Immigration Lawyer New York

38127293_sImmigration of individuals from one nation to one more has been going on for many years. Right now, more then ever men and women are trying to immigrate to foreign nations in search of improved opportunities and a much better life-style. The Usa of America is among the most preferred destinations for immigration and New York is among one of your most preferred cities by individuals from all over the world. So for those who belong to another country and wish to settle down in New York, you are going to need to hire the services of immigration lawyer in New York.

There are many legal points that require to be regarded ahead of you could become the citizen of any country. The laws relating to immigration are extremely complicated containing quite small legal nuances. All these nuances are not incredibly uncomplicated for a frequent individual to understand and this exactly why you can call for the solutions of an immigration lawyer. You can need to understand all about these issues clearly if you need to settle down at New York in the United states of America.

The main reason for you personally to hire the solutions of an Albany NY immigration lawyer is due to the complicated nature on the immigration laws of America. In place of trying on your own to understand these complex laws, it can be improved to seek the services of an expert immigration lawyer who has the information and also the practical experience of coping with immigration related difficulties. Another cause is the fact that immigration laws preserve on altering and lawyers are the most effective source for any individual to understand about all of the modifications that has taken spot.

There are numerous immigration lawyers who operate in New York, nevertheless it is critical for you personally find out and hire the solutions in the best lawyers to deal with your immigration situation. You spend funds to employ the solutions of lawyers, so you need to make sure that you get the correct worth of the funds. Make sure that the lawyer is really a member of AILA or American Immigration Lawyers Association. An AILA lawyer has access to all of the facts that can enable in speeding up your approach of immigration towards the nation. They see to it that your immigration application gets processed really swiftly through the correct channels.

Take an estimation on the quantity that the immigration lawyer will charge you. Find out that if the price is hourly or not. This can allow you to in obtaining out approximately how much dollars you are going to have to spend for the solutions and also you can make arrangements accordingly. Also discover what is going to be the charges if your application is rejected on account of any explanation and if an appeal has to be filed. You have to be clear about all this ahead of you hire the services of an Albany NY immigration lawyer.

One significant point which you’ll want to verify out about the lawyer is his/her track record as an immigration lawyer. What exactly is the accomplishment rate and if there has been any failure, what have been the reasons for it. If your lawyer has more knowledge, then possibilities for the productive processing of your immigration application also increases.

Mafia Informant Stephen Corso In Legal Trouble With SEC

More share buttons
Share on Pinterest
Share with your friends

Former accountant Stephen P. Corso, who was a key government witness against several major mafia members and hit men a few years ago, is apparently back in legal hot water again. Corso helped himself get off with just a slap on the wrist after embezzling more than $5 million from clients by his willingness to inform on his mobster associates, but as part of his plea deal he agreed to never work as a licensed accountant again. In fact, his license was revoked after his his conviction.

SEC Whistle-blower Program Wall Street Stephen Corso

Stephen Corso

However, according to public records and knowledgeable sources that recently spoke with the Wall Street Journal, Stephen Corso is working preparing financial statements for a number of penny-stock firms under a slightly different name, and is far behind in both his criminal restitution and alimony payments.

More on mob informant Stephen Corso

According to WSJ sources, the SEC is investigating Corso’s current activities as part of a broader probe into penny-stock fraud that is expected to result in  enforcement action.

Besides working under a variation of his real name, Stephen Corso is also claiming academic and professional qualifications, including to being a licensed certified public accountant and attorney, as well as a degree from a university he did not earn, according to the sources. In an almost humorous twist, Corso is also claiming to be younger than 60 years old, which is his actual age based on federal Bureau of Prisons data.

Corso’s earlier brush with the law resulted in him spending about a year in federal prison after most of his seven and a half year sentence was suspended because of his extensive cooperation with federal prosecutors in other mafia-related cases.

The WSJ did not, however, publish Corso’s new name or his current location for security reasons. At his sentencing just over five years ago, his attorney noted that Corso “will live the rest of his life…with a target on his back.”

