IVA – Family Immigration Advocates

JF As a family run community immigration service, we believe in what we do. That’s why when it comes to supporting immigrant families, we firmly stand in support of keeping families together. Whether your story is that you want to enter the United States with your beloved spouse, that you want to live in the same country as your children or relatives, or that you want to create a family here in the United States, our team of attorneys uses knowledge, empathy, and dedication to support immigrant families to thrive together. In almost every culture around the world and throughout time, there is a universal theme that family is important, and we hold this truth dear to our hearts at Immigration Visa Attorneys.
Statistics do not tell the story of immigration. People do. Since its inception, this nation has been continually infused with the energy of newcomers. Yet their assimilation has seldom been smooth. The challenges we face today are not new. Only the stories are. We found the following article to be a perfect depiction of the type of cases we have worked on, and continue to work with. For more information or legal assistance, please contact Mark Daly at (303) 838-2879. We provide 10 minutes of free legal consulting and have affordable programs for families.

“My mother, father, siblings, and I had been living in a poor part of town in Guadalajara, Mexico. My father worked as a ranchero and my mother used to waitress at a local pub and restaurant. I was the oldest of all my siblings and therefore, the leader. I had to set an example for the younger ones and had to take care of them from the dangers of the world. One day, I was at home when I found out my father had been killed. It was a tragic day and my mother, devastated from the loss, wanted to move to America, speaking of being safer there and how America could help us all. We moved the following week, wanting to leave Guadalajara and the crime of the small town. We were missed and there was no one else to care after the ranch since my father died, so they closed it down, but it was necessary. We no longer wanted to live in such a dangerous place, so when we moved to America, we found out we had taken up all of the small apartment complex. After we moved in, there was no more room, so I guess we were lucky. My siblings and I went to school and had good grades, my mother working as a waitress, yet again. I grew up to be a police officer, wanting to be able to prevent crimes in my city, New York, like to what happened to my father. I thank America for the opportunities that it has given me and will be forever grateful.”
New York City

Works Cited
Marisela. “My Immigration Story.” My Immigration Story, My Immigration Stories, myimmigrationstory.com/.

AILA Report on U.S. Violations of its Own Immigration Laws

My experience representing refugees has included feasting, praying together and lots of children. I can personally attest to the good moral character of many refugees, and have witnessed a vast majority of success stories in thriving immigrant communities across the US. I believe the US benefits from refugees as they bring current, diverse voices into our national dialogue regarding foreign policy and economic development.

However, immigration attorneys see heart breaking due process violations every day in detention facilities, immigration court and with the USCIS. It happens, you object, and you keep on going with the case. These violations are confirmed to be true years later on appeal, and I yell out “TOLD YOU SO” to the crickets. I know these violations are really hard on people and break them down.

Xenophobia is “intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries”. This article from AILA shows a clear xenophobic bias throughout our government immigration system. The government has given up on having a fair and impartial immigration system and rather supports a harsh and illegal system to deter others from coming. Why? Xenophobia. It obviously exists in presidential politics, but also works as a cultural bias in our government immigration system. The law is there to protect immigrants’ rights and is entrusted to people who are supposed to listen to people’s stories. If the story is is more likely than not true, that means 51% true, then they get to stay. The xenophobic cultural bias cannot allow that to happen or else the floodgates will open and all will be lost. Every one of these violations was perpetrated by the US government immigration system on a person, and also on the Constitution. These widespread violations – including taking of life – evidence a cultural intention to thwart the law. The US immigration system is broken at the place where xenophobic bias meets the enforcement of the immigration laws. Leadership and is needed to address xenophobia and explain the long term benefits of refugees living in the United States because the demagogues – supported by private prison funding – are fanning the flames of fear.

Client Testimonial: I-130 Expedite for Wife and Son

CINA logo on whiteWe are celebrating our client’s success!! A nice client testimonial popped up on Google Business:

“I highly recommend the immigration law services of Mark Daly of CINA. Mark was instrumental in the successful adjudication of my immigration petition. From providing consistent and timely advice in an easy to understand manner, to strongly advocating on my behalf, Mark was professional, thorough, and empathetic. He was collaborative in the preparation of my case file, and genuine in his engagement, sincerity and interest in my immigration case. Mark’s legal fees were very reasonable and his transparency with respect to time spent on my case was very much appreciated. If you require the services of a highly qualified and caring immigration attorney, I recommend that you contact Mark Daly.” R.S. CT, USA. I-130 Expedite for Wife and Son.

