USCIS offers immigration services that may help people affected by unforeseen circumstances, including disasters such as Hurricane Harvey.

The following measures may be available on a case-by-case basis upon request:

• Changing a nonimmigrant status or extending a nonimmigrant stay for an individual currently in the United States. Failure to apply for the extension or change before expiration of your authorized period of admission may be excused if the delay was due to extraordinary circumstances beyond your control;
• Re-parole of individuals previously granted parole by USCIS;
• Expedited processing of advance parole requests;
• Expedited adjudication of requests for off-campus employment authorization for F-1 students experiencing severe economic hardship;
• Expedited adjudication of employment authorization applications, where appropriate;
• Consideration of fee waivers due to an inability to pay;
• Assistance for those who received a Request for Evidence or a Notice of Intent to Deny but were unable to submit evidence or otherwise respond in a timely manner;
• Assistance if you were unable to appear for a scheduled interview with USCIS;
• Expedited replacement of lost or damaged immigration or travel documents issued by USCIS, such as a Permanent Resident Card (Green Card); and
• Rescheduling a biometrics appointment.

Note: When making a request, please explain how the impact of Hurricane Harvey created a need for the requested relief.

To learn how to request these measures or determine if an office is open, call the National Customer Service Center at 800-375-5283.

If you require assistance, please don't hesitate to contact our office at email.

Affirming the district court's summary judgment, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that under INA §244(f)(4), a Temporary Protected Status (TPS) recipient is deemed to be in lawful status as a nonimmigrant—and has thereby satisfied the requirements for becoming a nonimmigrant, including inspection and admission--for purposes of adjustment of status under INA §245(a).

The 9th Circuit court of appeals decision means that a person in TPS status (even the person who came to the U.S. without a visa, EWI) is eligible to obtain lawful permanent residence through adjustment of status application. 

The court's decision published on March 31, 2017 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 February 27, 2017, USCIS had published a new completely revised edition of the Form I-130 (prior edition had 2 pages, and the new edition is 12 pages long, plus a new Form I-130A was introduced).

The old edition of the Form I-130 (edition date 12/23/2016) will be acceptable only until April 28, 2017. After 04/28/2017, only the most recent 12-page form I-130 will be accepted.

If you are filing for your spouse, he or she must submit Form I-130A, Supplemental Information for Spouse Beneficiary. If your spouse is overseas, Form I-130A must still be completed, but your spouse does not have to sign Form I-130A. Form I-130A must be submitted with Form I-130. However, a spouse still has to sign form G-28, if you have an attorney.

Please note that you can't file Form I-130 for a spouse (wife or husband) if you married your spouse while he or she was the subject of an exclusion, deportation, removal, or rescission proceeding regarding his or her right to be admitted into or to remain in the United States, or while a decision in any of these proceedings was before any court on judicial review.

However, you may be eligible for the bona fide marriage exemption under INA section 245(e)(3) if:

A. You request in writing a bona fide marriage exemption and prove by clear and convincing evidence that the marriage is legally valid where it took place and that you and your spouse married in good faith and not for the purpose of obtaining lawful permanent resident status for your spouse and that no fee or any other consideration (other than appropriate attorney fees) was given to you for your filing of this petition. The request must be submitted with Form I-130; OR
​
B. Your spouse has lived outside the United States, after the marriage, for a period of at least two years.

Biometric Services Appointment. USCIS may require that a US citizen Petitioner and/or foreign national Beneficiary appear for an interview or provide fingerprints, photograph, and/or signature at any time to verify identity, obtain additional information, and conduct background and security checks, including a check of criminal history records maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), before making a decision on petition.

After USCIS receives the I-130 petition, USCIS will inform you in writing, if you need to attend a biometric services appointment. If an appointment is necessary, the notice will provide you the location of your local or designated USCIS Application Support Center (ASC) and the date and time of your appointment or, if you are currently overseas, instruct you to contact a U.S. Embassy, U.S. Consulate, or USCIS office outside the United States to set up an appointment.

If you are required to provide biometrics, at your appointment you must sign an oath reaffirming that:
1. You provided or authorized all information in the petition;
2. You reviewed and understood all of the information contained in, and submitted with, your petition; and
3. All of this information was complete, true, and correct at the time of filing.

If you fail to attend your biometric services appointment, USCIS may deny your petition.

Also note that the Form G-325A is still valid and required when, for example, applying for adjustment of status.

Please take a note that the federal government updated their federal poverty guidelines, and a new I-864P was released on 03/01/2017. The new I-864P is applicable to all pending and new applications for adjustment of status or immigrant visa.

Interesting statistics from Pew Research Center:

Muslim population of the world is expected to reach 73% in 2050. Islam is going to be a predominant religion, not a minority.

In 2015, according to Pew Research Center's best estimate, there were 3.3 million Muslims in the U.S., or about 1% of the U.S. population.

A majority of U.S. Muslims (63%) are immigrants. The government should treat them with respect and adjust our immigration policies to avoid alienating our own citizens.

Year 2050 is only 33 years away.

Rew Research Center: 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/27/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/

​

The answers below were provided to AILA on February 27, 2017 by the U.S. Department of State, in response to issues raised by the president's January 27th executive order, so called "Travel Ban", which resulted in numerous visa cancellations and revocations.

The first January 27th executive order was replaced by March 06th executive order. Some answers provided by the U.S. Department of State still stand because they addressed several important issues which arose during the previous executive order's travel ban enforcement. Some answers would have to be adjusted because of a new March 6th executive order.

To clarify visa revocation and cancellation matters, the DoS provided the following answers:
​
Q1: What happened to the passports of applicants who had been cleared for visa issuance and were awaiting the return of their passports at the time the January 27, 2017, Presidential Executive Order (EO) was signed? If passports were returned to the applicants without the visa, what is the process for reinstating the application and receiving the visa at this time?

