Immigration Visa Lawyer Blog

A class action lawsuit was filed last week against US immigration agencies on behalf of many asylum applicants who were wrongly denied work authorization, A.B.T., K.M.-W., G.K., L.K.G., D.W. v. USCIS; EOIR (Case No. 2:11-cv-02108 A.B.T). The nationwide lawsuit was filed by the American Immigration Council's Legal Action Center (LAC) against the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) in the United States District Court in Seattle. The suit alleges that the USCIS and EOIR delays violate the Constitution, federal statutes, and governing regulations.

Asylum seekers are not eligible for work authorization during the 180-day period after the application is filed. But according to federal law, asylum applicants are to be granted work authorization after the application has been pending for 180 days. Due to unlawful and unfair practices and policies, U.S. immigration agencies have prevented asylum seekers from obtaining work authorization after the 180-day waiting period has elapsed. For example, one named plaintiff in the lawsuit is a man from China who filed his asylum application in 2003, and he has been pursuing work authorization for years without success.

In calculating the 180-day period, the USCIS relies on immigration judge determinations who work for the EOIR, which results in arbitrary policies on when the 180-day "clock" should start and stop. This, along with the increasing backlog in U.S. immigration courts, has unlawfully prevented asylum seekers from working. According to the lawsuit, these unlawful policies and practices prevented asylum applicants from obtaining work authorization and forced them to rely on the goodwill of others to support themselves and their families while they await decisions on their asylum applications, and this process can take many months and sometimes years.

The 180-day period (or "asylum EAD clock") may be suspended, but only for applicant-requested or caused delay of the adjudication of their asylum application, according to the lawsuit. USCIS and EOIR policies result in EAD clocks being arbitrarily started and stopped, and even permanently stopped in some cases. Many asylum seekers have not received adequate notice that their EAD asylum clocks have stopped, and they are consequently deprived of a meaningful opportunity to remedy these determinations.

Continue reading "Class Action Lawsuit Alleges Asylum EAD Clock Is Unfair" »

On May 26, 2011 the US Supreme Court ruled that Arizona's mandatory E-Verify law is constitutional and can go forward thereby requiring all businesses operating in the State of Arizona to use this federally created voluntary pilot system, on a mandatory basis. A month later, the Ohio Legislature introduced Senate Bill 286 which is an Arizona E-Verify copycat bill, purporting to also mandate Ohio businesses to use the E-Verify employment eligibility verification online system. This article will explain that the proposed Ohio E-Verify law is bad for Ohio's businesses and bad for Ohio's economy. The current E-Verify system is riddled with inaccuracies and a mandatory compliance law will cost Ohio employers and citizens millions of dollars in administrative overhead and down time.

The Arizona Case

The US Chamber of Commerce had sued the State claiming that federal immigration laws may not be enforced by any State and that such enforcement is exclusively reserved for the federal government. They cited the sweeping 1986 immigration reform which stripped the States from any ability to undertake any such enforcement actions. In reality, however, Congress did leave a clause in such laws allowing the states to legislate regarding "all licenses necessary to operate the business." It was from this narrow clause was that the State of Arizona able to successfully defeat the constitutional challenge to its E-Verify legislation.

In a 5-3 ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion stating that Arizona had the authority to legislate enforcement provisions for its employment verification apparatus. "We hold that Arizona's licensing law falls well within the confines of the authority Congress chose to leave to the states and therefore is not expressly preempted," the Chief Justice ruled.

The Ohio Mandatory E-Verify Proposal

Ohio's E-Verify copycat legislation was introduced in the Ohio Senate on Wednesday June 29, 2011. Representatives Combs and Bubp introduced this bill, which would require all Ohio employers - both public and private - to use the E-Verify system in ensuring the employment eligibility of new hires. The bill also outlines provisions for filing complaints and sanctions for employers that hire illegal aliens, which include firing all such workers, revocations of business license as well as criminal liability for violators. As of the date of this article, this proposed law was not referred to committee.

Why Ohio's Mandatory E-Verify Program is Bad for Ohio's Employers

A Mandatory E-Verify law in Ohio would cost Ohio employers millions of dollars in administrative cost plugging in data in the federal E-Verify system. Many rural employers do not have the skills or the high-speed Internet connectivity to do so. Furthermore, in many small businesses that do not have an HR department, the compliance will fall on the shoulders of the owner of the business herself which is not practical.

Errors in the E-Verify system itself will cost 800,000 workers nationally to lose their jobs and $3.6 million to correct such errors according to government data. The loss of such workers in today's high unemployment reality is certainly bad news for Ohio's workers and their employers. Such government data suggest that the error rate in E-Verify are even higher for employers who have a higher percentage of immigrant worker population as is the situation in many sectors of the workforce including high tech. and agricultural, and construction jobs. Green card holders and recently naturalized foreign nationals are ten times more apt to be erroneously identified by the system as ineligible to accept employment. Hence, Ohio's proposed mandatory E-Verify system will have the unintended consequence of discriminating against such workforce.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that a mandatory E-Verify system will decrease national tax proceeds by $17 billion over a decade. Ohio's share of such proceeds will proportionally decrease as a result. Immigration lawyers in Columbus and Ohio as a whole have voiced their objection to this proposed legislation and plan to testify in opposition. Please join us in opposing this ill advised proposal.

At a time when Ohio is trying to lift itself out of an economic rut, a mandatory E-Verify system seems to take us deeper and deeper in the hole.

It is worthwhile that our clients here in Columbus, Ohio know that USCIS has announced that as of July 15, 2011, approximately 20,500 H-1B cap-subject petitions were receipted. USCIS has receipted 12,800 H-1B petitions for aliens with advanced degrees. With so many H-1B visas currently available, there are great opportunities for businesses in central Ohio to take advantage of the H-1B visa category to help staff professional positions lacking sufficient US labor supply. Our lawyers are prepared to assist you in any H-1B related questions you have. Contact our firm today at 614-255-4872.

For those employers in Columbus, Ohio who take advantage of the H-1B visa program, you will be pleased to know that USCIS has revised the VIBE (Validation Instrument for Business Enterprises) RFE to remove language that suggested petitioners update or create a record with Dun & Bradstreet (D&B). The RFE now directs petitioners to the USCIS VIBE website which provides further instructions for petitioners to update their information.

This news is welcome relief to those USCIS "solicitation" boiler plate RFE's effectively admonishing employers to purchase D&B products or services. The hard of AILA has without a doubt helped to make this change possible.

If you are a company in Columbus, Ohio or any of the areas surrounding central Ohio, the Immigration Lawyers at The Law Firm of Shihab & Associates understand that the economy may have hampered your hiring and recruitment efforts. The H-1B visa may be in decline for certain large businesses, due to the often burdensome evidentiary requirements and increasing fees; however, some smaller businesses here in Ohio should take advantage of the glut of H-1Bs still available to fill positions that may be in short supply from the U.S. labor force.

How can I use the H-1B Program?
U.S. businesses use the H-1B program to employ foreign workers in specialty occupations that require theoretical or technical expertise in specialized fields, such as scientists, engineers, or computer programmers. IT companies have been the largest applicants for the H-1B visa. There are two basic ways to hire an H-1B worker: you can hire a foreign national directly (usually right of college), or so long as certain evidentiary requirements are met, IT companies can "assign" H-1B workers to your company to implement a project, design inventory software, or create other cutting edge software that will set your company apart in the 21st century.

For more information about the H-1B program, see the our firm's webpage dedicated to various complex H-1B speicalty occupation issues.

These H-1B workers fill a void in the U.S. labor market for jobs in mathematics, software and engineering, and can offer an excellent temporary solution to your company's short term needs. USCIS recently announced that approximately 19,000 H-1B cap-subject petitions (out of 65,000), and 12,200 H-1B petitions for aliens with advanced degrees (out of 20,000), were receipted as of July 1, 2011. This means that there are currently 53,800 H-1B visas still available for the government's 2012 fiscal year (which begins on Oct. 1, 2011 and ends Sept. 30, 2012)!

Continue reading "H-1B "Specialty Occupation" Work Visas Aplenty" »

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"" »

In response to a FOIA request submitted by a fellow AILA member, USCIS released 486 pages of materials used to train USCIS officers in the adjudication of EB-5 immigrant investor cases. These materials include voluminous information on how adjudicators work a typical EB-5 case. This information is extremely important in understanding the EB-5 adjudicator's approach in dealing with an EB-5 case. The attorneys at The Law Firm of Shihab & Associates have obtained a copy of these materials and utilize it when advising a potential EB-5 investor.

If you have filed for a green card (I-485) and submitted a request for work authorization (I-765) and advanced parole travel document (I-131), and you must travel before your I-131 can be adjudicated in the normal processing time, you can request expedited processing of the I-131. This article addresses those expedited I-131 procedures:

You MUST Make a Request
Typically, anyone who files Form I-485 in the U.S. also files Forms I-765 and I-131 concurrently with the Form I-485. If you have found that you must travel before your Advanced Parole Travel Document Form I-131 can be adjudicated within normal processing times, you can call the USCIS National Customer Service Center (NCSC) or make an info pass appointment at your local field office. Here in Columbus, Ohio, infopass appointments are simple to make and are usually scheduled within 3-5 days.

Making the Expedited Advanced Parole Request with the USCIS Field Office
Once you make an infopass appointment at the local field office, that office will determine whether you have has your fingerprints taken at an Application Support Center (ASC). If you haven't yet had your biometrics, the field office will schedule a walk-in appointment. The field office will then notify the office where the I-131 Travel Document/Request for Advanced Parole is pending, either the service center or the National Benefits Center ("NBC"), and request expedited handling. If the Field Office Director grants the request, he or she will inform the center that he or she has authorized expedited handling of the application and that the requisite biometrics have been captured.

Making the Expedited Advanced Parole Request Contact USCIS at 1-800-375-5283
If you contact the NCSC, the customer support representative will make a "service request" and forward the expedite request to the center having jurisdiction over the application. If the center determines that adjudication of the application should be expedited, it will determine whether you have already been to the ASC for biometric collection and, if not, schedule a walk-in appointment. You can contact both the NCSC and schedule an infopass appointment to make a request.

Continue reading "Expedited Advanced Parole Travel Document Requests (Form I-131)" »

Gus M. Shihab, Esq. founder of The Law Firm of Shihab & Associates, Co., LPA, has been named Top Lawyer in Columbus CEO Magazine. This is the third edition of Top Lawyers in CEO Magazine. Martindale-Hubbell provided a list of local attorneys who have attained "AV" ratings--the highest available. The rating is given only to attorneys who have at least 10 years in practice, and who fulfill a variety of other criteria.

Almost 1,250 lawyers in Franklin and contiguous counties are AV Peer Review Rated. The entire list, as provided by Martindale-Hubbell, appears in the April issue of CEO Magazine. For more information about Martindale-Hubbell, Martindale-Hubbell's Peer Review Ratings or the listed attorneys, visit www.lawyers.com.

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" »

On March 13, 2011, the USCIS issued a policy memo on the new fee waiver guidelines. The lawyers at The Law Firm of Shihab & Associates are available to answer any questions about fee waivers under the newly issued memo.

The final rule establishes a new fee schedule for immigration-benefit requests and amends the regs governing fee-waiver eligibility. Our clients may now use a new Form I-912, Request for Fee Waiver, to facilitate the fee-waiver request process. The form has been available since Novermber 23, 2010. Only forms listed in AFM Chapter 10.9 are eligible for a fee waiver. Please refer to AFM Chapter 10.9 by accessing the USCIS website found here.

USCIS will adjudicate each fee-waiver request on its own merits. If you prove to USCIS that you are unable to pay the fee, USCIS will grant the fee-waiver request. Inability to pay the fee is based on your overall financial picture and household situation.

Generally speaking, fee waiver requests are considered by taking into account 1) whether the applicant is receiving a means-tested benefit ('means tested benefits' are benefits which are allocated according to your means), 2) whether the applicant's household income level renders him or her unable to pay (i.e., income less than 150% of the poverty line - for poverty line info, please see the Health and Human Services website), or 3) whether recent financial hardship otherwise renders him or her unable to pay.

The Law Firm of Shihab & Associates has lawyers that zealously advocate for clients whose financial means are such that fee waiver requests are necessary. If you are contemplating filing an immigrant petition and are interested in determining whether you apply for a fee waiver, please contact our firm today at 1-877-479-4USA.

USCIS issued an advisory on Friday, March 11, 2011 that Japanese and other foreign nationals from the Pacific stranded in the U.S. due to the earthquakes and tsunami devastation in the Pacific who have exceeded or are about to exceed their authorized stay in the U.S. may be permitted up to an additional 30 days to depart. Please click here for the advisory alert.

USCIS states that if you are in the U.S. on the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) and you are at the airport, you should contact the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) office at the airport. Otherwise visit your local U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service. Click here to find your local office. Bring your passport, evidence that you are stranded (such as an itinerary for the cancelled flight), and your I-94 departure record.

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.