The Virginia Lawyers Blog

I’m in the Military, or a Military Dependent, and Need a Restricted Driver’s License in Virginia

2012-02-01T04:13:00.000-08:00

A Discussion of the Pitfalls & Specifics of the Restricted Driver’s License in Virginia as it applies to servicemembers, their dependents, and the general public.

About the only saving grace following a conviction on a charge of DWI, DUI, drug possession, or high speed reckless driving in Virginia is the opportunity to receive a Restricted Operator’s License so that you can continue to drive for a number of necessary, but limited, purposes.

A Virginia Restricted License allows a person to drive to and from their place of business, even during work under certain verifiable conditions; to and from an educational institution; to and from medical facilities for yourself or someone under your care; to and from school or daycare for your children; to and from court-ordered visitation with children; and to and from court-ordered probation or VASAP. In 2010, the General Assembly even added the ability to drive to a place of religious worship one day per week. You can find the entire list of uses of a Restricted License in Section 18.2-271.1(E) of the Code of Virginia.

If you’ve ever received or seen a Restricted License issued in court, you may know that you surrender your physical Driver’s License, and the Court eventually provides you with a two page green form that lists the conditions under which you are permitted to drive with the Restricted License. It lists a start date, as well as an end date. What it also says, which so many people fail to read, is that no earlier than 30 days after you receive the green form, but no later than 60 days, you must physically go to the DMV and provide them with your green form so that they can issue you a shiny new physical driver’s license.

For the remainder of your Restricted License period, you are supposed to not only have that physical license, but you are supposed to keep the green form also, along with any other verification documents that the Judge may have instructed you to carry such as a work schedule. Violating the terms of the Restricted License is serious business—a Class 1 Misdemeanor that carries possible jail time, and the DMV steps in and suspends your license for a full year with no possibility of a Restricted License!

What happens if you forget to go to the DMV in the first 60 days? Your green form expires, and you have to return to the Court to have a new Restricted License issued.

That’s easy enough—if you’re a Virginia resident. But what happens if you’re from another state? Can Virginia suspend your license? No. Virginia suspends your privilege to drive within the boundaries of our Commonwealth. (You should always refer to a legal professional in the state where your license is issued or check with your local Department of Motor Vehicles to determine whether a suspension in Virginia negatively affects you in your home state).

Or better yet, what if you live in Virginia, but you’re in the military or a military dependent and you aren’t required to obtain a Virginia license? What happens to you when you can’t go to the DMV and get a physical license, but you still need to be able to drive in Virginia for one of those necessary purposes listed in the first paragraph above?

The answer is simple enough, but you would be surprised at how many people are unaware of it. In 2010, in addition to adding religious worship to the Restricted License, the General Assembly gave judges the authority to grant Restricted Licenses to out-of-state drivers whose privilege to drive in Virginia is suspended through Virginia Code Section 46.2-398. You just have to make sure that the judge clearly identifies you as an out-of-state driver on your green form, and the form is good for the entire term of your suspension. This impacts in particular active duty servicemembers or their dependents who for one reason or another wish to keep their driver’s license issued in a state other than Virginia.

Suspension of one's license or privilege to drive in Virginia is supposed to be a punishment—and for those in communities where driving feels as necessary to living as breathing, it is. But don’t panic! A properly applied-for Restricted License can be that lifeline you need to keep that job or stay in school.

The law firm of Livesay & Myers, P.C. has a team of traffic lawyers across offices in Fairfax, Manassas and Fredericksburg, Virginia. If you or a loved one have been charged with a traffic violation, contact us to schedule your free consultation with one of our experienced attorneys today.

Stepparent Adoption in Virginia

2012-01-25T16:49:00.000-08:00

Remarrying and starting a new family is an exciting time in most people's lives. Many families have adopted the terms "bonus children" or "bonus parent" to highlight the happiness that comes from an expanding family. Stepparents can and often do take on an important and involved role in children's lives. Sometimes the stepparent is more involved and a better influence than one of the biological parents. In these situations, many parents want to learn about the possibility and likelihood of the stepparent adopting the child.

Stepparent adoption is the most common type of adoption. The process involves multiple steps which can be executed with relative ease depending on the willingness of the biological parent.

The first step in any stepparent adoption is to address the rights of the biological parent. If the parent has been absent from the child's life for an extended period of time, at least six months, then the parent may be willing to consent to the adoption. If that is the case then paperwork can be prepared in which the biological parent relinquishes his or her parental rights in favor of the stepparent adoption. If the biological parent's whereabouts are unknown or the biological parent refuses to consent, then measures must be taken before the court can grant the adoption. If the biological parent's whereabouts are unknown, then notice of the adoption hearing must be given through "publication" in a newspaper.

Our adoption attorneys can quickly and easily process the paperwork necessary to address the rights of the biological parent or for notice by publication.

A biological parent does not have to consent to the adoption, and the objection of the biological parent does not necessarily mean that the adoption cannot be granted. A court can order the adoption without consent of the biological parent if the court finds that (a) the biological parent's consent is unavailable (because he or she did not appear) or (b) the biological parent is withholding consent against the best interests of the child and a continued relationship between the biological parent and child would be detrimental to the child.

If the biological parent objects to the adoption, a hearing is necessary. Typically, the court will require an investigation or homestudy of the parents, the adoptive parent, and the home in which the child resides. The investigation is completed by the Department of Social Services or a private organization approved by the Court. The information obtained in the investigation is used at the hearing to assist the court in determining the best interests of the child.

If a hearing is necessary, the court will consider a number of factors in determining whether to terminate one biological parent's parental rights and allow the child to be adopted by a stepparent. These factors include (1) the efforts of the biological parent to obtain or maintain legal and physical custody of the child, (2) whether the biological parent is currently ready and able to assume custody of the child, (3) whether the biological parent's efforts to assert parental rights were thwarted by other people, (4) the biological parent's ability to care for the child, (5) the age of the child, (6) the quality of any previous relationship between the biological parent and the child, (7) the quality of any relationship between the biological parent and any other children, (8) the duration and suitability of the child's present custodial environment, and (9) the effect of a change of custody on the child.

An adoption trial can be legally complicated and emotionally draining. Having the assistance of an attorney who can review the circumstances of your case, inform you of what facts best highlight your case, and then present those facts in a concise manner to the court, is of paramount importance.

The adoption attorneys at Livesay & Myers, P.C. are experienced with every facet of stepparent adoptions, and represent clients in Fairfax, Manassas, Woodbridge, Prince William County, Stafford, Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania, Alexandria, Arlington, and all of Northern Virginia. Contact us to schedule a consultation today.

Ghislaine Storr Burks Named Partner at Livesay & Myers, P.C.

2012-01-19T15:53:00.000-08:00

Congratulations to Ghislaine Storr Burks, who today was officially named a Partner at Livesay & Myers, P.C., just 5 years after joining the firm as an associate attorney in January 2007. With her tireless efforts on behalf of her clients, record of success in defending clients in courts across Northern Virginia, and knowledge of the criminal justice system that is second to none, Ms. Storr Burks is a priceless asset to the firm.

Waiting For the Market to Turn Around: The Dangers of Joint Ownership After Divorce

2011-09-15T09:33:00.000-07:00

In any separation, one of the most difficult issues to address is the marital residence. Whether secured by a mortgage or owned free-and-clear, the home typically represents the most valuable asset owned by a couple. In this buyer's market, it can be difficult (if not impossible) to simply sell a house and split the profits. Sometimes, the parties want one parent to stay in the house until their kids finish school to avoid pulling them from their childhood home. In other cases, there simply may be no realistic way to sell the house for a profit. This reality often leads parties to consider continuing jointly owning their house beyond their separation and divorce, whether that is for two, five, or even ten years.

While on its face this approach seems practical, deciding to retain joint ownership over the marital residence after divorce carries significant risks of which neither party may be aware. The source of these risks is the "special" type of joint ownership available to spouses under Virginia law: ownership as "tenants by the entirety," also known as ownership "as husband and wife."

Historically, when a man and wife were married a new legal entity was created. The "married couple" was treated as a single individual that possessed its own rights and obligations. In modern times the belief that a married couple is a separate entity has largely been abandoned. However, in Virginia a married couple may still choose to jointly own property as a single legal entity.

Section 55-20.2 of the Virginia Code grants a husband and wife the special joint ownership rights of tenancy by the entirety. Joint ownership through tenancy by the entirety provides a married couple with some significant advantages, including the automatic transfer of ownership to the other spouse upon death without the need for additional estate planning documents (wills, trusts, etc.). Possibly the greatest benefit deals with creditor rights: the property owned through tenancy by the entirety is completely immune from any creditor of only one spouse. For example, if you owe $10,000 in unpaid medical bills in your name alone, any judgment entered against you individually for those debts cannot be attached to your marital residence if you own it as husband and wife. The only way a judgment can attach to property owned through tenancy by the entirety is if the debt in question is jointly owed to the creditor.

This protection through joint ownership, however, evaporates upon divorce. If you are no longer married you can still jointly own property together, but you cannot jointly own property through tenancy by the entirety. Once your divorce is final, all of your creditors (and, more importantly, all of your former spouse's creditors) can attach judgments to your home. The real danger, however, is this: you will have no control over judgments against your former spouse, and you will have no way of stopping them from attaching to the home. In many cases, you may not even know that a judgment against your former spouse has been entered and attached to the property.

These judgments become a major problem when former spouses get two, five, or ten years down the road and are ready to sell the house because virtually any buyer, lender, or title insurance company will require that all judgments be paid as a condition of sale. In some cases this may simply mean you get less net proceeds from the sale, but in many (if not most) cases this could mean no profits at all. In the worst case scenario, the list of judgments could be so large that you would not be able to sell the house at all!

With careful planning, a skilled attorney can help minimize these dangers, or even help you avoid them altogether. The family lawyers at Livesay & Myers, P.C., are experienced in addressing these issues and any other issues that may arise in your divorce or separation, and represent clients in Fairfax, Manassas, Woodbridge, Prince William County, Stafford, Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania, Alexandria, Arlington, and all of Northern Virginia. Contact us to schedule a consultation today.

Livesay & Myers Criminal Lawyer Wins Acquittal On Attempted Murder Charge

2011-09-10T14:33:00.000-07:00

Criminal defense lawyer Robert May defended a man charged with striking a deputy's police cruiser on Interstate 95 in Stafford County, as detailed by a Free Lance-Star article. While the man was convicted of several lesser offenses, Mr. May won a jury acquittal on the most serious charge, attempted murder. The jury also found Mr. May's client not guilty of assault and battery on a policy officer. Congratulations to Mr. May and our entire criminal defense team!!

Foreign Teachers Settlement Reached Between Local School System and Department of Labor

2011-07-09T14:47:00.000-07:00

According to a Washington Post article, in a huge blow to the public schools of Prince George's County, Maryland, a settlement between the County and the Department of Labor will end recruitment of teachers from overseas, particularly the Philippines, for the next two years. The settlement results from a federal finding that the school district recruited overseas teachers to come to the U.S. and work on H-1B visas, but failed to pay requisite legal and filing fees, instead forcing the teachers to cover all fees. The overall aftermath of the settlement will be staggering: the County must pay $4.2 million in back wages, 161 current teachers will lose their jobs and visa status, and more terminations are likely.

Statewide Spousal Support Guidelines In Virginia Divorces?

2011-07-08T10:06:00.000-07:00

A recent op-ed published by The New York Times makes the argument that states should adopt set guidelines for determining alimony awards. The editorial, "Ending the Alimony Guessing Game," argues that making spousal support awards more predictable would result in more fairness and less costly litigation.

This argument is absolutely correct. Adoption of a strong statewide spousal support formula in Virginia would take a lot of the guesswork out of most alimony cases, resulting in more settlements of contested divorce, and saving parties thousands of dollars in legal fees in many cases.

As I previously wrote on this blog, in Is It Really Cheaper To Keep Her (Or Him)?, Virginia law does seem to be moving toward more and more reliance on certain guidelines in determining spousal support-- most commonly the so-called "Fairfax guidelines." Virginia has now adopted the Fairfax guidelines statewide for determining spousal support in Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court cases.

If and when Virginia adopts those guidelines-- or some other set of guidelines-- for use in Circuit Court cases statewide, then we can start achieving more predictability, less litigation and lower attorney fees in contested divorces.

Whether we also have more fairness in spousal support awards will, of course, depend on the particular guidelines Virginia adopts. As I argued in Is It Really Cheaper To Keep Her (Or Him)?, the Fairfax guidelines seem to be rather favorable to the payor of support in most cases.

Immigration Lawyer Jennifer Varughese To Speak At Legal Seminar

2011-07-07T12:33:00.000-07:00

On Friday, July 8th, Livesay & Myers immigration lawyer Jennifer Varughese will be speaking at a Virginia Continuing Legal Education (CLE) seminar hosted by George Mason School of Law, entitled "Immigration Consequences of Criminal Convictions." She'll be discussing her case, Commonwealth v. Morris, 281 Va. 70 (Va. 2011), currently on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, and how it relates to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Padilla v. Kentucky.

Commonwealth v. Morris is a case at the center of a raging legal battle involving the immigration consequences of criminal convictions in Virginia. As detailed by an article by The Washington Post, Ms. Varughese represents a lawful permanent resident who pled guilty in 1997 to petty larceny, after being told by a public defender that the guilty plea would not affect his immigration status, only to find himself facing deportation for that guilty plea in 2008. In 2009, Ms. Varughese convinced a Circuit Court Judge to modify her client's sentence to allow him to avoid deportation. Following the government's successful appeal of that decision before the Virginia Supreme Court in early 2011, Ms. Varughese appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. This high profile case could set legal precedent for decades to come regarding the immigration consequences of criminal convictions in Virginia.

New Regulations for J-1 Visas for Summer Work Travel

2011-06-22T13:18:00.000-07:00

The U.S. Department of State has released the following questions and answers taken from their June 20, 2011 daily press briefing, regarding new regulations for J-1 Visas for summer work travel:

Q: Please provide details on the specific aspects of the new regulations for J-1 visas. What is the intention of these new regulations? Are we confident that these new regulations will protect recipients from abuse?

A: The Summer Work Travel (SWT) program has provided thousands of international college and university students an opportunity to visit the United States and experience the American people and culture firsthand.

In 2010, approximately 120,000 college and university students participated in the Summer Work Travel program.

Given the expanding size of this program, the Department of State has perceived the need to enhance safeguards for participants. We are confident that implementation of these safeguards should provide stronger protections and make this a more viable program.

The new safeguards include:

A pilot program for six countries (Belarus, Bulgaria, Moldova, Romania, Russia, and Ukraine) aimed at thwarting the potential for abuse of summer work travel participants who come from those countries; and new program-wide regulations designed to strengthen and clarify current program oversight and administration requirements.

A special e-mail address and a toll-free telephone number, available 24 hours a day/7 days a week, to enable students to have ready, direct contact with the Department about program complaints or issues; and,

Department of State welcome letters and program brochures provided to each program participant to better inform them about what to expect in the Summer Work Travel program.

An aggressive and proactive system to monitor sponsors better, including on-going data analysis, complaint tracking, and on-site visits to sponsors to fully assess their compliance and the effectiveness of the new regulations.

Closer scrutiny to visa applications of potential SWT program participants from the pilot program countries. Consular officers refuse visas to those applicants who don’t demonstrate that they are eligible for visas, including compliance with the pilot program’s conditions.

Contact Our Immigration Law Attorneys

If you or a loved one require legal assistance with an immigration law matter, contact us to schedule your initial consultation with an experienced Virginia immigration attorney today. Our immigration lawyers represent clients throughout Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia.

USCIS Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law Initiative

2011-06-17T12:54:00.000-07:00

On June 9, 2011, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services outlined their new Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law Initiative. As stated in the Executive Summary of the initiative:

"The unauthorized practice of immigration law (UPIL) is a serious national problem that adversely impacts individuals throughout the country. Anyone who is in need of an immigration benefit, either for himself or a family member, can be harmed by UPIL, including U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, nonimmigrants, refugees and asylees, and undocumented aliens. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will combat this pervasive problem through its UPIL Initiative."

Contact Our Immigration Law Attorneys

Virginia Protective Orders For Persons In Dating Relationships

2011-06-15T13:30:00.000-07:00

With a change effective July 1, 2011, Virginia's protective order statute will now cover persons in dating relationships. The new legislation expands Chapter 9.1 of Title 19.2 of the Virginia Code from "Protective Orders for Stalking" to "Protective Orders." Chapter 9.1 now applies to "any act involving violence, force, or threat that results in bodily injury or places one in reasonable apprehension of death, sexual assault, or bodily injury," as provided in a new section:

§ 19.2-152.7:1. Definitions. As used in this chapter: "Act of violence, force, or threat" means any act involving violence, force, or threat that results in bodily injury or places one in reasonable apprehension of death, sexual assault, or bodily injury. Such act includes, but is not limited to, any forceful detention, stalking, criminal sexual assault ... or any criminal offense that results in bodily injury or places one in reasonable apprehension of death, sexual assault, or bodily injury.

Prior to this new law's enactment, protective orders were available only to victims of (1) family abuse or (2) stalking, sexual battery, or a criminal offense resulting in a serious bodily injury.

Originally, the 2011 legislation included a bill that defined the terms "dating relationship" and "dating relationship abuse." In the legislative process, the two terms relating to dating were dropped for more general language that more broadly covers conduct, not relationships.

The effort to expand protective order coverage to persons in dating relationships goes back at least to the 2002 session of the Virginia General Assembly, when the Virginia State Crime Commission submitted a report to the General Assembly entitled "Protective Orders in Dating Relationships" which recommended that protective orders be expanded to encompass crimes other than stalking.

The new legislation also makes several other changes to protective order provisions of the Virginia Code, including provisions for family abuse protective orders and penalties for violating protective orders, which all go into effect on July 1st.

Livesay & Myers has a team of family lawyers across offices in Fairfax, Manassas and Fredericksburg, handling protective orders for clients throughout Northern Virginia.

Whether you are seeking a protective order, or defending yourself against a request for a protective order against you, contact us to schedule your consultation with a family lawyer experienced with handling protective orders in Virginia today.

Increased Teen DUI Penalties Start July 1st

2011-06-13T08:22:00.000-07:00

Soon, teenagers convicted in Virginia of driving after consuming virtually any amount of alcohol will lose their driver’s licenses for a year and be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

Currently in Virginia, persons under 21 convicted of driving with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .02 [but less than .08 BAC when all drivers are presumed to be driving while intoxicated] are penalized with only a six-month driver’s license suspension and a “fine of not more than $ 500.”

But effective July 1st, a new law doubles the driver’s license suspension period (to one year), and elevates such conduct to a Class 1 misdemeanor.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, a 120-pound male or female would reach a BAC of .02 after consuming just one drink in one hour. Therefore, under the new law, it may only take a drop of alchohol for a young person to lose his or her license.

National GOP Group Wants Unjust Veteran Deportations to Stop

2011-06-11T16:42:00.000-07:00

Somos Republicans, a national watchdog group and the largest Hispanic Republican grassroots organization in the nation, is calling for an end to unjust deportations of U.S. military veterans:

"Veterans of the United States Armed Forces who served under honorable discharge are facing court proceedings for deportations. Hundreds of Veterans are facing deportation and we would like to start by bringing awareness to the situation involving the Valenzuela Brothers. Manuel and Valente Valenzuela are currently awaiting trial and are facing deportation today. Therefore, we are asking the President of the United States to stop the deportations of all veterans who served under honorable discharge conditions. We believe the President has the power to pardon those who have served our country honorably. The mission is to leave “no man behind” and we hope to see President Obama make a symbolic move this year on Veterans Day, November 11, 2011, that will pardon and stop deportations of all immigrant veterans who fought and served our country honorably. It is our goal to gain bipartisan support to stop the unjust deportations of our Veterans." Somos Republicans, June 10, 2011.

Computer Glitch Affects 2012 Diversity Lottery Results

2011-05-13T12:41:00.000-07:00

Today, the U.S. Department of State issued a notice that, due to a computer glitch, the 2012 Diversity Visa Lottery results have been voided. The results, according to the DOS, did not represent a truly random selection of applicants. Individuals who were selected as early as May 2011 will have to revisit the website starting July 15, 2011 for the new lottery results. No further applications are necessary if applicants initially filed between October 5, 2010 and November 3, 2010.

Illegally Present Males Ages 18-25 Now Required To Register For Selective Service

2011-02-12T15:12:00.000-08:00

Selective Service has just posted the following item on the front page of its web site:

ATTENTION, UNDOCUMENTED MALES & IMMIGRANT SERVICING GROUPS!

Selective Service does not collect any information which would indicate whether or not you are undocumented. You want to protect yourself for future U.S. citizenship and other government benefits and programs by registering with Selective Service. Do it today.

If you are a man ages 18 through 25 and living in the U.S., then you must register with Selective Service. It’s the law. According to law, a man must register with Selective Service within 30 days of his 18th birthday. Selective Service will accept late registrations but not after a man has reached age 26. You may be denied benefits or a job if you have not registered. You can register at any U.S. Post Office and do not need a social security number. When you do obtain a social security number, let Selective Service know. Provide a copy of your new social security number card; being sure to include your complete name, date of birth, Selective Service registration number, and current mailing address; and mail to the Selective Service System, P.O. Box 94636, Palatine, IL 60094-4636.

If you have a social security number, you can register online (click here). It's quick and easy.

In the past, many individuals only registered after becoming Lawful Permanent Residents. If Selective Service is in fact not collecting information on immigration status, then draft-age men will be able to register without risking deportation.

Jennifer Varughese Named Pro Bono Lawyer of the Year in Fairfax County, Virginia

2011-01-28T13:13:00.000-08:00

Livesay & Myers immigration lawyer Jennifer Varughese was today named the Pro Bono Lawyer of the Year (2010) by the Fairfax County Bar Association. She will be honored with the award at the February Membership Luncheon of the Fairfax Bar.

Modification of Custody Orders in Virginia

2011-01-14T09:45:00.000-08:00

In an ideal world, after the final custody order is entered, all the animosity melts away and families transition seamlessly into their custody arrangement. Unfortunately, this isn’t always the case. As children grow, parties remarry, and priorities change, you may find that you or your children are no longer happy with your custody order.

Virginia Code § 20-108 requires the party petitioning the court for modification of a custody order to prove that (1) there has been a material change of circumstances since the entry of the last order, and (2) it is in the best interest of the children to modify custody.

The change of circumstances may be either positive or negative. A positive change could be a parent's remarriage or getting a new job with either a higher salary or more flexible work schedule. A negative change could be a child developing behavioral problems, one parent struggling with substance addiction, or a criminal conviction of a parent.

The change of circumstances must take place after the entry of the last order in your case-- it cannot be based on testimony or evidence that pre-dates the entry of the last order.

As our prior blog posting, Denial of Visitation and Modification of Visitation Orders In Virginia explained in more detail, a parent's denial of court-ordered visitation may also be a material change of circumstances allowing for a modification of custody.

In evaluating the material change of circumstances required for custody modification, the Judge will make a factual determination based upon the specific facts of your case. If the Court determines that there has been a material change of circumstance, the Judge will then examine the best interests of the children by examining the ten factors codified in Virginia Code § 20-124.3. These are the same factors that were considered at the initial custody hearing, and include the age of the children; the health, needs, and relationship that each child has with each of their parents; and for any child of sufficient age, the child's preference as to custody.

If you or your children are unhappy with your current custody arrangement, contact us to schedule a consultation today. We will review the facts of your case with you, and help you explore your options as to potential custody modification.

The custody lawyers at Livesay & Myers, P.C. represent clients in custody cases in Fairfax, Alexandria, Arlington, Manassas, Woodbridge, Stafford, Fredericksburg and across Northern Virginia.

Social Networking and Electronic Communications in Custody and Divorce Cases

2011-01-12T09:42:00.000-08:00

Technology is a wonderful tool to make our lives easier and help us connect with friends across the world, through social networking sites such as Facebook, Myspace or LinkedIn. Technology has allowed instant communication through texting, instant messaging and e-mail. While these technological advances may make our social lives more enjoyable, they can lead to hidden perils during a divorce or custody case.

Social Networking Sites

Posting on a social networking site may seem like harmless fun, but during a divorce or custody case these postings can easily move from the computer to the courtroom. Your time in front of a Judge is limited, and the last thing you want to do is waste time defending the angry wall post you wrote at 2 a.m. or those pictures of you blowing off steam at a friend’s party, during your divorce or custody hearing.

A 2009 Time article, Facebook and Divorce: Airing the Dirty Laundry, discussed the use and influence of social networking sites on domestic relations cases and the impact these postings or pictures could have on how the Court interprets your truthfulness, willingness to work with your spouse, and ability to responsibly parent your child.

