The Immigrant's Journal - Vol. 201

BY ADRIEL OROZCO IMMIGRATIONIMPACT.COM

The State Department announced an update to its discretionary interview waiver policy for nonimmigrant visa applicants on December 21, 2023. It replaces the temporary policies in place for almost three years. Most importantly, the State Department made this a standing policy that will be reviewed annually, which will decrease uncertainty for many stakeholders. Interview waivers have played a key role

in reducing visa processing times at the agency.

Generally, all nonimmigrant visa applicants between the ages of 14 and 79 are required to undergo an in-person interview at a U.S. Embassy or consulate. However, U.S. law provides some exceptions, including if the secretary of state determines that a waiver is in the national interest or necessary under unusual and emergent circumstances. These interview waiver authorities have been used to shore up the U.S. economy by speeding

Amankwaa and his son allegedly exploited the Violence Against Women Act — law that allows noncitizen victims of domestic abuse a path to lawful permanent residence status — for their own financial gain by falsely claiming that their clients were victims of domestic abuse.

Dhis son,

Kofi Amankwaa, Jr., with carrying out a large-scale immigration fraud scheme. The defendants will be presented this afternoon before U.S. Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn.

U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said: “As alleged, Kofi Amankwaa, an immigration attorney, and his son, Kofi Amankwaa, Jr., sought to make a mockery of the U.S. immigration system by conspiring to defraud the United States and commit immigration fraud.

Editorial credit: Ryan Rodrick Beiler Shutterstock.com

NYC Sues 17 Migrant Bus Operators for $708M, Arguing They’ve Acted With ‘Evil Intent’

BY GWYNNE HOGAN THE CITY

New York City Mayor Eric Adams on Thursday sued 17 charter bus companies who’ve been ferrying migrants to New York at the behest of Texas Governor Greg Abbott over the past year, aiming to recuperate the costs of housing them to the tune of $708 million.

In a lawsuit filed Thursday in New York State court, attorneys representing the city argued under a little-known provision of the state’s Social Services Law that city officials could seek damages from any party who “knowingly brings, or causes to be brought a needy person from out of state into this state for the purpose of making him a public charge.”

The bus companies are breaking that law, City Hall argues, because “stripped to its essentials, the Texas governor’spublicly articulated plan — which the defendants have knowingly implemented — is to shift to New York City and other urban areas the traditional cost of migration at the southern border.”

Adams announced the lawsuit in a video

message released Thursday afternoon.

“These companies have violated state law by not paying the cost of caring for these migrants,” he said.

Abbott was not named in the city’s lawsuit, but his office swiftly released a statement slamming Adams’ lawsuit as “baseless,” invoking the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which protects interstate movement and commerce.

“Every migrant bused or flown to New York City did so voluntarily, after having been authorized by the Biden administration to remain in the United States. As such, they have constitutional authority to travel across the country that Mayor Adams is interfering with. If the Mayor persists in this lawsuit, he may be held legally accountable for his violations.”

Kayla Mamelak, a spokesperson for Adams, said City Hall is confident in the city’s legal theory as laid out in the lawsuit.

A source familiar with the city’s legal strategy said that while aiming to block buses from arriving in New York City would likely violate the U.S. Commerce Clause, the suit doesn’t do that but rather

attempts to recuperate costs the city has incurred after migrants arrive.

Immigrants’ rights groups slammed Adams’ lawsuit. Murad Awawdeh, executive director of the New York Immigration Coalition, called the lawsuit another one of Adams’ “grab bag of ineffective approaches.”

“For almost two years, Mayor Adams has treated the arrival of asylum seekers as an emergency, trying everything he can to dissuade asylum seekers from coming to New York rather than developing an efficient and thoughtful process to welcome them,” Awawdeh said. “The Mayor needs to stop complaining that the city is at a breaking point and scapegoating immigrants. He should instead be implementing solutions like expanding and streamlining immigration legal services.”

Several bus companies named in the city’s lawsuit couldn’t be reached for comment immediately or didn’t return requests for comment right away. Representatives reached at two companies — Garcia and Garcia Enterprises and VLP Charter LLC — hung up when asked by a reporter to comment. A representative of Mayo Tours Inc., a charter bus company based in West Monroe, Louisiana, declined to comment.

The legal move is the latest attempt by the Adams administration to slow the flow of migrants arriving in the five boroughs. Last week, Adams announced executive orders and fines for bus companies who dropped off migrants in the city outside designated hours of 8:30 a.m. and 12:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and required companies to communicate with city officials in advance about the number of people arriving.

Many companies quickly found ways to evade the order, with buses instead dropping hundreds of migrants in various cities in New Jersey, who are then shepherded to New York City via public transportation — with the bus companies paying their New Jersey Transit fare into the city, according to the suit.

‘Bad Faith’

It’s unclear if the city’s suit will stand up in court. Like Abbott, David Lurie, an attorney who specializes in regulatory

enforcement matters, said there are two potential constitutional violations the lawsuit poses, though it remains to be seen how a judge will weigh in.

“One is the violation of the right of the bus companies to engage in interstate commerce,” he said. “And the second is, it may be a violation of the migrants’ constitutionally protected rights to travel within the United States.”

The suit argues that “the Texas governor’s plan is not part of a human-centered initiative to help individuals vindicate a constitutional right to travel within the United States.”

Attorneys for the city argue bus companies have acted in “bad faith” or with “evil intention,” as the state law requires, citing reporting in Axios that Texas pays bus companies on average $1,650 per migrant per bus trip, though average oneway tickets typically cost less than $300.

Abbott has said his office has paid to bus 33,600 migrants to New York City over the past year and a half, about 20%of the roughly 150,000 migrants who have traveled to New York City from the southern border and other cities around the country over the past year and a half. The $708 million in damages sought by the city is based on a calculation for the 33,600 migrants specifically sent by Texas on buses. That would put the damages the city is seeking at just over $20,000 per person.

All told city officials said they spent $3.5 billion on shelter services for arriving migrants, more than 66,000 of whom were still in city shelters, according to tallies through the end of November.

Alongside the city’s corporation council, the city’s former social services commissioner Steve Banks, who now works at the private law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton, & Garrison, is also representing the Adams administration.

In a separate lawsuit, Banks — who sued the city as an attorney at Legal Aid to create and then expand the city’s unique right to shelter before joining the de Blasio administration — is now defending that right against City Hall’s effort to gut the provision. l

Article first published in THE CITY on Janaury 04, 2024. Reprinted with permission.

NY Immigration Coalition held a press conference at City Hall demanding the city do more to help asylum seekers arriving in NYC. Editorial credit: Steve Sanchez Photos / Shutterstock.com

ICYMI — The Washington Post: A Broken Immigration System Keeps Workers Out of Jobs the U.S. Needs to Fill

BY AMERICA’S VOICE

New York, NY: A recent article in the Washington Post underscored how the labor shortage is impacting communities all across the country—from New York to North Dakota.

Noting that, “despite growing demand to help fill 8.7 million open jobs with skilled and unskilled foreign-born workers, strict quotas keep out millions of qualified immigrants every year.” At every step of the immigration process, skilled and in-demand workers face countless obstacles, including “record delays,” “a backed-up processing queue,” and “years-long waits for final interviews.”

