H-1B Visas Archives - Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq.

New U.S. Travel Restrictions: What You Need to Know?

Martha Arias — Mon, 09 Jun 2025 11:34:23 +0000

During my recent interview with Gaby Perozo on “Claro y Directo América,” we discussed the recent presidential proclamation that limits or suspends entry to the United States for citizens from these countries.

Effective June 9, 2025, individuals from Venezuela and Cuba will not be able to enter the United States with an immigrant visa (for example, those seeking U.S. residency). The same restrictions apply to nonimmigrant visas—including tourist (B1/B2), business, and student (F, M, J) visas—even if they have already been issued. There are some exceptions for those who enter before June 9, but anyone applying or waiting for approval outside the U.S. will be affected.

Haitians face an even stricter restriction, with all types of visas—immigrant and nonimmigrant—suspended. This total ban creates added uncertainty for families and students who have made plans to come to the U.S. this year.

For those currently holding visas, I recommend you act swiftly. If you have an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa and have postponed your trip, enter the United States before June 9 if possible. Students, be mindful that many student visas only allow entry 30 days before your program starts. If you cannot enter before the deadline, it may be possible to use a tourist visa and later change your status while in the U.S., but this approach involves legal requirements and costs, so always consult with a qualified immigration attorney before making any decisions.

The government will review these restrictions in 90 days, and possibly modify or continue them based on new developments. As always, I will keep you updated as soon as we have new information.

FOLLOW ME

SPANISH TRANSCRIPT:

Gaby Perozo:
Ahora quiero profundizar en el tema de estas restricciones de viaje desde el punto de vista legal de los abogados de inmigración porque seguramente usted o conoce o tiene familiares, tiene algún nexo con algún venezolano y algún cubano o incluso algún haitiano que se vea directamente afectado con esta nueva medida de la Casa Blanca. Así que le doy la bienvenida a la abogada de inmigración Martha Arias. Muchísimas gracias por estar aquí, porque queremos que nos ayudes a entender. En primer lugar, yo creo que podríamos empezar con las que tienen una restricción media. En este caso, estaríamos hablando de Venezuela y Cuba. ¿Qué interpretas tú del dicho del presidente y también de lo que se ha venido publicando oficialmente?

Dra. Martha Arias:
Sí, hola. ¿Qué tal? Un saludo para usted y para toda su audiencia. Efectivamente, esta proclamación presidencial que salió hoy, bueno, anoche, 4 de junio del 2025, prohíbe en forma limitada a países como Venezuela, Haití y Cuba entrar a los Estados Unidos. Hay dos cosas que vale la pena mencionar. La primera es que estos países, en este caso hablemos de Cuba y Venezuela, no podrían entrar a los Estados Unidos con visa de inmigrante. ¿Esto qué quiere decir? Las personas que fueron a recibir la residencia, es decir, la visa de inmigrante en los consulados de Estados Unidos, no podrían entrar después del 9 de junio, que es cuando entra en vigencia esta medida.
Las personas que tienen visa de inmigrante, perdón, de no inmigrante, como visa de turista, visa de negocios que es la B1, la visa de estudiante que es la F, la M que es una visa de estudiante pero de estudio práctico y la J, esas personas tampoco les van a permitir entrar a los Estados Unidos aunque tengan esas visas.
Otra cosa que dice la regulación es que pueden ser limitadas esas visas que ya tengan las personas, pueden ser limitadas en cada caso particular. En otras palabras, pueden consultar y hacer una revisión al que ya tenga esa visa. No aplica para los que no tengan la visa antes del 9 de junio, ni para los que ya tengan su visa antes del 9 de junio o los que estén dentro de los Estados Unidos. Es decir, los que vayan ahora a aplicar y estén fuera de los Estados Unidos son los que mayormente van a tener esta limitación.

Gaby Perozo:
Sí, perdona que sea como reiterativa y todo eso porque es difícil de entender. Es decir, si una persona ya tiene su visa aprobada esta semana, que está antes de entrar, ¿esa persona todavía goza del derecho de tener esa visa de turista, venir a Estados Unidos y devolverse?

Dra. Martha Arias:
Si la persona ya tiene la visa aprobada, sea de turista o sea de inmigrante, es decir, de residente, puede ingresar antes del 9 de junio, sería el resumen. Después del 9 de junio, no va a poder ingresar.

Gaby Perozo:
Exacto, puede entrar la persona con la visa antes del 9 de junio, puede entrar hasta el domingo. Pero luego, todos los turistas que ya habían sido aprobados ya lamentablemente no pueden visitar Estados Unidos.

Dra. Martha Arias:
No podrían entrar a los Estados Unidos.

Gaby Perozo:
¿Y qué pasa con las personas que estaban en proceso? Por ejemplo, algunas citas, en el caso de Venezuela no hay embajada ni consulados, viajan a Colombia y a cualquier parte del mundo para hacer este proceso, lo más probable es que reciban una notificación de que esto ya no está vigente o podrían seguir otorgando visas.

Dra. Martha Arias:
Esa es una pregunta importante que vamos a tener que esperar que el Departamento de Estado se pronuncie porque como usted bien lo dice, puede haber citas ya agendadas para julio, para agosto y para visas de residentes, es decir, la visa de inmigrante. Y puede ser que esas citas sean suspendidas. No sé si los consulados vayan a continuar con la cita y les vayan a hacer la entrevista e incluso les vayan a emitir la visa, a sabiendas que no pueden entrar a los Estados Unidos.
Entonces, me parece a mí que de pronto el Departamento de Estado sí irá a pronunciarse informando que esas citas serán canceladas. Eso es lo que pienso que pueda pasar. No veo la razón para que se tengan esas citas si la persona igual no va a poder entrar a los Estados Unidos.
¿Y por cuánto? La pregunta siguiente es ¿por cuánto tiempo dura esto?
El documento dice que el gobierno, en 90 días junto con el Departamento de Estado, el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional y el Departamento de Defensa de los Estados Unidos van a revisar esto en 90 días a partir del 9 de junio para determinar si se para este programa, si se suspende, se modifica o se suplemente.
O sea que vamos a tener tres meses que vamos a ver cómo esto prosigue y de ahí pues el gobierno nos dejará saber si continúa. Y dice el documento que después de allí, después de esos 90 días, va a haber una revisión cada 180 días.

Gaby Perozo:
Sí, ahora en el caso particular de Haití, es decir, para Cuba y Venezuela los residentes permanentes pueden seguir ingresando, entran dentro de las excepciones. En el caso de Haití es mucho más profunda la prohibición, ¿no?

Dra. Martha Arias:
Efectivamente, lo que es Venezuela y Cuba tienen un poquito menos de problemas. Aquí dice que se suspende la entrada de todos los haitianos, sea con visa de inmigrante o no inmigrante, y queda completamente suspendida. ¿La diferencia cuál es? Que en el caso de Cuba y Venezuela, específicamente nombran las visas, dice B1, B2, B1-B2, F, M y J, que son las que mencioné. Esas son las de no inmigrante que no podrían venir. Por ejemplo, si una persona tiene una visa L, por ejemplo un venezolano, puede entrar. Que es una L, no está restringida. Aquí en Haití son todas las visas de no inmigrante, todas, cualquiera que sea la visa, en adición a las visas de inmigrante. Es una prohibición total. Como dice el mismo documento, es full, full y suspendido.

Gaby Perozo:
Sí, ahora también estaba escuchando a algunos abogados asegurar que esta posición particular de la Casa Blanca podría fortalecer algunos casos de asilo, porque por ejemplo hablan de que en Venezuela no hay una autoridad central y que adicionalmente no hay medidas para tener seguridad en esa nación y esto se une con las advertencias de viaje que hacían. ¿Tú crees que esto podría favorecer a los que están dentro del país como parte de los alegatos para que sus casos de asilo prosperen dentro de Estados Unidos?

Dra. Martha Arias:
Sí, efectivamente me parece que el abogado que esté manejando el caso, un venezolano o incluso un cubano que también está presentando asilo, debería hacer ese argumento, que es un argumento válido. Pero acuérdese, también es muy importante que la persona muestre que tuvo persecución. Entonces, muchas de estas peticiones de asilo adolecen de esa prueba de persecución. Entonces, ahí es donde hay el problema, porque ese argumento de la situación del país puede ir a mostrarse dentro de lo que son los cinco grupos de protección, tal vez el motivo, pero lo que la persecución incide, ese requisito de persecución, igual hay que mostrarse. Entonces, son varias cosas. No todo el mundo que vaya a hacer el argumento podría triunfar si no hay una muestra de persecución.

Gaby Perozo:
Finalmente, ¿qué recomendación le hace a las personas, sobre todo las que están más afectadas ahora, las que están fuera de Estados Unidos y tenían planes de viaje? ¿Qué deben hacer, a qué tienen que estar atentos?

Dra. Martha Arias:
Me parece que las personas que tengan visa de inmigrante ya emitida y que han postergado tal vez un viaje de entrada deben hacerlo lo más rápido posible antes del 9 de junio. Las personas que tienen visa de no inmigrante, incluyendo visas de estudiantes que mencionamos, la M y la visa F de estudiante, esas personas también, si tenían para comenzar su estudio ahora en el verano, deben tratar de entrar a los Estados Unidos. Importante, importante lo que voy a decir. Muchas de estas visas de estudiante no les permiten entrar sino un mes antes de que empiece el estudio. Si por ejemplo estaban para empezar el estudio en agosto, estamos en junio, no pueden entrar todavía porque todavía no son 30 días, estamos más de 30 días. Si esas personas tuvieran una visa de estudiante, yo de esas personas entraría con mi visa de turista, perdón, con la visa de turista y aquí hacen cambio de estatus cuando yo vaya a entrar en el estudio para que no pierdan la oportunidad porque entonces quiere decir que después del 9 de junio, aunque tengas ya la visa aprobada, no va a poder entrar. Y si ha pagado matrículas y si ya ha hecho arreglos para su vida, vivir en los Estados Unidos, pues esta sería la forma de salvar. De todos modos, cada caso pienso que son las personas que deben consultar a su abogado.

Gaby Perozo:
¿Es fácil esa transición, pasar de visa de turista a estudiante ya dentro del territorio estadounidense?

Dra. Martha Arias:
No es que sea tan fácil, hay unos requisitos legales que cumplir, unos costos también que pagar, pero pienso que en la circunstancia en que están esas personas esa es la mejor estrategia.

Gaby Perozo:
Sí, también en este documento oficial se dice que hay una tasa, particularmente de los venezolanos, que casi el 10% se queda luego de que se vence su visa de turista. Explíquenos un poco más este punto, ¿qué es lo que pasa con estas personas y por qué estarían violando entonces la ley y se toma entonces esta medida de restricción general?

Dra. Martha Arias:
Bueno, la medida de restricción el gobierno la está tomando porque ellos consideran que las personas no solamente están violando los términos de sus visas de turista o de las otras visas como las de estudiantes, sino también porque el gobierno considera que en los países como Venezuela, Cuba y Haití, en el caso de este continente, son países donde no hay una suficiente investigación de los antecedentes penales de las personas y tampoco una comunicación muy directa y abierta entre el gobierno de los Estados Unidos y el gobierno de esos países.
Por ejemplo, si el gobierno de los Estados Unidos quiere indagar un poco más sobre los antecedentes o la identidad de un venezolano o un cubano, el gobierno considera que no hay esa relación para obtener esa información. Entonces, esto es lo que causa también esta prohibición.
Los dos países, según dice el mismo documento, no tienen unos documentos ordenados o estructurados para determinar los antecedentes penales y para la emisión de documentos de identidad. En este sentido, yo pienso que el gobierno sí tiene mucha razón. Nosotros todos sabemos que en estos países puede haber inconsistencias o procesos equivocados o incluso fraudulentos para la emisión de documentos privados.
Entonces, esta es una medida que también se toma por esa situación que la investigó el Departamento de Estado.

Gaby Perozo:
De verdad, muchísimas gracias por aclararnos todas estas dudas. Vamos a seguir entonces muy pendientes y si surge algo más, si tenemos más detalles de lo que va a suceder en los próximos 90 días, te tendremos aquí. Muchísimas gracias.

Dra. Martha Arias:
Gracias a ustedes.

ENGLISH TRANSLATION:

Gaby Perozo:
Now I want to delve into the topic of these travel restrictions from the legal perspective of immigration attorneys because surely you either know, or have family members, or have some connection with a Venezuelan or a Cuban, or even a Haitian who is directly affected by this new measure from the White House. So I welcome immigration attorney Martha Arias. Thank you very much for being here, because we want you to help us understand. First of all, I think we could start with those who have a medium restriction. In this case, we would be talking about Venezuela and Cuba. What do you interpret from the president’s statement and also what has been officially published?

Attorney Martha Arias:
Yes, hello. How are you? Greetings to you and to your entire audience. Indeed, this presidential proclamation that came out today, well, last night, June 4, 2025, prohibits in a limited way countries like Venezuela, Haiti, and Cuba from entering the United States. There are two things worth mentioning. The first is, these countries, in this case let’s talk about Cuba and Venezuela, could not enter the United States with an immigrant visa. What does this mean? The people who were to receive residency, that is, the immigrant visa at U.S. consulates, could not enter after June 9, which is when this measure takes effect.
People who have an immigrant visa—sorry, a nonimmigrant visa, such as a tourist visa, business visa which is the B1, the student visa which is the F, the M which is a student visa but for practical study, and the J, those people will also not be allowed to enter the United States even if they have those visas.
Another thing the regulation says is that those visas that people already have can be limited on a case-by-case basis. In other words, they can consult and do a review for whoever already has that visa. It does not apply to those who do not have the visa before June 9, nor to those who already have their visa before June 9 or those who are within the United States. That is, those who are now going to apply and are outside the United States are the ones who will mostly have this limitation.

Gaby Perozo:
Yes, sorry for being repetitive and all, because it’s difficult to understand. So, if a person already has their visa approved this week, before entering, does that person still have the right to have that tourist visa, come to the United States and return?

Attorney Martha Arias:
If the person already has the visa approved, whether tourist or immigrant, meaning for residency, they can enter before June 9, that would be the summary. After June 9, they will not be able to enter.

Gaby Perozo:
Exactly, the person can enter with the visa before June 9, they can enter until Sunday. But then all tourists who had already been approved unfortunately can no longer visit the United States.

Attorney Martha Arias:
They could not enter the United States.

Gaby Perozo:
And what about people who were in process? For example, some appointments, in the case of Venezuela there is no embassy or consulate, they travel to Colombia or anywhere in the world to do this process, most likely they will receive a notification that this is no longer valid or could they continue to be granted visas?

Attorney Martha Arias:
That is an important question that we will have to wait for the State Department to pronounce on because, as you say, there may be appointments already scheduled for July, August, and for residency visas, that is, the immigrant visa. And it may be that those appointments are suspended. I don’t know if the consulates will continue with the appointment and do the interview or even issue the visa, knowing that they cannot enter the United States.
So, it seems to me that perhaps the State Department will pronounce itself saying that those appointments will be canceled. That is what I think could happen. I don’t see the reason to have those appointments if the person still will not be able to enter the United States.
And for how long? The next question is, how long does this last?
The document says that the government, in 90 days along with the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Defense of the United States, will review this in 90 days from June 9 to determine whether this program is stopped, suspended, modified, or supplemented.
So we will have three months to see how this proceeds and then the government will let us know if it continues. And the document says that after those 90 days, there will be a review every 180 days.

Gaby Perozo:
Yes, now in the particular case of Haiti, that is, for Cuba and Venezuela, permanent residents can continue entering, they are within the exceptions. In the case of Haiti, the prohibition is much deeper, right?

Attorney Martha Arias:
Indeed, Venezuela and Cuba have a little less trouble. Here it says the entry of all Haitians is suspended, whether with an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa, and is completely suspended. What’s the difference? That in the case of Cuba and Venezuela, they specifically mention the visas, it says B1, B2, B1-B2, F, M, and J, which are the ones I mentioned. Those are the nonimmigrant visas that could not come. For example, if a person has an L visa, for example a Venezuelan, they can enter. The L is not restricted. In Haiti, it’s all nonimmigrant visas, all, whatever the visa, in addition to immigrant visas. It’s a total ban. As the document itself says, it’s full, full and suspended.

Gaby Perozo:
Yes, now I was also hearing some attorneys say that this particular position of the White House could strengthen some asylum cases, because, for example, they say that in Venezuela there is no central authority and in addition there are no measures for safety in that nation, and this joins with the travel warnings that have been made. Do you think this could benefit those who are inside the country as part of the arguments for their asylum cases to succeed in the United States?

Attorney Martha Arias:
Yes, indeed I think the attorney handling the case, a Venezuelan or even a Cuban who is also applying for asylum, should make that argument, which is a valid argument. But remember, it’s also very important that the person shows that they had persecution. Many of these asylum petitions lack that proof of persecution. That’s where the problem is, because that argument about the country’s situation can go to be shown within what are the five protection groups, maybe the motive, but the persecution element, that requirement of persecution, still has to be shown. So there are several things. Not everyone who makes the argument could succeed if there is no proof of persecution.

Gaby Perozo:
Finally, what is your recommendation for people, especially those most affected now, those who are outside the United States and had travel plans? What should they do, what should they be aware of?

Attorney Martha Arias:
I think that people who already have an immigrant visa issued and who may have postponed their entry trip should do so as soon as possible before June 9. People who have a nonimmigrant visa, including student visas we mentioned, the M and the F student visa, those people as well, if they were supposed to start their studies now in the summer, should try to enter the United States. Important, important what I am going to say. Many of these student visas do not allow them to enter except a month before studies begin. For example, if they were to start studies in August, we’re in June, they can’t enter yet because it’s not 30 days, it’s more than 30 days. If those people had a student visa, if it were me, I would enter with my tourist visa—sorry, with the tourist visa—and here do a change of status when I’m going to start studies so as not to lose the opportunity, because it means that after June 9, even if you already have the visa approved, you will not be able to enter. And if you have paid tuition and have already made arrangements for your life, to live in the United States, this would be the way to save it. In any case, I think each case is different and people should consult their attorney.

Gaby Perozo:
Is that transition easy, from tourist visa to student visa already within U.S. territory?

Attorney Martha Arias:
It’s not that it’s so easy, there are legal requirements to fulfill, some costs to pay too, but I think that in the circumstances those people are in, it’s the best strategy.

Gaby Perozo:
Yes, also in this official document it says there is a rate, particularly among Venezuelans, that almost 10% stay after their tourist visa expires. Can you explain this a bit more, what happens with these people and why they would be violating the law and thus this general restriction measure is taken?

Attorney Martha Arias:
Well, the restriction measure is being taken by the government because they consider that people are not only violating the terms of their tourist visas or other visas such as student visas, but also because the government considers that in countries like Venezuela, Cuba, and Haiti, in this continent, they are countries where there is not enough investigation of criminal records of people and also not a very direct and open communication between the government of the United States and the government of those countries.
For example, if the U.S. government wants to inquire more about the background or identity of a Venezuelan or Cuban, the government considers there is no such relationship to obtain that information. So, this is what also causes this ban.
Both countries, according to the same document, do not have orderly or structured documents to determine criminal records and for the issuance of identity documents. In this sense, I think the government is right. We all know that in these countries there may be inconsistencies or wrong processes or even fraudulent ones for issuing private documents.
So, this is a measure also taken for that situation which was investigated by the State Department.

Gaby Perozo:
Thank you very much for clarifying all these doubts. We will stay very alert, and if anything else comes up, if we have more details about what will happen in the next 90 days, we will have you here. Thank you very much.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Thank you.

The post New U.S. Travel Restrictions: What You Need to Know? appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

What the New U.S. Travel Ban Means for Cubans, Venezuelans, and Asylum Seekers

Martha Arias — Wed, 07 May 2025 00:05:37 +0000

Today, I had the opportunity to join Agustín and Carlos Acosta on Actualidad Radio’s “Cada Tarde” to clarify the latest travel and visa restrictions announced by the U.S. government—measures that are raising serious concerns in our communities, especially for families from Cuba and Venezuela.

What has changed?
As of June 9, people from Cuba and Venezuela holding immigrant visas—those processed through U.S. consulates for residency—will not be allowed to enter the United States. Even those with non-immigrant visas (like B1/B2 tourist/business, F/M/J student/practical training visas) will be barred from entry after this date. If you have an upcoming consular appointment, please be aware: even if your visa is approved, the timing and delivery of your passport may prevent you from traveling before the restrictions take effect.

For Venezuelans, the challenge is even greater, as visa processing takes place outside the country, mainly in Bogotá, Colombia, adding more obstacles for applicants.

Are there exceptions?
Yes. Legal permanent residents, those traveling for diplomatic, religious, athletic, or cultural purposes, and certain other specialized visa categories are not affected by this proclamation. Dual nationals may also enter the U.S. with their other passport if eligible.

What about those with valid visas?
Even with a valid B1/B2, F, M, or J visa, entry is suspended—meaning the visa is not revoked, but you will not be allowed in. This is not about new visas being denied, but a “travel ban” for previously issued visas in these categories. For the next 90 days, the government will evaluate these restrictions and decide whether to end, extend, or modify them.

Possible changes to work permits for asylum seekers:
There are also unconfirmed reports that the government may suspend employment authorization for asylum applicants. Work permits are governed by federal regulations and could, in theory, be changed by the administration following a specific legal process—not by executive order. While nothing is official yet, such a measure would be deeply concerning, especially for those waiting years for their asylum cases to be processed. Many families depend on this permit for survival, and removing it would have devastating effects.

My thoughts:
These measures are complicated and deeply impact many people with real humanitarian needs. I urge everyone affected to consult reliable legal counsel, stay informed through official channels, and reach out with questions. Remember: information can change quickly.

FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA

SPANISH TRANSCRIPT:

Agustín Acosta:
El primer titular en el día de hoy tiene que ver precisamente con la prohibición de viajes ordenada por el presidente de los Estados Unidos para una docena de países y restricciones de visa para otras siete naciones. Entre las que tienen restricciones de visa, pues dos que nos atañen, nos preocupan, que son Cuba y Venezuela, porque la prohibición como tal, afecta a muy pocas personas de nuestro auditorio, ¿no? Porque afecta personas de Afganistán, de Birmania…

Carlos Acosta:
Yo creo que la colonia afgana, por ejemplo, que haya aquí, no hay muchos.

Agustín Acosta:
No, absolutamente. De Birmania,

Carlos Acosta:
De birmanos, en la pequeña Habana también es muy pequeño.

Agustín Acosta:
De Yemen, de esos lugares, de Burkina Faso, lugares donde realmente pues no hay mucha gente por acá, pero Cuba y Venezuela no aparecen en la lista de países que tienen la prohibición como tal, sino de países que van a enfrentar restricciones a nivel consular para el otorgamiento de nuevas visas.

Carlos Acosta:
Así es. Vamos a conversar sobre este tema, como en principio lo estábamos haciendo desde el punto de vista periodístico, ahora vamos a tener la óptica de una persona que es profesional de las leyes migratorias y que nos va a ayudar un poco a entender dentro de lo que hasta ahora se ha publicado y ya dicho de esta proclamación por parte del gobierno.

Agustín Acosta:
Así es. Detrás está la abogada Martha Arias, nuestra amiga y colaboradora para entender estas cosas. Ella tiene su segmento acá, los lunes conmigo, para hablar de temas de inmigración. Doctora, muy buenas tardes.

Carlos Acosta:
¿Cómo está, doctora? Bienvenida.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Buenas tardes, Agustín y Carlos y toda la audiencia de Actualidad Radio, y efectivamente yo siempre me siento aquí como en casa.

Agustín Acosta:
Muchas gracias, doctora. ¿Se sabe algo más allá del simple comunicado que emitiera el gobierno de los Estados Unidos? Y nos vamos a concentrar mayormente en Cuba y Venezuela, porque realmente no creo que haya mucho interés en nuestro grupo de oyentes sobre Yemen, Afganistán, Burkina Faso o Birmania.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Bueno, no hay una información adicional del Departamento de Estado, que creo que es el departamento que pronto debe continuar con cierta información adicional que nos debe proveer. Pero la proclamación es clara en cuanto a Cuba y a Venezuela: no van a poder ingresar las personas con visa de inmigrante después del 9 de junio.
¿Quiénes son los que entran con visas de inmigrante? Los que reciben la residencia en los consulados, los que los consulados les aprueban la visa de inmigrante, o sea, la residencia. Esto es grave porque quiere decir que si un cubano o un venezolano tiene su cita en el consulado después del 9 de junio, no va a poder entrar a los Estados Unidos y eso pues no sé si siquiera va a tener la cita porque puede ser que el Departamento de Estado, como dije antes, comunique que les cancelan la cita por esta misma proclamación.

Agustín Acosta:
¿9 de junio, que sería el próximo lunes?

Attorney Martha Arias:
Sí señor, el próximo lunes. O sea, ya estamos a jueves, quiere decir que los que tengan cita consular, el cubano o venezolano que se la entreguen el viernes, deberían coger rapidito y tratar de viajar el fin de semana y no creo que tampoco lo puedan hacer porque acuérdese que los consulados emiten las visas y las mandan por correo de tres a cinco días después de la cita.
Entonces, si esa persona tuviera la cita hoy o mañana y le mandan el pasaporte sellado la semana entrante, pues ya tampoco va a poder viajar, o sea que el tiempo, el margen es muy corto.

Carlos Acosta:
Y en especial los venezolanos tienen la situación de que la embajada no está en Caracas, está en Bogotá, entonces eso hace todavía un poco más difícil el tema de recibir o de la gestión consular propiamente dicha.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Es correcto.
Entonces, no van a poder entrar los que tengan esas visas de inmigrantes a partir de junio. Las personas que tengan las visas de no inmigrantes, que son la B1, B2 —la B1 es negocio, B2 es turismo—, la F que es la visa de estudiante, la M y la J que son visas también de estudiante pero de estudios prácticos, tampoco van a poder entrar a los Estados Unidos después de esa fecha. Eso también está claro allí en esa proclamación.
Hay algo que a mí me parece que no está claro y por eso no quiero contestar muchas preguntas hasta que el gobierno no nos dé exactamente una aclaración. Y es que la proclamación dice que esto solamente aplica para los que no tengan visa de no inmigrante B1, B2, F, J, M al momento de aplicarse la proclamación, que sería el 9 de junio, pero los que ya la tienen no aplica, pero sí va a aplicar el hecho de que no pueden entrar. Entonces pues para mí es como lo mismo. Porque si la persona ya tiene la visa y no ha entrado, está fuera de los Estados Unidos y vamos a decir que va a entrar la semana entrante, el miércoles o jueves, pues no lo van a dejar entrar aunque ya tenga la visa. Entonces ahí hay un poquito de confusión en esa ley.
¿A quiénes no aplica? Esto es importante: no aplica a cierto grupo de visas como las de la OTAN, N, A, T, O, que son visas básicamente diplomáticas, tampoco para las personas que vienen en grupos deportivos o equipos o a jugar o alguna presentación atlética, tampoco —que son normalmente las visas O y P—, tampoco aplica a las personas que vengan con visa religiosa o sus familiares dependientes que vienen con las visas religiosas y tampoco aplica a los residentes legales de los Estados Unidos. Eso es importante decirlo: si usted es cubano o venezolano, y ya tiene su residencia emitida, porque tiene su tarjetica, no va a aplicar para usted esta prohibición.
Entonces, ese es como el resumen.
Ahora, la otra pregunta que me han hecho es ¿hasta cuándo va a durar esto? La misma proclamación dice que 90 días; el gobierno, que son en este caso el Departamento de Estado, el Departamento de Defensa, el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional, tienen que revisar en 90 días la experiencia con esta proclamación para terminarla o suspenderla o complementarla, o sea que en 90 días vamos a saber si de pronto la terminan o la continúan.

Carlos Acosta:
Ahora escuchaba, doctora, y la que nos queda de duda, si en el caso que nos ocupa, que es Cuba y Venezuela, si un cubano o un venezolano posee doble nacionalidad, entonces podría apelar a esa segunda nacionalidad para la solicitud de la visa, ¿eso es correcto?

Attorney Martha Arias:
Es correcto, si la persona tiene otra nacionalidad, va a poder entrar a los Estados Unidos con el pasaporte de esa nacionalidad.

Agustín Acosta:
Por ejemplo, si la persona es venezolana, pero al mismo tiempo es ciudadana española y tiene entonces el pasaporte de la Unión Europea, esto no lo afectaría porque entraría a los Estados Unidos como europeo, no como venezolano.

Carlos Acosta:
¿Entraría con el ESTA?

Attorney Martha Arias:
Correcto, puede entrar con el ESTA o puede entrar con la visa de turista o cualquiera de las visas que tenga esa persona, pero usando ese pasaporte de la comunidad europea, de ese país europeo, no el pasaporte venezolano.

