This is the section of our website where we provide general information that you might find useful.
THIS PAGE IS NOT INTENDED TO PROVIDE LEGAL ADVICE NOR CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE READER AND RAYMOND SHAM, PC. Anyone viewing this page expressly acknowledges that an attorney-client relationship may only be created with the express written consent of the parties to it.
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals ("DACA") is now available to Individuals meeting the requirements provided below. According to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"), "Deferred action is a discretionary determination to defer removal action of an individual as an act of prosecutorial discretion."
In order to qualify for 'consideration' under DACA:
- The applicant must be under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012;
- The applicant came to the United States before reaching his/her 16th birthday;
- The applicant has continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007, up to the present time;
- The applicant was physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012, and at the time of making his/her request for consideration of deferred action with USCIS;
- The applicant entered without inspection before June 15, 2012, or his/her lawful immigration status expired as of June 15, 2012;
- The applicant is currently in school, has graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, has obtained a general education development (GED) certificate, or is an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States; and
- The applicant has not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, three or more other misdemeanors, and does not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety
Individuals that meet the above guidelines may request consideration of deferred action for a period of two years, subject to renewal, and may be eligible for employment authorization. PLEASE NOTE there are risks associated with DACA. Therefore, you should consult with a licensed immigration attorney. You may call our office to schedule a consult. We are conveniently located in El Monte, California in the heart of the San Gabriel Valley.
Cross-Cultural Comparative Analysis of Chinese and American Negotiation Styles
Due to cultural differences, negotiations in the global arena are fraught with pitfalls. In this article, we examine the characteristics prevalent in the negotiation styles of Americans (USA) and Chinese (China).
Although some argue that it is as difficult to identify the American negotiation style, several characteristics have been mentioned in different studies. Americans are frequently associated with arrogance; however, this quality may not be a strictly American characteristic, simply often associated with them due to their unique status as the ‘global hegemon’. They are often viewed as ‘risk-takers’ due to their willingness to make decisions on their own. They are also known to be impatient, which stems from the American tendency to get straight to the point and go for the goal. They focus on the contract and usually find anything outside the boundaries of the contract superfluous.
China has a long and rich history that has shaped the minds, values, and beliefs of its people. Face, which refers to a person’s reputation, is a crucial factor in Chinese negotiating style. The importance of guan-xi is founded on the collectivist feature of Chinese culture, where the welfare of the group is valued higher than the welfare of the individual. Further, hierarchy is strictly followed. Moreover, the Chinese think in terms of the whole, so will address all issues in the negotiation simultaneously with no apparent order, and seemingly not resolving anything. All this consumes a tremendous amount of time to conclude negotiations with the Chinese. Finally, after signing the contract, the Chinese will demand more than is stated in the contract.
Conflicts and misunderstandings arise due to conflicting significance placed on relationship building, and the manner in which information is exchanged. Further, a failure to understand the decision-making mechanism leads to unnecessary tension and frustration. Finally, failure to recognize the nature of the relationship forged from successful negotiations to deal with the post-agreement demands will cause tension amongst the parties.
Despite the many cultural differences between China and the USA, successful cross-cultural negotiations is possible by adhering to three key points.
- Building personal relationships, particularly in China.
- Being patient, therefore, understanding of the decision-making process and hierarchical interpersonal system of China.
- Being conscious of face, which oftentimes simply means being aware that more is being communicated than what is uttered, and being mindful of how the message is delivered to the other party.
Blackman, C. 1997, Negotiating China: Case studies and strategies, Allen & Unwin.
Chen, G.B. 1996, Negotiating With The Chinese, Dartmouth Publishing Company.
Deresky, H. 2006, International Management: Managing Across Borders and Cultures, 5th ed., Pearson Prentice Hall.
Druckman, D. 1996, ‘Is there a U.S. negotiating style’, International Negotiation, Vol. 1, pp. 327 -334.
Fisher, R. and Ury, W. 1981, Getting to yes: negotiating agreement without giving in, Houghton Mifflin.
Foster, A. 1995, Bargaining across borders: how to negotiate business successfully anywhere in the world, McGraw-Hill.
Graham, J.L. and Lam, N.M. 2003, ‘The Chinese Negotiation’, Harvard Business Review, October, pp. 82 - 91.
Herbig, P. and Gulbro, R. 1997, ‘External influences in the cross-cultural negotiation process’, Industrial management and Data Systems, Vol. 97, no. 4, pp. 158-168.
Koh, T. 1996, ‘American Strengths and Weaknesses’, International Negotiation, Vol. 1, pp.313-317.
McDonald, J. 1996, ‘An American’s View of a U.S. Negotiating Style’, International Negotiation, Vol. 1, pp. 323-326.
Palich, L., Carini, G., & Livingstone L. 2002, ‘Comparing American and Chinese negotiating styles: The influence of logic paradigms’, Thunderbird International Business Review, Vol. 44, no.6, pp.777-798.
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. 2005, World Investment Report 2005.
United States Institute of Peace. 2002, U.S. Negotiating Behavior, Special Report no. 94, October.
June 14, 2010, JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN of the Associated Press reported that "A federal judge has given preliminary approval to a settlement under which The Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. will pay $72.5 million to more than 21,000 people nationwide who alleged the insurer engaged in fraud in settling their injury claims."
The Hartford did not admit fraud as part of the settlement and said that all amounts due were received by the claimants. The 21,000 people that are part of this settlement will each receive on average $3,300.
Original $72M Insurance Settlement Article from the AP
We found online this "Default and Foreclosure" handbook written in Chinese and believe it can be a useful resource for our Chinese readers. It was written and compiled by the University of San Francisco Law School's Predatory Lending Clinic with the generous assistance of Fenwick and West.
由 Fenwick and West 法律事務所慷慨協助