Guyana Becomes Party to Hague Adoption Convention

The Department of State (DOS) noted that Guyana has deposited its instrument of accession to the Hague Adoption Convention [PDF version]. The Hague Convention will enter into force in Guyana on June 1, 2019. This makes Guyana the 100th country to become a party to the Hague Adoption Convention. The DOS is working on determining whether the United States will be able to process Hague Convention adoptions with Guyana under U.S. law.

To learn more about intercountry adoption generally, including Hague Convention cases, please see our growing selection of articles on site [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

Department of State Revokes Visa of ICC Chief Prosecutor

Several outlets have reported that the United States Department of State (DOS) revoked the visa of Fatou Bensouda, the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC). She is a citizen and national of The Gambia.

The ICC has opened an investigation into whether U.S. persons committed war crimes in Afghanistan. In December of 2018, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo stated that “[w]e will take all necessary steps to protect our people, those of our NATO allies who fight alongside of us inside of Afghanistan from unjust prosecution” [PDF version]. On March 15, 2019, Secretary Pompeo stated: “If you're responsible for the proposed ICC investigation of U.S. personnel in connection with the situation in Afghanistan, you should not assume that you still have, or will get, a visa or that you will be permitted to enter the United States.”[1]

The ICC confirmed on April 4, 2019, that Besouda's visa had been revoked.[2] NPR reported that a DOS official confirmed the revocation of Besouda's visa but did not provide further details due to confidentiality rules.[3] Besouda and other ICC officials may still seek diplomatic visas to enter the United States for any business at the United Nations.

The revocation of the visas of Besouda and other ICC officials highlights how foreign policy and immigration can sometimes intersect. We will post updates on the issue in the future if more detailed information becomes 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.

1. Gehrke, Joel. “Pompeo pulls visas for International Criminal Court officials Targeting Americans.” The Washington Examiner. Mar. 15, 2019. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/pompeo-pulls-visas-for-international-criminal-court-officials-targeting-americans
2. Wroughton, Leslie and Stephanie van den Berg. “U.S. revokes ICC prosecutor's entry visa over Afghanistan Investigation.” Apr. 4, 2019. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-icc-prosecutor-idUSKCN1RG2NP
3. Chappell, Bill. “U.S. Strips Visa From Intl. Criminal Court Prosecutor Pursuing War-Crime Inquiry.” NPR. Apr. 5, 2019. https://www.npr.org/2019/04/05/710324238/u-s-strips-visa-from-intl-criminal-court-prosecutor-pursuing-war-crime-inquiry

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

Kirstjen Nielsen out at DHS - Replaced by CBP Director Kevin McAleenan in Acting Capacity

On April 7, 2019, President Donald Trump announced that Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen will soon be leaving her position. He added that he will appoint the Commissioner of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Kevin McAleenan, to serve as the acting Secretary of Homeland Security.

Nielsen had served as Secretary of Homeland Security since December 6, 2017. McAleenan was confirmed to his current post as the CBP Commissioner on March 21, 2018 [see blog].

Nielsen's resignation and McAleenan's promotion come on the heels of President Trump's decision to withdraw his nomination of Ronald Vitiello for head of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) [see blog].

President Trump has not yet indicated who he will nominate to be the next Secretary of DHS in a permanent capacity. We will update the website with more information once President Trump announces his nominees for both Secretary of DHS and Director of ICE.

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

Update on Premium Processing for FY 2020 Cap Subject H1B Petitions Requesting COS

As we discussed in a separate post [see article], the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will begin premium processing for cap-subject H1B petitioners requesting a change of status on their Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker on May 20, 2019 [PDF version]. The FY 2020 H1B cap filing season began on April 1, 2019. H1B petitioners requesting a change of status may file the Form I-907, Request for Premium Processing service, concurrently with their cap-subject H1B petitions for change of status. Petitioners who do not file the Form I-907 concurrently will have to wait until May 20, 2019, to request a change of status. The USCIS reiterated that premium processing for all other FY 2020 cap-subject H1B petitions will not begin until June 2019 at the earliest.

