|
|
|
NEW VISION IMMIGRATION SERVICE - Los Angeles California
Topics in Legal News |
2024/01/09 09:47
|
U.S. citizens or permanent residents can invite their family members to receive permanent residency, which is divided into five categories as follows.
1. Immediate family members of citizens
If you belong to the immediate family of a citizen, you have the advantage of being able to apply for permanent residency right away without being limited by quotas. To fall into this category, you must be the spouse, parent, or unmarried child of a citizen under the age of 21. If you fall into this category, you can apply for permanent residency even if your status is illegal in the United States. However, undocumented immigrants do not fall under this category. In other words, those who entered the country illegally cannot apply for permanent residency even if they marry a citizen. Currently, it takes between 6 months and 1 year to receive permanent residency. However, if you have been married to a citizen for less than two years and have filed a petition for permanent residency, you will be granted temporary permanent residency for two years, and other family members will immediately receive permanent residency.
2. Adult unmarried children of citizens
This applies to unmarried children of citizens over the age of 21. Currently, it takes about 5-6 years.
3. Spouses and children of permanent residents
If the inviter is a permanent resident, the specific targets that can be invited are as follows. It should be noted here that permanent residents are not invited by their parents. After acquiring citizenship to invite parents
New Vision Immigration Service
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trump asks US Supreme Court to overturn Colorado ruling
Topics in Legal News |
2024/01/04 11:48
|
Former President Donald Trump on Wednesday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a ruling barring him from the Colorado ballot, setting up a high-stakes showdown over whether a constitutional provision prohibiting those who “engaged in insurrection” will end his political career.
Trump appealed a 4-3 ruling in December by the Colorado Supreme Court that marked the first time in history that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was used to bar a presidential contender from the ballot. The court found that Trump’s role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol disqualified him under the clause.
The provision has been used so sparingly in American history that the U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled on it. Wednesday’s development came a day after Trump’s legal team filed an appeal against a ruling by Maine’s Democratic Secretary of State, Shenna Bellows, that Trump was ineligible to appear on that state’s ballot over his role in the Capitol attack. Both the Colorado Supreme Court and the Maine secretary of state’s rulings are on hold until the appeals play out.
Trump’s critics have filed dozens of lawsuits seeking to disqualify him in multiple states. He lost Colorado by 13 percentage points in 2020 and does not need to win the state to gain either the Republican presidential nomination or the presidency. But the Colorado ruling has the potential to prompt courts or secretaries of state to remove him from the ballot in other, must-win states.
None had succeeded until a slim majority of Colorado’s seven justices — all appointed by Democratic governors — ruled last month against Trump. Critics warned that it was an overreach and that the court could not simply declare that the Jan. 6 attack was an “insurrection” without a judicial process.
“The Colorado Supreme Court decision would unconstitutionally disenfranchise millions of voters in Colorado and likely be used as a template to disenfranchise tens of millions of voters nationwide,” Trump’s lawyers wrote in their appeal to the nation’s highest court, noting that Maine has already followed Colorado’s lead. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
What the 14th amendment means for Donald Trump's presidential campaign
Topics in Legal News |
2023/12/21 10:10
|
Former President Donald Trump’s bid to win back the White House is now threatened by two sentences added to the U.S. Constitution 155 years ago.
The Colorado Supreme Court on Tuesday barred Trump from the state’s ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits anyone who swore an oath to support the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection” against it from holding office. It’s the first time in history the provision has been used to prohibit someone from running for the presidency, and the U..S. Supreme Court is likely to have the final say over whether the ruling will stand.
If it does — which many legal experts say is a longshot — it’s the end of Trump’s campaign because a Supreme Court decision would apply not just in Colorado, but to all states. It also could open a new world of political combat, as politicians in the future fish for judicial rulings to disqualify their rivals under the same provision.
Some conservatives have even considered using it against Vice President Kamala Harris, who raised bail money for those jailed during the violence following the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis. They said that also should be considered an “insurrection” against the Constitution.
So far, very little in the real world. Aware that the case was very likely going to the U.S. Supreme Court, the 4-3 Colorado Supreme Court majority stayed their own order until Jan. 4 — the day before the state’s primary ballots are due at the printer — or until the Supreme Court rules.
