A Six-Tour American Military Veteran One Step Closer to Being Forced to Leave the U.S. Choosing Daughter over Country


Kansas City, MO (October 11, 2018) – U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel (Retired) Patrick Schreiber and his family are dealing with another blow in their battle to navigate the misalignment of U.S. adoption and immigration laws.

Hyebin traveled from Korea at the age of 15 to live with her uncle and aunt Lt. Col. Schreiber and his wife, Soo Jin Yu. They legally adopted her at the age of 17; after Lt. Col. Schreiber returned from another tour in Afghanistan. The family later discovered that for an adopted child to be considered for immigration benefits under one part of the US immigration law, the adoption must have been completed before the child turned 16. The family, however, has argued that other provisions of immigration law may still be properly utilized to grant Hyebin the right to stay with her parents permanently. The portion of the immigration laws that the Schrieber’s wish to utilize involves recognizing that the state of Kansas, by its adoption laws, places an adopted child on the same footing as a biological child and this method of legitimating a child comports with the federal immigration law.

Friday, September 28, U.S. District of Kansas, Judge Daniel D. Crabtree, ruled in favor of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), concluding that the “plain meaning of most definitions of the word ‘legitimate’ suggests that a biological connection is required, and that the law of the child or father’s domicile alone does not supply the definition.” In so finding, the Court recognized that Hyebin would be left with no legal remedy despite having a valid Kansas birth certificate. The court stated, “If the court interprets [the immigration law] to require a biological relationship, it recognizes that the statute will not cover this ‘narrow classification of children…The court acknowledges that the statute thus will not achieve at least one congressional goal—family unity for these children.”  Despite this recognition, the Court found that the US immigration law turned on a biological connection alone.

Hyebin has been recognized by the State of Kansas and the US military as the legitimate adopted child of Lt. Col. Schreiber and his wife.  The court’s ruling however means that Hyebin would have to leave the country right after graduation from college from Kansas University, where she is a senior studying chemical engineering.

The Schreiber’s lawyer, Rekha Sharma-Crawford, has already filed an appeal of Judge Crabtree’s decision.  The family is hoping that the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals uphold Congresses “clearly expressed legislative intention to keep together the family unit wherever possible, it would appear to be a desirable result, based upon legal and equitable considerations, to adopt a liberal construction. No harm could possibly result from such a construction, and the consequences would fulfill the humane considerations involved in keeping intact the family unit.” (H.R. REP. NO. 85-1199, pt. 2 (1957))

Lt. Col. Schreiber has indicated that if Hyebin is not allowed to stay, he and his wife will relocate to South Korea to keep the family together. As previously stated, his greatest regret is that in this one instance, he should have put the need of his family ahead of the Army.

“Can you imagine? An American veteran, who has given his life to this Country is forced to leave the country he served because the daughter he loves is not welcome here,” said Sharma-Crawford. “That cannot be what the law means. It just can’t.”

Read the original story

A Six-Tour American Military Veteran May be Forced to Leave the U.S. Choosing Daughter Over Country

U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel (Retired) Patrick Schreiber solemnly swore to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that he will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that he will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over him, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. But, so help him God, Lt. Col. Schreiber and his wife, Soo Jin Ye, are prepared to leave the U.S. with their daughter, Hyebin, if Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deports her to South Korea.

Lt. Col. Schreiber and Mrs. Schreiber, a lawful U.S. permanent resident, were married on January 7, 2000 in Killeen, Texas. Like many military families, the couple endured long periods of separation while Lt. Col. Schreiber served six combat tours. Though happily married, they were unable to have children of their own.

On the other side of the world in Korea lived a 15-year-old girl named Hyebin. Her father, Mrs. Schreiber’s brother, was unable to provide a stable home for Hyebin. When Lt. Col. Schreiber and Mrs. Schreiber visited Korea, the connection with Hyebin was undeniable. Like all children, Hyebin, longed for stability and that dream came true when she was given the opportunity to come to the U.S. to live with the Schreibers. In December 2012, Hyebin entered the country on a student visa, settled in with Lt. Col. Schreiber and Mrs. Schreiber at their home in Lansing, Kansas, and began attending high school.

As time passed and the bond between them strengthened, it was clear to the Schreibers that Hyebin had become their daughter in their hearts. To make it official, the two filed for adoption in Kansas, and Hyebin’s biological parents freely and voluntarily consented. On November 17, 2014, the Kansas Court granted the adoption making Hyebin, in each and every way, the Schreibers’ legitimate daughter.

Exactly one month later, on December 17, 2014, at the age of 17, Hyebin received a valid birth certificate from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, Office of Vital Statistics, and her foreign birth certificate was forever sealed. Hyebin’s Kansas birth record, which is now the only legitimate birth record she has, lists U.S. Army Lt. Col. Patrick Schreiber as “father” and Mrs. Schreiber as “mother.” Under Kansas law, Hyebin is entitled to “the same personal and property rights as a birth child of her adoptive parents and her parents are entitled to exercise all rights due to birth parents and be subject to all the liabilities of that relationship.” In other words, Hyebin and her parents were now a bona fide family.

Recognizing the Schreibers as a valid and legitimate family, the Department of Defense issued Hyebin, as the daughter of an Army officer, her military ID card on February 4, 2015. During Lt. Col. Schreiber’s tour of duty, Hyebin and her mother filled the gap in their family with Skype calls and emails from Kansas to Afghanistan. Like all military families, the times between reunions and deployments were the happiest for the Schreiber family.