As delays in the immigration system keep workers from filling open jobs, the article highlights those impacts to communities that already faced a low supply of skilled workers before the pandemic, including “in North Dakota, where the nursing shortage is compounded by an unemployment rate of just 1.9%…”

North Dakota Senator Kevin Cramer recognizes the role immigrants can play in strengthening the workforce, calling “efforts to expand legal immigration ‘low-hanging fruit’ that would help his state, which struggles to attract U.S. workers to its economy, dependent on gas and oil extraction”

“For too long, federal inaction has allowed our immigration system to break down and the repercussions are harming our communities and businesses. From New York to North Dakota, businesses are facing a worker shortage and the federal government needs to create more pathways for immigrants to enter our workforce. Health care and elder care are particular areas of need in both rural and urban areas. New York has the opportunity to lead once more. Our elected leaders at every level of government must act to improve access to jobs and legal services and deliver real solutions for our state and our immigrant communities.” said Murad Awawdeh, Executive Director, New York Immigration Coalition.

Read highlights below:

The Washington Post: A broken immigration system keeps workers out of jobs the U.S. needs to fill

It was one more gut punch from a broken immigration system untouched by Congress for 33 years and largely operating on a framework dating to 1965. As a record surge of unauthorized migrants enters the United States through its southern border, stoking political divisions and straining resources, the troubled system for those eligible to come here legally has buckled in the background. Congress splintered over the issue again this month, as Republicans resisted calls from the Biden administration for more aid to Ukraine unless it comes with more-stringent border policies.

Since Congress last updated the number of new arrivals the country will admit each year — a tiny fraction of whom are allowed to come in permanently to work — the economy is more than twice as large. But despite growing demand to help fill 8.7 million open jobs with skilled and unskilled foreign-born workers, strict quotas keep out millions of qualified immigrants every year. Demand was so high this year that the State Department was forced to restrict many types of visas, including — for the first time in years — those for nurses.

Getting a coveted pass to enter the United States means waiting in backlogs for years in a neglected bureaucracy of overlapping, resource-starved federal agencies. There are record delays at an obscure Labor Department office, a

backed-up processing queue at a Homeland Security agency so overburdened that it has wasted thousands of untouched green card applications, and years-long waits for final interviews at some U.S. consulates.

The Bismarck hospital’s stalled pursuit of foreign-born nurses underscores how the legal immigration system is failing a vital U.S. industry. Thousands of wellqualified workers overseas are ready to recharge a field decimated by pandemic burnout and retirements at a time when baby boomers are experiencing increasing health problems. But most can’t get here, even with a well-funded employer like Sanford spending millions — including $5,000 in immigration-related fees for each nurse — and employing a small army of immigration experts.

Now lobbyists for Sanford and others have turned to the Healthcare Workforce Resilience Act, introduced by Cramer and Durbin, which would boost visas for immigrant nurses and physicians by allowing the State Department to issue thousands of green cards left on the table in previous years. The bill failed to find traction after it was first proposed in 2021, but the two lawmakers have reintroduced it.

Partisan pressure remains high. Back home, Cramer has been denounced by conservatives and right-wing media for bucking Republican orthodoxy on immigration.

“I get dragged through the mud on this issue,” the senator said in an interview.

He called efforts to expand legal immigration “low-hanging fruit” that would help his state, which struggles to attract U.S. workers to its economy, dependent on gas and oil extraction. In a less polarized Congress, such legislation should easily have made it to the floor, the senator said. But after 11 years in Congress, he says, he’s a realist: “I’ve learned that nothing is going to happen quickly in Washington.”l

The mission of America’s Voice (AV) is to build the public support and the political will needed to enact policy changes that secure freedom and opportunity for immigrants in America. Priority goal: win reforms that put 11 million undocumented Americans on a path to full citizenship.

Volunteering at THE IMMIGRANT'S JOURNAL LEGAL & EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.

Internship positions available throughout the year.

The Immigrant's Journal Legal & Educational Fund, Inc. is an organization dedicated to the educational and economic empowerment of all immigrants and immigrant organizations here in the United States. We at the Journal recognize the enormous contribution of immigrants to this country economically, socially and politically. Since September 11, 2001, however, immigrants have increasingly been discriminated against and Congress has passed legislation curtailing the rights of immigrants here in the U.S., broadly claiming that immigrants are a threat to ''National Security.'' We at the Journal believe that these charges are unfounded, unsubstantiated and exaggerated.

The Immigrant's Journal Volunteer Intern Program was introduced to give our volunteers the opportunity to work in an immigrant friendly environment while developing the necessary skills for college or law school. They assist our staff in resolving immigration and other legal concerns through personal interviews, radio, email and telephone contact. They also assist the public with citizenship applications and in researching whether or not children of naturalized U.S. citizens have derived citizenship from their parents. Some of our volunteers assist our legal staff by engaging in legal research and writing letters on other legal issues. Volunteer interns are also assigned various other jobs in our Youth Programs.

Hours are flexible. Email

Editorial credit: Ryan Rodrick Beiler Shutterstock.com

New Year, New Pay: Minimum-Wage Workers in New York Get a Boost

BY CHRIS TOBIAS

As the calendar flipped to the new year, minimum-wage workers across New York are welcoming a significant pay increase. With the implementation of adjusted minimum wage rates, many workers are starting the year with a higher paycheck, providing a glimmer of hope and financial relief amidst ongoing economic challenges.

The decision to increase the minimum wage reflects a commitment to address income inequality and ensure that all workers earn a fair and livable wage. In New York City, where the cost of living is notoriously high, the minimum wage has gradually risen, reaching $15.00 per hour for large employers and fast-food workers. This increase improves workers' living standards and contributes to reducing poverty and stimulating economic growth.

Beyond the bustling streets of New York City, the wage increase extends to other regions of the state. In Long Island and Westchester, where living expenses rival those of the city, the minimum wage

has also climbed to$15.00 per hour. Meanwhile, in the rest of New York State, the minimum wage has reached $12.50 per hour, offering much-needed support to workers in less urbanized areas.

According to the Economic Policy Institute's analysis:

•Women make up more than half (57.9%) of workers getting an increase on January 1.

•The minimum wage increases will also disproportionately benefit Black and Hispanic workers. Black workers make

up 9.0% of the wage-earning workforce in the states with increases but are 11.1% of the affected workers. Similarly, Hispanic workers are 19.6% of the workforce in these states, but 37.9% of the workers receive wage increases.

•These increases will also bring important benefits to working families. More than a quarter (25.8%) of affected workers are parents, or more than 2.5 million people. In total, 5.6 million children live in households where an individual will receive a minimum wage increase.

•The increases will provide critical sup-

port to workers and families in need. Almost one in five (19.7%) workers getting a raise have incomes below the poverty line, and nearly half (47.4%) have incomes below twice the poverty line.

•More than half (51%) of workers getting minimum wage increases are in California, Hawaii, and New York, all high-cost-of-living states.

Impact of Increase

The impact of this pay bump extends far beyond individual workers. Higher wages mean increased purchasing power for low-income households, which can boost consumer spending and drive demand for goods and services. Additionally, when workers earn a livable wage, they are less reliant on public assistance programs, alleviating the burden on taxpayers and government resources.

