It is estimated that a further 30% of applicants who do not use lawyer or agent become confused and frustrated with the application process and find it difficult or impossible to get answers to their specific concerns or questions from the immigration departments. As a result, they unnecessarily drop out of the application process. This compares with our SUCCESS RATE OF 98%

If you have a specific case, join our discussion    Click Here

USA IMMIGRATION PROBLEMS

Over the past several months, the headlines have been peppered with terms like border control and homeland security, with stories that inevitably talk about reducing or tightening the reigns on immigration.

United States had over 14 Million illegal aliens. Some came from Mexico and other overstayed Non-Immigrant Visa(s).

As an immigrant, aspiring immigrant, or temporary visa holder, you have good reason to be uncertain about your future these days. There are legal and administrative changes that may affect you. Naturalized citizens and green card holders have less to worry about in this regard, but some may face scrutiny simply because they are first generation immigrants and are suddenly, often unfairly, subject to new suspicions or prejudices stemming from terrorism. Illegal immigrants have always been in violation of the law, but most were able to get away with staying here. New crackdowns that follow-up on absconders and expedite deportations are changing life for them as well.

This said, I am not trying to spread the rumor that all legal immigrants will face dire consequences from the September 11th events. However, many things have changed since then, and there may be a price to pay for some. At the same time, many more things have stayed the same. The extent of the long-term changes and effects remains to be seen.

What are we looking at? The most powerful country in the world, the U.S.A., has been attacked by a few foreign individuals who planned their atrocities on American soil and elsewhere. Naturally, the response of the United States had to be severe, outside the country as well as within. After we learned that some of the suspected terrorists were students, in both legal and expired status, we had to expect a cry for change in immigration laws. As is unavoidable with legislative reform, those affected are not only the bad ones, but also, and probably mainly, the good ones, immigrants and visa holders with honest intentions who respect and appreciate America.

In the midst of all this tragedy and confusion, we have to consider the situation before September 11th and realize that immigration has always been a passionately debated issue, accompanied by frequent changes in law, calls for amnesty and criticism of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). Remember Elian Gonzalez, the Cuban boy who drifted ashore in an inner tube in Florida? That was back in the fall of 1999 and made headlines for several months, but unlike the current problems, this case did not create any sweeping changes in immigration policy. Then, a few months later, the presidential elections raised the subject of immigration anew, but attention in the media and among the candidates were still limited. It was passionate, often critical, and sometimes sympathetic. President Bush emphasized his familiarity with, and understanding of the immigration problem from his experience as governor of Texas neighboring state. But still, it was a topic that stayed within certain circles. The word immigration was not on the lips of all Americans. Not until September 11th attack. And then some things changed.

Lets look at some of the most important legislative and policy changes that are underway or already realized. Some were a direct result of post 9/11 th concerns, while others have simply been influenced by them:

New policy for foreign students and visitors: some seven months after 9/11, the INS issued a new rule pertaining to foreign students who want to study in the U.S.A, to travelers who visit for either pleasure or business, and to persons ordered deported. Effective upon publication in the Federal Register, the proposal calls for:

1. Students to have a confirmation of acceptance from a U.S.A school before they enter the country. Students to no longer be allowed to apply to a school if they are already in U.S.A, and instead must return to their home countries to do so.
2. Tourists and business travelers to be limited to a 30 day stay in U.S.A, or to the amount of time definitively required to complete their trip. The maximum extended stay to go from one year to six months with extensions given only under very specific, limited conditions.
3. Persons ordered deported or removed from the U.S.A to surrender within 30 days or forfeit all rights to appeal and asylum.

245(i), which allows certain illegal aliens to adjust their status to that of permanent resident if they had a sponsor, was temporarily revived last year and an extension seemed likely this year. Congress passed the border security bill which included this amendment, but the Senate recently removed the amendment and the prospects do not look good, though the details are not final as of this writing. (This was incorrectly referred to as amnesty by some politicians and media. Amnesty refers to a blanket pardon of illegal immigrant status.*)

Border Security Plan for U.S.-Mexico: on his recent trip to Mexico and other Latin-American countries, President Bush announced his new border security plan that would expedite traffic and goods and weed out terrorists, drug dealers and so-called coyotes, immigrant smugglers. For people crossing the border daily to go to work, this can be a hassle. Similar actions have been taken at the American-Canadian border, where the number of Border Patrol agents has been increased and National Guard troops have been dispatched for support. One major aspect of border control includes national guards along the border.

Police in Florida were given the right to detain people for immigration violations. In the past, only federal agents could do so. Florida was set as the "test" state, with plans for other states to follow its lead.

