Under California Vehicle Code § 21801 (a) The driver of a vehicle intending to turn to the left or to complete a U-turn . . . shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles approaching from the opposite direction which are close enough to constitute a hazard at any time during the turning movement, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to the approaching vehicles until the left turn or U-turn can be made with reasonable safety. According to California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) a “hazard” exists if: "any approaching vehicle is so near or is approaching so fast that a reasonably careful person would realize that there is a danger of a collision [or accident]." In other words, the driver who is attempting to make a left turn must ensure that no oncoming vehicles are close enough to be a hazard before he or she proceeds across each lane the driver of a vehicle will yield the right of way, until the turn may be made with reasonable safety.
Before we dive into determining fault in a left turn motorcycle collision, it is important to understand the term "Negligence", which is a term used to characterize conduct that creates an unreasonable risk of harm to others. In order to prove negligence you must prove:
In theory both a rider and the motorist can potentially be partially responsible for causing the left turn collision. For instance under the comparative negligence theory a party may contribute to an act of negligence or be comparatively negligent for his or her own injuries. However, it is important to remember that recovery for damages will be reduced by the percentage of fault associated with that matter. For instance, if you were found 20% at fault for causing the accident, your settlement and or judgement will be reduced by 20% of the entire dollar amount settled or awarded.
There are several problems with this. First off, even if there is a traffic collision report, stating that the driver of the car was at fault, the traffic collision report is hearsay. As a matter of fact, it cannot get admitted as evidence to prove the dynamics of the motorcycle accident. Also, the insurance company also doesn’t have to consider this as proof of fault. The insurance company attorneys not having to consider the traffic accident report, will begin placing blame on the innocent victim. They might claim, the rider wasn’t being inattentive. Or they may say you weren’t riding at a safe speed during the collision. Then again, they might claim the rider should have yielded. The Endless Insurance Company Excuses. They can also claim the motorcyclist was not wearing bright enough clothing or anything else. Hence they may argue the motorcyclist at fault instead of the insured auto driver. So besides being worried about getting your bike fixed and custom motorcycle parts, now you have to PROVE it was not your fault.
Negligence determines who was at fault and their degree of the blame. Both a rider and the motorist can be partially responsible. The biker can still recover money. Some of these accidents take place due to the motorcyclist passing a larger vehicle in the same travel lane. In fact, that could have obscured him from an oncoming vehicle turning left. The other motorist usually fails to have enough reaction time to complete the left turn safely. This makes the car into a wall of steel, ejecting the rider from their bike. The rider may have been reckless. So starting a motorcycle lawsuit is not always the answer. A unique factor to consider remains that most insurance companies refuse to pay money after a rider gets smacked down.
We provide 24/7 motorcycle accident hot line available for victims involved in motorcycle accidents. Speak to a Los Angeles motorcycle accident attorney today. Our motorcycle accident lawyers charge our clients' zero upfront legal fees. You pay nothing until and unless we successfully secure a settlement or judgement.
Experienced and inexperienced riders must be ready to deal with every roadside contingency in as little as microseconds. Motorcycle accidents normally occur blue and are totally unpredictable. Only sturdy boots, helmets and other gear reduce harm. But when coupled with training and muscle memory it can prevent harm.
We provide 24/7 motorcycle accident hotline available for victims involved in motorcycle accidents. Speak to a Los Angeles motorcycle accident attorney today. Our attorneys speak English, Spanish, Russian, Armenian, and French.
