Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's extraordinarily unusual and in my experience has only happened when CBP believes that the applicant was lying or has a criminal record so I wouldn't base the decision on where/how to apply on this very low risk. Depending on the TN application, there are better and worse ways to apply for a TN and from an outcome standpoint, sometimes it's better to apply with CBP at the border or with CBP at a U.S. airport by…
With all respect, everything happening in the US at the moment is "extraordinarily unusual" today. Tomorrow it will be the "new normal".
I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney who does work for YC and startups. AMA
241–250 of 527 posts
Re: I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney who does work for YC and startups. AMA
#242Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 2021 elections ended with a government of 61 seats, including 7 seats for Labor (left), 6 seats for Meretz (fairly hard left), 4 seats for Ra'am (Islamist), so 25% from what would be considered a "left bloc" from a Western viewpoint. Then Yesh Atid and Blue and White had 17 and 8 respectively, both centrists, so just short of 50%. So there most certainly is a left (albeit small) and a substantial centre. Israel h…
Seats mean nothing. If there is a plurality and any kind of left movement there, what opposition have they given to the right? AFAICT, Yair's biggest criticism was that the war was managed poorly by Bibi. 80% of Israeli jews support the ethnic cleansing of Gaza. People are arrested for saying the oppressed have a right to defend themselves. You see videos of IDF troops calling for the death of all Arabs while they ar…
I'm just pointing out that painting falsehoods about Israel and its people (as you have continued to do in your most recent post) does indeed make you a bad guy. I don't expect you to agree with me!
Re: I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney who does work for YC and startups. AMA
#243Can a TN classification denial result in immigration detention? If so, how can I mitigate that risk? For context, a Canadian woman recently tried to enter into the USA from Mexico and get TN-1 status. Instead of refusing her entry, officials detained her and she's been stuck for 10 days waiting for deportation. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-canadian-woma... It's unclear to me how big of a risk this a…
She crossed overland. Imagine you do pre-clearance out of a Canadian airport. Can they kidnap you out of country and ship you to a US detention center?
Is there a policy that requires that people denied entry be returned to the country they are citizens of?
Re: I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney who does work for YC and startups. AMA
#244Re: I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney who does work for YC and startups. AMA
#245Re: I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney who does work for YC and startups. AMA
#246Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Green cards cannot be yanked for constitutionally protected speech.
Now, I don't think it makes any sense that speech is "material" support, but I also think it doesn't make any sense that speech is "violence," and US culture seems to have repudiated my thoughts on what distinguishes speech from action.
But whatever I think, under current law, speech in support of a terrorist organization is no longer free speech. And certain pro-Palestinian organizations were defined by the previous administration to be terrorist organizations back in November. So it follows that certain pro-Gaza activism is no longer free speech. I don't think this should be the case, but this is the current state of the law.
Re: I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney who does work for YC and startups. AMA
#247Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be clear, the statutory standards for denaturalization are quite expansive: https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-l-chapter... . 8 USC 1451(a): > a) Concealment of material evidence; refusal to testify It shall be the duty of the United States attorneys for the respective districts, upon affidavit showing good cause therefor, to institute proceedings in any district court of the United States in the j…
Isn’t the green card risk based on a couple of items in the green card process The visa process and the person’s assertions to those visa questions For example - did you every x? And the required answer is No Let’s assume the person did commit X but answers No Years go by and the person gets a green card. The underlying assertion was a lie - therefore the whole stream of events later becomes questionable. The second…
The wording of 8 USC 1451(a) is not limited to particular questions on visa or green-card applications. The statute refers to how the "order and certificate of naturalization were ... procured" which arguably encompasses everything leading up to the order and certificate. Moreover, the statute has two separate prongs for revocation: (1) the "order and certificate of naturalization were illegally procured"; or (2) "were procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation."
The way government prosecutors interpret these statutes is to push each of these terms and prongs as far as they can logically go. For example, you could argue that the phrase "illegally procured" encompasses any unlawful activity that has some arguable nexus to the visa or naturalization process.