Carlos Acosta:
Bien, yo tengo acá, doctora, un comunicado del congresista Carlos Jiménez. Es bastante corto, me voy a tomar la libertad de leerlo sobre todo porque da algunas informaciones sobre las visas existentes vigentes, que según su afirmación son válidas, lo leo rápidamente para usted.
Dice: “Las recientes restricciones parciales de viaje y visas impuestas a Cuba y Venezuela son resultados directos de las políticas fallidas y la ruptura de relaciones con los regímenes represivos de Díaz-Canel en Cuba y de Maduro en Venezuela. Estos regímenes no sólo desprecian a Estados Unidos, sino que trabajan activamente para socavar nuestra seguridad nacional mediante espionaje, ciberataques y otras amenazas.”
Ya aquí viene la información.
“Es importante señalar que estas restricciones no afectarán a las personas que actualmente son residentes permanentes o poseen visas válidas. Es decir, aquel que tiene una visa válida puede comprar su boleto y podría entrar sin problemas.”

Attorney Martha Arias:
Lo que pasa es que no va a aplicar a los que tengan visas válidas B1, B2, F, M, J. Eso está clarísimo en la proclamación. No quieren que se argumente que la visa tiene que ser válida, pero no van a poder entrar a los Estados Unidos después. Es una pausa, es una suspensión de esas visas. O sea, que ahí creo que de pronto la comunicación no está clara, pero la proclamación sí lo es. En mi página de Facebook, AriasVillaLaw, ahí yo puse incluso sin rodeos, puse o copié y pegué entre comillas, mostrando que viene de la regulación. Es exactamente el pedacito que habla de Cuba y Venezuela para que la gente lo lea. Y ahí está clarísimo, solo puede leer cualquier persona que lea inglés, puede leer que dice claramente: suspensión de la visa de no inmigrante, B1, B2, o B1 sola, o B2 sola, la F, la M y la J.

Agustín Acosta:
O sea, que no estaríamos hablando en esos casos que usted acaba de detallar de otorgamientos de visas nuevas a partir de cero, sino suspensión de las visas otorgadas ya previamente bajo esas categorías.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Exactamente. Dice que esas visas no van a poder ingresar. No tengo aquí para leerlo claramente, pero lo puedo ir buscando. No es que no las van a emitir, es que no nos van a dejar ingresar, por eso se llama travel ban, o sea, prohibición de entrada.

Agustín Acosta:
No es visa issuance ban, sino travel ban.
Ahora, doctora, una pregunta puramente hipotética. ¿Usted cree que la situación que se dio con un egipcio que atacó con una serie de cócteles molotov y armas incendiarias a un grupo de personas en Boulder, Colorado, que había entrado a los Estados Unidos con una visa y luego expiró la visa y se quedó acá dentro, usted cree que esto haya sido la última gota de la copa, haya sido el detonante, o esto ya se veía venir desde antes?

Attorney Martha Arias:
Yo creo que se veía venir, porque si usted ve, el 20 de enero de este año, el presidente Trump emitió una orden ejecutiva que dice que iba a cuidar la frontera y la seguridad nacional de los Estados Unidos para evitar actos terroristas, para proteger la seguridad nacional.
Entonces, desde esa orden ejecutiva, se sabía que se iban a tomar unas medidas. También sabíamos que iba a venir este travel ban, incluso hace como un mes o dos meses se anunció que ya iba a ser publicado, pero se pausó hasta ayer.
Entonces ya sabíamos que estas medidas venían, posiblemente una forma que el gobierno y desde esa época el gobierno dijo que el Departamento de Estado estaba haciendo un estudio de los países que iban a prohibir entrar a los Estados Unidos, sea porque no tienen suficiente escrutinio de los antecedentes penales de sus propios nacionales o la emisión de documentos de identidad de esos países es, vamos a poner una palabra no tan fuerte, floja, para que me entiendan, que quiere decir floja, como que hay sitios donde conseguir un certificado de nacimiento es como ir y conseguir cualquier cosa, como cualquier documento.
Entonces, y países donde no hay mucha comunicación o cooperación con Estados Unidos, donde se comparten o no se comparten informaciones de sus nacionales, que es el caso de Venezuela y Cuba.
Entonces, el gobierno empezó a hacer esa investigación, esta fue la conclusión a la que llegó. Pero en adición a eso también son países donde ellos miraron el nivel de inmigración que tiene ese país de acuerdo a las visas con que entran, entonces ahí hay unos porcentajes que muestran en esta proclamación de personas que vienen con visa turista, de cubanos o venezolanos, cuánto el porcentaje de ellos se queda, los que vienen con visa de estudiante, cuánto porcentaje se queda, todo esto parece que la investigación está en la proclamación.

Carlos Acosta:
Y habla de, habla de cerca del 10%, ¿no, doctora?

Attorney Martha Arias:
Sí, habla bastante de cada porcentaje de personas que entran con una u otra visa y se quedan en los Estados Unidos. Entonces, el gobierno está sustentando su posición en estos datos estadísticos de las personas que emigran, vamos a decirlo así, teniendo o entrando con la visa turista, uno; y dos, los países que no hay comunicación con los Estados Unidos para información de sus nacionales de documentos privados y, pues, también los países que tienen o que se consideran promotores del terrorismo y ahí lo dice, que Cuba se considera un país que promueve el terrorismo. O sea, eso lo dice la proclamación.
Entonces, bueno, esos son los elementos de juicio o de análisis que se tomaron para emitir esta decisión. Yo aquí tengo exactamente el documento y, por ejemplo, en Cuba dice: “The entry,” se va a pausar o se va a prohibir, “the entry,” “the entry” quiere decir la entrada a los Estados Unidos de nacionales de Cuba. La frase dice: “The entry into the United States the nationals of Cuba as immigrants,” está el entrada de los nacionales de Cuba, digo de Cuba como inmigrantes, y después dice en cuanto a los de no inmigrante, entonces dice: “The entry into the United States the nationals of Cuba, known as immigrants, or non-immigrants, B1, B2, F, M y J visas are hereby suspended.”
Es decir: “La entrada a los Estados Unidos de nacionales de Cuba con visas de inmigrantes o con visas de no inmigrantes, B1, B2, F, M y J, queda suspendida.”
Entonces, no está diciendo que no se van a emitir, está diciendo que se va a prohibir la entrada.

Agustín Acosta:
La persona puede tener la visa, pero es como que tenga yo un pasaporte para ir al planeta Venus, no me sirve para nada. No puedo llegar allí exactamente. Y quedan exentas, entonces, las visas, por ejemplo, de asunto religioso, porque en el evento este cultural de Cuba Nostalgia, yo tuve la oportunidad de conocer tres, hacer dos cubanos que están de visita acá en Miami, están, creo, que van a estar aquí dos, tres meses sirviendo en cuestión religiosa, pero viven en Cuba, regresan a Cuba, ese tipo de visas religiosas sí se siguen permitiendo.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Correcto, sí, la proclamación habla exactamente de las excepciones, incluso dice que el Departamento de Estado puede emitir, caso por caso, analizando cada caso, puede permitir la entrada de algunos bajo una muestra que es de interés para los Estados Unidos. No sé cómo será ese proceso para uno pedir que le otorguen o que le permitan entrar como excepción, pero me imagino que será otra de las comunicaciones que el Departamento de Estado tendrá que emitir.

Carlos Acosta:
Doctora, hay otra información que ha estado dando vueltas desde hace por lo menos unas 48 horas, no existe nada oficial, más que la cadena CBS al parecer dio una información de una conversación con funcionarios de inmigración, ya usted sabe de qué le debo estar hablando, sobre la posibilidad de suspensión del permiso de trabajo de la autorización de empleo a los solicitantes de asilo. Eso todavía no está confirmado, pero me gustaría que compartiera con la audiencia lo que usted conoce al respecto.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Sí, lo que yo conozco al respecto y que he podido compartir con las personas es lo siguiente, mire. Los permisos de trabajo están establecidos en lo que es el Código Federal de Regulaciones, el Código Federal de Regulaciones, que es el título 8, 8-CFR, es el código que maneja toda la regulación de lo que es la ley de inmigración.
La ley de inmigración sustantiva orgánica es el “Immigration and Nationality Act”, es el que dice si la persona tiene derecho al asilo y establece todo.
Es el código natural, es el código orgánico, es regulado por el Código Federal de Regulaciones.
El Código Federal de Regulaciones es el que dice si la persona tiene derecho al permiso de trabajo, cuándo lo puede pedir, cómo se procesa. El Código Federal de Regulaciones puede ser modificado por el Ejecutivo, obviamente siguiendo los procedimientos de cambio de regulación que establece la ley. No lo va a hacer seguro por una orden ejecutiva, el presidente no lo podría hacer.

Agustín Acosta:
Lo tienen que publicar en el National Register, hay un protocolo.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Correcto, en el National Register, tienen que poner eso y seguir el proceso de cambio de regulación, pero el Ejecutivo lo puede hacer.
Entonces, en conclusión, el Ejecutivo sí puede modificar la ley acerca del permiso de trabajo de las personas que tienen asilo pendiente, porque es una regulación que la puede cambiar el Ejecutivo.
No puede, no puede cambiar el Ejecutivo la ley orgánica del asilo, lo que está en el estatuto, que es el “Immigration and Nationality Act”, porque eso solamente lo puede cambiar el Congreso, pero sí puede cambiar la regulación. Entonces, ese detallito pequeño que no está, un pequeño muy grande.

Agustín Acosta:
Abre una ventana, una puerta, ¿no? Claro. Pero hasta ahora no hay nada oficial.

Attorney Martha Arias:
No, no hay nada oficial. Se ha hablado de esto, pero no hay nada oficial.

Agustín Acosta:
Ahora, yo mirando la hora desde el punto de vista lógico y práctico, saquemos lo de Cuba y Venezuela para no dejarnos influenciar por cuestiones sentimentalistas de nuestros gentilicios y nuestros lugares de origen, porque yo soy de origen cubano y tú de origen venezolano.
Vamos a ponerlo en el caso de un sirio, que estaba siendo perseguido porque era cristiano, estaba siendo perseguido por los musulmanes allá en Siria, vino para acá y se le dio un asilo o está en proceso de asilo porque hay una persecución religiosa, o una persona que haya sido colaborador de las tropas americanas en Afganistán, porque era intérprete y el talibán ahora lo está persiguiendo y entró acá a los Estados Unidos por persecución étnica o lo que sea, o política.
Si a esa persona le quitan el permiso de trabajo, la van a mandar a la indigencia.
Si esa persona está aquí admitida por los Estados Unidos en un proceso de asilo, yo no puedo pensar que de un plumazo, categóricamente, vayan a todos los peticionarios de asilo y les quiten el permiso de trabajo, porque los estarían condenando a morirse de hambre.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Exacto, eso es una decisión muy delicada y de doble filo que debe tomar el gobierno, porque el hecho de que, o sea, por un lado sabemos que el tener permiso de trabajo incentiva en una forma u otra a las personas a pedir asilo en los Estados Unidos, porque saben que hay demoras y que pueden tener ese permiso de trabajo para trabajar mientras les aprueban su asilo o se los deciden.
Pero por otro lado, el gobierno sabe que tiene un atraso en las peticiones de asilo que están en este momento yendo, por lo menos aquí en Miami, peticiones presentadas en el 2014 y estamos en el 2025, tenemos de 10 a 12 años de atraso en las peticiones de asilo.
Entonces, esas personas que tienen atrasos, ¿cómo va a ser el gobierno para procesar todas las peticiones en corto tiempo?
Y si se van a demorar, ¿cómo van a permitir que las personas produzcan o trabajen en los Estados Unidos?

Agustín Acosta:
Y la demora no es culpa del peticionario, es culpa de la burocracia del gobierno.

Carlos Acosta:
Permítame complementarle eso que dice Agustín, porque la doctora, obviamente, debe conocerlo. Recuerdo que en la primera administración del presidente Trump, llegó un momento en que creo que invirtieron el orden para la entrevista. Entonces, estaban entrevistando primero a los que llegaron más recientes y entonces quedaron más rezagados los que estaban en la cola.
¿Ha sido así, no, doctora?

Attorney Martha Arias:
Es correcto, y sigue siendo así. Muchas de las peticiones recientes de asilo tienen una cita más rápido que las de antes. Entonces, esas de antes siguen a diez años, a cada sexto año, hemos visto en Miami que las del 2014 las están citando a casi todas.
Entonces, están avanzando más rápido con esas peticiones viejas, pero igual son 10 años de atraso.
¿Cuánto tiempo van a hacer ellos para procesar 10 años de atraso quitándole el permiso de trabajo a las personas? Está complicado esa decisión.

Agustín Acosta:
Yo conocí a un colombiano, hace exactamente 25 años porque su hijo y el mío tienen la misma edad. Y cuando tenían ambos 10 años de edad jugaban en un equipo de béisbol infantil y nosotros coincidíamos todos los sábados en el juego de béisbol. Este señor colombiano, la guerrilla lo trató de asesinar dos veces y no pudieron matarlo. Le secuestraron a un bebé. Le tuvieron secuestrado el bebé como siete u ocho semanas. Secuestrado un niño como de seis, siete meses de nacido, la guerrilla se lo secuestró y le tocó pagar una suma astronómica de dinero para que liberaran al bebé. Y cuando eso ocurrió, pues decidió vender todos sus negocios y vino para acá para los Estados Unidos y pidió asilo político.
Claro, esto ocurrió hace 25 años, le dieron eventualmente el asilo político, luego la residencia y el hombre se hizo ciudadano. Pero imaginemos que haya un caso como ese, de cualquier país, a esas personas no les pueden quitar el permiso de trabajo porque es lo único que les permite subsistir y mantenerse vivos y mantener sus familias. O sea, desde un punto de vista meramente lógico y práctico, yo no puedo creer que, porque hay muchas personas que se han acogido al asilo político sin ningún tipo de mérito, pero hay muchas personas, muchísimas personas de Cuba, de Venezuela y de otros lugares, de Nicaragua, de otros lugares que se han acogido al asilo político porque son perseguidos, porque si regresan a su país de origen los meten presos y en algunos otros países que no son estos tres, hay persecución religiosa de musulmanes hacia cristianos o hay persecución política del talibán a un opositor de allá de Afganistán. Esas personas están aquí bajo un amparo y tienen todo una serie de méritos.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Exacto. Entonces, es un problema bastante grave y yo no creo que sea una buena idea tampoco, ni siquiera desde el punto de vista interno, del tema de los taxes, ¿no?

Agustín Acosta:
Claro. Bueno, doctora, como siempre la molestamos, la hemos ocupado media hora, un poco más de media hora, déjeme dar su teléfono. No lo dé usted que me lo sé yo de memoria, así que lo doy yo para si hay algún oyente que quiera consultarla como abogada de inmigración, pueden llamar a la doctora Arias al (305) 671-0018. Martha Arias es una destacada y muy experimentada abogada de inmigración. Para cualquier asunto que usted necesite, ella lo puede atender. (305) 671-0018. De nuevo, gracias, doctora. La molestamos hoy viernes.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Gracias a ustedes. ¡Feliz día!

ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT

Agustín Acosta:
Our first headline today has to do precisely with the travel ban ordered by the president of the United States for a dozen countries and visa restrictions for another seven nations. Among those with visa restrictions, there are two that concern us, that worry us, which are Cuba and Venezuela, because the ban as such affects very few people in our audience, right? Because it affects people from Afghanistan, from Burma…

Carlos Acosta:
I think the Afghan community, for example, here, there aren’t many.

Agustín Acosta:
No, absolutely. From Burma,

Carlos Acosta:
From Burmese people, in Little Havana it’s also very small.

Agustín Acosta:
From Yemen, from those places, from Burkina Faso, places where really, well, there aren’t many people around here, but Cuba and Venezuela do not appear on the list of countries that have the ban as such, but rather countries that will face consular restrictions for the granting of new visas.

Carlos Acosta:
That’s right. We are going to talk about this topic, as we were doing from a journalistic point of view, now we are going to have the perspective of a person who is a professional in immigration law and who will help us understand, within what has been published and already stated in this proclamation by the government.

Agustín Acosta:
That’s right. Here we have attorney Martha Arias, our friend and collaborator to help us understand these matters. She has her segment here, Mondays with me, to talk about immigration topics. Attorney, good afternoon.

Carlos Acosta:
How are you, attorney? Welcome.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Good afternoon, Agustín and Carlos and all the audience of Actualidad Radio, and indeed I always feel at home here.

Agustín Acosta:
Thank you very much, attorney. Do we know anything beyond the simple statement issued by the United States government? And we are going to focus mainly on Cuba and Venezuela, because I really don’t think there’s much interest in our group of listeners about Yemen, Afghanistan, Burkina Faso, or Burma.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Well, there is no additional information from the Department of State, which I believe is the department that should soon continue with some additional information that should provide us. But the proclamation is clear regarding Cuba and Venezuela: people with immigrant visas will not be able to enter after June 9.
Who are those who enter with immigrant visas? Those who receive residency at the consulates, those for whom the consulates approve the immigrant visa, that is, the residency. This is serious because it means that if a Cuban or a Venezuelan has their appointment at the consulate after June 9, they will not be able to enter the United States, and I don’t even know if they will have the appointment, because the Department of State, as I said before, may notify them that the appointment is canceled due to this same proclamation.

Agustín Acosta:
June 9, which would be next Monday?

Attorney Martha Arias:
Yes sir, next Monday. So, today is Thursday, meaning those who have a consular appointment, the Cuban or Venezuelan who receives it on Friday, should quickly try to travel over the weekend, and I don’t think they will be able to do it either, because remember the consulates issue the visas and send them by mail three to five days after the appointment.
So, if that person had their appointment today or tomorrow and they send the stamped passport next week, well, they won’t be able to travel either, so the time, the margin is very short.

Carlos Acosta:
And especially Venezuelans have the situation that the embassy is not in Caracas, it’s in Bogotá, so that makes the consular process itself even more difficult.

Attorney Martha Arias:
That’s correct.
So, those who have those immigrant visas from June onwards will not be able to enter. People with non-immigrant visas, which are the B1, B2 — B1 is business, B2 is tourism —, the F, which is the student visa, the M and J, which are also student visas but for practical studies, will also not be able to enter the United States after that date. That is also clear in the proclamation.
There is something that I think is not clear, and that’s why I don’t want to answer many questions until the government gives us exactly a clarification. And it’s that the proclamation says this only applies to those who don’t have a non-immigrant visa B1, B2, F, J, M at the moment the proclamation is applied, which would be June 9, but those who already have it, it doesn’t apply, but it does apply in that they can’t enter. So, to me, it’s the same. Because if the person already has the visa and hasn’t entered, is outside the United States, and let’s say they are going to enter next week, Wednesday or Thursday, they won’t be allowed to enter, even if they already have the visa. So there is a bit of confusion in that law.
Who does it not apply to? This is important: it does not apply to certain groups of visas like NATO, N, A, T, O, which are basically diplomatic visas; nor to people who come in sports teams or to play or some athletic presentation, which are usually the O and P visas; nor does it apply to people who come with religious visas or their dependent relatives who come with religious visas; nor does it apply to legal permanent residents of the United States. That is important to say: if you are Cuban or Venezuelan and you already have your residency issued, because you have your green card, this prohibition will not apply to you.
So that’s the summary.
Now, the other question I’ve been asked is how long will this last? The proclamation itself says 90 days; the government, which in this case is the Department of State, Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, must review in 90 days the experience with this proclamation to terminate it, suspend it, or complement it, so in 90 days we will know if maybe they end it or continue it.

Carlos Acosta:
Now, I was listening, attorney, and the question that remains, if in the case that concerns us, which is Cuba and Venezuela, if a Cuban or a Venezuelan has dual nationality, could they use that second nationality for the visa application, is that correct?

Attorney Martha Arias:
That’s correct, if the person has another nationality, they will be able to enter the United States with the passport of that nationality.

Agustín Acosta:
For example, if the person is Venezuelan but at the same time is a Spanish citizen and then has a European Union passport, this would not affect them because they would enter the United States as a European, not as a Venezuelan.

Carlos Acosta:
Would they enter with ESTA?

Attorney Martha Arias:
Correct, they can enter with ESTA or they can enter with a tourist visa or any visa that person has, but using that European community passport, of that European country, not the Venezuelan passport.

Carlos Acosta:
Well, attorney, I have here a statement from Congressman Carlos Jiménez. It’s quite short, I’ll take the liberty of reading it, especially because it gives some information about the current valid visas, which according to his statement are valid, I’ll read it quickly for you.
It says: “The recent partial travel and visa restrictions imposed on Cuba and Venezuela are direct results of the failed policies and the breakdown of relations with the repressive regimes of Díaz-Canel in Cuba and Maduro in Venezuela. These regimes not only despise the United States, but actively work to undermine our national security through espionage, cyber-attacks and other threats.”
And here comes the information.
“It is important to note that these restrictions will not affect people who are currently permanent residents or have valid visas. That is, anyone who has a valid visa can buy their ticket and could enter without problems.”

Attorney Martha Arias:
The thing is, it will not apply to those who have valid B1, B2, F, M, J visas. That is very clear in the proclamation. They don’t want to argue that the visa has to be valid, but they won’t be able to enter the United States afterwards. It’s a pause, it’s a suspension of those visas. So I think maybe the communication is not clear, but the proclamation is. On my Facebook page, AriasVillaLaw, I even posted it straightforward, I copied and pasted in quotation marks, showing that it comes from the regulation. It’s exactly the piece that talks about Cuba and Venezuela for people to read. And there it is very clear, anyone who reads English can read that it says clearly: suspension of the non-immigrant visa, B1, B2, or B1 alone, or B2 alone, F, M and J.

Agustín Acosta:
So, in those cases you just detailed, we would not be talking about the granting of new visas from scratch, but the suspension of visas already previously granted under those categories.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Exactly. It says those visas will not be able to enter. I don’t have it here to read it clearly, but I can look for it. It’s not that they won’t issue them, it’s that they won’t let us enter, that’s why it’s called a travel ban, that is, prohibition of entry.

Agustín Acosta:
It’s not visa issuance ban, but travel ban.
Now, attorney, a purely hypothetical question. Do you think the situation that occurred with an Egyptian who attacked a group of people in Boulder, Colorado, with Molotov cocktails and incendiary weapons, who had entered the United States with a visa and then his visa expired and he stayed here, do you think that was the last straw, was it the trigger, or was this already coming?

Attorney Martha Arias:
I think it was coming, because if you see, on January 20 of this year, President Trump issued an executive order that says he was going to take care of the border and national security of the United States to prevent terrorist acts, to protect national security.
So from that executive order, it was known that some measures were going to be taken. We also knew that this travel ban was coming, even about a month or two ago it was announced that it was going to be published, but it was paused until yesterday.
So we already knew these measures were coming, possibly a way that the government, and since then the government said that the Department of State was doing a study of the countries that were going to be banned from entering the United States, either because they do not have sufficient scrutiny of the criminal records of their nationals or the issuance of identity documents in those countries is, let’s use a not so strong word, weak, for those who understand me, weak, like there are places where you can get a birth certificate as if it were anything, like any document.
So, and countries where there is not much communication or cooperation with the United States, where information about their nationals is shared or not shared, which is the case with Venezuela and Cuba.
So the government started doing that investigation, this was the conclusion they reached. But in addition to that, they are also countries where they looked at the level of immigration that country has based on the visas with which they enter, so there are some percentages shown in this proclamation of people who come with a tourist visa, Cubans or Venezuelans, what percentage of them stay, those who come with a student visa, what percentage stays, all of this seems to be in the proclamation.

Carlos Acosta:
And it talks about, it talks about close to 10%, right, attorney?

Attorney Martha Arias:
Yes, it talks quite a bit about the percentage of people who enter with one or another visa and stay in the United States. So the government is basing its position on these statistical data of people who emigrate, let’s put it that way, having or entering with a tourist visa, one; and two, the countries that don’t communicate with the United States for information about their nationals’ private documents; and, well, also the countries that are considered promoters of terrorism and there it says that Cuba is considered a country that promotes terrorism. That is what the proclamation says.
So, well, those are the elements of judgment or analysis that were taken into account to issue this decision. I have here exactly the document and, for example, in Cuba it says: “The Entry,” it is going to be paused or prohibited, “the entry,” “the entry” means the entry into the United States of nationals of Cuba. The phrase says: “The entry into the United States the nationals of Cuba as immigrants,” that is, the entry of nationals of Cuba, I mean as immigrants, and then it says regarding non-immigrants, then it says: “The entry into the United States the nationals of Cuba, known as immigrants, or non-immigrants, B1, B2, F, M, and J visas are hereby suspended.”
That is: “The entry into the United States of nationals of Cuba with immigrant visas or with non-immigrant visas, B1, B2, F, M, and J, is hereby suspended.”
So, it’s not saying they won’t be issued, it’s saying the entry will be prohibited.

Agustín Acosta:
The person may have the visa, but it’s as if I have a passport to go to planet Venus, it’s useless to me. I can’t get there exactly. And then the visas are exempted, for example, religious visas, because in this cultural event of Cuba Nostalgia, I had the opportunity to meet two or three Cubans who are visiting here in Miami, I think they are going to be here for two, three months serving in religious matters, but they live in Cuba, they return to Cuba, that type of religious visa is still allowed.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Correct, yes, the proclamation specifically talks about exceptions, it even says that the Department of State can issue, case by case, analyzing each case, it can allow entry for some based on a demonstration that is in the interest of the United States. I don’t know how that process will be for someone to ask to be allowed to enter as an exception, but I imagine that will be another communication from the Department of State.

Carlos Acosta:
Attorney, there is other information that has been circulating for at least 48 hours, nothing official exists except that CBS apparently gave information about a conversation with immigration officials, you know what I’m talking about, about the possible suspension of the work permit, the employment authorization for asylum applicants. That is not confirmed yet, but I would like you to share with the audience what you know about it.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Yes, what I know about it and what I have been able to share with people is the following, look. Work permits are established in what is the Code of Federal Regulations, the Code of Federal Regulations, which is Title 8, 8-CFR, is the code that handles all the regulation of immigration law.
The substantive organic immigration law is the “Immigration and Nationality Act,” it is the one that says if the person has the right to asylum and establishes everything.
It’s the natural code, it’s the organic code, it’s regulated by the Code of Federal Regulations.
The Code of Federal Regulations is the one that says if the person has the right to the work permit, when they can request it, how it’s processed. The Code of Federal Regulations can be modified by the Executive, obviously following the procedures for regulation changes established by law. It certainly can’t be done by an executive order, the president couldn’t do it.

Agustín Acosta:
They have to publish it in the National Register, there’s a protocol.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Correct, in the National Register, they have to put that and follow the process for changing the regulation, but the Executive can do it.
So, in conclusion, the Executive can modify the law about the work permit for people who have pending asylum, because it’s a regulation that the Executive can change.
The Executive cannot change the organic law of asylum, what is in the statute, which is the “Immigration and Nationality Act,” because only Congress can change that, but the regulation can be changed. So, that little detail that is not, a little big detail.

Agustín Acosta:
It opens a window, a door, right? Sure. But so far there is nothing official.

Attorney Martha Arias:
No, there is nothing official. This has been discussed, but there is nothing official.

Agustín Acosta:
Now, looking at the time from a logical and practical point of view, let’s take Cuba and Venezuela out of it so we are not influenced by sentimental issues of our nationalities and our places of origin, because I am of Cuban origin and you are of Venezuelan origin.
Let’s put it in the case of a Syrian, who was being persecuted because he was Christian, was being persecuted by Muslims there in Syria, came here and was given asylum or is in the process of asylum because there is religious persecution, or a person who was a collaborator of American troops in Afghanistan, because he was an interpreter and now the Taliban is persecuting him and entered here in the U.S. for ethnic or political persecution.
If that person has their work permit taken away, they are going to be sent to indigence.
If that person is here admitted by the United States in an asylum process, I can’t think that, with the stroke of a pen, categorically, all asylum petitioners will have their work permit taken away, because they would be condemned to starve.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Exactly, that is a very delicate and double-edged decision that the government must make, because the fact is, on the one hand, we know that having a work permit incentivizes, in one way or another, people to apply for asylum in the United States, because they know there are delays and they can have that work permit to work while their asylum is approved or decided.
But on the other hand, the government knows that there is a backlog in asylum petitions that are currently being processed, at least here in Miami, petitions filed in 2014 and we are in 2025, we have 10 to 12 years of backlog in asylum petitions.
So, those people who have delays, how is the government going to process all those petitions in a short time?
And if they’re going to take time, how will they allow people to produce or work in the United States?

Agustín Acosta:
And the delay is not the petitioner’s fault, it’s the government’s bureaucracy’s fault.

Carlos Acosta:
Let me complement what Agustín says, because the attorney obviously must know this. I remember in President Trump’s first administration, there came a time when I think they reversed the order for the interview. So, they were interviewing those who arrived most recently first, and then those in the queue were left further behind.
Has it been like that, attorney?

Attorney Martha Arias:
That’s correct, and it still is. Many of the recent asylum petitions get an appointment faster than the older ones. So those older ones keep going, ten years, every sixth year, we’ve seen in Miami that those from 2014 are being called for almost all of them.
So, they’re moving faster with those old petitions, but still, it’s 10 years of backlog.
How much time are they going to need to process 10 years of backlog by taking away work permits from people? That decision is complicated.

