Immigration Archives - Page 22 of 41 - The National Law Forum

September 2016 Visa Bulletin Released

This week, the Department of State released the September 2016 Visa Bulletin. Given that visa numbers are issued based on the government fiscal year, we expect to see significant movement again in October 2016; for September 2016, the last month of FY2016, there were only minor changes with regard to movement of final action dates in most of the employment-based categories from the August 2016 Visa Bulletin:

The Worldwide EB-1 category remains current, but for individuals born in India and Mainland China, there continues to be a cutoff date in the EB-1 category of Jan. 1, 2010 (a change implemented in the August 2016 Visa Bulletin).
The cutoff date for Worldwide chargeability in the EB-2 category is still Feb. 1, 2014, but it is likely to return to current in October 2016 at the start of FY2017. The cutoff date for Mainland China remained constant at Jan. 1, 2010. However, there was significant movement in the EB-2 category for India, which moved forward from Nov. 15, 2004, to Feb. 22, 2005.
In the EB-3 category, the cutoff date for Worldwide chargeability, as well as El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico moved more than a year (from March 15, 2016 to May 1, 2016). The cutoff date for Mainland China stayed constant at Jan. 1, 2010. However, the cutoff date for India in the EB-3 category advanced several months from Nov. 8, 2004, to Feb. 15, 2005, and the cutoff date for the Philippines moved over a year from May 15, 2009, to July 1, 2010.
For those in the EB-5 category, the priority date remains current for all applicants other than those born in Mainland China, which maintains a cutoff date of Feb. 15, 2014.

With regards to those seeking to file applications for adjustment of status, the U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Service (USCIS) website indicates that the “Final Action Dates” chart for employment-based applications must be used in determining when an applicant is eligible to file Form I-485.

The September 2016 Final Action Dates for Employment-Based Preference Categories are as follows:

Table, VISA

Finally, the Department of State also determined the Family and Employment preference numerical limits for FY2016, as outlined in Section 201(c) and (d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) as follows:

Worldwide Family-Sponsored preference limit:          226,000

Worldwide Employment-Based preference limit:        140,338

        TOTAL                                                                   366,338

The per-country limit is fixed at 7 percent of the combined annual limits or 25,644 for FY2016. The dependent area annual limit is fixed at 2 percent of the combined annual limits or 7,327 for FY2016.

ARTICLE BY Jordi S. Bayer of Greenberg Traurig, LLP

Is H-1B Reform On Its Way?

Two bipartisan bills to reform professional-level visa classifications were introduced into Congress this past July. Given the charged nature of the national discourse on immigration issues this election year, it seems unlikely either bill will be enacted before the presidential election. The bipartisan nature of both bills, however, suggests Congress may be able to coalesce, in the near future, around new H-1B legislation. If these or similar reforms are enacted under a new administration, the information technology (IT) sector, specifically, and all employers who rely on outsourced labor or who contract with H-1B dependent employers may face significant changes to their operations.

Overview of the H-1B program

Through the H-1B program, U.S. employers can sponsor up to 85,000 new foreign workers each fiscal year for employment in “specialty occupations.”¹ Generally speaking, a “specialty occupation” is a professional-level position that requires a bachelor’s level education (or higher) in a specific field of study. Common specialty occupations include white-collar professions such as accountants, teachers, doctors, engineers and numerous IT positions including software developers, computer programmers and systems analysts. With the exception of H-1B workers whose employers are sponsoring them for legal permanent residence (green cards), H-1B workers are allowed to remain in the U.S. for up to six years of employment.

