Welcome to AMEZOLA LEGAL GROUP, APC

This blog is created as a learning tool on the various complex areas of Immigration and Family Law. This is a general overview from the perspective of a California attorney.

Saturday, June 28, 2014

New Hope For Undocumented Children!!!


Many children live with caretakers who are not their biological parents.  When the child does not have legal immigration status there may seem to be no hope to obtain a green card or citizenship.  Now, through the diligent effort of the law firm of Strickland & Amezola, APC there may be new hope for these children. 
This new possibility comes from a case involving a young boy born in Mexico who was left with his uncle and aunt by his biological mother, who had problems with drugs.  The uncle died and the aunt, who is a United States citizen, brought the child to the United States without any immigration status and raised him as if she were his biological mother.  The San Diego County Superior Court held that the aunt was legally the child’s mother under California law.  This is called a “presumed parent” in California.  Under California law, a child may have two mothers, two fathers or a parent who has no biological relationship to them.  The child may or may not have been adopted by the caretaker.  The Hague Convention which makes the immigration of adopted children very difficult and very costly has no application if a Court finds that a caretaker is the child’s “presumed parent.”
In a ground-breaking decision, Attorney Barbara Strickland, on behalf of the firm, was able to convince Immigration that the California Court holding that the aunt was the “presumed mother” of the child was valid for immigration purposes.  A petition was filed with Immigration as if the child was the biological child of the aunt and was recently approved. 
The caretaker may be the grandparent, older sibling, other relative or the same-sex partner of the biological parent of the child. The biological parents may have been unable to care for the child due to drug problems, deportation or other reasons.  Sometimes the caretaker may have become guardians, but in other cases, the biological parent simply left the child with the caretaker with or without a written letter or power of attorney.  The caretaker becomes attached to the child and the child becomes attached to the caretaker. 
This decision brings new hope for undocumented children who have been cared for a significant period of time by a United States citizen or legal resident who has assumed the place of a biological parent.  If you have a similar case, please call the office for a detailed review of your case at (619) 230-1773 or visit our website for more information at http://myimmigrationatty.com/
By Barbara K. Strickland
Senior Partner, Strickland & Amezola, APC

Friday, June 6, 2014

Abogados de Inmigracion vs. "Notarios"



¿Quiénes son los verdaderos profesionales de Inmigración?
            Todos hablan de la posibilidad de una reforma de la ley de inmigración.  Tal vez entre en vigor una reforma para resolver la situación de los 11 millones de indocumentados en este país pero tal vez no. Pero con o sin la reforma, la gente pregunta: ¿Qué debo hacer?  ¿A quién debo acudir para asesorarme y ayudarme con mi situación? Hay tres tipos de personas que generalmente se dedica a hacer trámites de inmigración:  Notarios, consultantes de inmigración y abogados.  ¿Cuál es la diferencia? ¿Cuál es la mejor opción?
            Los notarios públicos en Estados Unidos NO SON abogados.  Su única función es de autenticar las firmas en un documento.  Ninguno de los formatos de inmigración tiene como requisito ser firmado ante notario público.  Repito:  JAMÁS es necesario firmar un formato de inmigración ante notario público. 
            Los consultantes de inmigración son semejantes a los notarios:  NO SON ABOGADOS. Son personas que pueden llenar formatos de inmigración pero nada más.  A veces se utiliza el término “notario” para referirse a un consultante de inmigración y vice versa. 
Lamentable hay muchos casos de fraude por parte de los notarios y los consultantes de inmigración.  Ninguno de los dos puede asesorarte sobre si calificas por un beneficio de inmigración porque no son abogados.  Si dan asesoría legal sin ser abogados, comenten un delito.  Por eso ni un notario o un consultante te puede decir si puedes arreglar tus papeles o no, si necesitas un perdón o no o si estás al riesgo de ser deportado o no.  No te pueden decir cuáles formatos tienes que llenar, qué información debes de incluir en el formato y no te pueden aconsejar sobre las posibles consecuencias negativas si presentas un trámite determinado.  Nuevamente, si dan este tipo de asesoraría están cometiendo un delito.  Nada más pueden preparar los formatos que tú les llevas con la información que tú les des. Si no sabes qué información poner, ellos no te pueden decírtelo.
Un abogado es una persona que cuenta con una licencia otorgada la Barra de Abogados del Estado California.  Para poder ejercer como abogado la persona debe cumplir una carrera de cuando menos tres años de estudios de leyes.  Además, debe aprobar un examen que dura tres días.  En California aprueban dicho examen aproximadamente la mitad de los estudiantes que lo presenten.  Finalmente, tiene que cumplir con otros requisitos tales como pagar una cuota anual a la Barra de Abogados y cumplir estudios adicionales para mantenerse al corriente. La Barra de Abogados tiene la facultad de suspender la licencia de abogados deshonestos y en algunos casos pueden ayudar a recuperar el dinero pagado. 
A diferencia los notarios o los consultantes no han terminado una carrera en la facultad de leyes, no han aprobado un examen difícil sobre leyes y no están sujetos a la sanción de la Barra de Abogados.  Tal vez te cobran menos, pero hay que recordar  “lo barato sale caro.” No encargues el trámite más importante de tu vida a una persona no calificada para ayudarte como tú lo mereces. 
 Por favor llame a nuestra oficina para programar una consulta al (619) 230-1773 y visite nuestro sitio Web en www.myimmigrationatty.com.