To avoid an uncomfortable experience in court, always ask yourself before you post, "how would a Judge view this?" Become familiar with your privacy settings on sites such as Facebook and Myspace. Remember that all it takes is one “friend” to print out photos that would portray you in a negative light at court, and you may have created an unnecessary problem for yourself. Check your friends carefully, and if in doubt shut your page down for the duration of your lawsuit. Additionally, always inform your attorney what sites you belong to. This will allow your attorney to confirm that your testimony in Court will mesh with the information that you have provided on the web.

E-mail, Text Messaging and Instant Messaging

There are a lot of benefits to using e-mail, text messaging or instant messaging to communicate with your estranged spouse during a divorce. In cases where parties do not feel comfortable speaking face to face, e-mail or text messaging may allow both parties to relay information about the children, bills, or other necessities.

The downside to using e-mail, text messaging or instant messaging programs is the written record that they produce, which could potentially be used against you in Court. Once again, you don’t want to waste your precious time in front of the Judge explaining a furious text message or e-mail that you sent your spouse. Thankfully, this situation is easily avoidable. Whenever you text, e-mail, or instant message your spouse, just imagine the Judge sitting behind you and reading every word you type. If you’re feeling overwhelmed or angry, walk away from your computer or put down your phone. Drafting e-mails in a word processing program, then saving them to upload and send later, may provide a nice "cooling off" period allowing you to remove content that may hurt your case down the line.

By following these simple tips above, you can save yourself time, money, and embarrassment in the courtroom, and help your attorney present your strongest divorce or custody case possible.

The custody and divorce lawyers at Livesay & Myers, P.C. represent clients in Fairfax, Manassas, Woodbridge, Stafford, Fredericksburg, and all across Northern Virginia. Contact us to schedule a consultation today.

Visa Bulletin for February 2011

2011-01-12T08:45:00.000-08:00

The Visa Bulletin for February 2011 is now available. The Department of State (DOS) issues the Visa Bulletin, which summarizes the number of available immigrant visas (green cards) according to preference categories, each month.

Family-Sponsored Green Card Categories
The Family-Based First Preference (FB1) category for Worldwide, China and India stalled at January 1, 2005. The Philippines advanced two months in this category, to August 1, 1994, while Mexico advanced by just two weeks, to January 22, 1993.

In the Family 2A category, the cutoff dates for Worldwide, India, China and The Philippines all remained at January 1, 2008, while Mexico stalled at April 1, 2005.

The Family 2B category saw the cutoff dates for Worldwide, India and China remain at April 15, 2003, while Mexico advanced by nine days, to July 1, 1992. The Philippines advanced in this category by 2.5 weeks, to June 1, 1999. However, The Dominican Republic retrogressed in this category by five years and two months, to January 1, 1997.

In the Family-Based Third Preference (FB3) category, Worldwide, India and China stalled at January 1, 2001. The Philippines retrogressed by over eight months, to October 22, 1991. Mexico advanced in this category by one month, to November 22, 1992.

The Family-Based Fourth Preference (FB4) cutoff dates for Worldwide, China and India retrogressed by two years, to January 1, 2000. The FB4 cutoff date for Mexico advanced by 10 days, to January 1, 1996, while The Philippines moved forward by two weeks, to January 15, 1988.

Employment-Sponsored Green Card Categories
The Employment-Based First Preference (EB1) category continues to be current for all countries in the Visa Bulletin for February 2011.

The Employment-Based Second Preference (EB2) category continues to be current for all countries, except India and China. The EB2 cutoff date for China moved forward by nine days, to July 1, 2006, while India remained stalled at May 8, 2006 in this category.

In the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB3) Skilled/Professional Worker category, the cutoff date for Worldwide, The Philippines and The Dominican Republic advanced by 10 days, to April 1, 2005, while the date for China progressed by one week, to January 1, 2004. India moved ahead one week in this category by three weeks, to February 22, 2002.

The EB3 Skilled/Professional Worker cutoff date for Mexico advanced by almost three months, to July 8, 2003.

In the EB3 "Other Worker" category, Worldwide, The Philippines and The Dominican Republic advanced by ten days, to May 1, 2003, while China stalled at April 22, 2003. Mexico moved forward in this category by two weeks, to May 1, 2003, while India advanced by three weeks, to February 22, 2002.

Finally, the EB4 and EB5 categories remain current.

Contact Our Immigration Law Attorneys

If you or a loved one require legal assistance with a family-based or employment-based green card or other immigration law matter, please contact us to schedule your initial consultation with an experienced Virginia immigration lawyer today. Our immigration law attorneys represent clients throughout Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia.

Immigration Case Discussed In Washington Post

2010-12-30T07:00:00.000-08:00

Immigration lawyer Jennifer Varughese is one of the leading attorneys in a raging legal battle involving the immigration consequences of criminal convictions in Virginia.

As detailed by a new article by The Washington Post, Ms. Varughese represents a lawful permanent resident who pled guilty in 1997 to petty larceny, after being told by a public defender that the guilty plea would not affect his immigration status, only to find himself facing deportation for that guilty plea in 2008. In 2009, Ms. Varughese convinced a Circuit Court Judge to modify her client's sentence to allow him to avoid deportation. Ms. Varughese now represents the man before the Virginia Supreme Court in the appeal by the government of that decision.

Updated 2-8-11: Following the government's successful Virginia Supreme Court appeal, Ms. Varughese is currently working on an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. This high profile case could set legal precedent for decades to come regarding the immigration consequences of criminal convictions in Virginia.

Visa Bulletin for January 2011

2010-12-10T05:35:00.001-08:00

The Visa Bulletin for January 2011 is now available. The Department of State (DOS) issues the Visa Bulletin, which summarizes the number of available immigrant visas (green cards) according to preference categories, each month. The January 2011 Visa Bulletin brought bad news for those awaiting family-sponsored green cards, as much of the advancement of the last two years in those categories has been reversed. One bright spot was a ten month advancement for EB-3 Skilled/Professional Worker green cards for Mexico.

Family-Sponsored Green Card Categories
The Family-Based First Preference (FB1) category for Worldwide, China and India retrogressed by 13 months, to January 1, 2005. The Philippines fell back 34 months in this category, to June 1, 1994, while Mexico advanced by just one week, to January 8, 1993.

In the Family 2A category, Worldwide, India, China and The Philippines all retrogressed by 31 months, to January 1, 2008, while Mexico fell back almost five years, to April 1, 2005.

The Family 2B category saw Worldwide, India and China move backward over two years, to April 15, 2003, while Mexico remained stalled at June 22, 1992. The Philippines retrogressed in this category by 9.5 months, to May 15, 1999. The Dominican Republic advanced in this category by two months, to March 1, 2002.

In the Family-Based Third Preference (FB3) category, Worldwide, India and China retrogressed by a year and five months, to January 1, 2001. The Philippines retrogressed by over eight months, to July 1, 1992. Mexico remains stalled in this category, at October 22, 1992.

The Family-Based Fourth Preference (FB4) cutoff date for Worldwide, China and India remained stalled at January 1, 2002. The FB4 cutoff date for Mexico stalled at December 22, 1995, while The Philippines stalled in this category at January 1, 1988.

Employment-Sponsored Green Card Categories
The Employment-Based First Preference (EB1) category continues to be current for all countries in the Visa Bulletin for January 2011.

The Employment-Based Second Preference (EB2) category continues to be current for all countries, except India and China. The EB2 cutoff date for China moved forward by two weeks, to June 22, 2006, while India remained stalled at May 8, 2006 in this category.

In the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB3) Skilled/Professional Worker category, the cutoff date for Worldwide and The Philippines advanced by one month, to March 22, 2005, while the date for China progressed by one week, to December 15, 2003. India also moved ahead one week in this category, to February 1, 2002. The EB3 Skilled/Professional Worker cutoff date for Mexico advanced by 9.5 months, to April 15, 2003.

In the EB3 "Other Worker" category, Worldwide, China and The Philippines stalled at April 22, 2003. Mexico jumped ahead in this category by 9.5 months, to April 15, 2003, while India advanced by one week, to February 1, 2002.

Finally, the EB4 and EB5 categories remain current.

Contact Our Immigration Law Attorneys

Visa Bulletin for December 2010

2010-11-13T12:27:00.000-08:00

The Visa Bulletin for December 2010 is now available. The Department of State (DOS) issues the Visa Bulletin, which summarizes the number of available immigrant visas (green cards) according to preference categories, each month. The December 2010 Visa Bulletin showed very little advancement for most countries in most categories-- with The Philippines actually retrogressing substantially in several family-based categories. Mexico did see a nice advancement in the EB3 "Other Worker" category.

Family-Sponsored Green Card Categories
The Family-Based First Preference (FB1) category for Worldwide, China and India saw no advancement, remaining at February 15, 2006. The Philippines stalled in this category, at April 1, 1997, while Mexico advanced by just over one week, to January 1, 1993.

In the Family 2A category, Worldwide, India, China and The Philippines all advanced by two months, to August 1, 2010, while Mexico remained at March 1, 2010.

The Family 2B category saw Worldwide, India and China stall at June 1, 2005, while Mexico remained stalled at June 22, 1992. The Philippines actually retrogressed in this category by thirty months, to March 1, 2000.

In the Family-Based Third Preference (FB3) category, Worldwide, India and China saw no progress in their cutoff dates, which remained at June 1, 2002. The Philippines and Mexico, however, are again stalled in this category. Mexico also remains stalled in this category, at October 22, 1992. Unfortunately, The Philippines retrogressed in this category as well-- by thirty-six months, to July 1, 1992.

The Family-Based Fourth Preference (FB4) cutoff date for Worldwide, China and India stalled at January 1, 2002. The FB4 cutoff date for Mexico moved ahead one week, to December 22, 1995. Again, the date for The Philippines retrogressed-- by thirty-nine months in this category, to January 1, 1988.

Employment-Sponsored Green Card Categories
The Employment-Based First Preference (EB1) category continues to be current for all countries in the Visa Bulletin for December 2010.

The Employment-Based Second Preference (EB2) category continues to be current for all countries, except India and China. The EB2 cutoff date for China moved forward seven days, to June 8, 2006, while India remained stalled at May 8, 2006 in this category.

All countries saw modest advances in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB3) Skilled/Professional Worker category. The cutoff date for Worldwide and The Philippines advanced in this category by one month, to February 22, 2005, while the date for China progressed by sixteen days, to December 8, 2003. India stalled in this category at January 22, 2002, while the date for Mexico advanced by two months, to July 1, 2001.

In the EB3 "Other Worker" category, all countries except Mexico and India progressed by twenty-one days, to April 22, 2003. Mexico jumped ahead in this category by fourteen months, to July 1, 2002, while the date for India stalled at January 22, 2002.

Finally, the EB4 and EB5 categories remain current.

Contact Our Immigration Law Attorneys

Establishing Date of Separation in a Virginia Divorce

2010-11-01T02:52:00.000-07:00

Unfortunately, many people reach a point of no return in their marital relationship. Perhaps a spouse has been unfaithful or abusive, or maybe two people have simply drifted apart over time. Whatever the reason, you’ve made the decision that you need to turn the page and move on with your life. One of the first steps in the divorce process is the establishment of a date of separation. But why is it important, and how can you ensure that you’ve done it correctly?

A separation date may be crucial to your divorce case for a number of reasons. First, if you don’t have a fault basis for your complaint (adultery, cruelty, desertion, constructive desertion, etc.), then your separation date will determine when you can file for divorce. In Virginia, you must wait one year to file if you have children and/or in the absence of a marital settlement agreement, but you can file after only six months with no children and a marital settlement agreement in place. In some jurisdictions (such as Fairfax County), regardless of fault grounds, you will not be scheduled for an equitable distribution divorce trial until beyond the statutory time period.

Second, your date of separation will have an impact on the marital, separate or hybrid nature of financial accounts, retirement accounts, and other property. In general, with some exceptions, income earned, debt accrued, and items purchased post-separation (with post-separation funds) will be classified as separate property. Also, a court will often give credit to a payor party for post-separation spousal support payments, thereby reducing the post-divorce duration of such payments.

In other words, the sooner you can establish a date of separation, the more quickly you can turn the page on your marriage and the various entanglements that result therefrom. So what constitutes a defensible date of separation?

Virginia caselaw provides for a number of different indicia of a legal separation. One of the brightest lines is the entry into a “separation agreement,” signed by both parties, which unequivocally states that they separated on a certain date with no intention to reconcile. Alternatively, if one party vacates the marital home and informs her spouse of her intention to seek a divorce, this will also do the trick.

However, oftentimes, to benefit the children or out of economic necessity, separating parties will elect to remain under the same roof at first. As long as one party (1) vacates the marital bedroom, (2) notifies the other of her intention to seek a divorce, and (3) the parties cease having intercourse (although some caselaw suggests that infrequent liaisons are permissible), a date of separation can be established with both parties remaining in the marital home. In these circumstances, there are a number of additional factors that a court will consider to determine whether the parties are indeed separated:

Do they hold themselves out publicly (to family and friends) as separated?
Do they attend events or functions together (excluding functions involving their children)?
Do they take meals together or prepare meals for one another?
Do they share the same bathroom or closet?

As silly as some of these considerations may seem, they can be crucial in establishing a date of separation, which can have a significant impact on property division, the duration of spousal support, and the timing of your divorce. So take your toothbrush out of your spouse’s bathroom, and take this advice to heart when considering your separation date.

If you find yourself at the beginning of the divorce process, you should strongly consider enlisting the help of an attorney to learn more about how to protect yourself and your future. The family lawyers at Livesay & Myers, P.C. are experienced in guiding clients toward an equitable resolution to a very difficult period in their lives. Schedule a consultation today with an attorney in one of our three locations: Fredericksburg, Manassas and Fairfax.

My Spouse Is Filing For Bankruptcy... Help!

2010-10-15T15:05:00.000-07:00

You and your spouse have decided to separate. You have decided who will move out and even who will have custody of your children. Inevitably, the discussion will turn to support, both child and spousal. How much is enough? Why should he get spousal support if I have the kids? Why should I pay at all? In some of these discussions, one party throws out the dreaded “B-word” – bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy is more than what you declare when you lose at Monopoly or what takes all your money on “Wheel of Fortune.” Bankruptcy is the government’s way of allowing people to get rid of their debt and have a chance at a fresh start. But what effect does bankruptcy have on a person’s support obligations? Consider the following three situations.

Situation One: Rick and Kate are discussing their Property Settlement Agreement, and have decided that Kate will have custody of their two children. When Kate asks Rick to pay $500 per month for spousal support and $1500 per month for child support, Rick says “I just can’t afford any support right now, and if you get a court order I’ll be forced to file bankruptcy and won’t have to pay anyways. Why not just agree now that I don’t have to pay so we can all avoid the headache.” Kate reluctantly agrees.

Situation Two: Rick and Kate have been divorced for five years. Their Final Decree of Divorce requires Rick to pay monthly child and spousal support payments of $1500 and $500. Until recently, Rick has been paying this amount on time, but in the last five months Rick hasn’t paid any money towards either support obligation. When Kate calls to ask when he will be making up the $10,000 in missed payments, Rick says “I’m filing for bankruptcy, and the government will be getting rid of that debt for me. I’ll start paying support again in a couple months, but I don’t have to repay that $10,000.”

Situation Three: Rick and Kate have been divorced for five years. Their Final Decree of Divorce requires Rick to pay monthly child and spousal support payments of $1500 and $500. Rick filed for bankruptcy five months ago and hasn’t paid any money towards either support obligation since filing. When Kate calls to ask why he hasn’t paid any support, Rick says “You know I filed for Bankruptcy. Uncle Sam took care of all of that for me, and I’m not going to pay one more penny.”

Is Rick right in any of these situations? No.

The Bankruptcy Code allows individuals (debtors) to discharge, or eliminate, most but not all of their debts by filing bankruptcy. The Code specifically sets out several kinds of debts that individuals cannot get rid of, no matter how large. Section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code makes it clear that bankruptcy will not get rid of an individual’s debts owed for a “domestic support obligation.” But what qualifies as a domestic support obligation?

Section 101 of the Bankruptcy Code defines “domestic support obligation” as any debt that accrues before, on, or after the date a person’s debts are discharged through bankruptcy that is owed to a spouse, former spouse, or child of the debtor (or the child’s parent or other legal guardian) that is in the nature of alimony or support created by a separation agreement, divorce decree or other court order. In other words, Bankruptcy does not allow your spouse to get rid of their child and spousal support obligations, whether in a Property Settlement Agreement or Final Decree of Divorce.

Let’s turn back to Rick and Kate.

In Situation One, Rick is wrong about bankruptcy. Filing bankruptcy would not eliminate Rick’s obligation to pay child and spousal support. If Kate agrees that Rick doesn’t have to pay her any support, well, Rick won’t even need to try to file bankruptcy to avoid that payment.

In Situation Two, Rick is wrong again. Any debt for unpaid child or spousal support is not going to be dischargeable through bankruptcy. If Rick still refuses to pay after being told that he’s wrong, Kate may need to pursue a legal action against him but one way or another she is entitled to receive the missed support payments.

In Situation Three, Rick is (unsurprisingly) wrong yet again. Section 101 says that a domestic support obligation is one that accrues “before, on, or after” a debtor’s bankruptcy discharge. Just as bankruptcy won’t get you out of previously-missed support payments, it will not let Rick stop supporting his former spouse and children after discharge.

Bankruptcy is a very powerful tool providing Americans the right to a fresh financial start. But not even bankruptcy will allow a parent or former spouse to escape their duty to pay child or spousal support.

Contact Our Divorce Lawyers

The divorce attorneys at Livesay & Myers, P.C., represent clients in in Manassas, Woodbridge, Prince William County, Stafford, Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania, Fairfax and Fairfax County, Alexandria, Arlington, and all of Northern Virginia. Contact us to schedule a consultation today.

Visa Bulletin for November 2010

2010-10-10T03:09:00.000-07:00

The Visa Bulletin for November 2010 is now available. The Department of State (DOS) issues the Visa Bulletin, which summarizes the number of available immigrant visas (green cards) according to preference categories, each month. The November 2010 Visa Bulletin showed advancements in several categories.

Family-Sponsored Green Card Categories
The Family-Based First Preference (FB1) category for Worldwide, China and India saw no advancement, remaining at February 15, 2006. The Philippines advanced in this category by one month, to April 1, 1997, while Mexico advanced one week to December 22, 1992.

In the Family 2A category, Worldwide, India, China and The Philippines all advanced by two months, to June 1, 2010, while Mexico progressed by two months, to March 1, 2010.

The Family 2B category saw Worldwide, India and China cutoff dates progressed by two months, to June 1, 2005. The Philippines and Mexico, however, are stalled in this category. The Philippines remained at September 1, 2002, while Mexico remained at June 22, 1992.

In the Family-Based Third Preference (FB3) category, Worldwide, India and China moved forward one month, to June 1, 2002. The Philippines and Mexico, however, are again stalled in this category. The Philippines remained at March 1, 1995, while Mexico remained at October 22, 1992.

The Family-Based Fourth Preference (FB4) cutoff date for Worldwide, China and India advanced by one month, to January 1, 2002. The FB4 cutoff date for Mexico moved ahead one week, to December 15, 1995, while the date for The Philippines stalled at April 1, 1991.

Employment-Sponsored Green Card Categories
The Employment-Based First Preference (EB1) category continues to be current for all countries in the Visa Bulletin for November 2010.

The Employment-Based Second Preference (EB2) category continues to be current for all countries, except India and China. The EB2 cutoff date for China moved forward ten days, to June 1, 2006, while India saw no movement in this category, remaining at May 8, 2006.

All countries saw modest advances in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB3) Skilled/Professional Worker category. The cutoff date for Worldwide and The Philippines advanced in this category by fourteen days, to January 22, 2005, while the date for China also progressed by fourteen days, to November 22, 2003. India moved forward one week in this category, to January 22, 2002, while the date for Mexico advanced by nine days, to May 1, 2001.

In the EB3 "Other Worker" category, all countries except Mexico and India progressed by ten days, to April 1, 2003. Mexico moved ahead nine days in this category, to May 1, 2001, while the date for India advanced by one week, to January 22, 2002.

Finally, the EB4 and EB5 categories remain current.

Contact Our Immigration Law Attorneys

Livesay & Myers Criminal Lawyers Win Acquittal Verdict In Stafford Sex Case

2010-10-09T04:52:00.001-07:00

The Livesay & Myers criminal defense team won an acquittal this week in a two-day sexual assault trial in Stafford County, as reported by the Free Lance-Star.

Livesay & Myers defense attorneys Ghislaine Storr Burks, Benjamin Griffitts and Jessica Golden represented a man accused of sexually assaulting his former live-in girlfriend's young daughter.

After attorneys Burks, Griffitts and Golden mounted an aggressive defense which called into serious question the credibility of the government's case, the jury found the defendant not guilty of four charges, including aggravated sexual battery and indecent liberties. The Judge dismissed a fifth charge, child neglect, prior to it reaching the jury.

The criminal defense lawyers at Livesay & Myers, P.C. represent clients throughout Northern Virginia, with a special emphasis on sex crimes cases. If you or a loved one have been charged with a crime, contact us to schedule your free consultation with a Virginia criminal defense attorney today.

Record Number of Deportations for Previous Fiscal Year

2010-10-08T14:35:00.000-07:00

In a record breaking year for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), 392,862 individuals were deported from the United States over the last fiscal year. Of that number, 195,772 were convicted criminals. In the previous fiscal year, about 389,000 individuals were deported.

In particular, the increase in criminal deportations stemmed from the DHS "Secure Communities" program, which allows local law enforcement to check the immigration status of each individual booked into jail. Locally speaking, Prince William County is part of the Secure Communities program whereas Arlington County voted, on September 28, 2010, to withdraw itself from the program.

Immigration issues are front and center in key midterm elections across the country. The growing number of local jurisdictions attempting to take immigration issues into their own hands demonstrates the growing frustration over a broken federal immigration system. Results of the November elections will help determine whether comprehensive immigration reform is a possibility during the remainder of President Obama's tenure.

If you or a loved one require assistance with an immigration law matter in Virginia, Maryland or the District of Columbia, please contact us to schedule your initial consultation with an experienced immigration lawyer today.

Stafford County Makes Gang Arrests

2010-10-07T06:19:00.000-07:00

An ongoing investigation into gang activity in Stafford County has resulted in 66 charges involving 19 people, according to a Free Lance-Star article.

Sheriff's spokesman Bill Kennedy said many of the charges involve offenses that took place over the summer, including robberies, mob assaults and brandishing firearms.

Six adults and 13 juveniles were identified as members of Stafford and regional gangs.

Kennedy said the Sheriff's Office set up a special unit to combat gang activity in the region, resulting in the arrests. The special unit apparently employed electronic monitoring and the use of informants.

According to Kennedy, most of the gangs identified have existed less than two years and have no national affiliation, but do use symbols and signs associated with more well-known gangs.

Kennedy said the names of the gangs include the 218 Boys, Savage Boys, Killa Mafia, G-Shine, Rolling 60s Crips, Rolling 20s Crips, Gangster Disciples, Goon Squad and the 43 (Four-Trey) Darkside Crips.

According to Kennedy, the 218 Boys have members ranging in age from 12 to 17. The 43 Darkside Crips have members ranging in age from 18 to 25.

The adults facing Stafford charges are: Charles Phifer Ervin, 21; Steven Andrew Holloway, 19; Jarren Arees Fields, 21; Adrian Marquelle Clark, 20; Rashad Jamar Lightfoot, 19; and Julio Mayes, 18.

Mr. Mayes and another man are charged in a series of robberies in North Stafford.

Clark, Fields and Lightfoot are charged in connection with recent attempted robberies that occurred when the victims showed up in Stafford in response to Craigslist ads.

Given the nature of the charges against them, these 19 individuals will require specialized and aggressive legal defense.

The criminal defense lawyers at Livesay & Myers, P.C. represent clients throughout Northern Virginia, including Stafford County, Virginia. If you or a loved one have been charged with a crime, contact us to schedule your free consultation with a Virginia criminal defense attorney today.

Steep Immigration-Related Fine for Popular Retailer

2010-09-30T12:57:00.000-07:00

Over the past few years, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has increased its audits of U.S. companies. The latest high profile case involves popular clothing retailer, Abercrombie & Fitch. Yesterday, in a settlement, A&F agreed to a $1.9 million fine for technology-related deficiencies in its electronic employment-status verification system. ICE found no instances of A&F hiring undocumented workers, but there were issues with methods used to confirm compliance with immigration laws. The entire investigation shows the importance of proper I-9 documentation for current and new employees at U.S. companies.

Contact Us
If your company requires legal assistance with I-9 documentation for your employees, please contact us to schedule your initial consultation with an experienced Virginia immigration lawyer today. Our immigration law attorneys represent clients throughout Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia.

