Immigration Visa Lawyer Blog

The US Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) recently announced that it will be altering decades' worth of a well established procedure which has Columbus Ohio immigration lawyers and their clients confused and angry.

For as far back as I can remember in the 18 plus years I have been practicing immigration law, the USCIS's established procedure called for mailing approval notices relative to employment based non-immigrant visas (such as H-1B visas) directly to the attorney who had filed a signed Notice of Entry as an Attorney of Record along with the petition. That procedure allowed the attorney to carefully monitor the progress of the case during the USCIS adjudication process as well as post the approval of the case itself. Simply put, the prior procedure worked well.

Now, the USCIS wants to fix a procedure which was never broke. The new procedure now calls for mailing the approval notice for such non-immigrant visa petitions (also known as the I-797 Notice of Action) directly to the sponsoring employers, instead to the attorney of record. US immigration lawyers believe that this is yet another way the USCIS seeks to drive a wedge between them and their clients, the petitioning employers.

The American Immigration Lawyers Association has sharply criticized the new policy thereby requesting the USCIS to restore the prior procedure. The USCIS held a teleconference on October 12, 2011 to review this new procedure. Interestingly, in its announcement for the teleconference, the USCIS offered an unusual way to have immigration attorneys continue to receive the I-797 approval notices by including on the petition for non-immigrant worker (Form I-129) the attorney's address in the filed where the company's address must be entered. This, as the USCIS explained, will cause the USCIS to mail the approval notice to the attorney instead of to the company. The USCIS warned, however, that it utilizes the Validation Instrument for Business Enterprises (VIBE) process, which relies on the business address of the employer to validate whether the petition is filed fraudulently. Using the attorney's address on Form I-129 may disrupt the VIBE process, the USCIS explains and advised attorneys to enclose a separate sheet along with the petition indicating the true address of the employer in order to avoid such discrepancy (without any guarantees).

What a disaster!!! In other words, the USCIS is encouraging attorneys to intentionally misrepresent the address of the employer on Form I-129 and to risk having the employer's identity validated in order to do her job of correctly monitor the progress of the case and advise the client efficiently.

I join my immigration attorney colleagues in stating that this is an ill-advised policy for many reasons. but, before delving into the problems that I see with this new procedure, I would like to share with you the steps that we normally undertake once we receive an employment based non-immigrant visa approval notice on behalf of our client's employees. For the last 10 years in my practice, I have utilized an intricate on-line document storage, data gathering and reminder system integrated into a proprietary web-based processing portal. Upon receipt of an approval notice, we scan and upload it to our immigration processing portal. An instant reminder is created in our system which will alert us to contact the client six (6) months prior to the expiration of the employee's status. Then an email is generated to the client and the employee informing them that their case has been approved. Finally, the approval notice is mailed to the employee providing them with tips about maintaining their status and advising them what to do in the event they need to travel. (Our law firm was named finalist in innovation by TechColumbus in 2008. We now utilize a vendor-based system which we call ShihabEDGE.)

With the approval notices now going to employers, these valuable practices will be compromised. Unless the employer has in-house counsel versed in immigration-related matters (which is very rare), the employer does not possess the skills or resources to monitor the expiration status of their employees' status and/or to advise them regarding the procedures in obtaining visa stamping.

We must remember that the non-immigrant visa approval notice in most scenarios has THE ONLY PROOF of the foreign nationals legal status in the United States. It must be surrendered to the foreign national promptly. with some large employers, the approval notice may arrive on the wrong desk and the recipient may not know what to do with the approval notice or who in the large organization should dispose of it. The attorney on the other hand has direct access to the foreign national and can ascertain that she receives it timely.

The recent policy by USCIS is ill advised; it wastes time and increases the employer's costs. I urge all employers to contact their congressmen to put pressure on the USCIS to reveres this unnecessary procedure. Tell the USCIS that the prior system worked just fine and there is no reason to drive a wedge between the attorney and the employers they represent. If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

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.

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.

The AAO recently approved an EB-3 case that was denied at the Texas Service Center for a petition for immigrant worker seeking to employ a quality assurance manager/researcher and development specialist (professional food technologist) in the skilled-worker or professional EB-3 classification.

The position required a bachelor's degree or equivalent in food science. The beneficiary had a bachelor's degree in agriculture and master's degreee in animal science from the Philippines, as well as a PhD in agriculture and forestry from the University of Melbourne, Australia. The Service Center denied the petition upon the finding that the petitioner failed to submit persuasive evidence to demonstrate that the beneficiary possessed a four-year single-source U.S. bachelor's degree or higher degree or a foreign equivalent degree in food science qualifying her for the position at issue. The petitioner appealed. Reversed.

Our clients in the mid-west and Columbus, Ohio have inquired about employment based immigration when the required degree does not exactly match the foreign degrees. At The Law Firm of Shihab & Associates, we have a staff of attorneys ready to help you prove to the USCIS that your employee's degree matches the job requirements through academic equivalency and study of AAO and BIA case decisions.

In the above-mentioned AAO case, Matter of X, SRC 07 249 5158, the AAO approved the petition upon finding that the beneficiary's PhD in agriculture and forestry specializing in dairy technology qualified her for the proffered position in charge of researching and developing dairy- and non-dairy based food products and for which a bachelor's degree or equivalent in food science was required.

This case teached us that what may seem to be common sense in terms of eductation (the beneficiary had a doctorate degree for an EB-3 food technologist position!!), it may be insufficient at the Service Center level. The Service Centers notoriously adjudicate employment based I-140 cases strictly. This AAO decision gives a petitioner some breathing room when a foreign national's educational background - while duly impressive - does not exactly match the requirements for the job. The AAO got it right in this case since the overriding factor in employment based immigration is whether the foreign national possesses the necessary skills and education for the job. Clearly in this case, the foreign national had such skill and education. This is just an example of how technical and precise one must be in preparing a PERM case or I-140.

How to Contact Us
If you have questions about a PERM case, I-140, employment based immigrant petition, and/or you need help in an immigration process, please contact our immigration attorneys or call The Law Firm of Shihab & Associates Co., LPA at the nearest office close to you to consult with an attorney. Our law firm handles various matters including Green Cards and Permanent Residence, family immigration, immigrant visas, non-immigrant visas, employment visas and H1B visas, Investor Visas, PERM applications, and many more. Please contact us and experience how our law firm can assist you in your immigration matters. Whether you are an employer, an employee or a family member, The Law Firm of Shihab & Associates, Co., LPA has competent, responsive and innovative lawyers who can make your immigration experience pleasant and seamless.

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.

Will 2011 finally be the year that Congress and the President fix the broken immigration system? The short answer: probably not. But that doesn't mean that Congress will stand idly by. The Columbus Ohio Immigration Lawyers of The Law Firm of Shihab & Associates have clients throughout the United States that could be affected by the legislation of the 112th Congress. This article outlines the anticipated Congressional agenda for immigration in 2011, and focuses on several topics relating to employment based immigration where Congress is anticipated to act and highlights the need for comprehensive immigration reform in a slow economic environment.

The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) Outlook
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) anticipates that the 112th Congress will enact patchwork legislation with an emphasis on border security and interior enforcement which will not comprehensively fix the broken immigration system. AILA Ohio Chapter Chairperson, Gus Shihab and AILA anticipate these bills would cause severe hardships to immigrants and their families, run up costs to the DHS budget, and slow economic recovery. American businesses, communities and families are all affected by the immigration system, which regulates the flow of foreign labor, foreign exchange students and family members to the U.S.

Emphasis on Border and Interior Enforcement
It is anticipated that Congress will propose bills appropriating additional funding for boarder security (including the southern border fence) as well as funding for mass deportations. By increasing spending for strict enforcement, it is assumed that Congress is taking comprehensive immigration reform off the table. Whether it is time to expend additional funds from the federal budget on strict border enforcement is subject to ongoing debate. Neither side of the isle have proposed a legitimate plan of action. Hence, greater enforcement efforts will likely be the status quo.

Mandatory Employment Verification: Will E-Verify be a Mandate?
In 2011, legislators on Capitol Hill will likely raise proposals to make the electronic employer verification systems - also known as E-Verify - mandatory for all employers. E-Verify, an internet based system operated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in conjunction with the Social Security Administration (SSA), allows an employer to determine whether the employee is legally authorized to work in the U.S. While E-Verify has the potential of streamlining the hiring process, empirical studies have shown that E-Verify is deeply flawed from privacy, civil liberties, budgetary and technological standpoints. Making the program mandatory could potentially harm hundreds of thousands of workers including U.S. citizens. At a time when unemployment rates are high, we need to strengthen workers' access to jobs and employers' access to workers, not impose additional roadblocks that hinder economic growth.

Restrictions on State-Issued Identification Cards: REAL ID Act, Good or Bad?
Aspects of the REAL ID Act, passed by Congress after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in an effort to create a unified system of state IDs and drivers licenses will become effective in 2011. Implementation of the REAL ID Act has been challenging for the states that must bear the high costs of creating a new driver license system. In addition to the financial burden on the states, the REAL ID Act also has invasion of privacy problems and questionable civil rights burdens. Expect to see legislation proposed that would decrease the types of immigrants eligible for state IDs even further than the REAL ID Act mandates.

More State and Local Enforcement Immigration Law
Since the controversial Arizona law was enacted, states have been more likely to pass legislation aimed at illegal immigration. Once thought to be an area exclusively under federal jurisdiction, Arizona has taught us that immigration law can be enforced through state legislation (at least for now). Look for an increase in the amount of legislation which will be passed by state and local governments that require local police to enforce immigration laws. With the constitutionality of such legislation in question, it is possible that this issue will eventually be decided by the Supreme Court. Our firm has spoken out publically against these measures and should continue to do so until comprehensive immigration reform has been passed.

Punitive Enforcement Approaches: Hatchet Where a Scalpel is Needed?
The 112th Congress will likely propose stiff new penalties against individuals who violate immigration laws. Efforts to increase the penalty for presence in the United States without a lawful immigrant status, including criminalization of illegal presence, mass deportations, mandatory deportations for lawful permanent residents who commit even minor crimes, expedited deportation for visitors who stay beyond their authorized period of stay, severe punishments for people who use fake passports, are likely to be introduced. These "get-tough" measures are tantamount to using a hatchet where you need a scalpel. There are already laws in the current system that address many of these issues, hence punitive enforcement approaches may do nothing more than establish greater unfairness and inhumanity in our immigration system.

Limits on the Opportunity for a Fair Hearing and Due Process: Immigrants Straighten Up!
Since 1996, several laws have been passed restricting the rights of immigrants to gain access to the courts. Recent proposals to restrict court access even further have included provisions to prevent people who are applying for citizenship from appealing their case to federal courts. Access to courts is a fundamental American principle meant to protect individual rights and ensure that our laws are fairly and uniformly applied. This sends the wrong message to immigrants who often come to the U.S. to escape totalitarian dictatorships. With no appeal, fair hearing, or due process, have these immigrants actually escaped anything?

The 14th Amendment Birthright Citizenship Under Fire
The 14th Amendment states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State where they reside." The Law Firm of Shihab & Associates has previously written on this subject. Congressional leaders have proposed to eliminate the so-called "birthright" citizenship. The argument is that the U.S. should not grant citizenship to children if both parents are here illegally. The problem is that parents are illegally coming to the U.S. to give birth to an "anchor baby" for the purpose of enabling parents to gain legal immigration status later on. Either way, repealing the 14th Amendment seems like a draconian approach to a problem that could be solved through thoughtful immigration regulations.

Restrictions on Legal Immigration That Hurt Families: Trade Preferences for Points?
In the 112th Congress, AILA expects there will be proposals to reduce or eliminate certain family categories. These proposals go against the fundamental immigration policy of family reunification and stifles economic and societal growth. In addition, Congress will introduce proposals sought to replace the family based and employment based avenues of legal immigration with some sort of points system, whereby the government would choose the attributes and skills that are most desirable for permanent immigration to America. The point system would change the historical foundations of our immigration system. The U.S. needs a system that will recognize the overwhelming economic contribution of family-based entrants and maintain family as the cornerstone of U.S. immigration policy.

Restrictions on Immigrants' Access to Public Services and Benefits
Bills will likely be introduced in 2011 that deny legal and unauthorized immigrations federally-funded public benefits. The targeted benefits are social security, the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), health care, and housing assistance programs. AILA warns that these proposals are frequently superfluous, symbolic statements that will have little practical impact.

English as an Official Language
In recent years, bills have been proposed to make English the official language of the U.S. Typical provisions of English-only proposals include: (1) requiring English to be the official language of the United States; (2) requiring all federal government documents to be printed in English-only; and (3) prohibiting the use of funds that creates an entitlement to services provided in a language other than English. Perhaps of all the concerns, the most significant is that Courts have concluded that state and local English-only laws violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the First Amendment on the ground that such laws they make it virtually impossible for persons who do not speak English well--whether they are U.S. citizens, legal immigrants, or undocumented workers--to communicate effectively and to assert their constitutional rights.

The first installment of The Law Firm of Shihab & Associates webinar series kicks off on Thursday, February 17, 2011 at 2PM. This is the first webinar in a series of six presented in an effort to describe the current state of employment-based immigration in a post-Neufeld/pre-CIR world. The first series is called "Don't Waste Any More Time Waiting on EB-3 Priority Dates - Convert your Green Card Case to EB-2 and Jump to the Finish Line." This free immigration webinar is intended to illustrate the mechanics of the Priority Date Recapture mechanism and methods to finishing up the Green Card process quickly.

The webinar will begin on Thursday, February 17, 2011 at 2PM and will be re-run on Thursday, February 24, 2011 at 2PM.

Continue reading "Shihab Immigration Firm Webinar Series Announcement" »

Tri-Valley University at Pleasonton, California near San Fransisco has been raided and shut down due to allegations of visa fraud on a massive scale. As Columbus, Ohio Immigration lawyers, we came to become aware of this situation over several calls we received from frantic students not knowing what to do. At the present time, Immigration & Customs Enforcement is seeking to interview every student. Immigration authorities allege that Tri-Valley University was a sham institution from its inception and that it was established merely to provide F-1 visas, curricular practical training or optional practical training employment authorization to its mostly forign national student base. As a result of this raid, immigration attorneys in Columbus, Ohio as well as attorney's from around the country have been fielding questions from those students who may have been affected by the actions of this university.

Immigration issues for these former students vary in thier severity. Some students have been detained and questioned by the authorities. Some have been issued Notices to Appear before deportation officers. Other students have not been questioned at all and simply hope to find a college to enroll at in time to take classes for the winter semester.

Beside the possible invalidity of F-1 visas issued by Tri-Valley University, it has been reported that some students were permitted to engage in CMT without waiting the requisite 9 month period before comencing work on a student basis. Such persons will need to answer for charges or unauthorized employment as well as a lapse in immigration status.

While the investigation into the circumstances surrounding this institution and it's alleged immigration violations, students from this institution should be reminded that all immigration cases are different. Schools have closed before, leaving forign students in a state of immigration limbo and the law does provide solutions to questions of immigration status due to circumstances beyond a student's control. Additionally, for those students that have been signled out by authoritites, there are forms of relief from removal that are available to students depending on the circumstances of each case. Stated another way, forign nationals who may be caught in this mess have the ability to fight for thier right to remain in the United States, but each person will require a different approach depending upon the educatiton, employment and family relationships of each person.

Continue reading "Department of Homeland Security Alleges Massive Immigraion Fraud at Tri-Valley University " »