Call Us Today
212-944-9420
Oltarsh & Associates, P.C. En Espanol

Immigration Law Archives

Immigrants Rights

Racial profiling might take on a new meaning after Monday, when the Supreme Court delivered a split decision on Arizona’s controversial immigration law. Unanimously upholding the centerpiece of the law, the provision which has come to be called the “show me your papers” provision, the court struck multiple other provisions. The upholding of this “papers please” provision has opened a floodgate of criticism, and rightly so. The provision requires state law enforcement officials to demand immigration papers from anyone who is stopped or arrested and whom they suspect might be undocumented. This process invites and perhaps even encourages racial profiling. Additionally, this provision also establishes a protocol for law enforcement officials to check the immigration status with the federal government before releasing all those who are arrested.Supreme Court Upholds Papers Please Provision TodayThe three other challenged provision made it a criminal offense for undocumented immigrants to not only seek employment in, but also to be in Arizona, and allowed law enforcement officials to arrest anyone whom they suspected to have committed an offense which would result in deportation, all without a warrant.

Papers Please Provision

Justice Antonin Scalia orally summarized his dissent while on the bench in regard to Arizona’s authority “to impose additional penalties and consequences for violations of the federal immigration laws, because it is entitled to have its own immigration laws.” Additionally, he criticized President Obama’s announcement about deferred action made earlier this month. If the latter action seems odd, it must be because it is rather odd as this policy was not one that was before the court. Furthermore, he wrote in his dissent, similar to Justice Clarence Thomas’ own dissent, that he would have upheld all four of the challenged provisions. Justice Samuel Alito wrote that he would have upheld all the provisions but those that criminalized not registering with the federal government. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, noted one of the reasons for striking down three of the challenged provisions, “the state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.”

Papers Please Dissent

Supreme Court Upholds Papers Please Provision NowThe upholding of the “show me your papers” provision, however, is rather daunting; it provides a stepping stone for other states that have similar immigration statutes as Arizona. The discourse that this Supreme Court ruling puts in place, though it might be put under review and eventually struck down if its implementation is conducted using discriminatory ways, is still cause for worry. Will this decision be a match that lights an already teeming powder keg?If you would like to speak with one of our expert Attorney's regarding the "Papers Please" ruling we invite you to call our office (212) 944-9072 or schedule an appointment with Oltarsh & Associates, P.C.

Illegal Immigration News

Joined Forces Might Have Played Role In Obama’s Deferred Action AnnouncementJohn Lennon famously sang “Give Peace A Chance” during anti-Vietnam war rallies during the Nixon administration. This song resounded forcefully as his deportation was ordered and scores of his supporters sent petition letters to the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Government officials claimed that Lennon had not only been admitted into the country improperly - pleading guilty to a misdemeanor charge of cannabis possession in London prior to his entering the U.S. - but had also overstayed his permitted visit. Meanwhile, supporters of Lennon claimed that this action was taken by the Nixon administration in order to dowse one of the most vocal and effective anti-war actors.

United We Dream

Lennon’s defense attorney reverted to using a prosecutorial tool then known as granting non-priority status, arguing that federal immigration authorities have the prosecutorial power to defer action on certain cases. Today, this has come to be known as granting deferred action. A similar phenomenon occurred exactly forty years after Lennon’s case. Earlier this month, President Obama announced plans to grant deferred action to those undocumented immigrants who were brought into the U.S. as minors. Similar to Lennon’s situation, this decision by the President might have been spurred on by letters and grass-roots movements.United We Dream ActNinety-six law professors from more than seventy universities nationwide signed a letter dated May 28th of this year, advising the President that the executive branch has the authority to defer deportation of undocumented foreign youths. Hiroshi Motomura, a Susan Westerberg Prager law professor at UCLA drafted the letter after becoming increasingly involved in grass-roots immigrant advocacy groups, specifically United We Dream, providing background on certain legal matters to students at his university.

United We Dream Leaders

United We Dream leaders, planning on meeting with White House legal counsel in early June, were able to use this letter as one of their strongest support systems. While the counsel might have been able to reject the leaders claiming there was no legal way in which to carry through their demands, there was no possible manner in which to reject a letter signed by nearly 100 law professors.Motomura, in support of the letter, said: “The reason that this is part of the president’s executive authority and fits within prosecutorial discretion is that we’re not talking about giving people green cards. We’re not talking about putting people on a path to citizenship. …It’s not even legalization.”United We Dream ACTWhether this letter served as a prominent reason for President Obama’s announcement or not is difficult to gauge; however, the most important point is that academia is joining forces with grass-roots movements in order to give hope a chance. If your situation involves any of the DREAM ACT dynamics, we invite you to contact one of the partners at Oltarsh & Associates.

International Medical Graduates (IMG) Law Poses Potential Threat to US Residency Programs

A law intended to increase the public’s access to medical care in medically underserved areas (MUA) and Health Professional Shortage Areas (HSPA) has been passed in Texas and New York. Unfortunately, it seems as though the law will have disadvantageous results despite its beneficent intentions.

International Medical Graduates Timelines

The law targets international medical graduates (IMGs) who apply for a Texas medical license on or after September 1, 2012 and are planning to practice medicine within the state. Requiring all non-citizens and non-permanent resident physicians to practice in an MUA or HSPA for three years, regardless of where the residency or fellowship training was conducted, this law greatly limits the locations in which the physicians may practice within Texas. This limitation is cause for worry as it lessens the likelihood of these highly-trained and much needed physicians to practice in the state.