The USCIS also announced that starting on May 20 and running through June 3, it will “not use pre-paid mailers to send out final notices for premium processing for FY 2020 cap-subject H1B petitions requesting change of status.” For that period, the USCIS will use regular mail instead. The USCIS's reasoning is this is required “due to resource limitations…” It suggested that using pre-paid mailers is a more time consuming process that “may actually delay the issuance of an approval notice, compared to the standard process or otherwise negatively affect [its] ability to timely process premium processing petitions.” The USCIS anticipates resuming the use of pre-paid mailers after June 3, 2019. The USCIS may implement a similar suspension on the use of pre-paid mailers when premium processing resumes for all other cap-subject H1B petitions.

We discuss premium processing requests for Form I-129 petitions generally in a separate article [see article]. To learn about H1B petitions and other types of work visas, please see our website's sections on work visas [see category] and AC21 [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

President Trump Withdraws Nomination of Ronald Vitiello for Director of ICE

On April 5, 2019, President Donald Trump announced that he had withdrawn the nomination of Ronald D. Vitiello for director of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).[1] Vitiello is currently serving as Acting Director of ICE. We discussed his nomination when it was initially announced [see blog].

President Trump stated: “Ron's a good man but we're going in a tougher direction. We want to go in a tougher direction.”

The Washington Times notes that after having his nomination stymied for months, Vitiello had been voted out of the Senate Homeland Security Committee and was scheduled for a vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee next week. In light of these events, the timing of President Trump's announcement is surprising.

There are no updates yet on who President Trump will now nominate to be the next Director of ICE or whether Vitiello will continue to serve as Acting Director. We will update the site when more information becomes 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.

1. Dinan, Stephen. “Trump says ICE chief wasn't tough enough.” The Washington Times. Apr. 5, 2019. https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/apr/5/trump-says-ice-chief-wasnt-tough-enough/

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

H1B Employer Data Hub Now Available

On April 1, 2019, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services announced the launch of its H1B Employer Data Hub [PDF version]. The purpose of the H1B Data Hub is to provide information to the public on H1B petitioning employers.

The H1B Employer Data Hub will contain data on H1B employers going back to FY 2009. Users will be able to search H1B petitioners by:

• NAICS code;
• Employer name;
• City;
• State; or
• Zip Code.

Users may also download data on H1B petitioners by individual fiscal year.

The H1B Employer Data Hub will be updated quarterly.

We discuss the H1B Employer Data Hub along with changes to the H1B program that affect employers and workers in a separate article [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.

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

EOIR Seeks Comment on Changes to Rules and Procedures Regarding Representation in Immigration Proceedings

On March 27, 2019, the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) published advance notice of proposed rulemaking with request for comment in the Federal Register (FR) at 84 FR 11446 (Mar. 27, 2019) [PDF version]. The EOIR is seeking public comment on or before April 26, 2019, on several proposals involving its rules and procedures governing representation and appearance in proceedings before EOIR immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).

Background and Current Rules

Section 240(b)(4)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) gives aliens the privilege of being represented at removal proceedings at no expense to the Government. The alien may be represented by counsel of his or her choosing provided that the individual is authorized to practice in removal proceedings. The right to counsel is also discussed in section 292 of the INA.

The statutes are developed in the Attorney General's regulations. Under 8 C.F.R. 1292.1, attorneys in good standing and other accredited representatives are authorized to represent respondents in proceedings before the EOIR. Under specified circumstances, other types of individuals may be permitted to represent respondents in EOIR proceedings (e.g., law students under specified types of supervision and reputable individuals requested by the respondent for an individual case).

Citing to regulations, the FR notice explains that an attorney or representative must enter an appearance by filing the Form EOIR-28 to represent a respondent in EOIR proceedings or a Form EOIR-27 to represent a respondent before the BIA. Representation continues “until and unless the immigration judge or the BIA, whichever applies, grants an oral or written motion to withdraw or substitute.”

Beginning in 2015, the DOJ allowed limited appearances by attorneys and accredited representatives so that they could, under certain circumstances, enter an appearance solely for custody and bond proceedings. After assessing public comments, the DOJ ultimately required the representative of record to represent individuals “in all respects of each separate type of proceeding, unless the immigration judge grants a motion to withdraw or substitute counsel.” 80 FR 59500, 59501 (Oct. 1, 2015). Under 8 C.F.R. 1003.17(a), an attorney or authorized representative may enter an appearance for “custody and bond proceedings only, any other proceedings only, or for all proceedings.”

