Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Immigration Status, Divorce and Removal: What Is the Standard of Review?
For those who entered the United States in order to be married, the increasing U.S. emphasis on deportation of illegal immigrants has changed very little; the rules that apply to such cases are as they have been for many years. Still, there are nuances that sometimes confuse even the experts, and attorneys of divorcing immigrants should be aware of them in order to better advise their clients on what to expect if, because of the break-up of a marriage, they have to deal with immigration issues. A recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit explains one such obscure point of law — one that is giving a woman slated for removal from the United States a second chance to appeal an Immigration Judge's adverse decision. See Upatcha v. Sessions, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 3135 (4th Cir., 2/22/17).
A Short-Lived Marriage
Juraluk Upatcha, a Thai citizen, was living in Thailand when her sister introduced her to Sergio Gonzalez, a naturalized U.S. citizen living in South Carolina. When Gonzalez returned home, the two courted by means of phone calls and emails, though Gonzalez did visit Upatcha in Thailand for a period of one week. During that week he proposed marriage to her, and she accepted. Upatcha entered the United States on a fiancé visa on July 13, 2008, and she and Gonzalez were married five days later. The marriage rendered her a lawful permanent resident on a conditional basis. See 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(a)(1) (2013).
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.