Answer: If visa issuance had been authorized, but the passport and visa remained in the consular section, we would have expected the consular section to spoil the visa, deny the application, and call the applicant in to pick up the passport with any issued visa having been revoked. Visa denials under the Executive Order were final, but the applicant may reapply without prejudice.

Q2: Do nonimmigrant visa applicants whose visa interviews were scheduled and then cancelled when the EO was signed need to reschedule their interviews, or are posts taking steps to reschedule them affirmatively? If visa applicants must take affirmative steps to reschedule their interviews, what is the process? What is the process for immigrant visa applicants?

Answer: We instructed our embassies and consulates to resume regular processing of visas for nationals of the seven countries subject to Executive Order 13769. Nonimmigrant visa applicants should contact their nearest U.S. Embassy or Consulate for information about scheduling an interview. The National Visa Center cancelled all scheduled immigrant visa interviews for these applicants scheduled in February 2017. The National Visa Center or U.S. Embassy will contact those affected to reschedule interview appointments.

Q3: In lieu of issuing a new nonimmigrant visa, can posts assist individuals whose nonimmigrant visa was physically cancelled (as opposed to provisionally revoked) in obtaining a boarding or transportation letter to facilitate embarkation to travel to the U.S.? Are boarding letters available for individuals with physically cancelled immigrant visas?

Answer: Visa cancellation by CBP constitutes visa revocation precluding travel. In certain situations, consular sections have issued boarding letters at CBP’s request. Other affected visa holders should apply for a new nonimmigrant visa, or contact the U.S. Embassy or Consulate where they received an immigrant visa for further instruction.

Q4: For dual nationals, please confirm that only nonimmigrant visas issued in a passport of a restricted country were provisionally revoked, and that nonimmigrant visas issued in a passport of an unrestricted country continued to remain valid. 

Answer: Given that the provisional revocation was reversed on February 3, 2017, any visas that were not canceled or revoked on other grounds were reinstated. If you have concerns about a particular case, please explain the circumstances and current status of the visa holder.

Q5: Were the nonimmigrant visas of citizens or nationals of the seven restricted countries who were present in the U.S. when the EO took effect provisionally revoked? If so, please confirm whether they have been reinstated.

Answer: When the provisional revocation was reversed on February 3, 2017, any visas that were not canceled or revoked on other grounds were reinstated.

Q6: Are individuals whose visas were provisionally revoked and then reinstated as a result of the TRO required to indicate on future applications that they have had a visa revoked?

Answer: Holders are not required to indicate on future applications that they have had a visa revoked.

Q7: Has DOS taken any additional steps has to notify individuals that their visas have been revoked other than the general notice on state.gov? Have these individuals been notified that their visas have been reinstated? If no notices have been provided, what steps can an individual take to proactively determine if his or her visa has been provisionally revoked and/or reinstated? 

Answer: When the provisional revocation was reversed on February 3, 2017, any visas that were not canceled or revoked on other grounds were reinstated. Individuals with any questions should contact their nearest U.S. Embassy or Consulate.

Q8: Did the EO have any effect on the processing of J-1 waiver applications for applicants from the restricted countries? 

Answer: The Waiver Review Division in the Visa Office generally continued processing of J-1 waiver applications while the EO was in effect.
​
******************************************************

P.S. On March 06, 2017, President signed a new Executive Order replacing the previous EO. 

On Monday, March 06, 2017, the President signed a new Executive Order on Immigration (to replace the previous EO, so called "Travel Ban" or "Muslim Ban" which was placed on hold by the courts). 

New executive order narrowed a scope of the travel ban to block only new applicants for visas from 6 countries (LIst of Six instead of List of Seven), and removed Iraq from its coverage.

The new order, which goes into effect on March 16, 2017, and bans entry into the United States for 90 days for citizens of six countries—Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen-- for those people who do not already hold a valid visa. 

Visas revoked under the first executive order have been declared "restored".

Sec.12 (d): "Any individual whose visa was marked revoked or marked canceled as a result of Executive Order 13769 shall be entitled to a travel document confirming that the individual is permitted to travel to the United States and seek entry.  Any prior cancellation or revocation of a visa that was solely pursuant to Executive Order 13769 shall not be the basis of inadmissibility for any future determination about entry or admissibility."

Read more at our blog here.

#EO #executiveorder #travelban #muslimban

When a person is arriving at the U.S. border and applying for admission to the United States, the CBP officers are required to determine the nationality or citizenship of each applicant for admission (including U.S. citizens).

When a a non-U.S. citizen applies for admission to USA, a decision is made by the CBP officer as to whether the applicant is admissible to the U.S.A. or inadmissible and should be removed or not allowed to enter the U.S. 

Even a lawful permanent resident returning to the U.S. after an extended stay abroad, in certain situations can be questioned as a person applying for admission.

All travelers to the U.S.A. should know the following:

