The CyberSleuth: Cyber Crime Worldwide

FBI arrested NY man on terrorism charges.

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph H. Wolenski ) — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:00:00 +0000

So no doubt you've seen in the news the 21-year-old Bangladeshi national who was arrested in the United States and accused of trying to bomb the Federal Reserve Bank in lower Manhattan.

A guy made a bomb and tried to set it off . . . this hardly qualifies as "cyber crime."

No, it does not. But what is interesting is how the FBI made the arrest, and how even the best criminal defense lawyer would have trouble defending a case where defendant took so many steps to complete the crime that it's impossible to say "he wasn't really going to do it."

According to released information, Quazi Mohammad Rezwanui Ahsan Nafis ("Nafis") traveled to the US with the intent of bombing something - anything - that would disrupt American commerce and cause "terror."

So Nafis met with an FBI informant and told him that he was here to declare "jihad." The FBI then set up a meeting with Nafis wherein he "wished to launch a terrorist attack against the United States."

Right there the FBI probably does not have enough to make an arrest . . . simply thinking about a plan isn't a crime. There has to be an actus rea - or some act in furtherance of the plot. Eventually Nafis settles on the New York Federal Reserve Bank.

Here is where the FBI was at its finest . . . and curtains for the defense.

Nafis meets with an FBI agent and purchases what he believes to be explosive material. The actual material was "inert," meaning it was not explosive.

Still, no arrest.

Nafis then gets in a van and begins to assemble the bomb in the back.

Still, no arrest.

Nafis parks the van near the bank and walks away with the agent to a nearby hotel to set the bomb off.

Still, no arrest.

Nafis, while in the hotel, makes a video to the American people that he intended to release after the attack.

Still, no arrest.

Nafis then attempts to detonate the bomb. Nothing happens. He tries again, and again.

Finally, he is arrested.

You are the criminal defense lawyer assigned to defend Nafis. What do you do? Do you think its a colorable defense to even claim "he wasn't going to go through with it." Can the defense claim that it wasn't a terrorist attack?

Any decent criminal defense lawyer would examine and re-examine the evidence to make sure the FBI did everything according to law. I suppose that is a start. But the act of making the bomb, planting the bomb, and attempting to set-off the bomb, if true, is a tough pill to swallow if you are trying to defend this case.

Child Porn in P2P Share Folder = Distribution

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph H. Wolenski ) — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 20:03:00 +0000

A federal appeals court has ruled that peer-to-peer file sharers can be prosecuted for distributing child pornography by having their illegal files in open share folders.

Here are the facts: On June 6, 2007, an FBI agent downloaded several child pornography images from an Internet Protocol address registered from Max Budziak. On June 14, 2007, FBI Special Agent Richard Whisman conducted a search for child pornography on an online filesharing network that led him to download 52 files from an IP address registered to Budziak. Both Lane and Whisman used an FBI computer program called “EP2P” to search for the child pornography files and to download them.

The defendant claimed that the federal judge erred when the court failed to instruct the jury that "distribution" required a jury to find that the defendant took "affirmative steps" to send child pornography to another person.

The Court also concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that the defendant distrubuted files containing child porn by maintaining them in a shared folder accessible to other LimeWire users. The government presented evidence that file-sharing was enabled; that there were multiple child porn files in the shared folder when the FBI seized the computer; that the defendnat initially told the FBI that he had not changed the default settings on his LimeWire program; and that agents actually downloaded shared files containing child porn from an IP address registered to the defendant. Therefore, the Court ruled "viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a reasonable jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Budziak shared — and thus distributed — child pornography through LimeWire."

USA v. Budziak

How Cool is This?

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph H. Wolenski ) — Wed, 03 Oct 2012 12:37:00 +0000

I am not sure if the US Military releases information on its technology as a way of deterring enemies vis a vis "lookie what I have," or whether the "latest" technology we hear about is, in fact, old technology just being announced. Either way, the X-band RADAR system named THAAD is scary good.

According to this article on the topic, the THAAD system is the main reason why Iran doesn't bomb Israel: It is probable the THAAD system can detect and destroy any enemy missle while it is still flying over Iranian soil.

To give you an idea of how sensitive this RADAR system really is: It can track a game of catch from 2,900 miles away. According to Gizmodo, "missiles fired from North Korea can be intercepted over the Sea of Japan, not Northern Japan, and rockets leaving Tehran can be dealt with 'potentially' before they even exit Iranian airspace."