Location: 701 North Brand Blvd. Suite 100 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (310) 943-1171 Email: [email protected]
KAASS LAW is authorized to practice law in California. The above content is intended for California residents only. This content provides only general information which may or may not reflect current legal developments. KAASS LAW expressly disclaims all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on any of the contents of this website. The above content DOES NOT create an attorney-client relationship. KAASS LAW does not represent you unless you have expressly retained KAASS LAW in person at the KAASS LAW office. KAASS LAW helps clients in: Los Angeles, Burbank, Hollywood, Glendale, Van Nuys, North Hollywood, Studio City, Highland Park, Eagle Rock, Sunland, Tujunga, Sylmar, La Crescenta, La Canada, Beverly Hills, Westwood, Santa Monica, Brentwood. Pacoima, Montebello, Commerce, Alhambra, Downey, Bell, Maywood, Walnut Park, Vernon, Lynwood, Echo Park, Silverlake, Mission Hills, Northridge, Woodland Hills, Encino, Canoga Park, North Hills, Porter Ranch, Chatsworth, Reseda.
Many times, product liability lawsuits can arise out of a motorcycle accident. In Soule v. GM, “A manufacturer, distributor, or retailer is liable in tort if a defect in the manufacture or design of its product causes injury while the product is being used in a reasonably foreseeable way.” This is one of many that defines defective motorcycle gear and product liability laws. It's quite often that faulty tires, helmets, or jackets, can be a cause or worsen a motorcycle accident. Helmets and jackets alone can be exacerbate a motorcyclist’s injuries in the event of an accident. This is why we have defective motorcycle gear and product liability laws.
If a motorcycle manufacturer fails to warn or label the risk towards the consumer, the item is therefore defective.
E-2 investor immigration visa allows entry to the United States (from another country that the United States maintains a treat y with) in order to work based on a substantial amount of investment and control he or she will hold while in the United States.
The investment must be active. An active investment refers to its operation and services. In other words, the investment must allow the investor to undertake procedures in an effort to produce goods for profit. The investor must engage in the business enterprise; passive activities within the business enterprise will not qualify. For example, purchasing a property may not be sufficient. Instead, the investor must hire employees in order to manage, develop, improve, and maintain that property. Throughout this process, the investor must remain active by controlling and directing the investment in order to begin or continue providing services.
Are you filing a lawsuit? Defending a lawsuit? If so, you are naturally—and, inevitably—thinking about the excessive expenses. Being involved in litigation is a burden on your pocket—not to mention a burden on your mind. You can minimize your mental burden concerning expenses by learning that there are in fact ways on recovering attorney fees.
The general “American Rule” places each party responsible for its own legal costs, including attorney fees. In other words, based on this rule even the prevailing party must pay his or her own attorney fees arising out of litigation. Surely, California follows this rule, regardless of what the cause of action may be and regardless of whether you win or lose the case. However, there are exceptions to this rule. The prevailing party may be awarded in two situations: (1) based on a written contract provision, (2) based on an applicable statute. These exceptions may hold the losing party responsible for paying the prevailing party’s attorney fees.
Signing a contract? Look out! There may be a clause in the contract you are about to sign, which provides the prevailing party in litigation to be awarded with most, if not all, of its reasonable fees. Generally, a contract that includes such provision is enforceable. A contract that entitles recovery of said expenses addresses the rights of the prevailing party to collect not only attorney fees, but also its reasonable costs incurred before and during litigation. Such costs include, but are not limited to, court filing fees, expert witness fees, preparation for deposition, pre-trial interviews, serving complaints, paying court reporters, photocopying, and travel expenses. On the other hand, reasonable attorney fees are the compensation for the legal services an attorney performs. While attorney fees and the legal costs are different, contract provisions may entitle the prevailing party to recover for both expenses.
California law allows consumers to bring bad faith tort action against their insurers for breaching the duty of good faith when refusing without proper cause to compensate its insured for a loss cover by the policy. Generally, every insurance policy has an implied obligation of good faith and fair dealing that neither the insurance company nor the insured will do anything to injure the right of the other party to receive the benefits of the agreement.
Insurance bad faith means to breach the implied obligation of good faith and fair dealing, an insurance company must, unreasonably or without proper cause, act or fail to act in a manner that deprives the insured of the benefits of the policy. It is not a mere failure to exercise reasonable care. However, it is not necessary for the insurer to intend to deprive the insured of the benefits of the policy.
