The National Law Forum

D.C. Council Introduces Bill Providing 16 Weeks Of PAID Leave to D.C. Employees

Yesterday (October 6, 2015), 7 of the 13 members of the Council of the District of Columbia introduced the Universal Paid Leave Act of 2015 (the “Act”). If passed, the Act would significantly impact employers and workers in D.C., as the legislation proposes to provide D.C. employees with the most generous statutorily-mandated paid leave benefits in the country.

The bill would establish a universal paid leave system for D.C. residents and workers who are employed in D.C. Under the proposed law, qualified individuals would be eligible to receive up to 16 weeks of paid family and medical leave for certain qualifying events. Qualifying events include the birth or adoption of a child as well as caring for oneself or for a family member with a serious health condition. As proposed, workers earning up to $1,000 per week would be entitled to receive 100% of their average weekly wages. Employees earning over $1,000 per week would be entitled to receive $1,000 per week plus 50% of their income above that amount, up to a maximum benefit of $3,000 per week.

Employees covered under the proposed law include those individuals who have spent over 50% of their work time in D.C. during the year preceding the qualifying event. The Act applies to all private employers in D.C. Although federal government employees and employees who work outside of D.C. are not covered, the Act’s drafters have proposed a plan for those employees to pay a fee to participate in the program.

To fund this benefit, all D.C. employers would be required to pay a scaled percentage of their employees’ wage into a city-managed fund depending on their employees’ earnings. D.C. employers would pay:

1% of their employees’ salary for those earning over $150,000/year;
0.8% of their employees’ salary for those earning between $50,000-$150,000/year;
0.6% of their employees’ salary for those earning between $20,000-$50,000/year; or
0.5% of their employees’ salary for those earning between $10,000-$20,000/year.

If enacted, the Act would obviously place a heavy burden on D.C. employers. Of course, the Act will be subject to much scrutiny and debate before it becomes law. We will monitor its progress in the Council and keep you updated on any developments.

Article By Guy Brenner & Ryan H Hutzler of Proskauer Rose LLP

ECJ Rules EU-US Safe Harbor Programme Is Invalid

The powers of EU data protection authorities are significantly strengthened by the decision, allowing them to suspend some or all personal data flows into the United States in certain circumstances.

In Maximillian Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner (case C-362/14), the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled^[1] that the European Commission decision approving the Safe Harbor programme is invalid. Further, the ECJ ruled that EU data protection authorities do have powers to investigate complaints about the transfer of personal data outside Europe (whether by Safe Harbor-certified organisations or otherwise, but excluding countries deemed as having “adequate” data protection laws according to the EU). Finally, the ECJ ruled that data protection authorities can, where justified, suspend data transfers outside Europe until their investigations are completed.

Safe Harbor Programme

According to the European Commission, the United States is a country with “inadequate” data protection laws. The European Commission and the US Department of Commerce, therefore, agreed in 2000 to a self-certification programme for US organisations that receive personal data from Europe. Pursuant to the self-certification programme, a US organisation receiving personal data from Europe must certify that it adhered to certain standards of data processing comparable with EU data protection laws such that the EU citizens’ personal data was treated as adequately as if their personal data had remained in Europe. The Safe Harbor programme is operated by the US Department of Commerce and enforced by the Federal Trade Commission. Over 4,000 organisations have current self-certifications of adherence to Safe Harbor principles.^[2]

The Schrems Case

Mr. Schrems complained in Irish legal proceedings that the Irish Data Protection Commissioner refused to investigate his complaint that the Safe Harbor programme failed to protect adequately personal data after its transfer to the US in light of revelations about the National Security Agency’s (NSA’s) PRISM programme. The question of whether EU data protection authorities have the power to investigate complaints about the Safe Harbor programme was referred to the ECJ. Yves Bot, Advocate General at the ECJ, said in an opinion released on 23 September 2015 that the Safe Harbor programme does not currently do enough to protect EU citizens’ personal data because such data was transferred to US authorities in the course of “mass and indiscriminate surveillance and interception of such data” from Safe Harbor-certified organisations. Mr. Bot was of the opinion that the Irish Data Protection Commissioner, therefore, had the power to investigate complaints about Safe Harbor-certified organisations and, if there were “exceptional circumstances in which the suspension of specific data flows should be justified”, to suspend the data transfers pending the outcome of its investigation.