*Amnesty for illegal Mexicans: this issue was seriously discussed between President Bush and Mexican President Vicente Fox last September, before 9/11. Amnesty offers forgiveness to certain groups of illegal immigrants, allowing them to adjust status to that of permanent resident, without penalty. The most recent amnesty was to be for Mexicans, which did spark some anger among other immigrants groups. Also discussed were certain working visa programs for unskilled Mexican workers. Unfortunately for the many illegal Mexicans in this country, this issue has been put on the backburner, overshadowed by the 9/11 events and replaced with the above-mentioned talks about heightened border security. Many Mexicans are angry, and blame Islamic extremists for their troubles.

International tracking systems using means of identification such as national  ID cards and even fingerprints are being recommended and reviewed. In the future, it may be impossible to fake your identity or your immigration status.

The visa waiver program allows nationals from some countries to enter the U.S.A for a limited time without having to obtain a visa. Due to a illegal immigration problems. Argentina was removed from participation. Other countries may also be excluded. Though not directly related to 9/11, a general crack down may have influenced the decision.

Automatic revalidation for some third country nationals was canceled. For years, persons in legal visitor status to the U.S.A could visit Canada, Mexico or approved adjacent islands for up to 30 days and then return to the U.S.Ausing their existing I-94. Now, persons from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Sudan, North Korea, Cuba may not be automatically revalidated. Nor can those who apply for a new visa while abroad. The latter may cause problems for many innocent people who apply for a change of status and simply want to cross the border to pick it up, rather than having to return home to a distant and expensive-to-get-to land.

No more J-visa waiver for physicians: Foreign students who come to the U.S.A for medical training are required to go back to their home countries for 2 years before they can return to U.S.A The J waiver program for physicians made it possible for them to stay if they would agree to work in medically underserved areas, obtain such an offer and got appropriate government sponsorship. The plug was pulled on this program in February, 2002. Although this affects a very small niche of immigrants, the timing is suspicious and its impact could be devastating for areas with a shortage of medical treatment, and for the physicians aspiring to immigrate.

Perhaps the biggest change yet is the dismantling of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Yes, the INS as we knew it for many years, is no more. First, the House Judiciary Committee voted 32-2 to recommend a bill that would put an end to the INS. The bill proposed that the 69 year old agency be replaced with a new Agency for Immigration Affairs under the Department of Justice, headed by an Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs. Two new bureaus would be established: The new Bureau of Immigration Services and Adjudications would take over all immigration applications/processing and status/record keeping functions. The Bureau of Immigration Enforcement would handle control and prosecution of immigration violations and legal matters. The bill also provides for funding, better organization and means for handling refugee emergencies. It was passed by a 405-9 vote by the House of Representatives on 04/25/02.

Tying the changes together

The nationwide effort to gain more control over immigration includes heightened border security, new restrictions on certain visa categories and on visitors, and the abolishment of the INS. For people entering U.S.A which means more scrutiny with more questions being asked about their motives to come here. Stricter controls of passengers and their luggage on airports are already in place, and will probably be part of air travel for a long time. Big-brother-like scenarios may become a reality.

For immigrants who are in the process of adjusting their status to become permanent residents, things will remain the same, with the possible exception of interrogations of people from Muslim countries and Arab or Asian origins. With the change in government agency, processing times may get longer or shorter. There is no telling just yet.

For illegal immigrants, the conditions have become harsher through tougher border control, the stalling of 245(i), the abandonment of amnesty talks and an all-time low in the acceptance of their status among Americans. However, there is another side to it: the current economic slump seems to be in recovery, and that means, in simple terms, more workers are needed, although I am not too optimistic about an immediate boom in the economy. If U.S.A and Mexico keep improving their economical relationships, the prospects for illegal from Mexico might not be too bad. By doing so, U.S.A might alienate other nations that send us illegal immigrants, but that is another issue.

The government has its work cut out for it. Knowing how disorganized and ineffective the INS has been, this new plan seems like a monumental task. Firing people and cleaning up is one thing, but training new (or old) personnel requires time and expertise, and is long-term a matter. The death and rebirth of immigration services and the coordination with the other agencies should be taken seriously by President Bush and lawmakers, and we expect more than just lip-service. Lets hope that the coordination of these agencies will happen in a reasonable amount of time and with success, for a well-working immigration agency would be extremely beneficial to a great many of us.

CANADA IMMIGRATION PROBLEMS:

Citizenship and Immigration Canada’s (CIC) commitment for 2008 is to admit up to 265,000 permanent residents. In this way, Canada’s immigration program will continue to respond to the diverse skill requirements of a growing economy. CIC aims to admit a record number of provincial nominees in order to meet growing regional needs and to introduce the Canadian Experience Class.

