Effect of Hague Convention Entering Into Force in Honduras

The Department of State (DOS) is reminding prospective adoptive parents that the Hague Adoption Convention entered into force in Honduras on July 1, 2019 [PDF version]. We discussed in a prior post that the DOS has determined that it will be able to process intercountry adoptions from Honduras under the Hague Convention [see blog].

All adoptions between Honduras and the United States after July 1, 2019, must meet the requirements of both the Hague Convention and U.S. laws. The DOS does not know at this time whether Honduras will continue to process intercountry adoption cases in which a U.S. citizen filed a Form I-600A, Application for Advance Processing of an Orphan Petition, or a Form I-600, Petition to Classify Orphan as an Immediate Relative, prior to July 1, 2019, with the USCIS, or in which a final adoption was completed in Honduras prior to that date. The DOS will update its website with more information when it is available.

The DOS advises U.S. prospective adoptive parents that there may be delays in processing intercountry adoptions from Honduras while Honduras implements its new adoption laws, regulations, and procedures in accordance with the Hague Convention.

The DOS's determination that it can now process intercountry adoptions from Honduras under the Hague Convention may cause delays and disruptions in adoption cases in the near future. Prospective adoptive parents should work closely with their accredited adoption service provider and an experienced immigration attorney for guidance on all aspects of the intercountry adoption process.

You may see our website's growing section on intercountry adoption to learn about the issues generally [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

Visa Bulletin for September 2019

Introduction

The U.S. Department of State published the Visa Bulletin for September 2019 on August 9, 2019 [PDF version]. The Visa Bulletin for September 2019 is the final visa bulletin for fiscal year 2019. It includes the dates for filing and application final action dates for the family-sponsored and employment-based preferences. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) determined on August 15 that almost all family-sponsored adjustment of status hopefuls must use the favorable dates for filing in September, while all employment-based adjustment of status hopefuls must use the final action dates [PDF version]. The lone exception is the family-sponsored F2A preference, but the final action date for this category is current for all chargeability areas in September 2019.

We will examine the pertinent charts from the Visa Bulletin for September 2019 and their applicability to beneficiaries of approved preference petitions seeking adjustment of status. We will also discuss news and notes from the DOS Visa Bulletin for September 2019.

We have several resources on site explaining how to use the visa bulletins generally. First, please see our general article on using the visa bulletin as a noncitizen seeking adjustment of status based on an approved preference petition [see article]. Second, please see our article on the difference between final action dates and dates for filing [see article]. Finally, to read about previous visa bulletins, please see our growing topic index [see index].

Family-Sponsored Cases

The USCIS determined that nearly all beneficiaries of approved family-sponsored preference petitions must use the more favorable dates for filing from the Visa Bulletin for September 2019. The lone exception, beneficiaries of approved F2A preference petitions, must use the final action dates. However, because the final action date for all F2A chargeability areas is current, this news is not at all unfavorable.

The beneficiary of an approved family-sponsored immigrant visa petition must compare his or her priority date with the applicable final action or filing date cutoff for his or her preference category and chargeability area. If the priority date is earlier than the applicable cutoff date, the beneficiary may apply for adjustment of status in September, provided that he or she is otherwise eligible to apply for adjustment of status under the applicable statutes and regulations. Those seeking immigrant visas abroad instead go through consular processing.

The priority date in family-sponsored cases is generally the date on which the underlying immigrant visa petition was properly filed with the USCIS on the beneficiary's behalf.

The following, courtesy of USCIS, are the final action dates for the F2A preference [see here].

“C” stands for “current.” Thus, the beneficiary of an approved family-sponsored petition in the F2A preference may apply for adjustment of status in September 2019 regardless of his or her priority date, provided that he or she is otherwise eligible to apply for adjustment of status. The F2A preference is for the spouse or unmarried children of a lawful permanent resident.

The following, courtesy of USCIS, are the dates for filing for all family-sponsored preferences except F2A [see here].

Beneficiaries of approved immigrant visa petitions in these preferences must compare their priority dates with the applicable filing date cutoffs to determine if they can apply for adjustment of status in September 2019.

For reference purposes, the following, courtesy of DOS, are the final action dates for all family-sponsored preferences [see here].

As we explained, adjustment of status applicants except for those in the F2A preference must refer to the dates for filing (see above) instead of the less favorable final action dates for determining whether they can apply for adjustment of status in September 2019.

Employment-Based Cases

The USCIS has determined that all beneficiaries of approved employment-based immigrant visa petitions must use the final action dates to determine eligibility for applying for adjustment of status in September 2019. Thus, the beneficiary of an approved employment-based preference petition must compare his or her priority date with the applicable final action cutoff date to see if he or she is eligible to apply for adjustment of status in September. The beneficiary must also be otherwise eligible to apply for adjustment of status under the applicable statutes and regulations. Those seeking their immigrant visas abroad must go through the consular processing procedures instead.

Determining the priority date of an employment-based immigrant visa petition will generally depend on what type of petition it is. In employment-based cases where labor certification was required, the filing date will generally be the date on which the labor certification application was accepted for processing by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). In cases where no labor certification was required, the priority date will generally be the date on which the employment-based petition was properly filed with the USCIS.

The following, courtesy of USCIS, are the final action dates for employment-based cases in September 2019 [see here].

“U” stands for “unavailable.” Individuals whose petitions are in a preference category and chargeability area with a final action date of “unavailable” are ineligible to apply for adjustment of status in September 2019, regardless of their priority dates. We discuss this situation further in our section titled News and Notes from the Visa Bulletin for September 2019, below.

News and Notes from the Visa Bulletin for September 2019

The DOS's Visa Bulletin for September 2019 includes several news and notes, both about the September Visa Bulletin and also what to expect for the Visa Bulletin for October 2019, which will be the first of fiscal year 2020. The DOS makes several references to the dates in the August 2019 Visa Bulletin, which we covered here on site [see blog].

