The DHS / USCIS is considering new regulations to end the extension of H1-B work visas. The new rule potentially could stop hundreds of thousands of foreign workers from keeping their H-1B visas while their green card applications are pending. It will affect many tech and IT professionals, especially from India and China.

“This would be a major catastrophic development as many people have been waiting in line for green cards for over a decade, have U.S. citizen children, own a home."

“The idea is to create a sort of ‘self-deportation’ of hundreds of thousands of Indian tech workers in the United States to open up those jobs for Americans,” said a source briefed by Homeland Security officials.

“The agency is considering a number of policy and regulatory changes to carry out the President’s Buy American, Hire American Executive Order, including a thorough review of employment-based visa programs,” confirmed USCIS.

UPDATE 01-09-2018: 

Under pressure from the business and technology communities, USCIS appears to be backing away from a policy change that could have forced foreign tech workers out of the country. The administration denies they considered abolishing H-1B extensions. 

“The agency is considering a number of policy and regulatory changes to carry out the President’s Buy American, Hire American Executive Order, including a thorough review of employment based visa programs,” Jonathan Withington, chief of media relations for USCIS, said Monday.

“What we can say, however, is that USCIS is not considering a regulatory change that would force H-1B visa holders to leave the United States by changing our interpretation of section 104(c) of AC-21, which provides for H-1B extensions beyond the 6 year limit,” the agency told McClatchy. “Even if it were, such a change would not likely result in these H-1B visa holders having to leave the United States because employers could request extensions in one-year increments under section 106(a)-(b) of AC21 instead.”
​
Pressure against this discriminatory proposal, and explaining to USCIS that the decision would have been illegal and in violation of federal law worked!

Read more here.

#visa #workvisa #H1B #H1Bextension #USCIS #deportation

Read more here.

On August 28, 2017, USCIS had announced a new policy (effective date 10/02/2017) requiring all adjustment of status applicants seeking employment-based green cards to appear for an interview at a USCIS field office. The adjustment of status application is the final step in the green card process for foreign non-immigrant employees looking to move to permanent resident status.

Prior to this change, which went into effect on October 2, 2017, USCIS required interviews in only 5 to 10 percent of all employment-based adjustment cases.

The new policy applies to all Form I-485 adjustment of status applications filed on or after March 6, 2017, where the underlying immigrant petition is an employment-based Form I-140 (EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3). The USCIS has indicated that adjustment cases filed prior to March 6, 2017, will be adjudicated in accordance with previous procedures.

Because thousands of extra interviews will be conducted annually, there will be additional delays in the processing of these employment-based adjustment applications. USCIS has estimated that these applications will ultimately account for approximately 17 percent of the USCIS’s entire field operations workload. As a result, the change will impact the processing times for all other types of USCIS filings, such as family-based adjustment applications and naturalization cases.

What Should the Applicant Expect at the Interview? (based on the stats for October-November 2017)
The applicant could be asked about almost anything. 

• Any information provided on the Form I-485 (review the copy of the form I-485, and be prepared to answer questions).
• Issues relating to the applicant’s eligibility or admissibility, such as any arrests or misrepresentations made to an immigration officer (talk to your attorney if you ever had a DUI, arrests, domestic violence protection order filed against you, charges that were later dismissed, convictions, lied on the application, worked without authorization, etc).
• The applicant’s entire immigration history, particularly whether the applicant has properly maintained his non-immigrant status (if you worked without authorization while in a student status, etc)
• Family members applying as derivative to the employment-based principal applicant should anticipate questions about their relationship to the principal and the bona fides of that relationship (similar to a family-based green card interview).

If the field officer conducting the interview is not satisfied with an applicant’s answers and believes that an applicant is not eligible for adjustment, the Form I-485 can be denied, or a RFE (request for evidence) could be sent, or NOID (notice of intent to deny) could be issued.

Will the Field Officer Re-Adjudicate the Form I-140? USCIS has said that the interviewing field officers have been instructed not to re-adjudicate the underlying Form I-140. However, the agency has also made clear that the officers will be charged with assessing the validity of the documents used to approve the Form I-140 petition to ensure that the supporting evidence was accurate and credible. If the officer determines that that evidence is not credible, he can recommend that the Form I-140 be revoked by the service center that originally issued the approval (officer can send I-140 for revocation back to USCIS Service Center which originally approved the petition).

It is important that the applicant understands the basis for the Form I-140 petition and be prepared to articulate at the interview how his employment qualified for approval. The applicant should review the Form I-140 petition and any underlying PERM application in advance and address any tricky issues with the employer or counsel. The applicant will almost certainly be questioned about the job for which he was sponsored as well as about his own educational background and work experience. This new requirement could present a challenge because I-140 is an employer's petition, and applicants don't usually have an access to the form I-140, PERM, etc. 

An attorney can prepare the applicant on what to expect during the interview, and coordinate with the employer and the applicant to make sure that the applicant takes the appropriate documentation to the interview, knows what I-140 and PERM was about, has a copy of his I-485 form, has clean criminal record and no status violations, etc. The adjustment of status interview notices that are currently being sent to applicants are generic and confusing because they include a list of the documents that do not even apply in employment-based cases. 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled to partially uphold President's third attempt on a travel ban, so called Muslim Ban or Travel Ban 3.0.

Ruling on the injunction issued by the District Court in Hawaii that temporarily blocked the enforcement of the new ban, the Ninth Circuit held that the travel ban could go into effect, except with regard to people with a “bona fide relationship” with close family or with an entity in the U.S., such as an employer or a university. This standard was borrowed from the Supreme Court’s June 2017 decision on a previous travel ban.

Individuals from six countries (Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen) may be banned from entry, unless they have a bona fide relationship with a U.S. family member or entity.

The Ninth Circuit decided that in addition to parents, spouses, and children living in the U.S., bona fide relationships could extend to grandparents, grandchildren, cousins, aunts, uncles, and brothers- or sisters-in-law. Entity relationships must be “formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course,” including universities, businesses, and other institutions.

The travel bans on North Korea and Venezuela were not included in the original suit brought before the Hawaii District Court. Travel of immigrants or nonimmigrants from North Korea and Venezuela remains suspended (all travel for North Korea and entry in tourist or business visitor status remains suspended for officials of certain Venezuelan government agencies and their immediate family members).

​The court ruling is here.

​

The American Immigration Lawyers Association’s Customs and Border Patrol Office of Field Operations Liaison Committee released new guidance (ed. 03-22-2017) on the due process rights of lawful permanent residents (LPRs, or Green Card holders) at U.S. ports of entry.  It is important that LPRs understand their rights when attempting to enter the country, especially in this new age of increased immigration enforcement. Nonimmigrants applying for admission to the United States may have even less rights at the border.

Rights of LPRs at Ports of Entry

Upon return to the United States from travel abroad, Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs) have certain due process rights, including the right to a hearing before an immigration judge before they can be stripped of their permanent resident status. In addition, given the increasing reports of CBP inspection of traveler’s electronic devices and/or social media accounts, it is important for members to advise LPR clients of the risks of refusing such a request.

Due Process Rights of LPRs (lawful permanent residents)

LPRs enjoy greater due process rights than nonimmigrants when returning to the United States after travel abroad. Like all international travelers, upon return, LPRs are subject to inspection by CBP. CBP may question and screen LPRs to determine whether they are a “returning resident” or whether they should be treated as an “arriving alien.”

Under INA §101(a)(13)(C), a returning resident shall not be regarded as seeking “admission” to the United States, (i.e., shall not be treated as an arriving alien), unless he or she:

• Has abandoned or relinquished LPR status;
• Has been absent from the United States for a continuous period in excess of 180 days;
• Has engaged in illegal activity after having departed the United States;
• Has departed from the United States while under legal process seeking removal of the alien from the United States, including removal proceedings under the INA and extradition proceedings;
• Has committed an offense under INA §212(a)(2) [criminal and related grounds of inadmissibility], unless since such offense the alien has been granted relief under INA §212(h) [waiver of inadmissibility] or §240A(a) [cancellation of removal for permanent residents]; or
• Is attempting to enter at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers or has not been admitted to the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer.

An LPR who is deemed to be seeking admission may be charged as removable from the United States as an arriving alien. LPRs that are charged as removable, including those who are alleged to have abandoned their U.S. residence, have the right to a hearing before an immigration judge. See Matter of Huang, 19 I&N Dec. 749 (BIA 1988). Despite this, CBP may attempt to convince an LPR that their absence from the United States resulted in automatic abandonment of their U.S. residence, and urge them to sign a Form I-407, Record of Abandonment of Lawful Permanent Resident Status. As AILA recently advised, an individual does not lose LPR status merely because of time spent abroad. An LPR remains an LPR unless the government proves abandonment by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence and until an order of removal is issued and becomes final.

Form I-407 must be signed voluntarily and there are no negative consequences if an LPR refuses to sign the form. Neither failure to sign nor abandonment of LPR status by itself is grounds for detention by CBP. If CBP makes a determination, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the LPR abandoned his or her residence in the U.S., and the LPR refuses to sign a Form I-407, CBP’s only recourse is to issue a Notice to Appear (NTA) before an immigration judge. Even LPRs who have signed a Form I-407 retain the right to request a hearing before an immigration judge to determine whether LPR status was abandoned. See Matter of Wood, No. A24-653-925 (BIA 1992). Should CBP confiscate the LPR’s permanent resident card, the LPR has the right to alternative evidence of LPR status, such as an I-94 card and/or passport stamp.

CBP Search of Electronic Devices and Social Media Accounts

In 2009, CBP released to the public its current policy on searches of electronic devices. This policy states that all electronic devices, including those belonging to U.S. citizens, can be searched at a port of entry “without individualized suspicion.” There appear to be only very narrow limitations to the scope of CBP’s search authority. For example, section 5.2.1 indicates that privileged material, such as attorney/client communications, while not necessarily exempt from a search, may be subject to special handling procedures which require approval from CBP Associate/Assistant Chief Counsel.
CBP’s right to conduct suspicion-less searches of persons and conveyances has long been upheld by the Supreme Court as a “border search exception” to the 4th Amendment. While the 4th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” the Supreme Court held in Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925), that it is “reasonable” to conduct border searches without a warrant due to national security interests.

CBP’s policy of conducting suspicion-less searches of electronic devices has not yet been meaningfully challenged. Following the publication of the 2009 guidance, the Supreme Court held, in Riley v California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014), that the police may not search and seize the digital contents of a person’s cell phone or electronic device, incident to an arrest, without first obtaining a search warrant.  In arriving at this conclusion, the Court noted that cell phones have become “such a pervasive and insistent part of daily life that the proverbial visitor from Mars might conclude they were an important feature of human anatomy.” Riley, 134 S. Ct. at 2484. The ability of modern cell phones to contain the digital sum total of one’s “papers and effects,” the Court held, makes police searches of these devices unreasonable without a warrant. This ruling, however, only applies to arrests occurring in the interior of the United States and does not address arrests or searches at the border. Though this issue could be considered by a federal court, given the dire consequences to a foreign national who refuses to submit to such a search (including expedited removal), it is more likely that this issue will be pursued by a U.S. citizen who does not consent and is willing to litigate the matter.

A subsidiary issue to warrantless searches of cell phones and electronic devices is whether CBP may access an individual’s social media accounts. In 2016 CBP began collecting social media identifiers from Visa Waiver travelers through changes to the ESTA application. While the ESTA form makes this question optional, and only asks for social media “identifiers,” (as opposed to “passwords”) so that CBP can presumably view the traveler’s public information, AILA has received several reports of CBP officers requesting log in information so that they can view private social media accounts and messages. While the CBP electronic device search policy has not been updated to address this specific situation, it appears that CBP may view this information as falling within the “border search exception” to the 4th Amendment. For more information, see CBP Inspection of Electronic Devices Tear Sheet.

If a U.S. citizen refuses to consent to a search, CBP may do one of several things, including any of the following or a combination of the following:

• Detain the person until he or she consents.
• Have the person arrested for obstruction of justice.
• Let the person go and seize the device in question.

The CBP policy on search of electronic devices provides that CBP officers (with supervisory approval) make take physical possession of an electronic device either (a) when, upon a search of such a device, with or without suspicion of wrongdoing, a CBP officers discovers probable cause to seize it; or (b) when officers have “technical difficulties” in searching the device, such that technical assistance is required to continue the border search. In the latter case, inability to unlock the device due to non-consent could be deemed a “technical difficulty” justifying detention of the device. The policy provides that devices shall generally be returned within five days, but devices may be kept for up to 15 days and extensions beyond 15 days can be approved in 7-day increments thereafter. While CBP policy is to carefully record information about these detentions in its records, the policy sets no maximum period after which a device is required to be returned to its owner.

If an LPR or nonimmigrant refuses to consent to a search, CBP could follow any of the courses of action outlined in the previous paragraph with regard to U.S. Citizens and may, in addition, refuse a nonimmigrant admission to the United States and/or utilize the agency’s expedited removal authority. See generally, INA §235 and 8 CFR Part 235.

Right to Counsel (right to an attorney)

CBP has long held that there is no “right to counsel” during the inspection and admission process, although attorneys are sometimes permitted, at the agency’s discretion, to accompany clients who are detained in secondary inspection and/or are ordered to appear at a deferred inspection office. This interpretation is supported by 8 CFR §292.5(b) which applies generally to all immigration proceedings and states:

(b) Right to representation. Whenever an examination is provided for in this chapter, the person involved shall have the right to be represented by an attorney or representative who shall be permitted to examine or cross-examine such person and witnesses, to introduce evidence, to make objections which shall be stated succinctly and entered on the record, and to submit briefs. Provided, that nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to provide any applicant for admission in either primary or secondary inspection the right to representation, unless the applicant for admission has become the focus of a criminal investigation and has been taken into custody. 

In addition, the CBP Inspector’s Field Manual, at chapter 2.9, states:

Dealing with Attorneys and Other Representatives. No applicant for admission, either during primary or secondary inspection has a right to be represented by an attorney – unless the applicant has become the focus of a criminal investigation and has been taken into custody. An attorney who attempts to impede in any way your inspection should be courteously advised of this regulation. This does not preclude you, as an inspecting officer, to permit a relative, friend, or representative access to the inspectional area to provide assistance when the situation warrants such action. he Inspector’s Field Manual (“IFM”) is no longer relied upon as an official source of agency guidance and has been at least partially replaced by the CBP Officer’s Reference Tool (ORT). The ORT is the subject of FOIA litigation and has not yet been released. Nevertheless, the IFM guidance appears to comport with current agency practice.  (Emphasis added).

Should CBP choose to issue an NTA and initiate removal proceedings, INA §101(a)(27) states that there must be at least ten days between service of the NTA and the first removal hearing. However, the issuance of an NTA does not impose upon CBP an obligation to allow the individual to speak with an attorney while being held in a CBP facility, “unless the applicant has become the focus of a criminal investigation and has been taken into custody.” In addition, should CBP detain and hold the person until Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) takes him or her into custody pending a bond hearing, the right to counsel would then attach, as the individual would no longer be an applicant for admission.

​You can view updated Know Your Rights Guidance here.

​If you need legal advice, want to schedule a consultation or want to hire an attorney, please email us and we will get back to you to schedule the best time to talk on the phone or video chat.
​

On July 18, 2016, Department of Justice, DOJ, petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a rehearing after death of the late Justice Antonin Scalia resulted in an eight member Supreme Court and a non-precedential, deadlocked opinion affirming the lower court’s decision.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) petitioned the Supreme Court to rehear U.S. v. Texas, the matter concerning the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA), when a ninth Supreme Court justice is confirmed.

The Court’s 4-4 deadlock in that matter blocked the program, which would have allowed undocumented persons who are the parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents to apply to remain in the United States and work.

In the petition, Acting Solicitor General argued that “there is a strong need for definitive resolution by this Court at this state,” and the Court “should grant rehearing to provide for a decision by the Court when it has a full complement of Members, rather than allow a non-precedential affirmance by an equally divided Court to leave in place a nationwide injunction of such significance.”

Although re-hearings are uncommon, the petition noted that they have been granted in some cases where a Court vacancy resulted in a tie. If the rehearing is granted, it is unlikely to occur for some time. More information about the Obama administration’s executive actions on immigration is available here.




​In other news, a national coalition of mayors, Cities for Action, sent an open letter on July 26, 2016, to “the next President of the United States” calling for immigration reform.The letter urges leaders from both the Democratic and Republican parties to commit to supporting immigration reform in the first 100 days of the next presidency, including providing a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.
The letter specifically calls for:
* a “broad, humane and timely” path to citizenship;
* supports local economic growth, “while protecting the rights and labor standards of all workers” and upholding “immigrants’ due process rights and the rights of those seeking refuge.”
* It also calls on the presidential candidates “to pledge to defend and expand President Obama’s executive actions on immigration” to offer temporary relief to undocumented immigrants “with deep community ties who are not priorities for enforcement.”
* The letter also asks for a commitment to investments in English classes and legal assistance, municipal ID programs, immigrant entrepreneurial support and language access. “[W]e are ever-deepening our commitment to fostering immigrant-friendly municipalities,” the letter states. “We recognize that the wellbeing of immigrants impacts the wellbeing of all.”
The letter was signed by almost 60 mayors and others, including mayors from Baltimore; Boston; Buffalo; Chicago; Denver; Houston; Los Angeles; Minneapolis; New York City; Philadelphia; Phoenix; Salt Lake City; San Francisco; Seattle; and Washington, DC. These cities represent more than 55 million population of the United States from more than half of the states.

The letter can be viewed here. 

имми

06-23-2016 Breaking news: U.S. Supreme Court, split 4-4, blocks Obama immigration plan. The DAPA and expanded DACA programs will NOT become the law. Only original DACA deferred action program still stands.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling said only the following:

"“The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided court.”

The court did not issue a ruling on the merits of the main legal question. Therefore, its action set no legal precedent to bind future presidents. The decision indicates that any major immigration policy change that would address the long-term situation of the estimated 11 million people in the country illegally would have to be enacted by Congress.

Please note that today’s Supreme Court decision doesn’t impact the original DACA deferred action from 2012. Current DACA program is not affected by the Supreme Court’s decision. However, it's possible that the next President could end the DACA program.

DACA beneficiaries must continue renewing their status and work permits 120 days in advance before the expiration date.

Those who qualify and were waiting to apply because they were not 15 years old yet or for any other reason (lack of money to pay the fee or missing a document), can apply for the first time as well when you are ready if you were under 31 years of age on June 15, 2012. 
Note: The Obama Administration and USCIS is expected to announce the expansion of the I-601A provisional hardship waiver program in the near future. It could be helpful to many immigrants.

По-русски:

Верховный Суд США принял решение оставить в силе запрет на иммиграционную реформу администрации Обамы. Только первая иммиграционная реформа от 15 июня 2012 остается в силе (действие этого решения суда на нее не распространяется). Помните, что следующий Президент вправе отменить полностью программу DACA, так как она была введена в силу через акт исполнительной власти, а не Конгрессом.

На практике это означает, что те, кто подпадает под действие закона от 15 июня 2012, могут продолжать подавать в иммиграционную службу США как первичное заявление на статус DACA deferred action, так и заявление на продление статуса и разрешение на работу, work permit, когда им исполнится 15 лет, и если им не было 31 года на 15 июня 2012.

Read here. 

It’s a common problem: some unauthorized immigrants in USA are eligible to become legal residents using already existing laws and regulations. In many cases, they just don’t know about their eligibility and how to apply due to a lack of resources and information. They also find it difficult to navigate the complex immigration process by themselves.

A UCLA study found that individuals in removal (deportation) proceedings who had a lawyer were 15 (!) times more likely to apply for relief from removal than those without lawyers, and 5.5 times more likely to be granted or approved some sort of legal status that permitted them to stay in the United States.

Unlike criminal defendants, however, unauthorized immigrants don’t have a constitutional right to a government-funded lawyer (no "free lawyers" or public defenders in immigration court proceedings).

According to the UCLA study, only 37 percent of all immigrants, and 14 percent of detained immigrants, are represented by lawyers. Children also go unrepresented in immigration court.

Many immigrants often erroneously consider themselves qualified to "do it yourself", or consult unauthorized "immigration consultants" or "Notarios", who are not lawyers, while others can't afford a lawyer.​

It's advisable not to file any immigration petitions and applications with USCIS without first consulting a qualified immigration attorney. If you have been referred for removal to immigration court, you must retain an attorney to represent you in the court. 

По-русски:

Одна из очень распространенных проблем среди иммигрантов и незаконных иммигрантов (так называемых "нелегалов") в США, это то, что многие даже не подозревают, что имеют право подать заявление на какие-то иммиграционные бенефиты, включая грин карту (вид на жительство). А если и знают об этом, то не понимают все тонкости системы, и не знают как и когда можно подать такое заявление, как подать правильно, как получить положительное решение а не отказ.

Некоторые считают себя достаточно компетентными подать свои заявления самостоятельно, или используют услуги так называемых "консультантов", которые оперируют нелегально и без лицензии, и не являются адвокатами. У некторых просто нет средств.

К сожалению, в иммиграционной системе и суде в США нет права на бесплатного иммиграционного адвоката (даже в суде, и даже детям). Либо вы нанимаете защиту и платите за их услуги, либо иногда можно получить помощь по сниженным расценкам или бесплатно в местных организациях (но там строгий отбор и они берут небольшой процент дел), либо вы сами представляете свои интересы в иммиграционной суде и органах госбезопасности США.

По статистике, только 37% всех иммигрантов в США имеют адвоката или законного представителя, и только 14% иммигрантов находящихся в заключении имеют своего адвоката. Это пугающая статистика, учитывая, что многие и по-английски толком говорить не могут, не то что грамотно составить заявление.

Возраст также не имеет значения. Маленьким детям суд не обязан предоствлять защитника. Как сказал один иммиграционный судья, " я могу все прекрасно объяснить и 3-х летнему ребенку, так что ему не нужен адвокат в моем суде..."

Рекомендуется не подавать никакие заявления в иммиграционные органы без предварительной консультации с адвокатом, не говоря уже о суде.

Read more here.

Personally, I have no experience with with school. However, University of the People, tuition-free online university approach seem to be interesting and could be helpful for many living in the USA "without papers" or undocumented, who want to attend college and learn but can't afford it and don't qualify for financial aid.

Federal law does not prohibit undocumented students from enrolling in college, but it does something nearly as effective, banning them from receiving government aid. In recent years, though, some undocumented students have stumbled upon a little-known, nonprofit online university that doesn't charge tuition and doesn't care about students' legal status.

A four-year bachelor's degree at online University of the People will cost $4,000 in total. For those who don't have the money, the university offers scholarships. 

University charges only for the exams, and even these fees can be covered for scholarships. Quarter of the school's students don't pay anything at all, thanks to those scholarships, which are funded by big companies, including Hewlett-Packard, Microsoft and Intel.

The school's academic credibility has also gotten a huge boost from partnerships forged with New York University; University of California, Berkeley; Yale; and Oxford.

Education experts have praised University of the People's surprisingly high retention rate of 75 percent, but what Jamie Merisotis of the Lumina Foundation says he likes most is that the school was built precisely to serve poor students living in difficult circumstances.

Merisotis, author of the book America Needs Talent, says many of the undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. are young and talented but have no access to a higher education.

"Postsecondary education is the key to integrating them into our society and taking them out of the shadows," Merisotis says. "Even if you kick them out of the country," Reshef says, with a good education "they will be much more desired wherever they go. So it's a win-win situation for everyone."

Read more news here and the university website is here. 

It's important to stress out that some DACA recipients (grantees) may become eligible to adjust their status to a permanent resident status ("get a green card") AFTER traveling outside the United States on a special travel document, called Advance Parole. 

Please pay careful attention that not all DACA grantees are eligible for advance parole (consult an attorney if not sure), and not every DACA grantee who travels abroad and returns to USA on advance parole travel document will become eligible for a green card through adjustment of status (by filing a I-485 application with USCIS, instead of consular processing of an immigrant visa at the U.S. Consulate abroad). An applicant has to be eligible for adjustment in order to apply. Traveling on advance parole helps to overcome some inadmissibility issues and the problem of EWI (entry without inspection).

USCIS will currently only grant advance parole to DACA recipients if the travel abroad is in furtherance of one of the following categories:
 

(1) Humanitarian purposes, including travel to obtain medical treatment, attending funeral services for a family member, or visiting an ailing relative;
 
(2) Educational purposes, such as semester-abroad programs and academic research, or;
 
(3) Employment purposes such as overseas assignments, interviews, conferences or, training, or meetings with clients overseas.

Although a new ILRC Practice Advisory is focused on DACA, most of the analysis will also apply to TPS holders.

If you have questions or need help we would be glad to help you. Please email us first to schedule a consultation with an attorney.

In Russian:

Очень важно иметь в виду, что если вам утвердили ваш иммиграционный статус в США как DACA по новому закону, вы можете получить разрешение на поездки за пределы США, и возвращение в США по этому разрешению, которое называется Advance Parole. 

Перед подачей заявления на выезд за пределы США, всегда стоит проконсультироваться со знающим иммиграционным адвокатом. Не всем лицам, находящимся в статусе DACA, положен такой документ, и не всем его выдают. Иногда при возвращении из-за границы бывают проблемы в аэропорту.

Но эта норма закона имеет огромное значение для тех, кто после возвращения в США по документу advance parole, может затем подать заявление на грин карту как adjustment of status, не выезжая за пределы США и не через посольство, а через USCIS. Не все имеют право на adjustment of status (если есть сомнения всегда стоит проконсультироваться с иммиграционным адвокатом). 

Если у вас есть вопросы или нужна помощь адвоката, мы с удовольствием вас проконсультируем и поможем. Для получения консультации свяжитесь с нами вначале по электронной почте.

Read the Advisory 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.  

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. 

USCIS has published information to help eligible H-4 dependent spouses to apply for employment authorization (work permit) under the Employment Authorization for Certain H-4 Dependent Spouses final rule. 

Note: you can file application for a work permit only on or after May 26, 2015, and you must be eligible to apply.

Application form is USCIS form I-765, and the filing fee is US$380.

Note: it is applicant's burden of proof to provide evidence of your status, your H1B spouse's status and prove that you meet other eligibility requirements. Your application can be delayed or denied if it's incomplete.

Eligibility requirements: you are eligible to apply for a work permit if you are the H-4 dependent spouse of an H-1B nonimmigrant IF your H-1B nonimmigrant spouse:

• Is the principal beneficiary of an approved Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker; or
• Has been granted H-1B status under sections 106(a) and (b) of the AC21. The AC21 permits H-1B nonimmigrants seeking employment-based lawful permanent residence to work and remain in the United States beyond the six-year limit.

Read here.

Starting May 26, 2015, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will temporarily suspend premium processing for all H-1B Extension of Stay petitions until July 27, 2015. During this time frame, petitioners will not be able to file Form I-907, Request for Premium Processing Service, for a Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, requesting an extension of the stay for an H-1B nonimmigrant. 

USCIS will continue to premium process H-1B Extension of Stay petitions filed with Form I-907 premium requests prior to May 26, 2015.

This temporary suspension will allow USCIS to implement the Employment Authorization for Certain H-4 Spouses final rule in a timely manner and adjudicate applications for employment authorization filed by H-4 nonimmigrants under the new regulations.

Read more at http://www.uscis.gov/news/uscis-temporarily-suspends-premium-processing-extension-stay-h-1b-petitions

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.

USCIS published a new L-1B Adjudications Policy, effective date August 31, 2015.  

This Memo is open for public comments. See here. 

The L-1B adjudications memorandum, which clarifies for USCIS officers how L-1B petitioners may demonstrate that an employee has specialized knowledge, is posted online for a 45-day public feedback period.  The memorandum will go into effect on August 31, 2015.

This policy memorandum 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.  It provides consolidated and authoritative guidance on the L-1B program, superseding and rescinding certain prior L-1B memoranda.  

Upon final publication, the memorandum will update chapter 32.6(e) of the Adjudicator’s Field Manual (AFM)." USCIS, Mar. 24, 2015.

This is important news for attorneys or those who represent clients in front of DHS/USCIS/ICE.

USCIS has published a revised Form G-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Accredited Representative. 

Attorneys and legal representatives accredited by the Board of Immigration Appeals use Form G-28 to notify USCIS of their legal representation in a given case. Form G-28 must be signed by the legal representative and by the applicant/petitioner/requestor. When a valid Form G-28 is on file, USCIS communicates with the legal representative. If you sign and submit an expired form G-28, USCIS will not enter you as an attorney of record.

**New Form G-28 Changes**

The revised Form G-28, with the 03/04/2015 edition date, includes two new boxes that allow the applicant/petitioner/requestor to tell USCIS whether they want to receive their notices and secure documents directly, or whether they want USCIS to send them to their legal representative. 

The revised Form G-28 also collects more biographic data, email addresses and cell phone numbers.

Beginning April 13, 2015, USCIS will not accept earlier versions of Form G-28. If an applicant, petitioner, or requestor submits an application or benefit request with a previous/expired version of Form G-28, USCIS will accept only the application or request as long as it meets the acceptance criteria. In this situation, they will not accept the Form G-28 and will send all notices and secure documents only to the applicant/petitioner/requestor. Please remember to start using new edition of form G-28. It's available at USCIS website. See the link below.

For More Information Visit the Filing Your Form G-28 Web page to learn more about the revised form.

http://www.uscis.gov/forms/filing-your-form-g-28

Big news for H-4 spouses: 

On February 24, 2015, USCIS announced that, effective May 26, 2015, the DHS is extending eligibility for employment authorization to certain H-4 dependent spouses of H-1B nonimmigrants who are seeking employment-based lawful permanent resident (LPR) status. DHS amended the regulations to allow these H-4 dependent spouses to accept employment in the United States. 

Eligible individuals include certain H-4 dependent spouses of H-1B nonimmigrants who: 

• Are the principal beneficiaries of an approved Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker; or 
• Have been granted H-1B status under sections 106(a) and (b) of the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000 as amended by the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act. The Act permits H-1B nonimmigrants seeking lawful permanent residence to work and remain in the United States beyond the six-year limit on their H-1B status.

Under the new rule, eligible H-4 dependent spouses must file Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, with supporting evidence and the required $380 fee in order to obtain employment authorization and receive a Form I-766, Employment Authorization Document (EAD). USCIS will begin accepting applications on May 26, 2015. Once USCIS approves the Form I-765 and the H-4 dependent spouse receives an EAD, he or she may begin working in the United States.

Read more at DHS Extends Eligibility for Employment Authorization to Certain H-4 Dependent Spouses of H-1B Nonimmigrants Seeking Employment-Based Lawful Permanent Residence | USCIS

(As a practical matter, preliminary injunction means that effective February 18th 2015, there will be no filings under new expanded DACA program, and DAPA is placed on hold. Please be careful as to what applications and forms you file with USCIS. Consult a licensed experienced attorney and verify your eligibility before you apply.)

A Texas Judge has placed a preliminary hold on the two initiatives announced by President Obama last November that would expand the two-year-old Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)  and Deferred Action for Parents of U.S. Citizens and Legal Permanent Residents (DAPA). These two programs would provide temporary relief from deportation to approximately 5 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States.  The order issued overnight, and two days before the government was set to begin the DACA expansion, bars federal immigration officials from implementing “any and all aspects” of these programs. 

The coalition of 26 states, led by Texas and made up of mostly conservative states in the South and Midwest, argues that Obama has violated the "Take Care Clause" of the U.S. Constitution, which they say limits the scope of presidential power, and that his executive actions would be difficult to undo once immigrants started to apply for deferred action. They also say Obama's order would force increased investment in law enforcement, health care and education.

Among those supporting Obama's executive order is a group of 12 states, including Washington and California, as well as the District of Columbia. They filed a motion with the judge in support of Obama, arguing the directives will substantially benefit states and will further the public interest.

A group of law enforcement officials, including the Major Cities Chiefs Association and more than 20 police chiefs and sheriffs from across the country, also filed a motion in support, arguing the executive action will improve public safety by encouraging cooperation between police and individuals with concerns about their immigration status.

Read more at: http://news.yahoo.com/federal-judge-stalls-obamas-executive-action-immigration-052549363.html

*****

On February 17, 2015, USCIS had released their official statement in response to injunction granted by a federal judge in Texas, which effectively put a stop to DACA expansion (which was planned for February 18th 2015) and suspended DAPA (originally planned to start on May 19, 2015).

Since November 2014, USCIS had hired and trained additional 1,000 full-time employees in anticipation of a high volume of DACA and DAPA applications in 2015.

--------------------------
(via email): Statement by Secretary Jeh C. Johnson Concerning the District Court’s Ruling Concerning DAPA and DACA

"I strongly disagree with Judge Hanen’s decision to temporarily enjoin implementation of Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) and expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The Department of Justice will appeal that temporary injunction; in the meantime, we recognize we must comply with it.

Accordingly, the Department of Homeland Security will not begin accepting requests for the expansion of DACA tomorrow, February 18, as originally planned. Until further notice, we will also suspend the plan to accept requests for DAPA.

The Department of Justice, legal scholars, immigration experts and even other courts have said that our actions are well within our legal authority. Our actions will also benefit the economy and promote law enforcement. We fully expect to ultimately prevail in the courts, and we will be prepared to implement DAPA and expanded DACA once we do.

It is important to emphasize what the District Court’s order does not affect.

The Court’s order does not affect the existing DACA. Individuals may continue to come forward and request initial grant of DACA or renewal of DACA pursuant to the guidelines established in 2012.

Nor does the Court’s order affect this Department’s ability to set and implement enforcement priorities. The priorities established in my November 20, 2014 memorandum entitled “Policies for the Apprehension, Detention and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants” remain in full force and effect."

-------------------------

USCIS could struggle to process millions of undocumented immigrants who may apply for legal protection under President Barack Obama's recent announcements on immigration, a Senate committee was told on Wednesday.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), which handles immigrant visa and naturalization petitions, could be overwhelmed by the surge in workload later this year even if it hires an additional 1,000 workers as planned.

USCIS is expected to receive 4.5 million new DACA and DAPA deferred action applications in the coming months.

Congressional Republicans say Obama has overstepped his constitutional bounds and are trying to pass legislation to block funding for his immigration policies but Democrats in the Senate on Tuesday derailed the Republican effort. As the legislative battle continues, funding for the entire Department of Homeland Security, of which USCIS is a part, runs out at the end of February.

"The administration has informed this committee that it plans to hire 1,000 new workers" to process the applications, Bellocchi said, but "questions immediately surface whether this number will be sufficient without creating extreme backlogs."

He said new workers would have to process and adjudicate 4,500 applications each during the six-month target period. "Including weekends, that would mean 25 to 27 applications per day for 1,000 adjudicators," Bellocchi, who is now an immigration attorney in the private sector, told the committee.

USCIS has roughly 13,000 full-time officers and 5,000 contractors and they handle most applications on paper. Read at: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/04/us-usa-congress-immigration-idUSKBN0L81Q320150204

***Our office is ready to provide legal assistance to DACA and DAPA applicants. 
DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents) is a new deferred action program. It was expected that DAPA application period will open around May 20, 2015. It means that USCIS is not accepting DAPA applications just yet (applications from parents of US citizen children and lawful permanent resident children). You can start work on preparing your supporting documents for USCIS, however, you have to wait to file until USCIS  is ready. New application forms and official guidelines are expected to be released in May 2015. As of February 16, 2015, both expanded DACA and DAPA have been placed on hold until further notice. Avoid notario scam and don't pay anyone to submit your DAPA applications until it's been announced by the USCIS that they start accepting applications. It might be later than May 2015, if a federal case is still pending. If you need help please email an attorney at attorney@law-visa-usa.com .*** 

A FAM update provides two new examples of the types of exceptional circumstances where consular officers should request authorization from USCIS to accept I-130 petitions. 

The new examples involve adoption of a child, and short notice of position relocation. 

See at 9 FAM 42.41 Notes
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/87842.pdf

9 FAM 42.41 N4.2-7 Adjudicating Exceptional Circumstance I- 130 Cases (CT:VISA-2247; 01-28-2015) 

a. Consular officers assigned to posts with USCIS public counter presence cannot accept filing or adjudicate the Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, and must refer petitioners instead to USCIS. 

b. If a consular section without a USCIS public counter presence encounters an exceptional circumstance case, then the Consular Chief, or another designated officer, must receive authorization from the regional USCIS Field Office Director (or his/her designee) prior to accepting and adjudicating the filing. Post should contact the appropriate USCIS field office by phone or e-mail, providing the specifics of the reason for the exception request. USCIS will have discretion to determine which cases can be processed using the exceptional circumstances procedures and which petitioners should be directed to file by mail with the USCIS lockbox in the United States. USCIS may authorize post to accept the case over the telephone in particularly emergent circumstances but will always communicate his or her decision via email to the post within 1-3 business days of receipt of the request for record-keeping purposes. 

c. The following are examples of the types of exceptional circumstances where consular officers should request exceptional authorization from USCIS to accept I-130 petitions: 

(1) U.S. Military deployment or transfer: A U.S. service member overseas becomes aware of a new deployment or transfer with very little notice. This should be an exception to the regular relocation process for most service members. 
(2) Medical emergencies: A petitioner or beneficiary is facing an urgent medical emergency that requires immediate travel. This includes if the petitioner or beneficiary is pregnant and delaying travel may create a medical risk or extreme hardship for the mother or child. 
(3) Threats to personal safety: A petitioner or beneficiary is facing an imminent threat to personal safety. 
(4) Cases close to aging out: A beneficiary is within a few months of aging out of eligibility. 
(5) Cases where the petitioner has recently naturalized: The petitioner and family have traveled for the immigrant visa interview but the petitioner has naturalized and the family member(s) require a new, stand-alone petition. 
(6) Adoption of a child: A petitioner who has adopted a child locally and has an imminent need to depart the country. This exception should only be considered if the child has been in the petitioner’s legal and physical custody for at least two years and the petitioner has a full and final adoption decree on behalf of the child. 
(7) Short notice of position relocation: A U.S. Citizen petitioner, living and working abroad, who receives a job relocation within the same company or subsidiary to the United States, or an offer of a new job in the United States with very little notice. 
(8) Other emergency situations, as determined by the Consular Section. 

d. Large-scale disrupting event: An event such as a natural disaster or widespread civil unrest that affects large numbers of people and creates a humanitarian emergency for U.S. citizens or residents living abroad that would call for a blanket authorization for posts to accept and process I-130 petitions. In these circumstances, only the Chief or Deputy Chief of the USCIS International Operations Division may give blanket authorization to accept filing and adjudicate Form I-130 petitions for a specified period of time.

A group of mayors of led by New York Mayor Bill de Blasio and Los Angeles' Eric Garcetti are coming to the defense of President Barack Obama on immigration.

Twenty-eight (28) mayors have signed on to file an amicus brief this coming Monday in support of Obama's November 2014 executive actions on immigration, which are currently the target of a lawsuit from 25 states, led by Texas. The suit aims to block the president'sdeportation relief policies that will apply to some undocumented young people as well as undocumented parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents -- specifically, allowing them to stay in the country and work legally. Republicans in Congress are likewise seeking to block the programs.

Obama is backed by a dozen states and the District of Columbia, all of which filed an amicus brief earlier this month in support of the executive actions on immigration. The states in that brief were California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont and Washington, along with the District of Columbia. Their amicus brief argues that new immigration policies announced by President Obama in November 2014 are legal and will have a positive impact.

The mayors' defense will be similar, arguing that Obama's executive actions serve the public interest. They will ask that the policies be allowed to move forward despite the lawsuit against them. Along with de Blasio and Garcetti, mayors from Washington, D.C., Chicago, Atlanta, Philadelphia, San Francisco and St. Louis were among those who signed on.

The amicus brief comes after a summit de Blasio hosted last month to discuss implementation of Obama's executive actions.

Here's the full list of mayors, according to a press release:

The following Mayors have signed on to the amicus brief:
Mayor Bill de Blasio, New York, New York
Mayor Eric Garcetti, Los Angeles, California
Mayor Kasim Reed, Atlanta, Georgia
Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, Baltimore, Maryland
Mayor Byron Browm, Buffalo, New York
Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Chicago, Illinois
Mayor Steve Benjamin, Columbia, South Carolina
Mayor Nan Whaley, Dayton, Ohio
Mayor Michael Hancock, Denver, Colorado
Mayor Muriel Bowser, Washington, D.C.
Mayor Pedro Segarra, Hartford, Connecticut
Mayor Annise Parker, Houston, Texas
Mayor Steven Fulop, Jersey City, New Jersey
Mayor Paul Soglin, Madison, Wisconsin
Mayor Ras Baraka, Newark, New Jersey
Mayor Michael Nutter, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Mayor Bill Peduto, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Mayor Charles Hales, Portland, Oregon
Mayor John Dickert, Racine, Wisconsin
Mayor Tom Butt, Richmond, California
Mayor Lovely Warren, Rochester, New York
Mayor Ralph Becker, Salt Lake City, Utah
Mayor Ed Lee, San Francisco, California
Mayor Gary McCarthy, Schenectady, New York
Mayor Ed Murray, Seattle, Washington
Mayor Francis Slay, St. Louis, Missouri
Mayor Marilyn Strickland, Tacoma, Washington
Mayor Mike Spano, Yonkers, New York

The following mayors have expressed their support and will sign on to the brief, pending final local approvals:

Mayor Karen Majewski, Hamtramck, Michigan
Mayor Virg Bernero, Lansing, Michigan
Mayor Tom Barrett, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Mayor Betsy Hodges, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Mayor Greg Stanton, Phoenix, Arizona

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/23/mayors-amicus-brief-immigration_n_6532926.html

SUMMARY of DACA and DACA Deferred Action Programs based on Obama's November 20, 2014 announcement of Immigration Reform.
(repost from our blog)

President Obama’s Immigration Announcement Includes Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) & Expansion of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). On November 20, 2014, President Obama announced 10 areas where his Administration will modify immigration policy. In general, these reforms fall into three categories: (i) changes to immigration enforcement policy; (ii) deferred action expansion; and (iii) changes to our legal immigration system. This Fact Sheet will focus exclusively on the expansion of deferred action, memorialized in a Memorandum by Jeh Johnson entitled Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children and with Respect to Certain Individuals Whose Parents are U.S. Citizens or Permanent Residents (“Deferred Action Memo”).

Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA):

Deferred action is a temporary protection from deportation. Through it, a person is authorized to remain in the United States temporarily and to receive employment authorization. A grant of deferred action does not provide a path to lawful permanent resident status or U.S. citizenship.

The Deferred Action Memo calls on USCIS to establish a process, similar to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, for granting deferred action to individuals who:
·         Have, as of November 20, 2014, a son or daughter of any age, who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident;
·         Have continuously resided in the United States since before January 1, 2010;
·         Are physically present in the United States on November 20, 2014, and at the time of making a DAPA request;
·         Have no lawful status on November 20, 2014;
·         Are not an enforcement priority, defined as: people suspected of terrorism, gang associations, or visa abusers, unlawful border crossers, and people convicted of felonies, aggravated felonies, significant misdemeanors, or three or more misdemeanors;[1] and
·         Present no other factors that would cause USCIS to deny the request in its exercise of discretion. 

The DAPA process shall be available to people with final orders of removal who meet the above criteria. Applicants must pay a $465 filing fee and submit to biometrics. As with DACA, there will be a very limited fee exemption and no fee waivers. Those who receive deferred action under the DAPA program will receive employment authorization for a three-year period. 

USCIS plans to begin accepting applications for DAPA by May 19, 2015.

The Deferred Action Memo applies to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Those agencies are instructed to exercise discretion for individuals who meet the DAPA criteria, including individuals in immigration custody, in removal proceedings, or whom ICE or CBP encounters.

Expansion of DACA (as of February 16, 2015, it was placed on hold):

Beginning on February 18, 2015, you may request consideration for deferred action under DACA if you:

1. Came to the United States before reaching your 16th birthday;
2. Have continuously resided in the United States since January 1, 2010, up to the present time;
3. Were physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012, and at the time of making your request for consideration of deferred action with USCIS;
4. Had no lawful status on June 15, 2012, meaning that:

• You never had a lawful immigration status on or before June 15, 2012, or
• Any lawful immigration status or parole that you obtained prior to June 15, 2012, had expired as of June 15, 2012.

1. Are currently in school, have graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, have obtained a General Educational Development (GED) certificate, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States; and
2. Have not been convicted of a felony, a significant misdemeanor, three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.

The Deferred Action Memo makes three major modifications to the DACA program:

1.       It removes the age cap. The Deferred Action Memo eliminates the requirement that an individual be under the age of 31 on June 15, 2012.
2.       The start date for the continuous residence period is advanced from June 15, 2007 to January 1, 2010. At this time, to be eligible for DACA an individual must have resided in the United States continuously from January 1, 2010 up to the present.
3.       DACA grants will now last three years instead of two. Effective November 24, 2014, all first-time DACA approvals as well as all DACA renewals shall be effective for three years instead of two.

The rest of the DACA requirements remain the same:

1. Had no lawful status on June 15, 2012, meaning that:

• You never had a lawful immigration status on or before June 15, 2012, or
• Any lawful immigration status or parole that you obtained prior to June 15, 2012, had expired as of June 15, 2012.

1. Are currently in school, have graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, have obtained a General Educational Development (GED) certificate, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States; and
2. Have not been convicted of a felony, a significant misdemeanor, three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.

USCIS was planning to begin accepting applications under the new criteria by February 18, 2015. However, on February 16, 2015, a temporary injunction by a federal judge resulted in DACA and DAPA programs being put on hold. Please see our blog for updates.

Although the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has released some information about these programs, we expect DHS will produce detailed explanations and instructions in the coming months. Visit www.uscis.gov and http://www.adminrelief.org/ for more information.

[1] Immigration enforcement priorities include other categories detailed in the Jeh Johnson Memorandum entitled “Policies for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants” (Nov. 20, 2014). Summary from ILRC.

On November 20, 2014, USCIS had published a MEMORANDUM, which can be fund here:
http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/14_1120_memo_deferred_action.pdf

USCIS had published FAQs at: 
http://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/consideration-deferred-action-childhood-arrivals-process/frequently-asked-questions

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Office of Foreign Assets Control
31 CFR Part 515
Cuban Assets Control Regulations
AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
ACTION: Final rule. 
[FR Doc. 2015-00632 Filed 01/15/2015 at 8:45 am; Publication Date: 01/16/2015] 

The Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is amending the Cuban Assets Control Regulations to implement policy changes announced by the President on December 17, 2014 to further engage and empower the Cuban people. These amendments facilitate travel to Cuba for authorized purposes, facilitate the provision by travel agents and airlines of authorized travel services and the forwarding by certain entities of authorized remittances, raise the limit on certain categories of remittances to Cuba, allow U.S. financial institutions to open correspondent accounts at Cuban financial institutions to facilitate the processing of authorized transactions, authorize certain transactions with Cuban nationals located outside of Cuba, and allow a number of other activities related to, among other areas, telecommunications, financial services, trade, and shipping. These amendments also implement certain technical and conforming changes.

Read advance copy at: http://www.ofr.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2015-00632_PI.pdf