Under 8 C.F.R. 1003.38(g) and 1292.4(a), an attorney or authorized representative who enters an appearance to represent a respondent before the BIA will represent the respondent “until and unless withdrawal or substitution of attorney or representative is permitted.” (Description from instant FR notice.)

8 C.F.R. 1001.1(i) defines the term “practice” in the context of representing individuals before the EOIR and BIA:

(i) The term practice means the act or acts of any person appearing in any case, either in person or through the preparation or filing of any brief or other document, paper, application, or petition on behalf of another person or client before or with DHS, or any immigration judge, or the Board.

The term “preparation” is defined in these contexts at 8 C.F.R. 1001.1(k):

(k) The term preparation, constituting practice, means the study of the facts of a case and the applicable laws, coupled with the giving of advice and auxiliary activities, including the incidental preparation of papers, but does not include the lawful functions of a notary public or service consisting solely of assistance in the completion of blank spaces on printed Service forms by one whose remuneration, if any, is nominal and who does not hold himself out as qualified in legal matters or in immigration and naturalization procedure.

Request for Public Comments

The EOIR proposes no new rules in its FR notice. Instead, it is soliciting public comments on several issues pertaining to the aforementioned regulations. All comments must be submitted on or before April 26, 2019, in order to be considered in the rulemaking process. Any member of the public may submit comments, although “the Department is particularly interested in hearing from all those who have a state in providing, receiving, or coordinating representation in the immigration court system.” The EOIR is presenting the following questions for commenters to consider and respond to (quoted directly from the FR notice):

• Question 1: Should the Department permit certain types of limited representation currently impermissible under regulations? If so, to what extent? If not, why not?
• Question 2: Should limited representation be permitted to allow attorneys or representatives to appear at a single hearing in proceedings before EOIR, possibly leaving the respondent without representation for a subsequent hearing on the same filing? If so, to what extent? If not, why not?
• Question 3: Should limited representation be permitted to allow attorneys or representatives to prepare or file a pleading, application, motion, brief, or other document without providing further representation in the case? If not, why not? If so, should attorneys or representatives be required to identify themselves as the author of the document or should anonymity (i.e., ghostwriting) be permitted?
• Question 4: If limited representation is permitted in proceedings before EOIR, should an attorney or representative be required to file a Notice of Entry of Appearance regardless of the scope of the limited representation? If so, should a form separate from the EOIR-27 and EOIR-28 be created for such appearances?
• Question 5: If limited representation is permitted, should attorneys or representatives certify to EOIR, either through a form or filings made, that the alien has been informed about the limited scope of the representation?
• Question 6: If limited representation is permitted in proceedings before EOIR, to what extent should such attorneys or representatives have access to the relevant record of proceedings?
• Question 7: To what extent could different approaches for limited representation impair the adjudicative process or encourage abuse or other misconduct that adversely affects EOIR, the public, or aliens in proceedings, or lead to increased litigation regarding issues of ineffective assistance of counsel?
• Question 8: What safeguards, if any, should be implemented to ensure the integrity of the process associated with limited representation in proceedings before EOIR, and to prevent any potential abuse and fraud?
• Question 9: What kinds of constraints or legal concerns with respect to limited representation may arise under state rules of ethics or professional conduct for attorneys who are members of the bar in the various states?
• Question 10: Should EOIR provide that practitioners, as a condition of representing aliens in a limited manner, be required to agree to limit their fees in charging for their services?
• Question 11: The Department is interested in gathering other information or data relating to the issue of expanding limited appearances in EOIR proceedings. Are there any additional issues or information not addressed by the Department's questions that are important for the Department to consider? Please provide as much detail as possible in your response.

The EOIR advises commenters that comments will be more helpful if they “reference a specific regulatory section, provide draft regulatory language, explain the reasons for the recommended amendment, and include data, information, or authority that support the recommended amendment.”

Analysis and Conclusion

The EOIR's questions for the public suggest that it is considering expanding the number of situations in which an attorney or authorized representative may represent an individual in EOIR proceedings in a limited capacity for a particular purpose. The questions evince concern with the possible ramifications of expanding limited representation on alien respondents and the adjudicative process. Furthermore, the questions broach technical issues regarding to the implementation of new limited representation rules if they were to be adopted.

Any potential expansion of limited representation in EOIR and/or BIA proceedings would be significant to practitioners and aliens in proceedings. We will update the website with more information if and when the DOJ announces new rules.

Aliens facing removal proceedings should seek immediate counsel immediately to ensure that their rights and interests are protected. Please see our articles on removal and deportation defense [see category], immigration detention [see category], and criminal aliens [see category] to learn more about this and 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

Sierra Leone Suspends Intercountry Adoption Cases Until April 30

On March 26, 2019, the U.S. Department of State (DOS) published an intercountry adoption update regarding adoptions from Sierra Leone [PDF version].

On March 22, 2019, the Government of Sierra Leone notified the DOS that it had temporarily suspended all intercountry adoption cases until April 30, 2019. Sierra Leone is reviewing its adoption processes and intends to implement new procedures and policies after its review. The DOS advised prospective adoptive parents of children from Sierra Leonne to discuss their cases with their adoption service providers.

To learn more about intercountry adoption generally, please see our growing selection of articles on site [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

DAG Rosenstein Addresses New Immigration Judges

On March 15, 2019, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein delivered remarks at the investiture ceremony for 31 new immigration judges [PDF version].

The Deputy Attorney General's (DAG) remarks focused on the enforcement of immigration laws and the asylum backlog.

Overview of the Speech

DAG Rosenstein noted that there may be more than 44 million people who were not citizens at birth in the United States today, “the largest share in more than a century.” He added that, on an annual basis, “we generously extend lawful permanent resident status to more than one million people, and we allot hundreds of thousands of student visas and temporary work visas.” The DAG said that it was no surprise that so many people want to immigrate to the United States, but that “[w]e cannot take them all.”

In light of the fact that the United States must regulate immigration, the DAG stated that “[f]or our system to be fair, it must be carried out faithfully and equitably.”

Then, the DAG addressed the new immigration judges directly. He told them that they were “not only judges,” but “also employees of the United States Department of Justice.” The DAG then elaborated on the meaning of the fact that immigration judges are employees of the Department of Justice rather than members of the judiciary branch: “in addition to your adjudicative function — finding facts and applying laws — you are a member of the executive branch.” The effect of this, explained the DAG to the new immigration judges, was that they must “follow lawful instructions from the Attorney General, and … share a duty to enforce the law.”

DAG Rosenstein then moved to criticize aliens who violate the immigration laws. He noted that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) apprehended 66,000 aliens who had illegally crossed the border in February. He added that DHS is apprehending about 3,000 aliens at the border every day, and “[m]ost of them cross the border unlawfully, between ports of entry.” The DAG stated that it was a choice, not a necessity, to violate the immigration laws, and that aliens who illegally cross the border “expose themselves and their children to abuse,” often by “pay[ing] criminal smugglers.” He noted that notwithstanding this willful lawbreaking, “our legal system protects them.”

However, the DAG took the position that our legal system's protections for aliens who cross the border illegally “creates a staggering volume of immigration cases that require resolution.” He attributed the increasing size of the backlog primarily to “the significant increase of asylum applications.” To this effect, the DAG stated that “[a]sylum applications have more than tripled in less than five years.” The DAG emphasized for the new immigration judges that “[t]he law authorizes asylum only for victims who suffered persecution or have a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or because of their political opinion.”

Having criticized those who violate the immigration laws, DAG Rosenstein stated: “Other reasons for seeking to immigrate may be rational and even laudable. We certainly understand why foreigners wish to come to America in search of better opportunities for themselves and their children. America is a great nation that does not need walls to keep its citizens from leaving, like the Soviet Union. We build walls only to protect ourselves and enforce our rules.”

The DAG reminded immigration judges that it is their duty “to honestly find the facts and faithfully apply the laws, so that people obtain asylum only if they qualify for it under the statute.”