A proper response to these events indeed necessitates a re-examination of the manner in which foreign nationals are permitted entry to and through Canada borders.

Even more pressing at this juncture, is the immediate need to evaluate the manner in which government agencies regulate the airline and maritime industries in Canada and United States to ensure the safe movement of passengers and goods within and between our countries. Airport and airline security in both countries has obvious flaws and the security breaches that are present at our seaports are no less than problematic.

Equally apparent is the abject failure by U.S.A law enforcement agencies, including the FBI, the CIA and the NSA who once again failed to detect the efforts by an established network of terrorists who undertook sophisticated and prolonged efforts to unleash such devastation and destruction on American soil.

But, as a partner to one of the greatest economic alliances the world has ever known, and a country whose national security is deeply dependent on the United States, how does the Canadian Government respond to the hard facts brought to light by the Canadian Secret Intelligence Service, that more than 50 militant groups such as the Al Qaeda group of Osama bin Laden, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Tamil Tigers, Sikh militants, as well as former war criminals from Rwanda, Bosnia and other genocide bearing countries continue to find safe haven and carry out their fund raising activities within Canada? Moreover, can it not be argued that Canada immigration refugee policies, which permit unconditional entry into the country of thousands of undocumented claimants each year, create increased risk to our national security?

In reply, Canadian immigration officials no doubt, will quickly point to the planned implementation of Bill C-11 an exhaustive legislative replacement to the current Immigration Act, which passed through the Liberal controlled Parliament this summer and is being debated this week by the Liberal dominated Senate for imminent approval. Immigration officials will also point to a new omnibus bill that was recently introduced to facilitate the deportation of refugee claimants who are suspected of harboring links to known terrorist groups as well as individuals with criminal backgrounds.

But critics before the recent developments in New York and Washington, have pointed out that Canada new immigration laws, being marketed by the current Immigration Minister as getting tough on criminals, does not solve many of the deep rooted policy related problems that have persisted in the past, particularly in the areas of the appointment process to important decision-making positions, the lack of accountability of decision makers and the relative ease in which undocumented refugee claimants are being admitted into the country while they await the outcome of their claims. Critics also point out that the proposed laws merely download the substance of future immigration policies unto a currently undefined regulatory process that will require no less than many months to draft and which will have the effect of insulating decision makers as well as the Immigration Ministry from the checks and balances that have been a hallmark of the Canadian democratic process in the past.

Canadian immigration policy is designed to promote domestic and international interests that take into consideration demographic requirements as well as international agreements to which Canada is a signatory. Canada falling birth rate, an aging population and a continued incidence of Canadian workers relocating to greener pastures in the United States is the basis for current immigration policy which is set to welcome 250,000 immigrants this year, the highest number since 1956. Canada, unlike the United States, admits nearly three times the numbers of immigrants in proportion to their respective populations and at current levels, accounts for 75 per cent of labor force growth. For these reasons alone, immigration policies between the two countries cannot be overly similar.

The current government however, in marshalling resistance to the argument that Canada immigration policies cannot be harmonized with the United States, must acknowledge that the manner in which it administers its massive immigration programs have serious deficiencies, which in addition to planned overhauls in the areas of enforcement, delivery of services, refugee determination and selection of foreign nationals to Canada, will also require a significant increase in funding, far beyond current levels. Resource cutbacks, a bi-product of the Liberal government plan to reduce Canada national deficit during the past number of years, has been a major source of problems for Canada immigration ministry. Lack of funding in the immigration field is readily apparent amongst practitioners by the continued decline in service standards, a growing complacency and indifference amongst foreign service personnel, and by the continued use of unqualified personnel at Immigration and Refugee Board hearings, Ports Of Entry, Central Processing Centers and by the use of non-Canadian immigration officers with full decision making powers at sensitive Canadian visa offices abroad. Clearly, the Canadian government in carrying out its objectives faces enormous challenges to ensure that those who we admit into this country are processed within reasonable time frames and do not pose a threat to Canada or our neighbors to the south.

Efforts are now under way to further expand upon cooperative strategies with the United States in the areas of shared intelligence gathering, administration of customs and revenue policies and joint procedures on security with government agencies in the United States in order to better secure our North American perimeters. Such initiatives will also include information and electronic database sharing with law enforcement agencies between G8 member countries.

Recent announcements by the Canadian government to implement legislation prohibiting the practice of fund raising by terrorist groups who use such funds to engage in destructive activities are a further step in the direction of addressing the Canadian connection to the global terrorism problem. These announcements will surely depend however upon the assistance of Canada intelligence gathering resources, which have been heavily criticized in the past for its own shortcomings.

