Friday, December 30, 2016

USCIS Releases Reminder Regarding Form I-924A Requirement


immigration attorney nycOn December 7, 2016, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a reminder regarding the new fees for the Form I-924A, Annual Certification of Regional Center [news release].

Under 8 C.F.R. 204.6(m)(6), EB5 regional centers are required to submit the Form I-924A annually to demonstrate eligibility for the regional center designation. In accordance with the regulations, all EB5 regional centers with a designation letter dated on or before September 30, 2016, are required to file the Form I-924A for FY-2016 “no later than December 29, 2016.”

The new USCIS fee schedule [see article] that takes effect on December 23, 2016, establishes a new filing fee for the Form I-924A. Any Forms I-924A filed or postmarked on or after December 23, 2016, must be filed with a $3,035 filing fee. There is no exception from or waiver of this new filing fee. The new fee schedule is significant for the Form I-924A, which previously had no filing fee at all. Those filing the Form I-924A on or after December 23, 2016, must be aware of the new fee in order to properly file the Form I-924A in advance of the deadline.

The news release explains that an EB5 regional center may lose its regional center designation for:

  • The failure to provide the USCIS with the required information, including annual Form I-924A submissions; or
  • The failure to promote economic growth.

If an EB5 regional center is terminated, it may not “solicit, generate or promote investors or investments, or otherwise participate as a designated regional center.” For this reason, it is imperative that EB5 regional centers complete the Form I-924A requirement along with the other requirements for demonstrating continued eligibility for the EB5 regional center designation. Individuals and entities involved in the EB5 program should always consult with an experienced immigration attorney.

Please see our category on Investment Immigration to learn more about the EB5 program and other immigrant and nonimmigrant options for investors [see category].

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

Thursday, December 29, 2016

System Issues Regarding Background Checks Delay Certain Naturalization Cases


immigration attorney nycOn December 2, 2016, the American Association of Immigration Lawyers (AILA) reported that it contacted the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) HQ regarding issues with FBI background checks for pending naturalization cases. AILA explains that on November 28, 2016, “a computer coding error impacted the accuracy of the FBI background checks for about 15,000 … pending naturalization cases.” Of these 15,000 naturalization cases, approximatively 3,000 cases were pending at a USCIS field office “either to be interviewed, waiting on a decision post-interview, or waiting to be scheduled for an oath ceremony.”

In response to the computer coding error, the USCIS cancelled oath ceremonies for “about 550 people” who were slated to take the oath on November 29, 2016. The USCIS has resubmitted the names of the 15,000 individuals impacted by the computer coding error to the FBI, and has asked the FBI to expedite new background checks. The USCIS explained to AILA that naturalization interviews will proceed, but individuals affected will not be scheduled to take the oath until the background checks clear.

See AILA Doc. No. 16120261

Please see the Citizenship and Naturalization category on our website to learn more about applying for naturalization in the United States [see category].

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

Wednesday, December 28, 2016

Reactions to Castro's Death and How His Oppression of LGBTQ Individuals Affected US Immigration Law


immigration attorney nycTHE DEATH OF CASTRO: REACTIONS AND THOUGHTS


On November 25, 2016, the longtime dictator of Cuba, Fidel Castro, passed away at the age of 90. In a statement on the death of Castro, President Barack Obama stated:

History will record and judge the enormous impact of this singular figure on the people and world around him [link].

I cannot disagree with President Obama's assertion that Castro will be judged by history. By definition, history is a record of past times. However, unlike our President, who seemed oddly disinclined to take a position on Fidel Castro, I believe that we can render a summary judgment of his legacy. In an interview with the Miami Herald years ago, Fidel Castro's daughter, Alina Castro, disagreed with the assertion that her father was a dictator. “Strictly speaking, Fidel is a tyrant,” she said.[1] I cannot disagree with the distinction made by Castro's daughter, nor can I disagree with the well-worded statement on the matter issued by President-Elect Donald J. Trump:

Today, the world marks the passing of a brutal dictator who oppressed his own people for nearly six decades. Fidel Castro's legacy is one of firing squads, theft, unimaginable suffering, poverty, and the denial of fundamental human rights [link].

Every word of the President-Elect's statement is correct. Castro was a depraved tyrant who deprived the people of Cuba of their liberty for over half a century, destroyed the Cuban economy with his ruinous communist policies, and supported terrorist organizations abroad. In his later years, he was but a calcified relic of the communist leaders of the twentieth century who were responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people, and of the deprivation of liberty of hundreds of millions more.

Yet, despite Castro's record of categorical failure and cruelty, he has a peculiar number of admirers in the West who will never have to find out what it is like living under a communist tyrant. Take for example the Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, who seldom finds a kind word for the only free and democratic nation in the Middle East, Israel:

He was a strong voice for social justice in global discussions at the UN General Assembly and international and regional forums.[2]

For reasons that I will explain, Fidel Castro is in absolutely no way a “strong voice for social justice,” lest the term “social justice” has been perverted such that it is coextensive with brutal oppression and discrimination on the basis of characteristics that were not favored by Comrade Fidel. But before I address those issues, I would be loath to proceed without noting the utterly disgraceful and nauseating statement delivered on the passing of Castro by the Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau:

It is with deep sorrow that I learned today of the death of Cuba's longest serving president. Fidel Castro was a larger than life leader who served his people for almost half a century. A legendary revolutionary and orator, Mr. Castro, made significant improvements to the education and healthcare of his island nation. While a controversial figure, both Mr. Castro's supporters and detractors recognized his tremendous dedication and love for the Cuban people who had a deep and lasting affection for “el Comandante” [link].

I would like to note how many people who think it is incomprehensible that many of us could have considered President-Elect Trump preferable to Hillary Clinton [see blog] also cheered when Justin Trudeau — who is quite clearly not the sharpest tool in the shed — supplanted the brilliant and principled Stephen Harper as Prime Minister of Canada. Harper stood unapologetically with free countries and free peoples. Trudeau, like his father, appears to stand unapologetically with communist tyrants.

I would like to kindly inform the Prime Minister in the North that not all of Comrade Fidel's detractors recognize “his tremendous dedication and love for the Cuban people.” If he deceased Castro loved the Cuban people, he had an odd way of using his brutal security forces to show it. Instead I stand with the people whose families suffered under the Castro regime, such as Senator Marco Rubio who called Trudeau's statement “shameful & embarrassing,” and Senator Ted Cruz who asked “[w]hy do young socialists idolize totalitarian tyrants?”[3] It is not as if all or even most liberals fetishize Castro, for House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi — whom I seldom agree with on much of anything — said of Castro, “[a]fter decades under Fidel's doctrine of oppression and antagonism, there is hope that a new path for Cuba is opening” [link].

CASTRO'S TREATMENT OF LGBTQ INDIVIDUALS AND ITS EFFECT ON IMMIGRATION LAW


I would like to address the absurd assertions about Castro made by Ban Ki-moon, Trudeau, and others of their ilk with a couple of interesting stories regarding Cuba and immigration law.

