There are two primary types of visas that can be obtained for entry into the United States of America:  (1) immigration visas, and (2) temporary/visitor visas.

Temporary/visitor visas are for people who are not seeking to permanently reside in the U.S.  Tourists, those seeking medical treatment, business travelers, foreign exchange students, temporary workers, and foreign press media all commonly receive temporary visas.  Temporary visas are significantly easier to obtain than immigration visas.

Immigration visas are for people who want to stay or reside in the U.S. long term.  There are many different immigration visa options available, some of which include:  employment-based, inter-country adoption, special immigrant, diversity, and family-based visas.

The Fiancé Visa

Dahman Law is particularly experienced in helping clients obtain a fiancé (K1) visa, a family-based immigration visa.  Fiancé visas have a quicker turnaround rate than spousal visas.  Spousal visas can take significantly longer, require more paperwork, and have more expensive filing fees.  Additionally, while waiting for the spousal visa to go through, which can take up to 2 years, your husband/wife would not be allowed to live or travel to the U.S.  Fiancé visas, on the other hand, only take five to seven months and would allow him/her to live and work here before you are married.

There are four main requirements that must be met to obtain a fiancé visa:

1. The petitioner must be a United States citizen (Legal Permanent Residents are not eligible for K1 visas).
2. Both the petitioner and his/her fiancé(e) must be free to marry.  If there were previous marriages, they must now be divorced, annulled, or widowed.
3. Both parties must have the intent to marry within 90 days of fiancé(e)’s arrival in the U.S.
4. The petitioner and the fiancé(e) must have met in person within two years prior to applying for the visa.  It is possible to obtain a hardship waiver for this requirement, but it is very rare.  Typically, the waivers are only granted if a medical condition prevents the U.S. citizen from international travel.
5. The U.S. citizen must meet the minimum income requirement (poverty level), which is set by Congress every February.

Applying for a fiancé visa can be a complicated process; therefore, we recommend that individuals use an attorney to assist them, even if it is not us.  It is not uncommon for citizens to make some mistakes when completing the necessary requirements without any professional help, which could result in a denial of the visa or at least a delay in the process.

If you would like more information on K1 visas, feel you meet the above requirements and are seeking to apply for a fiancé visa, or have another immigration related issue, please do not hesitate to contact Dahman Law.

From schools to snakes, turbines to tattoos, and rehab to roller coasters, House Bill 483 covers a lot of ground.

Several amendments are generating heated discussion already.  One major component making headlines is the almost $400 million in tax cuts encompassed in the bill.

These tax cuts come in a variety of forms, including:

• Small business income tax breaks raise from 50% to 75% of the first $250,000 in income.
• Exemptions for individuals making up to $80,000 annually increase on returns.
• Income tax breaks developed last year will hit the 10% max this year instead of next.

The bill did fall short of Governor Kasich’s proposed cap of 5% on the highest tax rate, the top rate is now 5.333% for those making more than $200,000.

Governor Kasich signed mid-biennial review into law on June 16, 2014, just before legislators left for the summer.

The Copyright Act’s Unintended Consequence:  For-profit Litigation

In 1976 as Jimmy Carter won the presidency and the nation celebrated its bicentennial, no one predicted a bill intended to protect authors from unfair use of their original works would lead to multi-million dollar lawsuits for something as simple as the click of a mouse.

The Copyright Act of 1976 was passed to promote the protection of original works and give artists rights to enforce those protections, but recently the Act has been exploited by companies trying to make a quick and easy dollar off of what is considered everyday copyright infringement.

Many individuals (or someone using their IP address) download movies, music or games from BitTorrent or other peer to peer sharing platforms.  Companies, such as Malibu Media, target and prey on these users to demand thousands of dollars in settlement for copyright infringement.

This may seem like a legitimate exercise of copyholder’s rights; however, these companies employ a “sue to settle” methodology which is largely profitable but ethically questionable.  Generally, these companies, known as copyright trolls, file a complaint against multiple “John Does” (i.e. unknown defendants), but since they do not know exactly who they are suing, they subpoena the users’ internet service provider (ISP) for their names.  ISPs, such as Time Warner or AT&T, then send a letter to the John Does informing them their information is going to be turned over.