Hyebin has a Kansas-state issued birth certificate. She is the daughter of a decorated Army officer and is recognized by the Department of Defense as the legal daughter of the Schreiber’s. She is attending the University of Kansas, for which her parents are paying more than $40,000 per year in tuition, has an F-1 Visa and will graduate in 2019.

Surprisingly, what she doesn’t have is U.S. citizenship, nor a clear path to it, which she’ll need to remain with her parents in the country once she graduates college and her F-1 Visa expires.

A Military Officer’s Life Revolves Around Following Rules

If anyone understands the importance of following rules to the letter it is Lt. Col. Patrick Schreiber. To ensure Hyebin was compliant with U.S. immigration laws, he went to United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and asked for assistance with his daughter’s immigration status. USCIS officers told Lt. Col. Patrick Schreiber that his daughter was an American citizen based on the adoption and they instructed him to file a Form N-600, Application for a Certificate of Citizenship. So, he did.

Yet on February 24, 2015, the Kansas City, Missouri District Office denied Hyebin’s application.Confused, Lt. Col. Schreiber returned to USCIS. This time, USCIS officers told him to file a visa petition for his daughter. Which he did. He filed an I-130 Petition for Alien Relative, based on the definition of a child under 8 U.S.C. §1101(b) (1)(C), and classifying Hyebin as an immediate relative, his and Mrs. Schreiber’s daughter.

On November 10, 2015, USCIS issued a Notice of Intent to Deny the petition, despite the visa petition being submitted under 8 U.S.C. §1101(b)(1)(C), which is based on Hyebin becoming the Schreibers’ legitimate daughter before she turned 18.

USCIS’s reason was that since Hyebin had been adopted, she needed to comply with the requirements of 8 U.S.C. §1101(b)(1)(E), which of course she could not since she had been adopted after turning 16. In response, Lt. Col. Schreiber urged USCIS to consider his daughter’s petition under an alternative provision, §1101(b)(1)(C). Without any analysis or considering whether §1101(b)(1)(C) applied, USCIS denied the I-130 petition on June 10, 2016.

Lt. Col. Schreiber quickly appealed the decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), asking them to consider his daughter’s eligibility as a child under 8 U.S.C. §1101(b) (1)(C). The Board dealt the Schreibers a blow on June 5, 2017, a day the family will never forget. In just four short paragraphs, the BIA abruptly denied Lt. Col. Schreiber’s appeal without any real analysis, arguing that his request to consider his daughter as a child under the section noted above doesn’t apply to adopted children. Hyebin was 17 years old when the adoption was legalized. This was the Schreibers’ last chance category under which to fight for their daughter’s citizenship – a child that Kansas and the Department of Defense acknowledge as the Schreibers’ legal daughter in every way.

“What Do We Do Now?” 

Having followed the rules and submitted the forms USCIS advised him to submit, Lt. Col. Schreiber turned to ICE asking, “What do we do now?” Even ICE officials didn’t have the answer and referred Lt. Col. Schreiber to Rekha Sharma-Crawford of Sharma-Crawford, Attorneys at Law, a non-citizen immigration law and litigation in Kansas City, who is representing the military family pro bono, refusing to bill a military officer of Lt. Col. Schreiber’s stature.

“Of all the immigration cases our firm takes on, this one makes me the angriest. Here we have a decorated, recently retired military officer whose family has grown closer and stronger even during Lt. Col. Schreiber’s long tours of duty as he led our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan,” says Sharma-Crawford. “He received orders to return to Afghanistan, once again, putting his life on the line for his country. He followed orders to report to the Middle East before filing the adoption, believing it could be finalized upon his return. But by the time he did, his daughter had turned 17, which has created this fiasco for his family. In hindsight, had he known, Lt. Col. Schreiber would have adopted Hyebin at 15.”

Sharma-Crawford has filed Hyebin’s case with the Federal District Court of Kansas, and it is pending before Judge Julie Robinson. “There is no timeline on when Judge Robinson will rule on it. She can take as much time as she wants. I don’t know of no other case such as this. Given the uniqueness of the issues raised, further litigation may come; we just don’t know which side may appeal. But we are very hopeful that in the end this family will find a just result,” explains Sharma-Crawford.

In the meantime, Hyebin continues excelling in her studies at the University of Kansas. On March 8th, Representatives Adam Smith (Wash.) and Chris Smith (N.J.), along with U.S. Senators Roy Blunt (Mo.) and Mazie K. Hirono (Hawaii), introduced the bipartisan Adoptee Citizenship Act of 2018. The bill sponsored by Blunt, Hirono, Amy Klobuchar (MN) and Susan Collins (ME), if passed, would close a loophole in the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 (CCA), which has prevented internationally-adopted children, who are now adults, from receiving U.S. citizenship despite being raised by American parents. “We are so excited these Senators and Congressmen are taking steps to recognize that immigration laws have left many adopted children without a remedy,” says “Sharma-Crawford. “This bill is a start in the right direction to bring about much needed change.” 