The ECJ followed Mr. Bot’s opinion and, further, declared that the European Commission’s decision to approve the Safe Harbor programme in 2000 was “invalid” on the basis that US laws fail to protect personal data transferred to US state authorities pursuant to derogations of “national security, public law or law enforcement requirements”. Furthermore, EU citizens do not have adequate rights of redress when their personal data protection rights are breached by US authorities.

The EU-US Data Protection Umbrella Agreement

In the last two years, the European Commission and various data protection working parties have discussed ways to improve the Safe Harbor programme and strengthen rights for EU citizens in cases where their personal data is transferred to the United States. Recently, the United States and European Union finalised a data protection umbrella agreement to provide minimum privacy protections for personal data transferred between EU and US authorities for law enforcement purposes. The umbrella agreement will provide certain protections to ensure that personal data is protected when exchanged between police and criminal justice authorities of the United States and the European Union. The umbrella agreement, however, does not apply to personal data shared with national security agencies.

The umbrella agreement also provides that EU citizens will have the right to seek judicial redress before US courts where US authorities deny access or rectification or unlawfully disclose their personal data. Currently, US citizens have the right to seek judicial redress in the European Union if their data—transferred for law enforcement purposes—is misused by EU law enforcement authorities. EU citizens, however, do not have corresponding rights of redress in the United States. A judicial redress bill has been introduced in the US House of Representatives; adoption of the bill would allow the United States and European Union to finalise the umbrella agreement.

Key Findings of the ECJ Decision

The key findings of the ECJ decision are as follows (quotes indicate excerpts from the ruling itself):

“The guarantee of independence of national supervisory authorities is intended to ensure the effectiveness and reliability of the monitoring of compliance with the provisions concerning protection of individuals”.

The powers of supervisory authorities include “effective powers of intervention, such as that of imposing a temporary or definitive ban on processing of data, and the power to engage in legal proceedings”.

The Safe Harbor programme “cannot prevent persons whose personal data has been or could be transferred to a third country from lodging with the national supervisory authorities a claim. . .concerning the protection of their rights and freedoms”.

National courts can consider the validity of the Safe Harbor programme, but only the ECJ can declare that it is invalid.

Where the national data protection authorities find that complaints regarding the protection of personal data by Safe Harbor-certified companies are well-founded, they “must. . .be able to engage in legal proceedings”.

Organisations self-certified under the Safe Harbor programme are permitted to “disregard” the Safe Harbor principles to comply with US national security, public interest, or law enforcement requirements.

There is no provision in the Safe Harbor programme for protection for EU citizens against US authorities who gain access to their personal data transferred to the United States pursuant to the Safe Harbor programme. There is only a provision for commercial dispute resolution.

The EU Data Protection Directive^[3] “requires derogations and limitations in relation to the protection of personal data to apply only in so far as is strictly necessary”, but there is no such requirement applicable in the United States following the transfer of personal data pursuant to the Safe Harbor programme.

The Safe Harbor programme “fails to comply with the requirements” to protect personal data to the “adequate” standard required by the EU Data Protection Directive and is “accordingly invalid”.

Other Options to Transfer Personal Data to the United States

Safe Harbor-certified organisations should note that there are other options to transfer personal data to the United States, including express consent and the use of Binding Corporate Rules or EU-approved model clause agreements. Organisations using Safe Harbor-certified vendors may wish to discuss these other options with their vendors. There is, however, a risk that this decision could affect these other options, as national security derogations are likely to override the protection of personal data regardless of how it is transferred, with the only exception being the specific and informed consent of an individual to the transfer of his or her personal data to governmental authorities for national security purposes.

Conclusion

The ECJ decision is likely to take the European Commission by surprise.