Ruby Anita Broughs Charged With Assaulting Virginia State Trooper In Stafford

2010-09-29T12:36:00.000-07:00

Ruby Anita Broughs has been accused of assaulting a passenger in her vehicle as well as a Virginia State Trooper in an incident yesterday morning in Stafford, according to a Free Lance-Star article.

Trooper P.A. Coster sustained minor injuries in the incident, which occurred around 4:40 a.m. on U.S. 1 near Centreport Parkway, according to Virginia State Police spokesman Sgt. F.L. Tyler.

Coster spotted a vehicle stopped in a northbound travel lane of U.S. 1. After pulling behind the vehicle and activating his police cruiser's lights, the stopped vehicle crossed the southbound lanes of U.S. 1 and stopped on the road's shoulder, facing the wrong direction, Tyler said.

The car's driver, a female, got out of the vehicle and began assaulting a passenger, a male, who had also exited her vehicle, according to Tyler.

When Coster tried to intervene, the driver assaulted him, Tyler said.

With assistance from the passenger, Coster was able to handcuff the driver, according to Tyler. Additional Virginia State Police personnel and the Stafford County Sheriff's Office were called to the scene for assistance.

Coster and the passenger were taken to Stafford Hospital for treatment and were released, Tyler said.

Ruby Anita Broughs, 25, of Woodbridge was charged with malicious wounding of a police officer, driving under the influence-drugs, possession of heroin, possession of cocaine, assault and battery, obstruction of justice and kidnapping (for preventing the vehicle's passenger from leaving), Tyler said.

Given the nature of the charges against her, Ms. Broughs will require specialized and aggressive legal defense.

The criminal defense lawyers at Livesay & Myers, P.C. represent clients throughout Northern Virginia, including Stafford County, Virginia. If you or a loved one have been charged with a crime, contact us to schedule your free consultation with a Virginia criminal defense attorney today.

Seven Men Charged With Trafficking Cocaine And Firearms In Prince William County

2010-09-24T14:41:00.000-07:00

Seven men are charged in a 34-count indictment released Thursday in U.S. Eastern District Court in Alexandria for trafficking cocaine and firearms in Prince William County, according to an InsideNoVA.com article.

According to court records, Yasin Oriza Arreola, 30, of Catlett is accused of being a significant source for distributing more than 500 grams of cocaine in Prince William County in the last 11 months.

Documents also state that Mr. Arreola was supplied by a Mexican drug trafficking organization and was receiving cocaine from Chicago, Charlotte and Atlanta.

Court records indicate that Mr. Arreola, also known as “Tony” or “El Diablo,” has allegedly posed as a construction worker – including driving a white work van and wearing a reflective construction vest – to conduct drug transactions at various spots throughout the county, which included the Manassas Mall parking lot, a nearby Burger King, Mexico Lindo Restaurant on Mathis Avenue, a Manassas-area Shopper’s Warehouse, and a residence on Centerton Lane in Manassas.

The government alleges that Mr. Arreola and others possessed firearms during drug negotiations and also agreed to sell firearms – including a machine gun – to drug customers.

The following six men from Manassas were also charged in the indictment: Jose Salgado Lovo, 40; Isitro Liberato, “Joker”, 20; Kelvin Martinez, “Solo,” 25; Manuel Perez Castillo, “New York,” 42; Jorge Isiais Fernandez, also known as “Esquivel Madrazo Aquiles,” “Chesperito,” or “Picapiedra,” 35; and Angel Enrique Flores, also known as “Don Angel,” 44.

The defendants were arrested on August 25, 2010.

In Virginia, the charges against Mr. Arreola and the other defendants carry severe penalties, with minimum penalties ranging from 10 to 40 years in prison and a maximum penalty of life in prison.

Given that Virginia has eliminated parole, conviction on these types of charges can be devastating. Therefore, each of the accused in this case would be well-advised to hire an experienced criminal defense lawyer.

The drug distribution defense lawyers at Livesay & Myers, P.C. represent clients throughout Northern Virginia, including Prince William County and Manassas, Virginia on charges of manufacturing, selling, giving or distributing controlled substances. If you or a loved one face a drug charge, contact us to schedule your free consultation with a Virginia drug crimes defense attorney today.

Woodbridge Woman And Two Passengers Injured In Car Accident

2010-09-23T08:41:00.001-07:00

Two people were flown to an area hospital after an accident in the area of Minnieville Road and Cheshire Station Shopping Center in Dale City about 4:45 p.m. Tuesday, according to an InsideNoVA.com article.

A police investigation showed that a 2009 Dodge SUV was making a left hand turn from westbound Minnieville Road into Cheshire Station Plaza when it crossed in front of a 2004 Toyota Corolla traveling east on Minnieville Road.

The Dodge SUV was driven by Jennifer Anne Lav Arine, 28, of Fredericksburg.

The driver of the Toyota was only identified as a 23-year-old Woodbridge woman.

Two passengers in the Toyota, a 28-year-old woman and a 53-year-old woman, were flown to a hospital.

One of the passengers was not wearing a seat belt and was seriously injured.

If Ms. Arine is found to have been at fault in the accident, then the driver of the Toyota and her passengers would have strong claims for personal injury compensation from Ms. Arine's insurance company.

Police did charge Ms. Arine with failure to yield the right of way; it would thus appear that she may indeed have been at fault in causing the accident.

We wish for a speedy recovery for the driver of the Toyota and her passengers injured in this crash.

If you or a loved one have been involved in an automobile accident, please contact us to schedule your free consultation with an experienced Virginia personal injury attorney. Our lawyers represent clients injured in car accidents throughout Northern Virginia, including Stafford County, Virginia.

Deportation Case Information - Proposed Change To Automated System Update

2010-09-22T16:38:00.001-07:00

Previously we reported a proposed change to the system for obtaining immigration court information by calling an automated telephone number, 1-800-898-7180.

By calling that number and entering in one's 9-digit alien or "A" number, information can be found such as hearing dates and case history with the immigration court.

Citing security concerns, the government proposed a change to the automated system, whereby callers would be required to also enter in the date on their charging document, referred to as a Notice to Appear (NTA).

Now, the government has announced that the proposed change will no longer be going into effect.

Responding to the outcry from private practitioners who feared that they would not be able to access court information for clients in deportation proceedings, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) decided to keep the current system in place.

Thus, the automated system will continue to require entry only of the 9-digit "A" number, without the additional requirement of entry of the date on the charging document.

Contact Us
If you or a loved one require legal assistance with an immigration law matter, please contact us to schedule your initial consultation with an experienced Virginia immigration lawyer today. Our immigration law attorneys represent clients in Manassas, Woodbridge, Stafford, Alexandria, Arlington, Fredericksburg, Falls Church, Fairfax and all of Northern Virginia, as well as throughout Maryland and the District of Columbia.

Virginia DMV Bars Immigration Work Permits as Proof of Legal Status

2010-09-08T16:05:00.000-07:00

In a major decision by current Governor Bob McDonnell, Virginia DMVs will no longer accept USCIS-issued work permits (also referred to as employment authorization cards) as proof of legal status necessary for a driver's license or license renewal.

For scores of Virginia residents with Temporary Protected Status (TPS), asylee status, pending green card cases, etc., the work permit is often the only proof that one is in the United States legally. Therefore, the Governor's action has been met with both confusion and frustration on the part of many lawful Virginia residents. On the other side of the debate, proponents of the new measure cite the ability of criminally-charged foreign nationals to obtain work permits as proof that it should not be the basis of one's ability to obtain a driver's license. Regardless, the fact remains that this new measure will negatively affect countless foreign nationals who come to the United States legally, lawfully remain in Virginia, and make their way through an often lengthy, complicated pathway to a green card.

Contact Us
If you or a loved one require legal assistance with an immigration law matter, please contact usto schedule your initial consultation with an experienced Virginia immigration lawyer today. Our immigration law attorneys represent clients in Manassas, Woodbridge, Stafford, Alexandria, Arlington, Fredericksburg, Falls Church, Fairfax and all of Northern Virginia, as well as throughout Maryland and the District of Columbia.

Advice For Virginia Landlords: Don't Go It Alone!

2010-09-02T12:21:00.001-07:00

There are not many better examples of America’s do-it-yourself attitude than the notion of owning and managing a residential rental property. The housing boom of the first-half of the last decade led to many average Americans seeing “gold in them thar hills”: the magical land of rental income. Even in prosperous economic times, being a residential landlord be financially risky, to say nothing of trying to maintain a steady stream of tenants in rough times. Since the theory behind owning a rental property is extra income and not the great joy of housing others, single property residential landlords understandably attempt to save on costs wherever possible: through do-it-yourself advertising, do-it-yourself leases, do-it-yourself repairs, even do-it-yourself evictions. Landlords often find themselves spending more (or more commonly—losing more) money than they ever thought they would in the name of cost-savings. Why does anyone put him or herself through the aggravation of basically managing an entire extra household without professional assistance?

Landlords can save themselves hundreds if not thousands of dollars, and certainly a massive headache, by being willing to invest professionally in their rental property from the outset. A landlord who doesn’t want to pay a realtor a commission to assist in the tenant search, and possibly receive the benefit of a standardized Lease from that agency shouldn’t settle for lifting a lease from a simple Google search. Would you leave your children with a complete stranger? No? Then why leave the fate of your rental property in the hands of one?

Virginia landlords: hire a legal professional to draft your lease, tailoring it to your specific needs, ensuring that it conforms to Virginia contract law, and best protects you in the event of a breach of the lease by your tenant.

One item the lease should address is attorney’s fees in the event of a lease dispute. If an attorney’s fee award is not written in the contract, or not provided for in a statute, each party is responsible for his or her own attorney’s fees. Do you trust a lease written by some anonymous person on the internet to properly address this issue under Virginia law? You shouldn’t.

For an example, let’s say the landlord/tenant relationship has broken down. Rent is past due. You as a landlord want to save money, so you want to help yourself. The question is, how far can you go in attempting to either secure payment from the tenant, or evicting the tenant? Specifically, what exactly is a Summons for Unlawful Detainer, and can you simply handle this without a lawyer?

A quick Google search produces a Virginia Supreme Court form for that-- so who needs an attorney now, right? But, did you know that tenants have the right to a Notice to Pay or Quit before you can file a lawsuit against them? Did you know that you must give a tenant minimum notice of a certain time period (depending on the kind of breach of lease)?

Or, did you know that there is a county-specific procedure for giving the tenant the notice? For example, if your rental property is in Fairfax County, the Notice to Pay or Quit must be served just like a lawsuit, and you can pay the Fairfax County Sheriff’s Office to serve it. If you go to court in Fairfax County on a Summons for Unlawful Detainer and don’t have proof of service, a judge could throw your entire case out—putting you back at square one legally, but deeper in the hole financially. But in Stafford County, the Sheriff’s Office does not serve these kinds of Notices. So do you pay a Private Process Server? Not necessarily, because the Stafford County General District Court accepts Notices served by certified mail.

And, I won’t even attempt to address details about the actual content of the Notice in the limited space of this blog posting.

But, let’s say you successfully serve the property notice on your tenant, and comply you’re your county’s rules as to service—and successfully get your case before a judge. Do you know what a First Return Date for your hearing is? Do you know what kind of relief to ask the judge for? What evidence does the judge need?

Who makes the tenant pay back rent? Do you have the right to evict them right away? What is a writ of possession? What is an appeal by right? These issues are just the tip of the iceberg of questions that attorneys consider in handling an eviction matter.

Landlords can save themselves money and a lot of unnecessary frustration in the long term, by finding an experienced attorney to guide them through the landlord-tenant minefield from the beginning. My message to any Virginia landlord: do not be penny wise and pound foolish—seek the assistance of qualified counsel in drafting the initial lease with your tenant, and throughout any issues that may arise.

Conclusion

The landlord-tenant law attorneys of Livesay & Myers combine litigation skills with a reality-based understanding of landlord and tenant obligations under residential leases. Contact us to schedule your consultation with an experienced Virginia landlord-tenant lawyer today.

Two Men Arrested In Attempted Trolley Theft In Fredericksburg

2010-08-27T02:53:00.000-07:00

Two men were discovered at 2:30 a.m. attempting to steal the Trolley Tours of Fredericksburg tour bus that regularly parks by the Fredericksburg Visitor Center in the 600 block of Caroline Street, according to a Free Lance-Star article.

An employee of the nearby Courtyard Marriott Hotel saw two men in the trolley--one in the driver's seat, shifting gears, and the other rummaging through the glove box, police spokeswoman Natatia Bledsoe said. Police were called, and two men were stopped nearby.

While being questioned by an officer, one of the men even took a swig of liquor, Bledsoe said. Both were taken into custody.

Joseph Jenni, 39, of Fredericksburg was charged with attempted grand larceny, vehicle tampering, possession of a controlled substance, and public intoxication. Scott Underwood, 23, of Williamsburg was charged with attempted grand larceny, vehicle tampering, public intoxication, and drinking in public.

In Virginia, offenses like attempted grand larceny carry severe maximum punishments. Individuals facing such charges require specialized and aggressive legal defense.

The criminal defense lawyers at Livesay & Myers, P.C. represent clients throughout Fredericksburg and Northern Virginia. If you or a loved one have been charged with an offense, contact us to schedule your free consultation with a Virginia criminal defense attorney today.

Reckless Driving Charges In Virginia Must Be Taken Seriously

2010-08-25T13:10:00.000-07:00

Imagine for a moment: you’re planning that long-awaited summer vacation. You’re headed south to Orlando or the Outer Banks. Maybe you’re heading north to New York or Boston. You make all your preparations, and your final task is getting directions. You go to Google Maps, Mapquest or use your AAA triptik. Your trip requires you to travel on I-95 through Virginia. Your vacation begins, and you finally head out the door for that week of relaxation. You enter Virginia, and your mind is on everything but the speed limit. You keep up with the flow of traffic because you have no idea what the actual speed limit is. And before your vacation even starts, you’re being stopped by law enforcement and issued a citation for speeding. Except that many times, its not speeding you’re charged with. Rather its Reckless Driving. You’re told by law enforcement that you’re required to appear in that county’s court. But you thought it was just a speeding ticket, right?

I have received hundreds of calls just like this scenario over the years. The most extreme calls come from out-of-state drivers because they fall in one of two primary categories: Having been charged with Reckless Driving, you researched it and found out that it is a Class 1 Misdemeanor punishable by up to 12 months in jail, a $2,500 fine and a 6 month license suspension. You start thinking about your job, your finances and your future. Or you were completely unaware of the difference between Reckless Driving and your average speeding ticket. You had no idea that you were being charged with a misdemeanor or that you could possibly get jail time for a speeding-related offense. Maybe you’re one of the 394 drivers who received a Reckless Driving charge over this last weekend, according to a recent Associated Press article.

Unlike many states where all speeding cases are traffic infractions with only a fine and points to be concerned with, Virginia has instituted a Reckless Driving statute. It can be found in Title 46.2 of our Code, between Sections 852 and 868. There are a variety of offenses classified as Reckless Driving, but the one that causes the highest level of distress and misunderstanding from drivers is Section 46.2-862, which classifies Reckless Driving as “a speed of twenty miles per hour or more in excess of the applicable maximum speed limit” or “in excess of eighty miles per hour regardless of the applicable maximum speed limit.” In Northern Virginia, you have to watch those speed limit signs carefully.

On I-95 traveling between Fredericksburg and Springfield, the speed limit changes between 65 and 55 miles per hour within a span of just a few miles. In Fairfax County, the maximum speed limit in a regular travel lane is 55 miles per hour, regardless of how many lanes of traffic there may be. Going with the flow of traffic can commonly find you going 75 miles per hour. Beware! That is Reckless Driving in some areas!

Here’s the reality. Regardless of what state you’re from, a good driving record can limit your punishment in most cases to a fine. In many circumstances, a good defense attorney can negotiate a reduction of the Reckless Driving to an infraction offense. Some courts will allow a person to take a defensive driving class; others, such as Fairfax County, do not. Jail time becomes a real possibility when your driving record shows a history of previous Reckless Driving convictions, a significant number of prior speeding offenses, your speed when you were stopped is more than double the posted speed limit, or you were driving at a speed approaching and in excess of 90 miles per hour.

For out-of-state drivers who wish they did not have to return to Virginia for a court appearance, it is possible for an attorney to request the court to waive your appearance and appear in your absence.

No matter where you land on the Reckless Driving knowledge scale, it is important to take any Reckless Driving charge seriously, and seek experienced legal representation.

The traffic defense lawyers at Livesay & Myers, P.C. represent clients throughout Northern Virginia on reckless driving and other criminal traffic charges. If you have been charged with such an offense, contact us to schedule your free consultation with a Virginia reckless driving defense attorney today.

USCIS Implements H-1B and L-1 Fee Increase

2010-08-20T12:12:00.000-07:00

On August 13, 2010, President Obama signed into law Public Law 111-230, which contains provisions to increase certain H-1B and L-1 petition fees. Effective immediately, Public Law 111-230 requires the submission of an additional fee of $2,000 for certain H-1B petitions and $2,250 for certain L-1A and L-1B petitions postmarked on or after August 14, 2010, and will remain in effect through September 30, 2014.

These additional fees apply to petitioners who employ 50 or more employees in the United States with more than 50 percent of its employees in the United States in H-1B or L (including L-1A, L-1B and L-2) nonimmigrant status. Petitioners meeting these criteria must submit the fee with an H-1B or L-1 petition filed:

Initially to grant an alien nonimmigrant status described in subparagraph (H)(i)(b) or (L) of section 101(a)(15), or
To obtain authorization for an alien having such status to change employers.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is in the process of revising the Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Form I-129), and instructions to comply with Public Law 111-230. To facilitate implementation of Public Law 111-230, USCIS recommends that all H-1B, L-1A and L-1B petitioners, as part of the filing packet, include the new fee or a statement of other evidence outlining why this new fee does not apply. USCIS requests that petitioners include a notation of whether the fee is required in bold capital letters at the top of the cover letter. Where USCIS does not receive such explanation and/or documentation with the initial filing, it may issue a Request for Evidence (RFE) to determine whether the petition is covered by the public law. An RFE may be required even if such evidence is submitted, if questions remain.

The additional fee, if applicable, is in addition to the base processing fee, the existing Fraud Prevention and Detection Fee, and any applicable American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998 (ACWIA) fee, needed to file a petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Form I-129), as well as any premium processing fees, if applicable.

If you or a loved one require further information about an H-1B or L visa, or any other immigration law matter, please contact us to schedule your initial consultation with an experienced immigration lawyer today. Our immigration law attorneys represent clients in Manassas, Woodbridge, Stafford, Alexandria, Arlington, Fredericksburg, Fairfax and all of Northern Virginia, as well as throughout Maryland and the District of Columbia.

Deportation Case Information - Proposed Change To Automated System

2010-08-18T05:19:00.000-07:00

Individuals in removal (deportation) proceedings are able to obtain immigration court information by calling an automated telephone number, 1-800-898-7180. By calling that number and entering in one's 9-digit alien or "A" number, information can be found such as the day/time of one's removal hearing, the assigned immigration court and immigration judge, any past removal orders entered, and any pending appeals before the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).

Citing security concerns, the government is proposing a change to the automated system, whereby callers would be required to also enter in the date on their charging document, referred to as a Notice to Appear (NTA).

Such an additional requirement may prove problematic for attorneys and family members who have a loved one in immigration custody. It can be difficult for third parties to obtain a copy of the NTA and, thus, concerned parties may not be able to determine when court proceedings are taking place.

Various immigration organizations are voicing their concern regarding this proposed change. We will keep you posted.

Update: Deportation Case Information - Proposed Change To Automated System Update.

Contact Us
If you or a loved one require legal assistance with an immigration law matter, please contact us to schedule your initial consultation with an experienced Virginia immigration lawyer today. Our immigration law attorneys represent clients in Manassas, Woodbridge, Stafford, Alexandria, Arlington, Fredericksburg, Falls Church, Fairfax and all of Northern Virginia, as well as throughout Maryland and the District of Columbia.

USCIS Reminds Eligible Nationals of El Salvador to Re-Register for TPS

2010-08-16T12:25:00.000-07:00

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is reminding nationals of El Salvador (and persons without nationality who last habitually resided in El Salvador), who have Temporary Protected Status (TPS), to file their re-registration applications for TPS before the end of the re-registration period on September 7, 2010.

The 18-month extension of TPS for El Salvador will remain in effect through March 9, 2012. Individuals who have received TPS previously must re-register for the 18-month extension during the re-registration period. Failure to file a TPS re-registration application during the re-registration period, without good cause, will result in withdrawal of TPS benefits, including employment authorization and protection from removal from the United States.

To re-register, all TPS beneficiaries must file both the Application for Temporary Protected Status, Form I-821, and the Application for Employment Authorization, Form I-765, with the correct fees or a properly documented fee waiver request. If the TPS re-registrant is not seeking employment authorization or an extension of his/her current employment authorization, the Form I-765 fee is not required, but the re-registrant must still file Form I-765 for data-gathering purposes. All TPS re-registrants age 14 and older must submit the biometric fee. Applicants who are able to demonstrate an inability to pay may request a fee waiver for the TPS application, biometric services or employment authorization, or all three fees combined. Failure to submit the required application and biometric fees or a properly documented fee waiver request will result in the rejection of the re-registration application.

USCIS is also reminding applicants that the most common reasons for rejection are:

The application was not filed with the correct fees or a properly documented fee waiver request.
The application was missing critical biographical information.
The applicant did not sign one or more of the required forms (Forms I-821 and I-765).
The application was filed using an incorrect version of the form. Check the lower right hand corner of the first page of the form instructions for the edition date. The Form I-821 must be dated October 17, 2007 or later, and the Form I-765 must be dated October 16, 2008 or later. If the edition dates are earlier, the forms will not be accepted by USCIS.

The immigration lawyers at Livesay & Myers, P.C. represent clients in Manassas, Woodbridge, Stafford, Alexandria, Arlington, Fredericksburg, Fairfax and all of Northern Virginia, as well as throughout Maryland and the District of Columbia, in Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and other immigration law matters.

Visa Bulletin for September 2010

2010-08-11T08:19:00.000-07:00

The Visa Bulletin for September 2010 is now available. The Department of State (DOS) issues the Visa Bulletin, which summarizes the number of available immigrant visas (green cards) according to preference categories, each month. The September 2010 Visa Bulletin showed advancements in several categories.

Family-Sponsored Green Card Categories

The Family-Based First Preference (FB1) category progressed for Worldwide, China, The Dominican Republic and India by four months, to January 1, 2006. The Philippines advanced in this category by one full year, to January 1, 1997, while Mexico advanced two weeks to December 1, 1992.

In the Family 2A category, Worldwide, India, China and The Philippines all advanced by ten months, to January 1, 2010, while Mexico and The Dominican Republic actually retrogressed by two months, to January 1, 2009. The Family 2B category saw Worldwide, India, China and The Dominican Republic cutoff dates progress by one year, to January 1, 2005, while The Philippines also moved one year, to August 1, 2002. Mexico remained stalled in this category at June 15, 1992.

In the Family-Based Third Preference (FB3) category, Worldwide, India, China and The Dominican Republic moved forward two months, to March 1, 2002, while Mexico stalled in this category at March 1, 1992. The Philippines jumped ahead eight months, to January 1, 1995.

The Family-Based Fourth Preference (FB4) cutoff date for Worldwide, China, India and The Dominican Republic advanced by four and a half months, to October 15, 2001. The FB4 cutoff date for Mexico saw no movement, remaining at January 1, 1994, while the date for The Philippines progressed nine months, to January 1, 1991.

Employment-Sponsored Green Card Categories
The Employment-Based First Preference (EB1) category continues to be current for all countries in the Visa Bulletin for September 2010.

The Employment-Based Second Preference (EB2) category continues to be current for all countries, except India and China. The EB2 cutoff dates for China and India both advanced by over two months, and are now at May 8, 2006.

The Employment-Based Third Preference (EB3) Skilled/Professional Worker cutoff date for Worldwide, The Dominican Republic and The Philippines advanced by six and a half months, to December 15, 2004, while the date for China actually retrogressed over seven months, to October 22, 2003. The EB3 Skilled/Professional Worker cutoff date for India stalled at January 1, 2002, while the date for Mexico continues to show as "U" (unavailable).

In the EB3 "Other Worker" category, all countries except Mexico and India jumped ahead over ten months, to March 22, 2003. Mexico continues to show as "U" (unavailable) in this category, while the date for India saw no movement, remaining at January 1, 2002.

Finally, the EB4 and EB5 categories remain current.