When asked to confirm details of the story, Corso replied he has “no comment.…I’m not going to have any comment on any of this.”

Prosecutors served a writ of garnishment on Corso last year and convinced a judge to schedule a hearing to examine his financial status and his ability to pay the full restitution. However, the hearing has been postponed, with no new date set, according to court records.

Like this article? Sign up for our free newsletter to get articles delivered to your inbox

Share on StockTwits

Oxendine spent mostly on legal fees, donations to Rick Perry and other pols

Former Georgia Insurance Commissioner John Oxendine has been sitting on more than $500,000 in contributions for races he never ran for five years, but that doesn’t mean his campaign wasn’t spending money.

About two-thirds of the money his failed gubernatorial campaign spent after he lost and left office went to legal fees and donations to other political candidates, including a presidential hopeful and a county commissioner sent to jail.

John Oxendine Curtis Compton

John Oxendine

Curtis Compton

Meanwhile, as the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported in Sunday’s paper, little of it has been returned to donors, as is required by state law when candidates raise money for races they never run.

The AJC reported that Oxendine raised about $750,000 for the 2010 gubernatorial runoff and general elections. However, he finished fourth in the GOP primary, so never ran those races. He returned about $70,000 of that money.

For four years his campaign reported having about $500,000 in the bank. This year, in January, his report showed the money was gone. But when contacted by the AJC last week, he amended his report, saying he must not have carried the previous year’s balance forward.

Oxendine argues that he can legally use leftover money to defend himself against a complaint still pending before the ethics commission involving accusations that his campaign accepted illegal donations. Oxendine said the case has dragged on for years and he promised to return the runoff and primary election contributions once the case is resolved.

Ethics experts question whether he can legally use money raised for races that he never ran on legal expenses for a complaint filed before the primary.

Oxendine’s reports show he has spent about $14,000 of his leftover campaign money on legal fees since leaving office.

He has given more money to other candidates ($9,800) than he has refunded ($3,600) since leaving office in 2011, according to his reports.

In 2011, he used the campaign account to contribute $1,500 to then-Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who lost in the GOP presidential sweepstakes in 2012 and is running again in 2016.

Oxendine’s campaign also gave $2,300 that year to the campaign of Gwinnett County Commissioner Shirely Lasseter.

Lasseter resigned from the commission and pleaded guilty in 2012 to taking a $36,000 bribe from an undercover FBI agent in exchange for her support of a proposed development in her district. Lasseter received a 33-month prison term.

Oxendine’s campaign hasn’t given any money to other candidates since 2011.

Recording police activity in a public place is legal

Question: Under what circumstances can the police confiscate your video equipment when taping a police incident on a public road or sidewalk?

Answer: An officer may not take your camera or recording equipment merely because you are recording a public activity, said Honolulu Police Department spokeswoman Michelle Yu. However, an officer could take away a piece of equipment if it was being used as a weapon or otherwise posed a hazard, she said. Login for more…

Jimi Hendrix's Siblings Settle Licensing Legal Battle

A six-year legal battle between Jimi Hendrix’s siblings over the use of the guitarist’s image on merchandise has been settled. Since 2009, Janie Hendrix, Jimi’s adopted sister and the operator of the rocker’s estate, has been locked into a copyright infringement fight with Jimi’s younger brother Leon Hendrix over Hendrix Licensing, his Nevada-based company that printed shirts and other merchandise bearing his late brother’s image and signature without permission.

As a result of the settlement, which was reached in July, Hendrix Licensing will no longer be allowed to sell items that infringe on the estate’s trademark, the Seattle Times reports.


Jimi Hendrix stamp

How Jimi Hendrix Got His Own Postage Stamp »

Janie and Leon Hendrix have been at odds since 2002, when their father Al Hendrix passed away and left Jimi Hendrix’s $80 million estate under the sole control of Janie Hendrix. Leon Hendrix contested Al Hendrix’s will in 2004, with the Washington State Supreme Court ultimately upholding the will in 2007. (Jimi Hendrix died in 1970 without leaving a will, which further complicated matters.)

