Are you eligible to sponsor your relative to immigrate to the United States?


If you are a permanent resident of the United States and looking to sponsor your relative for his immigration to the country, then you need to fulfil certain eligibility criterion.

Here is a look at those eligibility guidelines –

1. You must be a lawful permanent citizen of the country and must possess written documentation proof for the same.

2. You must prove to the authorities that you can support your relative above the 125% poverty line.

3. You can file the sponsorship petition of only the following relatives (who are of foreign origin) :

• Parents/Brother/Sister (if you are more than at least 21 years of age or more than that).
• Spouse.
• Unmarried children (<21years of age).
• Unmarried son or daughter (>21years of age).
• Married son or daughter (age is no bar).

However, under all the above mentioned cases, you must be able to provide lawful documented proofs for the relationship as well as your own citizenship proof in the United States, failing to which can lead to the rejection of the immigration petition.

Michael Wildes on Justice with Judge Jeanine - April 28, 2012

 

Why would the White House consider 

Susan Sarandon a security risk?

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2012/04/24/why-would-white-house-consider-susan-sarandon-security-risk-1886234455/#ixzz1sxoo50iY

By Hollie McKay

Published April 24, 2012

FoxNews.com

Susan Sarandon, almost as well-known for her liberal activism as she is for making movies, is claiming that she was recently denied a security clearance to visit the White House, and that the government has tapped her phone.

“We know we’re under surveillance, I’ve had my phone tapped,” Sarandon told the audience during a question and answer session at New York’s Tribeca Film Festival. She also said she had twice seen a file the government holds on her by filing Freedom of Information requests.

A rep for Sarandon did not respond to FoxNews.com's request for further comment, and government officials are staying mum on the matter, too. So why, as Sarandon claims, would the feds would want to keep the Oscar-winner on close watch, and out of the White House all together?

"We know we’re under surveillance, I’ve had my phone tapped"

- Susan Sarandon

“Based on her history of activism and outspoken nature in pursuing her agenda, it makes sense that the White House would be leery about her motives for a White House visit,” Michael Wildes, an immigration lawyer at New York-based Wildes & Weinberg, told FOX411’s Pop Tarts. “Her motivation to bring this out is more than likely about her political agenda more so than it is her looking for attention. But, wire taps do not necessarily have to be indicative of someone that is a serious security threat, especially in the Patriot Act era.”

Sarandon’s liberal activism has spanned over four decades. She has also put her celebrity behind several Democratic presidential hopefuls, including John Kerry and John Edwards; called for elections to be monitored by international authorities; vehemently protested against the invasion of Iraq; and rallied for the withdrawal of U.S. troops overseas.

Most recently, Sarandon came under fire for referring to Pope Benedict XVI as a ‘Nazi,’ and spoke out in support of the Occupy Wall Street movement. But given that President Obama is running for reelection, some say it is in his best interests to distance himself from the “Dead Man Walking” star.

“By any objective standard, Susan is an extremist. Her far-left activism would have resulted in her being labeled a ‘subversive’ in decades past, and she is not someone Mr. Obama and his administration are likely to want to associate with given the upcoming election,” said California-based attorney, David Wohl. “Sarandon’s recent labeling of the Pope as a ‘Nazi’ could result in severe damage to the President’s re-election prospects with Catholic voters should he invite her to the White House."

Sarandon may also conside her self-suggested status as a security threat a boon to her activist reputation.

“If true, it’s a badge of honor in her circles,” noted Jason Maloni of Levick Strategic Communications. “Plus I expect she’s not applying for a government job anytime soon."

Michael Wildes - CNN Newsroom - March 2, 2012

Miami valedictorian fighting deportation

By John Couwels, CNN

(CNN) – An immigration judge has ruled two teenage girls, including a Miami high school valedictorian, are to be deported for being in the country illegally.

Daniela Pelaez, 18, and her sister Dayana came to the United States with their parents from Colombia 14 years ago and never left - overstaying their tourist visas.