Because of the oppression in Cuba and its proximity to the United States, our country has long granted special privileges and considerations to Cubans who manage to escape from Castro's island prison. We discuss many of these on site in our article on special Cuban adjustment provisions [see article]. Two of my preferred Presidential candidates, Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, are the children of those who escaped Castro's Cuba. We saw in Little Havana in Miami that the reaction of many Cubans in the United States was quite the opposite of the “deep sorrow” felt by the Prime Minister of Canada.

However, one thing that is often lost with Castro is that his oppression was not only generalized, but also additionally targeted at specific disfavored classes of people. One of the most targeted groups under the Castro regime has been the LGBTQ community. It has always seemed odd to me that many liberals who take such pride in their stances in favor of LGBTQ expansive rights — stances that I tend to share and have fought for as an immigration attorney — defend a virulent abuser of LGBTQ people while insisting that every Republican who disagrees with them on marriage — note I am in favor of gay marriage — is an existential threat to the community. Justin Trudeau, who presents himself as being a staunch ally of LGBTQ people, would do well to immerse himself in the history of Castro's repression.

In 1990, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) issued a landmark decision in the Matter of Toboso-Alfonso, 20 I&N Dec. 819 (BIA 1990) [PDF version]. The decision was not initially for precedent, but was for good reason designated as a precedent decision by Attorney General Janet Reno in 1994. We discuss the case in the broader context of the history of the treatment of LGBTQ issues in the immigration laws on site [see article].

The case concerned a gay man from Cuba who sought asylum and withholding of removal in the United States because he feared persecution on account of being a homosexual. The Board noted the following facts from his testimony:

  • There was a municipal office within the Cuban Government that registered and maintained files on all homosexuals.
  • This office was opened in 1967, and every 2 or 3 months for 13 years he received a notice to appear at a hearing at the office.
  • The notice for the hearing was on a sheet of paper that had his name, the fact that he was a homosexual, and the date he had to appear for a hearing.
  • Each hearing involved a physical examination followed by questions about his sex life and sexual partners.
  • He stated that the examination was “primarily a health examination,” but that he was nevertheless detained on several occasions for 3-4 days without being charged.
  • Merely being a homosexual was a criminal offense in Cuba.
  • The government's actions against him were because he was a homosexual, not even because he had engaged in homosexual conduct.
  • He was sent to a forced labor camp for 60 days on one occasion for missing work because he was a homosexual.
  • He left for the United States because he faced imprisonment for being a homosexual if he remained.

Before the Board, the government argued that the applicant was ineligible for withholding of removal because homosexuals were not a “particular social group.” Specifically, the government argued that “deviant social behavior” could not be the basis for finding a particular social group as contemplated by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). However, the Board noted that the applicant was not persecuted for conduct, but rather for merely being a homosexual. Additionally, the Board concurred with the Immigration Judge who had granted the applicant withholding of removal that homosexuals could constitute a particular social group provided that the evidence shows that members of the group are persecuted, have a well-founded fear of persecution, or that their life or freedom would be threatened on account of that status. The decision in the Matter of Toboso-Alonso opened the door for many individuals from countries all around the world to seek asylum and withholding of removal/deportation relief on account of being persecution for sexual orientation.

The applicant in the Matter of Toboso-Alfonso fled Cuba on the Mariel boatlift in 1980, and an interesting article at wlrn.org from January 2016 highlights a transgender individual who also fled Cuba on the Mariel boatlift [link].[4] The article profiles Ana Marrero, who was born male but identified as a female while a young person in Cuba. She states that she was “usually in prison” in Cuba from the ages of 10 to 18 on account of her gender identity. She states that while she was in prison, she met a gay man who had naturally large breasts, and the prison guards were so bothered “that they operated on him to get rid of those breasts.” While in prison for nothing more than her gender identity, she tried to commit suicide several times, and lives with the marks on her arm from those attempts to this day. It is important to note again, as well, that her imprisonment occurred when she was a child.

Fortunately, the article notes that the situation for LGBTQ individuals is improving in Cuba of late. However, their freedom and the freedom of the Cuban people will not be secured until all the remnants of Cuba's communist regime are replaced by a free government that protects the liberty of the Cuban people.

CONCLUSION AND FINAL THOUGHTS


This brutal repression of LGBTQ individuals was done at the behest of Fidel Castro, who ruled Cuba with an iron fist for decades. Castro was no chic revolutionary, but a cruel and brutal tyrant who not only violenty discriminated against anti-communists and Christians, but also against people whom he deemed to be sexually deviant. Furthermore, unlike many other tyrants who have served as inconvenient allies in the realm of international affairs to the United States and other free countries (not that such forgives their misdeeds at home), Catsro consistently stood with evil tyrants and Islamist terrorists in North Africa and the Middle East. It was Castro, afterall, who encouraged Khrushchev to use nuclear weapons against the United States. There is literally not a single redeeming feature or good thing to say about Castro's wretched reign.

People such as Prime Minister Trudeau, who insist on defending Castro, or such as President Obama, who insist on issuing weak statements dripping with postmodern relativism, ought to consider whether their professed values of social tolerance and diversity should lead them to change course. Those who condemn people such as Senators Cruz or Rubio or Vice President-Elect Pence, ought to at least be able to muster stark condemnation for a man who literally robbed thousands of LGBTQ individuals of their freedom to a greater extent than he robbed the Cuban people of their freedom for over half a century. We can hope that while Castro sycophants grandstand as social justice warriors at home, the incoming Trump Administration will work to help the Cuban people rid themselves finally of the yoke of tyranny.

Suffice it to say, Castro will not be missed by most of us, notwithstanding the ill-informed conjecture of Prime Minister Trudeau.

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

  1. Editorial, “The Fidel Castro Myth Debunked: The Death Of a Tyrant, Not A Hero,” investors.com, (Nov. 26, 2016)
  2. “As Cuba mourns passing of former President Fidel Castro, Ban offers condolences, UN support,” un.org, (Nov. 26, 2016)
  3. Enloe, Chris, “Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz slam Canadian PM Justin Trudeau for praising Fidel Castro,” theblaze.com, (Nov. 27, 2016)
  4. Green, Nadege, “Once A Prisoner In Cuba, A Transgender Cuban Vows To Never Return,” wlrn.org, (Jan. 4, 2016)

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

Monday, December 26, 2016

In Choosing the Next Justice, Focus Only on Qualifications and Merit


immigration attorney nycOver the next few weeks, I look forward to examining the list of Supreme Court prospects offered by President-Elect Donald Trump in depth. On first glance, the President-Elect appears to have assembled an outstanding list of conservative legal minds, and offers great hope of finding a worthy replacement for the late Antonin Scalia [see blog].

While I am excited, I can certainly understand why the President-Elect's list causes consternation for those who favor Justices who take more of a so-called “living constitution” approach to Constitutional jurisprudence. While I obviously do not agree with those of a more liberal persuasion, I recognize the philosophical disagreement regarding legal interpretation and the role of the Supreme Court in our republic.

