Reinstatement of F1 Status

What is Reinstatement of F1 Status?

Individuals on F1 student status are required to follow all of the rules and regulations regarding F1 status in order to maintain such status.  If an F1 student commits a status violation, he or she will be considered out of status.  Normally, a person who is out of status and not otherwise authorized to be present in the United States would have to depart the United States and apply for admission from abroad.  However, in certain circumstances, an F1 student whose status lapses may be eligible for what is called “reinstatement of F1 status.”  If an individual has his or her F1 status reinstated, the individual may reclaim his or her F1 status without having to depart the United States.

Eligibility for Filing for Reinstatement of F1 Status

In order to be eligible for reinstatement, the individual must not have been out of status for more than five months prior to applying.  However, an individual may seek reinstatement outside of the five month window if he or she establishes that the failure to file a timely application for reinstatement was the result of exceptional circumstances, and that the individual filed for reinstatement as promptly as possible under the exceptional circumstances.

An individual seeking reinstatement must not have a record of repeated or willful violations of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) regulations.  The individual must be currently pursuing, or intending to pursue, a full course of study in the immediate future at the school that issued the student’s Form I-20, Certificate of Eligibility for Nonimmigrant Student Status.  The individual must not have engaged in unauthorized employment, and the student must not be deportable on any ground other than section 237(a)(1)(B) or (C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (relating to those present in violation of the law and those who violated their nonimmigrant status).

If the individual meets the basic eligibility requirements for seeking reinstatement of F1 status, the individual will still be required to establish that he or she merits reinstatement.  In order to do so, the individual may establish eligibility through one of two means.

The first method requires that the individual establish that the status violation resulted from circumstances beyond his or her control.  The regulations offer examples such as serious injury or illness, closure of the institution, a natural disaster, or inadvertence, oversight, or neglect on the part of the individual’s Designated School Official (DSO).  The student will not be entitled to reinstatement if there is a pattern of willful status violations or if willful failure on the part of the student resulted in the status violation.

The second method through which an individual may endeavor to establish eligibility is by establishing that his or her status violation relates to a reduction in course load that would have been within the DSO’s power to authorize.  Furthermore, the individual must establish that the denial of reinstatement would result in extreme hardship.

As we will discuss in the next section, the student seeking reinstatement of F1 status must have the approval of his or her DSO.

Filing Process, Pending Applications, and Denial of Reinstatement

The application for reinstatement of F1 status is filed on the Form I-539, Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status.  The Form I-539 must be accompanied by the requisite filing fee and by a completed Form I-20.  The Form I-20 must include a recommendation by the individual’s DSO for reinstatement of F1 status.  The application must establish that the student is eligible for reinstatement and explain the causes of  the status violation necessitating reinstatement.  Derivative F2 dependents may be included in the reinstatement application.

While an application for reinstatement of F1 status is pending, the student may continue to study. However, the F1 student will be ineligible to engage in on-campus employment or to otherwise avail him or herself to benefits of F1 status until reinstatement is granted.  Regulations also prevent F1 students with pending reinstatement applications from transferring schools.  The time accrued from the date of the application for reinstatement to the date that reinstatement is granted will not count toward eligibility for either curricular practical training (CPT) or optional practical training (OPT).  If reinstatement is granted, the time that the F1 student spent in F1 status prior to the status violation will count toward eligibility for CPT and OPT.

If an application for reinstatement of F1 status is denied, the individual will be considered to have lost F1 status.  Accordingly, the student’s nonimmigrant visa would be invalidated under section 222(g) of the INA.  The student would be required to depart the United States immediately. However, there is no admissibility bar for an individual who was denied reinstatement of F1 status.  This means the individual would be eligible to apply for F1 status from abroad.  It is important to note, however, that the Department of State (DOS) would likely look closely at the circumstances of the individual’s previous loss of F1 status in determining whether he or she should be granted a new F1 visa.

When is Applying for Reinstatement of F1 Status the Best Option?

Applying for reinstatement of F1 status is not the best option in every case where a violation of F1 student status occurs.  The first reason for this is that reinstatement of F1 status is only available for certain status violations.  If the status violation did not occur for a reason that we discussed in point two of this article, or if the individual is ineligible for reinstatement for a different reason, the individual’s only recourse would be to depart the United States and reapply for F1 status from abroad.  Furthermore, students with pending applications for reinstatement of F1 status may not commence a new course of study.  This means that once the individual’s course of study expires, he or she will have to depart within the 60-day grace period even if there is a pending application for reinstatement of F1 status.  Because an application for reinstatement of F1 status may take several months to process, it is important to consider how much time the student has left on his or her current F1 status when considering this course of action.

Because the individual’s DSO must be willing to endorse an application for reinstatement of F1 status, the student should first discuss the situation with his or her DSO.  Additionally, the student is well-advised to consult with an experienced immigration attorney both for determining whether he or she should pursue reinstatement of F1 status and for assistance in applying for reinstatement of it is determined that applying for reinstatement of F1 status is in the individual’s best interest.

