Applying for a spouse visa can be a complex and stressful process, but with the right guidance and support, you can increase your chances of success. In this article, we'll provide expert advice on making a strong spouse visa application.
Conclusion Applying for a spouse visa can be a daunting task, but with the right guidance and support, you can make a strong application that increases your chances of success. Remember to start the application process early, seek professional advice, provide ample evidence of your relationship, meet all financial and health requirements, and double-check your application before submitting it. By following these expert tips, you'll be well on your way to a successful spouse visa application. On Wednesday, Attorney General Lynn Fitch joined a coalition of 19 states filing an amicus brief at the Supreme Court of the United States in Texas v. United States. The States support the challenge to U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) policies related to enforcement of detainers for illegal aliens convicted of certain crimes.
The DHS policy halts nearly all arrests and deportations and drastically ties the hands of immigration officers. Attorney General Fitch said that the policies at the border have led to chaos and left dangerous cartels in charge. “The Biden Administration’s policies at the border have led to chaos and left dangerous cartels in charge,” AG Fitch said. “This failure to protect our border integrity is leading to bigger problems in Mississippi, such as opioid deaths and human trafficking. Every state is a border state now, and I am prepared to do what is necessary to protect Mississippi.” The States argue in their amicus brief that in the last 17 months, the volume of unlawful immigration has soared to levels unseen in the United States in decades. “So too have the resulting burdens placed on the States,” the States said. “But the federal government steadfastly refuses to acknowledge those costs: either in considering the harms to States and their reliance interests in rulemaking, as the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) demands, or in court by refraining from reflexively advancing baseless standing arguments premised on the States somehow never suffering a scintilla of cognizable harms from DHS’s unprecedented and appalling failures.” Immigrant advocates head to a federal appeals court in New Orleans on Wednesday in hopes of saving an Obama-era program that prevents the deportation of thousands of people brought into the U.S. as children.
A federal judge in Texas last year declared the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program illegal — although he agreed to leave the program intact for those already benefitting from it while his order is appealed. DACA proponents planned an early morning vigil ahead of arguments at the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The U.S. Justice Department is defending the program, allied with the state of New Jersey, advocacy organizations such as the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund and a coalition of dozens of powerful corporations — including Amazon, Apple, Google and Microsoft — which argue that DACA recipients are “employees, consumers and job creators.” Texas, the lead plaintiff with eight other Republican-leaning states, argues that DACA was enacted without going through proper legal and administrative procedures, including public notice and comment periods. Additionally, the states argue that they are harmed financially by allowing immigrants to remain in the country illegally. “DACA imposes classic pocketbook injuries on the States through social services, healthcare, and education costs,” Texas attorneys argued in a brief, estimating that the state spends tens of millions of dollars on Medicaid services on those in the country illegally. DACA proponents argue the state hasn't proven that ending the program would decrease its costs. They argue that DACA is a policy that falls within federal authorities' power to decide how best to spend finite enforcement resources and that Texas diminished its claims of financial injury by waiting six years to challenge the program. They also argue the state ignores evidence that DACA recipients decrease Texas' costs because many of them hold jobs with health insurance benefits and many own homes and pay property taxes that support schools. |