Changes in Immigration Enforcement: Interview

Practice Areas

On June 26, 2018, Chugh, LLP’s Angelita Chavez-Halaka appeared on KUCI’s “Ask a Leader”  to discuss changes in immigration enforcement, and how they are impacting lives.

 

 

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Claudia Shambaugh: Thank you for tuning in. Good morning. You’re listening to the June 26th, 2018 edition of “Ask A Leader.” Today my guest for a full billable hour is immigration attorney, Angelita Chavez-Halaka. She practices at the Cerritos private law firm, Chugh, LLP, and she’ll speak about her experience with family-based petitions, asylum, deportation defense, Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Not only is she fresh from this month’s American Immigration Lawyers Association convention, but she will answer our wide-eyed questions about what is taking place in a very arcane and politicized legal system.

Chugh offices are located in Los Angeles, CA; Santa Clara, CA; Edison, NJ; Atlanta, GA; Reston, VA; Bangalore, Chennai, New Delhi, Mumbai, Chandigarh, and Ahmedabad in India.

We’ll find out today how much the current upheavals from national level policy have changed since I first met Angelita. Prior to joining Chugh, LLP, Angelita represented pro bono clients for the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project in Seattle.

She’s represented clients in immigration court, and has helped clients obtain legal permanent residence and naturalization. While in law school, Angelita advocated for migrant workers as a Laurel Rubin Farmworker Justice Fellow for Columbia Legal services in Washington state. She participated as well in a street law clinic teaching high school students about the law. She completed both her undergraduate and her law degrees at the university of Washington, and she’s currently pursuing a PhD in political science at the University of Oregon in Eugene.

Angelita’s taught courses on legal processes and lectured on special topics in immigration and law policy. She gives her non-existent time leftover to Latino Education Achievement Project (LEAP), citizenship and immigration clinic at Chugh, and One America Citizenship Day Clinic. She speaks Spanish, converses in Arabic, and she conducts this interview in English of course. Welcome to “Ask a Leader.”

Angelita Chavez-Halaka: Thank you for having me.

CS: Thank you. Well, first I have to hand it to your colleagues and you the enormous complexities you must manage with the massive and rapid changes in immigration law and immigration policy. The emotional toll of representing such vulnerable clients must be immense, with the prospect of that toll only intensifying. Before we get into the planned interview, I want to ask about the supreme court’s ruling that upholds the third iteration of the White House’s Muslim travel ban. Can you tell us a bit how it affects your prospective clients trying to process their papers?

Angelita Chavez-Halaka

ACH: Well, it definitely makes the situation a lot more challenging. As you mentioned, this was a five-four decision. It was pretty much on partisan lines. It was the third version of our president’s travel ban, so it was a lot narrower than the first two original versions. Essentially it bans folks that are coming from Iran, North Korea, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Venezuela. The majority decision by Chief Justice Roberts essentially stated that the executive order on the travel ban was actually within the presidential authority, and therefore it was not unconstitutional.

So this is the essential ruling on the travel ban, and it does not necessarily consider statements that were made previously to passing the ban, by the president. We have some harsh defense. Sotomayor was one of the dissenters of the majority decision. Her decision was based on the fact that the majority did not take into consideration the president’s statements prior to the ban, and not considering them relevant to the actual passing of the ban. This is where she dissents.

This is a development in progress and we’ll probably be hearing a lot more of this. One of the ways that I can think of it having immediate impact on families specifically, is for mixed status families. These are families who have a parent who is from one of these countries that is banned, and maybe a parent who is a US citizen. They have children, and you can imagine the difficulties in trying to reunite these families because of this ban.

Although technically the ban was upheld, it’s supposed to end once congress finds a solution to these sorts of security issues. We can imagine how long that that may take, right? It’s taken a long time to even reach agreement on immigration policies and immigration reform. That hasn’t happened yet, although congress is supposed to be voting on a bill soon. But you can imagine how long it might take congress to even deal with some of these issues, which is technically when this travel ban is supposed to end. If congress has not come up with alternative solutions, this ban might potentially last for a very long time. In that case families would be separated for a very long time. So it’s very concerning.

CS: This is a man-made crisis. The flow of people trying to seek asylum from the countries you mentioned do not exactly have a working civil society. So there’s lots of motivation to flee. I think we all need to do our part to attend to how much havoc this is wrecking.

