Traumatic brain injury is divided into two categories -- mild and severe. A traumatic brain injury is considered mild if a loss of consciousness lasts for less than 30 minutes. On the other hand, traumatic brain injury is considered severe, if a loss of consciousness lasts for more than an hour.
Signs of a mild traumatic brain injury include,
Signs of a moderate to severe brain injury may begin within days and symptoms include:
Often times, common traumatic brain injury symptoms are not immediately apparent. It may take several days or weeks for traumatic brain injury symptoms to surface. This depends on a number of factors including how severe was the incident. It is important to speak to your physician's if you begin to notice physical or behavioral changes. You should also consider receiving an MRI of your brain. A thorough neurological examination or a brain imaging scan should reveal any damage to the brain's surface.
It is important to collect all the documentation and medical records that are related to the injury. Also, it is a good idea to keep a journal and keeping track of the time and effects the injury has on your daily life. Consult with an experienced traumatic brain injury lawyer. Your attorney will consult with out on your options, whether there was any potential negligence that can be asserted against the third party. You may be able to collect monetary compensation, the cost of therapy, medical expenses, loss of income, reduced quality of life, and more for a traumatic brain injury cases. Have you or a loved one suffered a traumatic brain injury due to the negligence of another? A Los Angeles personal injury attorney from KAASS Law may be able to provide you with legal assistance.
As an owner of a registered trademark or service, you probably wonder when others are responsible for infringing your mark. You should know that the test for trademark infringement is the likelihood of confusion as a result of the similarity of the marks.
A person may be liable for infringement of a federally registered mark if his use of a mark in relation to any goods of services is likely to cause confusion, mistake or to deceive. 15 U.S.C.A. § 1114(1). This test to determine whether a registered mark is being infringed is known as the test of likelihood of confusion.
The test of likelihood of confusion includes not only the confusion as to source but also as to affiliation, connection or sponsorship. Champions Golf Club v. Champions Golf Club, 78 F.3d 1111, 1121 (6th Cir. 1996) (internal citations omitted). This means that a user of a mark may be liable for trademark infringement if the use creates a likelihood of confusion that the goods are affiliated to, connected with or sponsored by the owner of the registered mark.
The Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) gives an opportunity to US Citizens and lawful permanent residents to bring their children to the United States. US citizens can sponsor both their married and unmarried children. However, the unmarried children under twenty-one (21) fall under the category of immediate relatives who are exempt from numerical quotas applicable to other family based preference categories. The question whether the child falls under the category of immediate relatives is extremely important because if immediate relatives can obtain their green cards within less than a year, children of US citizens, falling under one of the preference categories, will have to wait at least seven (7) years depending on their country of citizenship and marital status. Lawful permanent residents can only sponsor their unmarried children who fall under the Second Preference – spouses and unmarried sons and daughters of permanent residents. However, children under twenty-one (21) of permanent residents have certain privileges compared to children who are twenty-one (21) or older. First of all, seventy-seven percent (77%) of available visas in the second preference category is allocated to spouses and unmarried sons and daughters under twenty-one (21) of permanent residents. § 203(a)(2). Additionally, seventy-five percent (75%) of visas issued to spouses and unmarried children under twenty-one (21) of permanent residents are not subject to the per country limitations. . § 202(a)(4)(A). As a result, if children under twenty-one (21) of permanent residents can obtain their green cards within less than two (2) years, children who are twenty-one (21) or older will have to wait at least seven (7) years depending on their country of citizenship. As it can be seen, the age of the child is crucial for both the petitions filed by US citizens and permanent residents. There is a possibility that although the petition is filed while the child beneficiary is under twenty-one (21) he will be twenty-one (21) or older at the time of adjudication of the petition. In 2002, the Congress enacted the Child Status Protection Act to protect children beneficiaries who turned twenty-one (21) after the immigration petition was filed on their behalf. These provisions of the Child Status Protection Act are known as “age-out protection” provisions.
