To all our dear clients and friends,
We have grown immensely over the past few years and, as a result, have quickly outgrown our Elmwood Village office location.
Borowski Immigration Law looks forward to serving you at 295 Main St, Suite 836, Buffalo, NY 14203 in the historic Ellicott Square building in Downtown Buffalo. Our new location is ideally situated just minutes from the Peace Bridge, the Buffalo Immigration Court, USCIS, and all major transportation links. We are directly off the I-190 Thruway, on the NFTA Metro line and a short walk to the bus station.
Our phone number, fax number, and e-mail addresses remain the same. You can still reach us at (716) 418-7431.
Thursday, November 12, 2015
Tuesday, August 25, 2015
TN Visa Pitfalls - Canadians Working in the U.S. Can Avoid Serious Problems By Knowing The Regulations
Recently, we have had a spate of TN visa workers who have come to us with problems resulting from their failure to understand their obligations under the TN (NAFTA) Visa program. These people often run into problems at the Peace Bridge or other Buffalo/Niagara area ports of entry when applying for new TN Visas or when crossing on old TN Visas, because they failed to educate themselves on the requirements.
Canadians working in the U.S. under a TN (NAFTA) Visa need to be aware of certain requirements. Failure to abide by these requirements can cause serious problems -- and even removal from the U.S. and being found inadmissible. You could lose your ability to work in the U.S. if you are found to be in violation of the immigration regulations.
If a TN employee changes employers, even under the same job description, 8 CFR 214.6 requires that you notify immigration authorities and receive authorization before commencing work. You can re-apply for a new TN visa at the border (for Canadians), at the consulate (for Mexicans) or change your status without leaving the U.S. by filing through USCIS.
This requirement does not apply to changing your job location, if you remain employed by the same employer. It also does not apply if your employer gets acquired by another company, as long as you continue to work for the same subsidiary. However, if in doubt, speak to one of our Buffalo and Toronto TN Visa Lawyers who will analyze your situation and provide you with guidance.
The Buffalo Immigration Lawyers at Borowski Law are located just minutes from the Peace Bridge and handle TN Visa applications for Canadians. We will determine your eligibility, prepare your application packet, and accompany you to the border to make your visa application. Contact Borowski Law today to discuss your TN Visa.
Canadians working in the U.S. under a TN (NAFTA) Visa need to be aware of certain requirements. Failure to abide by these requirements can cause serious problems -- and even removal from the U.S. and being found inadmissible. You could lose your ability to work in the U.S. if you are found to be in violation of the immigration regulations.
If a TN employee changes employers, even under the same job description, 8 CFR 214.6 requires that you notify immigration authorities and receive authorization before commencing work. You can re-apply for a new TN visa at the border (for Canadians), at the consulate (for Mexicans) or change your status without leaving the U.S. by filing through USCIS.
This requirement does not apply to changing your job location, if you remain employed by the same employer. It also does not apply if your employer gets acquired by another company, as long as you continue to work for the same subsidiary. However, if in doubt, speak to one of our Buffalo and Toronto TN Visa Lawyers who will analyze your situation and provide you with guidance.
The Buffalo Immigration Lawyers at Borowski Law are located just minutes from the Peace Bridge and handle TN Visa applications for Canadians. We will determine your eligibility, prepare your application packet, and accompany you to the border to make your visa application. Contact Borowski Law today to discuss your TN Visa.
Thursday, July 2, 2015
Major Arash granted asylum; Released from ICE Custody
We did it!!!! Major Arash was granted asylum at a last-minute Master Calendar Hearing today at the Batavia Immigration Court and released just a few hours later. I appeared telephonically for the hearing as it was scheduled just a few hours in advance, but I was glad to make it to Batavia in time to meet him in front of the facility at the time of his release. I am pleased to say that he is feeling good and is hopeful for his new life here in the United States. He will spend the next few weeks adjusting to life in the United States. My work is not done, however, as Captain Aminyar remains detained pending his appeal.
Tomorrow I will be launching an online fund for those who wish to donate to help Major Arash.
Read more at the Buffalo News
Tomorrow I will be launching an online fund for those who wish to donate to help Major Arash.
