What Is Immigration Inadmissibility and What are the Solutions?

Admission means allowing a person outside of the US enter to the US or allowing a person within the US get a Green Card.

Inadmissible, means someone who does not receive that permission.

Grounds of inadmissibility means reasons through which one person can become inadmissible.

Different eligible categories may have various grounds of inadmissibility. For example a person whose asylum request has been granted may not be inadmissible because of illegal entry to the US, but a person who marries a US citizen and wants to receive a Green Card, but has entered the US illegally may have to apply for “waiver of inadmissibility” to be able to receive a Green Card.

Inadmissibility is a complex and wide issue. And it does not apply for US citizens, whether they are born in the US or have received their citizenship through immigration lawful process.

Inadmissibility sometimes goes hand in hand with “unlawful presence”. Someone has entered illegally and stayed in the US without permission, or someone has entered legally and overstayed his visa or applied for asylum and his asylum has not been approved. In all the above cases someone is called to have “unlawful presence”.

When an asylum seeker receives asylum approval, the illegal entry and unlawful presence are forgiven, but if he commits a crime, for example “drug trafficking” or an “aggravated felony”, he becomes inadmissible. A type of inadmissibility that may not easily be forgiven or waived.

In a recent decision of October 8th, 2020, the BIA (board of Immigration Appeal) limited the use of “drug trafficking” to the first time of adjudication (28 I&N Dec. 107, Matter of Bernardita Maria VOSS, Respondent, Interim Decision #3997, U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals,October 8, 2020)

       The Court published its opinion stating that “If a criminal conviction was charged as a ground of removability or was known to the Immigration Judge at the time cancellation of removal was granted under section 240A(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a) (2018), that conviction cannot serve as the sole factual predicate for a charge of removability in subsequent removal proceedings.

The BIA disagreed with the IJ (immigration judge)  when “he held that the doctrine of res judicata does not preclude the DHS from charging the respondent with removability under section 237(a)(2)(B)(i) based on the same conviction that provided the basis for the previous finding of inadmissibility under section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II).3…” See Matter of G-A-, 7 I&N Dec. at 275; cf. Matter of Balderas, 20 I&N Dec. at 393 (basing a finding of deportability on an additional conviction in subsequent proceedings).

“Applying this holding”, the BIA concluded that “the respondent’s 2013 conviction for an offense relating to a controlled substance, for which she was granted cancellation of removal in 2014, cannot serve as the sole basis for the current charge of removability.”

An asylee can apply for a waiver in case of fraud or misrepresentation. Waiver maybe granted if humanitarian reasons, family unities, public interests or national interest has been established. Also undue hardship to family members can help here.

If the crime becomes more serious—such as aggravated felony, then the chance for granting a waiver becomes substantially less.

One of the grounds of inadmissibility that has recently (Feb 20, 2020 and then Sept 24,2020 ) been implemented and exercised by President Trump is “Public Charge”.

Public Charge inadmissibility means if someone within the US (and a federal judge has by far blocked this for applicant outside of the US and President Trump has not appealed it yet), is determined based on “age, health status, financial status, education” to likely become a “welfare user”, then government would deny its entry to the US.

Some of the grounds of inadmissibility are listed in section 212 of the INA. When a non-citizen applies for a visa to travel to the U.S., the consular officer makes an independent determination of considers whether any of these grounds apply, Also a CBP (Customs and Borer Protection officer makes another evaluation. Immigration officers make an independent determination of a non-citizen’s admissibility when he or she arrives at a port of entry.

Grounds of inadmissibility apply only to non-citizens seeking admission to the United States. It also does apply to Green Card Holders. Green Card Holders or Visa holders are considered applicants for admission when they arrive at a port of entry to the United States.

INA § 245, nonimmigrants applying to adjust to permanent resident status are also considered to be seeking admission. They are then subject to the grounds of inadmissibility.

INA § 237(a)(1), persons lawfully admitted to the U.S. as nonimmigrants could become inadmissible for permanent residence if they have violated US laws, while in the U.S. and could be subject to removal if they apply to adjust status.

A very important point to remember is since the grounds of inadmissibility and removal are different from each other, the same individuals might not be removable if they remain nonimmigrants.

