USCIS Receipt Numbers

When the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) receives an application or petition, it assigns it a 13-character USCIS receipt number on the Form I-797C, Notice of Action. The USCIS receipt number is used by the agency to track and identify cases. The applicant or petitioner may use the USCIS receipt number to make a case inquiry with USCIS.

In this post, I will explain the format for the USCIS receipt number.

The first three characters of the USCIS receipt number correspond to the USCIS service center that received the case and is processing the application or petition. For example, if the application or petition is being processed by the National Benefits Center, the first three characters of the USCIS receipt number will be “NBC.”

The next two numbers will represent the fiscal year in which USCIS received the application or petition. For example, if the application or petition was received in FY 2014, these characters will be “14” on the receipt number.

The next three numbers represent the numbered workday in the fiscal year in which the application or petition was received by USCIS. For example, if the petition was received by USCIS on the 32nd workday of FY 2014, this number would be 032.

Finally, the last five numbers will represent the unique case processing number. The case processing number does not correspond to where or when the application or petition was received by USCIS.

It is important for an applicant or petitioner keep his or her USCIS receipt number handy and ensure that the receipt number corresponds to the correct application or petition.

The USCIS case status page can be found here.

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

Permissible Activities While on B2 Status

Introduction:  Permissible Activities While on B2 Status

The B2 nonimmigrant visa classification is if for temporary visitors for pleasure.  There are limited activities in which a B2 nonimmigrant may engage in while on B2 status without violating status.  In this article, we will review permissible and impermissible activities while on B2 status.  Please read the full version of this article to learn more [see article].

B2 Visa Statute

The B2 nonimmigrant classification comes from section 101(a)(15)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).  The Act reserves B2 status for “a [nonimmigrant] alien (other than one coming for the purpose of study or for performing skilled or unskilled labor as a representative of foreign press, radio, film, or other information media coming to engage in such vocation) [who has] a residence in a foreign country which he has no intention of abandoning and who is visiting the United States … temporarily for pleasure.”  “Pleasure” in the B2 context is explained in Department of State (DOS) regulations and guidance.

Activities that Constitute a “Visitor for Pleasure”

DOS regulations found I 22 C.F.R. § 41.31(b)(2) define “pleasure” as “[referring] to legitimate activities of a recreational character, including tourism, amusement, visits with friends or relatives, rest, medical treatment, and activities of a fraternal, social, or service nature.”

The DOS’s Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) contains a robust list of activities that an alien may permissibly engage in while on B2 status.  Accordingly, DOS officers follow the FAM in determining whether to approve a request for a B2 visa.  To learn about visa refusals, please see our full article [see article].

9 FAM 402.2-4(A) explains that aliens may be classifiable as B2 visitors for pleasure if they are seeking entry for one of the following reasons:

1. Tourism or Family Visits
2. Medical Reasons
3. Participation in Social Events
4. Armed Forces Dependents (dependents of an alien member of the U.S. Armed Forces temporarily assigned for duty in the United States)
5. Dependents of Crewman (dependents of D visa alien crewman who are coming to the United States solely to accompany the alien crewman)
6. Short Course of Study (must be coming for tourism and course of study must be incidental to the primary purpose of the visit)
7. Amateur Entertainers and Athletes (cannot be a member of the any profession associated with the activity, may not receive pay or remuneration for performances, but incidental expenses associated with the visit may be reimbursed)

Employment Prohibited

These are the primary reasons for which B2 status is sought.  It is important to note that employment is expressly prohibited while on B2 status.  In the Matter of Hall, 18 I&N Dec. 203 (BIA 1982), the Board held that a B2 nonimmigrant who worked as a missionary while only receiving money for room, board, other essential needs, and pocket change had violated his status.

A university lecturer visiting the United States on B2 status is permitted to give a “brief, impromptu speech or take a short-term course as an incidental part of his or her visit to the country” [see Genco. Op. No 93-61 (INS), 1993 WL 1504008].  However, if any of the lecturer’s expenses will be covered, he or she would be classifiable as B1 and not B2.  Furthermore, the lecturer could not use the B2 visa to primarily render services to a university even if such services are unsubsidized.

Many B2 visitors may wonder of remote work over the internet for a foreign employer is permissible while on B2 status.  A careful reading of the applicable statutes and regulations indicates that the answer is no.  Employment is a categorically prohibited activity while on B2 status [see section].