The powers of national data protection authorities are significantly strengthened by this decision. They could allow data protection authorities to suspend some or all personal data flows into the United States in serious circumstances and where there is a justifiable reason to do so. There is a risk that a data protection authority could order that the data transfers by an international organisation outside of Europe be suspended from that jurisdiction, whereas data transfers in other European jurisdictions are permitted. To mitigate this risk, the European Commission is entitled to issue EU-wide “adequacy decisions” for consistency purposes.

The European Commission has today announced that it intends to release guidance for Safe Harbor-certified companies within the next two weeks.

Article By Stephanie A. “Tess” Blair, Dr. Axel Spies & Pulina Whitaker of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
Copyright © 2015 by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. All Rights Reserved.

_{[1] See Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) (6 October 2015)}

_{[2] See Safe Harbor List.}

_{[3] Directive 95/46/EC}

Attend the Women, Influence and Power in Law Conference, October 28-30 in Washington D.C.

Where women influence power in law : The Capital Hilton, Washington D.C.

When: October 28-30, 2015

The annual Women, Influence & Power in Law Conference offers an opportunity for unprecedented exchange with women outside counsel. This unique event was created with the assistance of an unheralded advisory board comprised of high ranking women General Counsel or direct reports to the GC and were drawn from across the country. These attorneys have the highest levels of expertise and experience in key practice areas.

The Women, Influence & Power in Law Conference is not a forum for lawyers to discuss so-called “women’s issues.” It is a conference for women in-house and outside counsel to discuss current legal topics, bringing their individual experience and perspectives on issues of:

Governance & Compliance
Litigation & Investigations
Intellectual Property
Government Relations & Public Policy
Global Litigation & Transactions
Labor & Employment
Executive Leadership Skills Development

Who Should Attend

Chief Legal Officers
General Counsel
Corporate Counsel
Associate General Counsel
CEOs
Senior Counsel
Corporate Compliance Officers

BTI West is coming back for a 3rd year! Register for the Bank and Capital Markets Tax Institute West – December 3-4 in San Diego

When: December 3-4, 2015
Where: The Westin San Diego, San Diego, California

We are proud to announce that BTI West will be coming back for a third year! For 49 years the annual BTI East in Orlando has provided bank and tax professionals from financial institutions and accounting firms in-depth analysis and practical solutions to the most pressing issues facing the industry, and from now on professionals on the west coast can expect the same benefits on a regular basis.The tax landscape is continually changing; you need to know how these changes affect your organization and identify the most efficient and effective plan of action. At BTI West you will have access to the same exceptional content, networking opportunities and educational value that have made the annual BTI East the benchmark event for this industry.

In an industry that thrives on both coasts, we will continue to offer exceptional educational and networking opportunities to ALL of the hard-working banking and tax professionals across the country. Join us at the 2nd Annual Bank and Capital Markets Tax Institute WEST, where essential updates will be provided on key industry topics such as General Banking, Community Banking, GAAP, Tax and Regulatory Reporting, and much more.

The Bank Tax & Capital Markets Institute Conference – West will feature a full one-day program consisting of keynote presentation, deep-dive technical sessions, and peer exchange and networking time.

U.S. Consulates, Embassies Closed Friday October 9th for Systems Upgrade

Operations will be closed at U.S. Embassies and Consulates around the world on Friday, October 9th, for a systems upgrade.

“Although the closure was not publicly announced by the State Department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs, a DOS official confirmed to Law360 that consular operations across the globe will be off-limits to the public next Friday, thanks to a “consular systems upgrade.

“This is a vital step toward fully retiring our old Consular Consolidated Database infrastructure and moving to a larger, faster and more modern infrastructure,” the official said. “This upgrade will bring greater stability to our operations and will allow us to replace outdated hardware and software.”

Individuals with appointments scheduled for Friday are advised to reschedule.

Color us skeptical, after this summer’s debacle, but here’s hoping that this upgrade will go smoothly.

Article By Danielle Lifrieri, Immigration Practice Mintz Levin of Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

Once and Future Legal Profession – 10 things (plus 4) Lawyers Had in 19th Century They Should Get Back

Coming out of the 19^th Century, practicing law was an almost unimaginably great way to live.

