VAWA self-petition FY 2021 Annual Report and Approval/Denial Rate:

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) law allow certain spouses, children, and parents of abusive U.S. citizens and certain spouses and children of abusive Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs) to petition for immigration benefits without the abuser’s participation or knowledge (self-petition).

Self-petitioners must establish that they:
(1) have or had a qualifying relationship with the abuser;
(2) are eligible for immigrant classification as an immediate relative or certain family sponsored preference categories;
(3) resided with the abuser;
(4) have been subject to battery or extreme cruelty during the qualifying relationship;
(5) are a person of good moral character; and
(6) entered into the marriage in good faith (for self-petitioning spouses only).

In FY 2021, I-360 VAWA self-petition Approval Rate varied greatly between the three groups of the applicants:

(1) 70% for the spouses of the abusing US citizens and permanent residents. (70 % or 6,412 petitions approved and 30% or 2,712 petitions denied).

(2) 42% for children of the abusive USC or LPR parents,

(3) 23% for parents of the abusive USC or LPR child.

​On average, a VAWA self-petition filed by an abused spouse adjudicated by USCIS in FY 2021 was pending for about 25 months,
a VAWA self-petition filed by an abused child adjudicated by USCIS in FY 2021 was pending for
about 25.1 months,
and a VAWA self-petition filed by an abused parent adjudicated by USCIS in FY 2021 was pending for about 20.8 months. The report is here.

The processing times are calculated using the date of receipt by USCIS and the date of the adjudication (i.e., approval or denial). Not all self-petitions adjudicated in FY 2021 were received in FY 2021; as such, VAWA self-petitions adjudicated in FY 2021 do not necessarily represent petitions received by USCIS in
FY 2021.

​See the FY 2021 report here.

Since 2004, we help our clients in VAWA cases. To schedule an appointment with an immigration attorney, please email us to schedule. 

Briefly in Russian:

По статистике за 2021 фискальный год. USCIS утвердили I-360 VAWA петиции в трех основных категориях:

(1) 70 % утвердили для жен и мужей абьюзеров

(2) 42 % утвердили для родителей абьюзеров

(3) 23 % утвердили детей абьюзеров.

Разница по статистике огромная - от 70 до 23 процентов.

Сроки рассмотрения этих гуманитарных петиций в 2021 составляли от 20 до 25 месяцев. В 2022 сроки остались приблизительно на таком же уровне.

Если вам нужна помощь с петицией ВАВА, мы будем рады вам помочь. Мы глубоко специализируемся в этой категории дел с 2004 года.

Для контакта с адвокатом по делу ВАВА, свяжитесь с нами по email.

Conditional or permanent bars to GMC good moral character can result in the denial of your application for Naturalization, N-400, and also other applications for immigration benefits.

For example, a VAWA self-petitioner or applicant for naturalization (citizenship) will generally fail to establish that they possess good moral character if they were engaged or continue to be engaged in prostitution or gave false testimony. It can also bar a person from adjusting their status to the status of a lawful permanent resident in the United States.

Prostitution.

An applicant may not establish GMC if he or she has engaged in prostitution, procured or attempted to procure or to import prostitutes or persons for the purpose of prostitution, or received proceeds from prostitution during the statutory period.[39] The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has held that to “engage in” prostitution, one must have engaged in a regular pattern of behavior or conduct.[40] The BIA has also determined that a single act of soliciting prostitution on one’s own behalf is not the same as procurement.[41]

Another ground is False Testimony: 

An applicant who gives false testimony to obtain any immigration benefit during the statutory period cannot establish GMC.[33] 
False testimony occurs when the applicant deliberately intends to deceive the U.S. Government while under oath in order to obtain an immigration benefit. This holds true regardless of whether the information provided in the false testimony would have impacted the applicant’s eligibility. The statute does not require that the benefit be obtained, only that the false testimony is given in an attempt to obtain the benefit.[34]
While the most common occurrence of false testimony is failure to disclose a criminal or other adverse record, false testimony can occur in other areas. False testimony may include, but is not limited to, facts about lawful admission, absences, residence, marital status or infidelity, employment, organizational membership, or tax filing information. 

​Good Moral Character requirement for Naturalization. 

There are many other conditional bars to good moral character listed in the USCIS Manual.

Permanent bars to good moral character are listed in the USCIS Manual here.

If in doubt, you should consult an immigration attorney, and have your case evaluated before applying for any immigration benefits.

In Russian:

Для многих иммиграционных заявлений требуется доказательство того, что заявитель не является аморальным человеком. В законе есть перечень условных оснований для отказа в заявлении и постоянных оснований для отказе в заявлении, на том основании, что человек считается "аморальным" (или у него/нее отсутствует "good moral character"). 

Например, проституция, дача ложных показаний и другие основания могут привести к отказу.

Если вы сомневаетесь, касается ли это вашей ситуации, проконсультируйтесь конфиденциально с адвокатом по вашему делу перед тем как подавать заявления в USCIS, а иногда и до того как начинать подготовку по делу, чтобы реально оценить ваши шансы и не терять время и ресурсы.

The denial rates vary from 0% in San Marino, Liechtenstein, and Andorra to 96% in Republic of Palau, 63% Syria, 34% Ukraine, 13% Belarus, and 10% Russia.

Please note that this applies only to applications for B-1 and B-2 visitor or tourist visa.

If you have questions or need help applying for your visitor or tourist visa to the United States, please email an attorney to schedule a consultation.

По-русски: статистика отказов в выдаче гостевой или туристической визы в США в 2015 году.
​Это относится только к визе B1 | B2.
Украина - 34% заявлений отказано.
Россия - 10% заявлений отказано.
Беларусь - 13% заявлений отказано.
Грузия - более 50% отказано.
Франция - 16% отказано.
Казахстан - 12.7% отказано.
Молдова - 42% отказано.
Узбекистан - 50% отказано.
Таджикистан - 44.44% отказано. 

Interesting and detailed statistics for the last fiscal year 2015 can be found here: 
https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/Non-Immigrant-Statistics/RefusalRates/FY15.pdf

Brussels, 29 October 2015.

Big victory for Dutch lawyers and their clients, and also for any other European lawyers who practice law in the Netherlands.

The District Court of The Hague has ruled that surveillance of lawyers by intelligence agencies constitutes an infringement of fundamental rights and orders the State to stop all surveillance of lawyers’ communications. 

Dutch court upholds lower court ruling banning surveillance of lawyers’ communications after successful CCBE intervention. The Dutch State may appeal the ruling within four weeks.

On 27 October 2015, a Dutch Court of Appeal upheld The Hague District court’s ruling in the Prakken d’Oliveira case which ordered the Dutch State to stop all surveillance of lawyers’ communications until it provided for independent oversight.

In its ruling, the Dutch Court of Appeal dismissed all the grounds of appeal alleged by the Dutch State. The Court indicates that according to case law of the European Court of Human Rights surveillance activities must be subject to review by an independent body with the power to prevent or terminate potential infringements of professional secrecy. The current Dutch surveillance regime does not meet the requirements for such independent control and, therefore, conflicts with the right to privacy (article 8 ECHR) and the right to a fair trial (article 6 ECHR). The Court stresses that information obtained from tapping lawyers may not be shared with prosecutors until an independent review has taken place regarding the legality of that information and the way it was obtained. Even the possibility that information is shared with the public prosecutor can result to people refraining from contacting a lawyer. According to the court, that is a violation of the right to a fair trial and undermines the rationale behind professional secrecy. The Court also ruled that the protection of client confidentiality is not limited to communications with Dutch lawyers but extends to communications with all European lawyers rendering services in The Netherlands as referred to in Directive 77/249/EC.

As a result of these findings the Court of Appeal confirmed the lower court’s ruling.

In welcoming the decision, CCBE President Maria Ślązak commented: “the trust between lawyer and client is, at root, an assurance of due process and the rule of law. It is therefore essential that the confidentiality of lawyer-client communications is always respected. Surveillance measures that could undermine this principle have always to be subject to review by an independent body with the power to prevent and/or terminate the infringement. The fact that this has been reaffirmed by the Dutch Court of Appeal is reassuring and an important step to bring Dutch surveillance policy in line with the right to a fair trial.”

**************
Background: in May 2015 the CCBE successfully intervened before The Hague District Court in a challenge brought against the Dutch State by the law firm Prakken d'Oliveira and the Dutch Association of Criminal Defence Lawyers (NVSA). The Court was questioned on the legality of eavesdropping by domestic intelligence agencies on lawyers’ calls and communications. In its verdict delivered on July 1st, the court recognised that the ability to communicate confidentially with a lawyer is a fundamental right which is currently being breached under Dutch surveillance policy. The court therefore ordered the Dutch government to stop all interception of communications between clients and their lawyers under the current regime within six months. In response, the Dutch State fast-tracked an appeal against the judgement. In turn, on 25 August, the CCBE challenged the grounds of the appeal.

Transcript of the judgement (in Dutch): http://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2015:2881
Transcript of the previous judgement (in Dutch):http://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2015:7436 
CCBE wins case against the Dutch State on surveillance of lawyers (press release, 02/07/2015):http://www.ccbe.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/NTCdocument/EN_pr_0415pdf1_1435843144.pdf 
CCBE takes mass surveillance to court (press release, 27/05/2015):http://www.ccbe.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/NTCdocument/EN_pr_0315pdf1_1432724578.pdf 
CCBE Statement on mass electronic surveillance by government bodies (including of European lawyers’ data):http://www.ccbe.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/NTCdocument/EN_14142013_CCBE_Sta1_1382086457.pdf
Dutch Intelligence Service (AIVD) taps Prakken d'Oliveira lawyers:http://www.prakkendoliveira.nl/en/news/dutch-intelligence-service-aivd-taps-prakken-doliveira-lawyers/

*******************
About the CCBE:

The CCBE represents the bars and law societies of 32 member countries and 13 further associate and observer countries, and through them more than 1 million European lawyers.

Founded in 1960, the CCBE is recognised as the voice of the European legal profession by the EU institutions, and acts as the liaison between the EU and Europe's national bars and law societies. The CCBE has regular institutional contacts with those European Commission officials, and members and staff of the European Parliament, who deal with issues affecting the legal profession. The CCBE is an international non-profit-making association incorporated in Belgium.

Article from my Moscow colleague in Russian below: how to avoid making mistakes when choosing and retaining an attorney, lawyer, immigration attorney; or when deciding whether to file anything, and what steps should be taken to protect and secure your legal rights. 

Why an offer of a "free first consultation" or "free chat with our representative through our website" is usually an indication of a scam and an unqualified lawyer (or even a non-lawyer who pretends to be an attorney) who is ready to "promise" and "guarantee" success to anyone as long as the client is paying, no matter the consequences to a client.

*****************
Как известно, нередко недобросовестные юристы и юрфирмы клиентов привлекают через интернет, где обещают провести бесплатную консультацию (заманивают бесплатными консультациями). 

Например, человек заходит на юридические сайты, где пытается найти ответы на свои вопросы бесплатно. Всплывает окошко чата, где виртуальный оператор предлагает его проконсультировать. Человек излагает проблему. Но будьте уверены, что исчерпывающе и пошагово никто его консультировать не собирается. Его попросят оставить номер телефона. Когда ему перезвонят, то вся суть разговора сведется к тому, что ему пообещают, что *обязательно помогут* и *гарантирую успех* за определенную сумму денег.

Не секрет, что многие предпочитают слышать то, что лишь хотят услышать. Так происходит и при обращении к юристам. Некоторые люди, как им кажется, "знают все сами", а иногда и больше специалистов. Так вот, если некоторым людям добросовестный юрист говорит, что шансов мало или их нет вовсе, они уверенно отправляются к тем юристам, из уст которых они услышат слова поддержки и гарантию успеха.

Следует помнить: 1) бесплатный сыр бывает только в мышеловке, 2) добросовестный адвокат не имеет право гарантировать успех, 3) хороший адвокат не предоставляет бесплатных консультаций, так как зачем ему/ей это нужно, и на это просто нет времени, к тому же хороший адвокат понимает, что самое главное, это предварительно изучить дело клиента и дать ему правильный совет, а только затем переходить к действиям и заключать договор.

Очень полезная статья по-русски от моих московских коллег тут.

USCIS or DHS website where you can find USCIS contact number, webforms and download all applications and forms for free is here.

USCIS Case Status: you can check status of your pending case online here.

Visa Case Status: you can check status of your immigrant visa IV or non-immigrant visa NIV case here.
​
USCIS Processing Times: you can see how fast cases are being adjudicated or decided by different USCIS / DHS offices around the United States here.

USCIS Change of Address Form Online: you can submit your change of address form online here.

USCIS Case Inquiry Webforms: you can submit your questions or case inquiry directly to USCIS by using one of the webforms here.

USCIS submit electronically I-90, N-400 or I-131A, or pay a Green Card fee online.

How to find USCIS field offices, ASC Application Support Centers, Asylum officers - use USCIS Officer Locator here.

How to Find a Medical Doctor for a USCIS I-693 Medical Examination - use USCIS Designated Doctor Locator. 

How to verify if a particular USCIS office is open or closed due to bad weather or other circumstances - use USCIS Office Closings Daily Bulletin. 

How to obtain an official record of admission from CBP, Form I-94. You will need to provide your passport number and a country, first and last names, date of birth. The official I-94 will include an admission number (that you need for several immigration applications and forms), date and class of admission, and expiration date, name and a passport information.

Asylum Office Scheduling Bulletin is posted by Asylum Office here.

US Department of State Monthly Visa Bulletin: you can find monthly visa bulletin and check how fast your priority date is progressing here.

You can find out current Visa Fees for various visas to USA here. 

Complete a nonimmigrant visa application online: DS-160.

Complete an immigrant visa application online: DS-260.

You can pay your Green Card fee online here. You can find step-by-step instructions here.

Now, you can electronically submit several applications: USCIS Forms I-90, N-400, I-131A.

Know Your Rights: What to do during the ICE or immigration raid at work, at home, in a public place; what questions you must answer and when you shall remain silent. (In English, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, Tagalog, Korean and Arabic).

To schedule a consultation with an experienced immigration attorney who speaks English and Russian, please email us to schedule a telephone or Skype appointment with attorney Luba Smal.

​

Sometimes in my practice as an immigration attorney, I see people make wrong decisions which then affect their lives for many years, result in separation from family and children; can be a cause of severe depression; and loss of the permanent resident status (aka "green card").

When in doubt or not sure what to do, you should consult with an experienced immigration attorney or contact the US consulate in your home country.

Situation #1:

Child born abroad to Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) may be allowed to board the plane to the United States, if the child was born during the temporary visit abroad of a mother who is a lawful permanent resident alien of the United States, provided that the child’s application for admission to the United States is made within two years of birth and the child is accompanied by the parent who is applying for readmission as a permanent resident upon the first return of the parent.

Situation #2: 

Child born abroad to an accompanying parent after issuance of an immigrant visa to the parent but prior to the parent’s initial admission as an immigrant may be boarded as long as the child has a passport or is listed in a parent’s passport and is in possession of the birth certificate.

Before traveling to the United States, it's a good idea to contact the U.S. embassy or consulate in your home country to obtain a transportation letter. 

CBP guidance can be found here. 

On Friday, October 16, 2015, a federal judge in Texas declined to order Texas officials to institute a temporary fix so children of undocumented immigrants born in the United States can get their birth certificates while a lawsuit filed by their parents is being tried.  

Instead of issuing a temporary injunction order sought by the plaintiffs (the undocumented immigrants who were denied their U.S. citizen children's birth certificates), U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman ruled that the case should proceed through the full hearing process given the complexity of the issues involved. 

Pitman’s ruling comes two weeks after attorneys for the families told the judge that the children’s civil rights had been violated because county registrars, by order of the Texas Department of State Health Services, would not issue birth certificates because the parents did not present one or more acceptable forms of ID. More than 30 families have joined the suit since the initial complaint was filed in May.

“Although the Plaintiffs have provided evidence which raises grave concerns regarding the treatment of citizen children born to immigrant parents, this case requires additional determinations which can be made only upon development and presentation of an evidentiary record,” Pitman wrote in a 27-page decision.

The parents in the lawsuit contend that IDs previously used to obtain the vital records, specifically the Mexican Consular ID (called the matrícula consular) and foreign passports, were accepted in some counties just months ago until the department amended its policies without warning.

Now, some of the undocumented immigrants parents can't request their US-born children's birth certificates because the parents lack proper and acceptable by the Organs of Vital Statistics photo ID documents.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton called the ruling an “important first step in ensuring the integrity of birth certificates and personal identity information. Before issuing any official documents, it’s important for the state to have a way to accurately verify people are who they say they are through reliable identification mechanisms.”

Read news here and court opinion here. 

On September 09 2015, USCIS Announces Revised Procedures for Determining Visa Availability for Applicants Waiting to File for Adjustment of Status.

USCIS, in coordination with Department of State (DOS), is revising the procedures for determining visa availability for applicants waiting to file for employment-based or family-sponsored preference adjustment of status. The revised process will better connect USCIS procedures with the US Department of State (DOS) procedures, which are used for foreign nationals who seek to become U.S. permanent residents by applying for immigrant visas at U.S. consulates and embassies abroad.

The Visa Bulletin revisions implement November 2014 executive actions on immigration announced by President Obama and Secretary of Homeland Security Johnson, as detailed in the White House report, Modernizing and Streamlining Our Legal Immigration System for the 21st century, issued in July 2015. 

What is Changing.

Starting October 1, 2015, you will be able to submit your application for adjustment of status or for an immigrant visa before your priority date is current. 

Two charts per visa preference category will be posted in the DOS Visa Bulletin:

• Current priority dates for particular visa categories; and
• The earliest dates for filing application for adjustment of status (earliest dates when applicants may be able to apply).

See October 2015 Visa Bulletin here. However, the priority dates in the Visa Bulletin can retrogress in November. Consult an attorney about your specific case so you won't miss the opportunity of applying earlier.

When filing an application for adjustment of status, I-485, an applicant can concurrently file an application for a work permit and advance parole. This is great news for many immigrants waiting for many years for their priority dates to become current. However, it's a good idea to consult an immigration attorney before applying.

Each month, in coordination with DOS, USCIS will monitor visa numbers and post the relevant DOS Visa Bulletin chart. Applicants can use the charts to determine when to file their Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status.

To determine whether additional visas are available, USCIS will compare the number of visas available for the remainder of the fiscal year with:

• Documentarily qualified visa applicants reported by DOS;
• Pending adjustment of status applications reported by USCIS; and
• Historical drop off rate (for example, denials, withdrawals, abandonments).

About the Visa Bulletin.

DOS publishes current immigrant visa availability information in a monthly Visa Bulletin. The Visa Bulletin indicates when statutorily limited visas are available to prospective immigrants based on their individual priority date.

• The priority date is generally the date when the applicant’s relative or employer properly filed the immigrant visa petition on the applicant’s behalf with USCIS. If a labor certification is required to be filed with the applicant’s immigrant visa petition, then the priority date is when the labor certification application was accepted for processing by Department of Labor.
• Availability of an immigrant visa means eligible applicants are able to take one of the final steps in the process of becoming U.S. permanent residents. 

Read more here.  

As of July 2015, backlog of pending immigration cases in all Immigration Courts: see here. 


Average wait for an individual hearing in Immigration Courts in USA: see here.  


To see denial and approval rate by specific immigration judge, select an individual judge's name here.

On August 17 2015, USCIS published L-1B adjudications policy memorandum. New memo provides guidance on the adjudication of the L-1B classification, which permits multinational companies to transfer employees who possess "specialized knowledge" from their foreign operations to their operations in the United States. 

New memo provides consolidated guidance on the L-1B program, superseding and rescinding all prior L-1B memoranda. This memo applies only to L-1B visas/employees with specialized knowledge (not L-1A visas).

"Preponderance of the Evidence" Standard of Proof: a petitioner seeking approval of the L-1B visa, must establish that they meets each eligibility requirement of the L-1B classification by preponderance of evidence. This standard of proof is lower than that of "clear and convincing evidence" or "beyond a reasonable doubt" standards. 

Elements of the L-1B Classification:

In order to establish eligibility for approval, the L-1B petitioner must show: 
(1) that the beneficiary possesses “specialized knowledge”; 
(2) that the position offered involves the “specialized knowledge” held by the beneficiary; and 
(3) that the beneficiary has at least one continuous year of employment abroad in a managerial, executive, or specialized knowledge capacity with the petitioning employer and/or any qualifying organization (collectively referred to as the “petitioning organization”) within the preceding 3 years. 

If the beneficiary will be located primarily at the workplace of an unaffiliated company, the petitioner also must establish that the beneficiary is eligible for L-1B classification under the requirements of the L-1 Visa Reform Act, discussed below in section VI.

The new memo provides definition of "specialized knowledge".

A petitioner can demonstrate “specialized knowledge” by establishing either one of two statutory criteria. Under the statute, a beneficiary is deemed to have specialized knowledge if he or she has: 
(1) a “special” knowledge of the company product and its application in international markets; or 
(2) an “advanced” level of knowledge of the processes and procedures of the company. 
INA 214(c)(2)(B). 

The corresponding regulation similarly defines specialized knowledge in terms of “special” or “advanced” knowledge:
[S]pecial knowledge possessed by an individual of the petitioning organization’s product, service, research, equipment, techniques, management, or other interests and its application in international markets, or an advanced level of knowledge or expertise in the organization’s processes and procedures.
8 CFR 214.2(l)(1)(ii)(D).

Other important things to keep in mind:
>>Specialized knowledge generally cannot be commonly held, lacking in complexity, or easily imparted to other individuals. 
>>Specialized knowledge need not be proprietary or unique to the petitioning organization. 
>>The L-1B classification does not involve a test of the U.S. labor market.
>>Specialized knowledge workers need not occupy managerial or similar positions or command higher compensation than their peers.

The memo notes the following "non-exhaustive" list of factors USCIS may consider when determining whether a beneficiary’s knowledge is specialized:

• The beneficiary possesses knowledge of foreign operating conditions that is of significant value to the petitioning organization's U.S. operations.
• The beneficiary has been employed abroad in a capacity involving assignments that have significantly enhanced the employer's productivity, competitiveness, image, or financial position.
• The beneficiary's claimed specialized knowledge normally can be gained only through prior experience with the petitioning organization.
• The beneficiary possesses knowledge of a product or process that cannot be easily transferred or taught to another individual without significant economic cost or inconvenience (because, for example, such knowledge may require substantial training, work experience, or education).
• The beneficiary has knowledge of a process or a product that either is sophisticated or complex, or of a highly technical nature, although not necessarily unique to the petitioning organization.
• The beneficiary possesses knowledge that is particularly beneficial to the petitioning organization's competitiveness in the marketplace.

Other evidence that a petitioner may submit to demonstrate that an individual’s knowledge is special or advanced, includes, but is not limited to:
• Documentation of training, work experience, or education establishing the number of years the individual has been using or developing the claimed specialized knowledge as an employee of the petitioning organization or in the industry;
• Evidence of the impact, if any, the transfer of the individual would have on the petitioning organization’s U.S. operations;
• Evidence that the alien is qualified to contribute significantly to the U.S. operation’s knowledge of foreign operating conditions as a result of knowledge not generally found in the petitioning organization’s U.S. operations;
• Contracts, statements of work, or other documentation that shows that the beneficiary possesses knowledge that is particularly beneficial to the petitioning organization’s competitiveness in the marketplace;
• Evidence, such as correspondence or reports, establishing that the beneficiary has been employed abroad in a capacity involving assignments that have significantly enhanced the petitioning organization’s productivity, competitiveness, image, or financial position;
• Personnel or in-house training records that establish that the beneficiary’s claimed specialized knowledge normally can be gained only through prior experience or training with the petitioning organization;
• Curricula and training manuals for internal training courses, financial documents, or other evidence that may demonstrate that the beneficiary possesses knowledge of a product or process that cannot be transferred or taught to another individual without significant economic cost or inconvenience;
*Evidence of patents, trademarks, licenses, or contracts awarded to the petitioning organization based on the beneficiary’s work, or similar evidence that the beneficiary has knowledge of a process or a product that either is sophisticated or complex, or of a highly technical nature, although not necessarily proprietary or unique to the petitioning organization; and
• Payroll documents, federal or state wage statements, documentation of other forms of compensation, resumes, organizational charts, or similar evidence documenting the positions held and the compensation provided to the beneficiary and parallel employees in the petitioning organization.

A petitioner may submit any other evidence it chooses. In all cases, USCIS will review the entire record to determine whether the petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the beneficiary has specialized knowledge under the totality of the circumstances. Merely stating that a beneficiary’s knowledge is somehow different from others or greatly developed does not, in and of itself, establish that he or she possesses specialized knowledge. Ultimately, it is the weight and type of evidence that establishes whether the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge.

USCIS can issue a RFE (Request for Evidence) for various reasons to I-129 Petitioner. Denial rate is high, RFE rate is even higher for L-1B petition. The new memo is intended to help to solve many difficulties with obtaining a L-1B visa for qualifying applicants.

See August 17, 2015 memo at http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2015/L-1B_Memorandum_8_14_15_draft_for_FINAL_4pmAPPROVED.pdf

On November 20, 2014, the President announced a series of executive actions. However, not all of these initiatives have been implemented, and USCIS is not accepting any DAPA or expanded DACA applications at this time. 

Beware of anyone who offers to help you submit an application or a request for any of these actions before they are available. You could become a victim of an immigration scam. 

If you need legal advice on immigration matters, make sure that the person you rely on is an attorney who is authorized to give you legal advice. Only an attorney or an accredited representative working for a Board of Immigration Appeals-recognized organization can give you legal advice. An immigration attorney can be licensed in any state because immigration law is federal law. It's important to consult an experienced and knowledgeable attorney before submitting any immigration applications.

The Internet, newspapers, radio, community bulletin boards and local businesses storefronts are filled with advertisements offering immigration help. Not all of this information is from attorneys and accredited representatives. There is a lot of information that comes from organizations and individuals who are not authorized to give you legal advice, such as “notarios” and other unauthorized representatives. The wrong help can hurt. Here is some important information that can help you avoid common immigration scams.

Here are some examples of common immigration scams:

**Telephone Scams**.

Do not fall victim to telephone scammers posing as USCIS personnel or other government officials. In most instances, scammers will:

• request personal information (Social Security number, Passport number, or A-number);
• identify false problems with your immigration record; and
• ask for payment to correct the records.

If a scammer calls you, say “No, thank you” and hang up. These phone calls are being made by immigration scammers attempting to take your money and your credit card information. USCIS will not call you to ask for any form of payment over the phone. Don’t give payment over the phone to anyone who claims to be a USCIS official.

If you have been a victim of this telephone scam, please report it to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Learn more about telephone scams and telephone scammers’ techniques by visiting Federal Trade Commission-Telemarketing-Scams. 

**"Notario Publico"**.

In many Latin American countries, the term “notario publico” (for “notary public”) stands for something very different than what it means in the United States. In many Spanish-speaking nations, “notarios” are powerful attorneys with special legal credentials. In the U.S., however, notary publics are people appointed by state governments to witness the signing of important documents and administer oaths. "Notarios publico,” are not authorized to provide you with any legal services related to immigration.

Please see the National Notary Association website "What is a Notary Public" for more information.

**Local Businesses who are not law firms and not attorneys or lawyers**.

Some businesses in your community “guarantee” they can get you benefits such as a:

• Visa
• Green Card
• Employment Authorization Document

These businesses sometimes charge you a higher fee to file the application than even a licensed attorney (but will tell you that attorneys charge more "for the same work"). They claim they can do this faster than if you applied directly with USCIS. These claims are false. 

**Dot-com websites - operated by non-attorneys or people not authorized to give legal advice**.

Some websites offering step-by-step guidance on completing a USCIS application or petition will claim to be affiliated with USCIS. Many of these websites are scammers or fraudsters, often taking money for blank forms or minimal assistance without attorney supervision.

USCIS has its own official website: www.uscis.gov with:

• Free downloadable forms
• Form Instructions
• Information on filing fees and processing times

Do not pay for blank USCIS forms either in person or over the Internet. You can download forms for free at www.uscis.gov.

Do not pay to a non-attorney (not a lawyer) for help with immigration paperwork, applications, affidavit. Oftentimes, they give you wrong advice and can potentially damage your chances of ever becoming a permanent resident (getting a green card).

**Green Card Lottery or DV Lottery scams**.

Once a year in fall, the Department of State (DOS) makes 50,000 diversity visas (DVs) available via random selection to persons meeting strict eligibility requirements and who come from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States. During this time or often around the year, it is common for immigration scammers to advertise in emails or websites that reference either the:

• DV lottery
• Visa lottery
• Green Card lottery

These emails and websites often claim that they can make it easier to enter the annual Diversity Immigrant Visa Program. Some scammers even identify you as a DV lottery “winner” and ask for significant amount of money "helping get a visa". These emails and websites are fraudulent. 

The only way to apply for the DV lottery is through an official government application process (Department of State website, and only when it's open, during an application period which is usually in October-November only). DOS does not send emails to applicants. 

On or after May 1st, you can visit the Department of State website to verify if you are actually a winner in the DV lottery. 

If need help, consult a licensed attorney (not one of the "green card lottery" websites).

**INS doesn't exist. It's been replaced by DHS and USCIS**.

To this day, some local businesses, websites, "notarios"  and individuals make reference to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). This agency no longer exists! 

If someone refers to USCIS as "INS", it's a sign that they are not an attorney, but rather someone unqualified with little knowledge in immigration matters.

INS was dismantled on March 1, 2003, and most of its functions were transferred from the Department of Justice to three new components within the newly formed Department of Homeland Security. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is the component that grants immigration benefits. The other two components are U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

All official correspondence regarding your immigration case will come from USCIS. USCIS will communicate with you and your attorney by mail, by mailing you notices, approved work permit and green card through USPS (postal service).

If you need a legal assistance, we will be glad to help. Our contact information is here.

Read here. 

Applicants from all over the world who registered for the DV-2016 program were selected at random from 11,391,134 qualified entries (17,573,350 with derivatives) received during the application period that ran from noon, Eastern Daylight Time on Wednesday, October 1, 2014 until noon, Eastern Daylight Time on Monday, November 3, 2014. 

The visas have been apportioned among six geographic regions with a maximum of seven percent available to persons born in any single country. 

The Kentucky Consular Center registered and notified the winners of the DV-2016 diversity lottery. Approximately 91,563 applicants have been registered and notified and may now make an application for an immigrant visa (so called"selectees" or "winners"). Some of the first *50,000 persons registered will not pursue their cases to visa issuance, this larger number (91,563 selectees) should insure that all DV-2016 numbers will be used during fiscal year 2016 (October 1, 2015 until September 30, 2016).

During the visa interview, principal applicants must provide proof of a high school education or its equivalent, or show two years of work experience in an occupation that requires at least two years of training or experience within the past five years. Those selected will need to act on their immigrant visa applications quickly. Applicants should follow the instructions in their notification letter and must fully complete the information requested. 

Registrants living legally in the United States who wish to apply for adjustment of status instead of consular processing of their visas, must apply through USCIS Department of Homeland Security (** Please note that you have to be eligible for adjustment of status. Therefore, if you were selected as a winner in the Green Card lottery and you live in the United States, it's advisable to consult an experienced attorney before applying for your green card). 

Once the total *50,000 visa numbers have been used, the program for fiscal year 2016 will end. Selected applicants (aka "selectees" or "winners") who do not receive visas by September 30, 2016 will derive no further benefit from their DV-2016 registration. Similarly, spouses and children accompanying or following to join DV-2016 principal applicants are only entitled to derivative diversity visa status until September 30, 2016.

Section 203(c) of the INA provides up to 55,000 immigrant visas each fiscal year to permit additional immigration opportunities for persons from countries with low admissions during the previous five years. The NACARA stipulates that beginning with DV-99, and for as long as necessary, up to 5,000 of the 55,000 annually-allocated diversity visas will be made available for use under the NACARA program. This resulted in reduction of the DV-2015 annual limit to 50,000. DV visas are divided among six geographic regions.  No one country can receive more than seven percent of the available diversity visas in any one year.

P.S. Our office would be happy to assist you with your DV visa application or adjustment of status should you be selected as a winner. Please email us to schedule a phone or Skype consultation. Please remember that a visa must be issued prior to September 30th of the current fiscal year (09-30-2016 for DV-2016 winners). No visas will be issued after this date. If selected as a winner you should act fast and submit your applications and required documents in a timely matter. Assistance of a qualified and experienced immigration attorney would be of great help to many. 

The following is the statistical breakdown by foreign-state chargeability of those registered for the DV-2016 program: 

AFRICA

ALGERIA  1,952

ETHIOPIA  4,000

NIGER  102

ANGOLA  108

GABON  32

RWANDA  412

BENIN  914

GAMBIA, THE  67

SAO TOME AND PRINCIPE  2

BOTSWANA  4

GHANA  3,179

SENEGAL  427

BURKINA FASO  199

GUINEA  1,818

SEYCHELLES  0

BURUNDI  208

GUINEA-BISSAU  4

SIERRA LEONE  2,141

CABO VERDE  6

KENYA  2,729

SOMALIA  272

CAMEROON  3,047

LESOTHO  5

SOUTH AFRICA  535

CENTRAL AFRICAN REP.  23

LIBERIA  4,430

SOUTH SUDAN  17

CHAD  40

LIBYA  240

SUDAN  3,216

COMOROS  3

MADAGASCAR  75

SWAZILAND  7

CONGO  124

MALAWI  17

TANZANIA  93

CONGO, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE  4,475

MALI  114

TOGO  1,241

COTE D’IVOIRE  1,129

MAURITANIA  15

TUNISIA  227

DJIBOUTI  92

MAURITIUS  41

UGANDA  453

EGYPT  4,024

MOROCCO  1,993

ZAMBIA  57

EQUATORIAL GUINEA  0

MOZAMBIQUE  11

ZIMBABWE  152

ERITREA  544

NAMIBIA  18

ASIA

AFGHANISTAN  406

JAPAN  302

QATAR  42

BAHRAIN  13

JORDAN  349

SAUDI ARABIA  267

BHUTAN  22

NORTH KOREA  0

SINGAPORE  39

BRUNEI  1 

KUWAIT  143

SRI LANKA  704

BURMA  236

LAOS  1

SYRIA  460

CAMBODIA  1,229

LEBANON  225

TAIWAN  297

HONG KONG SPECIAL
ADMIN. REGION  151

MALAYSIA  95

THAILAND  73

INDONESIA  126

MALDIVES  3

TIMOR-LESTE  0

IRAN  4,501

MONGOLIA  185

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES  103

IRAQ  330

NEPAL  3,801

YEMEN  724

ISRAEL  162

OMAN  12

EUROPE

ALBANIA  1,931

GREECE  93

NORWAY  35

ANDORRA  0

HUNGARY  186

POLAND  629

ARMENIA  1,277

ICELAND  3

PORTUGAL  58

AUSTRIA  50

IRELAND  89

  Macau  23

AZERBAIJAN  380

ITALY  410

ROMANIA  626 

BELARUS  811

KAZAKHSTAN  376

RUSSIA  2,200

BELGIUM  47

KOSOVO  244

SAN MARINO  0

BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA  92

KYRGYZSTAN  209

SERBIA  283

BULGARIA  865

LATVIA  73

SLOVAKIA  70

CROATIA  67

LIECHTENSTEIN  0

SLOVENIA  33

CYPRUS  28

LITHUANIA  153

SPAIN  193

CZECH REPUBLIC  74

LUXEMBOURG  0

SWEDEN  108

DENMARK  35

MACEDONIA  258

SWITZERLAND  122

ESTONIA  40

MALTA  0

TAJIKISTAN  337

FINLAND  57

MOLDOVA  1,854

TURKEY  1,795

FRANCE  510

MONACO  0

TURKMENISTAN  124

  French Polynesia  1

MONTENEGRO  8

UKRAINE  4,507

  Saint Martin  1

NETHERLANDS  81

UZBEKISTAN  4,300

  Wallis and Futuna  1

  Aruba  4

VATICAN CITY  0

GEORGIA  571

  Curacao  2

GERMANY  678

NORTHERN IRELAND  9

NORTH AMERICA

BAHAMAS, THE  16

OCEANIA

AUSTRALIA  832

NAURU  12

SAMOA  5

  Cocos Islands  1

NEW ZEALAND  208

SOLOMON ISLANDS  0

FIJI  393

  Cook Islands  4

TONGA  26

KIRIBATI  4

PALAU  4

TUVALU  0

MARSHALL ISLANDS  0

PAPUA NEW GUINEA  3

VANUATU  5

MICRONESIA, FEDERATED STATES OF  3

SOUTH AMERICA, CENTRAL AMERICA, AND THE CARIBBEAN

ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA  0

DOMINICA  6

SAINT KITTS AND NEVIS  2

ARGENTINA  68

GRENADA  7

SAINT LUCIA  5

BARBADOS  0

GUATEMALA  31

SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES  7

BELIZE  0

GUYANA  14

SURINAME  3

BOLIVIA  49

HONDURAS  73

TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO  51

CHILE  17

NICARAGUA  58

URUGUAY  21

COSTA RICA  50

PANAMA  5

VENEZUELA  1,038

CUBA  1,488

PARAGUAY  7

P.S. Natives of the following countries were not eligible to participate in DV-2016: Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, China (mainland-born, excluding Hong Kong S.A.R., Macau S.A.R., and Taiwan), Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, the Philippines, South Korea, United Kingdom (except Northern Ireland) and its dependent territories, and Vietnam. 

Our office would be happy to assist you with your DV visa application or adjustment of status should you be selected as a winner. Please email us to schedule a phone or Skype consultation. Please remember that a visa must be issued prior to September 30th of the current fiscal year (09-30-2016 for DV-2016 winners). No visas will be issued after this date. If selected as a winner you should act fast and submit your applications and required documents in a timely matter. Assistance of a qualified and experienced immigration attorney would be of great help to many. 

Nebraska will start issuing driver's licenses to DREAMers or young people who were granted deferred action under DACA  ("DACA grantees"). 

Nebraska is the last state to join the other 49 states who are already issuing driver's licenses to young people with approved DACA deferred action. This program has been in effect since 2012.

On Tuesday, Nebraska Legislature overrode Governor's veto on this bill by 34 to 10 vote.

Read here. 

Twenty-six states (the “states”) are challenging the government’s Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program (“DAPA”) as violative of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and the Take Care Clause of the Constitution. 

The district court determined that the states are likely to succeed on their procedural APA claim, so it temporarily enjoined implementation of the program. Texas v. United States, Civ. No. B-14-254, 2015 WL 648579 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 16, 2015). 

The United States appealed the preliminary injunction and moved for a stay of the injunction pending resolution of the merits of that appeal. Because the government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its appeal of the injunction, we deny the motion for stay and the request to narrow the scope of the injunction. Read full text of the decision here. 

First, the Court of Appeals rejected the Obama administration's argument that the 26 states challenging DACA and DAPA lack standing. The panel found that the burden on Texas in having to issue drivers licenses to DAPA status immigrants was "real and concrete."

Second, the court rejected the Obama administration's main argument, which is that the actions are truly discretionary and thus "committed to agency discretion by law." The court said that the executive actions didn't allow for any real exercise of discretion by agency employees, rather they simply were blanket changes to the immigration laws.

There are other provisions in Obama’s executive action on immigration, which will be considered by a different panel of judges of the Fifth Circuit the week of July 6, 2015. That panel could decide to lift the injunction. 

The injunction could remain in place for the rest of President Obama’s term in office – unless it is lifted by the courts.

As a practical matter, the injunction prevents the government from processing DAPA and extended DACA applications. Only original 2012 DACA is still in effect.

It appears that DAPA and extended DACA may never become law.

Read the court opinion here.

Obama administration’s immigration policy faces a shake-up next week—and the court’s ruling could reverberate in the 2016 presidential campaign.

At issue is whether it’s legal to essentially lock up women and children who have crossed the border illegally, part of the administration’s response to summer 2014 unaccompanied-minors crisis. 

Lawyers for some of these families sued the government, and last month, a U.S. District judge in Los Angeles issued a tentative ruling, a summary of which was obtained by Newsweek, stating that the administration policy violates a settlement in a 1997 immigration case, Flores v. Meese.

Judge gave the two sides 30 days to negotiate an agreement that would lead the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency to release the minors and their parents from the family detention centers where they are being held. Those 30 days run out on Sunday, May 24, 2015.

The judge issued a gag order, so it’s quite difficult to know whether or not there will be a real settlement by May 25, 2015. 

Obama’s detention and deportation of hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants remains a sore spot for immigrant rights and Latino activists, even after the president granted a reprieve, via executive order and under DACA program, to millions of young people who came to the United States as children and to those who have children who were born here and thus are American citizens (DAPA, which is not effective yet, pending another court case). 

The practice of holding thousands of women and their children in detention for many months—it’s just mothers and their kids in these detention facilities (in Texas and Pennsylvania), most of them fleeing dire circumstances in Central America—has prompted a particularly strong backlash.

Immigrant rights groups have been very critical of this practice.

Read more at Newsweek. 

As reported by Bloomberg Business News, birth tourism from China to the US is booming. Although it’s not illegal to travel to the U.S. to give birth, it’s illegal to lie about the purpose of a visit when interviewed by American Consul or by immigration or customs officers at the US airport—or coach someone to do so. 

If a woman says she’s traveling to the U.S. to give birth, the consular and customs officers may request proof that she can pay for her hospital stay. (The same would be asked of anybody seeking medical treatment in the U.S.) 

Department of Homeland Security and the IRS have been investigating the growing business of “birth tourism,” which operates in a legal gray area, since last June. The industry is totally unregulated and mostly hidden.

No one knows the exact number of Chinese birth tourists or services catering to them. Online ads and accounts in the Chinese-language press suggest there could be hundreds, maybe thousands, of operators. A California association of these services called All American Mother Service Management Center claims 20,000 women from China gave birth in the U.S. in 2012 and about the same number in 2013. These figures are often cited by Chinese state media, but the center didn’t reply to a request for comment. The Center for Immigration Studies, an American organization that advocates limiting the scope of the 14th Amendment, estimates there could have been as many as 36,000 birth tourists from around the world in 2012. Estimated fees paid by Chinese birth tourists to the agencies catering to them are around USD30,000 to USD60,000.

Department of Homeland Security declined to discuss the investigation because it is ongoing, but the agent in charge said: “Visa fraud is a huge vulnerability for the country. These women allegedly lied to come have a baby. Other people could come to do something bad. We have to maintain the integrity of the system.” 

Read the story here. 

Almost daily, I hear from some of our callers: "I don't need legal consultation, I don't want to hire an attorney. I have only one or two very simple (or quick, or easy) questions, and I want an attorney to answer my questions right now and free of charge because my questions are so simple, quick, and easy!"

I will try to explain why this request doesn't make any sense and how to get proper legal advice.

U.S. immigration law is very complex and constantly changing. There have been no major immigration reforms or amnesties in the past few years (which requires a law to be approved by Congress and signed by the President). However, there have been significant changes introduced by our current and former administrations and the executive branch of the government: executive actions; executive orders of the President; USCIS and DHS memorandums and policy guidance; official and unofficial practice advisories; and changes through our judicial branch (federal and immigration courts), such as, the decisions by the BIA, AAO, Courts of Appeals, US Supreme Court, and even by federal district court judges (for example, an injunction by a federal judge can place on hold an executive order of the President of the United States).

U.S. immigration law is federal in nature and is the same in all states. However, it may apply differently to your situation depending on your background, your place of residence or domicile, US embassy in the country where you apply for a visa, etc.

An experienced immigration attorney may be able to guide you and advise you about specifics, loopholes, various options, and can spot possible problems before they happen, even if it seems to you that your case is pretty straightforward and you have only "one quick question". A seemingly simple or quick question not always can be answered with a simple "yes" or "no" answer. You may not realize it, but a situation may have a lot of hidden issues or variables depending on your venue, court jurisdiction, your factual circumstances, your arrest and criminal record, your family situation and status, prior legal assistance, prior legal actions and applications filed, or even timing, etc.

You can find a lot of useful immigration-related INFORMATION on our Blog. We compiled useful information and links: USCIS forms and fees, case status inquiry, processing times, AR-11 Change of Address, Department of State and NVC, and much more here. Hope you find this information helpful!

To ask basic questions about USCIS immigration forms, filing fees or to inquire about status of your pending case, you can contact USCIS, Department of Homeland Security, by calling their 800 Customer Service Hotline (number is on their website), or send an e-request via a webportal at USCIS website. Case status can be checked online, as well. Immigration courts, U.S. embassies and consulates and National Visa Center each have their own hotlines, call centers or other ways to contact them.

To receive a case-specific legal advice you should talk to a lawyer. Before a lawyer can advise you, we usually email you our confidential immigration questionnaire, and ask you to complete and return it to us. In some cases, we can ask you to email us copies of your immigration forms, paperwork, personal documents. When an attorney reviews your answers to our questionnaire and your documents, it helps her to get to know you, your situation, and decide what legal and/or visa options you shall consider, what are your best chances of obtaining certain visas and immigration benefits, how and when can you bring your family to USA, are you eligible for permanent residency or a green card in the United States, are you eligible to apply for U.S. citizenship, how can your children become U.S. citizens, etc.

It's important that you provide truthful, accurate and complete answers to our questions because an attorney's advice to you is based on information you provide to an attorney. It could be dangerous to give misleading, incomplete or incorrect answers to an attorney.

An attorney or a lawyer is often called "a counselor in law". It means that an attorney counsels and advises you, helps you to understand your situation better, anticipates any possible future issues or complications, offers guidance, and a long-term strategy and planning for yourself and your family.

Legal advice is never a simple "yes" or "no" answer, it's never "use this form"  or "this is the link where you can find all information and all answers you need". Legal advice or consultation is like going to see a doctor. A doctor will ask you questions, take your vitals and administer necessary tests, then she will be able to diagnose you and offer you an appropriate treatment plan. The same is true about work of a good and ethical attorney. An attorney will have to ask you a number of questions, review your documents and paperwork, and only then she will be able to advise you, and offer you guidance and counsel.

In order to avoid mistakes and future complications, it's smart to consult an attorney before starting any legal, immigrant or visa process. Consultation with knowledgeable and ethical attorney should serve as a preventative measure and a way to establish a roadmap and plan your future.

In over twelve years of practice as an immigration attorney in the United States, I have come across of many unfortunate individuals who got themselves into trouble after reading and following wrong advice on internet forums, listening to their friends, co-workers, relatives and neighbors advice, or paying to complete their "paperwork" to an unlicensed "immigration consultant", or "notario", or "tax preparer", or somebody else who speaks their native language in their immigrant community but has no proper training and is not a licensed attorney. In some of these cases, individual's chances of living in USA legally can be permanently destroyed. Some people can become permanently banned from the United States, no matter how many close family members (wife, kids, parents) and other ties they have in USA. Immigration law is very complex and unforgiving, and non-compliance, fraud or misrepresentation could bring consequences more severe than penalties in an average criminal case. Where a convicted criminal can usually expect to be released from prison after a number of months or years and be reunited with his family, a person who was deported and permanently banned from USA may never be able to reunite with his family and loved ones in the United States. Lack of knowledge or bad advice is not an excuse in immigration law. "Simple mistakes" in immigration law context could be costly and often irreversible.

Do yourself a favor and consult a knowledgeable immigration attorney before filing any applications or petitions with the USCIS Department of Homeland Security, or before submitting any visa applications online. You can also schedule a consultation to seek a second opinion, if not sure that your current or former attorney's advice is correct as applies to you. When you have questions or need legal advice you can email us to schedule a consultation. We will be glad to help you.