-Por: Barbara K. Strickland, Esq.

Thursday, April 24, 2014

The intercept of Prenup's (spousal support) and Immigration Law



Beware of prenuptial agreements and the Affidavit of Support in immigration matters.  

 More and more courts are starting to enforce the affidavits of support signed by the sponsors when they intend to bring an immigrant into the United States.  The scenario works as follows: Husband, a wealthy United States Citizen, wants to marry "the love of his life" who lives in another country and now wants to bring her to the United States.  Before marriage, both parties enter into a prenuptial agreement wherein Husband agrees to pay Wife some amount of spousal support for 12 months only. In his mind, after the 12 months, he believes that he will be free and clear of any responsibility to continue with any support obligation.  Or so he thinks......

The Immigration and Naturalization Act states that any immigrant seeking admission to the United States will not be admitted if they are “likely at any time to become a public charge[.]” This provision is implemented by requiring the Husband in our fact pattern to execute an affidavit of support. Id. § 1182(a)(4)(C)(ii). That affidavit is a contract in which “the sponsor agrees to provide support to maintain the sponsored alien at an annual income that is not less than 125 percent of the Federal poverty line during the period in which the affidavit is enforceable[.]” Id. § 1183a(a)(1)(A).  A very important factor to consider is that this is a contract legally enforceable against the husband by the wife (or by the Federal Government, any State, local or any other entity providing any means-tested public benefit) and, pursuant to the contract, the husband agrees to submit to the jurisdiction of any Federal or State court for the purposes of enforcement of the contract. Id. § 1183a(a)(1)(B)-(C).

Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the claim involves a federal statute.  Venue is proper in any judicial district where the Husband resides.

Wife can allege that Husband has violated and is violating his obligation to adequately support her financially, per the obligation husband agreed to when he signed the Form I-864. Wife can argue (even if there is a prenuptial agreement) that the Form I-864 remains a valid and executable contract between Wife and Husband.  Husband in this case was advised under the form he signed that that if he or she signs a Form I-864 as part of the wife's application package, “under 213A of the Immigration and Nationality Act these actions create a contract between you and the U.S. Government. The Wife becoming a permanent resident is the ‘consideration’ for the contract.” This obligation of support, imposed by federal law, is separate and apart from any obligation of support imposed under Maryland law or right to support waived by the parties via an ante-nuptial agreement. The Form I-864 presently makes explicit that “divorce does not terminate your obligations under this Form I-864.”

