Immigration Blog

Visa Bulletin for September 2010 | Immigration

 Email Article |  Twitter |  Facebook |   Google Buzz |  digg it |   delicious |   StumbleUpon |   LinkedIn |   Technorati |  reddit 

A. STATUTORY NUMBERS

1.  This bulletin summarizes the availability of immigrant numbers during September. Consular officers are required to report to the Department of State documentarily qualified applicants for numerically limited visas; the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services in the Department of Homeland Security reports applicants for adjustment of status.  Allocations were made, to the extent possible under the numerical limitations, for the demand received by August 9th in the chronological order of the reported priority dates. If the demand could not be satisfied within the statutory or regulatory limits, the category or foreign state in which demand was excessive was deemed oversubscribed.  The cut-off date for an oversubscribed category is the priority date of the first applicant who could not be reached within the numerical limits.

Only applicants who have a priority date earlier than the cut-off date may be allotted a number.  Immediately that it becomes necessary during the monthly allocation process to retrogress a cut-off date, supplemental requests for numbers will be honored only if the priority date falls within the new cut-off date which has been announced in this bulletin.

2. The fiscal year 2010 limit for family-sponsored preference immigrants determined in accordance with Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality  Act (INA) is 226,000.  The fiscal year 2010 limit for employment-based preference immigrants calculated under INA 201 is 150,657.  Section 202 prescribes that  the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 26,366 for  FY-2010.  The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,533.

3.  Section 203 of the INA prescribes preference classes for allotment of immigrant visas as follows:

FAMILY-SPONSORED PREFERENCES

First:   Unmarried Sons and Daughters of Citizens:  23,400 plus any numbers not required for fourth preference.

Second:  Spouses and Children, and Unmarried Sons and Daughters of Permanent Residents:  114,200, plus the number (if any) by which the worldwide family preference level exceeds 226,000, and any unused first preference numbers:

A.  Spouses and Children:  77% of the overall second preference limitation, of which 75% are exempt from the per-country limit;

B.  Unmarried Sons and Daughters (21 years of age or older):  23% of the overall second preference limitation.

Third:   Married Sons and Daughters of Citizens:  23,400, plus any numbers not required by first and second preferences.

Fourth:  Brothers and Sisters of Adult Citizens:  65,000, plus any numbers not required by first three preferences.

EMPLOYMENT-BASED PREFERENCES

First:  Priority Workers:  28.6% of the worldwide employment-based preference level, plus any numbers not required for fourth and fifth preferences.

Second:   Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or Persons of Exceptional Ability:  28.6% of the worldwide employment-based preference level, plus any numbers not required by first preference.

Third:   Skilled Workers, Professionals, and Other Workers:  28.6% of the worldwide level, plus any numbers not required by first and second preferences, not more than 10,000 of which to "Other Workers".  

Fourth:   Certain Special Immigrants:  7.1% of the worldwide level.

Fifth:   Employment Creation:  7.1% of the worldwide level, not less than 3,000 of which reserved for investors in a targeted rural or high-unemployment area, and 3,000 set aside for investors in regional centers by Sec. 610 of P.L. 102-395.

4.  INA Section 203(e) provides that family-sponsored and employment-based preference visas be issued to eligible immigrants in the order in which a petition in behalf of each has been filed.  Section 203(d) provides that  spouses and children of preference immigrants are entitled to the same  status, and the same order of consideration, if accompanying or following to join the principal.  The visa prorating provisions of Section 202(e)  apply to allocations for a foreign state or dependent area when visa demand exceeds the per-country limit.  These provisions apply at present to the following oversubscribed chargeability areas:  CHINA-mainland born, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, INDIA, MEXICO, and PHILIPPINES.

5.  On the chart below, the listing of a date for any class indicates that the class is oversubscribed (see paragraph 1); "C" means current, i.e., numbers are available for all qualified applicants; and "U" means unavailable, i.e., no numbers are available.  (NOTE:  Numbers are available only for applicants whose priority date is earlier than the cut-off date listed below.)

