Weiss, Alden & Polo, P.A. - Miami and Boca Raton Immigration Attorneys Weiss, Alden & Polo, P.A. - Miami and Boca Raton Immigration Attorneys
Call us with questions
305-358-1500 Miami-Dade
561-393-7400 Palm Beach County
954-406-1833 Broward
888-810-6621 Toll Free

Miami Immigration and Naturalization Law Blog

15,000 additional H-2B visas now available to U.S. employers

Most people would naturally assume that industries like hospitality, landscaping, food processing, retail and even construction would have little problem finding a steady supply of workers. However, this is far from the case.

The reality is that U.S. businesses in these sectors have always found it difficult to find domestic workers willing to take these temporary non-agricultural positions. Indeed, the problem became so acute that the H-2B program was ultimately created to allow low-skilled, seasonal workers to come to the U.S. to fill these sorts of roles.

SCOTUS: Expanded entry permissible for relatives, not refugees

Earlier this week, we discussed how the Supreme Court of the United States was once again being called upon to address the Trump administration's controversial travel ban even though the matter had seemingly been put on the backburner until next October.

Specifically, we discussed how the recent actions of a federal judge in Honolulu resulted in the Department of Justice filing a sort of emergency motion with SCOTUS asking it to clarify its recent June 26 decision and how the nation's high court gave the state of Hawaii until Tuesday to respond.

Here we go again ... travel ban back before U.S. Supreme Court

Just when it seemed as if things were poised to settle down from a legal perspective in relation to the Trump administration's travel ban, the case is now heading back to the Supreme Court of the United States.

A mere three weeks ago, SCOTUS allowed for a partial lifting of the injunctions against that section of President Trump's executive order calling for visa applications for individuals from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen to be put on hold for 90 days. It also held, however, that the travel ban could not be imposed against those foreign nationals from one of the six nations who had "a credible claim of bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States."

SCOTUS: Citizenship can't be revoked for minor misstatements

After a long and busy term, things are now relatively quiet in the halls of the Supreme Court of the United States and will likely remain this way until the start of the next session. From a legal news perspective, this means the nation's high court won't be making headlines any time soon.

Before turning the page on SCOTUS' 2016-17 term, however, it's worth examining another immigration law case that perhaps failed to generate quite as much attention as the travel ban decision, but is nevertheless incredibly important. Indeed, it examined whether citizenship can be revoked for minor falsehoods or misstatements.

Lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of ICE detainers filed

While most people are undoubtedly familiar with terms like "sanctuary city" and "detainers" thanks to round-the-clock news coverage, they might not have a complete understanding of what these terms really entail.

In general, when officials with Immigration and Customs Enforcement determine that local police departments or jails are going to release an individual that they've identified as a target for deportation, they will issue what is known as a detainer. In general, these are formal requests asking the local police departments or jails to hold a designated individual otherwise designated for release until ICE officials can place them under arrest.

Who exactly is covered by the revised travel ban?

Last week, our blog discussed how the Supreme Court of the United States finally handed down a decision on the Trump administration's so-called travel ban. To recap, the justices, via an unsigned order, permitted a more limited version of the travel ban to proceed and scheduled oral arguments to decide the merits of the case when they reconvene in the fall.

Specifically, SCOTUS called for a partial lifting of the injunctions against that section of the executive order calling for visa applications for individuals from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen to be put on hold for 90 days. The justices did indicate, however, that this travel ban could not be imposed against foreign nationals [from the six nations] who had "a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States."

SCOTUS: Trump administration may move forward with limited travel ban

Yesterday marked the final day of the 2016-17 term of the Supreme Court of the United States. As anticipated, the nation's high court handed down six decisions, including the highly anticipated ruling on the Trump administration's so-called travel ban.

In an unsigned order, the justices scheduled oral arguments to decide the merits of the travel ban when they reconvene in October, potentially setting up a landmark case examining religious discrimination and the executive branch's exercise of national security powers. More significantly, the justices permitted a more limited version of the travel ban to proceed.

DACA program to remain in effect -- for now

It may seem hard to believe but it's been roughly five years since the Obama Administration implemented the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program -- otherwise known as DACA -- which is designed to provide undocumented young people who have lived in the U.S. since childhood with a reprieve from removal.  

To recap, successful applicants, referred to as Dreamers, are not granted lawful status, but rather deferred action, meaning they 1) can't be removed or placed into removal proceedings for two years, 2) are able to secure work permits, and 3) can renew their status for two years at a time.

SCOTUS hands down important decision in case examining birthright citizenship - II

Last week, our blog began discussing how the Supreme Court of the United States handed down an important decision in Lynch v. Morales-Santana -- now Sessions v. Morales-Santana -- a case examining whether the differing physical residency requirements of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 violated the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection.

Having established the facts of the case and some background on these residency requirements, today's post will discuss the decision reached by the high court.

SCOTUS hands down important decision in case examining birthright citizenship

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 is relatively straightforward when it comes to the issue of whether the children of unwed mothers and fathers may claim U.S. citizenship.

Indeed, the law sets forth stringent physical residency requirements dictating that in order for the child of an unmarried citizen father and non-citizen mother to secure citizenship, the father must have been physically present in the U.S. or one its territories for at least five years in their life prior to the child's birth, with at least two of these years being after their 14th birthday.