We discuss these news and notes below.

Determination of Worldwide Family-Sponsored and Employment-Based Preference Limits for Fiscal Year 2019

Under section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the DOS is determined to set the annual worldwide visa allocation limits for the family-sponsored and employment-based preference categories each fiscal year (there is no limit on visa allocation based on immediate relative petitions). The DOS's determination is constrained by a number of statutory factors. Based on these factors, and in accord with section 201 of the INA, the DOS determined that the numerical limitations for fiscal year 2019 are as follows:

• Worldwide Family-Sponsored preference limit: 226,00
• Worldwide Employment-Based preference limit: 141,918

Under section 202(a) of the INA, the per-country limit is set at a maximum of 7-percent of the worldwide limit for the family-sponsored and employment-based preferences. Thus, the maximum numbers available to any individual country in fiscal year 2019 is 25,754. The dependent area annual limit is 2-percent, or 7,358.

Based on these calculations, the DOS took the following steps in order to ensure that visa number issuance in fiscal year 2019 remains within the annual worldwide and per-country limits.

Unavailability of Worldwide E4 in September 2019

The DOS explained that USCIS demand for E4 numbers increased dramatically since June 2019. This increase came primarily from Special Immigrant Juvenile applications. As a result, the annual worldwide limit for the E4 category was reached in August 2019. For this reason, the DOS made the entire E4 category unavailable early in August 2019, and it has kept it so for September 2019 in order to keep visa issuance within the annual worldwide limit for fiscal year 2019. E4 numbers will once again be available in October 2019. The DOS states that it will make every attempt to return the final action dates to at least what they were originally for August 2019.

Retrogression of China E1 and E3

The DOS had previously retrogressed the China E1 final action date. Despite that retrogression, the USCIS demand for adjustment of status in the China E1 category remained excessive. For this reason, the DOS retrogressed the final action date for China E1 again in order to keep visa issuance within worldwide limits for fiscal year 2019. Final action date retrogression was also required in the China E3 preference to keep visa issuance within the annual worldwide limit. The DOS imposed these new final action dates in the middle of August 2019. The DOS will make every effort to return the final action dates to at least what they originally work for August 2019.

Unavailability of India E1 and Retrogression of India E3

The DOS had previously retrogressed the final action dates for India E1 and E3. Despite this, the demand for adjustment of status in these categories remained excessive. For this reason, the DOS made the final action date for India E1 unavailable in July. It will remain unavailable in September 2019. The DOS retrogressed the final action date for India E3 in the middle of August 2019 and it will remain as such in September 2019. The DOS will make every effort to return the final action dates for India E1 and E3 to at least what they were originally in August, except in the case of India E1 where the DOS will likely make visas available again in October 2019.

Further Corrective Action Possible in September 2019

The DOS stated that “[i]t is likely that corrective action will also be required for other preference prior to the end of the fiscal year.” That is, DOS may find retrogression of final action dates in other preferences necessary during September 2019. Furthermore, DOS could make numbers in some categories unavailable if the annual limit is reached during September. The DOS will work to return the final action dates to at least what they were originally for August 2019 for the October 2019 Visa Bulletin.

Conclusion

Those planning to apply for adjustment of status should always stay abreast of the monthly visa bulletins in order to be ready to apply at the first opportunity. This is especially important as the fiscal year comes to a close because of the possibility that the DOS may find it necessary to take “corrective action” during September 2019, which could include final action date retrogression or making numbers unavailable entirely in certain preferences and/or chargeability areas. Those applying for visas abroad should also follow the immigrant visa bulletin for an idea of when they may be allowed to proceed in the consular processing process. Petitioners and applicants may consult with an experienced immigration attorney for case-specific guidance.

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

How to Stay Up to Date With E-Verify News

On July 16, 2019, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that it was discontinuing its E-Verify Listens public contact channel [PDF version]. The news release provides a list of alternative ways that interested parties can stay abreast of the latest E-Verify news:

• E-Verify Website (https://www.e-verify.gov/contact-us);
• Linkedin;
• Twitter (@EVerify);
• Facebook;
• Subscribe to e-mail updates at GovDelivery (https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDHSCISEVERIFY/subscriber/new?qsp­USDHSCISEVERIFY_1); and
• Text “EVERIFY UPDATES” to 468311.

These various channels are useful for those who want to be aware of important E-Verify news releases. We discuss issues relating to employment authorization for noncitizens in various sections of our website.

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

SCOTUS to Consider Whether Categorical Approach is Required to Determine if Conviction is a "Serious Drug Offense" Under ACCA

On June 28, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States granted a petition for certiorari in Shular v. United States, 18-6662 [PDF version].

Shular concerns the Armed Career Criminals Act (ACCA), a Federal sentence-enhancement statute. Although the ACCA is a criminal law rather than a civil immigration law, several Supreme Court decisions on how to interpret the ACCA have been influential in the immigration context [see index]. The question in most ACCA cases is whether a State or Federal criminal conviction may serve as a predicate offense for sentence enhancement. In immigration law, the question in removal proceedings involving criminal offenses is often whether a State or Federal criminal conviction is a predicate offense under the immigration laws.

In Shular, the Court will consider the following question:

Whether the determination of a 'serious drug offense' under the Armed Career Criminal Act requires the same categorical approach used in the determination of a 'violent felony' under the Act?

Under 18 U.S.C. 924(e), an individual with three previous convictions for a “violent felony” or a “serious drug offense” who then commits a criminal offense set forth in 18 U.S.C. 922(g) is subject to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 15 years. The term “serious drug offense” is defined in 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(A) as:

• (i) an offense under the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 951 et seq.), or chapter 705 of title 46 for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed by law; or
• (ii) an offense under State law, involving manufacturing, distributing, or possessing with intent to manufacture or distribute, a controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)), for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed by law…

The Supreme Court will consider whether the “categorical approach” must be used in determining whether a conviction is for a “serious drug offense.” That is, when evaluating whether a conviction is a “serious drug offense,” must a court look solely at whether the minimum conduct proscribed by statute is for a “serious drug offense,” or may it look beyond the language of the statute to determine whether the conduct that led to the conviction was conduct that would fall under 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(A)? The former approach is already used for determining whether a conviction is a “violent felony” under 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(B).