At this point, the copyright trolls then contact the users to squeeze thousands of dollars for settlement payments.  The trolls pressure the users with threats of further public litigation.  Oftentimes these cases involve pornography so the burden of social stigma is especially high.  Additionally, users who may wish to enter professional careers or groups later on will have to disclose this potentially embarrassing information (e.g. doctors, accountants, etc.).

Apart from this heavy-handed manipulation, the users who are named in this suit may not even be the illegal downloaders.  Since the activity is traced to the IP address, the identified “user” is the person who foots the internet bill.  Meanwhile, the actual downloader may be a roommate, family member or stranger who gains access to a poorly protected network.

Malibu Media Invades Ohio

Copyright trolling has recently infiltrated Ohio, where Malibu Media has filed dozens of lawsuits in the federal district court for southern Ohio (which includes the Columbus, Cincinnati and Dayton areas).  If you have received a threatening settlement offer or letter from your ISP, rather than simply paying the troll to go away another option is to fight back in litigation.  Dahman Law is seeking clients who are victims of this scheme to represent in litigation and/or settlement negotiations as the firm believes this practice to be unfair and an abuse of intellectual property rights.

If you have received communication from either your ISP or a troll such as Malibu Media and wish to contest the claims, please contact us today.

Dahman Law regularly represents parties in partnership disputes, which are basically business divorces.  As often occurs, partners that were once in agreement can no longer continue to operate together, as both sides feel they are being slighted.  While handling such cases, there are several essential factors that contribute to Dahman Law’s success and that are important in any partnership dispute.

Partnership Agreement

• First, and perhaps most obviously, the existence of an agreement or contract which forms the partnership is vital to successfully fighting for a client’s rights in a partnership dispute.  This could vary from a detailed contract between partners to an operating agreement in an LLC to a simple email outlining the general terms of the agreement.  Even informal or oral arrangements between partners can be enforced.  In whatever form it takes, this contract and the existence of a partnership is vital to any claim that may be made.  Claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duties of care and loyalty all hinge on having a current and enforceable agreement among the partners.
• Ideally, partners can resolve their differences before getting lawyers involved, and if not, with lawyers before filing suit.  Because of the cost, time, and stress of litigation and potential damage to a business, alternatives to litigation should be considered.

Litigation

• In the event pre-litigation efforts fail, a cogent, detailed, and well-researched complaint is pivotal.  A good complaint communicates strength, preparation, and resolve.  Sometimes, such a move will push unwilling partners to the bargaining table.
• The next critical stage in any partnership dispute is the discovery process.  Propounding discovery on the other side requires a balancing act of targeting requests to areas of suspected or known wrongdoing while keeping the requests broad enough to force production of all relevant documents or information.  Interrogatories and requests for production of documents/inspection/admissions are all effective ways to gain information and keep the pressure on.  In the opposing side’s response, it’s possible to receive thousands of documents even with well-targeted requests.  This can seem overwhelming, but can be handled effectively.
• One way to efficiently deal with thousands of documents is to have an organized document management system.  Although time consuming, this is essential to having a quick and effective way of organizing and analyzing vast amounts of data.  The document management system can be used and referred to throughout the case when putting together pleadings, memos, settlement demands, etc.  It allows for someone to quickly find relevant information.
• Anther effective way to keep the pressure on the opposing side and gain useful information is subpoenaing third-parties in the case.  The same document management system can also be used to organize third-party documents that are produced.
• During discovery, adversaries will make their own request for documents and information.  Oftentimes, they will relate to irrelevant issues or turn into mud-slinging fests.  Requests like this can be objected to and avoided.  In otherwise responding, it is important to know what objections can be made and when to utilize them.