However, I do not understand the peculiar critique of the President Elect's list from the headline writers at USA Today, who titled an article by Richard Wolf, “Trump's 21 potential court nominees are overwhelmingly white, male and from red states.”[1] It is all the more peculiar that after Wolf makes this useless observation to begin his article; he subsequently notes that “[o]nly half went to the nation's top law schools.” Considering that many complain that all eight of the current Justices are law graduates of Harvard and Yale, it seems that the President-Elect did in fact offer a list of Justices with diverse backgrounds, only to have the naysayers contrive a different reason to attack him for not having a diverse enough list.

The Supreme Court is far too important to play left wing's identity politics parlour game with. This should be evident regardless of one's preferences for the next Justice. As the article notes, with the average age of the individuals on President-Elect Trump's list being 53, we may expect the next Justice to sit for “a quarter century or more on the court.” Indeed, Justice Anthony Kennedy has been on the Supreme Court for nearly 28 years and is only 80 years old. Justice Clarence Thomas is in his 25th year on the Supreme Court and is only 68. Our next Justice will play a dramatic role in shaping the future of American law and constitutional interpretation.

The current Supreme Court bench includes three women, five Catholics, three Jews, one black Justice, and one Hispanic Justice. The issues facing the Court do not concern its demographic breakdown, but rather the extremely challenging and serious cases that it will preside over, such as a particularly noteworthy one in the criminal aliens context titled Lynch v. Dimaya, 15-1498 [see article].

I encourage President-Elect Trump to pick the individual he and his advisors determine most likely to be an outstanding Justice who will interpret the Constitution and our laws as they are written. Whether that individual is Judge Margaret Ryan of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces or United States Senator Mike Lee of Utah, my only hope is that the next Justice is able to come close to filling the shoes of the great Justice that he or she will be replacing.

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

  1. Wolf, Richard, “Trump's 21 potential court nominees are overwhelmingly white, male and from red states,” usatoday.com, Dec. 2, 2016

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

Thursday, December 22, 2016

DHS OIG Report on Green Card Issuance Issues


immigration attorney nycINTRODUCTION


On November 16, 2016, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) published the results of its audit of the ELIS system — implemented to automate the benefits process — as pertaining to Green Card issuance. This final report is a follow-up report to the DHS OIG's March 9, 2016 report on problems with the ELIS system as pertaining to Green Card issuance and other related issues. In this article, we will examine the results of the DHS OIG report and what it may mean going forward.

You may find the original materials here:


BACKGROUND


On pages 3-4 of the report, the DHS OIG explains that since May 13, 2013, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) began processing new and replacement Green Cards using ELIS. The USCIS did this in order to process Immigrant Fees and Green Card applications online.

The DHS OIG then explains the Green Card processing process:

  1. The initial processing for the USCIS Immigrant Fee is done in ELIS;
  2. A USCIS data entry clerk or lockbox contractor enters case data for each applicant once a Visa Packet or application is received;
  3. The data is forwarded from ELIS to the Electronic Print Management System (EPMS) at one of two USCIS card production facilities;
  4. Once the Green Card is produced, it is printed and set for delivery by the United States Postal Service (USPS);
  5. USCIS uses the Secure Mail Initiative (SMI) database to capture and store delivery tracking information once the card has been mailed.

In the DHS OIG's March 16, 2016 report, the OIG “identified weaknesses in USCIS' ability to effectively carry out its national security and system integrity goals.” These failures included:

  • The USCIS had sent “potentially hundreds of Green Cards” to the wrong addresses due to an ELIS limitation that prevented the USCIS from updating customer addresses; and
  • The USCIS was unable to ascertain the exact number of cards it had sent to wrong addresses.

The DHS OIG decided to perform its new audit after it received further information “about the scope and volume of improperly issued Green Cards.”

RESULTS OF THE AUDIT


The DHS OIG found that “approximately 13,000 [Green Cards] were printed and issued with incorrect personal information, such as the wrong date of birth.” Furthermore, “over 6,200 duplicate cards were sent out to individuals who should have each received only one card.” The following table, reproduced from page 6 of the DHS OIG report, shows the types and volume of Green Card errors and duplicates from 2013-2016 [see chart].

While the report takes the position that “the number of errors remains a concern,” it added that in FY-2015, “card errors accounted for .48 percent of roughly 2 million cards that were produced and mailed.” Furthermore, the DHS OIG noted that those who received incorrect cards and who followed the “proper procedures and security checks” were nevertheless approved to become permanent residents. The report did, however, note that the number of errors per Green Cards issued has increased steadily since FY-2013.

The DHS OIG also noted a steady increase in the number of duplicate Green Cards. During the past year, the USCIS inadvertently sent more than 6,200 duplicate Green Cards, including a significant episode in June of 2015 where the USCIS sent 5,400 duplicate Green Cards. Between March and May of 2016, the USCIS “issued at least 750 duplicate cards to its customers as a result of ELIS functionality or legacy data migration problems.” The audit found that “[i]n some cases, applicants paid the processing fee twice and received two cards,” whereas in another case, “an applicant received Green Cards that belonged to two other applicants.”

RECOMMENDATIONS


The DHS OIG found the USCIS's efforts to address the Green Card errors based on the findings of the March report to be inadequate. As a result of the new audit, the OIG made seven recommendations:

  1. Ensure that ELIS design and functionality problems are corrected to prevent, “to the extent possible,” further processing errors.
  2. Ensure development and implementation of internal controls to ensure that Green Card errors are identified and corrected prior to card issuance.
  3. Ensure development and implementation of a standard process for Green Card recovery efforts.
  4. Ensure development and implementation of a standard procedure for identifying and preventing unrecoverable Green Cards from being used.
  5. Implement a centralized way to track and document Green Cards that are returned to the USCIS through Green Card recovery efforts.
  6. Implement identity-proofing capability to enable USCIS customers to submit address changes online in ELIS.
  7. Evaluate the costs and benefits of using USPS's Signature Confirmation as an “alternative secure method for delivering Green Cards to applicants.”

RISKS OF CURRENT PROBLEMS


The DHS OIG identified several serious problems that arise from improperly issued Green Cards.

  1. Approved lawful permanent residents (LPRs) may have benefits denied or be accused of fraud for trying to use a Green Card that was issued with incorrect information.
  2. Green Cards issued in error can be used by those who intend to do harm to the United States, thus posing a national security risk.
  3. Improperly issued and delivered Green Cards increase the workload of the USCIS.

USCIS RESPONSE


The USCIS agreed with all seven recommendations made by the DHS OIG, and is working to implement each one. The report expressed satisfaction with the USCIS's current efforts to rectify problems relating to Green Cards.