There are additional measures that we must consider to enhance national security and which have minimal bearing on the planned implementation of legislative reforms. First, we must introduce without further delay the use of information-encrypted passports and residence cards, as is the norm in most other western countries. Canada inferior identity documentation practices are a known target of human smugglers, foreign secret service agencies (one foreign government has alluded to using Canadian passports for its own covert operations in the past) terrorist and militant groups world wide, for a reason.

We must consider adapting a tougher and a far more costly approach to the management of undocumented refugee claimants by detaining a greater number of such individuals until sufficient and timely security and medical background verifications can be completed. Under current practice, refugee claimants are readily admitted (without medical testing) after meeting a minimal threshold screening process at the port of entry. Security background checks are only initiated after a refugee claimant has been approved. In U.S.A and Australia, undocumented asylum seekers are detained under mandatory legislation. Detention of undocumented refugee claimants although permissible under existing Canadian law, is rarely used. Proposed reforms allowing for  front-loaded security screening of refugee claimants must be used in tandem with increased detentions for undocumented claimants. It is at the stage of initial entry where refugee claimants pose the greatest security risks.

Under current immigration policy, mandatory security background screening is carried out for individuals seeking permanent entry to Canada. Applicants for non-immigrant visas seeking admission to visit, study or work in Canada, are generally not subject to any security background screening. Individuals from designated countries are required to obtain an entry visa and to demonstrate as a condition of visa issuance, a likelihood to leave Canada upon the expiry of the visa. The recent developments in the United States would now seem to justify the need to introduce security background screening measures for selected non-immigrant visa seekers.

As we react in horror to the recent developments south of our border, Canada must resist calls to harmonize its immigration laws with the United States or to compromise our democratic principles, which are the envy of the world. However, Canadian law-makers and policy makers alike, who are no doubt well aware of the objections raised by many, must bear immediate responsibility to effectively address the flaws that continue to persist in the administration and funding of Canada  immigration programs, which legislative reform alone may not resolve.

AUSTRALIA AND CANADA IMMIGRATION PROBLEMS:

Australia and Canada have a unique immigration procedure, and many types of visas. Many people complain about their immigration profile was held by AUSTRALIA Migration for long time an held the applicant under holding visa for long time. Our advise for people willing to migrate to AUSTRALIA to consult and immigration lawyer or agent instead of applying by themselves.

Industry feedback has indicated that an estimated 30% of all applicants who lodge their application online and directly with the immigration authorities get it WRONG AND FAIL because they did not use a registered migration agent or lawyer to compile and double check their application and immigration eligibility first.
 
It is estimated that a further 20% of applicants who do not use an agent become confused and frustrated with the application process and find it difficult or impossible to get answers to their specific concerns or questions from the immigration authorities. As a result, they unnecessarily drop out of the application process.
 
Overall, this equates to an estimated up to 50% FAILURE RATE for "do-it-yourself" applicants applying directly to the immigration authorities.
 
This compares with our SUCCESS RATE OF 98% for applicants that apply through officially-recognised migration law firm like ours.
 
We believe this failure and drop out rate is unacceptably high. Every day we receive many concerning phone calls from applicants who have tried to apply online or directly with the immigration authorities and have got it wrong. Many fail outright. They are generally very stressed and are frustrated by the delays and problems that this causes, not to mention left out of pocket.  We are able to assist at this late stage, but it is more difficult and time-consuming to correct an incomplete or incorrect application. Additionally, it is difficult to go back to re-lodge or change an application after an original submission has already been made to the authorities. It is also more expensive".
 
We want to protect applicants from these risks and ensure that applicants secure the right of residence that they are entitled to in the quickest possible time. To do so, the key is for new settlers to use an officially -recognised agent BEFORE applying and to instruct the agent to compile, double-check and lodge your online or physical residence visa application on your behalf - this will avoid unnecessary delays and risk, and means that you will receive your visas as soon as possible, and not be one of the thousands of applicants who are unnecessarily refused every year. So the moral of the story is to get it right the first time.


Some of known Issues:
1) Incomplete or improper Application, especially the new simplified one.
2) Fraud and/or False Information found in Documents.
3) Positive Background check indication criminal record.
4) ILETS score no comply with points calculations.
5) Positive Medical Check indicating disease such as hepatitis C, Tuberculosis, AIDS, etc....
6) Failure of file update when circumstances changed.
7) Employment false Info after physical check from visa processing officer
8) File misrepresentation when you submit false information and incomplete forms.
9) Names in immigration documents mismatched.
10) Wrong information filled in online applications.