Soon after, Leon Hendrix and his business partner Andrew Pitsicalis began selling Jimi Hendrix merchandise through their Hendrix Licensing company, resulting in a $1.7 million lawsuit from Janie Hendrix and her Experience Hendrix LLC in 2009.

The settlement between the Hendrix siblings comes after a May 2015 injunction that barred Hendrix Licensing from using registered Jimi Hendrix trademarks. A July 2015 jury trial was scheduled to determine how much Leon Hendrix’s company owed to the Jimi Hendrix estate in terms of damages, but the two sides settled for an undisclosed amount prior to the July 22nd court date.

Experience Hendrix and Legacy Recordings will next release Hendrix’s Freedom: Atlanta Pop Festival on August 28th. The 2-CD set documents the guitar god’s historic July 4th, 1970 performance at the famed Atlanta fest. The live album will be followed September 4th by the Showtime documentary Jimi Hendrix: Electric Church.

Is It Legal to Shoot Down a Drone Hovering Over Your Property?

Calling the police may be best, but how long should you have to wait to verify a threat before destroying it?

You’ve hit your limit of 5 free articles this month.

Try our subscription options:

Print & Digital 3 Months
Weekly home delivery with free shipping, access to Newsweek’s web site, and the complete online archive
TRY NEWSWEEK FOR $14.99 Will renew at $39.99/quarter
Digital 3 Months
Access to Newsweek’s web site, and the complete online archive
TRY NEWSWEEK FOR $4.99 Will renew at $12.99/quarter
Already a subscriber? Log In

Obama Administration Continues Legal Fight Against Guantanamo Detainee

Protesters hold a photo of Tariq Ba Odah at a rally in front of the White House on January 11, 2014, demanding that President Obama fulfill his promise to close Guantanamo Bay prison.

Protesters hold a photo of Tariq Ba Odah at a rally in front of the White House on January 11, 2014, demanding that President Obama fulfill his promise to close Guantanamo Bay prison.


Zuma Press

WASHINGTON—The Obama administration renewed its legal fight against a hunger-striking Guantanamo detainee, telling a federal court Friday the man wasn’t entitled to an order freeing him from the prison despite the fact military and intelligence officials approved his release years ago.

Administration officials have been wrestling for months over the case of Tariq Ba Odah, 36 years old, who has been held without charge at Guantanamo since 2002. State Department officials had pushed to drop opposition to his habeas corpus petition—a legal process for challenging detention—which would have removed legal obstacles to his resettlement in Saudi Arabia, where his family resides, or another country.


  • Fort Leavenworth Possible Site for Guantanamo Transfers
  • U.S. Again Seeks More Time to Respond to Guantanamo-Detainee Lawsuit
  • Guantanamo Bay Report Takes Aim at U.S.

Defense and Justice Department officials have opposed conceding legal ground to prisoners, an administration official said, and prevailed in the internal dispute with State Department officials, which recommended dropping opposition to Mr. Ba Odah’s petition.

Late Friday, the Justice Department said it filed a sealed document opposing Mr. Ba Odah’s release with the U.S. District Court here. A spokeswoman said a public version would be released later.

Mr. Ba Odah’s attorney, Omar Farah of the Center for Constitutional Rights, said he was disappointed by the government’s position and that it filed the motion under seal.

“The Obama administration’s interagency process for closing Guantanamo is an incoherent mess,” he said, with “inconsistency between the administration’s stated intention to close Guantanamo and the steps taken to transfer cleared men.”

While fighting a court order that would require Mr. Ba Odah’s release, the administration said it is continuing to pursue his transfer as a policy matter.

“The U.S. government remains committed to promptly securing an appropriate location to which petitioner Ba Odah can be transferred,” a Justice Department spokeswoman said. “Such a transfer will be consistent with applicable U.S. law and policy and occur in a manner consistent with the administration’s commitment to reduce the detainee population at Guantanamo Bay and to ultimately close the detention facility in a responsible manner that protects national security.”