(a) The owner of any dog is liable for the damages suffered by any person who is bitten by the dog while in a public place or lawfully in a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner’s knowledge of such viciousness. A person is lawfully upon the private property of such owner within the meaning of this section when he is on such property in the performance of any duty imposed upon him by the laws of this state or by the laws or postal regulations of the United States, or when he is on such property upon the invitation, express or implied, of the owner. (b) Nothing in this section shall authorize the bringing of an action pursuant to subdivision (a) against any governmental agency using a dog in military or police work if the bite or bites occurred while the dog was defending itself from an annoying, harassing, or provoking act, or assisting an employee of the agency in any of the following: (1) In the apprehension or holding of a suspect where the employee has a reasonable suspicion of the suspect’s involvement in criminal activity. (2) In the investigation of a crime or possible crime. (3) In the execution of a warrant. (4) In the defense of a peace officer or another person. (c) Subdivision (b) shall not apply in any case where the victim of the bite or bites was not a party to, nor a participant in, nor suspected to be a party to or a participant in, the act or acts that prompted the use of the dog in the military or police work. (d) Subdivision (b) shall apply only where a governmental agency using a dog in military or police work has adopted a written policy on the necessary and appropriate use of a dog for the police or military work enumerated in subdivision (b). Although, the owner(s)' of a for damages in There is a defense to this rule known as “” Assumption of risk can be used as a defense when the victim of a is working in the capacity of a veterinarian, or some other contracted dog handler. , 16 Cal. App. 4th 650 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. June 15, 1993); , 140 P.3d 848 (Cal. Aug. 28, 2006). “, which is generally applicable in strict liability actions has long been recognized as a defense to a action brought pursuant to the dog bite statute (§ 3342) under appropriate facts.” 140 P.3d 848, 853.
Generally, in tort law, the burden of proof falls on the plaintiff. This means that the plaintiff holds the burden of proving the claims made against the defendant. This usually sounds fair because the individual making the claim should have to prove the claims they are making. However, sometimes fairness demands that the burden should switch on to the defendant to prove that they were not in fact negligent. In order for a Plaintiff to meet his or her burden of proof by circumstantial evidence. Such is the case for the “res ipsa loquitur” doctrine. Res ipsa loquitur is Latin for “the thing speaks for itself.” Under this doctrine, the plaintiff is permitted to make a prima facia claim against the defendant for negligence, without actually having to prove the actual negligent act(s). 3-31 California Torts § 31.32
Plaintiff must prove three (3) things,
In California, a corporation is formed by filing the articles of incorporation with the Secretary of State. The incorporators may either file the articles of incorporation by using the form articles of incorporation developed by the Secretary of State, or they can draft their own articles of incorporation with specific provisions. The second option is common for corporations with complex organizational and financial structures. The articles of incorporation filed with the Secretary of State must contain all the information required by Section 202 of California Corporations Code.
First of all, the articles of incorporation must state the name of the corporation. Corps. C. § 202(a). The name of the corporation cannot be the same as or closely resemble the name of a domestic corporation or a name of a foreign corporation qualified to do business in California. Id. 201(b). Before filing the articles of incorporation the incorporators should conduct a research on the website of the Secretary of State to see if the particular name is available or not. The incorporators also have the option to reserve a particular name before filing the articles of incorporation.
Major proposed key changes for Assembly Bill 729, marijuana licensee in California should know about! Accordingly, the bill allows its licensee or employees to "refuse to sell marijuana to a person who is unable to produce adequate personal identification showing that he or she is 21 years of age or older and to seize any personal identification presented by a person that shows the person to be under 21 years of age or that is false, as specified.
No. Assembly Bill 729, prohibits the sale, offer for sale, or distribution of marijuana or marijuana products in a vending machine or appliance, or any other coin- or token-operated mechanical device designed or used for vending purposes.
Assembly Bill 729 require a licensee to post a sign, , and a that reads “” and to include language on the sign that reads “” In other words, if you are an licensed dispensary and an authorized licensee, than you must also include language on the sign that reads without
If you are a US citizen or lawful permanent resident planning to sponsor your foreign family member for a green card you probably wonder how long the process might take. The process of sponsorship of a family member might take from several months to several years depending on the status of the petitioner and the family relationship between the petitioner and the beneficiary.
The Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) has created the category of so called immediate relatives of US citizens who are exempt from numerical limits and per country quotas. This means that the approval of a US citizen’s petition on behalf of his immediate relative makes the immigrant visa immediately available for the beneficiary. The category of immediate relatives embraces spouses, parents and unmarried children under 21 of US citizens. The approval of an immigration petition on behalf of an immediate relative generally takes about six months. The whole process of bringing an immediate relative to the US usually might take about a year.
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) has created the category of immediate relatives of US citizens who are exempt from numerical quotas applicable to other family members of US citizens and family members of lawful permanent residents. INA has created the category of immediate relatives to give an opportunity to US citizens to easily reunite with their closest family members. Therefore, it is extremely important for US citizens and their family members to determine who falls under the category of immediate relatives.
Spouses of US citizens comprise the first group that falls under the category of immediate relatives. INA § 201(b)(2)(A)(i). The marriage between the US citizen and his/her spouse shall be legitimate and shall not be entered into for immigration benefits. The US citizen and his/her spouse have to submit supporting documents showing that the legitimacy of the marriage.
The will be if at the time of obtaining the permanent residence their marriage is less than two years old. The conditional residence is granted for two years, and the US citizen with his/her spouse shall file a joint petition to remove the conditions on residence within ninety days before the expiration of the two-year conditional green card.
The new law will make it illegal for Uber drivers to drive with a BAC (blood alcohol content) of 0.04 or higher. Effective July 1, 2018, California ride-sharing drivers, like Uber and Lyft , and other commercial-for-hire vehicles will have stringent DUI laws.
The AB 2687 bill will amend the Vehicle Code Section 23152 (e): Commencing July 1, 2018, it shall be unlawful for a person who has 0.04 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a motor vehicle when a passenger for hire is a passenger in the vehicle at the time of the offense, and concurrently to do any act forbidden by law or neglect any duty imposed by law in driving the vehicle, which act or neglect proximately causes bodily injury to any person other than the driver. For purposes of this subdivision, “ means a passenger for whom consideration is of carriage in the vehicle.
In order to show likelihood of confusion, there must be a probability of confusion; mere possibility of confusion is not enough. Nora Beverages, Inc. v. The Perrier Group of America, Inc., 269 F.3d 114, 121 (2d Cir. 2001) (internal citations omitted). It should also be noted that plaintiff does not have to prove actual confusion in order to show that the defendant is liable for trademark infringement. Perfumebay.com Inc. v. eBay, Inc., 506 F.3d 1165, 1176 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal citations omitted). If the plaintiff is able to show likelihood of confusion the defendant will still be liable for trademark infringement even if the plaintiff shows no instances of actual confusion.
The test for likelihood of confusion is whether a reasonably prudent consumer is likely to be confused as a result of the similarity of the marks. Dreamwerks Production Group, Inc. v. SKG Studio, 142 F.3d 1127, 1129 (9th Cir. 1998) (internal citations omitted). The likelihood of confusion exists when there is a likelihood that an appreciable number of reasonably prudent consumers is likely to be misled or confused because of the similarity of the marks. McGregor-Doniger, Inc. v. Drizzle, Inc., 599 F.2d 1126, 1130 (2d Cir. 1979) (internal citations omitted). To sum up, there is a likelihood of confusion when there is a probability that an appreciable number of reasonably prudent consumers will be confused as to the source, affiliation, connection or sponsorship of goods or services because of the similarity of the two marks.
Federal courts in different federal circuits have come up with multi-factor tests in order to determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion or not. The test in the 9th Circuit, which includes the State of California, is the eight-factor Sleekcraft test pursuant to which the court shall consider the following factors to determine if there is a likelihood of confusion or not:
These factors are not requirements but are helpful guidelines for courts in order to determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion or not. Eclipse Ass’n, Ltd. v. Data General Corp., 894 F.2d 1114, 1118 (9th Cir. 1990). The application of the text shall be flexible, and there is no specific formula setting forth how the factors included in the text shall be considered. Nautilus Group, Inc. v. ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 372 F.3d 1330, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (internal citations omitted). The important question is what the analysis as a whole reveals about the issue of likelihood of confusion. Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, 279 F.3d 1135, 1141 (9th Cir. 2002). This means that none of the factors is determinative but the analysis as a whole shall answer the question whether there is a likelihood of confusion or not.
