The Demise of DOMA and its Impact on Immigration Law

The Demise of DOMA, and its Impact on Immigration Law

Cynthia Irvine and Meghan Kelly-Stallings

 

This summer the Supreme Court overturned Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  Under DOMA, federal agencies were required to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, preventing same-sex couples from accessing more than 1,000 federal programs and benefits available to opposite-sex couples, including federal immigration benefits.  The court’s groundbreaking opinion in Windsor v. United States has led to rapid and significant change as federal agencies, including U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), adjust their policies to provide benefits that were previously unavailable to same-sex couples.  The end of DOMA now gives noncitizens the ability to seek and obtain immigration benefits based on marriage to their same-sex partners.  

Although only a limited number of states in the U.S. currently grant same-sex partners the right to legally marry, any lawful state marriage will now be recognized federally to grant immigration benefits.   This policy shift provides new possibilities to immigrants seeking to obtain or maintain lawful immigration status based on their same-sex marriage.  The recognition of same-sex marriage permits a U.S. citizen (or lawful permanent resident) spouse to sponsor their spouse and their spouse’s children in applications for lawful permanent resident status (a “green card”).  New opportunities have also emerged for the same-sex spouses of foreign students and workers, who may now obtain visas to reside lawfully in the U.S. while their spouse maintains a valid student or employment-based visa.

The adoption of a more inclusive definition of marriage allows U.S. citizens to seek fiancé visas for their same-sex partners living abroad.  An approved fiancé visa allows the foreign-born partner to enter the U.S. for the purpose of marrying the U.S. citizen and applying for his or her green card.  This benefit is particularly important for noncitizens living in countries where same-sex marriage is illegal, as the marriage itself may be performed in the United States.

The end of DOMA gives new hope to certain immigrants facing removal from the U.S. whose cases require the presentation of evidence of the hardship that their removal would cause to their immediate family members (parents, spouse, and children) with lawful status.  Immigration judges must now consider the hardship posed to the individual’s same-sex spouse and even that spouse’s minor children, as such children are considered the immigrant’s children under immigration law.  Even when hardship to an immediate relative is not a prerequisite for relief from deportation, the government should still give discretionary weight to family ties formed as a result of a same-sex marriage.

 The end of DOMA means more and better options for noncitizens married to, or planning to marry, their same-sex partners.  Even with these new possibilities, immigrants in same-sex relationships  should confirm whether other factors, including past immigration and criminal history, might pose additional barriers to obtaining lawful status.  No lawful marriage with a U.S. citizen or permanent resident is a guarantee for a green card.  Immigrants in same-sex or heterosexual relationships should review their case with a reputable immigration attorney prior to filing applications for benefits. 

Please contact attorneys Cynthia Irvine or Meghan Kelly-Stallings to schedule your consultation appointment for any and all types of immigration matters.  (253)520-5000. 

SKCBA Annual Holiday Party at Acme Bowl

 

December 8, 2013 – On December 2nd, the South King County Bar Association (SKCBA) hosted its annual Holiday Party at Acme Bowl. HIP’s very own Erik Olsen is the acting President of the SKCBA for the 2013-14 term and organized the event. Both the holiday party and the concurrent Seahawks’ game were Monday night successes!

bowling

When Government Wants Your Property

 
November 22, 2013 – Condemnation (aka eminent domain) is the power of government to take private property for public use.  The process is largely summed up with two questions.  Is the taking for a proper public use?  If not, it shouldn’t occur.  If proper, what is the just compensation for the property taken?
 
Projects for public use are likely an appropriate exercise of condemnation powers and courts often give wide discretion to the government for those projects.  Condemnation for public-private ventures, to remove “blight”, or similar actions may not be appropriate.  Occasionally, a project that appears to be for public use, may be for private use and therefore inappropriate.  There can also be a “taking” of private property through noise, limiting access to property and similar actions.  Often, no compensation has been given so a claim for inverse condemnation may be necessary to obtain just compensation.
 
The amount of compensation is usually debatable.  Government agencies often hire consultants to negotiate the value of property.  They attempt to buy the property at the lowest price which may be drastically under the fair market value.  Offers may not take into account damage to the portion of property not taken by condemnation but which is impacted.  One tactic used by government to encourage acceptance of an offer is threatening litigation if the offer is not accepted.  However, litigation is often favorable to those impacted by condemnation, contrary to the usual negative aspects of litigation.  
 
State law may require the government to provide monies to review offers of compensation.  Failure of government to make a good faith offer under statutory parameters may result in reimbursement of attorney fees incurred to obtain the fair market value.  In some instances, the right to compensation may also extend to tenants and businesses affected by the condemnation.  When signing lease agreements, tenants and landlords should understand how a lease may limit or waive rights if a condemnation occurs. 
 
In rare instances, with specific and strict limitations, a private person may condemn an easement on another person’s property for necessary access to property and other statutorily allowed items.  Just compensation is required in those instances too. 
 
Condemnation is a powerful tool of government that benefits our community.  Because of that power, the laws governing it are strict and provide substantial rights to those affected.  An attorney can help insure those rights are not ignored.   
 
Pat Headshot
Estate Planning Attorney Patrick Hanis
phanis@hiplawfirm.com
253.520.5000

Ashley Eades joins Steven Bash as a legal assistant in the Estate Planning department.

 

November 18, 2013 – Ashley studies at the University of Washington and has been with Hanis Irvine Prothero since April 2012.  Steven studied at Highline Community College and has been with the Estate Planning Department for close to a year now.  If you need Estate Planning assistance, please contact Ashley or Steven at (253) 520-5000 to set up a consultation with Estate Planning Attorney Patrick Hanis.

IMG_535622

Tiffany Jacobsen joins Hanis Irvine Prothero

 

November 13, 2013 – Tiffany Jacobsen recently joined Hanis Irvine Prothero PLLC as a legal assistant in the Homeowner’s Association department. Tiffany comes to HIP from Downtown Seattle. She graduated from Seattle University with her Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science and French. She has an extensive legal background in the fields of bankruptcy and creditor collections, intellectual property, and family law. In her free time, Tiffany enjoys traveling, experiencing French culture and food, outings with her dog Omega and celebrating the little things in life with her family and friends.

_MG_8296-Edit