Critics of minimum wage increases often argue that higher labor costs could lead to job losses or business closures, particularly for small businesses. However, studies have shown that mod-

AMERICAN DREAM 5

Visa Interview Waivers/ continued from page 1

New Year, New Pay/ continued from page 4 up processing for certain nonimmigrant visas. Most have focused on low-risk applicants who were previously vetted and received a visa or were nationals of a country participating in the Visa Waiver Program and had traveled to the U.S. before.

For example, in 2012, the Obama administration implemented a visa interview waiver program to increase foreign visitors to the U.S. and support the country’s travel and tourism industry. That program was suspended in January 2017 when President Trump took office.

At the onset of the pandemic, the Trump administration used interview waivers to facilitate the entry of temporary agricultural and non-agricultural workers given the State Department’s reduced processing capacity. In March 2020, the Trump administration announced interview waivers could be issued for certain lowrisk first-time and renewing H-2 visa applicants given their “essential” role in the country’s economy and food security. By fall 2020, the State Department expanded the interview waiver option for applicants seeking a nonimmigrant visa in the same category if their previous visa expired within the last 24 months.

As U.S. Embassies and consulates continued to address growing visa processing backlogs, which caused uncertainty for international students and universities, in fall 2021 the Biden administration expanded interview waivers for student (F, M) and academic exchange visitor (J) visa applicants. Those who had previously received any other type of visa or firsttime applicants who were nationals of a country in the Visa Waiver Program were eligible to be considered.

The interview waivers were then expanded to include first-time and renewing applicants in specialty occupation (H-1B), intracompany transferee (L), extraordinary ability (O), athlete, artist, and entertainer (P) and cultural exchange (Q) visa categories. First-time visa applicants in these categories had to be nationals of a country in the Visa Waiver Program who had traveled to the U.S. after vetting through that program’s Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA). The travel/vetting requirement also was imposed on firsttime applicants for student and academic exchange visitor visas. This policy was extended twice and was set to expire on December 31, 2023.

Last year, 40% of the 10.4 million non-

Editorial credit: Sorbis Shutterstock.com

immigrant visas issued had an in-person interview waived. Wait times for temporary workers, students, and exchange visitors dropped significantly. For example, wait times for a student visa in Mumbai dropped from 49 days to 7 days between November 2022 and August 2023. Temporary workers experienced a comparable improvement: over the same period in Mumbai, wait times for H, L, O, P, and Q visas dropped from 339 days to 22 days.

Despite these improvements, it was unclear whether the policy—crafted by the State Department in consultation with the Department of Homeland Security—would be extended.

Stakeholders from across various sectors advocated for its continuation.

The U.S. Travel Association highlighted that a failure to extend the policy could result in the loss of “$7 billion in foreign visitor spending” in 2023. The U.S. for Success Coalition focused on the unpredictability in visa processing for international students and its negative impact on America’s ability to attract and retain international student talent. The American Immigration Council, along with more than 60 other organizations, noted that the policy could benefit an estimated 30% of nonimmigrant visa applicants in the future under its current terms.

Ten days before it expired, the State Department announced an updated policy to take effect on January 1, 2024. The policy continues to provide discretionary interview waivers for first-time applicants for temporary agricultural and nonagricultural work (H-2 visas). Instead of singling out specific visas, this version allows interview waivers for other nonimmigrant visa applicants who were previously issued any nonimmigrant visa (other than a visitor’s visa) and have applied within 48 months of the expiration date of their most recent visa. Similarly, the State Department continues to implement an interview waiver policy from 2021 for applicants renewing their nonimmigrant visa if it’s in the

same category and renewed within 48 months of the visa’s expiration date.

As was required with the previous versions, applicants must also apply in their country of nationality or residence, have never been refused a visa (unless it was overcome or waived), and have no apparent or potential ineligibility.

A downside to the update is that it restricts eligibility for certain categories of individuals. It’s less favorable to nationals of Visa Waiver Program countries as first-time nonimmigrant visa applicants. They no longer qualify for an interview waiver by virtue of their country’s membership in that program. In addition, visitor visa applicants can no longer use a previously issued visitor’s visa to be eligible for an interview waiver and those individuals whose previously issued nonimmigrant visa expired more than 48 months ago are also no longer eligible.

Several lawmakers have proposed codifying similar language into law instead of leaving it to agency policy. For instance, Senators Amy Klobuchar (DMN) and Jerry Moran (R-KS) recently introduced the Visa Processing Improvement Act, which would codify interview waivers for individuals who, among other requirements, previously held certain nonimmigrant visas, as well as first-time applicants from Visa Waiver Program countries who traveled to the U.S. through ESTA. Representative Tony Gonzales (R-TX) also introduced the bipartisan H-2 Improvements to Relieve Employers (HIRE) Act, which would codify interview waivers for certain temporary workers renewing their H-2 visas.

Nevertheless, this new standing interview waiver policy is an essential tool for the State Department to address its lengthy wait times. As the Department continues to struggle with historically high levels of demand, this positive step will continue to reap benefits for all U.S.bound travelers. l

Adriel D. Orozco is a Senior Policy Counsel at the American Immigration Council.

erate increases in the minimum wage has minimal adverse effects on employment while benefiting workers and stimulating economic activity.

By ensuring workers earn a fair wage, businesses can benefit from improved productivity, reduced turnover, and increased consumer purchasing power. Moreover, the fight for fair wages is not just an economic issue but also a matter of social justice. Many minimum-wage workers are essential workers who have played a crucial role during the COVID19 pandemic, risking their health and safety to provide essential services. Recognizing their contributions with a livable wage is not only fair but also a moral imperative.

While the increase in minimum wage rates is undoubtedly a step in the right direction, advocates continue to push for further progress. Some argue that $15.00 per hour, while an improvement, still falls short of a true living wage in highcost areas like New York City. Calls for additional increases and broader policies to address income inequality remain at the forefront of the debate.

Shining a Light on the U.S. Workers Paid the Least Millions of workers are held back from achieving the American Dream because they are paid low hourly wages. This reality threatens their ability to support themselves and their families. Low pay is a widespread problem, resulting from outdated minimum wages that don't keep up with the cost of living and a weakening of workers' bargaining power, suppressing wage growth. Minimum wage increases are also vital to many workers who are more vulnerable to exploitation, whether it's because of immigration status, disability, or place of work.

As New York's minimum-wage workers start the new year with a pay bump, it's a reminder of the progress that can be achieved through collective action and advocacy. By prioritizing fair wages and economic justice, policymakers can create a more equitable society where all workers have the opportunity to thrive. As we navigate the challenges and uncertainties of the future, let us continue to work towards a brighter and more inclusive economy for all. l

ICYMI — Immigrants Key to Filling Thousands of Open Jobs in NY

BY AMERICA’S VOICE

New York, NY: A recent article in the Christian Science Monitor (CSM) underscored how New York leaders and experts agree that expanding work authorization programs for migrants and asylum seekers can address labor shortages and bolsters New York’s economy.

The CSM article reports that New York Gov. Kathy Hochul argues that migrants arriving in New York could help fill thousands of open jobs. “We have all these people who want to be here. I have all these jobs that are open. You marry the two together, and you’ve solved the problems,” she said.

The article highlights the hard work of migrants who are filling positions and working multiple jobs. Reporting on the experience of one migrant, Rosanny, a Venezuelan doctor, the article notes that she will “take small-scale jobs, attend English class, and do whatever is necessary for a better life.”