It should be noted that the degree of similarity of marks necessary to show likelihood of confusion varies depending on the competitiveness of goods and services. The more similar the goods or services the less similar marks need to be in order to prove likelihood of confusion. Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of America, 970 F.2d 874, 877 (internal citations omitted). Conversely, “… the greater the degree of similarity between the marks, the lesser the degree of similarity between the goods is necessary to support a finding of likelihood of confusion.” The Board of Regents, University of Texas System v. Southern Illinois Miners, LLC, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1182, 1189 (internal citations omitted). Hence, if the marks are very similar the court may find a likelihood of confusion even if the goods or services at issue are not very similar. To summarize, your trademark or service mark is being infringed if a use of another mark creates a likelihood of confusion among consumers. If the other mark is very similar to your trademark or service mark you might have a cause of action for trademark infringement even if the goods or services are not very similar. If you believe someone is infringing on your trademark or have questions regarding trademark registration, copyright, or any other intellectual property related question, we invite you to contact our office and speak to one of our experienced business attorneys at (310) 943-1171.
Adjudicators must determine whether the beneficiary qualifies as an immediate relative child based on his age on the date of filing the immigrantion visa petition on his behalf. Id. § 201(f)(1). As such, the date when the US citizen parent files the immigration petition for his child, the Form I-130, determines whether the child falls under the category of immediate relatives or not. This means that although the child may turn twenty-one (21) after filing the immigration petition on his behalf, he will always qualify as an immediate relative as long as he is not married. The date of filing the petition is the date when the Form I-130 is filed with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.
Adjudicators shall determine whether the beneficiary qualifies as a child under twenty-one (21) of a lawful permanent resident by using the following formula: the age of the child on the date on which an immigrant visa number becomes available minus the number of days during which the petition for the child was pending. Id. § 203(h)(1). If the child is under 21 after using this formula he will benefit from the age-out protection provision of INA. The immigration petition is considered to be pending from the date of filing the petition until the date of approval. It should be noted that the beneficiary may benefit from the age-out protection only if he seeks to acquire a status of a lawful permanent resident within one (1) year after the availability of an immigrant visa number. Id. The age-out protection provisions of the INA are intended to protect the children of US citizens and lawful permanent residents who turn twenty-one (21) after filing the immigration petition on their behalf. Hence, if the child of a US citizen or a lawful permanent resident will turn twenty-one (21) soon they should try to file the immigration petition before the child turns twenty-one (21) in order to benefit from the age-out protection provisions. If you have questions regarding an immigration matter, we invite you to contact our immigration attorney for a free consultation at (310) 943-1171. 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.
While many may be under the impression that you can only be sued if your dog bit someone which resulted in scarring or breaking of the skin; "it is not necessary that the skin be broken in order for the statute to apply". (Johnson v. McMahan (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 173, 176 [80 Cal.Rptr.2d 173].) In Priebe, the Supreme Court of California held that the defendant dog owner was not strictly liable when his dog bit the plaintiff kennel worker. Id. at 861. The court reasoned, “Priebe, by virtue of the nature of her occupation as a kennel worker, assumed the risk of being bitten or otherwise injured by the dogs under her care and control while in the custody of the commercial kennel where she worked pursuant to a contractual boarding agreement.” Id. Similarly, the court in Cohen, held that the plaintiff veterinarian assumed the risk of being bitten by the defendant’s dog, and therefore was barred from recovery. Cohen, 16 Cal. App. 4th 650, 657. However, the court in Davis v. Gaschler, held that the assumption of risk did not apply when the plaintiff stopped to help a dog that was hit by a car and was bitten by the dog. Davis v. Gaschler, 11 Cal. App. 4th 1392, 1402 (Cal. App. 3d Dist. Dec. 23, 1992). The court reasoned, “plaintiff was not employed or otherwise compensated for helping injured dogs. Nor was there an employment relationship or any relationship between plaintiff and defendants.” Id. at 1401.
