government may revoke your LPR status at any time if you fail to fulfill the conditions of having it. Still, the list of advantages that LPRs possess over those on immigrant visas is significant in terms of convenience and security. Some include the right (or privilege) to:

• Live anywhere in the United States, with no restrictions;

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on July 29, 2015 in Immigration

Immigration law is a difficult discipline, especially when it comes to removal issues. A term that is heard very often in questions concerning possible deportation is aggravated felony. However, the experts are somewhat divided on what actually constitutes an aggravated felony, and what its ramifications are in terms of immigration benefits. The answer is complex, but not out of reach.

Definition and History

An aggravated felony is defined in a somewhat slippery fashion in terms of U.S. law. If one tries to search for a specific definition, one finds a list of crimes that fall under the category of aggravated felony, but not a list of criteria that makes the crimes in question aggravated felonies. Even the definition at 8 USC § 1101(a)(43) is simply a list of crimes.

The term ‘aggravated felony’ only appeared in U.S. immigration law in 1988, when modifications were made to the Immigration & Nationality Act (INA). At first, only certain drug crimes and murder were part of the group, but the Illegal Immigration Reform & Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) and other legislation added several more over the next decade. As of this writing, the term has significantly expanded beyond its original definition, which is a source of controversy for multiple reasons.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on July 22, 2015 in Immigration

When an illegal immigrant has been charged with a crime and is found guilty, he or she may be referred to as being found inadmissible or deportable. However, inadmissibility and deportability are not the same. Each refers to a different legal status, and confusing the two is not advisable. Both must be dealt with differently in terms of arguing against removability.

Definitions

Inadmissibility deals with the rules surrounding those who want to enter the United States, in either an immigrant or non-immigrant capacity. Deportability is the power of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to keep someone from staying in the United States. There are several different reasons why one may be rendered inadmissible; however, most of the reasons why someone may be rendered deportable have to deal with criminal acts.

U.S. immigration law recognizes two different categories of crime that can affect one’s immigration status. The first is aggravated felonies (AFs), which are defined primarily in 8 USC §1101. AFs are crimes which involve particularly serious offenses against morality, such as murder, sexual assault and kidnapping. However, the difficulty is that some crimes which are not felonies under criminal law are still considered AFs for immigration purposes. Hence, this can lead to significant confusion. Examples include bribery, obstruction of justice, and failing to appear in court (if the underlying offense carries a penalty of more than one year).

The second category of crime is crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMTs), which actually have no specific definition in U.S. law, but involve at least one element that constitutes moral turpitude: fraud, larceny, and/or intent to harm. If someone commits a CIMT within 5 years of admission into the country, or commits two CIMTs within a single ‘scheme’ or enterprise—for example, kidnapping and transporting a minor across state lines are two CIMTs that make up a single endeavor—he or she is eligible to be removed. Crimes of moral turpitude may also be aggravated felonies, and aggravated felonies may be CIMTs, but the two categories do not have to overlap.

Confusing Consequences

Being convicted of an aggravated felony will almost always render someone deportable, meaning that he or she can be expelled from the country. However, not all aggravated felonies will render someone inadmissible. Because the rules regarding CIMTs and AFs are somewhat convoluted, it is possible for a crime to render someone both inadmissible and deportable. It may simply confer inadmissibility or deportability, but it is possible to be judged both.

Also, there are several exceptions to both sets of rules. For example, a ‘petty offense exception’ exists which can render a CIMT conviction not usable for deportation purposes. This comes from immigration case law, notably Matter of Mendoza, decided in 1965, and it states that a conviction for one CIMT may be set aside if certain requirements are met. They are:

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on July 20, 2015 in Family Law

The Supreme Court deciding in favor of same-sex marriage has been an incredible victory for those who have been denied equal protection of fundamental rights. Having the right to marry expanded to all persons interested, regardless of their sexual orientation, has many contemplating the possible repercussions that may affect persons who entered into civil unions and domestic partnerships because marriage was not available to them. Because civil unions and domestic partnerships were honored by states where same-sex marriages were not permitted and by corporations who wanted to extend benefits to domestic partners of their employees, the future of domestic partnerships and the benefits that were provided to domestic partners is being decided.

Domestic Partnerships/Civil Union Law in Illinois

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on July 15, 2015 in Immigration

When you or a loved one is involved in deportation proceedings, you may be ready and willing to try any possible avenue to keep your loved one in the country. Cancellation of removal—a last-ditch option that many apply for simply as a proverbial Hail Mary—may actually be the best possible fit for some cases.

History and Definition

Cancellation of removal is defined by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) as an immigration benefit that can be granted by an immigration judge, and adjusts one’s status from deportable to that of a permanent resident alien. Still, it may only be granted to one who is in deportation proceedings, and more than a bit of the final determination is based on a judge’s discretion.

Cancellation of removal has only existed in its current form since April 1997, when the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) was passed. Before that date, a similar procedure— suspension of deportation—existed. However, suspension of deportation did not differentiate between documented and undocumented immigrants, and the standard one had to meet was markedly lower.

LPR vs. Non-LPR

Cancellation of removal is available, at least in theory, to any individual who is in deportation proceedings, but there are different criteria set out for lawful permanent residents (LPRs, or “green card” holders) and everyone else to meet. The rationale is that LPRs have already had to prove various factors, such as their good moral character, when applying for that status. So, unless something has fundamentally changed, there is no need to require proof of it a second time.

The criteria that must be met for LPRs to have a chance at cancellation of removal are set out in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), §240(A). There are only three: (1) an alien has been an LPR for no less than 5 years; (2) he or she has resided in the U.S. continuously for at least seven years in any status; and (3) he or she has not been convicted of an aggravated felony, which is a crime held to have specific immigration weight due to its involving deception or exceptional violence.

The criteria, by comparison, for non-LPRs is somewhat more involved:

Continue Reading ››