Generally, the term bad faith for insurance purposes means an insurance company:
Asylum in the United States usually wonder how long they will have to wait for their asylum interview. Potential asylum applicants should know that they might have to wait for years until they get a chance to appear before an asylum officer.
Pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the initial interview or hearing on the asylum application must commence not later than 45 days after the date an application is filed. INA § 208(d)(5)(A)(ii). In the absence of exceptional circumstances, final administrative adjudication of the asylum application, not including administrative appeal, must be completed within 180 days after the date an application is filed. Id. § 208(d)(5)(A)(iii). According to INA, USCIS shall schedule the asylum interview within 45 days after filing the application which should be adjudicated within 180 days from the filing date, unless exceptional circumstances apply.
During the last years exceptional circumstances apply, and the actual waiting times are far from being close to the statutory deadlines. Asylum applicants have to wait for years until they get a chance to appear in front of an asylum officer. Depending on the asylum office that has jurisdiction over the application, applicants may wait from two to five years. For example, in December 2016, the Los Angeles asylum office was interviewing the applicants who filed their applications in August 2011. The waiting time is much shorter in Northern California where have to wait two year. The asylum application processing times for all asylum offices may be found on the USCIS website.
With the constant monopolization of large corporations taking over cities, it is important to know the regulations behind unfair competition, to protect yourself against corporate scrutiny.
Classifications of unfair competition include some of the following examples
Protecting your brand through California trademark registration is vital in today’s competitive market. This process establishes your brand identity and prevents others from using similar marks. In this guide, we will explore key aspects of the registration process under Business and Professions Code (BP) 14205 and BP 1407.
Business and Professions Code 14205 outlines criteria that can lead to the rejection of a trademark application. Knowing these criteria is essential for a successful application:
Many foreigners who are planning to apply for asylum do not know that there is a filing deadline for asylum applications. If an alien does not file the application within the deadline, his application cannot be approved even if he qualifies for asylum, unless one of the exceptions applies. Pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act, an alien must file his application for asylum within one year after the date of the alien’s arrival in the United States. INA § 208(a)(2)(B). If an alien has filed an application one year after his arrival in the United States the application may be considered only if the alien demonstrates the existence of changed circumstances which materially affect the applicant’s eligibility for asylum or extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing within one year from the date of the alien’s arrival. Id. § 208(a)(2)(D). The one-year period is calculated from the date of the alien’s last arrival in the United States. The date of entry is not counted in calculating the one-year period for filing the asylum application. Minasyan v. Mukasey, 553 F.3d 1224, 1229 (9th Cir. 2009). When the last day of the one-year period falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period will run until the end of the next working day. 8 C.F.R. § 208.4(a)(2)(ii). For purposes of the one-year rule, the application is considered to have been filed on the date it is received by USCIS. If an application is filed after the one-year period it will be considered only if one of the statutory exceptions applies.
Prior to preparing the H-1B petition for a foreign employee, US employers shall determine whether the specific occupation falls under the H-1B category or not. Currently, the H-1B category covers only foreign employees who come to US to perform services in a specialty occupation or are models of distinguished merit and ability.
A specialty occupation is an occupation that requires theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty as a minimum for entry into the occupation. To qualify as a specialty occupation, the position must meet one of the following criteria: (1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position; (2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree; (3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or (4) The nature of the specific duties are so specialized and complex that knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree. INA § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Some occupations clearly fall under the specialty occupation for H-1B purposes, and employers do not have to do much to show that the offered position is in a specialty occupation. The list of these occupations includes, but is not limited to, lawyers, accountants, engineers, architects, psychologists, scientists, and financial analysts. For these occupations, employers do not need to submit extensive evidence to show that the position is in a specialty occupation. For other occupations, which do not clearly fall under the specialty occupation category, employers will have to demonstrate that the position is in a specialty occupation. Employers can demonstrate that the position is in a specialty occupation by showing that it meets one of the criteria specified in the Immigration and Nationality Act. The adjudicators at USCIS rely on the Department of Labor’s Occupational Outlook Handbook to determine whether the position is in a specialty occupation or not. This handbook specifies the duties and requirements for different positions, including the requirements for entry into the specific occupation. The Handbook can serve as a comprehensive guide for employers to determine whether the specific position will qualify as a specialty occupation or not. Employers shall keep in mind that the H-1B category does not cover all the occupations, but only specialty occupations. Hence, employers shall determine whether the specific position is in a specialty occupation, and only after that shall start working on the H-1B petition. If the position is not in a specialty occupation the H-1B petition will not be successful, and employers should think about alternatives.