Agustín Acosta:
I met a Colombian man exactly 25 years ago because his son and mine are the same age. And when they were both 10 years old they played on a little league baseball team and we would meet every Saturday at the baseball game. This Colombian man, the guerrilla tried to assassinate him twice and could not kill him. They kidnapped a baby. They kept the baby kidnapped for about seven or eight weeks. Kidnapped a child of about six, seven months old, the guerrilla kidnapped him and he had to pay an astronomical sum of money to have the baby released. And when that happened, he decided to sell all his businesses and came here to the United States and applied for political asylum.
Of course, this happened 25 years ago, eventually he was given political asylum, then residency, and the man became a citizen. But imagine a case like that, from any country, they can’t take away the work permit from those people because it’s the only thing that allows them to survive and support their families. I mean, from a merely logical and practical point of view, I can’t believe that, because there are many people who have used political asylum without any merit, but there are many people, many people from Cuba, Venezuela, and other places, from Nicaragua, from other places who have used political asylum because they are persecuted, because if they return to their country of origin, they would be jailed, and in some other countries that are not these three, there is religious persecution from Muslims to Christians or political persecution from the Taliban to an opponent in Afghanistan. Those people are here under protection and have all kinds of merits.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Exactly. So, it’s a pretty serious problem and I don’t think it’s a good idea either, not even from the internal point of view, regarding taxes, right?

Agustín Acosta:
Of course. Well, attorney, as always, we bother you, we’ve taken up half an hour, a little more than half an hour, let me give your phone number. Don’t give it yourself because I know it by heart, so I’ll give it in case any listener wants to consult you as an immigration attorney, you can call attorney Arias at (305) 671-0018. Martha Arias is an outstanding and very experienced immigration attorney. For any matter you need, she can assist you. (305) 671-0018.
Again, thank you, attorney. We’ve bothered you today, Friday.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Thank you, happy day!

The post What the New U.S. Travel Ban Means for Cubans, Venezuelans, and Asylum Seekers appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

New TPS Extensions, Deportations to Third Countries, and H-1B Visas

Martha Arias — Wed, 02 Apr 2025 16:06:44 +0000

On Monday, I joined to Carlos & Agustin Acosta on Actualidad Radio. We covered recent breaking immigration news about a the Federal Judge in California who postponed the decision to terminate TPS for Venezuelans (and potentially Haitians), offering a measure of relief for many families who rely on this status. We also addressed the details of a Massachusetts Federal Court’s decision that prevents the government from deporting individuals to third countries unless specific steps are followed, providing more protection for those in vulnerable situations.

In addition, we touched on the announcement by USCIS that the H-1B visa applications have reached the annual quota, which means the process for this year’s cycle has closed.

Every single day, immigration policies can change, so it’s vital to stay informed. My mission is to guide you with accurate, up-to-date legal advice. Always remember, knowledge is power, and I’m here to help.

Follow me on Social Media

Original Transcript

CARLOS:
Acabamos de enterarnos de que un juez del estado de California tomó una decisión sobre la vigencia del Estatus de Protección Temporal, mejor conocido como TPS, para venezolanos y haitianos. Según la información preliminar, el juez habría dejado sin efecto la determinación de revocar el TPS que emanó en su momento de la Casa Blanca, bajo el entonces presidente Trump y el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional, de modo que el TPS seguiría vigente. Estamos pendientes del desarrollo de esta información, que acaba de darse a conocer, para ofrecer más detalles. Reiteramos, Agustín, un juez de California habría tomado la decisión de mantener el TPS para venezolanos y haitianos en una primera instancia. Ya conoceremos los detalles de la extensión de tiempo, porque recordemos que el expresidente Trump, antes de abandonar la Casa Blanca, había dado una extensión de 18 meses para ser más exactos.

AGUSTÍN:
En unos minutos conversaremos con la abogada de inmigración, la doctora Martha Arias, quien debe tener más detalles y podrá explicarnos, con mayor profundidad, la magnitud de esta decisión de este tribunal federal de California y el impacto que puede tener para las personas en el sur de la Florida. La tendremos en breve por Actualidad 1040 AM. No se lo pierda.

CARLOS:
Así es. En pocos minutos usted va a estar conversando con la doctora Martha Arias, como suele ocurrir los lunes. Seguimos esperando más detalles con relación a esta medida que se venía aguardando desde hacía varios días. Recordemos que el lunes pasado se produjo la audiencia en California y el juez no tomó la decisión ese mismo lunes. En la audiencia estaban presentes el fiscal que representaba al gobierno de los Estados Unidos y, por supuesto, los abogados que introdujeron la demanda para mantener la vigencia del TPS. En este caso, la decisión del juez beneficiaría a venezolanos y haitianos. Recordemos que existía el “parole humanitario” y el Estatus de Protección Temporal. En el caso del parole humanitario, aplica para nicaragüenses, haitianos, cubanos y venezolanos; y en el caso del TPS, para venezolanos y haitianos. Agustín.

AGUSTÍN:
Muchas gracias, Carlos. Efectivamente, ya tenemos en la línea a la doctora Martha Arias. Hoy no estamos en la cabina central, doctora, porque nos encontramos en un control remoto desde Miami Lakes. Sin embargo, esta es una noticia de última hora que acabamos de presentar y que Carlos ya informó. Es una noticia que incluso los grandes medios de prensa de los Estados Unidos todavía no han reportado, pero aparentemente ya ocurrió en California y, por supuesto, va a tener un impacto para miles de personas aquí, en el sur de la Florida. Sin más, le agradezco su tiempo y le doy mis más calurosas buenas tardes.

DRA. MARTHA ARIAS:
Buenas tardes, Agustín y Carlos. Un saludo para ustedes y para toda la audiencia de Actualidad Radio. Sí, es una primicia nacional. El juez federal de California acaba de anunciar que se pospone la decisión acerca de la terminación del TPS de Venezuela para quienes aplicaron en 2023 o después de 2023.

AGUSTÍN:
¿Esta es una decisión que se pospone hasta tener la oportunidad de una audiencia posterior o es una posposición indefinida?

DRA. MARTHA ARIAS:
Por ahora, podría considerarse indefinida, porque estoy leyendo la orden del juez y no veo una fecha clara. Es un documento largo, de 78 páginas, que acaba de publicarse y no lo he revisado completamente detalle por detalle.

AGUSTÍN:
No se preocupe, doctora, si esto acaba de ocurrir hace dos o tres minutos, entendemos.

DRA. MARTHA ARIAS:
Lo que sí puedo adelantar es que el juez dice que se pospone la decisión del Secretario del Departamento de Seguridad Nacional, el Sr. Mayorkas, de determinar la terminación o extensión del TPS de 2023. El juez dispone lo siguiente:

Dentro de una semana a partir de hoy, las partes (el gobierno y los demandantes, que son el National TPS Alliance) deben presentar un reporte conjunto sobre cuándo se van a reunir y abordar si el gobierno apelará esta decisión de la corte.
Si los demandantes también presentarán una moción para posponer el TPS de los haitianos (recordemos que en una primera parte se enfocó mucho en los venezolanos).
Que se propongan las fechas en que las partes van a conferenciar o discutir sobre la adjudicación de fondo de este caso del TPS.

En otras palabras, se pospone la cancelación del TPS de 2023 para venezolanos, pero el juez está pidiendo a las partes que se reúnan, presenten un reporte y definan si también se va a posponer el TPS de los haitianos y cuándo se hablará del fondo del caso.

CARLOS:
Doctora, había dos fechas de vencimiento con el TPS: una era la de abril, que era la más urgente, y la otra en septiembre. ¿Esta medida beneficia a los dos grupos de TPS o solo al grupo de abril?

DRA. MARTHA ARIAS:
Solamente al grupo de abril, porque ese es el TPS de 2023. El TPS de 2021 es el que vence en septiembre, y el gobierno todavía no ha dicho si lo va a extender. El 12 de julio es la fecha límite que tiene el gobierno para decir si extiende o no el TPS de 2021 y, por estatuto y regulación, si el gobierno no dice nada, se considera una extensión automática de seis meses. Así que el TPS de 2021, que vence en septiembre, todavía está en veremos. Esta decisión del juez es únicamente para el TPS de 2023 que vence ahora en abril.

AGUSTÍN:
Excelente. Muy bien, doctora. Entonces pasemos a otras cosas que también son importantes dar a conocer. El Servicio de Inmigración ha hecho un anuncio importante que tiene que ver con las solicitudes para la visa H-1B. ¿De qué se trata?

DRA. MARTHA ARIAS:
Sí, las visas H-1B son las visas para profesionales, es decir, para personas que tengan un título universitario en Estados Unidos o en el extranjero y que cuenten con un empleador que desee contratar sus servicios profesionales. Como habíamos comentado aquí en Actualidad Radio, Agustín, en marzo se abrió el registro electrónico para las compañías que iban a hacer estas peticiones, y el Servicio de Ciudadanía e Inmigración (USCIS) anunció hoy que ya se han recibido suficientes solicitudes para completar la cuota, que es de 85,000. Por lo tanto, en este momento se cierra el proceso de solicitudes del H-1B para el ciclo 2025-2026.

AGUSTÍN:
Perfecto. Una corte federal de apelaciones ha restringido o prohibido a los Estados Unidos deportar a personas a terceros países sin cumplir ciertos pasos, de acuerdo con la orden de ese tribunal. ¿Puede contarnos su interpretación?

DRA. MARTHA ARIAS:
Sí, esto es muy importante. Se trata de una corte distrital de Massachusetts y la orden de restricción temporal tiene validez en todo el territorio de los Estados Unidos. Es un caso que se presentó en contra del Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (Homeland Security), pidiendo que se prohibiera al gobierno deportar a las personas a terceros países sin previo aviso. Todos escuchamos recientemente sobre un grupo de personas de Venezuela y otros países que fueron deportadas a El Salvador sin que se les anunciara a sus familiares o abogados el destino final.
Entonces, se presentó esta demanda y se pidió una orden temporal de restricción para que el gobierno no haga eso. El juez, el viernes pasado (28 de marzo), dictaminó que el gobierno de los Estados Unidos no puede deportar a una persona a un tercer país a menos que se cumplan tres requisitos:

Que se le informe a esa persona o a su abogado el país al que será deportada.
Que se le dé la oportunidad de presentar la petición bajo la CAT (Convention Against Torture, o Convención contra la Tortura), que está contemplada en la ley de inmigración.
Que solo se efectúe la deportación cuando ya exista una orden final del juez de inmigración que decida sobre esa petición de CAT.

Con ello, no se puede deportar a alguien sin cumplir esos tres requisitos mínimos. Esto trae algo de tranquilidad a quienes temían que, por un error del sistema o falta de información, sus familiares fueran enviados, por ejemplo, a la prisión en El Salvador donde están recluyendo a pandilleros o miembros del Tren de Aragua. Puede haber confusiones, y la gente está asustada. Pero de momento, según esta orden, el gobierno no puede hacerlo sin respetar esos pasos.

AGUSTÍN:
Amigos, estamos conversando con la doctora Martha Arias, nuestra abogada de inmigración. El teléfono de su bufete es el 305-671-0018, repito, 305-671-0018. Lo mencionaré de nuevo más adelante. Doctora, ¿qué se sabe de los cubanos que ya tienen órdenes de remoción en los Estados Unidos? ¿Cuba los está aceptando?

DRA. MARTHA ARIAS:
Cuba los está aceptando, pero no es consistente en cuanto al número de personas y vuelos que recibe con deportados de Estados Unidos. Entonces, lo que vemos en Miramar, donde se presentan los cubanos que tienen orden de supervisión y deben acudir cada año, es que no es el grupo prioritario para ser detenido, precisamente porque no hay certeza de cuándo Cuba los podría recibir. Yo diría que es una buena noticia para los cubanos que no tienen delitos de alta peligrosidad y que, aunque tengan orden de deportación, no están siendo detenidos con la frecuencia de otras nacionalidades, justamente por la incertidumbre de si Cuba los va a recibir.

AGUSTÍN:
Me imagino, doctora, que ustedes, los abogados de inmigración, están como nosotros, los que damos noticias, parpadeamos tres veces y nos pasa un montón de información por delante, porque todo va a una velocidad vertiginosa.

DRA. MARTHA ARIAS:
Exactamente. Tratamos de mantenernos al día con toda la información para ofrecer a nuestros clientes la mejor asesoría posible y la de último minuto. Pero sí, es una labor difícil porque todo cambia muy rápido. Por ejemplo, podemos ser contratados hoy para presentar una petición, y mañana deportan al cliente sin darnos tiempo de actuar. Hay abogados que han presentado su notificación de comparecencia (G-28) ante la corte y, al día siguiente, cuando van a hablar con el detenido, descubren que ya no se encuentra en ese centro de detención porque lo han trasladado a otro en Louisiana, Texas o Arizona. A veces no tenemos tiempo de presentar nada. Estamos todos un poco abrumados, tanto nosotros como las personas afectadas.

AGUSTÍN:
Amigos, repito el teléfono de la doctora: 305-671-0018. También la pueden encontrar en Facebook como “Martha Arias, Immigration Attorney”. Recuerden que su nombre se escribe con “H”: Martha Arias. O directamente en su oficina legal al 305-671-0018 para cualquier trámite, asesoría o explicación de inmigración, porque ella se dedica exclusivamente a la ley de inmigración. 305-671-0018. Doctora, muchas gracias, buenas tardes.

DRA. MARTHA ARIAS:
Gracias a ustedes, buenas tardes.

English Transcript

CARLOS:
We have just learned that a judge in the state of California made a decision on the validity of Temporary Protected Status, better known as TPS, for Venezuelans and Haitians. According to preliminary information, the judge would have nullified the decision to revoke TPS that came from the White House under then-President Trump and the Department of Homeland Security, so TPS would remain in effect. We are awaiting further developments of this information, which has just been disclosed, to provide more details. We reiterate, Agustín, a judge in California would then have decided to maintain TPS for Venezuelans and Haitians in the first instance. We will soon find out what the details are regarding the extension of time, because let’s remember that former President Trump, before leaving the White House, had granted an extension of 18 months, to be more exact.

AGUSTÍN:
In a few minutes, we will be speaking with the immigration attorney, Attorney Martha Arias, who should have more details and may be able to explain in greater depth the significance of this decision by the federal court in California and the impact it may have for people in South Florida. We will have her shortly on Actualidad 1040 AM. Don’t miss it.

CARLOS:
That’s right. In a few minutes, you will be talking with Attorney Martha Arias, as you usually do on Mondays. We are still waiting for more details regarding this measure that has been anticipated for several days. Remember that last Monday, the hearing took place in California, and the judge did not make the decision on that same Monday. At the hearing, the prosecutor representing the U.S. government was there, as well as the lawyers who filed the lawsuit to maintain TPS in effect. In this case, the judge’s decision would benefit Venezuelans and Haitians. Let’s remember there was “humanitarian parole” and Temporary Protected Status. Humanitarian parole applies to Nicaraguans, Haitians, Cubans, and Venezuelans, and TPS applies to Venezuelans and Haitians. Agustín.

AGUSTÍN:
Thank you very much, Carlos. Indeed, we already have Attorney Martha Arias on the line. Today we are not in the main studio, Attorney, because we are broadcasting remotely from Miami Lakes. However, this is breaking news that we have just shared, as Carlos has informed. It’s news that even the major U.S. media outlets have not yet reported, but apparently it has already happened in California and, of course, it will have an impact on thousands of people here in South Florida. Without further ado, I appreciate your time and give you my warmest good afternoon.

MARTHA ARIAS:
Good afternoon, Agustín and Carlos. A greeting to you and to the entire Actualidad Radio audience. Yes, this is a national scoop. The federal judge in California has just announced that the decision regarding the termination of TPS for Venezuela — for those who applied in 2023 or after 2023 — is postponed.

AGUSTÍN:
Is this a decision that is postponed until there is a subsequent hearing, or is it an indefinite postponement?

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
For now, it could be considered indefinite, because I’m reading the judge’s order and I don’t see a specific date. It’s a long document, 78 pages, that has just come out, and I haven’t read it thoroughly, word for word.

AGUSTÍN:
Don’t worry, if this just happened two or three minutes ago, we understand.

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
But what I can say is that the judge states that the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Mr. Mayorkas, is prevented from determining the termination or extension of TPS 2023 for now. The judge provides the following points:

Within one week from today, both parties (the government and the plaintiffs, which is the National TPS Alliance) must submit a joint report on when they will meet and address whether the government will appeal this court’s decision.
Whether the plaintiffs will also file a motion to postpone TPS for Haitians (remember that the first part focused a lot on Venezuelans).
The judge also orders that they propose dates on which the parties will meet or confer regarding the merits of the TPS case.

In other words, the cancellation of TPS 2023 for Venezuelans is postponed, but the judge is asking the parties to meet, submit a report, and determine whether TPS for Haitians will also be postponed and when the merits of the case will be discussed.

CARLOS:
Attorney, there were two TPS expiration dates: one was in April, which was the most urgent, and the other one in September. Does this measure cover both TPS groups, or only the April group?

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Only the April group, because that is the TPS of 2023. The 2021 TPS is the one that expires in September, and the government has not yet said whether it will be extended. July 12 is the deadline for the government to say whether it will extend the 2021 TPS, and by statute or regulation, if the government says nothing, it is automatically extended for six months. So the 2021 TPS, which expires in September, is still pending. This judge’s decision is only for the 2023 TPS that expires now in April.

AGUSTÍN:
Excellent. Very well, Attorney. Let’s move on to other important matters. The Immigration Service has made an important announcement regarding H-1B visa applications. What is this about?

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Yes, the H-1B visas are for professionals, meaning people who have a university degree in the United States or abroad, and who have an employer who wants to hire them for professional services. As we had mentioned here on Actualidad Radio, Agustín, in March the electronic registration opened for companies that were going to make these petitions. USCIS (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) announced today that enough applications have already been received to meet the quota of 85,000. Therefore, at this time, the application process for H-1Bs is closed, at least in this opportunity for the 2025-2026 cycle.

AGUSTÍN:
Perfect. A federal appellate court has restricted or prohibited the United States from deporting people to third countries without following certain steps, according to that court’s order. Can you tell us your interpretation?

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Yes, this is super important. It was a district court in Massachusetts, and this temporary restraining order applies throughout the United States. It’s a case filed against Homeland Security, asking that the government be prohibited from deporting people to third countries without prior notice. We all recently heard in the news about that group of people from Venezuela and other countries who were deported to El Salvador without their relatives or attorneys being informed of their final destination.
So this lawsuit was filed, and a temporary restraining order was requested so that the government cannot do that. The judge, last Friday (March 28), ruled that the U.S. government cannot deport someone to a third country unless three requirements are met:

That the person or their attorney be informed of the country to which the person will be deported.
That the person be given the opportunity to file a CAT request (Convention Against Torture), which is part of immigration law.
That the person is only deported when there is a final order from the immigration judge deciding that CAT petition.

So you can’t deport someone without meeting those three minimum requirements. This was issued on Friday, so it brings a bit more peace of mind to those who worried that, by some system error, or for any reason, their relatives might be sent, for example, to that prison in El Salvador where they are sending gang members or members of the “Tren de Aragua.” Mistakes can happen, and people are very scared. But for now, according to this order, the government can’t do that without following those steps.

AGUSTÍN:
Friends, we are talking with Attorney Martha Arias, our immigration attorney. Her office phone number is 305-671-0018. Again, 305-671-0018. I’ll repeat it a bit later. 305-671-0018. Attorney, what do we know about Cubans who already have removal orders in the United States? Is Cuba accepting them?

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Cuba is accepting them, but it is not consistent regarding the number of people or flights it will receive from the United States. So what we are seeing in Miramar, where Cubans who have an order of supervision must go each year, is that they are not the priority group for detention precisely because there is no certainty about when Cuba might receive them. I would say it’s good news for Cubans who do not have high-risk criminal records, because even if they have a deportation order, they are not being detained as frequently as other nationalities, due to the uncertainty of whether Cuba will accept them.

AGUSTÍN:
I imagine that you immigration attorneys, like us who deliver the news, blink three times and all sorts of things come across because everything is moving so quickly.

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Exactly. We try to stay up to date with all this information to give our clients the best possible guidance and the latest breaking news. But yes, it’s a tough job because everything changes very fast. One example: we can be hired today to file a petition, and tomorrow they deport the client without giving us time to act. Some attorneys have filed their G-28 appearance with the court, and the next day they go to see the detainee, only to find that the person is no longer in that detention center because they have been transferred to another one in Louisiana, Texas, or Arizona. Sometimes we don’t have time to file anything. We are all a bit overwhelmed: us as lawyers and the people involved.

AGUSTÍN:
Friends, the Attorney’s phone number again is 305-671-0018. You can also find her on Facebook as “Martha Arias, Immigration Attorney.” Remember her first name is spelled with H: Martha Arias. Or you can reach her law office directly at 305-671-0018 for any procedure, consultation, or explanation about immigration, because immigration law is all she practices. 305-671-0018. Attorney, thank you very much. Good afternoon.

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Thank you. Good afternoon.

The post New TPS Extensions, Deportations to Third Countries, and H-1B Visas appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

USCIS Issues New Form Editions Without Grace Period

Martha Arias — Tue, 11 Mar 2025 04:17:14 +0000

In early 2025, USCIS released new editions of numerous immigration forms (including Form I-485, I-918, I-134, G-325A, and others) and required their use effective immediately, initially with no grace period for prior versions aila.org. This abrupt change meant older form editions would be rejected upon rollout of the new forms uscis.gov, catching many applicants and attorneys by surprise.

Substantively, the new form editions reverse certain inclusivity measures introduced in recent years. Notably, the “Another Gender Identity” option has been removed, leaving only binary “Female” or “Male” choices for gender on these forms. Additionally, USCIS has reinstated the term “alien” in place of “noncitizen” or “foreign national” throughout the forms and instructions. These terminology changes align with policy shifts under the new administration and mark a return to traditional legal language.

The immediate enforcement of new forms without an overlap period caused confusion, delays, and concern among applicants and legal practitioners. Applicants who unknowingly filed older versions risked rejection of their applications. In response to advocacy (including litigation by the American Immigration Lawyers Association, AILA), USCIS acknowledged the concerns. By March 8, 2025, USCIS updated its guidance to allow a short one-month grace period for these forms, meaning prior editions would be accepted until specified dates in March/April 2025.

This late concession provided some relief, but the window is brief – emphasizing the need for immediate compliance. Overall, the changes highlight a shift in administrative priorities (focusing on traditional terminology and data collection) and serve as a reminder that applicants must stay vigilant for sudden procedural updates.

Form I-485 – Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status

Gender Identification
Terminology and Wording
Public Charge and Other Content
Structural Format
Instructions and Other

Form I-485 Supplement A – Adjustment under Section 245(i)

Purpose – Content Changes – Format

Form I-485 Supplement J – Confirmation of Job Offer (for Employment-Based Applicants)

Purpose – Content Changes – Formatting

Form I-918 – Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status

Gender Field – Terminology – Other Content – Format/Structure

Form I-914 – Application for T Nonimmigrant Status

Gender Field – Terminology – Content – Formatting

Form I-192 – Application for Advance Permission to Enter as a Nonimmigrant

Purpose – Changes – Formatting

Form I-134 – Declaration of Financial Support

Purpose – Changes – Structural/Formatting

Form G-325A – Biographic Information (for Deferred Action)

Purpose – Changes – Formatting

Form I-131 – Application for Travel Document (now titled “Application for Travel Documents, Parole Documents, and Arrival/Departure Records”)

Title and Scope – Gender Field – Content/Use – Formatting

Form N-400 – Application for Naturalization

Gender Field – Terminology – Other Content – Formatting

Form I-356 – Request for Cancellation of Public Charge Bond

Purpose – Changes – Formatting

Employment-Based Applicants

Adjustment of Status (I-485)
Supplement J (Job Offer Confirmation)
Nonimmigrant Workers and Sponsors
Nonbinary / Transgender Applicants in EB category

Family-Based Applicants

Adjustment of Status (I-485)
Financial Support Forms (I-864 vs I-134)
Biographic Information (G-325A)
Immigrant Visa (Consular) Applicants

Asylum Seekers and Humanitarian Applicants

Form I-589 (Application for Asylum)
Form I-131
Form I-918 (U visa for crime victims)
Form I-914 (T visa for trafficking victims)
Form I-192 (waiver of inadmissibility)
Form I-134
Form I-821 (Temporary Protected Status)
Form I-821D (DACA recipients)
Form I-589 (Asylum Seekers)
U Visa Applicants (Victims of Crime)
T Visa Applicants (Victims of Trafficking)
VAWA Self-Petitioners
Humanitarian Parole Programs
Refugee/Asylee Derivatives & Travel

Investors and Entrepreneurs

International Entrepreneur Parole (Form I-941)
EB-5 Investors (Form I-526 and I-829)
E-2 Investors or Other Entrepreneurs

Other Relevant Categories and Applicants

Naturalization Applicants
DACA Recipients
Students and Exchange Visitors
Attorneys and Preparers

Recommendations for Applicants

1. Always Use the Latest Form Version
2. Double-Check Filing Instructions and Fees
3. Fill Out Forms Completely and Accurately (No Blanks for Gender)
4. Anticipate and Prevent Rejection Issues
5. Plan for the End of Grace Periods
6. Leverage USCIS and Legal Resources
7. Prepare for Potential Processing Delays
8. Stay Informed on Future Changes
9. Consider Impact on Personal Situation
10. Monitor Your Case Status and Correspondence

The following is a side-by-side comparison of the old and new versions of each major form affected by the updates. It highlights structural modifications, content updates, formatting adjustments, and other notable differences introduced in the edition dated 01/20/2025 (now the current edition for all forms below). In general, most changes across forms are consistent – mainly the removal of non-binary gender options and the return of the term “alien” – but specific forms have unique adjustments as detailed:

Form I-485 – Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status

Gender Identification:

Old Version – Allowed three gender options (“Male,” “Female,” and “Another Gender Identity”) for the applicant’s sex/gender.

New Version – The form now permits only binary options (“Female” or “Male”), eliminating the nonbinary/“Another Gender Identity” choice. The field label itself was changed from “Gender” to the more biological term “Sex,” reflecting the narrowed options.

Terminology and Wording:

Old Version – Used the word “noncitizen” (or “foreign national”) in various questions and instructions when referring to the applicant or others (consistent with the prior administration’s language policy).

New Version – Reverts to the term “alien” in all references to individuals who are not U.S. citizens. For example, instructions regarding inadmissibility and public charge now refer to “the alien” instead of “the noncitizen,” and any mention of immigration status uses the statutory term “alien.” This change appears in sections related to public charge determinations and military service exemptions, among others, but otherwise does not alter the legal criteria being discussed.

Public Charge and Other Content:

Old Version – Reflected the 2022 public charge rule (with relatively limited evidence requirements) and did not use the term “alien.”

New Version – No change in substantive eligibility questions or evidence requirements for public charge; however, wording in the form instructions and any relevant form items now uses “alien” consistently. The content of questions (e.g. regarding criminal history, security, immigration violations) remains the same. There is no new eligibility criterion introduced on the form; the changes are primarily linguistic.

Structural Format:

Old Version – The form had the gender question with a third checkbox and used labels like “USCIS Online Account Number” alongside “A-Number.”

New Version – With the removal of one checkbox, the overall layout is slightly adjusted (the space for the gender question now has two checkboxes instead of three). Question numbering and section ordering on Form I-485 remain unchanged aside from this omission – for instance, the questions that followed the gender question keep the same numbers. Any references to an “USCIS Account Number” vs. “Alien Registration Number” are now standardized to just “Alien Registration Number (A-Number)” in the form and instructions (the form explicitly uses the legal term “Alien” again). These formatting tweaks are minor; the form’s length and section structure are essentially the same as the previous edition.

Instructions and Other:

Old Version – Included inclusive language and possibly FAQs about the gender field (since the “Another Gender Identity” had been introduced in 2023).

New Version – Instructions no longer mention the third gender option and may instruct applicants to select a sex that matches their documents. All occurrences of “noncitizen” in the instructions (for example, in explaining eligibility categories or grounds of inadmissibility) are replaced with “alien”. No additional instructions or evidentiary requirements were added. Filing instructions (addresses, fee amounts) remain the same except that applicants must use this 01/20/25 edition; USCIS explicitly notes that as of April 3, 2025, it will reject prior editions of Form I-485 uscis.gov.

Form I-485 Supplement A – Adjustment under Section 245(i)

Purpose:

Supplement A is used by certain applicants adjusting status under INA 245(i) (typically those with old immigration violations who pay a penalty fee). The changes mirror those on the main I-485.

Content Changes:

Old vs New – The gender item removal and terminology switch to “alien” apply here as well. If the supplement collects any biographic information from the applicant, it now only recognizes male/female. Any reference in instructions to the person (such as “the immigrant under 245(i)”) now uses “alien.” No changes to the eligibility questions about grandfathering under 245(i) were made – the supplement still asks about the petition or labor certification date, etc., in the same manner.

Format:

No significant structural alterations; the supplement remains a short form to be filed with the I-485 if needed. The edition date is updated to 01/20/25, and USCIS set the same April 3, 2025 cutoff for using old versions uscis.gov.

Form I-485 Supplement J – Confirmation of Job Offer (for Employment-Based Applicants)

Purpose:

Supplement J is filed to confirm a bona fide job offer or request portability to a new job under INA 204(j) for certain employment-based adjustment applicants.