Let’s dive in to the whole array of immigration areas that you’re trained in. I would love for you to tell us what was this buzz like at the American Immigration Lawyers Association conference that took place earlier this month. What was it like around that convening group of lawyers?

ACH: There were thousands of attendees. One room, for example, held over 3,000 people for one session. There was an extreme interest in learning about some of these things that are happening and what are steps we can take. Many of the attendees stayed until the very last panel on the very last day. Some of the presenters commented that they have never seen that many attendees stay all the way until the end, because usually people are very exhausted and they just want to go home because there’s just so much information and so much mental energy that you’re spending.

There’s definitely a lot of nervous energy, I guess you can say in terms of “Let’s figure out what to do.” That’s also just very motivating. Our keynote speaker, for example, is setting up a litigation group in which they’re going to be taking up some of these issues. Hopefully they’ll be litigating and challenging some of these things that are happening in order to really protect due process, and really protect the rights of everyone in this country.

So there’s a motivation in terms of that positive activity, but also a little bit of nervousness in terms of the challenges that have come and will continue to come in the days, months, and years ahead.

As immigration practitioners, we’re constantly at the forefront, constantly trying to learn about what changes are happening with USCIS and different agencies that we deal with constantly. We have begun to see changes even prior to the zero tolerance policy. We began to see them since the beginning of the administration, with things like longer processing times for family-based petitions and even longer waiting times for U visa applications. Before you it could take maybe two years for a U visa and now it’s taking almost twice as long.

We have to understand that the framework has been in place for these changes in immigration enforcement long before this president. In terms of what’s happening, I’m not necessarily surprised because the framework has always been there, and it was just a matter of someone taking enforcement to an extreme place. The mood at the conference was really just preparing for what action we can take. We knew harmful immigration enforcement was possible, and now is happening. Practitioners had more of that type of attitude.

CS: So the term zero tolerance policy was pushed out from the Department of Justice. Sometimes the way in which debates are framed sort of have a power over any kind of dissent. Are we just going to call it zero tolerance? Is there a better language coming out of the conference and other legal circles?

ACH: We didn’t hear much discussion in terms of language referring to zero tolerance policies, because a lot of this framework has already been in place. It’s more just the harshness of the administration, and taking things to the fullest extreme possible, sometimes going beyond those lines of due process protection.

The actual term “zero tolerance” is a little bit deceiving because the president is not doing anything different from past presidents, which is prioritizing. In this case, he’s prioritizing separating families. He’s prioritizing certain things other than presence. If in fact his immigration enforcement was zero tolerance, then millions of people would already be in the process of beginning deported. And that’s not happening, right? It’s impossible to have a policy be truly zero tolerance because there is no amount of resources that could accomplish that.

CS: Let’s talk about the U visa for victims of crimes. What is it, and how is the enforcement process changing for this visa?

ACH: U visas are for victims of certain qualifying crimes. Thankfully, I have not seen anything specifically targeting U visas. But one way we have seen some impacts in terms of these policies is the end of prosecutorial discretion. This means that immigration judges are no longer closing cases administratively for the pursual of other immigration benefits.

Prior to this administration, if someone was in removal proceedings and they potentially could qualify for a U visa, or an unlawful presence waiver, they could request the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the office of chief counsel, and the immigration judge file a motion to administratively close that case so they can seek these immigration benefits. If USCIS approved these benefits, then you could open reopen proceedings and then terminate the case. This would allow immigration judges to really prioritize cases, and hopefully, reduce some of the backlog.

Unfortunately now with the end of prosecutorial discretion, what’s happening is that now everyone is a priority. So every single person, regardless of their background, regardless of the equities in your favor, everyone is in the same sort of a priority for removal. This means that the immigration judges are seeing more backlog in terms of immigration hearings. So then you see longer delays with things like U visas. The backlog is now to 46 and a half months in terms of waiting to be adjudicated, which is a very long time for folks to be waiting.

During that time, folks who are petitioning for U visas are victims of crimes. They can’t get a work permit until they’ve entered a sort of deferred action list. It can take years for that to happen. It’s a very long wait for folks who have been victims of crime.

U visas are capped at 10,000 visas a year, so when you have over 30,000 to 40,000 applicants for visas every single year. With only 10,000 available, you can see how the backlog just continues to grow. Efforts have been made in the past to increase the cap in congress, and it’s been denied every single time. That is part of the reason why we see some of these backlogs as well.

CS: So to personalize: There is a 46.5 month delay of getting heard and still, that’s not the end of the line. In the meantime, that person is not able to get any work?