“From the first day migrants and asylum seekers arrive in New York, they want to get to work. Supporting new arrivals and

expanding work authorizations would help them to get back on their feet and on the path to self-sufficiency, while growing our local economy. The solutions here are clear: we need action from state and federal leaders to strengthen support and legal services for migrants in our communities across the state, expand work authorizations, and protect asylum,” said Murad Awawdeh, Executive Director, New York Immigration Coalition.

Read highlights below:

The Christian Science Monitor: Are jobs the solution to New York’s migrant crisis?

Can the staggering number of migrants arriving in New York help to fill thousands of open jobs in the region?

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul argues yes. “We have all these people who want to be here. I have all these jobs that are open. You marry the two together, and you’ve solved the problems,” she said last fall while announcing job openings for qualified migrants.

Yet today’s migrants, many of whom are asylum-seekers, can access support systems not offered just a few years ago. Nonprofits, volunteers, and city and fed-

eral agencies offer paperwork assistance, legal help, English lessons, settlement, and job advice. Demand, however, far outstrips resources.

State officials also are working to identify private-sector job opportunities for migrants. Governor Hochul announced in October that the state had secured some 18,000 jobs for authorized workers in various industries; by December, the state Department of Labor listed nearly 40,000 job openings for eligible migrants. Some states – such as Illinois, Indiana, and Utah

– want permission from Washington to sponsor migrants to fill critical job openings.

While some individuals crossing into America may not want to work, the vast majority are so determined that they’re willing to walk the almost 3,000 miles to get here, says Anna Hidalgo, a faculty fellow in sociology at New York University who studies Venezuelan migrants in New York City.

“If you have the gumption to cross the Darién Strait, to make that journey, you are cut from a different cloth. You are someone who is going to do what it takes to move forward to a better life for you and your children and your family, which is all these folks talk about,” she says.

Rosanny, the Venezuelan doctor, anticipates a 150-day wait for her work authorization to arrive. Until then, she’ll take small-scale jobs, attend English class, and do whatever is necessary for a better life.

“I’m very grateful,” she says. “I understand the American dream isn’t just to come here. It takes action to make it happen. I have to be creative.”l

5 Major Red Flags to Watch for When You're Touring an Open House

BY EQUITY SMART REALTY INC

An open house is one of the best opportunities a potential homeowner will have to take stock of a home and determine if it will work for them. However, it can also be a good opportunity to discover some glaring red flags that might make it a less worthwhile investment. If you're currently perusing the open houses in your neighborhood, here's some things you should make sure to watch out for.

A Selling Hot-Spot

It's well and good if you love the home you visit, but 'location, location, location' is a popular phrase for a reason. If you've noticed a lot of homes for sale in the area, this could be a sign of a rising crime rate or other neighborhood issues that are less than pleasing.

An Odd Smell

Baked goods or room spray are quite common when it comes to an open house, but it's possible that they're masking a less-than pleasant odor. Since this can point to a hard home fix-up, it's worth checking out the closets or the basement where a strange smell can indicate mildew or mold.

A Bad Paint Job

Paint that's peeling may mean that a few fresh coats are long overdue, but it can also indicate moisture issues in the home that have gone untreated. As this kind of repair can cost a pretty penny, it's worth determining if there are sealing issues with windows or doors.

A Few Obvious Fix-Ups

A sticky door or a damaged wall may not seem so bad on their own, but if you notice a few things that need to be fixed around the home, it can be a sign that there's more afoot. If a homeowner has cared for the property during their ownership, it will likely show in small details like this.

Incomplete Construction

It may seem like a good sign to see a

house that's undergoing a renovation, but it can actually be a risk to invest in a home that's not complete. Instead of leaving this to chance, you may want to check with the construction contractor to determine the scope of the work and when it will be finished.

Guidance

An open house may be a good time to decide if you're interested in a home, but it can also be the perfect opportunity to search for deficiencies that may end up costing you.

If you're currently on the market for a new home, you may want to contact one of our real estate professionals for more information. We are happy to help. Call us 888-670-6791.l

New EOIR Memo Updates Protections for Children in Immigration Court

BY GIANNA BORROTO

Anew memo issued last month by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) lays out improved guidelines for immigration court cases involving children. The memo is a welcome acknowledgment that children in removal proceedings are navigating a system created for adults and therefore need special protection.

The guidelines apply to all immigration court cases involving a child who is not part of a family unit. It rescinds a 2017 Trump-era memo, which was more limited in scope and applied only to unmarried people under the age of 18. The new more expansive memo defines “child” as an individual under 21 years old. This includes but is not limited to cases involving unaccompanied immigrant children.

The memo explains that EOIR has created specialized juvenile dockets in cities with enough cases to warrant a separate docket. Juvenile docket cases are heard on specific days of the week by immigration judges who have received training on children’s issues. While the 2017 memo merely recommended that courts without

a separate juvenile docket hear children’s cases separate from adult cases, the new memo now requires it. This helps ensure that child-friendly procedures are applied across the board regardless of the number of children’s cases a court has.

The guidance on credibility is another key improvement. The 2017 memo imposed a harsh standard, reminding judges that “legal requirements, including credibility standards and burdens of proof, are not relaxed or obviated for juvenile respondents.”

Immigration attorneys know how common it is for a child’s memories to shift throughout the course of a years’ long

case. This is especially true when the child must recount the details of traumatic events, like those that could form the basis for an asylum, Special Immigrant Juvenile Status, or T visa claim. Age, stress, and traumatic experiences like family separation can all impact a child’s ability to remember.

The new guidance takes these challenges into account and instructs that immigration judges “should not assume that inconsistencies or poor articulation in a child’s testimony reflect dishonesty.” The memo includes an attachment with sample questions framed in a child-sensitive way. It also states that it is “often appropriate” to rely on a child’s written statement instead of requiring the child to testify in court.

In immigration court proceedings, children, including unaccompanied children, usually depend on an adult caregiver to send notice to the court if they have moved. If the adult fails to do so, however, the child typically pays the price by receiving a removal order for missing court. The memo provides a cushion for immigrant children facing this situation. If a child misses a hearing, the govern-

ment attorney must request a 30-day continuance to verify the child’s address information. If the child again fails to appear at the next hearing, and the government attorney requests to proceed with the hearing in their absence—which could result in a removal order—the immigration judge should consider the “totality of the circumstances,” before doing so. Factors include the child’s age and any known obstacles that could have prevented them from attending.

In a system that is stacked against immigrant children, EOIR’s memo sets out important due process protections for kids facing the possibility of deportation. Advocates hope that Congress will improve on these changes by passing the bipartisan Immigration Court Efficiency and Children’s Court Act of 2023. The bill would create a separate Children’s Court within EOIR with specially trained judges and stakeholders to ensure more child-sensitive and trauma-informed practices. Unlike guidelines introduced in a memo, legislative protections for kids could not be easily scaled back under a new administration.l

Biden Administration Can Remove Texas’ Razor Wire Barrier at the Border, Supreme Court Rules

BY SUCHITA MATHUR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL STAFF

Buoy barriers with chainsaw devices in the Rio Grande river.