Content Changes:

Old vs New – This supplement primarily collects the applicant’s and employer’s information and a job description. The new edition does not appear to add or remove any sections; however, if there were any fields for gender/sex of the applicant or other parties, they would now be limited to male/female (most likely, Supplement J did not ask for gender since it’s focused on the job offer). The main change is in terminology: any mention of the applicant as a “foreign national” or “noncitizen worker” in instructions is now “alien.” For example, the form’s certification wording might now read “confirm that the job offer to the alien remains available…” whereas previously “to the noncitizen” might have been used.

Formatting:

The structure (sections for applicant info, petitioner info, job details) remains identical. The edition date updated to 01/20/25; USCIS initially required immediate use, then allowed prior versions until April 3, 2025 uscis.gov.

Form I-918 – Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status

Gender Field:

Old Version – Allowed “another gender identity” option for the petitioner (applicant) and any derivatives’ gender, in addition to male/female.

New Version – Allows only “Male” or “Female,” removing any non-binary option. U visa petitioners must now select one of the two, aligning this form with the new binary-only standard.

Terminology:

Old Version – Used terms like “self-petitioner” or “applicant” and generally avoided “alien” in favor of “individual” or “person.”

New Version – Replaces references with “alien” where applicable. For instance, in instructions regarding inadmissibility waivers (many U applicants also file Form I-192), the text now refers to the “alien petitioner”. However, the core requirements for U visa eligibility (proof of being a crime victim, helpfulness to law enforcement, etc.) remain unchanged.

Other Content:

No new questions were added to Form I-918. The certification from law enforcement (Form I-918, Supplement B) remains required and unchanged in substance. The primary differences are linguistic – aligning terms with statutory language – and ensuring the form reflects the updated edition date.

Format/Structure:

No structural changes (same sections for applicant info, qualifying crime details, etc.). The edition date is 01/20/25, and after an initial announcement of no overlap, USCIS is allowing the prior edition through May 5, 2025 uscis.gov (a slightly longer grace period for U visas, likely recognizing the complexities in coordinating certification documents) before rejecting old versions.

Form I-914 – Application for T Nonimmigrant Status

Gender Field:

Old Version – Included an “Another Gender Identity” option for applicants (victims of trafficking).

New Version – Only “Male” or “Female” may be selected, removing any third option. This mirrors the change on Form I-918 and I-485.

Terminology:

Old Version – Used “applicant” or “individual” language;

New Version – Refers to the applicant as “alien” in formal instructions. For example, statements about eligibility (being physically present on account of trafficking, etc.) would now describe “the alien” instead of “the applicant” in legal reasoning sections, to conform to standard legal terms.

Content:

No substantive eligibility changes – the form still asks about the trafficking circumstances, cooperation with law enforcement, etc., exactly as before. Evidence requirements (such as providing personal statements and supporting documentation) are unchanged. Only the descriptors have changed (gender and terminology).

Formatting:

No new sections or reordering. The form’s edition is 01/20/25; USCIS originally required immediate use but now accepts the prior edition until March 24, 2025 uscis.gov.

Form I-192 – Application for Advance Permission to Enter as a Nonimmigrant

Purpose:

This form is a waiver application for certain inadmissible noncitizens (now aliens) who need permission to enter the U.S. temporarily. It’s commonly used by U and T visa applicants, VAWA self-petitioners, and others ineligible for a visa or admission without a waiver.

Changes:

Old vs New – The title and purpose remain the same, but language is adjusted. Notably, the form’s instructions now refer to the applicant as an “alien” seeking advance permission instead of “person” or “nonimmigrant” in a general sense. If the form asked for gender (applicant’s biographical info), it is now binary-only (consistent with all other forms). There were no structural additions; the form still requires explanation of inadmissibility and supporting evidence (e.g. why a waiver is merited) just as before.

Formatting: Minimal change besides the edition date update (01/20/25). The prior edition of Form I-192 is accepted until April 3, 2025 aila.org.

Form I-134 – Declaration of Financial Support

Purpose:

Form I-134 is an affidavit of support used in certain circumstances (for example, sponsors of visitors or parolees use it to show they will support the beneficiary financially; it’s also used for K-1 fiancé(e) visa sponsors).

Changes:

Old vs New – The content of the financial support declaration remains the same (sponsor provides information about income, assets, and the beneficiary). However, any fields capturing personal information of the sponsor or beneficiary adhere to the new standards. If the form collected the gender of the beneficiary or sponsor, those fields are now just “Male” or “Female” (the previous edition had an option for “Another Gender Identity” if it collected gender – it likely did, as it asks biographical info of the person being supported). Now, the sponsor must designate the beneficiary’s sex as either male or female. All references to “person being supported” in instructions might now say “alien” if referring to the immigrant benefiting from support. For example, where it might have said “the individual for whom you are providing support,” it could now read “the alien for whom you are providing support,” aligning with the reinstated terminology.

Structural/Formatting:

No major structural changes; Form I-134 is still a relatively short form. One notable clarification is that USCIS has distinguished Form I-134 (Declaration of Financial Support) from the newer Form I-134A (Online Request to be a Supporter for parole) – the update of I-134 does not affect I-134A, which is a separate process. The edition date updated to 01/20/25 and prior editions are accepted through April 3, 2025 aila.org.

Form G-325A – Biographic Information (for Deferred Action)

Purpose:

Form G-325A was historically used to collect biographical data (such as names, birth dates, addresses, and employment history) for certain applications. It was discontinued for most cases a few years ago (with information collected directly on main forms), but USCIS has reintroduced G-325A specifically for Deferred Action cases aila.org. The new edition is dated 01/20/25.

Changes:

Old vs New – The old version of G-325A (last used widely before being retired) included fields for name, alias, date of birth, gender, marital status, residence and employment history, etc. The new G-325A is likely very similar in content, but updated to current standards. The gender field on G-325A is now binary-only (previously, when last used, it only had male/female; it never had a nonbinary option because it hadn’t been updated during the brief period those options were introduced elsewhere). The main change is that USCIS is now requiring this form again for certain Deferred Action requests – a structural change in process. For example, beneficiaries of approved family-based visa petitions who receive deferred action, or those in U visa backlog granted deferred action, may need to submit the new G-325A for background checks.

Formatting:

The form remains one page long (as in the past) and captures the biographic data in a standardized format. The edition date is 01/20/25 and USCIS will not accept previous (obsolete) versions after April 3, 2025 aila.org. Essentially, this is a revival of a form that had been phased out; its reintroduction itself is a notable change, aimed at ensuring USCIS collects detailed background info for deferred action cases.

Form I-131 – Application for Travel Document (now titled “Application for Travel Documents, Parole Documents, and Arrival/Departure Records”)

Title and Scope:

The new edition of Form I-131 has an expanded title, explicitly referencing Parole Documents and Arrival/Departure Records aila.org. This suggests a slight broadening or clarification of the form’s scope.

Old Title – “Application for Travel Document” (covering re-entry permits, refugee travel documents, advance parole).

New Title – “Application for Travel Documents, Parole Documents, and Arrival/Departure Records,” indicating the form may now also be used to request or replace an I-94 (arrival/departure record) in certain cases. The inclusion of “Arrival/Departure Records” is new and may relate to processes for those seeking a documented entry record or parole entry documentation.

Gender Field:

Old Version – Included a gender field (likely with Male/Female/Other if updated under the prior admin’s inclusivity policy).

New Version – Binary only (Male or Female) for the applicant’s sex, consistent with other forms. Applicants for re-entry permits or advance parole must now choose one of the two, as the “X” or third option is removed.

Content/Use:

The core uses of Form I-131 remain: applying for a re-entry permit (for permanent residents), a refugee travel document (for asylees/refugees), or advance parole (for those with pending applications needing to travel). The new mention of “Parole Documents” likely covers humanitarian parole requests as well, and “Arrival/Departure Records” could mean if someone needs a replacement I-94 or official evidence of entry, they might use I-131 instead of the older Form I-102. However, no major new sections were added – the form still asks for the class of document requested and supporting information (dates of travel, purpose, etc.). Instructions have been updated to use “alien” terminology where appropriate. For instance, when explaining eligibility for a re-entry permit, it might now say “If you are a permanent resident alien who will be outside the U.S. for over a year…” etc.

Formatting:

Aside from the title change and removal of the nonbinary checkbox, formatting is similar. The edition is 01/20/25; prior editions (which were dated 08/24/22, for example) are acceptable only until April 4, 2025 uscis.gov. After that, any submission must use the new form or it will be rejected.

Form N-400 – Application for Naturalization

Gender Field:

Old Version – The N-400 asks for the applicant’s gender as part of their biographical information. Under the 2023 edition, it likely offered “Male,” “Female,” or “Another Gender Identity.”

New Version – Only “Male” or “Female” can be selected, removing the inclusive option. This is a straightforward change on the form’s first page.

Terminology:

Old Version – Generally, the N-400 form and instructions refer to the applicant as “you” (since it’s filled out by the applicant themselves) and didn’t often use the term “noncitizen” except perhaps in describing eligibility (e.g., “a noncitizen national of the U.S. may also use this form”).

New Version – Any references in instructions to “noncitizen” or “foreign national” are replaced with “alien.” Importantly, the USCIS Policy Manual on citizenship was updated to use “alien” for lawful permanent residents where appropriate uscis.gov, and the N-400 instructions align with that. For example, discussion of continuous residence might refer to time the “alien has spent outside the US” in legal terms. The oath and substantive eligibility questions (about good moral character, loyalty, etc.) are unchanged.

Other Content:

No new questions were added to the naturalization application. The controversial 2020 civics test changes were already dealt with separately; this form update does not introduce anything new on that front. It is purely an edition update for consistency with the new administration’s standards.

Formatting:

The form retains the same number of pages and sections (information about residence, employment, trips abroad, moral character, etc.). The edition date is updated to 01/20/25, and USCIS will require this version for any applications post-April 4, 2025 (with the previous edition accepted through April 3, 2025) uscis.gov.

Form I-356 – Request for Cancellation of Public Charge Bond

Purpose:

This form is used to cancel a public charge bond that was posted on behalf of an immigrant. (Public charge bonds were seldom used in recent years, since the 2019 public charge rule that introduced them was vacated; however, a few cases might still have bonds in place, and the new administration could use this mechanism again in future policy.)

Changes:

Old vs New – The content remains focused on requesting bond cancellation, which requires showing the immigrant has either naturalized, left the U.S., died, or has been a resident for 5 years without becoming a public charge uscis.gov. The new edition likely updates terminology, referring to the bonded individual as an “alien” (e.g., “once the alien has become a U.S. citizen, you may request cancellation of the bond”). The form did not have a gender field in the past (it primarily identifies the individual by name and A-Number), so the gender binary issue is not directly relevant here. No structural changes were made; it’s a simple form.

Formatting:

Same format, with updated edition date 01/20/25. Initially, only the new form would be accepted, but after outcry, the prior edition is accepted until March 24, 2025 aila.org. The mailing address and filing instructions remain the same. The instructions continue to cite the legal authority for bond cancellation (INA 213, 8 CFR 103.6) uscis.gov and direct where to file uscis.gov, unchanged except for using “alien” consistently.

Aside from the specific points above, all these forms now carry the edition date 01/20/25, reflecting approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on that date. USCIS typically prints the edition date at the bottom of each page of the form. Applicants must ensure all pages of the form they submit are from the same edition and that none are missing uscis.gov. USCIS has warned it will reject filings that mix pages from old and new editions or have missing pages. In summary, the old versions vs. new versions differ mainly in two areas: (1) removal of certain fields/options (gender identity) and (2) word substitutions (alien vs noncitizen). Structurally and legally, the forms ask for the same information and have the same filing scope as before, with minimal formatting tweaks (such as revised titles or updated form numbers on each page). Applicants and petitioners must use the new versions going forward, as prior editions will be rejected after the brief grace periods noted above aila.org.

The recent form changes affect a wide range of applicant categories in the U.S. immigration system. Below is an analysis of how different groups are impacted:

Employment-Based Applicants

Forms Affected:

Employment-based immigrants and nonimmigrants are primarily touched by changes to Form I-485 and its supplements (for those adjusting status based on a job offer or labor certification) and Form I-131 (Advance Parole for those with pending employment-based AOS). Additionally, if they later naturalize, the N-400 changes apply. Employment-based applicants filing petitions like Form I-140 or Form I-129 are indirectly affected to a lesser extent (those forms had been updated earlier for the 2024 fee rule uscis.gov and already use “alien” in their titles, e.g. Petition for Alien Worker).

Adjustment of Status (I-485): Many high-skilled workers (H-1B, L-1, etc.) transitioning to permanent residence through employer sponsorship must file Form I-485. These applicants now need to use the updated I-485 edition aila.org. Substantively, there is no change to eligibility – their ability to adjust status is the same. However, they should be aware that if they previously would have selected an “X” gender marker, they no longer can. In practice, most employment-based applicants will simply check “Male” or “Female” as appropriate, so this change has minimal impact on the majority, except for non-binary individuals (discussed below). More significantly, employment-based filers (and their attorneys) must ensure they submit the correct form edition, since any old version filed after the cutoff date will be rejected, potentially jeopardizing time-sensitive green card processes. This is especially critical for cases nearing visa number availability deadlines or age-out situations. In short, the impact is mostly procedural – they need to download and use the new forms immediately to avoid delays.
Supplement J (Job Offer Confirmation): Applicants with pending employment-based I-485 cases changing jobs under AC21 portability or completing the process must submit Supplement J. The changes here (terminology) do not affect the substance of job portability or verification of an offer. Employers and immigrants just need to use the new form and will notice the language now refers to the worker as an “alien” again. There is no policy change in how USCIS adjudicates job offer validity; it’s purely a formality of using the new edition.
Nonimmigrant Workers and Sponsors: Forms like the I-129 (used for H-1B, L-1, O-1, etc.) were not part of this immediate update cycle (they were recently updated in 2024 for new fees). However, employers petitioning for nonimmigrant workers should keep an eye on form instructions and policy terminology – USCIS policy guidance now uses “alien” throughout, which could signal future form revisions for these categories as well uscis.gov. For now, the main impact on nonimmigrant employment-based cases is indirect: if any supporting forms (e.g., an I-134 for a work visa holder’s dependents or an I-131 for travel on advance parole) are needed, those must be the new versions.
Nonbinary / Transgender Applicants in EB category: A small but important subset of employment-based applicants – those who identify as nonbinary or transgender – could feel a personal impact. If an applicant’s gender identity does not fit “male” or “female,” they must now choose one for the purposes of the form. This could cause discomfort or concern about mismatched records. For example, a transgender applicant who has an “X” gender on their passport might now have to select “Male” or “Female” on the I-485, which could create a discrepancy. USCIS has not issued specific guidance for this scenario, but the practical advice is to select the gender that corresponds to other official documents (passport, birth certificate, etc.) to minimize confusion. While this is a cross-cutting issue affecting all categories, employment-based applicants tend to have representation (lawyers or employer HR) who can guide them through it. They should also be aware that leaving the gender field blank is not advisable – it could trigger a rejection or RFE. In summary, for EB applicants, compliance with the new form versions is the key impact; their substantive immigration process (priority dates, eligibility for visas) is unchanged.

Family-Based Applicants

Forms Affected:

Family-based immigrants use many of the updated forms as well: Form I-485 (for those applying for green cards through marriage, parents, children, etc.), possibly Supplement A (245(i) cases in family context), Form I-130 (Petition for Alien Relative, which notably already uses “Alien” in its title – it wasn’t updated in this round, but it’s worth noting the terminology was always traditional there), Form I-134 (used by some family-based applicants for financial support in cases where the I-864 is not required, such as K-1 fiancé(e) visa stage or certain parole programs), and Form I-131 (advance parole for those with pending family AOS, or re-entry permits for LPRs). Also, if they later naturalize, N-400 changes apply.

Adjustment of Status (I-485): Spouses, parents, children, and other relatives adjusting status in the U.S. must use the new I-485 edition aila.org just like employment-based applicants. The impact here is procedural (use the correct form) and linguistic. There is no change to who qualifies for adjustment (e.g. immediate relatives remain immediate relatives), and the form questions are the same. Family applicants should be mindful that if they prepare forms in advance (for example, some applicants might have filled out an I-485 weeks or months ago while gathering documents), they will need to discard any old version and refiled on the new 01/20/25 version or risk rejection. Given that family-based cases often involve petitions and forms for multiple people (e.g., a U.S. citizen petitioner, a beneficiary, possibly derivative children), using the latest forms for each is critical – although the I-130 petition itself was not part of this specific update, the I-485 and others are. The use of “alien” on the I-485 may feel jarring to applicants (especially since the previous administration had shifted to the friendlier “noncitizen”), but there is no negative legal effect – it’s a stylistic/regulatory term. Applicants might notice terms like “alien registration number” on forms and instructions, which had been called “USCIS number” by some – this is essentially the same A-Number they’ve always had.
Financial Support Forms (I-864 vs I-134): The primary affidavit of support for most family immigrants is Form I-864, which was not updated in this batch (and it already uses “sponsor” and “alien” terminology mandated by law). However, Form I-134 was updated. Family-based applicants may encounter I-134 in certain situations: for example, a U.S. citizen petitioner brings a fiancé(e) on a K-1 visa – at the visa interview the petitioner must provide Form I-134 to show capability to financially support the fiancé(e). Those petitioners now must use the new I-134 edition (with “alien” language and no third gender option). Similarly, if a family-based immigrant is paroled into the U.S. for humanitarian reasons, sponsors may have used I-134 (as was done under programs like Uniting for Ukraine or parole for Venezuelans, etc. before I-134A existed). Going forward, any use of I-134 must be on the new form. The impact on these family sponsors is minor: they need to download the new form and fill it out, and they might notice the language shift (the person being supported is referred to as an “alien” on the form). There’s no change in the financial criteria or required evidence (pay stubs, bank statements) for support.
Biographic Information (G-325A): In the past, spouses filing I-130 petitions had to submit Form G-325A for themselves and the beneficiary to provide biographic history. That requirement was eliminated a few years ago when forms were streamlined. The G-325A is now back but only for deferred action cases – typical family-based applicants do not need to submit a G-325A with an I-130 or I-485 in 2025 (the biographic info is already captured in those forms). So for most family-based immigrants, the reissuance of G-325A has no direct impact. It’s targeted to deferred action contexts (likely U visa waitlists, etc.).
Immigrant Visa (Consular) Applicants: Those pursuing family visas via consular processing aren’t directly using USCIS forms like the I-485, but they might use I-864 and DS-260 (State Department forms). The DS-260 (online immigrant visa application) is a State Department form that did allow an “X” gender marker. If the State Department follows the lead of USCIS and the administration’s policy, consular applicants might see changes in the visa application process as well (though as of this update, the State Department had already removed the “X” from passports). For now, the main effect is if a consular applicant’s petitioner had to submit any USCIS form (e.g., an I-130 or I-864 or I-134) – they need to ensure those are on current editions. Petitioners for family visas should double-check the USCIS Forms Updates page before sending forms to NVC or USCIS.

Overall, family-based applicants experience similar impacts as employment-based: the need to comply with new form editions immediately, and a reversion in language. There may be an emotional or psychological impact for some – for instance, some applicants or petitioners might feel the return of the word “alien” is less welcoming. Practically, however, their cases will not be judged differently because of these form changes. It’s crucial they use the new forms to avoid rejections that could separate families or delay reunification.

Asylum Seekers and Humanitarian Applicants

Forms Affected:

Asylum seekers and refugee applicants are not directly filing forms like I-485 or I-918 at the initial stage, but humanitarian categories are broadly impacted by several updated forms:

Form I-589 (Application for Asylum) was not updated in this batch (asylum seekers continue to use the existing edition). However, if an asylum seeker later applies for a green card after one year of asylum status, they will use the updated I-485 (with the new requirements).
Refugees and asylees applying for a Refugee Travel Document use Form I-131, which is updated as described (binary gender only, new title) and must be the new edition.
Form I-918 (U visa for crime victims) and Form I-914 (T visa for trafficking victims) were directly updated and have significant humanitarian applicant populations.
Form I-192 (waiver of inadmissibility) is often filed by U and T applicants (and VAWA self-petitioners if they need a waiver) – this form is updated and affects those populations.
Form I-134 could be used by supporters of certain humanitarian parole programs (for example, family reunification parole or others) – those supporters now need the new form.
TPS (Temporary Protected Status) applicants use Form I-821 (not in this update cycle) and DACA recipients use Form I-821D (also not updated now). But if TPS holders adjust status or apply for advance parole, the new forms apply.
Asylum Seekers (Form I-589): No immediate change to the asylum application form itself at this time. Asylum seekers can continue to file the existing I-589. However, they should be aware of the broader policy environment: the USCIS Policy Manual and communications now refer to applicants as “aliens” again uscis.gov, which could signal future form or policy tweaks. More pressing is for asylees/refugees who need to travel: they must use the new I-131 for Refugee Travel Documents – a critical document for those who fled persecution and need a passport-substitute. Using an outdated I-131 could result in rejection and loss of travel opportunity.
U Visa Applicants (Victims of Crime): U visa seekers (who are often in the U.S. waiting in a long backlog) must now ensure any new Form I-918 they submit (or any re-filing) is on the 01/20/25 edition uscis.gov. For those already with pending cases, the main impact is if they had an RFE or need to submit an updated form (or if filing for extension of status, etc.) – they should use the new form. The removal of the gender identity option can be sensitive: LGBTQ+ individuals, including some U visa applicants who are victims of hate crimes or domestic violence, may have identified as nonbinary or transgender. They will now face the same challenge of selecting a binary gender on forms. This could cause distress or fear that their identity is not recognized by the system. While this doesn’t change the merits of their case, it’s an additional hurdle in an already difficult process. Advocates may need to counsel these applicants to choose the option that best aligns with their other IDs to avoid confusion, and possibly note it in a cover letter if relevant. The use of “alien” in U visa instructions (for example, discussing inadmissibility waivers or eligibility requirements) does not change any benefits – U applicants are still eligible for work permits, deferred action, etc., as before. It’s largely a shift in tone and language.
T Visa Applicants (Victims of Trafficking): Similar to U applicants, T applicants (often also vulnerable individuals) must use the new I-914 form. The considerations are alike: making sure attorneys and organizations assisting trafficking victims are aware of the edition change (to avoid old forms being sent, which could lead to rejection of a trafficking victim’s application – a grave outcome if missed). The content changes won’t affect how a trafficking claim is evaluated; they’re administrative. T applicants often also file Form I-914, Supplement B (law enforcement endorsement) – that supplement likely did not change, but it should be submitted with the principal form which did change. So, coordination is needed to ensure the principal I-914 is current. As with U’s, nonbinary trafficking victims will now not see themselves represented in the gender field, which is an unfortunate step back inclusivity-wise and could be disheartening, though it does not reduce their eligibility.
VAWA Self-Petitioners: VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) self-petitioners use Form I-360 to petition. Form I-360 was not listed among the updated forms in this batch. However, VAWA beneficiaries often file for adjustment of status (I-485) or for advance parole (I-131) or inadmissibility waivers (I-601, I-212 if needed – those forms weren’t mentioned either). So indirectly, once a VAWA self-petitioner is filing for a green card, they face the new I-485 with the same gender/terminology changes. Additionally, if a VAWA self-petitioner has an approved petition but must wait for a visa number, they might use deferred action in the meantime – USCIS could require the new G-325A for deferred action cases, which might include some VAWA cases. So that is a potential impact: such individuals may be asked to submit a G-325A biographic form now, which previously wasn’t required, to facilitate background checks while on deferred action.
Humanitarian Parole Programs: In recent years, USCIS rolled out special parole programs (for Ukrainians, Venezuelans, family reunification, etc.) using either Form I-134 or I-134A. The I-134 change (new edition) means supporters/sponsors in these programs must submit the new form where applicable. If they mistakenly use an old I-134, their sponsorship could be rejected, delaying parole for someone abroad in need. The impact is mainly on the paperwork side; there’s no change in criteria to be a supporter. It’s worth noting that these programs emphasized inclusivity before; now the language might be less so (using “alien” for beneficiaries), which could signal a shift in tone by the administration towards even humanitarian entrants.
Refugee/Asylee Derivatives & Travel: Refugees abroad and asylee/refugee family reunification cases (Forms I-730) are not directly changed. But a refugee who adjusts to a green card (after 1 year) uses I-485 (updated), and an asylee who needs to travel uses I-131 (updated). The impact on them is straightforward: use new forms, and be aware of terminology. Asylees and refugees generally are familiar with being called “aliens” in law, so that may not be surprising. Removing the “X” gender marker could be more impactful if any asylee had their sex listed as “X” on some documents (the State Department’s removal of “X” on passports might have already forced many to revert to binary for travel docs).

In summary, humanitarian applicants are impacted in ensuring form compliance and facing a less inclusive form format. The humanitarian category often has representation from non-profit legal service providers; those providers have had to mobilize quickly to update form packages and inform clients. The lack of a grace period initially was particularly concerning for this group – e.g., a pro se asylum seeker could easily mail an old I-131 and lose precious weeks. The slight grace period now in effect (till late March or early April for most forms) is helping mitigate immediate fallout, but going forward the new norms will apply to all humanitarian filings.

Investors and Entrepreneurs

Forms Affected:

The investor/entrepreneur community is primarily affected by the update to Form I-941, Application for Entrepreneur Parole aila.org. Additionally, some might use Form I-485 (for EB-5 investors adjusting status to permanent residence) and Form I-131 (if obtaining a re-entry permit or advance parole), and eventually N-400 for naturalization.

International Entrepreneur Parole (Form I-941): This form, used by startup founders to request parole to work on their startup in the U.S., was updated to the 01/20/25 edition aila.org with immediate effect (and now a short grace period to March 24, 2025).
Impact: Entrepreneurs applying for this program must use the new form; old editions will be rejected. The content changes mirror others: the form likely asks for the applicant’s biographical information including gender – now restricted to male/female. Any references to the entrepreneur in instructions (previously “individual” or “applicant”) might use “alien” (e.g., “alien entrepreneur”). The criteria for the parole (like ownership stake, capital investment raised, etc.) remain exactly the same, so the rule and evidence needed (proof of investment, proof of role in the startup) are unaffected. For many, the impact is minor: this is a relatively small population of highly educated entrepreneurs who will adapt to the form change easily. They should, however, ensure they have the correct edition when applying, especially since some may have been preparing applications under the assumption of the previous form. Any delay from using an outdated form could disrupt timing (for example, if someone’s NIV status is expiring and they need parole quickly).
EB-5 Investors (Form I-526 and I-829): Interestingly, the main investor green card forms (I-526 petition for investor and I-829 petition to remove conditions) were not part of this update. They likely still use their prior editions. However, EB-5 investors already see the term “alien” in the title of Form I-526 (“Immigrant Petition by Alien Entrepreneur”) – which was always there by statute. So in a sense, EB-5 processes already used traditional terminology and are unaffected by the language reversion. If an EB-5 investor is adjusting status in the U.S., they use Form I-485, which as described has changed. This means their adjustment application must be on the new form and if the investor was someone who would have used an “X” gender marker (perhaps rare in this category, but possible), they cannot now.
Impact on EB-5 cases: minimal beyond using the new form. Similarly, if an investor travels on advance parole or applies for a re-entry permit (many EB-5 investors travel frequently), they’ll need the new I-131.
E-2 Investors or Other Entrepreneurs: While not a USCIS immigrant benefit, some entrepreneurs in E-2 status might apply for a change of status or extension using Form I-129. The I-129 was updated last year for fees and likely already dropped the “gender identity” option or never had it. That aside, if any of these entrepreneurs have to file forms like I-131 (for travel documents) or eventually adjust status through a different category, they face the same changes as others.

In summary, investors and entrepreneurs face a straightforward adjustment: ensure the forms they use (notably I-941 for parole) are the latest version. They tend to have counsel and resources to stay updated, so the risk of using an old form is lower. The substantive requirements for their immigration benefits have not changed at all with these form updates.

Other Relevant Categories and Applicants

Beyond the groups above, a few additional categories worth mentioning:

Naturalization Applicants: Applicants for U.S. citizenship (often former employment-based or family-based immigrants) must use the new Form N-400 uscis.gov. The impact on them is minimal in terms of eligibility (no changes to requirements or questions), but they should be careful to use the new form to avoid rejection. Many citizenship applicants file on their own without attorneys, so they should double-check the form edition on USCIS’s website before filing. Those who might have difficulty with the binary gender requirement (e.g., a nonbinary legal permanent resident who waited to naturalize hoping to see “X” recognized) will have to select M or F now. This could also impact how they are scheduled for oath ceremonies (historically, some oath ceremony letters have “Mr.” or “Ms.” which correspond to gender on the form). It’s a small administrative detail, but one to be aware of.
DACA Recipients: While not directly touched by these updates (Forms I-821D and I-765 for DACA weren’t updated in this batch), DACA recipients often apply for Advance Parole using Form I-131 to travel abroad. So, DACA recipients seeking Advance Parole for educational or humanitarian reasons must use the new I-131. They should note the form’s new title includes “Parole Documents” explicitly, reaffirming that mechanism. The removal of the “gender identity” option is a setback for DACA recipients who identify as LGBTQ+, given DACA has a significant number of LGBTQ+ recipients. They must now navigate that issue like others. It’s possible USCIS will update the DACA forms in the near future similarly, so they should stay tuned.
Students and Exchange Visitors: F-1 or J-1 applicants don’t typically file USCIS forms to obtain status (they use consular DS-160/260 and SEVIS I-20/DS-2019). However, if they marry and file I-485, or if they later work and file for OPT EAD (Form I-765, which likely will be updated soon to remove the third gender option if it hasn’t already), they will encounter these changes. At present, Form I-765 was not listed, but we expect similar updates across all forms in due course. The impact on them is indirect but notable when it comes to OPT or change-of-status filings – they should be cognizant that USCIS forms are in flux and always verify they have the latest version.
Attorneys and Preparers: Though not an “applicant category,” it’s important to note the impact on legal preparers. Immigration attorneys and accredited representatives have had to scramble to update form software, inform clients of new signature requirements on different pages, and adjust filing practices within a matter of days. The lack of a grace period meant they risked filings getting rejected en masse. Many attorneys report that these abrupt changes caused anxiety for clients whose filings were already sent or about to be sent. The subsequent allowance of a short grace period (one month) has mitigated immediate harm aila.org, but lawyers must still quickly transition all their form templates to the new editions. In the short term, this has slightly increased legal costs or turnaround times, as extra care is needed to ensure compliance.

