Orange County Immigration Law Offices of Wolf W. Kaufmann

11/08/2018

We have moved to Riverside County. We appreciate the opportunities we had to help our clients in Orange County in the past years. Find us now in Riverside County, or as always, in our main office in Scottsdale, AZ.

Our new page is here: https://www.facebook.com/desertimmigration/

We are a law firm representing immigrants and citizens in the Indio area in immigration matters and in criminal defense. We offer affordable service.

09/25/2018

Well, depends on what you want to get in the end! :)
Give us a call: 480.477.8071

09/03/2018

08/31/2018

DACA - The umpteenth time

Today another court (actually the first court confronted with DACA) made a decision: it decided for now not to change anything. The status quo remains the same: DACA renewal applications can be filed and those with current DACA permits can work and should be safe from deportation unless their status changed (for example by a criminal offense arrest etc.)

For now. The saga continues as we had written in a post earlier this month. The final say will most likely come from the U.S. Supreme Court some day.

08/31/2018

The legal world has become a maze and you need someone who knows the correct way to lead you through. Case on point: Ma*****na and immigrants.

As you probably know, Arizona and other states have legalized the medical use of ma*****na under certain conditions. But, as you remember, immigration law is federal law. And here we have another conflict:

Federal law still prohibits the possession or use of ma*****na, despite the various state laws allowing it. So if you are not a US citizen, you must be extremely careful if you consider using ma*****na for medical reasons.

A recent inquiry to USCIS how they will handle naturalization applications by immigrants who have been issued a state medical ma*****na card, such as in Arizona, brought this clear answer:

In such a case naturalization will be denied and it could even raise issues about the permanent legal residency!

If you are an immigrant and consider using ma*****na for medical (or any other) purposes, you should first consult a knowledgeable immigration attorney about possible consequences!

We will be happy to schedule a consultation in one of our offices for you, give us a call.

08/30/2018

Have you ever wondered when an U.S. citizen might need an immigration attorney? Some citizens are just finding out: the news are reporting today that an old issue seems to be coming up again: if you were born close to the Southern border during the 1950 or 1960, your chances are growing that the government will deny issuing a passport.

Why? They say they have found many cases where midwifes, doctors and others during those years issued paperwork that allowed U.S. birth certificates to be issued to people actually born in Mexico. Under our constitution, everyone born on U.S. soil automatically is an U.S. citizen, even if the parents are not, even if the parents did not, at the time of birth, reside in the U.S. As long as the birth happened on U.S. soil, the child is an U.S. citizen.

It appears as if sometimes children actually were born on the Mexican side of the border but paperwork for the birth was filed on the U.S. side, allowing the children to claim citizenship.

The issue is actually not new, the problems have been around, especially in Texas, for some years, but the numbers of U.S. passports being denied seems to have climbed recently.

For a citizen whose passport application is denied, even more serious consequences lurk: there are reports that in some cases the government proceeded to put the applicants in detention and deportation proceedings, claiming they never have been a citizen and therefore their presence here is illegal.

This is an extremely serious charge and if this happens to you do not take it lightly,. Hire an experienced immigration attorney immediately.

For many years we have been helping U.S. citizens claim their citizenship. Besides being born on American soil, having U.S. citizen parents is a way to obtain citizenship. But here some complicated legal framework must be observed and not everyone who has an American father or mother will be able to claim citizenship. Most often this issue appears with children of American soldiers who had been stationed abroad.

Call or email us for an evaluation of your case.

08/24/2018

Many people nowadays think the situation along our Southwestern Border is pretty much in chaos. And many are confused by the news they hear. One of these confusing items is: is crossing the border illegally a crime or not and what punishments are there, if it is?

For many years people, even immigrant advocates, have touted the line: being in the United States illegally is not a crime but a "civil violation." Technically they are correct. But they forget to mention that there is a crime affecting some of the people in the U.S. who have no documentation: It is a federal crime to cross the U.S. border without permission, and it is even more of a crime to do so if you already have been deported once.