Regarding the backlog of cases, the DAG stated that the Department of Justice was taking steps to resolve it. He stated that “[s]ince President Trump's inauguration, the Department of Justice has hired more immigration judges than in the previous seven years combined. We now employ the largest number of immigration judges in history. There are now 48 percent more immigration judges than three years ago, and 71 percent more than five years ago.”

In addition to adding more immigration judges, the DAG touted improved efficiency at the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). He stated that they have had “great success using video teleconference technology” [see blog]. Addressing the immigration judges, he stated that “ultimately we are depending on you, both to perform your duties expeditiously, and to let us know when you identify opportunities for improvement.” He told them that “[w]hether the immigration backlog continues to grow depends in large part on how immigration judges discharge their duties.” He concluded by expressing confidence in the new immigration judges, stating that they were chosen for their “qualifications, [] legal skills, and [] personal integrity.”

Take-Away

DAG Rosenstein emphasized some of the same points that were points of emphasis for former Attorney General Jeff Sessions. First, he blamed the growing backlog of cases winding through immigration courts primarily on the influx of asylum cases coming from border crossers, both legal and illegal. Second, he implicitly suggested that, in addition to the influx of asylum cases, the backlog has increased because of an over-broad application of the asylum rules. Third, DAG Rosenstein took a very narrow view of the independence of immigration judges, emphasizing that they are employees of the Department of Justice with an obligation to follow lawful orders from the Attorney General. In light of several recent Attorney General precedent decisions on issues such as administrative closure [see article] and continuances [see article], the DAG's highlighting of this point sends a clear signal that the new immigration judges are expected to faithfully follow the Attorney General precedents and policies.

In short, the DAG's remarks evince that the Department of Justice expects immigration judges to complete cases expeditiously and in line with Department policies. In general, the recent policy changes have been vastly more favorable to the Government than to aliens in immigration proceedings. The DAG's remarks suggest that even with changes in the leadership of the Department of Justice [see article] — including the DAG himself in the near future — we should not expect any significant shifts in DOJ policy.

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

SEVP Publishes Reminder About STEM OPT Reporting Requirements

On March 21, 2019, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) published a reminder about STEM OPT reporting requirements for F1 students on STEM OPT extensions [PDF version].

Every six months, for up to the full 24-month STEM OPT extension, STEM OPT students must confirm that their information in the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) is accurate and up-to-date. They must ensure that SEVIS correctly identifies their legal name, residential or mailing address, employer name and address, and status of current employment. STEM OPT students who use the online Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) Portal will receive reminders through the portal 30 days before their validation is due. It is important to remember that STEM OPT students “must report changes in this information, including loss of employment, within 10 days of the change.” This reporting requirement is distinct from the 6-month validation requirement.

Every 12 months, a STEM OPT student is required to submit a self-evaluation detailing the progress of his or her training experience in addition to validating his or her information in SEVIS. The first self-evaluation is due 12 months after the STEM OPT start date. The second self-evaluation is a final assessment recapping the STEM OPT training experience at the end of the 24-month STEM OPT period. A STEM OPT self-evaluation must be signed by the F1 student and his or her employer. After being signed, it must be submitted to the F1 student's designated school official (DSO).

To learn more about STEM OPT, including all of the reporting requirements, please see our website's comprehensive article on the subject [see article]. To learn about student visas generally, please see our website's growing category on the issue [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

Supreme Court to Consider Whether States Can Prosecute Identity Theft With Information Included in Form I-9

On March 18, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear an interested immigration-related case in Kansas v. Garcia, Docket No. 17-834 [PDF version].

The question at issue was whether the State of Kansas could prosecute an alien for identity theft for using someone else's Social Security number. The Kansas Supreme Court ruled that it could not because Federal law preempts states from using information on or attached to a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, to prosecute state crimes. Kansas has taken the position that it gleaned the invalid use of social security information from tax forms, not the Form I-9, and that the Federal law is best read as precluding States only from using the Form I-9 itself. Thus, Kansas's position is that even if the information from a source other than the Form I-9 also appears on the Form I-9, the state can still use it to prosecute a local crime. The Federal Government submitted a brief agreeing with Kansas' position on this point but asking the Supreme Court to not consider Kansas's second question of whether the law prohibiting the use of the Form I-9 in the exercise of a state's traditional police powers to prosecute state law crimes exceeds Congress' constitutional power.