Mediation

• As discovery nears completion and more information is known to all parties, many partnership disputes use mediation to attempt to come to a resolution before filing motions for summary judgment or going to trial.  Organization and analysis of all the information gained in discovery becomes critical at this stage.  Having documented evidence of the opposing side’s breach of the partnership agreement or any other wrongdoing in relation to the partnership provides an upper hand when entering settlement negotiations.  Creating a succinct and powerful settlement demand helps strengthen your position and can lead to a favorable resolution.
• Oftentimes partnership disputes end at the mediation stage when the various sides are able to come to an agreement and understand the risks, costs, and benefits of continued litigation.  As outlined above, a thorough discovery process of requesting information and documents from adverse parties and third-parties and analyzing that information is essential to a successful resolution.  Such diligence during discovery and the settlement negotiation process can lead to success in any partnership dispute.

If you are a partner and have questions about a potential dispute with your partners, please contact the experienced partnership dispute lawyers at Dahman law for assistance.

Samir Dahman, founder of Dahman Law, LLC, was recently named in Columbus CEO Magazine‘s list of “Top Lawyers” in Columbus in their April 2014 issue.

Primeiramente, parabéns!  Se você está lendo este post é porque está prestes a se casar.  O único obstáculo, porém, é que seu futuro cônjuge é uma cidadã ou cidadão americano, e você, brasileira(o).  Organizar um casamento não é fácil.  Para casais onde um dos futuros cônjuges é estrangeiro, conseguir o visto apropriado é uma tarefa a mais na lista de preparativos.

Caso você esteja planejando se casar e estabelecer residência permanente nos EUA, o visto de noiva será um caminho praticamente obrigatório.  A boa notícia é que vocês não precisam passar por este processo sozinhos.

Seguem algumas dicas:

Procure um advogado: apesar de que constituir advogado não é obrigatório para solicitar vistos, você logo irá notar que todos os formulários devem ser respondidos em inglês, e que a linguagem das normas e formulários não são fáceis de compreender.  Principalmente se vocês já foram casado, têm filhos, possuem ficha criminal, nomes diferentes em documentos importantes, etc.

Gastem tempo juntos: é muito importante que vocês gastem tempo juntos (pelo menos um encontro face-a-face no período de 2 anos) e conheçam bem um ao outro.  Registrem momentos importantes com fotos, e mantenham o registro de conversas via email, Skype, Facebook, etc.  Estes documentos servirão como prova de que seu relacionamento é legítimo.

Não se case antes de obter o visto de noiva: o visto de noiva é um visto específico para casais que ainda não são legalmente casados.  Ele é uma permissão para casar-se nos EUA e estabelecer residência em seguida.  Para casais que são casados, existem outros vistos, como o visto de cônjuge (spouse visa).  A maior diferença é que no visto de noiva, a maior parte do processo, como a entrevista e exame médico, ocorrem antes da aprovação do visto e casamento, enquanto no “spouse visa”, a maior parte do processo acontece após o casamento.  Assim, se vocês pretendem morar nos EUA imediatamente após o casamento, o visto de noiva geralmente é a melhor opção.  Lembre-se também que a “união estável” brasileira não é reconhecida nos EUA, e por isso, não conta como casamento para fins de visto americano.

Organize-se: você é a maior fonte de informação sobre seu relacionamento. Mantenha documentos importantes arquivados; mantenha uma agenda de compromissos e responda às perguntas e solicitação de documentos de seu advogado e do USCIS de forma transparente e o mais rápido possível.  Grande parte do andamento do seu visto dependerá da quantidade de informações que você fornecer.

Relaxe: se seu relacionamento é legítimo e você preencheu todos os requisitos e documentos necessários para o visto, há grandes chances de que sua solicitação será aprovada.  Apesar de não haver garantias quanto a aprovação, delegar esta tarefa a um advogado pode tornar sua jornada um pouco mais trânquila.

Caso você tenha dúvidas e interesse em contratar um advogado nos EUA para te ajudar com seu Fiancé Visa, não hesite em entrar em contato conosco.

Dahman Law was recognized by Columbus Business First as winning one of the top 20 largest jury awards of Central Ohio in 2013. Dahman Law successfully won $41,728 at trial last April for its client The RAE Associates, Inc. in Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 12-CVH-1103.

As reported by Columbus Business First, out of more than 25,000 civil cases terminated in Central Ohio in 2012, only 0.1% were terminated by jury trial.  Even more impressive, of the 21 jury trial awards for 2013 listed Dahman Law’s case was 1 of only 6 business disputes to go to a jury.