In California, dog owners can be held responsible for the harm from a dog bite, no matter how carefully they guard or restrain their dogs.
The plaintiff bit by the dog was lawfully on the private property of the owner if [he/ she] was performing any duty required by law or was on the property at the invitation, express or implied, of the owner.
Are you in need of a dog bite lawyer in California? A Los Angeles dog bite attorney can provide you with the services you need. KAASS Law can help you out with various types of personal injury and dog bite cases. If you have questions regarding dog bite laws in California, we invite you to contact our experienced Glendale personal injury attorneys for a free consultation at (310) 943-1171 or our Los Angeles branch at (310) 943-1173.
Res ipsa loquitur is important because sometimes it is impossible for the plaintiff to provide evidence. This is usually the case in medical malpractice suits where the plaintiff was unconscious when the negligent act(s) causing damages occurred. In Ybarra v. Spangard, the Court held that due to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the burden of proof switched on to the defendants when the plaintiff was unconscious during the negligent acts and was unable to prove which medical professional acted negligently, and caused her injuries. Ybarra v. Spangard, 154 P.2d 687, 691 (Cal. Dec. 27, 1944). Another case where res ipsa loquitur comes into play is when multiple people may have caused the plaintiff’s damages, and it would be impossible for the plaintiff to prove which exact person it was. In Summers v. Tice, the Court held that two defendants, who had negligently shot at the plaintiff, were both liable for the plaintiff’s injuries even though only one of them technically caused it. Summers v. Tice, 199 P.2d 1, 5, 1948 (Cal. 1948). The Court explained that it would be impossible for the plaintiff to prove which of the defendants actually caused the injury because they both shot their guns in her direction at the same time. Id. The Court therefore applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, and found both defendants equally liable because neither could meet the burden of proving they did not cause the injury. Id.
Give us a call, our attorneys speak English, French, Spanish, Russian, Armenian 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.
The California Corporations Code requires the incorporators to include a statement of corporate purpose in the articles of organization. To form an ordinary business corporation the articles of incorporation must state that “[t]hat the corporation is to engage in any lawful act or activity for which a corporation may be organized under the General Corporation Law of California other than the banking business, the trust company business or the practice of a profession permitted to be incorporated by the California Corporations Code.” Id. § 202(b)(1)(A). The California Corporations Code has specific requirements for professional corporations, corporations subject to the Banking Law and corporations subject to the Insurance Code.
The articles of incorporation must include the name and the address of the corporation’s initial agent for service of process. Id. § 202(c). The address of the agent for service of process shall be in the State of California. Both individuals and corporations can serve as agents for service of process. Corporations can serve as agents for service of process only if they are registered by the Secretary of State as corporations with such authority.
The articles of incorporation shall state the initial street address of the corporation. Id. § 202(d). The incorporators cannot list a P.O. Box as a street address of the corporation. The articles of incorporation shall also include the initial mailing address of the corporation. Id. § 202(e). The incorporators do not have to state a mailing address if it is the same as the street address of the corporation.
The articles of incorporation shall also specify the share structure of the corporation. If the corporation is authorized to issue only one class of shares the articles of incorporation must state the total number of shares that the corporation is authorized to issue. Id. § 202(f). If the corporation will issue more than one class of shares or if any class will have two or more series, the articles of incorporation must state: 1) “The total number of shares of each class the corporation is authorized to issue, and the total number of shares of each series which the corporation is authorized to issue or that the board is authorized to fix the number of shares of any such series; 2) The designation of each class, and the designation of each series or that the board may determine the designation of any such series; and 3) The rights, preferences, privileges, and restrictions granted to or imposed upon the respective classes or series of shares or the holders thereof, or that the board, within any limits and restrictions stated, may determine or alter the rights, preferences, privileges, and restrictions granted to or imposed upon any wholly unissued class of shares or any wholly unissued series of any class of shares….” Id. § 202(g). The articles of incorporation must include all the above mentioned information in order to be complete. The form articles of incorporations developed by the Secretary of State include all the required information. However, in some cases the incorporators will have to draft their own articles of incorporations because the forms do not contain specific provisions for some situations described in the Section 202 of California Corporations Code. If you or someone you know is seeking to register a California corporation and need assistance feel free to contact our experienced Glendale business lawyer today!