Of course, the US Military doesn't give this technology away, or share it, even with allies. Although the THAAD system is based in Israel, and is intended for Israel protection, it can only be viewed and monitored by American soldiers.

And back to my original point: Why does the US Military even release this information? Isn't it supposed to be all "top secret" and all?

Well, to be honest, do we even know if this is the "latest" RADAR? Maybe this THAAD system is 5 years old? I remember when the NAVY released this video clip of a laser it developed to deter small boats from closing in on larger warships. The small boat was 2 miles away and in rough seas. How do we know this footage isn't 7 years old? Maybe this is just the beta system and the real system, long since developed, is 10x more accurate and powerful. I'm not preaching conspiracy theory here, I just don't think the public is really kept in the loop on these types of things.

Combatting Terrorism? Use the State Department App.

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph H. Wolenski ) — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 12:29:00 +0000

So my family and I are all set to take this European vacation. Small vacation - one week - in Europe. The planning was going swimingly until the State Department released a "Emergency Message for U.S. Citizens" traveling abroad. This warning, of course, is the direct result of the civil uprest in Muslim world thanks to a tasteless, small, unimportant movie made about the Prophet Mohammed.
Well, "emergency message" from the government was all my mother - your typical northeastern mother of european decent - needed to hear.

"Joey, there are terrorists out there. What if something happens?"

"I don't know, Ma. I'll tell them I have central Massachusetts roots and they'll leave us alone."

"Joey, this is serious. This is serious!"

I could see that I wasn't going to convince her that everything will be okay. I needed an ace-in-the-hole. Something to say "I am prepared to meet the challenge of terrorism and defeat it!" I needed a rallying cry.

So I told her that I downloaded the newest State Department app for iPhone.

Wait, you think I'm kidding. Quite the contrary, I'm dead serious here. Such a thing does exist. And its totally badass - even better than dogs that shoot bees at you. The app gives you travel alerts (sh*t is going down), travel warnings (don't go here), maps, and U.S. Embassy locations (cool).

So that seemed to calm her down.

In all honestly, I don't want to make fun of the State Department app. It's a dangerous world out there. Americans need to realize that there are large groups of people in the world that hate everything America stands for and want to kill it. These people hate us. But I rest easy knowing that our government - for better or for worse - is doing what it can to protect us. And what if you were traveling and needed to get to a embassy like asap? Would you even know where to find one? So while the State Department app might not "do" anything, it will at least point you in the right direction.

Perez Vizcaya, LLC releases new video

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph H. Wolenski ) — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 21:42:00 +0000

Classic Ringer

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph H. Wolenski ) — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 17:55:00 +0000

This is interesting. Guy in jewelry store. Guy swallows diamond. Owner calls police. Police arrest the guy. Doctors X-ray him and indeed, there is a diamond in his stomach. Doctors & police give the guy laxative and behold! he passes the diamond. Expert examines the diamond and behold! diamond is a fake. Owner insists he lost a $13,000.00 diamond and so it has to be somewhere. So where is it? Owner in on the scam? Insurance fraud? Classic ringer.

GoDaddy gets GoHacked

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph H. Wolenski ) — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 12:51:00 +0000

So if GoDaddy.com, host to millions of small-business websites, is not able to maintain its hosting, do the owners of those websites have any recourse?

Yesterday GoDaddy.com a web-hosting and domain-registration company, confirmed that websites and email addresses it hosts for small businesses were out, triggering concerns that the company fell victim to a hacker attack.

With small businesses so dependent on websites for so many things, this could really hurt GoDaddy.com. Let's not forget that the owner of GoDaddy recently shot an elephant, which promptly brought down the wrath of the pro-animal groups. That kind of negative press is precisely what attracts hackers in the first place.

One option for small business owners is to simply move your domain hosting to a different server.

But if there are damages; if the business suffers economic loss due to GoDaddy's inability to maintain its websites, do those small business owners have any cause of action in the courts?