The Obama administration has complained that congressionally imposed restrictions on detainee transfers have impeded its effort to shutter the Guantanamo prison by transferring detainees such as Mr. Ba Odah, who military, intelligence and law-enforcement officials have concluded isn’t a significant threat to national security.

Those restrictions don’t apply should a federal judge order a detainee’s release. Some administration officials had argued that the government should drop its opposition to habeas petitions by Mr. Ba Odah and other detainees whom the government simultaneously is seeking to transfer, which would remove bureaucratic roadblocks to clearing out the facility.

Mr. Ba Odah has been protesting his detention with a hunger strike for eight years, and now weighs 74.5 pounds, or about half his ideal weight, despite daily force-feeding.

“Mr. Ba Odah’s grave medical condition is not in dispute. Given that he has been cleared since 2009, there is no dispute about whether he should be approved for transfer,” Mr. Ba Odah’s attorney Mr. Farah said. “All the president has to decide is whether to exercise his discretion not to contest the motion and release Mr. Ba Odah so that he does not die.”

The administration says that 52 of the 116 detainees remaining at Guantanamo have been cleared for transfer, while another 54 are eligible to seek clearance from a review board composed of intelligence, law-enforcement and military officials.

Write to Jess Bravin at

Legal Scholars Warn Against 10 Year Prison for Online Pirates

uk-flagThe UK Government plans to increase the maximum prison sentence for online copyright infringement to ten years.

The current maximum of two years is not enough to deter infringers, lawmakers argue.

The new proposal follows a suggestion put forward in a study commissioned by the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) earlier this year.

The study concluded that the criminal sanctions for copyright infringement available under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988) could be amended to bring them into line with related offenses, such as counterfeiting.

Before implementing the changes the Government launched a public consultation, asking for comments and advice. While the responses have yet to be made public, TF has heard from two prominent groups that are speaking out against an extension.

The British and Irish Law, Education and Technology Association (BILETA) shared a copy of their recommendations with TF. The group’s main conclusion is that changes to the current law are not needed.

According to the group the prison term extension is not acceptable because the punishment would be too harsh.

“…legitimate means to tackle large-scale commercial scale online copyright infringement are already available and currently being used, and the suggested sentence of 10 years seems disproportionate,” the group writes.

In addition, BILETA argues that the proposal is not affordable, not feasible and incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

“The freedom of expression may be interfered with if there is a ‘pressing social need’ and is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued,” the group notes, adding that the standards for a pressing social need are often not met in piracy cases.

If the Government decides to move forward with a change of law, the legal scholars suggest limiting the sentence for both online and offline copyright infringement to four years maximum.

Another organization speaking out against the proposal is the Open Rights Group. Executive Director Jim Killock tells TF that the Government inaccurately suggests that only large scale commercial infringers will be affected by the change.

“The proposal wraps up businesses and people who ‘affect prejudicially’ a copyright owner,” Killock says.

“There is no requirement of intent to harm, merely that the user should have known that they were violating copyright law. This makes the offense a ‘strict liability’, which is rare.”

According to the Open Rights Group the vague “affect prejudicially” definition means that heavy Pirate Bay uploaders or even those who merely share files could potentially be targeted.

“We believe it creates scope to abuse the law. It is hard to know what ‘prejudicial affect’ is. It is hard to estimate damages from online sharing or access. The fact that someone did not seek to harm a copyright owner is no defense.

“The result is that people who are not really criminals, but are rather just naive users, may face punitive claims. At the very least, the risk of criminal claims means naive infringers can be pushed into accepting heavy punishments to remove the risk of long jail sentences,” Killock tells us.

Thus far we have not seen any comments from groups supporting the proposal, but UK entertainment industry organizations such as FACT and BPI are likely to weigh in later.

The consultation is open until this coming Monday and the Government will release the individual responses and publish a summary report afterwards.