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,
Under Assembly Bill 729, would authorize a peace officer, or an employee of a licensing authority or a state or local agency granted limited peace officer status, to enter and conduct inspections, as specified, of any place at which nonmedical marijuana or nonmedical marijuana products are
Accordingly, AUMA also prohibits a marijuana licensee from being located within a 600-foot radius of a school providing instruction in kindergarten or any grades 1 to 12, inclusive, day care center, or youth center, as specified, unless a licensing authority or local agency specifies a different radius". The bill also prohibits a licensee from being located within a 600-foot radius of the following
However, the exception that a licensing authority or local agency specifies a different radius.
Yes, bill allows law enforcement to inspect all recreational marijuana businesses, including anywhere they might find evidence of tax evasion. The bill also allows law enforcement to engage in operations involving person under 21 years of age is to be used in random inspections, including having pictures taken prior to inspections to verify appearance and requiring the person under 21 years of age to present a true and correct personal identification if verbally requested.
If you have questions regarding marijuana laws or or are seeking to start a recreational marijuana business in California, we invite you to call our office at (310) 943-1171 for a consultation with a Los Angeles marijuana business attorney from KAASS Law at any time.
It might take several years for a US citizen or a lawful permanent resident to bring his relatives to the US if the relative does not fall under the category of immediate relatives of US citizens. Family members, not falling under the category of immediate relatives of US citizens, are divided into 4 preference categories, and only a specific number of visas can be issued in each specific category every year. In addition to numerical limits for each preference category, there is also a per country quota on the number of visas that can be issued. Particularly, the yearly number of visas issued to citizens of any country under a specific preference category cannot exceed 7% of the limit allocated to the specific preference category. INA § 202(a)(2). As a result of the per country quota, aliens from certain countries have to wait much longer compared to aliens from other countries because much more petitions have been filed on behalf of the citizens of these countries. When a US citizen or a lawful permanent resident files an immigration petition on behalf of his foreign family member a priority date is allocated to the specific case. US Department of State publishes a monthly visa bulletin which states the dates a final action was taken in each preference category. Based on the priority date allocated to a petition and the date of final action for the specific preference category, the petitioner and the foreign beneficiary can approximately determine how long they will have to wait until the immigrant visa becomes available. You can check the most recent visa bulletin for July 2017.
The first preference includes unmarried sons and daughters of US citizens. Citizens of Mexico falling under this category have to wait approximately 21 years until their immigrant visa becomes available, citizens of the Philippines have to wait 11 years, while the citizens of all other countries shall wait 7 years.
The second preference includes spouses and unmarried children of lawful permanent residents. This preference is divided into 2 subcategories: (a) spouses and unmarried children under 21 of permanent residents, and (b) unmarried sons and daughters 21 and older of permanent residents.
Not less than 77 percent of visa numbers assigned to the second preference shall be allocated to spouses and unmarried children under 21 of permanent residents. INA § 203(a)(2). Also, 75% of visas issued to spouses and unmarried children under 21 of permanent residents is not subject to the per country limitation. INA § 202(a)(4)(A). These sections of INA are intended to shorten the waiting time for spouses and children under 21 of permanent residents. The waiting time for aliens falling under this category is about 2 years.
The second subcategory of the second preference includes unmarried sons and daughters of permanent residents who are 21 or older. The waiting time for aliens falling under this subcategory is much longer compared to the first subcategory. Particularly, citizens of Mexico shall wait 21 years, citizens of the Philippines shall wait 11 years, while the citizens of all other countries have to wait 7 years.