Under state law, product liability in California is "strict liability". A Plaintiff does not have to prove negligence by the manufacturer or any in the chain of distribution. However, the Plaintiff must meet the burden of proof in order to recover monies for injuries sustained. In Anderson v. Owens- Corning Fiberglas Corp, “Strict liability has been invoked for three types of defects—manufacturing defects, design defects, and ‘warning defects,’ i.e., inadequate warnings or failures to warn.”
Also, in Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., “A manufacturer is strictly liable in tort when an article he places on the market, knowing that it is to be used without inspection for defects, proves to have a defect that causes injury to a human being… The purpose of such liability is to insure that the costs of injuries resulting from defective products are borne by the manufacturers that put such products on the market rather than by the injured persons who are powerless to protect themselves.”
In the case of Elmore v. American Motors Corp., “[T]he doctrine of strict liability may not be restricted on a theory of privity of contract. Since the doctrine applies even where the manufacturer has attempted to limit liability, they further make it clear that the doctrine may not be limited on the theory that no representation of safety is made to the bystander...." Going further on the case, "If anything, bystanders should be entitled to greater protection than the consumer or user where injury to bystanders from the defect is reasonably foreseeable. Consumers and users, at least, have the opportunity to inspect for defects and to limit their purchases to articles manufactured by reputable manufacturers and sold by reputable retailers, whereas the bystander ordinarily has no such opportunities. In short, the bystander is in greater need of protection from defective products which are dangerous, and if any distinction should be made between bystanders and users, it should be made, contrary to the position of defendants, to extend greater liability in favor of the bystanders.”
In most motorcycle products liability cases, an expert witness testimony is a requirement to prove any defective products.
In California civil lawsuits, jurors are given jury instructions in order to help them determine whether the Defendant(s) should be held liable for injuries caused to the Plaintiff(s). A list of jury instructions can be found on the CACI Series 1200 Products Liability Section.
Give us a call! Speak to a experienced motorcycle accident attorney and motorcycle product liability attorney. We are located in Glendale, Los Angeles County, CA. Our attorneys speak English, French, Spanish, Russian, Armenian, Hebrew, Farsi, and Arabic. [video width="1280" height="720" mp4="https://kaass.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/output_HD7204.mp4"][/video]
The investment must be substantial. While there is no set minimum amount to consider the investment “substantial,” it must nonetheless be substantial in its connection to the total expenses of purchasing an existing or already established business enterprise. Also, a substantial amount of capital must be sufficient to secure the successful operation of the business enterprise.
One of two tests must meet in order to consider a “substantial” investment:
Investment must not be marginal. That is to say, the investment must have the potential or power to produce enough income in order to support a decent living for the treaty investor and his family. Additionally, in most instances, such investment should provide individuals living in the U.S. with job opportunities. While creating employment opportunities for U.S. workers is not a requirement, it can be in use to show that the investment is not marginal. When an investment is not considered to be marginal, it will require individuals beyond the investor to operate the business or enterprise. Further, it will generate enough income to fulfill the investors living expenses, along with payment of its U.S. workers.
Therefore, the issue is whether there is a projected and reliable return on the investment in order to meet the requirements of an E-2 treaty investor visa.