The H-1B program has been heavily oversubscribed the last few years. In fact, in each of the last two years, employers filed approximately 230,000 petitions against the 85,000 H-1B visas available. Because extension petitions for employees who have already been granted H-1B status are not counted against the numerical cap, the total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any given time is estimated to be around 600,000.²

IT workers constitute the bulk of H-1B employees in the U.S. For fiscal years 2013 and 2014, for example, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) reports that close to two-thirds of workers in each fiscal year were employed in computer-related occupations.³ The significance of the H-1B program to the IT sector and entrepreneurship is such that over the years many leading entrepreneurs and IT innovators, including Michael Bloomberg, Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates have vocally called for increases in the number of annual H-1Bs available, among other reforms.⁴

The H-1B program is regulated by both the U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) and the Department of Labor (DOL). The program requires, among other elements, that the employer make a binding promise to pay the sponsored H-1B worker the higher of the actual wage the employer pays to similarly-situated workers or the prevailing wage for the occupation in the area of intended employment.

In addition, an employer who relies significantly on H-1B workers, called an “H-1B dependent” employer,⁵ must attest to having tried to recruit a U.S. worker for the position and must promise that the intended H-1B employment will not displace a U.S. worker within 90 days before and 90 days after the employer files the H-1B petition in support of the H-1B worker.⁶An H-1B dependent employer, however, can exempt itself from the U.S. recruitment and non-displacement limitations for petitions in which the company pays the H-1B worker at least $60,000 or for petitions in which the employer files on behalf of an H-1B worker with at least a master’s degree in the specialty occupation.

The potential displacement of U.S. workers by H-1Bs has been a periodic concern since the beginning of the modern H-1B program. Displacement has recently been brought back into the spotlight by allegations some U.S. employers replaced several hundred U.S. IT workers with foreign nationals.⁷ The U.S. workers are also alleged to have been forced to train their foreign-worker replacements as a precondition to receiving a severance package.⁸ A subsequent investigation by the DOL into allegations of H-1B program violations related to at least one of those U.S. employers, Southern California Edison, appears to have been resolved in favor of the company and its IT consulting vendor.⁹

H.R. 5801: Limiting U.S. worker displacement by H-1B dependent employers

On July 14, 2016, Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA) introduced H.R. 5801, the “Protect and Grow American Jobs Act,” which has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee. The bill proposes to reduce H-1B dependent employers’ ability to avoid U.S. worker recruitment and non-displacement provisions. Under this bill, H-1B dependent employers would be bound by the provisions unless they promised H-1B workers a salary of at least $100,000 (increased from the current $60,000). The bill would also eliminate the Master’s degree exemption. The bill has bipartisan support and is co-sponsored by Rep. Peters (D-CA), Rep. Polis (D-CO), Rep. Vargas (D-CA), Rep. Farenthold (R-TX), Rep. Smith (R-TX), Rep. Hunter (R-CA) and Rep. Davis (D-CA).

H.R. 5657: Limiting U.S. worker displacement by any H-1B employer

On July 7, 2016, Representative Bill Pascrell, Jr. (D-NJ) introduced H.R. 5657, the “H-1B & L-1 Visa Reform Act of 2016,” which has been referred to both the House Judiciary and House Education and the Workforce committees. This bill proposes largescale changes to the H-1B program, including eliminating H-1B dependent employers as a separate classification. This change would subject all H-1B employers to the U.S. worker recruitment and non-displacement provisions that currently apply only to H-1B dependent employers.¹⁰ The bill would also double the non-displacement window from the 90 days before and after filing the petition to 180 days on each side of the filing.

In addition, under this proposal an H-1B worker would be authorized to perform services only at his or her employer’s work location unless the employer first obtained a waiver from the DOL.¹¹ This provision would directly, and adversely, impact the business model of modern consulting companies and their clients; moreover, the new waiver requirement would seemingly prevent most staffing companies from accessing the H-1B program.¹²

The bill is co-sponsored by Rep. Rohrabacher (R-CA).

What would these proposals mean?

For IT consulting companies and their corporate clients, these proposed changes could force significant changes. At a minimum, the cost to hire an H-1B worker would increase. And, if consultant-vendors are limited in placing H-1B workers at a client site, the end-client may need to scramble to fill positions that can no longer be filed by their consultant-vendor.

ARTICLE BY Monica Santa Maria of Godfrey & Kahn S.C.

_{1 Universities and certain nonprofit research facilities are exempt from the 85,000 numerical limitation.