The Supreme Court ultimately decided to grant certiorari to hear only Kansas' first challenge. The case may have broad implications for whether and to what extent states may prosecute identity theft crimes using information from sources other than the Form I-9 even if the same information appears on the Form I-9. We will update the site with more information when the case is ultimately decided.

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

Designated Site for Libyan IV Processing Now U.S. Embassy in Tunis

On March 4, 2019, the U.S. Department of State (DOS) announced that the U.S. Embassy in Tunis is now the primary site for processing immigrant visas for Libyan nationals living in Libya [PDF version]. The designated site for Libyan nationals living in Libya was previously the U.S. Embassy in Casablanca, Morocco. However, the DOS changed the primary site due to visa restrictions placed on Libyan nationals by the government of Morocco.

Beginning in April 2019, “the National Visa Center will [begin] scheduling Libyan nationals residing in Libya [for] immigrant visas interviews at [the] U.S. Embassy in Tunis.” Those who are affected by the change will receive a notification from the National Visa Center with a new case number. The National Visa Center will send appointment notices for all future interviews at the U.S. Embassy in Tunis to applicants going forward.

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

USCIS Receives Sufficient Number of H1B Petitions to Reach FY 2020 Regular Cap

On April 5, 2019, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that it has received a sufficient number of petitions to reach the 65,000 H1B visa regular cap for FY 2020 [PDF version]. The USCIS will now move to determine whether it has also received a sufficient number of petitions to reach the 20,000 H1B visa U.S. advanced degree exemption, more commonly known as the “master's cap.”

Having reached the H1B visa cap for FY 2020, the USCIS “will reject and return filing fees for all unselected cap-subject petitions that are not prohibited multiple filings.” We discuss prohibited multiple filings in a separate article [see article].

The USCIS will, however, continue to except H1B petitions that are exempt from the FY 2020 H1B cap. For example, “[p]etitions filed for current H1B workers who have been counted previously against the cap, and who still retain their cap number, are exempt from the FY 2020 H1B cap.” In addition to these petitions, the USCIS will continue to accept and process H1B petitions filed to (quoted):

• Extend the amount of time a current H1B worker may remain in the United States;
• Change the terms of employment for current H1B workers;
• Allow current H1B workers to change employers; and
• Allow current H1B workers to work concurrently in a second H1B position.

We discuss issues pertaining to the FY 2020 H1B cap filing season in a separate post which is updated regularly [see article]. To learn more about the H1B program generally, please see our growing selections of articles on work visas [see category] and AC21 [see category].

We will continue to post updates here at myattorneyusa.com on the FY 2020 H1B cap season.

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

IV Processing for Venezuelan Residents Transferred to U.S. Embassy in Bogota

On February 26, 2019, the Department of State (DOS) announced that the U.S. Embassy in Caracas, Venezuela, has suspended routine visa services due to the departure of non-essential personnel from the Embassy [PDF version]. Accordingly, the DOS designated the U.S. Embassy in Bogota, Colombia, as the primary site for processing immigrant visas for residents of Venezuela. Starting in April 2019, the National Visa Center will begin scheduling Venezuelan immigrant visa interviews at the U.S. Embassy in Bogota. The National Visa Center will send appointment notices for all future visa interviews at the U.S. Embassy in Bogota for residents of Venezuela.

Residents of Venezuela may apply for nonimmigrant visas at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate outside of Venezuela.

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

President Trump Formally Recognizes that the Golan Heights is Part of Israel

On March 25, 2019, President Donald Trump signed an historic Presidential Proclamation making official the United States' recognition of the Golan Heights as part of Israel. You may see the proclamation itself here: [PDF version]. You may watch a video of the signing ceremony, featuring remarks from President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, here.