404 vs. 305

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph H. Wolenski ) — Wed, 05 Sep 2012 16:13:00 +0000

I find myself addicted to my beloved South Florida blogs. I practice in Atlanta. But prior to that, I practiced for three years in Miami. Atlanta. Miami. A tale of two cities? Not quite. South Florida blogs far more appealing, interesting, and downright jaw-dropping shocking. Love to read what happens in Miami-Dade State Court here. Love to read what happens in the So. Dist. of Fla. here. And I love to get my weekly recap of lawyerly snark here. I'd start my own "snark-a-rific" blog here in Atlanta but to be honest, there is no such counterpart to "Miami Madness" here in the ATL. Just isn't. Don't know why. Cannot explain it. Actually, I can, and it starts with the word "chispa." If you are reading this and have not heard of "chispa," then move along as you'd never understand.

FBI denies it lost laptop

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph H. Wolenski ) — Wed, 05 Sep 2012 16:12:00 +0000

I'm not sure if this is a "twist" in the story of AntiSec and the hacked FBI laptop, but the FBI has released a statement denying that it lost a laptop in the first place, and denying that it had the data AntiSec is alleging it found. Threat Level has the story here.

News Flash: FBI tracks citizen data ... who cares? Anyone?

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph H. Wolenski ) — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 17:46:00 +0000

I'm going to ask this question to my three readers out there: If you found out that the FBI tracks your unique phone ID, but you otherwise are not involved any crime whatsoever, would you care?

The hacker group AntiSec is assuming that you do, in fact, give a sh*t. The group says it released 1 million Apple device IDs that they obtained from an FBI computer they hacked.

The hackers claim that they hacked a laptop belonging to an FBI agent named Christopher K. The information obtained was made up of zipcodes, cellphone numbers, and addresses.

AntiSec explained their reasons behind releasing this data:

why exposing this personal data? well we have learnt it seems quite clear nobody pays attention if you just come and say 'hey, FBI is using your device details and info and who the (expletive) knows what the hell are they experimenting with that', well sorry, but nobody will care.

Ok, now that you have released it, does anyone care?

I have a feeling that this is the "gray" area between "damn you Government for tracking me!!" and "eh, whatever. They are fighting crime." Which is to say, there is a whole lot of gray area between these two extremes.

I'm sure you know that ...

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph H. Wolenski ) — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 17:35:00 +0000

If you rely on this website for your tech news, I highly suggest you move on to greener pastures. I laugh at how slow I am to report the worlds Cyber Crime news ... anyway, assuming you "heard it here first," the iphone 5 is set to be released on Sept 12, 2012. You know the 9/12/12 announcement is for something "5" because the shadow of the "12" is, in fact, a "5."

As a recent Apple convert, I have to say I am excited for this. I've tried Windows. I've tried Android. And I've tried Apple. Apple's design and interface is far superior to anything else out there.

It matters where it matters

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph H. Wolenski ) — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 17:24:00 +0000

South korean court sides with samsung, now japanese court sides with samsung ... but the US market is where it counts

Tokyo court: Samsung didn't infringe Apple patent : http://usat.ly/ODRr9N

Street Fighter II, epic game for the ages, turns 25

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph H. Wolenski ) — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 15:15:00 +0000

Oh, Street Fighter 2. How many weekend afternoons did I waste trying to master Ryu's hurricane kick or Sagat "tiger" fireball of death? This is for anyone who grew up in the 90s. "Grew up" isn't the right word, more like "came of age" in the 90s. This game was damn-near an obsession when it came out for young teenagers like me. Today it turns 25. 25! I can count on one finger the games that have captivated an audiene like Street Fighter 2. Twister Metal 2, is one such example. So in honor of this great game and for all the hours I spent playing it when I could have been studying (but hey I think I turned out okay), here is an epic battle from the 2004 championships where Ken just absolutely stays alive based on will alone (hint: you may want to watch until the end) :

My powers of deduction tell me the iphone 5 is here

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph H. Wolenski ) — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:52:00 +0000

Apple offers gift cards up to $345 for iPhone 4S : http://usat.ly/RmDOrZ

A New Hope ...

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph H. Wolenski ) — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 14:40:00 +0000

You know it occurred to me: This blog rocks. I know it looks like I haven't updated it in a while, but the other day I realized that there is no reason to stop reporting on cyber crime. Although I no longer practice law in the general field of 'criminal defense,' I still have a strong interest in reading about how technology is enabling/disabling the cops and the robbers from reducing/increasing crime throughout the world. So, this blog is back, I am happy to say.