So the next question should be: for how long am I on the "hock" under this legal contract?  The law lists five circumstances whereby husband's financial obligation terminates: (1) the wife becomes a citizen of the United States; (2) the wife has obtained forty (40) quarters of coverage under Title II of the Social Security Act; (3) the wife ceases to be a legal resident and departs the United States; (4) the wife becomes subject to removal but applies for and obtains a new grant of adjustment of status; or (5) the wife dies.

For those family law practitioners out there in spousal support cases with pre-nups (or even without), if the spouse was "sponsored" the other spouse to immigrate to the United States and his/her obligation has not ended under the law, there is another way to get spousal support for your client. Always ask those questions that you don't think are relevant; i.e., did your spouse sign any contract with the United States saying he/she would support you? If you think you have an issue such as this, contact Strickland & Amezola, APC at (619) 230-1773 to see if we can help.


This is not legal advise, and is merely intended to be used for information purposes only.


Consider perusing through these cases:
      Ohio: Davis v. Davis, No. WD-04-020, 2004 WL2924344 (Ohio App. 6 Dist. Dec. 17, 2004) - Immigrant wife countersues U.S. citizen husband for legal separation and support. Wife appealed because district court refused to take jurisdiction over I-864 enforcement. Court of appeals found wife had standing and state courts have jurisdiction to enforce I-864s.
      Louisiana: Ainsworth v. Ainsworth, No. 02-1137-A, 2004U.S. Dis. LEXIS 28961 (M.D. La. May 27, 2004). Immigrant wife sued husband for support under I-864.  Court found wife entitled to specific performance. Husband ordered to pay support at 125% federal poverty guidelines
      Florida: Cheshire v. Cheshire, No. 3:05-cv-00453- TJC-MCR, 2006 WL 1208010 (M.D. Fla. May 4, 2006)Immigrant ex-wife sued USC ex-husband for enforcement of I-864. Court found for wife, but 125% level should be reduced by income wife receives from other sources
      Indiana: Stump v. Stump, No. 1:04-cv-253-TS, 2005 WL2757329 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 25, 2005). Immigrant ex-wife sought enforcement of I-864 when she couldn’t find employment. Court found ex-husband liable at 125% poverty guidelines. Court made damages calculation based on contract law to place wife in the position she would have been in if there had not been a breach.
      Maryland: Younis v. Farooqi, Civil No. CCB-07-1393 (Feb. 7, 2009). Immigrant ex-wife receiving alimony  in the amount o $850 and child support in the amount of $556, sues ex-husband in federal court solely to enforce I-864. Court found that child support amount could not be calculated towards the 125% poverty guideline for wife. Wife got a $20,816 judgment against husband because the past spousal support did not satisfy the 125%  poverty guidelines requirement as he had signed on the affidavit when he immigrated her to the United States. The court held that Mr. Farooqi contractually agreed to support the plaintiff at 125% of the federal poverty level, and he cannot now avoid that obligation because his immigrant ex-wife – who has no driver’s license and only limited education, experience, and command of the English language, in addition to the responsibility of caring for a young child; has been unable to find full-time, paid employment within a couple of years of their divorce.
      Maryland: Toure-Davis v. Davis  (March 2014) The court found that the Form I-864, affidavit of support, imposed by federal law, is separate from any obligation of support imposed under Maryland law or right to support waived by the parties via an ante-nuptial agreement.
      California: Shumye v. Felleke, 555 F. Supp. 2d 1020 (N.D. Cal. 2008). W and H were married in January 1999. The couple separated in October 1999. In 2003, they filed for divorce. In 2005, W and H agreed to a divorce settlement in which H agreed to pay W the sum of $49,000. (no mention of s/s was made). W then sues H for breach of contract under the I-864 affidavit terms claiming that H had failed to ensure that she is supported above the 125% poverty guidelines as he “promised” when he signed the contract. Court Held: the I-864 is legally enforceable but recognized certain set-offs and made husband responsible for certain years of support in the marriage. Remember, this was a 9 month marriage only!