In conclusion, every category of immigrant or nonimmigrant is affected in the sense that USCIS forms now have a new baseline format and language. The most affected on a personal level are nonbinary and transgender applicants who lost a recognition option, and the most affected on a logistical level were those who had pending form filings during the change (they had to react swiftly). For most, the impact is manageable with proper attention: their eligibility for benefits is unchanged, but the administrative hurdle of using the correct and current form is now firmly in place for all.

Recommendations for Applicants

Given these changes, applicants and petitioners should take proactive steps to adapt. Below are actionable recommendations to ensure compliance and avoid delays or rejections:

1. Always Use the Latest Form Version:

As a rule, download fresh forms directly from the official USCIS website immediately before filing. Do not rely on old form packets or saved PDFs from previous filings. USCIS maintains a Forms Updates page uscis.gov and each form’s page lists the current “Edition Date.” Before submitting, verify that date against your form. If it’s not the current edition, obtain and fill out the new version. This practice is critical, as USCIS has made clear it will reject outdated forms after the grace period aila.org. For example, if you are applying for adjustment of status, ensure your Form I-485 is labeled “01/20/25” at the bottom. If using paper, make sure all pages show that same edition date uscis.gov. Keeping up with form updates can be challenging, so consider subscribing to USCIS email updates or regularly checking the USCIS Forms Updates page for announcements.

2. Double-Check Filing Instructions and Fees:

Review the form instructions for any changes in filing procedure. While the recent updates didn’t overhaul filing locations or add new evidence requirements, it’s wise to see if instructions have been revised. Sometimes even subtle wording changes can affect how you prepare your packet. For instance, if instructions now use certain terms, make sure any cover letter or explanation you provide aligns with those terms (e.g., use “alien” in referring to yourself if responding to a question in that language). Also, confirm the filing fee on the current USCIS Fee Schedule (Form G-1055), which was updated alongside these forms uscis.gov. New forms might reference different fee amounts if a fee rule change occurred. (In this case, fees largely remained as set by the April 2024 Fee Rule, but it’s good practice to check the Fee Schedule for any updates or the edition date of the fee list itself.) Using the wrong fee or an outdated fee schedule can lead to rejection just as surely as using an outdated form.

3. Fill Out Forms Completely and Accurately (No Blanks for Gender):

With the removal of the “Other” gender option, some applicants might be tempted to leave the gender question blank if they feel neither “M” nor “F” fits. Do not leave it blank. USCIS may view an unanswered required field as incomplete and could reject the application. The best practice is to choose the gender that matches your other official documents (passport, birth certificate, driver’s license) to maintain consistency. If you have an “X” gender marker on some documents, you may want to use the gender that appears on the majority of your IDs or on the ID you plan to use for immigration (like your passport). This helps avoid confusion in identity verification. If necessary, you can include a brief cover note explaining that you identify differently but selected the closest option for purposes of the form – though USCIS hasn’t said this is required, it could be helpful for your own peace of mind and to have it on record. Overall, ensure every required field on the form is answered; for any that truly don’t apply, follow the form instructions (some say write “N/A” or “None” where appropriate). Meticulous completeness will guard against rejections for “insufficient information.”

4. Anticipate and Prevent Rejection Issues:

Even with the grace period now in effect, treat the transition as immediate. USCIS has indicated it will use discretion to not reject older versions for a “reasonable period” aila.org, but that is not a guarantee. To avoid any risk:

- Purge old forms: Remove any old edition forms you have printed or saved, to prevent accidentally using them.
- Check A-Number format: The new forms emphasize the “Alien Registration Number.” Make sure you list your A-Number accurately and in the correct field. If the form now explicitly asks for an A-Number where an older form might have had a different label, be sure to provide it.
- Keep pagination intact: When printing, ensure that all pages are present and in order for the new form edition. USCIS scanning systems will reject packets with missing pages or mixed editions uscis.gov. For example, the I-485 is 20 pages in the new edition – include all 20, even if some sections don’t apply (mark them “N/A” rather than removing them).
- Sign and date: A new form edition still requires a signature. It sounds basic, but with changes afoot, applicants might forget a signature on a revised page. USCIS will reject any unsigned form immediately uscis.gov. So double-check that you (and your petitioner or sponsor, if applicable) have signed the correct lines on the new forms.

5. Plan for the End of Grace Periods:

The one-month grace periods for old forms are quickly closing (most end late March or early April 2025 uscis.gov, with a couple extending to early May for certain forms). If you have a filing deadline or expiring status that falls around those dates, aim to file well before the deadline with the new forms. Do not wait until the last day of the grace period; if USPS or courier delays your package, you could slip past the acceptance date and face rejection. It’s safest to immediately switch to the new forms. If, for instance, you have a response to an RFE due and you originally filled out an old form as part of that response, update it to the new version before sending. After the grace period, USCIS will reject prior editions outright aila.org, and you may not get a second chance if a deadline passes.

6. Leverage USCIS and Legal Resources:

Take advantage of available guidance:

- USCIS Resources: The USCIS website often provides alerts or news releases about form changes (e.g., the March 1, 2024 alert about new forms for the fee rule uscis.gov and subsequent updates). Review the “Newsroom” and “Alerts” section for any announcements related to forms. Also, each form’s page has a wealth of information – for example, the Form I-131 page details where to file and the last updated date uscis.gov, which can clue you in to changes. If confused about a form question (say the wording changed slightly and you’re not sure what they want), read the form’s instructions PDF thoroughly; USCIS updated them too and they often have examples or definitions.
- Legal Advice: If you are unsure how to complete the new forms, especially in light of these changes (e.g., you’re a transgender applicant worried about how this might affect your case), consult an immigration attorney or accredited representative. Many legal professionals have closely tracked these changes – AILA, for instance, issued practice alerts and even took legal action to ensure a smoother transition aila.org. Attorneys can provide personalized guidance, such as advising which gender marker to use in tricky situations or ensuring that using the term “alien” on forms has no adverse effect on any parallel processes (for example, some fear using “alien” could affect public charge perception, but attorneys can clarify that it will not – it’s just terminology). If cost is a concern, look for non-profit organizations or legal clinics; USCIS’s website has a “Find Legal Services” section with low-cost or free providers
  uscis.gov.
- Community and Official Q&A: USCIS sometimes hosts public engagements or publishes FAQs. For instance, with a major fee rule, they published FAQs which noted no grace period for certain new forms uscis.gov. Keep an eye out for any FAQ documents or USCIS social media posts clarifying these updates. They might address common concerns (such as “What if I already sent the old form? Do I need to refile?”). Early reports indicate USCIS was accepting some old forms in March 2025 as a courtesy aila.org, but this shouldn’t be relied upon. If you’re in that boat (having filed an old form recently), you might call the USCIS Contact Center to confirm if you need to take any action or if your filing will be accepted under the discretionary grace period.

7. Prepare for Potential Processing Delays:

Whenever forms change, USCIS intake operations may slow briefly as staff get used to new forms or as initial rejections get sorted out. Be mentally prepared for possible slight delays in receipt notices or even occasional mistaken rejections. If you receive a rejection that you believe is in error (for example, you used the correct form but it was rejected for wrong edition), act quickly: consult an attorney and re-submit with an explanatory note or contact USCIS. Keep copies of everything you send, including a copy of the form showing the edition date. Generally, by adhering strictly to the new requirements, you will minimize the chance of delay. Also, file as early as possible for time-sensitive benefits. For instance, if your work permit is expiring and you need to file a renewal, do it at the earliest eligibility date with the new form, so if something goes wrong, you have time to fix it.

8. Stay Informed on Future Changes:

These form updates came swiftly due to new executive directives. It’s possible there will be additional changes in the near future – for example, proposals to collect social media handles on immigration forms have been announced. That could lead to new form editions or supplements. Also, other forms not in this batch (like I-765 for employment authorization, or I-130) might be updated to align with the terminology policy. Regularly check USCIS announcements or follow reliable immigration news sources. For instance, the USCIS Policy Manual updates page shows the policy shift to “alien” uscis.gov, which foreshadowed the form changes – keeping an eye on such updates can give you a heads-up. Subscribing to organizations like AILA (if you’re a practitioner) or community newsletters, or even USCIS’s own email lists, can ensure you won’t be caught off guard by future updates.

9. Consider Impact on Personal Situation:

If you are an applicant who is directly affected by the language change (e.g., a nonbinary asylum seeker or a transgender immigrant in the middle of a process), consider reaching out to support networks. While it’s not a “form instruction,” taking care of the personal aspect is important. Advocacy groups have decried the removal of gender-inclusive options. They may offer resources or letters that can accompany your application to explain discrepancies in gender markers, etc. Though USCIS hasn’t provided a mechanism for that, being proactive in explaining and documenting your situation (where appropriate) might help down the line. For example, if your documentation is inconsistent (passport says “X” but you had to check “Female” on the form), keep evidence of why you chose what you did (maybe a copy of older USCIS guidance or this analysis) in case it’s ever questioned.

10. Monitor Your Case Status and Correspondence:

After filing with the new forms, watch for any USCIS notices. If USCIS accepts your application, you’ll get a receipt. If there’s an issue, they will send a rejection notice explaining why. Given the transitions, ensure your mailing address is up to date and check your mail (and email, if you filed online or provided it) frequently. Some applicants who filed just as the new forms rolled out might receive Requests for Evidence (RFEs) if anything was missing or unclear. For example, if you left the gender question blank, expect an RFE or rejection. Respond promptly to any RFE, and if it’s about something related to these changes (say an RFE asking to confirm a detail that changed on the form), respond with the requested info and reference the new form/instruction as needed. The key is to keep your case moving and address any hiccups caused by the transition.

By following these best practices, applicants can smoothly navigate the new form requirements. The overarching themes are: stay informed, be proactive, and pay attention to detail. While the form changes introduced some inconvenience and symbolism (like the return of “alien”), they need not derail your immigration journey. With careful preparation and perhaps guidance from legal professionals, you can ensure your application meets the new USCIS requirements and avoid the pitfalls of this transition period aila.org. Remember, USCIS ultimately wants the correct form with the correct fee – give them that, and you set the stage for your petition or application to be processed without unnecessary delay.

Finally, keep an eye on official USCIS channels for any further clarifications. If USCIS issues new guidance (for example, an official grace period announcement or FAQ), incorporate that into your plans. As of now, the best approach is to assume the new forms are mandatory and act accordingly. By doing so, you will position yourself for success despite the evolving administrative landscape.

Good luck with your application process, and don’t hesitate to seek expert advice for your specific situation if needed. With over two decades of experience in immigration law, me and my team is ready to assist you on your immigration journey. Call us for any questions at (305) 233-3110.

The post USCIS Issues New Form Editions Without Grace Period appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

Understanding Travel Permits for TPS and DACA Holders

Martha Arias — Fri, 08 Nov 2024 02:15:56 +0000

What You Need to Know in Light of the “Matter of Arrabally” and Recent Developments

The realm of immigration law is constantly evolving, and one area that has seen significant updates over the years is the use of travel permits or “advance parole” by individuals with specific immigration statuses like Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Temporary Protected Status (TPS). These travel permits allow individuals to leave the United States temporarily and return without triggering the severe penalties associated with unlawful presence—an issue that has critical implications for those seeking permanent residency or other legal immigration statuses.

In 2012, a landmark decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) called Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly fundamentally altered how travel permits affect the penalties of unlawful presence. This post examines that precedent, its application to DACA and TPS holders, and recent shifts in Department of State policies that add new layers of complexity for those considering international travel.

What Did Matter of Arrabally Decide?

The BIA’s decision in Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly addressed a key issue regarding advance parole or travel permits: when individuals with pending immigration cases or statuses travel outside the U.S. and return, do they “trigger” unlawful presence penalties.

The penalty for unlawful presence applies to individuals who remain in the United States without legal status for extended periods. Those unlawfully present for more than one year face a ten-year reentry ban if they leave the country, while those with unlawful presence between six months and one year face a three-year ban. The BIA’s decision in Matter of Arrabally clarified that leaving the U.S. on advance parole would not activate these penalties. Essentially, for immigration purposes, the trip is regarded as if the individual never left.

How Matter of Arrabally Affected DACA and TPS Holders

This decision was significant, particularly for DACA and TPS holders. Prior to 2012, advising these individuals to obtain a travel permit was uncommon due to the risk of facing the 3- or 10-year reentry bans upon return. However, Matter of Arrabally established that when a person leaves and re-enters the United States with a travel permit, they do not activate the penalties tied to unlawful presence.

As a result, many DACA and TPS holders used this legal clarification to their advantage, securing travel permits, leaving the country, and then re-entering to proceed with processes such as applying for residency. The decision provided greater flexibility and security, as these individuals could now travel without the fear of severe reentry penalties.

Recent Changes from the Department of State: A New Interpretation of Travel Permits

Despite the positive impact of Matter of Arrabally, recent developments have brought new complexities. As of September 2024, the Department of State has reinterpreted the application of travel permits in a way that has significant implications, especially for DACA and TPS holders looking to obtain nonimmigrant visas, such as H-1B professional visas.

According to the Department of State’s new interpretation, if a DACA or TPS holder travels abroad to obtain a nonimmigrant visa stamp at a U.S. consulate (for example, for an H-1B or another professional visa), their departure will now trigger the penalties associated with unlawful presence. The reasoning behind this is that the protection granted by Matter of Arrabally only applies to those returning to adjust their status, rather than those leaving to obtain a nonimmigrant visa.

This means that while Matter of Arrabally still protects individuals traveling with a permit to re-enter the U.S. for adjustment of status, it no longer shields those departing to secure a visa for a nonimmigrant purpose.

What This Means for DACA and TPS Holders

For DACA and TPS holders, this recent interpretation introduces a significant complication. A person who, under the previous understanding, might have expected to return smoothly may now face additional challenges upon reentry if they traveled for a nonimmigrant visa. Specifically, they may need to request a waiver known as the 212(d)(3) waiver to mitigate the effects of unlawful presence. This waiver application process can be time-consuming, potentially prolonging their stay abroad while awaiting approval.

This change has a notable impact on individuals who might, for instance, have an employment-based visa petition and plan to go to a U.S. consulate for their visa stamp. Previously, such a scenario wouldn’t trigger unlawful presence penalties under the understanding provided by Matter of Arrabally. However, the Department of State’s new stance means that these individuals may need to navigate additional legal steps, like applying for a 212(d)(3) waiver, before they can re-enter the U.S. without complications.

Why Consulting an Attorney Before Traveling is Crucial

Given the complexities of this new interpretation, it is imperative for DACA or TPS holders considering travel for nonimmigrant visa purposes to consult with an experienced immigration attorney before making any plans to leave the country. A knowledgeable attorney can help evaluate the specific circumstances and advise on the potential need for a waiver or any other actions required to avoid triggering the penalties associated with unlawful presence.

This new guidance also serves as a reminder that immigration law is dynamic, with policies and interpretations shifting over time. What may have been applicable or advisable in one year could change significantly the next. Staying informed of these changes is essential to making informed decisions that safeguard one’s legal status and avoid unintended immigration consequences.

Conclusion

The Matter of Arrabally decision remains a critical element of immigration law for individuals with travel permits, especially those adjusting status upon return to the United States. However, the recent interpretation by the Department of State has added a significant caveat to this understanding for DACA and TPS holders seeking nonimmigrant visas. Given the potential for extended stays abroad and the need for additional waivers, consulting with an immigration attorney is more important than ever for those in these categories.

If you are a DACA or TPS holder considering international travel for a visa stamping or other purposes, reach out to a knowledgeable immigration attorney to ensure you understand how the latest policies may affect you. We are here to provide guidance and clarity on these complex issues, helping you navigate your immigration journey with confidence and security.

The post Understanding Travel Permits for TPS and DACA Holders appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

¡Hablemos de Inmigración! – 11.05.2024

Martha Arias — Wed, 06 Nov 2024 02:49:16 +0000

HABLEMOS DE INMIGRACIÓN CON MARTHA ARIAS
11.05.2024

In our latest Instagram Live session with Actualidad Radio, I discussed crucial updates in immigration law, including recent changes from the U.S. Department of State that impact individuals with DACA or TPS planning to travel on an advance parole permit. We clarified that while USCIS allows travel without triggering penalties, the Department of State now requires certain travelers to apply for a waiver, which could delay their return. I also explained key issues with bond returns for detained immigrants, recent updates to the labor certification process for employment-based visas, and how these affect families and employers alike. It’s essential to consult a qualified immigration attorney to navigate these evolving regulations. For any questions or guidance, feel free to contact my office.

For those who couldn’t join us live, don’t worry! You can catch up on the entire conversation on my Instagram account, Martha_Arias98, where the video will remain available. We’re also expanding our reach; you can now find us on YouTube @AriasVilla and on Spotify under “Immigration with Attorney Martha Arias.” Stay connected with us on social media for more updates and valuable information.

If you have any immigration-related questions or need personalized legal advice, feel free to contact my office at (305) 671-0018 or visit my website at ariasvilla.com. I’m here to help you navigate your immigration journey. Don’t hesitate to schedule a consultation—we look forward to assisting you! See you next time!

Míralo en YouTube

Míralo en Instagram

¿Tienes preguntas sobre las nuevas leyes de inmigración en Florida? Contáctanos.

LLAMAR

Mon & Thu | 9:00 AM – 5:30 PM
Tue & Wed | 9:00 AM – 6:00 PM
Friday | 9:00 AM – 3:00 PM

ENVIAR CORREO

Los correos serán respondidos debidamente.

LET’S TALK ABOUT IMMIGRATION

A live program, where every Tuesday at 5 pm, Juan Camilo Gómez from Actualidad Radio team up with immigration law attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq. to clear all your doubts about immigration issues. Tune in Actualidad Radio on 1040 AM and 103.9 FM.

WATCH US ON INSTAGRAM

WATCH US ON YOUTUBE

LISTEN TO OUR PODCASTS

Follow us on social media

English Transcript

Juan Camilo:
Thank you for joining us for another Instagram Live from Actualidad.Radio. In a few minutes, we will be connecting with attorney Martha Arias. She is an expert in immigration matters and will be addressing some of the most important topics in the national immigration landscape. So, if you are watching this in your feed, it’s likely a replay of a live session that we do almost every Tuesday with Martha Arias around 5 PM Miami time. If not, don’t worry, this will be published on the account of Actualidad.Radio and also on Martha Arias’s account, which we invite you to follow, it’s Martha_Arias98, Martha with an h in the middle.

This will be a space where we talk about immigration, and later, we will discuss other topics like the presidential election, what comes after Election Day, November 5th, and many other issues. But for now, this is a great alternative, a great option for any immigration-related questions. So, if you have any concerns about a process of yours that is delayed, if you’re worried that something might change depending on which candidate wins or what will happen from now until the next president of the United States takes office, or if you have doubts, especially, for example, if you are beneficiaries of a program you believe might end soon like CBP-1, or if you’ve started processes and haven’t seen progress, or if you are dealing with issues like a work permit that hasn’t arrived yet.

There are many topics related to immigration, and we will address many of those questions in this Instagram Live. In a second, Martha Arias will join us, but we invite you now to leave your comment in the box below. You can ask your questions there. For those not very familiar with her, she is one of the most renowned, media-friendly attorneys in all of South Florida, and she is now connected with us at this time.

Attorney, thank you for joining us again. I see you have a sticker showing you participated in the electoral process today. Did you go vote today?

Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq.:
Yes, Juan Camilo. Good afternoon. Greetings to you and to all the people who are connected here on Instagram with Actualidad Radio and on my account, Martha_Arias98. Well, and for those who see us after today, because we obviously leave the program recorded, we are here today on Election Day, and I already voted.

Juan Camilo:
Well, that’s great. For those who haven’t done it yet, you still have time to go until seven in the evening; you can participate in this electoral process. So, a very, very important invitation, attorney, but of course, it’s also a good time to disconnect from the electoral buzz, and let’s talk for a bit about all things related to immigration. Let’s take advantage of having the attorney with us to clear up some doubts. Attorney, perhaps we could start with the interpretation that the Department of State is making regarding traveling with a permit…

Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq.:
Juan Camilo, before that, let me give a bit of an explanation. I think it’s extremely important for people to understand this new interpretation released by the Department of State. This interpretation came out in September. They haven’t publicized it much because it’s difficult for us, as lawyers, to explain it in simple terms to people. But I’m going to explain it today and share this Instagram video with family or friends who are in this situation because it is extremely important. It is one of the most important things I have read in recent months, even this semester. I will explain, Juan Camilo, so that people understand me.

In 2012, a case came out from the Board of Immigration Appeals called “Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly”. So, in “Matter of Arrabally”, the Appeals Board said that “People who travel outside of the United States with an “advance parole”, or travel permit, do not activate the penalty of unlawful presence.”

The penalty for unlawful presence is what states that a person will face a 10-year ban and cannot return to the United States if they have been in the U.S. unlawfully for more than a year. In that case, the ban is 10 years. If they’ve been in the U.S. for less than a year but more than six months, the penalty is three years.

So, “Matter of Arrabally” stated that if a person leaves with this travel permit and then returns they will not trigger unlawful presence because that trip is considered as if they never left. The people who use this travel permit the most, leave, and then return to continue any process, including applying for residency, are typically TPS and DACA holders. Before 2012, we wouldn’t recommend that they get a travel permit because if they left, it triggered these 10 or 3-year penalties. But “Matter of Arrabally” came in 2012 and said that from now on, if they leave with this travel permit, they will not activate the penalty. Before 2012, they did. So, that’s how it has been applied. Many people, TPS holders, and even DACA holders, got their travel permits, left the United States, and then returned to apply for residency. But recently, especially among DACA holders, Juan Camilo, many people don’t have an American citizen spouse or child to obtain residency through, so they may have a petition from an employer.

So, if that person leaves the United States with a travel permit, goes to the consulate and applies, for example, for an H-1B visa, which is a professional visa, they go to the consulate to have the visa stamped and then re-enter. Previously, this person technically wouldn’t trigger unlawful presence and could come back smoothly. What’s the new development after all this? Because I want people to understand this—it’s complex.

The new information is that in September, the Department of State said, if a person for example, a DACA holder, goes to the consulate to have their passport stamped with a professional visa like an H-1B or some other work visa. That person, upon leaving, activates unlawful presence because they will have to return with a different visa, a residence visa. And “Matter of Arrabally” applies only to those who are in the United States, leave with a travel permit, and then re-enter to adjust their status. The Department of State believes it does not apply to those who go to have a nonimmigrant visa stamped at the consulate.

This is extremely important, Juan Camilo. Now, this does not mean that these people will be abandoned there, no. It just means they will have to apply for a waiver which is the “212(d)(3)“, a waiver they will need to request, but this will extend their stay in that country as they wait for approval, delaying their return. So, it’s extremely important that if someone with DACA or TPS plans to go to the consulate to receive a nonimmigrant visa, they consult with a competent attorney before leaving; because they could encounter this issue. At least as of November 2024, this is the new interpretation. This interpretation is new because the Department of State had never said this before; people started to see cases of people going to the consulate, facing denials, or being asked for this waiver. This new interpretation arose from those cases, Juan Camilo.

Juan Camilo:
It’s a great opportunity, attorney, to have you explain this. And I’m sure many of us only half-understood it. What’s important here is, imagine, if an expert immigration attorney is telling us how difficult this process can be, think about how challenging it is for someone who isn’t an expert. Many decisions can be confusing. And maybe to understand it more practically, for those of us who are not immigration experts, sometimes we think, “Oh, I can travel because I know the rule is this.” But sometimes those conditions are modified and were previously, “Yes, you can travel,” and now they’re not. The key is that when we’re in an immigration process and planning any type of travel, for whatever reason, we should consult expert immigration attorneys. Because these processes, which can be lengthy and costly, related to our immigration status, can be at risk. They can be delayed or face complications if we don’t understand. Literally, because we’re not attorneys.

Someone buys a ticket six months ago, and when it’s time to travel, the rules have changed. That’s not the airport’s fault, nor the airline’s, and they won’t be liable. So that’s why consulting an attorney is so important. We do this segment every week with Martha Arias because we know how important it is. That’s why we always list her website and phone number here below, (305) 671-0018.

If you have any of these immigration issues, consult with her, consult with an expert immigration attorney. Don’t assume you know just because, for instance, “my brother traveled with similar conditions a year ago, so I know it’s allowed.” No, no. We think we know, and it turns out we don’t.

Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq.:
Exactly. Juan Camilo, the importance of what you just said and what I’m explaining is recently, the Immigration Service also updated the immigration manual it publishes on its website. In that manual, the Immigration Service restates the interpretation of “Matter of Arrabally”, stating that if a person has a travel permit, leaves, and returns, they do not incur unlawful presence. That is the interpretation of USCIS, the “Citizenship and Immigration Services” here in the United States. But at the consular level, consulates depend, although consulates apply immigration law, of course, they depend on another department, the Department of State.

So, what happens? The Department of State can also have its interpretation of “Matter of Arrabally”. This is what’s happening right now. So, look, we have two agencies with different interpretations of the same case. Each interprets it within its jurisdiction. So, in this case, the Department of State is adopting this position, and this is extremely delicate, I repeat, for those planning to travel, especially those using a service provider or a notary. When a notary says, “Oh yes, of course for DACA or TPS, we can get you a travel permit. Of course, let me do it for you, it’ll cost two bucks, and here it is, all set, goodbye.” When the person leaves and encounters issues, that notary or that service provider won’t be there to help. That’s where we, as attorneys, come in to resolve these problems that could have been avoided had they consulted a competent attorney, an informed immigration lawyer who knows what’s happening. Very important.

Juan Camilo:
If you have any questions on immigration topics, you can leave them in the comment box below. We’ll address them live with attorney Martha Arias. If we don’t get to answer them, don’t worry, we’ve also listed her office phone number below, (305) 671-0018. You can call her at that number, make an appointment, or visit her website, AriasVilla.com and above you’ll also find attorney Martha Arias’s Instagram page, which is Martha_Arias98, Martha with an h in the middle.

Attorney, now that we’re in the midst of the presidential election, a topic that caught attention is the figure of Elon Musk. Elon Musk, the billionaire from Tesla and all these tech companies made news this week because it was reported that when he arrived in the United States, he may have worked without having the authorization to do so. What exactly happened? How can an example like this be illustrative?

Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq.:
Yes, indeed, I think this is an excellent topic because, although this supposedly happened to Elon Musk we’re talking about a situation that could happen to anyone. It appears, and I say “it appears” because I haven’t reviewed this person’s record, that Mr. Musk entered with a J-1 visa. The J-1 is a student visa, but for practical training. For example, if you come to study aviation, which is a career usually not academic but practical, you can enter with a J there are also, for instance, doctors who enter to do their residencies, their studies with a J visa. Mr. Musk seems to have entered with a J visa and later transitioned to an H-1B visa, which is for professionals, and over time, he obtained his residency through employment, known as “Employment-Based Petitions”, or residency through an employment petition and then he became a citizen.

What happened? In some interview or media outlet, he said that he had worked in the United States, or someone mentioned he worked in the U.S. without work authorization. So, everyone, including many immigration attorneys, started questioning his legal status. Why? Here’s what happens:

Now, I’m not talking specifically about Mr. Musk’s case; I’m speaking hypothetically, in general, for anyone who might be in this situation. If a person enters with a J visa and works without authorization and later changes to H-1B and doesn’t mention they worked without authorization, they can be accused of fraud because, in the H-1B petition, they’re asked if they worked, and of course, they’re not allowed to work without a permit. If they say they didn’t work, but they actually did, then they’re lying.

Now, another point is that people who usually switch from one nonimmigrant visa to another within the United States, even if they don’t go out to the consulate to have it stamped, are still required to tell the truth in their application. When someone lies, immigration considers them inadmissible for “misrepresentation“. There is a section of the law called “fraud” or “misrepresentation“, which means that if a person commits fraud or lies to the U.S. government to obtain an immigration benefit, that person is inadmissible under the law.

Inadmissible means they cannot receive residency. So, that’s the story with Mr. Musk, which could be similar to that of many people who haven’t disclosed certain jobs.