The DREAM Act: Everything free in America (for a small fee in America)

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph H. Wolenski ) — Sun, 04 Mar 2012 16:30:00 +0000

Every once in a long while, one of our Congressional leaders will put forth a bill that actually does good to the country. And, once in a while, the collective ignorance of Congress will murder that bill before it ever becomes law. Such is the case with the DREAM Act.

The DREAM Act was a stroke of brilliance: allow young children who came into the country with their illegal alien parents the chance to, one day, become a documented resident. What’s required? Someone please tell me what’s wrong with the following list. This is what you need to do just to qualify to, one day, apply for permanent residency:

You must be a person of good moral character (no crimes),

You must have been a minor when your parents brought you into the United States (under 16),

You must graduate from high school (no drop outs),

You must have lived in this US for five years prior to the enactment of the bill,

You must be between 12 and 35 at the time you apply.

Again, those are the conditions one must meet JUST TO APPLY for permanent residency under the DREAM Act. The next steps are as follows:

Apply for the DREAM Act to show you meet the conditions above, in which case you are granted temporary status,

Within six years of receiving temporary status, you must enroll in college OR enlist in the military AND serve at least two years in whichever one you choose and,

If college, you have to pursue a degree; if military, you have to be honorably discharged.

Finally, once 5 ½ years of the 6 years have passed, the individual will then be able to apply for Legal Permanent Residency (dropping the conditional part) and consequently will be able to apply for United States Citizenship.

Does all that sound like an easy thing to do? It’s incredibly hard. If you successfully make it through all those steps then you have EARNED THE RIGHT to stay in the United States. You are not going to convince me that anything that I’ve written above is actually going to to hurt this country.

All rise. Anti-immigration laws an easy one for Supremes

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph H. Wolenski ) — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 02:58:00 +0000

The United States Supreme Court will soon decide whether to uphold or strike down any state anti-immigration law. But is it really that simple? Well, not quite “strike down or uphold” because anything before the Supremes is rarely that simple. Instead the Supremes will decide whether federal immigration law pre-empts the states’ immigration law. And for all the debate, the doctrine of pre-emption has been around a while and is fairly straight-forward.

All pre-emption means is that when there is a federal law and a state law on the same topic, the federal law wins 100% of the time. The real question is: Do the states even have a chance?

The whole concept of pre-emotion is based on the Supremecy Clause of the Constitution, which reads:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme Law of the Land; … any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

To see why pre-emption is critical to the way things work in the US, it is easiest to examine by example. For instance: Aviation. When you fly in a plane you always hear the same warning “tampering with smoke detectors is a federal offense.” Imagine if the plane had to follow state law, which of course would depend on what state the plane was flying over at the time. Imagine ”no smoking over Georgia, but the for 15 minutes while cruising overAlabama, go for it! But smoke quickly because Mississippi allows smoke-less tobacco only.” It just doesn’t come out as cleanly as the federal law of “no smoking.”

Immigration is no different. The federal government has regulated immigration law for a long, long time. Federal law dictates how an illegal alien in Arizona is to be treated the same as an illegal alien in California. If Arizona can pass it’s own law AGAINST illegal immigration, what’s to stop California from passing its law giving illegal aliens AMNESTY. In fact, ti appears California has hinted it may start to do just that.

So we come back to pre-emption and the Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices are no fool. They are no just deciding this “issue” as we know it … they are looking far down the road. Different states with different immgration laws? Some states deporting while others do nothing? All illegals move to the one state where amnesty given? No way. Too complicated. Like the airlines, it’s easier to just have one set of laws.

All pre-emption means is that when there is a federal law and a state law on the same topic, the federal law wins 100% of the time. The real question is: Do the states even have a chance?

The whole concept of pre-emotion is based on the Supremecy Clause of the Constitution, which reads:

HIspanic migration to the U.S. South

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph H. Wolenski ) — Sun, 19 Feb 2012 16:11:00 +0000

Hispanic Immigration to the Metro Atlanta area

While there has been a dispersion of Hispanics to all parts of the country during the past thirty years, the South has seen a particularly large population increase. More specifically, the Southeast states of Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina have all had 100% or more Hispanic population increases over the past ten years. [2] Within those three states, most of the Hispanic migration has been towards economically prosperous parts of the South, such as the cities of Atlanta, Charlotte and the respective surrounding areas. [2]

The number of Hispanics living in the Metro Atlanta area has grown considerably since the 1990s, when the Hispanic population first started to boom. Unlike the 1970s, when most Hispanic migration to Georgia consisted of single men coming to work in urban construction or migrant farming, the Hispanic migration today is family-driven with an emphasis on permanent settlement. [1]

As of the 2010 census, there were 819,887 Hispanics living in Georgia (up from 462,000 in 1996), making it the 10^th largest state for Hispanics in the United States. [4, 5] Of those 819,000, approximately 50% lived in four counties: Cobb, Dekalb, Fulton, and Gwinnett. Of those four counties, Gwinnett experienced the fastest growth rate of 126% from 2000 through 2009. [4] If the 819,000 Hispanics in Georgia, approximately 43% own his or her own home, but 49% do not have health insurance. [4]

Why the South?

There are several reasons behind the Hispanic migration to southern states, most of which are economic. First, the Southern states are inexpensive when compared to the Northeast, Midwest, or Western counterparts. Land is relatively cheap so it’s possible for Hispanic workers to buy a house and start accumulating wealth. And second, the South, particularly Atlanta, has plenty of job opportunities, both agriculturally and construction-based.

Legislative attempts to remove illegal aliens

In 2011, Georgia passed bill HB-87 into law, which, like it’s counterparts in Arizona and Alabama, required local law enforcement to check the immigration status of people who cannot provide identification, and punishes anyone who harbors or transports undocumented individuals. [6] Persons who cannot produce identification are likely to be deported.

In response to this law, many Atlanta immigration attorneys filed a petition in federal court to strike down the law or, at the least, push back the full enactment of the law until a ruling can be issued by the United States Supreme Court. These Atlanta immigration lawyers were successful in that a federal judge struck down the most controversial sections of HB-87 because it pre-empted federal law on the same subject. [6]

[1] “Hay Trabajo in Georgia” (There’s work in Georgia), 1975-1995 http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/hge/article.jsp?id=h-2728

[2] Census Shows More Hispanics Moving to N.C. http://www.mpr.org/2011/03/04/134253846/The-Census-And-The-South
[4] Pew Hispanic Center http://www.pewhispanic.org/states/state/ga/, http://www.usresidentvisa.com/es/

[5] Hispanic and Latino Communities in Metro Atlanta http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic_and_Latino_Communities_in_Metro_Atlanta

[6] Who Gains after Federal Judge Blocks Immigration Law? http://blogs.ajc.com/kyle-wingfield/2011/06/27/who-would-gain-if-a-judge-blocks-georgias-immigration-law/

History of Immigration to United States

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph H. Wolenski ) — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 02:22:00 +0000

Immigration to the United States

Immigration to the United States is a complex demographic phenomenon that has been a major source of population growth and cultural change throughout much of the history of the United States. The economic, social, and political aspects of immigration have caused controversy regarding ethnicity, economic benefits, jobs for non-immigrants, settlement patterns, impact on upward social mobility, crime, and voting behavior. As of 2006, the United States accepts more legal immigrants as permanent residents than all other countries in the world combined.Since the removal of ethnic quotas in immigration in 1965, the number of first-generation immigrants living in the United States has quadrupled, from 9.6 million in 1970 to about 38 million in 2007. 1,046,539 persons were naturalized as U.S. citizens in 2008. The leading emigrating countries to the United States were Mexico, India, the Philippines, and China. Nearly 14 million immigrants came to the United States from 2000 to 2010.

Brief History of Immigration to the United States

Between 1850 and 1930, about 5 million Germans immigrated to the United States with a peak in the years between 1881 and 1885, when a million Germans left Germany and settled mostly in the Midwest. Between 1820 and 1930, 3.5 million British and 4.5 million Irish entered America. Before 1845 most Irish immigrants were Protestants. After 1845, Irish Catholics began arriving in large numbers, largely driven by the Great Famine

Each group evinced a distinctive migration pattern in terms of the gender balance within the migratory pool, the permanence of their migration, their literacy rates, the balance between adults and children, and the like. But they shared one overarching characteristic: They flocked to urban destinations and made up the bulk of the U.S. industrial labor pool, making possible the emergence of such industries as steel, coal, automobile, textile, and garment production, and enabling the United States to leap into the front ranks of the world’s economic giants.

The 1910s marked the high point of Italian immigration to the United States. Over two million Italians immigrated in those years, with a total of 5.3 million between 1880 and 1920. About a third returned to Italy, after working an average of five years in the U.S.

In 1934, the Tydings-McDuffie Act, which provided for independence of the Philippines on July 4, 1946, stripped Filipinos of their status as U.S. nationals. Until 1965, national origin quotas in the immigration law strictly limited immigration from the Philippines. In 1965, after revision of the immigration law, significant Filipino immigration began, totaling 1,728,000 by 2004

In 1950, after the start of the Korean War, the Internal Security Act barred admission to any foreigner who was Communist, who might engage in activities "which would be prejudicial to the public interest, or would endanger the welfare or safety of the United States."

This all changed with passage of the Hart-Celler Act in 1965, a by-product of the civil rights revolution and a jewel in the crown of President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs. The measure had not been intended to stimulate immigration from Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and elsewhere in the developing world. Rather, by doing away with the racially based quota system, its authors had expected that immigrants would come from the "traditional" sending societies such as Italy, Greece, and Poland, places that labored under very small quotas in the 1924 law. The law replaced the quotas with preference categories based on family relationships and job skills, giving particular preference to potential immigrants with relatives in the United States and with occupations deemed critical by the U.S. Department of Labor. But after 1970, following an initial influx from those European countries, there were immigrants from places like Korea, China, India, the Philippines, and Pakistan, as well as countries in Africa. Naturalization into the United States.

U.S. Permanent Resident

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph H. Wolenski ) — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 14:39:00 +0000

U.S. PERMANENT RESIDENTS

Intent to Keep U.S. Permanent Residence— If there is an absence of intent coupled with objective circumstances, lawful permanent residents (LPRs) can lose their status even if they visit the U.S. often. An LPR may have multiple residences, but U.S. residence must be the permanent one.

What Lawful Permanent Residence Does Not Provide
Citizenship; Permanence in the sense that the status cannot be lost. LPRs are subject to the grounds of deportation and can, for example, be deported for the commission of a drug offense. LPR status may be lost if abandoned. «LPRs are accorded full constitutional due process rights as to their admission.

Automatic entry to U.S.—LPRs are not regarded as seeking admission upon return from a trip abroad except under certain circumstances.

Green Card— Person becomes LPR upon first admission to U.S. with immigrant visa or upon adjustment of status in U.S. Card is merely evidence of such status.

Process for Obtaining Lawful Permanent Residence
Immigration Selection System consists of:
§ Family-sponsored immigrants.
§ Employment-based immigrants.
§ Diversity immigrants.
§ Refugees and asylees.
§ Persons not subject to limitations.

Part of Overall Cap—Under the Immigration Act of 1990, immediate relatives (IRs) are part of the overall annual cap of 480,000 immigrant visas.
1. IRs, however, are not subject to a numerical limit within the overall cap.
2. IRs are not exempt from grounds of inadmissibility.
Restricted to: Children, spouses and parents of a USC; If applying for a parent, the USC son or daughter must be at least 21 years old; If applying for a child, the child must be under 21 and unmarried.

VAWA Petitioners (Battered Spouses, Children, or Parents)
VAWA Self-Petitioner Defined — Includes conditional residents, battered spouses and children of Cuban Adjustment, HRIFA and NACARA beneficiaries, as well as abused spouses, children, and parents described herein.
Eligibility—The spouse, child or parent who is battered or subject to extreme cruelty may file a self-petition independently of the abusive USC/LPR spouse or parent. The spouse or child must demonstrate that he or she resided with USC/LPR spouse/parent; was battered or subject to extreme cruelty during the marriage (or, in the case of a spouse self-petitioner, the child was battered or subjected to extreme cruelty); the marriage was entered into in good faith; she is otherwise eligible for IR or preference status; and has good moral character.

Good Moral Character (GMC)—If the person lacks GMC, the petition will be denied. «

NUMERICAL LIMITATION (PREFERENCE) IMMIGRANTS
Maximum Divided into Categories—The maximum number of visas issued per fiscal year (Oct. 1 to Sept. 30) is divided into three categories: family-sponsored, employment-based, and diversity immigrants.
Family-Sponsored: 480,000 visas less immediate relatives plus unused employment-based visas; Employment-Based—140,000 visas, plus unused family visas; Diversity Immigrants—50,000 per year

DIVERSITY IMMIGRANTS
Number Available—DHS/DOS determine by a complex formula based on number of persons from each foreign state who were provided LPR status during the most recent 5-year period for which data is available. The number of diversity visas available is 55,000 each year.

Contact Atlanta immigration attorney.

Overview Immigration Law

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph H. Wolenski ) — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 22:51:00 +0000

This article gives a broad outline of Naturalization and Citizenship law in the United States. It is not intended to be a complete article on the matter, but rather an outline that gives several salient points on each topic and subtopic.

ELIGIBILITY FOR CITIZENSHIP
The INA grants U.S. citizenship at birth based on: (1) birth in the U.S. or certain other places; (2) the citizenship of one or both parents; and (3) a combination of location and parental citizenship. U.S. citizenship is also granted to persons after their birth based on a combination of parental citizenship and later residence and by naturalization. U.S. noncitizen national status is granted based on the birth location in certain other places, and the U.S. national status of one or both parents
Birth in the U.S. or Certain Incorporated Territories.
Under the Fourteenth Amendment "all persons born or naturalized in the United States...are citizens of the United States." Citizenship by birth also includes persons born in certain territories under U.S. control. Persons born in unincorporated territories are not USCs at birth. «The absence of an official birth certificate is not decisive as to whether a person was born in the U.S. «A person of unknown parentage found in the U.S. while under the age of five is considered a USC by birth unless proven not to have been born in the U.S. prior to the age of 21.
By Acquisition at Birth
A child born outside the U.S. where one or both parents are USCs may acquire U.S. citizenship at birth. A child who acquires citizenship is a citizen at the moment of birth and does not need a certificate of citizenship.
The congressional acts providing for acquisition of citizenship require the USC parent to reside or be physically present in the U.S. for certain time periods prior to the birth of the child so that he or she may "transmit" citizenship. The transmission requirements are established by the law in effect at the time of the child’s birth.
The requirement that the child had to reside in the U.S. for certain time periods to retain citizenship under former statutes was eliminated by §103 of the Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994.
By Derivation Through the Naturalization or U.S. Birth of One Parent
A child born outside the U.S. may become a USC as a matter of law by virtue of his or her parent or parents’ birth or naturalization.
As a result of the Child Citizenship Act of 2000, a child no longer needs to prove that his or her parents were legally separated or divorced if s/he is in the custody of one parent as s/he did under prior law. Under the present version of INA §320(a) a child derives citizenship as long as: (1) one parent is a citizen by birth or naturalization; (2) the child is under 18; (3) the child is residing in U.S. pursuant to a lawful admission for permanent residence (an LPR); and (4) the child is residing in the U.S. in the legal and physical custody of the citizen parent.
An application for a certificate of citizenship is made on Form N600. Evidence includes: (a) child’s birth certificate; (b) marriage certificate of child’s parents if applicable; (c) proof of termination of previous marriages; (4) U.S. citizenship of parent; (5) verifying legitimation according to the laws of the child’s or father’s residence or domicile if child born out-of-wedlock; (6) documentation of legal custody in case of divorce, legal separation or adoption; (7) LPR card or stamp for child; (8) full adoption decree if adopted; (9) legal name changes; and (10) any additional documentation INS requires to make a decision.
A USC by derivation may also apply directly for a U.S. passport, without obtaining or requiring a certificate of citizenship.
Certificate of Citizenship under INA §322
Children of USCs who did not acquire citizenship at birth abroad or derive it through naturalization of their parent(s) may still obtain a certificate of citizenship upon application of the USC parent if: (1) one parent is a USC; (2) the child is temporarily physically present in the U.S. pursuant to lawful admission and is in status; (3) the child is under 18; and (4) the child is residing outside the U.S. in the legal and physical custody of the USC parent who has been in the U.S. five years, two of which were after her/his 14th birthday.
By Naturalization
A person who is 18 years or older, who meets certain requirements, including residence, presence, good moral character, and legal status, may file an application for naturalization.
ELIGIBILITY FOR NATURALIZATION BY APPLICATION
Criteria for Naturalization—Congress has the constitutional duty to "establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization." To qualify for naturalization, an applicant:
Must Be a Lawful Permanent Resident; Must be 18 Years or Older unless age requirement is waived due to military involvement; Must Meet Continuous Residence and Physical Presence Requirement; Must generally be a continuous resident for 5 years subsequent to LPR status.
Marriage to a USC—If married to a USC the residency requirement is 3 years if: (i) the USC spouse is a USC for three years; and (ii) the parties have been "living in marital union" for 3 years.
Battered Spouse/Child—A spouse or child who obtained LPR status because of battering or extreme cruelty may also apply for citizenship within a 3-year period
Must Meet the Good Moral Character Requirements—Must be a person of good moral character for 5 years (or for a spouse of a USC, 3 years, or for person in the military, one year) prior to filing and up to the time of admission.
Must Demonstrate Knowledge of English Language, U.S. History, and Government Requires (1) elementary-level reading, writing and understanding of the English language, (2) a knowledge and understanding of the fundamentals of U.S. history and government.
For more information on any of these topic areas, please contact an Atlanta immigration lawyer.

iPad released

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph H. Wolenski ) — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:31:00 +0000

What better way to re-start this blog than by doing it along side Apple's new product, the iPad.

This could be a game changer. A couple of companies have tinkered with the netbook idea (or notebook) of a small computer that is more than a PDA but less than a laptop. The problem with those items is that you have to wait for the software to load when you turn it on, and the battery life won't make it through an entire day of work.

The iPad, however, seems to work all day long, giving users quick access to anything you'd find on a laptop: email, chat, internet, documents, spreadsheets, etc.

In my humble opinion, this is just another example of How William Shatner Changed the World.

The iPad is heading towards the PADS on ST: TNG!

The Difference Engine

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph H. Wolenski ) — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:00:00 +0000

I always appreciate stories about men and women who were ahead of their time.

So NPR aroused my interest this morning with a story about Charles Babbage.

Who?

Well, the inventor of the Difference Engine, of course. He thought it of before the Civil War and today, the Difference Engine is considered the pre-cursor to all modern computing.

Here is the intro to the story (and video of it working):

Charles Babbage, the man whom many consider to be the father of modern computing, never got to complete any of his life's work. The Victorian gentleman was a brilliant mathematician, but he wasn't very good at politics and fundraising, so he never got the financial backing to finish any of his elaborate machine designs. For decades, even his fans weren't certain whether his computing machines would have worked.

But Doron Swade, a former curator at the Science Museum in London, has proven that Babbage wasn't just an eccentric dreamer. Using nothing but materials that would have been available to Babbage in the 1840s, Swade and a group of engineers successfully built Babbage's Difference Engine — and a version is now on display at the Computer History Museum in Mountain View, Calif.

The Difference Engine fills half a gallery and stands taller than most men. It's 5 tons of cast iron, steel and bronze woven together from 8,000 distinct parts. Though it looks like it could be a sculpture, the machine is essentially a giant calculator. Tim Robinson, a docent at the museum, says it's "the first automatic calculating machine.

Plastic Surgery changes identity by changing fingeprints

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph H. Wolenski ) — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 19:59:00 +0000

According to the BBC...

A Chinese woman managed to enter Japan illegally by having plastic surgery to alter her fingerprints.

Lin Rong, 27, had previously been deported from Japan for overstaying her visa. She was only discovered when she was arrested on separate charges.

Tokyo police said she had paid $15,000 (£9,000) to have the surgery in China.

It is Japan's first case of alleged biometric fraud, but police believe the practice may be widespread.

Japanese police suspect Chinese brokers of taking huge sums to modify fingerprints surgically.

Local media reports said Ms Lin had undergone surgery to swap the fingerprints from her right and left hands.

Skin patches on her thumbs and index fingers were removed and then re-grafted on to the matching digits of the opposite hand.

Japanese newspapers said police had noticed that Ms Lin's fingers had unnatural scars when she was arrested last month for allegedly faking a marriage to a Japanese man.

The apparent ability of illegal migration networks to break through hi-tech controls suggests that other countries who fingerprint visitors could be equally vulnerable - not least the United States, according to BBC Asia analyst Andre Vornic.

PACER

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph H. Wolenski ) — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:34:00 +0000

Federal law practitioners know that to view a document on PACER (federal electronic filing) costs $0.08 per page ... so how much does the Dept. of Justice spend in PACER fees a year?

Answer: $4,000,000.00. Wow.

And the IRS? $950,000.00 in 2008. Double-wow.

And how much does PACER bring in per year? $50,000,000.00 in 2006 ... triple-wow.