2 See, e.g., Immigration Reforms to Protect Skilled American Workers: Hearing Before the S. Judiciary Comm., 114th Cong. (2015) (testimony of Professor Ron Hira).

3 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Servs., Characteristics of H-1B Specialty Occupation Workers: Fiscal Year 2014 Annual Report to Congress 12, Table 8A (2015).

4 Matthew DeLuca, Tech Demands More H1-B Visas as Critics Cry Foul (Apr. 10, 2014).

5 For an employer with at least 51 workers, if 15% or more are H-1B workers, the employer is classified as H-1B dependent. 8 U.S.C. §1182(n)(3)(A)(iii). There are separate calculations for smaller employers. Id. §§1182(n)(3)(A)(i) and (ii).

6 8 USC §§1182(n)(1)(E) and (G).

7 See Matthew Thibodeau, Southern California Edison IT Workers ‘Beyond Furious’ Over H1-B Replacements, Computerworld (Feb. 4, 2015); Sara Ashley O’Brien, Disney Sued for Replacing American Workers with Foreigners, CNN Money (Jan. 26, 2016).

8 Id.

9 Press Release, Infosys, U.S. Dep’t of Labor Concludes Investigation, No Violations by Infosys Found.

10 H.R. 5657, sec. 101(d)(1).

11 Id. sec. 101(e).

12 See, id. sec. 113(a) (making the waiver dependent, in part, on a DOL finding that the “placement of the H-1B [worker] is not essentially an arrangement to provide labor for hire for the [third-party] employer with which the H-1B [worker] will be placed.”)}

Civil Penalties Nearly Double for Form I-9 Violations

Significantly Increase for Other Immigration-Related Violations

Due to the implementation of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Sec. 701 of Public Law 114-74) (“Inflation Adjustment Act”), higher fines and civil penalties have now gone into effect for assessments that occur on or after August 1, 2016. These higher penalties can be applied to violations that occurred after November 2, 2015, the day the President signed the Act into law.

The Inflation Adjustment Act will be implemented by multiple federal agencies that have authority to assess civil penalties. The following is a summary, by federal agency, of the penalties covering violations for the unlawful employment of immigrant workers; violations related to Forms I-9; immigration-related discriminatory employment practices; and violations of the H-1B, H-2A and H-2B temporary visa for foreign worker programs. The increases in many categories are substantial. The penalties for Form I-9 paperwork violations are increased by an eye-catching 96 percent.

Department of Homeland Security fines:

Department of Homeland Security Fines i-9 violations

Department of Justice fines:

Department of Justice Fines

Department of Labor fines:

Department of Labor Fines

The consequence of the above is that employers should continue to aggressively monitor their immigration programs for compliance or suffer the harsher sting of these increased fines. Given that the penalties for I-9 errors are practically doubled, it is more important than ever to ensure I-9s are completed timely, correctly and are periodically audited. Moreover, most I-9 violations are considered continuing violations until they are corrected.

ARTICLE BY Gregory A. Wald of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

Quota Reserved for Most Desired Immigrant Applicants Retrogresses for Natives of India and China!

The Department of State published its August 2016 Visa Bulletin and it has a few impactful surprises. This is not good news for companies and foreign nationals. Indian and Chinese foreign nationals, as usual, are the hardest hit. Specifically, the historically open First Preference Employment Based Category (EB-1) retrogressed to January 1, 2010 for Indian and Chinese nationals. We can’t recall the last time the EB-1 category was not current.

This is astonishing when you consider that the EB-1 group represents some of the most talented foreign nationals that are immigrating to the US. Specifically, the EB-1 category includes:

Individuals of Extraordinary Ability – to qualify the individual must be able to demonstrate extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics through sustained national or international acclaim.
Outstanding Researchers – to qualify the individual must demonstrate international recognition for his/her outstanding achievements in a particular academic field. The individual must have at least 3 years’ experience in teaching or research in that academic area and must be in the United States in order to pursue research in the field.
Multinational Managers/Executives – to qualify the individual must have been employed as a manager or executive outside the United States in the 3 years preceding the petition for at least 1 year by a parent, affiliate or subsidiary of a U.S. company where they will serve in the U.S. in a managerial or executive capacity.