Juan Camilo:
Okay, but then, without speaking specifically about Elon Musk, staying with this hypothetical, if someone worked when they weren’t supposed to, because they didn’t have permission, and then changes their status, and evidence shows they lied, could their residency be revoked, or could their citizenship be reversed, or is it permanent by then?

Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq.:
Yes, they can indeed do that. The Immigration Statute has a section detailing when a person’s naturalization can be revoked. Now, it’s not easy, Juan Camilo; this is a process that must begin in a U.S. Federal District Court by Immigration Services. Immigration Services, through their attorneys, initiates a denaturalization process.

There are three situations where denaturalization can be requested. One of them is due to fraud, when the person committed fraud during the process. It’s also possible in terrorism cases or cases where there is a threat to national security, where a person can be denaturalized. So, first, a denaturalization process would have to be initiated obviously, then they would revoke the person’s possible residency, and after that, the person could be deported.

There are few cases in the United States where a person has actually been denaturalized. There are some, but it’s not as common as deportation processes, which are massive, numbering in the millions. Denaturalization is not the same, but it does happen.

Juan Camilo:
Interesting. If you have any questions about immigration issues and we don’t manage to address them, or if we’re unable to address them due to the news we’re covering, you can leave your questions in the comment box. We’ll cover them another time, or of course, you can call attorney Martha Arias at the phone number listed below, (305) 671-0018, or visit AriasVilla.com, which is her official website, and it’s probably a very easy way to make an appointment with her to sit down and discuss your concerns. You can also follow her on Instagram at Martha_Arias98, Martha with an h in the middle.

Attorney, could you tell us about the news regarding a class action lawsuit filed in New York against ICE for returning bond money to a number of people?

Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq.:
Yes, Juan Camilo, this is an interesting topic, and I think similar situations could arise in other states. When a person posts bond so an immigrant can be released from detention, that bond can be returned if the immigrant attends all hearings.

This group of people filed a lawsuit against ICE, claiming that ICE holds an average of over 300 million dollars in bonds that it does not return. They allege that these millions in bonds are held back due to a series of obstacles and denials.

There is a well-defined process for how bonds can be returned to people, and they must follow this process. The bond can only be returned to the person who posted it. Here’s an example: if Pedro is detained in a detention center, and Juan is the family member who posts the bond for Pedro, the bond will only be returned to Juan, who is the U.S. citizen or resident who provided or paid that bond. They will not give it to Pedro, even though he’s the person who was released.

So, what happens? People need to be aware of this. Sometimes immigration, in certain states, makes it complicated to return this money. People talk about bond returns taking over a year, with many waiting over a year for ICE to return their money. So, it’s interesting to follow this lawsuit. We’ll update you as soon as there’s a decision.

Juan Camilo:
What a nightmare. When we talk about these bonds, how much are we talking about? People post bond to release someone from jail and later expect the money back. But these bonds can be any amount, right? Thousands of dollars?

Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq.:
Exactly, the average bond in the United States is around $6,000. That’s an average. Some bonds are set at $2,000 or $3,000, while others are set as high as $15,000 or $20,000. So, it can be quite a bit of money. Juan Camilo, I’ve seen bonds—I thank God I’ve never had a client pay that much—but I’ve heard that some judges have set immigration bonds as high as $40,000 or $45,000, which is crazy because immigration typically doesn’t deal in such high amounts. Here in South Florida, average bonds are usually between $8,000 and $10,000. That’s typical. There was a time, for instance, when the Pompano detention center was often setting bonds at $15,000 or $20,000; but generally, the national average is around $6,000. That’s why they estimate that the plaintiffs in this class action lawsuit—this group of people who came together for this lawsuit—are collectively owed more than 300 million dollars in bond returns.

Juan Camilo:
But the idea is that if someone is detained and released on bond, I can pay the bond for that person, and they’re released, and when the process ends, I get my money back. Is that basically it?

Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq.:
That’s correct. However, many people do not use a bail bondsman, which is a company that posts bond on their behalf. Many people post the money in cash. So, ICE would need to return that money in cash. It’s a nightmare.

Juan Camilo:
But anyway, if you have immigration questions, remember that you can call the phone number listed below, Martha Arias’s phone number, (305) 671-0018, or visit the website AriasVilla.com. Before we wrap up, attorney, I’d like to ask what a labor certification is, what it isn’t, and how someone can obtain residency through a labor certification?

Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq.:
Labor certification. This is a very interesting topic, Juan Camilo, because it’s complex. It’s a process provided by the Immigration Statute, allowing a person with a job offer from a U.S. employer to follow this process.

It first begins with the Department of Labor. In short, labor certification is a process with the Department of Labor, where they approve a labor certification, which basically certifies that “the company conducted a selection process, making the job available to U.S. citizens and residents”. If no one applied, there’s a report from the employer stating that no one applied. But if people did apply, the report must explain why those U.S. citizens or residents who applied were not eligible. It could be that they lacked qualifications, the profile the employer sought, or the experience or training. Next, the employer also certifies a salary, known as the “Prevailing Wage” set by the employer. This ensures there is no pay disparity between what is paid to foreign workers versus U.S. citizens or residents.

In other words, it prevents American salaries from being undercut by foreign workers. Once the Department of Labor certifies the salary, selection process, and report, they approve the labor certification. Then, the employer can file a permanent employment petition, an I-140, with immigration; so that this employee can come to the U.S. as a permanent worker.

So, the labor certification process is complex, Juan Camilo. It requires a competent attorney experienced in these types of cases to guide people through it.

Juan Camilo:
And it doesn’t sound like something you could complete with a simple form. It sounds like you really need professional guidance.

Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq.:
Indeed, let me tell you. I’ve had cases in my office where the companies are reputable, legitimate, needing these employees, and the foreign employee has the right qualifications, but the labor certification is poorly handled by a service provider or someone who isn’t a lawyer. When it gets to the I-140 stage, the labor certification fails because errors become evident, and then it can’t be used. That’s lost time, because today, a labor certification process takes about 14 to 18 months, approximately a year and a half. So imagine if it’s poorly done; the person loses a year and a half and has to start the whole process over. That employer may not be able to wait for the employee. Many things can happen in that time.

Juan Camilo:
Yes, indeed. Well, attorney, thank you for this guidance, and thank you for helping us understand these processes. If you have any questions or concerns about immigration, remember to contact an immigration attorney. We do this segment with Martha Arias because she is an immigration attorney. Since immigration law is national law, because it’s federal law; you can call her regardless of where you are—whether in Texas, New York, Washington State, or anywhere. You can call attorney Martha Arias, and she will help resolve your concerns. Again, below, you’ll find her office phone number, (305) 671-0018, and her website AriasVilla.com. Follow her on Facebook as Arias Villa Law and here on Instagram as Martha_Arias98, Martha with an h in the middle. If you joined late or had questions we didn’t get to cover or answered earlier, but you missed because you were voting or busy, no problem. This session will be saved on both Actualidad Radio’s Instagram and attorney Martha Arias’s Instagram, so follow her and share this video.

Her phone number is (305) 671-0018, her website AriasVilla.com, and Martha_Arias98 on Instagram. Attorney, thank you again for joining us on Actualidad Radio.

Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq.:
Thank you, Juan Camilo. A greeting to you. Thank you for inviting us and to Actualidad Radio for this opportunity. I also invite you to follow my Instagram, Martha_Arias98. Please sign up there, follow us, and share these videos with family or friends who may need them. For those who are about to vote, please go and vote with a clear conscience for the candidate you believe is best. We hope God continues to bless this great nation of prosperity and gives us the best president.

Juan Camilo:
Thank you, attorney, and we’ll see you next time.

Transcripción en Español

Juan Camilo:
Gracias por acompañarnos en otro Instagram Live de Actualidad Radio. En minutos vamos a contar a conectarnos con la abogada Martha Arias. Ella es una experta en asuntos migratorios para abordar algunos de los temas más importantes del panorama migratorio nacional. Así que si están viendo esto en su feed, muy probablemente sea una repetición de un live que hacemos casi todos los martes con Martha Arias alrededor de las 5 de la tarde hora de Miami. Si no, no se preocupen, esto va a quedar publicado en la cuenta de Actualidad Radio y en la cuenta también de Martha Arias que de una vez los vamos invitando para que la sigan, es Martha_Arias98, Martha con la h intermedia. Este va a ser un espacio en el que hablamos de migración, y más adelante hablaremos de otros temas de la elección presidencial, de lo que viene después del día de las elecciones, el 5 de noviembre, y muchos otros temas. Pero por ahora, esta es una gran alternativa, una gran opción alguna pregunta en materia migratoria.

Entonces, si tienen alguna duda de algún proceso de ustedes que está demorado, si les preocupa que algo pueda cambiar, si gana un candidato o otro candidato o qué va a pasar de aquí a la posesión del próximo presidente de Estados Unidos, o si ustedes tienen dudas sobre todo, por ejemplo, si son beneficiarios de algún programa que creen que puede terminar próximamente del CBP-1, o si habían hecho trámites y no nada que revientan o si con temas como el permiso de trabajo que no les termina de llegar. Hay muchos temas relacionados con migración y muchas de esas preguntas las vamos a resolver en este Instagram Live. En segundo se va a conectar Martha Arias con nosotros, pero desde ya les invitamos a que dejen su comentario en la casilla de abajo. Ahí pueden hacer las preguntas. Quienes no están muy familiarizados con ella es una de las abogadas más reconocidas, más mediáticas de todo el sur de Florida, y ya está acá con nosotros conectada a esta hora.

Abogada, gracias por acompañarnos nuevamente. Veo que tienes un sticker de que hoy participó del proceso electoral. Hoy fue a votar.

Abogada Martha L. Arias, Esq.:
Sí, Juan Camilo. Buenas tardes. Un saludo para usted y todas las personas que están aquí conectadas en Instagram de Actualidad Radio y en el mío Martha_Arias98.

Juan Camilo:
Bueno, y los que nos vean después de este día, porque obviamente dejamos el programa pregrabado, aquí estamos hoy, el día de las elecciones, y ya voté. No, bueno, pues, pues muy bien. Para los que no lo han hecho todavía, tienen chance de ir hasta las siete de la tarde, pueden participar de este proceso electoral. Así que una invitación muy, muy importante, abogada, pero también, por supuesto, es un buen momento para desconectarnos de la actualidad electoral y vamos a hablar por un ratito de todos los temas en materia migratoria. Vamos a aprovechar que tenemos a la abogada con nosotros para resolver algunas dudas.

Abogada, tal vez comencemos por la interpretación que está haciendo el Departamento de Estado respecto a viajar con un permiso de…

Abogada Martha L. Arias, Esq.:
Juan Camilo, para darle como un poquito de explicación antes de esto, a mí me parece supremamente importante que las personas conozcan esta nueva interpretación que sacó el Departamento de Estado. Esta interpretación salió en el mes de septiembre. No la han anunciado tanto porque es que es como difícil para uno como abogado explicarlo en términos fáciles a las personas. Pero yo se los voy a explicar el día de hoy y hagan forward a este Instagram, a este video, a familiares o amigos que estén en esa situación porque es supremamente importante, es una de las cosas más importantes que yo he leído, diría, en los últimos meses, incluso en este semestre.

Le voy a explicar, Juan Camilo, para que las personas me entiendan. En el 2012 salió un caso de la Sala de Apelaciones de Inmigración que se llama “Matter of Arrabally y Yerrabelly“. Entonces, en “Matter of Arrabally“, la Sala de Apelaciones dijo que las personas que viajen fuera de los Estados Unidos con un “advance parole”, o permiso de viaje, no activan esa penalidad de la presencia ilegal. La penalidad de la presencia ilegal es esa que dice que una persona va a tener 10 años de sanción que no puede regresar a los Estados Unidos si ha estado dentro de los Estados Unidos ilegal por más de un año. En ese caso la sanción son 10 años. Si ha estado por menos de un año, pero más de seis meses, la sanción son tres años. Entonces, “Matter of Arrabally” dijo, si la persona sale con ese permiso de viaje y vuelve y entra no va a activar la presencia ilegal porque ese viaje es como si no hubiera salido.

¿Quiénes son los que más usan este permiso de viaje y salen y después pueden volver a entrar para retomar cualquier proceso incluyendo una residencia? Usualmente los TPS y los DACA. Es un TPS. Antes del 2012 uno no le recomendaba que sacara un permiso de viaje porque sí salía y había activaba estos 10 años o 3 años de penalidad. Resulta que “Matter of Arrabally” vino en el 2012 y dijo no, ahora en adelante si sale con este permiso de viaje no van a activar la penalidad. Antes del 2012 sí. Entonces así es que se ha aplicado, muchas personas, TPS e incluso DACA sacaban su permiso de viaje, salían fuera de los Estados Unidos y volvían a entrar para aplicar a su aplicación de residencia.

Pero qué pasa últimamente sobre todo en los DACA, Juan Camilo, muchas personas no tienen un cónyuge ciudadano americano para recibir la residencia o un hijo, entonces tienen tal vez una petición de un empleador. Entonces si esa persona sale fuera de los Estados Unidos con un permiso de viaje, va al consulado y aplica, por ejemplo, para una visa H-1B, que es de profesional, va al consulado a que le sellen la visa y vuelve y entra. Esta persona, técnicamente, anteriormente, pues no activaba la presencia ilegal, iba a ser llave regresada.

¿Cuál es la noticia después de toda esta aplicación? Porque quiero es que entienda porque es complejo. La noticia es que el Departamento de Estado ahora en septiembre dijo, no, si una persona por ejemplo, un DACA, va al consulado a que le selle su pasaporte con una visa de profesional H-1B o alguna otra visa de trabajo. Esa persona, al salir, activa la presencia ilegal porque va a tener que regresar con otra visa distinta, una residencia. Y “Matter of Arrabally” aplica únicamente a aquellas personas que estén en los Estados Unidos salgan con permiso de viaje y vuelvan y entren a hacer un ajuste de estatus. Ellos consideran, el Departamento de Estado, que no aplica a aquellas personas que van a ir a que les sellen una visa de no inmigrante en el consulado. Bastante, pero bastante importante, Juan Camilo. Ahora, no quieren decir que estas personas las vayan a dejar allá, no. Solo que les van a pedir un perdón que es el “212(d)(3)“, es un perdón que se debe pedir, pero eso le va a prolongar la estadía en ese país, se va a demorar en que se lo aprueben y se va a demorar en regresar.

O sea, es supremamente importante entonces que si una persona tiene DACA o TPS y va a ir al consulado a recibir una visa de no inmigrante, consulte con un abogado competente antes de salir porque puede encontrarse con este problema, por lo menos ahora, en noviembre del 2024, esta es la interpretación nueva, nueva, porque eso nunca lo había dicho el Departamento de Estado, sino que se empezaron a ver personas que estaban yendo al consulado, teniendo negatorias o pidiéndoles este perdón, y después de ahí viene esta interpretación, Juan Camilo.

Juan Camilo:
Es gran oportunidad, abogada, tenerla para que nos explique eso. Y yo estoy seguro de que muchos entendimos a medias. Y creo que lo importante de esto es, imagínense, si una abogada experta en inmigración nos está diciendo lo difícil que puede ser este proceso, lo que puede ser para una persona que no sea abogada experta en inmigración. Muchas de esas decisiones que se toman. Y tal vez para entenderlo de una forma como más aterrizada, como más para los que no somos expertos en inmigración, uno a veces dice, ah, yo puedo viajar y ya sé que la regla es tal. A veces esas condiciones se modifican y antes decían, sí, puedes viajar, y ahora ya no. Lo importante de esto es que cuando estamos en un proceso migratorio y vamos a hacer cualquier tipo de estos viajes, por la razón que sea, consultemos con abogados expertos en inmigración, porqué procesos larguísimos, costosísimos, relacionados con nuestros papeles migratorios pueden estar en juego, o se pueden demorar o pueden tener cualquier complicación porque no entendemos, porque literalmente es que uno no es abogado uno iba a viajar hace seis meses, compró el pasaje y resulta que cuando va a viajar las reglas las cambiaron. Y eso no es problema del aeropuerto y eso no es problema de la aerolínea, y ellos no le van a responder.

Entonces, por eso es tan importante que consultemos con abogados. Nosotros hacemos este segmento todas las semanas con Martha Arias porque sabemos la importancia de esto y por eso siempre ponemos acá abajo su página web, su teléfono, el (305) 671-0018.

Si tienen cualquiera de esos trámites de inmigración, consulten con ella, consulten con una abogada experta en inmigración. No se pongan a decir que mi hermano viajó con unas condiciones similares hace un año, entonces yo sé que se puede. No, no. Uno cree que sabe y resulta que no termina sabiendo.

Abogada Martha L. Arias, Esq.:
Exacto, miren, Juan Camilo, la importancia de lo que usted acaba de decir y de esto es el Servicio de Inmigración hace poquito también actualizó el manual de inmigración que publica en su página web. En ese manual, el Servicio de Inmigración vuelve y escribe la interpretación de “Matter of Arrabally” y dice, si la persona tiene permiso de viaje, sale, vuelve y entra, no incurre en la presencia ilegal. Esa es la interpretación de USCIS, de “Citizenship and Immigration Services” para aquí en los Estados Unidos. Pero resulta que a nivel consular, los consulados dependen, aunque los consulados aplican la ley de inmigración, obvio, los consulados dependen de otro departamento que es el Departamento de Estado.

Entonces, ¿qué pasa? El Departamento de Estado también puede tener su interpretación de “Matter of Arrabally”. ¿Qué es lo que está pasando en este momento? Entonces, fíjese, son dos agencias que tienen una interpretación distinta sobre el mismo caso. Cada uno la interpreta dentro de su jurisdicción. Entonces, en este caso, el Departamento de Estado pues está adoptando esta posición y es supremamente delicada, vuelvo y digo, para las personas que vayan a viajar, sobre todo aquel que hace un proceso con un tramitador o un notario. Ahí donde el notario dice, “ah sí, claro al DACA o al TPS le podemos sacar un permiso de viaje, claro, cómo no, venga, yo se lo hago, le cobro dos pesos, ya, mire, aquí está listo, chao, váyase.” Cuando la persona se va y se encuentra allá, ese notario o ese tramitador no le va a ayudar. Ahí es donde uno como abogado entra a resolver estos problemas que se podrían haber evitado si la persona tiene un abogado competente, un abogado de inmigración que esté informado y que sepa lo que está pasando. Muy importante.

Juan Camilo:
Si tienen alguna pregunta sobre temas de migración, pueden dejarla en la casilla abajo de los comentarios. La vamos a resolver en vivo con la abogada Martha Arias. Si no alcanzamos a contestarla, no se preocupen, porque dejamos también el teléfono de su despacho acá abajo, el (305) 671-0018. Y pueden llamarla también a ese teléfono. Pueden sacar una cita o pueden visitar su página web, que es AriasVilla.com y acá arriba van a encontrar también la página de Instagram de la abogada Martha Arias, que es Martha_Arias98.

Abogada, ahora que estamos en pleno tema de las elecciones presidenciales, hay un asunto que llamó la atención y es la figura de Elon Musk. Elon Musk, el multimillonario de Tesla y todas estas compañías de tecnología que se hizo noticia esta semana porque supimos que él, al parecer, cuando llegó a Estados Unidos trabajó sin tener posibilidad de trabajar. ¿O qué fue exactamente lo que pasó? ¿Cómo puede un ejemplo como este resultar, no sé, ilustrativo?

Abogada Martha L. Arias, Esq.:
Sí, efectivamente, me parece excelente esto porque, aunque digamos que esto le pasó a Elon Musk estamos hablando de un caso que le puede pasar a cualquier persona. Resulta que aparentemente, digo aparentemente porque yo tampoco me he leído el récord de esta persona, el señor Musk entró con una visa J-1. La J-1 son las visas de estudio, pero de entrenamiento práctico. Por ejemplo, si usted va a venir a estudiar aviación, que es una de las carreras que normalmente no es académica sino práctica, pues puede entrar con una J también hay, por ejemplo, médicos que entran a hacer sus residencias, sus estudios con la J. El señor Musk parece que entró con una visa J y después se pasó a una visa H-1B que es de profesional, y pasó el tiempo, él recibió su residencia a través del empleo, solo que se llaman “Employment-Based Petitions”, o una residencia a través de una petición de empleo y después se hizo ciudadano.

¿Qué pasa? Él en alguna entrevista, en algún medio, dijo que había trabajado en los Estados Unidos o alguien dijo que había trabajado en los Estados Unidos sin un permiso de trabajo. Entonces, todo el mundo, y ya empiezan también los abogados de inmigración, muchos, a cuestionar su estatus legal. ¿Por qué? ¿Qué pasa?

Yo no estoy hablando ahora del caso del señor Musk, estoy hablando de un caso hipotético en general de cualquier persona que pueda estar en esta situación. Si una persona entra con una J y trabaja sin permiso y se pasa a H-1B y no dice que trabajó sin permiso, lo pueden acusar de fraude porque en la petición H-1B le preguntan si ha trabajado, y la persona pues obviamente no puede trabajar sin permiso de trabajo. Si dice que no trabajó, pero trabajó, pues está mintiendo.

Ahora, otra cosa es que las personas que normalmente se pasan de una visa de no inmigrante a otra visa de no inmigrante dentro de los Estados Unidos, pues aunque no salgan a sellar fuera al consulado, esas personas están obligadas a decir la verdad dentro de esa aplicación. Cuando una persona miente, inmigración la considera inadmisible por “misrepresentation”. Hay una sección de la ley que se llama “fraud” o “misrepresentation”, quiere decir que si una persona comete fraude o miente al gobierno de los Estados Unidos para obtener un beneficio migratorio, esa persona es inadmisible bajo la ley. Inadmisible quiere decir que no puede recibir la residencia.

Entonces, pues esta es la historia del señor Musk, que puede ser similar a las de muchas personas que no han informado en sus peticiones algún trabajo…

Juan Camilo:
Ok, pero entonces, y sin hablar de Elon Musk, siguiendo con este hipotético, entonces si una persona que había trabajado cuando no tenía por qué trabajar, porque no tenía el permiso y luego cambia su estatus, y se evidencia que había mentido, ¿le pueden reversar su residencia o le pueden reversar su ciudadanía o eso ya se quedó así?

Abogada Martha L. Arias, Esq.:
No, sí, sí pueden hacerlo. El Estatuto de Inmigración considera, tiene una sección de cuándo se puede pedir la desnaturalización de una persona. Ahora, no es tan fácil, Juan Camilo, esto es un proceso en una Corte Federal Distrital que tiene que iniciar el Servicio de Inmigración. El Servicio de Inmigración, a través de sus abogados, inicia un proceso de desnaturalización.

Hay tres situaciones en las que se puede pedir la desnaturalización, dentro de ellas, la desnaturalización por razones de fraude o cuando la persona cometió fraude en ese transcurso del proceso. También por casos de terrorismo, casos graves, también se puede, en contra de la defensa nacional, desnaturalizar a una persona.

Entonces, primero tendría que iniciarse un proceso de desnaturalización obviamente pues le van a revocar esa posible residencia que haya tenido y ya después la persona puede ser deportada. Son pocos los casos en los Estados Unidos donde realmente se ha desnaturalizado a una persona. Existen, no voy a decir que son pocos, son varios, son muchos, pero no son como la norma general, así como los procesos de deportación que son cantidades y millones. No, no es lo mismo con desnaturalización, pero sí existen.

Juan Camilo:
Interesante. Si tienen alguna pregunta sobre asuntos migratorios y no alcanzamos a resolverla o no alcanzamos a abordarla por las noticias que tenemos, pueden dejarla en la casilla de los comentarios. La vamos a abordar en otra oportunidad o también, por supuesto, pueden llamar a la abogada Martha Arias en el teléfono que aparece abajo, que es el (305) 671-0018 o visitar AriasVilla.com, que es su página oficial y es como tal vez una forma muy fácil de sacar una cita con ella para realmente sentarse y presentarle sus inquietudes. También, por supuesto, acá la pueden seguir en la cuenta Martha_Arias98.

Abogada, ¿qué nos puede contar ahora sobre una noticia relacionada con una demanda de un grupo de “class action”, una demanda colectiva presentada en Nueva York en contra de ICE por la devolución de las fianzas a una cantidad de personas?

Abogada Martha L. Arias, Esq.:
Sí, Juan Camilo, mire, esto es un tema interesante y me parece que muchas situaciones parecidas pueden surgir en otros estados. Y es que cuando una persona presenta una fianza para que un inmigrante salga de detención, esa fianza puede ser devuelta si el inmigrante se presenta a todas las audiencias. Resulta que este grupo de personas presentó una demanda contra ICE, aduciendo que ICE retiene en promedio más de 300 millones de dólares en fianzas que no devuelve. Y la razón por la que ellos dicen que se retienen más de 300 millones de fianzas es porque se establecen una cantidad, dicen ellos, de trabas y de negatorias de esas fianzas si hay un proceso muy marcado y muy específico de cómo se le pueden devolver las fianzas a las personas y pues ellos tienen que seguir este proceso. Solamente se le puede devolver a la persona que puso la fianza.

Le doy un ejemplo: si ve, Pedro está detenido en un centro de detención y Juan es el familiar que pone la fianza por Pedro. La fianza solamente se la van a entregar a Juan que es el ciudadano americano o residente que presenta o paga esa fianza. No se la van a entregar a Pedro, aunque Pedro fue la persona que salió de detención. Entonces, ¿qué pasa? La gente tiene que ser consciente de esto. Obviamente, inmigración a veces parece complicado y en ciertos estados más para devolver este dinero. Hay gente que habla de que los procesos para devolver la fianza pueden demorar más de un año muchas personas esperando por más de un año para que ICE les devuelva su dinero. Así que interesante esta demanda. Les vamos a actualizar apenas salga una decisión.

Juan Camilo:
Pero qué horror cuando uno habla de esas fianzas, ¿de cuánto estamos hablando? O sea, que uno paga una fianza para que salga alguien de la cárcel y después a uno le devuelven esa plata. Pero eso puede ser cualquier cantidad de plata, ¿pueden ser miles de dólares?

Abogada Martha L. Arias, Esq.:
Exactamente, las fianzas en promedio en los Estados Unidos están más o menos en 6.000 dólares. Eso es un promedio. Ahora hay personas que le dan fianzas de 2.000, de 3.000, así como hay personas que le dan una fianza de 15.000 o 20.000 dólares. Entonces, puede ser bastante dinero. Juan Camilo, yo he visto fianzas, gracias a Dios nunca me ha tocado un cliente que pague tanto, pero he oído que hay jueces que han fijado fianzas en casos de inmigración hasta en 40.000 o 45.000 dólares, que es una locura porque normalmente inmigración no maneja esos números tan altos. Aquí en el sur de la Florida, uno oye fianzas normales entre 8.000 y 10.000 dólares. Es como lo normal. Hubo un tiempo que, por ejemplo, en el centro de detención de Pompano estaban empezando a poner fianzas de 15.000 o 20.000 dólares con cierta frecuencia pero pues en lo normal y el promedio nacional son más o menos 6.000 dólares. Por eso se habla que los demandantes, que es una demanda de grupo, un grupo de personas que se unió para esto, en total suma más de 300 millones el dinero que tendría que devolverle a todas estas personas.

Juan Camilo:
Pero el ejercicio es que si meten a alguien preso y le dejan libre bajo fianza, ¿es que yo puedo pagar la fianza de esa persona, esa persona sale libre y cuando termine el proceso me devuelven la plata? ¿Es más o menos así?

Abogada Martha L. Arias, Esq.:
Es correcto. Lo que pasa es que muchas personas no usan los servicios de un fiancista, que es una compañía que pone la fianza por ellos. Muchas personas ponen este dinero en cash o en efectivo. Entonces, así mismo, ICE tendría que devolverles ese dinero en cash o en efectivo. No, qué horror…

Juan Camilo:
Pero bueno, si ustedes tienen preguntas de migración, recuerden que pueden llamar al teléfono que aparece abajo, el teléfono de Martha Arias, el (305) 671-0018 o visitar la página web AriasVilla.com. Antes de irnos, abogada, me gustaría preguntarle qué es realmente, qué no es una certificación laboral y cómo obtiene una persona una residencia a través de una certificación laboral.

Abogada Martha L. Arias, Esq.:
La certificación laboral. Este tema es bien interesante, Juan Camilo, porque es complejo. Es un proceso que tiene el Estatuto de Inmigración para que una persona que tiene una oferta laboral de un empleador aquí en los Estados Unidos siga este proceso. Primero se inicia con el Departamento de Trabajo. Esta certificación laboral, en resumen, es como un proceso que se hace con el Departamento de Trabajo para que el Departamento de Trabajo apruebe la certificación laboral, que básicamente es que certifique que la empresa hizo un proceso de selección donde puso ese trabajo a disposición de ciudadanos americanos y residentes que se presentaron o que no se presentaron. Si no se presentaron, pues hay un reporte de ese empleador que dice que nadie se presentó.