Contact Our Immigration Law Attorneys

If you or a loved one require legal assistance with a family-based or employment-based green card or other immigration law matter, please contact us to schedule your initial consultation with an experienced Virginia immigration lawyer today. Our immigration law attorneys represent clients in Manassas, Woodbridge, Stafford, Alexandria, Arlington, Fredericksburg, Culpeper, Fauquier, Falls Church, Fairfax and all of Northern Virginia, as well as throughout Maryland and the District of Columbia.

Jermaine Johnson Arrested On Felony Charges After Alleged Drink-Bleaching

2010-07-28T03:51:00.000-07:00

Jermaine Johnson picked up two serious felony charges Monday when he allegedly poured a bleach-based cleaner into his co-workers' drinks, according to a Free Lance-Star article.

Spotsylvania sheriff's spokesman Lt. Col. Michael Timm said the alleged incident occurred about 8:30 a.m. at Denny's Restaurant in the 5300 block of Jefferson Davis Highway.

Two employees reported that their drinks tasted like they had been tainted with bleach.

The employees, a man and a woman, had left their coffee and soda at the waiter/waitress station and had taken sips at different times.

They told the manager and mentioned another employee who they believed might have been responsible, Timm said.

The manager called the Sheriff's Office, and the deputy talked with the suspect. The suspect first claimed that he must have accidentally gotten the cleaner into the drinks while he was cleaning the waiter/waitress station.

He later admitted that he never cleans that area, Timm said. The substance put in the drinks, Eco San, is a bleach-based liquid sanitizer.

Timm said police don't know why the victims' drinks were tampered with. He said there is no known history of bad blood between the suspect and the victims.

Jermaine Johnson, 29, of Fredericksburg was charged with two counts of altering a drink with the intent to harm. He was placed in the Rappahannock Regional Jail under no bond.

The charges against Mr. Johnson are Class 3 felonies, carrying maximum prison sentences of 20 years. Mr. Johnson would be well advised to secure representation by experienced criminal defense counsel.

The criminal defense lawyers at Livesay & Myers, P.C. represent clients throughout Northern and Central Virginia, including Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania, Virginia. If you or a loved one have been charged with a crime, contact us to schedule your free consultation with a Virginia criminal defense attorney today.

Proposed Immigration Fee Changes

2010-07-27T18:02:00.000-07:00

Changes are coming to the fees charged by the nation's adjudicator of immigration benefits, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Under the new proposed fee schedule, filing fees for most applications will rise an average of 10%. Notable increases include:

Form I-130 (family petition) - increase from $355 to $420
Form I-485 (green card application) - increase from $930 to $985
Form I-765 (work authorization application) - increase from $340 to $380
Form I-751 (removal of conditions on green card application) - increase from $465 to $505

The filing fee for the naturalization application, Form N-400, will remain at $675.

Filing fees for 3 notable applications are actually decreasing: 1) petitions for fiance visa ($455 to $340), 2) applications to extend/change nonimmigrant status ($300 to $290) and 3) applications for replacement naturalization certificate ($380 to $345).

A 45-day comment period on the proposed changes ended on July 26, 2010. USCIS will now review all input before issuing a final rule on whether to adopt all fee changes.

Update: the new fees will go into effect on November 23, 2010.

Contact Us
If you or a loved one require legal assistance with an immigration law matter, please contact us to schedule your initial consultation with an experienced Virginia immigration lawyer today. Our immigration law attorneys represent clients in Manassas, Woodbridge, Stafford, Alexandria, Arlington, Fredericksburg, Culpeper, Fauquier, Falls Church, Fairfax and all of Northern Virginia, as well as throughout Maryland and the District of Columbia.

Temporary Protected Status For Nationals of El Salvador and Haiti

2010-07-27T17:20:00.000-07:00

Temporary Protected Status (TPS) has been extended for nationals of El Salvador until March 9, 2012. Current TPS holders can re-register for benefits until September 7, 2010. If you are a national of El Salvador who did not register during the initial registration period in 2001, you may still be eligible for late registration if you meet the following criteria:

You have lived in the United States since February 13, 2001 AND, since 2001:
were in a valid nonimmigrant status, or had been granted voluntary departure, or any relief during deportation proceedings;
had a pending application for change of status, adjustment of status (green card), asylum, voluntary departure, or any other relief during deportation proceedings that you were able to appeal the denial of;
were a parolee or had a pending request for re-parole; OR
you were the spouse or child of an alien currently eligible to be a TPS registrant.

If you are an applicant for late initial registration, you must register no later than 60 days after the expiration or termination of one of the above factors.

TPS for nationals of Haiti is also currently open for registration. The registration period ends on January 18, 2011.

The immigration lawyers at Livesay & Myers, P.C. represent clients in Manassas, Woodbridge, Stafford, Alexandria, Arlington, Fredericksburg, Fairfax and all of Northern Virginia, as well as throughout Maryland and the District of Columbia, in Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and other immigration law matters.

Paying for Private Education with Child Support

2010-07-26T05:33:00.000-07:00

Is there anything you can do when you want your child to have a private education, but your ex doesn’t want to help pay the bill? It depends.

This is how child support works in Virginia: there is a presumptive amount of child support that is due to the primary custodial parent that is calculated using the gross incomes of the two parents. This presumptive amount of child support can be rebutted upon findings of fact, as required by Code § 20-108.1(B), that justify a deviation from the guidelines.

Will a court deviate from the guidelines-- order more child support than stated in the guidelines-- to allow the custodial parent to send the child to private school? To answer this question, the Virginia Appellate Court has written that "a parent may be required to pay for private education expenses, even though such expenses exceed the guidelines, when there is a demonstrated need for the child to attend private school and the parent has the ability to pay." Joynes v. Payne, 36 Va. App. 401 at 424, 551 S.E.2d 10 at 21 (2001) (quoting Ragsdale v. Ragsdale, 30 Va. App. 283 at 295, 516 S.E.2d 698 at 704 (1999).

So, if there is a demonstrated need for the child to attend private school, then a deviation from the guidelines might be in order. However, if you want your child to go to private school simply because you view private schools as better, but you can’t really afford it, the court probably won’t order more child support to help you foot the bill. Instead, you would need to consider getting a second job to pay the tuition.

The child support lawyers at Livesay & Myers, P.C. represent clients in Fairfax, Alexandria, Arlington, Stafford, Spotsylvania, Fredericksburg, Woodbridge and Manassas, Virginia. If you require assistance with a child support or other family law matter in Virginia, contact us to schedule a consultation today.

Visa Bulletin for August 2010

2010-07-15T13:38:00.000-07:00

The Visa Bulletin for August 2010 is now available. The Department of State (DOS) issues the Visa Bulletin, which summarizes the number of available immigrant visas (green cards) according to preference categories, each month. The August 2010 Visa Bulletin showed advancements in several categories.

Family-Sponsored Green Card Categories

The Family-Based First Preference (FB1) category progressed for Worldwide, China, The Dominican Republic and India by four months, to August 1, 2005. The Philippines advanced in this category by four months, to January 1, 1996, while Mexico advanced two weeks to November 15, 1992.

In the Family 2A category, Worldwide, India, China and The Philippines all advanced by eight months, to March 1, 2009, while Mexico and The Dominican Republic jumped nine months, to March 1, 2009.
The Family 2B category saw Worldwide, India, China and The Dominican Republic cutoff dates progress by eight months, to January 1, 2004, while The Philippines moved forward seventeen months, to August 1, 2001. Mexico remained stalled in this category at June 15, 1992.

In the Family-Based Third Preference (FB3) category, Worldwide, India, China and The Dominican Republic moved forward four months, to January 1, 2002, while Mexico stalled in this category at March 1, 1992. The Philippines jumped ahead approximately one year, to May 1, 1994.

The Family-Based Fourth Preference (FB4) cutoff date for Worldwide, China, India and The Dominican Republic advanced by five months, to June 1, 2001. The FB4 cutoff date for Mexico retrogressed from March 1, 1995 to January 1, 1994, while the date for The Philippines progressed a year, to April 1, 1990.

Employment-Sponsored Green Card Categories
The Employment-Based First Preference (EB1) category continues to be current for all countries in the Visa Bulletin for August 2010.

The Employment-Based Second Preference (EB2) category continues to be current for all countries, except India and China. The EB2 cutoff dates for China and India both advanced several months, and are now at March 1, 2006.

The Employment-Based Third Preference (EB3) Skilled/Professional Worker cutoff date for Worldwide, The Dominican Republic, China and The Philippines advanced by ten months, to June 1, 2004. The EB3 Skilled/Professional Worker cutoff date for India advanced two months, to January 1, 2002, while the date for Mexico continues to show as "U" (unavailable).

In the EB3 "Other Worker" category, all countries except Mexico and India jumped ahead nearly a year, to May 15, 2002. Mexico continues to show as "U" (unavailable) in this category, while India is at January 1, 2002.

Finally, the EB4 and EB5 categories remain current.

Contact Our Immigration Law Attorneys

If you or a loved one require legal assistance with a family-based or employment-based green card or other immigration law matter, please contact us to schedule your initial consultation with an experienced Virginia immigration lawyer today. Our immigration law attorneys represent clients in Manassas, Woodbridge, Stafford, Alexandria, Arlington, Fredericksburg, Culpeper, Fauquier, Falls Church, Fairfax and all of Northern Virginia, as well as throughout Maryland and the District of Columbia.

Immigration Benefits Available To Guatemalans After Tropical Storm Agatha

2010-06-14T06:30:00.000-07:00

In the wake of Tropical Storm Agatha, several forms of temporary immigration relief are available to eligible Guatemalan nationals upon request to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

Temporary relief measures available to eligible nationals of Guatemala include:

The grant of an application for change or extension of nonimmigrant status on behalf of a Guatemalan national who is currently in the United States, even in cases where the request is submitted after the individual’s authorized period of admission has expired;
Re-parole of individuals granted parole by USCIS;
Extension of certain grants of advance parole, expedited processing of advance parole requests;
Expedited adjudication and approval, where possible, of requests for off-campus employment authorization due to severe economic hardship for F-1 students;
Expedited processing of immigrant petitions for immediate relative(s) of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents (LPRs);
Expedited issuance of employment authorization where appropriate; and
Assistance to LPRs stranded overseas without documents in coordination with the Department of State.

USCIS has provided the following Questions and Answers, which address temporary relief measures available to nationals of Guatemala.

Question: I am a Guatemalan national and cannot return to Guatemala at this time due to Tropical Storm Agatha. My allowed time to stay in the United States is expiring or about to expire. What are my options? Can I work during my stay in the US?

Answer. If you wish to change or extend your nonimmigrant status, you may request an extension if you meet the existing criteria for your specific nonimmigrant category. If you are a B-1 or B-2 visitor, you may apply for a six-month extension on the basis that the events following Tropical Storm Agatha make you unable to return to Guatemala at this time. Although B-1 and B-2 visitors may receive an extension, they are not authorized to work in the United States. Normally, an extension application must be filed before the authorized stay expires. According to existing guidelines, USCIS may accept applications for change of status or extension of stay after the period of authorized admission has expired. The filing fee for Form I-539 is $300. No waiver of this filing fee is available.

Guatemalan nationals wishing to change or extend their nonimmigrant status must submit an application, per existing standards, and submit evidence establishing that the events of May 29, 2010 are the basis for their inability to return to Guatemala prior to the expiration of their authorized period of admission. If you were in lawful, nonimmigrant status on May 29, 2010, you will be excused for filing late up to July 29, 2010. After July 29, 2010 eligibility for delayed filing will be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Question: I am a Guatemalan national granted parole to enter the United States temporarily, but I am unable to return to Guatemala due to Tropical Storm Agatha and my parole has expired or is about to expire. What are my options? Can I work during my stay in the United States?

Answer. If you are a Guatemalan national who has already been paroled into the United States by USCIS, you may apply for an extension of your parole (“re-parole”), by making an InfoPass appointment at your local USCIS field office. The length of the extension is at the Director’s discretion, but normally will not exceed six months. To qualify for re-parole, you will need to demonstrate that you were or are currently prevented from returning to Guatemala before the expiration of your current or last authorized parole. You will also need to present a genuine, expired or unexpired Form I-94, which contains an expiration date between May 29, 2010, and July 29, 2010.

Once your parole has been extended, you may apply for employment authorization by filing Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization. For instructions on how to apply, please refer to the filing instructions on the Form I-765.

Question: I am a Guatemalan national granted advance parole to travel outside of the United States and cannot return to the United States from Guatemala due to Tropical Storm Agatha, and my allowed time is expiring or about to expire. What are my options?

Answer. In recognition of the humanitarian needs of affected individuals, an automatic extension of advance parole until July 29, 2010 is granted to those aliens, who are currently in Guatemala and who are outside of the United States if their advance parole authorization, Form I-512, Authorization for Parole of Aliens into the United States, expires between May 29, 2010 and July 29, 2010. Ports of entry have been instructed to accept these auto-extended Form I-512s. Affected individuals do not need to bring any additional documentation with them to the airport.

Question: I am a Guatemalan national F-1 student currently enrolled in school in the United States. Due to Tropical Storm Agatha, I can no longer cover the cost of my education. What are my options? Can I work during my stay in the United States?

Answer. If your family in Guatemala is funding your studies, you may be eligible for work authorization based on severe economic hardship. According to the regulations at 8 CFR 214.2(f)(9)(II)(C) and (D), F-1 academic students may request off-campus employment authorization based on severe economic hardship caused by unforeseen circumstances beyond their control, such as changes in the financial condition of their source of support. If your family is encountering difficulties with funding your studies in the United States due to the recent natural disaster in Guatemala, you may apply for employment authorization based on severe economic hardship. To qualify, you must establish that you:

(a) Have been an F-1 academic student for at least one full academic year;
(b) Are in good academic standing and carrying a full course load; and
(c) Need employment authorization is needed to avoid severe economic hardship.

You will need to obtain a recommendation from your Designated School Official (DSO). That recommendation must be placed on your Form I-20. Once you obtain this recommendation, you must file Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, with your properly endorsed Form I-20, according to the filing instructions on the form. The filing fee for Form I-765 is $340 and you may apply to have that fee waived due to your inability to pay. For guidance on fee waivers, please visit www.uscis.gov/feewaiver.

Question: I am a Guatemalan national whose case is pending with USCIS. I need my case expedited due to the recent natural disaster in Guatemala. What are my options?

Answer. Given the need for immediate relief, USCIS will expedite certain applications and petitions. Standard requirements for security checks remain in place under expedited procedures.

If a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident requests expedited processing of a Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, the case will be expedited where a visa number is readily available.

Guatemalan nationals with benefit applications pending in the United States may need to travel quickly for emergent reasons and will need to apply for advance authorization for parole to return to the United States. USCIS will expedite the Form I-131, Application for Travel Document, in such cases and where we have been advised of the emergent need to travel.

Contact Our Immigration Law Attorneys

If you or a loved one require assistance with application for any of these temporary relief measures available to eligible Guatemalan nationals, or any other immigration law matter, please contact us to schedule your initial consultation with an experienced immigration lawyer today. Our immigration law attorneys represent clients throughout Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia.

Visa Bulletin for June 2010

2010-05-14T07:58:00.000-07:00

The Visa Bulletin for June 2010 is now available. The Department of State (DOS) issues the Visa Bulletin, which summarizes the number of available immigrant visas (green cards) according to preference categories, each month. The June 2010 Visa Bulletin showed big advancements in the Family 2A category, while backlogs for Mexico and India in the employment categories did not improve.

Family-Sponsored Green Card Categories

The Family-Based First Preference (FB1) category progressed for Worldwide, China and India by two months, to November 8, 2004. The Philippines advanced in this category by four and a half months, to March 15, 1995, while Mexico advanced one week to October 22, 1992.

In the Family 2A category, Worldwide, India, China and The Philippines all advanced by thirteen months, to January 1, 2008, while Mexico jumped eighteen months, to December 1, 2006.

The Family 2B category saw Worldwide, India and China cutoff dates progress by four and a half months, to November 15, 2002, while The Philippines moved forward over four months, to March 8, 1999. Mexico remained stalled in this category at June 15, 1992.

In the Family-Based Third Preference (FB3) category, Worldwide, India and China moved forward two weeks, to June 22, 2001, while Mexico stalled in this category at October 22, 1992. The Philippines progressed by three weeks, to May 22, 1992.

The Family-Based Fourth Preference (FB4) cutoff date for Worldwide, China and India advanced by three and a half months, to September 1, 2000.

The FB4 cutoff date for Mexico remained stalled at December 8, 1995, while the date for The Philippines progressed almost four months, to April 1, 1988.

Employment-Sponsored Green Card Categories
The Employment-Based First Preference (EB1) category continues to be current for all countries in the Visa Bulletin for June 2010.

The Employment-Based Second Preference (EB2) category continues to be current for all countries, except India and China. The EB2 cutoff date for China advanced two months, to November 22, 2005, while the cutoff date for India remained at February 1, 2005.

The Employment-Based Third Preference (EB3) Skilled/Professional Worker cutoff date for Worldwide, China and The Philippines advanced by two months, to June 22, 2003. The EB3 Skilled/Professional Worker cutoff date for India advanced three weeks, to October 22, 2001, while the date for Mexico now shows as "U" (unavailable).

The EB3 "Other Worker" category remained stalled at June 1, 2001 for all countries, except Mexico, which now shows as "U" (unavailable).

Finally, the EB4 and EB5 categories remain current.

Contact Our Immigration Law Attorneys

If you or a loved one require legal assistance with a family-based or employment-based green card or other immigration law matter, please contact us to schedule your initial consultation with an experienced Virginia immigration lawyer today. Our immigration law attorneys represent clients in Manassas, Woodbridge, Stafford, Alexandria, Arlington, Fredericksburg, Culpeper, Fauquier, Falls Church, Fairfax and all of Northern Virginia, as well as throughout Maryland and the District of Columbia.

Uncontested Divorce The Cheap and Quick Way

2010-05-09T13:45:00.000-07:00

As the lead divorce lawyer at Livesay & Myers, P.C., I personally handle all of our uncontested divorce cases, for clients throughout Northern Virginia. Using the procedures described below, we are able to finalize most of these uncontested divorces in just a few weeks, from start to finish-- and at a total cost to the client of only $685 (including the court filing fee).

Under Virginia law, you would qualify for a no-fault, uncontested divorce if and when you (a) have been separated 12 months, or 6 months with a Separation Agreement in place and no minor children, and (b) have no remaining issues (custody, property, support, etc.) to be resolved.

Once you qualify, and assuming your spouse will cooperate with us (meaning he or she will sign a "Waiver of Service of Process"), we should be able to finalize your uncontested divorce fairly quickly-- in a matter of weeks, not months. And, we should be able to secure your divorce without having to go to court. Our fee for the divorce would be $599, and you would also be required to pay the $86 Court filing fee-- bringing your total cost to $685.

Central to our ability to process so many uncontested divorces so quickly is this simple fact: Virginia law allows us to file an uncontested, no-fault divorce in any jurisdiction in the Commonwealth, so long as both parties agree. This means that we are able to file 95% of our uncontested divorces in one or two "friendly jurisdictions," which allow such divorces to be finalized within a few weeks, without having to appear in court.

For the 95% of uncontested divorce cases we file in one of our favored jurisdictions, the process is fairly simple. First, we file the Complaint for Divorce, along with some other paperwork, with the Court, and the Clerk's Office assigns it a case number. Next, we place the case number on a Waiver of Service of Process and forward that to your spouse, asking he or she to sign and have notarized the Waiver, and return it to us.

After receiving the Waiver, we would meet with you in one of our offices (in Fredericksburg, Fairfax or Manassas) for your "depositions." You would need to bring along a witness-- any friend, family member or co-worker who is familiar with your living situation. You and your witness would answer some basic questions under oath, basically to verify that you have been separated for the required amount of time (6 or 12 months as stated above).

[Note: even if you don't live anywhere near one of our offices, we can still process your divorce. Rather than conducting your depositions in person, we would simply e-mail you a set of "Written Depositions," which you would complete in front of a notary public and mail back to us.]

Upon completion of the depositions, we would mail a final package of paperwork-- including the Final Decree of Divorce-- off to the Court. Then, usually within 1-3 weeks when we file in our favored jurisdictions, we would receive the signed Divorce Decree back from the Court, and you would be divorced!

Where (a) the spouse will cooperate by signing a Waiver of Service, (b) there remain no custody, property, support, etc. issues between the parties, and (c) you have been separated for the required amount of time, we should be able to process your divorce in exactly the method described above, for a low, flat legal fee of $599. Contact us to get started today.

Youth Soccer Coach Jason Edward Adkins Charged With Assaulting Young Refs

2010-05-05T18:53:00.000-07:00

Jason Edward Adkins, a youth soccer coach, was arrested following an altercation with two young referees near the end of a game Tuesday, according to a Free Lance-Star article.

Mr. Adkins, age 34, of Spotsylvania was charged with two counts of assault and battery and destruction of property, Spotsylvania Sheriff’s spokeswoman Capt. Liz Scott said. All are misdemeanor charges.

According to police and witnesses, two county parks and recreation teams comprised of 10- and 11-year-olds played a tight game at the Battlefield Middle School soccer field. More than 50 people were in attendance.

Toward the end of the game, Scott said, Adkins became upset about the enforcement of a penalty and stormed onto the field toward a 16-year-old referee.

Mr. Adkins allegedly bumped the teen’s chest, grabbed the front of his shirt and balled up his fist underneath the teen’s chin.

The young referee ejected the coach as a second referee, a 20-year-old man, came to his aid.

Police said Adkins grabbed that referee’s sunglasses and broke them into several pieces.

He shoved the older referee and grabbed him by the neck before several parents ran onto the field and convinced him to stop, Scott said.

The game ended at that point with Adkins’ team trailing 2 to 1.

Mr. Adkins, who has coached in the Spotsylvania Parks and Recreation League for several seasons, was placed in the Rappahannock Regional Jail under a $1,000 bond and later released.

Kevin Brooks, the director of the county parks and recreation department, said Adkins has been suspended indefinitely. Mr. Brooks said the department will conduct its own investigation before deciding if and when Adkins can return.

Parents on the opposing team expressed outrage about Tuesday’s incident.

However, others came to Adkins’ defense. Several people said the allegations against him were exaggerated and said their children have loved having him as a coach.

Nicole Corvin, whose daughter has played two seasons under Adkins, said Adkins is “an awesome coach and person.”

Corvin said the younger referee touched Adkins first and Adkins told him “you stay here” and walked toward the other referee.

She said her daughter would be happy to have Adkins back as a coach.

The criminal defense lawyers at Livesay & Myers, P.C. represent clients throughout Northern Virginia, including Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania, Virginia on assault and battery charges. If you or a loved one have been charged with a crime, contact us to schedule your free consultation with a Virginia criminal defense attorney today.

Melvin Ramirez Facing Assault Charges After Accident On Interstate 95

2010-04-27T14:50:00.000-07:00

Melvin Ramirez faces assault and other charges after police say he struck an officer while fleeing from an accident scene on Interstate 95 early yesterday, according to a Free Lance-Star article.

A Fredericksburg police officer responded to the accident scene before 5 a.m. at milemarker 130 to assist Virginia State Police.

Police say the officer found Melvin Ramirez, 28, of Annandale in one of the involved vehicles, and that Ramirez immediately started walking from the accident scene. The officer called him back and was speaking with Ramirez and the other driver involved when Ramirez allegedly fled, running across the southbound lanes of traffic and into the median, police said.

According to police, the officer caught up with Ramirez in the median, but Ramirez resisted and twice hit the officer across the arm.

Mr. Ramirez allegedly broke away and ran across the northbound lanes of the interstate and into the woods where a K-9 unit was unable to track him down.

Melvin Ramirez remains at large. He faces charges of assault and battery on law enforcement and obstruction of justice with force.

The criminal defense attorneys at Livesay & Myers, P.C. represent clients throughout Northern Virginia, including Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania, Virginia. If you or a loved one have been charged with a criminal offense, contact us to schedule your free consultation with a Virginia criminal lawyer today.

Christopher Lydell Tharrington and Anthony Bernard Carter Charged In Spotsylvania Break-In

2010-04-27T14:43:00.000-07:00

Three people face charges after an incident in which police say a woman woke up to find a strange man standing in her doorway with a fire poker in his hand, according to a Free Lance-Star article.

Deputies responded to the 4000 block of Massaponax Church Road at 9:45 a.m. Monday for a reported burglary.

The victim described the three suspects who she said had broken into her home while she was sleeping.

The woman told police she heard a loud bang and woke up to see the stranger in the doorway.

Two other suspects also were in the house, police said, and the men demanded money from the victim. The woman told the suspect she had no money, police said, and the suspects then left with a safe. The victim was not harmed.

A deputy responding to the call noticed three men fitting the description of the suspects on Massaponax Church Road.

Deputy Frank Corona detained the men and the victim identified them as the suspects, police said.