An essential role in an enterprise can be held by both the principal investor and certain employees of the investing enterprise. Both can obtain a treaty-investor status.
An individual, applying to enter the U.S. as a treaty investor, is considered a principal investor when he has a majority—at least 50%—ownership in the business, along with the responsibly of controlling and developing that enterprise. This generally occurs when the investor owns a majority and controlling interest in the business.
Another way an individual can enter the U.S. is as an employee of a company. In order to qualify for an E-2 nonimmigrant visa as an employee of a treaty investor, the following must be satisfactory:
Give us a call, our attorneys speak English, French, Spanish, Russian, Armenian, Hebrew, Farsi, and Arabic.
KAASS LAW has the authority to practice law in California. The above content is for California residents only. This content provides only general information which may or may not reflect current legal developments. KAASS LAW expressly disclaims all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on any of the contents of this website. The above content DOES NOT create an attorney-client relationship. KAASS LAW does not represent you unless you have expressly retained KAASS LAW in person at the KAASS LAW office.
KAASS LAW helps clients in: Los Angeles, Burbank, Hollywood, Glendale, Van Nuys, North Hollywood, Studio City, Highland Park, Eagle Rock, Sunland, Tujunga, Sylmar, La Crescenta, La Canada, Beverly Hills, Westwood, Santa Monica, Brentwood. Pacoima, Montebello, Commerce, Alhambra, Downey, Bell, Maywood, Walnut Park, Vernon, Lynwood, Echo Park, Silverlake, Mission Hills, Northridge, Woodland Hills, Encino, Canoga Park, North Hills, Porter Ranch, Chatsworth, Reseda.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width="1/6"][/vc_column][/vc_row]
Additionally, if an applicable statute authorizes, the prevailing party in litigation can seek to recover attorney fees. Some California statutes are discretionary; such that the court “may” award attorney fees to the prevailing party, whereas other statutes provide mandatory language and “shall” award the prevailing party with its attorney fees. Some statues that allow the prevailing party to recover is when the losing party files a lawsuit based on no grounds, such that there was no reason to bring forth the lawsuit; instead, it was a waste of court’s time and resources. Other statues allow recovery of fees from a case that substantially benefits or influences the public. Give us a call, we speak English, French, Spanish, Russian, Armenian, Hebrew, Farsi, and Arabic. KAASS LAW is authorized to practice law in California. The above content is intended for California residents only. This content provides only general information which may or may not reflect current legal developments. KAASS LAW expressly disclaims all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on any of the contents of this website. The above content DOES NOT create an attorney-client relationship. KAASS LAW does not represent you unless you have expressly retained KAASS LAW in person at the KAASS LAW office. KAASS LAW helps clients in: Los Angeles, Burbank, Hollywood, Glendale, Van Nuys, North Hollywood, Studio City, Highland Park, Eagle Rock, Sunland, Tujunga, Sylmar, La Crescenta, La Canada, Beverly Hills, Westwood, Santa Monica, Brentwood. Pacoima, Montebello, Commerce, Alhambra, Downey, Bell, Maywood, Walnut Park, Vernon, Lynwood, Echo Park, Silverlake, Mission Hills, Northridge, Woodland Hills, Encino, Canoga Park, North Hills, Porter Ranch, Chatsworth, Reseda.
Location: 701 North Brand Blvd. Suite 100 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (310) 943-1171 Email: [email protected]
Both first and third party can bring suit for insurance bad faith.
First party claims are made between its policyholder or insured and the insurance company. These type of claims are contractual by nature and are contingent on the language of the insurance policy. For the insurer to fulfill its obligation not to impair the right of the insured to receive the benefits of the agreement, it again must give at least as much consideration to the latter’s interests as it does to its own.” (Egan v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 809, 818—819 [169 Cal.Rptr. 691, 620 P.2d 141].)
Third party insurance claim is made by a party that is not a named policyholder or insured. The most common type of third party insurance claim would be a liability claim i.e, you were rear-ended up by another driver and filed a claim with his/her insurance company.