In United States v. Shular, 736 Fed.Appx. 876 (Mem) (11th Cir. 2018) [PDF version], the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit followed its existing precedent from U.S. v. Smith, 775 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2014) [PDF version], that courts may look beyond the language of the statute of conviction. In Smith, the petitioner argued that based on the Eleventh Circuit's prior decision in Donawa v. U.S. Attorney General, 735 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2013) [PDF version] — wherein the Eleventh Circuit applied the categorical approach to determine whether a Florida marijuana conviction was a drug offense under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) — required the categorical approach in determining whether a Florida conviction was a “serious drug offense” under the ACCA. Writing for the court in Smith, Judge William Pryor found that the cases were distinguishable:

We need not search for the elements of the 'generic' definition[] of 'serious drug offense' … because [this] term[] [is] defined by federal statute and the Sentencing Guidelines, respectively.” U.S. v. Smith, 775 F.3d at 1267

It will be worth watching the Supreme Court's consideration of whether the categorical approach is needed to determine whether a conviction is for a “serious drug offense.” No matter which way the Court rules, its decision will potentially affect how courts and adjudicators across the country read certain provisions of the INA.

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 Agrees to Hear DACA Cases Next Term

On June 28, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States granted the Government's request to review three lower court decisions blocking its efforts to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program [PDF version at page 5]. The Supreme Court consolidated the three cases for review and will consider them together.

The Court first granted certiorari in Dept. of Homeland Security v. Regents of Univ. of CA, Docket No. 18-587 [PDF version]. Here, the Court will review the decision of a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit up uphold an injunction against the DACA rescission entered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California [PDF version]. The Court granted the Government's petitions for certiorari before judgment in both Trump v. NAACP, Docket No. 18-588 [PDF Version] and McAleenan v. Vidal, Docket No. 18-589 [PDF version], which were pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit respectively.

The Supreme Court listed the questions presented by the three cases as follows:

1. Whether DHS's decision to wind down the DACA policy is judicially reviewable.
2. Whether DHS's decision to wind down the DACA policy is lawful.

Then-Acting Secretary of DHS Elaine Duke published a DHS memorandum rescinding the DACA program on September 5, 2017. She undertook this action on the advice of then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions. We discuss the circumstances of the rescission in a separate article [see article]. The DACA rescission never took effect after several district courts enjoined the DACA rescission memo and required the Government to continue implementing DACA. After declining to hear the Government's appeals on several occasions, the Supreme Court has now decided to intervene and next term will consider the issues presented. Assuming that things proceed normally, we may expect a decision in the DACA case some time in 2020.

We will continue to update the website with information about the DACA rescission as the case moves forward. For the time being, DACA remains in effect. Those with questions about the future of the DACA program should consult with an experienced immigration attorney for case-specific guidance.

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 Closes Ciudad Juarez Field Office

On June 30, 2019, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) permanently closed its field office in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico [PDF version]. The Department of State's U.S. Consulate General in Ciudad Juárez will assume responsibility for certain limited services that were previously provided by the USCIS field office in Ciudad Juárez to individuals residing in the following Mexican states: Baja California Norte; Baja California Sur; Chihuahua; Durango; Sinaloa; and Sonora.

The USCIS advised individuals who were being assisted by the USCIS Ciudad Juárez Field Office to follow filing instructions [see here].

Individuals who need assistance from the Consulate General in Ciudad Juárez may visit its website at https://mx.usembassy.gov/embassy-consulates/ciudad-juarez/. The USCIS also included the mailing address Consulate General in Ciudad Juárez in its news release:

• U.S. Consulate General
• Paseo de la Victoria #3650
• Fracc. Partido Senecú
• Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua, Mexico C.P. 32543

The closure of the USCIS Field Office in Ciudad Juárez will affect certain applicants residing in several Mexican states. While the closure may be an inconvenience, it does not affect eligibility for any immigration benefits. An individual with case-specific questions should consult with an experienced immigration attorney for guidance.

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 Expands Digital FOIA System

On June 25, 2019, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced the expansion of its digital Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) System (FIRST) [PDF version].

Beginning on June 25, 2019, FOIA requestors may use their USCIS account to submit online requests for their own USCIS records. In the near future, USCIS will expand FIRST to allow requestors to submit online requests for non-A-File materials. The USCIS added that later this year, FIRST will be expanded to allow USCIS online account holders to make FOIA requests on behalf of another person.

USCIS began rolling out FIRST in May 2018, which we covered here on site [see blog]. USCIS touts FIRST as “the only system in the U.S. government that allows users to submit and track FOIA requests and receive documents digitally.” Users with USCIS accounts may make use of FIRST at first.uscis.gov

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

Mark Morgan New Acting Head of CBP

On June 27, 2019, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Kevin McAleenan announced a reshuffling of the leadership at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) [PDF version].

Acting Secretary McAleenan's permanent position at DHS is Commissioner of CBP [see blog]. Since he took over as Acting Secretary of DHS [see blog], John P. Saunders had taken over as the Chief Operating Officer and Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Commissioner of CBP. Saunders resigned from his position in late June.

Acting Secretary McAleenan announced that Mark Morgan, who had been serving as the Acting Director of ICE since late May [see blog], would take over as the Chief Operating Officer and Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Commissioner of CBP. Morgan has prior experience at CBP, having served as Chief of the Border Patrol in the final months of the Obama Administration. President Donald Trump had announced his intent to nominate Morgan to the next ICE Director, but he has not yet submitted the nomination to the Senate and it is unclear whether the nomination plan will proceed in light of changing events [see blog]. You can learn more about the new acting head of CBP's positions on immigration enforcement in our discussion of an interview he gave before being appointed as Acting Director of ICE [see blog].