Technically, the ruling applies only to Colorado, and secretaries of state elsewhere are issuing statements saying Trump remains on the ballot in their state’s primary or caucus.But it could embolden other states to knock Trump off the ballot. Activists have asked state election officials to do so unilaterally, but none have. Dozens of lawsuits have been filed, but all failed until Colorado.
The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled on the meaning of Section 3. The justices can take the case as quickly as they like once Trump’s campaign files its appeal, which is not expected this week. The high court then could rule in a variety of ways — from upholding the ruling to striking it down to dodging the central questions on legal technicalities. But many experts warn that it would be risky to leave such a vital constitutional question unanswered.
“It is imperative for the political stability of the U.S. to get a definitive judicial resolution of these questions as soon as possible,” Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, wrote shortly after the ruling. “Voters need to know if the candidate they are supporting for president is eligible.” |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nigeria’s Court reinstates terrorism charges against separatist leader
Topics in Legal News |
2023/12/15 16:35
|
Nigeria’s Supreme Court on Friday overturned a lower court ruling dismissing terrorism charges against a popular separatist leader whose trial has been blamed for an outbreak of violence in the country’s southeast region.
The Court said Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) separatist group that seeks independence for Nigeria’s southeastern region, still faces terrorism charges despite the lower court ruling. Kanu, who also holds British citizenship, has already pleaded not guilty to the charges.
In announcing the decision, Justice Garba Mohammed said that although Nigeria’s secret police violated Kanu’s rights during his arrest and extradition from Kenya in 2021, the Court of Appeal was wrong to rule in October last year that the violation was grounds for the dismissal of the charges.
“No legislation in the country stripped the trial court of the jurisdiction to go ahead with Kanu’s case, despite the illegal action,” of the secret police, the justice said. The trial of the separatist leader, who also holds British citizenship, is expected to resume next year.
Kanu has remained in detention since the Court of Appeal’s ruling.
The Supreme Court decisoin further complicates the fate of Kanu who has been in and out of jail since 2015 when he was first arrested and charged with terrorism and treason. He has denied any wrongdoing and his supporters have accused the government of unjustly targeting him to clamp down on the group’s separatist campaign.
The IPOB campaign for an independent state of Biafra follows the short-lived Republic of Biafra which fought and lost a civil war from 1967 to 1970 to gain independence from Nigeria. An estimated 1 million people died in the war, many from the southeastern region.
However, the Nigerian government has said the country’s unity is “not negotiable” and has often accused Kanu’s group of instigating violence in the southeast, often by imposing lockdowns and targeting prominent people in the region. Dozens have been killed this year in the violence blamed on IPOB, which the group denies. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Opening statements begin in Jonathan Majors assault trial in New York
Topics in Legal News |
2023/12/04 09:17
|
Opening statements began Monday in the criminal trial of actor Jonathan Majors, who was charged last spring for allegedly assaulting his then-girlfriend during an argument.
Majors did not speak as he strode into a Manhattan courthouse seeking to clear his name following an arrest in March that has effectively stalled his fast-rising career.
The six-person jury is expected to hear opposing narratives from 34-year-old Majors and his accuser, Grace Jabbari, a British dancer, about their confrontation in the back of a car.
Prosecutors said Jabbari was riding in a car with Majors in late March when she grabbed the actor’s phone out of his hand after seeing a text message, presumably sent by another woman, that said: “Wish I was kissing you right now.”
When Majors tried to snatch the phone back, he allegedly pulled her finger, twisted her arm behind her back and hit her in the face. After the pair got out out of the vehicle, he threw her back inside, Jabbari said.
Attorneys for Majors have maintained that Jabbari was the aggressor in the confrontation. They have suggested that prosecutors in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office are targeting Majors because he is Black.
The arrest came weeks after the release of “Creed III,” a break-out role for Majors. He has also starred in the Marvel TV series “Loki” and the film “Ant-Man and The Wasp: Quantumania,” and was awaiting the release of another star vehicle, “Magazine Dreams,” which is now in limbo.
He could be sentenced to up to a year in jail if convicted. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Law Promo can construct your law firm a brand new responsive website, or help you redesign your existing site to secure your place in the internet world. Small Law Firm Web Design by Law Promo |
|
|
Recent Lawyer Blog Updates |
|
Lawyer News RSS