One interesting point is that the USCIS disputed the DHS OIG's argument from the March report that improperly issued Green Cards pose a national security risk because they are “highly tamper resistant.” Although the DHS OIG granted that point, the new report stands by the claim that improperly issued Green Cards do, in fact, pose a national security risk to the United States, in part due to the significant black market for Green Cards.

CONCLUSION


The DHS OIG did good work in addressing some very serious problems related to the issuance of Green Cards, and I hope that the USCIS will continue to work to rectify these issues. It is easily lost in looking at statistics of errors that these errors not only increase the USCIS's workload but also cause hardship to individuals who follow all of the rules of our immigration system in order to become LPRs. Furthermore, the DHS OIG was correct to address the potential national security issues involved in having improperly issued Green Cards floating around. Even in proverbially minor cases where a Green Card is used fraudulently, it does damage to the immigration system when a person can procure any benefits through fraud.

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

Monday, December 19, 2016

AILA Publishes Comments on Proposed Revisions to the Form I-589


immigration attorney nycOn September 19, 2016, the Department of Homeland Security published a new proposed rule revising the Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal. The proposed changes were published in the Federal Register at 81 FR 64190 [PDF version]. The proposed changes to the Form I-589 were open for public comment until November 18, 2016.

On November 18, 2016, the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) submitted its comments on the proposed revisions for the Form I-589 [PDF version].[1] The comments include several suggested revisions to the proposal, and are well worth reading.

We will update the site with information when and if the USCIS publishes a new edition of the Form I-589, Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal. Please see the relevant sections on our website to learn more about asylum and refugee protection [see category] and withholding of removal [see article].

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

  1. AILA Doc. No. 16111812 (Nov. 18, 2016)

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

Friday, December 16, 2016

AILA-EOIR Stakeholder Meeting Notes (Nov. 17, 2016)


immigration attorney nycOn November 21, 2016, the American Immigration Lawyers Association's (AILA's) Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) Liaison Committee provided a summary of its November 17, 2016 EOIR stakeholder meeting.[1] The following are some of the notes from the meeting:

  • The EOIR stated that Immigration Judges (IJs) retain discretion to deviate from the Immigration Court Practice Manual in individual cases. However, the EOIR explained that IJs should not adopt their own local rules “that affect groups or classes of respondents appearing before the immigration court.”
  • The EOIR OPPM 12-01 sets forth the procedures for applications for suspension of deportation/non-LPR cancellation of removal [see article] in non-detained cases where immigrant visa numbers are no longer available in a fiscal year. The EOIR stated that as of November 15, 2016, there were 4,895 non-detained Suspension of Deportation/non-LPR Cancellation of Removal cases “in which decisions are reserved pending the availability of a number placed in the queue.”
  • The EOIR stated in the meeting that it is preparing a new OPPM which will provide new information regarding the adjudication of suspension of deportation/cancellation of removal cases subject to the immigrant visa cap. Furthermore, a small number of such cases are set aside each year for cases involving special humanitarian considerations as determined by the Assistant Chief Immigration Judge overseeing the particular court.

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.
  1. AILA Doc. No. 16112139 (Nov. 21, 2016)
Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

What is the Permanent Bar Under Section 212(a)(9)(C)(i)?

immigration attorney nyc

What is the Permanent Bar of Inadmissibility?


The “permanent bar of inadmissibility” is found in section 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).  Although it is similar to the more common 3- and 10-year bars of inadmissibility, there are differences in how the permanent bar is triggered and the penalties proscribed.

Triggering the Permanent Bar of Inadmissibility


Triggering the permanent bar of inadmissibility is a two-step process.  First, an alien must either accrue more than 1 year of unlawful presence in the aggregate, or be removed under section 235(b)(1) of the INA, section 240, or any other provision of the law.  Second, the alien who meets one of those two aforementioned conditions must also attempt to reenter the United States or successfully reenter the United States without inspection.  To be clear, accruing 1 year of unlawful presence in the aggregate or being removed does not trigger the permanent unlawful presence bar without a subsequent illegal reentry attempt, and an illegal reentry attempt does not trigger the permanent bar without one of the two prerequisites.

It is important to note that leaving the United States under a grant of advance parole does not constitute a “departure,” and therefore does not constitute a prerequisite to the permanent bar of inadmissibility.

Distinguishing Triggering the Permanent Bar from the 3- and 10-Year Bars


In understanding the permanent bar, it is also important to distinguish the permanent bar from the 3- and 10-year bars of inadmissibility.  The 3- and 10-year bars of inadmissibility deal only with aliens who accrue certain amounts of unlawful presence (more than 180 days but less than 1 year for the 3-year bar; 1 year or more for the 10-year bar) and then voluntarily depart the United States (3-year bar) or departs under any other circumstances (10-year bar).

The first difference one will notice with the permanent bar, relative to the 3- and 10-year bars, regards the prerequisite to the permanent bar that an alien have accrued more than one year of unlawful presence in the aggregate.  The 3- and 10-year bars only consider unlawful presence accrued over a single stay.  For example, an alien who accrues more than 1 year of unlawful presence over three separate stays would not be subject to the 10-year bar of inadmissibility.  Such an alien may, however, be subject to the permanent bar if he or she subsequently endeavors to enter without inspection after departing.

The second difference is that a prerequisite to the permanent bar may be removal from the United States under section 235(b)(1) of the INA, section 240, or any other provision of the law, without regard to unlawful presence.  This is not the case for either the 3- or 10-year bar, which are triggered only if the alien has accrued the requisite unlawful presence.  For example, an alien who is removed but who has between 6 months and 1 year of unlawful presence would not be subject to the 3-year bar of inadmissibility.

Finally, the 3- and 10-year bars attach upon an alien’s qualifying departure from the United States after having accrued the requisite unlawful presence.  They then merely prohibit the subject alien from being admitted without a waiver of inadmissibility during the applicable 3- or 10-year period. However, the permanent bar does not trigger upon an alien having accrued more than a year of unlawful presence in the aggregate or upon the alien’s removal under section 235(b)(1) of the INA, section 240, or any other provision of the law, but it is triggered  after one of the occurrence of those requirements  things followed by an attempted entry without inspection.  This means that an alien who meets one of the two permanent bar prerequisites but who has not re-entered or tried to re-enter without inspection is not ineligible to be admitted on account of the permanent bar (the alien may be inadmissible on other grounds, such as the 10-year bar).  The permanent bar only attaches after the attempted or successful entry without inspection.

Why is it called the “Permanent” Bar of Inadmissibility?


Certain aliens subject to the 3- or 10-year bars of inadmissibility may seek an unlawful presence waiver of inadmissibility.  The repercussions of the permanent bar of inadmissibility are more severe because the statutory provision does not provide for a general waiver of inadmissibility.  There are, however, limited circumstances in which an alien subject to the permanent bar may endeavor to seek lawful admission into the United States.

The circumstances in which the permanent bar may be overcome are set forth in a 2008 USCIS Memorandum:  Memo, Neufeld, Scialabba, and Chang, USCIS Interoffice Memorandum, “Consideration of Guidance Concerning Unlawful Presence for Purposes of Sections 212(a)(9)(B)(i) and 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) of the Act,” (May 6, 2009).