Christopher Lydell Tharrington, 27, and Anthony Bernard Carter, 21, were charged with breaking and entering, conspiracy to commit a burglary, abduction, grand larceny and possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute.

The third suspect is 17. He was charged with the same offenses.

The criminal defense attorneys at Livesay & Myers, P.C. represent clients throughout Northern Virginia, including Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania, Virginia. If you or a loved one have been charged with a criminal offense, contact us to schedule your free consultation with a Virginia criminal lawyer today.

Seth Young Charged With Thefts In Stafford

2010-04-27T12:22:00.000-07:00

Seth M. Young, age 19, was charged with multiple offenses after items stolen from vehicles at a county motel were found on him, according to a Free Lance-Star article.

Stafford County Sheriff's spokesman Bill Kennedy said deputies went to the Wingate Inn at 15 Salisbury Drive early Saturday.

A desk clerk called about 1 a.m. after hearing glass breaking. She found broken glass in the staff lounge area, then found that her wallet and other items were missing from her car.

Deputies began a search after finding two more vehicles that had been broken into.

Kennedy said there have been a number of similar incidents reported at that motel and others in recent months.

At approximately 3 a.m., 1st Sgt. Eric Quinn came upon Seth Young in the area of the nearby KinderCare Learning Center.

Mr. Young allegedly smelled of alcohol, but told Quinn that he doesn't drink. Quinn arrested him for public intoxication and searched him, allegedly finding several items stolen in the Wingate Inn thefts, including a cell phone, phone chargers, gift cards and a Wingate Inn door key.

In addition to public intoxication, Mr. Young was also charged with destruction of property, credit card theft, larceny, vehicle tampering and vandalism. He was placed in the Rappahannock Regional Jail.

Kennedy said police are investigating a possible connection between the suspect and thefts at other motel and restaurant parking lots that night.

The criminal defense attorneys at Livesay & Myers, P.C. represent clients throughout Northern Virginia, including Fredericksburg and Stafford, Virginia. If you or a loved one have been charged with a criminal offense, contact us to schedule your free consultation with a Virginia criminal lawyer today.

William Eduardo Avila Faces Sex Charges In Prince William

2010-04-24T16:50:00.000-07:00

William Eduardo Avila faces charges in Prince William County for allegedly inappropriately touching an underage girl in a parking lot, according to an InsideNoVA.com article.

Officers in Prince William Police's Gang Unit saw a man and a 14-year-old girl standing in the parking lot of Marumsco Plaza on U.S. 1 in Woodbridge around 11:30 p.m. on Wednesday.

When they approached the man and girl, the girl allegedly told police that she had just met the man, that he inappropriately touched her and made sexual advances toward her, according to Prince William police spokeswoman Erika Hernandez.

The girl was returned to a parent, and the man was taken to jail, said Hernandez.

Mr. Avila, a 19-year-old Woodbridge man, was charged with taking indecent liberties with a minor, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and assault and battery. He was held in lieu of a $5,000 bond and is scheduled to appear in court on June 14.

Mr. Avila was previously arrested, in February 2010, on allegations that he broke into a home on Ivy Court in Woodbridge and exposed himself to a woman and her children. The residents came home to find Avila allegedly sitting naked on their couch. They yelled at him, telling him to put his clothes back on, police said.

Mr. Avila did, and left the scene but was later arrested and held without bond, police said.

When he appeared in court March, Mr. Avila was found guilty and sentenced to one year in jail with 11 months of the sentence suspended, according to court documents.

Mr. Avila has faced other charges, including possession of narcotics in January 2010, according to court records.

The sex crimes defense lawyers at Livesay & Myers, P.C. represent clients throughout Prince William County and Manassas, Virginia on sex crimes charges. If you or a loved one have been charged with a sexual offense, contact us to schedule your free consultation with a Virginia sex crimes defense attorney today.

Dennis Bell Charged In Child Porn Investigation

2010-04-16T05:49:00.000-07:00

Manassas Police have charged a veteran U.S. Capitol Police officer with distributing child pornography over the Internet, according to an InsideNoVA.com article.

Dennis Bell, 55, of Lake Ridge, was arrested Friday after a four-month investigation, Manassas Police Sgt. Tim Neumann said.

The investigation culminated when detectives with the City Police Computer Forensics Division allegedly traced the pornographic material’s origin to Mr. Bell's address, he said.

On Thursday, City and Prince William County Police Officers, along with FBI agents, served a search warrant at Bell’s home, Neumann said. They seized several computers containing, according to Neumann, child pornography.

Mr. Bell was charged with one count of distribution of child pornography and one count of possession of child pornography. He is being held at the Prince William-Manassas regional jail on $20,000 bond.

Dennis Bell is scheduled to appear in court May 25, 2010.

In Virginia, criminal charges such as distribution and possession of child pornography carry severe maximum punishments. Individuals facing such charges require specialized and aggressive legal defense.

The sex crimes defense lawyers at Livesay & Myers, P.C. represent clients throughout Prince William County, including Woodbridge and Manassas, Virginia on sex crimes charges. If you or a loved one have been charged with a sexual offense, contact us to schedule your free consultation with a Virginia sex crimes defense attorney today.

Appeal Granted In Case Of Out-of-State Bail Bondsman Convicted In Virginia

2010-04-14T09:29:00.000-07:00

The Virginia Court of Appeals has granted the petition of Livesay & Myers, P.C. criminal lawyer Ghislaine Storr Burks for review of two important legal issues, in the case of a North Carolina bail bondsman convicted of Attempted Abduction and Use of a Firearm in the Commission of a Felony in the Circuit Court of Mecklenburg County, Virginia.

The defendant in the case has been a lawfully licensed professional bondsman from North Carolina for the past thirty-five (35) years. He came to Virginia for the purposes of apprehending a fugitive bailee after receiving information that the fugitive would be attending a funeral in Mecklenburg County. Before attending the funeral, the bondsman followed what he thought to be a thorough and lawful process by contacting the local authorities. Before ever going to the funeral he met with a Mecklenburg County Sheriff’s deputy and requested their assistance after showing the deputy paperwork that related to the fugitive and confirming the fugitive’s identity. The deputy told the bondsman that Virginia would not extradite, but did not tell the bondsman that he could not apprehend the fugitive, and further told the bondsman that it was basically “okay” if he did apprehend him.

Following his discussion with the deputy, the bondsman attended the funeral. Later, the bondsman approached a man he believed to be his fugitive bailee. Unfortunately, the man he approached was later determined to be a police officer in Alexandria, Virginia, not the fugitive.

Testimony at trial differed as to what happened during the exchange, but the following facts are not disputed: 1) the defendant is a bail bondsman licensed in North Carolina, 2) the defendant identified himself as a bail bondsman from North Carolina to the man he approached and prior to that to local authorities, 3) the bondsman contacted the Mecklenburg County Sheriff’s Department and informed a deputy of his intentions regarding the fugitive, 4) the bondsman requested the assistance of local authorities before ever attempting to apprehend the fugitive, and 5) the bondsman believed that the fugitive was wanted by North Carolina for failing to appear.

Upon conviction in Circuit Court, Ms. Storr Burks noted an appeal on behalf of the bail bondsman, raising the following issues: a) whether an out of state licensed bail bondsman has legal authority to recover a fugitive bailee in Virginia or to temporarily deprive a person of his freedom whom he reasonably believes to be a fugitive and b) whether, even if the bondsman did not have the legal authority to recover a fugitive from Virginia, the bondsman still lacked the requisite and specific intent required for Attempted Abduction when he was a lawfully licensed bondsman, believed the person he detained to be a fugitive, and released the person he detained immediately upon learning that he was not.

Ms. Storr Burks argued on behalf of the bondsman that to hold him criminally liable would violate the bondsman’s due process rights, since Virginia law does not specifically criminalize his behavior. Virginia law, at this time, is unclear on the aforementioned issues. Moreover, there is a conflict between language from the United States Supreme Court, granting wide authority to bail bondsmen even when acting across states lines, and the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, which was codified in Virginia and imposes greater restrictions on bail bondsmen.

A similar issue was dealt with in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, resulting in a bail bondsman receiving some protection from criminal liability, as the state at issue in that case had not, by its codification of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, overridden the existing United States Supreme Court law.

The Virginia Court of Appeals has granted the petition for appeal on both issues. Ms. Storr Burks will now submit a full brief to the Court on both issues, and the Virginia Attorney General’s Office will respond.

We will provide further updates on this blog as this precedent-setting case moves forward.

The criminal defense lawyers at Livesay & Myers, P.C. represent clients throughout Northern and Central Virginia. If you or a loved one have been charged with a crime, contact us to schedule your free consultation with a Virginia criminal defense attorney today.

Visa Bulletin for May 2010

2010-04-10T16:35:00.000-07:00

The Visa Bulletin for May 2010 is now available. The Department of State (DOS) issues the Visa Bulletin, which summarizes the number of available immigrant visas (green cards) according to preference categories, each month.

Family-Sponsored Green Card Categories

The Family-Based First Preference (FB1) category progressed for Worldwide, China and India by two months, to September 8, 2004. The Philippines advanced in this category by eight months, to November 1, 1994, while Mexico stalled at October 15, 1992.

In the Family 2A category, Worldwide, India, China and The Philippines all advanced by six months, to December 1, 2006, while Mexico jumped five months, to June 1, 2005.

The Family 2B category saw Worldwide, India and China cutoff dates progress by five months, to July 1, 2002, while The Philippines moved forward over 12 weeks, to November 15, 1998. Mexico stalled in this category at June 15, 1992.

In the Family-Based Third Preference (FB3) category, Worldwide, India and China moved forward over two weeks, to June 8, 2001, while Mexico advance by one week in this category, to October 22, 1992. The Philippines progressed by two months, to May 1, 1992.

The Family-Based Fourth Preference (FB4) cutoff date for Worldwide, China and India advanced by 2.5 months, to May 15, 2000.

The FB4 cutoff date for Mexico remained stalled at December 8, 1995, while the date for The Philippines progressed three months, to December 8, 1987.

Employment-Sponsored Green Card Categories
The Employment-Based First Preference (EB1) category continues to be current for all countries in the Visa Bulletin for May 2010.

The Employment-Based Second Preference (EB2) category continues to be current for all countries, except India and China. The EB2 cutoff date for China advanced one month, to September 22, 2005, while the cutoff date for India remained at February 1, 2005.

The Employment-Based Third Preference (EB3) Skilled/Professional Worker cutoff date for Worldwide, China and The Philippines advanced by 81 days, to April 22, 2003. The EB3 Skilled/Professional Worker cutoff date for India advanced almost one month, to October 1, 2001, while the date for Mexico now shows as "U" (unavailable).

The EB3 "Other Worker" category remained stalled at June 1, 2001 for all countries, except Mexico, which now shows as "U" (unavailable).

Finally, the EB4 and EB5 categories remain current.

Note Regarding EB3 Skilled/Professional Worker And EB3 Other Worker Categories

The Visa Bulletin for May 2010 specifically notes that: "[d]ue to continued heavy applicant demand, primarily by USCIS Offices for adjustment of status cases, the annual limits for the Mexico Employment Third and Third preference Other Worker categories have been reached. As a result, both categories have become 'unavailable.' Visa numbers will become available once again in October with the start of the new fiscal year."

Note Regarding Visa Availability In The Coming Months

The May 2010 Visa Bulletin further notes, regarding Family-sponsored visa availability, that: "[d]uring the past fifteen months, the level of demand for numbers in the Family-sponsored preference categories has been very low. As a result, the cut-off dates for most Family preference categories have been advancing at a very rapid pace, in an attempt to generate demand so that the annual numerical limits may be fully utilized. If demand for numbers should begin to materialize cut-off date movements may begin to slow or stop. Dominican Republic: Continued heavy applicant demand for Dominican Republic numbers is likely to result in the oversubscription of this chargeability in June. This would cause the cut-off dates for the Family second preference categories to be earlier than those which apply to most other countries."

Finally, the Visa Bulletin for May 2010 notes, regarding Employment-sponsored visa availability, that: "Applicant demand for Employment Fourth preference numbers remains very heavy. It is likely that a cut-off date will need to be established in an effort to keep number use within the annual limits. Depending upon number use, this action could occur as early as June."

Contact Our Immigration Law Attorneys

If you or a loved one require legal assistance with a family-based or employment-based green card or other immigration law matter, please contact us to schedule your initial consultation with an experienced Virginia immigration lawyer today. Our immigration law attorneys represent clients in Manassas, Woodbridge, Stafford, Alexandria, Arlington, Fredericksburg, Culpeper, Fauquier, Falls Church, Fairfax and all of Northern Virginia, as well as throughout Maryland and the District of Columbia.

Troy Payne Charged With Embezzlement

2010-04-09T13:42:00.000-07:00

Troy Payne, the former chief mechanic for Manassas Park, has been indicted on embezzlement charges, according to an InsideNoVA.com article.

Mr. Payne, a resident of Nokesville, was indicted Tuesday and was later released on his own recognizance, according to court records.

Officials fired Payne on March 30, after he worked for more than five years as the city’s public works facility. He will not be replaced, as his position will be outsourced to another agency, said Manassas Park Human Resources Director Maggie Kain.

During his time there Payne was oversaw the maintenance of government vehicles, police vehicles, fire trucks and rescue squads, snow plows and other municipal vehicles. He was not responsible for maintaining school buses, said Kain.

Police have yet to say how much money, or what Payne is accused of embezzling.

The embezzlement defense lawyers at Livesay & Myers, P.C. represent clients throughout the Northern Virginia and Fredericksburg areas, including Manassas and Prince William County, Virginia. If you or a loved one have been charged with embezzlement or a similar offense, contact us to schedule your free consultation with a Virginia embezzlement defense attorney today.

USCIS Continues to Accept FY 2011 H-1B Petitions

2010-04-09T05:53:00.000-07:00

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced on April 8, 2010 that it continues to accept H-1B nonimmigrant petitions subject to the Fiscal Year 2011 (FY 2011) cap. USCIS will monitor the number of petitions received for both the 65,000 general cap and the 20,000 U.S. master’s degree or higher educational exemption.

USCIS has received approximately 13,500 H-1B petitions counting toward the 65,000 cap. The agency has received approximately 5,600 petitions for individuals with advanced degrees.

USCIS will provide regular updates on the processing of FY 2011 H-1B petitions. Should USCIS receive the necessary number of petitions to meet the cap, it will issue an update to advise the public, that the FY 2011 H-1B cap has been met as of a certain date (the “final receipt date”). The final receipt date will be based on the date USCIS physically receives the petition, not the date that the petition has been postmarked. The date USCIS informs the public that the cap has been reached may differ from the actual final receipt date.

To ensure a fair system, USCIS may randomly select the number of petitions required to reach the numerical limit from the petitions received on the final receipt date. USCIS will reject cap subject petitions that are not selected, as well as those received after the final receipt date.

For cases filed for premium processing during the initial five-day filing window of April 1-7, the 15-day premium processing period began April 7. For cases filed for premium processing after the filing window, the premium processing period begins on the date that the petition is physically received at the correct USCIS Service Center.

Petitions filed by employers who are exempt from the cap or petitions filed on behalf of current H-1B workers who have been counted previously against the cap within the past six years will not count toward the congressionally mandated H-1B cap.

Therefore, USCIS will continue to process all petitions filed.

U.S. businesses use the H-1B program to employ foreign workers in specialty occupations that require theoretical or technical expertise in fields, such as scientists, engineers, or computer programmers.

Check back with the Virginia Law Blog frequently for further updates.

Contact Us
If you or a loved one require legal assistance with an immigration law matter, please contact us to schedule your initial consultation with an experienced Virginia immigration lawyer today. Our immigration law attorneys represent clients in Manassas, Woodbridge, Stafford, Alexandria, Arlington, Fredericksburg, Culpeper, Fauquier, Falls Church, Fairfax and all of Northern Virginia, as well as throughout Maryland and the District of Columbia.

Bryan Carroll Charged With Assault In Manassas Park

2010-03-26T15:26:00.000-07:00

Manassas Park Middle School teacher Bryan C. Carroll is charged with assault and battery of a student in what school officials describe only as an “incident” that happened at the school, according to an InsideNoVa.com article.

Mr. Carroll, who is listed as a teacher on the school’s Web site, was arrested March 15. Five days earlier, police said a child was taken to a local hospital with injuries he suffered at school, after the “incident” between the child and Carroll.

Manassas Park Public School’s Superintendent Thomas H. DeBolt said the incident remains under investigation and that the teacher was placed on administrative leave. He declined to say how long Carroll has worked for the school system, nor would he confirm his job status as a teacher.

“The Department of Social Services and the Manassas Park Police Department were immediately notified and have since been conducting the investigation. Since the incident, school division leaders have continued to assist both agencies with their investigation,” stated DeBolt in a press release.

Investigators have not released the age or identity of the alleged victim, or the extent of the child’s injuries.

The criminal defense lawyers at Livesay & Myers, P.C. represent clients throughout Prince William County, including Woodbridge and Manassas, Virginia on assault and battery charges. If you or a loved one have been charged with a crime, contact us to schedule your free consultation with a Virginia criminal defense attorney today.

Thomas David Duncan Charged With Attempted Robbery

2010-03-24T12:40:00.000-07:00

Thomas David Duncan was arrested in Stafford on Tuesday following a botched attempt to steal some painkillers, according to a Free Lance-Star article.

The alleged incident took place about 2:20 p.m. in the pharmacy section of Shopper’s Food Warehouse in Stafford Marketplace, Sheriff’s spokesman Bill Kennedy said.

Allegedly, a young man wearing a yellow hoodie had his hand inside his jacket when he told two pharmacists that he would kill them if they didn’t give him some painkillers. The man, who did not display a gun, demanded that the drugs be placed in a black bag he was carrying.

Kennedy said the pharmacists responded by dropping to the ground, a move that apparently rattled the suspect. He ran out of the store and into a nearby Five Guys, where witnesses said he took off his jacket and put it in a trashcan.

The suspect then ran across the parking lot into a Lowe’s. At least three witnesses, not including the pharmacists, provided information about the suspect’s route and actions when deputies arrived, Kennedy said.

Deputy Joe Bice was riding behind the Kohl’s in the shopping center when he saw a man jogging who fit the suspect’s description. The man was out of breath and obviously nervous as Bice approached, Kennedy said.

Police said the man, who had no items, told Bice he had been shopping in Lowe’s and was heading home. Meanwhile, witnesses who had seen the incident were brought to the scene and identified the jogger as the suspect.

Thomas David Duncan, 22, was charged with attempted robbery and placed in the Rappahannock Regional Jail.

Mr. Duncan faces a serious criminal charge, and would be well advised to secure representation by experienced criminal defense counsel.

The criminal defense lawyers at Livesay & Myers, P.C. represent clients throughout Northern and Central Virginia, including Fauquier County and Stafford County, Virginia. If you or a loved one have been charged with a crime, contact us to schedule your free consultation with a Virginia criminal defense attorney today.

Bryan Allen Hogan Charged With Assault

2010-03-22T15:10:00.000-07:00

Bryan Allen Hogan, a long-serving Manassas police officer, has been suspended pending an internal investigation after he was charged over the weekend with assault, according to an InsideNoVA.com article.

Police were called about 8 a.m. Sunday to the Dale City home of the 47-year-old Hogan after Hogan’s girlfriend told police he shoved and choked her.

The 27-year-old alleged victim from New York was visiting Hogan’s home Sunday when the two began arguing, said Prince William police spokeswoman Erika Hernandez.

For the past 24 years, Hogan has served on the Manassas Police Department’s motorcycle patrol unit.

City police Sgt. Tim Neumann said Hogan has been placed on administrative leave pending an internal investigation.

Hogan was released on his own recognizance.

Charles Murphy Doggett Faces Sex Charges In Manassas

2010-03-20T06:49:00.000-07:00

Charles Murphy Doggett is in jail on sex charges after a girl allegedly reported that he forced her back into the house as she was leaving for school on Monday, according to an InsideNoVA.com article.

Mr. Doggett, a 38-year old resident of Chantilly, Virginia, faces charges of abduction with intent to defile and burglary with intent to commit rape. He is held without bond and is pending a hearing in the Prince William County Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court.

The incident is alleged to have occurred at 6:40 a.m. in the 9600 block of Saybrooke Drive in Bristow.

Offense like abduction with intent to defile and burglary with intent to commit rape carry severe maximum punishments. Individuals facing such charges require specialized and aggressive legal defense.

The sex crimes defense lawyers at Livesay & Myers, P.C. represent clients throughout Prince William County, including Bristow and Manassas, Virginia, on sex crimes charges. If you or a loved one have been charged with a sexual offense, contact us to schedule your free consultation with a Virginia sex crimes defense attorney today.

How Do I Get My Spouse Out Of The House?

2010-03-19T03:58:00.000-07:00

So things have been rocky and you and your spouse have decided to split up. There is just one problem: neither of you wants to leave. If you are both on the title of the house, then you are both entitled to remain there. Besides, you can’t afford to make an additional rent or mortgage payment.

What do you do? Well, if you want out badly enough, you have several options:

Move in with a friend or family member, gratis;
Get a roommate;
Put the house up for sale; or
Try to refinance.

However, if you really want to stay in the home, you may be able to get your spouse out of the house, depending on the circumstances:

If you are being physically abused by your spouse and in imminent fear for your safety, you need to get a protective order. With the protective order, you can be awarded sole use of the marital residence while the order is in place;
Once you have filed for a fault-based divorce, you can file a motion for Pendente Lite (also known as “temporary”) relief. In this motion, you can request the court to award you sole and exclusive use of the marital residence while the divorce is pending;
If your name is on the deed to the house, nothing prevents you from being able to change the locks. Take caution, however, because nothing prevents your spouse who is also on the deed from breaking in; or
If the house is titled only in your name, you could, theoretically, kick your spouse out. I do not, however, necessarily recommend doing this without first consulting an attorney.

If you are interested in divorce in Virginia, please contact us to schedule your initial consultation with an experienced Virginia divorce lawyer today. Our divorce lawyers represent clients in divorce cases throughout Manassas, Stafford, Woodbridge, Fairfax, Alexandria, Arlington, Spotsylvania and Fredericksburg, Virginia.

Barbara Worrell Arrested On Embezzlement Charges

2010-03-16T05:36:00.000-07:00

Barbara J. Worrell of Colonial Beach was arrested and jailed yesterday on 13 felony charges of embezzlement from the Colonial Beach schools, according to a Free Lance-Star article.

Worrell, a former school finance director, was arrested at her son's home about 6:30 p.m. and taken to the Northern Neck Regional Jail in Warsaw. She is scheduled to appear today in Westmoreland General District Court, said Westmoreland County Attorney Dean J. Atkins.

Atkins said the charges against Worrell were filed by the Virginia State Police, who began an investigation of her accounts last year.

Worrell's Colonial Beach home was searched by state police last week. Additional charges against Worrell are possible as investigators study records seized from her home, Atkins said.

An affidavit filed last week said the police were seeking evidence "relating to an embezzlement during the years 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 from the Colonial Beach Public Schools," including payments into Worrell's accounts and to school vendors.

In the affidavit, state police Special Agent Belinda S. Glover wrote that Colonial Beach School Board Chairman Tim Trivett contacted police after noticing "irregularities and inconsistencies" in Worrell's bookkeeping in May 2009.

Worrell was placed on administrative leave without pay in May 2009. Her contract with the school system was not renewed when it expired in July.

In 2008, State Police also investigated other school financial matters, but no charges have resulted from that investigation.

When asked last night if he could estimate the total amount of money involved in the 13 charges against Worrell, Atkins said, "Not at this time."

The embezzlement defense lawyers at Livesay & Myers, P.C. represent clients throughout the Northern Virginia and Fredericksburg areas, including Colonial Beach, Virginia. If you or a loved one have been charged with embezzlement or a similar offense, contact us to schedule your free consultation with a Virginia embezzlement defense attorney today.

April 2010 Visa Bulletin

2010-03-14T11:35:00.001-07:00

The Visa Bulletin for April 2010 is now available. The Department of State (DOS) issues the Visa Bulletin, which summarizes the number of available immigrant visas (green cards) according to preference categories, each month.

Family-Sponsored Green Card Categories

The Family-Based First Preference (FB1) category progressed for Worldwide, China and India by just over two weeks, to July 8, 2004. Mexico advanced in this category by two weeks, to October 15, 1992, while The Philippines stalled at March 1, 1994.

In the Family 2A category, Worldwide, India, China and The Philippines all advanced by two months, to June 1, 2006, while Mexico jumped six months, to January 1, 2005.

The Family 2B category saw Worldwide, India and China cutoff dates progress by one month, to February 1, 2002, with Mexico advancing one week, to June 15, 1992. The Philippines moved forward five weeks, to August 22, 1998.