As to the second prong, 8 USC 1427(a) sets forth extensive requirements for who qualifies for naturalization. The requirements are extremely vague and broad:
> No person, except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, shall be naturalized unless such applicant, (1) immediately preceding the date of filing his application for naturalization has resided continuously, after being lawfully admitted for permanent residence, within the United States for at least five years and during the five years immediately preceding the date of filing his application has been physically present therein for periods totaling at least half of that time, and who has resided within the State or within the district of the Service in the United States in which the applicant filed the application for at least three months, (2) has resided continuously within the United States from the date of the application up to the time of admission to citizenship, and (3) during all the periods referred to in this subsection has been and still is a person of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States.
That third requirement is so broad that almost any fact about a person could be deemed material to the naturalization decision. Now, remember that 8 USC 1451(a) only allows naturalization to be revoked based on concealing or misrepresenting material facts. So it must be the case that you were arguably required to disclose the fact to the government at some point and either didn't or misrepresented the fact. But if you made an omission or misstatement on any government form ever, that could be fair game for bringing revocation proceedings.
Re: I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney who does work for YC and startups. AMA
#248I'm the founder of an early-stage company seeking to establish an office in Phoenix, Arizona. My situation has specific immigration complexities I hope you can maybe give some pointers on.
My spouse is currently subject to a 10-year bar from entering the United States due to an overstay....
We are exploring a hardship waiver (I-601/I-601A) but finding the process challenging while simultaneously managing my business responsibilities. I've been considering various visa pathways including TN, H-1B, and have begun the I-130 petition process for my spouse. Given these circumstances:
What strategies would you recommend for addressing my spouse's admissibility issues most effectively? Are there particular hardship waiver approaches that have proven successful in similar entrepreneurial situations? Could you advise on the comparative benefits of different visa pathways in our specific case? Are there any specialized resources or professionals with expertise in cases combining entrepreneurship with complex inadmissibility issues?
Re: I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney who does work for YC and startups. AMA
#249Earlier quoted context omitted.
She crossed overland. Imagine you do pre-clearance out of a Canadian airport. Can they kidnap you out of country and ship you to a US detention center?
Canadians may be often unprepared and shocked how aggressive and militarized the southern border is, compared to crossing at northern border land entry points.
I was on a big road trip across the country visiting national parks. I went to Organ Pipe Nat. Monument in Arizona which literally touches the Mexican border.
On my way there I drove through a border patrol checkpoint 10 miles north of the border inside the US. They don't check southbound traffic, only northbound. I never entered Mexico. On the way back I had to stop at that border patrol checkpoint. The border patrol agent was basically yelling at me for my passport. I told him I didn't have it with me. He yelled to see my driver's license. I gave it to him and he yelled at me "Why do you have a North Carolina driver's license?" I replied that is where I live and that is my home address on the license. He then screamed at me "Don't you know this is a prime drug running area?!" I told him "I have no idea and I'm not interested in drugs. There is a national park area 5 miles away, don't you get a lot of tourists here going to see that?"
I then noticed in my rear view and side mirrors that another agent was going around my car with a dog sniffing around. After about 2 minutes I saw the dog agent give a thumbs up and the rude agent said "Okay, you can go but you should carry your passport"
I had less rude experiences in Texas and California but still overly suspicious border patrol agents. One guy asked me what all the stuff was in my car. I actually offered him granola bars and soda cans and then showed him landscape pictures on my cameras. He realized that I was really a tourist and not into drugs or helping immigrants cross.
Re: I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney who does work for YC and startups. AMA
#250Earlier quoted context omitted.
Promoting a terrorist organization is legal and well within the boundaries of free speech. It's just not cool, not a good look, and should be shamed into submission. Providing material support to a terrorist organization is where it crosses into criminal territory.
> Promoting a terrorist organization... is not what Mahmoud Kahill (sp?) was doing. He's was protesting the University of Columbia's support of Israel, who were engaged in a wildly homicidal campaign against his kin.