Consent to Apply for Readmission 


The statute for the permanent bar provides for an exception for an alien who is subject to the permanent bar and who, more than 10 years after the date of his or her last departure, seeks consent from the Secretary of Homeland Security to reapply for admission.  It is important to note that this is not a general waiver of the permanent bar for those who remain outside of the United States for at least 10 years.  Rather, it allows such aliens to seek consent to apply for readmission from the United States Government.  Such an application must be filed on the Form I-212, Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission into the United States After Deportation or Removal.  If the alien is granted a favorable exercise of discretion, he or she may then reapply for admission into the United States, which may or may not be granted.  The Form I-212 may be filed in conjunction with a Form I-601, Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility, or with an application for adjustment of status.

Under the Matter of Torres-Garcia, 23 I&N Dec. 866 (BIA 2006), an alien subject to the permanent bar may not seek consent to reapply for admission to seek adjustment of status until 10 years have elapsed from the date of his or her last departure.

VAWA Waiver


The only waiver of the permanent bar provided for by statute is for Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) self-petitioners.  In order to be granted a VAWA waiver of the permanent bar, the self-petitioner must establish a connection between his or her battering or subjection to extreme cruelty and his or her removal or departure from, or reentry, or attempted reentry into the United States.

Other Limited Waivers


The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) also provides for a variety of limited-use waivers from the permanent bar.

First, applicants for adjustment of status under the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act of 1998 (HRIFA) and the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) may be granted a discretionary waiver of the permanent bar by filing a Form I-601.  The USCIS will use the same standard for adjudicating such waiver requests as it would had the alien filed the Form I-212.

Second, applicants for legalization, Special Agricultural Workers (SAW), LIFE Act Adjustment of Status (section 245(i)), and Legalization Class Settlement Agreement Applicants may be granted a discretionary waiver of the permanent bar for humanitarian reasons, to ensure family unity, or because the granting of such waiver is determined to be in the public interest.    These applicants will generally apply for a waiver by using the Form I-690, Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility Under Sections 245A or 210 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Third, applicants for temporary protected status (TPS) may be granted a waiver of the permanent bar of inadmissibility.  This waiver may be granted for humanitarian reasons, to ensure family unity, or if the granting of the waiver is deemed to be in the public interest.  However, a waiver for TPS does not waive the permanent bar for any purpose aside from TPS.  This means that a person who obtains a waiver of the permanent bar for TPS would have to wait 10 years from the date of his or her last departure to apply for consent to reapply for admission and seek adjustment of status.

Fourth, asylees and refugees seeking adjustment of status may apply for a waiver of the permanent bar by filing the Form I-602, Application by Refugee for Waiver of Grounds of Excludability, unless it is determined that such application is unnecessary.  Asylee and refugee adjustment of status applicants are not subject to the 10-year waiting period for consent to reapply for admission.

Finally, persons subject to the permanent bar may procure nonimmigrant waivers of inadmissibility to seek nonimmigrant visas.  Such waivers are generally liberally granted.  However, such a waiver would only apply to obtaining a nonimmigrant visa.  The alien would still be required to seek consent to reapply for admission after 10 years from the date of his or her last departure in order to seek permanent residence.  Short trips to the United States on a nonimmigrant visa after being granted a waiver are not counted toward the 10-year requirement.

Conclusion


The permanent bar can be avoided with certainty provided that an alien does not endeavor to enter the United States without inspection.  Without such an attempt, even satisfying one of the first two criteria for triggering the permanent bar – over 1 year of unlawful presence in the aggregate or removal – will not render the alien subject to the permanent bar.  Avoiding even the attempt of unlawful entry is imperative for an alien who has accrued the requisite unlawful presence for the permanent bar or who has been ordered removed from the United States.  With regard to unlawful presence, an alien should understand the rules of his or her status in the United States and consult with an experienced immigration attorney regarding the rules for the accrual of unlawful presence.

If an alien is subject to the permanent bar, he or she should consult with an experienced immigration attorney for an individualized case assessment and an evaluation of whether any avenues for relief may be available.

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

Resources and materials:


Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

Tuesday, December 13, 2016

New USCIS Fee Schedule (Effective December 23, 2016)


immigration attorney nycINTRODUCTION: NEW USCIS FEES EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 23, 2016


On October 24, 2016, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a new fee schedule for the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in the Federal Register [see 81 FR 73292] [USCIS news release: link]. The new fee schedule will take effect on December 23, 2016. Individuals must pay the new filing fees for any applications or petitions postmarked or filed on or after December 23, 2016. The USCIS will reject any applications or petitions postmarked or filed on or after December 23, 2016, that do not have the proper filing fees. The old fees must be used for any applications or petitions postmarked or filed before December 23, 2016.

REASON FOR THE NEW USCIS FEE SCHEDULE


The Federal Register notice explains that the USCIS fee schedule was last adjusted on November 23, 2010. The USCIS conducted a comprehensive fee review for fiscal year (FY) 2016/2017 and determined that the current fees “do not recover the full cost of services provided.” Accordingly, the DHS adjusted the fee schedule so that it could fully recover costs and maintain adequate services. The proposed fee schedule was submitted for notice and public comment on May 4, 2016.

The Federal Register notice summary includes the following changes:

  • Increases fees by a weighted average of 21 percent;
  • Establishes a new fee of $3,035 covering USCIS costs related to processing the Form I-924A, Supplement to Form I-924 (for EB5 Annual Certification of Regional Center);
  • Establishes a three-level fee for the Form N-400, Application for Naturalization; and
  • Removes regulatory provisions that prevent the USCIS from rejecting an immigration or naturalization benefit request paid with a dishonored check or lacking the required biometric services fee until the individual filing the benefit request has been provided with the opportunity to correct the deficient payment.

NEW FORM: FORM I-942, REQUEST FOR REDUCED FEE PROCESS


The DHS has created a new form called the Form I-942, Request for Reduced Fee Process, which will become effective on December 23, 2016 [link]. The fee will allow for a reduced fee of $320 for naturalization applicants whose household incomes are greater than 150 percent and not more than 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines. We will update the Naturalization section of the website with a detailed article on the new Form I-942 when the final version of the Form I-942 and the Form I-942 instructions are available on the USCIS website.

NEW FEE SCHEDULE


The following chart [see blog] shows the new USCIS fee schedule [link]. The new fees will be effective starting on December 23, 2016. The old fees will remain effective until that date.

FEE WAIVERS


Please see our full article regarding the rules for establishing eligibility for a fee waiver with the USCIS [see article]. We also have a full article on establishing eligibility for a fee waiver in Immigration Court or with the Board of Immigration Appeals [see article].