ACH: They cannot get a work permit until they’re put on what’s called a deferred action list. That can take two to three years. I have a pro bono U visa  case pending right now. It has been three years this month, and there’s been no adjudication or deferred action list. We are still waiting. Thankfully this client had other avenues to obtain a work permit, and so they could pursue that instead. But not everyone has those options. For folks whose only option is a U visa, they are essentially just waiting until their U visa is adjudicated, which can be years and years down the line.

CS: So no work means no income, which stresses the cohesion of the family unit. I just want to everyone to consider the impact of this. What about the T visas? Can you tell us about them?

AC: We get fewer applicants for T visas because in order to qualify, you have to meet certain specific requirements in terms of human trafficking and not everyone fits those requirements. You have to be trafficked for a specific purpose, whether it’s for labor or other crimes. This visa has different requirements than the U visa. I believe potentially there maybe more people who actually qualify for the T visa than those that apply, but I think we need to get the information out there to see if people would qualify for a T visa instead of a U visa.

CS: So the prospects we’re getting for these U and T visas, are they trying to avoid further domestic abuse or gang activity in their home country?

ACH: Well, the crime has to have occurred in the United States, and it has to be a qualifying crime. Some things that don’t necessarily fit under the federal definition of a crime. Assaults must be considered a felonious assault under federal regulations, otherwise they might not qualify.

The crime has to occur in the United States, but moreover there has to be a certification by some sort of law enforcement authority or other department that’s able to certify that the victim was actually helpful in the investigation of a crime. Oftentimes the challenges that we see with U visas is that local agencies don’t actually want to issue the certifications. There’s nothing that really commands them to actually issue the certification, and so it sometimes can make things difficult. Without the certification, we don’t meet one of the essential elements of the case.

So even if the person did suffer a qualifying crime, they can show harm based on that crime, but they’re not able to demonstrate that they were helpful in the investigation and prosecution of this crime against them because of the lacking the certification, then we can’t even really file. It’s very challenging. It can take a long time to get the certifications from the proper authorities.

CS: So would domestic spousal or domestic abuse qualify? It sounds difficult to meet all of the thresholds to get that visa successfully.

ACH: Yes, domestic violence is  one of the qualifying crimes. The victim needs to file police report, and do something about the crime, whether with filing a restraining order against their abuser or something else. Then we’re able to request a certification from the police agency that could potentially work. But again, sometimes the challenge is even just getting those certifications because they may not have the resources or departments available to provide them. Or, there may be police agencies that are unfamiliar with certifications, and they might not know how to process them.

CS: It sounds like that the police have a discretion that impacts this essential certification step. Does that stem from a law, or is it more de facto?

ACH: There are a lot of immigration laws and policies that actually require the participation of an agency. For example, one of the prongs to qualify for special juvenile status is to get a family law court or agency that deals with juveniles to issue a decree that the juvenile is actually abandoned, neglected and they’re unable to be cared for by their parents. So we require a state agency or department to issue that. That is one of the elements required to establish special juvenile status. So it’s just more about informing these local agencies, giving them the instructions that they need, and just really advocating on behalf of your clients to make sure that you get those certifications.

CS: So you’re working on a case by case basis with your clients. But what would be the best way to get support in dealing with local agencies? What vehicle is there available?

ACH: Well, usually you can partner with nonprofits. In Seattle for example, where one of my clients comes from, the sheriff’s department actually has an office fully dedicated for U visa certification processes. So it’s much easier. And  if the crime occurred within that county, there’s a very straightforward process in terms of applying for certification through that office. So really, oftentimes it just comes down to having an organization that is able to dedicate the time to be informing those agencies of these options.

CS: Washington state, and maybe namely King county where Seattle is located, could be an exemplary model for others to follow around the country.

ACH: I haven’t had U visa clients from many other states, but I know that in some other states the attorneys do face challenges and it’s just really working case by case and sometimes having to call congressmen, or things of that nature, to really try to pressure it. It can be quite challenging.

CS: So that’s the lever to bring up too, in appealing to congress for legislative action. I don’t know if there’s anything more powerful then that.

So then there are the provisional waivers on unlawful presence – Form I-601A. Can you walk us through a client story, and how that process works?

ACH: Sure. So the unlawful presence waiver is only available to waive the inadmissability of somebody based on unlawful presence, which means that if they have other issues of inadmissibility such as crimes, deportations, or anything else that can potentially make them inadmissible, it does not waive those grounds. But it does when the ground is inadmissibility.

For those folks that entered the United States without any documentation or inspection, and they remained in the US for more than a year, they would be subject to a 10 year bar of inadmissibility. So just by being in the United States for more than a year without authorization, they would be subject to this 10 year bar of inadmissibility. When they are able to qualify for a family petition, let’s say they have a spouse that’s a US citizen or a parent that’s either a US citizen or Legal Permanent Resident, and let’s say they now want to file a family-based petition. Once approved, they would have to leave the country to consular process. Once they leave the country for consular processing, they would be automatically subject to this 10 year bar. And so that means that without this waiver, they would have to wait outside of the United States for 10 years before they can come back in.

For folks who have a parent or spouse who is a US citizen or Legal Permanent Resident, they would be able to apply for this provisional unlawful presence waiver I-601A. For this waiver you have to prove extreme hardship on the qualifying relative. This is not just regular hardship, like I’m going to be sad or it’s going to be very difficult to pay my bills. This could be either health related grounds, extreme financial hardship, hardship in terms of safety. For example, if you think about same sex couples, they may face violence or death in the beneficiary’s country of origin, were they to move. These are some of the hardship factors that would be required for one of these waivers.

The great thing is that the provisional waiver can be approved in the United States. Prior to the provisional waiver, the beneficiary had to apply for this waiver outside of the United States, which meant that they had to wait outside of the US for months, a year, or longer to get the waiver approved before they could come back.

So with this provisional waiver folks receive the adjudication in the United States. That’s why it’s called a stateside waiver. They receive the decision and if it’s approved, they are able to then take their approval with them and do consular processing. If there are no other issues of inadmissibility at the consulate, like fraud misrepresentation, deportations, or multiple reentries, then the officer would then give the stamp of approval and the person would be able to come back into the US as a Legal Permanent Resident. This saves a lot of time and stress for some of these families, by being able to apply for this provisional waiver. But again, it’s very limited because it is only for those that have US citizen or Legal Permanent Resident parents or spouses, so parents who have children who are US citizens would not qualify for this, and they would not be able to apply for this waiver.

CS: Right, so if you could explain how that works out for people who do not qualify for the waiver. Some may or may not have documentation from their country of origin. You’re going to another place which may or may not also pose some kinds of hardships. Where does your client go if they have to leave for one to ten years?

ACH: For folks who have these permanent bars and no choices, there’s very long term separation of families, parents, spouses, and things of that nature. And it’s extremely stressful. I mostly deal with a lot of Latino clients, and clients coming some states of Mexico where the dangers are high. In terms of what the Department of State says in travel advisories, you shouldn’t go to these places because the danger is at a level four. Then you expect somebody to actually stay there and wait there 10 years, where they may face extreme dangers to their own physical safety and their family’s – kidnappings, murders and that sort of thing. These are real dangers that people and families have to contend with when they have to deal with things such as unauthorized presence.

CS: So recently, the supreme court upheld the Muslim ban. If someone is coming from Yemen., they might have been able to prove this extreme hardship. But now there’s a ban on them coming.

ACH: Well, the way that the ban was upheld was in terms of national security. A person’s individual danger is not necessarily being taken into account in these sorts of decisions. It’s unfortunate.

CS: So you’re giving us a really vivid idea of how long the backlog is. So one analyst was talking recently about how each administration in the White House shuffles around their priorities with asylum. There are some people that have been trying to seek asylum for a generation and a half.

ACH: Well, right now there are at least a couple of years of wait for certain asylum cases. Like you said, it’s because of priorities. Leadership shifts immigrants around, who will come in first and who will not.

This is usually for affirmative asylum cases. These are people who have not been placed in removal proceedings. For folks like this, you would file with the USCIS. Then USCIS has processing and wait times for each of these petitions, whether it’s a asylum, family based petitions, adjustment of status. And you know when you file it kind of what your waiting time period is. What this administration has done is that actually they have removed the affirmative asylum bulletin, which kind of told you where your case was in the queue.

So let’s say I filed for asylum for someone a couple of years ago. I would know that there’s another year before my case comes up. So my client is familiar, and they’re kind of anticipating that. Well, what’s happening now is that they have moved to last in first out scenario, and they’ve completely taken away the asylum bulletin.

So now they are giving priority to cases that were filed in the last 21 days, which means that those are the cases that are there that are being moved out and they’re getting an interview immediately. Folks that have applied for asylum a year or two years ago, or even a few months ago, now have no idea when they would be coming up for an interview. We don’t know how long the wait is. I don’t know necessarily what the rationale was for this, and I’m not quite sure how it’s making the process move faster.

That’s something that we’ll just have to wait and see, but because they have moved into this to a last in, first out  situation, I just don’t know when a couple of my asylum cases are ever going to come up for interview. My pro bono clients are just kind of waiting in the meantime and that’s all we can really do. We really don’t know how much longer it’s going to be unfortunately.

CS: That’s terrible. So you’re not sure what the rationale is. That is just a very dizzying, and disorienting mode of operation. Well, let’s go into another matter that’s complicated. US naturalization is impacted by a lack of good moral character, which was also covered at the conference.

ACH: Good moral character is something that is basically an essential element of most immigration petitions. Whether you’re adjustment of status, or seeking naturalization, etc. The idea is that you must have good moral character for some immigration benefits. It’s really embedded within a lot of immigration benefits, whether it’s affirmatively or through removal proceedings. This is especially true with naturalization. It’s one of the prongs that you must prove. Things that would make you not have good moral character would be things such as like gambling or being a habitual drunkard or participating in prostitution.

Those things might make somebody lack good moral character and might be difficult to overcome. However, there are are other discretionary factors that may contribute to a lack of good moral character for naturalization process, such as a failure to pay taxes, or failure to support your dependents such as your minor children. A really interesting one is having an affair which resulted in the destruction of a marriage, which can also result in a finding of a lack of good moral character for a naturalization purposes.

Immigrant lives are really monitored and inspected by the state. They can ask you really personal questions even in family based petitions and marriages. They can ask you questions about your relationship to make sure that it’s a bonafide marriage.

These are a lot of intrusions into your personal life that can happen to you as an immigrant. So lack of good moral character is definitely one of those, and it’s very important to be able to show that you’re not someone who’s a habitual drunkard, you’re always paying your taxes, supporting your dependents and things like that. Having some of these issues in your background could potentially be a red flag and they might make it difficult to obtain naturalization.

CS: The kind of scrutiny, the kind of the documentation required of an applicant is mind-boggling. I understand that the processing of naturalization applications is taking one and a half to two years. Is this your experience, and to what do you attribute this protracted process? Is it reasonable?

ACH: We have seen an increased workload at USCIS recently because of some of these policies that the administration has decided to enact. We see longer processing times in terms of immigration. So for example, the requirement of doing an adjustment of status interview for employment-based cases that was never required in the past. The increased interviews have also have made it difficult to keep up with a regular workload that USCIS has.

We’ve noticed that this increased scrutiny, and increasing interviews for certain types of cases, has made other things such as naturalization applications just further back logged. Whereas before I would notice some of my naturalization took around a year. It was relatively reasonable and normal. Now they’re definitely lasting much longer than that.

I had a pro bono client pending for their naturalization interview. They were in the queue since November and they just just received their naturalization appointment for next month. It’s definitely something that I feel will not improve until they can maybe hire more officers, have them learn the processes and get properly trained. We might not see a pick up in the adjudication of these naturalization cases, and the backlog will continue until that happens.

CS: I want to go back to another provision that you were talking about then – the cancellation of removal for Legal Permanent Residents and non-legal residents.

ACH: So cancellation of removal is a form of immigration relief that folks who are in either of these two situations can seek. Let’s say someone’s a Legal Permanent Resident and they’ve committed a certain crime that would make them removable. They can potentially try to seek a cancellation of removal and get their Legal Permanent Resident status back, depending on whether they meet certain criteria.

For folks who are here unlawfully and they were detained in some way,  let’s say through an immigration raid, and they were suddenly now put into removal proceedings. It these people meet certain requirements, such as:

  • They have been in the country for a certain period of time
  • They are personal of good moral character
  • They have a qualifying relative: their children, parents, or spouse are US citizens or Legal Permanent Residents
  • They would suffer extreme and unusual hardship in removal
  • Continuous presence during the time period required

So it’s actually a higher standard and this situation. These folks could potentially qualify to apply for cancellation of removal. If granted by the immigration judge, they would also be able to obtain green card status at the end of this. They have to prove this, this extreme hardship, which is a high burden. So it’s difficult, and there are also caps on the number of visas that are allocated every year for cancellation of removal.

But because there are these caps of people who are getting approved, they’re actually also getting put on this deferred action waiting list, until the visa’s available. Who knows how long the wait can be, because there are too many applicants and there are not enough visas available. It’s not something that you want to do at all because there are no guarantees. Even if you are granted approval, there’s a cap and so you might have to wait a long time for your visa.

CS: So can you tell us what your clients are doing in this limbo?

ACH: They’re just trying to live their lives as best as possible. We obviously advise folks to do everything they can to stay out of any sort of trouble, because any kind of crime will definitely be negative for further cases. So, do things like continue to support their children while their children are going to school. If they’re able to get a work permit, keep filing your taxes regularly. A lot of judges really want to see that you have filed your taxes and they’re very adamant about about that. They frown upon folks not doing those things. It’s also about knowing who your judges are when you’re in this kind of situation, and what they want.

It’s just trying to have patience. Oftentimes they’re scared while they’re waiting, because they could get picked up at any time. Under this administration, if you are in removal proceedings, they can just decide to execute the removal order at any time. So that’s something that people were kind of having to live with apprehension and fear that we don’t know what’s going to happen in their future. It’s very stressful for some of these families that are in going through these situations.

CS: So let’s say this person in limbo, they run a red light, which any one of us could do anytime. But for them, that could mean trouble?

ACH: Well, it depends on the officer. Perhaps they’re just giving you a ticket. They’re not thinking of anything else, they’re not necessarily profiling you for immigration violations. But there are certain jurisdictions that are just not very immigration friendly. The officer may decide to look up your social security number, or look up whether you even have a social security number. So you really have to be aware of whether your jurisdiction is more friendly, and is not going to be out there persecuting folks for their immigration status. You just have to be really aware of those kinds of laws. Usually people are, because of news reports informing folks of what’s happening in their area locally. But it could definitely happen. It has happened.It has happened that US citizens have been deported. It’s not unheard of.

CS: I want to get the takeaways for people that are wanting not to be on the sidelines. What do you suggest listeners can do that are with whatever skills they have to supporting anybody in these limbos that you’re describing for us in such vivid detail?

ACH: Yeah, I volunteer. There are so many awesome local organizations in the area that are constantly seeking volunteers, people to help fill out paperwork. There are naturalization clinics so people can get out and actually have the power of the vote, which is really important. Churches oftentimes are venues for being able to inform others about what’s happening. Just any kind of community-based organization, that’s usually the first place where you can really do a little bit more personally.

People think that calling their congressman or representatives is futile. But they really can create changes. A  US representative was one of the sponsors and one of the sponsors for the Dream Act, I forget which one exactly. He was very anti-immigrant before, but when one dreamer student who came to talk to him, he really changed his mind. Sometimes we forget about the power of individual stories and people who are really being impacted daily. Sometimes these congress members and representatives don’t hear from them, and they don’t see the reality of how people are individual being affected. Even though you see things on the news, sometimes that personal story can make a difference.

Calling representatives, being involved with your local nonprofits, and being informed and listening to multiple sources can really help you stay informed with what’s happening and also give you resources on to how to help others as well.

CS: Well, it looks like there is a petition that seems to be qualifying for statewide initiative to reverse California Sanctuary Law, SB 54.

ACH: It’s very important to be informed about how laws are passing or are ballot initiatives here in California. It’s extremely important to be informed about what is actually happening. Sometimes descriptions of certain proposals are very vague or confusing. Getting all of the information is very powerful. That way when you are going out there and you are voting, you know exactly what you’re voting for and you’re not potentially voting for something that might even be against your interests. I think it’s purposeful oftentimes how these descriptions are written.

CS: I really appreciate all the time and the expertise. It’s been so detailed and I know that there is even more to say. Thank you so much.

ACH: Oh, you’re welcome. Thank you so much for having me.

CS: My guest was Angelita Chavez-Halaka, Immigration attorney at Chugh, LLP in Cerritos. She counsels clients on unlawful presence waivers, the Violence Against Women Act, naturalization, immigration matters and eligibility for other forms of immigration relief. Talk with you next week. Thank you everyone for listening.

 

Do you have questions about immigration? Send an email to sasha (at) chugh.com to schedule a free consultation.

Scroll to Top

Request a Consultation

Please use the form below to request a consultation.

By submitting this contact form, you are opting in to receive email communications from Chugh, LLP. Submitting this form does not create an attorney-client relationship. Do not submit confidential information through this form.

Sign Up to Our Newsletter

Get the latest news and updates about Chugh LLP