travel Archives - The National Law Forum

November 2022 Visa Bulletin – A Warning for EB-2 All Other Countries

The Visa Bulletin is released monthly by the Department of State and is used to determine when a sponsored foreign national can submit the final step of the green card process, or if already pending, when the final step can be adjudicated.

Below is a summary of the November Visa Bulletin, including Final Action Dates and changes from the previous month.

China: EB-1 remains current; EB-2 holds at June 8, 2019; EB-3 freezes at June 15, 2018; EB-3 other workers advances three months to December 1, 2012.

India: EB-1 remains current; EB-2 holds at April 1, 2012; EB-3 freezes at April 1, 2012; and EB-3 other workers remains April 1, 2012.

All Other Countries: EB-1, EB-2 and EB-3 remain current (except for EB-3 Other Workers which has a cutoff date of June 1, 2020).

NOTE 1: The November Visa Bulletin warns of possible future retrogression in the EB-2 All Other Countries category due to increased demand for overall visa numbers.

NOTE 2: USCIS will accept I-485 applications in November based on the Department of State’s slightly more favorable Dates for Filing chart.

This post was written by Courtland C. Witherup and the Immigration & Nationality Law Practice at Hunton Andrews Kurth.

For more immigration legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

On the Rise: Bicycle-Related Deaths and Injuries

In 2020, preventable fatalities from bicycle accidents increased by 16%, according to the National Safety Council (NSC). The NSC also noted that over the last decade, there was a total increase of 44% in preventable bicycle-related deaths.

These figures highlight the ongoing safety crisis for cyclists on American roadways.

Bicycle-related deaths and injuries: the statistics

According to the CDC, bicyclists account for 2% of all motor vehicle crashes. Approximately 1,000 people die each year from these accidents, and 130,000 become injured. These numbers will continue to increase unless widespread measures to prioritize road safety become implemented nationwide.

We see this trend reflected in the report from the NSC, which notes an increase in preventable nonfatal injuries of 5% between 2019 and 2020. Additionally, the newest data released by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) shows that bicyclist fatalities increased again in 2021 by 5%.

In the state of New Jersey specifically, there were 30 preventable bicycle-related fatalities between 2019 and 2020. As of 2021, the number of deaths reached its highest single-year total thus far, with 27 individuals lost. Hopefully, these numbers will decrease in the coming years as legislative efforts are implemented to improve cyclist safety.

Legislation addressing the bicycle fatalities crisis

With the continual increase in motor vehicle fatalities and the increase in injuries sustained by these accidents, both state and federal legislatures have implemented new measures to address street safety.

The following legislation seeks to reduce the number of crashes and fatalities involving bicyclists, pedestrians, and others using a method of personal conveyance.

New Jersey’s Safe Passing Law

New Jersey has implemented its Safe Passing Law, laying out new driver requirements. When approaching someone using a method of personal conveyance such as a bicycle, electric scooter, or a pedestrian, drivers must do the following:

Move over one lane to allow for extra space while passing.
If moving over one lane is not possible, drivers must allow for four feet of space while approaching and passing.
If neither moving nor allowing four feet of space is possible without violating traffic laws, drivers must reduce the vehicle’s speed to 25 mph and be prepared to stop.

Drivers who violate New Jersey’s Safe Passing Law will incur a $100 fine if the violation does not result in personal injury. However, they will incur two motor vehicle penalty points, and the fine will be $500 if the offense results in bodily injury to pedestrians, cyclists, or others using a method of personal conveyance.

The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law

The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law signed by President Biden on November 15th, 2021, authorizes up to $550B of funding between 2022 and 2026 to invest in America’s infrastructure, including support for safety improvements on our roads.

Safe Streets and Roads for All Program

The Safe Streets and Roads for All Program (SS4A) is a new grant program included in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law that allocates $6B in funding over the next five years. The program seeks to fund local efforts to reduce roadway crashes and fatalities.