1. Border Search Authority. Federal regulations are clear regarding CBP’s authority to conduct a search: “All persons, baggage, and merchandise arriving in the Customs territory of the United States from places outside thereof are liable for inspection and search by a Customs officer.” For those traveling to the U.S. in a vehicle, a CPB officer may stop, search, and examine any vehicle or search any trunk wherever found.  However, CBP cannot conduct intrusive searches (such as strip searches) or repeated detentions unless there is a “reasonable suspicion” of an immigration violation or crime.  Additionally, CBP’s policy requires that all searches be “conducted in a manner that is safe, secure, humane, dignified, and professional.”
2. Electronic Devices Search (smartphones, laptops, tablets). CBP’s border search authority also includes the right to examine electronic devices, such as computers, disks, hard drives, cell phones, and other electronic or digital storage devices, without “reasonable suspicion”. CBP officers conduct border searches of electronic devices to determine whether a violation of U.S. law has occurred.  While the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a warrantless search and seizure of digital contents of a cell phone during an arrest is unconstitutional in violation of the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, there appears to be an exception for individuals desiring to enter the U.S.  If your electronic device is seized for further examination, which may include copying of data, you will receive a written receipt (Form 6051-D) that details what item(s) are being detained, who at CBP will be your point of contact, and the contact information (including telephone number) you provide to facilitate the return of your property upon completion of the examination.  Unless extenuating circumstances exist, the detention of devices should not exceed 5 days.
3. Discrimination and Coercion. An individual may not be searched on any discriminatory basis (e.g. race, gender, religion, ethnic background).  Nevertheless, a search based on consideration of citizenship or travel itinerary that includes a narcotics source or transit country is not deemed  unlawful. Additionally, CBP cannot threaten a person being questioned; if there is coercion, any statements obtained may be excluded in a subsequent removal proceeding under the Due Process Clause.  You can file a complaint with the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security if you believe there has been improper discrimination, inappropriate questioning, or other civil rights and civil liberties violations.
4. Right to Attorney. Any applicant for admission (including U.S. citizens) is not entitled to representation in primary or secondary inspections, unless he or she has become the focus of a criminal investigation and has been taken into custody. Foreign nationals attempting to come to the United States, either temporarily or permanently, have very few rights during the application and screening process.
5. Right to Remain Silent, But Be Prepared to Answer Questions. Even though you have the right to remain silent, if you don’t answer questions to establish your citizenship, officials may deny entry to the U.S. or detain you for a search and/or questioning. CBP officers can ask people applying for admission to the U.S. almost any question.  If you choose not to answer all or some of the questions, you can be denied admission to the U.S. or delayed by the CBP officer if selected for secondary inspection, search of your electronic devices. Make sure you can answer the following questions:

• What is the purpose of your visit? (what do you plan to do in USA)
• Where will you be staying? (address)
• Who will you be visiting? (name, address, contact phone number)
• How often do you travel to the U.S.? (for example, how many times a year; every 3 months)

When a non-US citizen applies for admission to the U.S., it’s important to be clear that your purpose for the visit to U.S.A. must be consistent with the visa category held. For example, if you are arriving on a tourist or visitor's visa, the purpose of the visit is to engage in tourist activities or visit family or friends, or if you a student, it’s to study, if you are a temporary worker it’s to work, and if you are returning as a permanent resident, the purpose must be to return to the U.S. as a place of your permanent residence.

Please read our guidance for lawful permanent residents returning to the USA who are facing  request from the CBP to sign the form I-407 and to abandon permanent residency (aka green card).

#knowyourrights #CBP #DHS #USCIS #GreenCard #admissiontoUSA #I407 #search #seizure #bordersearch #electronicdevicesearch #righttoattorney #detention

ПРАКТИЧЕСКИЕ СОВЕТЫ: ЗНАЙ СВОИ ПРАВА И КРАТКИЙ ОБЗОР УКАЗОВ ПРЕЗИДЕНТА ОБ ИММИГРАЦИИ ОТ 25 И 27 ЯНВАРЯ 2017.

****************************************************************************************************************
Ситуация с указами президента меняется каждый день: помните, что информация и законодательство постоянно обновляются, и мы не в состоянии вовремя опубликовать изменения и дополнения на этом блоге. Если вам нужен юридический совет адвоката, свяжитесь с нами по электронной почте и мы договоримся о дате и времени консультации по телефону или через скайп.

После решения федерального судьи о том, что некоторые положения указа президента должны быть приостановлены от 3 февраля 2017, 4 февраля DHS, USCIS, CBP, ICE DOS и все другие департаменты и агенства официально заявили, что они возвращаются к старым процедурам, как это было в силе до подписания указа. И пока указ президента находится на рассмотрении в суде, они не будут его применять.
****************************************************************************************************************

25 и 27 января 2017 Президент США Трамп подписал три важных указа, касающихся иммиграции, виз и национальной безопасности страны.
 
Полный текст этих указов можно прочитать по линкам:

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)

Указ номер 1 касается постройки стены на границе между США и Мексикой.
 
Указ номер 2 касается новых приоритетов в депортации из США, а также изменения во взаимоотношении федерального правительства и так называемых "sanctuary cities", городов, не выдающих нелегальных иммигрантов. Если такие города будут отказываться сотрудничать с федеральными орнанами, и не согласятся передавать им информацию о нелегалах, федеральное правительство угрожает отменой федерального финансирования для некоторых программ. Следует помнить, что это касается только тех программ, которые финансируются федералным правительством США, так как большая часть программ в любом штате финансируется за счет бюджета штата.

Указ номер 3 был подписан и вступил в силу 27 января 2017, и получил самую большую огласку и вызвал шквал негодования и возмущения граждан и политиков как в нутри США, так и за пределами. Указ предусматривает следующее: (1) вводится временный на 90 дней запрет на въезд в США лиц имеющих отношение к семи исламским странам Ближнего Востока (указ не расшифровал, что значит national): Иран, Ирак, Сирия, Судан, Ливия, Йемен и Сомалия; (2) временно на 120 дней приостанавливается въезд беженцев в США изо всех стран мира; (3) на неопределенное время запрещен въезд в США лиц, имеющих отношение к Сирии (важно подчеркнуть, что запрет не ограничен по времени, он относится как к лицам, имеющим гражданство Сирии, так и рожденным там, и может относится к лицам, которые имеют паспорта или travel documents, выданные Сирией, но рожденным в других странах, (4) отменена процедура выдачи виз в США без интервью.

Также в понедельник 30 января 2017 года Иммиграционная Служба США USCIS объявила своим сотрудникам, что на неопределенное время приостанавливается вынесение решений по всем заявлениям и петициям от заявителей из этих семи стран (Иран, Ирак, Сирия, Судан, Ливия, Йемен и Сомалия). Вот это уже очень серьезно. Так как большая часть заявителей находятся в США, и они будут подавать заявления на продление и смену статуса, на получение или продление разрешения на работу, на грин карту, на гражданство и т.п., и USCIS будет вынуждено откладывать их дела "until further notice", так как им запрещено принимать окончательные решения, даже если заявитель успешно прошел интервью (например, на грин карту или гражданство). Пока не понятно, что будет происходить на практике. Скорее всего в течение 2017 года этот запрет будет снят, но конкретной информации пока нет.

Также Госдеп США прекратил выдачу виз гражданам из этих же семи стран (Иран, Ирак, Сирия, Судан, Ливия, Йемен и Сомалия). 27 января 2017 мы получили меморандум из Госдепа о том, что все визы, выданные гражданам этих стран считаются "условно аннулированы" с 27 января.

Запрет на въезд в США относится также к лицам с двойным гражданством. Например, если у вас одно гражданство Ирана и второе Германии, и ранее вы могли ездить в США без визы по Visa Waiver Program по немецкому паспорту, то теперь это невозможно. (2 февраля 2017 Госдеп США опубликовал инструкцию о том, что они продолжают выдавать визы лицам с двойным гражданством, и ставят визу в паспорт той страны, которая не включена в список семи стран).

Запрет на въезд в США по этому указу президента от 27 января 2017 все также относится и к постоянным жителям США (тем, у кого грин карта или вид на жительство в США). За последние дни несколько федеральных судов приняли решения о том, что постоянные жители должны быть допущены в США, но это пока не отменило положение указа. И инструкции от DHS позволяют въезд постоянных жителей, так как это "в национальных интересах" США, что не отменяет сам запрет. Постоянные жители США должны пройти secondary inspection при въезде в США, и доказать, что не являются риском для национальной безопасности.

Если вы имеете вид на жительство США и при въезде в США, сотрудники CBP пытаются отобрать вашу грин карту или не впустить вас в страну, читайте наши практические советы тут.
 
Будьте осторожны, если вы подпадаете под одну из невъездных категорий. Всегда лучше проконсультироваться с адвокатом заранее.

Ожидается еще один указ президента о рабочих визах H-1B visa. Некоторые веб сайты поместили черновик предполагаемого указа. Этот указ внесет изменения в порядок выдачи рабочей визы H-1B и разрешения на работу EAD для супругов H-4. Предполагается, что указ изменит порядок проведения лотереи для виз H-1B, где упор будет делаться на том, получено ли образование в США и какую зарплату готов платить работодатель, а также фокус будет на выдаче рабочих виз "самым лучшим и самым умным" (расшифровка такой нетипичной для юридического документа фразы, я надеюсь, последует когда указ будут подписан).

ПРАКТИЧЕСКИЕ СОВЕТЫ:

1. Если вы из одной из семи стран (гражданин, рождены, имеете какое-то другое задокументированное отношение), воздержитесь от поездок в США или от поездок за пределы США в ближайшие 90 дней, или пока указ находится в силе, или вообще на неопределенное время, если вы имеете отношение к Сирии
2. Если вы постоянный житель США, имеющий отношение к одной из семи стран, воздержитесь от поездок за предеыл США в течение 90 дней или пока указ находится в силе (а если вы из Сирии - то вообще не выезжайте из США, так как запрет на неопределенное время).
3. Если вы из любой другой мусульманской страны, будьте на чеку. Ваша страна может быть добавлена в "список семи". Возможно, что вам стоит заранее подать какие-то заявления, которые вы откладывали, продлить документы, истекающие в скором будущем.
4. Если вы из одной из семи стран, и ваше заявление уже находится на рассмотрении в USCIS, будьте готовы к долгому ожиданию, так как они обязаны отложить все такие заявления и им запрещено выносить решения по делу. Теоретически возможно подать иск в федеральный суд, чтобы принудить государство принять решение по вашему делу, но практический совет будет подождать прецедентов и официальных разъяснений от иммиграционной службы.
5. Визы уже выданные лицам из семи стран были "условно аннулированы" 27 января 2017. Выдача новых виза в настоящий момент приостановлена.
6. Если вы планируете подать петицию на маму, отца, брата, сестру, детей, жену или мужа - и по настоящим законам вы вправе подать такую петицию, не откладывайте и подавайте петицию. По некоторым сведениям целые визовые категории могут быть отменены, изменены или уменьшены в будущем.
7. Если вы нелегал, проконсультируйтесь с адвокатом и определитесь, есть ли у вас какие-то варианты.

 
В заключение я хочу добавить, что хотя в большинстве случаев, этот третий указ президента от 27 января 2017 не имеет отношения к лицам из русскоговорящего сообщества в США, но есть и такие, к кому этот указ имеет прямое отношение. Например, если вы родились на территории одной из семи стран, где ваши родители жили, учились или работали, даже если у вас нет гражданства из одной из семи стран, вы подпадаете под действие указа. Например, если вы лицо без гражданства, но ваши документы были выданы Сирией или одной из семи стран, или вы в прошлом постоянно указывали Сирию, Ирак, Иран и т.п. как страну своей национальности -  вы тоже подпадаете под действие указа. Многие положения указа нуждаются в дальнейшей расшифровке и детальном объяснении (например, что такое "лицо имеющее отношение к одной из семи стран"). Такие официальные объяснения обычно публикуются через соответствующие каналы в иммиграционной службе USCIS и через Госдеп США Department of State. Мы будем вас держать в курсе!

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS:

​What to Do If a LPR is Asked to Relinquish Their Green Card and Sign Form I-407, Abandonment of LPR Status When Returning to USA.

​This is a helpful reminder, which became important in light of recent events following an executive order when a number of lawful permanent residents (LPRs) were made to sign Forms I-407, were not allowed into the U.S., and returned to the foreign countries were they came from.