The Trump administration, like its predecessor, has been going after those people with a vengeance. Prosecutions in the border districts are not only at an all time high but some courthouses see nothing else but these border crossing prosecutions any more. More serious cases like smuggling drugs or people had to take a step back in line for all those "illegal entry" cases to be processed.

The law says: it is a misdemeanor crime to enter the U.S. illegally. The punishment can be up to 6 months in prison. Deportation usually follows the prison time. Coming back illegally after having been deported before is a much more serious crime, a felony: it can be punished by up to 20 years in prison, with an almost guaranteed deportation afterwards.

Typical cases nowadays along the border see prison terms being handed out between 6 months and two years. That is in addition to often very long deportation detention, which in some cases lasts years. In other words: people who cross illegally can end up spending much more time in prison than your average American burglar or thief.

While defendants in criminal prosecution can have their cases handled by the public defender (in contrast to "simple" deportation cases where the government does not provide an attorney),.many public defenders' offices are overwhelmed with these cases. If you are in California and know someone being charged with such a crime, recommend them to hire an experienced attorney such as those at our office.

08/22/2018

Many of you are closely following the news about DACA. And many of you find it very confusing, one court order chasing the next and all seem to contradict each other. Recently a court in Washington had decided to re-establish DACA in its full form, allowing people to apply for DACA even if they never had before, and also to apply for advance parole travel. That same court then stayed its own decision to allow the government to appeal it.

What does that mean? It means that for now nothing changes! You still are allowed to renew DACA but you cannot apply for DACA for the first time. You cannot apply for advance parole at this time.

Stay tuned because there will be more decisions in the future. And don't forget, in these confusing times it is very important to have an experienced attorney at your side when navigating the maze of immigration rules.

08/13/2018

In the past weeks we achieved some successes for our clients which we want to share with you: In a case that has kept us busy for more than two years finally the government gave in and asked the Board of Immigration Appeals to dismiss their request to deport our client. Before the government conceded, we had to appeal the case twice to the BIA and then to the Ninth Circuit where we won the case. It shows that hiring an attorney who will not be intimidated by the government's vast resources can lead to great results.

The other case was similar: We had filed an application for naturalization for our client but the government repeatedly denied it, trying to hide behind reasons that appeared to be very flimsy. We stayed on the case and finally the government conceded and scheduled an oath ceremony for our client.

What we learn from these two cases is: Today more than ever it is necessary to have an attorney with a lot of experience and the will to go all the way for his clients if you want to win an immigration case. The government is trying harder than ever before to put roadblocks on immigrants' paths.

Finally: Our preparations to open a presence in the Coachella Valley are moving forward. Immigrants can already contact us at one of our present offices. Do not wait to get on board! Soon we will be in your neighborhood.

07/17/2018

You have probably heard and seen already that our government is changing almost everything in its practice to administer immigration. In yet another change to current policies, we have received an update on USCIS treatment of applications from people who might be in the country without status.
In the past applications such as for a waiver, for extension of stay, a petition for a relative could be filed and processed and USCIS would issue a decision after several months, sometimes years. Once the decision was made, that was it.
Now, the Department of Homeland Security has advised USCIS that they have to take the case further: if they are aware of the fact that an applicant is out of status when they decide on an application they have to initiate deportation proceedings. The only exception are people in valid DACA status.
Let me present you a practical example on how this might affect you: You file an application for a provisionary waiver (I601A). That means you are without legal status in the country, but might be able to become a permanent resident by using this waiver. In the past, USCIS would simply process the application. Many applications were filed without enough support to warrant a positive application, so they were denied. That was the end of the case.
Now, USCIS will have to also initiate deportation proceedings by issuing a Notice to Appear in Immigration Court.
For you that means that is has become much more important to be sure your application or petition is the correct means to get you legal status. If you make a mistake, file without sufficient support or are simply not eligible, you will end up in deportation proceedings.
Because the stakes have gone much higher now, it has become even more important to have an experienced lawyer at your side. Do not rely on internet scams, notarios without license or your friendly neighbors or relatives to guide you through these legal proceedings. Get in touch with a lawyer in our office and find out the best way to make sure you will be able to become a permanent resident and eventually a citizen of our nation.