Certain aliens who may not be classifiable as B2 visitors for pleasure may be classifiable as B1 business visitors.  To learn about permissible activities while on B1 status, please read our full article [see article].

Education Prohibited

Education is prohibited while on B2 status.  In order to enter the United States as a student, an alien must seek a student visa [see student visas].  However, a B2 visitor for pleasure may engage in a short course of study incidental to the primary purpose of a visit while on B2 status.  Furthermore, language students who are engaging in a course of short duration with less than 18 hours of school per week may be classifiable as B2 [see “B2 Visitors under Special Circumstances”].  If a B2 visa applicant may be engaging in any studies incidental to the primary purpose of his or her visit, it is important to explain the situation at the consulate.  If the activities are not permissible for a B2 visitor, the alien may be able to instead seek the appropriate student visa.

However, an alien seeking to enter the United States as a prospective student in either the F1 or M1 category may obtain a B2 visa marked “prospective student” [see 67 FR 18065].  A B2 prospective student may apply for a change of status to F1 or M1 after entering the United States.  In order to be approved as a B2 prospective student, the applicant must demonstrate that he or she will be eligible for F1 or M1 student status.

The 30/60 Day Rule

The DOS created the 30/60 day rule to help determine whether an alien who violates B2 status in certain ways misrepresented his or her intentions when applying for the B2 visa [see article].  The 30/60 day rule is found in 9 FAM 302.9-4(B)(3).  Although the adjudicative principle is not binding on the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), it is used as a guide for USCIS adjudicators as well [see article].  An alien who is found to have misrepresented a material fact in applying for a B2 visa may be found to be inadmissible [see article].  The 30/60 day rule is triggered when one of the following status violations occurs within 60 days of an alien’s entry into the United States on B2 status:

1. Actively seeking and then engaging in unauthorized employment;
2. Enrolling in a full course of academic study without changing status;
3. Marrying and taking up permanent residence; or
4. Undertaking any activity for which a change of status or an adjustment of status would be required, without changing or adjusting status.

If a violation occurs within 30 days of the alien’s entry, DOS will assume that he or she misrepresented his or her stated reasons for entry.  If a violation occurs within 31 and 60 days of entry, there will be no presumption of misrepresentation, but consular officers may investigate further if the facts suggest that the alien misrepresented his or her intentions in seeking the B2 visa.  After 60 days, DOS does not presume misrepresentation.  However, USCIS may investigate whether a status violation indicates misrepresentation even if the violation occurred after 60 days from the alien’s entry.

If an alien wishes to stay in the United States and engage in activities that are not permissible under B2 status, he or she must apply for change of status [see article] or adjustment of status [see section].  However, it is important to note that it will likely be difficult to change or adjust from B2 status unless the alien was granted B2 status to do so.  The applicant must generally demonstrate that he or she did not have preconceived intent to change or adjust status.

But see the Matter of Cavazos, 17 I&N Dec. 215 (BIA 1980) and the Matter of Ibrahim, 18 I&N Dec. 55 (BIA 1981) which held that preconceived intent by itself should not lead to the denial of an adjustment of status application in the immediate relative category.

B2 Visitors under Special Circumstances

9 FAM 402.2-4(B) lists special circumstances in which a B2 visa may be accorded:

1. The fiancé(e) of a U.S. citizen or LPR who would be classifiable in the K visa category [see article] but intends to return to a residence abroad soon after the marriage
2. The fiancé(e) of a nonimmigrant alien in the United States who will apply for a change of status to the appropriate derivative nonimmigrant category after the marriage (but only if the applicant does not intend to abandon his or her residence abroad or seek to adjust status after admission)
3. Proxy Marriage Spouse
4. Alien Spouse or Child of a U.S. Citizen or Permanent Resident (if the purpose is to join for a temporary visit)
5. Cohabiting Partners, Extended Family Members, and Other Household Members not Eligible for Derivative Status (provided the applicant intends to maintain a residence abroad)
6. Aliens Seeking Naturalization under INA § 329 (residence abroad requirement applicable)
7. Children Seeking Expeditious Naturalization under INA § 322 [see article] (but only if the child intends to return to a residence abroad after naturalization)
8. Dependents of Alien Members of U.S. Armed Forces Eligible for Naturalization under INA § 328 (if ineligible, may seek parole-in-place under INA § 212(d)(5) from DHS [see article])
9. Aliens Destined to an Avocational or Recreational School (if the program does not qualify, the alien may be able to seek F1 or M1 status instead)
10. Lawful Permanent Resident Issued Nonimmigrant Visitor Visa for Emergency Temporary Visit to the United States (after being abroad for more than 1 year)
11. Adoptive Child Coming to United States for Acquisition of Citizenship

For the special cases, the applicant for a B2 visa should consult with an experienced immigration attorney for a determination of whether a B2 visa is the best immigration option given the specific facts of the situation.

