Hotscot

I can see all sorts of problems with this....or at least complications to be worked out.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...grant/4291097/

md95065

It's problems like this that both the California state legislature and the legal system just love spending time on because it is so much more fun than trying to deal with all of that really hard stuff involving things like taxes, budgets, education and health care ...

scrubbedexpat099

It is quite funny however.

RoadWarriorFromLP

Immigration is a federal matter.

This particular license to practice is issued by a state government that does not have the authority to make immigration law.

A state license is not a national visa.

I don't see the problem here, just so long as it is understood that a license issued by a state is not the same thing as a work visa or a citizenship document.

Whether the guy is qualified to represent others in California courts is a different issue from whether he is allowed to live or work in the US. If there are activists who think that this sometitles entitles the guy to citizenship or legal residency, then they are sadly mistaken.

scrubbedexpat099

By issuing a license to practice it seems they are entering the field of immigration law.

Jan Alaska

So he can practice law but not lawfully as he doesn't have a SSN, which means hes now professionally qualified to work under the table.
He claims hes been waiting 20 years for his visa which also seems a little unlikely.

Steve_

From the sounds of it he was one of the people granted deferred action, they keep forgetting to put that in the articles, plus this comment about how he has been seeking legal status since 1995 sounds off because the priority date for first preference is now 2006 (and 2003 for third preference).

So anyway, he has an EAD, he has an SSN and I can't really see any logical basis for him not to be granted admission to the bar. A State has no say in Federal immigration matters. He isn't "illegal" until an immigration court says so and he has never appeared before one. California cannot assume how a Federal court would rule. Given his ties to the US, his father being a US citizen etc. it's quite possible a federal court would allow him to stay.

He's now in a somewhat bizarre situation that he would qualify for legal status as TN-2, but he'd have to get a waiver.

Steve_

You don't need an SSN to practice law in the US, Canadian lawyers are admitted to the bar in various States and enter under TN-1 for a few days to file court papers or whatever.

Rete

I was in an article printed in the New York Daily News two weeks ago.

Even without the EAD and/or SSN, it was noted that he was legally able to practice law but only as a self-employed attorney. He could not work for an established law firm.

scrubbedexpat099

Looks like he is too old for DACA, no mention of EAD.

AdobePinon

1993 if you're from Mexico.

Steve_

Mmm, I'd forgotten it was that far back for Mexicans.

Anyway this is the relevant statute: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1621

And California passed a State law in compliance with subsection (d), so basically that's the end of it.

Yes, but federal law says they can't do it without a specific State law that permits it, so I don't think this is going to be happening elsewhere in the US.

I think he could leave, get a waiver and come back as TN-2 although I suppose he's kind of blown his "non-immigrant intent" out of the water.