Laws of immigration inadmissibility are complex and not knowing what to do may have serious negative consequences. The waivers for the grounds of inadmissibility are even more complicated and “case specific”. We highly recommend that you contact an immigration lawyer to consult about your case.

This is a legal blog. It is not intended to be used as legal advice. This blog does not create Attorney-Client Relationship.

For further information please contact the law offices of attorney Ramona Kennedy. Ramona Kennedy (Attorney) received her Jurisprudence Doctorate in America and is a licensed attorney in California, licensed by California Supreme Court (USA).Ramona Kennedy is a lifetime, honorary member of Bar Association of United States Supreme Court, and a member of American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) and Orange County Trial Lawyers Association (OCTLA).Ramona Kennedy is fluent in English and Farsi (Persian).

Website: http://www.bestlawyerusa.com Email: Kennedycounsel@gmail.com Phones: +19496770063 & +13106230080Telegram & WhatsApp: 1949677006 Website: www.bestlawyerusa.comwww.topsuperlawyer.com Immigration Law Blog in English:www.kennedylawblog.wordpress.com Immigration Law Blog in Farsi:www.kennedylawblog1.wordpress.com Business Law Blog in English:www.kennedylawblog2.wordpress.com Telegram Channel in Farsi: https://t.me/USA_LAWYER

Office Locations: Los Angeles (Westwood) Location-Oppenheimer tower10880 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1101 Los Angeles CA 90024Phone: 13106230080 Orange County Locations: Irvine:-7700 Irvine Center Dr. Suite 800, Irvine, CA 92618Newport Beach:-5000 Birch St, Suite 3000Newport Beach CA 92660

BANKRUPTCY AND IMMIGRATION, Frequently Asked Questions

–Do I have to be a US citizen to file for bankruptcy?

   No, you don’t have to be. You can either be a green card holder or a US citizen to file for bankruptcy.

–Is US bankruptcy effective against creditors outside of the United States?

Yes.

–Would filling bankruptcy affect my Green Card or Citizenship or Visa?

Not specifically.

–How would filing bankruptcy affect my immigration status?

If it falls under the category of “Good Moral Character” and its proven that you filing bankruptcy is not a genuine forgiveness of debts for the second chance.

–What are the examples of bankruptcy that is not allowed under the law?

The followings are some of the common instances:

  • Unpaid Taxes, depending on the date
  • Alimony and child support.
  • Malicious and willful injury to another person or property. In Chapter 13, this applies only to injury persons—debts for property damage may be discharged.
  • Debts though death or personal injury caused by Driving Under Influence or while intoxicated
  • Debts failed to be listed in bankruptcy filing.

 –What are the examples of bankruptcy mistakes, errors or criminal conducts that would affect a citizenship or green card?

  • Bankruptcy filed to support lavish lifestyle
  • Bankruptcy filed while hiding assets—providing false financial statements.
  • Lying under oath—perjury.
  • bankruptcy crimes listed under § 152 : making a false oath or account, making a false declaration under penalty of perjury, presenting a false claim, receiving property with the intent to defeat the provisions of Title 11, bribery, transferring or concealing property, destroying or tampering with evidence…
  • Overall crimes related to bankruptcy fraud

What is Bankruptcy fraud and how it happens?

Bankruptcy fraud is a white-collar crime and can be a conviction along with other crimes and it commonly happens as follow

  • Concealment of assets   
  • Filing false or incomplete forms—perjury
  • Filling under false identity
  • Multiple filings in multiple jurisdictions
  • Bribing a court-appointed trustee
  • It can happen with identity theft, public corruption, money laundering, fraud, etc.

Note: Perpetrator can be charged criminally for suspected bankruptcy fraud or attempt to bankruptcy fraud and win upon proof that the defendant knowingly and fraudulently misrepresented a material fact (18 U.S.C. Chapter 9).This cold carry a sentence of up to 5 years in prison and/or fine up to $250,000.

Note: Filing Bankruptcy alone is not a reason to consider a Citizenship applicant to be “Not in Good Moral Character”.

Note: approximately 1 in 250 bankruptcy cases are subject to audit.

This is a legal blog. It is not intended to be used as legal advice. This blog does not create Attorney-Client Relationship.