*NOTE:  For September, 2A numbers EXEMPT from per-country limit are available to applicants from all countries with priority dates earlier than 01JAN09.  2A numbers SUBJECT to per-country limit are available to applicants chargeable to all countries EXCEPT the DOMINICAN REPUBLIC and MEXICO with priority dates beginning 01JAN09 and earlier than 01JAN10.  (All 2A numbers provided for the DOMINICAN REPUBLIC AND MEXICO are exempt from the per-country limit; there are no 2A numbers for the DOMINICAN REPUBLIC AND MEXICO subject to per-country limit.)

The Department of State has available a recorded message with visa availability information which can be heard at: (area code 202) 663-1541. This recording will be updated in the middle of each month with information on cut-off dates for the following month.

Employment Third Preference Other Workers Category: Section 203(e) of the NACARA, as amended by Section 1(e) of Pub. L. 105-139, provides that once the Employment Third Preference Other Worker (EW) cut-off date has reached the priority date of the latest EW petition approved prior to November 19, 1997, the 10,000 EW numbers available for a fiscal year are to be reduced by up to 5,000 annually beginning in the following fiscal year. This reduction is to be made for as long as necessary to offset adjustments under the NACARA program. Since the EW cut-off date reached November 19, 1997 during Fiscal Year 2001, the reduction in the EW annual limit to 5,000 began in Fiscal Year 2002.

B. DIVERSITY IMMIGRANT (DV) CATEGORY

Section 203(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides a maximum of up to 55,000 immigrant visas each fiscal year to permit immigration opportunities for persons from countries other than the principal sources of current immigration to the United States.  The Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) passed by Congress in November 1997 stipulates that beginning with DV-99, and for as long as necessary, up to 5,000 of the 55,000 annually-allocated diversity visas will be made available for use under the NACARA program.  This reduction has resulted in the DV-2010 annual limit being reduced to 50,000.   DV visas are divided among six geographic regions.  No one country can receive more than seven percent of the available diversity visas in any one year.

For September, immigrant numbers in the DV category are available to qualified
DV-2010 applicants chargeable to all regions/eligible countries as follows. When an allocation cut-off number is shown, visas are available only for applicants with DV regional lottery rank numbers BELOW the specified allocation cut-off number:

Entitlement to immigrant status in the DV category lasts only through the end of the fiscal (visa) year for which the applicant is selected in the lottery.  The year of entitlement for all applicants registered for the DV-2010 program ends as of September 30, 2010.  DV visas may not be issued to DV-2010 applicants after that date.  Similarly, spouses and children accompanying or following to join DV-2010 principals are only entitled to derivative DV status until September 30, 2010.  DV visa availability through the very end of FY-2010 cannot be taken for granted.  Numbers could be exhausted prior to September 30.

C. ADVANCE NOTIFICATION OF THE DIVERSITY (DV) IMMIGRANT CATEGORY RANK CUT-OFFS WHICH WILL APPLY IN OCTOBER

For October, immigrant numbers in the DV category are available to qualified DV-2011 applicants chargeable to all regions/eligible countries as follows. When an allocation cut-off number is shown, visas are available only for applicants with DV regional lottery rank numbers BELOW the specified allocation cut-off number:

Immigration questions?  We have answers.  Free phone consultation available | 800-969-5529

H-1B Visa Fees Raised by Senate to Fund Border Security

 Email Article |  Twitter |  Facebook |   Google Buzz |  digg it |   delicious |   StumbleUpon |   LinkedIn |   Technorati |  reddit 

WASHINGTON: The US Senate has voted to beef up US-Mexico border security with another 1,500 agents and more unmanned aerial vehicles that scan the frontier for undocumented immigrants or drug runners. 

The legislation's $600-million price tag would be paid for by raising fees on what the measure's backers called a handful of foreign firms that exploit US visa programs to improperly import workers to the United States.

A summary of the bill said the funds would be raised with a $2,000 per visa increase in the price paid by specific companies for non-immigrant "H1B" visas for highly skilled workers or "L" visas for intra-company transfers. 

"We're talking about foreign companies that more than half of their employees" are on those visas, said Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer. "All we're saying is, you're going to have to pay more for those visas." 