California Insurance Code §790.3 underlines what insurance companies are prohibited from doing:
Insured must show that the insurer has:
The actionable withholding of benefits may consist of the denial of benefits due; paying less than due; and/or unreasonably delaying payments due.” (Major v. Western Home Ins. Co. (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1209 [87 Cal.Rptr.3d 556], internal citations omitted.)
If an insurance company is successfully found to have acted in bad faith, they may be liable to pay for:
[video width="1280" height="720" mp4="https://kaass.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/output_HD72010.mp4"][/video]
If you believe that your insurance company may be acting in bad faith, speak to a Los Angeles insurance attorney for a free consultation. Call our office at (310) 943-1171, our attorneys speak English, French, Spanish, Russian, Armenian, and Italian.
Location: 701 North Brand Blvd. Suite 100 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (310) 943-1171 Email: [email protected]
KAASS LAW is authorized to practice law in California. The above content is intended for California residents only. This content provides only general information which may or may not reflect current legal developments. KAASS LAW expressly disclaims all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on any of the contents of this website. The above content DOES NOT create an attorney-client relationship. KAASS LAW does not represent you unless you have expressly retained KAASS LAW in person at the KAASS LAW office. KAASS LAW helps clients in: Los Angeles, Burbank, Hollywood, Glendale, Van Nuys, North Hollywood, Studio City, Highland Park, Eagle Rock, Sunland, Tujunga, Sylmar, La Crescenta, La Canada, Beverly Hills, Westwood, Santa Monica, Brentwood. Pacoima, Montebello, Commerce, Alhambra, Downey, Bell, Maywood, Walnut Park, Vernon, Lynwood, Echo Park, Silverlake, Mission Hills, Northridge, Woodland Hills, Encino, Canoga Park, North Hills, Porter Ranch, Chatsworth, Reseda.
It should be noted that USCIS prioritizes asylum applications for interview scheduling as follows:
Generally, the applicants in the first and second categories are scheduled promptly.
Although asylum applicants have to wait for years for their interview, they do not have to wait until the interview to obtain employment authorization. Simply filing an application for asylum does not entitle the applicant to employment authorization. However, an applicant may request a permission to work if the application is still pending, and 150 have passed since the application was accepted by USCIS. 8 C.F.R. § 208.7(a)(1). If the asylum application is not denied, the USCIS has 30 days from the date of filing of the application for employment authorization to grant or deny that application except that no employment authorization will be issued to an asylum applicant prior to the expiration of the 180-day period following the filing of the asylum application. Id. The employment authorization document is valid for two years, and can be extended after the expiration date if the asylum application is still pending.
To sum up, asylum applicants may have to wait for years until their asylum interview. In some regions of the United States applicants have to wait for more than five years. However, foreigners with pending asylum applications may apply for employment authorization five months after filing the application with USCIS.
We invite you to contact our office and speak to our Glendale immigration attorney for a free consultation. Our immigration attorney speaks English, French, Spanish, Russian, Armenian, and Italian.
It is hard to determine what actions violate the unfair competition laws, however if you are ever in doubt the first step would be to call a lawyer. There are several legal routes to take when a business entity are opressing by unfair competition. Filing a lawsuit against an unfair competitor would be the most effective route, in which the plaintiff collects money for every violation. According to BPC 17206, any person who engages in unfair competition will be liable for a civil penalty not exceeding $2500 for each violation.
The court asses each violation made by the Defendant and determines whether it is worthy of a violation. Numerous circumstances are considered when making the final decision, including: the number of violations, seriousness of misconduct, persistence of misconduct, liability, net worth, and defendant’s asset’s.
The industrialization of most cities in the United States puts small business owners at risk of being intimidated or bought out by larger corporations. Business owners can file a lawsuit as a countermeasure to corporation’s intimidation strategies, if they cross the lines of unfair competition. If any business owner is in fear of being a target by other corporations, make sure to contact an attorney to see whether you are a victim of unfair competition.