For further information please contact the law offices of attorney Ramona Kennedy. Ramona Kennedy (Attorney) received her Jurisprudence Doctorate in America and is a licensed attorney in California, licensed by California Supreme Court (USA).Ramona Kennedy is a lifetime, honorary member of Bar Association of United States Supreme Court, and a member of American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) and Orange County Trial Lawyers Association (OCTLA).Ramona Kennedy is fluent in English and Farsi (Persian).

Website: http://www.bestlawyerusa.com Email: Kennedycounsel@gmail.com Phones: +19496770063 & +13106230080Telegram & WhatsApp: 1949677006 Website: www.bestlawyerusa.comwww.topsuperlawyer.com Immigration Law Blog in English:www.kennedylawblog.wordpress.com Immigration Law Blog in Farsi:www.kennedylawblog1.wordpress.com Business Law Blog in English:www.kennedylawblog2.wordpress.com Telegram Channel in Farsi: https://t.me/USA_LAWYER

Office Locations: Los Angeles (Westwood) Location-Oppenheimer tower10880 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1101 Los Angeles CA 90024Phone: 13106230080 Orange County Locations: Irvine:-7700 Irvine Center Dr. Suite 800, Irvine, CA 92618Newport Beach:-5000 Birch St, Suite 3000Newport Beach CA 92660

OFAC: Complex Laws and No Due Process for International Violators

Court Cases show predominantly favorable decisions for Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC), US Department of Treasury.

OFAC claims it does not have enforcement powers. As a matter of fact, the power has been given to the secretary of treasury to exercise many decisions, including but not limited to “include companies or individuals in special lists” without Due Process and “freeze their assets located within the United States Jurisdiction”.        

In a case against Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC), on June 24th, 2020, the court ruled that son of specially designated global terrorist (SDGT) who is a European National (Belgium National) and a suspect of conducting business on behalf of his father is NOT entitled to “Due Process Rights Under the US 5th Amendment (US Constitution, 1789).

The 5th Amendment states “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

The court’s opinion supported “Department of Treasury” to publish a notice in Federal Register and outlining the reasons and designating son of a SDGT father, also listed as a SDGT without giving him an opportunity to defend or counterargue the allegations. The Court further granted summery judgments on all counts OFAC had filed.

Here is the case: WAEL MUHAMMAD BAZZI, Plaintiff, v. ANDREA M. GACKI, in her official capacity as Director of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control, et al., Defendants. Case No. 1:19-cv-01940 (TNM), UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, June 24, 2020.

Department of Treasury is particular about handling the cases. Even when it comes to violations, they would like to be fully in charge and use the proceeds and authorities to the full advantage of its policies. In a recent qui tam action adjudicated on July 2nd, 2020, in the US District court of NY, department of treasury filed a motion to dismiss the relators complaint alleging that plaintiff violated OFAC laws against Iran. The US Government’s motion to dismiss was granted.

In a qui tam action, a private party called a relator brings an action on the government’s behalf. The government, not the relator, is considered the real plaintiff. If the government succeeds, the relator receives a share of the award. Also called a popular action.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. BRUTUS TRADING, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK, STANDARD CHARTERED PLC, and STANDARD CHARTERED TRADE SERVICES CORPORATION, Defendants. 18 Civ. 11117 (PAE), UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, July 2, 2020.

Although Department of Treasury have direct rules, regulations and financial sanctions, in the meantime it tries to stay away from internal affairs in different companies as much as possible and it appears to offer no “whistle blow corporate protection”

          In a lawsuit filed pro se by plaintiff Zubair Shaik against former employer , the National Bank of Pakistan (NBP), and consequent termination of employment for disclosing the alleged violation of sanction laws, the court granted the bank’s motion for summary judgment on June 22, 2020, because the bank showed evidence that termination’s decision happened before the report and therefore it does not fall under the whistleblower protections of the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”).

        ZUBAIR SHAIKH, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN Defendants, (S.D. N.Y. 2020), 18 Civ. 3721 (ER), 06-22-2020.

The courts have strongly and wholeheartedly stand by “department of treasuries” against their adversaries. 

On April 20th, 2020 , the Court rejected “procedural due process” arguments of “Gafur Rakhimov”, as it was determined he didn’t have ties to the US to establish eligibility to have protection “constitutional due process” , furthermore the court found “determination of Department of Treasury in classifying him as a “Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Person’s list”.