With Morgan's departure from ICE, Deputy Director Matthew T. Albence will assume the duties of Acting Director of ICE. We discussed Acting Director Albence's resume in a blog post from his first stint as Acting Director in early 2019 [see blog].

With Ken Cuccinelli recently having been appointed as the Acting Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) [see blog], the DHS itself and its three main immigration-related components are currently being led by officials in acting capacities (note, however, that Acting Secretary of DHS McAleenan's permanent position remains Commissioner of CBP). President Trump has not yet nominated individuals for the positions of Secretary of DHS, Director of ICE, or Director of USCIS. We will continue to update the website with information about the leadership situation at DHS as it 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.

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

NY To Allow Noncitizens Who Are In U.S. Illegally to Obtain Driver's Licenses

On June 17, 2019, the New York State Senate passed legislation allowing noncitizens who are in the United States without legal authorization to obtain New York State driver's licenses. The bill passed the New York State Senate by a vote of 33-29 and, having already passed the New York State Assembly, now heads to Governor Andrew Cuomo for his signature. Governor Cuomo had initially stated that he would veto the bill without assurances from the New York Attorney General's Office that the Federal government would not be able to subpoena or access information about license holders who are in the country illegally. After receiving assurances from New York Attorney General Letitia James, Governor Cuomo stated that he would sign the bill into law.[1]

This news is very welcome for many individuals in New York who are in the country illegally and previously had no means of obtaining a driver's license. The move will make it possible for these noncitizens to drive legally in New York and throughout the country, although it will not change their immigration status. Those with questions about their immigration situation, including the effect of changes in New York law on their ability to drive and the associated risks thereof, should consult with an experienced immigration attorney for case-specific guidance.

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. Roy, Yancey. “Green light in NY for immigrants in U.S. illegally to get driver's licenses.” AMNewYork. Jun. 18, 2019. https://www.amny.com/news/politics/state-legislature-driver-s-licenses-immigrants-1.32566588

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

Secretary of the Army Mark Esper Becomes New Acting Secretary of Defense

On June 18, 2019, the U.S. Department of Defense announced that Acting Secretary Patrick M. Shanahan — who had been slated to be nominated for the position permanently by President Donald Trump [see blog] — will step down on June 23, 2019 [PDF version]. He will be replaced as Acting Secretary of Defense by the Secretary of the Army, Mark T. Esper. Deputy Secretary of Defense David Norquist will remain in his position.

The Defense Department has limited rolls in the immigration context, including regarding setting rules for alien serving in the armed forces and advising the President on certain matters relating to national security and foreign relations. The Defense Department is responsible for administrating the MAVNI program, which has been effectively suspended for the past couple of years [see article]. In recent months, the Defense Department has taken an increased role in assisting the Department of Homeland Security in enforcing immigration laws on the Southwest Border and in potentially building fortifications on the border.

We will update the website with more information when President Trump announces a new nominee for the top position at the Defense Department.

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 International Field Offices Will No Longer Accept Form I-407

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that beginning on July 1, 2019, it will no longer accept the Form I-407, Record of Abandonment of Lawful Permanent Resident Status, at international field offices [PDF version]. This prohibition applies both to submissions by mail and in person.

Instead, those who wish to voluntarily relinquish their lawful permanent resident status must submit the Form I-407 by mail to the following address:

• USCIS Eastern Forms Center
• Attn: I-407 unit
• 124 Leroy Road
• PO Box 567
• Williston, VT 05495

The USCIS states that it “anticipate(s) that processing times [for the Form I-407] at the Eastern Forms Center, from receipt to completion, will be within 60 days, which does not include mailing time to or from outside the United States.”

Notwithstanding the new policy, “[i]n very rare circumstances, a U.S. embassy, U.S. consulate, or USCIS international field office may accept a Form I-407 in person if an individual needs immediate proof that [he or she has] abandoned [lawful permanent resident] status.”

The new policy will require nearly all lawful permanent residents who are looking to voluntarily relinquish their permanent resident status to mail the Form I-407 to the USCIS's Eastern Forms Center. Although the effect of the policy prevents these individuals from submitting the Form I-407 at a USCIS field office abroad in most cases, there will be exceptions in “very rare circumstances” where the individual establishes that he or she needs immediate proof of his or her relinquishment of lawful permanent resident status.

Those who are seeking to voluntarily relinquish their lawful permanent resident status should consult with an experienced immigration attorney for case-specific guidance. Such guidance may be especially useful in the event that the individual needs proof of his or her relinquishing lawful permanent resident status immediately.

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

Visa Bulletin for August 2019

Introduction

On July 5, 2019 The U.S. Department of State (DOS) released its monthly Visa Bulletin August 2019 — the penultimate month of FY 2019 [PDF version]. The August 2019 Visa Bulletin contains the dates for filing and application final action dates for beneficiaries of approved immigrant visa petitions in the family-sponsored and employment-based preference categories. On July 16, 2019, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that most family-sponsored adjustment of status applicants must rely upon the August 2019 Visa Bulletin's dates for filing to determine eligibility to file for adjustment during the month, while all employment-based adjustment of status applicants must use the less favorable final action dates [PDF version].

We will examine the pertinent charts from the August 2019 Visa Bulletin, their applicability to those planning to apply for adjustment of status on the basis of an approved family-sponsored or employment-based preference petition, and other general news and notes from the Bulletin as we approach the end of FY 2019.

