Immigration Visa Lawyer Blog

In a well reasoned order handed down by Judge Susan R. Bolton of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, the most unreasonable, atrocious and unconstitutional aspects of Arizona's Senate Bill 1070 were blocked, or rather, enjoined from taking effect with the remainder of the legislation on July 29, 2010. In what almost certainly will set the stage for an appeals process culminating in review of state government's power to supplement federal law in the area of immigration, Arizona has appealed this ruling to the United States Circuit Court for the Ninth Circuit. If the Ninth Circuit rules on the matter before the end of the year, the case could be heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in its next session, and possibly decided within a year from now.

While the most egregious aspects of SB1070 have been strategically excised from the whole of the bill by the order of Judge Bolton, the bill ultimately stands and the remaining portions went into effect July 29, 2010. Because the process for enjoining and appealing this bill as well as its ramifications may not be entirely clear, I have briefly summarized the judge's legal opinion and the effects that this ruling has on SB1070 in board terms. As a reminder, this attorney and the Law Firm of Shihab & Associates has offered the following aspects of Arizona law for the purposes of public discussion and discourse only. This lawyer does not suggest nor insinuate that he is licensed practice civil or criminal law in the state of Arizona.

Summary

Senate Bill 1070 took effect in Arizona on July 29, 2010. Judge Susan Bolton only blocked certain parts of the bill from taking effect with the rest of the bill. Such a legal challenge and outcome was fully anticipated by the drafters of SB1070, who made certain aspects of the bill severable, or able to be separated, without destroying the entire bill. The US Department of Justice, the adversary to SB1070 in this instance, specifically chose certain aspects of the bill to challenge, leaving other aspects unopposed. Some of the most important aspects of SB1070 that remain in effect or fully enforceable by officers in Arizona are as follows:

• Provision allowing residents of the state to sue any state official or agency that restricts enforcement of federal immigration law to any extent less than the maximum allowed by federal law;
• Creating a crime for stopping a vehicle to pick up day laborers if the stopping creates an impediment to normal movement of traffic;
• Creating crimes for intentionally or knowingly employing unauthorized aliens; and
• Transporting or encouraging unlawfully present aliens to come to Arizona.

Interestingly, law enforcement officers and public employees are caught in a catch 22 situation regarding their role in Arizona's immigration scheme. Specifically, all agencies of the State of Arizona are required to carry out federal law in regard to federal immigration rules or risk being sued. However, it is reasonable to believe that most employees of the state of Arizona are not experts in Federal Immigration law, leaving such agencies and employees potentially open to suit for actions they do not know are unlawful.

The following are aspects of the bill that have been enjoined, or stopped from enforcement, by the federal court:

• Requirement that under reasonable suspicion of unlawful presence in the United States, that police officers make a reasonable efforts to ascertain the immigration status of the person, and ascertain the immigration status of a person upon release from arrest;
• Creation of a crime for failure to apply for or carry immigration papers;
• Create a crime for an unauthorized alien to solicit, apply for or perform work; and
• Authorize the warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe the person has committed a public offense that makes the person removable (formerly called deportable) from the United States.

Despite the injunction of this law, there are aspects of the enjoined portions of SB1070 that seem to have overlapping effects with current law enforcement procedure in Arizona. Sheriff Arpaio of Maricopa County (the Phoenix metro area) of Arizona is still conducting his "sweeps" pulling over cars for minor violations and then taking the opportunity to lead the detained person down a path of questioning to eventual disclosure of his or her immigration status. While it is unclear where to draw the lines between enforceable state law and unenforceable enjoined provisions of SB1070, what is clear is that violating a federal injunction is grounds for a charge of contempt of court. In the spirit of SB1070, it is only just that such a person violating an order handed down by a federal judge should be prosecuted to the full extent of the federal law.

Discussion of the Enjoined Sections of SB1070

The legal ruing handed down by the federal court in this case is what is known as a preliminary injunction. This order stops conduct from being carried out as requested by the moving party from occurring while the merits of the case have yet to be decided, i.e. the case has not yet gone to trial. This is essentially a temporary stop. The ruling on a temporary injunction may be appealed to the next highest court. This is the action that the State of Arizona has taken, asking the Ninth Circuit, the court above the US District Court for Arizona, to hear its argument.

Judge Bolton took the most appropriate action by only enjoining or blocking the aspects of the bill that were likely be won by the US Department of justice at trial, while letting other aspects of the law go into effect. The drafters of SB1070 intentionally wrote the bill to allow this type of severability, or the ability for sections of the law to be blocked without destroying the entire bill. As a consequence, Judge Bolton has essentially narrowed the issues that will be argues at the next level to the issues below.

Continue reading "The Most Appalling and Unconstitutional Aspects of Arizona's SB1070 Blocked by Federal Court" »

The Regional Center Pilot Program offers an exiting avenue to a fast track Green Card for foreign nationals who wish to invest $1,000,000 and in some circumstances only $500,000 into a business association that advances economic expansion, productivity, job formation and increased monetary investment into a definable geographic area of the United States. The main advantage of the Regional Center variety of EB-5 employment creation green card is that unlike in the traditional EB-5 category where it must be shown that at least 10 jobs will be directly created from the investment, regional center investors may take into account indirectly created jobs. This means that regional center business associations do not need to create a payroll position for all ten jobs that are created. Rather, under the regional center program, the jobs of supporting staff, service people and contractors may be counted toward the 10 new jobs requirement. As a result, the Regional Center model creates a very attractive vehicle for a business association to attract large amounts of investors and their capital to the United States.

Proving that a regional center meets EB-5 job creation criteria

The organizers of the regional center must first prove the viability of the investment both in regard to the probability of success of the business and immigration law aspects. This requires a highly professional economic impact study of the proposed investment as well as a comprehensive petition package, addressing all of the economic and legal aspects of the proposed regional center before the USCIS.

Below is a list of the major points that must be conclusively established in order to establish a regional center before the USCIS:

Managerial Framework of the Regional Center

The petition must clearly demonstrate the managerial and executive structure of the regional center. Additionally, the petition must demonstrate how the center will be advertised to entice investors, how management discovers and analyzes investment opportunities for the business organization, how management will structure the venture investment and how management will supervise investment actions.

Comprehensive forecast of local and countrywide impact of the center on household earnings

A detailed business plan and report on anticipated expenses must be included within the petition. The document must not only show the direct expenses such as construction costs, maintenance costs services, repairs and utilities, but the report must also show the economic impact of all of these activities on the income of the people of the region.

Professional report on how the regional center will generate both direct and indirect jobs

It is not sufficient to merely assume that a set amount of invested dollars will create the requisite 10 jobs per Green Card applicant. In order to secure certification as a regional pilot center, the organizers must have a professional economic study conducted by a reputable organization to ensure success of the application before the USCIS. In fact, such a report often makes or breaks the case for a regional center. The report must be supported by economically and statistically legitimate calculations such as viability evaluations, breakdowns of overseas and national markets for goods or services produced and graphical representations of the equations used to estimate jobs created per investor.

Plainly observable, physically adjacent area for the regional center

The regional center must have an intended area on which to impact financially. The definition of area varies by the type of investment and the population density of the surrounding land. For example a regional center based on investment in farming may have an identifiable region as large as several counties or sections of a state. A regional center based upon real-estate development however may only affect a relatively small landmass.

Continue reading "Columbus Immigration Attorney Discusses the EB-5 Regional Center Pilot Program Avenue to Permanent Residency Part 1: Establishing the Regional Center" »

Aliens applying for a green card in the United States through adjustment of status need to obtain an employment authorization document (EAD) to work in the U.S. Current regulations allow for aliens to obtain an interim EAD card when the original EAD application is pending for more than 90 days.

Question: How does one apply for an interim Employment Authorization Document?

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is required by federal regulations to decide an application for employment authorization I-765 (EAD) within 90 days from the date the EAD application is received. Generally speaking, the USCIS takes anywhere from 45-90 days to make a decision on a filed EAD. Under current regulations, if USCIS does not decide the application by the 90 day deadline, federal regulations instruct USCIS to issue an interim Employment Authorization Document (EAD), which is valid for up to 240 days. This allows the alien to work when USCIS has otherwise failed to meet its statutory and regulatory obligations.

Presently, interim EADs are issued by USCIS service centers. Since 2005, USCIS local offices no longer issue interim EAD cards. The local offices used to issue interim EADs upon an in person request by the application. This is no longer true. The below procedures govern the process by which an applicant can obtain an interim EAD allowing the alien to take up employment in the U.S. faster so that he/she does not have to wait for a slow moving bureaucratic governmental agency.

Procedure for Obtaining an Interim EAD Card:

1. Make an Info-Pass Appointment. If USCIS has not adjudicated the employment authorization application (I-765), or issued an interim EAD by day 90, an alien is required to make an Info-Pass appointment at the nearest USCIS local field office. Click here for further information on scheduling the appointment.
2. USCIS field office CLAIMS Evaluation. After the info-pass appointment has been scheduled, the USCIS local office will perform a Computer Linked Application Information Management System (CLAIMS) evaluation. This ensures that the original I-765 EAD application is still pending and unadjudicated, that there is no request for evidence (RFE) on file regarding the application (which effectively restarts or tolls the 90 day period), and the applicant has undergone his/her biometric fingerprinting.
3. The applicant must have completed a biometrics appointment. The CLAIMS verification will determine whether the applicant has undergone fingerprinting. If they have not, the USCIS local office will refer the applicant to obtain biometrics at the USCIS Application Center (ASC). The applicant must have his/her biometrics completed to obtain an interm EAD.
4. Case refered to USCIS Service Center. After the CLAIMS verification process is complete, the local office will contact the Service Center with jurisdiction over the applicant's U.S. residence. At this point, the Service Center will be responsible for adjudicating the interim EAD.
5. Call 1-800-375-5283 if the interim EAD is not issued by the Service Center by the time the applicant appears at the local office. The applicant may make a status inquiry via telephone to the Service Center while in the local office. All inquiries should be responded to within 30 days.

Question: What are the documents needed for obtaining an interim EAD

In order to obtain an interim employment authorization document the applicant should bring the following items to the USCIS Info-Pass appointment:

1. A new, completed Application for Employment Authorization (Form I-765);
2. The original Notice of Action (Form I-797) notice of receipt of the underlying pending EAD (I-765) application
3. The original Notice of Action (I-797) receipt notice for the underlying pending application which gives rise to the employment authorization such as a green card application receipt notice (I-485) and/or petition for alien relative (I-130 approval notice);
4. The applicant needs all present and past passports and Form I-94s;
5. Two passport-style photographs according to these specifications;
6. Proof of U.S. residency, such as state issued photo ID or driver's license (for proof of USCIS office jurisdiction); and
7. All current and expired EAD cards issued to the applicant.

Question: What happens when USCIS has issued an RFE on the pending application for employment authorization (I-765)? Can you still obtain an interim EAD?

A request for evidence (RFE) affects the applicant's eligibility for an interim EAD depending on the type of evidence requested in the RFE. If the RFE seeks "initial evidence", i.e., evidence mandated under federal regulations in order to obtain employment authorization, then USCIS will restart the 90 adjudication timeline. The evidence requested must have been required to obtain the EAD from the get go. Once the evidence has been gathered and the RFE has been responded to, USCIS will start the 90 adjudication clock over upon receipt of the response. Therefore, it is a must to make sure you submit all required evidence up front so that the 90 day clock does not get reset.

But, if the RFE seeks evidence not required under federal regulations, the USCIS will "toll" the 90 day deadline until it receives the RFE response, at which point USCIS will resume counting at the point that the clock was interrupted by the RFE. Tolling simply means that the 90 clock will be suspended at the point the RFE was issued (say at day 46). If the RFE is responded to 14 days later, the clock will be "tolled" for those 14 days and counting will begin again at day 47 upon receipt of the response to the RFE.

Continue reading "Columbus Immigration Lawyer: Interim Employment Authorization EAD Processing for Long Pending EAD Applications" »

The American Immigration Lawyers Association ("AILA") posted on its website processing times for the Administrative Appeals Office, the AAO. The AAO has authority to review certain applications denied by the US CItizenship & Immigration Service ("USCIS"). Decisions issued by the AAO have been controversial as the USCIS may or may not be bound by them as a "legal precedence" or "lawmaking authority" as the American legal system normally operates. Hence, practitioners in the field of immigration law have found the administrative appeals before the AAO as futile and time consuming process. Nonetheless, applicants and petitioners whose cases have been denied by the USCIS have the legal obligation to "exhaust their administrative remedy" before taking their cases to Federal Court to challenge the USCIS' denial. In other words, the Federal Court system may not accept a challenge to a USCIS decision prior to having them try to resolve the matter before the AAO. Hence, the AAO appeals step is viewed by many as a necessary step, though time consuming.

Below, please find the most recent AAO Processing Times. As can be seen, it may take more than a year to review an H-1B visa case denial. An EB-2 or EB-3 I-140 denial may take 2 years to appeal before the AAO. In comparison, an alien entrepreneur petition form I-526 denial will take 6 months to appeal before the AAO.

Continue reading "Columbus Ohio Immigration Lawyer on Administrative Appeals Office - AAO Processing Times As of May 1, 2010" »

Almost all foreign nationals who seek permanent residence, commonly known as a Green Card, through the employment based avenues of permanent immigration must test the local job market via the PERM process. However, for foreign nationals holding a master's degree or a bachelor's plus five years of experience, there is a little utilized waiver of the requirement that the job market be tested by the expensive and time consuming PERM process. For certain highly educated foreign nationals whose area of expertise holds substantial intrinsic merit and the effect of their work would be national in scope, a National Interest Waiver of the PERM process may be available.

Requirements of a National Interest Waiver (NIW) of the PERM Process

The National Interest Waiver has the effect of bypassing the PERM process and placing the potential applicant directly into the I-140 stage of the Green Card process under the EB-2 preference category. While skipping the PERM process is beneficial for all foreign nationals applying for employment based permanent residence, foreign nationals from countries other than China or India will find themselves with a Green Card immediately available upon approval of an I-140 under EB-2. Additionally, foreign nationals from China and India can enjoy the faster processing time of the EB-2 preference category and the peace of mind that the job market does not need to be tested in this economy before they can apply for an employment based Green Card.

Who Qualifies for the National Interest Waiver?

Because of the obvious benefits of the National Interest waiver, the requirements that need to be met are rather stringent. First, the applying foreign national must possess at least a master's degree or its equivalent (Bachelor's plus five (5) years of experience). This educational requirement is the same for all second preference employment based petitions.

Secondly, the foreign national must meets the standards established by the Government that show the foreign national should be allowed to skip the PERM process in the national interest. The controlling case on this issue is the Matter of New York State Department of Transportation 22 I&N Dec. 215. In this case, the court defined three threshold criteria to be met in order to qualify for a National Interest Waiver. A successful argument of all three NIW threshold requirements will establish that the alien is not merely "exceptional" as all EB-2 applicants are, but rather that the aliens skills and achievements "greatly exceed" those of other aliens and similarly educated American workers.

Area of Endeavor Must have Intrinsic Merit: This means that the job that the alien will do must be in a field that has high importance for the national economy or security.

The Proposed Benefit will be National In Scope: This means that the benefits of the foreign national's labor must not be limited to a single geographic area. The effects of the alien's labor must be felt nationally.

The National Interest would be Adversely Affected if the Alien were not Hired: This requirement means that the national interest of allowing the Alien to skip the PERM process and be hired immediately would outweigh the national interest of protecting the jobs of American workers.

As simple as the above requirements seem, it takes a great amount of effort to mount a successful argument that a foreign national deserves to skip the PERM process. Support of the employer is a great importance as well. Common situations that may lead to a successful result include research positions, governmental security positions, complex engineering positions, high ranking business positions and even positions in coaching or music. Every applicant for a NIW must be a step above others with exceptional ability. While there are certain guidelines that can be followed to geach case must be evaluated on its own merits.

Continue reading "Columbus Immigration & Visa Lawyer Discusses a Waiver of PERM Process for purposes of the National Interest" »

COLUMBUS, Ohio - May 19, 2010, Gus M. Shihab with the law firm of Shihab & Associates, Co., LPA filed on behalf of Integrity Gymnastics & Cheerleading a declaratory judgment action against the United States Citizenship & Immigration Services due to its denial of Natalia Laschenova's immigrant visa petition.

Ms. Laschenova won an Olympic Gold Medal in gymnastics in the 1988 Olympics. Integrity Gymnastics petitioned the USCIS to qualify Ms. Laschenova as an "alien of extraordinary abilities" as a Olympic Gold Medalist and gymnastics coach in the U.S. Ms. Laschenova's case was denied and she is currently in the U.S. without status and is subject to deportation. All administrative remedies within the Department of Homeland Security have been exhausted hence Integrity Gymnastics is seeking a declaration by the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Ohio that she qualifies as an alien of extraordinary abilities.

The declaratory judgment suit is a civil action seeking a judicial declaration that USCIS has committed an abuse of discretion, acted clearly erroneously and in clear error of judgment and that the decision denying the beneficiary was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable. Integrity Gymnastics filed the declaratory judgment action against USCIS, the Attorney General of the United States, Mr. Erik H. Holder, Jr. and the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District, Mr. Carter M. Stewart.

Arizona has recently passed one of the harshest anti-immigration bills in America's modern history. While the bill is obviously aimed at those persons who have entered the United States from Mexico without inspection, the effects of this bill will be felt in all immigrant communities. The law gives state and local officers the authority to arrest and detain any person in violation of federal immigration law as well as proscribing punishments for those who aid immigration law violators. Those persons who are present in the United States on valid employment based visas, such as H-1B, L-1 and H-2A, as well as those persons who are eligible or have applied for a Green Card or Legal Permanent Residency through the PERM process or family based petition, now must be extra careful to remain in valid immigration status at all times and above all else always carry their "papers" on them. Just as the tide raises all boats, Arizona's law will affect all immigrants and their employers within that state

On the heels of Arizona's new law, certain Ohio senators have begun the process of drafting copycat legislation. The consequences of such legislation for Ohio business if such legislation were to be passed could be very grave. A bill that damages the confidence of Ohio's vital, skilled and hard working immigrant population in the state's openness and welcome for immigrants in general would do unnecessary harm to Ohio's already recession weakened economy. Before Ohioans jump on the anti-immigration bandwagon, perhaps they should instigate the wording of Arizona's legislation and its potential to harm Ohio's economy.

Ohio should not burden businesses with the requirement to investigate all contractors and subcontractors for services

Arizona's law makes it a crime to knowingly or intentionally employ an unauthorized immigrant. Furthermore, Arizona's law makes it illegal to contract with a person who intentionally or knowingly employs an unauthorized immigrant to perform work for the contacting person. If read literally, Arizona's law would make it a crime to contract with any person or business that has hired an unauthorized worker. As a precaution, businesses would be required to investigate the immigration status of all of their business contact's employees. For the large and medium sized corporations that call Ohio home, such a law would create an unreasonable financial burden and untenable risk of criminal prosecution. There are plenty of other states that would be happy to siphon off the business of Ohio's corporations with the lure of a decreased risk in liability.

Ohio's immigrants make Ohio stronger

Ohio is home to one of the most diverse and most representative cross sections of business, industry, agriculture, research and government as can be found in the United States as a whole. Ohio's many colleges hire the best and brightest people in the world to teach and carry out research. Ohio's businesses rely on skilled workers in engineering and technology to fill positions where not enough American citizens can be found to fill demand. Finally, Ohio's agriculture relies on the labor of H-2A non-immigrants to carry out some of the toughest jobs on the farms and in the fields. Ohio needs to attract immigrants in order to fill vital jobs that make Ohio's economy strong. Why would we want to injure or insult our immigrant population by requiring them to carry "papers" like in some dictatorial third world country? Again, there are plenty of other states and countries that would love to attract skilled and hard working immigrants to carry out the jobs that are vital to the economy.

Continue reading "Columbus Immigration and Visa Attorney Examines the Effects of Potential Immigration Bill on Ohio Business" »

If you are residing abroad and have recently had your immigrant or nonimmigrant visa application denied by a consulate officer, you may request an advisory opinion from the Department of State's Visa Office Advisory Opinions Division (AOD) and "open the door" to a denied case. With the powerful advisory opinion, a foreign national has the opportunity to obtain the original visa classification sought instead of filing an entirely new case from the start.

When a foreign national files for an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa from a consulate abroad, the consulate officer may erroneously deny the petition taking an incorrect legal position. The foreign national may not feel that s/he has any options for appeal. However, an attorney may request an advisory opinion from the Department of State's Visa Office Advisory Opinions Division (AOD). If the AOD agrees with the attorney and issues the advisory opinion, the consular officer's determination will be overturned allowing the foreign national to obtain the visa s/he is seeking. This is a very powerful tool that not many foreign nationals know exists. This article discusses the various advisory opinion procedures and discusses the benefits of requesting the advisory opinion especially when the foreign national's petition has been incorrectly denied.

The Advisory Opinion
A request for an advisory opinion is a appropriate when your immigrant or nonimmigrant visa petition has been denied at a consulate abroad due to an incorrect application of law. The advisory opinion addresses legal questions involving proper visa classification, specific grounds of visa eligibility, and other legal issues concerning visa applicantions. The most common questions pertain to misrepresentation of material facts, nonimmigrant visa classifications (particularly E, H-1B and R), inadmissibility due to commission of crimes involving moral turpitude, diplomatic visas, visa revocation requests, and unlawful presence.

An attorney should seek an advisory opinion if it appears that there was a legal error, i.e., when a visa application is denied without an applicable legal basis. The advisory opinion may result in a favorable decision for the application. The consular officer will generally inform the alien of the suspected substantive reason for denying the visa. This will form the basis for the attorney's request for advisory opinion as often times the consulate officer may err as a matter of law.

Legal Effect of the Advisory Opinion
The Department of State's regulations provide that advisory opinions concerning interpretations of law "shall be binding upon consular officers." AOD lawyers state that consular officers never refuse to follow a purely legal opinion. This means that if the consular officer "gets it wrong" as a matter of law, the advisory opinion will cure the defect. More problematic is the situation of applying the law to the facts of a particular case. When the case involves factual interpretations as well as legal matters, the consular officer's determination on the factual issues is binding. Hence, only incorrect applications of the law may be scrutinized by a request for advisory opinion.

If you are a foreign national whose case has been denied due to an incorrect application of law, you should seek an advisory opinion. You must request an advisory opinion within one year of the date the visa petition was denied. Do not delay since after one year you cannot obtain relief. You may begin by calling the consulate officer who denied the application and request that the decision be overturned due to the error, but this approach is a far stretch given the tendancy of these officers not to overrule themselves. Thus it becomes necessary to ask the AOD to overrule the consulate officer through the issuance of an advisory opinion.

Continue reading "Columbus Immigration Lawyer: When a Consulate Shuts the Door on a Visa Petition, The Key to Victory is to Request an Advisory Opinion" »

Legal Permanent Residency/ Green Card: Tax Issues

Foreign nationals seeking legal permanent residency (LPR Status or a Green Card) through the PERM process, other employment based petitions or through the various family based avenues will inevitably face various tax issues. All foreign nationals applying for such status must abide by certain federal regulations and burdens of proof addressing the tax issue. As the deadline for filing personal income tax returns bears down upon all persons who derive income from the United States, now is an opportune time to discuss some of the common issues that Green Card applicants and Legal Permanent Residents face.

Required Taxation Evidence Submitted with the I-485 application

All Green Card applications require proof of whether or not the alien was taxable in the previous three years. The federal regulations state that the alien must provide proof of whether or not he or she was required to file an income tax return for the past three tax years. Certain visa holders are free from from this requirement when filing an application for adjustment of status. Visa holders that may not need to pay US income tax include J, H-4, H-3 and F visa holders as long as they have received no gross income from within the United States.

Who is to be taxed?

Everyone who derives income from sources within the United States will be taxed. Foreign nationals are either taxed as an alien resident or non-resident alien basis. Resident aliens are taxed on all income that is derived from any source around the world, just like any US citizen would be. Non-resident aliens are only taxed on income that they have gained from sources within the United States.

How do I tell if I will be taxed as a resident or nonresident alien?

The IRS has formulated a test to determine whether or not an alien is a resident alien for tax purposes. This test is called the Green Card Test or the Substantial Presence Test. In most instances, a foreign national who is present in the United States for 183 days out of the year will meet the Green Card test and will be taxed as a United States Citizen would be. A foreign national may also meet the Green Card test and be considered taxable as a United States Citizen if he or she is present in the US for 31 days of the tax year, and has been present in the US for one-third of the days in the previous tax year and one-sixth of the days of the second most recent tax year.

Some days of presence in the United States are not counted toward the Green Card test. Some visa holders are exempt from paying US taxes such as F, J, M and Q visa holders, so usually days spent in the United States on these types of visas are no counted toward the Green Card test. Some visa holders that can be present in the United States for an indefinite period of time are also not liable such as A and G visa holders. Persons who are physically incapable of leaving the US or persons go back and forth to work in the US from Canada and Mexico are usually not taxable in the same manner as nonresidents. Also foreign nationals who are only in the US temporary, using the US as a stopping point while they travel between two locations outside of the US, will not have these days counted in the Green Card test.

Finally, even if the alien meets the Green Card Test, he or she will not be taxed as a US resident if it is shown that the foreign national was not within the US for 183 days in the most recent tax year and that the alien keeps a home in a foreign country, to which country the alien maintains a nearer relationship than he or she has to the United States.

What if I am a dual citizen?

The United States maintains certain tax treaties with other nations. A dual citizen may be able to show non-residency by providing the treaty and citing to the section of the treaty regarding residency. Two specific countries do not address this issue in their treaties with the US; Greece and Pakistan.

Estate Tax Issues for Foreign Nationals who Pass Away in the United States

The rate of estate taxation also depends on whether the alien is considered a resident or nonresident alien. The residency test for estate tax purposes is different that the test for income tax purposes. Specifically, a deceased person is considered a nonresident if that person was neither a citizen nor a resident of the United States. Residency for estate tax purposes is determined based on the persons' domicile (where the person lives daily).

The property owned by a non-resident within the United States is subject to a transfer tax, the same as US citizens. Foreign nationals who are residents are subject to the same estate tax rules that US citizens must meet. For both nonresidents and residents, an unrestricted spouse deduction is available for property that passes to a US citizen spouse. However, if the spouse is not a US citizen, there is no marital deduction unless the property passes to a special type of trust. A marital deduction may be available to non-residents if they are citizens of a country that has a tax treaty with the United States.

Continue reading "Legal Permanent Residency/ Green Card Holder and Non-Immigrant: Tax Issues" »

USCIS and Administrative Appeals Office ("AAO") both deny EB-1 Petition Filed by 1988 Olympic Gold Medalist and World Champion Natalia Laschenova Stating that She is Not An Alien with Extraordianry Abilities

I was contacted by Columbus, Ohio Chanel 10 reporter a couple of ago about a story he was investigating on an Olympian Gold Medalist called Natalia Laschenova from Russia whose immigration status was denied by the USCIS. I called Natalia and I could not but believe that this is the same 14 year old who shocked the world winning a Gold Medal in Seoul Korea in 1988 at the age of 14 (watch Video). After talking to Natalia, I was also shocked to learn about her plight with the USCIS which had been ongoing for 10 years now. I agreed to meet the reporter and he ran the following news piece (watch here).

Shortly after that, I met with Natalia and accepted her case. I requested her file from her prior counsel and reviewed about 400 pages of newspaper article after article all attest to Natalia's impressive performance worldwide and technique. I also read many letters from other Olympian Gold Medalists who were coached by Natalia and they all attest to her extraordinary abilities. But the USCIS did not believe that and the AAO actually further affirmed the USCIS's denial of her case.

After winning the Gold Medal in Seoul and other impressive international competitions, Natalia became the National Belarusian gymnastics coach. Natalia had entered the US on H-1B visa in 1999 as a gymnastics coach. She submitted an application for labor certification in the 2000 but due to ridiculous processing times, Natalia decided not to wait for the approval to come and changed her employer to afford her family a better opportunity. Then in 2002, Natalia submitted a petition arguing that she is an alien of extraordinary abilities. That petition was denied. Then again in 2007, Natalia submitted another petition with additional evidence desiring to be designated as an alien of extraordinary abilities, and again she was denied by the USCIS. Natalia then appealed her case to the Administrative appeals Office who affirmed the denial on January 12, 2010.

After the Channel 10 story and my interview, I was contacted by a Group called Reform Immigration for America who adopted Natalia and called on a press conference on March 15, 2010 to bring to light Natalia's plight and to urge Congress to repair America's broken immigration system. Below, please find my statement to the press on that day:

My name is Gus Shihab and I am immigration counsel for Natalia Laschenova.

NATALIA HAS PLAYED BY THE RULES FOR OVER A DECADE BUT OUR BROKEN SYSTEM PREVENTS HER FROM BECOMING AN AMERICAN CITIZEN. After 10 years since her arrival in the United States; after ten years of abiding by all applicable immigration laws and regulations; after 10 years of maintaining legal status in the US; after 10 years of submitting various applications and petitions of immigration of various kinds to the US Citizenship and Immigration Service, Natalia Laschenova, an extraordinary athlete, Gold Medalist, and world champion, today is out of status along with her husband and their children and could face deportation.

Continue reading "Attorney Gus Shihab's Statement Re Olympic Gold Medalist Natalia Laschenova Immigrant Visa Denial at Press Conference" »

Most foreign investors believe that obtaining a treaty investor E-2 visa is accomplished by placing funds in a US bank account that has been earmarked for investment into a US enterprise. In fact, "Treaty Investor" E-2 visa regulations require that such funds be placed at risk in the commercial sense irrevocably into an active investment. Note the emphasis on the aforementioned words which will be explained in greater details below.

What is an Active Investment for Treaty Investor E-2 Visa Purposes?

In order to satisfy the E-2 visa regulatory criteria, the investor must present evidence to the US Consulate or the US Citizenship & Immigration Service, that she had placed its own funds into an investment which requires the investor's involvement. A passive investment such as an income generating real estate ventures which do not require any active participation of the investor (example: rental property) will not meet the E-2 visa rules.

Real estate investments are normally attractive for foreign investors due to their appreciation in value with the passage of time (though not recently). Many foreign investors prefer to place their funds into a property which will not only appreciate in value, but will also create a guaranteed stream of income over a term of years. There are numerous investment opportunities that fulfill these objectives such as triple net long term leases offered by franchise chains and other real estate management companies. But without the foreign investor's active participation in the operation of the business enterprise, the investment may not be deemed "active" under treaty investor "E-2 visa" regulations.

An example of certain real estate investments that would satisfy the treaty investor E-2 visa "active investment" regulations include development companies that purchase, develop, improve, construct and/or manage real properties. One can see the difference between "active" versus passive real estate investments. Like real estate, any other investment meets the treaty investor E-2 visa regulations if the foreign national actively managed the enterprise.

How Are Funds Placed At Risk in the Commercial Sense?

In addition to having an active business endeavor Treaty Investor E-2 visa regulations also require that the funds be placed at risk irrevocably. To meet this criterion the foreign investor must show that she expended funds into a business commitment with hopes that her investment will reap revenues. If business fortunes dwindle, the foreign investor stands to lose her initial capital. Hence, the irrevocable commitment connotes placing or committing actual funds in the market place. This can be accomplished by the purchase of inventory, fixtures, furniture, or equipment or the lease of real estate, etc. In other words, this E-2 visa criterion will be met upon the showing that funds have actually been committed towards the investment enterprise. The irrevocable commitment of funds must occur and be documented at the time of the application for treaty investor.

Continue reading "Treaty Investor E-2 Visa Advice Bits - The Irrevocable, Active Business & Risk Factors " »

Immigration Reform Must Be Fair To All Immigrants
In advance yet another rally for immigration reform set to descend upon Washington D.C., we are all again reminded of the need to amend the fractured structure of agencies and laws that makes up modern immigration system in America. Many of the most vocal and courageous advocates for change in the immigration system are the representatives of foreign nationals from Central and South America. It is indeed true that undocumented aliens from the countries south of the United States boarder do make up the largest contingent of aliens who will be effected by comprehensive immigration reform. However, we need to remember that in order for immigration reform to be truly comprehensive, its effects must be fair and just too all foreign nationals of all visa statuses from all continents.
Fairness for those who have followed the law
Permanent and temporary work visas are distributed according to a myriad of complicated laws and regulations. Many employers and employees who seek to utilize these avenues of immigration have spent years of their lives and thousands of dollars obtaining and maintaining their valid immigration status. While it is in the best interest of the United States to find a path to citizenship for the hundreds of thousands of undocumented workers who do the toughest jobs in this country, it is my hope that their gain does not come from a loss for those aliens who have attempted to immigrate by adhering to the rigorous immigration laws on the books today. A truly comprehensive immigration reform must strive to keep smart workers, hard workers and families together.
What Should Immigration Reform Look Like?
As much as the term Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) is used in the media and around dining room tables, the nuts and bolts of such reform are still a mystery. The central tenants of such reform seem to be registration with the government, a path to citizenship for undocumented workers with caveats for the payment of taxes, tight boarder enforcement. But undocumented workers are only a part of the immigration landscape. Adjustments need to be made to the traditional three avenues of permanent immigration: 1) asylum/refugee status, 2) employment based; and 3) family based immigration.
In general, reform should establish clear guidelines for permanent immigration though these avenues. Asylum/ refugee law as well as family based immigration have a deep and rich history of case law that must be drawn upon in order to fashion legislation that ends in a fair result for foreign nationals as well as maintaining order and security within the United States. A balance must be struck between efficient adjudication of asylum claims with the need to hear the merits of each case. Furthermore, a system that eases the path to citizenship for undocumented workers would decrease the instances of foreign nationals seeking less than traditional marriage partners in order to obtain a green card.
As for employment based temporary and permanent immigration, clear guidelines are long overdue. There has been troubling recent pattern of erosion of the openings for employment based permanent and temporary employment. For example, the Department of Labor has recently taken over the determination of the prevailing wage for permanent immigration petitions from the states. This process has had the practical effect of adding 15 days to one additional month of time before a green card may be petitioned for. Similarly, the USCIS and department of labor have recently tag teemed to increase the wait time and burden of proof for a valid H-1B petition. What is needed is needed from a reformed employment based system is clarity of the parameters and decisive enforcement rather than inconsistent obligat5ions and enforcement of the immigration laws.
Stand up and be heard
In order for Comprehensive immigration reform to truly be comprehensive, representatives from all immigrant communities, representatives from immigration reliant businesses as well as immigration professionals need to make their voices heard. I urge all persons with as stake in the battle to stand up and be heard in Washington D.C. as well as the local level. Only if every party has a seat at the table of reform can fair legislation for all foreign nationals and for United States citizens be won.

United States Supreme Court Protects Aliens' Right to Judicial Review of Motions to Re-open.

The Supreme Court of the United States recently handed down a well reasoned and unanimous opinion defending an Alien's right to have a motion to re-open heard by the Federal Circuit Courts. The practical effect of this decision is to re-affirm what has become the general operating procedure for immigration practitioners in the federal court system. In fact, only two federal circuits felt compelled to comment on the issue previously, and in both instances upheld the right of a motion to re-open to be heard by the federal circuits. The legal conclusion reached is that motions to re-open removal proceedings are not purely a discretionary relief, but rather a right with a deeply rooted tradition in American jurisprudence.

Case Background

In the case before the Supreme Court, Kucana v. Holder 533 F. 3d 534 (January 20, 2009), Mr. Kucana, a citizen of Albania overstayed the time permitted on his visa while visiting on business. Seeking relief from removal, Mr. Kucana applied for asylum. The immigration iudge hearing his claim deemed him to be removable and ordered him to later appear at an immigration hearing to determine the merits of his asylum claim Mr. Kucana later failed to appear for the hearing, stating that he had overslept. The immigration judge ordered him removed from the country even though he was not present at the hearing. Mr. Kucana filed a motion to the immigration judge to re-open his case because he had overslept. The immigration judge denied his motion to re-open. His subsequent appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) was also denied.

Years later, Mr. Kucana again appealed to the BIA to re-open his case, arguing that the conditions in his native Albania had worsened and that his case should be heard in light of the new evidence. The BIA again denied his appeal.

Mr. Kucana then appealed to the Federal Circuit Court for the Seventh Circuit, arguing that the BIA had abused its discretion in not re-opening his case. The Seventh Circuit shockingly declined to hear the appeal stating that it lacked jurisdiction to hear discretionary rulings by the BIA.

Mr. Kucana appealed the circuit court's decision to the Supreme Court of the United States. The United States Attorney General, sensing the futility of the Seventh Circuit's position, declined to argue before the Supreme Court in opposition to Mr. Kucana. Instead, an amicus curie, or proponent of the Seventh Circuit's decision argued in place of the Attorney General.

Crash Course in Administrative Agency Law and the Immigration Court System

In order to appreciate the importance of judicial review of motions to re-open before the federal courts, it is necessary to understand the interplay between the immigration courts and the Federal Circuits.

The immigration courts are not the traditional federal court that you and I may think of as portrayed in the movies. In fact, the immigration court system is a branch of the Department of Justice, headed by the Attorney General of the United States. Both the EOIR Immigration Court (trial court) as well as the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or appeals court) are underneath the Department of Justice. This is part of the reason why Attorney General Eric Holder is the named opponent of Mr. Kucana in the case we are discussing here.

The Department of Justice is a federal agency. For the purposes of this discussion, a federal agency is an entity to which Congress gives powers enabling the agency to enforce laws on a specific subject. Federal agencies, such as the Department of Justice are often given leeway or "discretion" to create regulations that specify how the broad general laws of congress will be applied to specific situations. For example, the immigration courts are given discretion to overlook certain criminal convictions that an immigrant may have, and grant asylum to the Alien. This type of relief is "discretionary" and is left for the immigration court and the BIA to decide. Discretionary relief cannot be appealed out of the immigration court system. In other words, the BIA is the highest court that will hear appeals on discretionary relief.

Decisions on certain traditional rights, such as motions to re-open a case because of new evidence, can be appealed out of the immigration court system to the federal circuit courts and eventually the US Supreme Court. The federal circuit courts are an entirely different branch of the federal government, not controlled by the Department of Justice or the Attorney General. Although the federal courts normally do not interfere with the decisions made by federal agencies, the federal courts will hear cases that were decided by agencies when the agencies make decisions regarding certain fundamental rights or raise questions of federal law.

Continue reading "United States Supreme Court Protects Aliens' Right to Judicial Review of Motions to Re-open." »

The USCIS has issued a new version of the Form I-140

The rumor mill has been turning regarding recent changes to the I-140, Immigration Petition for an Alien worker. Unfortunate tales of I-140 petitions being filed one-day-to-late have been popping up around the immigration law community. While I cannot dispute the accuracy of claims that perfectly sound I-140 petitions have been rejected for such an arbitrary reason as the movement of the location of a few check boxes on the Form, I am confident that such rejections were not the intention of the USCIS.

What is true is that the I-140 document was altered by the USCIS on January 31st, 2010. What is also true is that this alternation was not foreshadowed or publicized on the USCIS website or other relevant media. One is left to speculate why the federal government would abruptly alter such an important document without making it known ahead of time, and therefore cause a small panic for certain immigrants and petitioners alike. Whatever the reason may be, it is important to note that the old version of the From, I-140 will be accepted until March 2, 2010.

What has changed?

On the first page, under Part 2, a box has been added that allows a petitioner to indicate whether the I-140 has been submitted in order to amend a previously filed I-140 petition. There is also a box for the previous receipt number and the indication whether or not the petition is for a schedule A. I. or II. category. It would appear that this new box replaces the prior, USCIS suggested, practice of placing a bright piece of paper immediately under the I-140 petition that indicated in bold lettering that the instant petition was for an I-140 amendment. While it is obvious that this addition is welcomed and needed, it would have been courteous for the Service to indicate that such as change was forthcoming. Foreign nationals who have endured the immigration process long enough to file an I-140, and especially those who qualify for an amended I-140, deserve to have a little more consideration.

Under part 4, there have been two checkboxes added. First, there is a box asking if the instant I-140 is being filed without the original labor certification document. The checkbox seems to relate to the issue of amendment of the I-140 petition. The actual labor certification document is a unique document, printed on distinctive paper that includes an individual case number and security strip. Once this document is signed, it is submitted with the Form I-140. Logically, if you are filing an amended I-140 petition, the original Labor Certification Document has been filed with the previously filed I-140 petition, rendering it unavailable. Only the Department of Labor can issue an official duplicate copy of a Labor Certification Document. Conveniently, the new Form I-140 includes a checkbox that asks if the Petitioner would like the USCIS to request a duplicate.

Finally, the new I-140 ads a box for the employer to place an e-mail address and position title on the signature section of part 9 on page five. This is in keeping with the USCIS trend toward emphasis on electronic notification of the employer as to immigration matters.

Continue reading "Yes, the Form I-140 was updated, No, the I-140 that you filed yesterday will not be rejected" »