Eligible applicants for the SS4A grant include:

Metropolitan planning organizations
Political subdivisions of a State
Members of a federally recognized Tribal government
Multi-jurisdictional groups of the entities above

Also, according to the Federal High Administration, the use of SS4A funds must only be used for:

Development of a comprehensive safety action plan
Planning, designing, and developing activities for initiatives identified in the safety action plans
Implementing the projects and strategies identified in the safety action plan.

Article By Domenic B. Sanginiti, Jr. and Stark & Stark

For more personal injury legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Abortion-Related Travel Benefits Post-Dobbs

Immediately following the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson returning the power to regulate abortion to the states, a number of large employers announced that they would offer out-of-state travel benefits for employees living in states where abortion-related medical care is unavailable. Employers considering offering abortion-related travel benefits have several key considerations to keep in mind. The law currently allows health plans to provide reimbursement for travel primarily for and essential to medical care. Although this area of the law is evolving, employers with self-funded medical plans may amend their existing medical plans to provide abortion-related travel benefits while those with fully insured medical plans may face more obstacles in providing such benefits.

In Dobbs v. Jackson, an abortion clinic challenged a Mississippi law that would ban abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, with limited exceptions. In establishing the constitutional right to abortion in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court restricted states in their ability to limit or ban abortions before viability of the fetus, or 24 weeks from the time of conception. In upholding the Mississippi law, the Supreme Court overturned Roe and held that the protection or regulation of abortion is a decision for each state.

Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma and South Dakota have already banned or made abortion illegal pursuant to trigger laws which went into effect as of the Supreme Court decision on June 24, 2022. Also, a number of additional states are expected to soon have similar legislation in effect, either by virtue of expected legislative action or trigger laws with slightly delayed effective dates. In response, a number of employers have announced that they will reimburse all or a portion of abortion-related travel expenses for employees in states where abortions are banned or otherwise not available.

Under Section 213(d) of the Internal Revenue Code, the definition of “medical care” includes transportation that is both “primarily for and essential to” the medical care sought by an individual. These types of travel benefits have historically been utilized in connection with certain specialized medical treatments, such as organ transplants. However, Section 213(d) is not limited to particular types of procedures, and thus forms the framework for providing abortion-related travel benefits through existing medical plans.

Although Code Section 213(d) applies to both self-insured and insured medical plans, the substantive coverage provisions of insured medical plans will generally be governed by the state insurance code of the state in which the insurance policy is issued. Coverage for abortion services or any related travel benefits may not be permitted under the insurance code of the state in which the policy is issued, or an insurer may not offer a travel benefit for such services even if permitted to do so. Self-insured plans, by contrast, provide employers more flexibility in plan design, including control, consistent with existing federal requirements, over the types and levels of benefits covered under the plan. As noted above, existing plans may already cover travel-related benefits for certain types of medical procedures.

Employers with high-deductible health plans tied to health savings accounts (HSAs) will need to consider the impact of adding abortion-related travel benefits to such plans. Travel-related benefits of any type would not appear to be eligible for first dollar coverage, and thus may be of minimal benefit to participants enrolled in high-deductible health plans.

Employers with fully insured medical plans that do not cover abortion-related travel benefits may be able to offer a medical travel reimbursement program through an integrated health reimbursement arrangement (HRA). An integrated HRA is an employer-funded group health plan from which employees enrolled in the employer’s traditional group medical insurance plan are reimbursed for qualifying expenses not paid by the traditional plan.

Another potential option for employers with fully insured medical plans may be to offer a stipend entirely outside of any established group health plan. Such reimbursement programs may result in taxable compensation for employees who receive such reimbursements. Also, employers would need to be sensitive to privacy and confidentiality considerations of such a policy, which should generally be minimized if offered in accordance with the existing protections of HIPAA through a medical plan and under which claims are processed by an insurer or third-party administrator rather than by the employer itself.

Additionally, some state laws may attempt to criminalize or otherwise sanction so-called aiding and abetting actions related to the procurement of abortion services in another state. This is an untested area of the law, and it is unclear whether any actions brought under such statutes would be legally viable. In this regard, Justice Kavanaugh stated as follows in his concurring opinion in Dobbs: “For example, may a State bar a resident of that State from traveling to another State to obtain an abortion? In my view, the answer is no based on the constitutional right to interstate travel.” (Kavanaugh Concurring Opinion, page 10.) This is an area that will require continual monitoring by employers who offer abortion-related travel benefits.

Article By Thomas G. Hancuch, Philip L. Mowery, and Amal Rafiq of Vedder Price

For more labor and employment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Current Pandemic-Related Regulations for Business Travel to the United States, Germany, and the EU

Recently, due to the availability of COVID-19 vaccines, many countries decided to lift their entry restrictions or change them in such a way that travelers who had recovered from COVID-19 infections or been vaccinated were allowed entry. Here is an overview of some of the current entry requirements for international travel.

Entry Into the United States

Since November 8, 2021, individuals have been allowed to enter the United States again from Europe. For 20 months, an entry ban had been in place in the United States for travelers from Brazil, China, India, Iran, Ireland, the Schengen Area (26 countries), South Africa, and the United Kingdom. A proclamation issued by President Joe Biden on October 25, 2021—“A Proclamation on Advancing the Safe Resumption of Global Travel During the COVID-⁠19 Pandemic”—ended these entry restrictions and the need for national interest exceptions (NIE) to the restrictions. Travelers from most countries (a recent U.S. ban on travel from eight African countries took effect on November 29, 2021) may enter the United States if they are fully vaccinated and present negative coronavirus test results (via RT-PCR tests or antigen tests) that are no more than three days old at the time of departure.

Travelers must prove to their airlines that they have been fully vaccinated with internationally recognized vaccines prior to their departures. Currently, the United States recognizes vaccines the Pfizer-BioNTech, Oxford-AstraZeneca, Oxford-AstraZeneca/Covishield, Covaxin, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen, BIBP/Sinopharm, and Sinovacvaccines. A traveler’s last vaccination must have taken place at least 14 days before the planned date of travel. The United States accepts the EU Digital COVID Certificate as proof of vaccination.

Exempt groups include persons on diplomatic or governmental foreign travel, children under 18 years of age, and persons who cannot be vaccinated with a COVID-19 vaccine for documented medical reasons. Persons exempt from the October 25, 2021, proclamation’s requirements may enter the United States without being fully vaccinated, but they must quarantine for seven days upon arrival and test for COVID-19 infection three to five days after entry.

Regardless of the COVID-19–related entry requirements, all travelers still need an Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) entry permit issued by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). CBP advises travelers to apply online for ESTA authorization at least 72 hours in advance of departure.

Requirements for Entry Into the European Union

The European Union (EU) has a common approach to travel from third countries to EU member states. Entry requirements are constantly being adapted to the pandemic situation as international travel gradually opens up. Currently, in principle, any person from a third country who has been fully vaccinated with a vaccine approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) (BioNTech-Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, and Janssen-Cilag) may enter the European Union. The last vaccination must have taken place at least 14 days before the planned entry.

EU citizens and residents as well as their family members are allowed to enter EU member states without being fully vaccinated. Further exceptions apply to persons for whom absolutely necessary reasons for entry exist. “Absolutely necessary reasons” may exist, among other things, for highly qualified employees from third countries if their labor is necessary from an economic point of view and their work cannot be postponed or carried out abroad.

The EU also maintains a list of countries where the epidemiological situation has improved sufficiently (the so-called “EU White List”), so that entry from these countries is possible regardless of an individual’s vaccination status. This list is constantly updated according to the epidemiological situation. The United States is not currently on the EU White List, so entry from the United States is only possible for fully vaccinated persons.

Each EU member state may set its own additional entry requirements. The EU’s “Re-open EU,” a clearinghouse of information regarding EU member states’ pandemic-related measures, offers an overview of the quarantine and testing requirements of the individual countries.

Requirements for Entry Into Germany

All travelers to Germany from third countries that are not on the EU White List and are not EU citizens or residents must be fully vaccinated. In exceptional cases, entry is possible if it is absolutely necessary.

In addition, all travelers aged 12 or older must provide proof of vaccination. Before crossing the border, proof of vaccination or convalescence, or a test result showing negative for infection (e.g., an antigen test that is no more than 48 hours old or an RT-PCR test that is no more than 72 hours old), must be presented for inspection by the carrier or at the request of the Federal Police.

For previous stays in high-risk or virus-variant areas, digital travel registration is also mandatory. The Robert Koch Institute provides a current list of all high-risk and virus-variant areas.

Nonvaccinated or recovered travelers entering from high-risk areas must also present a negative test upon entry and enter domestic quarantine for 10 days. The domestic quarantine can be ended prematurely if another negative test result is presented five days after entry.

At present, travel from a virus-variant area is not possible, as a travel ban is in force for countries where virus mutations are widespread. Entry is possible only in a few exceptional cases (for example, for German nationals and persons with residence and an existing right of abode in Germany, as well as their immediate family members). Irrespective of vaccination or convalescent status, these travelers are obliged to register their entries digitally, present negative test results upon entry, and go into quarantine for 14 days. Only vaccinated and recovered persons may shorten their quarantine periods by presenting further negative test results five days after entry.

Employer Inquiries Into Employees’ Vaccination and Recovery Status

These extensive regulations raise a question as to whether an employer may inquire into an employee’s vaccination status, or whether the employee has recovered from a COVID-19 infection in connection with an upcoming business trip.

The vaccination and/or convalescence status of an employee, under 9 (1) of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), is considered health data and thus protected personal information according to Art. An employer may request and process this information only if there is a legal basis for doing so. If a business trip requires proof of an employee’s vaccination against COVID-19 (e.g., due to entry restrictions), an employer may request and process this information from the employee in individual cases. However, employers may only request the information in the context of specific business trips and are prohibited from retaining the information for any other purposes.”

The COVID-19–related entry regulations of many countries may largely determine the feasibility of a contemplated business trip, as the prospect for international business travel will likely depend on the vaccination status of the employees involved. This situation may result in a legitimate interest on the part of the employer to inquire into employee vaccination status because the employer would otherwise be unable to find out whether a particular employee met the entry requirements of the destination country. Only by inquiring into vaccination status can the employer ensure that the employee is not turned away at the border—i.e., that the employee can fulfill the duty to provide the contractually agreed upon work within the scope of the business trip.

Whether an employer’s query regarding an employee’s vaccination status is legitimate is therefore a case- and fact-specific inquiry, which depends above all on the entry regulations of the destination country. If the destination country requires complete vaccination for entry, it may be permissible from a data protection perspective to ask about an employee’s vaccination status.

Article By Cynthia Lange of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

For more COVID-19 and travel-related legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

US to Expand Vaccination Requirement for Foreign National Travelers to Include All Land Border Crossers from Canada and Mexico in January

Starting Jan. 22, 2022, the Biden administration will require foreign national travelers engaged in essential travel to be fully vaccinated when crossing U.S. land borders or ferry terminals. Essential travel includes travel for work or study in the United States, emergency response, and public health. The new rules apply to foreign nationals; U.S. citizens and permanent residents may still enter the United States regardless of their vaccination status but are subject to additional testing requirements.

The new rules for essential travelers are in line with those that took effect Nov. 8, 2021, when the Biden administration lifted travel restrictions to allow fully vaccinated travelers engaged in non-essential (leisure) travel to enter the United States.

While much cross-border traffic was shut down in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, essential travelers have been able to travel unimpeded via land borders or ferry terminals. Starting Jan. 22, 2022, however, all foreign national travelers crossing U.S. land borders or ferry terminals – traveling for essential and non-essential reasons – must be fully vaccinated for COVID-19 and provide related proof of vaccination. Any exceptions to the vaccination requirement available to travelers at U.S. land borders are expected to be limited, just as exceptions currently available for air travel have been limited. See CDC guidance for details.

Article by Mirium C. Thompson with Greenberg Traurig, LLP.

For more on vaccine requirements, visit the NLR Coronavirus News section.

May is Motorcycle Safety Awareness Month: Please Drive and Ride Safely

May is Motorcycle Safety Month, which highlights the need for all drivers to be especially aware of motorcycles as well as all vehicles on the roads. With the recent beautiful weather, I’ve seen and heard more motorcycles in the last week than I have in months. Please be especially vigilant and respectful of others as you drive, whether you are on a bike, in a car, or truck.

Because we don’t see as many motorcycles during the winter months, we are not as sensitive to their presence and often simply do not “see” them. Many crashes occur when a car or truck makes a left turn in front of a bike or pulls out of a driveway or side street in front of one. Please, expect that more motorcycles will be out now and look twice or even three times before making a turn or pulling into a street. Also, be even extra careful when driving after dark as the single headlight may confuse you or look farther away than it actually is.

Motorcycles come in all shapes and sizes. Some are small enough to be blocked by your windshield pillars or rear view mirror. They may travel in your blind spots and be unseen and unheard by you.

Please do not rely on your hearing to warn you of an approaching motorcycle. While we may associate the sound of a bike with the presence of one, most of the sound we hear occurs after the bike has passed. Depending on its speed, a bike may “sneak” up on you from behind or from a side road. Rely more on your vision and extra effort to be sure you can make a maneuver or turn safely.

Also, we bikers must be very careful and respect all drivers on the road. Many of us have not ridden for a few months, and I recommend we all take it slow and easy during our first few decent rides of the spring. Make sure your bike is in good physical shape and do a thorough check to be certain everything is functioning properly before riding. Also, make sure to wear the proper gear. Make sure you dress warmly enough for the ride in cool air. Wear the proper helmet if you are riding in New Jersey or another state which requires one. Consider attending a rider safety refresher course if you have not had one in a while. While riding, remember that often the roads have more gravel and debris on them from spring rains so be mindful when riding on curving roads where you may not see a hazard until you are upon it. Ride at a safe speed for both the conditions and how you are feeling as well as your expertise. Always keep a safe distance from other bikes and vehicles.

All, please understand that bikers are taught to drive defensively and to assume others will not see them. Therefore, riders drive in the portion of the lane where it is most visible to other drivers. However, we riders want to be seen, we do not want to be invisible to anyone. We are not being obnoxious, rather we are practicing safe riding.

Both motorcyclists and motorists should recognize the dangers of driving at all times. By practicing a little more vigilance and looking twice, we can all stay safe on the roads.

ARTICLE BY Christopher M. Pyne of Stark & Stark.

For more on road safety, see the National Law Review Utilities & Transport law section.

Update: Suspension of Trusted Traveler Enrollment Extended to June 1, 2020

On April 22, 2020, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) announced it is extending its suspension of operations at all Trusted Traveler enrollment centers until at least June 1, 2020 to protect CBP officers and the general public from exposure to COVID-19.

Applicants with a previously scheduled appointment for a final interview will need to re-schedule for a date after June 1^st. Applicants can log in to their online TTP accounts for more information on available appointments and to review the status of a pending application. Designated airports will continue to allow enrollment on arrival for conditionally approved applicants entering the United States.

The temporary closures apply to all enrollment centers – Global Entry, NEXUS, Sentri, and FAST.

The closures are expected to add to the already extensive backlog of pending applications. In response to this, CBP will allow current members to continue using their trusted traveler benefits for 18 months after the date of expiration provided members submit an application for renewal before their current membership expires. Additionally, applicants now have 485 days (just under 16 months) to complete their final interview from the date of conditional approval.

Please click the following links for our previous posts on this issue:

COVID-19 Immigration-Related Updates

Trusted Traveler Processing Delays

Authored by Colleen DiNicola in the Immigration Practice at Mintz Levin.

For more on travel restrictions, see the National Law Review Immigration law page.

Full Enforcement of REAL ID Act Set for October 1, 2020

Because some of the 9/11 terrorists used fraudulent driver’s licenses to travel, Congress passed the REAL ID Act in 2005 to comply with the 9/11 Commission’s recommendation that the federal government establish minimum standards for the issuance of forms of identification, such as state driver’s licenses. After many starts, stops, and delays, the deadline set by the government for full enforcement of the Act is October 1, 2020. By that date, individuals must have compliant IDs in order to access certain federal facilities, enter nuclear power plants, and, importantly, board any commercial aircraft – even for in-country flights.

Acceptable identification would include passports, border ID cards, trusted traveler cards, permanent resident cards, and REAL ID-compliant driver’s licenses, among others. For a state driver’s license to be REAL ID-compliant, states must verify that the individual applying for the license is legally in the U.S. and biometrics were used for identification purposes. This was easier said than done. It required setting up new databases and new technologies. Not only is that an expensive proposition for states, many have expressed privacy concerns and some state legislatures blocked compliance.

While most individuals have been able to board aircrafts with state-issued driver’s licenses if the state was compliant with REAL ID or if the state was granted an extension to become compliant, by October 1, 2020, individuals must have identification compliant with REAL ID standards to even pass through security. Minors under 18, travelling with an adult with REAL ID-compliant identification, will not need such documentation.

Most, but not all, REAL ID-compliant driver’s licenses have a black or gold star on the front. States will not automatically send individuals compliant driver’s licenses. Individuals must apply in person and bring identifying documentation, such as a birth certificate or a passport. Individuals with a passport, or one of the other designated documents, may not need a REAL ID-compliant driver’s license. Although DHS has not recommended which form of identification is “best,” the State Department has been encouraging all U.S. citizens to apply for passports. Currently, about 40 percent of Americans have passports. Of course, passports are more expensive than REAL ID-compliant driver’s licenses, but they serve other purposes, such as for international travel.

TSA has launched a public-awareness campaign, including new signs that will be popping up at airports around the country.

This post was written by Brian E. Schield of Jackson Lewis P.C.

Administration Clarifies and Limits Searches of Electronic Devices at Border

On January 4, 2018, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issued Directive 3340-049A, governing border searches of electronic devices. CBP’s new directive updates and provides several improvements over the agency’s initial directive, published nine years ago, regarding the policies and procedures for border searches of electronic devices conducted in furtherance of CBP’s mission. CBP has implemented several key changes that aim to provide travelers with more clarity and protections regarding the procedures for electronic device searches; however, the numerous exceptions included in the new directive may, in practice, allow CBP to bypass some of these protections. Ultimately, the new directive serves as an upgrade over CBP’s initial directive, provides additional protection for travelers by incorporating a reasonable suspicion standard for most “advanced” searches, and provides specific procedures to be followed when travelers assert the attorney–client privilege or the attorney work product doctrine.

Under the new directive, CBP assures travelers that it will protect the rights of individuals against unreasonable search and seizure and ensure privacy protections while accomplishing its enforcement mission. However, it is important to note that travelers carrying electronic devices are guaranteed few protections limiting CBP’s searches and seizures of their devices. CBP regards such searches as integral to protecting border security and aiding in the detection of evidence relating to terrorism and other national security matters, human and cash smuggling, contraband, and child pornography.

New Directive Applies Only to CBP

Importantly, the directive applies only to CBP. Thus, any border search conducted by agents of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) is not subject to the protections of the directive. ICE and HSI are not included in the directive and those agencies have not issued a new policy or directive for their searches.

What Is an Electronic Device?

The directive governs searches of electronic devices conducted by CBP at the physical border, functional equivalent of the border, or the extended border. An “electronic device” is defined as “any device that may contain information in an electronic or digital form, such as computers, tablets, disks, drives, tapes, mobile phones and other communication devices, cameras, music and other media players.”

What Content May Be Searched?

Pursuant to the directive, border searches of electronic devices are limited to “only the information that is resident upon the device,” and officers are prohibited from intentionally using the device to access information that is solely stored remotely. To avoid access to information stored remotely, officers will either request that the traveler disable network connectivity or, where warranted by national security, law enforcement, officer safety, or other operational considerations, the officers themselves will disable network connectivity.

New Distinction Drawn Between Types of Searches

The new directive makes a distinction between “basic” searches, which may be conducted without suspicion, and “advanced” searches, which require officers to have reasonable suspicion of activity in violation of the laws enforced or administered by CBP. The directive also carves out an exception to allow for advanced searches without reasonable suspicion when national security concerns exist. For example, a national security concern may arise in scenarios involving a national security-related lookout in combination with the presence of an individual on a government-operated and government-vetted terrorist watch list. During a basic search, an officer may examine the electronic device and review and analyze information encountered at the border. During an advanced search, an officer connects external equipment to an electronic device not merely to gain access to the device, but to review, copy, and/or analyze its contents.

Protections for the Attorney–Client Privilege and Attorney Work Product Doctrine

The new directive includes detailed procedures for searches that may involve the attorney–client privilege or the attorney work product doctrine. However, CPB’s detailed procedures are not applicable to other sensitive material, such as medical records or business confidential information. When an individual asserts the attorney–client privilege or the attorney work product doctrine, the CBP officer will seek clarification—in writing, if practicable—from the individual asserting privilege to assist CBP in identifying the privileged information. While the directive instructs officers to handle medical records and other work-related or business confidential information in accordance with applicable federal laws and CBP policies, it does not require officers to follow the detailed procedures set forth for searches involving attorney–client privilege or the attorney work-product doctrine, and no new protections have been added for these other types of sensitive material.

Travelers Explicitly Required to Provide Passcodes and Encrypted Information

With regard to passcodes or encrypted information, travelers are obligated to present electronic devices and their contents in a condition that allows inspection. If an officer is unable to complete an inspection because the device is protected by passcode or encryption, the officer may detain the device pending a determination as to its admissibility, exclusion, or other disposition. Additional consequences, such as travel delay or denial of entry may potentially arise if a traveler refuses to provide passcodes or encrypted information.

Detention of Electronic Devices

Searches may take place on-site or off-site and are to be completed as expeditiously as possible. Unless extenuating circumstances exist, the detention of devices ordinarily should not exceed five days.

Impact on Employers

Despite the improved guidance and clarified limits in the new CBP policy, employers may still be at some risk when employees carry electronic devices containing company data during international travel. While the CBP directive contains specific procedures for border searches when confronted with sensitive business confidential information, the directive does not preclude a border search of business confidential information. Thus, employers may wish to consider whether it is feasible to restrict employees from carrying electronic devices containing sensitive company data during international travel. When practicable, some employers already seek to determine whether they can provide “clean” electronic devices to be used by employees during international travel so that the devices do not retain company data. These practices may be effective for many employers since border searches of electronic devices are limited to data resident on the device, and CBP is not permitted to connect devices to external networks.

This post was written by James Nicholas Garilas of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

Revised Travel Ban Coming?

The Trump Administration reportedly may replace the current travel ban with a country-specific set of restrictions.

In June, the Supreme Court allowed the government to begin enforcing the 90-day travel ban against individuals from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen who had no bona fide relationship to the United States. The 90-day ban will expire on September 24. The 120-day ban on refugees also went into effect in June. The Supreme Court plans to hear the full travel ban case on October 10.

The Department of Homeland Security’s recently finalized classified report on screening foreign travelers may support anticipated changes to the travel ban. Substituting a new ban could change the dynamics, potentially making the case before the Supreme Court moot or leading to a remand of the case for further hearing at the lower court level.

The new restrictions are expected to be open-ended and based upon the DHS review and identification of countries with deficient security standards. More than six countries may have been identified. Additional countries could be added to the banned list, others could be removed, and still others might become subject to certain visa restrictions.

For more legal analysis go to The National Law Review

Tag: travel

November 2022 Visa Bulletin – A Warning for EB-2 All Other Countries

Like this:

On the Rise: Bicycle-Related Deaths and Injuries

Bicycle-related deaths and injuries: the statistics