CONCLUSION


When filing an application or petition with the USCIS, it is essential to use the proper edition of the form and to pay the current filing fee (or file the form with a request for a fee waiver if eligible). The form instructions associated with each USCIS form include detailed instructions for filling out and submitting a form with the requisite information and fee. An experienced immigration attorney may help an individual determine whether a given application or petition is appropriate given his or her circumstances and help the individual file a complete application or petition with the requisite fee or fee waiver request.

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

Monday, December 12, 2016

Recapturing Priority Dates Through Automatic Conversion

immigration attorney nyc

Automatic Conversion of Family-Sponsored Immigrant Visa Petitions and the CSPA


Under the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA), certain child beneficiaries of immigrant visa petitions filed by a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident (LPR) may continue to be considered a child after “aging out.”  CPSA protection allows the child beneficiary to stay in the same preference category and retain his or her original priority date even after aging out.  For many such beneficiaries, this can mean a positive difference of several years in procuring permanent residency in the United States.

However, not all “age outs” are in fact covered by the CSPA.  If the child’s petition was filed on his or her behalf by a U.S. citizen parent, the child beneficiary’s age freezes for CSPA purposes on the date of filing.  If the child’s petition is filed by an LPR parent, the child’s age freezes on the date the petitioner naturalizes (if he or she does naturalize).  For preference petitions, as opposed to immediate relative petitions, the CSPA allows for the subtraction of the time that the visa petition was pending from the beneficiary’s age at the time an immigrant visa number becomes available.  If the result is less than 21, the beneficiary may still be treated as a child for the petition.

Those who are not protected by the CSPA may have an additional recourse, however, in the form of the conversion of an immigrant visa petition.  If a child beneficiary who is ineligible for CSPA protection is eligible for the automatic conversion of his or her immigrant visa petition upon “aging out” or, in other cases, marriage, he or she may move to “recapture” the original priority date.

How Conversion Works


In order to be considered a “child” for purpose of the INA, an individual must be both under the age of 21 and unmarried.  Exceeding the age of 21 or marrying will mean that the individual is no longer a “child” under the immigration laws.

Under section 203(h)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), if a child “ages out” and is not covered by the CSPA, his or her immigrant visa petition may be converted to the appropriate preference category.  Regulations allow for automatic conversion under certain circumstances for a “child” beneficiary who marries or who was married and subsequently divorced.

To examine this process, let us look at every possible scenario for recapturing priority dates in the immediate relative and preference categories.

First, if the immediate relative minor child of a U.S. citizen turns 21 years of age before procuring permanent residency, and if he or she is not eligible for CSPA protection, the petition will be automatically converted to First Preference (unmarried adult son/daughter of U.S. citizen).  If the beneficiary instead marries, the petition will be converted to the Third Preference (married son/daughter of U.S. citizen).

If the adult son or daughter beneficiary of a petition by a U.S. citizen parent (First Preference) marries, his or her petition will be converted to the Third Preference.  If the married son or daughter beneficiary of a U.S. citizen parent’s petition (Third Preference) divorces, his or her petition will be converted to the first preference.

If the Second Preference A minor child of an LPR turns 21 years of age before procuring permanent residency, the petition will be converted to Second Preference B (unmarried adult daughter of LPR). If the parent of such a beneficiary naturalizes before the beneficiary turns 21, the petition will be converted to an Immediate Relative petition.  If the parent petitioner for the beneficiary of Second Preference B petition naturalizes, the petition will be converted to First Preference.

Limitations on Automatic Conversion and Recapturing Priority Dates


There are two important limitations on automatic conversion and recapturing priority dates.

The first is that there is no family-sponsored category for the married child of an LPR.  This means that if the beneficiary of a Second Preference (A or B) petition marries, he or she will be ineligible for the automatic conversion of his or her petition because there is no family-sponsored category covering the married children of LPRs.  For this reason, an individual who is the beneficiary of a pending petition filed by an LPR parent should consult with an experienced immigration attorney for a full case evaluation before entering into a marriage.

Second, a petition may only be automatically converted if the converted petition could be filed by the same petitioner.  This rule was established by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) in the Matter of Wang, 25 I&N Dec. 28 (BIA 2009), and upheld by the Supreme Court in Scialabba v. Cuellar de Osorio, 134 S.Ct. 2191.  For this reason, automatic conversion involving the fourth preference category, for the brother/sister (and their spouse or children) of a U.S. citizen is impossible.

General Summation of the Rule


In general, the beneficiary of a petition filed by a U.S. citizen or LPR parent is eligible to “recapture a priority date” if both the petitioner and the beneficiary are the same.  If a different petitioner would be required, or if the underlying petition was terminated or revoked, the individual would be ineligible to recapture his or her priority date.

Conclusion


It is important to consult with an experienced immigration attorney throughout the immigrant visa petitioning process.  An experienced immigration attorney will be able to help the petitioner and beneficiary understand how different events may affect an immigrant visa petition and CSPA protection or the ability to recapture a priority date.  With regard to recapturing priority dates, an experienced immigration attorney can assist a petitioner and beneficiary throughout the process and ensure that each step is done correctly.  If an LPR child beneficiary is considering marriage, an experienced immigration attorney can evaluate the situation and explain when the beneficiary may be able to procure LPR status through the pending petition filed by his or her LPR parent, and what the process for acquiring status through his or her USC or LPR spouse would be.

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

Resources and materials:


Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

Friday, December 9, 2016

CBP Opens Temporary Facility in Tornillo-Guadalupe, Texas


immigration attorney nycOn November 19, 2016, the United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) announced that it opened the Tornillo-Guadalupe, Texas, Temporary Holding Facility [link]. The CBP opened this new temporary holding facility in response to the recent upsurge in illegal crossings along the Southwest border [see blog]. The temporary holding facility, located 40 miles east of El Paso, Texas, can hold up to 500 individuals. The CBP explains that the new facility will be open for 30 days, “pending any changes in the volume of people arriving at the ports [of entry] or crossing the border between the ports in the El Paso area until they are transferred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).”

The CBP explains that the temporary holding facility “will offer overflow processing support to the CBP's ports of entry and Border Patrol stations in the El Paso area.” The CBP will use the temporary facility to process Unaccompanied Alien Children and Family Units. Individuals processed at this facility will be transferred to the ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) after processing.

The El Paso Sector Chief Jeffrey Shelf advised individuals to not risk their lives endeavoring to cross the Southwest border illegally. “Smugglers are not your friends. Don't put your lives in their hands.”

Please see our website sections on Asylum and Refugee Protection [see category] and Immigration Detention [see category] to learn more about related issues.

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

Wednesday, December 7, 2016

December 2016 Visa Bulletin


immigration attorney nycINTRODUCTION: DECEMBER 2016 VISA BULLETIN


On November 8, 2016, the Department of State (DOS) released its December 2016 Visa Bulletin. The December 2016 Visa Bulletin contains application final action dates and dates for filing for immigrant visas in both the family-sponsored and employment-based immigrant visa preference categories.