A Parent’s Love for a Child Knows No Boundaries

Long ago, lawmakers addressed the definition of a child. They provided the greatest rationality for allowing Lt. Col. Schreiber’s petition under the U.S. immigration laws when they indicated in H.R. REP. NO. 85-1199, pt. 2 (1957) “in view of the clearly expressed legislative intention to keep together the family unit wherever possible, it would appear to be a desirable result, based upon legal and equitable considerations, to adopt a liberal construction. No harm could possibly result from such a construction, and the consequences would fulfill the humane considerations involved in keeping intact the family unit.”

Not filing Heybin’s adoption papers before leaving on his sixth tour of duty is Lt. Col. Schreiber’s greatest regret in life. If this matter of citizenship isn’t resolved, the Shreibers’ daughter is left stateless and at risk for deportation with no stable family to return to in South Korea.

Lt. Col. Schreiber has said that if Hyebin is not allowed to stay, he and his wife will leave the U.S. and return to South Korea with their daughter. Can you imagine? An American veteran, who has solemnly sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and his wife forced to leave the country he served and loves because the daughter they love is not welcome here.

Civil Rights Activist and Lawyer, Valarie Kaur, to Make Special Appearance at One Community: Together in Solidarity

Kaur to appear at a collaboration of communities, leadership and faith aimed at overcoming the hate, violence and division pervasive in our neighborhoods.

Kansas City, MO (April 19, 2017) – Valarie Kaur, civil rights activist and lawyer, makes a special appearance at the One Community: Together in Solidarity event on Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at the Rolling Hills Presbyterian Church located at 9300 Nall Avenue in Overland Park, Kansas. This event, in collaboration with various communities, leadership and faiths, is being spearheaded by a local attorney who felt compelled to act in the face of the Olathe shooting tragedy.

“After the shooting, I felt like the community needed to find a way back to center. There needed to be a way to unify communities across the metro so that everyone felt safer. The current climate in the U.S. has caused many communities to be fearful and feel vulnerable,” explains Rekha Sharma-Crawford a principal in Sharma-Crawford Attorneys at Law. “However, information alone isn’t enough to translate into action. Events like One Community: Together in Solidarity are important to help draw communities together with faith leaders, government leaders and law enforcement in support of one another, which can help overcome the feelings of isolation and create stronger bonds between communities; something that only makes us all safer.”

One of the highlights of the event is a special appearance by the inspirational Valarie Kaur, who will be speaking at length, and closing the program with a question and answer session. Kaur is a well-known civil rights activist, lawyer, award-winning filmmaker, media commentator, educator, entrepreneur, author and Sikh American justice leader. Her new venture, the Revolutionary Love Project at the University of Southern California, champions the ethic of love in an era of rage. She can be followed on Twitter under @valariekaur.

“Fashioned after the “Not In Our Town” model, One Community: Together in Solidarity is a program that brings together so many amazing organizations like the American Friends Service Committee, Kansas City Coalition Against Hate Violence, Immigrant Justice Advocacy Movement, and SevenDays to name just a few. It also brings leadership from governmental agencies in Overland Park, Merriam, Leawood, and even the Consulate of Mexico in Kansas City. Representatives from many faiths will also be present to stand together in unity. Everyone has been so generous with their time, space and knowledge in helping make this happen. We hope to help heal the KC metro after this tragedy and show the world of the resilience and community that exists in the middle of the United States. It is hoped that neighbors and other local residents will attend events like One Community: Together in Solidarity and join a movement to stand together against the hate and violence that divides us,” says Sharma-Crawford. As a way to visually show solidarity, ribbons will be handed out at the event and people will be encouraged to display these ribbons across the metro as a sign of solidarity.

The doors open for One Community: Together in Solidarity at 6:00 p.m. and the program begins promptly at 6:30 p.m., lasting until 9:00 p.m. The event is free, but registration is requested.

Trump Administration Displays Disregard for Families and American Due Process with Abrupt Late Night Deportation of Indiana Father

Wednesday, April 5, 2017

The Beristain Family is distraught this morning as the U.S. government conducted a middle-of-the-night deportation of Roberto Beristain, an Indiana father and businessman whose detention by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in February during a check-in appointment attracted broad attention by the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, South Bend Tribune, and other national news media.

Roberto had been held at detention facilities in Indiana, Wisconsin, Illinois, Louisiana, New Mexico, and Texas. He argued that his removal order was legally improper, and had asked an immigration judge to rescind the removal order, and to stay removal. He had also filed a habeas corpus petition, likewise seeking to redress the wrongs resulting from a void order. Before either judge had chance to rule, in a highly unusual move, ICE agents rushed him 90 miles from the detention facility to the U.S.-Mexico border at Juarez, Mexico, as the sole detainee being moved. None of his attorneys were notified, as required, of his removal and they only learned about it based on a late night, frantic call from Roberto’s wife, who indicated Roberto was in Juarez already.

“They suddenly told me it was time to go,” Roberto said. “They told me to get my stuff, they put me in the back of a van, and sped toward the border. They took me to another facility while in transport to sign paperwork. I asked to speak with my attorney, but was told there wasn’t time for that. At around 10:00 pm, I was dropped off at the Mexico-U.S. Border and walked into Mexico.”

“What is most distressing here is that Roberto had potential avenues for relief pending before the Immigration Court,” said Adam M. Ansari, managing partner, Ansari & Shapiro LLC, who
has been advocating on behalf of the family since Roberto was detained on February 6, 2017. “This was an attempt to short-circuit the justice process by intentionally removing him before a judge could stop his removal. We were in communication with the government regarding those motions – what they failed to mention was that they were in the process of throwing him out of the country.”

