Over 27,000 Visa Applications Denied in 2018 Due to "Travel Ban"

On February 26, 2019, Reuters reported that the Department of State (DOS) refused more than 37,000 visa applications in 2018 under President Donald Trump's Presidential Proclamation 9645, colloquially known as the “travel ban.”[1] DOS denied 21,645 applications for nonimmigrant visas and 15,384 applications for immigrant visas in 2018 under the travel ban. The DOS granted approximately 2,200 waivers of the entry restrictions for nationals from affected countries.

The 37,000 denials marked a dramatic increase from 2017, when only 1,000 visa applications were denied under previous iterations of the ban. The increase corresponds with the Supreme Court of the United States' decision in Trump v. Hawaii, which upheld the travel ban in Presidential Proclamation 9645 in its entirety. Reuters notes that the number of visas issued to nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen in 2018 were down approximately 80 percent from 2016.

It is clear that Presidential Proclamation 9645 is being implemented in a way that creates a high bar for those from affected countries seeking to overcome the entry restrictions. Individuals from these countries seeking visas in affected categories should consult with an experienced immigration attorney for case-specific guidance. To learn more, please see our full articles on the “travel ban” [see article] and the opinion of the Court in Trump v. Hawaii [see article].

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

1. Torbati, Yeganeh. “U.S. denied tens of thousands more visas in 2018 due to travel ban: data.” Reuters. Feb. 26, 2019. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-ban/u-s-denied-tens-of-thousands-more-visas-in-2018-due-to-travel-ban-data-idUSKCN1QF2KF

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

USCIS Contact Center Experiencing Higher Than Normal Wait Times

On February 25, 2019, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) advised customers that the USCIS Contact Center is experiencing higher than normal wait times for callers to speak to a USCIS representative [PDF version].

The USCIS states that it is working to resolve the issue of long wait times for customers calling the USCIS Contact Center. In the interim, the USCIS advises customers to use self-service applicant tools on the USCIS website where applicable. These tools include, but are not limited to, USCIS online accounts, the Case Status Online tool, the Change of Address tool, and the USCIS's online virtual assistant (“Emma”).

Those who cannot resolve inquiries through use of the USCIS's self-service applicant tools may call the USCIS Contact Center at 800-375-5283 (TTY 800-767-1833). The USCIS Contact Center has representatives available from 8 AM to 8 PM from Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays.

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 Reaches H2B Cap for Second Half of FY-2019

On February 22, 2019, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that it received enough H2B petitions to meet the H2B cap for the second half of fiscal year 2019 [PDF version]. February 19, 2019, was the final receipt date for H2B petitions requesting an employment start date before October 1, 2019. Accordingly, the USCIS will reject any new cap-subject H2B petitions requesting an employment start date before October 1, 2019.

The USCIS received petitions for more potential H2B beneficiaries than the total number of remaining available H2B visas for the second half of fiscal year 2019. Accordingly, the USCIS conducted an H2B lottery to select from those petitions enough to meet the fiscal year 2019 H2B cap. The USCIS assigned all H2B petitions selected in the H2B lottery a receipt date of February 22, 2019. The USCIS also began premium process service [see article] for H2B petitions selected in the H2B lottery on that date.

Notwithstanding the USCIS's meeting the H2B cap for the second half of fiscal year 2019, the USCIS will continue to accept H2B petitions that are not subject to the H2B cap. For example, current H2B workers who are petitioning for an extension of stay and (if applicable) a change of the terms of employment or change of employer are not subject to the H2B cap. Certain petitions for fish roe processors, fish roe technicians, and supervisors of fish roe processing are not subject to the H2B cap. Finally, H2B petitions in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and Guam are, under specific rules, not subject to the H2B cap from November 29, 2009, through December 31, 2029.

To learn about which countries are eligible to participate in the H2B program in 2019, please see our full article on the subject [see article].

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

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

Imprecise Language and the Immigration Debate

In this post, I will examine an interesting op-ed by Donna Locke published in the Tennessean titled “Trump goes after illegal entrants to U.S., not all immigrants” [PDF version][1].

There is much in Locke's post with which I disagree. For example, Locke seems to advocate for “immigration control” based in part on the fact that the population would grow for many years even with no immigration at all. Readers of my blog will note that while I am a proponent of effective enforcement of our immigration laws [see blog], I am also a strong supporter of legal immigration as a force that is in the national benefit [see blog].

However, while I disagree with Locke on many particulars, she makes an important point with which I agree regarding the effect of language on the immigration debate. She takes issue with terminology from the media and from those who support laxer immigration laws to “blur the distinctions between legal and illegal” in the immigration context.

Locke notes that many outlets refer to those in the United States illegally as “immigrants.” The issue with this is that an “immigrant” is someone who is in the United States with legal authorization, specifically, an alien who is lawfully admitted for permanent residence. Immigrants are distinguished from other classes of aliens who are in the United States legally — such as nonimmigrants and parolees. Under no circumstance is an individual who illegally entered or illegally remained the United States or who for whatever reason lost his or her legal status an “immigrant.”

To describe individuals in the United States illegally as “immigrants” implies “bias,” as Locke notes. It is important to remember — especially for those who frequent our website and are interested in the immigration laws — that the vast majority of people are exceedingly unfamiliar with the technicalities of U.S. immigration law. This is why describing those who are here illegally as “immigrants” has a tendency to sway the immigration debate. It is likely that, to laymen, reading about President Trump (or any other president) deporting “immigrants” sounds quite different than President Trump deporting an “illegal alien” or someone who is in the United States without legal authorization. Of course, an “immigrant” is only subject to removal on specified grounds, whereas someone who is in the country illegally is subject to removal based on the fact that he or she is in the country illegally. Locke also noted the bizarre push to stop using the term “alien.” The term alien is not sinister at all; it is simply the technical term in immigration law for referring to those who are not citizens or nationals of the United States.

Using precise language is not callous, but in fact necessary in many cases. I have represented countless clients who faced removal for being in the United States illegally for one reason or another. Effective representation begins with understanding the laws and the situation. This certainly does not involve pretending that a client, who is without status and removable is, in fact an immigrant in good standing under the immigration laws.

In order to improve the system of immigration laws, it is in the best interest of everyone to have an honest debate about immigration. An honest debate about immigration involves people who actually understand what they are debating. This in turn supports the notion that the terms we use should reflect the reality of the immigration laws, not the opinions of one side of a many-sided debate. Save for open borders advocates, it is in the best interests of everyone to actually distinguish between those who are here legally and illegally, and to further distinguish within those categories on the basis of legal status and how and when people came to be here illegally.

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. Locke, Donna. “Trump goes after illegal entrants to U.S., not all immigrants.” Tennessean. Aug. 10, 2017. Tennessean.com

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com