Immigration Visa Lawyer Blog

President Obama proposed to eliminate country-specific caps for certain immigrant visa categories to stimulate small-business growth. Country-specific immigrant caps are limits on the number of immigrant visa the United States will grant each year. According to a White House statement, the purpose is to attract more high skilled foreign workers, including entrepreneurs to the United States. Employers, especially those in the technology business, complain that these caps prevent them from hiring skilled workers and growing their companies in the United States.

Obama called for a comprehensive immigration reform bill, and if this is not politically possible, he will seek reforms in smaller steps. "If election-year politics keeps Congress from acting on a comprehensive plan, let's at least agree to stop expelling responsible young people who want to staff our labs, start new businesses and defend this country," Obama said.

The Department of Homeland Security said it will implement several measures to simplify the process for immigrant entrepreneurs to do business in the United States, and also to keep more foreign nationals with science and technology degrees from U.S. universities.

Obama said the proposal was a "symbol of how important it is for us to spur entrepreneurship, to help start-ups, to move aggressively so that we can ensure more companies that create most jobs in our economy are getting a leg up from various programs that we have in our government."

Opponents of Obama's plan point to the high unemployment rate in the United States and question why the government would be extending nonimmigrant visas for highly skilled workers while many US citizens and permanent residents are unemployed and are seeking those jobs.

Obama told reporters on Tuesday that he expects Congress to pass a bill this year. However, some members of Congress are likely to oppose the proposal.

Missouri may join the list of states with their own immigration laws that rival the federal government's traditional enforcement role. A bill introduced in the Missouri Legislature by Republican State Senator Will Kraus would require state and local law enforcement to check the immigration status of anyone stopped by police with reasonable cause. The law would also make it a misdemeanor not to carry documentation of citizenship. These provisions are similar to the laws passed in Arizona and Alabama. The Missouri bill would also require school officials to verify students' immigration status. This has led to much criticism that the law would damage education and cause extensive racial profiling and harassment of children.

Laws currently on the books in Arizona and Alabama also make state and local law enforcement responsible for checking immigration statuses if they have reasonable suspicion that a person may not have legal status. Since immigration status is determined based on federal law, and immigration laws are principally enforced by federal agencies, this has created a conflict between state and federal law enforcement. Local police may not have the particular training and expertise to enforce federal immigration laws and regulations. Immigration regulations change on a regular basis. The state laws have also raised concerns that local police will engage in racial profiling, targeting individuals who, in essence, do not look "American."

Missouri's proposed law would add another layer to the confusion by putting school administrators and perhaps even teachers in the middle of the fray. Many immigrants and immigration attorneys know that immigration status is often not as simple as having a card or piece of paper. Federal law provides a vast number of forms of legal immigration status, and people who do not deal primarily with these issues may not know all of the available options.

Senator Kraus has stated that his bill was motivated by an effort to determine what "illegal immigration" costs the state, and whether Missouri could claim reimbursement from the federal government for its efforts in enforcing immigration law. He says that the bill would require the state's Board of Education to collect data and determine the cost to the state of educating undocumented immigrants. This is of course different from the cost of immigration enforcement. The United States Supreme Court has long held that children, regardless of immigration status, have a right to an education through the public school system. States have contributed to the cost of immigration enforcement in some ways. Cook County, Illinois, for example, recently addressed the issue of the cost of local cooperation with immigration detainers sent by federal officials, a story we covered in this immigration blog.

Continue reading "New Proposed Law Would Require Schools to Verify Students' Immigration Status" »

What types of cases will qualify for prosecutorial discretion in Ohio?

At the Ohio AILA Chapter monthly meeting in December 2011 with Ohio Immigration lawyers, Immigration and Customs Enforceemnt ("ICE") Deputy Chief Counsel Victoria Christian discussed how the Cleveland office is applying prosecutorial discretion for respondents in removal proceedings. The Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") will consider exercising prosecutorial discretion only in the most sympathetic humanitarian cases. Top priority cases, high enforcement cases, and even borderline cases, will not be considered for prosecutorial discretion and will proceed to hearing. Cases involving detention are still a top priority for DHS and are not considered for prosecutorial discretion.

What is the most likely form of prosecutorial discretion that DHS will apply?

The form of prosecutorial discretion being applied in most cases is to stop removal proceedings by administrative closure. When a case is administratively closed, it is not dismissed or terminated. Rather, the case is postponed indefinitely. However, DHS will consider termination without prejudice and remanding to USCIS or motions to reopen in cases where a person becomes eligible for an immigration benefit, such as adjustment of status to permanent residence due to an approved I-130 family-based petition. A respondent may request a continuance in cases where DHS has not yet made a determination, and DHS may be willing to agree to a continuance if the respondent could potentially qualify for administrative closure.

Another form is deferred action, which puts the case on an indefinite delay. If a respondent has a pending relief application such as asylum or non-LPR cancellation, that person may not want to administratively close their case because the relief application may have merit. In this situation, DHS may consider a deferred action request if the respondent agrees to accept a final order of removal. DHS will not consider deferred action requests without a final order of removal.

Which cases will DHS review?

DHS is conducting an affirmative review of every case before the immigration court regarding prosecutorial discretion in the following priority order. New NTA's in non-detained cases are being reviewed by the duty attorney before filing with the court. All individual hearings scheduled within the next six months are being reviewed. All master hearings scheduled within the next six months are being reviewed. Cases before the BIA are not currently being reviewed because DHS states it does not have enough time. Once DHS determines that a case is being reviewed for prosecutorial discretion, DHS will contact the respondent's attorney to request more information or to make an offer to administratively close the case. The offer to administratively close should be responded to promptly since this is a one-time offer.

Continue reading "Application of Prosecutorial Discretion in Ohio" »

Many spouses and children of U.S. citizens qualify for legal immigration status, but are required to file the application overseas at their country of origin because they are unlawfully present in the U.S., also called "entering without inspection." If they were unlawfully present in the U.S. for more than 180 days, and then they go overseas, there is a law that bars them from reentering the U.S. for 3 years. This bar increases to 10 years if the illegal stay is longer than one year. This creates a catch-22 because if they leave the U.S. to apply for legal immigration status, they will be unable to reenter for 3 to 10 years. So, rather than go overseas to apply for legal status, many simply remain unlawfully in the U.S. to avoid being separated from their family for several years.

Many people who would be subject to the 3 or 10 year bar may be eligible for certain hardship waivers to allow them to return to the US after they apply for legal status overseas despite the 3 and 10 year bar. But critics say this process is lengthy and flawed. They are required to remain overseas until the waiver is granted before they can reenter the U.S., which is a process that can take from months to years, and there is no guarantee that the waiver will be granted. Therefore, many do not risk going overseas to apply for the waiver.

Even if a person has a legitimate relationship with a U.S. citizen, and is eligible to apply for legal immigration status, the current immigration law discourages that person from doing so. Instead, the current law actually encourages that person to remain in the United States illegally, or risk long term separation from the family.

Under the proposed rule change, announced today, foreign nationals in this situation could apply for the waiver while still in the United States. Then once the waiver is granted, they could depart and file for legal immigration status overseas at their country of origin, and then reenter the U.S. using the waiver.

This would eliminate the often prolonged wait faced by foreign nationals who are forced to wait overseas, and would encourage applicants to get legal status rather than remain unlawfully. "The goal is to substantially reduce the time that the U.S. citizen is separated from the spouse or child when that separation would yield an extreme hardship," USCIS Director Alejandro Mayorkas said. This streamlined process would eliminate much of the economic and other hardships that result from long separation from the family.

Miriam Mendiola-Martinez, a foreign national of Mexico, filed a lawsuit in Arizona last week against Maricopa County Sheriff, Joseph M. Arpaio alleging that she was mistreated while she was pregnant as an inmate in the Sheriff's jail. She was six months pregnant when she was arrested in 2009 on charges of identity theft. The suit states that her Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by the MCSO's infliction of cruel and unusual punishment, deliberate indifference to her serious medical needs, and disparate treatment. The lawsuit alleges that MCSO and Maricopa Medical Center's unconstitutional policies, practices, acts and omissions, Ms. Mendiola-Martinez suffered immediate and irreparable injury, including physical, psychological and emotional injury and risk of death.

According to the lawsuit, Ms. Mendiola-Martinez was undernourished at the jail due to what jail staff called a "special" pregnancy diet. These pregnancy meals consisted of items such as two slices of bread, two slices of cheese or ham, undistinguishable cooked vegetables, and an occasional piece of fruit. She was also given two small cartons of milk per day. This hardly seems to be enough food for a pregnant woman eating for two.

She was taken to the Maricopa Medical Center by MCSO officers when she began to go into labor. Ms. Mendiola-Martinez gave birth to her son via Cesarean section, and she was not allowed to nurse or even hold her son after he was delivered. Officers put shackles on her feet before and after the surgery, and she was shacked to the hospital bed. Wearing only a hospital gown, Ms. Mendiola-Martinez was forced to walk through the hospital, with her hands and feet shackled. She began to bleed and could do nothing about it. She was not provided with a breast pump to safely and hygienically remove the breast milk she produced while she was separated from her infant son.

When she was discharged from the hospital, Ms. Mendiola-Martinez was not given a wheelchair to assist her, even though she was in great pain and could hardly walk. A deputy took her so quickly from the hospital that she did not receive her pain medication and discharge paperwork. A deputy then chained Ms. Mendiola-Martinez again and forced her to walk back to the nurse's station. Then, while shackled at her hands and ankles, with a bleeding surgery wound, Ms. Mendiola-Martinez was returned to the Estrella Jail.

About September 2008, the Maricopa County jails lost their accreditation from the National Commission on Correctional Health Care. On October 22, 2008, the Honorable Neil V. Wake found that the food given to inmates in the Maricopa County Jails constituted "current and ongoing violation of pretrial detainees' federal right to adequate nutrition."

On December 15, 2011, the United States Department of Justice issued the findings of the investigation it began in June 2008 in a letter addressed to Maricopa County Attorney William Montgomery. In that, letter, the Justice Department stated: "MCSO operates its jails in a manner that discriminates against its limited English proficient ("LEP") Latino inmates. Specifically, we find that MCSO, through the actions of its deputies, detention officers, supervisory staff, and command staff, routinely punishes Latino LEP inmates for failing to understand commands given in English and denies them critical services provided to the other inmates, all in violation of Title VI and its implementing regulations." The Department of Justice also noted: "MCSO fosters and perpetuates discriminatory police and jail practices by failing to operate in accordance with basic policing and correctional practices and by failing to develop and implement policing and correctional safeguards against discrimination in such areas as training, supervision, and accountability systems."

A campaign led by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) intends to educate immigrants, both documented and undocumented, regarding common scams purporting to be legitimate immigration services. The Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law Initiative began in seven U.S. cities including Detroit, and includes advertisements and printed materials in both English and Spanish. Its website has educational materials available in at least fourteen languages. The USCIS has partnered with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) for this campaign. They are also engaging state and local agencies to improve communication and facilitate enforcement of laws prohibiting immigration scams.

USCIS offers a list of common scams targeting immigrants. People using the title "Notario Publico" sometimes rely on a difference in the meaning of that title between the U.S. and Latin American countries in order to lure immigrants from those areas. A "notary public" in the U.S. has basic authority to witness signatures and administer some oaths. In some parts of Latin America, the title refers to someone with lawyer-like credentials and authority, leading some immigrants to incorrectly think they have the authority to render legal services.

Some sophisticated scammers set up websites offering guidance on immigration paperwork with URL's closely resembling official sites. The sites often directly copy design elements of government websites. The telltale sign of a scam website is a fee to download official immigration forms. All official forms are available for free on USCIS's website.

A particularly damaging type of scam involves the Department of State's diversity lottery, which makes 50,000 visas available each year to certain people from countries with low immigration rates. Scam services may claim to be able to help improve someone's chances of being selected in the lottery. Ohio's chapter of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) issued a warning regarding Ohio-based scams targeting applicants for the diversity lottery.

Another scam that may seem obvious to immigration attorneys can ensnare people who do not know about the many changes to federal immigration agencies over the past decade. Scammers claiming to work with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) may prey on immigrants. The INS has not existed since 2003, when it became part of DHS and its functions were divided between USCIS, ICE, and other agencies.

Continue reading "Officials Launch Campaign to Raise Awareness of Immigration Scams" »

The Department of State has issued its Visa Bulletin for December 2011. The new bulletin shows a five month jump in the priority date cutoff in the EB-2 category for foreign nationals born in India and China. Persons in this category with a priority date of March 15, 2008 or earlier are now eligible for immigrant visas. Because of the five month jump, some people in the EB-2 category are now current who may not have been expecting it. Others may be unaware completely. Persons with pending or approved I-140s in the EB-2 category should double check their priority dates and contact the Law Firm of Shihab and Associates with any questions about their current eligibility for lawful permanent residency.

Unfortunately, the EB-3 category for China and India born foreign nationals only advanced one month from the current priority dates in the November 2011 Visa Bulletin. The EB-3 category remains stagnant, with the backlog for Indian born persons now over nine years. Some people with labor certifications qualifying them for EB-3 classification may now have the requisite years of experience or an advanced degree allowing them to now pursue an EB-2 classification. Persons interested a possible "EB-2 upgrade" should contact the Law Firm of Shihab and Associates for a consultation to see if they qualify.

Sometimes extreme situations can lead to immigration benefits that might not have otherwise been available. Last Friday, October 21, saw just such a situation, as reported in the Columbus Dispatch. A Cleveland immigration judge granted legal permanent residence, often known as a "green card," to parents of a chronically ill teenager on humanitarian grounds. The teenager, born with a severely disabling set of birth defects, will turn eighteen soon and needs a guardian. Rather than risk deportation and the loss of their daughter, who is a United States citizen, the parents turned themselves in and petitioned the court to allow them to stay to care for her.

Jimmy Siglos and Rowena Gonzales came to the United States in 1992 on visitor's visas from the Phillipines. They settled in he Columbus, Ohio area and never left, even after their visas expired in 1993. Their daughter, Jacky, was born in Ohio in 1994, making her a natural-born U.S. citizen. They feared that she would die if they returned to their country of origin. They have an 8 year-old daughter as well.

Jacky suffers from CHARGE syndrome, a rare series of birth defects caused by a genetic disorder. It affects the heart, eyes, ears, nose, and other organs and can lead to permanent disability. It frequently results in children born deaf and blind, and it can cause life-threatening complications in children.

Jacky will turn eighteen in February 2012. She will require a court-appointed guardian to manage her affairs. Once disabled persons who are unable to care for themselves becomes adults, their parents legally lose their right to manage their financial and medical affairs. The disabled person has all the legal rights of any adult, but the system of guardianship allows for a competent adult to take over certain issues for the person. This requires court approval and ongoing monitoring by the court to ensure that the guardian acts in the person's best interest. Jacky's parents were not eligible for appointment as her guardians because of their undocumented immigration status. Rather than risk Jacky becoming a ward of the state, they turned themselves in to immigration authorities in January 2011.

Continue reading "Parents of Sick Teenager Get Green Cards" »

A federal court of appeals blocked some parts of Alabama's controversial new immigration law last week, but much of the law remains in effect. While this law only applies in the state of Alabama, it has influenced lawmakers and immigration reformers all over the country. Alabama's law pits the federal government, which has authority over immigration matters under the U.S. Constitution, against a state government seeking its own reform. The outcome of this dispute, and the enactment and enforcement of the Alabama law, will have nationwide impact on immigration matters.

The law affects many aspects of government operations, including law enforcement, education, and the civil court system. It also saddles Alabama law enforcement with a duty to check people's immigration statuses, and at times to determine whether a person is present in the United States legally. As any immigration attorney knows, this is a difficult determination to make, and law enforcement without specialized training in immigration laws may not be in the best position to do so. The Obama administration took Alabama to court to challenge its legal ability to legislate immigration matters, arguing that the Constitution grants that power exclusively to the federal government. A ruling from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta last week gave partial victories to each side of the dispute.

The court's ruling blocks some of the law's more controversial provisions, but leaves many more in place. The court will review the constitutional questions presented in the case and make a more thorough ruling later. The court blocked the section requiring state officials to check the immigration status of public school students. It also blocked a provision creating a misdemeanor offense for immigrants who willfully fail "to complete or carry an alien registration card," something critics described as allowing law enforcement to demand papers from people they suspect of being undocumented, with few guidelines on how to make that determination.

Provisions of the law remaining in force include one that requires law enforcement, during lawful stops or arrests, to try to determine a person's immigration status if they suspect the person is undocumented. Another provision still in force bars state courts from enforcing contracts that involve undocumented immigrants, and another makes it a felony for undocumented immigrants to enter into "business transactions" in the state. This last provision may make it illegal for someone to apply for a driver's license or even to hook up utility services.

Continue reading "Appeals Court Blocks Portions of Controversial Alabama Immigration Law" »

If you filed an employment-based adjustment of status (I-485) application between July 1, 2007 and August 17, 2007, you were definitely not alone. Approximately 325,000 adjustment (I-485) applications were filed during this period. This is because the visa bulletin briefly became current for all employment-based visa categories, except "other workers." Since the visa bulletin retrogressed, many of these adjustment applications reverted to a "pending" status. Many of our clients have asked what they can do in this frustrating situation.

Adjustment (I-485) Switching: The Permissible Line-Jumping
This article addresses the issues of transferring I-485 applications (in a process called "I-485 switching," transferring adjustment applications, or adjustment conversion) to a new or subsequent family or employment-based immigrant visa petition. Thousands of people are eligible for this benefit and didn't even know it! These procedures are invaluable to aleviate the backlog created by the onslought of I-485 applications sent to the Service Centers in 2007. Properly done, you can dig your case out of the "blizzard of I-485" saving yourself and the Service years of pending paperwork and frustrating processing delays.

Transferring Adjustment Applications to New Family or Employment Based Immigrant Visa Petitions
The AFM under section 23.2(l) provides several examples of when an applicant for adjustment under one category (preference or immediate relative) will prefer to have his or her application considered under another category. These examples include:

1. An alien who originally applied for adjustment based on an approved I-140 petition and married a U.S. citizen while the I-485 was pending, but who now prefers to adjust based on an I-130 filed by the new spouse;
2. An alien who originally applied for adjustment as the spouse of a U.S. citizen, but now prefers to be granted adjustment under an employment-based category in order to avoid having to deal with the conditional residency requirements of section 216 of the Act;
3. A Cuban national who applied for adjustment under section 202 of NACARA, but who now prefers to be granted adjustment under the Cuban Adjustment Act in order to receive the "rollback" provisions of the latter.

What this means is that an existing application for adjustment can be converted to another based on a different I-140 or I-130 for an immediate relative petition, which could include a new priority date or visa classification. Therefore, it is possible to reverse the principal/derivative classification and process and application sooner based on the spouse's priority date or classification. Exceptions are found in cases involving automatic revocation of employment-based petitions, fraud, or the denial of the original I-140 petition. If the exceptions do not apply to your case, then read on.

Guidelines: How to Transfer an Adjustment Application
There is no specific form for requesting a transfer of adjustment, but it must be done in writing. You do not need to pay a new fee or file a new I-485 application. If USCIS erroneously advises you that a new fee is required, you may obtain a fee refund. To make your request, you should provide clear information to the Service Center so it can make a determination that an earlier priority date or different visa classification can be applied to your pending adjustment (I-485) application. You must be able to demonstrate that you continuously maintained eligibility for the application originally filed. This is important in the section 245(c) and 245(k) interplay.

Continue reading "Adjustment (I-485) Backlog: Tips to Dig Out of the "Blizzard of I-485"" »

As the Democrats and Republicans of congress continue to negotiate a compromise to the federal budget that is set to expire Friday, April 6th, 2011 at midnight, immigration attorneys in Columbus, Ohio have turned their attention to how a government shutdown will affect the normal adjudication of visas. Visa applications, including employment based I-140 and H-1B petitions as well as family based petitions including I-130 and I-485 applications, filed in the United States are usually adjudicated at one of the USCIS service centers throughout the country. These service centers are staffed by immigration officers who adjudicate visa applications. These immigration officers are employees of the federal government and could be furloughed if the federal government shuts down for lack of congressional funding.

Historically, government shutdowns have resulted in delays for visa adjudication. The reason for the potential delay is based upon the wording of the federal Antideficiency Act. This law states that in the event of a governmental shutdown the only governmental employees that will be permitted to continue to carry out their work will be employees who prevent or respond to "emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property." The law goes on to state that "ongoing, regular functions of government the suspension of which would not imminently threaten the safety of human life or the protection of property" are not to continue their operations during a shutdown. Officers who adjudicate visas at the service centers will most likely not be deemed essential to the protection of safety or property and will be furloughed. With no-one to adjudicate visas, visa applications will be backlogged to some extent. However, other aspects of United States immigration policy will continue to be enforced. Customs and border patrol officials, for example, should remain active.

While the chance of a government shutdown is small, it remains a definite possibility. Also, delays in US postal service operations could occur. Therefore, foreign nationals and attorneys should be cognizant of the potential for delays in the adjudication and delivery of visa petitions and applications to the USCIS service centers.

Continue reading "Government Shutdown Could Effect Visa Adjudications" »

This article is the second installment following up and providing a conclusion to the first segment which provides the final techniques utilized by the Columbus Immigration Lawyers at The Law Firm of Shihab & Associates regarding the preparation of a Motion to Reopen/Reconsider or Request for Evidence (RFE) responses. Again this article focuses on the RFE response, but its techniques are applicable to any written brief or statement made in response to USCIS.

Critique the Request for Evidence Itself
A major component of drafting the response to an RFE is the need to critique the request itself. The immigration officer may not have developed the facts in a complete and accurate manner. It is your job to comprehensively develop those facts (often by use of affidavits). By showing inconsistencies and other problems with the facts, as developed by the immigration officer, you begin to establish credibility to your case. The Immigration Lawyers at The Law Firm of Shihab & Associates are very experienced at analyzing the facts and respectfully presenting them correctly to the USCIS in an RFE response.

Secondly, you must scrutinize the quality and quantity of the legal research conducted by the immigration officer. Determine if the officer identified all the relevant legal authority. Often times, RFE's will present "biolerplate" legal authority. Did the immigration officer properly interpret the law? Did the officer correctly apply the law to the issue and the facts in the case at hand? Did the officer include legal authorities in the RFE, but not use them in the analysis or argument? Don't leave these questions unanswered. If there are flaws in the legal research conducted by the immigration officer, or flaws in the ways by which the officer cited legal authorities, point it out.

Finally, test the immigration officer's arguments. Has the officer adequately connected the issues with the facts and law? Have convincing analogies been developed by the officer? Has the officer adequately answered the questions asked? If there are flaws in the officer's arguments, point them out.

Revise, Revise, Revise....then Revise One More Time!
As Justice Louis Brandeis stated: "There is no such thing as good writing. There is only good rewriting." Justice Brandeis often revised his writing 15 or more times before he was satisfied. While this is obviously extreme, it is suggested that you revise your writing at least three times, more if time and money permit. Excessive use of passive voice, timid phrasing, vague words and other examples of poor writing are often found in first drafts. The lawyers at The Law Firm of Shihab & Associates spend the time to make sure your case is prepared with great diligence to grammer, form, substance and style.

As this article demonstrates, regardless of the inherent strengths or weaknesses of a given case, there is much that can be achieved by mastering the art of preparing a successful RFE response, Motion to Reopen/Reconsider brief or appeal. Our lawyers know this more than anyone!

Continue reading "Drafting a Motion to Reopen/Reconsider or Request for Evidence Response to USCIS: Proven Techniques for Success (Part 2)" »

USCIS provides minimal guidance regarding the preparation of a Motion to Reopen/Reconsider or Request for Evidence (RFE) response. Unlike other USCIS procedures, CIS does not require the completion of a form when filing an RFE response. This little guidance provides a wide range of possibile methods to responding to the RFE. This article presents techniques that the Columbus Immigration Lawyers at The Law Firm of Shihab & Associates have implemented for preparing a successful responses to USCIS and focuses on the brief in support of an RFE response.

Prepare a Roadmap: Presentation Matters
While this might sound obvious, the most important element of the RFE response is drafting the response itself. Don't spend all your time meeting with the client, gathering facts and conducting legal research. Too often, not enough time is spent on planning and presentation. Remember, an RFE has a strict deadline that often poses a tight timetable to prepare the supporting documentation and legal arguments. As the saying goes, "plan the work; work the plan." This is an axiom the lawyers at The Law Firm of Shihab & Associates live by. You must leave sufficient time to prepare a polished product. Preparing a polished written RFE response does not simply happen. It requires good planning, organization and writing.

Focus on the Facts: Don't Drive from Boston to Chicago via Nashville!
Regardless of what factual informaiton you decide to present, you must determine the order in which to present the facts. Consider the following illustration: If you decide to drive from Boston to Chicago, it is unlikely you would drive first to Baltimore, then to Nashville and finally to Chicago, unless of course time and money were of no concern. Likewise, the immigration officer will expect to see some logical order to the presentation of the facts in your RFE response letter. Don't confuse the Immigration officer by driving from Boston to Chicago via Nashville!

There are various approaches for ordering the presentation of the facts: chronological, biographical (e.g., describing key individuals along with facts associated with them), or transactional. Employ whatever approach you use consistantly throughout the RFE response. Your facts should be presented persuasively without being argumentative. Facts, not opinions, will convince the USCIS officer to look favorably upon your client's case.

Continue reading "Drafting a Motion to Reopen/Reconsider or Request for Evidence Response to USCIS: Proven Techniques for Success (Part 1)" »

USCIS has implemented a new fee schedule. To access the new fee schedule, The Law Firm of Shihab & Associates directs you to visit the USCIS website here.

Seeking to strike the "right balance" in the continual struggle between the freedom of commerce and public protections, President Obama has signed an executive order which mandates that all regulations be examined for internal conflict and cost efficiency. Columbus Immigration lawyers hope that the examination of regulations extends to titles 8 and titles 29 of the code of federal regulations which deal with aliens and nationality as well as labor. Employment based immigration regulations provide ample red tape for such a review of administrative law for efficiency. Perhaps the federal government could start striking a better "balance" by removing some of the restrictions from the H-1B and PERM programs which in many cases set up unnecessary barriers to the American dream for the world's most highly educated professionals. Immigration lawyers can only "hope" for such a "change."