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

Resources and materials:

Alexander J Segal - "Reinstatement of F1 Status"

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

Election Issues and Immigration #12: Immigration in the Final Presidential Debate

INTRODUCTION: THE FINAL DEBATE

On October 20, 2016, we witnessed the third and final Presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Few are likely to be disappointed with the knowledge that we will never have to watch these two candidates debate again (at least I hope). While the third debate again fell a bit short of the famed Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, it offered perhaps the most robust discussion of immigration in any of the three Clinton-Trump debates [see blog on the first]. It provided voters with one final opportunity to see the two underwhelming candidates for President clash on one of the most important issues facing the United States today. In this article, I will provide an overview of the debate on immigration in the final Presidential debate of 2016. In addition, I will discuss some other news and notes regarding the election, and explain how I intend to wrap up my series of blog posts on election issues and immigration [see directory].

Please note that we will rely upon the debate transcript compiled by Politico [link].[1]

THE SUPREME COURT AND IMMIGRATION AT THE FINAL DEBATE

While the final date still featured two dreadful candidates, the same cannot be said of the moderator, Fox News's Chris Wallace. Wallace was assertive and fair, asking both candidates intelligent and piercing questions. It is not a stretch of the imagination to say that Clinton faced tougher questions from Wallace than she has from anyone during the entirety of the 2016 campaign. Unfortunately for Trump, he was not spared from Wallace's incisive questioning either.

Wallace began the debate by asking the candidates about how they would fill any Supreme Court vacancies. In a lengthy discussion, Wallace used the word “constitution” nearly as many times (four) as both of the candidates combined (five). Those of us who are concerned with appointing Justices who are faithful to the Constitution may find this somewhat disconcerting. Unfortunately, the discussion yielded little insight beyond what I discussed regarding the Supreme Court in my first post in this series [see blog].

After a heated — if not highly informative — exchange on Supreme Court justices, gun rights (where we must note that Hillary Clinton seemed as ignorant about the Supreme Court's 2008 landmark decision on Second Amendment rights in D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) [PDF version] as Trump seems to be about the Constitution in general), and abortion, Wallace moved the discussion to immigration. Wallace's question began a long exchange on immigration that was only interrupted by Trump again being baited by Clinton into defending Vladimir Putin.

Wallace's question challenged both candidates for details. Regarding Trump, Wallace notes that he pledged to build a wall. Regarding Clinton, Wallace noted that she has offered no border security plan and seeks to offer a pathway to citizenship as part of a comprehensive immigration reform package within her first 100 days in office. After listing some of their positions, Wallace opened the floor for the candidates, beginning with Trump. In the forthcoming sections, I will analyze each candidate's answers separately.

DONALD TRUMP

Trump rambled about immigration issues in his usual stream-of-consciousness style, occasionally pointing to reasonable positions but generally showing that his understanding of immigration issues has not evolved much since I offered my criticism of him during the primaries [see blog]. A disproportionate amount of the post-debate coverage focused on his bizarre line, “we have some bad hombres here and we're going to get them out.” I believe that more than enough ink has been spilled on that line, so I will focus instead on what we can divine in general from Trump on immigration in the debate.

Beginning with the good, Trump did manage to score proverbial points off Clinton with some of his attacks. For example, Trump began by attacking Clinton for supporting “amnesty,” and seeking to offer legalization to those here illegally while many who have endeavored to obtain status through lawful procedures are still waiting. This attack is salient on two fronts. Firstly, Clinton does in indeed support what can fairly be called “amnesty” in that she endeavors to provide an easy path to legalization without any guarantee of improved immigration enforcement. Secondly, Trump notes that Clinton's proposal is not only harmful to immigration enforcement, but also unfair to those who seek status in the United States through lawful channels. Trump returned to this point later in the debate when he stated that,”[I]t's very unfair. We have millions of people who did it the right way. … Very unfair that somebody runs across the border, becomes a citizen.”

Perhaps Trump's most encouraging moment came at the end of a rambling discussion about drugs pouring over the border. Trump stated that “once the border is secured, at a later date, we'll make a determination as to the rest.” Because this line immediately led into “bad hombres,” it was perhaps overlooked. However, here, Trump points to the very basic outline of my preferred immigration position [see blog]. Trump proposes border security first and a consideration of the disposition of those who are here illegally second. This is clearly distinguishable from Clinton's proposal to enact border security measures and legalization simultaneously, and vastly preferable provided that the goal is to actually improve the immigration system such that the current problems do not repeat themselves.

Unfortunately, the rest of Trump's discussion of immigration was, in general, incoherent. While Trump has a history of abandoning immigration positions, he remains wed to his asinine wall that will allegedly stretch across the entire U.S.-Mexican border. I have written consistent, as have many others, that this wall is not practical and not a real solution to our immigration problems. While Clinton is clearly not to be taken seriously on border security, she is indeed correct in noting that Trump's wall is ridiculous. Trump endeavored to paint Clinton as an erstwhile supporter of his wall from a vote that she took in the Senate in 2006, but she was indeed correct in responding that the legislation proposed border fences in strategic areas rather than a wall across the entire border. Given that Trump's primary enforcement proposal is the wall, his impassioned discussion of drugs and criminals “pouring” across the border rings empty. Even if one agrees with the direness of the current situation, one cannot be confident that Trump has much to offer on border security and immigration enforcement besides a fantasy wall and absurdist rhetoric that he is liable to abandon when it becomes convenient for him to do so.

Trump's final line of attack was to go after Clinton for her support of “open borders.” After Clinton denied that she supports such a concept, somewhat disingenuously, she was confronted with a question from Wallace regarding a leaked transcript of one of her speeches where she expressed support for “open borders.” After quickly deflecting the question, Clinton pivoted to attacking Trump for supporting Russia's hacking of her campaign's emails. Rather than press the open borders issue, Trump instead decided his time was better spent defending Russia from Clinton's correct allegations. That was effectively the end of the immigration portion of the debate.

HILLARY CLINTON

While Trump was generally subpar on immigration, it cannot be said that Clinton was much better. Clinton scored her proverbial points off Trump by attacking his proposals for mass deportations. Although Trump did not advocate that position in the third debate, he certainly did in securing the Republican nomination over vastly better-qualified candidates. Clinton specifically stated that she does not “want to rip families apart.” If you have been a long-time reader, you may recall that I used a similar phrase in offering a harsh critique of Trump's immigration proposals in a candidate profile of him written last year [see blog]. As I discussed in the previous section, Clinton poked and prodded Trump over his proposal for a wall and correctly condemned his harsh rhetoric toward Mexican people. Finally, Clinton noted that Trump's business record with regard to employing aliens who lack employment authorization is not in line with his pro-enforcement rhetoric.

However, as is often the case, Clinton fell flat when she was forced to offer her own proposals and defend them. First, while I agree with Clinton that Trump's proposals for mass deportation are both implausible and outrageous, Clinton failed to acknowledge that being present without legal authorization is a violation of our immigration laws. Clinton suggests that resources will only be directed — or at least extremely narrowly focused — on removing “violent” people. While no one would argue that this should be the top priority, Clinton seems to have virtually no interest at all in enforcing the Immigration and Nationality Act's provisions against nonviolent persons who cross the border illegally or overstay visas. In effect, Clinton creates a false dichotomy, suggesting that the only options are immediate legalization with very narrow enforcement priorities or Trump's sometimes proposal for mass deportations.

Clinton revealed her hand, much like her running-mate Tim Kaine did in the Vice Presidential debate [see blog], when she cited to Ronald Reagan and the ill-fated 1986 “comprehensive immigration reform” effort [see blog]. Rather than learn from President Reagan's well-intentioned mistake to sign legislation that simultaneously enacted new enforcement legislation and a substantial legalization program, Clinton proposes that we reenact it. Worse yet, Clinton failed to address Wallace's correct assertion in his question that she has not actually offered any specifics on improving immigration enforcement and border security. Just as it is hard to come away from listening to Trump with the impression that he actually knows or believes anything about the immigration system, it is hard to come away from listening to Clinton with the impression that she has any interest in enforcement besides providing enough lip service and empty gestures to convince Congress to pass a significant amnesty program. The fact that she seeks to sign her albatross “comprehensive immigration reform” within her first 100 days in office hardly inspires confidence that she intends to patiently assess the success of new border security and enforcement measures before moving on to discussing a responsible plan for legalization.

Perhaps Clinton's most politically effective moment was when she managed to avoid having to dwell on her statement supporting “open borders” by tempting Trump to launch into a long and bizarre defense of Vladimir Putin. This episode was just the latest in a long line of examples of Clinton deftly exploiting Trump's utter lack of discipline to cause him to unwittingly transition from attacking her vulnerabilities to fixating on his own.

DEBATE CONCLUSION

Those of us who were disappointed in the proposals of both candidates on immigration found little reason to be reassured by the debate. The candidates were relatively effective in exposing each other's weaknesses, and depressingly inept at making an affirmative case for sound immigration proposals. It can be said that we have learned little of the candidates on immigration that we did not know when I wrote my candidate profiles before the start of the primaries [see blog]. Trump has no consistent set of beliefs on immigration, and is an extremely shallow thinker on the actual issues. Clinton has gradually become more and more liberal on immigration for political expedience, to the point where she now seems to have virtually no interest in enforcing the laws at all. Trump offers the slight hope that he would appoint effective immigration administrators and let them do their jobs, but evokes the strong fear that his complete ignorance of public policy could actually make our immigration system worse. Clinton would clearly only support new enforcement measures in conjunction with legalization, so the best case scenario in her case would be that she shows more of an interest in enforcing the laws that we have, and whatever new laws are passed, than she has indicated in the campaign. To see my assessment of the risk/reward analysis with the two candidates, please see my blog on the depressing state of this election [see blog].

OTHER NOTES

In my last post in the series [see blog], I discussed alternative candidates to Clinton and Trump. There, I noted that one of these candidates, Evan McMullin, appeared to have a chance to carry Utah. Since the publication of that article, two polls seem to have further confirmed McMullin's strong position in the state [link].[2] A poll from Emerson taken October 17-19 had McMullin in the lead in Utah 31-27 over Trump, with Clinton in third at 24%. A poll taken from October 12-18 by UtahPolicy/Dan Jones had Trump ahead of McMullin 30-29, with Clinton in third at 25%. As I noted in my previous posts, the mere fact that McMullin has a chance to carry Utah, where the Republican nominee carried the state by 48 and 28 in 2012 and 2008 respectively, shows Trump's inherent weakness in the election more than anything else. However, while Utah is unlikely to change the election, the race there between Trump and McMullin offers an interesting and unusual subplot.

CONCLUSION

Barring any dramatic events, I will look to focus my last couple of posts in this series on down ballot races and pressing immigration issues through a different lens than the Presidential election. It is likely safe to say that we will not learn anything new about Clinton and Trump on immigration before the election, and given the current polling trends, the fate of immigration policy may hinge more on the elections for the U.S. Senate and House than on the Presidential race.

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. Politico Staff, “Full transcript: Third 2016 presidential debate,” politico.com, Oct. 20, 2016
2. RealClear Politics, “Utah: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein vs. McMullin,” realclearpolitics.com, (retrieved Oct. 25, 2016)

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

Minor Party Candidates Part Two / Election Issues and Immigration #11: Examining the Minor Party Candidates on Immigration

INTRODUCTION: MINOR PARTY CANDIDATES AND IMMIGRATION

With the high unfavorable ratings of both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, many voters have come to the conclusion that neither deserves their votes for President. While some voters may stay home or leave the Presidential line on their ballots blank, others are looking toward minor-party alternatives or contemplating different write-in options entirely. For this reason, I thought that it would be interesting to examine the candidates' public statements and campaign platforms on immigration to provide undecided voters who know who they are voting against a better idea of who they are voting for. I hope that this analysis will give those considering a minor party candidate a better understanding of the candidates' public positions on one of our most pressing national issues. I will cover the following candidates:

• Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party)
• Jill Stein (Green Party)
• Darrell Castle (Constitution Party)
• Evan McMullin (No Affiliation)

I wrote a companion article on some interesting points and election scenarios involving these candidates. Please read that blog to learn more [see blog]. It is important to note that in addition to being able to write-in one of the four above candidates in states where your preferred choice is not on the ballot, one can, in theory, write-in whomever he or she wants for President. Some states will have candidates on the ballot who we do not discuss in this article. For this article, we will focus exclusively on the four minor party candidates with significant ballot access in the upcoming election.

CANDIDATE PROFILES

In the following sections, we will look at the biographies of the most significant minor party candidates before assessing their discernible positions on important immigration issues.

GARY JOHNSON (LIBERTARIAN PARTY)

The Libertarian Party is the only party aside from the Democratic Party and the Republican Party to have ballot access in all fifty states. This means that no matter which state you are voting in, you will find the Libertarian ticket on your ballot.

Interestingly, the Libertarian ticket boasts by far the most executive experience of any ticket in this election. While the Democratic ticket as a former Governor and the Republican ticket has a current Governor as Vice Presidential candidates, the Libertarian ticket has two former two-term Governors. The top of the ticket, Gary Johnson, served two terms as the Governor of New Mexico from 1995-2003. The Vice Presidential candidate, William Weld, served just over a term and a half as Governor of Massachusetts from 1991-1997. Although they now form the Libertarian ticket, both Johnson and Weld were Republicans during their tenures as Governors. For his part, Johnson in fact sought the Republican nomination for President in 2012, before dropping out of the race before the first votes were cast to run as a Libertarian.

The Libertarian ticket has polled the strongest nationally of all of the minor tickets. As of October 15, 2016, the Johnson-Weld ticket is polling at an average of 6.6% in the Real Clear Politics polling average [link]. If the ticket were to garner that much support in the general election, it would be the strongest performance nationally by a minor party ticket since Ross Perot in 1996 and by far the best performance for the Libertarian Party since the Party first fielded a Presidential ticket in 1972. However, despite his relative success, Johnson appears to be less of a threat to win a State than does Evan McMullin, who we will discuss later. Johnson's best chance is likely in his home state of New Mexico, where one poll taken by the Albuquerque Journal from September 27-29 pegged Johnson at a startling 24% of the vote, albeit still well behind Hillary Clinton.[1] The political prognostication blog, FiveThirtyEight, also gives Johnson a slight chance to impress in Alaska, where there is very limited polling data available.[2]

SAMPLING OF NOTEWORTHY ENDORSEMENTS[3]

• Republican U.S. Representative Scott Rigell (VA-2)
• Andrew Napolitano (former Judge and Fox News analyst)
• Marvin Bush (businessman and brother of George W. Bush and Jeb Bush)
• The Chicago Tribune

IMMIGRATION

While Johnson and Weld are both former Republican Governors, their immigration proposals are in some cases to the left of Hillary Clinton's. This point becomes less surprising once one takes into account that the Libertarian Party, as opposed to many with certain libertarian inclinations, is broadly supportive of open borders and amnesty.

Gary Johnson's campaign website [link] focuses little on immigration. Johnson correctly opposes Trump's border wall, suggesting correctly that it would do little more than “increase the size of the ladders.” However, Johnson then opposes “militarizing” the border. While I have not heard for many calling for border “militarization,” border security is an important prerequisite to legalization, which Johnson broadly supports. Johnson's glib comment on border security betrays his lack of interest in ensuring that our immigration laws are enforced. Johnson then motions toward positive immigration reform such as prioritizing work visas, incentivizing the payment of taxes by noncitizens, and promoting assimilation into American society, but he does not offer any specifics for what these reforms should look like in practice.

In a CNN op-ed criticizing Trump's admittedly incoherent immigration proposals, Johnson betrayed serious problems in his own view of the issues.[4] Like Clinton, Johnson supports comprehensive legalization without first prioritizing immigration enforcement [see blog]. Furthermore, while Johnson is correct to highlight how flaws in our immigration system make it counter-productively difficult for many people of good will with valuable skills to enter or remain legally in the United States, he attempts to justify those who enter or stay in violation of our laws because of these flaws. Johnson only sees half of the issue when he states that “[t]he way to stop illegal entry is to spend our resources making legal entry efficient for people coming here for the right reasons.” To be sure, making our immigration system more effective and efficient is both something that would be to the benefit of the United States and that would serve to curb illegal immigration. However, Johnson completely ignores enforcement of the immigration laws, which is the necessary other half of this equation. We see why when Johnson proposes eliminating all “caps … categories … quotas.” Johnson's concept of immigration lacks any focus on determining the specific types of immigrants that we want to admit for specific reasons. While I have my issues with Clinton regarding immigration, Johnson's support of open borders is indeed several notches to the left of Clinton.

Finally, one of the more troubling aspects of Johnson's “Libertarian” campaign is his reasons for endorsing President Obama's overreaching executive actions on immigration. As I noted in an earlier blog [see blog], Johnson praised the President's attempts to implement DACA-plus and DAPA not only on policy grounds, but also for “challenging Congress to action.” I am quite sure that “challenging Congress to action” is not a legal justification supporting the implementation of policies of questionable legality.

JILL STEIN (GREEN PARTY)

Like Gary Johnson, Jill Stein is a repeat candidate from 2012. The Green Party ticket will appear on the ballot in 45 states, making it easy for most who want to vote for Jill Stein for whatever reason to do so.

Neither Stein nor her running-mate, Amanju Baraka, has any experience in elective office. Stein is a practicing physician who has questioned the safety of vaccines[5] and the supports those who argued in favor of the supposed danger of Wi-Fi on the brains of children.[6] She ran for numerous offices in Massachusetts, but is most known for her Presidential run in 2012. Her running-mate, “human rights activist” Ajamu Baraka, blamed Battaglin Massacre not on the Islamic State terrorists who perpetrated it, but on France for their “crimes against Arabs, Muslims, and Africans.”[7] If that were not perplexing enough, he has associated extensively with Kevin Barrett, a noted Holocaust denier and 9/11-truther (Baraka has subsequently stated that he disavows Holocaust denial).[8]

As of October 15, 2016, Real Clear Politics has Jill Stein at 2.3% nationally in its polling average [link]. Although Stein is not remotely in contention in any state, 2.3% would be the second best performance ever by a Green Party candidate, behind only Ralph Nader's 2.74% in 2000. However, it is worth noting that Stein's inclusion in national polls may be slightly misleading in that she does not have ballot access in all 50 states.

IMMIGRATION

Stein's campaign website speaks little of immigration other than supporting legalization. In an interview with Vox, Stein took the position that our “immigration crisis” is caused by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the war on drugs in Mexico.[9] Furthermore, she claimed that the Central American migrant crisis derives from our supporting “corporate coups” in Central America. In the same interview, Stein noted a “real downside” to temporary work visas, and she expressed support for “full citizenship for immigrants who have been here.” Unfortunately there was no follow-up question regarding her definitions of “full citizenship” (as opposed to partial citizenship?) and “immigrants.”

Like Clinton and Johnson, Stein disagreed with the Supreme Court failure to reverse the preliminary injunction against DAPA [link]. In this statement on her website, Stein called for “halting deportations” as well as passing the DREAM Act and a path to citizenship.

In short, Stein provides wacky immigration policies for those who finds proposals by both Hillary Clinton and Gary Johnson a bit too Draconian. For those drawn to her immigration platform, she and her running-mate have even more peculiar — and at times disturbing — views on the role of government and on foreign affairs in general.

DARRELL CASTLE (CONSTITUTION PARTY)

The Constitution Party ticket will appear on the ballot in twenty-three states, meaning many Americans will have to write Darrell Castle in in order to cast a vote for him [link]. Neither Castle nor his running-mate, Scott Bradley, have ever served in elected office. For his part, Castle is a veteran of the Vietnam War and a personal injury attorney in Tennessee. Both Castle and Bradley have served in various capacities in the Constitution Party. Castle was the Party's Vice Presidential nominee in 2008, and his running-mate, Scott Bradley, won 5.7% of the vote in the U.S. Senate election in Utah in 2010 [link].[10]

Castle has not been polled nationally and does not appear to have significant support in any state. Unless a state where Castle is on the ballot is decided by a razor-thin margin, it is exceedingly unlikely that his presence in the race will leave any mark on the election.

Castle earned the notable endorsement of national radio-host and anti-Trump conservative, Glenn Beck.[11]

IMMIGRATION

Castle appears to take a hard line on immigration enforcement. Although he says little on immigration relative to other points in his platform, Castle calls for stopping immigration completely “until the borders are secure.”[12] His peculiar campaign call is based on what he characterizes as the Federal Government's constitutional duty to “protect the states from invasion.” Castle states that once border security has been achieved and when we know “who is coming and why,” “we can admit as many people as we want.” On those who are here illegally, Castle opposes granting “asylum” (amnesty?) to those who are here illegally. However, unlike Trump at times, Castle states that he would not “deport them wholesale.” While Castle opposes mass deportations, he is also categorically opposed to any legalization program under any circumstances.

While Castle is right in principle on the need to secure the border, his statement that all immigration should be shut down in the interim is arguably even more ridiculous than Trump's statements on the issue. Besides a total embargo being counterproductive to the U.S. interest, Castle fails to understand the role of positive immigration reform in creating a system of immigration laws that will lead to less illegal immigration. Given that this is Castle's starting point, one has to wonder what he would define as “securing the border” or policies for “admitting as many people as we want.” From his limited statements in this election, it is hard to see good cause to vote for Castle on the basis of his immigration proposals. However, if we could split the difference between Castle and Johnson, we would potentially be onto something promising.

EVAN MCMULLIN (NO AFFILIATION)

Finally, last but certainly not least, we find Evan McMullin. McMullin, a registered Republican, was recruited by a group of anti-Trump Republicans to provide disaffected conservatives with an alternative. The 40-year old McMullin has no electoral experience, but he describes an interesting path to his candidacy on his campaign website [link]. McMullin served as a CIA operative for a decade, worked at Goldman Sachs, and was the chief policy director of the House Republican Conference. His running mate, Mindy Finn, is a Republican political operative from Texas who worked on Mitt Romney's 2012 campaign.

Despite only being listed on the ballot in eleven states, McMullin has arguably the best chance of having a marked effect on the election. As I discuss in my companion blog [see section], two recent polls in Utah indicate that McMullin has a legitimate chance to be the first candidate not running as a Democrat or Republican to carry a state since 1968. Evan McMullin is listed as an official write-in candidate in many states where he did not make the ballot.

SAMPLING OF NOTABLE ENDORSEMENTS[13]

• Erick Erickson (Editor of the Resurgent)
• Jonah Goldberg (Columnist at the National Review)
• Bill Kristol (Editor of the Weekly Standard)

Additionally, McMullin has stated that he is receiving counsel on national security issues from retired general and former head of the National Security Agency, Michael Hayden.[14]

IMMIGRATION

After examining the immigration platforms of Clinton, Trump, Johnson, Stein, and Castle, reading the principles for immigration reform set forth by McMullin is nothing short of a breath of fresh air. McMullin's platform conveys an understanding of the important concepts needed for effective immigration reform that recalls many of my preferred candidates in the Republican Primary [see blog]. You may find McMullin's immigration platform here [link].

McMullin provides effective critiques of the excesses of both Clinton and Trump on immigration. With regard to Clinton, he attacks her for “[making] clear that securing the border first is not a requirement for moving forward with her agenda.” As you will find, this is one of my main issues with Clinton's immigration proposals [see blog]. Regarding Trump, McMullin notes Trump's “hateful and divisive rhetoric” (which is counterproductive to improving immigration enforcement even without taking into account its toxicity), plans to build a wall across the entire border, and statements suggesting that he would deport every person in the United States illegally.

Regarding immigration enforcement, McMullin suggests increasing the number of Border Patrol agents, investing in new technologies on the border, and completing limited walls and fences in strategic areas where they are already being built. McMullin proposes mandating the use of E-Verify nationwide and opposes President Obama's “executive amnesties” that are known as DACA and DAPA. To be sure, I would like to see more details from McMullin. For example, he does not address the myriad flaws with E-Verify [see blog] or give a picture of how he would address overstays beyond improved employment verification.

With regard to the disposition of those who are here illegally, McMullin proposes earned legalization after the border is secured. Such legalization would require registration, an application with a fee and a fine, a background check, and testing in English proficiency. After obtaining legalization, persons would have to maintain status for “several years” before applying for permanent residency. McMullin does not state how long a person who was granted legalization would have to maintain status before applying for permanent residency.

While McMullin's plan lacks in details, he shows a clear understanding of the general principles. Legalization is ultimately necessary, but it must come after improved border security and enforcement and not incentivize further violations of immigration law. That McMullin understands these basic principles is more than can be said of any of his opponents in the race, at the very least.

On reforming legal immigration, McMullin again provides solid principles while admittedly lacking in detail. McMullin argues — correctly — that our immigration system “mistakenly prioritizes the reunification of extended families” over bringing “[t]he best and the brightest from all over the world … to live and work in America.” McMullin suggests that immigration reform must reorient our immigration system to more emphasize attracting highly skilled workers with necessary skills over family reunification, which often attracts lower-skilled workers who compete with American workers who are also less skilled. Again, while I would certainly want to hear much more on McMullin's specific proposals, he understands one of the fundamental flaws in our immigration system as it is currently constituted.

However, McMullin did not properly appreciate the risk of the Syrian refugee program given the unique security situation in Syria and the deficiencies of our refugee vetting system.[15]

Of the choices available in 2016, it seems quite possible, if not likely, that McMullin is the deepest thinker on immigration issues. This is just a cursory summary of his stated positions from his website, and it is possible he has gone into more detail already in other forums. One would have to think that given his experience as a top policy adviser to the House Republican Caucus, he may have some interesting proposals based on the principles enunciated in his campaign platform.

CONCLUSION

Whether one should consider one of the minor party candidates depends on a careful evaluation of the two major party candidates and the stakes involved in this election. Nevertheless, it has been interesting looking at some surface materials on their immigration platforms. For those looking for alternative voices in this terrible election season, McMullin seems worth the consideration the voters of Utah are giving him, regardless of one ultimately intends to vote for him.

To read more of my posts on immigration issues and the November elections, please see my series of blog posts on the subject [see blog].

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. Coleman, Michael, “Clinton, Trump in tight race in New Mexico,” abqjournal.com, (Oct. 2, 2016)
2. Silver, Nate, “Election Update: The Craziest End To The 2016 Campaign Runs Through New Mexico,” fivethirtyeight.com, (Oct. 2, 2016)
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Gary_Johnson_presidential_campaign_endorsements,_2016
4. Johnson, Gary, “Gary Johnson: Build a better immigration system, not a wall,” cnn.com, (Aug. 29, 2016)
5. Weigel, David, “Jill Stein on vaccines: People have 'real questions,'” washingtonpost.com, (Jul. 29, 2016)
6. Doanvo, Anhvinh, “Jill Stein: The liberal pseudo scientific demagogue,” thehill.com, (Aug. 5, 2016)
7. Resnick, Gideon, “The Wild Beliefs of Ajamu Baraka, Jill Stein's Green Party Running Mate,” thedailybeast.com (Oct. 17, 2016)
8. Jewish Times, “US Green Party VP pick disavows Holocaust denial,” timesofisrael.com, (Aug. 16, 2016)
9. Stein, Jeff, “A conversation with Jill Stein: what the Green Party candidate believes,” vox.com, (Sep. 14, 2016)
10. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Utah,_2010
11. Wright, Susan, “Glenn Beck Turns Disappointment Into A Third Party Vote,” redstate.com, (Oct. 11, 2016)
12. Wright, Susan, “Constitution Party Candidate Darrell Castle In His Own Words,” redstate.com, (Aug. 13, 2016)
13. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evan_McMullin_presidential_campaign,_2016
14. Kornbluh, Jacob, “Interview with Evan McMullin: 'Time for something new,'” jewishjournal.com, (Aug. 30, 2016)
15. Allahpundit, “Evan McMullin: I support a path to legalization for illegals once the border is secure,” redstate.com, (Aug. 16, 2016)

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

What is EB4

What is the EB4 Special Immigrant Category?

The employment-based fourth preference (EB4) category is an immigrant visa preference category for “special immigrants.”  A person may apply for lawful permanent resident (LPR) status in the EB4 category if he or she meets the requirements for status as a special immigrant.  The EB4 category is cap-subject, meaning that there are only a limited number of immigrant visa numbers in the EB4 category available for allotment each fiscal year.  In order to file for an immigrant visa as an EB4 special immigrant, an individual must have the Form I-360, Petition for Ameraisan, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant, filed on his or her behalf.  The Form I-360 instructions contained detailed information on the requirements for status in the various special immigrant categories.

In this article, we will provide a brief overview of the various types of employment-based “special immigrants” who are eligible for EB4 Green Cards.

1. Special Immigrant Religious Workers

Certain foreign religious workers are eligible for EB4 classification under section 101(a)(27)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).  The EB4 visa application must have been a member of a bona fide nonprofit religious organization in the United States for at least the two years preceding the application for admission into the United States.  The alien must seek entry solely in order to carry on the vocation of a minister in the religious denomination.  Furthermore, the alien must be entering to work in a full-time salaried position with the petitioning organization.  Only 5,000 EB4 Green Cards for special immigrant religious workers may be allocated each year.  The 5,000 cap does not apply to ministers.

2. Employees of the U.S. Government Abroad

Under section 101(a)(27)(D), certain employees or honorably retired employees of the U.S. Government abroad or of the American Institute in Taiwan may be eligible for EB4 classification. The principle beneficiaries spouse and children may also be eligible for EB4 classification.  In order to qualify as an EB4 special immigrant, the employee must have served in his or her position for fifteen years or more.  He or she must also have the recommendation of an officer of the Foreign Service establishment or of the Director of the American Institute of Taiwan, whichever is appropriate.  Finally, the Secretary of State must approve the granting of status.

3. Panama Canal Zone Employees Before October 1, 1979

Under section 101(a)(27)(E)-(G), an individual who was an employee of the Panama Canal Company or Canal Zone Government prior to October 1, 1979, and who was a resident in the Panama Canal Zone on April 1, 1979, and who performed faithful service as such an employee for one year or more may be eligible for EB4 classification.

Certain individuals who were employed by the U.S. Government in the Canal Zone and subsequently retired may also be eligible for EB4 classification.  Such an individual must have served at least 15 years before October 1, 1979, performed 15 years or more of faithful service, and have been honorably retired from such employment or continues to work for the U.S. Government in the Canal Zone.

Finally, an individual who was an employee of the Panama Canal Company or Canal Zone Government before April 1, 1979, and who performed faithful service as an employee for five years or more may be eligible for EB4 classification.  In such a case, it must be found that the individual’s personal safety, or the personal safety of his or her spouse or children, was reasonably placed in danger because of the special nature of such employment.

4. Physicians

Under section 101(a)(27)(H) of the INA, certain physicians are eligible for EB4 Green Cards.  The physician must have graduated from medical school or have qualified to practice medicine in a foreign state, have been fully and permanently licensed to practice medicine in a U.S. state by January 9, 1978, have entered the United States in H or J status before January 10, 1978, and have been continuously present in the United States in the practice or study of medicine since the date of such entry.

5. Long-Term International Organization Employees and Family

Under section 101(a)(27)(I) of the INA, certain long-term international organization employees and derivatives are eligible for EB4 classification.

The statute extends status to certain children of G4 employees who maintained nonimmigrants status in the United States for at least 7 years between the ages of 5 and 21, resided in the United States for at least one-half of those 7 years, and file for status before reaching the age of 25.

The surviving spouse of an officer or employee of an international organization who resided in the United States in G4 or N status for at least 15 years in the aggregate, have maintained G4 or N nonimmigrant status for at least one half of the 7 years preceding the filing of the petition, and filed the Form I-1360 within six months of the death of the spouse may be eligible for EB4 classification.

Certain retired G4 officers may be eligible for EB4 classification.  Such an officer must have resided and been physically present in the United States for at least one-half of the seven years immediately prior to filing the petition for an immigrant visa, and must have been physically present in the United States for at least 15 years in the aggregate prior to retirement.

Finally, under section 101(a)(27)(L), a NATO-6 employee and his or her spouse may be treated similarly to G4 employees in very limited cases.  In order for this to hold, the NATO-6 employee must be the member of a civilian component accompanying a force in accordance with the provisions of a NATO Status-of-Forces Agreement, or must be a NATO-6 employee of a civilian component attached to or employed by an Allied Headquarters under the “Protocol on the Status of International Military Headquarters.”

6. Service in the Armed Services

Certain persons who served honorably in active duty in the United States after October 15, 1978, and after original lawful enlistment outside the United States (under treaty or agreement in effect on October 1, 1991) may be eligible for EB4 classification.  A person can either be eligible if he or she served for 12 years and if separated, was separated only under honorable conditions, or if he or she served 6 years, remains on active duty, and has reenlisted to incur a total active duty service obligation of at least 12 years.  The spouse or child of such an applicant may apply to accompany or follow to join the principle, but only if the executive department under which the principle serves or serves recommends that the spouse or child be granted a visa as a special immigrant.

7. Broadcasters

Under section 101(a)(27)(M) of the INA, certain broadcasters may be eligible for EB4 classification. The broadcaster must seek to enter the United States to work as a broadcaster in the United States for the International Broadcaster Bureau of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, or for a grantee of the Broadcasting Board of Governors.  The principle’s spouse or children are also eligible for EB4 classification.

In general, this provision applies for reporters, writers, translators, editors, producers or announcers for U.S. news broadcasts, or for analysists or those who provide editorial coverage for such broadcasts.

Only 100 immigrant visas for EB4 special immigrant broadcasters may be allocated each fiscal year.

8. Afghan/Iraqi Translators

Certain Iraqi and Afghan translators who meet certain requirements are eligible for EB4 classification.  Only 50 such visas may be allocated each fiscal year.

The program is available to Iraqi or Afghani national who worked directly with the U.S. Armed forces or Chief of Mission Authority for a period of 12 months during the conflicts in Iraq or Afghanistan respectively.  Several recommendations are required for the translator to be eligible for EB4 classification.  The spouse or children of such a translator are eligible for EB4 classification.

9. Afghan/Iraqi Nationals Who Provided Support to U.S. Operations

Certain Afghan and Iraqi nationals who provided faithful and valuable service to the United States for one year or more during the Afghan and Iraqi conflicts may be eligible for EB4 classification.

An Afghan national may be eligible if he or she was employed in Afghanistan for a period of at least two years between October 7, 2001, and December 31, 2016, by or on behalf of the U.S. Government, the International Security Assistance Force, or a successor mission that required the individual to serve as an interpreter or translator for U.S. military personnel or to perform sensitive and trusted activities for such personnel.  The applicant must have provided faithful and valuable service to the U.S. Government, International Security Assistance Task Force, or a successor mission, and this must be documented in a letter of recommendation.  Finally, the applicant must be experiencing ongoing and serious threats as a result of such employment.

An Iraqi national may be eligible if he or she was employed by or on behalf of the U.S. Government in Iraq on or after March 20, 2003, but prior to September 30, 2013.  Such employment must have been for at least one year or more.  The applicant must have provided faithful and valuable service to the U.S. Government, and such service must be documented in a letter of recommendation from the applicant’s supervisor.  The applicant must be experiencing an ongoing and serious threat as a consequence of such employment.  Applications for EB4 classification for Iraqi nationals are still being processed, but can no longer be accepted.

Conclusion

The EB4 preference category contains a variety of special immigrant categories by which one can qualify for a Green Card.  Persons seeking immigrant status in the United States are well-advised to consult with an experienced immigration attorney for a full case evaluation.

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

Resources and materials:

Alexander J Segal - "EB4 Visa Category - Special Immigrants", "EB4 Special Immigrant Classification for Long-Term International Organization Employees and Family"

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com