Conclusion:  Permissible Activities on B2 Status

An alien seeking a B2 visa must be forthright with consular officers when applying for the visa, and must adhere to the terms under which he or she was granted a B2 visa.  It is important to remember that it is better, in the long run, to be denied a B2 visa rather than to be found to have violated nonimmigrant status.  If an alien on B2 status is unsure of the rules of B2 status while in the United States, he or she should exercise caution and consult with an experienced immigration attorney.

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

Inadmissible Admission

Introduction:  When is the Entry of an Inadmissible Alien “Admission”?

In order to be “admitted” into the United States as the term is defined in section 101(a)(13)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), an alien must make a lawful entry into the United States “after inspection or authorization by an immigration officer.”  An interesting situation arises when an alien is “admitted” into the United States after inspection or authorization, but turns out to have actually been subject to one or more grounds of inadmissibility at the time of admission.  The question is then whether the alien was, in fact, “admitted” into the United States.  This distinction is especially important in the case of an alien who is admitted as a lawful permanent resident (LPR) but was in fact not eligible for such status.  In this article, we will review the rules for when an alien is admitted to the United States but was in fact inadmissible or otherwise ineligible for admission at the time of entry.

To learn more, please read our full article.

Defining “Admission”

Under section 101(a)(13)(A) of the INA, an alien is considered to be “admitted” after he or she has been inspected or authorized to enter the United States by an immigration officer.  If an alien is paroled into the United States, he or she will not be considered to have been “admitted.”

Under section 101(a)(13)(C), an alien who has already been admitted as an LPR will not be considered to be seeking admission unless he or she (paraphrasing):

• i.  Has abandoned or relinquished LPR status;
• ii.  Has been absent from the United States for a continuous period in excess of 180 days;
• iii. Has engaged in illegal activity after having departed the United States;
• iv. Has departed the United States while in the midst of removal or extradition proceedings;
• v.  Has committed an offense which causes inadmissibility under criminal and related grounds as defined in section 212(a)(2) of the INA (unless he or she has been granted relief under section 212(h) or 240A(a); or
• vi. Is attempting to enter at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers or has not been admitted to the United States after inspection or authorization by an immigration officer.

When is Admission of an Inadmissible Person Considered Admission?

In general, both the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and the federal circuit courts view “admission” through the prism of “procedural regularity.”  This means that usually, so long as an alien is inspected or authorized by immigration officers before being permitted to enter the United States, he or she will be considered to have been “admitted” notwithstanding the alien’s eligibility for admission.

However, this is not to say that a procedurally regular admission cures underlying inadmissibility.  If an alien gains admission under false pretenses, he or she does not become entitled to immigration benefits or actually admissible.  Furthermore, an alien who is admitted but is in fact inadmissible may accrue unlawful presence that counts toward the 3- and 10-year bars of inadmissibility.  Additionally, as we will discuss, it can sometimes be to an alien’s detriment to be considered to have been “admitted” as an LPR.

Key Administrative and Judicial Precedents

In the Matter of Areguillin, 17 I&N Dec. 308 (BIA 1980), the Board of Immigration Appeals held that so long as an alien enters the United States after presenting him or herself for inspection and does not make a false claim of U.S. citizenship, he or she will be considered to have been admitted.  The Board reaffirmed its precedent from the Matter of Areguillin in the Matter of Quilantan, 25 I&N Dec. 285 (BIA 2010) where it held that admission refers to procedural regularity rather than whether the applicant for admission was actually admissible.  The BIA limited the Matter of Quilantan in the Matter of Pinzon, 26 I&N Dec. 189 (BIA 2013) where it held that an alien who gained entry by making a false claim of citizenship had not been admitted.  This is because immigration officers do not have the authority to inspect U.S. citizens.  This decision was consistent with the Supreme Court decision in Reid v. INS, 420 U.S. 619, 624 (1975).