The work was knowledge work and, by and large, it was challenging.
The practice entailed a craft to be mastered – both in terms of knowledge and experience, and also in terms of analytical and persuasive skills. Lawyer skills enhanced life skills. They developed judgment.
The work was meaningful. It made a difference in the lives of clients who had personal connections with their lawyers.
The profession itself was set apart. Its members had attended the same or similar schools, and had read and studied the same literature and culture. There was a high level of trust among practitioners.
Many lawyers practiced by themselves, controlling their own comings and goings, while regularly associating fellow lawyers as needed. Others practiced in small, personal partnerships. Experienced lawyers helped new lawyers learn the practice, regardless of firm memberships.
Lawyers’ work contributed in a vital way to the system of justice, and also to a growing system of business and commerce.
Lawyers were compensated based on value delivered and the clients’ ability to pay. There was a grounded sense that lawyers had an obligation to render services for the public good without pay in appropriate cases.
There were no timesheets. There was no billing software. There were no hourly rates, and no billable-hours quotas.
Lawyers commonly earned a good living, often by investing alongside their clients in new ventures and being involved in the operations of those and other businesses; or, more simply, by farming while they also practiced law.
Commonly, lawyers played leading roles in the civic and cultural affairs of their communities, both as a matter of interest and perceived duty, and also because it promoted their law practices.
The technologies used in legal work imposed a slower pace on professional life.
Lawyers’ public and private roles were not separated. Few perceived a need to balance different aspects of their lives.
There was little need for lawyers to get up early in the morning.
For the most part, lawyers were not called upon to lift or carry heavy things.

Why would anybody screw that up?

Current developments in the legal profession and in the broader workplace offer the hope that a 21^st Century version of what was lost can be recaptured.

Legal services technologies and artificial intelligence, alternative legal services providers, networking capabilities, and communications technologies – these are tools that relieve practitioners of the need to perform high-volume, routine tasks. They enable new forms of collaboration. They can support newly envisioned, smaller, more cohesive, and more creative professional associations.

This will require differently trained lawyers, and new kinds of legal services providers. For lawyers and the schools who prepare them, it will require rethinking legal education, and a new understanding of organizational development, talent management and professional development.

Those things will come, albeit not rapidly. Some heavy lifting may be required.

Article By Edward C. Winslow III of Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, LLP

Obergefell Uncertainty re: Same Sex Spousal Benefits

On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court removed a cloud of uncertainty for same-sex couples when it ruled, in the landmark decision of Obergefell v. Hodges, that the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment require all states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples seeking to marry and to recognize same-sex marriages lawfully performed in other states. We previously discussed the ruling in our blog post, Same-Sex Marriage Decision: Uniformity in All States. However, as discussed below, the Obergefell ruling left at least two unanswered questions.

Retroactivity

Justice Kennedy’s opinion for the majority in Obergefell did not state whether the decision should be applied retroactively. Retroactive application could require employers to revisit their past practices in providing employee benefits to same-sex couples. To date, no guidance has been issued by the IRS or other federal agencies to assist employers in this respect. Some news outlets have reported that the Social Security Administration intends to apply the Obergefell decision retroactively, but to date no official guidance has emerged.

The retroactivity conundrum is highlighted in at least two lawsuits initiated in Federal courts over the past year that challenge employers’ denials of health benefits to the same-sex spouses of employees.

In Cote v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., an employee sought repeatedly to have her same-sex spouse added to her health insurance but was denied. While Wal-Mart did extend benefits to same-sex spouses in the wake of the Windsor decision, the employee and her spouse had accumulated significant medical bills prior to Windsor. The employee is challenging Wal-Mart’s pre-Windsor denials and is seeking class-action status for the suit.
In Considine v. Brookdale Senior Living, an employee’s request to have her same-sex spouse added to her health plan was denied because Brookdale Senior Living did not offer health insurance coverage to same-sex spouses. After requesting briefs in mid-July on the impact of the Obergefell decision, the court recently sent the parties to arbitration based on an arbitration clause in Ms. Considine’s employment agreement.

In both of these cases the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) found probable cause that the defendants had discriminated against the plaintiffs on the basis of their gender, a theory the EEOC has advanced in such cases since 2012.

Some courts interpreting state law have already found in favor of the retroactive recognition of same-sex marriages, including a federal court in Alabama and a state court in Pennsylvania. The Alabama case involved a wrongful death suit where state law required damages to be distributed under the laws of intestate succession. The plaintiff prevailed in having his same-sex marriage recognized retroactively and received the proceeds of the suit, even though the marriage ceremony was performed in 2011 and the plaintiff’s same-sex spouse died that same year, which was before Alabama recognized same sex marriage.

In the Pennsylvania case, the plaintiff sought to receive spousal death benefits from various benefits providers, inheritance tax treatment as a spouse, and access to a jointly-owned safety deposit box following the death of her common-law same-sex spouse. Finding in the plaintiff’s favor, a state judge recognized the 2001 same-sex common law marriage despite the fact that it was not recognized under state law when celebrated, and the plaintiff’s same-sex spouse died before same-sex marriage was recognized in Pennsylvania.

Self-Insured Health Plans

Another lingering question concerns Obergefell’s effect on employers that sponsor self-insured health plans. After Obergefell, will state and/or federal anti-discrimination laws require those plans to offer benefits to same-sex spouses? ERISA generally preempts state regulation of self-insured health plans, and there is nothing in ERISA or other federal law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. Obergefell does not appear to apply. However, as noted above, the EEOC has taken the position that discrimination against an employee based on the employee’s sexual orientation equates to discrimination based on gender. The EEOC’s approach is currently being tested in the courts. In the meantime, any employer that elects not to offer self-insured medical benefits to spouses of same-sex couples risks attracting the attention of the EEOC.

Article By Jeremy T. Coffey, William B. Duff, Edward Spacapan Jr, B. Frank Thorn

Schiff Hardin LLP

Legal Marketing Stats Lawyers Need to Know

Using market trends to inform your law firm marketing efforts is a must for solos and small firms that have limited budgets and resources to market their firms.

Google recently aggregated research from FindLaw and its own inhouse data to provide a look at the legal market trends that should shape your legal marketing initiatives:

74% of prospects beginning a search online end up contacting the office via phone. (FindLaw U.S. Consumer Legal Needs Survey 2014)

87% of people who contact an attorney go on to hire an attorney and 72% of them only contact one attorney. (FindLaw U.S. Consumer Legal Needs Survey 2014)

96% of people seeking legal advice use a search engine. (Google Consumer Survey, Nov 2013)

38% of people use the Internet to find an attorney. (FindLaw U.S. Consumer Legal Needs Survey 2014)

62% of legal searches are non-branded (i.e., generic: “Phoenix divorce attorney,” etc.). (FindLaw U.S. Consumer Legal Needs Survey 2014)

74% of consumers visit a law firm’s website to take action. (Google Legal Services Study Sept 2013)

25% of people researching legal topics visit YouTube during the process. (YouTube Internal Data 2012)

85% use online maps to find legal service locations. (Google Legal Services Study Sept 2013)

69% use both a smartphone and a PC for research. (Google Legal Services Study Sept 2013)

31% of all law firm related website traffic comes through mobile search (FindLaw Aggregated Hosted Site Data 2014)

71% of people looking for lawyer think it is important to have a local attorney. (FindLaw U.S. Consumer Legal Needs Survey 2014)

So what do you need to do to convert leads based on these facts? Here are a few action steps:

Provide multiple contact options — phone, email, online chat, etc.

Provide a mobile-friendly version of your website.

Have an intake system that allows consumers to reach your firm on the first call and intake specialists trained to convert consumers into clients.

Concentrate on local SEO to ensure your website shows up well in local search.

Article By Stephen Fairley of The Rainmaker Institute

Practice What You Preach – Yoga Remains Uncopyrightable, for Now

Bikram Choudhury is famous for being the world’s most successful – and eccentric – yoga guru, and the pioneer of his self-branded, mass marketed Bikram Yoga. Bikram Yoga consists of a sequence of 26 yoga poses, or asanas, and two breathing exercises, performed in a very hot room (100 degrees!) for 90 minutes. The term Bikram Yoga is protected by trademark, but you will see similar yoga practices referred to generically as “hot yoga.” Mr. Choudhury has also been the subject of certain lawsuits filed by women who attended his wildly successful nine-week hot yoga teacher training course (which can cost up to $10,000). But whatever you think about Mr. Choudhury, one thing is clear – he doesn’t want anybody else teaching his specific hot yoga sequence.

Mr. Choudhury has probably come under more fire for his attempt to lock up his hot yoga sequence than he has for his other legal issues. That’s because yoga and intellectual property rights are not ideal bedmates. Yoga is an ancient practice that teaches liberation and growth, while intellectual property tends to be about what’s mine and not yours. To many, trying to “own” yoga in any way is antithetical to the very spirit and purpose of the yoga practice.

But going against the grain does not bother Mr. Choudhury. Mr. Choudhury owns a copyright registration for his Bikram Yoga sequence, attained as a supplemental registration to a 1979 copyright he owns in his book Bikram’s Beginning Yoga Class, which describes the sequence. He has sued several prior students who took his course, went out on their own, and began teaching a 26-pose “hot yoga” course which, Mr. Choudury alleges, is too similar to his own. In response to Mr. Choudhury’s efforts to lock up this particular sequence of poses, Open Source Yoga Unity, an organization for the “continued natural unfettered development of yoga for all to enjoy,” sought a court’s ruling that Mr. Choudhury does not have valid copyright in the Bikram Yoga sequence.

The details of the various legal battles (many of which resolved by settlement before a decision on the merits) are very well explained on Open Source Yoga Unity’s Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/yogaunity). The key take-aways, so far, are that each yoga asana, itself, is firmly in the public domain. The dispute is only with respect to the specific sequence of 26 yoga asanas that Mr. Choudhury claims to have been the first to select and arrange, as well as all derivatives that are “substantially similar” to the original sequence. See Open Source Yoga Unity v. Choudhury, 2005 WL 756558 (N.D. Cal. April 1, 2005). Resolution of Mr. Choudhury’s copyright claims revolves around whether his hot yoga sequence is a creative expression, copyrightable as choreography, or merely uncopyrightable functional physical movements. Id. Most team sports activities, for example, aren’t copyrightable because they are unscripted and don’t involve a fixed routine of motions. See, e.g., National Basketball Association and NBA Prop., Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 105 F.3d 841, 846 (2d Cir. 1997) (no copyright in basketball games). Hot yoga would appear to fall somewhere between basketball and ballet. Exactly where yoga falls on this continuum of creativity remains to be determined.

In 2012, the United States Copyright Office issued a policy statement, stating that yoga sequences are “not the equivalent to a pantomime or a choreographic work” and “could not be protected as compilations[.]” The Copyright Office recognized that it had been an error allowing Mr. Choudhury to file his supplemental registration, and that no other registrations of that type would be allowed. You have to wonder if Mr. Choudhury smiled at that – not only does he own a registration for his yoga sequence, but nobody else ever will!

But, the Copyright Office’s Policy Statement is merely that; it is not law. In Open Source Yoga, seven years prior, the court held that while “application of the law of compilations to yoga asanas appears to violate the spirit of yoga,” it was “unable to locate any authority that precludes such application.” Therefore, if the trier of fact determined that a sufficient number of individual yoga asanas are arranged in a sufficiently creative manner, copyright protection would be available. The case settled outside of court. In a case filed after the Copyright Office’s Policy Statement, the court agreed with the Statement, holding that where the poses are said to result in improvements in one’s health or physical or mental condition, as Mr. Choudhury claims they do, they are not copyrightable. Bikram’s Yoga College of India, L.P. v. Evolation Yoga, LLC, 2012 WL 6548505 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2012). Mr. Choudhury promptly appealed this ruling and, as of this article, we await a decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

For now, the ancient yoga teachings of liberation, spirituality, and healing carry the day. But, given Mr. Choudhury’s litigiousness and the uncertainty of the pending appeal, yogis still have to look over their shoulders when teaching Mr. Choudhury’s particular brand of hot yoga.