Couple's Legal Battle in Thailand Highlights Surrogacy, Gay Rights

It’s been half a year since Baby Carmen was born in Thailand, but aside from the pictures, everything else remains fuzzy.

For biological father Gordon Lake and his partner, Manuel Santos, what started as a legal agreement to have a surrogate baby has evolved into a custody battle.

But one thing remains clear to the American-born Lake.

“Carmen is a U.S. citizen,” he said. “She’s biologically my daughter. That’s been proven with a DNA test. The embassy has issued a CRBA, a consular report birth abroad, which certifies her as a U.S. citizen.”

Thailand’s commercial surrogacy industry made headlines last year when a newborn with Down syndrome was left behind by an Australian couple, while they took his healthy twin sister.

Following the negative exposure, the government banned commercial surrogacy. The law came into effect in July.

But the surrogate mother said she wasn’t aware of one fact about the couple.

“If they were a mother and father like a normal parents under Thai culture, I would have no problem being a surrogate for them,” said the surrogate, Patida Kusongsang. “If I had known they were a gay couple, I would not have done this for them, because in Thai culture we don’t have this kind of status.”

The case has been highlighted on Thai social media, with many people offering support to the fathers as the legal case progresses.

“We were invited to petition for our parental rights under Section 56 of the new law, which is a temporary provision that effectively takes the rights away from the surrogate mother and gives the parental right to the intended parents, because that’s what was supposed to happen,” Lake said. “So in principle, the law has a temporary provision that should help us.”

With a court date set for October, the case could become a key legal test for surrogacy and gay rights in Thailand.

jEugene Detects Errors In Legal Documents, Saving Time And Money

Legal documents. If they didn’t already bore you to death imagine having to find the mistakes in them. This is the role of quite a number of poor humans who must screen these things, or suffer hefty losses when something goes wrong.

For years, software engineers have enjoyed the assistance of quality assurance software when writing computer code. Lawyers, however, are generally stuck with Microsoft Word. Yikes! So automated, intelligent reviewing of legal contracts by software should be the future. That’s where jEugene, a new YC startup as part of this summer’s batch, comes in.

This startup helps the drafters of legal documents catch mistakes that could be fatal to such documents’ validity or enforceability.

The original idea of Harry Zhou, who, as a first-year lawyer, was tasked with proofing a 250-page contract and wanted more than his supervising lawyer’s assurance that “you did great,” jEugene scans through a legal document and highlights in text potential drafting mistakes in the document.

The product is being used by White & Case LLP and is undergoing trial at Fenwick & West LLP. Tens of smaller law firms are accessing jEugene through Clio, a provider of cloud-based legal management software. Other clients are under NDA.

Errors that jEugene currently detects may seem innocuous at times, but could lead to hefty costs. For example, millions of dollars that certain creditors recently failed to recover in a famous bankruptcy case could have been avoided had jEugene been used; and jEugene’s analysis of legal documents disclosed on SEC EDGAR routinely reveals similar errors missed by some of the most sophisticated law firms (they say).

Here’s how it works: A user uploads a document, waits a few seconds, and downloads the resulting file. This emulates handwritten markups that lawyers are used to seeing, and highlights potential drafting mistakes in the document with different colors. The user then reviews the results to determine whether any revision is necessary.

Competitors are software companies that make legal proofreading plugins for Microsoft Word, like Lexus Nexis, but as you can imaging this is pretty old-fashioned. Instead, jEugene runs as a web application, which can be deployed either in a private cloud or as an on-site deployment.

Because it’s web architecture, it can perform more sophisticated analysis on legal documents and contribute to a better user experience. In other words, jEugene simply generates better results and won’t slow down or render users’ computers unstable.

They plan to make money via a subscription fee per active user. The exact price depends on the number of active users from a subscriber, and whether the charge occurs monthly or annually.

At this point it doesn’t use AI, but could in the future.