04/18/2018

Great news today from the U.S. Supreme Court: A decision was made in the case Sessions v. Dimaya. Our office currently has a case where our client has been waiting a long time for clarification in this matter: what is a "crime of violence?"

You might be tempted to answer: that is easy: murder, r**e... But, as you might already have guessed, things in immigration law almost never are easy. Is burglary a violent crime? Why do courts hold that assault, sometimes also called battery, often is not a violent crime? And to confound things a bit, what is a "typical" crime, let's say, a "typical burglary?" These are some of many questions that have kept our courts busy. But the question is of utmost importance to many permanent residents who faced deportation because of a conviction for such a crime.

Things have become so convoluted that the U.S. Supreme Court had to weigh in. And for all those who fear that a liberal softness on crime led to today's decision, rest assured: the issue was much more important: the issue was if we all as citizens can rely on our Constitution to protect us when we are accused of a crime or not. That is what Justice Gorsuch pointed out in the opinion today. What was the problem?

Like our own client, defendant Dimaya was threatened with deportation for having been convicted of a crime, that might fall into the group of crimes defined as "aggravated felonies" in immigration law. However, as I noted above, that group consists of some strange bedfellows, while others are missing.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where our own case currently is pending, decided a few years ago that a very similar provision in the Career Criminals Act was unconstitutionally vague and therefore could not be applied to any case. Dimaya now claimed that the provision in immigration law has the same problem: it is unconstitutionally vague.

In our constitutional system we, as citizens and residents alike, have the right to be safe from arbitrary prosecution. If the government wants to prosecute us for a crime, punish us after a conviction by taking away our dear liberties and, for example, imprison us, one of the basic rights we enjoy under the constitution is that we must know before we get hauled into court, what conduct is permitted and what conduct is not.

Just imagine you would be suddenly prosecuted for a crime you never knew existed! "But I didn't know that what I was doing is not permitted!" would be your defense and you would expect that the government would be held to the standard, that you should know before what is a crime and what not.

For some of our fellow residents here in the U.S. it was not like that: They did commit a crime, they were convicted or plead guilty in state court, or federal court, and they paid their debt to society, they spent time in jail or prison, they managed probation, and so on.

And then immigration enforcement knocked on their door and said: "You will be deported now." They were surprised: "I had no idea! I knew that for my crime I had to spend some time in jail, yes, but that I would be deported? No way! I would never have pleaded guilty then!"

What happened was that crimes which they had committed without any violence at all, suddenly could be found to be "typically committed with the grave risk of violence occurring".

The courts were faced with determining what a "typical crime" of a certain category is and what kind of conduct includes "grave risk of violence."

The courts struggled with that idea: What is a typical burglary? One where a perpetrator smashes a window to a residence at night, enters the silent and dark house while the family inside is sleeping? Or rather the burglary during daytime where a perpetrator shimmies open the lock of an empty apartment whose owners are at work? There are so many different ways to commit a burglary. What is typical? Which one carries more risk of violence occurring?

The cases came down to this: If immigration law is supposed top pass constitutional muster, it must tell immigrants before they commit any crime for what kind of crime they will be deported. Immigrants as well as citizens need to know what the law is.

The U.S. Supreme Court today said: A part of the aggravated felony definition of a violent crime is so vague, so complicated and has produced so strange results that it cannot fairly be applied.

Today's ruling, which is in line with the previous ruling in Johnson, does not open the door to criminal immigrants. On the contrary: it protects us all, citizens and immigrants alike, from a government who does not take the time to write laws in a way that they can be understood by everyone and which then would give the government the power to arbitrarily prosecute anyone. Today our constitution won.

10/18/2017

Marriage based Green Cards: some important changes! You might have overlooked that the government changed some important rules how to process a marriage based green card application in the U.S. It will mostly affect those who came as tourists and then plan to get married in the U.S. and adjust their status here. The government seems to abolish the 30/60 day rule! If you plan on getting married and then apply for a green card here, before you do, you should talk to us! Things might have become trickier now.