Read more at the Buffalo News
Wednesday, July 1, 2015
Tuesday, June 30, 2015
Borowski Law Wins Asylum Case for Afghan Soldier on Appeal
Borowski Law Wins Asylum Case for Afghan Soldier on Appeal
Press Release:
June 30, 2015: The Law Office of Matthew Borowski announces a successful result in the case of Major Jan Mohammad Arash, one of the three Afghan military officers who left a U.S. military base in Massachusetts last September where they were taking part in training exercises, and claimed refugee status at the Canadian border in Niagara Falls. Immigration lawyers Matthew Borowski and Ryan Witmer appealed Major Arash's case to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) after the Immigration Judge at the Batavia Immigration Court denied him asylum. The BIA ruled in favor of Major Arash, granting him asylum.
"It was a long road, but we ultimately prevailed" said immigration lawyer Ryan Witmer, who worked closely with Matthew Borowski on crafting the legal arguments essential to Major Arash's appeal. "The Board agreed with us that the Taliban is a de facto government in Afghanistan and that the Afghan government is unable to control the Taliban's persecution."
The Board's order came almost six months after the Immigration Court's denial of Major Arash's claim on January 30, 2015.
"The Board considered this matter with a three-member panel, which is normally reserved for cases that present a novel legal argument or are otherwise particularly important," said Buffalo Immigration Lawyer Matthew Borowski. "In this case we are pleased that the BIA panel agreed with our assessment of the situation and held that the Taliban does constitute a de facto government in Afghanistan and further, that Major Arash's fear of persecution is not merely based on his involvement in the Afghan military, but stems from his imputed pro-western political opinion resulting from his years of working alongside U.S. service members."
One of the key arguments put forward by the Department of Homeland Security was that Matter of Fuentes, a 1988 BIA Decision, precluded a finding of a nexus between future persecution feared and a protected ground under the Act. The Immigration Judge agreed with this argument and ruled that Major Arash was not eligible for asylum. The BIA disagreed, basing its decision on several federal circuit court cases which distinguished Fuentes. The key determinative factor was that Major Arash would not be persecuted by the Taliban merely because he was an Afghan service member, but because of his training with American and other Western forces. The BIA held that "While it remains true under Fuentes that dangers commonly faced by police (or the military) cannot serve as the basis for an asylum claim, subsequent cases have focused on the activities and responsibilities unique to the petitioner in assessing the relationship between persecution and a protected ground," citing Acharya v. Holder, 761 F.3d 289, 302 (2d. Cir. 2014).
The BIA held that "based on an analysis of the respondent's individual situation here, as established through his credible testimony and supporting evidence, he has established a well-founded fear of persecution by the Taliban on account of an imputed pro-American or pro-Western political opinion."
The BIA found that Major Arash has established statutory eligibility for asylum and that, in the absence of any notable adverse factors, he deserves a favorable exercise of discretion. They remanded the case to the Immigration Judge for a required background check.
Sources at the Department of Homeland Security tell us that the Major will likely go back in front of the Immigration Judge within the next few weeks for his final hearing.
"The Major wants to learn more English, and find a good job so that he can support his family" said Matthew Borowski. "We are setting up a fund to collect donations to help Major Arash get on his feet once he is released from detention."
News media coverage:
Afghan soldier wins right to remain in the U.S.
Press Release:
June 30, 2015: The Law Office of Matthew Borowski announces a successful result in the case of Major Jan Mohammad Arash, one of the three Afghan military officers who left a U.S. military base in Massachusetts last September where they were taking part in training exercises, and claimed refugee status at the Canadian border in Niagara Falls. Immigration lawyers Matthew Borowski and Ryan Witmer appealed Major Arash's case to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) after the Immigration Judge at the Batavia Immigration Court denied him asylum. The BIA ruled in favor of Major Arash, granting him asylum.
"It was a long road, but we ultimately prevailed" said immigration lawyer Ryan Witmer, who worked closely with Matthew Borowski on crafting the legal arguments essential to Major Arash's appeal. "The Board agreed with us that the Taliban is a de facto government in Afghanistan and that the Afghan government is unable to control the Taliban's persecution."
The Board's order came almost six months after the Immigration Court's denial of Major Arash's claim on January 30, 2015.
"The Board considered this matter with a three-member panel, which is normally reserved for cases that present a novel legal argument or are otherwise particularly important," said Buffalo Immigration Lawyer Matthew Borowski. "In this case we are pleased that the BIA panel agreed with our assessment of the situation and held that the Taliban does constitute a de facto government in Afghanistan and further, that Major Arash's fear of persecution is not merely based on his involvement in the Afghan military, but stems from his imputed pro-western political opinion resulting from his years of working alongside U.S. service members."