There are additional delays for other nationalities and categories as well see: https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/law-and-policy/bulletin/2016/visa-bulletin-for-august-2016.html. The most common employment based visa categories, beyond EB-1, are Second (EB-2) and Third (EB-3) preference. EB-2 is applicable for jobs that require an advanced degree or equivalent as a minimum, exceptional ability in the arts, sciences or business, and National Interest Waivers for individuals whose work is in the national interest. The EB-3 classification is for skilled workers, professionals and unskilled workers.

Chinese nationals are being treated the same this August, whether first, second or third preference. All three categories have a January 1, 2010 priority date. For Indian nationals, EB-1 is still the best category, but with the January 1, 2010 priority date – the news is not good! The EB-2 and EB-3 categories have a priority date of November 2004. Can you imagine waiting more than twelve years to complete a process once started?

Notably, the EB-2 “all other” category retrogressed to February 1, 2014 which is worse than the third preference category at March 15, 2016. So, EB-3 all other is better than EB-2! We haven’t see this type of movement in the “all other” category for a significant period of time.

What this Visa Bulletin represents is a “shutting off” of the flow of immigrant visas being issued for what is expected to be the remainder of the fiscal year. Fiscal Year 2017 starts on October 1, 2016 and new visa numbers will be available. In the August Visa Bulletin, the Department of State indicates that the EB-1 category will be opening back up in October. Assuming the State Departments calculations are generally on target, we should see movement in October or later in the fall that will resemble the dates where we left off in July 2016.

The Visa Bulletin and lack of visa numbers for skilled workers continues to be a daunting problem for employers and foreign nationals alike. The system for foreign nationals who want to “follow the rules” has broken down. Further, there is no relief, or comprehensive immigration reform, in sight. Expect more whiplash inducing movement in the future.

ARTICLE BY Valarie H McPherson of Proskauer Rose LLP

Increased DOJ fines for Immigration-related Offenses go into effect August 1

New fines will apply to violations that occurred on or after Nov. 2, 2015 – Another good reason to conduct regular I-9 self-audits

The U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) new penalties for immigration-related workplace violations including unlawful employment of aliens, I-9 paperwork violations and unlawful employment practices tied to immigration (discrimination) will take effect Aug. 1. The new penalties will cover activities that occurred on or after Nov. 2, 2015.

Penalties for unlawful employment of unauthorized workers – For the first offense, the minimum fine will increase from $375 to $539 per worker, while the maximum fine will increase from $3,200 to $4,313 per worker. Fines for second and subsequent offenses will also increase significantly, with a maximum fine possible of $21,563 per worker for companies with a poor track record.

Penalties for Form I-9 paperwork violations – For all Form I-9 paperwork violations, the minimum fine will increase from $110 to $216 per violation. The maximum fine will increase from $1,100 to $2,156 per violation. This is a significant increase which will impact employers even if they are not employing unauthorized workers or are not involved in unfair immigration-related employment practices.

Penalties for unfair immigration-related employment practices – For the first offense, the minimum fine will increase from $375 to $445 per violation, while the maximum fine will increase from $3,200 to $3,563 per violation. Fines for second and subsequent offenses will also increase significantly, up to a maximum fine of $17,816 per violation. In addition, the minimum fines for document abuse (requiring employees to provide more and/or different evidence of work authorization than what is required) will increase from $110 to $178 per violation, and the maximum fines will increase from $1,100 to $1,782 per violation.

With the increase in fines, employers need to be confident that they are following best practices when recruiting and hiring and completing the Form I-9. As always, reviews of employment practices and regular self-audits of company Form I-9s are a good way to make sure that your company is complying with federal law. We are always willing to help with any questions you have regarding your policies and practices.