We will keep on our mission of providing high value immigration law services to millions of immigrants. – Mark C. Daly

Since 1995 I have been focusing my professional efforts on immigration law. I love being an immigration attorney and immigration law is all I do. I have a deep commitment to helping immigrants, their families and immigration attorneys by providing services that provide you with extremely high value for reasonable fees and our Client Testimonials indicate our success in meeting and exceeding our client’s expectations.  All of my services have our unique CINA performance guarantee: a 100% money back guarantee if you are not satisfied because of errors, omissions or poor customer service, I will refund your money after receiving your request in writing explaining your dissatisfaction. We also provide an Integrity Refund whereby if we break a promise to you – no matter how small – we pay you $100.

Click here for our Personal Immigration Questionnaire Form  or our Professional Immigration Questionnaire Form and send it to me at [email protected] and schedule yourself for your free consultation today with a Denver Immigration Attorney.

Our Denver office is located at 1624 Market Street, Suite 202, Denver, Colorado 80202 our offices are easily reached via the free Mall Ride. Our Denver office is accessible from I-25, I-70, Aurora, Lakewood, Arvada, Commerce City, the Denver Tech Center, Westminster, and Thornton.

CINA is moving to Denver!

We decided to change our home office from Golden Colorado to Downtown Denver. CINA will now be closer to the Denver Immigration Court and USCIS Denver District office and the Aurora Detention Center.

Our new address is


Community of Immigration and Naturalization Attorneys, PC

1624 Market Street

Suite 202

Denver, CO 80202


5th Circuit Fed Appeals Court Upholds Delay Of Obama’s DAPA Immigration program

A federal appeals court ruled against President Barack Obama’s DAPA immigration program, stating the negative economic impact on Texas is a valid claim.

This decision comes nearly a year after Obama announced it as a follow up measure to DACA and Congress’ failure to enact comprehensive immigration reform. Read the decision HERE

 The ruling sets back the Deferred Action for Parental Accountability program, known as DAPA. Obama has vowed to take it to the Supreme Court.

In the decision the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit agreed with a lower court judge that Texas had standing to challenge the executive action. The appeals court accepted Texas’ argument that expanding immigration relief to include a wider class of undocumented immigrants would cause the state to “incur significant costs in issuing driver’s licenses to DAPA beneficiaries” — satisfying the basic “harm” requirement for litigants seeking standing to sue.

 “If permitted to go into effect, DAPA would enable at least 500,000 illegal aliens in Texas to satisfy that requirement with proof of lawful presence or employment authorization,” wrote U.S. Circuit Judge Jerry Smith for the 2-to-1 appeals court. “Texas subsidizes its licenses and would lose a minimum of $130.89 on each one it issued to a DAPA beneficiary. Even a modest estimate would put the loss at several million dollars.”

USCIS Waivers for Extreme Hardship – new rules pending

On October 7, 2015 the USCIS issued a draft extreme hardship policy guidance for public comment. This guidance clarifies how USCIS waivers for extreme hardship will be determined once the guidance is finalized.

The draft guidance addresses which waivers require a showing of extreme hardship, how an applicant can establish extreme hardship to a qualifying relative, and which special circumstances often weigh heavily in favor of an extreme hardship finding, among other considerations.

Immigrants getting green cards through marriage need to show extreme hardship for waivers when they violate the following laws:

INA 212(a)(9)(B)(v)This provision can waive the three-year and ten-year inadmissibility bars for unlawful presence.Eligible qualifying relatives include the applicant’s U.S. citizen or LPR spouse or parentThis provision can waive inadmissibility for crimes involving moral turpitude, multiple criminal convictions, prostitution and commercialized vice, and certain serious criminal offenses for which the foreign national received immunity from prosecution. It can also waive inadmissibility for controlled substance convictions, but only when the conviction was for a single offense of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana. Eligible qualifying relatives include the applicant’s U.S. citizen or LPR spouse, parent, son, or daughter.