Coils of concertina wire along the riverbank. Armored Humvees blocking access roads. Piles of dirt rendering gates unusable. Governor Greg Abbott’s cruel attempts to booby trap the Texas border to prevent U.S. Border Patrol agents from reaching migrants might be considered comical, if not for the many human lives put at risk and the threat to the rule of law that result from his Wile E. Coyoteinspired antics. Texas’ latest violent and lawless tactics have led to the deaths of multiple migrants, as well as an escalating standoff between federal and state authorities that challenges the core principles of how our government is supposed to function.

The Supreme Court on Monday finally stepped in to mediate one arena of the feud between the federal government and Texas, issuing a temporary ruling in favor of the Biden administration. The case, filed by Texas in federal district court last year, involves the razor wire that Governor Abbott has put up along parts of the U.S.-Mexico border.

In November, the district court reluctantly denied Texas’ request to prohibit U.S. Border Patrol from cutting through the wire when necessary to reach migrants stranded on the other side. However, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, a notoriously conservative court, issued an injunction pending appeal in favor of Texas—essentially preventing federal agents from accessing various stretches of the international boundary and U.S. territory except in narrowly circumscribed emergency circumstances.

The Supreme Court’s order restores some semblance of the status quo by allowing Border Patrol agents to cut or move Texas’ razor wire when they deem it necessary to carry out their official duties. Meanwhile, Texas’ appeal of the district court’s order will proceed at the Fifth Circuit and likely end up back on the Supreme Court’s docket.

What is Texas doing at the border?

Importantly, Monday’s ruling addresses only a small piece of the chaos created by Governor Abbott’s “Operation Lone Star,” which will continue to endanger human life and waste taxpayer money for the foreseeable future.

Since 2021, Texas has been attempting to create and enforce its own immigration policy. Early efforts included criminalizing would-be asylum seekers by charging them with misdemeanor trespass offenses. Governor Abbot has now upped the ante by implementing a series of harmful and dangerous maneuvers he claims are

meant to deter irregular crossings. Texas has placed buoys in the Rio Grande and erected the concertina wire at issue in the Supreme Court case. It has also enacted SB4, a flawed “improper entry” law already subject to two legal challenges.

The most recent escalation began on January 10, when Texas began barring Border Patrol from operating in Shelby Park, a park in Eagle Pass that includes a 2.5-mile stretch of land along the Rio Grande. Federal agents previously used the park to monitor the river, launch patrol boats, and inspect migrants apprehended in the surrounding area.

Within two days of Texas officials seizing Shelby Park, a mother and her two young children had died in the river. As the solicitor general noted in an update to the Supreme Court discussing the deaths, Border Patrol might have been able to timely intervene had it had its former surveillance and monitoring capabilities in the park.

Governor Abbott’s political stunts not only have horrific human consequences, they haven’t worked well: the multi-billion dollar operation has had little overall effect on migration.

However, Governor Abbott is not the only one with blood on his hands. Since taking office, the Biden administration has implemented policies that prevent migrants from presenting at a port of entry along the border. As the district court judge noted, irregular crossings by migrants desperate to seek protection are the entirely foreseeable result of cutting off access to “lawful entry” at ports.

What role are federal courts playing in all of this?

While the Solicitor General cited concerns about the rising tensions between Border Patrol and Texas officers around Shelby Park, the Supreme Court’s order does not actually affect Texas’ closure of the park to federal officials. It also doesn’t prohibit Texas from continuing to litter the river and its banks with giant buoys, concertina wire, and armored vehicles.

Governor Abbott’s actions and arguments are legally problematic. Immigration and regulating the entry of people into the country are supposed to be the sole responsibility of the federal government. Texas’ lawsuit alleges that Border Patrol is committing state law torts by cutting through razor wire. It seeks an injunction against the U.S. gov-

ernment based on the costs of the wire and repairs.

But as the Solicitor General argued to the Supreme Court, federal law grants Border Patrol authority to access any land within 25 miles of the international border, and requires federal officers to inspect and process individuals who are physically present on U.S. territory—as are migrants who have made it across the Rio Grande. The Constitution’s Supremacy Clause does not allow states to use their own laws to stop federal officers from carrying out such federally authorized activities. Nor is it clear that a state can seek an injunction against the federal government based on state tort claims.

While the Fifth Circuit’s injunction has

now been summarily reversed by the Supreme Court, the court of appeals continues to consider the merits of the case. Oral argument is scheduled for early February. Whether the court will change course given the intervening Supreme Court order is an open question— notably, and shockingly, four of the nine Supreme Court justices expressly stated they would have denied the government’s request to vacate the injunction.

Texas’ real grievance is its belief that the Biden administration is “not attempting to enforce” immigration laws because Border Patrol officers are not actively “repelling” migrants who have crossed the river. Forcing people who are already on U.S. territory back across the border is not, of course, something that federal officers are authorized to do—at least not under current immigration laws. Disturbingly, that could change in the near future. In the meantime, Texas continues to brazenly attempt to “unsettle[] the underpinnings of our federal system” while the federal judiciary does the bare minimum to stop it.l

Editorial credit: David Peinado Romero / Shutterstock.com

IMMIGRATION FRAUD SCHEME

Bronx Attorney Charged/ continued from page 1

Amankwaa and his son allegedly exploited the Violence Against Women Act — a law that allows noncitizen victims of domestic abuse a path to lawful permanent residence status — for their own financial gain by falsely claiming that their clients were victims of domestic abuse. Thanks to the dedicated actions of our law enforcement partners and the career prosecutors of this Office, the defendants must now answer for these crimes.”

HSI Acting Special Agent in Charge Michael Alfonso said: “Kofi Amankwaa is charged with deceitful practices whereby he allegedly victimized clients who relied on his legal assistance with their immigration process. HSI is committed to protecting the applicants, petitioners, and requestors of U.S. citizenship who, unfortunately, are often at risk of falling for scams or fraud. HSI is thankful for the collaboration in this investigation with other Department of Homeland Security components, as well as other federal agencies, who continue to help us combat document and benefit fraud.”

According to the allegations in the Complaint:[1]

From September 2016 through November 2023, Amankwaa and Amankwaa, Jr., met with clients and

directed them to sign fraudulent Form I360 Violence Against Women Act (“VAWA”) Petitions falsely stating that the clients were abused by their U.S. citizen children. Amankwaa also signed the petitions, under penalty of perjury, as the attorney preparer.

The defendants used the filing of the fraudulent Form I-360 VAWA Petitions, among other filings, as a basis to request advance parole travel documents for their clients — documents that enable individuals without legal status in the United States to travel abroad temporarily and return. The defendants then directed their clients, upon obtaining the advance parole travel documents, to travel abroad and return to the United States. Last, the defendants used the fraudulently procured advance parole as a basis for their clients to apply for lawful permanent resident status.

Amankwaa and his son allegedly exploited the Violence Against Women Act — a law that allows noncitizen victims of domestic abuse a path to lawful permanent residence status — for their own financial gain by falsely claiming that their clients were victims of domestic abuse. Read more on page 16.

The defendants carried out this illegal scheme knowing that their clients had not, in fact, been abused by their children or without ever asking whether any such abuse occurred. Moreover, the defendants were often unsuccessful in obtaining lawful permanent resident status for their clients because the clients’ immigration applications were denied on the basis of fraud, among other reasons. The defendants typically charged their clients $6,000 for their services, plus administrative fees.