As Europe divides, Africa Unites with Common African Union E-passport

In 2015, African Union (AU) Commissioner for Political Affairs, Dr. Aisha Abdullahi, indicated that a plan was underway to implement a single African passport. After recent announcements that the AU passport would be unveiled at the AU Summit in Kigali this month, the long-awaited continental e-passport has finally been revealed. The first recipients of the pan-African passport were Rwandan President Paul Kagame, whose country hosted the summit, and Chadian President Idriss Deby, the chairperson of the AU. Others to receive some of the first pilot passports will include heads of state, foreign ministers and permanent representatives of the member states to the AU’s Addis Ababa headquarters. The timeline for the common passport roll-out to citizens of member countries is uncertain, although AU officials hope that citizens will have access by 2018.

This long-awaited passport is targeted to address the perennial problem of border openness in sub-Saharan Africa; closed borders are cited as a substantial impediment to both intra-African trade and economic growth.

Out of the 54 countries in Africa, to date, only thirteen allow citizens from any other African country to travel without advance visas. These significant barriers to intra-African travel are believed to be a leading cause of the low levels of trade between nations on the continent. Whereas intra-European trade accounts for approximately 60% of all European trade and intra-North American trade accounts for 40% of all trade on the North American continent, intra-African trade only counts for about 13% of African trade. While a small portion of this difference may be explained by unrecorded informal trade across porous borders, the difference is nevertheless notable.

There is evidence that opening borders can lead to economic growth globally, and experiences on the African continent support this contention. For example, in 2013, Rwanda announced that travelers from any African country could receive a visa on arrival. After improving visa openness, Rwanda’s GDP growth increased to 7% in 2014, tourism revenues rose by 4%, and the number of African travelers to Rwanda increased 22%.

Rwanda has led the charge for the creation of an AU passport. Now, the Rwandan Minister of Foreign Affairs, Louise Mushikiwabo, has indicated that Rwanda is fully prepared to begin issuing the common passport to all of its citizens. In contrast, other African nations would need to enact legislation that would allow them to begin issuing the African Union passports to citizens. Based on the general response to the common passport—the AU has been “overwhelmed” by requests for the passport—it is likely that AU member countries will feel pressure from their own citizens to do so quickly.

Interestingly, Morocco—the only African country that is not currently a member of the AU—has asked to rejointhe organization after a decades-long absence during the same summit in which the AU passports were unveiled. The timing of Morocco’s request could allow the county to take advantage of the new common passport and the expanding perks of AU membership.

The unified passport will undoubtedly present challenges for countries with less advanced border-security technology and fewer resources to devote to border control. Currently, only nine African countries offer eVisas. The AU passport is biometric and considered secure, but the issuance and acceptance of these e-passports at entry points of countries currently without e-passports may present a problem.

Relaxed immigration restrictions may also lead to larger inflows of migrant workers to the more economically stable countries on the continent, which may stoke the sort of anti-immigrant sentiment that led to violence in South Africa last year.

Travelers who are not citizens of AU member countries will not be able to benefit from the common passport, and will still face the relatively restrictive entry requirements on the continent. However, the enhanced labor mobility resulting from the AU’s e-passport program could have a catalytic effect on trans-African investments and commerce.

ARTICLE BY Khadijah A. Robinson of Covington & Burling LLP

New USCIS Policy Decision Broadens Permissible Bases for Visa Transfer of Multinational Managers

After four years of internal deliberations, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) recently issued a policy memorandum binding all USCIS personnel to follow the reasoning of a 2013 USCIS Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) decision. That AAO decision broadened the type of evidence a U.S. employer may cite in support of an L-1A intracompany transfer visa, which is used by U.S.-based entities that seek to transfer employment of a manager or executive from a foreign-based affiliate.