One of the key arguments put forward by the Department of Homeland Security was that Matter of Fuentes, a 1988 BIA Decision, precluded a finding of a nexus between future persecution feared and a protected ground under the Act. The Immigration Judge agreed with this argument and ruled that Major Arash was not eligible for asylum. The BIA disagreed, basing its decision on several federal circuit court cases which distinguished Fuentes. The key determinative factor was that Major Arash would not be persecuted by the Taliban merely because he was an Afghan service member, but because of his training with American and other Western forces. The BIA held that "While it remains true under Fuentes that dangers commonly faced by police (or the military) cannot serve as the basis for an asylum claim, subsequent cases have focused on the activities and responsibilities unique to the petitioner in assessing the relationship between persecution and a protected ground," citing Acharya v. Holder, 761 F.3d 289, 302 (2d. Cir. 2014).
The BIA held that "based on an analysis of the respondent's individual situation here, as established through his credible testimony and supporting evidence, he has established a well-founded fear of persecution by the Taliban on account of an imputed pro-American or pro-Western political opinion."
The BIA found that Major Arash has established statutory eligibility for asylum and that, in the absence of any notable adverse factors, he deserves a favorable exercise of discretion. They remanded the case to the Immigration Judge for a required background check.
Sources at the Department of Homeland Security tell us that the Major will likely go back in front of the Immigration Judge within the next few weeks for his final hearing.
"The Major wants to learn more English, and find a good job so that he can support his family" said Matthew Borowski. "We are setting up a fund to collect donations to help Major Arash get on his feet once he is released from detention."
News media coverage:
Afghan soldier wins right to remain in the U.S.
Friday, June 5, 2015
Urge ICE to Stop Detaining Pregnant Women in Family Detention Facilities
McClatchyDC recently reported that several of the women being held in family detention in Karnes City, Texas, are pregnant. The women learned about their
pregnancies after being given a urine test soon after being detained, and
one of the women stated that she had not received any off-site medical
care for her pregnancy. This detention directly contradicts the Fall 2014 DHS memorandum outlining enforcement priorities for ICE.
The two family detention facilities in Texas were newly constructed as part of the Obama administration's aggressive response to last year’s surge of migrant families fleeing poverty and violence in Central America. Mothers and children are being detained in these jail-like facilities.
The article states that Joanne Lin, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said she thinks the detention of mothers violated policy guidelines issued by Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson. In a November 2014 memorandum, Johnson said that “absent extraordinary circumstances,” field agents should not detain pregnant mothers and primary caretakers of children.
I have personally dealt with clients who were detained by ICE in Texas, transferred to the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility in Batavia, New York where I regularly visit and represent clients in the Batavia Immigration Court. I have had clients who were granted prosecutorial discretion by ICE in Buffalo, New York after Borowski Law made written requests. These clients then returned to their families in Texas only to be again detained by Texas ICE, without regard for the decision made by the very same agency's other field office to release the non-citizen on parole or on bond. Our office has been told, flat-out, by ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) officers in Texas that they will take enforcement actions that directly contradict the Fall 2014 Johnson memorandum. Our advice moving forward to all of our clients will be to "stay out of Texas."
This advice, of course, is of no help to the roughly 760 mothers and children being held at the "family detention centers," two of which are in Texas and one of which is in Berks County, Pennsylvania.
We must mobilize and ask the Obama administration to take action to end family detention now.
The two family detention facilities in Texas were newly constructed as part of the Obama administration's aggressive response to last year’s surge of migrant families fleeing poverty and violence in Central America. Mothers and children are being detained in these jail-like facilities.
The article states that Joanne Lin, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said she thinks the detention of mothers violated policy guidelines issued by Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson. In a November 2014 memorandum, Johnson said that “absent extraordinary circumstances,” field agents should not detain pregnant mothers and primary caretakers of children.
I have personally dealt with clients who were detained by ICE in Texas, transferred to the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility in Batavia, New York where I regularly visit and represent clients in the Batavia Immigration Court. I have had clients who were granted prosecutorial discretion by ICE in Buffalo, New York after Borowski Law made written requests. These clients then returned to their families in Texas only to be again detained by Texas ICE, without regard for the decision made by the very same agency's other field office to release the non-citizen on parole or on bond. Our office has been told, flat-out, by ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) officers in Texas that they will take enforcement actions that directly contradict the Fall 2014 Johnson memorandum. Our advice moving forward to all of our clients will be to "stay out of Texas."
This advice, of course, is of no help to the roughly 760 mothers and children being held at the "family detention centers," two of which are in Texas and one of which is in Berks County, Pennsylvania.
We must mobilize and ask the Obama administration to take action to end family detention now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)