First of all, upon returning to the U.S., Legal Permanent Residents (LPR) should not automatically surrender their green cards if asked to do so.

An individual does not lose LPR status as a result of time abroad. They remain an LPR until a final order of removal is issued by Immigration Court and the government must prove abandonment by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence which a higher evidentiary standard than clear and convincing. See Matter of Huang, 19 I&N Dec. 749 (BIA 1988).

Form I-407 must be signed voluntarily and there are no potential negative ramifications for refusing to sign. Neither failure to sign nor abandonment is grounds for detention.

***If a LPR refuses to sign Form I-407 and insists on being admitted to the United States, the CBP officer must issue a Notice to Appear (NTA) so that an immigration judge can determine whether they have lost their LPR status.
When abandonment question is raised, a LPR can offer evidence of the following: their ties to the U.S., the purpose of their visit outside of the U.S., and the expected termination date of the visit abroad or occurrence of facts showing why a date certain is or was not possible. Precedent decision Matter of Kane, 15 I&N Dec. 258 (BIA 1975). The burden of proof at this stage is preponderance of the evidence, which is more likely than not (more than 51%) that you did not abandon your residence in USA. See Matter of Y-G-, 20 I&N Dec. 794 (BIA 1994).

Totality of the circumstances are relevant and must be considered. If the officer is nevertheless, not convinced, you should ask for a hearing before an immigration judge.

***If your green card is confiscated, you must be provided with alternative evidence of their LPR status, such as an I-94 and/or passport stamp that says "Evidence of Temporary Residence."
Abandonment of residence is not a ground of inadmissibility. Thus, the basis for the NTA is violation of INA §237(a)(1)(A) for being inadmissible at the time of admission because LPRs travel abroad and reenter the U.S. as "special immigrants" per INA §101(a)(27).

A LPR who is placed in removal proceedings, doesn't lose his or her status until a final order of removal is issued by Immigration Judge. See 8 CFR §1.2 (defining "lawfully admitted for permanent resident"). Read more at AILA Doc. No. 17012960.

In Russian:

ЗНАЙ СВОИ ПРАВА:

ЧТО ДЕЛАТЬ, ЕСЛИ ВЫ ПОСТОЯННЫЙ ЖИТЕЛЬ США (У ВАС ГРИН КАРТА), И НА ВЪЕЗДЕ В США, СОТРУДНИК ИММИГРАЦИОННОЙ СЛУЖБЫ ПЫТАЕТСЯ ОТОБРАТЬ ВАШУ ГРИН КАРТУ, ЗАСТАВЛЯЕТ ВАС ПОДПИСАТЬ ФОРМУ I-407, И ПЫТАЕТСЯ ВЫДВОРИТЬ ВАС ИЗ СТРАНЫ.

Полезная памятка для грин карт холдеров (постоянных жителей США), которые возвращаются в США и которых принуждают к отказу от грин карты и сдаче грин карты прямо в аэропорту сотруднику CBP. Эта ситуация случается нередко в аэропортах, но в последнее время требования к отказу участились, и нередко без веских оснований.

Помните, что если вас принуждают к подписи на форме I-407, Отказ от грин карты, вы не обязаны ее подписывать. Если вы не согласны и не хотите лишаться вида еа жительство в США, то не подписывайте эту форму.

Если сотрудник CBP продолжает настаивать, что вы потеряли свое резиденство (вид на жительство) в США, например, из-за длительного отсутствия за пределами США (более года), или потому, что вы являетесь лицом родившимся или имеющим паспорт из одной из семи стран на Ближнем Востоке, указанных в недавнем указе президента от 27 января 2017 г  - то они должны вас все же впустить в страну и выписать форму NTA, приглашение на явку в иммиграционный суд США, куда они должны передать ваше дело для решения вопроса о том, потеряли ли вы статус постоянного жителя или нет.

Помните, что хотя существует презумпция, что статус "автоматически" теряется после более одного года, проведенного за границей, но на самом деле все не так уж автоматически. Государство должно это доказать, и у вас есть право на доказательство своей правоты в иммиграционном суде США. Только судья может принять решение  том, чтобы отобрать у вас грин карту, а не сотрудник в аэропорту (естественно, вы можете решить отказаться от своей грин карты и добровольно ее отдать и подписать форму I-407).

Full text of January 27 2017 executive order "PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES" can be found here.

Update from DHS 01-29-2017:

STATEMENT BY DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY JOHN KELLY ON THE ENTRY OF LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENTS INTO THE UNITED STATES
WASHINGTON – In applying the provisions of the president's executive order, I hereby deem the entry of lawful permanent residents to be in the national interest.
Accordingly, absent the receipt of significant derogatory information indicating a serious threat to public safety and welfare, lawful permanent resident status will be a dispositive factor in our case-by-case determinations.
------------------------------

Updated 01-29-2017: Importantly, however, Lawful Permanent Residents of the United States traveling on a valid I-551 (aka Green Card) will be allowed to board U.S. bound aircraft and will be assessed for exceptions at arrival ports of entry, as appropriate.  The entry of these individuals, subject to national security checks, is in the national interest. Therefore, we expect swift entry for these individuals.

​Read here 
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/29/protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states
​---------------------------------------------

The 90-day visa moratorium and ban on entry to USA extends beyond just citizens of Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Libya and Yemen, the US Dept of State officials said. It also applies to DUAL citizens.

For example, if you are holding an Italian or UK passport, and normally can travel to USA without a visa on a Visa Waiver program, now under the new executive order, you will not be able to travel on your second European passport if you are also a national of one of the seven enumerated nations.

New executive order also applies to lawful permanent residents of the United States.

Please note that even if you have a green card and happen to be a native/national of one of the enumerated counties - stay put and avoid international travel for the next 90 days because you may not be allowed to return home to the US after a trip abroad.

