No announcement yet.

Bloggings: Clueless on Business Immigration by Mike Hammond


  • Bloggings: Clueless on Business Immigration by Mike Hammond

    Bloggings on Immigration Law

    by Mike Hammond

    Clueless on Business Immigration

    At the second Presidential debate held last week, both President Obama and Governor Romney demonstrated a complete lack of any understanding of the issues  relevant to business immigration. Let’s start with President Obama.  I almost  fell out of my chair and dropped my bowl of ice cream when I heard him recite the accomplishments and improvements that had occured during his current term.  He stated,   ”The first thing we did was to streamline the legal immigration system, to reduce the backlog, make it easier, simpler and cheaper for people who are waiting in line, obeying the law to make sure that they can come here and contribute to our country and that’s good for our economic growth.” Did I miss a memo ? For the IT professionals who are Indian born in the EB2 and EB3 category waiting for between 5 and 25+ years for a green card, are you feeling like the backlog has been reduced ?   For the professional nurse waiting abroad in the Philippines for 5-7 years for your visa to come to the U.S. or the Canadian RN working at the US hospital who is waiting 5 years for her spouse to be able to work, do you feel the process has been streamlined ? For staffing cos. who now have to produce additional documentation and file multiple extensions  for H-1b workers and argue that software engineers are professionals and need a college degree, do you feel that the process is simpler and cheaper ? And as for promoting economic growth, the only growth that has been promoted is in outsourcing contracts as the practical elimination of the L-1b visa has directly resulted in the transfer of U.S. based jobs overseas. Bangalore thanks you, Mr. President but, Silicon Valley does not. Now for Mr. Romney, how naive can he be ? Does he really want to turn over the screening and admission of immigrants to U.S. schools as he posited ? Has he never heard of Tr-Valley or University of Northern Virginia, or more recently Herguan University, all accused of visa fraud and running visa mills. In addition to these high profile cases, if he did a little exploring, he would come to know that many U.S. universities are handing out CPT like candy on Halloween and admitting foreign students into grad programs based upon dubious educational records. Why ? The almighty dollar runs U.S. universities and international tuition is a great source of revenue. If a green card could be obtained by simply completing a U.S. degree, does Mr. Romney not think that the fraud would be rampant ? Was he kidding,  “get a green card stapled to their diploma, come to the U.S. of A. “  We need serious solutions to the broken state of our business immigration laws and unfortunately, neither candidate seemed to have a clue.

    About The Author

    Mike Hammond is a Senior Partner and Founder of Hammond Law Group. Before beginning Hammond Law Group, Mike served as an associate at Benjamin, Yocum, and Heather handling civil trial work. Mr. Hammond frequently meets with clients in Atlanta, Chicago, New York, Tampa, Phoenix, San Francisco, Ft. Lauderdale, and Washington D.C. Mike regularly conducts training seminars and internal audits for businesses. He especially enjoys Q & A presentations to groups of computer consultants or healthcare workers.

    The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) alone and should not be imputed to ILW.COM.

    • jai kumar garg
      jai kumar garg commented
      Editing a comment
      How true!

      Immigration is like a flowing river (blocked by your so called laws) the dam; if you let the bottom clean and good (legal) water flow then good for it generates needed energy and also irrigates your life.

      If not then in the over flow you just let all the dirt (that floats on the top surface of the river) into your system.
    Posting comments is disabled.





There are no tags yet.

Latest Articles


  • Article: Birthright Citizenship Is Not A Legal Assumption; It
    Last week on Fox News, Tucker Carlson said,
    08-21-2018, 01:24 PM
  • Blogging: Trump's "National Security" Abuses: First, Muslim Ban; Next, Security Clearance Revocation.. By Roger Algase
    Trump's "National Security" Abuses: First, Muslim Ban; Next, Security Clearance Revocation. Trashing Immigrant Rights Endangers Freedom of All Americans.

    CNN reports on August 21 that 175 former US officials have denounced Donald Trump for revoking the security clearance of former CIA director John Brennan for speaking out in opposition to Trump.

    Presidential use of "national security"
    08-21-2018, 12:54 PM
  • Article: The EB-5 Immigration Program and the Investors Process By H. Ronald Klasko

    If you are having difficulty viewing this document please click here.