In Emokah v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d 110, 118 (2d Cir. 2008), the Second Circuit held that an alien who obtained a B2 visa through fraud or misrepresentation had been “admitted” because she entered after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer.  The Second Circuit noted that while she was inadmissible at the time of entry, she had been “admitted” to the United States.

Circuit Precedent on Unlawful Admission as an LPR

In Hing Sum v. Holder, 602 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2010), the Ninth Circuit held that an man who gained entry as an LPR despite being inadmissible at the time of entry had been admitted because he entered after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer.  Had he not been considered to have been admitted, he would have been eligible for a section 212(h) waiver of inadmissibility.  The Third Circuit supported the same conclusion regarding “admission” as an LPR in Martinez v. Att’y Gen. of the U.S., 693 F.3d 408 (2012) where it held that admission as an LPR refers to procedural regularity and not to the underlying admissibility of the applicant for admission at the time of authorized entry.

With Regard to Reinstatement of Removal

An alien who reenters the United States illegally after having been previously removed or having left under a grant of voluntary departure under a removal order may be subject to reinstatement of removal.

In Cordova-Soto v. Holder, 659 F.3d 1029 (10th Cir. 2011), the Tenth Circuit limited the Matter of Quilantan by holding that, in the context of triggering reinstatement of removal, a procedurally regular entry that is otherwise illegal is an “illegal entry” for purpose of reinstatement of removal.  The Ninth Circuit adopted this line of reasoning in Tamayo-Tamayo v. Holder, 725 F.3d 950 (9th Cir. 2013).

Conclusion

In general, provided that an alien does not make a false claim of U.S. citizenship, entry after inspection and authorization will constitute admission to the United States.  However, it is important to remember that such an admission will not cure any underlying issues with the alien’s immigration status, and may in fact lead to complicated immigration problems (e.g. accrual of unlawful presence or ineligibility for certain forms of relief from removal).  It is also important to note that, at least in the view of the Ninth and Tenth Circuits, that a procedurally regular admission may trigger reinstatement of removal.

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

GOP Super Tuesday Roundup and the Imperative of Stopping Trump

With Super Tuesday in the books, 15 contests in the Republican Presidential Primaries have now been completed. In this post, I will discuss what has happened since I last wrote about the Republican nomination contest, what comes next, and the imperative of stopping Donald Trump from becoming the nominee [read about Trump's support for amnesty].

WHAT HAPPENED SINCE I LAST POSTED?

I last posted about the state of the Republican Presidential Primary after the New Hampshire Primary in early February [see Iowa and New Hampshire]. Since then, Trump won decisive victories in South Carolina and Nevada, with Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz finishing in second and third respectively in both instances. Furthermore, Trumps swept all 50 delegates available in South Carolina to open up a clear lead in the race. After a poor performance in South Carolina, Jeb Bush abandoned his campaign.

In the debate immediately preceding the Super Tuesday contests, Rubio and Cruz attacked Trump in a seemingly coordinated effort to stymie the momentum he had gained from his three consecutive victories in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada. Rubio played Trump's own game with a smile, mocking him while exposing his lack of policy acumen and his shady personal dealings. Meanwhile, Cruz subjected Trump to a proverbial cross-examination, revealing for all to see that Trump is no conservative, but an opportunistic liberal masquerading as one in a self-induglent vanity-trip that threatens to damage the country. Rubio and Cruz continued to focus their fire on Trump rather than each other in the days leading up to Super Tuesday hoping to deny him a set of victories that would put the race out of reach.

WHERE DO WE STAND?

For those of us hoping to see a qualified Republican lead the party into November as opposed to an unqualified liberal showman, the situation looks bleak, but not yet catastrophic.

On one hand, if I was told months ago that Trump would win seven out of eleven contests on Super Tuesday and ten out of the fifteen overall, I would have been gravely disappointed. Sure enough, there is no denying at this point that Trump is the clear front-runner for the nomination. However, we can take good news from Super Tuesday: the race is far from over.