In November 2023, following numerous complaints by clients regarding the fraudulent abuse allegations, Amankwaa’s license to practice law in the State of New York was suspended.

Potential Sentences

Kofi Amankwaa, 69, and Kofi Amankwaa, Jr., 37, both of South River,

New Jersey, are each charged with one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and to commit immigration fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison, and one count of immigration fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.

The maximum potential sentences are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendants will be determined by a judge.

Mr. Williams praised the outstanding investigative work of the HSI. Mr. Williams also thanked the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Office of Fraud Detection and National Security for their support in this investigation. He also noted that the New York State Attorney General’s Office separately initiated a parallel civil proceeding against AAmankwaa and AAmankwaa, Jr., today.

This case is being handled by the Office’s General Crimes Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorney Adam Z. Margulies is in charge of the prosecution.

The charges contained in the Complaint are merely accusations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.l

Want to learn more? Go to Youtube.com/@askthelawyernow

How to Get a Green Card: K-1 Visa for Fiancé(e) 's of U.S. Citizens

BY MARY CAMPBELL

The K-1 visa is the first step toward your fiancé joining you in the United States. If you meet the K-1 visa requirements, your fiancé may become a permanent resident later. The K-1 visa, also known as the U.S. Fiancé(e) visa, allows a United States citizen to sponsor their fiancé(e) to come to the U.S. to get married. This option applies to a relationship in which one partner resides outside the United States and the couple is engaged to be married. If you are already married and want to sponsor your spouse to the U.S., or your fiancé is already residing in the U.S., you will not be eligible to apply for the K-1 visa. Instead, you may consider spousal sponsorship to help your spouse/partner obtain U.S. permanent residence.

How to Bring Your Fiancé to the U.S. If you are a U.S. citizen who wants to bring your foreign fiancé(e) to the United States to get married, you must file a Petition For Alien Fiancé(e). This is the first step to obtaining a K-1 nonimmigrant visa for your fiancé(e).

Once approved for a K-1 Visa, you must be married within 90 days, or the foreign fiancé will be ordered to leave the U.S.

K-1 Visa Process and Requirements

The first step to obtaining a K-1 visa is to complete the Petition for Alien Fiancé(e). This form asks USCIS to recognize the relationship. Sometimes USCIS will request additional information, but once they establish your eligibility, they will send the form to the Department of State National Visa Center. From here, the

fiancé(e) will apply for a K-1 visa at the visa office where they live and have an interview. Once this is approved and the visa is issued, the foreign fiancé(e) may come to the United States as a nonimmigrant. Specific requirements must be met for the fiancé(e) to be issued a visa.

First, the couple must intend to marry within 90 days of the foreign fiancé(e) 's arrival in the U.S. If this does not happen, the K-1 visa holder will be forced to leave. The marriage must also be valid. This means it must be evident the mar-

riage is not for the sole intent of the foreign national receiving immigration benefits. The couple must be legally free to marry, not bound to past marriages. Additionally, it is required that the engaged couple had met at least once in the two years before marriage and visa issuance, barring any extenuating circumstances.

Accompanying Children

If the foreign fiancé(e) has an unmarried child under age 21, they may accompany their parent to the United States on a K-2 nonimmigrant visa.

Working on a K-1 Fiancé Visa

Suppose the foreign fiancé(e) plans to work upon arrival in the United States. In that case, they may immediately file the Application for Employment Authorization, which authorizes them to work for 90 days after entry. Once the couple is married, the foreign fiancé(e) may apply for work authorization at the same time they apply for permanent resident status.

continued on page 13

200 Immigration-Related Bills Have Already Been Introduced in State Legislatures in 2024

BY JUAN AVILEZ

At a hearing on Wednesday, city council members pressed the Department of Education for answers on how migrant children will be affected by Mayor Eric Adams’ administration’s shelter policies. Elected officials focused in on the 60-day-notice shelter transfer policy and toll it has taken on the students.

Amid inaction from the federal government on immigration policy and growing calls for action from localities, some state legislatures are taking a proactive role in welcoming immigrants and refugees. Once again, states are leading the way on immigration policy in the U.S.

Despite being less than a month into the 2024 state legislative cycle, state legislatures have introduced numerous proposals advancing immigrant-inclusive policies, with the American Immigration Council already tracking over 200 immigration-related bills. The policies are varied, ranging from those aiming to remove barriers to occupational licensure to get more high-skilled immigrants into jobs to bills establishing Offices of New Americans to bolster immigrants’ integration and access to essential services and information.

Our recently updated interactive data map, which highlights the economic contributions and demographic impact of immigrants and refugees at the state and local levels, illustrates why states are advancing these policies. Immigrants across the country and skill spectrum are filling critical labor shortages and boosting local economies.

While many of these measures have recently been introduced and not yet signed into law—apart from a New Jersey bill requiring state government entities to provide documents and translation services in at least the seven most common non-English languages—their advancement by representatives from across the political spectrum shows that states want to unlock the full potential of their immigrant and refugee populations.

•Virginia and Wisconsin have introduced legislation that would reduce barriers to professional licensure for international medical graduates by creating provisional licenses for qualified internationally trained physicians, allowing them to fully utilize their education and skill set. Additionally, Virginia’s legislation provides an option to renew that license for two more years if the physician practices in an underserved area, ensuring all communities have access to quality and timely medical care.

•States across the nation continue to grapple with the growing need for healthcare workers to care for our aging population. A fast-moving bill in Indiana aims to address the state’s need for nurses by allowing internationally trained nurses to more easily obtain licensure in

the state.

•Other states have explored different approaches to addressing dire workforce shortages by ensuring all residents have quicker pathways to enter jobs that appropriately match their education and skill level. For example, proposed legislation in New York and Maryland would remove requirements for citizenship and lawful presence as a condition for licensure.

States are not only hoping to get internationally trained immigrants working but also investing in the development of talent within their states. By removing barriers to accessing higher education, states are expanding their local talent pool—thereby strengthening the building blocks of their local economies, increasing income and state tax contributions, and providing numerous benefits to their communities.

•Legislation in Hawaii would allow asylees, refugees, and DACA recipients in the U.S. to qualify for in-state tuition under certain conditions.

•A Vermont bill would extend in-state tuition and qualification for state financial aid for residents who qualify for Vermont residency, if not for their immigration status.

States are also pushing legislation to establish Offices of New Americans

200 Immigration-Related Bills

continued from page 12

(ONA). These offices play a crucial role in connecting immigrant and refugee communities with the state government and often focus on workforce development and the statewide coordination of immigrant integration.

•Maine Governor Janet Mills unveiled plans to establish an ONA in the Maine State Government. Under the legislation, the ONA would support immigrants to bolster Maine’s workforce and strengthen English-language acquisition and workforce pathways for immigrants in the state. Mills also proposes that once it is established, the Maine ONA would join the ONA State Network, co-convened by the Council and World Education Services.

States nationwide are considering legislation expanding driver’s license access to all residents, regardless of immigration status. These bills are an important step in making roads safer and allowing all residents to get to work, school, and elsewhere.

•Legislation in Oklahoma would allow residents who pay taxes in the state to access a driver’s license.

•A bill put forth in Indiana creates a driving privilege card for residents who are unable to show proof of legal presence in the U.S.

States are also working to close gaps in healthcare coverage by ensuring that all residents have access to healthcare. In Virginia, proposed legislation would expand state-funded healthcare coverage to children under 19 years of age, regardless of their immigration status. The bill also requires the state to work toward distributing information about this program to individuals with limited English proficiency.

Though we’ll have to wait and see if these bills—and other similar efforts across the country—are signed into law this legislative session, this trend across legislatures demonstrates the growing bipartisan support for immigrant-inclusive legislation.

Unfortunately, some states are running contrary to this trend and fail to recognize the value immigrants and refugees bring to their communities.

•In Wisconsin, proposed legislation aims to discourage the resettlement of refugees in the state. Our research shows that refugees contribute significantly to the state’s economy, meaning this legislation goes against the economic interests of the state.

•A bill in Mississippi would criminalize the transportation of undocumented migrants into the state—a move that undermines immigrant communities’ trust in local law enforcement. The bill is seemingly inspired by Florida’s SB

1718, which contained a similar provision (and is currently being challenged by the Council). Mississippi could also see similar damage to its economy. The Council will continue to closely monitor state legislation as this cycle develops. Through our research publications showing the positive economic and demographic impact that immigrants and refugees have at all levels of government, we hope states throughout the nation continue to recognize the importance of immigrants and refugees, not only as a component of building local economies but also enhancing local communities.l

K-1 Visa for Fiancé(e) 's of U.S. Citizens/continued from page 11

K-1 Nonimmigrant Visa to Lawful Permanent Residence

If the couple meets all requirements and marries within 90 days, the fiancé(e) may apply for permanent residence (Green Card) in the United States.

What to Do After the K-1 Fiancé Visa

After entering the United States on the K1 Visa and marrying a U.S. Citizen, the foreign fiancé(e) must adjust your status to a marriage-based Green Card.

Get Help to Apply for the K-1 Fiance Visa USA

Ready to bring the love of your life, your fiancé, to the United States? If so, Ask the Lawyer. The International Law Firm of Figeroux & Associates has over a quarter of a century practicing immigration law. Brian Figeroux, Esq. is a member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) and is widely regarded as N.Y.'s #1 immigration attorney. Ready for the next step?

Schedule an appointment at www.askthelawyer.us or call 855-768-8845. Immigration law is dynamic and complex. The lawyer you hire does make a difference! l

Read more at www.311immigration.com

What Are ‘Good’ and ‘Bad’ Debts, and Which Should I Pay Off First?

BY ANGEL ZHONG THE CONVERSATION

With the cost of living soaring and many struggling to get a pay rise, it’s not surprising people are using debt to navigate life’s financial twists and turns.

Owing money can sometimes feel challenging, but not all debts should keep you awake at night.

So which debts are good and which are bad? And in what order should you pay them off? As it all depends on your personal circumstances, all I can offer is general information and not financial advice. Ideally, you should seek guidance from an accredited financial adviser. But in the meantime, here are some ideas to consider.

What is a ‘good debt’?

Good debts can be strategic tools and help build a solid foundation for your future. They usually increase your net worth by helping you generate income or buy assets that increase in value.

With good debts, you usually get back more than what you pay for. They usually have lower interest rates and longer

Review the terms and conditions of any loans carefully. Don’t be afraid to call your lender and ask for a lower interest rate.

repayment terms. But personal finance is dynamic, and the line between good and bad debt can be nuanced. If not managed properly, even good debts can cause problems.

Some examples of “good debts” might include:

Mortgages: A mortgage allows you to buy a house, which is an asset that generally increases in value over time. You may potentially get tax advantages, such

as negative gearing, through investment properties. However, it’s crucial not to overstretch yourself and turn a mortgage into a nightmare. As a rule of thumb, try avoid spending more than 30% of your income per year on your mortgage repayments.

Student loans: Education is an investment in yourself. Used well, student loans (such as HECS-HELP) can be the

ticket to a higher-paying job and better career opportunities.

What is a ‘bad debt’?

“Bad debts” undermine your financial stability and can hinder your financial progress. They usually come with high interest rates and short repayment terms, making them more challenging to pay off. They can lead to a vicious cycle of debt.

Examples of bad debts include:

Payday loans: A payday loan offers a quick fix for people in a financial tight spot. However, their steep interest rates, high fees and tight repayment terms often end up worsening a person’s financial problems. The interest and fee you may end up paying can get close to the loan amount itself.

Credit card debt: Credit cards can be like quicksand for your finances. If you don’t pay off your purchase on time, you’ll be subject to an annual interest rate of around 19.94%. For a A$3,000 credit card debt, for example, that could mean paying nearly $600 annual interest.

continued on page 15

Good and Bad Debts/ continued from page 14

Carrying credit card debt from month to month can lead to a seemingly neverending debt cycle.

Personal loans: People usually take personal loans from a bank to pay for something special, such as a nice holiday or a car. They often come with higher interest rates, averaging around 10%. Spending money that you don’t have can lead to prolonged financial headaches.

Buy-now-pay-later services: Buy-nowpay-later services often provide interestfree instalment options for purchases. This can be tempting, but the account fees and late payment fees associated with buy-now-pay-later services can lead to a long-term financial hangover. The convenience and accessibility of buynow-pay-later services can also make it easy to get further and further into debt.

So in what order should I pay off my debts?

There is no one right answer to this question, but here are three factors to considerr:

Prioritise high-interest debts: Start by confronting the debts with the highest interest rates. This typically includes credit card debt and personal loans. Paying off high-interest debts first can

save you money and reduce your total debt faster.

Negotiate interest rates or switch lenders: Don’t be shy. A simple call to your lender requesting a lower rate can make a significant difference. You may also take advantage of sign-on offers and refinancing your loan with a new lender. In the banking business, customers are not usually rewarded for their loyalty.

Consider different repayment strategies: Choose a debt repayment strategy that aligns with your preferences. Some people get a psychological boost from paying off smaller debts first (this is often called the “snowball method”).

Others focus on high-interest debts (often known as the “avalanche

method”). Find what works for you. The most important thing is to have a plan and stick to it.

Review the terms of each debt carefully. Certain loans offer flexibility in repayment schedules, while others may impose penalties for early settlement. Take note of these conditions as you develop your repayment plan.

Debt can be a useful tool or a dangerous trap, depending on how you use it. By understanding the difference between good and bad debts, and by having a smart strategy for paying them off, you can take charge of your financial future.l

Angel Zhong is an Associate Professor of Finance, RMIT University

Looking to make extra cash? A side hustle?

We are looking for persons to sell advertisements in our newspapers. Experience in advertising sales is needed and preferably experience or a sincere interest in marketing.

Interested? Send your resume to info@myiqinc.com

Bad

Stop Green Card Slavery Now! You Can Get a Green Card Through VAWA

BY MARY CAMPBELL

In 2021, the United Nations published the report “Measuring the Shadow Pandemic: Violence Against Women During COVID-19.” It said that since the pandemic, violence against women has increased to unprecedented levels. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine said that domestic violence cases increased by 25 to 33 percent globally. The National Commission on COVID-19 and criminal justice shows an increase in the U.S. by over 8 percent. Domestic violence is widespread everywhere.