In the Family-Based Third Preference (FB3) category, Worldwide, India and China remain stalled at May 22, 2001. However, Mexico advanced by one week in this category, to October 15, 1992. The Philippines stalled at March 1, 1992.

The Family-Based Fourth Preference (FB4) cutoff date for Worldwide, China and India advanced by 45 days, to March 1, 2000.

The FB4 cutoff date for Mexico stalled at December 8, 1995, while the date for The Philippines progressed one week, to September 8, 1987.

Employment-Sponsored Green Card Categories

The Employment-Based First Preference (EB1) category continues to be current for all countries in the Visa Bulletin for April 2010.

The Employment-Based Second Preference (EB2) category continues to be current for all countries, except India and China. The EB2 cutoff date for China advanced one month, to August 22, 2005, while the cutoff date for India remained at February 1, 2005.

The Employment-Based Third Preference (EB3) Skilled/Professional Worker cutoff date for Worldwide, China and The Philippines advanced by 48 days, to February 1, 2003.

The EB3 Skilled/Professional Worker cutoff date for India advanced over two months, to September 8, 2001, while the date for Mexico remained stalled at 1 July 2002.

The EB3 "Other Worker" category stalled at June 1, 2001 for all countries.

Finally, the EB4 and EB5 categories remain current.

Contact Our Immigration Law Attorneys

If you or a loved one require legal assistance with a family-based or employment-based green card or other immigration law matter, please contact us to schedule your initial consultation with an experienced Virginia immigration lawyer today. Our immigration law attorneys represent clients in Manassas, Woodbridge, Stafford, Alexandria, Arlington, Fredericksburg, Culpeper, Fauquier, Falls Church, Fairfax and all of Northern Virginia, as well as throughout Maryland and the District of Columbia.

Jackson Ballard Charged With Marijuana Distribution In Manassas

2010-03-14T08:27:00.000-07:00

Two Manassas area homes and a storage unit became the targets of a narcotics investigation in January, according to an InsideNoVA.com article.

In a recently released statement, Prince William County police said they received reports of drug use in a home at 11811 Coopers Lane in Brentsville. Investigators got search warrants for the home, as well as for a house at 8658 Bruton Parish Court in Manassas and for a Manassas storage unit.

During the investigation, police seized 5 pounds of marijuana, $37,835 in cash and a 2003 Chevrolet Blazer, said Prince William police spokeswoman Erika Hernandez.

Police also found a motorcycle that had been reported stolen and seized it. Police are still trying to find the owner of the motorcycle.

Jackson Ballard, 37, of the Coopers Lane address, was charged with two counts of marijuana distribution, held on $4,000 bond and is scheduled to appear in court March 25.

The drug crimes defense lawyers at Livesay & Myers, P.C. represent clients throughout Northern Virginia, including Prince William County and Manassas, Virginia on drug charges. If you or a loved one face a drug charge, contact us to schedule your free consultation with a Virginia drug crimes defense attorney today.

Immigration News Roundup

2010-03-12T05:58:00.000-08:00

Backlog in Immigration Cases Continues to Climb
"Cases awaiting a hearing in the nation's Immigration Courts reached an all-time high of 228,421 in the first months of FY 2010, according to very timely government enforcement data obtained by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC). The current number of pending cases is up 23 percent just since the end of FY 2008, and 82 percent higher than it was ten years ago." TRAC, March 2010.

USCIS Reminds Petitioners to Provide Approved Labor Condition Applications
"As of March 10, 2010, USCIS will reject any H-1B petition filed without an LCA certified by DOL." USCIS, March 10, 2010.

2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices
DOS, March 11, 2010.

Business owners push Obama on immigration reform
"The proponents believe immigration reform will help stimulate the nation's shaky economy, including the housing market. "The majority of Realtors support immigration reform because immigrants are the source of many first-home sales," Elgin Realtor Sandro Rodriguez said." AP, March 12, 2010.

E-Verify Horror Stories
Example: "A U.S. citizen and former captain in the U.S. Navy with 34 years of service and a history of having maintained high security clearance was flagged by E-Verify as not eligible for employment. It took him and his wife, an attorney, two months to resolve the discrepancy." NILC, March 2010.

Contact Us
If you or a loved one require legal assistance with an immigration law matter, please contact us to schedule your initial consultation with an experienced Virginia immigration lawyer today. Our immigration law attorneys represent clients in Manassas, Woodbridge, Stafford, Alexandria, Arlington, Fredericksburg, Culpeper, Fauquier, Falls Church, Fairfax and all of Northern Virginia, as well as throughout Maryland and the District of Columbia.

USCIS to Accept H-1B Petitions for Fiscal Year 2011 Beginning April 1, 2010

2010-03-09T11:52:00.000-08:00

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced on March 8, 2010 that it will begin accepting H-1B petitions subject to the fiscal year (FY) 2011 cap on April 1, 2010. Cases will be considered accepted on the date that USCIS takes possession of a properly filed petition with the correct fee; not the date that the petition is postmarked.

The fiscal year cap (numerical limitation on H-1B petitions) for FY 2011 is 65,000. Additionally, the first 20,000 H-1B petitions filed on behalf of individuals who have earned a U.S. master’s degree or higher are exempt from the H-1B cap.

USCIS will monitor the number of petitions received and will notify the public of the date on which USCIS received the necessary number of petitions to meet the H-1B cap. If needed, USCIS will randomly select the number of petitions required to reach the numerical limit from the petitions received on the final receipt date. USCIS will reject cap-subject petitions that are not selected, as well as those received after the final receipt date.

Petitions for new H-1B employment are exempt from the annual cap if the beneficiaries will work at institutions of higher education or related or affiliated nonprofit entities, nonprofit research organizations or governmental research organizations. Petitions filed on behalf of beneficiaries who will work only in Guam or the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands are exempt from the cap until December 31, 2014. Employers may continue to file petitions for these cap-exempt H-1B categories seeking work dates starting in FY 2010 or 2011.

Petitions filed on behalf of current H-1B workers who have been counted previously against the cap also do not count towards the congressionally mandated H-1B cap. Accordingly, USCIS will continue to process petitions filed to:

extend the amount of time a current H-1B worker may remain in the United States;
change the terms of employment for current H-1B workers;
allow current H-1B workers to change employers; or
allow current H-1B workers to work concurrently in a second H-1B position.

U.S. businesses use the H-1B program to employ foreign workers in specialty occupations that require theoretical or technical expertise in specialized fields, such as scientists, engineers, or computer programmers.

Contact Us
If you or a loved one require legal assistance with an immigration law matter, please contact us to schedule your initial consultation with an experienced Virginia immigration lawyer today. Our immigration law attorneys represent clients in Manassas, Woodbridge, Stafford, Alexandria, Arlington, Fredericksburg, Culpeper, Fauquier, Falls Church, Fairfax and all of Northern Virginia, as well as throughout Maryland and the District of Columbia.

Annual Report of Immigrant Visa Applicants

2010-03-08T02:28:00.000-08:00

The National Visa Center (NVC) at Portsmouth, New Hampshire has released its Annual Report of Immigrant Visa Applicants in the Family-sponsored and Employment-based preferences Registered as of November 1, 2009.

The report shows the number of immigrant visa applicants on the waiting list in the various preferences and subcategories subject to numerical limits, and is worth reading for anyone on the list.

Contact Us
If you or a loved one require legal assistance with an immigration law matter, please contact us to schedule your initial consultation with an experienced Virginia immigration lawyer today. Our immigration law attorneys represent clients in Manassas, Woodbridge, Stafford, Alexandria, Arlington, Fredericksburg, Culpeper, Fauquier, Falls Church, Fairfax and all of Northern Virginia, as well as throughout Maryland and the District of Columbia.

The Operation of the Immigrant Numerical Control System

2010-03-08T02:12:00.000-08:00

The Department of State (DOS) is responsible for administering the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) relating to the numerical limitations on immigrant visa issuances. This DOS information sheet explains the operation of the immigrant number allotment and control system.

1. HOW THE SYSTEM OPERATES:

At the beginning of each month, the Visa Office (VO) receives a report from each consular post listing totals of documentarily qualified immigrant visa applicants in categories subject to numerical limitation. Cases are grouped by foreign state chargeability/preference/priority date. No names are reported. During the first week of each month, this documentarily qualified demand is tabulated.

VO subdivides the annual preference and foreign state limitations specified by the INA into monthly allotments. The totals of documentarily qualified applicants which have been reported to VO, are compared each month with the numbers available for the next regular allotment. The determination of how many numbers are available requires consideration of several of variables, including: past number use; estimates of future number use and return rates; and estimates of Citizenship and Immigration Service demand based on cut-off date movements. Once this is done, the cut-off dates are established and numbers are allocated to reported applicants in order of their priority dates, the oldest dates first.

If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered "Current." For example: If the monthly allocation target is 3,000 and we only have demand for 1,000 applicants the category can be "Current."

Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the particular month, the category is considered to be "oversubscribed" and a visa availability cut-off date is established. The cut-off date is the priority date of the first documentarily qualified applicant who could not be accommodated for a visa number. For example: If the monthly target is 3,000 and we have demand for 8,000 applicants, then we would need to establish a cut-off date so that only 3,000 numbers would be allocated. In this case, the cut-off would be the priority date of the 3,001st applicant.

Only persons with a priority date earlier than a cut-off date are entitled to allotment of a visa number. The cut-off dates are the 1st, 8th, 15th, and 22nd of a month, since VO groups demand for numbers under these dates. (Priority dates of the first through seventh of a month are grouped under the 1st, the eighth through the fourteenth under the 8th, etc.)

VO attempts to establish the cut-off dates for the following month on or about the 8th of each month. The dates are immediately transmitted to consular posts and Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS), and also published in the Visa Bulletin and online at the CA Web site (www.travel.state.gov). Visa allotments for use during that month are transmitted to consular posts. CIS requests visa allotments for adjustment of status cases only when all other case processing has been completed.

2. DEFINITION OF SOME TERMS:

Priority date:

Normally, the date on which the petition to accord the applicant immigrant status was filed.

Allotment:

The allocation of an immigrant number to a consular office or to CIS. This number may be used for visa issuance or adjustment of status.

Foreign State Chargeability:

Ordinarily, an immigrant is chargeable for visa purposes to the numerical limitation for the foreign state or dependent area in which the immigrant's place of birth is located. Exceptions are provided for a child (unmarried and under 21 years of age) or spouse accompanying or following to join a principal to prevent the separation of family members, as well as for an applicant born in the U.S. or in a foreign state of which neither parent was a native or resident. Alternate chargeability is desirable when the visa cut-off date for the foreign state of a parent or spouse is more advantageous than that of the applicant's foreign state.

Documentarily Qualified:

The applicant has obtained all documents specified by the consular officer as sufficient to meet the formal visa application requirements, and necessary processing procedures of the consular office have been completed.

3. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE SYSTEM AND CLARIFICATION OF SOME FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS:

Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, visa allotments are made only on the basis of the total applicants reported documentarily qualified each month. Demand for visa numbers can fluctuate from one month to another, with the inevitable impact on cut-off dates.

If an applicant is reported documentarily qualified but allocation of a visa number is not possible because of a visa availability cut-off date, the demand is recorded at VO and an allocation is made as soon as the applicable cut-off date advances beyond the applicant's priority date. There is no need for such applicant to be reported a second time.

Visa numbers are always allotted for all documentarily qualified applicants with a priority date before the relevant cut-off date, as long as the case had been reported to VO in time to be included in the monthly calculation of visa availability. Failure of visa number receipt by the overseas processing office could mean that the request was not dispatched in time to reach VO for the monthly allocation cycle, or that information on the request was incomplete or inaccurate (e.g., incorrect priority date).

Allocations to Foreign Service posts outside the regular monthly cycle are possible in emergency or exceptional cases, but only at the request of the office processing the case. Note that should retrogression of a cut-off date be announced, VO can honor extraordinary requests for additional numbers only if the applicant's priority date is earlier than the retrogressed cut-off date.

Not all numbers allocated are actually used for visa issuance; some are returned to VO and are reincorporated into the pool of numbers available for later allocation during the fiscal year. The rate of return of unused numbers may fluctuate from month to month, just as demand may fluctuate. Lower returns mean fewer numbers available for subsequent reallocation. Fluctuations can cause cut-off date movement to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches the annual limitations.

Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap, which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed. Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however. A portion of the numbers provided to the Family Second preference category are exempt from this per-country cap. The American Competitiveness in the
Twenty-First Century Act (AC21) removed the per-country limit in any calendar quarter in which overall applicant demand for Employment-based visa numbers is less than the total of such numbers available.

Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of a cut-off date which is earlier than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)

Contact Us
If you or a loved one require legal assistance with an immigration law matter, please contact us to schedule your initial consultation with an experienced Virginia immigration lawyer today. Our immigration law attorneys represent clients in Manassas, Woodbridge, Stafford, Alexandria, Arlington, Fredericksburg, Culpeper, Fauquier, Falls Church, Fairfax and all of Northern Virginia, as well as throughout Maryland and the District of Columbia.

Immigration News Roundup

2010-03-02T02:13:00.000-08:00

Mexican Immigrants in the United States
"This spotlight focuses on Mexican immigrants residing in the United States, examining the population's size, flow, geographic distribution, and socioeconomic characteristics using data from the US Census Bureau's 2008 American Community Survey (ACS) and 2000 Decennial Census, and the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS) for 2008." MPI, February 2010.

Mexico: A Crucial Crossroads
"A decade into the 21st century, Mexico finds itself at a crucial crossroads with its northern neighbor the United States, where about 10 percent of its citizens live." MPI, February 2010.

Pushback Over Border Busts
"After warning federal prosecutors for two years, Judge Sam Sparks was fed up with the parade of nonviolent illegal aliens in the overburdened courtrooms in his Texas division. What he did next, said lawyers across the country, was astounding and unprecedented." Marcia Coyle, NLJ, March 1, 2010.

Tech Group Urges Passage of Immigration Legislation
"A leading tech group on Wednesday urged lawmakers to adopt legislation that would allow immigrants to remain in the United States if they proved to be skillful entrepreneurs." The Hill, February 25, 2010.

CIS-Zogby Poll Cooks the Books on Latino Support for Mass Deportation
"This week the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), the 'think tank' of the anti- immigrant lobby, announced the results of a new CIS-sponsored Zogby poll purporting to show that people of color, including Latinos, support their mass-deportation, anti-immigrant agenda. Coming from the same group whose leader, Mark Krikorian, recently argued that Judge Sotomayor should change her name to sound more 'Anglo,' and who has previously blamed immigrants for global warming, CIS' viewpoints and strategies are clearly far from mainstream. Still, this latest effort to muddy the waters about public opinion on immigration ventures into the realm of the absurd." America's Voice, February 26, 2010.

ICE "Surge" Targets Aliens With Criminal Records
"The nation's top immigration cop said Friday that the Obama administration is stepping up enforcement against immigrants who commit crimes and will move aggressively against employers who hire unauthorized labor." Dallas Morning News, February 27, 2010.

American Bar Association: Deportation System "Severely Flawed"
"The number of people deported from the US annually has grown from just over 69,000 to over 356,000 in the past eight years, while resource-starved immigration judges issue decisions without sufficient time to conduct legal research and analyze the complex cases they are asked to decide. This is among the key findings of a new comprehensive review of the current deportation process by the American Bar Association's (ABA) Commission on Immigration and one of America's leading law firms." William Fisher, February 25, 2010.

Contact Us
If you or a loved one require legal assistance with an immigration law matter, please contact us to schedule your initial consultation with an experienced Virginia immigration lawyer today. Our immigration law attorneys represent clients in Manassas, Woodbridge, Stafford, Alexandria, Arlington, Fredericksburg, Culpeper, Fauquier, Falls Church, Fairfax and all of Northern Virginia, as well as throughout Maryland and the District of Columbia.

Kevin Garfield Ricks Charged With Sexual Assault

2010-02-19T10:11:00.000-08:00

Kevin Garfield Ricks, a Manassas school teacher, is being held without bond on charges he sexually assaulted a 16-year-old student, according to an InsideNoVA.com article.

Mr. Ricks, age 49 of Federalsburg, Maryland, was the boy’s teacher at Osbourn High School. He was arrested at the end of the school day Thursday and is charged with carnal knowledge, aggravated sexual assault and two counts of taking indecent liberties with a minor, said Manassas police Sgt. Tim Neumann.

Police claim the offenses took place at a home in Manassas in December and January.

Police said Ricks stayed in the Manassas area during the week and traveled home to Federalsburg on weekends.

The alleged victim told police about the assaults Tuesday, prompting an investigation, said Neumann.

Mr. Ricks is being held without bond and is scheduled to appear in Prince William County Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court.

Sexual offenses like carnal knowledge, aggravated sexual assault and taking indecent liberties with a minor carry severe maximum punishments. Individuals facing such charges require specialized and aggressive legal defense.

The sex crimes defense lawyers at Livesay & Myers, P.C. represent clients throughout Northern Virginia, including Manassas and Prince William County, on sex crimes charges. If you or a loved one have been charged with a sexual offense, contact us to schedule your free consultation with a Virginia sex crimes defense attorney today.

Sterling Newman Charged With Shooting Man In Leg Near Manassas

2010-02-15T12:24:00.000-08:00

A man was shot in the leg Sunday while driving near Manassas, and the woman who came to his aid soon found herself being shot at, too, according to an InsideNoVa.com article.

The 33-year-old victim from Manassas was shot at 10:48 p.m. in the area of Quail Run Lane and Remington Road, off of Sudley Manor Drive near Manassas. The man tried to get away from his shooter but crashed his car into a snow bank, said Prince William police spokeswoman Erika Hernandez.

The man called for a family member to pick him up and take him to the hospital. A 35-year-old Gainesville woman arrived, and as she was driving him to the hospital the suspected shooter pulled up behind them and started to chase their car, Hernandez said. The gunman pulled up beside the car, in the area of Sudley Manor Drive and Williamson Boulevard and shot into the car, said Hernandez.

The two hid behind a snow bank, where they remained until officers arrived, after someone called to report the shooting.

When investigators began looking into the shooting, Prince William Police Officer Michael L. Jordan found the suspected shooter’s car in the area of Sudley Manor Drive and Williamson Boulevard, and stopped the driver, said Hernandez.

The driver was identified as 33-year-old Haywood Sterling Newman of 7157 Quail Run Lane near Manassas. Police said he and the shooting victim were acquaintances, but investigators did not release a motive.

Mr. Newman is charged with malicious wounding, three counts of use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, possession of a firearm by convicted felon, shooting into an occupied car, two counts of attempted malicious wounding and with shooting from a vehicle.

He was held without bond and is scheduled to appear in court April 7, 2010.

The shooting victim was treated at a local hospital and released.

Given the nature of the charges against him, Mr. Newman will require specialized and aggressive legal defense.

The criminal defense lawyers at Livesay & Myers, P.C. represent clients throughout Northern Virginia, including Manassas and Prince William County, Virginia. If you or a loved one have been charged with a crime, contact us to schedule your free consultation with a Virginia criminal defense attorney today.

March 2010 Visa Bulletin

2010-02-09T13:09:00.000-08:00

The Visa Bulletin for March 2010 is now available. The Department of State (DOS) issues the Visa Bulletin, which summarizes the number of available immigrant visas (green cards) according to preference categories, each month.

Family-Sponsored Green Card Categories

The Family-Based First Preference (FB1) category progressed for Worldwide, China and India by three weeks, to June 22, 2004. Mexico advanced in this category by three weeks, to October 1, 1992, while The Philippines moved up by two months, to March 1, 1994.

In the Family 2A category, Worldwide, India, China and The Philippines all advanced by one month, to April 1, 2006, while Mexico jumped three months, to July 1, 2004.

The Family 2B category saw Worldwide, India and China cutoff dates progress by one month, to February 1, 2002, with Mexico advancing one week, to June 15, 1992. The Philippines moved forward five weeks, to August 22, 1998.

In the Family-Based Third Preference (FB3) category, Worldwide, India and China remain stalled at May 22, 2001. However, Mexico advanced by two weeks in this category, to October 8, 1992, while The Philippines progressed by two months, to March 1, 1992.

The Family-Based Fourth Preference (FB4) cutoff date for Worldwide, China and India advanced by two months, to January 15, 2000. The FB4 cutoff date for Mexico moved up one week, to December 8, 1995, while the date for The Philippines progressed two months, to September 1, 1987.

Employment-Sponsored Green Card Categories

The Employment-Based First Preference (EB1) category continues to be current for all countries in the Visa Bulletin for March 2010.

The Employment-Based Second Preference (EB2) category continues to be current for all countries, except India and China. The EB2 cutoff date for China advanced six weeks, to July 8, 2005, while the cutoff date for India progressed one week, to February 1, 2005.

The Employment-Based Third Preference (EB3) Skilled/Professional Worker cutoff date for Worldwide, China and The Philippines advanced nearly three months, to December 15, 2002. The EB3 Skilled/Professional Worker cutoff date for India advanced one week, to July 1, 2001, while the date for Mexico stalled at 1 July 2002.

The EB3 "Other Worker" category stalled at June 1, 2001 for all countries.

Finally, the EB4 and EB5 categories remain current.

Contact Our Immigration Law Attorneys

If you or a loved one require legal assistance with a family-based or employment-based green card or other immigration law matter, please contact us to schedule your initial consultation with an experienced Virginia immigration lawyer today. Our immigration law attorneys represent clients in Manassas, Woodbridge, Stafford, Alexandria, Arlington, Fredericksburg, Culpeper, Fauquier, Falls Church, Fairfax and all of Northern Virginia, as well as throughout Maryland and the District of Columbia.

Employ American Workers Act (EAWA) and H-1B Petitions

2010-02-08T10:02:00.000-08:00

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has provided detailed information regarding the Employ American Workers Act (EAWA) and H1-B petitions.

On Feb. 17, 2009, President Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (commonly known as the “stimulus bill”). The stimulus bill contained the Employ American Workers Act (“EAWA”).

EAWA took effect on February 17, 2009 and will expire on February 17, 2011. EAWA prevents a company from displacing U.S. workers when hiring H-1B specialty occupation workers if the company received funds through the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), or under section 13 of the Federal Reserve Act (collectively referred to as “covered funding”).

EAWA affects the current Labor Condition Application (LCA) process administered by Department of Labor (DOL) and the USCIS petition process for companies seeking H-1B workers. Companies subject to EAWA will now need to make new statements regarding recruitment and hiring of U.S. workers.

Under EAWA, any company that received covered funding and seeks to hire H-1B workers is considered to be an “H-1B dependent employer.”

H-1B Dependent Employer

An H-1B dependent employer must make the following additional attestations to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) when filing a Labor Condition Application (LCA):

The employer has taken or will take good faith steps meeting industry-wide standards to recruit U.S. and will offer compensation that is at least as great as those offered to the H-1B nonimmigrant. U.S. workers are defined as U.S. citizens or nationals, lawful permanent resident aliens, refugees, asylees, or other immigrants authorized to be employed in the United States (i.e., workers other than nonimmigrant aliens);
The employer has offered or will offer the job to any U.S. worker who applied and is equally or better qualified for the job that is intended for the H-1B nonimmigrant;
The employer will not displace any similarly employed U.S. worker within the period beginning 90 days before and ending 90 days after the date of filing a petition for an H-1B nonimmigrant supported by this application. A U.S. worker is displaced if the worker is laid off from a job that is essentially the equivalent of the job for which an H-1B nonimmigrant is sought; and
The employer will not place an H-1B worker to work for another employer unless it has inquired whether the other employer has displaced or will displace a U.S. worker within 90 days before or after the placement of the H-1B worker.

Affected U.S. Companies

USCIS is working with the Department of the Treasury, the Federal Reserve and other relevant agencies to identify companies that have received covered funding. USCIS, however, expects companies seeking to hire H-1B workers to know whether or not they have received covered funding and act accordingly with respect to hiring an H-1B nonimmigrant. In this regard, USCIS notes that:

EAWA only applies to U.S. companies that received covered funding and want to hire new H-1B workers; and
The normal exception to the H-1B dependent employer requirements that an H-1B nonimmigrant is exempt from the dependency calculation if the individual earns a salary of at least $60,000 or has a master’s degree or higher is not applicable to companies that have received covered funding.

H-1B Nonimmigrant

An H-1B nonimmigrant is a foreign national who comes to the United States temporarily to work in a specialty occupation. A specialty occupation position is one that generally requires a bachelor’s degree or higher and specialized knowledge.

How EAWA Applies to H-1B Hires

EAWA applies to any “hire” taking place on or after February 17, 2009, and before February 17, 2011. EAWA defines “hire” as an employer permitting a new employee to commence a period of employment; that is, the introduction of a new employee to the employer’s U.S. workforce.