Now-legal gun silencers to make noise at Ramsey's Game Fair

“Dakota Silencer,” the sign says on the Game Fair booth — a first of its kind in the 34 years the outdoors festival has been held in Ramsey, near Anoka.

That’s because until this year, it wasn’t legal to own a gun suppressor in Minnesota.

Known popularly as silencers (though unlike in the movies, these gun add-ons don’t completely silence firearms), suppressors were legalized by the Legislature in its most recent session.

Now Minnesota gun owners are free to own suppressors — silencers — and Dakota Silencer, a company founded by Brandon Maddox of Sioux Falls, S.D., is at Game Fair touting the company’s wares.

Surprisingly, Maddox said, many gun owners here don’t know silencers are legal.

“I think they heard that Gov. [Mark] Dayton wanted to veto the bill and thought he did,” Maddox said. “But Dayton signed the bill. He didn’t veto it. So a big part of what we do sat Game Fair is educate people.”

A pharmacist by profession, Maddox became enamored of silencers years ago when he first realized their value to varmint hunters, particularly those who chase coyotes in winter in the Dakotas.

Not uncommonly, these long-range shooters call in two or three animals at once. But when they draw down on one, and fire, the others typically scatter.

Silencers that quiet a gun’s report can sometimes keep the animals gathered, even after the trigger is squeezed, allowing a second shot.

“Our silencers used for varmint hunting are our best selling models,” Maddox said.

Dakota Silencer hopes to expand its market at exhibitions, such as Game Fair, and at gun shows.

Buying a suppressor isn’t quite like purchasing a car, however. Nor is it similar to buying a gun — not even a handgun.

Regulated by the same federal law that governs machine guns, silencers — which were invented in the early 1900s — never have presented a national criminal threat, notwithstanding their portrayals on the big screen.

Instead, their U.S. regulation, beginning almost a century ago, stemmed from their perceived potential as wildlife poaching tools.

To what degree wildlife crimes over the years could be traced to silencer use is unknown. But it’s likely the price of silencers today — which generally range from about $400 to $1,200 — together with the time and background checks required to buy suppressors, keeps would-be poachers out of the present-day market.

Instead, most silencers are purchased to prevent hearing loss, to aid hunting success (as for varmints), to reduce recoil and/or to minimize shooting disturbance to humans as well as wildlife.

What’s required to purchase a silencer?

First, consider the gun you want to silence. If it’s a handgun, know that you’re in the minority among silencer purchasers.

“Relatively few silencers are sold for handguns,” Maddox said.

Know also that the barrel of whatever firearm you’re intending to fit with a suppressor must be threaded, so the suppressor can be screwed in.

Barrels of many modern AR-style long guns are pre-threaded. But most older rifles, regardless of their caliber, must be threaded by a gunsmith before they can be fitted with silencers.

Here’s a snapshot of how the silencer purchase unfolds:

• After selecting a silencer, the gun owner pays the dealer, usually in full. A silencer serial number is then assigned to the purchaser.

• If the purchaser is acquiring the silencer in his or her name alone, an application for transfer of the silencer will be sent to the FBI for a background check(s). A $200 application fee, or transfer tax, is required, and the purchaser is fingerprinted. Six months might pass before approval is given (or not), and only then can the silencer be picked up from the dealer.

• Application can also be made to own the silencer in trust. This is the most common route, Maddox said (“100 percent of our Minnesota customers do it this way”), because it allows multiple people named in the trust to use the silencer. Instead of the FBI, the trust application is sent to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE). A $200 transfer fee is required, but no background check is conducted of the trust “because the trust is an entity, not a person,” Maddox said. In about three months, the transfer will be approved (or not), and arrangement for pickup from, in Maddox’s case, a Dakota Silencer outlet near Alexandria, Minn., or at a Minnesota gun show, or in person with a company employee, will be arranged. A background check of the person picking up the silencer is required.

Details such as these explain why people at Game Fair who stop at the Dakota Silencer booth usually stay for a while.

As Maddox says, some education is required.