We have several resources on site to help readers understand the Visa Bulletin and its relevance in many adjustment of status cases. First, please see our article on using the Visa Bulletin as an adjustment of status applicant, and how that use differs from an individual seeking an immigrant visa abroad through the consular process [see article]. Second, please see our article explaining the differences between the dates for filing and the final action dates [see article]. Third, please see our compendium of past articles on visa bulletins [see index].

Family-Sponsored Cases

In welcome news for beneficiaries of approved family-sponsored immigrant visa petitions seeking adjustment of status, the USCIS has determined that beneficiaries of such petitions in all categories except for F2A must use the favorable dates for filing in order to determine if they are eligible to apply for adjustment of status in August 2019. Beneficiaries of F2A petitions are in the most favorable position, however, because while they must use the final action dates from the August 2019 Visa Bulletin, the final action date for all F2A petitions is “current.” This means that the beneficiary of an approved F2A petition is eligible to apply for adjustment of status in August 2019, provided that he or she meets the substantive requirements for adjustment.

Beneficiaries of non-F2A approved family-sponsored immigrant visa preference petitions seeking adjustment of status must compare their filing date with the applicable filing date cutoff on the August 2019 Visa Bulletin. In order to apply for adjustment of status in August 2019, the beneficiary of an approved family-sponsored immigrant visa preference petition must have a filing date before the applicable filing date for his or her preference category and chargeability area.

The filing date in family-sponsored cases is generally the date on which the immigrant visa petition was properly filed with the USCIS on the beneficiary's behalf. As we noted, beneficiaries of approved immigrant visa petitions in the F2A category may apply for adjustment in August 2019 regardless of their filing dates since the final action date for F2A in August 2019 is current.

The Visa Bulletin deals only with whether visa numbers are available in a specific preference category. A petition beneficiary must also meet the substantive requirements for eligibility to apply for adjustment of status in order to apply for adjustment in August 2019 or in any other month.

The following, courtesy of the USCIS, are the final action dates for F2A preference petitions in August 2019 [see here].

The following, courtesy of the USCIS, are the filing dates for all family-sponsored cases except for F2A in August 2019 [see here].

For reference purposes only, below are the final action dates for the family-sponsored preferences from the August 2019 Visa Bulletin. All non-F2A cases must rely instead on the dates for filing for purpose of determining eligibility to apply for adjustment of status during August 2019 [see here].

Employment-Based Cases

The USCIS has determined that all beneficiaries of employment-based preference petitions must rely on the final action dates in the August 2019 Visa Bulletin. Thus, in order to apply for adjustment of status in August 2019 on the basis of an approved employment-based preference petition, the applicant's filing date must be before the applicable final action cutoff date — except in cases where the final action date is current, which allows all beneficiaries of approved petitions in that preference who are otherwise eligible for adjustment to apply for adjustment of status in August 2019.

In employment-based cases where labor certification was required, the filing date will generally be the date on which the labor certification application was accepted for processing by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). In cases where no labor certification was required, the priority date will generally be the date on which the immigrant visa petition was properly filed with the USCIS.

The Visa Bulletin deals only with whether visa numbers are available in a specific preference category. A petition beneficiary must also meet the substantive requirements for eligibility to apply for adjustment of status in order to apply for adjustment in August 2019 or in any other month.

The following, courtesy of the USCIS, are the final action dates for employment-based cases in August 2019 [see here].

For reference purposes only — since beneficiaries of approved employment-based petitions must rely upon the final action dates to determine whether they can apply for adjustment of status in August 2019 — the following are the dates for filing for employment-based cases in August 2019, reproduced from the August 2019 Visa Bulletin [see here].

Establishment and Retrogression of August Employment-Based Final Action Dates

The DOS explained in the Visa Bulletin that “[t]here has been a steadily increasing level of Employment applicant demand since late May for adjustment of status cases filed with the [USCIS], and there is no indication that this increase will end.” Thus, in order to keep visa issuance within the annual limits, the DOS established and retrogressed several employment-based final action dates in August 2019. These measures are temporary — and the final action dates for affected categories/chargeability areas are expected to return to where they were in July 2019 [see article] for the October 2019 Visa Bulletin — which will mark the first bulletin for fiscal year 2020.

Conclusion

As always, beneficiaries of approved preference petitions who are planning to apply for adjustment of status should stay abreast of developments in the immigrant visa bulletin. The bulletin also gives those seeking visas through consular processing an idea of when they may be permitted to apply for an immigrant visa. Petitioners and beneficiaries should consult with an experienced immigration attorney for guidance on any and all case-specific questions.

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 to Shift N-400 and I-485 Caseloads to Decrease Processing Time Discrepancies

Introduction

On June 17, 2019, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that it is implementing a national strategy to decrease differences in processing times based on the location of processing for the Form N-400, Application for Naturalization, and the Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status [PDF version].

New Policy

The USCIS stated that processing times for both the Form N-400 and the Form I-485 began increasing at the end of 2015. This increase is attributable to higher than expected volumes of Forms N-400 and I-485 filed in fiscal year 2016 and 2017. While processing times increased generally due to the increased number of Form N-400 and Form I-485 filings, “[t]he increased filing volumes did not affect [USCIS] field offices equally.”

As part of its strategy to even out processing times for the Form N-400 and Form I-485, the USCIS will begin shifting caseloads between its field offices. Thus, it may schedule naturalization and adjustment of status applicants to appear for interviews at field offices outside of their normal jurisdiction. Form N-400 and Form I-485 applicants may expect to receive notices pertaining to their applications — such as an interview appointment notice or a Request for Evidence — from a field office outside of their normal jurisdiction. The USCIS clarifies, however, that “these caseload changes will not affect where applicants attend their biometrics appointments.” Regardless of shifting caseloads, biometrics appointments will still occur at the naturalization or adjustment of status applicant's nearest application support center. The USCIS reminds applicants to always follow the instructions on notices received from the USCIS.

Discussion

The USCIS will shift caseloads between field offices to even out the processing times for the Form N-400 and Form I-485. This will ideally reduce the discrepancy where certain applicants for naturalization or adjustment of status are subjected to extremely long processing times due to an unusual number of filings at the field office normally having jurisdiction over their applications. For those applicants whose applications are shifted from one field office to another, the change may cause some inconvenience. Regardless, applicants must always carefully follow the instructions that they receive from USCIS in order to proceed through the adjudication of their applications.

Applicants for naturalization or adjustment of status should consult with an experienced immigration attorney for case-specific guidance on each step of their application processes. To learn more about this and related issues, please see our website's growing sections on naturalization [see category], adjustment of status [see category], family immigration [see category], employment immigration [see category], and 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

Guyana to Continue Processing Certain Adoptions Commenced Before June 1, 2019

On June 14, 2019, the U.S. Department of State (DOS) announced that the government of Guyana has confirmed that it will continue to process certain adoption cases under the non-Hague Convention process in effect prior to June 1, 2019 [PDF version]. We noted in prior posts that Guyana had become a party to the Hague Convention, effective June 1, 2019 [see blog], but that the DOS determined that it cannot process Hague Convention adoptions from Guyana at this time [see blog].

For the time being, cases in which a U.S. citizen filed a Form I-600A, Application for Advance Processing of an Orphan Petition, or a Form I-600, Petition to Classify Orphan as an Immediate Relative, on behalf of a Guyanese child prior to June 1, 2019, or in which the adoption of a Guyanese child under such non-Hague Convention procedures was completed prior to June 1, 2019, will continue to be processed by the Guyanese government. The DOS stated that it will continue to coordinate with the Guyanese government on issues related to “transition cases” that were commenced or completed prior to June 1, 2019, the date on which the Hague Convention took effect in Guyana.

The situation for adoptions from Guyana remains in flux with issues relating to the Hague Convention taking effect there. The notice that Guyana will continue processing cases that were commenced or completed under non-Hague Convention procedures prior to June 1, 2019, should come as welcome news to affected prospective adoptive parents and adoptive parents. Those with questions may contact the DOS, consult with their adoption service providers, and consult with an experienced immigration attorney in the area of international adoption. We will update our immigration blog with more information about international adoptions from Guyana as it becomes available. Please see our website's growing section on international adoption for more information on adoption in the immigration context generally [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

USCIS to Continue Accepting Prior Edition of Form I-918 Through End of 2019

On June 21, 2019, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that it is extending the grace period for the previous edition of the Form I-918, Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status [PDF version].

The current edition of the Form I-918 is dated 04/24/19. The USCIS had previously indicated that beginning on July 2, 2019, it would only accept the Form I-918, and the Supplement B, U Nonimmigrant Status Certification, with the 04/24/19 edition date. The USCIS will now continue to accept the 02/07/17 edition of the Form I-918 and Supplement B through December 31, 2019. Beginning on January 1, 2020, the USCIS will only accept the Form I-918 and Supplement B with the edition date of 04/24/19. No other editions of the Form I-918 and Supplement B will be accepted.

When filing any form with the USCIS, it is important to follow all of the current instructions, which are posted on the USCIS website. U visa petitions and prospective U visa petitioners should consult with an experienced immigration attorney for case-specific guidance. We discuss the U visa program and other similar forms of immigration relief and protection in the Victims of Violence section of our website [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

EOIR Swears in New Administrative Law Judge

On June 18, 2019, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) announced that it swore in Jean King as the new chief administrative law judge in the EOIR's Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer [PDF version]. The investiture ceremony was presided over by the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer, Robin Stutman.

The new Administrative Law Judge, Jean King, has extensive prior experience with EOIR. From July 2015 to August 2015, and from December 2012 to October 2014, Judge King served as deputy general counsel for EOIR. From March 2011 to October 2011, Judge King served as acting director of operations at EOIR, followed by a stint from October 2011 to December 2012 as counsel to the director of EOIR.

From 2006 to 2009, Judge King served as a temporary member of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Judge King was on the panel for three BIA precedent decisions during her tenure as a temporary board member:

• Matter of Portillo-Gutierrez, 25 I&N Dec. 148 (BIA 2009) [PDF version] [see article];
• Matter of Monges, 25 I&N Dec. 246 (BIA 2010) [PDF version]; and
• Matter of Garcia Arreola, 25 I&N Dec. 267 (BIA 2010) [PDF version].

Prior to being appointed as a temporary board member, Judge King was a senior legal advisor at the BIA from 1996-2006. Before that, she worked for one year as a judicial law clerk with the Superior Court of Connecticut.

Judge King has a law degree from the College of William and Mary.

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

New Zealand Nationals Now Eligible for E1 and E2 Visas

On June 10, 2019, citizens of New Zealand became eligible to seek E1 treaty trader visas and E2 treaty investor visas in the United States. The law authorizing E1 and E2 visas for nationals of New Zealand was passed approved by Congress in 2018 [PDF version].

The U.S. Embassy and Consulate in New Zealand noted that nationals of New Zealand abroad may apply for E1 and E2 visas with the U.S. Department of State beginning on June 10, 2019 [PDF version]. The Embassy also posted a video from the U.S. Ambassador to New Zealand, Scott Brown, on the exciting news [see here].

Separately, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) noted that certain nationals of New Zealand who are present in the United States in lawful nonimmigrant status may apply for change of nonimmigrant status to E1 or E2 starting on June 10, 2019 [PDF version]. An application for change of status is filed on the Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker.

The announcement that nationals of New Zealand are now eligible for E1 and E2 nonimmigrant visas follows a recent opening of the E2 category to Israeli nationals [see article]. A New Zealand national who is interested in the potential opportunities offered by the E1 and E2 nonimmigrant visas categories should consult with an experienced immigration attorney to learn about the visa requirements and whether he or she may be eligible for one of these types of nonimmigrant visas.

We discuss the E1 and E2 categories and related nonimmigrant and immigrant visa categories in our website's sections on Work Visas [see category] and 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

18 New Immigration Judges Sworn in on May 10, 2019

Introduction

On May 10, 2019, the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) held an investiture ceremony to swear in 18 new immigration judges [PDF version]. One of the 18 new immigration judges will serve as an assistant chief immigration judge with supervisory responsibilities. Each of the 18 new immigration judges was selected by Attorney General William Barr. The 18 new immigration judges will serve on 9 immigration courts across the country.

In this article, we will examine the biographies of the new immigration judges — sorted by immigration court — with reference to the EOIR news release. To read about previous immigration judge investiture ceremonies, please see our article index [see article].

Abbreviations:

• Department of Justice (DOJ)
• Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
• U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
• U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)

Immigration Courts With New Immigration Judges From May 2019 Investiture

• Cleveland Immigration Court (Ohio) [1 new ACIJ and 1 new IJ]
• Boston Immigration Court (Massachusetts) [3 new IJs]
• Conroe Immigration Court (Texas)
• Elizabeth Immigration Court (New Jersey)
• Fort Worth Immigration Adjudication Center (Texas) [2 new IJs]
• Miami Immigration Court (Florida) [3 new IJs]
• Philadelphia Immigration Court (Pennsylvania)
• San Antonio Immigration Court (Texas)
• San Francisco Immigration Court (California) [4 new IJs]

James. F. McCarthy III, Assistant Chief Immigration Judge, Cleveland Immigration Court

• 1995-2019: Private practice.
• 1983-1995: Assistant city solicitor and chief trial counsel for the city of Cincinnati, Ohio.
• 1983-1995: Judge advocate for the U.S. Navy.
• 1981-1983: Private practice.
• 1977-1981: Active duty judge advocate for the U.S. Navy.
• Law degree from the Ohio State University College of Law in 1977.

ACIJ McCarthy immediately assumed supervisory duties at the Cleveland Immigration Court upon being sworn in. His legal experience comes exclusively from private practice, the U.S. Navy, and from working for the city of Cincinnati, Ohio.

John M. Furlong Jr., Immigration Judge, Boston Immigration Court

• 2013-2019: Deputy district director for USCIS, DHS, in Boston, Massachusetts.
• 2006-2013: Deputy chief counsel for ICE, DHS, in Boston, Massachusetts.
• 1996-2006: Assistant chief counsel for ICE, DHS, in Boston, Massachusetts.
• Law degree from Suffolk University in 1994.

IJ Furlong has over two decades of experience as a lawyer for ICE and USCIS.

Lincoln S. Jalelian, Immigration Judge, Boston Immigration Court

• 2009-2019: Assistant chief counsel, Office of the Chief Counsel, ICE, DHS, in Boston, Massachusetts.
• 2008-2009: Assistant attorney general in the Office of the Attorney General of Massachusetts.
• 2004-2008: Trial attorney in the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section, Criminal Division, DOJ.
• 2002-2003: Resident legal advisor at the U.S. Office in Pristina, Kosovo.
• 1992-2004: Assistant district attorney in the Middlesex County District Attorney's Office in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
• Law degree from Boston University School of Law in 1992.

IJ Jalelian has worked as both a state and federal prosecutor prior to his decade-long stint as an attorney for ICE.

Jennifer A. Mulcahy, Immigration Judge, Boston Immigration Court

• 2002-2019: Assistant chief counsel for the Office of Chief Counsel, ICE, DHS, in Boston, Massachusetts.
• Law degree from Suffolk University School of Law in 2001.

IJ Mulcahy worked for seventeen years as an ICE attorney prior to becoming an immigration judge.

Taresa L. Riley, Immigration Judge, Cleveland Immigration Court

• 2009-2019: Assistant U.S. attorney, Northern District of Ohio, DOJ, in both the Cleveland and Akron offices, finishing her service as the Attorney-in-Charge, Criminal Division, of the Akron Branch Office.
• 2008-2009: Assistant prosecuting attorney for the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office in Cleveland, Ohio.
• 2003-2008: Senior law clerk for the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio.
• 1999-2003: Law clerk and judicial attorney for Judge John R. Adams in the Court of Common Pleas in Summit County, Ohio.
• Law degree from the University of Akron School of Law.

IJ Riley has extensive experience as a federal prosecutor and law clerk prior to taking the immigration bench.

Holly A. D'Andrea, Immigration Judge, Conroe Immigration Court

• 2011-2019: Assistant U.S. attorney with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Texas, DOJ, in Brownsville, Texas.
• 2016-2017: National border and immigration legal issues coordinator with the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, DOJ, in Washington D.C.
• 2008-2010: Assistant prosecuting attorney, assistant county counselor, and city attorney in Washington County, Missouri.
• 2007-2008: Private practice.
• Law degree from Saint Louis University School of Law in 2006.

IJ D'Andrea was a federal and former local prosecutor with a one year stint as a DOJ lawyer dealing with border and immigration issues.

Jason L. Pope, Immigration Judge, Elizabeth Immigration Court

• 2014-2019: Assistant chief counsel, Office of the Chief Counsel, ICE, DHS, in Baltimore, Maryland.
• 2007-2012: Private practice specializing in immigration law.
• Law degree from Syracuse University College of Law in 2006.

IJ Pope has experience as an ICE attorney and as an immigration lawyer in private practice.

Jacob D. Bashore, Immigration Judge, Fort Worth Immigration and Adjudication Center

• 2006-2019: Attorney and circuit judge with the U.S. Army.
• Law degree from the University of Tennessee College of Law in 2006; Master of Laws degree from The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School in 2011.

IJ Bashore's experience comes exclusively as an attorney and judge for the U.S. Army.

Marium S. Uddin, Immigration Judge, Fort Worth Immigration Adjudication Center

• 2016-2018: Assistant chief counsel with the Office of the Chief Counsel, ICE, DHS, in Dallas, Texas.
• 2015-2016: Assistant district attorney with the Dallas County District Attorney's Office in Dallas, Texas.
• 2011-2015: Assistant public defender with the Dallas County Public Defender's Office in Dallas, Texas.
• 2010-2011: Criminal defense and immigration attorney in private practice.
• 2005-2010: Assistant district attorney with the El Paso District Attorney's Office in El Paso, Texas (also from 2001-2002).
• Law degree from The University of Texas School of Law in 2000.

IJ Uddin brings a variety of experience to the immigration bench from her stints as an ICE attorney, prosecutor, public defender, and immigration attorney in private practice.

Michelle C. Araneta, Immigration Judge, Miami Immigration Court

• 2000-2019: Prosecutor with the Pima County Attorney's Office in Tucson, Arizona.
• 1995-1999: Prosecutor with the District Attorney's Office in Riverdale, California.
• 1991-1995: Associate attorney practicing tax and bankruptcy in Orange County, California.
• 1989-1991: Law clerk for Judge David N. Naugle of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California [PDF version].
• Law degree from California Western School of Law in San Diego in 1989.

IJ Araneta brings over two decades of experience as a local prosecutor and additional experience in the area of bankruptcy law to the immigration bench.

Thomas M. Ayze, Immigration Judge, Miami Immigration Court

• 2008-2019: Assistant chief counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, ICE, DHS, in Miami, Florida.
• 2007-2008: Fraud, detection and national security immigration officer with USCIS, DHS, in Miami, Florida.
• 2003-2007: Asylum officer with USCIS, DHS, in Miami, Florida.
• 1988-2010: Judge advocate in the U.S. Air Force (active duty 1988-2002; reservist 2003-2010)
• Law degree from the University of Florida Levin College of Law in 1988.

IJ Ayze has a wealth of experience with ICE and USCIS, including a four-year stint as an asylum officer. IJ Ayze also served for over two decades as a judge advocate for the U.S. Air Force.

Abraham L. Burgess, Immigration Judge, Miami Immigration Court

• 2012-2019: Assistant chief counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, ICE, DHS, in Texas and California.
• 2003-2011: Judge advocate for the U.S. Army.
• Law degree from Boston University School of Law in 2002.

IJ Burgess' experience is split between a seven-year stint as an ICE lawyer and an eight-year stint as a judge advocate for the U.S. Army.

Mary C. Lee, Immigration Judge, Philadelphia Immigration Court

• 2015-2019: Assistant chief counsel for Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, ICE, DHS, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
• 2003-2015: Assistant chief counsel for Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, ICE, DHS, in Baltimore, Maryland.
• 2010-2013: Assistant chief counsel for Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, ICE, DHS, in Atlanta, Georgia.
• 2009-2010: Judicial law clerk in the Superior Court of New Jersey.
• 2000-2006: Served in the U.S. Air Force.
• Law degree from Rutgers University in 2009.

IJ Lee served for nearly a decade as an ICE attorney in three different locations prior to being sworn in.

Rifian S. Newaz, Immigration Judge, San Antonio Immigration Court

• 2018-2019: Private practice.
• 2011-2018: Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas, DOJ, in El Paso, Texas.
• 2004-2010: Assistant district attorney for the Harris County District Attorney's Office in Houston, Texas.
• Law degree from the University of Texas School of Law in 2004.

IJ Newaz's experience comes primarily as a prosecutor at both the federal and state levels.

Nicholas R. Ford, Immigration Judge, San Francisco Immigration Court

• 2003-2019: State of Illinois circuit court judge assigned to the criminal division of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Chicago, Illinois.
• 1997-2003: Judge assigned to the central bond court division of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Chicago, Illinois.
• 1991-1997: Assistant state's attorney assigned to the federal trial division of the Cook County State's Attorney's Office, Chicago.
• 1988-1991: Assistant state's attorney assigned to the major narcotics task force in the Cook County State's Attorney's Office.
• Law degree from the University of Iowa College of Law in 1988.

IJ Ford has extensive experience as a state judge in Chicago from 1997-2019. Prior to serving as a judge, he was a prosecutor for nearly a decade.

Susan Phan, Immigration Judge, San Francisco Immigration Court

• 2015-2019: Assistant chief counsel for the Office of the Chief Counsel, ICE, DHS, in San Francisco, California.
• 2012-2015: Assistant general counsel for the State Bar of California, in San Francisco.
• 2009-2014: Special assistant U.S. attorney and assistant U.S. attorney for the Northern District of California in San Francisco, and for the Eastern District of California in Fresno.
• 2005-2019: Assistant attorney general with the District of Columbia Attorney General's Office in Washington, D.C.
• Law degree from the University of California, Los Angelis in 2004.

IJ Phan brings experience as an ICE attorney and as a federal and local prosecutor to the immigration bench.

Jason M. Price, Immigration Judge, San Francisco Immigration Court

• 2007-2019: Assistant chief counsel for the Office of Chief Counsel, ICE, DHS, in San Francisco, California.
• 2006-2007: Assistant public defender for the Maryland Office of the Public Defender in Hagerstown, Maryland.
• 2000-2005: Active duty judge advocate for the U.S. Air Force.
• Law degree from the West Virginia College of Law in 2000.

IJ Price has extensive experience as an ICE lawyer, public defender, and judge advocate.

Jennifer M. Riedthaler Williams, Immigration Judge, San Francisco Immigration Court

• 2017-2019: Judicial magistrate with the Lorain County Domestic Relations Court in Elyria, Ohio.
• 2001-2017: Assistant prosecuting attorney with the Lorain County Prosecutor's Office in Elyria, Ohio, in the felony criminal division and the juvenile and felony non-support division.
• Law degree from Case Western Reserve University School of Law in 2001.

IJ Williams worked as a magistrate judge and local prosecutor prior to taking the immigration bench.

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