Israel captured the Golan Heights from Syria in the Six-Day War in 1967 after Syria attacked. In 1981, Israel extended its laws to the Golan Heights. Shortly thereafter, the United Nations Security Council — unfortunately including the United States — unanimously voted to reject the Golan Heights Law, regardless of the fact that this rejection had no bearing on the actual facts on the ground. Now, nearly four decades later, President Trump has righted the United States' past wrong and recognized that Israel is sovereign over the Golan Heights, effectively reversing not only the position taken by the Reagan Administration in 1981, but also the positions of nine Administrations in the 52 years since Israel captured the Golan Heights in its self-defense.

The “Proclamation on Recognizing the Golan Heights as Part of the State of Israel” lists several reasons supporting President Trump's historic reversal of U.S. policy:

• Israel captured the Golan Heights in 1967 to safeguard itself from external threats.
• Today, Israel faces threats across the Golan Heights from Iran, Hezbollah, and other terrorist groups in southern Syria.
• Israel would retain the Golan Heights in any possible future peace agreement because any agreement must account for Israel's need to protect itself from Syria and other threats emanating from Syria.

All of the points cited to in the Proclamation are true. Israel captured the Golan Heights in a defensive war in 1967. The importance of the Golan Heights to Israel's security was shown in 1973 when Israel repelled an invasion by Syria and held the strategically important position. Syria has been mired in a civil war for nearly a decade and is infested by nefarious actors with ambitions on the elimination of the State of Israel, including Syria itself, Iran, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda-affiliated groups, and the Islamic State. Were Israel to come to some sort of peace agreement with the Palestinians, it would not involve a Palestinian State in the Golan Heights. Israel could not agree to a deal where it would cede the Golan Heights to Syria, run by a brutal dictator who has worked with terror groups and used chemical weapons against his own civilians. Thus, Israel captured Golan Heights in a defensive war, continues to need the position for its defense, has administered the area far more justly than Syria had, and would not give up the region in any plausible peace accord. Israel is the United States' most steadfast ally in the Middle East in the fight against Islamist terror.

To be sure, Golan Heights has been a de facto part of Israel for over five decades and was going to remain so regardless of whether the United States or any other country recognized it as such. However, in light of the above points and that Israel's holding the Golan Heights is not only a fact, but also in the national interest of the United States, President Trump's decision to formally recognize the Golan Heights as part of Israel is pragmatic, wise, and just.

President Trump's Proclamation is the second historic document that he has signed regarding Israel's territorial integrity. For those who are interested, please see my 2017 post on his decision to recognize that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel [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.

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

USCIS Publishes New Editions of Form I-539 and Form I-539A

On March 8, 2019, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) published a new and revised edition of the Form I-539, Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status [PDF version]. Starting on March 22, 2019, the March 8, 2019 edition of the Form I-539 will be the only acceptable edition of the Form I-539. Thus, any prior edition of the Form I-539 filed on or after March 22, 2019, will be rejected.

Along with the new edition of the Form I-539, the USCIS also published a new edition of the Form I-539A, Supplemental Information for Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status. The new edition of the Form I-539A is also dated March 8, 2019.

The USCIS listed several important changes on the new editions of the Form I-539 and I-539A (quoted from news release):

• Every co-applicant included on the primary applicant's Form I-539 must submit and sign a separate Form I-539A, which will be available on the Form I-539 webpage on March 8. Parents or guardians may sign on behalf of children under 14 or any co-applicant who is not mentally competent to sign.
• Every applicant and co-applicant must pay an $85 biometric services fee, except certain A, G, and NATO nonimmigrants as noted in the new Form I-539 instructions to be published on March 8.
• Every applicant and co-applicant will receive a biometric services appointment notice, regardless of age, containing their individual receipt number. The biometric services appointments will be scheduled at the Application Support Center (ASC) closest to the primary applicant's address. Co-applicants who wish to be scheduled at a different ASC location should file a separate Form I-539.

The USCIS made clear that it will reject any revised Form I-539 that is missing any of the required signatures or biometrics fees. This includes supplemental Forms I-539A as well.

The Form I-539 is one of the most common immigration forms. For this reason, it is important for nonimmigrants to be aware of the new edition. We discuss change of nonimmigrant status in a full article [see article]. To learn about specific nonimmigrant categories which utilize the Form I-539, please see our website's growing article selections on travel visas [see category], work visas [see category], and student visas [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