"This is not going to affect American manufacturing. This is not going to affect American jobs. What it's going to do is hopefully create some vacancies for Americans at some of these higher skilled jobs that these companies -- foreign companies -- are using the visas," he added.

The measure includes money for 1,000 new US Border Patrol agents to form a "strike force" for quick deployment, 250 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents as well as 250 new Customs and Border Protection officers at ports of entry, and to boost communications among law-enforcement officials. 
The bill, unveiled by Democratic Senators Chuck Schumer and Claire McCaskill, would also pay for building forward operating bases along the border as well as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to patrol the border.

"A lot of people now think of drones in the way they've been used in Pakistan, taking out Al-Qaeda, but primary to the drone is their ability to get real-time surveillance," said McCaskill.

"But these are not military UAVs. These are civilian UAVs, so they wouldn't be armed," said Schumer. "There are seven of them right now. And they've been successful."

The legislation must still pass through the House of Representatives to go to President Barack Obama to sign into law. 

Immigration question?  We have answers.  Free phone consultation available 800-969-5529

Immigration | Non-Immigrant Visas | New Developments with O & P Visas

 Email Article |  Twitter |  Facebook |   Google Buzz |  digg it |   delicious |   StumbleUpon |   LinkedIn |   Technorati |  reddit 

There have been several recent developments with respect to O and P visas:  On July 20, 2010, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued clarifying guidance on the "O" nonimmigrant visa petition with regard to determining the appropriate validity period of an approvable petition when a gap exists between two or more events reflected in the itinerary.

The memo explains that the validity dates for the O-1 visa classification are defined by the specific period of time required to perform or participate in a specific event. When reviewing an O-1 petition, the length of time between the scheduled events, also known as a gap, has sometimes been viewed as a gauge to determine whether an itinerary represented one continuous "event" or separate events requiring separate petitions.

In certain cases where there has been a significant gap between events, adjudicators have sometimes concluded that a single petition was filed for separate events rather than a continuous event. In such cases, the petition may have been approved only for a validity period equal to the length of time needed to accomplish what appeared to be the initial specific event rather than the continuous event as represented by the petition.

The memo notes that there is no statutory or regulatory authority for the proposition that a gap of a certain number of days in an itinerary automatically indicates a new event. "The regulations speak in terms of tours and multiple appearances as meeting the 'event' definition." The statutory and regulatory background provides flexibility on the length of validity period that may be granted, the memo states:

"The statute and regulations allow for an approval of an O-1 petition for a period necessary to accomplish the event or activity, not to exceed 3 years. Adjudicators should evaluate the totality of the evidence submitted to determine if the activities described in the itinerary are related in such a way that they would be considered an 'event' for purposes of the validity period. When the validity period requested is established though the submission of appropriate evidence, Service Centers should approve a petition for the length of the validity period requested where the law and regulations permit."

In other news, USCIS promised during a public meeting with stakeholders on July 20, 2010, that processing times for regularly filed O and P visas for performers and athletes will not exceed 14 days. In some previous cases, adjudications reportedly have taken up to four months, and delays have led to last-minute scrambles and missed performances. Although arts groups say more needs to be done, many were hopeful about this recent development. The Performing Arts Alliance said it was "extremely pleased with this week's breakthrough." 

Immigration questions?  We have answers.  Free phone consultation available 800-969-5529

Immigration | ICE I-9 Rule Allows Electronic Signatures & Storage

 Email Article |  Twitter |  Facebook |   Google Buzz |  digg it |   delicious |   StumbleUpon |   LinkedIn |   Technorati |  reddit 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has issued a final rule, effective August 23, 2010, providing that employers and recruiters or referrers for a fee who are required to complete and retain the Employment Eligibility Verification Form (I-9) may sign the form electronically and retain it in an electronic format. The final rule makes minor changes to an interim final rule promulgated in 2006.

The final rule's supplementary information notes that the completed I-9 form is not filed with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) but is retained by the employer, who must make it available for inspection upon a request by ICE investigators or other authorized federal officials. Employers must keep the I-9 in their own files for three years after the date of hire of the employee or one year after the date that employment is terminated, whichever is later. Recruiters or referrers for a fee must keep each I-9 for three years after the date of hire. Failure to properly complete and retain each I-9 may subject the employer or recruiter or referrer for a fee to civil money penalties.