A Miami immigration judge ruled this week that the two girls must be deported to Colombia, leaving the teenagers in shock.

"Education not deportation!" chanted fellow students Friday during a protest outside the North Miami Senior High School, where Pelaez is valedictorian.

The high school senior has a 6.7 grade point average and is at top of her class out of 823 students, said a school administrator.

"She's a good citizen, besides being a brilliant girl," said North Miami Senior High School administrator Larry Jurrist, who added he can't understand why the judge decided to deport the girls.

Pelaez told CNN anchor Suzanne Malveaux Friday that her family has been battling to stay in the United States legally.

"Colombia is my roots, but this is all I know," said Pelaez, who has applied to continue her studies at several top-tier schools, including Dartmouth College, Duke University and Trinity College.

The teenager wants to study cellular and molecular biology for a career in the medical field.

"What I have worked for since I was 4 years old - to live the American dream. And I feel like I earned it," she said.

The teen was shocked by the judge's ruling since her brother was allowed to become a citizen and is currently serving in the U.S. military. He has toured in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesman Nestor Yglesias issued a statement Thursday on the teens' case that read: "Daniela and Dayana Pelaez have reserved the right to appeal an immigration judge's decisions ordering them to return to Colombia. ICE will not take any action against them while they pursue additional legal options."

The federal agency could also decide to take no further action, allowing the girls to remain in the United States.

"Can you imagine that? Literally putting a postage stamp on her forehead and send her packing," Michael Wildes, a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, said about the case.

"This is completely out of character for our country," he told CNN. "I know the courts and the prosecutor will do right by her."

Pelaez said her attorney will appeal the judge's ruling and the teenager hopes she will get the opportunity to stay in the United States so she can decide in April which college to attend.

With Guilty Verdict, Deportation is Possibility for Ravi

http://www.wnyc.org/articles/new-jersey-news/2012/mar/20/deportation-possibility-ravi/

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

By Nancy Solomon

Now that Dharun Ravi has been convicted of 15 charges related to his use of a webcam to spy on his gay roommate, he may also face possible deportation proceedings.

Ravi, 20, is a legal resident who was born in India and spent most of his life in New Jersey.

Anyone convicted of a crime that is defined as involving “moral turpitude” or an aggravated felony can face a deportation proceeding. It’s up to federal immigration officials to bring the case, and an immigration judge to make the final determination.

Michael Wildes, a New Jersey immigration attorney, said federal immigration officials have discretion on whether to proceed with a deportation case against Ravi. The former federal prosecutor thinks it is likely that Ravi will face deportation proceedings.

“There's a lot of pressure on immigration because of the media and the attention of the world on this matter and I believe strongly that they will bring it,” Wildes said.

However, the determination of whether the convictions involve moral turpitude or are aggravated felonies is a complicated one, according to David Isaacson, an immigration attorney with Cyrus D. Mehta and Associates. It would take him several hours of research, if not days, to determine how the Ravi convictions fit into the federal statutes, according to Isaacson.

The federal law on whether a crime is defined as an aggravated felony involves 20 sub-sections. The case law on defining moral turpitude goes back to 1913, Isaacson said. It's a vague legal term used to describe conduct that is considered contrary to justice, honesty or morality.

Ravi was convicted by a New Brunswick jury Friday of invasion of privacy, bias intimidation, hindering a prosecution and witness tampering. Ravi’s lawyers said they will appeal the verdict.

A federal decision on whether to move forward on deportation will likely be made after Ravi is sentenced in May, since sentencing is one of the factors that determines whether or not to deport.

The government does not publish statistics on how many people it attempts to deport after a felony conviction, according to Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a Syracuse University institute that tracks federal enforcement agencies. The institute conducted a study of 156,713 people facing deportation because they were convicted of aggravated felonies and found that deportation rates changed depending on the number of years an immigrant lived here, which country they were from and their legal status. It also found aggravated felonies usually involved violent or drug-related crimes.