After the four-day trial, the unanimous jury awarded Dahman Law’s client The RAE Associates $41,727.61 on its breach of contract complaint against Nexus Communications, Inc.  The jury also rendered a verdict in favor of Dahman Law’s client and dismissing Nexus’ claim for $652,112.08.  That amount would have been the 7th largest verdict in Franklin County, and the 2nd largest verdict in a business case.

Samir Dahman, founder of Dahman Law and lead attorney on the case, said the most incredible part of the win was that the jury initially attempted to award The RAE Associates more than it sought – an additional $23,000 in damages – by awarding $65,000.  But since The RAE Associates did not ask for that much, the Court modified it.

The satisfaction of The RAE Associates was the objective and happy outcome of the case, but Dahman Law is proud to have also earned the 6th largest jury award in Central Ohio in 2013 in a business case.

Dahman Law credits the win to its comprehensive and coordinated approach to the case from research and consulting with the client to trial.  This recent recognition is yet another illustration of Dahman Law’s philosophy – “exceptional, client-focused legal services” – at work.

To learn more about Dahman Law, LLC, please visit www.dahmanlaw.com.

In the labor and employment law world, 2013 was a year of contrasts.  Congress displayed record idleness with respect to passing or updating legislation.  The Senate, on the other hand, busily confirmed a slew of Obama appointees.  And, unlike Congress, the federal regulatory agencies marched ahead with a number of new interpretations and regulations.

As you will see, we can probably expect a continuation of this trend in 2014: Congressional lethargy paired with regulatory bustle.  Meanwhile, the White House will likely continue to focus its energies on implementing the Affordable Care Act.

Congressional Inaction in 2013

Congressional inaction in 2013 was felt in the employment sphere.

• Congress failed to extend long-term unemployment benefits—which expired on December 28—before it adjourned for 2013.  The expiration of long-term unemployment benefits means that Congress will likely vote on this important issue early in 2014.
• Congress also neglected to replace and improve the current Pension Protection Act of 2006. This legislation sunsets at the end of 2014.  Similarly, Congress did little in 2013 to reform the significantly underfunded multiemployer defined pension system.
• Given the gridlock in the House of Representatives, it does not seem likely that Congress will pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) in the coming year.  It also seems doubtful that Congress will approve an increase in the federal minimum wage, although Congressional Democrats will likely push for a vote on the issue.

Pro-Union Appointments of 2013

Congressional inaction, however, did not extend to the Senate’s labor and employment related appointment confirmations.

•  In July 2013, the Senate confirmed all five candidates to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) as well as the NLRB General Counsel.  The current complement of Board members is expected by many observers to demonstrate a pro-union approach to labor law.
• This past July, the Senate also confirmed Thomas Perez as the Secretary of Labor.  While in the Justice Department, Perez aggressively enforced civil rights laws.  It is expected that Perez will also walk a pro-union line in his leadership of the Department of Labor (DOL).
• Additionally, since May 2013, the Senate has confirmed three of President Obama’s appointments to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.  The Senate is expected to confirm a fourth Obama appointment to the D.C. Circuit in the near future.  The confirmation of these new judges represents a shift in the balance of active judges on the D.C. Circuit to a Democratic majority, which might result in more pro-union decisions in the years to come.

Federal Regulatory Highlights of 2013

Unlike Congress, federal regulatory agencies were busy in 2013.

• The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) of the DOL issued proposed regulations that require federal contractors to advance hiring and employment goals for veterans and the disabled.  Section 503 of the rule introduces a hiring goal for federal contractors and subcontractors that 7% of each job group in their workforce consist of qualified individuals with disabilities.  Under the rule, federal contractors are also required to adopt a benchmark to measure their recruitment and employment of veterans based on the national percentage of veterans in the workforce (8% currently) or based on the contractors’ own analysis of the best available data.
• The Wage and Hour Division (WHD) of the DOL continued work on its proposed “Right to Know” regulation, which would require employers to disclose to its workers their status either as employees or independent contractors.
• Through an interpretive letter, the DOL’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) approved walk around rights of outside union organizers to accompany OSHA inspectors during workplace safety and health investigations.

Regulations to Watch in 2014

DOL’s Revised Interpretation of the LMRDA “Advice Exemption”

• In March 2014, the DOL expects to issue a final interpretation narrowing the advice exemption to the Labor–Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA).  The proposed interpretation could impose additional disclosure requirements on lawyers and law firms.
• The LMRDA requires employers and legal consultants to report any arrangement to directly or indirectly persuade employees concerning union organizing, collective bargaining, strikes, and other forms of concerted activity.  The LMRDA currently exempts from public disclosure and reporting requirements advice submitted to an employer in written or oral form that the employer is free to accept or reject.  The proposed interpretation would significantly narrow the definition of advice.  As such, law firms and consultants would have to report a broad range of activities that the proposed regulation defines as persuader activities, including the preparation of any written or electronic material for presentation or distribution to employees, the drafting of speeches, the provision of supervisor or employer representative trainings, and the coordination of employer efforts to persuade employees.
• The American Bar Association (ABA), the Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC), and the Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM) have all strongly opposed the DOL’s new interpretation of the advice exemption.  As the ABA has argued, the new reporting requirements are inconsistent with both the statutory language of the LMRDA and the rules of professional conduct pertaining to lawyer–client confidentiality.

NLRB’s Union Representation Election Rules

• Over the past several years, the NLRB has attempted to facilitate “quickie” union representation elections.  Quickie elections favor unions because they allow for less time between when a union files for an election petition and the actual date of the election.  This condensed time frame curtails the ability of employers to litigate pre-election issues such as voter eligibility and the composition of the bargaining unit.
• In 2012, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia set aside several of the NLRB’s contemplated rule changes designed to expedite quickie elections.  The NLRB has since withdrawn its appeal of the district court’s decision.  Nonetheless, the NLRB is still intent on issuing new quickie election rules.  Watch for the NLRB to reissue an even more pro-union set of quickie election rules in 2014.

OSHA’s Proposed Rule on Injury and Illness Prevention Programs

• OSHA is in the early stages of drafting a rule requiring employers to develop injury and illness prevention programs.  According to OSHA, injury and illness prevention programs would assist employers in identifying workplace hazards and developing a process to fix those hazards.  OSHA has identified the proposed injury and illness prevention program as its current highest rulemaking priority and intends to issue a proposed rule on the issue in September 2014.

OSHA’s Proposed New Rule on Silica Exposure

• OSHA published a proposed new rule on silica exposure on August 23, 2013.  Public comments on the proposed rule are due on January 27, 2014.  The proposed rule reduces the permissible exposure level to crystalline silica—which encompasses quartz, cristobalite, and tridymite—and establishes new requirements for exposure assessment, exposure-controlling methods, respiratory protection, medical surveillance, hazard communication, and record-keeping.  Construction and hydraulic fracturing workers are often exposed to crystalline silica; as such, these industries will be significantly affected by OSHA’s proposed rule.  OSHA has not yet provided an estimate on when it expects to publish a final rule on silica exposure.

The Main Focus of 2014: The Affordable Care Act (ACA or Obamacare)

• Efforts throughout 2013 by the House of Representatives to repeal or modify the ACA met a recalcitrant Senate.  So, with an effective date of January 1, 2014, for non-delayed or deferred provisions, the ACA will continue to be implemented.
•  Importantly, however, the U.S. Treasury Department announced on July 2, 2013, that the ACA’s employer “pay-or-play” mandate would be delayed until 2015.  The mandate will subject employers to penalties for failing to offer full-time employees healthcare coverage that is “affordable” and meets certain minimum standards.
• The troubled roll-out of the federal health insurance website does not portend well for the smooth implementation of other aspects of the ACA.  Most notably, even organized labor, a formerly staunch advocate for the ACA, expressed frustration at the ACA’s potential impact on union-controlled health-insurance plans (i.e., Taft–Hartley plans).  To mollify the unions, the Obama administration issued a proposed rule that would exempt, starting in 2015, Taft–Hartley plans from the ACA’s reinsurance tax on self-insured health-care plans.
• Expect the Obama administration to devote most of its attention in the coming year to the continued rollout of the ACA.