          Rakhimov was listed as one who materially assisted an international criminal organization. And his assets were ordered to be frozen in the United States. Upon his request the administrative record of his designation was handed to him, but He was refused to receive evidence supporting his designation because they were told to be classified. Rakhimov challenged the department’s substantive decision in listing him in the blocked list. The Court supported the decision of “department of treasury” and found it “reasonable”.

GAFUR-ARSLANBEK AKHEMDOVICH RAKHIMOV, Plaintiff, v. ANDREA M. GACKI, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 19-2554 (JEB), UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, April 20, 2020

Courts opinions have strongly supported government’s position in OFAC rules. On March 31 of 2020, company being designated as “Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Person’s list, brings a lawsuit again Office of foreign Asset Control to challenge their decision in

The plaintiff alleges violation of constitutional rights. The government moves for a motion to dismiss explaining that there is no “subject matter jurisdiction and that the plaintiff is not entitled to constitutional rights under the circumstances and the plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment is denied.

FULMEN COMPANY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. OFFICE OF FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL, et al., Defendants. Civil Case No. 18-2949 (RJL); UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, March 31, 2020

This is a legal blog. It is not intended to be used as legal advice. This blog does not create Attorney-Client Relationship.

For further information please contact the law offices of attorney Ramona Kennedy. Ramona Kennedy (Attorney) received her Jurisprudence Doctorate in America and is a licensed attorney in California, licensed by California Supreme Court (USA).Ramona Kennedy is a lifetime, honorary member of Bar Association of United States Supreme Court, and a member of American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) and Orange County Trial Lawyers Association (OCTLA).Ramona Kennedy is fluent in English and Farsi (Persian).

Website: http://www.bestlawyerusa.com Email: Kennedycounsel@gmail.com Phones: +19496770063 & +13106230080Telegram & WhatsApp: 1949677006 Website: www.bestlawyerusa.comwww.topsuperlawyer.com Immigration Law Blog in English:www.kennedylawblog.wordpress.com Immigration Law Blog in Farsi:www.kennedylawblog1.wordpress.com Business Law Blog in English:www.kennedylawblog2.wordpress.com Telegram Channel in Farsi: https://t.me/USA_LAWYER

Office Locations: Los Angeles (Westwood) Location-Oppenheimer tower10880 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1101 Los Angeles CA 90024Phone: 13106230080 Orange County Locations: Irvine:-7700 Irvine Center Dr. Suite 800, Irvine, CA 92618Newport Beach:-5000 Birch St, Suite 3000Newport Beach CA 92660

Court Found Deportation of Multiple-Time Convicted Felon “Fundamentally Unfair

Crimes have unimaginably harsh Consequences for an Immigrant. One of the consequences is serving more time in jail (immigration detention) after one has been released from criminal jail. The detainees often find it so difficult to serve more after they are released from the first jail.

Deportations for the convicted immigrants are ever harsher than the both criminal and immigration jail time combined. They sometimes are barred for ever to enter the United States. The deportation does depend on the severity and frequency of the crime.

Although there are few expansive charts that explain the consequences of criminal convictions, in a nutshell one can imagine that the more serious crime, the more chances of deportation.

But deportation must have certain procedural requirements and if they are not followed the removal may be in violation of laws in placed. And this is regardless of who is issues and order or directly executes deportation; Courts, ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or CBP (Customs and border protection). The following case was adjudicated on September 1st 2020. The US district court found that the initial deportation was “fundamentally unfair” and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss. Here are some interesting facts.

“UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff(s) v. CARLOS GONZALES-LOPEZ Defendant,Case No. CR-18-00213; UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, September 1, 2020. “In May 2017, law enforcement found Defendant in Santa Clara County. In December 2017, the federal government charged Defendant in a one-count information with unlawful re-entry into the United States after deportation, without permission of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Id.”

The US district court found that the initial deportation was “fundamentally unfair” and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss. Here are some interesting facts.Defendant, a citizen of Mexico, has lived in the United States for most of his life. He first came to the United States in 1993 when he was four-years-old with his mother and sister. Gonzalez-Lopez. Defendant grew up in the Bay Area. He attended school in San Jose and Milpitas until the tenth grade. Id.