• The Delegate Count: As of the writing of this article, 538 projects that Trump won 254 delegates on Super Tuesday while Cruz won 217 and Rubio won 97.[1] Despite Trump winning the majority of the states, Cruz's delegate totals were bolstered by a sweeping victory in his home state of Texas, which happened to be the largest delegate prize of the night and second largest behind California overall. Because delegates were allocated proportionally in all of the Super Tuesday states, Trump's delegate totals were deflated even in the states that he won. While Trump has a sizable lead over Cruz, and a larger one over Rubio, he has thus far only won about 46% of the available delegates and just over a third of all of the votes cast so far. Front-runner yes, but inevitable no.
• Upward Resistance: It is safe to say that Trump has more of a floor for his support than a ceiling. I am certainly concerned that his support could grow beyond what we have seen thus far if Republican voters begin to see him as “inevitable.” However, thus far, Trump has generally done poorly with so-called “late deciders,” and has only managed to eclipse 40% of the vote in three of the fifteen states that have voted (Nevada, Alabama, and Massachusetts). While it is far from inconceivable that Trump could win the nomination at this level of support, his middling vote totals are also a sign that Trump could be defeated one-on-one if the race consolidates in time. It is also possible in a larger race that his delegate totals will continue to be suppressed, ultimately forcing a brokered convention with Trump having a plurality of delegates short of the 50% needed to secure the nomination on the first ballot.
• Good and Bad for Marco Rubio: Marco Rubio is now my preferred choice of the four remaining candidates in the field (note: Ben Carson appears to have ended his quixotic bid). Rubio inarguably had a disappointing night on Super Tuesday, missing the delegate threshold in multiple states (namely Texas) and finding himself well behind Ted Cruz in second, much less Trump in first. However, Rubio-backers can take small positives from the evening. Rubio nearly pulled off an upset in Virginia — and likely would have if not for John Kasich's presence in the race — showing strength in a key state. More importantly, Rubio secured his first win in Minnesota, preempting the narrative that he cannot win any states. However, Rubio's true test will occur on March 15 in his home state of Florida, where a victory will be necessary to preserve a plausible path to the nomination.

THE IMPERATIVE OF STOPPING TRUMP

Trump's large core of support in the Republican Party poses an existential threat to the GOP's viability as a Party that can advance conservative ideas and good governance. While the majority of Republicans in every state thus far have voted for other candidates, we must move quickly to prevent Trump from garnering support that he does not already have in his pocket [read my explanation of Trump's support]. To this effect, it has been heartening to see Rubio and Cruz prosecute the case against Trump with urgency, and I look forward to seeing them continue to do so with conviction as long as they are both in the race. We can only hope that John Kasich can be convinced to join them as well, for he will need to defeat Trump in Ohio in two weeks just as much as Rubio will need to do so in Florida.

One of the most vocal opponents of Trump has been the conservative junior Senator from Nebraska, Ben Sasse. Since his election to the Senate in 2014, Sasse has been a strong conservative in the Senate, and has been working hard in the last couple of months to make the case against Trump in conjunction with Rubio and Cruz. To that effect, in an open letter to Trump supporters [see letter], Senator Sasse became the first elected Republican of his stature to state unequivocally that he would not support Trump in a general election. Rather than support Clinton, however, Sasse would, as I would, look for a conservative alternative who represents the ideals of conservatives of good will across the United States. The letter is well worth reading, even for those who do not need to be convinced. I will recap a few of the most interesting points here:

• Political parties are “tools to enact the things that we believe.” If a political party is no longer committed to enacting those things, one should not support it.
• Donald Trump is not committed to defending the United States Constitution. He has made a litany of disturbing statements that indicate he has no conception of executive restraint or that he “understands servant leadership.”
• Accordingly, as bad as Clinton may be, he cannot support Donald Trump. Instead, the only choice in the event of a Trump nomination is to look for a “Constitutionalist” who understands the importance of the Constitution and the proper role of the executive in its framework.

It is important for Republicans to follow Senator Sasse's example and make clear that a man like Donald Trump is unfit to be President. He is both unqualified by his temperament, disturbing statements, and ignorance, and he is not running to defend the things that make America great (to use his own term). By keeping the Trump opposition unified — be it behind one candidate or multiple candidates — there is still hope for stopping Trump and nominating a principled conservative to run against Hillary Clinton, thus preserving the Republican Party as an entity that can advance the causes that conservatives care about.

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. Bycoffe, Aaron, “Donald Trump Is Just Barely On Track To Win The GOP Nomination,” FiveThirtyEight, (Mar. 2, 2016), available at http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-is-just-barely-on-track-to-win-the-gop-nomination/

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com