Among other things, the final rule clarifies that:

• Employers must complete the I-9 within three business (not calendar) days;
• Employers may use paper, electronic systems, or a combination of paper and electronic systems;
• Employers may change electronic storage systems as long as the systems meet the performance requirements of the regulations;
• Employers need not retain audit trails recording each time an I-9 is electronically viewed, but only when the I-9 is created, completed, updated, modified, altered, or corrected; and
•  Employers may provide or transmit a confirmation of an I-9 transaction, but are not required to do so unless the employee requests a copy.

Immigration questions?  We have answers.  Free phone consultation available 800-969-5529 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              800-969-5529      end_of_the_skype_highlighting

Visa Bulletin for August 2010 | Immigration

 Email Article |  Twitter |  Facebook |   Google Buzz |  digg it |   delicious |   StumbleUpon |   LinkedIn |   Technorati |  reddit 

A. STATUTORY NUMBERS

K-1 Fiancé Visa | Immigration | Don't Try to Scam the System

 Email Article |  Twitter |  Facebook |   Google Buzz |  digg it |   delicious |   StumbleUpon |   LinkedIn |   Technorati |  reddit 

As immigration lawyers, we get a lot of questions about the requirements for a K-1 fiance visa.  Last year 227,000 foreign nationals obtained green cards through marriage -- more than any other category of applicant, according to the USCIS. 

Because the K-1 visa leads to immediate immigration, and eligibility for employment, in the United States, it is considered to be a high fraud visa category.  For these reasons, many couples with a foreign spouse say marriage is not the easy or automatic path to legal U.S. residency.  And, efforts are intensifying from the USCIS to uncover sham marriages through more thorough interviews and investigations.

A bona fide relationship is key in these investigations.  Once your visa petiton has been filed and your interview has been scheduled, a Consular officer reviews the documents that both the American petitioner and the foreign fiancé(e) have submitted. The Consular officer looks for evidence to determine that a bona fide relationship exists. "We might ask about the number of bedrooms in their house, their dog's name or whether they even have a dog, what color toothbrush their spouse uses," said USCIS spokeswoman Chris Rhatigan of the agency's effort to uncover scams. "We'll also go to the address they give us to see that they actually live there."

Once the interview is finished the Consular officer can issue the visa, if he is convinced of a bona fide relationship that meets all legal requirements. The officer may also request that further evidence be submitted before making a decision. If the Consular officer does not think the relationship is bona fide or finds some legal impediment to issuing the visa, the petition will be returned to USCIS and recommended for revocation and no visa will be issued.

While the number of sham marriages is relatively small in comparison to the residency petitions filed by foreign spouses with the USCIS, the mere existence of fraud has adversely impacted the process for legitimate couples.  Interviews are under more scrutiny and wait times have increased.

Devin Dwyer of ABC News explores this topic in his series of stories on immigration.  Immigrant Couples Face Scrutiny in Bid to Root Out Sham Marriages 

Immigration questions?  We have answers.  Free phone consultation available 800-969-5529 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              800-969-5529      end_of_the_skype_highlighting

USCIS Immigration Memo Stirs Controversy

 Email Article |  Twitter |  Facebook |   Google Buzz |  digg it |   delicious |   StumbleUpon |   LinkedIn |   Technorati |  reddit 

An interesting read from Julia Preston of the New York Times regarding allegations from Republican lawmakers that the Obama administration is attempting to enact “meaningful immigration reform absent legislative action” — that is, without the consent of the American people through a vote in Congress.  USCIS MEMO

Immigration Policy Aims to Help Military Families by Julia Preston

The Obama administration, responding to requests from Democratic and Republican lawmakers, has taken steps to make it easier for illegal immigrants who are spouses and family members of Americans serving in the military to gain legal status.

The new policy was described in an internal memorandum from Citizenship and Immigration Services that was released last week by Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, and caused a furor in Washington on Friday.