The 2013 AAO decision was petitioned by the U.S. subsidiary of a publically traded Japanese parent company that manufactures packaging solutions for the medical, pharmaceutical, and food industries. Its U.S. subsidiary imports, markets, and distributes the Japanese parent company’s product line in North America. In 2012, the U.S. subsidiary sought to extend the L-1A visa of a transferee employee, who acted as the U.S. employer’s vice president and chief operating officer. The USCIS California Service Center denied the extension request, claiming the transferee was not employed in a managerial capacity because the U.S. employer did not have an organizational structure large enough to support a managerial position. By citing the existence of only two payroll employees besides the L-1A transferee, USCIS denied the visa extension, claiming that in the absence of other employees, the transferee L visa beneficiary was primarily performing sales duties rather than managerial duties. The denial decision gave no weight to the fact that the transferred employee supervised contracted U.S. service providers and a foreign staff of eight employees, which included three sales employees, four engineers, and a shipping clerk.

AAO overturned that California Service Center decision, citing as error the denial’s emphasis on the small size of the U.S.-based operations. As the AAO noted, “That a petitioner may only have a few employees directly on its payroll, although a relevant consideration in the determination of whether a beneficiary qualifies as an L-1A manager, does not necessarily compel a conclusion that the beneficiary primarily performs day-to-day operational duties.”

By adopting as policy the guidance provided by the 2013 AAO decision, USCIS has now made it a requirement that all USCIS employees follow the reasoning of the AAO decision. U.S. multinational employers will be the prime beneficiaries of this reversal in longstanding USCIS practice. Now, even U.S. employers with quantitatively limited organizational structures can benefit from the advantages of the L employment visa category.

ARTICLE BY Roy J. Barquet of Foley & Lardner LLP

Supreme Court Tie Blocks Expansion of DACA and Creation of DAPA

DACA DAPA Supreme Court ruling — Law concept for immigration reform, with a wooden court gavel and a plaque that reads immigration.

Disappointing many, the U.S. Supreme Court has tied 4-4 in a case appealing a nationwide injunction on the Obama Administration’s executive action expanding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and creating the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) programs. United States v. Texas, No. 15-674 (June 23, 2016).

The eagerly anticipated decision will have a far-reaching and adverse impact to millions of undocumented immigrants. The Supreme Court deadlock upheld the appeals court ruling and continues to block programs. The effect of the decision means that up to five million undocumented immigrants may not be allowed legal work authorization in the United States or be protected from deportation.

The Obama Administration utilized executive action to create DACA in 2012. Under DACA, certain undocumented immigrants who arrived as minors were able to defer deportation and receive employment authorization. The Administration expanded DACA and introduced DAPA in 2014 with further executive action. The DACA expansion would have increased the period of employment authorization for DACA beneficiaries to three years, instead of two. DAPA would have allowed parents of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents (green card holders) to apply for deferred deportation and employment authorization.

In February 2015, Judge Andrew S. Hanen of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas entered a preliminary injunction, blocking the 2014 DACA expansion and DAPA creation. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, affirmed the lower court’s injunction. The Obama Administration appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision strongly indicates that executive action on immigration on a widespread basis may be difficult in the future and any chance of immigration reform may not be possible without Congressional involvement. It also indicates that immigration will continue to be a high priority in the upcoming Presidential and Congressional elections.

ARTICLE BY KoKo Ye Huang of Jackson Lewis P.C.

July 2016 Visa Bulletin Released

Projections include EB-1 Cutoff Date for China and India, Slow EB-2 and EB-3 Movement, EB-4 Backlogs for Latin America to ease, and EB-5 China to advance slightly.

This week, the Department of State (DOS) has released the July 2016 Visa Bulletin. We are three months from the end of the fiscal year and the dwindling visa numbers remaining are likely to bring about tepid advancement in many employment-based categories before October. This Bulletin brings several particular items of note relating to the anticipated movement of final action dates:

For the first time in recent collective memory, the State Department is predicting that EB-1 (which is usually “Current”) will have a cutoff date “no later than September” for China and India, but becoming current again in October 2016. Worldwide is expected to remain Current through all relevant times.
In the EB-2 category, a date for Worldwide chargeability is likely to be “imposed by September” with a return to “current” in October. The State Department predicts that there will be no forward movement for China EB-2, and India EB-2 will only move one week beyond India EB-3.
Limited movement is predicted in EB-3, with the exceptions of India reaching early 2005 and Philippines reaching late 2009 or early 2010.
Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico face an EB-4 priority date of Jan. 1, 2010. Although this 6.5 year backlog may appear daunting, the State Department does caution the following:

“Readers should be aware that the establishment of the Employment Fourth preference Final Action date of January 1, 2010 does not mean that applicants are now subject to a wait in excess of six years. That Final Action Date is intended only to stop any further use of numbers by applicants from those countries under the FY-2016 annual limit, not to indicate how long it will be before applicants will be eligible for final action.”

In October, Mexico EB-4 is projected to become current. El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras are anticipated to have a 2015 cutoff date.

In the EB-5 realm, China has not advanced from June 2016. The “best case” scenario is a March 1, 2014, cutoff date by September.

For those seeking to adjust status, The United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) website indicates that the Application Final Action Dates chart must be used for filing Form I-485.

The July 2016 Final Action Dates for Employment-Based Applications are as follows:

July 2016 visa bulletin 1

Likewise, the July 2016 Dates for Filing are:

Jule 2016 visa bulletin 2

ARTICLE BY Matthew T. Galati of Greenberg Traurig, LLP

Draft Form I-765V, EAD Application for Abused Nonimmigrant Spouse: Comments Open

On May 27, USCIS posted for comment on the Federal Register draft versions of Form I-765V, Application for Employment Authorization for Abused Nonimmigrant Spouse and its instructions. Under section 106 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, abused spouses of certain nonimmigrants are eligible for employment authorization: i.e., the spouses of foreign nationals in the following nonimmigrant categories:

A-1, A-2, and A-3 (foreign government diplomats and officials and their immediate family members, attendants, servants, and personal employees);
E-3 (Australian specialty occupation workers);
G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, and G-5 (employees of foreign governments and international organizations and their immediate family members, attendants, servants, and personal employees);
and H-1B, H-1B1, H-2A, H-2B, H-3, and H-4 (specialty occupation workers, Free Trade Agreement professionals from Chile and Singapore, temporary agricultural and non-agricultural workers, trainees and special education exchange visitors, and immediate family members of specialty occupation workers).

Earlier this year, March 8, 2016, USCIS released a Policy Memorandum regarding the eligibility of such applicants. Pursuant to the memo, along with the Form I-765V EAD application, credible evidence should be presented to prove various eligibility factors, including that the applicant resides in the United States, that the applicant is or was (under specific circumstances) married to the qualifying principal nonimmigrant spouse, that the applicant was last admitted to the United States in nonimmigrant status, and that the applicant or the applicant’s child was abused or subject to extreme cruelty by the principal nonimmigrant spouse. If approved, the EAD should be granted for two years. Supporting documentation should include copies of the marriage certificate, evidence of the abuse, and I-94 records and biographical identification documents of both the applicant and the principal spouse.

The draft EAD application Form for abused nonimmigrant spouses is six pages, while the regular Form I-765 used by applicants eligible for employment authorization under other bases is only one page. Form I-765V requests information not only on the applicant’s immigration status, but also on biographical physical features including ethnicity, race, height, weight, and eye and hair color. Form I-765V also allows for information to be completed regarding a safe mailing address and an interpreter. Further, the draft Form requests an Applicant’s Certification regarding the authenticity of documents and release of information. USCIS estimates that completing the application Form and preparing the documentation will take three hours per response.

USCIS encourages comments on the draft Form I-765V. Specifically, USCIS seeks feedback regarding whether the proposed collection of information on the form is necessary, the burden on the applicants to compete the form, the accuracy of USCIS’ estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, and the clarity, quality, and utility of the information to be collected. Comments will be accepted for 60 days, until July 26, 2016. All comments should reference OMB Control number 1615-NEW and Docket ID USCIS-2016-0004. Comments can be made online, by email, or by mail.

Article By Lauren A. Tetenbaum of Greenberg Traurig, LLP

Category: Immigration

September 2016 Visa Bulletin Released

Like this: