Immigration Visa Lawyer Blog

The United States Department of Homeland Security announced it will make changes in the F-1 and H-1B visa categories, which will likely benefit professionals from countries such as India. Changes would include providing work authorization for spouses of H-1B visa holders, 17-month extension of optional practical training (OPT) for certain F-1 international students, allow for additional part-time study for spouses of F-1 students, and allow outstanding professors and researchers to present a broader scope of evidence of academic achievement.

Under current immigration law, H-4 visa spouses of H-1B work visas holders are not permitted to work themselves. One of the proposed DHS regulations would change this. The new regulation would allow some spouses of H-1B visa holders to work legally while the H-1B visa holder spouses wait for their adjustment of status applications to be adjudicated. H-4 dependent spouses would be granted employment authorization when the principal H-1B visa holders begin the process of seeking lawful permanent resident status through employment after meeting a minimum period of H-1B status in the United States.

Currently, F-1 students may only work in optional practical training (OPT) for 12 months. DHS plans to provide 17 month extensions of OPT for those students with degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM).

Changes would also allow for additional part-time study for spouses of F-1 students, and would increase the number of Designated School Officials (DSOs) at DHS certified schools to enroll international students. Under current immigration regulation, spouses may only take part-time vocational or recreational classes. The proposed changes would permit spouses of F-1 students to enroll in additional academic classes on a part-time basis while the F-1 student is enrolled in full-time studies.

The DHS's stated purpose here is to reform administrative practices and ease the visa process for highly-skilled immigrants who want to come to the United States for work. This effort could help retain talented professionals who are valued by U.S. employers and who seek to contribute to our economy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The process of priority date advancement in the visa bulletin, is a matter of mystery to the immigration community. Immigration lawyers wish they have a crystal ball with which they can advise clients when their I-485 applications can be filed. Immigrants are always apprehensive about their green card applications and they do not know when their priority dates might become current. For certain Indian and Chinese nationals, the wait can be daunting. The US Department of State has recently made predictions regarding priority date advancement for Indian and Chinese nationals. This article provides a summary of these predications.

It is important for Chinese and Indian EB-2 petitioners to file their I-485 applications in the first month of visa availability. Moreover, it would be wise for Indian nationals in the EB-3 category to take the steps necessary to file an EB-2 petition due to the long wait in priority dates. Priority dates will be advanced significantly for category EB-2 nationals of India and China but EB-3 category dates will remain stationary, according to the Chief of the Visa Control and Reporting Division of the Department of State, Charles Oppenheim.

For nationals of India and China in the EB-2 category, Mr. Oppenheim predicts that over the next few visa bulletins, priority dates could advance eight months by February 2012, then remain stationary through June 2012 when there is a possibility of retrogression. Mr. Oppenheim explained that retrogression is necessary to make sure that all the visa numbers are used before 9/30/12, otherwise they would be lost forever.

Priority dates are predicted to stay the same during 2011 for nationals of India in the EB-3 category, advancing only one month from December 2011 through June 2012. This is because India is limited to only 3,000 EB-3 based green cards per year and the queue is estimated at 210,000. If this were to remain, a 70 year wait is conceivable. There is legislation pending that could eliminate this limitation, which would cause priority dates to advance.

For nationals of China in the EB-3 category, priority dates are predicted to advance about three weeks per month during 2012, which would mean an advancement of four months between December 2011 and June 2012.

The prediction for the rest of the world is that EB-2 priority dates will remain current in 2012, and the prediction for the EB-3 is that dates will advance about four weeks per month, moving ahead almost six months between December 2011 and June 2012.

Mr. Oppenheim explained that priority date predictions are hard to make because the number of people in the queue is difficult to estimate due to the unknown number of spouses and minor children who will apply for a visa number with each foreign national.

Continue reading "Department Of State Makes Predictions Regarding EB-2 and EB-3 Priority Dates For India and China" »

A 19 year-old Guatemalan who has resided in the United States since he was three years old hopes to get a reprieve from deportation one year after the government first tried to send him back to his country of origin. Bernard Pastor, who lives in the Cincinnati area, is requesting an extension from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials in Detroit. He obtained a one-year deferral from ICE last year, which expires on December 17. He has amassed support from friends, fellow students, clergy, and immigration advocates, who maintain that deporting him "would serve no useful purpose," according to as Associated Press report.

Pastor's parents brought him to the U.S. from Guatemala when he was three years old in order to escape religious persecution by the military regime then in power. Although Pastor's uncle reportedly obtained legal asylum, his parents did not. They nevertheless chose to stay in the U.S. By all accounts, Pastor is an all-American teenager. He became an honors student, a soccer star, and the homecoming king of his high school. He graduated among the top 5 students of his high school class in 2010.

A fender bender in Springdale on November 17, 2010, when Pastor could not produce a driver's license, brought him to the attention of police, and then ICE got involved. Pastor spent a month in jail, during which time an attorney and many friends and supporters advocated for him. ICE agreed to a one-year extension for Pastor to stay in the country and released him from jail on December 17 of last year.

Pastor's supporters and advocates widely publicized his case through the media and the internet. Facebook pages and a Change.org petition pleaded his case. Pastor was at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC on December 18, the day after his release, to support the DREAM Act in the Senate. The DREAM Act would have given him a path to legal immigration status if he attended college. While the bill passed the House of Representatives, it failed in the Senate.

Continue reading "Guatemalan-Born Ohio Teen Seeks Additional Reprieve from Deportation" »

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

The Arizona Case

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

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

The Ohio Mandatory E-Verify Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

The H-1B visa cap experience in calendar year 2011 has been a remarkable copycat performance of last year and the year before that. Unlike prior years where all cap-subject 85,000 H-1B visas were consumed in one day (April 1 or shortly thereafter), the last three years have shown a screeching slow down for H-1B visa usage with visas available well into Christmas and New Year's. This experience is shared by Columbus immigration lawyers alike. For instance, as of October 14, 2011, there remains more than 20,000 new H-1B visas available this federal fiscal year.

I have been closely monitoring the H-1B visa usage during the last three years and have noticed a remarkable similarity in the rate of its consumption. This is indicative of a stagnant economy and one where reliance on highly skilled foreign labor has decreased when compared to 2008 and prior years. An examination of the H-1B visa usage since July 2011, however, shows a stronger absorption rate than was experienced in the prior two years indicating a possible growth in certain industries which rely on highly skilled labor.

In July of this year, I had performed a statistical comparison between this federal fiscal year's consumption of H-1B visas to the prior year and concluded that a slower consumption of H-1B visas was reported earlier in the year but later weekly usage showed a slightly stronger consumption than the year prior. Now three months later, the rate of consumption for new H-1B visas is somewhat stronger than last year on a weekly basis. I predicted that H-1B visas will be consumed this federal fiscal year between Thanksgiving and New Year's. This projection continues to be true based on analysis of H-1B visa consumption this year.

Noticeable Rush for H-1B Visas After July 2011

In examining the rate of consumption this year, two patters emerge: one from April to July and another from July 2011 onward. The rate of consumption from April to July 2011 was more linear with approximately 700 to 900 new petitions received by the USCIS on a weekly basis. From July onward, however, the rate of consumption appears to have jumped to an exponential curve with an increasing rate of consumption weekly to 2300 H-1B visas between October 7 and October 14, 2011. Hence, there appears to be a rush to acquiring new H-1B visas as the year nearing to end. If you compare this rush to acquire highly technical labor against the overall US job growth, one certainly gets confused; the US has reported a disappointing zero job gain in the second quarter of 2011. But in examining employment data released by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics on October 7, 2011 covering the period ending September 30, 2011, one finds that there has been measurable growth in education, construction, healthcare, telecommunication, manufacturing and consulting services. Those industries grew by about 500,000 workers between August and September of 2011.

Continue reading "H-1B Visa Cap Predication and Update" »

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

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

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

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

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

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!

A new film, "Like Crazy," is making the rounds of film festivals, winning a top award at Sundance this year. It tells the story of two college students in Los Angeles who meet and fall in love. Jacob is an American, and Anna is a British exchange student. Anna overstays her student visa and then returns home to London. When she tries to fly back to Los Angeles, she finds herself barred by officials at the airport. This sets up the main action of the film, in which the two must find a way to continue their relationship despite the trans-North America, trans-Atlantic distance between them.

While the film primarily acts as a love story, it offers a glimpse of the issues faced by spouses, fiancees, and lovers who find themselves separated by immigration laws. An immigration lawyer certainly knows that these situations present complicated and emotional issues. Anna certainly made a mistake by overstaying her student visa. If she came to the United State on a J-1 student visa, for example, she may have been subject to a requirement that she return to her home country for at least two years, even if she did not overstay her visa period. J-1 visas typically allow a visitor to stay in the U.S. up to 30 days after their educational program ends, but they must then depart. Overstaying a student visa could lead to ineligibility to return to the U.S. for years.

Is there anything the young lovers in the film could do? Overstaying the visa made it difficult, if not impossible. If the two were to get engaged, and she did not overstay her student visa, they might be able to get a fiancee visa, known as a K-1. An American usually petitions for a K-1 while the fiancee is still abroad. Both fiancees must show they are legally eligible to get married in the petitioner's state of residence. They must show evidence that they will not become public charges, and that the engagement is legitimate. One specific requirement is proof that the fiancees have met in person at least once in the previous two years, which is intended to deter sham marriages. They must get married within 90 days of the immigrant's arrival in the U.S.

Continue reading "New Film Addresses the Issue of Student Visas, Immigration, and Young Love" »

In these times of economic uncertainty, it seems that many in the American public target employment based immigration as one of the many causes of high unemployment rates in the United States. However, overwhelming evidence shows that the immigration of high skilled workers through the H-1B and PERM programs actually improves the economy. Much of the unemployment problems in the United States and specifically Columbus, Ohio stem from a mismatch of skilled persons available for high tech jobs.

In a recent interview, Alan Greenspan placed his support behind supporting the immigration of persons who hold higher degrees from American colleges and Universities. In this interview, Mr. Greenspan cautioned America against artificially creating more low skill jobs to try and reduce unemployment. In Mr. Greenspan's opinion, the true path to raising the standard of living in America is to open the workforce to more skilled workers.

A recent article in the Columbus Dispatch illustrates the point that many high skilled jobs go unfilled because of a lack of persons possessing skills to fill those jobs. As more non-tech businesses integrate technology into their business models, the demand for highly skilled workers is only going to increase. This demand is also expected to be compounded by the move of American employers to the international based financial reporting standards. Clearly there is a demand for skilled workers in Columbus, Ohio as well as the United States as a whole.

One way to meet this demand is to allow more high skilled immigrants to obtain temporary and permanent employment through the H-1B and PERM programs. Allowing more of these jobs to be filled will produce more tax revenue as well as add more consumers to the United States market. Some of the greatest economic minds as well as the raw evidence support the notion that immigration of high skilled workers helps rather than hurts the American economy.

If anything can be learned from the market's absorption of new highly skilled foreign labor in Specialty Occupation (H-1B) visas last year, is that these foreign nationals do not compete with US workers over the same jobs. Since numerous prestegeous studies corrolated innovation in America with the population of H-1B visa workers, the H-1B visa worker market absorption data is an indicator of how well the overall country is doing economically.

Even though the federal government made 85,000 new such visas available for the picking on April 1, 2010 (as it does every year), employers were slow to apply. For the first time in over a decade, all new specialty occupation, H-1B visas were finally consumed by January 21, 2011.

In prior years, all available visas were swallowed up voraciously by employers in a matter of hours when H-1b visas became available on April 1. Desperate employers could not fill open positions in information technology and all other highly skilled sectors fast enough; hence they resorted to importing these workers from other countries. But last year was different. Unemployment figures soared to double digits, a matter which the US had not witnessed for decades. Hence, if the H-1B visa worker market absorption experience last year tells anything, it says that employers were able to fill some of the available positions with US workers and/or that there were no jobs to fill.

Earlier this calendar year, pundits predicted an economic resurgence and that we are now on the brink of recovery. Hence a comparison between the 2011 and 2012 federal fiscal years' market absorption rates of H-1B visa workers should be a good indicator of the overall employment market and particularly the health of the technical employer sector.

One interesting phenomenon this fiscal year, is that by April 15, 2011 the USCIS reported receiving only 12,200 H-1B visa petitions , as compared to last year which was 7,200 more (19,400) for the same date. In other words, early indicators of the H-1B visa market usage this year showed potentially weaker absorption rate of foreign H-1B visa workers. Even with a lower starting point this year, however, the rate of weekly H-1B visa petitions filed since April 2011 is greater than was last year for the same period, indicating a stronger H-1B worker market absorption. For instance, last federal fiscal year, there were 16,900 petitions filed between April 15 and July 16 while this year, there were almost twice that many - 32,080 petitions filed in the same period. It is unclear why the initial filing numbers in April of this year were so much lower but certainly it is a much more robust year than last year for H-1B visa workers.

Moving forward, my prediction is that we will continue to have H-1B visas available well into the end of the year. Unless market demands shift, which they may very well do so as a higher number of weekly petitions filed occurred after July 2010 and continued to climb during the last quarter of the year, it is expected that the cap will reach between November 2011 and January 2012.

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" »

In today's US Immigration environment, many foreign nationals are increasingly apprehensive about their visa position in the US when applying to change, transfer or extend their status. The introduction of arbitrary rules and memoranda by the US such as the H-1B Visa Third Party Placement (also known as the Neufeld Memo) has made non-immigrant visa approval more complex. Even though the criteria set form in the Neufeld memo were intended to apply in the H-1B visa program, we now see application of the Neufeld memo to have bled to the adjudication of other non-immigrant visa programs including O, L and others. This environment has amplified foreign national's concerns relative to the success of their non-immigrant visa stamping at the consulates even after having procured petition approval by the USCIS.

This article will dissect the issues relevant in the consular visa stamping process and will offer insights as to how the "sausage is made" behind the scenes" from the time of the petition approval until the consular stamping process. This information is being brought to you by Columbus immigration attorneys after careful review of material available in our files and elsewhere. Our practice encompasses the entire nation and we accept clients globally.

Step One: The Non-immigrant Visa Petition Process

The first step in a successful visa stamping process, believe it or not, begins at the initial filing of the non-immigrant visa petition. It is imperative for the immigration attorney to send in an additional copy of the visa petition and any subsequent RFEs along to the Service center processing the petition with a cover sheet requesting the Service Center to forward to the "Kentucky Consular Center" ("KCC") for what is known as the PIMS system. PIMS is an acronym for "Petition Information Management Service" is a secure web enabled system established in 2007 which allows the US Consulates to review all the documents filed by the petitioning company from a secured source. The KCC receives more than 1000 non-immigrant petitions per day from the various service centers and uploads them into the PIMS system. In addition, the KCC conducts a limited verification process of the petitioners and creates a database record of from the I-129 petition itself.

You can immediately surmise that the consulates would much rather review documents from a source they trust than from the beneficiary him or herself. You must remember that the USCIS Service Center WILL NOT send an extra copy of the visa petition package to the KCC and many immigration lawyers do not take the time to comply with the rules and neglect to send a copy thereby causing the beneficiary to experience delays during the consular process. Hence, the first step to a successful visa stamping process begins at the time the petition is filed.

Step Two: Planning For the Interview

If your petition made it to the KCC for inclusion in the PIMS system, you are in decent shape. If not, you must contact your attorney to make certain that a copy is mailed to the Service for uploading in the PIMS system.

In order to prepare for your consular interview you must visit the US Consular website to learn about the specific steps required to schedule the appointment. Remember to complete the on-line form and the payment of the filing fee. If your petition was approved prior to the establishment of the PIMS system in 2007 and you wish to receive stamping you should have your attorney make certain that the Service Center sends a copy of the petition and other related response to an RFE to the KCC with instructions to upload it in the PIMS.

You must also understand that the consulate will have access to information and documentation about you and the petitioner as stated in the most recent approved petition which was later uploaded by the KCC in the PIMS system. If circumstances of your employment changed, for example you have been assigned to a different end client or your work-site address changed significantly, it is high advisable to file an amended H-1B visa petition prior to the scheduled visa stamping.

Take with you a copy of the entire petition package in case including any RFEs that had been issued and responded to by your immigration lawyer. In addition, take with you the original approval notice for presentation to the consular officer if necessary.

KCC advised the American Immigration Lawyers Association that five days prior to the interview, the consular officer is required to review the candidate's file and to determine whether the PIMS system is updated. If not, the consular officer is directed to request that the file be updated to the KCC which in turn will contact the USCIS Service Center regarding any missing or inconsistent information. For instance, if the PIMS system did not show an approval in the file, the KCC will attempt to obtain the same from the USCIS. The USCIS normally responds within 48 hours. Once the KCC receives the missing information from the USCIS, it updates the PIMS system.

Step Three: The Date of the Consular Interview

You must be aware that US Consulates may investigate your case notwithstanding the stature of your employer. From experience, we generally see more consular inquiries relative to petitions filed by smaller petitioners although it is not necessarily a rule of thumb. Hence, it should not be a point of concern or frustration as most cases filed in good faith will be resolved in favor of the beneficiary.

Continue reading "Visa Stamping at the Consulate and the PIMS System: Taking the Fear Factor Out of the Process Can Only Occur Through Early Planning" »

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)" »