Pero si se presentaron, también tiene que decir el reporte por qué esas personas ciudadanas americanas o residentes que se presentaron no fueron elegibles. Puede ser porque no tenían las calificaciones, el perfil que buscaba el empleador o la experiencia o el entrenamiento, qué sé yo. Ahora, tercero, una vez se hace ese proceso de selección, también se certifica un salario, lo que en inglés se llama el “Prevailing Wage” por parte del empleador. Esto es porque el Departamento de Trabajo fija el salario para que no haya disparidad entre los sueldos que se le pagan al extranjero y al ciudadano o residente. En otras palabras, para que no se bajen los salarios de los ciudadanos americanos o residentes por parte de estos extranjeros.

Entonces, una vez el Departamento de Trabajo certifica todo esto que estamos hablando, que hay un salario que se fijó que hay un proceso de selección que se hizo, que hubo un reporte, se certifica ese proceso de certificación para este empleado. Entonces el empleador puede presentar una petición de empleado permanente, es una I-140, que es un proceso donde el empleador de los Estados Unidos presenta en inmigración una petición para que pueda ese empleado venir ya como empleado permanente para este país. Entonces, es el proceso de certificación laboral, es complejo, Juan Camilo. Eso sí, se necesita un abogado competente y que tenga experiencia en este tipo de casos para que los oriente.

Juan Camilo:
Y eso no suena como algo que puede llenar uno con un formulario. Suena como que realmente hace falta tener una orientación profesional.

Abogada Martha L. Arias, Esq.:
Pues sí, fíjese que yo le voy a contar. Yo he tenido ya en mi oficina casos donde son empresas buenas, son empresas legítimas que necesitan esos empleados, el empleado extranjero tiene todo el perfil que se necesita, pero resulta que la certificación laboral queda mal hecha porque la hace un tramitador o la hace una persona que no es abogada.

Entonces, cuando llega al punto de la I-140, se cae esa certificación laboral porque salen los errores y ya después no se puede usar. Es tiempo que se pierde porque hoy en día un proceso de certificación laboral está tardando entre unos 14 a 18 meses más o menos, que es bastante tiempo, como año y medio. Entonces, imagínese usted, si va a quedar mal hecha, la persona pierde año y medio, esto es para volver a empezar todo el proceso. Puede ser que ese empleador pues ya no pueda contar con los servicios del empleado, bueno pueden pasar muchas cosas en ese tiempo.

Juan Camilo:
Sí, no, no. Pues abogada, gracias por esta orientación, gracias por ayudarnos a entender muchos de estos procesos. Definitivamente si tienen alguna pregunta, alguna inquietud sobre migración, lo mejor es que llamen a abogados en inmigración. Recuerden que hacemos este segmento con Martha Arias porque ella es una abogada de inmigración. Como la ley de inmigración es una ley a nivel nacional, porque es la ley de Migración, es una ley federal, pueden llamarla sin importar en dónde estén.

Si están en Texas o en New York o en Washington State o en donde sea, pueden llamar a la abogada Martha Arias y ella les va a ayudar a resolver sus inquietudes. Y nuevamente abajo encuentran el teléfono de su despacho, que es el (305) 671-0018 y la página web es AriasVilla.com. Síganla también en Facebook como Arias Villa Law y aquí en su cuenta de Instagram, que es Martha_Arias98, Martha con h intermedia.

Si se conectaron tarde, si tienen alguna pregunta y no alcanzamos a resolver o las resolvimos más temprano y ustedes no alcanzaron a llegar porque estaban votando, porque se ocuparon, no importa. Ahí va a quedar publicado en el Instagram de Actualidad Radio y de la abogada Martha Arias. Así que síganla y compartan este video.

Es el (305) 671-0018, el teléfono, AriasVilla.com , su página web, y Martha_Arias98, su cuenta de Instagram. Abogada, gracias por acompañarnos nuevamente en Actualidad Radio.

Abogada Martha L. Arias, Esq.:
Gracias, Juan Camilo. Un saludo para usted. Muchísimas gracias por invitarnos y a Actualidad Radio por darnos esta oportunidad. También les invito a que se inscriban en mi Instagram, que es Martha_Arias98. Les invito a que se inscriban allí, nos sigan y también redirijan o envíen estos audios o estos videos a familiares o amigos que lo puedan necesitar. A los que están a punto de ir a votar, por favor continúen su viaje, voten, voten por el que ustedes a conciencia crean que es el mejor. Esperamos que Dios nos ayude y siga bendiciendo a esta gran nación de prosperidad y nos dé el mejor presidente.

Juan Camilo:
Gracias, gracias abogada, y nos vemos en una próxima oportunidad.

Abogada Martha L. Arias, Esq.:
Gracias.

The post ¡Hablemos de Inmigración! – 11.05.2024 appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

¡Hablemos de Inmigración! – 10.29.2024

Martha Arias — Wed, 30 Oct 2024 03:08:40 +0000

HABLEMOS DE INMIGRACIÓN CON MARTHA ARIAS
10.29.2024

I’m excited to share some important updates from our recent Instagram Live session with Juan Camilo on Actualidad Radio. We connected to discuss various immigration topics, including “Parole in Place,” humanitarian parole, and the H-1B visas. As always, it was a great opportunity to address many of your questions and provide guidance on these important issues.

Míralo en YouTube

Míralo en Instagram

¿Tienes preguntas sobre las nuevas leyes de inmigración en Florida? Contáctanos.

LLAMAR

Mon & Thu | 9:00 AM – 5:30 PM
Tue & Wed | 9:00 AM – 6:00 PM
Friday | 9:00 AM – 3:00 PM

ENVIAR CORREO

Los correos serán respondidos debidamente.

LET’S TALK ABOUT IMMIGRATION

WATCH US ON INSTAGRAM

WATCH US ON YOUTUBE

LISTEN TO OUR PODCASTS

Follow us on social media

The post ¡Hablemos de Inmigración! – 10.29.2024 appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

¡Hablemos de Inmigración! – 5/7/2024

Martha Arias — Wed, 08 May 2024 15:55:03 +0000

LET’S TALK ABOUT IMMIGRATION

Do you have questions about new immigration laws in Florida? Contact us.

URL

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Name(Required)

Email(Required)

Phone(Required)

Comments(Required)

By submitting this form you agree our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Martha L. Arias (@martha_arias98)

Juan Camilo:
Hola a todos, gracias por estar con nosotros otra vez. Estamos conectándonos en estos Instagram Live que hacemos de actualidad radio para hablar sobre varios temas muy importantes en materia nacional y uno muy clave por estos días, por este año va a ser el de las elecciones presidenciales. Qué tanto nos va a afectar, no nos va a afectar el tema migratorio y qué tanto vamos a poder también entender algunos de los cambios más importantes en materia migratoria en los últimos meses, en las últimas semanas, que vamos a poder hacer preguntas de migración. Si ustedes tienen alguna pregunta relacionada específicamente con inmigración, van a poder dejarla en la casilla de abajo de los comentarios y vamos a hacerla en segundos. Vamos a conectarnos con la abogada Martha Arias.

Martha Arias es una experta en asuntos migratorios. Es una persona que conoce como Pocos el tema de la migración en el sur de Florida y nos va a ayudar a entender algunas noticias muy importantes que hemos visto en los últimos días. Por ejemplo, los beneficiarios de DACA van a poder acceder a Obamacare. Van a poder entrar al mercado de salud y cuáles van a ser los requisitos y a quién le va a aplicar exactamente ese tema. Bueno, de eso vamos también a hablar en breve.

Vamos a hablar también de temas relacionados con la lotería de visas y mucho más. Acá ya la vemos que está conectada, entonces vamos a… a ver si ya podemos conectarnos con ella para los que no están muy familiarizados. La abogada Martha Arias es una experta en asuntos migratorios que tiene mucha experiencia en estos temas. Si tienen preguntas, por ejemplo, que ustedes quieren pedir a un familiar o que ustedes quieren naturalizarse, pero les falta un papel o que quieren aplicar a el TPS como venezolanos, pero tienen alguna duda. Bueno, todos esos temas lo van a poder. Los van a poder resolver acá en breve.

Veo que la abogada Martha Arias ya me hizo la solicitud, pero por alguna razón no la no la veo acá abajo. Entonces vamos a darle un segundito mientras vamos también contando algún par de cosas.

Importante que si tienen alguna pregunta sea especialmente enfocada en asuntos migratorios. Luego tendremos oportunidad de hablar de otros temas, de abordar asuntos relacionados con política, con noticias económicas, con bueno, de lo que sea. Pero vamos a dedicar este espacio, los martes a las cinco de la tarde hora de Miami.

Dice que ya le enviamos la solicitud. Parece que ahora sí. Hola, qué tal? Gracias por acompañarnos nuevamente en este Instagram.

Martha Arias:
Mucho gusto, Juan Camilo. Qué bueno volverlo a ver por aquí con nosotros en Actualidad Radio y en esta plataforma de Instagram. Un saludo muy especial para usted.

Juan Camilo:
Muchas gracias. Después de un par de semanas de ausencia nos volvemos a encontrar nuevamente. Si tienen preguntas de migración, aprovechen para dejarlas en la casilla de abajo. Hemos visto que acá ya hay algunas que nos han dejado durante el día también por otras vías, pero muy importante también porque vamos a abordar muchas noticias importantes relacionadas con asuntos migratorios. Entonces, para comenzar abogada, que nos puede contar sobre una noticia de que habría algunas personas que son beneficiarios del programa DACA, del programa de los Dreamers, pero que podrían también acceder al mercado de salud conocido como el Obamacare, que es un beneficio del gobierno federal. Quiénes pueden y quiénes no pueden, cómo funcionan?

Martha Arias:
Y bueno, a ver, Juan Camilo, si usted bien lo ha dicho, el Obama, el DACA, primero que todo es un programa, como muchas personas ya saben, para el cual lo sacó el presidente Obama en el 2012 para aquellos jóvenes que habían entrado a los Estados Unidos antes del 2007 y antes de los 16 años y habían estudiado acá entonces podían aplicar para esta protección. Esta protección si bien ha estado sujeta muchos litigios, en las cortes de inmigración y en las cortes federales, incluso subió a la sala, a la corte suprema de los Estados Unidos. Si bien ha estado en este tema de litigios, el DACA todavía en este momento está en vigencia. El DACA primero, el DACA inicial, una extensión que hizo el presidente Biden del DACA para hacerlo extensivo a otro grupo de jóvenes, pero bueno, eso no prosperó en las cortes.

¿Cuál es la noticia? La noticia es, como usted lo dijo, que el Departamento de Salud y de Servicios Humanos de los Estados Unidos emitió un cambio en la regulación que interpreta que la palabra residente legal en el país, o sea, “legally resident” o para efectos del seguro médico. Esa palabra tiene una interpretación distinta para efectos del seguro, y es distinta a la que se interpreta en inmigración.

Entonces, esta regulación lo que hace es una clarificación de ese término y al clarificar el término le da la opción a los jóvenes que tienen el DACA de poder acceder al Obamacare. Hay más de 600,000 jóvenes en los Estados Unidos que participan del programa DACA y se cree que más de 100,000 de ellos están sin seguro médico, o sea que esta noticia les va a ayudar.

Juan Camilo:
Y bueno, entonces potencialmente 100.000 personas que no tienen seguro van a poder tener seguros, que es una muy buena noticia. Y qué bueno que diga que para para estos efectos, para efectos del seguro, porque no es que ahora vayan a pensar que la interpretación de las cortes es que la gente que tiene de acá ahora es residente. Eso todavía no es así.

Martha Arias:
No. Y la importancia es que este es un documento que emitió el Departamento de Salud de Servicios Humanos donde claramente se refieren a la interpretación de esta palabra y otra de las cosas que tiene esta nueva regulación que empieza a partir del 1 de Noviembre de este año 2024. O sea que estos cambios de que estamos hablando empiezan a partir del 1 de Noviembre que es usualmente cuando empiezan las aplicaciones o los registros para el Obamacare.

Dentro de eso y le aconsejo a las personas que nos están escuchando y que le hagan un reenvío a este programa es que hablen con sus asesores de seguros médicos para que les digan estos cambios que entran a partir de 1 de noviembre porque los cambios también extienden muchos otros programas que se manejan a nivel estatal.

Recuerde que los seguros tienen una parte que se lo vamos a querer, que es la parte federal, pero también cada estado tiene unos programas distintos. Por ejemplo, hay un programa que se llama “Qualified Health Plan” y otro que se llama “Health Program“, “Basic Health Program“. Entonces, dependiendo del programa que tienen los estados, si es uno o el otro, este programa de la interpretación, la nueva interpretación de lo que es un residente legalmente, una persona residente legalmente en el estado, va a tener un efecto también en esos otros programas de seguro.

Entonces no solamente el cambio viene para los DACA, viene también para personas que tienen el Obamacare o que no tienen el seguro porque no han podido, porque la interpretación y el programa dentro de su estado no les ha permitido; pero pues con este nuevo cambio puede que tengan acceso. Entonces, es importante que se comuniquen y le pregunten a su asesor médico si estos nuevos cambios le pueden ayudar en su programa de seguro médico.

Juan Camilo:
Si tiene alguna pregunta relacionada con cualquiera de esos temas, siempre es bueno que consulten con expertos. Cuando hablamos de expertos en temas migratorios, consultamos mucho a la abogada Martha Arias, precisamente por eso. Si ustedes ven abajo en el primer comentario, dejamos un teléfono. Es el (305) 671-0018. Llamen a ese teléfono. Es el despacho de la abogada Martha Arias. Saquen una cita, presente en su caso cuando ustedes tengan alguna duda específicamente relacionada con migración. O también pueden visitarla en su página web que es ariasvilla.com.

Abogada, por acá tengo una pregunta de una persona que está conectada. Él se llama Ojota. Y pregunta, ¿qué pasa si una persona que entró ilegalmente a Estados Unidos está casada ahora con un ciudadano, lleva más de cinco años casada, puede? ¿Qué puede pasar con esa persona? ¿Puede regularizar su situación o cómo funciona eso?

Martha Arias:
Sí, normalmente las personas que entran ilegales a los Estados Unidos no pueden recibir la residencia dentro del país aunque estén casados con un ciudadano americano. Y la razón es que la ley exige que la persona esté en un estatus legal o que haya entrado legalmente a los Estados Unidos, o que esté en una protección que pueda ser beneficiario de una protección que existía antes que llamada 245-I. Entonces si la persona no está protegida por la 245-I o entró en forma ilegal, entonces esa persona para poder recibir la residencia tiene que tener la petición familiar, tiene que pedir un perdón, hacer un proceso consular y salir de los Estados Unidos al consulado a recibir la residencia.

Parece complicado, bueno, es mucho trabajo sí, pero es algo muy viable. Desde el 2012 salió también este perdón, se llama el perdón provisional o el state side waiver y se ha venido aplicando perfectamente. La persona normalmente lo que sale fuera de los Estados Unidos es más o menos alrededor de unos dos semanas, tres semanas, no es tanto tiempo. O sea, en dos semanas o tres van al consulado, reciben su residencia y regresan.

Pero así es importante, Juan Camilo, que la gente que va a hacer este proceso, consiga a su abogado, que sea un abogado experto en inmigración, graduado y licenciado aquí en los Estados Unidos, para que pueda tener un caso exitoso. Porque si esa persona no avalúan bien su caso y tiene alguna inhabilidad, además de la presencia ilegal… pues lo pueden dejar ahí en el consulado. O sea que uno como abogado es muy cuidadoso en analizar un caso, a ver a quién va a mandar al consulado, porque hay personas que definitivamente no se pueden mandar.

Juan Camilo:
Wow, interesante. Pero por eso tan importante que consulten con abogado. Recuerden el teléfono que dejamos abajo (305) 671-0018. Llamen, saquen una cita y resuelvan esas inquietudes de la mejor forma posible. Acá esto es apenas una obre boca. O sea, lo que hacemos acá es apenas tocar muy por encima de estos temas. Esto no es una solución completa. Recuerden que el caso de esta persona que nos ponía ese ejemplo.

Seguramente es algo diferente a lo que va a tener una persona que tenga un caso parecido. Por eso hay que revisar esa documentación, esos casos de manera individual. Ahí Ocota está dando las gracias con mucho gusto. Recuerde visitar la página de Martha Arias, AriasVilla.com Y también si le quedó alguna duda, no se preocupe. O si quiere compartir este video acá en la cuenta de Actualidad Radio y de la cuenta de Martha Arias va a quedar publicado. Es la cuenta de Martha Arias es @Martha_Arias98.

Siguenla porque ahí va a quedar publicado este video y también en la cuenta de actualidad radio. Abogada que nos puede contar de los resultados de la lotería de visas del 2025. Ya salieron.

–

Martha Arias:
Sí, ya salieron los resultados de la lotería de visas del 2025. Lo que se llama “Diversity Visa“. Para los que no saben que la lotería de visas es un programa que tienen los Estados Unidos, para beneficiar a las personas que vienen de países que tienen muy poca migración hacia los Estados Unidos. Entonces, hay cierto número de visas al año que se le otorga y se distribuye entre estos países. Las aplicaciones de las diversity visas o de la lotería de visas empieza normalmente como a mediados del año y los resultados pues ya salieron, salieron ahora a finales de Marzo.

Las personas que pueden aplicar están normalmente fuera de los Estados Unidos. Esas personas deben seguir un proceso consular que implica aplicar para una aplicación de residencia que es la DS-260. Es un proceso que lo deben hacer con abogado. Las personas que nos estén escuchando y se hayan sido beneficiarios de la Lotería de Visas que estén fuera de los Estados Unidos nos pueden contactar a la oficina, a través de nuestra página web. Ahí hay una forma que nos pueden escribir. Nosotros le contestamos. También tenemos el teléfono que está aquí, allí en el Instagram. Ese no es celular para, no tiene WhatsApp, pero hay otro que se los voy a escribir acá, que sí tiene WhatsApp para las personas que estén fuera. Ahí se los acabo de escribir, (305) 233-3110 por whatsapp nos puede mandar un mensaje y nosotros le damos la información y las citas las podemos hacer por zoom porque es un proceso que debe hacerse correctamente y dentro de unos tiempos determinados para que no vayan a perder la oportunidad. Porque las personas tienen que aplicar dentro de cierto tiempo si pierden ese tiempo de aplicación ya pierden esa oportunidad y esa lotería que básicamente se ganaron.

inmigración o el Centro Nacional de Visas que es el que maneja estos programas a través del Departamento de Estado, a través del Centro Nacional de Visas, no manda, no manda e-mails ni textos a nadie. Usted no va, si usted se inscribió para participar de la Lotería de Visas, usted no va a recibir un e-mail del Departamento de Estado diciéndole mire se ganó la Lotería de Visas. Usted directamente tiene que ir a la página del Departamento de Estado donde aplicó para esa visa, para esa lotería de visas, y usted mismo con su número de caso entrar allí a ver si ya ganó o no ganó.

Nadie le debe mandar un email. Si usted recibe un email es un scam, es un fraude, es un robo. Repito. Y le está en la misma página del Departamento de Estado donde le dice…

El programa de lotería de visas no le manda imelas a nadie, no le manda textos a nadie. Tengan cuidado porque cuando estos resultados salen es muy típico que la gente empiece a recibir esos emails. Obviamente los amantes de lo ilegal o de lo fraudulento, del robo, empiezan a mandar estos emails. Le pueden robar su identidad, le pueden robar su platiquen, pues muchas otras consecuencias, ¿ok?

Juan Camilo:
Que nos haga esa aclaración abogada porque una de las razones también por las que sugerimos constantemente que contacten abogados expertos en asuntos migratorios no es solamente para que sus trámites queden hechos bien porque seguramente nosotros vamos a poder llenar un formulario, vamos a encontrar información sobre los trámites que tengamos que hacer pero las minucias de la… Esos, esa letra pequeña, esos cambios importantes pueden hacer una diferencia gigantesca entre que un proceso sea exitoso y no sea exitoso. Entonces hacemos esas recomendaciones de que consulten con abogados expertos en migración por eso, pero también por otra cosa importante. Y es para que no caigamos en las trampas que pone la gente, porque hay mucha gente que se aprovecha de la necesidad que tienen muchísimas personas en Estados Unidos de resolver sus asuntos migratorios. Y al momento de ver la cantidad de trampas, de fraudes, o de personas que se hacen pasar por profesionales que realmente no lo son, o que dicen tener un conocimiento que realmente no tienen, es muy, muy problemático más adelante. Hemos visto muchísimos casos de recomendaciones mal hechas, en los que le dicen, no, es que esta persona me dijo que porque yo mejor no revisaba, es mejor irse por personas que sepan realmente de estos temas. Y lo mejor es consultar con abogados expertos.

Martha Arias:
Mira, Juan Camilo, ahora que usted dice eso, aprovecho para contarle, por ejemplo, algo que pasó en estos días en la oficina y es un cliente mío, un cliente que nosotros le hemos ayudado con su caso antes y estaba listo para aplicar a su ciudadanía y bueno, tuvo un problema económico, no lo hizo con nosotros y pues alguien le dijo no pues yo le puedo ayudar yo no le cobro sino tanto le hizo la aplicación pero cometió un error grave y es que no puso sus hijos, sus hijos no están biológicos no están dentro los Estados Unidos están fuera de los Estados Unidos pero eso es grave ¿por qué? Porque si la persona esos hijos existían ya que en este caso sí existían cuando la persona se hizo residente al momento de llenar la aplicación e imigración se va a cuestionar por qué no escribió los hijos, y la y posiblemente lo que inmigración va a pensar es que la persona está tratando de ser un poquito “sneaky” se dice en Inglés un poquito mentirosito y no pone los hijos porque esos hijos son menores de edad y para efectos de recibir la ciudadanía usted tiene que probar que tiene buen carácter moral. Una de las cosas que ellos consideran, digo ellos, inmigración, del carácter moral es que la persona tiene que mostrar que está al día y pagando la manutención de sus hijos o el child support.

Entonces claro, si usted ve en una aplicación, tiene hijos menores y no los pone, lo que inmigración va a pensar, ah, este está acá tratando de hacerse loquito, de no poner esa información para nosotros no preguntarle. Y eso es mentir. Entonces eso es grave. Eso es grave porque si le da con un oficial que no tenga la paciencia de entender que la persona buscó la ayuda de alguien que no estaba capacitado y escribió pues esto mal, entonces si no tiene esa paciencia y no lo va a escuchar, pues lo que va a pensar es que está tratando de engañar al servicio de inmigración, está tratando de cometer fraude y pues no, no le voy a aprobar porque no tiene buen carácter moral por mentiroso. Eso es delicado.

Juan Camilo:
Imagínense el problema que se puede meter uno por no hacer las cosas.

Martha Arias:
Sí, porque el señor le dijo, usted no necesita poner los hijos que no tenga aquí en los Estados Unidos. Eso no más es para los que tengan los Estados Unidos. No es si están en otro parte, aunque sean la China, tranquilo, no los tiene que poner. Eso es mentira, mentira. En cada aplicación de inmigración, usted pone todos, todos, todos los hijos que tengan, como se llama la fecha de nacimiento donde vivan. Así vivan en Japón, en la China, en las Malvinas, en Alaska, donde vivan. Tienen que ponerlo.

Juan Camilo:
Otra noticia que vimos en estos días es que para el año dos mil veinticuatro dos mil veinticinco hay un cuarenta por ciento menos de aplicaciones de visa H-1B, cuáles son las visas H-1B primero que todas

Martha Arias:
Esas son las que aplican las personas que tienen un título universitario de cuatro años o más y un el empleador les hace la oferta de empleo, se inicia una registración electrónica en Marzo de cada año y más o menos en Abril ya salen los resultados y si quedó seleccionada las personas que aplicaron pueden mandarse a lo que es el paquete de aplicación y hay 85,000 visas al año en esa preferencia o en esa categoría H-1B.

Juan Camilo:
Ok. Y por qué hay menos personas aplicando para eso?

Martha Arias:
Bueno, es interesante la razón que dio inmigración de por qué este año las aplicaciones que se recibieron electrónicas, porque recuerde, hay una aplicación electrónica que se hace más o menos en marzo de cada año. E la razón que dijo inmigración es que realmente con el nuevo sistema que ellos tienen redujeron mucho el fraude o el abuso que había anteriormente.

El fraude del abuso consistía en que las personas supuestamente para tener más opción o más chance presentaban varios registros, no uno, si no tres, cuatro, cinco, diez, qué sé yo. Entonces se llenaba una cantidad de aplicaciones. Por ejemplo, el año anterior en el 23, en el 22 hubo aplicaciones hasta 720,000 aplicaciones o registros electrónicos.

Juan Camilo:
Entonces ellos. Pero no eran 700,000 personas.

Martha Arias:
Pero no eran de 700,000 personas. Seguramente que no eran de 720,000 personas, sino puede haber sido una misma persona que mandó miles de aplicaciones o bastantes y así mismo otras que hicieron lo mismo. Entonces ellos rediseñaron el programa, lo reestructuraron y el programa ahora electrónico detecta los peticionarios y los beneficiarios. Entonces si el sistema re ve que hay varias aplicaciones de esa misma persona, las va a eliminar todas.

No va a dejar ni siquiera la primera. Todas, todas quedan eliminadas. Entonces, ¿qué pasa? Que este año se presentaron como 420,400 algo. ¿Sí viste? Entonces, de 700 y pico bajaron a 400 y pico. Pero el servicio de migración dice que no necesariamente son personas que no aplicaron, sino más bien que el sistema eliminó muchas de las peticiones fraudulentas o repetidas.

Juan Camilo:
Ahora que hablamos un poco de cifras, abogada y si tienen preguntas sobre eso, sobre la visa H1B, sobre cualquier otro tema de migración, llamen al teléfono que aparece abajo, es el teléfono de Martha Arias, es el (305) 671-0018. Si están fuera del país, no se preocupen, también tiene una línea de WhatsApp a la que pueden escribir. Eso es muy importante porque eso les ayuda sobre todo si ustedes tienen algún familiar en Colombia, en Venezuela, en Argentina, en cualquier país que quiera saber sobre todo de temas relacionados como la lotería de visas o algo similar, entonces también van a poder resolver esas inquietudes si escriben directamente en el WhatsApp de la abogada Martha Arias. Entonces, el teléfono normal (305) 671-0018, la página web Ariasvilla.com y el WhatsApp es (305) 233-3110.

Pero nos estaba contando algunas citas. Quién nos puede contar de cifras también sobre cuántos casos tenemos en este momento pendientes en las corpes o de asilos pendientes o también casos pendientes acá en el sur de

Martha Arias:
Si hay una universidad aquí en los Estados Unidos. La Universidad de Siracusa que ellos tienen un sistema, no sé cómo lo harán, estadístico, donde miran los casos que están pendientes en las cortes. En esta semana sacaron esos datos que son interesantes. Mire, por ejemplo, dicen que en el año 2020-2024, o sea, lo que va del año fiscal, se acuerde que empieza en Octubre, hasta ahora que estamos en mayo, han entrado un millón ciento cincuenta y cinco mil veinticuatro casos más a las cortes, o sea, un millón ciento cincuenta y cinco mil casos más en las cortes de adicionales a los que ya teníamos. O sea que estamos hablando que en este momento ellos consideran que todos los casos que están atrasados y pendientes en las costas de inmigración de todos los Estados Unidos, ya ascienden a 3,524,051 o sea 3,500,000 y medio de casos pendientes. Eso es bastante Juan Camilo que yo no sé de cuando todos estos casos se pueden terminar. Por eso si una persona tiene un caso en la corte en este momento que está pendiente y tiene alguna cita, esta es la oportunidad para conseguir un abogado y tratar de pedir que le termine su caso de corte porque hay unos meses, hay unos años, o hay unos periodos de tiempo donde uno como abogado puede mandar esas peticiones y de pronto tener un poco más éxito que en otros. En este momento, debido a esa presión de todos los casos pendientes, está siendo menos complicado que le terminen un caso en la corte para ciertas personas. Repito, no es para todo el mundo, pero esas peticiones las estamos haciendo, y son viables. Así que pueden consultar a nuestra oficina o consultar su abogado para que puedan presentar esos casos si quieren sacarlos de la Corte. 3.524,051 casos pendientes en las Cortes de Migración de todo el país.

Juan Camilo:
Wow. Abogada, otro tema que importante, y ahora que veo una persona que se estaba conectando y que nos había hecho una pregunta similar hace unos días internamente, y era relacionada con cuánto tiempo después de que una pareja se casa pueden iniciar cualquier trámite de migración. Esto es, inmediatamente se casan, o es mejor esperar un año, o es mejor esperar seis meses. ¿Qué es lo recomendable?

Martha Arias:
Bueno, lo que pasa es que eso depende de cada caso. A veces las personas piensan que todo en inmigración es blanco y negro. ¿O así? ¿O o sea? No. Eso depende. Depende de los casos. Recuerde, el derecho está basado en hechos, lo que en inglés se llama facts. Los hechos o los facts de cada caso depende. La decisión que se tome depende de los hechos de cada caso le doy un ejemplo, si una persona tiene una pareja, vamos a decir la persona inmigrante entró a los Estados Unidos hace ya bastantes años con una vice turista, ha tenido una relación con un ciudadano americano por tres años, dos años, cuatro años, tiene suficientes pruebas para mostrar esa relación, se casan, al otro día pueden pasar la petición.