EAWA applies to:

Any LCA or petition filed on or after February 17, 2009 involving any employment by a new employer, including concurrent employment and regardless of whether the beneficiary is already in H-1B status; and
New employment (hires) based on a petition approved before February 17, 2009, if the H-1B employee had not actually commenced employment before that date.

EAWA does not apply to:

A petition to extend the H-1B status of a current employee with the same employer; or
A petition seeking to change the status of a current U.S. work-authorized employee to H-1B status with the same employer.

If You Are Filing an H-1B Petition

USCIS advises employers to comply with the following in order to avoid processing delays:

Use a version of Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, with a revision date of March 11, 2009 or later and ensure that you properly answer Question A.1.d on the H-1B Data Collection and Filing Fee Exemption Supplement, or
Submit page 13 of Form I-129 with a revision date of March 11, 2009 or later and answer Question A.1.d. if you are using a version of Form I-129 with a revision date earlier than March 11, 2009.

If You Have Repaid Covered Funding

USCIS states that they understand that some employers who received covered funding may have subsequently repaid their obligations.

Employers who have repaid their obligations should answer “no” to Question A.1.d. on the H-1B Data Collection and Filing Fee Exemption Supplement.
If an employer wishes to provide further information with the petition to assist USCIS in determining that its statement regarding its status for purposes of EAWA is correct, it may do so.

For information on whether covered funding obligations have been repaid, recipients of TARP funding should seek guidance from the Department of Treasury, or the Federal Reserve.

Please Note: Processing delays or a denial of the H-1B petition may result if the LCA statements do not correspond with the H-1B petition, unless any inconsistency is explained in the petition.

For example, if the LCA includes the additional statements, but Question A.1.d is answered “no,” the employer can explain that it had received covered funding at the time of filing the LCA but repaid the obligation before filing the Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker, (Form I-129).

However, if the employer indicates on its petition that it received covered funding, but the LCA does not contain the proper statements relating to H-1B dependent employers, the H-1B petition will be denied.

If you are an employer or employee requiring assistance in compliance with the Employ American Workers Act throughout the H-1B process, please contact us to schedule your initial consultation with an experienced immigration lawyer today. Our immigration law attorneys represent clients in Manassas, Woodbridge, Stafford, Alexandria, Arlington, Fredericksburg, Fairfax and all of Northern Virginia, as well as throughout Maryland and the District of Columbia.

Secretary Napolitano Announces Humanitarian Parole Policy for Certain Haitian Orphans

2010-01-19T02:01:00.000-08:00

On January 18, 2010, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano, in coordination with the U.S. Department of State, announced a humanitarian parole policy allowing orphaned children from Haiti to enter the United States temporarily on an individual basis to ensure that they receive the care they need—as part of the U.S. government’s ongoing support of international recovery efforts after last week’s earthquake.

"We are committed to doing everything we can to help reunite families in Haiti during this very difficult time," said Secretary Napolitano. "While we remain focused on family reunification in Haiti, authorizing the use of humanitarian parole for orphans who are eligible for adoption in the United States will allow them to receive the care they need here."

Humanitarian parole into the United States may be granted by the Secretary of Homeland Security to bring otherwise inadmissible individuals into the country on account of urgent humanitarian reasons or other emergencies. The humanitarian parole policy announced by Secretary Napolitano today will be applied on a case-by-case basis to the following children:

Children who have been legally confirmed as orphans eligible for intercountry adoption by the Government of Haiti and are being adopted by U.S. citizens.

Children who have been previously identified by an adoption service provider or facilitator as eligible for intercountry adoption and have been matched to U.S. citizen prospective adoptive parents.

Under applicable laws, unaccompanied minors entering the country without a parent or legal guardian are subject to special procedures regarding their custody and care. DHS coordinates with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Refugee Resettlement on the cases of these unaccompanied minors.

Yesterday’s announcement expands the humanitarian relief that the U.S. Government is extending to Haitians in response to the devastation caused by the earthquake. Last week, Secretary Napolitano announced the designation of Temporary Protected Status for Haitian nationals who were physically present in the United States as of January 12, 2010—allowing eligible Haitian nationals to continue living and working in the United States for the next 18 months. Those who attempt to travel to the United States after January 12, 2010 will not be eligible for TPS and will be repatriated.

Contact Our Immigration Law Attorneys

If you or a loved one require assistance with an application for Temporary Protected Status (TPS), or any other immigration law matter, please contact us to schedule your initial consultation with an experienced immigration lawyer today. Our immigration law attorneys represent clients in Woodbridge, Manassas, Stafford, Alexandria, Arlington, Fredericksburg, Fairfax and all of Northern Virginia, as well as throughout Maryland and the District of Columbia.

Temporary Protected Status (TPS) Granted For Haitians

2010-01-18T10:00:00.000-08:00

Temporary Protected Status (TPS) has been granted for undocumented Haitians who have been in the United States as of January 12, 2010. The registration period will likely start next week and will last for 180 days. During that time, the law firm of Livesay & Myers, P.C. will file TPS applications for qualified applicants, including work permits. Applicants must prove their Haitian nationality with documents such as a passport or birth certificate.

Our immigration lawyers charge a flat legal fee of $250 for such TPS applications. In addition to that legal fee, the following costs apply: $50 TPS registration fee, $80 biometrics fee (no biometrics fee if applicant is under 14), and $340 work permit fee.

If you or a loved one require assistance with an application for Temporary Protected Status (TPS), or any other immigration law matter, please contact us to schedule your initial consultation with an experienced immigration lawyer today.

DHS Announces Streamlined Citizenship Application Process for Members of the Military

2010-01-17T12:33:00.000-08:00

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano announced on January 15, 2010 the publication of a rule formalizing the longstanding DHS policy to expedite and streamline the citizenship process for men and women bravely serving in America's armed forces.

"The foundation of our national security is the patriotic service and extraordinary sacrifices made by the men and women of our armed forces," said Secretary Napolitano. "Expediting the citizenship process for service members reflects our commitment to honoring those who come from all over the world to serve our country and become its newest citizens."

The rule amends DHS regulations to conform to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2004, reducing the time requirements for naturalization through military service from three years to one year for applicants who served during peacetime, and extending benefits to members of the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve of the U.S. Armed Forces. Service members who have served honorably in an active-duty status or in the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve for any time since September 11, 2001, can file immediately for citizenship.

The rule also eliminates the requirement for members of the military to file biographic information forms (Form G-325B) with their naturalization applications - removing administrative redundancy and increasing efficiency for those who risk their lives for the nation's security.

If you or a loved one require assistance in applying for citizenship, please contact us to schedule your initial consultation with an experienced Virginia naturalization lawyer today. Our immigration law attorneys represent clients in Manassas, Woodbridge, Stafford, Alexandria, Arlington, Fredericksburg, Culpeper, Fauquier, Warrenton, Fairfax and all of Northern Virginia, as well as throughout Maryland and the District of Columbia.

USCIS Issues Guidance Memorandum on Establishing the "Employee-Employer Relationship" in H-1B Petitions

2010-01-14T09:25:00.000-08:00

Introduction

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued updated guidance to adjudication officers to clarify what constitutes a valid employer-employee relationship to qualify for the H-1B ‘specialty occupation’ classification. The memorandum clarifies such relationships, particularly as it pertains to independent contractors, self-employed beneficiaries, and beneficiaries placed at third-party worksites. The memorandum is titled: “Determining Employer-Employee Relationship for Adjudication of H-1B Petitions, Including Third-Party Site Placements: Additions to Officer’s Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 31.3(g)(15)(AFM Update AD 10-24).” In addition to clarifying the requirements for a valid employer-employee relationship, the memorandum also discusses the types of evidence petitioners may provide to establish that an employer-employee relationship exists and will continue to exist with the beneficiary throughout the duration of the requested H-1B validity period.

Questions & Answers

Q: Does this memorandum change any of the requirements to establish eligibility for an H-1B petition?

A: No. This memorandum does not change any of the requirements for an H-1B petition. The H-1B regulations currently require that a United States employer establish that it has an employer-employee relations with respect to the beneficiary, as indicated by the fact that it may hire, pay, fire, supervise or otherwise control the work of any such employee. In addition to demonstrating that a valid employer-employee relationship will exist between the petitioner and the beneficiary, the petitioner must continue to comply with all of the requirements for an H-1B petition including:

establishing that the beneficiary is coming to the United States temporarily to work in a specialty occupation;
demonstrating that the beneficiary is qualified to perform services in the specialty occupation; and
filing of a Labor Condition Application (LCA) specific to each location where the beneficiary will perform services.

Q: What factors does USCIS consider when evaluating the employer-employee relationship?

A: As stated in the memorandum, USCIS will evaluate whether the petitioner has the “right to control” the beneficiary’s employment, such as when, where and how the beneficiary performs the job. Please see the memorandum in the links in the upper right hand of this page for a list of factors that USCIS will review when determining whether the petitioner has the right to control the beneficiary. Please note that no one factor is decisive and adjudicators will review the totality of the circumstances when making a determination as to whether the employer-employee relationship exists.

Q: What types of evidence can I provide to demonstrate that I have a valid employer-employee relationship with the beneficiary?

A: You may demonstrate that you have a valid employer-employee relationship with the beneficiary by submitting the types of evidence outlined in the memorandum or similar probative types of evidence.

Q: What if I cannot submit the evidence listed in the memorandum?

A: The documents listed in the memorandum are only examples of evidence that establish the petitioner’s right to control the beneficiary’s employment. Unless a document is required by the regulations, i.e. an itinerary, you may provide similarly probative documents. You may submit a combination of any documents that sufficiently establish that the required relationship between you and the beneficiary exists. You should explain how the documents you are providing establish the relationship. Adjudicators will review and weigh all the evidence submitted to determine whether a qualifying employer-employee relationship has been established.

Q: What if I receive or have received an RFE requesting that I submit a particular type of evidence and I do not have the exact type of document listed in the RFE?

A: If the type of evidence requested in the RFE is not a document that is required by regulations, you may submit other similar probative evidence that addresses the issue(s) raised in the RFE. You should explain how the documents you are providing address the deficiency(ies) raised in the RFE. Adjudicators will review and weigh all evidence based on the totality of the circumstances. Please note that you cannot submit similar evidence in place of documents required by regulation.

Q: Will my petition be denied if I cannot establish that the qualifying employer-employee relationship will exist?

A: If you do not initially provide sufficient evidence of an employer-employee relationship for the duration of the requested validity period, you may be given an opportunity to correct the deficiency in response to a request for evidence (RFE). Your petition will be denied if you do not provide sufficiently probative evidence that the qualifying employer-employee relationship will exist for any time period.

Q: What if I can only establish that the qualifying employer-employee relationship will exist for a portion of the requested validity period?

A: If you do not initially provide sufficient evidence of an employer-employee relationship for the duration of the requested validity period, you may be given an opportunity to correct the deficiency in response to a request for evidence (RFE). Your petition may still be approved if you provide evidence that a qualifying employer-employee relationship will exist for a portion of the requested validity period (as long as all other requirements are met), however, USCIS will limit a petition’s validity to the time period of qualifying employment established by the evidence.

Q: What happens if I am filing a petition requesting a “Continuation of previously approved employment without change” or “Change in previously approved employment” and an extension of stay for the beneficiary in H-1B classification, but I did not maintain a valid employer-employee relationship with the beneficiary during the validity of the previous petition?

A: Your extension petition will be denied if USCIS determines that you did not maintain a valid employer-employee relationship with the beneficiary throughout the validity period of the previous petition. The only exception is if there is a compelling reason to approve the new petition (e.g. you are able to demonstrate that you did not meet all of the terms and conditions through no fault of your own). Such exceptions would be limited and made on a case-by-case basis.

Q: What if I am filing a petition requesting a “Change of Employer” and an extension of stay for the beneficiary’s H-1B classification? Would my petition be adjudicated under the section of the memorandum that deals with extension petitions?

A: No. The section of the memorandum that covers extension petitions applies solely to petitions filed by the same employer to extend H-1B status without a material change in the original terms of employment. All other petitions will be adjudicated in accordance with the section of the memorandum that covers initial petitions.

Q: I am a petitioner who will be employing the beneficiary to perform services in more than one work location. Do I need to submit an itinerary in support of my petition?

A: Yes. You will need to submit a complete itinerary of services or engagements, as described in the memo, in order to comply with 8 CFR 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B) if you are employing the beneficiary to perform services in more than one work location. Furthermore, you must comply with Department of Labor regulations requiring that you file an LCA specific to each work location for the beneficiary.

Q: What happens if I do not submit evidence of the employer-employee relationship with my initial petition?

A: If you do not initially provide sufficient evidence of an employer-employee relationship for the duration of the requested validity period, you will be given an opportunity to correct the deficiency in response to a request for evidence (RFE). However, failure to provide this information with the initial submission will delay processing of your petition.

Contact Our Immigration Law Attorneys

If you or a loved one require assistance with an employment-based green card application, or any other immigration law matter, please contact us to schedule your initial consultation with an experienced immigration lawyer today. Our immigration law attorneys represent clients in Woodbridge, Manassas, Stafford, Fauquier, Warrenton, Culpeper, Alexandria, Arlington, Fredericksburg, Fairfax, and all of Northern Virginia, as well as throughout Maryland and the District of Columbia.

Haitian Earthquake May Result In TPS For Haitians In The U.S.

2010-01-13T14:29:00.001-08:00

The Haitian earthquake disaster has prompted lawmakers to consider granting Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to Haitians in the United States, so that those Haitians without status in the U.S. can live and work here while their home country deals with the disaster. Florida Republicans Lincoln and Mario Diaz-Balart and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen are pressing the Obama administration to speedily grant TPS relief. Meanwhile, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano have halted all deportations to Haiti.

Livesay & Myers, P.C. continues to monitor the government's reaction to the earthquake and will post TPS-related updates as they become available.

Contact Our Immigration Law Attorneys

If you or a loved one require assistance with an application for Temporary Protected Status (TPS), or any other immigration law matter, please contact us to schedule your initial consultation with an experienced immigration lawyer today. Our immigration law attorneys represent clients in Woodbridge, Manassas, Stafford, Alexandria, Arlington, Fredericksburg, Fairfax and all of Northern Virginia, as well as throughout Maryland and the District of Columbia.

2010 H-1B Petition Season

2010-01-11T09:29:00.000-08:00

USCIS begins accepting H-1B petitions subject to the Fiscal Year 2010 (FY 2010) cap on April 1, 2009. Cases are considered accepted on the date that USCIS takes possession of the petition; not the date that the petition is postmarked.

The numerical limitation on H-1B petitions for Fiscal Year 2010 is 65,000. Additionally, the first 20,000 H-1B petitions filed on behalf of aliens who have earned a U.S. masters’ degree or higher are exempt from the fiscal year cap.

USCIS will monitor the number of petitions received and will notify the public of the date USCIS has received the necessary number of petitions to meet the H-1B cap, known as the “final receipt date.” The date USCIS publishes information that the cap has been reached does not control the final receipt date. To ensure a fair system, USCIS will, if needed, randomly select the number of petitions required to reach the numerical limit from the petitions received on the final receipt date. USCIS will reject cap subject petitions that are not selected, as well as those received after the final receipt date.

H-1B petitions cannot be filed more than six months in advance of the requested start date. Petitions seeking an H-1B worker for an October 1, 2009 start date can be filed no earlier than April 1, 2009.

Petitions for new H-1B employment are exempt from the annual cap if the beneficiaries will work at institutions of higher education or a related or affiliated nonprofit entities, or at nonprofit research organizations or governmental research organizations. Thus, employers may continue to file petitions for these exempt H-1B categories seeking work dates starting in FY 2009 or 2010.

Petitions filed on behalf of current H-1B workers who have been counted previously against the cap also do not count towards the congressionally mandated H-1B cap. Accordingly, USCIS will continue to process petitions filed to:

Extend the amount of time a current H-1B worker may remain in the United States;
Change the terms of employment for current H-1B workers;
Allow current H-1B workers to change employers; or
Allow current H-1B workers to work concurrently in a second H-1B position.

H-1B petitioners should follow all regulatory requirements as they prepare petitions to avoid delays in processing and possible requests for evidence.

If you or a loved one require further information about an H-1B visa, or any other immigration law matter, please contact us to schedule your initial consultation with an experienced immigration lawyer today. Our immigration law attorneys represent clients in Fairfax, Arlington, Manassas, Woodbridge, Stafford, Fredericksburg, Alexandria and all of Northern Virginia, as well as throughout Maryland and the District of Columbia.

Navnit Mohan Jasani Arrested On Charges Of Purchasing Untaxed Cigarettes In Stafford

2009-12-12T02:42:00.000-08:00

The operator of a North Stafford convenience store was arrested Thursday for allegedly purchasing untaxed cigarettes from an undercover Stafford detective, according to a Free-Lance Star article.

Navnit Mohan Jasani, 30, who runs the Onville Kwik Stop on Garrisonville Road, is charged with two counts of receiving stolen property, racketeering, conspiracy and two counts of cigarette tax evasion.

He was indicted this week by a Stafford grand jury and arrested Thursday at the store, Sheriff's spokesman Bill Kennedy said.

According to Kennedy, Detective Todd Nosal met several times with Jasani between July 20 and Aug. 5 of last year. Nosal allegedly portrayed himself as a trafficker of untaxed cigarettes.

Kennedy said Jasani expressed interest in buying the cigarettes, and on Aug. 6 purchased 2,400 packs--valued at $4,320--from Nosal.

Police said Jasani sold the cigarettes at his store and was able to pocket larger profits because of the cigarettes' untaxed status.

On March 30 of this year, Nosal and Jasani struck a deal for more contraband cigarettes. After some price haggling, Jasani ordered 1,200 packs of Marlboro Lights and 600 packs of Marlboro Mediums for $4,320.

He later also purchased $5,400 worth of Newports, Kennedy said.

Kennedy would not say where Nosal got the cigarettes, but the sales took place during the same time the Sheriff's Office and other agencies were conducting a major probe into contraband cigarettes.

About 30 people were charged as the result of that 14-month investigation that also involved guns, drugs and an alleged murder-for-hire scheme.

Police said more than $8 million in cash, 40 fire- arms and drugs--including 32,000 hits of ecstasy--were given to undercover detectives in exchange for 388,000 cartons of cigarettes.

The cigarettes, valued at more than $77 million, were then resold elsewhere, primarily New York.

Given the nature of the charges against him of receiving stolen property, racketeering, conspiracy and cigarette tax evasion, Mr. Jasani will require specialized and aggressive legal defense.

The criminal defense lawyers at Livesay & Myers, P.C. represent clients throughout Stafford County and Northern Virginia. If you or a loved one have been charged with such an offense, contact us to schedule your free consultation with a Virginia criminal defense attorney today.

Alison Mars Charged In Double Slashing

2009-12-02T12:12:00.000-08:00

Alison Mars was charged with two felonies Tuesday after she allegedly slashed two men she accused of stealing money from her, according to a Free-Lance Star article.

The incident occurred about 12:50 p.m. in the 1200 block of Kenmore Avenue, city police spokeswoman Natatia Bledsoe said. A 21-year-old Spotsylvania man reported that he was visiting his child’s mother when his 26-year-old uncle arrived to pick him up.

Ms. Mars, a 44-year-old Fredericksburg woman and grandmother of the child, allegedly stormed into the kitchen and accused the two men of stealing a large amount of cash from her bedroom. Ms. Mars then pulled out a knife and started swinging, according to Bledsoe.

After cutting both men, Bledsoe said, Ms. Mars threw the knife on the ground. One of the victims grabbed it, and they ran out of the home and called police.

The younger victim had his wrist “gouged,” Bledsoe said. He was treated at the scene but did not require hospitalization. The uncle suffered two lacerations and was also treated at the scene.

Alison Mars was charged with two counts of aggravated assault. She was placed in the Rappahannock Regional Jail.

The money that was supposedly missing was not recovered, Bledsoe said. The victims did not have it on them when police arrived. Police took custody of the knife.

Under Virginia law, the aggravated assault charges against Ms. Mars will likely carry significant maximum punishments. She would be well advised to (a) retain the services of experienced defense counsel and (b) make no statements to law enforcement prior to meeting with her attorney.

The criminal defense lawyers at Livesay & Myers, P.C. represent clients throughout Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania and surrounding areas on assault charges. If you or a loved one have been charged with a crime, contact us to schedule your free consultation with a Virginia criminal defense attorney today.

Jose Miguel Melendez Arrested On Child Sexual Assault Charges

2009-11-25T17:36:00.000-08:00

Jose Miguel Melendez faces sex crimes charges after two girls told police he assaulted them in separate incidents beginning 10 years ago, according to an InsideNoVA.com article.

The alleged assaults all occurred in the Manassas area between 1999 and 2001, said Prince William police spokeswoman Erika Hernandez.

The girls, who were age 3 and 6 when the alleged assaults began, reported the incidents to police November 12, said Hernandez.

After police were notified, investigators from the Crimes Against Children Unit began looking into the allegations.

On Monday, police charged Mr. Melendez, 40, of Rockville, Maryland, with two counts of forcible sodomy, two counts of aggravated sexual battery and two counts of taking indecent liberties with a child.

Mr. Melendez is being held without bond and is scheduled to appear in Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court.

The charges against Mr. Singer carry severe maximum punishments under Virginia law. Individuals facing such charges require specialized and aggressive legal defense.

The sex crimes defense lawyers at Livesay & Myers, P.C. represent clients throughout Prince William County and Manassas, Virginia on sex crimes charges. If you or a loved one have been charged with a sexual offense, contact us to schedule your free consultation with a Virginia sex crimes defense attorney today.

Timothy Tolson Arrested In Connection With Thefts At Fredericksburg VRE Lots

2009-11-21T06:29:00.000-08:00

Timothy Tolson was arrested in connection with a rash of thefts from vehicles parked in lots near the downtown Fredericksburg train station, according to a Free-Lance Star article.

Mr. Tolson, 19, of Fredericksburg was arrested and charged with 11 counts of larceny with the intent to distribute, petit larceny, obtaining money through false pretenses, and vandalism, according to Natatia Bledsoe, Fredericksburg Police Department spokeswoman.

A handful of Virginia Railway Express passengers returning to their cars on the evenings of Monday, November 9, and Tuesday, November 17, found their vehicle windows had been smashed and items including GPS devices were missing from their cars.

Two additional suspects have been identified, Bledsoe said, but no charges have been filed yet.

One suspect is a juvenile, and both are from the Fredericksburg area, she said.

The charges against Mr. Tolson of larceny with the intent to distribute, petit larceny, obtaining money through false pretenses, and vandalism carry severe maximum punishments. Individuals facing such charges require specialized and aggressive legal defense.

The larceny defense lawyers at Livesay & Myers, P.C. represent clients throughout Richmond and Northern Virginia, including Manassas, Woodbridge, and all of Prince William County on grand larceny and related charges. If you or a loved one have been charged with grand larceny or a similar offense, contact us to schedule your free consultation with a Virginia larceny defense attorney today.

Cap Count for H-1B, H-2B and H-3 Workers for Fiscal Year 2010

2009-11-20T12:30:00.000-08:00

What is a "Cap"?
The word "Cap" used in this Update refers to annual numerical limitations set by Congress on certain nonimmigrant visa classifications, e.g., H-1B and H-2B. Caps control the number of workers that can be issued a visa in a given fiscal year to enter the United States pursuant to a particular nonimmigrant classification. Caps also control the number of aliens already in the United States that may be authorized to change status to a cap-subject classification. The annual numerical limitations generally do not apply to persons who have already been counted against the cap in a particular nonimmigrant classification and are seeking to extend their stay in that classification.

H-1B
The H-1B visa program is used by some U.S.employers to employ foreign workers in specialty occupations that require theoretical or technical expertise in a specialized field and a bachelor's degree or its equivalent. Typical H-1B occupations include architects, engineers, computer programmers, accountants, doctors and college professors. The H-1B visa program also includes certain fashion models of distinguished merit and ability and up to 100 persons who will be performing services of an exceptional nature in connection with Department of Defense (DOD) research and development projects or coproduction projects. The current annual cap on the H-1B category is 65,000. Not all H-1B nonimmigrants are subject to this annual cap. Please note that up to 6,800 visas may be set aside from the cap of 65,000 during each fiscal year for the H-1B1 program under the terms of the legislation implementing the U.S.-Chile and U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreements. Unused numbers in this pool are made available for H-1B use for the next fiscal year.

H-1B Employer Exemptions
H-1B nonimmigrants who are employed, or who have received an offer of employment, by institutions of higher education or a related or affiliated nonprofit entity, as well as those employed, or who will be employed, by a nonprofit research organization or a governmental research organization are exempt from the cap.