3 Signs You Are in an Emotionally Abusive Relationship

Sometimes relationships end up being a source of pain. You may feel you're not getting the security and comfort of having a partner. Instead, your life may start to feel like it's a series of traumas. In such situations, you may often end up doubting yourself. You may feel confused about why your partner treats you so bad. At the same time, you may still hold on to the positive aspects, making it

hard for you to make a decision.

If you're not sure if your relationship is abusive, here are three signs to look out for. These are by no means the only symptoms. But they signal a high-level of danger to your physical and emotional health.

You're Not Allowed to Have an Opposing Opinion

People will always disagree on certain things. Conflict is not a bad thing if it's an avenue to learn, grow, and exchange ideas. However, certain people can only accept their own points of view.

If you keep getting dismissed or demeaned in arguments, you're being abused. It doesn't matter if your views are accurate or not. Nobody has the right to make you feel inferior.

Sadly, certain people don't know how to deal with opposing opinions. This may cause them to lash out. They may also use your disagreements as a chance to take out their frustrations.

You Can't Raise Issues About How You Feel

Similar to the point above, you may end

up being attacked when you raise an issue. This may be a demand for something you want, such as more attention or affection. Or perhaps your partner has a double standard. For example, they may think it's OK for them to make you look bad in public. Yet, if you complain about it they'll accuse you of disgracing them.

Such situations may make you feel worthless. You may feel confused about whether your perception is based on reality. This may weaken your confidence and damage your self-image.

You Find Yourself Wanting to Hurt Your Partner

In certain cases, you may end storing up feelings of anger and humiliation. When you can't take anymore, you may end up

lashing out at your partner. This may increase conflict and you may end up getting hurt even more.

The key here is to not allow your partners behavior to turn you into something you're not. Don't let their abuse be an excuse for acting against your own beliefs. Instead, assess your situation. Decide if you want to continue being in a situation that causes you to lose self-control.

Dealing with emotional abuse is hard. At the same time, staying a victim will only make your life worse. If you feel abused, take action to change the situation. Most importantly, connect with yourself and learn to understand your own actions. Do things that make you feel loved and respected. That will make it harder for you to stay in situations that threaten your well-being. Be prepared for an uphill battle. But remember, you're fighting for your life.

Immigrants and Domestic Violence

Immigrants in the US. have the right to live life free of abuse. Due to the victim’s immigration status, abusive partners have additional ways to exert power and control over their victims. If you are an immigrant or refugee in an abusive relationship, you may face unique issues that make it hard to reach out for help.

VAWA

As a victim of domestic violence, there are laws that can allow you to gain legal status in the United States. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was created in 1994 by then Senator Joe Biden, to protect victims of domestic violence, and offers specific protections for people without legal status in the US. VAWA also protects men and children who are victims of domestic violence.

As part of the perpetration of domestic violence, abusers often may refuse to assist you with applying for immigration status, may promise to apply for you, but never actually help, or threaten to contact immigration and report you. VAWA helps victims of domestic violence allowing them to self-petition for their own legal status without the abuser’s help or knowledge.

Free Legal Consultations

A specialized immigration attorney should always be your first point of contact when it comes to immigration questions and concerns. You can also listen to

Ask the Lawyer Radio podcasts at www.youtube.com/@askthelawyernow

The program provides great information and also an opportunity for a FREE, confidential, no obligation legal consultation. The number to call is 855-7688845. You can also visit www.askthelawyer.us

Domestic violence is against the law regardless of one’s immigration status. Be a loving family member, good friend, and caring neighbor: please share this information.l

Making the Most of a Long-Distance Relationship

BY BARBIE CARPENTER

Living apart can take a toll on any relationship, but several strategies can help couples make the most of their relationship despite the distance. The key to a successful long-distance relationship is twofold. First, couples must be willing to make every effort to see each other. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, they need to have realistic expectations of their relationship and their future together.

Have a Plan

Perhaps you’re starting a relationship with someone who lives in another state, or your long-term significant other has accepted a job in another city. No matter the reason for your long-distance relationship, it is important that you devise a plan to make the relationship last. If you live within driving distance, you might alternate weekends visiting each other. If your relationship is a bit more long distance, identify how long you’re willing to be apart before a visit. Establishing a plan for your long-distance romance can ease those lonely times.

Use Technology

In today’s technological age, you have many ways of communicating with your long-distance love. Use video chat regularly to see each other and talk face to face. Text messages are an easy way to communicate when you’re out and want to keep your significant other in the loop. Share pictures and messages on social networking sites to keep your relationship strong despite the distance. Technology can help your long-distance love seem a little closer.

Focus on the Future

Couples in long-distance relationships often get caught up in the day-to-day demands of building their relationship and do not think of the future. Before you invest time and energy into maintaining this long-distance relationship, make sure you and your significant other have the same expectations for the future. Obviously, living in different cities or states cannot go on forever. At some point, one of you is going to have to make a change for the sake of your relationship. Talk to your significant other

The key to a successful long-distance relationship is twofold. First, couples must be willing to make every effort to see each other. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, they need to have realistic expectations of their relationship and their future together.

about how your relationship fits into your future plans. An open dialogue about your relationship is essential in keeping it strong.

Conclusion

You and your significant other can overcome the challenges of your long-distance relationship—but not without effort. Using these strategies to maximize your time spent together and keep lines of communication open will help you cope with the distance and perhaps even find long-lasting love. l

When You File Taxes Jointly, Whose Name Goes On First?

BY TAXGUY.NYC

If you and your spouse file your taxes jointly, technically, it doesn't matter whose name you put down first on Form 1040. The form offers two spaces for the names of the spouses, and any one of them can appear first or second. About 30 years ago, among heterosexual couples, almost all joint tax returns were filed with the name of the man first. But that number has now come down to about three out of four. In general, the South tends to be somewhat more conservative, resulting in more joint returns with the husband's name first, while the number of women appearing first tends to be a little higher in the North. But even the nation's second couple, Kamala Harris and Douglas Emhoff, file their joint tax return with the vice president's name appearing second.

It doesn't matter whose name goes on first. There is a caveat to keep in mind, however

You don't want to make changes

Some families attempt to maintain a

sense of equality in their relationship by taking up the idea of taking turns -- each spouse goes first on the tax filing on alternate years. Whether you want to take turns each year, or change the order of the names once every few years, it's important to know that changes don't sit well with the IRS. It may not be against the rules, but the systems in place at the IRS tend to not respond well. The IRS even issues instructions that ask you to keep the pattern stable from year to year, always putting your names and Social Security numbers down the same way.

You may have started off putting the name of one spouse first years ago in recognition of the fact that they earned

more than the other, were older, took responsibility for doing the taxes, or for whatever other reason, but it isn't a good idea to rethink that decision and change the order after.

The IRS has computer systems in place that track filings from year to year based on what name and Social Security number appears first, and they can be completely thrown by any changes. With the IRS being shorthanded and unable to respond to questions by filers, name order changes are likely to result in your tax return getting lost in an IRS backlog black hole.

If you plan to file together as a married couple for the first time, it's important that you carefully consider what order your names will appear in, on the filing. Once you make a decision, it's a good idea to stick with it to the end, no matter how your outlook in these matters changes over time.

Guidance

Questions? ASK THE LAWYER. Call 855-768-8845 or schedule an appointment at www.askthelawyer.usl

The lawyer you hire, does make a difference!