    08-20-2018, 08:15 AM
  • Article: Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence By Karolina Walters
    Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence by Karolina Walters The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), the union that represents the nation’s immigration judges, is challenging the government’s decision to remove an immigration judge from a well-known case and replace him with a judge who immediately ordered the immigrant in the case deported. NAIJ’s grievance addresses the treatment of one immigration judge, but its resolution will have implications for judicial independence throughout the entire immigration court system. The grievance was filed on behalf of Philadelphia-based immigration judge Steven A. Morley, who was presiding over the case of Mr. Reynaldo Castro-Tum. Castro-Tum’s case rose to national importance earlier this year when Attorney General Jeff Sessions chose to refer the case to himself to reconsider the Board of Immigration Appeals’ previous decision in the case. In reconsidering the decision, Sessions effectively eliminated judges’ use of administrative closure, a docket management tool. Sessions sent Castro-Tum’s case back to Judge Morley, noting that the immigration court order Castro-Tum removed if he did not appear at his next hearing. Castro-Tum did not appear at the next hearing. However, Judge Morley continued the case to resolve whether Castro-Tum received adequate notice of the hearing. Due process requires, at a minimum, that an individual be given notice of proceedings and an opportunity to be heard by a judge. But before the next hearing could take place, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) replaced Judge Morley with an Assistant Chief Immigration Judge who ordered Castro-Tum removed when he did not appear at court again. In their grievance, NAIJ asserts that the decision to remove Judge Morley from Castro-Tum’s case and reassign many other cases from his docket resulted in unacceptable interference with judicial independence. The grievance specifically claims that EOIR’s actions violate immigration judges’ authority under the regulations to exerci...
    08-17-2018, 11:12 AM
  • Article: Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico By Sophia Genovese
    Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico by Sophia Genovese The Trump Administration is seeking to create and implement a safe third country agreement with Mexico . Under this agreement, asylum seekers arriving at the US border who have travelled through Mexico would be denied the ability to file their asylum claims in the US. Such an agreement would trample on the rights of asylum-seekers, violating both international and US asylum law. In particular, the US would be violating the international principle of non-refoulement , which provides that no State “shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his [or her] life or freedom would be threatened,” where Mexico has a proven track record of being anything but safe for asylum seekers . The US has also codified Article 33(1) of the Refugee Convention into Section 208(a)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) which provides that it will not return an asylum seeker to his or her country of origin, but may, at the determination of the Attorney General, remove the asylum seeker to a “safe third country… where the [asylum seeker] would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection.” Although Mexican officials have not yet indicated whether they would sign a safe third country agreement with the US, asylum advocates should proactively seek to prevent such a devastating policy with a country that lacks adequate asylum protections. As reported by Human Rights First and Amnesty International , 75 percent of asylum seekers apprehended and detained by the National Institute of Migration (INM), the Mexican immigration enforcement agency, were not informed of their right to seek asylum. Even if asylum seekers are able to make their claims, only 30% of the asylum proceedings are ever concluded , and even fewer are granted, leaving many bona fide asylum seekers stranded without a resolution. The treatment of unaccompanied minors’ asylum claims in Mexico are even more dismal. Of the 35,000 minors apprehended by the INM in the first half of 2016, only 138 were able to apply for asylum , of which only 77 were granted protection. Beyond the failing asylum system in Mexico, asylum seekers are also in extreme danger of kidnapping, murder, rape, trafficking, and other crimes by INM officers and civilians. A safe third country agreement with Mexico would violate the United States’ international obligations under the 1967 Optional Protocol to the Refugee Convention, to which we are a signatory, which adopts by incorporation the obligations outlined in the 1951 Refugee Convention, to which the US is not a signatory. Take the example of an asylum-seeker, Mrs. H, who is fleeing politically-motivated violence in Honduras. Her husband, Mr. H, was a vocal political activist who opposed the National Party and members of the Honduran government. Mr. H began to receive death threats due to his political beliefs and reported such threats to the authorities. The authorities, however, di...
    08-16-2018, 02:32 PM
  • Article: Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence By Eugene Goldstein, Esq.

    Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence


    On August 9, 2018 USCIS published a “Policy Memorandum” restricting the 20-year-old calculation of Duration of Status (D/S) for F-1, J-1 and M-1 entrants (and their derivative families).

    USCIS also published an announcement (hereinafter “announcement”) “USCIS Issues Revised Guidance on Unlawful Presence for Students and Exchange Visitors , and a general discussion “Unlawful Presence and Bars to Admissibility” ...

    08-15-2018, 12:57 PM