The third preference includes married sons and daughters of US citizens. Citizens of Mexico falling under this category shall wait approximately 22 years until their visa becomes available, citizens of the Philippines shall wait 23 years, while the citizens of all the other countries have to wait 12 years.
The fourth preference includes the brothers and sisters of adult US citizens. The waiting times for aliens falling under this category are as follows: citizens of Mexico shall wait approximately 20 years, citizens of the Philippines shall wait 23 years, citizens of China shall wait 14 years, while the citizens of all the other countries have to wait 13 years.To sum up, the sponsorship of immediate relatives of US citizens is much easier compared to the sponsorship of family members falling under one of the preference categories. Family members that fall under one of the preference categories will have to wait for years until they get a chance to immigrate to the US.
If you are a US citizen seeking to petition for an immigrant visa for an immediate relative or have questions regarding other family based immigration visas, we invite you to call our office and schedule a free immigration consultation with our Glendale immigration lawyer. We speak Spanish, Armenian, Russian, French, & Italian. Get help from a professional who is experienced with immigration law.
Our lawyers in Glendale, Los Angeles, California at KAASS LAW are 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, San Bernardino, 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.
[contact-form-7 id="5673" title="KAASS LAW Contact Form"]
The category of immediate relatives also includes children of US citizens. Id. § 201(b)(2)(A)(i). To qualify as an immediate relative of a US citizen, the child must be unmarried and under twenty-one years of age. Id. § 101(b)(1). The INA definition of child includes:
(a) a child born in wedlock; (b) a stepchild provided the marriage creating the status of stepchild occurred before the child turned eighteen; (c) a legitimated child if the legitimation took place before the child turned eighteen and the child was in the legal custody of the legitimating parent at the time of legitimation; (d) a child born out of wedlock through natural mother or through natural father if the father has or had a bona fide parent-child relationship with the child; (e) a child that was adopted under the age of sixteen years if the child has been in the legal custody of and has resided with the adopting parent for at least two years. Id. It should be noted that even if the child turns twenty-one during the processing of the immigration petition he/she will still qualify as an immediate relative if the immigration petition on the child’s behalf was filed before the child turned twenty-one.
The last group of family members that falls under the category of immediate relatives includes parents of US citizens. Id. § 201(b)(2)(A)(i). The US citizen child must be at least twenty-one years old in order to be able to sponsor his/her parents for a green card. Before turning twenty-one a US citizen child does not have a right to petition for his/her parents.
The immigration process is much easier for immediate relatives of US citizens in comparison to other family members of US citizens or family members of lawful permanent residents. First of all, immediate relatives of US citizens are exempt from the numerical quotas for the issuance of immigrant visas that apply to other family categories. This means that the approval of a US citizen’s petition for an immediate relative makes the immigrant visa immediately available for the immediate relative beneficiary. Another advantage of being an immediate relative of a US citizen is that if relatives falling under other family categories cannot adjust their status after overstaying their visa this bar does not apply to immediate relatives.
INA has made the sponsorship of immediate relatives much easier compared to other family categories. This process allows immediate relatives of US citizens to obtain permanent residence within a short period of time to reunite with their US citizen family members.
If you are a US citizen seeking to petition for an immigrant visa for an immediate relative or have questions regarding other family based immigration visas, we invite you to call our office and schedule a free immigration consultation with an experienced Glendale immigration lawyer.
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, San Bernardino, 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.
Moreover, this considers to the owner, operator, agent, or any other person having an interest in the vehicle. In a prosecution under this subdivision, there is a rebuttable presumption of this matter. If a person had 0.04 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood at the time of driving the vehicle if the person had 0.04 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood at the time of the performance of a chemical test within three hours after the driving.
For questions about your Los Angeles Uber accident case or any Uber or Lyft related accidents, we invite you to call our office and speak to our Los Angeles uber accident attorney for free consultation. We speak English, Spanish, Armenian, Russian, French, and Italian.
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 or inactions based on 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.
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.