Two days later, on November 10, 2016, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) determined that individuals seeking adjustment of status with the USCIS in the family-sponsored preference categories and in the employment-based first through fourth preference categories may file for adjustment of status based upon the dates for filing instead of the application final action dates. However, those in the employment-based fifth (EB5) preference category must use the application final action dates (this only makes a difference for applicants from mainland China).

In this article, we will provide the relevant charts from both the DOS Visa Bulletin and the USCIS for those seeking immigrant visas in the preference categories. Please see our comprehensive article to learn about how to use the Immigrant Visa Bulletin as an individual seeking adjustment of status on the basis of an approved immigrant visa petition in one of the employment-based or family-sponsored preference categories [see article]. Please see our blog post to learn more about the distinction between the dates for filing and the application final action dates [see blog].

Please see our articles on the November 2016 Visa Bulletin [see article] and the October 2016 Visa Bulletin [see article] to observe the movement in the dates for filing and the application final action dates over the first three months of FY-2017.

This article relies on the following resources:

  • “Visa Bulletin for November 2016,” DOS, (Nov. 8, 2016) [link]
  • “When to File Your Adjustment of Status Application for Family-Sponsored or Employment-Based Preference Visas: December 2016,” USCIS, (Nov. 10, 2016) [link]

FAMILY-SPONSORED CASES


DATES FOR FILING FAMILY-SPONSORED ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS APPLICATIONS

An individual with an approved family-sponsored immigrant visa petition in one of the preference categories may file for adjustment of status in December of 2016 if his or her priority date is before the filing date on the following chart [see article]. An individual must find the row with his or her preference category and the column with his or her country of nationality in order to locate the correct filing date.

FAMILY-SPONSORED FINAL ACTION DATES

The following chart [see article] represents the final action dates for the family-sponsored preference categories for December 2016. These dates represent the date on which final action may be taken on an immigrant visa application. It is important to remember that family-sponsored immigrant visa beneficiaries seeking adjustment of status may use the dates for filing for December of 2016.

EMPLOYMENT-BASED CASES


DATES FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANT ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS APPLICATIONS

For December of 2016, the USCIS determined that those seeking adjustment of status in the employment-based first through fourth preference categories may use the Visa Bulletin's filing dates while those seeking adjustment of status on the basis of an approved EB5 petition must use the application final action dates. The priority dates for all chargeability areas for EB5 on both the dates for filing and application final action dates charts are current except for China-mainland born. For EB5 adjustment of status applicants from mainland China, the USCIS's decision means that the cutoff date for applying for adjustment of status is March 15, 2014, instead of June 15, 2014.

The employment-based charts work exactly the same as the family-sponsored charts. A date of “C” means that any individual with an approved immigrant visa petition that preference category and chargeability area will be allowed to file for adjustment of status in December [see article].

EMPLOYMENT-BASED FINAL ACTION DATES

The following chart [see article] contains the application final action dates for the employment-based preference categories for December of 2016. As we noted in the previous section, individuals with approved immigrant visa petitions in the EB5 categories must use the final action dates. Those seeking adjustment of status in the employment-based first through fourth may use the dates for filing to determine whether they are eligible to apply for adjustment of status in December of 2016.

NEWS AND NOTES FROM THE IMMIGRANT VISA BULLETIN


The new issue of the DOS Visa Bulletin includes news that will affect the progression of application final action dates and dates for filing in the upcoming months.

OVERSUBSCRIPTION OF THE MEXICO E4 AND CERTAIN RELIGIOUS WORKERS PREFERENCE CATEGORIES

The DOS explains that there is high demand for the E4 and Certain Religious Worker categories from individuals from Mexico. The DOS explains that this is primarily due to Juvenile Court Dependent cases filed with the USCIS for adjustment of status. Accordingly, the DOS was required to impose final action dates in the E4 and Certain Religious Worker categories for those seeking immigrant visas in those categories from Mexico.

SCHEDULED EXPIRATION OF EMPLOYMENT FOURTH PREFERENCE CERTAIN RELIGIOUS WORKERS AND EB5

On September 29, 2016, President Barack Obama signed a 10-week extension of the certain religious workers and EB5 programs. This extension expires on December 9, 2016. Accordingly, no final action may be taken on cases in either category after December 8, 2016. The application final action dates and dates for filing in these categories will become unavailable for December for all chargeability areas effective December 10, 2016, unless the Congress takes action to extend the programs. Non-minister special immigrant religions workers must be admitted into the United States no later than midnight December 8, 2016, in order to enter the United States in status. EB5 visas may be issued for their full validity period before December 9, 2016.

We will update the immigration blog with information regarding the possible extension of both of these immigrant visa programs. Those seeking immigrant visas in these categories should consult with an experienced immigration attorney for guidance on the evolving situation.

EMPLOYMENT-BASED VISA AVAILABILITY FOR SUBSEQUENT MONTHS

The DOS explains that the level of demand for many of the employment-based preference categories for cases filed with the USCIS for adjustment of status increased significantly last winter. Because the increased levels have been sustained and show no signs of abating, the DOS has made updates to its previous projections regarding visa availability. Please see the relevant section of our October 2016 Visa Bulletin article to read the previous set of projections [see section].

The DOS projects that the dates in the employment-based first preference category will remain current during the coming months. However, the DOS states that it will be necessary to impose a Final Action Date for China-mainland born and India “at some point.”

The DOS projects that the dates for the employment-based second preference category will remain current for the foreseeable future. However, the DOS expects to have to impose a worldwide, Mexico, and Philippines Final Action Date “no later than July.”

The DOS explains that the demand for immigrant visas in the employment-based third preference category “appears to be increasing at the long-anticipated rate.” For this reason, the DOS held the date for December and anticipates that it will do so again in January. The DOS will determine whether the increased level of demand for immigrant visas in the third preference category will be sustained. The DOS projects that for India, the movement of the date will be limited to one week, will then hold for several months, then move one week, and then be likely to hold again.

CONCLUSION


Individuals with approved preference petitions should monitor the Immigrant Visa Bulletin for an idea of when an immigrant visa may become available. This is especially important for individuals planning to apply for adjustment of status. An individual seeking an immigrant visa should retain an experienced immigration attorney throughout the entire petitioning and application process.

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

Tuesday, December 6, 2016

Letter Urging Reauthorization of EB5 Program


immigration attorney nycOn November 15, 2016, the following EB5 stakeholder groups wrote a letter to the United States Congress urging reauthorization of the EB5 program in advance of its December 9, 2016 expiration date:

  • American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA);
  • U.S. Chamber of Commerce;
  • EB-5 Investment Coalition;
  • Invest in the USA; and
  • The Real Estate Roundtable

You may see the full letter here [PDF version].

The EB5 program had been facing expiration on September 30, 2016 [see article]. President Obama signed a bill that extended the EB5 program until December 9, 2016 [see blog]. The letter presents strong arguments for the reauthorization of the EB5 program as well as the willingness of the stakeholders to work with concerned members of Congress to “increase oversight and prevent fraudulent activity.” The letter also touches on other key issues up for debate such as Targeted Employment Area (TEA) definitions and the minimum investment requirements.

I join the stakeholders in the letter in calling for the reauthorization of the EB5 immigrant investor program. While certain reforms would be welcome, it is important that the program is not allowed to lapse. It is also crucial for Congress to extend the Special Immigrant Religious Workers Program and the Conrad 30 Waiver Program [see blog] in advance of their December 9 expiration dates.

We will be sure to update the site with news relating to the status of these three programs. To learn about the EB5 program and other options for investment immigration, please see our website's section for Investment Immigration [see category].

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

Monday, December 5, 2016

AILA-NVC Meeting Notes From Nov. 3, 2016


immigration attorney nycINTRODUCTION


On November 3, 2016, the American Association of Immigration Lawyers (AILA) published notes from its AILA Department of State (DOS) Liaison Committee Meeting with officials from the National Visa Center (NVC).[1] In this article, I will focus on some of issues that the NVC officials addressed in the AILA Liaison meeting.

POLICE CLEARANCES


When applying for an immigrant visa through consular processing, the Department of State (DOS) requires the submission of police clearances from certain countries where the immigrant visa applicant resided for a year or more. AILA noted that certain countries only send police clearances directly to the Embassy or Consulate handling the case processing. AILA asked the NVC how it is notified when it receives the required police clearances in such cases so that an appointment can be scheduled, and, how attorneys and applicants are notified when the NVC receives police clearances.

The NVC responded that the documentary requirements for immigrant visa applications are found in the DOS's Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) at 9 FAM 504.4(1). Furthermore, the Visa Reciprocity Schedule “provides further clarification as to the availability of documents in a particular country.” The NVC explained that it uses the Reciprocity Schedule during the process of collecting documents in order to determine whether the applicant him or herself needs to submit the police certificate to the NVC for review. If the Reciprocity Schedule indicates that the local police authority in the applicant's home country submits the document directly to the Consular Section, the NVC will not request a copy from the applicant. The NVC nevertheless advised the applicant and his or her attorney to ensure that the police certificate is sent to the Consular Section prior to the interview.

REQUEST FOR ALREADY SUBMITTED DOCUMENTS


AILA noted that the NVC sometimes sends document checklists asking for documents that have already been submitted to the NVC.

The NVC advised attorneys to respond to the NVC's request by providing a written explanation to the nvcattorney@state.gov mailbox. Upon receiving the explanation, the NVC will re-review the case file and attempt to locate the previously submitted document(s) in question.

If such a checklist is received after an appointment has been made and the case has gone to post, the applicant should bring copies of the items requested in the latest or final checklist letter to the appointment.

CIVIL DOCUMENTS REQUIRING TRANSLATION


AILA inquired about the NVC's requirements regarding civil documents required as part of an immigrant visa application when those documents are in a language other than English.

The NVC explained that such documents must be accompanied by certified translations. The translation must be accompanied by a statement by the translator that the translation is accurate, and that the translator is competent to translate. The NVC noted further that individual embassies and consulates may have additional requirements.

DUPLICATE TRANSFER NOTICES


AILA noted that there have been reports of approved Form I-730, Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition, cases where both the attorney and applicant have received identical approval/transfer notices from the NVC at least every other, and sometimes twice a day.

The NVC responded that it is aware of the issue and working to address it. It further advised that attorneys who experience potential computer errors may use the attorney email at nvcattorney@state.gov to notify the NVC.

TRANSFER ISSUES WITH TAJIKISTAN AND KYRGYZSTAN


AILA explained that attorneys representing nationals of Tajikistan have been receiving transfer notices advising that their cases have been transferred to Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, with new case numbers reflecting the change. AILA noted that this is confusing because the Bishkek Embassy's website has for a time indicated that the Embassy there does not process immigrant visas.

The NVC explained that the U.S. Embassy in Bishkek will begin accepting immigrant visa cases from the NVC in November 2016. The Embassy in Bishkek is in the process of updating its website with immigrant visa processing information and interview instructions.

However, the NVC also noted that it is continuing to process Tajikistani cases in Almaty, Kazakhstan, notwithstanding that the U.S. Embassy in Bishkek is now processing immigrant visa cases. Accordingly, the NVC asked that attorneys receiving such referrals to share the information by sending an email to nvcattorney@state.gov.

MAKING UP SHORTFALL OF INCOME IN AFFIDAVIT OF SUPPORT


AILA noted that an affidavit of support sponsor [see article] is permitted to supplement his or her income with proof of assets to make up for a shortfall in income to meet the support requirements. AILA noted that many attorneys have found that the NVC often rejects such affidavits as inadequate.

The NVC explained that it does not, as a matter of procedure, consider proof of assets that were submitted to supplement petitioner income. Instead, if the NVC finds that the petitioner's income is inadequate, it will send a letter suggesting that the affidavit of support sponsor bring a joint-sponsor document or other proof of income/assets to the immigrant visa appointment.

MODERNIZED IMMIGRANT VISA APPLICATION PROCESS


The NVC explained that is implementing a new Consular Electronic Application Center (CEAC) module as part of the Modernized Immigrant Visa (MIV) application process at six pilot embassies and consulates in spring of 2017: Montreal, Rio de Janerio, Buenos Aires, Frankfurt, Sidney, and Hong Kong. The module will feature the following:

  • Online submission of financial and civil documents;
  • The ability to add or remove derivative applicants online;
  • The ability to change derivatives from accompanying to following-to-join online;
  • NVC feedback and status updates provided electronically; and
  • Online case follow-ups to avoid entering termination status.

LENGTH OF TIME TO RECEIVE FILE FROM THE UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES (USCIS) AFTER APPROVAL OF IMMIGRANT VISA PETITION


The NVC explained that it can take up to six weeks to receive a file from the USCIS after the approval of an immigrant visa petition. It recommended that an immigrant visa applicant wait at least six weeks before filing an inquiry regarding the status of the application.

ATTORNEYS AS AGENTS


AILA inquired whether an attorney designated as an agent is required to have a Form G-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Accredited Representative, on file in order to communicate with the NVC on behalf of a visa applicant.

The NVC explained that an attorney may either file the Form G-28 or submit a signed statement on his or her law office letterhead indicating representation of the beneficiary. Attorneys may submit these documents to nvcattorney@state.gov.

CONCLUSION


AILA's notes from the meeting contain useful information for both individuals seeking immigrant visas and their attorneys. Although the NVC's answers and statements do not constitute binding precedent, they clarify aspects of how the DOS and the NVC handle various immigrant visa processing situations. Additionally, the NVC stated that it is currently examining Child Status Protection Act (CPSA) guidelines, including the question of when to issue fee bills to dependent children under the age of 21 who may not “age out” until 1-2 years in the future.

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

  1. “National Visa Center / AILA DOS Liaison Committee Meeting, November 3, 2016,” published on AILA InfoNet at Doc. No. 16110402 (posted on Nov. 9, 2016)

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com