Give us a call, our litigation and trial attorneys speak English, French, Spanish, Russian, Armenian, Hebrew, Farsi, and Arabic.
Understanding these restrictions is crucial for anyone seeking California trademark registration.
To apply for trademark registration under BP 1407, you must provide specific information as required by the Secretary of State:
After submission, your application will undergo an examination as outlined in BP 14209. Here’s what to expect during the review:
Understanding this process can significantly improve your chances of successfully registering your trademark.
Given the complexities of California trademark registration, seeking legal advice is highly recommended. An experienced attorney can guide you through the application process, ensuring compliance with all requirements and protecting your rights. For comprehensive guidance on trademark law, visit the American Bar Association's section on trademarks for valuable insights and resources. At KAASS LAW, our team of dedicated attorneys is ready to assist you in navigating the intricacies of trademark registration and safeguarding your intellectual property. We speak multiple languages, including English, Spanish, Russian, Armenian, French, and Italian, so you can communicate comfortably. If you are considering California trademark registration, don’t go through this process alone. Contact KAASS LAW today for a consultation. Our knowledgeable attorneys will help you understand your rights and responsibilities, ensuring your brand is effectively protected. Your brand deserves the best defense—let us help you secure it!
An alien’s late filed application for asylum may be considered if the applicant is able to show changed circumstances which materially affect the applicant’s eligibility for asylum. This exception is for aliens who did not qualify for asylum at the time of arrival, however, due to changed circumstances, they became eligible for asylum later. It should be noted that changed circumstances do not grant an automatic extension of the one-year period. The alien must file the application within reasonable time from the changed circumstances. Matter of T-M-H- & S-W-C-, 25 I. & N. 193, 194 (B.I.A. 2010) (internal citations omitted). If the alien files the application within six months from changed circumstances the decision-maker shall determine whether the time was reasonable taking into account the totality of circumstances. Id. If the applicant has waited one year or more, such delay may be excused only in case of particular circumstances. Id. Consequently, the applicant shall file the application at least within six months after the changed circumstances otherwise it will be difficult to show that the application was filed within a reasonable time.
The second exception to the one-year rule is extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing the application for asylum. These circumstances shall refer to events or factors directly related to the failure to meet the one-year deadline. 8 C.F.R. § 208.4(a)(5). As in the case of changed circumstances, the application shall be filed within reasonable time given those circumstances. Id. The applicant shall prove that he has not intentionally created those circumstances, that they are directly related to his failure to submit the application within the specified deadline, and that the delay was reasonable under the circumstances. Id.
(a) Serious illness, mental or physical disability; (b) Legal disability; (c) Ineffective assistance of counsel; (d) The applicant maintained legal status or was given parole until a reasonable period before filing the application; (e) The applicant filed the application prior to the expiration of the one-year deadline, but the application was rejected by USCIS as not properly filed, was returned to the applicant for corrections, and was re-filed within a reasonable period thereafter; (f) The death or serious illness or incapacity of the applicant’s legal representative or the applicant’s immediate family member. Id. It should be noted that this list is not exhaustive. If an applicant was unable to file the application within the one-year deadline period of other extraordinary circumstances, not listed above, the decision-maker may forgive the failure to submit the application by the deadline. To sum up, an alien who qualifies for asylum shall file the application within one year after his arrival. If the alien fails to meet the deadline his application may be considered only if it was filed within a reasonable period after changed or extraordinary circumstances. To avoid any complications the qualifying applicant shall follow the one-year rule. Give us a call, our attorneys speak English, French, Spanish, Russian, Armenian, Hebrew, Farsi, and Arabic.
Do you need more specific information? A Glendale immigration lawyer at KAASS LAW can provide you with any sort of legal assistance you may need. Give us a call, our attorneys speak English, French, Spanish, Russian, Armenian, Hebrew, Farsi, and Arabic.