¿Por qué? Porque es una pareja que ha convivido bastante tiempo, ya antes de casarse tuvieron una relación dos, tres o cuatro años y tiene suficiente evidencia. Entonces, ¿por qué esperar? No hay necesidad, al otro día pueden pasar la petición, ¿sí? Eso por ejemplo. Hay otras parejas, por ejemplo, que llevan muy poco juntos, que no tienen casi evidencia para probar esa relación, aunque sí ha sido obviamente una relación de verdad.

Entonces esas personas se casan y dicen, bueno, vamos a esperar un poquito mientras recaudamos las evidencias para poder mandar un caso más sólido. Entonces la pareja seguramente va a esperar, se va a casar y va a esperar un poquito más para someter la petición a inmigración.

Hay otro tema legal muy importante y es que una persona que entra a los Estados Unidos con la visa turista y somete la petición de residencia dentro de los 30 días de haber, digo, 90 días de haber llegado, o sea, tres meses. Hay una presunción legal de que puede ser fraude. Fraude ¿por qué? Porque entró con la visa de turista que es para pasear, para turistiar, para ir a visitar las playas o los moles o a Mickey Mouse o qué sé yo. Pero la persona pidió la residencia, entonces es como que usted le dijo a Migración vengo a pasear, pero mentiritas que yo vengo es a quedarme. Entonces eso te considera visa de presentación.

Juan Camilo:
Y no hacer una visita, pero no a Mickey Mouse.

Martha Arias:
Entonces ese es el problema. Entonces esa persona, pues no sería recomendable que pasen una petición a los 90 días de haber entrado. Si viste entonces ahí les estoy dando el ejemplo de que cada caso es distinto, cada caso se analiza de acuerdo a sus hechos y pues por o por por ende uno como abogado, da los consejos de acuerdo a los hechos de cada caso, o sea que no hay un término exacto que uno diga a todo el mundo lo de pasar en esta fecha. No, es cada caso se analiza con sus hechos.

Juan Camilo:
Abogado antes de irnos y si ustedes tienen cualquier pregunta sobre esto, recuerden el teléfono de abajo (305) 671-0018. Saca esa cita porque les va a hacer realmente la diferencia en sus trámites de migración. Antes de irnos, qué pasa si una persona recibe por un error de migración el pasaporte de una persona que no debería recibirlo de un menor de edad, por ejemplo, o si yo recibo alguna prueba de ciudadanía, de una persona que no debería recibir toda la ciudadanía.

Martha Arias:
Bueno, obviamente que si fue dado en error, pues no vale. Pero yo no pienso que eso sea lo más grave. Lo más grave es si no vale. Cómo lo resolucionamos, cómo lo arreglamos, qué implicaciones tiene haber usado un pasaporte de Estados Unidos sin ser realmente ciudadano americano, que otras es si votó en unas elecciones, qué implicación tiene ese voto que hizo la persona.

Hay una cantidad de consecuencias civiles y también migratorias de haber usado esos pasaportes que no le pertenecían. Es común, la gente piensa que no es común que se otorguen pasaportes, sobre todo antes. Ahora no tanto, antes se otorgaban pasaportes de ciudadanos americanos o personas que realmente no calificaban para ese beneficio. Entonces es importante que contacten un abogado de inmigración.

Uno les analiza primero el caso antes de cualquier otra petición que vayan a hacer. ¿Por qué? Porque uno tiene que mirar primero cómo llega, por qué se llegó a ese error. Fue porque hubo alguna equivocación en la documentación, o más bien porque la persona lo hizo a sabiendas de que no iba a ser elegible. O sea, hay una cantidad de interrogatorios que uno como abogado tiene que hacerle a la persona.

Y ya después uno muestra o plantea las soluciones al caso, pero pasa mucho, Juan Camilo. En las noticias salió hace unos meses, creo que hasta lo dijimos acá, un médico que su padre lo trajo a él pequeño siendo diplomático de otro país, obviamente. Y ese joven nació, no lo trajo, ese joven nació aquí, en los Estados Unidos, de un hijo diplomático.

Entonces tuvo un certificado de nacimiento, pero esos hijos de diplomáticos no adquieren la ciudadanía de Estados Unidos aunque nazcan aquí. Esa persona mostró el certificado, le dieron el pasaporte y años después va a renovarlo y le dicen no, a usted se lo han dado en error, no se lo vamos a volver a dar. Y la persona se lleva a la sorpresa de que no es ciudadano de los Estados Unidos aunque tiene un certificado de nacimiento. La razón es que nació de un hijo que el papá era diplomático.

Y estas cosas pasan, en muchas ocasiones pasan incluso más complicadas que esta, pero es la importancia de uno como abogado revisar los casos. Ahí es donde viene la persona a decirnos, “¿cuánto me cobra por llenar tanta aplicación?” No, no, no, un momentico. Nosotros los abogados de inmigración no cobramos por llenar una aplicación porque nosotros no somos llena aplicaciones.

Nosotros los abogados de migración somos abogados que revisamos un caso y defendemos un caso migratorio. Por eso cuando viene una persona lo que menos tenemos nosotros en la mente es la forma. Lo más importante es el caso y la ley para poder dar ese consejo legal. La forma es lo de menos. Incluso todos los abogados usamos unos programas que las formas se llenan solas desde con la información que nos da el cliente o que escribe. Entonces…

Lo importante es que ustedes entiendan que hay muchas cosas detrás de la forma que es la ley que ustedes tienen que estar seguros que está correcta y ese análisis lo hace un abogado de inmigración.

Juan Camilo:
Pues abogada gracias por nuevamente estar con nosotros hace una diferencia muy grande realmente conversar estos temas con abogados expertos en migración; si tienen alguna pregunta ya saben abajo está el teléfono de Martha Arias (305) 671-0018 o su página web AriasVilla.com. Compartan este vídeo con personas que estén en este momento o cercanas a casarse o tramitando algún tienen preguntas sobre migración. Acá también arriba van a encontrar las cuentas de actualidad radio y de Martha Arias.

Ahí va a quedar publicado este video. Entonces, si se perdieron al principio, cuando hablamos de DACA, cuando hablamos de Obamacare, de muchos otros temas, no se preocupen que lo van a poder consultar.

Abogada, como siempre, muchas gracias por estar con nosotros. Qué placer tenerla nuevamente y estar de regreso con usted aquí en Actualidad. Gracias.

Martha Arias:
Gracias, Juan Camilo, por invitarnos, por estar aquí, a todos los que nos escuchan, y a todos los que vayan a reproducir este programa muchísimas gracias vuelve con mente le a sus amigos para que también nos sigan aquí en nuestro instagram el mío de mi oficina que es @Martha_Arias98, síganos y bueno hasta la próxima, muchas gracias.

Juan Camilo:
Gracias a todos y nos vemos la próxima semana.

–

Juan Camilo:
Hello everyone, thank you for being with us again. We are connecting on these Instagram Lives that we do on current affairs radio to talk about several very important national issues and one that is very key these days, this year is going to be the presidential elections. How much the immigration issue will affect us, it will not affect us, and how much we will also be able to understand some of the most important changes in immigration matters in recent months, in the last weeks, that we will be able to ask immigration questions. If you have any questions related specifically to immigration, you can leave them in the box below in the comments and we will ask them in seconds. Let’s connect with lawyer Martha Arias.

Martha Arias is an expert on immigration issues. She is a person, who knows the issue of immigration in South Florida like few others and is going to help us understand some very important news that we have seen in recent days. For example, DACA beneficiaries will be able to access Obamacare. They will be able to enter the health market and what the requirements will be and to whom exactly that issue will apply. Well, we’re also going to talk about that shortly.

We are also going to talk about issues related to the visa lottery and much more. Here we already see that it is connected, so let’s… let’s see if we can connect with it for those who are not very familiar. Attorney Martha Arias is an expert in immigration matters, who has a lot of experience in these issues. If you have questions, for example, that you want to ask a family member or that you want to naturalize, but you are missing a paper or that you want to apply for TPS as Venezuelans, but you have any questions. Well, all those topics are going to be possible. They will be able to resolve them here shortly.

I see that the lawyer Martha Arias already made the request to me, but for some reason I don’t see it below. So let’s give it a second while we also tell a couple of things.

It is important that if you have any questions, it is especially focused on immigration issues. Then we will have the opportunity to talk about other topics, to address issues related to politics, economic news, well, anything. But we are going to dedicate this space, on Tuesdays at five in the afternoon Miami time.

It says we have already sent you the request. It seems so now. Hi how are things? Thank you for joining us again on this Instagram.

Martha Arias:
Nice to see you, Juan Camilo. It’s good to see you here again with us on Actualidad Radio and on this Instagram platform. A very special greeting to you.

Juan Camilo:
Thank you so much. After a couple of weeks of absence we meet again. If you have immigration questions, please take the opportunity to leave them in the box below. We have seen that here there are already some that have left us during the day also through other means, but also very important because we are going to address many important news related to immigration issues.

So, to begin, lawyer, can you tell us about news that there would be some people who are beneficiaries of the DACA program, the Dreamers program, but who could also access the health market known as Obamacare, which is a benefit of the federal government. Who can and who can’t, how do they work?

Martha Arias:
Well, let’s see, Juan Camilo, if you said it correctly, Obama, DACA, first of all it is a program, as many people already know, for which President Obama launched it in 2012 for those young people who They had entered the United States before 2007 and before the age of 16 and had studied here so they could apply for this protection. Although this protection has been subject to much litigation, in immigration courts and federal courts, it even went up to the Supreme Court of the United States. Although it has been in this litigation issue, DACA is still in effect at this time. The first DACA, the initial DACA, an extension that President Biden made of DACA to extend it to another group of young people, but well, that did not prosper in the courts.

Which is the news? The news is, as you said, that the United States Department of Health and Human Services issued a change in the regulation that interprets the word legal resident in the country, that is, “legally resident” for purposes of the health insurance. That word has a different interpretation for insurance purposes, and it is different from what it is interpreted in immigration.

So, what this regulation does is clarify that term and by clarifying the term it gives the option to young people who have DACA to be able to access Obamacare. There are more than 600,000 young people in the United States participating in the DACA program and it is believed that more than 100,000 of them are without health insurance, so this news will help them.

Juan Camilo:
Well, then potentially 100,000 people who do not have insurance will be able to have insurance, which is very good news. And it’s good that it says that it stops for these purposes, for insurance purposes, because it’s not that they are now going to think that the interpretation of the courts is that the people who live here are now residents. That is not yet the case.

Martha Arias:
No. And the importance is that this is a document, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services; where they clearly refer to the interpretation of this word and other things, that this new regulation has that begins on November 1 of this year. year 2024. In other words, these changes we are talking about begin on November 1, which is usually when applications or registrations for Obamacare begin.

Within that, and I advise the people who are listening to us and who make a referral to this program, is that they speak with their health insurance advisors so that they can tell them about these changes that come in as of November 1st; because the changes also extend many other programs that are managed at the state level.

Remember that insurance has a part that we will want, which is the federal part, but each state also has different programs. For example, there is a program called “Qualified Health Plan” and another called “Health Program“, “Basic Health Program.” So, depending on the program that the states have, whether it is one or the other, this program of interpretation, the new interpretation of what a legal resident is, a person legally resident in the state, is going to have an effect on those as well. other insurance programs.

So not only does the change come for DACA, it also comes for people who have Obamacare or who do not have insurance because they have not been able to, because the interpretation and the program within their state has not allowed them; but with this new change they may have access. So, it’s important to reach out and ask your medical advisor if these new changes can help you in your health insurance program.

Juan Camilo:
If you have any questions related to any of these topics, it is always good to consult with experts. When we talk about experts on immigration issues, we consult a lot with lawyer Martha Arias, precisely for that reason. If you see below in the first comment, we left a telephone number. It’s (305) 671-0018. Call that phone number. It is the office of lawyer Martha Arias. Make an appointment, ask it if you have any questions specifically related to migration. Or you can also visit her website, which is ariasvilla.com.

Lawyer, I have a question here from a person who is connected. His name is Ojota. And she asks, “What happens if a person who entered the United States illegally is now married to a citizen, has been married for more than five years. What can happen to that person?” Can you regularize her situation or how does that work?

Martha Arias:
Yes, normally people who enter the United States illegally cannot receive residency within the country even if they are married to an American citizen. And the reason is that, the law requires that the person be in a legal status or that they have entered the United States legally, or that they be in a protection that can be a beneficiary of a protection that existed before called 245-I. So if the person is not protected by 245-I or entered illegally, then in order to receive residency, that person has to have a family petition, has to ask for a pardon, go through consular processing and leave the United States at consulate to receive residency.

It seems complicated, well, it is a lot of work, yes, but it is something very feasible. This forgiveness has also been released since 2012, it is called “the provisional forgiveness” or “the state side waiver” and it has been applied perfectly. Normally what a person leaves outside the United States is more or less around two weeks, three weeks, it is not that long. That is, in two or three weeks they go to the consulate, receive their residency and return.

But it is important, Juan Camilo, that the people who are going to carry out this process get their lawyer, who is an expert immigration lawyer, graduated and licensed here in the United States, so that they can have a successful case. Because if that person doesn’t evaluate his case well and he has some disability, in addition to illegal presence… well, they can leave him there at the consulate. In other words, as a lawyer, you are very careful when analyzing a case, to see who you are going to send to the consulate, because there are people who definitely cannot be sent.

Juan Camilo:
Wow, interesting. But that is why it is so important that you consult with a lawyer. Remember the phone number we left below (305) 671-0018. Call, make an appointment and resolve those concerns in the best way possible. Here this is just a mouthful. In other words, what we do here is just touch on these topics. This is not a complete solution. Remember the case of this person who gave us that example.

Surely it is something different from what a person who has a similar case will have. That is why you have to review that documentation, those cases individually. There, Ojota is gladly giving thanks.

Remember to visit Martha Arias’ page, AriasVilla.com And also if you have any questions, don’t worry. Or if you want to share this video here on the Actualidad Radio account and Martha Arias’ account it will be published. Martha Arias’ account is @Martha_Arias98.

Follow it because this video will be published there and also on the radio news account. Lawyer who can tell us about the results of the 2025 visa lottery. They are already out.

Martha Arias:

Yes, the results of the 2025 Visa Lottery, known as the ‘Diversity Visa,’ are out. For those unfamiliar, the Visa Lottery is a program run by the United States to benefit individuals from countries with very low immigration rates to the U.S. There’s a specific number of visas granted annually, which are distributed among these countries. Applications for the Diversity Visa Lottery typically open around mid-year, and the results have just been released at the end of March.

People eligible to apply are generally outside the United States. These individuals must follow a consular process, which includes filling out the DS-260, a residency application form. This process should be completed with the assistance of a lawyer. Those who have been selected as beneficiaries of the Visa Lottery and are outside the U.S. can contact our office through our website, where there’s a contact form. We will respond. We also have a phone number listed here on Instagram. Although that line doesn’t have WhatsApp, I’ll write down another number with WhatsApp for those abroad: (305) 233-3110. You can send us a message, and we will provide the information you need. Appointments can also be scheduled via Zoom because it’s crucial to do everything correctly and within the required timeline. Missing that deadline means losing the opportunity you won through the lottery.

Neither immigration nor the National Visa Center, which manages these programs through the State Department, will send emails or texts to anyone. If you signed up for the Visa Lottery, you will NOT receive an email from the State Department telling you that you won. Instead, you MUST go to the State Department’s website where you applied, enter your case number, and check if you won or not.

No one should send you an email. If you receive an email, it’s a scam, a fraud, or a theft. I repeat, the Visa Lottery program does not send emails or texts to anyone. Be careful, because when the results are released, it’s common for people to start receiving these emails. Fraudsters, scammers, and thieves will start sending these messages. They can steal your identity or your money, and there are many other consequences. Okay?

Juan Camilo:
Let us have this clarification from a lawyer, because one of the reasons why we constantly suggest that you contact lawyers, who are experts in immigration matters; is not only so that your procedures are done well, because surely we will be able to fill out a form, we will find information about the procedures that we have to do. But those, those small print, those important changes can make a gigantic difference between a process being successful and not being successful.

So we make those recommendations that they consult with an expert immigration lawyer for that, but also for other important things. And it is so that, we do not fall into the traps that people set. Because there are many people who take advantage of them, that many people in the United States, who have to resolve their immigration issues. And when you see the amount of traps, frauds, or people who pose as professionals who really are not, or who claim to have knowledge that they really do not have, it is very, very problematic later on. We have seen many cases of poorly made recommendations, in which they say, no, this person told me that because it was better for me not to review, it is better to go for people who really know about these issues. And it is best to consult with expert lawyers.

Martha Arias:
Look Juan Camilo; now that you say that, I take this opportunity to tell you, for example, something that happened these days in the office and it is a client of mine, a client that we have helped with his case before and he was ready to apply to his citizenship and well, he had an economic problem, he didn’t do it with us and someone told him no, well I can help him, I don’t charge him but he made the application but he made a serious mistake and that is that he didn’t put his children. His children are not biological, they are not inside the United States, they are outside the United States but that is serious, why? Because if the person, those children existed, since in this case they did exist when the person became a resident at the time of filling out the application, immigration will question why he or she did not write down the children, and possibly what immigration will think is that the person is trying to be a little “sneaky” is said in English to be a little liar and does not mention the children because those children are minors and for the purposes of receiving citizenship you have to prove that you have good moral character. One of the things that they consider, I mean they, immigration, of moral character is that the person has to show that they are up to date and paying their alimonies or child support.

So of course, if you see in an application, you have minor children and you don’t enter them, what immigration is going to think, ah, this guy is here trying to be crazy, not to enter that information so that we don’t ask him. And that is lying. So that’s serious. That is serious because if you encounter an officer who does not have the patience to understand that the person sought help from someone who was not qualified and wrote, well, this is wrong. Then if he does not have that patience and is not going to listen to you, then What he is going to think is that he is trying to deceive the immigration service, he is trying to commit fraud and well; “no, I am not going to approve him because he does not have good moral character” for being a liar. That’s delicate.

Juan Camilo:
Imagine the trouble one can get into by not doing things.

Martha Arias:
Yes, because the man told him, “You don’t need to include children who aren’t in the United States. That’s only for those who are in the U.S. It doesn’t matter if they’re in China, don’t worry, you don’t need to list them.” That’s a lie, a lie.

In every immigration application, you must include all your children: their names, birth dates, and where they live. Even if they live in Japan, China, the Falkland Islands, Alaska, wherever they live, you have to list them.

Juan Camilo:
Another news that; we saw these days is that for the year 2024-2025 there are 40% fewer H-1B visa applications, what are the H-1B visas first of all?

Martha Arias:
These are the ones applied by people who have a four-year university degree or more and the employer makes them a job offer. An electronic registration begins in March of each year and more or less in April the results come out and if the people who applied were selected and can be sent to what is the application package and there are 85,000 visas a year in that preference or in that H-1B category.

Juan Camilo:
Okay. And why are there fewer people applying for that?

Martha Arias:
Well, it is interesting the reason that immigration gave as to why this year the applications were received electronically, because remember, there is an electronic application that is made more or less in March of each year. And the reason he said immigration is that really with the new system they have they greatly reduced the fraud or abuse that existed previously.

The abuse fraud consisted of people supposedly, in order to have more options or more chances, to present several records, not one, but three, four, five, ten, what do I know? Then a number of applications were filled out. For example, the previous year in 2023, in 2022 there were up to 720,000 applications or electronic records.

Juan Camilo:
So they… But there were 700,000 people.

Martha Arias:
But they were not 700,000 people. Surely they were not 720,000 people, but it may have been the same person who sent thousands of applications or quite a few and likewise others who did the same. So they redesigned the program, restructured it and the now electronic program detects the petitioners and the beneficiaries. So if the system sees that there are several applications from that same person, it will delete them all.

He’s not going to leave even the first one. All, all are eliminated. So what’s up? That this year something like 420,400 showed up. Did you see? So, from 700 something they went down to 400 something. But the immigration service says that they are not necessarily people who did not apply, but rather that the system eliminated many of the fraudulent or repeated requests.

Juan Camilo:

Now that we’re talking a bit about numbers, if you have questions about this, the H-1B visa, or any other immigration topic, call the phone number listed below. It’s Martha Arias’ number: (305) 671-0018. If you’re outside the country, don’t worry. She also has a WhatsApp line you can write to. This is crucial because it will especially help you if you have family in Colombia, Venezuela, Argentina, or any country where they want to learn more about topics like the visa lottery or similar issues. You can address your concerns by messaging attorney Martha Arias directly on WhatsApp. The regular phone number is (305) 671-0018, the website is ariasvilla.com, and the WhatsApp number is (305) 233-3110.

You were also telling us about some statistics. Can you also share the numbers about the number of cases currently pending in court, asylum cases, or pending cases here in the south?

Martha Arias

There is a university here in the United States, Syracuse University. They have a system, I don’t know exactly how they do it, a statistical system that looks at the cases pending in the courts. This week, they released interesting data. For instance, they report that from the fiscal year 2020-2024, which started in October and until now in May, an additional 1,155,024 cases have entered the courts. So, an additional 1,155,000 cases have been added to what we already had.

They estimate that all the backlog and pending cases in immigration courts across the United States now total 3,524,051 cases, meaning 3.5 million pending cases. That’s quite a lot, Juan Camilo, and I don’t know when all of these cases will be resolved.

If someone has a court case that’s currently pending and has a hearing coming up, this is the opportunity to hire an attorney and try to request the termination of the court case. Sometimes, depending on the period, lawyers can file these requests and achieve better results than at other times.

Due to the current pressure of all these pending cases, it’s less complicated to have a court case terminated for certain individuals right now. I repeat, this isn’t for everyone, but we are filing these petitions, and they’re viable. You can consult our office or your attorney to submit those cases if you want to get them out of court. There are currently 3,524,051 pending cases in immigration courts across the country.

Juan Camilo:

Wow. Another important topic, and now that I see someone joining who had asked us a similar question internally a few days ago: “How soon after a couple gets married can they start any immigration procedure? Is it right after they get married, or is it better to wait a year or six months? What is advisable?”

Martha Arias

Well, it depends on each case. Sometimes people think everything in immigration is black and white. Is it like this or like that? No, it depends. It depends on the case. Remember, the law is based on facts. The decision made depends on the facts of each case.

For example, if someone has a partner, let’s say the immigrant entered the United States several years ago on a tourist visa and has been in a relationship with a U.S. citizen for two, three, or four years, and they have enough proof of that relationship, then once they get married, they can submit the petition the next day.

Why? Because it’s a couple who have been together for a long time, and before getting married, they had a relationship for two, three, or four years, and have enough evidence. So why wait? There’s no need to, and they can submit the petition the following day.

In contrast, some couples have been together for only a short time and don’t have much evidence to prove their relationship, even though it’s genuine. So those couples might choose to wait a bit until they can gather enough evidence to submit a stronger case.

Another important legal matter is that if someone enters the United States with a tourist visa and submits a residency petition within 90 days (or three months) of arriving, there is a legal presumption of fraud. Why fraud? Because they entered with a tourist visa meant for sightseeing, visiting beaches, malls, Mickey Mouse, and so on. But the person applies for residency, which is like telling immigration, ‘I’m here to visit,’ when in reality, they intend to stay. This could be considered visa misrepresentation.

Juan Camilo

…and not a visit to see Mickey Mouse.

Martha Arias
Well, that’s the problem. It wouldn’t be advisable for a person to file a petition within 90 days of entry. You see, that’s an example of how each case is different. Each one is analyzed according to its facts, and as a lawyer, I provide advice based on the facts of each case. So there’s no specific timeline where I can say to everyone to file a petition on this exact date. Each case is analyzed individually.

Juan Camilo
Before we leave, if you have any questions about this, remember the phone number below: (305) 671-0018. Make an appointment because it will really make a difference in your immigration process. Before we go, what happens if someone receives a passport due to an immigration error, like a minor’s passport, or if I receive some proof of citizenship that shouldn’t have been granted?

Martha Arias
Well, obviously, if it was given by mistake, it’s not valid. But I don’t think that’s the most serious issue. The real problem is that it’s invalid, and how do we resolve it, fix it, and understand the implications of using a U.S. passport without being an actual American citizen? If someone voted in an election, what are the implications of that vote?

There are many civil and immigration consequences of using these passports that don’t belong to you. People think it’s uncommon to receive U.S. passports improperly, but it used to happen more frequently. Now, not so much, but before, U.S. passports were sometimes issued to individuals who weren’t eligible. That’s why it’s important to consult an immigration attorney.

An attorney will first analyze the case before you file any other petitions. Why? Because they need to understand how the mistake occurred. Was it due to a documentation error, or did the person knowingly do it despite not being eligible? There are many questions a lawyer must ask the person.

Then, we present the solutions to the case. It happens a lot, Juan Camilo. In the news a few months ago, a doctor was mentioned. His father, a diplomat from another country, brought him to the U.S. as a child. That young man wasn’t brought to the U.S.; he was born here to a diplomat’s child.

So, he had a birth certificate, but children of diplomats don’t acquire U.S. citizenship even if they’re born here. He showed the certificate, got a passport, and years later, went to renew it. They told him, ‘No, it was given to you by mistake. We’re not going to issue it again.’ He was shocked to discover he wasn’t a U.S. citizen, despite having a birth certificate because he was born to a diplomat.

These things happen, and sometimes they’re even more complicated than this case. This is why it’s crucial for an attorney to review the cases. People often ask, ‘How much do you charge for filling out so many forms?’ No, no, no, just a moment. Immigration lawyers don’t charge to fill out forms because we aren’t form fillers.

We are lawyers who analyze and defend immigration cases. So when someone comes to us, the forms are the least of our concerns. The most important thing is the case and the law, so we can give accurate legal advice. Forms are secondary. Most lawyers use programs where forms are automatically filled out based on client information.

The important thing is that you understand there is much more to consider behind the form itself. The law must be accurate, and an immigration lawyer conducts that analysis.

Juan Camilo
Well, thank you, attorney, for being with us again. It makes a huge difference to discuss these topics with immigration experts. If you have any questions, you can find Martha Arias’ phone number below, (305) 671-0018, or her website at ariasvilla.com. Share this video with people getting married or dealing with immigration questions. You can also find the Instagram accounts of @Actualidad.Radio and @Martha_Arias98 above.

The video will remain there. So if you missed the beginning, when we talked about DACA, Obamacare, and many other topics, don’t worry, you’ll be able to review it.

Attorney, thank you for joining us. It’s a pleasure to have you back here at Actualidad.

Martha Arias
Thank you, Juan Camilo, for inviting us and for being here. Thanks to everyone listening, and to all who will play this program again, thank you very much. Tell your friends so they can follow us here on our Instagram. My office’s account is @Martha_Arias98. Follow us, and well, until next time. Thanks.

Juan Camilo
Thank you, everyone, and see you next week.

The post ¡Hablemos de Inmigración! – 5/7/2024 appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

H-1B Visas Archives - Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq.

New U.S. Travel Restrictions: What You Need to Know?

What the New U.S. Travel Ban Means for Cubans, Venezuelans, and Asylum Seekers

New TPS Extensions, Deportations to Third Countries, and H-1B Visas

Follow me on Social Media

Original Transcript

English Transcript

USCIS Issues New Form Editions Without Grace Period

Form I-485 – Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status

Form I-485 Supplement A – Adjustment under Section 245(i)

Form I-485 Supplement J – Confirmation of Job Offer (for Employment-Based Applicants)

Form I-918 – Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status

Form I-914 – Application for T Nonimmigrant Status

Form I-192 – Application for Advance Permission to Enter as a Nonimmigrant

Form I-134 – Declaration of Financial Support

Form G-325A – Biographic Information (for Deferred Action)

Form I-131 – Application for Travel Document (now titled “Application for Travel Documents, Parole Documents, and Arrival/Departure Records”)

Form N-400 – Application for Naturalization

Form I-356 – Request for Cancellation of Public Charge Bond

Employment-Based Applicants

Family-Based Applicants

Asylum Seekers and Humanitarian Applicants

Investors and Entrepreneurs

Other Relevant Categories and Applicants

Recommendations for Applicants

Understanding Travel Permits for TPS and DACA Holders

What You Need to Know in Light of the “Matter of Arrabally” and Recent Developments

What Did Matter of Arrabally Decide?

How Matter of Arrabally Affected DACA and TPS Holders

Recent Changes from the Department of State: A New Interpretation of Travel Permits

What This Means for DACA and TPS Holders

Why Consulting an Attorney Before Traveling is Crucial

Conclusion

¡Hablemos de Inmigración! – 11.05.2024

HABLEMOS DE INMIGRACIÓN CON MARTHA ARIAS 11.05.2024

¿Tienes preguntas sobre las nuevas leyes de inmigración en Florida? Contáctanos.

LET’S TALK ABOUT IMMIGRATION

English Transcript

Transcripción en Español

¡Hablemos de Inmigración! – 10.29.2024

HABLEMOS DE INMIGRACIÓN CON MARTHA ARIAS 10.29.2024

¿Tienes preguntas sobre las nuevas leyes de inmigración en Florida? Contáctanos.

LET’S TALK ABOUT IMMIGRATION

¡Hablemos de Inmigración! – 5/7/2024

LET’S TALK ABOUT IMMIGRATION

HABLEMOS DE INMIGRACIÓN CON MARTHA ARIAS
11.05.2024

HABLEMOS DE INMIGRACIÓN CON MARTHA ARIAS
10.29.2024