As a juvenile, Defendant developed an “extensive” criminal history. He was arrested for felony first degree burglary, felony malicious setting fire to property, misdemeanor assaults, misdemeanor having sex with a minor with a three-year age difference, and theft. In August 2004, Defendant was sentenced to 80 months of probation for two findings of felony first degree burglary and felony malicious setting fire to property. On May 18, 2007, as a seventeen-year-old, Defendant attempted to enter the United States at the San Ysidro Port of Entry by hiding himself in an auxiliary gas tank in a pick-up truck. See Encinas Decl. Mr. Juan Carlos Ascension Reyes was driving the truck. See id.

Defendant did not have valid immigration documents. Id. But U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) paroled Defendant into the U.S. from May 18, 2007 through June 17, 2007 because he was a material witness to Mr. Reyes’ alleged crime of alien smuggling. On June 5, 2007, U.S. Magistrate Judge Anthony J. Battaglia of the Southern District of California ordered Defendant placed into the custody of the Alameda County Juvenile Court based on a warrant for Defendant’s arrest for violating his probation.

CBP paroled Defendant into the custody of the Alameda County Juvenile Hall. The next day, CBP issued an Immigration Detainer for Defendant. Id. The Immigration Detainer asked the court or law enforcement to notify CBP before releasing Defendant from state custody. Id. CBP did not receive notification when Defendant was later released in July 2007. At the time of Defendant’s release, his parole had expired and he was unlawfully present in the United States.

While residing in the United States on unlawful status, Defendant married Ms. Amy Ramos, a U.S. citizen. Gonzalez-Lopez Decl. He worked different jobs performing landscaping, foundation, roofing and electrical work. Id. During this time, the Defendant was convicted of various crimes in the Santa Clara County Superior Court. In November 2009, Defendant was convicted of a misdemeanor for use/being under the influence of a controlled substance and felony grand theft. After Defendant served jail time for these convictions, he was placed into ICE custody in May 2010.

ICE transported Defendant to CBP Deferred Inspection “for a determination of inadmissibility” to the United States. Id. CBP Officer (“CBPO”) Alice Sim Sam interviewed Defendant for an expedited removal proceeding. Supervising CBP Officer (“SCBPO”) John Encinas served as a Spanish-speaking interpreter for Defendant during the interview. Per regulations governing expediting removal proceedings, 8 C.F.R. § 253.3(b)(2)(i), examining immigration officers must complete three forms: Forms I-867A, I-867B, and I-860. See 8 C.F.R. § 253.3(b)(2)(i). But the forms were not initialed correctly. Therefore the court ruled that the first removal was “fundamentally unfair”.

This is a legal blog. It is not intended to be used as legal advice.This blog does not create Attorney-Client Relationship. For further information please contact the law offices of attorney Ramona Kennedy.Ramona Kennedy (Attorney) received her Jurisprudence Doctorate in America and is a licensed attorney in California, licensed by California Supreme Court (USA).

Ramona Kennedy is a lifetime, honorary member of Bar Association of United States Supreme Court, and a member of American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) and Orange County Trial Lawyers Association (OCTLA).Ramona Kennedy is fluent in English and Farsi (Persian).

Website: http://www.bestlawyerusa.com Email: Kennedycounsel@gmail.com Phones: +19496770063 & +13106230080Telegram & WhatsApp: 1949677006 Website: www.bestlawyerusa.comwww.topsuperlawyer.com Immigration Law Blog in English:www.kennedylawblog.wordpress.com Immigration Law Blog in Farsi:www.kennedylawblog1.wordpress.com Business Law Blog in English:www.kennedylawblog2.wordpress.com Telegram Channel in Farsi:Office Locations:Los Angeles (Westwood) Location-Oppenheimer tower10880 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1101 Los Angeles CA 90024Phone: 13106230080 Orange County Locations:Irvine:-7700 Irvine Center Dr. Suite 800, Irvine, CA 92618Newport Beach:-5000 Birch St, Suite 3000Newport Beach CA 92660

Clear Answers to Confusing Immigration-Related Situations

What Would Happen to Children Born Abroad to a Current Green Card Holder?

