By definition, immigrants are a highly dependent and vulnerable group of clients, because they are not familiar with our country’s laws, business customs, and social institutions.
It is well known that all sorts of scams and unprofessional practices are foisted upon the trust of immigrants by unscrupulous “notarios” and other predatory types, including, unfortunately, some attorneys.
The immigration attorney is, therefore, placed in a particularly important role when he assumes the representation of a client.
What also makes the immigration lawyer’s role more challenging is the need to navigate between a number of federal agencies in many immigration cases.
More recently, state and local governments have also become increasingly involved in restricting immigrants’ rights, further complicating the matter.
In addition, representing the immigration client before a federal agency requires the attorney to often face a bureaucratic fortress.
When I started to practice immigration law in the 1980’s, I could pick up the phone and speak to an officer at the local immigration office or a consular officer overseas.
Or I could schedule a personal meeting with the officer to discuss the case.
Nowadays, access is extremely limited by procedures that are designed by the government to insulate its officers in the interests of efficiency.
While procedures do exist to appeal adverse decisions, it is the immigration lawyer’s greatest challenge to represent clients after they have received an adverse administrative decision.
Nowhere is the situation more challenging than when a client has applied for a visa at an American consulate (outside the
United States), and the visa has been refused.
Last year, I successfully represented two businessmen, one in
Mexico and the other in
Japan, whose visa applications were initially refused.
Their stories will be discussed in the next installment.