Google said more than 100 employees who were out of the country on vacation or work assignments are subject to the order and afraid they won't be able to return to USA using their green cards or visas.

As per decision of federal judge of January 28, 2017, "there is imminent danger that, absent the stay of removal, there will be substantial and irreparable injury to refugees, visa-holders, and other individuals from nations subject" to Trump's order.

The federal judge ruled in favor of a habeas corpus petition filed by attorneys of  two Iraqis. 

Text of the habeas corpus petition can be found here.

Exception: The dual-citizenship ban doesn’t apply to U.S. citizens who are also citizens of the seven nations enumerated in executive order, and to holders of diplomatic passports.
​
“Travelers who have nationality or dual nationality of one of these countries will not be permitted for 90 days to enter the United States or be issued an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa,” a State Department official said. “Those nationals or dual nationals holding valid immigrant or nonimmigrant visas will not be permitted to enter the United States during this period. Visa interviews will generally not be scheduled for nationals of these countries during this period.”

January 29, 2017 DHS Press Release in response to recent litigation regarding the president's executive orders:
"The Department of Homeland Security will continue to enforce all of President Trump’s Executive Orders in a manner that ensures the safety and security of the American people. President Trump’s Executive Orders remain in place—prohibited travel will remain prohibited, and the U.S. government retains its right to revoke visas at any time if required for national security or public safety. President Trump’s Executive Order affects a minor portion of international travelers, and is a first step towards reestablishing control over America's borders and national security...
The Department of Homeland Security will comply with judicial orders; faithfully enforce our immigration laws, and implement President Trump’s Executive Orders to ensure that those entering the United States do not pose a threat to our country or the American people."

You can read full text here. 

On the same day, January 29, 2017, the CEOs of Google, Twitter, Facebook and Apple all issued statements condemning the ban and complaining that the order was pushed through so quickly it left great uncertainty about the status of some of their best employees.

In Russian:

В соответствии с указом президента от 27 января 2017 запрет на въезд в США на 90 дней распространяется не только на граждан Сирии, Ирака, Ирана, Ливии, Судана и Йемена, НО и на людей с ДВОЙНЫМ ГРАЖДАНСТВОМ.

Например, если у вас есть второе гражданство и паспорт Германии, Англии, Италии, и обычно вам не нужна виза на въезд в США, то по новым правилам вы не сможете въехать в США, т.к. вам будет отказано во въезде на основании того, что у вас есть второе гражданство из одной из стран, названных в указе.

Также запрет распространяется на постоянных жителей США (людей с грин картами), которые являются гражданами или выходцами из стран, названных в указе.

Решение федерельного судьи от 28 января 2017, ограничило применение указа по отношении тех лиц, которые уже въехали в США и находятся в аэропортах, или летят в США на борту самолета. Эта ситуация быстро меняется и ожидаются новые решения федеральных судей по конституционости нового указа.

Посольства и консульства США уже перестали выдавать любые визы гражданам из этих стран, и советуют не приходить на интервью даже если вам было назначено и вы заплатили за визу и интервью, т.к. вам откажут в визе.

On December 27, 2016,  the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security has designated as precedential the USCIS Administrative Appeals Office’s (AAO) decision in Matter of Dhanasar.  This precedent decision vacated the previous precedent, NYSDOT --  Matter of New York State Dep’t of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Acting Assoc. Comm’r 1998). 
  
The Dhanasar case overview:
 
Mr. Dhanasar has a Ph.D. in aeronautical engineering, 2 M.S. degrees and an impressive credentials and resume, a "rocket scientist". However, when he self-petitioned for a green card under the National Interest Waiver program, the USCIS denied his I-140 petition under the old law (old 1998 precedent, case NYSDOT, which was now overruled by Dhanasar case). The AAO applied a preponderance of the evidence standard and a new NIW test, and decided that: (1) the petitioner’s research in aerospace engineering has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) the petitioner is well positioned to advance his research; and (3) on balance, it is beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. We find that the petitioner has established eligibility for and otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion.

On appeal, on 12/27/2016 the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) concluded that the old precedent, NYSDOT test, was overly restrictive and approved the I-140 petition as a National Interest Waiver. AAO also changed the NIW test.
 
On December 27, 2016, DHS had relaxed rules for applying for NIW National Interest Waiver green card in EB-2 category. It will benefit many potential immigrants who consider applying for a green card under NIW. Many will be able to concurrently submit I-140, I-485, and applications for a work permit and advance parole. Except for India and China, where because of a backlog in EB-2 category, applicants from India and China will be unable to apply immediately for adjustment of status. Being able to qualify for a EB-2 green card as a NIW, will help many to avoid PERM and having an employer to petition for them, and will speed up the process of becoming a permanent resident.
 
This new precedent decision means that USCIS may grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner proves three elements of the test:

(1) that the foreign national’s proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; and
(2) that he or she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and
(3) that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirement of a job offer and thus of a labor certification.
 
The new NIW test still leaves discretion in the USCIS hands to determine whether to approve or deny the National Interest Waiver I-140 EB-2 petition. However, each of the three NIW requirements has been relaxed to make it easier for an applicant to prove his case.  
 
For more information on the AAO please visit www.uscis.gov/aao.
The case can be found in the Virtual Law Library of the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review.
 