Children born to a US parents with Green Card do not need to apply for a Visa to Immigrate to the US if

1-Parent is accompanying entering child 2-Parent holds a valid immigrant visa 3-Parent is otherwise not inadmissible to come to the US 3-child was born during mother’s permanent residency abroad 4-admission is within 2 years of the child’s birth 5-the child has valid passport and/or travel document –8 CFR, 211.1(b)(1).

What Would Happen If Defrauded Investors in Eb5 File a lawsuit to the Bank Holding Investment Funds?

Because there was no contractual agreement between the bank and investor as to the cause of action, and for other reasons the court denied to hold the bank as the responsible party for payments and settlements. Here is some more information.

CHEN JUN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. REGIONS BANK, Defendant. Case No. 1:19-CV-01524-KOB,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION, September 18, 2020.

COURT”S MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Motion denied. “ The facts underlying this case, unfortunately like too many others, involve an alleged fraud on investors. But unlike most fraud cases, the plaintiffs in this case have not joined the alleged fraudsters as defendants. Instead, the plaintiffs here seek to recover from the bank that held the account from which the fraudsters stole their funds. And as the court explains in the context of defendant Regions Bank’s motion to dismiss (doc. 12) the plaintiffs’ amended complaint (doc. 9), this case does not implicate complex securities law issues or murky elements of fraud. Rather, this case boils down to basic questions of state contract and tort law….”

What Would Happen if an Investor in an Eb5-related contract signs a contract but fails to pay?

The foreign investor is most likely contractually obligated to fulfill the contract and US courts have jurisdiction over him. Please see the following relevant case of July 2019, Minnesota District Court.

EB5 Disputes, Patrick’s Restaurant, LLC, Plaintiff v. Sujit Kumar Singh, Defendant. File No. 18-cv-00764 (ECT/KMM), UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA, July 3, 2019  

        “…This is a breach-of-contract case. Patrick’s Restaurant, a Minnesota citizen, alleges that Sujit Kumar Singh, a citizen of India, agreed to invest $1.3 million in Patrick’s in consideration for part ownership of the business but then paid nothing and walked away. Patrick’s seeks recovery of an amount close to the $1.3 million it alleges Singh contracted to invest, plus consequential and incidental damages. Singh has moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. Alternatively, he has moved under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss Patrick’s complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted…”.

Both motions will be denied. Patrick’s has demonstrated that Singh’s contract-related contacts with Minnesota coalesce to form prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction, and Patrick’s pleads a prima facie case on the merits.”

When city and state officials were subpoenaed in an Eb5-investment case what were the results?

In an Eb5-fraud related case against Vermont state and city officials, the court denied their subpoena by the plaintiff. Here are some facts on this case.

“WEI WANG, GUANGYI XIONG, XIOFENG FENG Plaintiffs, v. JIANMING SHEN, SHENLAW, LLC, Defendants. Case No. 2:17-cv-00153, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF VERMONT August 8, 2019…” Wei Wang v. Jianming Shen (D. Vt. 2019.

“…Pending before the court is Plaintiffs’ March 22, 2019 motion to compel previously subpoenaed depositions of third-party witnesses, to compel the continuation of the deposition of former Vermont EB-5 Regional Center (“VRC”) Executive Director Brent Raymond, and to prohibit the State of Vermont from interfering with a subpoena duces tecum issued to another third party. (Doc. 92.) On behalf of former Governor Peter Shumlin, former Agency of Commerce and Community Development (“ACCD”)…”

“Secretary Lawrence Miller, former ACCD Secretary Patricia Moulton, former ACCD Capital Investment Coordinator James Candido, ACCD General Counsel John Kessler, and former Director Raymond, the State of Vermont opposed the motion to compel depositions, to continue former Director Raymond’s deposition, and to prohibit interference with a third-party subpoena on April 5, 2019. The State of Vermont also moved for a protective order with regard to former Director Raymond’s continued deposition. (Doc. 98.) Plaintiffs replied and opposed the protective order on April 29, 2019, at which time the court took the pending motions under advisement…”“

What happens to a gay marriage, USCIS Immigration family petition when couple want to live in Alabama?

A gay marriage petition will be denied if the couple states the intention to live in a state which does not recognize “gay marriage”.

What happens to a USCIS immigration family petition when couple are first cousins and they want to live in Texas?

