U.S. immigration: Policies creating logical inconsistencies - Part 2
Take, for example, the case where a petitioner wishes to extend the period for which a nonimmigrant employee was admitted. In certain classes of nonimmigrants meeting defined conditions, the law authorizes employees to continue working for the same employer for up to 240 days or until U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) makes a decision on the pending petition -Whichever is sooner.
This "240 Day Rule" kicks in after the initial nonimmigrant status of the beneficiary expires, allowing the individual to continue to work in the U.S.
Barring the intervention of his team of lawyers and posting a bond of thousands of dollars, he would have been required to stay in detention for weeks or even months until he was able to go before an immigration judge, who could then decide how he or she wanted to apply the DHS policy to his case. He easily could have been removed from the U.S. and suffered all the consequences of that action to his career and his family, simply because of a policy interpretation that says that although he is authorized by law to work in the U.S., he is not concurrently authorized by law to be in the U.S. Riddle me that, folks.
Change on horizon?
Elizabeth M. Klarin, partner with Lippes Mathias Wexler Friedman LLP, has more than 15 years of immigration experience assisting clients with the full spectrum of U.S. immigration matters. She represents clients from around the globe across virtually every industry, as well as individuals seeking strategic immigration options and solutions.
This article was originally published by The Lawyer’s Daily (www.thelawyersdaily.ca), part of LexisNexis Canada Inc.
Disclaimer: The information in this post is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect the current law in your jurisdiction. No information contained in this post should be construed as legal advice from our firm or the individual author, nor is it intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. No reader of this post should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included in, or accessible through, this post without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from a lawyer licensed in the recipient’s state, country or other appropriate licensing jurisdiction.