Samir Dahman, founder of Dahman Law, was selected as 1 of only 75 Business Litigation Super Lawyers in Columbus by Ohio Super Lawyer magazine, after being previously selected along with fellow Dahman Law attorney Hasrat Rahamatalli as a Rising Star.

After an extensive nomination, evaluation, and research process, Ohio Super Lawyer magazine selected Mr. Dahman to the prestigious Super Lawyer list.  It is a distinction reserved for the top 5 percent of all lawyers in Ohio.

The Super Lawyer Selection Process

Super Lawyers selects attorneys using a patented multiphase selection process.  Peer nominations and evaluations are combined with third party research. Each candidate is evaluated on 12 indicators of peer recognition and professional achievement.  Selections are made on an annual, state-by-state basis.

The objective is to create a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of outstanding attorneys that can be used as a resource for attorneys and consumers searching for legal counsel.

The Super Lawyers patented selection process involves three basic steps:  creation of the candidate pool, evaluation of candidates by the research department, and peer evaluation by practice area.

Step 1: Creation of the Candidate Pool

Lawyers enter the candidate pool by being formally nominated by a peer or if identified by the research department during the research process.

Step 2: Evaluation of Lawyers in Candidate Pool

The Super Lawyers research department evaluates each candidate based on these 12 indicators of peer recognition and professional achievement: verdicts and settlements; transactions; representative clients; experience; honors and awards; special licenses and certifications; position within law firm; bar and or other professional activity; pro bono and community service as a lawyer; scholarly lectures and writings; education and employment background; and other outstanding achievements.

These indicators are not treated equally; some have a higher maximum point value than others.

Step 3: Peer Evaluation by Practice Area

In this step, also known as the “blue ribbon review,” candidates are grouped according to their primary areas of practice.  The candidates in each practice area with the highest point totals from steps one and two above are asked to serve on a blue ribbon panel.  The panelists are then provided a list of candidates from their practice areas to review, rating them on a scale of one to ten.

The Super Lawyers research staff also checks each candidate’s standing with the local licensing authority.  And each candidate is asked to aver that they have never been subject to disciplinary or criminal proceedings.

Final Internet searches are performed on each candidate to ensure there are no outstanding matters that would reflect adversely on the lawyer.  Each lawyer is also contacted to ensure accuracy of all published information.

Final Publication

The final published list represents no more than 5 percent of the lawyers in the state. The lists are published annually in state and regional editions of Super Lawyers Magazines and in inserts and special advertising sections in leading city and regional magazines and newspapers.  All attorneys selected for inclusion in Super Lawyers, regardless of year, can be found on superlawyers.com.

The team at Dahman Law is passionate about providing exceptional, client-focused legal services.  They handle commercial litigation, business law, employment, and estate planning matters across Ohio and Michigan. But what makes Dahman Law different is that you will know up front how much you can expect to pay for legal services, instead of wondering how much you will end up being charged at the end.

Dahman Law is able to do this by leveraging experience, creativity, and hard work, with value-based fee arrangements that provide clients predictability and results. A testament to our experience is the fact that its attorneys hail from Am Law 200 firms.  So all of their services, including litigation, are handled on pre-determined, fixed fee or contingency bases. No hourly billing.

What is a Statute of Limitations?

A statute of limitations is the time period that a party has to initiate a lawsuit before they are permanently barred from bringing suit for damages arising out of the underlying event.  It is important to note that statutes of limitation vary by claim.

Breach of Contract Statute of Limitations Reduced

Like many states, Ohio’s statute of limitation for breach of written contract actions was many, many years – 15 years to be precise.

But, effective September 28, 2012, the statute of limitations to file an action on a written contract in Ohio is now 8 years.  See R.C. 2305.06.  The new statute of limitations applies to actions in which the cause of action accrued on or after September 28, 2012.  For causes of action that accrued prior to September 28, 2012, the limitations period is the earlier of 15 years from the accrual date or September 28, 2020.