A first cousin marriage” petition will be denied if the couple states the intention to live in a state which does not recognize “marriage between first cousins”.

What is an interesting case and the underlying allegations on Fraud and Civil Forfeiture?  

US Court ruled against Chinese Nationals (Visa Applicants) whose assets were seized due allegation of Visa Fraud. Court denied “motion for judgment as a matter of law” and “motion for new trial”. Visa applicants have most likely lost at least “$300,000” Here are facts:

“UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. “APPROXIMATELY $299,873.70, SEIZED FROM BANK OF AMERICA ACCOUNT, et al.”,Defendants.CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-00545-KD-N. January 22,2020  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION…”  “United States v. Approximately $299,873.70, Seized from Bank of Am. Account (S.D. Ala. 2020).

“…The United States filed a Verified Complaint for Civil Forfeiture in rem to forfeit certain Defendant funds held in bank accounts in the United States based on their connection to an EB1-C visa fraud scheme. The United States alleged that the funds were subject to forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A) because they “constitute monetary instruments or funds transmitted to a place in the United States from or through a place outside the United States with the intent to promote the carrying on of a specified unlawful activity, that is visa fraud.” (doc. 1, p. 17) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(A) (money laundering); 18 U.S.C. § 1546 (visa fraud)). The United States alleged that the Defendant funds were deposited in bank accounts to create the appearance of a joint venture between the Chinese nationals who owned the bank accounts and a business in the United States in order to facilitate their immigration to the United States under the EB1-C visa program….”.

        The Chinese nationals filed claims to the Defendant funds. As Claimants, they admitted that they applied for EB1-C visas. However, they asserted that they were “innocent owners” because they lacked knowledge of the conduct – the visa fraud scheme and the money laundering to promote the visa fraud scheme – that resulted in the forfeiture.

        The Court presided over a four-day trial. After hearing the evidence, the jury found that the United States had shown that there was a substantial connection between the Defendant funds and the facilitation or commission of a criminal offense and that Claimants Wei, Ze, Zai, Chen, Guo, Dong, Dong and Yang had not shown that they were innocent owners of the seized defendant funds (doc. 267, Order on Jury Trial and Verdict). The Claimants filed their renewed motions for judgment as a matter of law and alternative motions for new trial.”

This is a legal blog. It is not intended to be used as legal advice.
This blog does not create Attorney-Client Relationship. For further information please contact the law offices of attorney Ramona Kennedy.

Ramona Kennedy (Attorney) received her Jurisprudence Doctorate in America and is a licensed attorney in California, licensed by California Supreme Court (USA). Ramona Kennedy is a lifetime, honorary member of Bar Association of United States Supreme Court, and a member of American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) and Orange County Trial Lawyers Association (OCTLA).

Ramona Kennedy is fluent in English and Farsi (Persian).
Website: http://www.bestlawyerusa.com
Email: Kennedycounsel@gmail.com
Phones: +19496770063 & +13106230080
Telegram & WhatsApp: 1949677006
Website: www.bestlawyerusa.com
www.topsuperlawyer.com
Immigration Law Blog in English:
www.kennedylawblog.wordpress.com
Immigration Law Blog in Farsi:
www.kennedylawblog1.wordpress.com
Business Law Blog in English:
www.kennedylawblog2.wordpress.com
Telegram Channel in Farsi:
Office Locations:
Los Angeles (Westwood) Location
-Oppenheimer tower
10880 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1101 Los Angeles CA 90024
Phone: 13106230080
Orange County Locations:
Irvine:
-7700 Irvine Center Dr. Suite 800, Irvine, CA 92618
Newport Beach:
-5000 Birch St, Suite 3000
Newport Beach CA 92660

Best Lawyer USA

Kennedy Law Ramona Kennedy, Esq. (949)677-0063

KENNEDY LAW IMMIGRATION ENGLISH BLOG

Ramona Kennedy (Attorney) received her Jurisprudence Doctorate(Doctorate in law) in America. Ramona Kennedy is a licensed Attorney in California (USA) and a member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). Ms. Kennedy's areas of practice are US Immigration law, US federal Laws and California State Laws. This is an immigration law blog. It is not intended to be used as legal advise. For further information please contact the law offices of Attorney Ramona Kennedy.