International Medical Graduates in Texas

While this law does not affect those physicians who practice in graduate medical education programs in the state, once the training program is completed and the IMGs seek to practice in Texas, they would mandatorily need to practice in an MUA or a HSPA. Fortunately for those IMGs who will have received their Texas medical licenses before the first of September, this new law is not retroactive.International Medical Graduates TexasIn addition to this inconvenience faced by International Medical Graduates, those physicians on J-1 visas face similar limitations on their practice. These physicians are required to return to their home country two years after their training has been completed. Before applying for a dual-entry visa, the physician must stay in the home country for two additional years. If an IMG wishes to forego this process, it is required to obtain a waiver by practicing in an MUA for three years, the same time frame as that of the new law. However, the majority of IMGs in residency currently are on H-1B visas, which does not present the limit on practice area.With this severe limitation presented by the new law in Texas and New York, the appeal of residency programs in the United States gravely depreciates for IMGs who are looking to practice in the states. According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, one fourth of all physicians in active patient care in the United States consist of IMGs. Additionally, IMGs make up one fourth of all medical residents in the United States.International Medical Graduates LawIf there is a drop in interest in our residency programs, there is bound to be a drop in the availability of highly trained physicians. As there is already a shortage of physicians, thus the passing of this new law, any actions which might worsen this situation should be steered away from.If you would like to speak with one of the Partners at Oltarsh and Associates, P.C. regarding the new International Medical Graduates Law, give us a call at (212) 944-9072.

Acts Propose Greater Opportunities For Immigrant Graduates and Entrepreneurs

The need for higher-skilled graduates and entrepreneurs is currently immense, not just in the United States, but internationally. With the strict immigration policy the US has, however, corporations and academia have very little access to this talent and immigrants have even less access to potentially beneficial business and educational opportunities.The US currently caps the number of H-1B visas issued annually to 65,000. These visas are issued to those immigrants who are able to bring highly specialized knowledge, talent, and experience in various theoretical and practical fields. In order to gauge how small of a number 65,000 really is, it should be noted that in 2008, this quota was met the first day it was offered. Similarly, the quota of the 20,000 H-1B visas that are offered to foreign students graduating from master’s or doctorate programs annually, was also filled on the first day it was offered in 2008.Senators Jerry Moran, R-KS, and Mark Warner, D-VA have introduced the Startup Act in order to ensure the utmost efficiency in regard to higher-skilled graduates and entrepreneurs.

The Startup Act

The Startup Act would establish two new kinds of visas in order to attract new business investments and talent, encourage entrepreneurial development so as to bolster the economy, and to accelerate commercialization of university research conducted by graduates. The Startup Act proposes a visa to be issued to 75,000 current H-1B visa holders who have either raised $100,000 or registered a new business to surpass the three year time limit to work in the US. The second kind of visa would be issued to 50,000 foreign students who have attained a master’s or doctorate degree in science, engineering, math, or technology (STEM).

The STAR ACT

Senator John Cornyn, R-TX, has introduced a similar legislation in regard to the latter category of immigrants.STAR ACT - Securing the Talent America RequiresHis bill, the Securing the Talent America Requires for the 21st Century (STAR) Act proposes to issue 55,000 green cards to those foreign students who are enrolled in STEM programs on the graduate level. With this increase in allocation of green cards, he also proposes to eradicate the diversity lottery. Cornyn is troubled by the amount of foreign STEM graduates who are forced to return to their home country, talents and skills in tow, due to their H-1B visas expiring within six years. In order to ensure that the highly valuable STEM graduates and skilled entrepreneurs stay in the US in order to strengthen the economy, maintain a powerful position in the competing global market, and to encourage growth, the Startup Act and STAR Acts should be given serious thought by the Senate and House Leaders.Contact Oltarsh and Associates for more details if your personal situation is affected by either the Startup Act or the Star Act.

How an Immigration Attorney in New York City Can Help You If You're Denied a Visa

When you apply for a visa, there are certain requirements that you must meet in order to obtain one. An immigration attorney in New York City can aid you in this process and help you to become knowledgeable if you meet the requirements.

Have a New York City Immigration Attorney Aide You in Obtaining a Business Visa

If you need to another country for business, you may be applicable for a business visa. However, it is wise to hire a New York City immigration attorney to aide you in the application process and to give you guidance.

The Advantages of Hiring a New York City Immigration Lawyer to Guide You through Naturalization

When you choose to go through the naturalization process, you may not realize just how much is involved and how long the process may take. There are many benefits of going through the naturalization process as your means of US citizenship, but it can be rather grueling. This is why it is a great advantage to hire a New York City immigration lawyer.

New York City Immigration Attorney: Immigration Law

A New York City immigration attorney will need to be specifically trained and educated in immigration law if they are going to be expected to handle various immigration matters. This is what makes New York City immigration attorneys so reputable for their success in immigration issues. They are very knowledgeable of immigration law and capable of dealing with nearly immigration concern.

How a New York City Immigration Attorney Can Benefit You during the Naturalization Process

The naturalization is one of the most preferred methods of becoming a U.S. citizen. However, it can also be the most difficult. With this being said, it is best to hire a New York City immigration attorney to help you with the naturalization process. If you are wondering how they could benefit you throughout the process, read the following.

Email Us For A Response

How Can We Help You

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close

Privacy Policy

494 8th Avenue
Suite 1704
New York, New York 10001

Phone: 212-944-9420
Fax: 212-944-9120
New York Law Office Map