The memo outlined measures that the agency could take under existing laws to “reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals present in the United States without authorization,” instead of waiting for Congress to pass an immigration overhaul to give legal status to millions of illegal immigrants.

With the title “Administrative Alternatives to Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” the memo prompted protests from Mr. Grassley and other Republicans that the Obama administration was trying an end run around Congress, rather than confronting a divisive debate on immigration legislation during an election season. The memo was first reported on the Web site of The National Review, a conservative magazine.

Officials of the immigration agency denied on Friday that they were pursuing any plan to legalize millions of illegal immigrants by fiat.

Aside from a title that administration officials acknowledged was provocative, the memo describes possible changes to the immigration agency’s interpretation of immigration law, including several that have been recommended by lawmakers from both parties to make it easier for immigrants who are trying to work within the system to gain legal status.

According to the memo, one of those changes has been quietly put into practice since May. The new policy allows illegal immigrants who are spouses, parents and children of American citizens serving in the military to complete the process of becoming legal residents without having to leave the United States — a procedure that is known in immigration law terms as granting parole. The memo says agency officials approved the new parole approach “to preserve family unity and address Department of Defense concerns regarding soldier safety and readiness for duty.”

In a letter on July 9, 18 members of the House, including nine Republicans, urged Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to make broader use of that measure and several others to “provide some relief” to active-duty soldiers with close relatives who did not have legal immigration status. The measures the lawmakers advocated are also proposed in the immigration agency’s memo, including the broader use of “deferred action,” a power that allows immigration authorities to cancel deportations.

Among the Republicans signing the letter were Representatives William M. Thornberry of Texas and Representative Michael R. Turner of Ohio, both members of the House Armed Services Committee, as well as Representatives Mike Pence of Indiana and Sam Johnson of Texas. Mr. Turner and Mr. Johnson are staunch opponents of amnesty for illegal immigrants. The letter was also signed by Representative Zoe Lofgren of California, the Democrat who is chairwoman of the House immigration subcommittee.

Department of Homeland Security officials estimate that many thousands of military service members have close relatives who are illegal immigrants. Under a legal Catch-22 in immigration law, those families could face as much as 10 years of separation if the immigrant relative leaves the United States to pursue a legal visa.

The representatives’ letter cited the case of Lt. Kenneth Tenebro, an Army officer and American citizen who had served in Iraq. His Philippine-born wife, Wilma, had been caught in that same legal bind. On July 6, the immigration agency granted deferred action for one year for Mrs. Tenebro, suspending the threat of deportation and offering her new channels to fix her status. Until now, officials said, they have applied the new policy for the military on a case-by-case basis.

Mr. Grassley and 11 other Republican senators who signed a letter this week to Secretary Napolitano about the immigration agency memo, said they were concerned that immigration officials would use their discretionary powers to grant a blanket legal status to millions of illegal immigrants.

“We remain concerned about potential plans for a large-scale effort to offer parole or to defer action on undocumented aliens in the United States,” the senators wrote. “We do not believe that such actions should be used for a large population of illegal aliens or used to bypass Congress and the legislative process.”

Mr. Grassley and a group of Republicans had written a similar letter on June 21.

Administration officials sought to play down the memo. They said the proposals were largely “notional” and most had not been approved as policy by Alejandro Mayorkas, the director of Citizenship and Immigration Services. However, the memo is signed by some of the highest officials in the agency, including Roxana Bacon, the general counsel, and Denise Vanison, the chief of the office of policy and strategy.

The memo finds that it is “theoretically possible to grant deferred action to an unrestricted number of unlawfully present individuals,” but rejects that option as politically “controversial” and too expensive. The memo suggests the agency could instead “tailor the use of this discretionary option for particular groups.”

Christopher Bentley, the spokesman for the immigration agency, said, “To be clear, D.H.S. will not grant deferred action or humanitarian parole to the nation’s entire illegal immigrant population.”