Вкратце по-русски:

27 декабря 2016 решение Административного аппеляционного офиса по иммиграционным делам по делу Дханасар было официально признано DHS / USCIS новым прецедентом для всех последующих дел и петиций USCIS I-140 на грин карту по программе Вейвера в Национальных Интересах (National Interest Waiver).
Вкратце факты дела Дханасар: Г-н Дханасар имеет степень доктора наук и две степени мастера, а также длинный послужной список и впечатляюшее резюме, он эксперт в области ракетостроения и космоса. Когда он подал заявление на грин карту по программе Вейвера в Национальных Интересах, ему было отказано по причине несоответствия тесту на NIW в предыдущем прецеденте, деле 1998 года NYSDOT. Старый тест было очень сложно доказать, особенно третье требование.
Новое прецедентное решение ААО в корне изменило старый тест на NIW: все три требования по тесту были изменены и облегчены. В результате многим заявителям будет проще получить грин карту по этой программе, и избежать PERM и петицию от работодателя. Также многие смогут сразу подать заявления на грин карту adjustment of status, разрешение на работу и поездки за границу пока adjustment of status находится на рассмотрении.
Дело Дханасар тут: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/920996/download

​

On September 30, 2016, USCIS has published Form I-131A, Application for Travel Document (Carrier Documentation), a new form that allows lawful permanent residents (LPRs) to apply for a travel document (carrier documentation) if they:

• Are returning from temporary overseas travel of less than one year, and their Green Card has been lost, stolen or destroyed, or
• Are returning from temporary overseas travel of less than two years, and their Reentry Permit has been lost, stolen or destroyed.

Note: The length of the absence will be measured from the time the LPR departed the U.S. to the time he or she pays the Form I-131A fee.
Applying for Carrier Documentation
To file Form I-131A, LPRs must pay the required fee online and then apply in person at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate.
The embassy or consulate will generally issue the carrier documentation within two weeks. The LPR should present the carrier documentation, which may be a boarding foil (similar to a visa) or transportation letter, to a transportation carrier instead of their Green Card or Reentry Permit.
The carrier documentation allows an LPR to prove to a transportation carrier only that they are authorized to travel to a United States port of entry to apply for admission to the United States. It is not a guarantee of admission or parole into the United States. CBP will conduct all required inspections when the LPR arrives at a United States port of entry and will make the final determination of whether to admit or parole the LPR to the United States.
Filing a Form I-131A does not give an LPR a new Green Card. To apply for a new Green Card, they must file Form I-90, Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card, and pay the filing fee. Visit our Form I-90 page at uscis.gov/I-90 for more information.
LPRs with Expired Green Cards
LPRs with expired Green Cards may not need to file Form I-131A. We encourage LPRs to check with their airline or vessel before determining whether to file Form I-131A.
Although regulations generally require an LPR to travel with a valid Green Card, CBP policy permits a transportation carrier bound for the United States to board an LPR  without carrier documentation if:

• They have an expired Green Card that was issued with a 10-year expiration date, or
• They have an expired Green Card with a 2-year expiration date AND a Form I-797, Notice of Action, showing that they have filed a Form I-751 or Form I-829 to remove the conditions on their permanent resident status. The Notice of Action extends the validity of the card for a specified length of time, generally one year.

Filing Fee
The filing fee for Form I-131A is $360. There is no biometric services fee. The fee for this form must be paid online using a credit or debit card or U.S. bank account through our online payment system.
Applicants cannot use a fee waiver for this form. As with all immigration fees, USCIS does not issue refunds, regardless of the decision on the application.
Because USCIS fees change periodically, please verify the current fee at uscis.gov/forms.
Where to File
Before appearing at a U.S. Embassy or U.S. Consulate to file Form I-131A, LPRs must submit the filing fee on the USCIS website. When appearing in person at a U.S. Embassy or U.S. Consulate to file Form I-131A, they must bring evidence that they paid the fee. Please contact the nearest U.S. Embassy or U.S. Consulate or visit its website to verify that they can process the Form I-131A and to read instructions on how to file.

​Read here.

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.

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.  

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. 

USCIS launched a new interactive webportal myUSCIS. 

See at: https://my.uscis.gov/

USCIS recently introduced another useful webportal, where customers can submit e-request to ask questions about a pending case, report non-delivery of a document (work permit, green card, etc) or official letter (Receipt or Approval Notice, Form I-797), request certain accommodations. I found it to be a very useful tool.

See at: https://egov.uscis.gov/e-Request/Intro.do?locale=en_US

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.

In May 2015 Visa Bulletin, the US Department of State had implemented a cutoff date for EB-5, immigrant investor visa category for China. 
In May 2015 Bulletin, it retrogresses to May 1, 2013 (two years).

How will it affect dependent children of a primary investor? How to protect dependents from ageing-out and becoming ineligible for a visa?

On April 13, 2015, Visa Office attended IIUSA 2015 EB-5 Regional Economic Advocacy Conference and provided some guidance on application of CSPA to those derivative children:

May 2015 visa bulletin can be found here. 

UPDATE 03/06/2015:

Nebraska's ban on same-sex marriage will remain in place while the state appeals a federal judge's decision to strike it down. 
The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday issued a stay of U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon's decision this week to end the ban.
It means that no same-sex marriages will be allowed starting March 9th, as was expected under the federal judge ruling.
************
A federal judge has struck down Nebraska's ban on same-sex marriage. Effective March 9, 2015, same-sex couples in Nebraska can marry.

As a practical matter, a US citizen petitioner in the same-sex marriage in Nebraska can now petition for his/her spouse's permanent residency (aka green card) in the United States.

According to an injunction filed in federal court Monday, Senior U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon said "all relevant state officials are ordered to treat same-sex couples the same as different sex couples in the context of processing a marriage license or determining the rights, protections, obligations or benefits of marriage."

The order is effective March 9 2015 at 8 a.m.

Within moments of Judge Bataillon's injunction, the State of Nebraska filed an appeal.

The U.S. Supreme Court announced January 17, 2015 that it would decide whether same-sex couples have a right to marry everywhere in America under the Constitution. A decision is expected by late June.

Nebraska is the 38th state in the USA to allow same-sex marriage.