Jessica K. Miles of Noble & Vrapi, Roberto’s counsel in New Mexico and Texas remarked, “the manner and speed with which Roberto was moved from New Mexico to Texas and then deported to Mexico despite several pending motions, coupled with misleading statements from ICE leadership about when he would be removed show a blatant disregard for his procedural rights.”

Chuck Roth, director of litigation of the National Immigrant Justice Center said, “the Trump administration treats noncitizens like Roberto like lawbreakers, even when they do everything in their power to obey the law, but the law was broken in this case by the immigration authorities. ICE’s actions have torn a father from his three U.S. citizen children, a husband from his citizen spouse, and a business owner from his American employees. And all based on a removal order which wasn’t proper in the first place. I’m not sure which is more shocking, the disregard for the harm done wantonly to families and communities, or the lengths to which the government is now willing to go to deport as many people as possible without regard to a person’s right to a fair hearing.”

“The conduct of ICE in perpetuating a continuing due process violation at all costs, is a threat to core American values and should not be overlooked or brushed aside causally,” said Rekha Sharma-Crawford, of Sharma-Crawford, who drafted the Emergency Motion to Rescind that is pending in Batavia, New York.

Attorneys for Beristain, which include multiple law firms and organizations across the country, have stated they will continue to fight on behalf of Roberto, and will pursue all available legal and political remedies to bring Roberto back and correct the mistake immigration officials created nearly two decades ago.

Summary of recent guidance of Trump’s immigration enforcement plans / Resumen de la reciente orientación de planes de ejecución de inmigración del Trump

The secretary of the Department of Homeland Security has released two separate documents providing additional guidance on President Trump’s immigration plans. One of the orders addresses the President’s plan to increase enforcement efforts in the interior of the United States. The other order addresses the President’s plan to increase detention and security at the U.S.-Mexico border.

El secretario del Departamento de Seguridad Nacional ha publicado dos documentos separados proporcionando orientación adicional sobre el Presidente Trump planes de inmigración. Una de las órdenes se aborda el plan del Presidente para aumentar las actividades de represión en el interior de los Estados Unidos. La otra orden se dirige sobre el plan del Presidente para aumentar la detención y la seguridad en la frontera entre México y los Estados Unidos.

Memo to implement the Interior Enforcement Executive Order, dated 2/20/17:

Memo al implementar la aplicación interior del Poder Ejecutivo Nacional, de fecha 2/20/17:

  • Rescinds all immigration enforcement policies and memorandum that conflict with the President’s new policies, including the 11/20/2014 enforcement priorities memo and the Secure Communities memo under President Obama.
  • Anula todas las policas de inmigración y el memorando que entran en conflicto con las nuevas políticas del Presidente, incluido el 11/20/2014 las prioridades de aplicación memo y el memo de Comunidades Seguras bajo la administración del presidente Obama.
  • The order does NOT rescind the DACA 2012 memo and DACA/DAPA 2014 memo. DACA is still alive, while DAPA is still stuck in a court battle.
  • La orden no anula la DACA 2012 memo y daca/DAPA 2014 memo. DACA sigue vivo, mientras DAPA todavía está atascado en una batalla judicial
  • States that DHS shall faithfully execute U.S. immigration laws against “all removable aliens.” Priorities are individuals with criminal convictions, charges or who have committed a crime without any charges, have committed fraud or misrepresentation to the government, have abused public benefits, have a final order of removal, or pose a national security threat.
  • Afirma que DHS deberá ejecutar fielmente las leyes de inmigración de Estados Unidos en contra de “todos los extranjeros removibles.” Las Prioridades son personas con condenas penales, cargos o que han cometido un delito sin ningún cargo en su contra, han cometido fraude o tergiversación del gobierno, han abusado de beneficios públicos, tienen una orden final de deportación, o que suponen una amenaza para la seguridad nacional.
  • It directs DHS personnel to arrest, apprehend, initiate enforcement actions, initiate removal proceedings against “any alien subject to removal under any provision of the INA” (would include any individual who is undocumented or overstayed) and refer appropriate cases for criminal prosecution.
  • Dirige el personal de DHS para arrestar, detener, iniciar acciones coercitivas, iniciar los trámites de expulsión contra “cualquier extranjero sujeto a la extracción bajo cualquier disposición de la INA” (incluiría cualquier individuo indocumentado o permaneció mas del tiempo debido) y remitir los casos pertinentes para su enjuiciamiento penal.
  • Restores Secure Communities program effective immediately.
  • Restaura el programa de Comunidades Seguras efectivo inmediatamente.
  • Directs department to cooperate with EOIR to initiate removal proceedings against incarcerated aliens
  • dirige el departamento para cooperar con la EOIR para iniciar los trámites de expulsión contra los extranjeros encarcelados
  • Directs ICE and CBP to expand 287(g) program, which is designed to give immigration enforcement powers to state and local law enforcement.
  • Dirige el ICE y el CBP para ampliar el programa 287(g), que está diseñado para proporcionar a la aplicación de las leyes de inmigración facultades para ejercer la ley estatal y local.
  • Orders DHS to replace the current detainer forms “to more effectively communicate” with law enforcement agencies. The detainer is a request for a jail to hold an individual until ICE is able to pick them up. In many cases the detainers are unconstitutional.
  • Ordena a DHS para reemplazar el actual retenedor formas “para comunicarse de forma más eficaz con los organismos encargados de hacer cumplir la ley. El retenedor es una petición de una cárcel de mantener a una persona hasta que ICE pueda recogerlos. En muchos casos los retenedor son inconstitucionales.
  • Prosecutorial Discretion is considered on a case by case basis. Since the November 20, 2014 priorities memo is rescinded, there are no specific guidelines for Prosecutorial Discretion.
  • A discreción del fiscal se considera caso por caso. Desde el 20 de noviembre de 2014 prioridades memo es revocado, no hay directrices específicas para la discreción del fiscal.
  • Directed ICE to hire 10,000 ICE agents and support and legal staff as necessary. Likely will need additional finding from Congress.
  • ICE dirigida a contratar a 10.000 agentes del ICE y de apoyo y personal jurídico según sea necesario. Probablemente necesitará encontrar adicional del Congreso.
  • Directs ICE, CBP, and USCIS to issue guidance and issue regulations to collect and assess fines and penalties from aliens and those who facilitate their unlawful presence.
  • Dirige a ICE, el CBP, y el USCIS emitir directrices y dictar reglamentos para recoger y evaluar las multas y sanciones de los extranjeros y aquellos que faciliten su presencia ilegal.
  • Rescinds January 7, 2009 DHS memo, “Privacy Policy Guidance Memorandum” and directs development of new privacy guidance.
  • Anula el DHS memo del 7 de enero de 2009, “Orientación Política de Privacidad Memorando” y dirige el desarrollo de nuevas directrices de privacidad.
  • Sets forth details on publication of regular reports on apprehensions and releases.
  • Se exponen los detalles sobre la publicación de informes periódicos sobre los temores y libera.
  • Establishes a Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement (VOICE) Office for assist victims of crimes committed to undocumented individuals. Directs any funding currently used to assist the undocumented to the new VOICE Office.
  • Establece un compromiso de las víctimas de los delitos de inmigración (VOICE), la oficina de asistencia a las víctimas de los crímenes cometidos a personas indocumentadas. Dirige cualquier financiación utilizados actualmente para ayudar a los indocumentados a la nueva Oficina de VOICE.

Border Memo – 2/17/17 memo to implement border EO/ Memo – Frontera 2/17/17 memo a implementar frontera EO.

  • Says any individual arriving at the border will be detained pending a determination if they are eligible for any relief in the U.S. Will depend on the availability of judges, asylum officers and bed space near the border.
  • Dice que cualquier individuo que llegando a la frontera será detenido a la espera de una determinación si son elegibles para cualquier ayuda en los Estados Unidos dependerá de la disponibilidad de los Jueces, los oficiales de asilo y espacio de cama cerca de la frontera.
  • Orders Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to hire 5,000 additional agents and 500 Air & Marine Agents/Officers.
  • Ordena a los Servicio de Aduanas y Protección Fronteriza (CBP) para contratar a otros 5.000 agentes y 500 Air &Amp; Marina/agentes oficiales.
  • Expands the use of 287(g) Program at the border, which is intended to give immigration enforcement powers to state and local enforcement officers.
  • Amplía el uso de programa 287(g) en la frontera, cuyo objetivo es dar cumplimiento de las leyes de inmigración poderes estatales y locales de los funcionarios encargados de la observancia.
  • Commissions a comprehensive study of border security and calls for construction of additional border fencing.
  • Comisiones un estudio amplio de la seguridad en la frontera y reclama la construcción de vallas adicionales en la frontera
  • States DHS has authority to apply expedited (immediate) removal to anyone in the U.S. who hasn’t been present in the US for 2 years. Previously this was only applied to people found within 100 miles of the border. It appears DHS will take active steps to expand this to the interior of the U.S. and may issue new regulations on expedited removal procedures.
  • Miembros DHS tiene autoridad para aplicar (acelerado) Extracción inmediata a cualquier persona en los Estados Unidos que no han estado presentes en los Estados Unidos por 2 años. Anteriormente, esto sólo se aplica a personas encontradas dentro de las 100 millas de la frontera. Parece que el DHS tomará medidas activas para ampliar esta al interior de los Estados Unidos y podría emitir nuevas regulaciones sobre los procedimientos de eliminación acelerada.
  • States that individuals in immigration courts may be returned to a contiguous country (country that borders the U.S.) pending the outcome of their immigration court case if they are not a risk of illegal reentry. This has never been a practice before with immigration courts and we are not sure how this will be enforced.
  • Indica que los individuos en los tribunales de inmigración podrían ser devuelto a un país contiguo (país que hace frontera con los EE.UU.) a la espera del resultado de su caso de la corte de inmigración si no son un riesgo de reingreso ilegal. Esto nunca ha sido una práctica antes con los tribunales de inmigración y no estamos seguros de cómo se aplicará.
  • Creates new review standards for credible fear interviews.
  • Crea nuevas normas de revisión por temor creíble entrevistas.
  • Orders ICE and CBP to take “all necessary action and allocate all available resources to expand their detention capabilities and capacities near the border with Mexico.”
  • Ordena a ICE y el CBP para tomar “todas las medidas necesarias y asignar todos los recursos disponibles para ampliar sus capacidades y funciones de detención cerca de la frontera con México”.
  • USCIS, CBP, and ICE should issue guidance making sure employees only exercise parole on a case-by-case basis until new guidance is issued (it appears they plan to issue regulations on use of parole). Permits the release and parole of individuals who have been found to have a credible fear of harm.
  • El USCIS, el ICE y el CBP, debería publicar directrices asegurándose de que los empleados sólo ejercer la libertad condicional en un caso por caso hasta nueva orientación es emitido (parece que va a emitir los reglamentos sobre el uso de la libertad condicional). Permite la liberación y la libertad condicional a personas que han demostrado tener un temor creíble de daño.
  • Directs USCIS, CBP, and ICE to develop uniform written guidance/training on “proper” processing of UACs, “timely” adjudication of relief claims, and “safe” repatriation once proceedings are complete, if applicable. Should establish review procedures to make sure kids continue to meet the definition of a UAC throughout removal proceedings.
  • Dirige el USCIS, el ICE y el CBP, para desarrollar las orientaciones escritas uniforme/capacitación sobre procesamiento de “adecuado”, “oportuna” UACs adjudicación de reclamaciones, socorro y repatriación “segura” una vez que se completa el procedimiento, si procede. Debe establecer procedimientos de revisión para asegurarse de que los niños continúen cumplir la definición de UAC durante procedimientos de expulsión.
  • May place parents or guardians of unaccompanied minor children in immigration proceedings or refer them for criminal prosecution if the parents pay smugglers to bring their children to the U.S.
  • Puede colocar a los padres o tutores de los menores no acompañados en los trámites de inmigración o remitirlos a enjuiciamiento criminal si los padres pagan los contrabandistas para traer a sus hijos a los EE.UU.
  • Directs task forces on Transnational Criminal Organizations, especially those involved in human smuggling. Would also target people and organization that undermine border security or the integrity of the immigration system – including drug trafficking, illegal reentry, visa fraud, identity theft, unlawful possession or use of official docs, and acts of violence committed at or near the border
  • Dirige grupos de tareas sobre las organizaciones delictivas transnacionales, especialmente aquellos involucrados en el contrabando de seres humanos. También se dirigen a personas y organizaciones que socavan la seguridad de las fronteras o la integridad del sistema de inmigración – incluido el tráfico de drogas ilegales, la reentrada, visa fraude, robo de identidad, posesión o uso ilegal de documentos oficiales, y los actos de violencia cometidos en o cerca de la frontera
  • Develop a standard way to report data publicly – with uniform terminology and an easy-to-understand format. Includes: number of convicted criminals and nature of their offenses, prevalence of gang members “and prior immigration violators,” custody status of aliens, and – if released- the reason for release, number of aliens ordered removed and number physically removed.
  • Desarrollar un método estándar para los datos del informe públicamente – con terminología uniforme y un formato fácil de entender. Incluye: número de criminales convictos y la naturaleza de sus delitos, la prevalencia de los pandilleros “antes y aquellos que violan las leyes de inmigración”, la custodia y la condición jurídica de los extranjeros, – si se libera- la razón para la liberación, el número de extranjeros ordenó retirarse y número extraído físicamente.

Sharma-Crawford Attorneys at Law Announces New Focus on National Interest Waivers (NIW)

In addition to its other practice areas, Kansas City-based firm also will concentrate on clients who contribute to the national interest and may be eligible for permanent residence in the EB-2 immigrant visa preference category. 

Kansas City, MO (September 21, 2016)  Sharma-Crawford Attorneys at Law announces they have added a new focus to their immigration law practice. In addition to other areas, the firm also will concentrate on clients who may fall under the EB-2 immigrant visa preference category for U.S. employment-based permanent residency. The firm is well recognized for litigating complicated immigration cases, and often takes cases in which clients’ have unique situations and life stories. Given the heightened standards faced by those seeking residency through the National Interest Waiver process, the firm’s expertise in litigating complex cases places them in an unrivaled position to handle these cases.

“As trial lawyers, we’re different. We believe legal cases are about understanding people’s stories. We believe that decision makers need to understand the caliber of our clients, what they do to benefit the greater good, and how the law supports their cases,” explains Rekha Sharma-Crawford a principal in Sharma-Crawford Attorneys at Law, LLC.

The EB-2 immigrant visa preference category includes “members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent and individuals who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business will substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United States,” as created by congress with the Immigration Act of 1990. EB-2 categories usually require the Labor Certification application followed by the employer-filed I-140.

The NIW petition, however, waives EB-2’s Labor Certification requirement, but a person must fulfill three requirements that demonstrate permanent residency is in the nation’s best interest: work in the U.S. has “substantial intrinsic merit,” is “national in scope,” and “waiving the labor certification requirement would benefit the national interests of the United States.” The term “national interest” does not have a statutory or regulatory definition, which is where it becomes essential to be able to help explain, in plain language, what it is that the person does and its wider impact.

There are many ways that an individual’s contributions can further a national interest. For example, does the work that the individual performs help the American economy? Does it improve health care? Are they on the verge of a cutting edge discovery that has the potential to change or even create an industry? Other possibilities may include things like:

  • Will it create affordable housing for the poor, elderly and children?
  • Will the environment and natural resources usage improve?
  • Will it unlock a medical mystery and help change the way medical matters are approached or handled in a particular field?

“When we began to think about expanding our services, we realized that we had a passion for innovation. We use it in the way we litigate and we understand the way creative thought can lead to profound change. Thus, visa cases for members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent and individuals with exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business and whose services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the U.S. became our new passion. These cases appeal to our curiosity and unwavering need to understand and tell their stories in a way only trial lawyers can,” states Sharma-Crawford.

About Sharma-Crawford Attorneys at Law

Sharma-Crawford, Attorneys at Law is a nationally recognized firm specializing in the complexities of immigration litigation. Practice specialties include criminal or civil litigation in state, federal or immigration court. The attorneys of Sharma-Crawford also speak and educate peers and the community on issues pertaining to the complexities of immigration and immigration litigation. The firm is located on the border of Kansas City’s Westside and the Crossroads Arts District.


National Immigration Law Center Sues to Force Kansas to Disclose Information about Discriminatory Treatment of Refugees

KANSAS City, MO. & LOS ANGELES, CA., (April 5, 2016) – Kansas may not keep its unlawful discrimination against Syrian refugees a secret, according to a lawsuit filed by the National Immigration Law Center (NILC) and co-counsel Sharma-Crawford Attorneys at Law, LLC, under the Kansas Open Records Act. The suit, filed after more than two months of requests and appeals, seeks to learn more about how officials are implementing Gov. Sam Brownback’s unconstitutional instruction to state agencies not to assist in the resettlement of certain individuals designated by the federal government as refugees.

Last November, Brownback issued an executive order instructing state officials to engage in discriminatory practices to make it difficult for Syrian refugees to begin new lives in Kansas. He has since issued a more ambiguous order that could have the same pernicious effect.

“Syrian refugees have fled unspeakable violence, undergone years of background checks and want nothing more than to begin their lives anew in America,” said Melissa Keaney, attorney for the NILC. “Through his order, Gov. Brownback may be pushing his state agencies to make their new lives in America even more difficult, if not impossible—and he has done so in secret. We filed this lawsuit today because the public has a right to know if the state is engaging in discriminatory, unconstitutional behavior.”

“Gov. Brownback’s latest executive order leaves out way more than it includes,” said Justin Cox, cooperating attorney with the NILC. “Nowhere does it explain the circumstances under which the state would conclude that a particular refugee is a security risk, who within the state would make that determination or if it has already been made. For all that’s known publicly, Kansas could be barring refugees from the state solely because of their religion or country of birth.”

More than ten weeks ago, NILC requested information under the Kansas Open Records Act from the governor’s office and two agencies involved in administering federally funded benefits to refugees: the Kansas Department for Women and Children and the Kansas Department of Health and Environment. Under the law, state officials have three business days to act on a request for public records.

“This lawsuit demonstrates what is all too common: public officials routinely violate the Kansas Open Records Act, making a mockery of the law’s promise of governmental transparency,” said Rekha Sharma-Crawford, who is serving as co-counsel on the case. “Usually the public officials get away with ignoring the law, but not this time.”

NILC and Sharma-Crawford Attorneys hope that the lawsuit will compel the state to provide more information about how it is implementing the executive order in order to shine a public light on the state’s potentially unconstitutional, discriminatory actions.

The petition for declaratory and injunctive relief is available at www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/NILC-v-Brownback-KORA-2016-03-30.pdf.

About Sharma-Crawford Attorneys At Law
Sharma-Crawford, Attorneys at Law specializes in the complexities of immigration litigation. Practice specialties include criminal or civil litigation in state, federal or immigration court. The attorneys of Sharma-Crawford also speak and educate peers and the community on issues pertaining to the complexities of immigration and immigration litigation. The firm is located on the border of Kansas City’s Westside and the Crossroads Arts District.


Legal Representation Crucial for Refugee Children

The stories below are based off real client experiences. However, all names and specific details have been altered as a matter of privacy and confidentiality.

Juana was 11 years old when she came to the U.S. from Honduras. She lived with her grandparents, but they could not protect her from the violence engulfing their country. A cousin helped her make the treacherous journey from Honduras to the U.S. She got across the southern border in to Texas, but she was quickly apprehended by border patrol officers. The border patrol officers explained her rights to her including her right to make a phone call, her right to be represented by an attorney and her right to see an immigration judge. The problem was that the officer read these rights to her in English. She only spoke Spanish. She unwittingly nodded her head, and she was transferred to a facility with other children who came into the U.S. without their parents. She was ultimately released to her mother in Kansas.

Unknown to her, and her mother, she also was placed in immigration proceedings and given an immigration hearing. She had no idea how the immigration legal system worked and neither did her mom. Juana was just excited to be reunited with her mother. Unfortunately, neither understood Juana’s obligation to go to court to see an immigration judge. Juana did not attend her hearing and was ordered deported from the U.S. She now faces the daunting task of trying to reopen her case and see if she is eligible for some sort of relief or get deported to the violent country she fled. At this point, the difference between having an attorney and not having an attorney could be the difference between protection in the U.S. or potential persecution or death in Honduras.

For the past two years, women and children refugees from three Central American countries, Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador, have come to the U.S. in record numbers due to significant violence and failing police systems in their countries. Many of the women and children who come to the U.S. are eligible for asylum. According to the Asylum Office, part of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, close to 90% of families who have come to the U.S. have shown a credible fear of persecution or torture. Legally, this means that the Asylum Office has determined that they have a significant possibility to be granted asylum in the U.S.

Unfortunately, just having shown a credible fear of persecution does not protect all of these refugees. After these refugees are found to have a credible fear they are placed in immigration court before and immigration judge. If the refugees are unaccompanied minors, they do not have to show a credible fear of persecution at the border. However, they are still placed in immigration court. For both groups of refugees, the presence of an attorney can be the difference between getting asylum in the U.S. and getting deported to the country they fled.

According to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University, almost 50 percent of unaccompanied children are unrepresented at immigration proceedings. Of all the deportation orders issued by immigration judges against children in 2014 and 2015, almost 90 percent of them were unrepresented. The number of deportation orders against children for failing to appear in court (also called in absentia orders) were even higher at almost 97 percent. These numbers were similar for families. 86 percent of families ordered removed were unrepresented and almost 97 percent of families order deported in absentia were unrepresented.

These striking numbers show the absolute necessity for representation of these refugees. When they come to the U.S., they have no idea how to navigate the treacherous maze of immigration law, they do not speak the language, and often they have limited education and little money. For unaccompanied children, particularly younger children, they have no ability to speak for or defend themselves in court or the asylum office, if they even make it to court or the asylum office.

When I tell acquaintances unfamiliar with immigration law that immigrants, even child refugees from Central America, are not appointed attorneys, many are shocked. Criminal defendants are required to have representation because of the implication of prison time or other deprivation of liberty. Despite the grave consequences of immigration proceedings, particularly for these refugees, immigration cases are considered civil. There is no requirement for appointment of counsel.

However, Senator Harry Reid recently introduced a bill to require appointment of counsel, even at the cost of the government if necessary, for unaccompanied children, disabled individuals, and victims of abuse, torture or violence. The bill would also permit the immigration court to appoint attorneys for any person in immigration court, although it is not required. This is a step in the right direction. Although there is little hope it will pass as a bill, the importance of representation must be acknowledged, as highlighted by the statistics from TRAC. No refugee or child should be ordered deported without representation from competent attorneys.


DISCLAIMER: Nothing in this blog should be construed as legal advice. If you are in removal proceedings or need legal advice on your immigration case, please contact an immigration attorney.

Infosys. Is it a Sea of Change for Businesses?

On October 30, 2013, Infosys, the Indian multinational provider of business consulting, information technology, software engineering and outsourcing services, agreed to pay $34 million in fines for I-9 violations. What makes this remarkable is the detailed 13-page settlement agreement that lays out in excruciating detail the company’s long use of B-1 visa holders to supplement their work force.

The federal investigation was instigated by private civil lawsuit, which had been filed by a former manager who was alleging discrimination and breach of contract. That manager, Jay Palmer, alleged that he was retaliated against when he questioned the firm’s potential violations of U.S. immigration laws.

Infosys was using engineers who were B-1 visa holders to enter the U.S. and write code and do other “work” that the DHS held was not allowed under that visa class. Evidence included detailed statements and internal Infosys documents that coached those engineers on what to say when entering the U.S. Infosys, has not admitted to any wrong doing and settled only to avoid protracted litigation.

This raises the question that if the evidence of those violations was so strong, why was the settlement only for I-9 violations? That answer lies in the complex nature of immigration law. Consider this statement in the Wall Street Journal by the lead government prosecutor, Shamoil Shipchandler:

“It’s not 100% clear what someone who holds a B-1 visa can actually do,” he said. For example, placing someone within a company for six months to do in-house tech support is an improper use of a B-1 visa. But if a consultant helps refine software during a meeting with a client, as part of a larger project, that could be seen as an appropriate use of a visitor visa, Mr. Shipchandler said. “It’s a murky area, but for our purposes they misled consular officials.”1

Thus, it becomes clear that what the government was actually concerned about was the “coaching” of employees when they applied for visas or entered the U.S. on their B-1 visas. This will likely translate into those businesses, especially in the IT industry, facing greater scrutiny when applying for business-based visas.

The Wal-Mart settlement over sub-contracted labor changed the way in which businesses track the I-9’s of their subcontractors.2 Following the Infosys settlement, the future of business immigration may again be influenced; causing business to re-evaluate the processes by which apply for and document foreign workers.

Savvy business owners are using the Infosys settlement as an opportunity to review their practices and invest in preventative measures. By seeking out affirmative review of their business immigration practices, including I-9 compliance and proper creation and maintenance of H-1B, H1B1 and E-2 status Public Access Files, businesses are hoping to avoid the same fate, or worse, as Infosys. Review of current practices is particularly important in the current political climate, which seems to suggest a stronger shift to employer sanctions and compliance as part of any comprehensive immigration reform legislation.

1 http://on.wsj.com/HsfA2O
2 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/19/business/19walmart.html?_r=0

Sharma-Crawford Attorneys at Law is a Kansas City, Missouri, firm deeply experienced in the complexities of immigration litigation. Whether you are facing criminal or civil litigation in state, federal or immigration court, in Kansas or Missouri – the caring professionals at Sharma-Crawford can help you navigate through the complex legal system. Sharma-Crawford now also offers a full range of business related immigration services. For more information, please call (816) 994-2300 or visit www.Sharma-Crawford.com. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely on advertisements. The information contained in this article is general information and should not be considered legal counsel.