Immigration Happenings Sept. 2005 (Long)

[Bala]

*To Ray: Feel free to move any part or parts of this post to other topic headings, if appropriate, such as the divorce information to Divorce topic heading.

HIGHLIGHTS
*New USCIS Director Nominated
*New USCIS Filing Fees Coming Soon
*"Quickie" Express Divorce in Colombia
*Violence Against Women Act 2005 (VAWA) renewal is pending in Congress.
(Senate Version revives "International Marriage Broker" provisions, pushed by feminist activists)


1. NEW USCIS DIRECTOR NOMINATED
Emilio T. Gonzalez has been nominated as new USCIS Director, and his appointment confirmation is pending.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/nominations/493.html

Dr. Gonzalez, holds a PhD from University of Miami, and currently serves as Senior Managing Director of Global and Government Affairs for Tew Cardenas, LLP. During his prior service in the U.S. Army, Dr. Gonzalez served at the U.S. Embassies in El Salvador and Mexico and directed the Office of Special Assistants for the
Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Southern Command.


2. USCIS FILING FEE INCREASES
Filing fees are going up for most petition $5 to $20.
The fee increases are published in the Federal Register 09/26/05, and will go into effect in 30 days of publication, or by 10/26/05.
(Get your petitions in soon if you want to beat the fee increases.)

New Fees:
Form I-129F Fiancee/K-3 $170
Form I-130 Legal Resident $190
Form I-485 Adjustment $325 (For minors up to age 14, the new fee is $225)
Form I-751 Remove Conditions $205
Form I-131 Travel $170
Form I-765 Employment $180


3. "QUICKIE" EXPRESS COLOMBIAN DIVORCE
President Uribe is expected to sign a law decree shortly allowing a new form of "express" divorce in Colombia, in some cases in as little as 30 minutes. (Cost about $15.00 USD.)

There is a backlog of over 1.5 million divorce petitions pending in Colombia family courts, and it is anticipated that this program will help to diminish this big backlog. (The law was passed by the Colombian legislature in June of this year, but there was a delay in the President signing it due to administrative problems which are expected to to be cleared up shortly, according to Uribe's office.)

For more information on this topic as reported by CNN, see:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americ....ap/index.html

Under the provisions of this law, a divorce can be finalized between a couple married in Colombia before a civil notary or in a Church wedding
in as little as 30 minutes if 1) there are no children involved and 2) both sides mutually consent to divorce.

The divorce is processed in the notary's office, and in the case of a civil marriage, the couple receives a civil divorce decree. In the case
of a Church wedding marriage, the couple receives a cessation of civil effects of Church marriage. No court hearing or judge's signature is requested or required.

QUESTION: Can this or does this new law apply to a U.S. citizen gentleman who married in Colombia?

Yes, it would appear so. However, the U.S. citizen gentleman must comply with all requirements of the new law, including mutual consent and show that no children are involved, and be prepared to submit any requested documentation and identification, including power of attorney, if appropriate.

If all requirements are met, the divorce is deemed valid in Colombia for purpose of marriage termination in Colombia and any new marriage
in Colombia. (It would not appear at this time that the gentleman's residency in Colombia is required, but physical appearance at the notary's office is probably wise.)

QUESTION: Will a "quickie" divorce under this new law be recognized in the U.S., and specifically by U.S. Immigration or Embassy for purpose of issuing a visa or other immigration benefit?

The answer here is much more problematic. It is unclear at this time if such a divorce will be accepted by U.S. Immigration or Embassy.

As for general validity of "quickie" foreign divorces, (such as some in the past from Mexico,
Dominican Republic, and Haiti), the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled over 50 years ago that "unilateral divorces" or "ex parte divorces" (those where only one party signed the papers) are not valid, even if they are valid in the home jurisdiction.
Procedural due process requires that both sides be given prior notice and opportunity to be heard as a condition to any valid divorce. Williams v. State of North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287 (1945).

This would NOT seem to pose a problem initially since the new "quickie divorce" in Colombia requires mutual consent and signature.

However, U.S. Immigration has moved beyond the "no unilateral divorce" rule and views certain "quickie" foreign divorces as "suspect" and has denied their validity, when asked to issue a visa. The general rule is that a divorce must be valid and acceptable under the law of the jurisdiction which issued the divorce to be accepted in the U.S. and by Immigration.

However, "suspect" divorces, even if valid in the home jurisdiction, can include:
1. Divorces where one or both sides have failed to establish any "residency" in that jurisdiction.
2. Divorces which are NOT issued by a court after hearing before a judge of competent authority who signed the divorce decree.

In our opinion, at this time, in the absence of clarification by a USCIS Memo, or U.S. court such the Board of Immigration Appeals, it is problematic and unclear if U.S. Immigration will accept the validity of the Colombian "quickie" divorce in support of a visa petition. Thus, we
are suggesting that people who wish to attempt to use a "quickie" Colombian divorce in support of their visa petition, in the interest of caution, be prepared to seek an ICBF (Colombian Institute of Family Welfare) judge's approval or ratification signature on it, if at all possible and allowed.


4. VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT 2005 (VAWA) RENEWAL
The current VAWA law of 1994 is set to expire end of September 2005. The immigration provisions in this law are the ones relied upon for protection by foreign citizen ladies who claim abuse, physical or mental, from their U.S. citizen husbands and sometimes even fiances. The Senate version of the bill (S. 1197) has been sent out of the Judiciary Committee by voice vote approval, and is now pending in the Senate calendar.
(The House version is found at H.R. 2876.)

SEE text of the Senate version of the Bill here:
(Go the version Reported in the Senate, rather then just Introduced in the Senate)
http://thomas.loc.gov/
Type in S. 1197 (RS Reported in the Senate)
See Title VIII for the immigration provisions.
"Protection of Battered and Trafficked Immigrant Women",

There is wide support in Congress and the public in general for protection of foreign spouses from abuse, and thus there is a likelihood that this VAWA renewal bill will pass (in some form) and be signed by the President.

The problem is that the feminist activists have revived the "International Marriage Brokers" act and cleverly placed it (maybe sneaked it) into the VAWA renewal bill. See Title VIII, Protection of Battered and Trafficked Immigrant Women, Subtitle D, International Marriage Broker Regulation.
Go to S. 1197 (RS Reported in the Senate, as opposed to just Introduced in the Senate).

To refresh anyone's recollection, the "International Marriage Brokers" act places the burden on the matchmakers to gather criminal, domestic violence and background data on gentlemen customers and supply them to each lady in her native language before the gentleman customer receives the contact information for that lady. Gentlemen must also submit their criminal, domestic violence and other background data to Immigration as part of the petition process, and be subject to extensive background checks by Immigration and the Embassy. The Embassy will provide the results of the background check to the lady at her final visa processing and supply her with domestic violence "help information" in the U.S.

Obviously, this type of Congressional mandate will affect everyone in this industry, be they agency
owner or tour operator, or gentleman customer or lady client.

If you do not agree with this proposed law, now would be a good time to contact your federal Senator and tell him or her to oppose Title VIII, Subtitle D of S. 1197 (Reported in the Senate).

Regards,
GB