Article By Nadya Davis of Holland & Hart LLP

2017 Diversity Visa Lottery Registration Began Yesterday

On October 1, 2015, the US Department of State will began accepting requests to register for the 2017 Diversity Immigrant Visa Program (DV-2017), also known as the Green Card Lottery. The Diversity Lottery Program provides a path for foreign nationals to become permanent residents of the United States regardless of whether they have a family member or an employer willing to sponsor them. This program is a success, facilitating the immigration of people from across the globe. If you meet the eligibility requirements and wish to secure permanent residence status in the United States, you should consider registration in the lottery.

Registration begins October 1, 2015

The State Department will open online registration for the DV-2017 Program on Tuesday, October 1, 2015, at 12:00 noon, Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) (GMT-4), and conclude on Tuesday, November 3, 2015, at 12:00 noon, Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) (GMT-4). Individuals who meet the eligibility requirements and submit an application during the appointed time will be entered into a lottery from which 50‚000 green card entries will be selected. Applications must be submitted electronically by 12:00 noon EDT on Tuesday, November 3, 2015. Detailed instructions are at http://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/immigrate/diversity-visa/instructions.html.

There is no fee to register for consideration in the lottery. Entries may not be submitted through the US Postal Service.

Am I eligible for a green card if I am selected in the lottery?

Selection in the lottery does not guarantee the applicant a green card; applicants must still meet all standards for admissibility and be able to process their green cards within the allotted time. Immediate family members of successful lottery applicants are eligible for green cards as well, provided they meet the same admissibility standards. Individuals who are selected and eligible for one of the 50,000 visa numbers may either secure an immigrant visa at a US Embassy or Consulate or, if they are in the United States and qualified to do so, adjust their status by filing an application and supporting documentation with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

What countries are eligible?

Lottery visas are apportioned to foreign nationals hailing from the following six geographic regions: Africa; Asia; Europe; North America; Oceania; and South America‚ Central America, and the Caribbean. To qualify‚ a foreign national must claim nativity or country of birth in an eligible country and meet certain education or work experience requirements. The purpose of the program is to diversify and encourage immigration from countries that send lower numbers of immigrants to the United States.

Excluded Countries

Not all countries in the six eligible regions fall within the Green Card Lottery program. Natives of these countries will not be eligible for the DV-2017 Lottery: Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, China (mainland-born), Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, the Philippines, South Korea, United Kingdom (except Northern Ireland) and its dependent territories, and Vietnam. This list is unchanged from last year.

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

How do I know if I was selected in the lottery?

Official notifications of selection will be made through Entrant Status Check, available starting May 3, 2016, at the diversity lottery site.

Please note that the Department of State does not send selectee notifications or letters by regular postal mail or by e-mail. Any e-mail notification or mailed letter stating that you have been selected to receive a DV does not come from the Department of State and is not legitimate. Any e-mail communication you receive from the Department of State will direct you to review Entrant Status Check for new information about your application.

Article By Douglas Hauer, Kevin R. McNamara, William L. Coffman & Barbara Chin of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

The National Law Forum

D.C. Council Introduces Bill Providing 16 Weeks Of PAID Leave to D.C. Employees

Like this:

ECJ Rules EU-US Safe Harbor Programme Is Invalid

Safe Harbor Programme

The Schrems Case

The EU-US Data Protection Umbrella Agreement

Key Findings of the ECJ Decision

Like this:

Attend the Women, Influence and Power in Law Conference, October 28-30 in Washington D.C.

Who Should Attend

Like this:

BTI West is coming back for a 3rd year! Register for the Bank and Capital Markets Tax Institute West – December 3-4 in San Diego

Like this:

U.S. Consulates, Embassies Closed Friday October 9th for Systems Upgrade

Like this:

Once and Future Legal Profession – 10 things (plus 4) Lawyers Had in 19th Century They Should Get Back

Like this:

Obergefell Uncertainty re: Same Sex Spousal Benefits

Like this:

Practice What You Preach – Yoga Remains Uncopyrightable, for Now

Like this:

2017 Diversity Visa Lottery Registration Began Yesterday

Like this: