​A federal government shutdown will impact some, but not all, US immigration and visa programs. The principal distinction is between those programs that are fee-funded and those that rely on congressional appropriations for funding. The greatest business immigration impact will be on US Department of Labor (DOL) programs for permanent (PERM) labor certification and H-1B, E-3, H-1B1, and H-2B matters.
With the growing possibility of a federal government shutdown at the start of its new fiscal year on October 1, 2023, it may be instructive to review how immigration-related agencies operated during prior shutdowns. Any shutdown in FY2023 will also be informed by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) guidance published in 2022 that describes what DHS operations will continue during a federal funding hiatus or lapse in appropriations.
GENERAL SHUTDOWN INFORMATION
If the government agencies close for budgetary reasons, all but “essential” personnel are furloughed and are not allowed to work. Operations that are funded by user fees may face limited operations, but are unlikely to halt completely. Functions that rely on congressional appropriations for their operating funds are likely to shut down all but essential functions.
US CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES
US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is funded by fees paid by stakeholders, and as such this agency typically continues operating because it is not dependent on congressional appropriations to fund its operations. Exceptions to this include the few USCIS programs that do receive appropriated funds: E-Verify, the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Regional Center Program, Conrad 30 J-1 doctors, and non-minister religious workers. These operations will likely be suspended.
E-Verify and I-9
E-Verify will likely go dark during a shutdown. While employers must continue to honor their obligations under Form I-9 rules, they will not be sanctioned for delays arising from the inability to process E-Verify cases in accordance with the “three-day rule.” When E-Verify comes back online, employers should create E-Verify cases based on Forms I-9 completed during the shutdown.
For employees who received a tentative non-confirmation (TNC), the period during which employees may resolve TNCs will be extended. The number of days E-Verify is unavailable will not count toward the days that employees have to begin the process of resolving their TNCs.
USCIS has confirmed that employers may continue to use the new alternate document review process for remote Form I-9 document verification if E-Verify is temporarily unavailable due to a government shutdown.
EB-5
Although the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Regional Center Program receives government funding, its current operations are funded and authorized through September 30, 2027.
STATE DEPARTMENT
Visa and passport operations are fee-funded and are not expected to be impacted by a lapse in funding; however, consular availability and processing may nonetheless be impacted depending on the post and ancillary impacts of the shutdown on consular operations. If a consulate is impacted by the shutdown, then it is likely that services will be limited to diplomatic visas and extreme emergencies.
US DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
The processing of labor condition applications for H-1B, E-3, and H-1B1 petitions will be shut down. Similarly, processing of prevailing wage, PERM labor certification, and other operations of the DOL Office of Foreign Labor Certification (OFLC) will cease. DOL/OFLC personnel will not be available to respond to inquiries, and web-based systems for filing, status checks, and uploading documents, among other features, will be offline. Deadlines related to DOL applications and procedures are typically modified.
US CUSTOMS & BORDER PROTECTION
DHS deems passenger and cargo inspection and law enforcement to be essential operations that will continue despite a lapse in appropriations. Ports of entry will be open, and processing of passengers arriving at land, sea, and air ports of entry will continue; however, processing of applications for work visa classification (e.g., TN, H-1B, L-1), particularly at Canadian border posts, may be impacted. Applicants are advised to contact the port of entry in advance to confirm the post’s operational status.
IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) enforcement and removal operations will continue, and ICE attorneys will typically focus on the detained docket during a shutdown. The ICE Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) offices (for, e.g., F-1, J-1, M-1 visas) are unaffected since SEVP is funded by fees (AILA Doc. No. 21092710).
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
Immigration court cases on the detained docket will proceed during a lapse in congressional appropriations, while nondetained docket cases will be reset for a later date when funding resumes. Courts with detained dockets will receive all filings but will only process those involving detained dockets.
Courts with only nondetained dockets will not be open and will not accept filings. Courts should issue an updated notice of hearing to respondents or representatives of record for reset hearings. Members may want to check with their local chapters for court-specific instructions (AILA Doc. No. 21092710).
CIS OMBUDSMAN
The DHS Office of the CIS Ombudsman would close and would not accept any inquiries through its online case intake system (AILA Doc. No. 21092710).

​

07-28-2022 Update: USCIS is currently experiencing delays in issuing receipts for Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal. Due to these delays, you may not receive a receipt notice in a timely manner after you properly file your Form I-589. For purposes of the asylum one-year filing deadline, affirmative asylum interview scheduling priorities, and Employment Authorization Document eligibility based on a pending asylum application, your filing date will still be the date that we received your properly filed Form I-589 (not the date we processed it). If you did not properly file your application, we will reject it and note any deficiencies in your filing. If you do not receive your receipt notice in a timely manner, please do not submit multiple Forms I-589, as this may further delay your case.
Properly filing your Form I-589 allows us to process your form with fewer delays. Please review the reminders below to ensure you are properly filing your Form I-589:

• You must submit your application for asylum within one year of arriving in the United States (one-year filing deadline), unless you can establish that there are changed circumstances that materially affect your eligibility for asylum or extraordinary circumstances directly related to your failure to file within one year.
• You must type or print all of your answers in black ink.
• You must provide the specific information requested about you and your family and answer all the questions on the form. If any question does not apply to you or you do not know the information requested, answer “none,” “not applicable,” or “unknown.”
• If you file your application with missing information, we may return it to you as incomplete.
• You are strongly urged to attach additional written statements and documents that support your claim. Your written statements should include events, dates, and details of your experiences that relate to your claim for asylum.
• Put your Alien Registration Number (A-Number), if you have one, your name (exactly as it appears in Part A.I. of the form), the date, and your signature on each supplemental sheet and on the cover page of any supporting documents.
• Follow the instructions in the Where to File section and the Special Instructions section on the Form I-589 webpage to determine where to file your Form I-589.
• If you are applying for asylum as an Afghan Operation Allies Welcome (OAW) parolee, please review the Afghan Operation Allies Welcome (OAW) Parolee Asylum-Related Frequently Asked Questions page.

Please note: Do not submit any Forms I-589 to the Vermont Service Center (VSC). The VSC is not currently processing Form I-589 and submitting your Form I-589 to the VSC will result in additional delays.
We continue to experience receipt issuance delays in other workloads across some service centers. 

​Form I-589. 

On October 1, 2018, for the first time in history, Immigration Judges were assigned a quota and ordered to complete 700 cases per year (3 cases per day), and will be penalized if over 15% of their decisions are overturned on appeal.

In addition, AG has limited their authority to grant continuances or to administratively close cases where applicants are eligible to apply for an immigration benefit under immigration law.

The American Bar Association has stated that “such quotas have serious implications for decisional independence.” Instead the ABA recommends establishing the immigration courts as Article 1 courts, independent of any executive agency and less susceptible to political currents. 

What do the performance review standards require?

Under the new standards, which are set to go into effect on Oct. 1, 2018, to receive a “satisfactory” review an immigration judge must:

• Complete 700 cases per year, and
• Maintain a remand rate (from the Board of Immigration Appeals and circuit courts) of fewer than 15 percent per year.

Additionally, for a “satisfactory” review an immigration judge must meet at least half of the following benchmarks:

• Issue decisions within three days of completing a merits hearing in 85 percent of non-status detained removal decisions
• Issue decisions within 10 days of completing a merits hearing in 85 percent of non-status non-detained removal decisions (unless completion is prohibited by statute, such as cancellation caps)
• Decide motions within 20 days of receipt in 85 percent of their cases
• Make bond decisions on the day of the hearing in 90 percent of cases
• Complete individual hearings on the initial scheduled hearing date in 95 percent of the cases (unless the Department of Homeland Security does not produce a detained respondent), and
• Issue decisions in 100 percent of cases on the day of the initial hearing in credible fear and reasonable fear reviews (unless DHS does not produce a detained respondent).

Immigration judges are part of the executive branch of government within the Department of Justice reporting to the Attorney General. 

Case completion goals of 700 per year translates into completing – issuing a removal order or granting relief such as asylum, cancellation or adjustment – nearly three cases per day, and it does not account for the hours an immigration judge must spend conducting master calendar hearings, bond hearings, attending trainings and reviewing case files. It is hard to imagine how a judge could ever give fair consideration to three cases per day, while simultaneously preparing for upcoming hearings, writing decisions on complex cases and responding to motions (within newly proscribed time limits.) 

​"An attorney recently reported the following: at a Master Calendar hearing, an immigration judge advised that if on the Individual Hearing date, both the court and the ICE attorney do not believe the respondent is prima facie eligible for asylum based on the written submissions, the judge will deny asylum summarily without hearing testimony.  The judge stated that other immigration judges around the country were already entering such summary judgments, in light of recent decisions of the Attorney General.I have been telling reporters lately that no one decision or policy of the AG, the EOIR Director, or the BIA should be viewed in isolation.  Rather, all are pieces in a puzzle.  Back in March, in a very unusual decision, Jeff Sessions certified to himself a four-year-old BIA precedent decision while it was administratively closed (and therefore off-calendar) at the immigration judge level, and then vacated the decision for the most convoluted of reasons.  Matter of E-F-H-L-, had held that all asylum applicants had the right to a full hearing on their application without first having to establish prima facie eligibility for such relief.  It was pretty clear that Sessions wanted this requirement eliminated.
On January 4 of this year,  Sessions certified to himself the case of  Matter of Castro-Tum, in which he asked whether immigration judges and the BIA should continue to have the right to administratively close cases, a useful and common docket management tool.  On January 19, the BIA published its decision in Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B-, in which it required asylum applicants to clearly delineate their claimed particular social group before the immigration judge (an extremely complicated task beyond the ability of most unrepresented applicants), and stated that the BIA will not consider reformulations of the social group on appeal.  
On March 5, 2018, Sessions vacated Matter of E-F-H-L-.  Two days later, on March 7, Sessions certified to himself an immigration judge’s decision in Matter of A-B-, engaging in procedural irregularity in taking the case from the BIA before it could rule on the matter, and then completely transforming the issues presented in the case, suddenly challenging whether anyone fearing private criminal actors could qualify for asylum.
On March 22, Sessions certified to himself Matter of L-A-B-R- et al., to determine under what circumstances immigration judges may grant continuances to respondents in removal proceedings.  Although this decision is still pending, immigration judges are already having to defend their decisions to grant continuances to their supervisors at the instigation of the EOIR Director’s Office, which is tracking all IJ continuances. 
On March 30, EOIR issued a memo stating that immigration judges would be subjected to performance metrics, or quotas, requiring them to complete 700 cases per year, 95 percent at the first scheduled individual hearing, and further requiring that no more than 15 percent of their decisions be remanded.  On May 17, Sessions decided Castro-Tum in the negative, stripping judges of the ability to manage their own dockets by administratively closing worthy cases.
On June 11, Sessions decided Matter of A-B-, vacating the BIA’s 2014 decision recognizing the ability of victims of domestic violence to qualify for asylum as members of a particular social group.  In that decision, Sessions included headnote 4: “If an asylum application is fatally flawed in one respect, an immigration judge or the Board need not examine the remaining elements of the asylum claim.”  The case was intentionally issued on the first day of the Immigration Judges training conference, at which the need to complete more cases in less time was a repeatedly emphasized.
Within the past few months, the immigration judges have been warned that their livelihood will depend on their completing large numbers of cases, without the ability to grant continuances or administratively close cases.  They have had the need to hold a full asylum hearing stripped away, while at the same time, having pointed out to them several ways to quickly dispose of an asylum claim that until weeks ago, would have been clearly grantable under settled case law.
There has been much discussion lately of EOIR’s improper politicized hirings of immigration judges.  The above developments have created something of a Rorschach test for determining an immigration judge’s ideology.  
The judges that conclude from the above the best practice is to summarily deny asylum without testimony are exactly the type of judges the present administration wants on the bench.  They can find a “fatal flaw” in the claim - either in the formulation (or lack thereof) of the particular social group, or in the lack of preliminary documentation as to the persecutor’s motive, the government’s inability to protect, or the unreasonableness of internal relocation, and simply deny the right to a hearing.  It should be noted that these issues are often resolved by the detailed testimony offered at a full merits hearing, which is the purpose of holding such hearings in the first place.
On the other hand, more thoughtful, liberal judges will find that in light of the above developments, they must afford more time for asylum claims based on domestic violence, gang threats, or other claims involving non-governmental actors. And in doing so, they will find it extremely difficult to meet the completion quotas set out by the agency with Sessions’ blessing. The removal of Castro-Tum’s case from the docket of Judge Morley is clearly a warning that the agency does not wish for judges to behave as independent and impartial adjudicators, but rather to act in lockstep with the agency’s enforcement agenda.
There is another very significant issue: most asylum claims also apply for protection under Article III of the U.N. Convention Against Torture.  Unlike asylum, “CAT” relief is mandatory, and as it does not require a nexus to a protected ground, it is unaffected by the AG’s holding in A-B-.  So won’t those judges pondering summary dismissal still have to hold full hearings on CAT protection?  It would seem that a refusal to hold a full CAT hearing would result in a remand, if not from the BIA, than at the circuit court level."
Opinion by Jeffrey S. Chase, immigration attorney and former immigration judge you can read here.

On January 25 and 27, 2017, President signed several Executive Orders. Here are the links to full text of three Executive Orders on Immigration:

1. Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements (01-25-2017)
2. Enhancing Security in the Interior of the United States (01-25-2017)
3. Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States (01-27-2017)

Executive Order Number 1 concerns building a wall along the 2,000 mile border between the US and Mexico.

Executive Order Number 2 would prioritize the deportation or removal of criminals from USA. It would also compel state and local agencies to participate in federal deportation program, by targeting so called Sanctuary Cities, Districts, states. If a sanctuary city doesn't comply, the federal funding can be cut off. Lawsuits are expected to follow. Some jurisdictions, such as, for example, Miami, already declared that they are abolishing their sanctuary city status.

Executive Order Number 3 immediately (1) Implemented a travel ban from seven designated predominantly Muslim countries for 90 days (Iran; Iraq; Libya; Somalia; Sudan; Syria; and Yemen); (2) suspended refugee admissions from all countries of the world for 120 days; (3) indefinitely suspended admission for nationals of Syria, and (4) suspends interview waivers at US consulates abroad.

On Monday January 30, 2017, the USCIS has announced that it will put a hold on all applications and petitions benefitting citizens/nationals of the 7 countries (Iran; Iraq; Libya; Somalia; Sudan; Syria; and Yemen), be they in the US or abroad.  That means that a green card holder from one of seven countries cannot be sworn in as a US citizen, or a work permit can't be approved, or a green card application can't be approved -- even if a person was already interviewed, and there are no issues with the person's background and he/she is otherwise eligible for a green card, work permit, visa or US citizenship. Because a person is a "national" of one of the seven countries, his or her application will be placed on hold "until further notice". 

The US Department of State had stopped issuing any visas to nationals from the seven enumerated countries: Iran; Iraq; Libya; Somalia; Sudan; Syria; and Yemen.

If you are a national of one of the seven countries, even if you were already issued a visa, you are no longer able to travel to USA on a that visa while this ban remains in place. Effective January 27, 2017, US Department of State had "provisionally revoked" all visas issued to the nationals of seven countries (click here to read the DoS memorandum).

Even if a national of one of the seven countries has a passport from another "unrestricted" country (dual citizenship), he or she will not be allowed to travel to USA while the ban is in place.  (Update: on Feb 2, 2017, DOS issued a clarification on dual nationals: "We will continue to issue nonimmigrant and immigrant visas to otherwise eligible visa applicants who apply with a passport from an unrestricted country, even if they hold dual nationality from one of the seven restricted countries.")

The executive order also suspends the “interview waiver” program at US consulates abroad. However, ESTA or the Visa Waiver Program is not directly impacted by the new executive order. The “interview waiver” program is a policy whereby some foreign nationals applying for a renewal of a visa abroad are exempt from an in person interview at US consulates since they have been previously screened. By eliminating the interview waiver program, interview wait times at US consulates will likely increase.

The executive order also suspends all refugee admissions for 120 days and indefinitely suspends admission of Syrian refugees for an undefined amount of time. During the 120 days, government agencies are instructed to implement new procedures to help secure the “national interest.”

Upon resumption of the refugee program, the executive order instructs the government to prioritize admission of Christians over other religions, which will result in more lawsuits to follow.

Yes, the executive order still applies to lawful permanent residents. Please keep in mind that the ban was not cancelled but merely modified as it applies to green card holders nationals of one of the seven enumerated countries. 

As of result of litigation, on Sunday, January 29, 2017 DHS stated that permanent residents are allowed to board planes and come to the US, but will undergo additional secondary inspection screening upon their entry. The same day DHS issued a statement stating that allowing permanent residents to enter the US on a “case by case basis” is in the “national interest” but that permanent residents will continue to undergo increased interrogation. Even after DHS’ announcement softening how the ban applies to permanent residents, anyone returning from one of the seven designated countries should anticipate increased interrogation, potential detention and long delays when returning from trips abroad.

Please see our previous posts on executive orders on travel ban and about sanctuary cities here.

A draft copy of a 4th unsigned Executive Order entitled “Protecting American Jobs and Workers by Strengthening the Integrity of Foreign Worker Visa Program” was made available at some websites.  This Order would impact the H-1B and H-4 EAD programs, provide for site visits to L-1 employers and expand the E-Verify Program. It will change the way the H-1B Lottery is operated, giving preference to "the best and the brightest" applicants with the degree from the US university and higher salary.

A good article about the H-1B visas could be found here.

ADVISORY or GUIDANCE for Lawful Permanent Residents of USA, Dual Citizens, People with Pending Applications, Workers, Students and Visitors to the United States:
​

1. If you are from one of the seven countries listed above, do not leave the country unless you do not plan to return to the USA.
2. If you are a lawful permanent resident (a green card holder) from one of the seven countries, beware that the ban also applies to you. The ban was merely modified by DHS. On 01-29-2017, the DHS clarified that they will allow permanent residents to enter the US on a “case by case basis” is in the “national interest” but that permanent residents will continue to undergo increased interrogation and secondary inspection (therefore, they can be denied re-admission to USA). Read our guidance on what to do if you are being denied admission at the airport and the CBP agent tries to take away your green card.
3. If you are from a Muslim country, remember that your country also maybe added to the list of the "banned countries" while you are outside of the USA. 
4. If you are a national from one of the seven countries, and have a visa in your passport, your visa was "provisionally revoked" by the US Dept of State effective 01-27-2017, which means your visa was made invalid and you can't travel to USA.
5. If you are have a pending application/petition for immigration benefits with USCIS and you are from one of the 7 countries, your application will be placed on hold. At this time, this hold is indefinite or "until further notice". It might be possible to file a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus in Federal Court to try to force the government to take action on your pending application/petition.
6. If you are from a Muslim country which is not on the List of 7, you may want to file your application for immigration benefits now before your country is added to the list of banned countries.
7. If you are a green card holder, no matter what country you were born in, you may be wish to apply for naturalization as soon as possible in order to assure that you will be able to travel abroad and can always return to your home in USA in the future.
8. If you are present in the US on temporary visa and wish to extend or change your status, consult an attorney before filing any application.
9. If you are undocumented, see an immigration attorney to see if there are any possibilities for you to apply for lawful status.
10. If you plan to sponsor a relative for a green card, do so immediately as the family-based categories may be severely restricted in the future.
11. If you are on a temporary working visa and wish to apply for a green card, ask your employer to sponsor you now before it's too late.
12. If you are a dual citizen from one of the seven countries and any other country (except USA), you are not allowed to travel to USA. (Update: on Feb 2, 2017, DOS issued a clarification on dual nationals: "We will continue to issue nonimmigrant and immigrant visas to otherwise eligible visa applicants who apply with a passport from an unrestricted country, even if they hold dual nationality from one of the seven restricted countries.") 
13. Even if you are a lawful permanent resident of USA and plan to travel internationally or plan to return to USA after a trip abroad, you should consult an attorney.
14. The EO also suspends the “interview waiver” program at US consulates abroad. Importantly, ESTA or the Visa Waiver Program is not directly impacted by the new EO. The “interview waiver” program is a policy whereby some foreign nationals applying for a renewal of a visa abroad are exempt from an in person interview at US consulates since they have been previously screened. By eliminating the interview waiver program, interview wait times at US consulates will likely increase.

TRAC, Nov. 10, 2016 -

TRAC has just published the ninth in its long running series of reports covering each Immigration Judge's decisions on asylum cases. The latest report series consists of 268 separate reports and includes each Immigration Judge who decided at least 100 asylum cases between FY 2011 and FY 2016.

Each individual report provides a short biography for that judge, along with details on the judge's overall denial rates during this six year period. Separate charts provide a time series view of the judge's decisions year-by-year, along with a comparison of the judge's denial rate as contrasted with the rate for the nation as a whole, along with a comparison with just those judges sitting on the same court.

Some judge's asylum denial rate could be as low as 30%, while another judge's denial rate could be almost 100%.

​For example, in 2016, Omaha, Nebraska Immigration Court asylum denial rate is approx. 80%. Average national denial rate is approx. 50%.

To see any particular Judge's denial rate statistics, use the drop down menu.

Reasons for judge-to-judge differences in asylum denial rates are highlighted including whether the asylum seeker was represented or not, and the countries from which these individuals came. This is contrasted with patterns for the United States as a whole. Information presented is current through the end of September 2016.

To view a particular judge's report, go to:
http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/judgereports/

For an index to the full list of TRAC's free immigration tools go to:
http://trac.syr.edu/imm/tools/

Putro v. Lynch, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decided this case on July 07, 2016. This case clarified application of a joint filing exemption for an alien seeking to obtain unconditional lawful permanent resident status as a result of her marriage to a U.S. citizen, when applying as a widow after the death of her/his US citizen husband (USCIS Petition I-751).

Vera Putro, a citizen of Latvia, married a U.S. citizen in 2004 and based on that marriage gained conditional permanent residency. Her residency did not become unconditional, however, because her husband passed away before they could petition jointly to remove the conditions. Putro petitioned on her own to have the conditions removed. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services construed the petition as a request for a discretionary waiver of the joint-petition requirement, denied the waiver, and ordered Putro removed.

Decision: The Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit decided that in fact, Putro did not need a waiver because her husband’s death during the conditional period exempted her from the joint-filing requirement. In mistakenly evaluating her petition as a request for a waiver, the agency erroneously placed on Putro the burden of proving that the marriage was bona fide.

The Court of Appeals granted petition and remanded the case to Immigration Judge for determination under the proper standard. 

Finally, after 8 years the petitioner might have her petition for unconditional permanent resident status approved (it's not approved yet, merely was remanded for another review and decision following the correct standard of proof by the same IJ immigration judge). When the I751 is approved, she will become eligible to apply for USA citizenship as well (because it's been over five years since the grant of her conditional residence in 2006).

********************************
To read in Russian - please scroll down. По-русски смотрите внизу страницы.
*******************************

Facts: Ms. Putro first entered the U.S. on a 4-month, foreign exchange student visa in 1999 and overstayed. In November 2004 she married Michael Zalesky, a U.S. citizen. Putro was granted conditional legal permanent residence (“LPR”) status as the spouse of a U.S. citizen in July 2006, see 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(1); 8 C.F.R. § 216.1. Four months later, in November, Zalesky died. Zalesky’s untimely death complicated Putro’s immigration status. To gain unconditional LPR status, Putro and Zalesky had to jointly petition the agency for removal of the conditions within the 90-day period before the second anniversary of her obtaining conditional permanent residency (i.e., between mid-April and mid-July of 2008). See 8 U.S.C. § 1186(c)(1)(A), (d)(2); 8 C.F.R. § 216.4(a)(1). Of course filing a joint petition was no longer possible, so in June 2008 Putro filed a Form I-751 Petition to Remove Conditions on Residence, checking the box specifying that she sought a waiver of the joint-filing requirement because her spouse had died.

USCIS had denied her I-751 petition filed as a waiver for failure to prove a good faith marriage.

She reapplied in Immigration court removal proceedings, and was denied again. The IJ immigration judge denied Putro’s application for the waiver of the joint-filing requirement and concluded that she was removable. The IJ found that Putro had failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that she and Zalesky had a bona fide marriage. Her testimony and that of her witnesses, he said, was “unpersuasive.” The government, in contrast, had presented “reliable” evidence that family members and Armstrong had told investigators that the marriage was a fraud.

Putro appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, but it upheld the IJ’s ruling and dismissed her appeal.

On petition for review, Putro argued that the IJ had misapplied the standard of proof, and at oral argument we ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing on how this case is affected by the decision in Matter of Rose, and particularly the portion of the decision in which the Board states:
[T]he death of a petitioning spouse during the 2-year conditional period excuses the general requirement that a petition to remove the conditional basis of an alien spouse’s status must be “joint.” Thus, a separate waiver under section 216(c)(4) of the Act is not required if the surviving spouse timely files an I-751 petition requesting removal of the conditional basis of his or her status and appears for a personal interview. 25 I. & N. Dec. 181, 182 (BIA 2010).
We agree with Putro that the IJ mishandled her petition to remove conditions on her status by construing it as a request for a waiver of the joint-filing requirement rather than recognizing that she qualified for an exemption of that requirement. Because Zalesky died within the two-year conditional period and Putro timely petitioned to remove her conditional status, she should have been excused from the joint-filing requirement. Matter of Rose, 25 I. & N. Dec. at 182.

This conclusion was applied in the only federal appellate decision (an unpublished one) to address the issue. See Zerrouk v. U.S. Att’y. Gen., 553 F. App’x. 957, 959 (11th Cir. 2014) (recognizing exemption of “joint” filing requirement for alien whose spouse dies within two-year conditional period, but concluding that substantial evidence supported determination that marriage was not bona fide).
Moreover, the discretionary waiver does not even apply to Putro, because that waiver requires that the marriage be “terminated (other than through the death of the spouse).” 8 U.S.C. § 1186(c)(4)(B). That requires divorce or annulment, see Memorandum from Donald Neufeld, Acting Assoc. Director, USCIS, to Directors, I-751 Filed Prior to Termination of Marriage (Apr. 3, 2009). Though Putro separated from her husband before his death, they never divorced, and the marriage was terminated by his death.

The error was significant because it had the effect of shifting the burden of proof that Putro’s marriage to Zalesky was bona fide. Because the IJ thought that Putro needed a waiver, he placed the burden of proof on her and ultimately found that she failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that she had a bona fide marriage. Had the burden of proof properly been applied, the government would have had to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the marriage was not bona fide. See Matter of Rose, 25 I. & N. Dec. at 185; 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(3)(D); cf. Lara v. Lynch, 789 F.3d 800, 804 (7th Cir. 2015) (noncitizen applying for discretionary waiver of joint filing petition bears burden of proving that marriage at time of inception was bona fide). Moreover, unlike a grant of the waiver—which is discretionary—the agency “shall” remove the conditional basis of the petitioner’s status as long as he or she meets the petitioning requirements and the government cannot disprove that the marriage is bona fide. See 8 U.S.C. § 1186(a)(3)(B).

This case must be remanded to the agency so that the IJ can evaluate her petition under the proper standard of proof. See Matter of Rose, 25 I. & N. Dec., at 184–85. Accordingly, we GRANT the petition and REMAND the case for determination under the proper standard.

Read the text of the decision of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals here. 
Or you can download file here.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D07-07/C:14-2430:J:Williams:aut:T:fnOp:N:1788032:S:0

Вкратце по-русски:

Вера Путро, гражданка Латвии, приехала в США в 1999 году по летней программе по обмену студентов,  J1 summer work-travel program. Она осталась в США нелегально, и через много лет вышла замуж за американского гражданина. Ее первая условная грин карта была утверждена без особых проблем в 2006. Через 4 месяца после этого ее американский муж умер от передозировки наркотиков. В 2008 Вера подала петицию на постоянную грин карту сама, без участия мужа (так как он к тому времени уже не мог поставить свою подпись по причине своей смерти). По фактам дела не понятно, но скорее всего Вера не проконсультировалась со знающим адвокатом перед подачей петиции, и подавала петицию либо сама, либо при помощи кого-то, кто не является экспертом в этой области права.

В результате, Вера получила отказ от USCIS и ее дело передали на депортацию с иммиграционный суд. 

Судья также приняла решения отказать Вере в виде на жительстве (постоянной грин карте) и приказала ей выехать из США (депортация).

Вера подала аппеляцию в следующую инстанцию, и там тоже получила отказ и указание покинуть страну.

В конце концов через 8 лет после начала этой эпопеи (дело тянется с 2008 г), Аппеляционный Суд 7 Округа США принял решение в пользу Веры. Но это еще не конец пути. Суд передал ее дело на повторное рассмотрение в суд нижестоящей инстанции с указаниями пересмотреть дело еще раз, и принять решение на основании ПРАВИЛЬНОЙ ИНТЕРПРЕТАЦИИ ЗАКОНА. Как оказалось, все предыдущие суды просто напросто неверно трактовали закон и неправильно применяли закон к Вериной ситуации. Вот такая простая ошибка стоила человеку 8 лет ее жизни и многих тысях долларов, потраченных на адвокатов и судебные разбирательства.

В конце концов, если ее петицию утвердят (пока еще только передали на повторное рассмотрение), то Вера сможет сразу же подать заявление на американское гражданство (так как прошло более 5 лет), если она докажет, что соответствует всем требованиям закона о гражданстве.

​Текст судебного решения на английском тут: 

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.

In the very first days of the January 2016, ICE (Immigration & Customs Enforcement) started raids, targeting undocumented immigrants. 

This document is an excellent overview of your rights:

What to do in the event of an ICE raid (at your work, home, in the mall or other public place). What questions you must answer and when you shall remain silent. 

Know your RIGHTS. Read and download a pdf file here. You can save or memorize your local and state free legal services or community organizations contact numbers, or your attorney's number, and carry their contact numbers. You can print out the card on page 8 and carry it with you, as well.

https://www.justice4all.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Know-your-rights-in-case-of-raids-English.pdf

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. 

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. 

DV-2017 Program: Online Registration DV 2017 Program begins on Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 12:00 noon, Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) (GMT-4), and concludes on Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 12:00 noon, Eastern Standard Time (EST) (GMT-4).

DV-2017 lottery entries can be submitted online at only one official US Department of State website.

On September 30th 2015, US Department of State published the official DV-2017 Program Instructions in English - DV-2017 Program Instructions in PDF format. The English language version of the DV-2017 Program Instructions is the only official version. 

Unofficial translations in additional languages will be added as they become available.

Note: If you do not see instructions in your native language, please see the U.S. Embassy or Consulate website to find out whether your country may have additional Diversity Visa information.

You can find official US Department of State DV-2017 lottery instructions here: http://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/immigrate/diversity-visa/instructions.html

For DV-2017, natives of the following countries are not eligible to apply, because more than 50,000 natives of these countries immigrated to the United States in the previous five years: 

Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, China (mainland-born), Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, South Korea, United Kingdom (except Northern Ireland) and its dependent territories, and Vietnam. 

Persons born in Hong Kong SAR, Macau SAR, and Taiwan are eligible. 



I would like to highlight several important requirements:

12. Highest level of education you have achieved, as of today: (1) Primary school only, (2) Some high school, no diploma, (3) High school diploma, (4) Vocational school, (5) Some university courses, (6) University degree, (7) Some graduate-level courses, (8) Master’s degree, (9) Some doctoral level courses, and (10) Doctorate. See the Frequently Asked Questions for more information about educational requirements. 

13. Current marital status – Unmarried, married and my spouse is NOT a U.S. citizen or U.S. Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR), married and my spouse IS a U.S. citizen or U.S. LPR, divorced, widowed, or legally separated. Enter the name, date of birth, gender, city/town of birth, and country of birth of your spouse, and a photograph of your spouse meeting the same technical specifications as your photo. Failure to list your eligible spouse will result in your disqualification as the Diversity Visa principal applicant and refusal of all visa applications in your case at the time of the visa interview. You must list your spouse even if you plan to be divorced before you apply for a visa. A spouse who is already a U.S. citizen or LPR will not require or be issued a visa, though you will not be penalized if you list them on your entry form. See the Frequently Asked Questions for more information about family members. 

14. Number of children – List the name, date of birth, gender, city/town of birth, and country of birth for all living unmarried children under 21 years of age, regardless of whether they are living with you or intend to accompany or follow to join you, should you immigrate to the United States. Submit individual photographs of each of your children using the same technical specifications as your own photograph. 

Be sure to include:  
*all living natural children;  
*all living children legally adopted by you; and,  
*all living step-children who are unmarried and under the age of 21 on the date of your electronic entry, even if you are no longer legally married to the child’s parent, and even if the child does not currently reside with you and/or will not immigrate with you. 

Married children and children who are already aged 21 or older when you submit your entry are not eligible for the DV program. However, the Child Status Protection Act protects children from “aging out” in certain circumstances. If your DV entry is made before your unmarried child turns 21, and the child turns 21 before visa issuance, he/she may be treated as though he/she were under 21 for visa-processing purposes. 

A child who is already a U.S. citizen or LPR is not eligible for a Diversity Visa; you will not be penalized for either including or omitting such family members from your entry. Failure to list all children who are eligible will result in disqualification of the principal applicant and refusal of all visa applications in the case at the time of the visa interview. 

After May 01, 2016, you will be able to check your status online at another US Department of State website to see if you have been selected a winner.

We would be glad to help you to submit your DV-2017 entries properly and timely. After submitting an entry, we always save and forward to our clients confirmation pages. Please email us first and we will forward to you our brief instructions.

In Russian:

Сегодня Госдеп США наконец-то опубликовал официальные инструкции для подачи заявок в Лотерею Грин Карт на 2017 год. Прием заявок осуществляется онлайн только на одном официальном вебсайте Госдепа США.

Подача заявок через какие-то другие вебсайты не допускается. Таких "неофициальных, но выглядящих вполне легитимно" вебсайтов множество, и они выдают себя за организации как-то связанные с Госдепом, и прикрываются официальными эмблемами США, но это обычное мошенничество.

Если вам помогает адвокат или другой профессионал правильно подать заявку в лотерею, после подачи заявки они должны предоставить вам конфирмационный номер, а еще лучше сохранить и выслать по электронной почте саму конфирмационную страницу с номером и вашей биографической информацией. 

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.  

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

In Russian: 

Российская газета "Новые Известия" опубликовала дельную статью про опасность "бесплатных юридических консультаций". Журналисты проинтервьюировали некоторых моих московских партнеров и коллег. 

Как известно, бесплатный сыр бывает только в мышеловке. Ты получаешь то, за что заплатил.

Хороший компетентный и этический адвокат НЕ будет предоставлять консультацию (давать юридический совет) бесплатно. В оказании юридических услуг самое главное - это получить правильный совет и знать что делать и как поступить.  

Среди "юридических фирм" и "иммиграционных консультантов" попадается немало мошенников или недобросовестных и малограмотных "специалистов". Особенно много вебсайтов на интернете, которые в поисковике выходят в самом начале как реклама (так как вебсайт платит за такое выгодное размещение) и нелицензированных "иммиграционных консультантов" или "нотариусов", которые предлагают "первую" консультацию бесплатно и готовы перезвонить потенциальному клиенту в течение 5 минут. Что следует дальше, об этом люди не задумываются. А им навязывается контракт на завышенную сумму, с ненужными сервисами или предлагаются ненужные или вредные для дела действия (которые дорого стоят). После предоставления бесплатной консультации, такому специалисту ведь нужно как-то заработать на клиенте (на которого было потрачено время) -- если уж не брать оплату за консультацию, то ее используют как ловушку для доверчивых граждан, готовых повестись на обман.

Следует иметь в виду, что хороший опытный адвокат не будет и не имеет права давать "гарантии" успеха или гарантии выигрыша вашего дела. Опытный адвокат ценит свое и ваше время, и для того, чтобы проконсультировать клиента ей/ему нужно изучить ваши обстоятельства и проанализировать возможные варианты и осложнения перед тем как давать платный (ни в коем случае не бесплатный совет). 

Хорошая статья обо всем этом в Новых Известиях, с консультациями моих Московских партнеров и коллег.

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. 

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.