Read more at: 

http://www.ketv.com/politics/judge-rules-on-nebraskas-samesex-marriage-ban/31519918?utm_source=Social&utm_medium=FBPAGE&utm_campaign=ketv7&Content%20&linkId=12636249

There are a few things that went wrong in this sad story and several important tips and rules for every immigrant in USA to remember:

1) almost every immigrant living in the United States, especially, a conditional resident, is required by law to notify USCIS of their new address within 10 days, which can be done online by submitting an electronic version of the form AR-11. Here is the link: https://egov.uscis.gov/coa/displayCOAForm.do 

2) any conditional resident MUST file a petition to remove conditions from residence within the 90-day period before expiration of their green card (USCIS form I-751). There are some exceptions. Forgetting to do so, can result in a removal order (deportation). Here is the link to the form and instructions: http://www.uscis.gov/i-751 

3) if your green card had expired (there is always an expiration date printed on your card), you should not travel internationally,... and Mexico is a foreign country.

4) you should never hire an "immigration consultant" or "Notario" -- but only hire an "immigration attorney" or "immigration lawyer", who is a licensed professional authorized to offer legal advice. Consultants, tax preparers, notarios are not authorized to give advice regarding your immigration situation and can't help with immigration paperwork, they are breaking the law.

5) also, keep in mind that even an attorney doesn't have an obligation to remind you about the deadlines for any *future* immigration petitions you might have to file (petition to remove conditions, application to renew a green card, application for citizenship). It's up to you to calendar these important dates and keep a track of important future applications with USCIS. I usually remind my former clients about these deadlines, but I am not required to do so because an attorney's representation ends at the conclusion of each case.

6) if her conditional green card was indeed "extended", then she should have had an official Receipt Notice, USCIS Form I-797, with the date granting her one-year extension.

If you need legal help, you are welcome to email our office. Don't wait until it's too late!

Story follows below...

Tuesday, February 10, 2015 
WEST HOLLYWOOD, Calif. (KABC) --

Sergey Nikitin lives with his wife and five children in West Hollywood. The Los Angeles realtor, however, is being kept apart from his family from what he says is a clerical error that's turned into an immigration nightmare. 

Nikitin's wife, Anya Bondareva, is currently behind bars. She was detained by federal authorities while trying to cross the border near San Diego. 

"She was crying and she was in shock. She couldn't believe what was even happening," Nikitin said. 

He became a U.S. citizen 15 years ago and married his wife, a Russian native, in 2008. Following their marriage, Nikitin hired an immigration consultant in L.A. to handle her paperwork.

Bondareva received a conditional green card, but Nikitin says the consultant failed to secure a permanent green card.

"I should have checked it myself. It was just one of those things that I relied that they would tell me when it comes up and it needs to be done," Nikitin said. 

Bondareva was granted an extension on her conditional green card that had expired. Earlier this year, the couple flew to Mexico and crossed back into the U.S. without any problems. Nikitin says they even met with immigration officials assuming their paperwork was being processed. 

"When they called the immigration service he was under the impression that it was still pending," said Stephanie Alcala, Nikitin's attorney. 

But last week when the couple tried to cross back into the U.S. from Mexico, Bondareva was detained. 

"That was the worst feeling ever," Nikitin said.

It turns out, after Bondareva's green card expired, a deportation order was issued. Nikitin says that because of a change of address in L.A., they were not notified of a hearing, leading to her being taken in.

Nikitin spoke to his wife over the telephone and says that she broke down in tears when she learned that she could be behind bars for weeks, perhaps months.

"She was crying for some time. She couldn't even speak," Nikitin said. "It's horrible. The children keep asking for her, and I can't even imagine what she is going through. This seems like extreme punishment for a paperwork issue."

Bondareva is being held in a federal detention facility near San Diego. Nikitin's five children are currently staying with relatives in Russia. He is staying in a San Diego hotel to be near his wife.

Alcala says Bondareva will likely be deported. Once that happens, she will have to request an in-person hearing to reapply for the permanent green card.

Read at http://abc7.com/news/west-hollywood-family-split-apart-due-to-immigration-paperwork-foul-up/512688/

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 [email protected] .*** 

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.

Update from USCIS: If you live in one of the states listed below, USCIS has changed the filing location for Form I-751, Petition to Remove the Conditions of Residence, as of January 14, 2015, from the Vermont Service Center (VSC) to the California Service Center (CSC): 

-- Louisiana -- New Mexico -- Oklahoma -- South Carolina -- Tennessee -- Texas.

How New Petitions Will Be Affected:

If you are filing a new petition, please refer to the Form I-751 Landing Page on our website, www.uscis.gov,for the current filing locations.  

• Vermont Service Center will continue to accept and work all petitions received at their facility until February 16, 2015 for the states listed above. 

• Vermont Service Center will forward petitions received between February 17, 2015 through March 16, 2015 to the California Service Center for processing. 

• Vermont Service Center will begin rejecting petitions for incorrect jurisdiction received on or after March 17, 2015. 

How Pending Cases Will Be Affected:

The Vermont Service Center will continue to process pending cases that have been received before the filing location changes went into effect for your state of residence. The filing location change will apply only to newly filed petitions. 

How to Track the Status of Your Case:

You can check the status of your case by entering your receipt number in Case Status Online. You can also sign up to receive automatic case status updates by email.

You can ask us about the status of your new or pending case if you do not receive a decision within the published processing time for the California Service Center to process your Form I-751.

You may submit an inquiry using e-Request or call the National Customer Service Center at 1-800-375-5283. For TDD (hearing-impaired) assistance, please call 1-800-767-1833.

If you received a RFE Request for evidence or other notice: 

If you have filed Form I-751 and we send you any notice, such as a request for evidence, please read the notice carefully. Make sure you respond to the service center that sent you the notice.

 If You Move:

If you move while your case is pending, let us know your new address as soon as possible after you move. You can change your address online or call the National Customer Center. It is important that you tell us about any change of address so we can notify you of any action on your case.

See more at http://www.uscis.gov