H-1B Advanced Degree Exemption
The H-1B Visa Reform Act of 2004 makes available 20,000 new H-1B visas for foreign workers with a Master's or higher level degree from a U.S. academic institution. For each fiscal year, 20,000 beneficiaries of H-1B petitions on behalf of persons who hold such credentials are statutorily exempted from the cap.

Duplicate H-1B Petitions Filed Requesting Fiscal Year 2010 Employment
USCIS will deny or revoke all petitions filed by an employer for the same H-1B worker if more than one filing is discovered. If multiple petitions are discovered, whether one or more such petitions are approved, USCIS will data enter all those duplicative petitions, retain all fees, and either deny the petitions or, if a petition was approved, revoke the petition. The petitions will not be returned to the petitioner.

Fiscal Year H-1B Cap Count
As of November 13, 2009, approximately 55,600 H-1B cap-subject petitions had been filed. USCIS has approved sufficient H-1B petitions for aliens with advanced degrees to meet the exemption of 20,000 from the fiscal year 2010 cap. Any H-1B petitions filed on behalf of an alien with an advanced degree will now count toward the general H-1B cap of 65,000. USCIS will continue to accept both cap-subject petitions and advanced degree petitions until a sufficient number of H-1B petitions have been received to reach the statutory limits, taking into account the fact that some of these petitions may be denied, revoked, or withdrawn.

H-1B1
An H-1B1 is a national of Chile or Singapore coming to the United States to work temporarily in a specialty occupation. The law defines an H-1B1 specialty occupation as a position that requires theoretical and practical application of a body of specialized knowledge. The beneficiary must have a bachelor's degree or higher (or equivalent) in the specific specialty. The combined statutory limit is 6,800 per year. The cap for H-1B1 for FY2010 had not been reached as of November 17, 2009.

H-2B
The H-2B visa category allows U.S. employers in industries with peak load, seasonal or intermittent needs to augment their existing labor force with temporary workers. The H-2B visa category also allows U.S. employers to augment their existing labor force when necessary due to a one-time occurrence which necessitates a temporary increase in workers. Typically, H-2B workers fill labor needs in occupational areas such as construction, health care, landscaping, lumber, manufacturing, food service/processing, and resort/hospitality services.

The Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act of 2005 (SOS Act) divided the annual numerical limitations of 66,000 into two halves. As of FY 2010, an H-2B petition may not be filed more than 120 days before the date of the actual need for the H-2B worker's labor/services identified on the labor certification. As a result, USCIS normally begins receiving H-2B petitions with employment start dates in October and April.

What is the H-2B numerical limit set by Congress?
The H-2B numerical limit set by Congress per fiscal year is 66,000, with 33,000 to be allocated for employment beginning in the 1st half of the fiscal year (October 1 - March 31) and 33,000 to be allocated for employment beginning in the 2nd half of the fiscal year (April 1 - September 30). Generally, an H-2B worker who extends his/her stay in H-2B status will not be counted again against the numerical limit. An alien who changes nonimmigrant status to H-2B is counted against the annual H-2B cap.

An estimated 47,000 beneficiary applications is needed to reach the cap of 33,000 each half of the fiscal year, with an allowance for withdrawals, denials and revocations.

As of November 13, 2009, USCIS had approved 20,937 H-2B beneficiaries for the 1st half of Fiscal Year 2010, and another 1,491 applications were pending. Compare that combined amount, 22,428 (beneficiaries approved + beneficiaries pending) to the “beneficiaries target” amount of 47,000.

H-3
The H-3 nonimmigrant visa category is for aliens who are coming temporarily to the U.S. to receive training (other than graduate medical education or training) that is not available in their home countries. The training may be provided by a business entity, academic, or vocational institute. The H-3 nonimmigrant visa category also includes aliens who are coming temporarily to the U.S. to participate in a special education training program for children with physical, mental, or emotional disabilities. There is a limit of 50 visas per fiscal year allocated to H-3 aliens participating in special education training programs. As of October 1, 2009, USCIS had not received any petitions requesting this classification in fiscal year 2010.

Contact Us
If you or a loved one require further information about an H-1B or H-2B visa, or any other immigration law matter, please contact us to schedule your initial consultation with an experienced immigration lawyer today. Our immigration law attorneys represent clients in Woodbridge, Manassas, Stafford, Alexandria, Arlington, Fredericksburg, Richmond, Fairfax and all of Northern Virginia, as well as throughout Maryland and the District of Columbia.

ICE Announces 1,000 New Workplace Audits

2009-11-20T12:26:00.000-08:00

"U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Assistant Secretary John Morton today announced the issuance of Notices of Inspection (NOIs) to 1,000 employers across the country associated with critical infrastructure-alerting business owners that ICE will audit their hiring records to determine compliance with employment eligibility verification laws." ICE, Nov. 19, 2009.

To Dream In America

2009-11-20T12:22:00.000-08:00

"[S]he is as American as the kid of Irish-English heritage who likely sat alongside her in school. She speaks fluent English. She made good grades in school. She hasn't broken a law since she was brought across the border. So, what's to come of her? She says she is giving up her dream of becoming a nurse because she can't get a Social Security card or a driver's license because she is afraid of being deported. Deported from the only country she has known her entire life. Hers is not an isolated case. Each year in the United States some 65,000 'illegal' students graduate high school."

Tulsa World Editorial, Nov. 15, 2009.

December 2009 Visa Bulletin

2009-11-16T07:56:00.000-08:00

The Visa Bulletin for December 2009 is now available. The Department of State (DOS) issues the Visa Bulletin, which summarizes the number of available immigrant visas (green cards) according to preference categories, each month.

The Employment-Based First Preference (EB1) category continues to be current for all countries in the Visa Bulletin for December 2009.

The Employment-Based Second Preference (EB2) category continues to be current for all countries, except India and China. There was no change in the EB2 cutoff dates for China or India, which remained at April 1, 2005 and January 22, 2005, respectively.

Visas remain available in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB3) category for skilled/professional workers. The EB3 cutoff date for India advanced by 9 days, from April 22, 2001 to May 1, 2001, while the EB3 cutoff date for all other countries remained at June 1, 2002.

Visas also remain available in the new fiscal year in the EB3 “Other Worker” category. The EB3 "Other Worker" cutoff date for India progressed by 9 days, from April 22, 2001 to May 1, 2001, while the cutoff date for all other countries remained at June 1, 2001.

Contact Our Immigration Law Attorneys

If you or a loved one require legal assistance with a family-based or employment-based green card or other immigration law matter, please contact us to schedule your initial consultation with an experienced Virginia immigration lawyer today. Our immigration law attorneys represent clients in Manassas, Woodbridge, Stafford, Alexandria, Arlington, Fredericksburg, Culpeper, Fauquier, Falls Church, Fairfax and all of Northern Virginia, as well as throughout Maryland and the District of Columbia.

Advance Copy Of Interim Final Rule For H-2A Temporary Agricultural Employment

2009-11-16T06:30:00.000-08:00

The Department of Labor is further amending its regulations to extend the transition period of the application filing procedures currently in effect for all H-2A employers with a date of need before January 1, 2010, as established in the H-2A Interim Final Rule (IFR) published on April 16, 2009. The transition period is hereby extended to include all employers with a date of need before June 1, 2010." See FR Doc. 2009-27496 for further information.

If you are an employer or employee requiring assistance with an H-2A visa or any other immigration law matter, please contact us to schedule your initial consultation with an experienced immigration lawyer today. Our immigration law attorneys represent clients in Woodbridge, Manassas, Stafford, Alexandria, Arlington, Fredericksburg, Richmond, Fairfax and all of Northern Virginia, as well as throughout Maryland and the District of Columbia.

Temporary Acceptance of H-1B Petitions Without LCAs

2009-11-11T11:04:00.000-08:00

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has announced a 120-day period in which it will temporarily accept H-1B petitions filed without Labor Condition Applications (LCAs) that have been certified by the Department of Labor (DOL).

USCIS has received requests from the public to accept H-1B petition filings that include LCAs that have been filed with DOL but that DOL has not yet certified. Processing delays arising from DOL’s recently implemented “iCERT” system have resulted in increased processing times (beyond 7 days) for certain LCA certifications. Affected employers and beneficiaries have reported being negatively impacted by DOL’s increased processing times which currently delays their ability to file H-1B petitions with USCIS. DOL expects that the current increase in LCA processing times is temporary.

As a public accommodation, USCIS began accepting H-1B petitions filed with uncertified LCAs for a 120-day period. The 120-day period began on November 5, 2009 and runs through March 4, 2010. However, USCIS will only accept such H-1B petitions if they are filed at least 7 calendar days after the LCAs were filed with DOL and include evidence of these filings. The only acceptable evidence of filing is a copy of DOL’s email giving notice of receipt of the LCA.

Petitioners who seek to take advantage of this temporary flexibility in the normal filing procedures for H-1B petitions must wait until they receive a request for evidence (RFE) before they submit the DOL-certified LCA to USCIS in support of the H-1B petition. USCIS will give petitioners a period of 30 calendar days within which they must send in a DOL certified LCA in response to the RFE. USCIS will only approve H-1B petitions that include certified LCAs.

If you or a loved one require further information about H-1B visas or any other immigration law matter, please contact us to schedule your initial consultation with an experienced immigration lawyer today. Our immigration law attorneys represent clients in Woodbridge, Manassas, Stafford, Alexandria, Arlington, Fredericksburg, Richmond, Fairfax and all of Northern Virginia, as well as throughout Maryland and the District of Columbia.

Three Arrested For Robbery Of Rite Aid In Stafford County

2009-11-08T12:04:00.000-08:00

Three people from out of the area have been arrested in connection with the Wednesday night armed robbery at a Rite Aid in Stafford County, according to a Free-Lance Star article.

David A. Callison, 22, of Hopewell, Kristyn Renee Murray, 20, of Front Royal and Danielle Nicole Matthews, 20, of Dinwiddie were all arrested in Dinwiddie late Friday night, Stafford Sheriff's spokesman Bill Kennedy said. All three are charged with armed robbery, using a firearm in the commission of a felony and conspiracy to commit robbery. Mr. Callison is also charged with wearing a mask in public.

Detective Chris Cameron's investigation allegedly revealed that the three robbed the store at 1095 International Parkway to get money for drugs and court costs for unrelated cases. They had been at a party in Warrenton prior to the robbery. It is not clear what led police to the suspects, but the key information came from the Dinwiddie Sheriff's Office, Kennedy said.

Two suspects entered the store at 9:10 p.m. One posed as a customer, and the second one came in moments later displaying a handgun. They left in a dark pickup truck with an undisclosed amount of money.

Police initially thought that the suspect whose image was captured on a store surveillance camera was a young man, but she turned out to be a woman, Kennedy said. Police also did not know about the second woman, who was driving the getaway vehicle.

There were two similar robberies in Fauquier within 90 minutes of the Stafford robbery; police are still investigating the possibility that the same suspects were involved.

The pickup truck and the mask used in the Stafford robbery were recovered in Dinwiddie, Kennedy said. All three suspects were being held in Dinwiddie pending transfer to the Rappahannock Regional Jail.

All three individuals face serious criminal charges with severe maximum punishments, and would be well advised to secure representation by experienced criminal defense counsel.

Richard Dennis Singer Charged With Sexual Assault In Prince William County

2009-11-02T17:55:00.000-08:00

A local businessman faces charges after two 17 year old boys told police he sexually assaulted them, beginning when they were young children, according to an InsideNoVA.com article.

Richard “Dick” Dennis Singer, 62, of Gainesville, Virginia was arrested after the teens, who are related to Singer, reported the alleged abuse to police on September 17, 2009, said Prince William police spokeswoman Erika Hernandez.

Mr. Singer is listed as CEO and President of Singer and Associates, a Manassas-based firm which specializes in the sale of fire and rescue equipment to agencies in Virginia, Maryland and Delaware.

The victims were both 10 years old when the alleged assaults began, said Hernandez, who released the information about the arrest for the first time Monday.

The assaults allegedly took place in Prince William County, but Hernandez could not release how many times the victims were allegedly assaulted.

Mr. Singer is charged with two counts of aggravated sexual battery, one count of forcible battery, and with taking indecent liberties with minor. Mr. Singer was released from the Prince William-Manassas Regional Jail on bond last Thursday.

The charges against Mr. Singer carry severe maximum punishments under Virginia law. Individuals facing such charges require specialized and aggressive legal defense.

The sex crimes defense lawyers at Livesay & Myers, P.C. represent clients throughout Prince William County, including Manassas and Gainesville, Virginia on sex crimes charges. If you or a loved one have been charged with a sexual offense, contact us to schedule your free consultation with a Virginia sex crimes defense attorney today.

Anthony Tyrone Proctor And Two Others Injured In North Stafford Wreck

2009-11-02T03:49:00.001-08:00

A Triangle teen was charged with reckless driving yesterday after a three-vehicle collision on Interstate 95 northbound in North Stafford that left three people injured, according to a Free-Lance Star article.

The 17-year-old was driving a 2004 Ford Explorer when he apparently lost control of it on the rain-slickened on-ramp from eastbound Garrisonville Road at approximately 1 p.m., State Trooper Helmes Jaime said.

The teen apparently over-corrected, and the Explorer spun into the right lane of northbound I-95 where it was struck on the passenger side by a northbound Ryder rental truck driven by 45-year-old Anthony Tyrone Proctor of Fairmount Heights, Maryland, Jaime said.

The rental truck overturned and landed beneath the Garrisonville Road overpass blocking the right and center lanes.

As it rolled, it crossed into the path of a 2001 Honda CR-V driven by 67-year-old Freddie Lee Smith of Dumfries.

The CR-V struck the rental truck and then traveled off the left side of the road and up an embankment, Jaime said.

Three people were taken to local hospitals. Mr. Proctor and the 17-year-old Explorer driver were taken to Stafford Hospital Center. A 16-year-old in the front passenger seat of the Explorer had to be cut out of that vehicle before being flown to Mary Washington Hospital, Jaime said.

Northbound I-95 was closed for about an hour as a result of the wreck.

The teen's charge was for failure to maintain control of the vehicle, Jaime said.

If the 17-year-old is found to have been at fault in the accident, then Mr. Proctor and the family of the 16-year-old would both have strong claims for personal injury compensation from the teenager's insurance company.

The fact that the 17-year-old was charged with reckless driving is a good indicator that he may have been at fault in causing the accident.

We wish for a speedy recovery for all parties injured in this accident.

If you or a loved one have been involved in an automobile accident, please contact us to schedule your free consultation with an experienced Virginia personal injury attorney. Our lawyers represent clients injured in car accidents throughout Northern Virginia, including Stafford County, Virginia.

USCIC Releases "Public Charge" Fact Sheet

2009-10-29T11:42:00.000-07:00

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has released a "Public Charge" fact sheet, which provides the following information regarding the "public charge" ground of inadmissibility and deportation in U.S. immigration law.

Introduction

Public charge has been part of U.S. immigration law for more than 100 years as a ground of inadmissibility and deportation. An individual who is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible to the United States and ineligble to become a legal permanent resident. However, receiving public benefits does not automatically make an individual a public charge. This fact sheet seeks to inform non-citizens about public charge determinations and help them to make informed choices about whether to apply for certain public benefits.

Background

Under Section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), an individual seeking admission to the United States or seeking to adjust status to that of an individual lawfully admitted for permanent residence (green card) is inadmissible if the individual, "at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge." If an individual is inadmissible, admission to the United States or adjustment of status is not granted.

Immigration and welfare laws have generated some concern about whether a non-citizen may face adverse immigration consequences for having received Federal, state, or local public benefits. Some non-citizens and their families are eligible for public benefits – including disaster relief, treatment of communicable diseases, immunizations, and children’s nutrition and health care programs – without being found to be a public charge.

Definition of Public Charge

For purposes of determining inadmissibility, agency guidance has, since 1999, defined “public charge” to mean an individual who is likely to become “primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance, or institutionalization for long-term care at government expense.” See “Field Guidance on Deportability and Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds,” 64 FR 28689 (May 26, 1999). In determining whether an alien meets this definition for public charge inadmissibility, a number of factors must be considered, including age, health, family status, assets, resources, financial status, education, and skills. No single factor - other than the lack of an affidavit of support, if required - will determine whether an individual is a public charge.

Benefits Subject to Public Charge Consideration

The agency guidance specifies that cash assistance for income maintenance includes Supplemental Security Income (SSI), cash assistance from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program and State or local cash assistance programs for income maintenance, often called “General Assistance” programs. Acceptance of these forms of public cash assistance could make a non-citizen inadmissible as a public charge, if all other criteria are met. However, the mere receipt of these benefits does not automatically make an individual inadmissible, ineligible to adjust status to lawful permanent resident, or deportable on public charge grounds. See “Field Guidance on Deportability and Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds,” 64 FR 28689 (May 26, 1999). Each determination is made on a case-by-case basis in the context of the totality of the circumstances.

In addition, public assistance, including Medicaid, that is used to support aliens who reside in an institution for long-term care – such as a nursing home or mental health institution – may also be considered as part of the public charge analysis of the totality of the circumstances. Short-term insitutionalization for rehabilitation is not subject to public charge consideration.

Benefits Not Subject to Public Charge Consideration

Under the agency guidance, non-cash benefits and special-purpose cash benefits that are not intended for income maintenance are not subject to public charge consideration. Such benefits include:

Medicaid and other health insurance and health services (including public assistance for immunizations and for testing and treatment of symptoms of communicable diseases, use of health clinics, short-term rehabilitation services, prenatal care, and emergency medical services) other than support for long-term institutional care;
Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP);
Nutrition programs, including Food Stamps, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Program, and other supplementary and emergency food assistance programs;
Housing benefits;
Child care services;
Energy assistance, such as the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP);
Emergency disaster relief;
Foster care and adoption assistance;
Educational assistance (such as attending public school), including benefits under the Head Start Act and aid for elementary, secondary, or higher education;
Job training programs;
In-kind, community-based programs, services, or assistance (such as soup kitchens, crisis counseling and intervention, and short-term shelter);
Non cash benefits under TANF such as subsidized child care or transit subsidies;
Cash payments that have been earned, such as Title II Social Security benefits, government pensions, and veterans' benefits, among other forms of earned benefits, do not support a public charge determination; and
Unemployment compensation is also not considered for public charge purposes.

Some of the above programs may provide cash benefits, such as energy assistance, transportation or child care benefits provided under TANF or the Child Care Development Block Grant (CCDBG), and one-time emergency payments under TANF. Since the purpose of such benefits is not for income maintenance, but rather to avoid the need for on-going cash assistance for income maintenance, they are not subject to public charge consideration.

Contact Our Immigration Law Attorneys

The immigration lawyers at Livesay & Myers, P.C. represent clients in Manassas, Woodbridge, Stafford, Alexandria, Arlington, Fredericksburg, Fairfax and all of Northern Virginia, as well as throughout Maryland and the District of Columbia.

Sexual Orientation Cited In More Asylum Cases

2009-10-28T12:33:00.000-07:00

More asylum seekers from the Middle East, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean are citing sexual orientation as reasons for seeking asylum, according to a new story by the Associated Press:

"Since 1994, sexual orientation has been grounds for asylum in the United States. That's when former U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno ruled in a case that persecution based on sexual orientation could be potential grounds for asylum. Until recently, those grounds have been rarely used and such cases represent only a fraction of all asylum cases. But now immigrant and gay activists say more asylum seekers from the Middle East, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean are citing sexual orientation as reasons for seeking asylum. Activists say the asylum seekers are escaping rape, persecution, violence, and threats of death from places where homosexuality is either outlawed or strongly, socially shunned."

Associated Press, October 27, 2009.

The immigration lawyers at Livesay & Myers, P.C. represent clients in Woodbridge, Manassas, Stafford, Alexandria, Arlington, Fredericksburg, Fairfax and all of Northern Virginia, as well as throughout Maryland and the District of Columbia, in asylum and other immigration law matters.

Steven Weiss and Jeremy Rodriguez Face Weapons Charges In Northern Virginia

2009-10-23T04:00:00.000-07:00

Steven Weiss and Jeremy Rodriguez, two Florida men who police say were driving a stolen car packed with firearms and knives, were arrested Thursday morning on Interstate 95 near Woodbridge, according to an InsideNoVA.com article.

Virginia State Police Trooper M.S. Brown saw a 1997 Pontiac Bonneville traveling north on I-95 in Prince William County at 8:09 a.m. He became suspicious of the actions of the two men inside the car, said Virginia State Police spokeswoman Corinne Geller, and decided to check the license plates.

When they came back as stolen, the trooper thought the men could be armed and dangerous, said Geller.

Brown then called for backup, and at 8:14 a.m. additional police cruisers arrived. Brown turned on his lights and sirens and stopped the car at the 161 mile marker in Fairfax County, said Geller.

The driver, Steven G. Weiss, 22, of Coral Springs, Florida, and the passenger, Jeremy Rodriguez, 20, of Sunrise, Florida, were arrested.

Both were charged with grand larceny and with illegally possessing a concealed weapon.

A joint investigation with Florida authorities is ongoing.

In Virginia, offenses like grand larceny and illegal possession of a concealed weapon carry severe maximum punishments. Individuals facing such charges require specialized and aggressive legal defense.

The criminal defense lawyers at Livesay & Myers, P.C. represent clients throughout Northern Virginia, including Fairfax and Prince William County, Virginia on grand larceny and weapons charges. If you or a loved one have been charged with a serious crime in Northern Virginia, contact us to schedule your free consultation with a Virginia criminal defense attorney today.

Congress Ends the Widow Penalty

2009-10-21T14:54:00.000-07:00

Today, the U.S. Senate voted to end what is commonly referred to as the "widow penalty." Under this penalty, if a U.S. Citizen spouse died before being married to his/her spouse for 2 years, any pending green card application for the non-U.S. Citizen would no longer be considered by USCIS. The most dire consequence of such a harsh rule is that it often led to deportation proceedings for the non-U.S. Citizen.

The Senate's action, which is expected to be signed into law by President Obama, will allow the foreign national to file a self-petition for the green card within 2 years of the spouse's death, as long as the individual has not remarried and can prove that the marriage was entered into in good faith. In addition, the law is retroactive and allows any foreign national whose U.S. Citizen spouse died less than two years after the marriage to self-petition, no matter how long ago the spouse died.

The law firm of Livesay & Myers, P.C. handles a large number of marriage-based green card cases. If you think you may benefit from the Senate's action today, contact us to schedule a consultation with an experienced Virginia immigration lawyer.

Three Men Jailed In Caroline Home Invasion

2009-10-21T05:27:00.000-07:00

Ronnie Steven Neff, James Eddie Morrison and Joseph Daniel Hinson are facing charges in a home invasion and attempted robbery in Caroline County in which two women were sexually assaulted and a man was wounded with a crossbow, according to a Free-Lance Star article.

William Cox, one of the victims in the home, was also arrested after authorities found drugs during a search of the home.

Caroline deputies responded to a 911 call about a home invasion in the Rappahannock Academy area of the county Sunday night. When they arrived, two women and two men reported that two masked men armed with guns and another man carrying a crossbow had forced their way into the home, sexually assaulted both women and shot one of the men with the crossbow.

The injured victims were taken to the hospital and have been released, said Caroline Sheriff Tony Lippa.

While deputies were responding to the home invasion, dispatchers reported a traffic accident nearby. Lippa said the suspects in the home invasion crashed while fleeing the scene.

The King George Sheriff's Office and Virginia State Police assisted in the investigation with tracking dogs and tactical support.

One of the suspects was taken into custody that night, Lippa said. A second was found walking along the woods in the Woodford area Monday and arrested, Lippa said.

Lippa said the third suspect was detained Monday evening, with help from the Fredericksburg Police Department.

After securing a search warrant, Caroline investigators seized numerous items as evidence in the case. In one bedroom, they also found $15,000 worth of suspected powder cocaine, $1,000 worth of suspected marijuana and more than $7,000 in cash, Lippa said.

"We do not believe this incident was a random act. We believe the suspects in this case targeted this particular home with the intention of robbing it for drugs or money," he said.

Ronnie Steven Neff, age 26 of Spotsylvania County, James Eddie Morrison, age 29 of Fredericksburg, and Joseph Daniel Hinson, also of Fredericksburg, were arrested on 21 felony counts each. Those charges include armed robbery, possession of a firearm in commission of a felony, forcible sodomy, attempted murder and sexual assault.

All three are being held in the Pamunkey Regional Jail.

William Cox, a resident of the home, was arrested and charged with possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute, possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute and obstructing justice, Lippa said.

All four gentlemen face serious criminal charges with severe maximum punishments, and would be well advised to secure representation by experienced criminal defense counsel.

The criminal defense lawyers at Livesay & Myers, P.C. represent clients throughout Northern and Central Virginia, including Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania and Caroline County, Virginia. If you or a loved one have been charged with a crime, contact us to schedule your free consultation with a Virginia criminal defense attorney today.