INA 212(i)(1) This provision can waive inadmissibility for certain types of immigration fraud. Eligible qualifying relatives include the applicant’s U.S. citizen or LPR spouse or parent

This is a welcomed event. Immigration attorneys have been receiving denials of I-601 and I-601A waiver applications of the 3 and 10 year bar that do not reflect the law. I plan on attending the stakeholder conference on November 3, 2015 to provide USCIS with feedback on how best to adjudicate these waivers fairly.

Here is the link to the notice document:

10-29-15 USCIS Proposed guidance on extreme hardship memo

Can I appeal a decision by the US Embassy?

The answer is yes! It might take a long time, but when the stakes are high like bringing your family over to become residents of the United States, it is worth it! The case of Patel v. Reno (134 F.3d 929 C.A.9, 1997) is an example of how immigrants and their families can appeal the decision by the U.S. Embassy.

The old saying is “Justice Delayed is Justice Denied” – so how do I get the U.S. Embassy to make a decision on My Case?

One of the services we provide is to follow up on delayed cases, both at the USCIS and at U.S. Embassies. Many immigrants and their families complain that they have been waiting too long to get a decision on their case. When they ask the U.S. Embassy for a status update they receive a reply that says “The Embassy is conducting further review.” Sometime the family will learn that the Embassy is doing background checks on the intending immigrants. Other times they will say that they are holding up the case while waiting for the USCIS to revoke the petitioner’s status.

That was the case with Mohanbhai Patel, a naturalized US citizen who got his citizenship based on a marriage to a US Citizen in 1982. Shortly after he received his citizenship he divorced his first wife, travelled back to India and re-married, and then applied in 1988 for visas for his second wife and her two daughters in India. The Embassy in Mumbai believed that Mohanbhai had actually married his second wife back in 1976 and never divorced her. They conducted an investigation and concluded that Patel was naturalized under false pretenses by marrying an American citizen in 1982 while at the same time still being married to his wife in India. Based on this information, the Embassy returned the visa applications to USCIS to be revoked.

Lawyers for Patel made many inquiries to the Embassy. These inquiries either were not returned or answered with vague assurances that a decision would be rendered soon. So in 1993, five years after filing the original I-130s, the lawyers filed a writ of mandamus (hyperlink to writ) in US Federal Court demanding that the US Embassy make a decision on the case. Rather than take the case to trial, the USCIS agreed to send the visa petitions back to the consulate in Mumbai for a final decision, and the lawyers dismissed the complaint. This was a year later, in March of 1994.

When the USCIS sent the visas back to the Embassy, they also informed the Embassy that denaturalization proceedings had begun against Patel that would strip him of his citizenship and nullify the I-130 applications. Acting on this information, the consulate did not issue the visas. In fact, however, no denaturalization proceedings had begun against Patel. The USCIS had lied to the Embassy, apparently to prevent the applications from being approved.

When the lawyers followed up with the Embassy three months later in June of 1994, Christine Lee, the Chief of the Immigrant Visa Unit at the consulate in Bombay, responded with a letter which explained that the INS told them that denaturalization proceedings had begun against Patel and thus “the application is refused” until the denaturalization proceedings had been completed and Patel’s eligibility to petition had been firmly established.

The problem with that response was twofold: First, it was based on the falsehood that denaturalization proceedings had begun. Second, the agreement made in court said that the applications would be sent back to the Embassy for a decision, and now that agreement was being broken by the Embassy. So in June of 1995 the lawyers went back into Federal Court and reopened the case. They complained to the Judge that under the law the Embassy had to give them a decision on the visas. The Embassy replied by saying they had issued a letter refusing the visas and therefore had made a decision on the case.

In October of 1995 the USCIS made good on their threat and started the denaturalization proceedings against Patel. The Federal Court judge agreed with the USCIS and the Embassy and ruled against Patel! Despite this defeat,  the lawyers filed an appeal with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in 1997, nine years after filing the I-130s.