Key Provisions of Arizona Immigration Law Blocked by Bolton

 Email Article |  Twitter |  Facebook |   Google Buzz |  digg it |   delicious |   StumbleUpon |   LinkedIn |   Technorati |  reddit 

Just hours before the law was to take effect, Judge Susan Bolton of Federal District Court issued a preliminary injunction blocking the most controversial parts of Arizona’s immigration enforcement law that have re-ignited the national immigration debate.

Although Judge Bolton's ruling is not final, it seems likely to halt, at least temporarily, an expanding movement by states to combat illegal immigration by making it a state crime to be an immigrant without legal documents and by imposing new requirements on state and local police officers to enforce immigration law. It sets up a lengthy legal battle that could end up before the Supreme Court – ensuring that a controversial law, which inspired similar measures nationwide, created fodder for political campaigns and raised tensions with Mexico will stay in the spotlight.
 
Judge Bolton did allow some, less debated provisions of the law to go into effect, including banning ordinances for "sanctuary cities" that  have deemphasized their policies for alerting federal agents about illegal immigrants.

But Judge Bolton found that the law was on the side of the Justice Department in its argument that many provisions of the Arizona statute would interfere with longstanding federal authority over immigration and could lead to harassment of citizens and legal immigrants.

“Preserving the status quo through a preliminary injunction is less harmful than allowing state laws that are likely pre-empted by federal law to be enforced,” she said.

“There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens,” she wrote. “By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose,” she said, citing a previous Supreme Court case, a “ ‘distinct, unusual and extraordinary’ burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose.”

“This fight is far from over,” said Ms. Brewer, whose lawyers had argued that Congress granted states the power to enforce immigration law particularly when, in their view, the federal government fell short. “In fact,” she added, “it is just the beginning, and at the end of what is certain to be a long legal struggle, Arizona will prevail in its right to protect our citizens.”

USCIS Expands Payment Options at All Domestic Offices

 Email Article |  Twitter |  Facebook |   Google Buzz |  digg it |   delicious |   StumbleUpon |   LinkedIn |   Technorati |  reddit 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today announced that beginning October 1, 2010, domestic offices and U.S. territories, including the U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam, will no longer accept cash payment.  Eliminating the acceptance of cash will reduce USCIS operating costs.  As an alternative to cash, our customers may pay using checks (including personal checks), money orders, and credit cards.  Checks and money orders must be made payable to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.  Processing of your application will not be affected by the use of an alternative payment method.

Please see the attached document or visit www.uscis.gov for additional information.

USCIS Publishes First-Ever Proposed Fee Waiver Form

 Email Article |  Twitter |  Facebook |   Google Buzz |  digg it |   delicious |   StumbleUpon |   LinkedIn |   Technorati |  reddit 

WASHINGTON - U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has proposed for the first time a standardized fee waiver form in an effort to provide relief for financially disadvantaged individuals seeking immigration benefits.  USCIS has published a notice in the Federal Register seeking public comment on the proposed form – Form I-912, Request for Individual Fee Waiver.

The proposed fee waiver form is the product of extensive collaboration with the public.  In meetings with stakeholders, USCIS heard concerns that the absence of a standardized fee waiver form led to confusion about the criteria that had to be met as well as the adjudication standards.  USCIS worked with stakeholders in developing the fee waiver form that is now posted for comment.

“Our goal is to bring clarity and consistency to our processes,” said USCIS Director Alejandro Mayorkas.  “We are doing so now in the critical area of providing the financially disadvantaged with access to immigration benefits.”

Mayorkas further stated that the method by which the proposed fee waiver form was devised – through extensive collaboration with the public – will be a hallmark of his approach to improving agency processes.

Currently, applicants requesting a fee waiver must do so by submitting an affidavit or unsworn declaration requesting a fee waiver and stating the reasons why he/she is unable to pay the filing fee. The new proposed fee waiver form is designed to verify that an applicant for an immigration benefit is unable to pay the fee for the benefit sought.  The proposed form provides clear criteria and an efficient way to collect and process the information.
 
The public is encouraged to comment on the proposed fee waiver form at www.regulations.gov.  The comment period closed on September 13, 2010

For more information on USCIS and its programs, visit www.uscis.gov.

Details and instructions for responding to the request for comments

Proposed form

More information

Fact sheet