Tag: Immigration

Holiday Update on USCIS Processing Time for I-526, I-829, and I-924 Petitions

Greenberg Traurig Law firm

Earlier this month, USCIS released updated processing times for EB-5 related petitions.  The following chart provides the average processing times for cases being adjudicated by the Immigrant Investor Program Office (IPO) as of October 31, 2014:

Form

Processing Timeframe as of December 11, 2014

I-526

14.7 months

I-829

8.6 months

I-924

9 months

Based on previously released processing time data issued in July 2014, the current processing time for all three petitions has unfortunately increased.  During the December 5, 2014 EB-5 Public Engagement, Nicholas Colucci, Chief of the Immigrant Investor Program Office, explained the IPO’s operational plan for FY 2015 includes streamlining I-526  petition adjudications on a first-in first-out basis.

USCIS reminds I-526 applicants that tools are available for checking the status of a filing online at www.uscis.gov or through an email to USCIS.ImmigrantInvestorProgram@uscis.dhs.gov for cases which are pending beyond the above referenced processing times.

ARTICLE BY

Ali Brodie
OF
Greenberg Traurig, LLP

Department of State Releases January 2015 Visa Bulletin

Cutoff dates in the EB-2 India category remain severely backlogged, cutoff dates in EB-3 for the Rest of the World advance by seven months, cutoff dates for China advance by nine months, and EB-3 China is still ahead of EB-2 China.

The U.S. Department of State (DOS) has released its January 2015 Visa Bulletin. The Visa Bulletin sets out per-country priority date cutoffs that regulate the flow of adjustment of status (AOS) and consular immigrant visa applications. Foreign nationals may file applications to adjust their statuses to that of permanent residents or to obtain approval of immigrant visas at a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad, provided that their priority dates are prior to the respective cutoff dates specified by the DOS.

What Does the January 2015 Visa Bulletin Say?

The January 2015 Visa Bulletin shows no change in the cutoff date for the EB-2 India category. EB-3 cutoff dates for the worldwide category will advance by seven months, and the EB-3 cutoff dates for China will advance by nine months.

The cutoff date for F2A applicants from all countries will advance slightly in January.

EB-1: All EB-1 categories will remain current.

EB-2: The cutoff date for applicants in the EB-2 category chargeable to India will remain at February 15, 2005. The cutoff date for applicants in the EB-2 category chargeable to China will advance to February 1, 2010. The EB-2 category for all other countries will remain current.

EB-3: The cutoff date for applicants in the EB-3 category chargeable to India will advance by 14 days to December 15, 2003. The cutoff date for applicants in the EB-3 category chargeable to China will advance by nine months to March 1, 2011, which remains ahead of the cutoff date for EB-2 China. The cutoff date for applicants in the EB-3 category chargeable to the Philippines, Mexico, and the worldwide category will advance by seven months to June 1, 2013.

The relevant priority date cutoffs for foreign nationals in the EB-3 category are as follows:

China: March 1, 2011 (forward movement of 273 days)
India: December 15, 2003 (forward movement of 14 days)
Mexico: June 1, 2013 (forward movement of 213 days)
Philippines: June 1, 2013 (forward movement of 213 days)
Rest of the World: June 1, 2013 (forward movement of 213 days)

Developments Affecting the EB-2 Employment-Based Category

Mexico, the Philippines, and the Rest of the World

The EB-2 category for applicants chargeable to all countries other than China and India has been current since November 2012. The January Visa Bulletin indicates no change to this trend. This means that applicants in the EB-2 category chargeable to all countries other than China and India may continue to file AOS applications or have applications approved through January 2015.

China

The December Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of January 1, 2010 for EB-2 applicants chargeable to China. The January Visa Bulletin indicates a cutoff date of February 1, 2010, reflecting forward movement of 31 days. This means that applicants in the EB-2 category chargeable to China with a priority date prior to February 1, 2010 may file AOS applications or have applications approved in January 2015.

India

The cutoff date for EB-2 applicants chargeable to India remains at February 15, 2005. This means that only applicants in the EB-2 category chargeable to India with a priority date prior to February 15, 2005 may file AOS applications or have applications approved in January 2015.

Developments Affecting the EB-3 Employment-Based Category

China

The December Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of June 1, 2010. The January Visa Bulletin shows a cutoff date of March 1, 2011, an advancement of nine months. This means that applicants in the EB-3 category chargeable to China with a priority date prior to March 1, 2011 may file AOS applications or have applications approved in January 2015.

India

The December Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of December 1, 2003. The January Visa Bulletin will advance slightly, with a cutoff date of December 15, 2003. This means that EB-3 applicants chargeable to India with a priority date prior to December 15, 2003 may file AOS applications or have applications approved in January 2015.

Rest of the World

The December Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of June 1, 2012 for EB-3 applicants chargeable to the worldwide category. The January Visa Bulletin indicates a cutoff date of November 1, 2012, reflecting forward movement of 153 days. This means that applicants in the EB-3 category chargeable to the worldwide category with a priority date prior to November 1, 2012 may file AOS applications or have applications approved in January 2015.

Developments Affecting the F2A Family-Sponsored Category

The December Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of January 1, 2013 for F2A applicants from Mexico. The January Visa Bulletin indicates a cutoff date of February 22, 2013, reflecting forward movement of 43 days. This means that applicants from Mexico with a priority date prior to February 22, 2013 will be able to file AOS applications or have applications approved in January 2015.

The December Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of March 22, 2013 for F2A applicants from all other countries. The January Visa Bulletin indicates a cutoff date of April 15, 2013, reflecting forward movement of 21 days. This means that F2A applicants from all other countries with a priority date prior to April 15, 2013 will be able to file AOS applications or have applications approved in January 2015.

Developments in the Coming Months

As noted in last month’s alert, the DOS Visa Office predicts the following movement in the next three months:

F2A Family-Sponsored Category

  • The cutoff date in the F2A category will likely advance by three to five weeks per month.

Employment-Based Second Preference Category

  • The worldwide category will likely remain current.

  • The cutoff date in the EB-2 China category will likely advance by three to five weeks per month.

  • The cutoff date in the EB-2 India category will likely remain unchanged.

Employment-Based Third Preference Category

  • The cutoff date in the EB-3 worldwide category will continue to advance rapidly for the next several months. Demand is expected to increase significantly, at which point, the cutoff dates will be adjusted accordingly.

  • The cutoff date in the EB-3 China category is expected to advance rapidly in the next few months. Demand is expected to increase and may result in adjustments to the cutoff date by February 2015.

  • The cutoff date in the EB-3 India category will advance little, if at all.

  • The cutoff date in the EB-3 Mexico category will remain at the worldwide date.

  • The cutoff date in the EB-3 Philippines category will remain at the worldwide date. Increased demand in this category may result in adjustments to the cutoff date later in the fiscal year.

How This Affects You

Priority date cutoffs are assessed on a monthly basis by the DOS, based on anticipated demand. Cutoff dates can move forward or backward or remain static. Employers and employees should take the immigrant visa backlogs into account in their long-term planning and take measures to mitigate their effects. To see the January 2015 Visa Bulletin in its entirety, please visit the DOS website.

ARTICLE BY

Eric S. Bord
Lisa Stephanian Burton
Tracy Evlogidis
Eleanor Pelta
A. James Vázquez-Azpiri
Roland C. Lechner
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

A New Judge is in Town to Rule on I-9 Violation Penalties

Greenberg Traurig Law firm

Last week Stacy Stiffel Paddack was announced as the newest Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) at the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO). Judge Paddack will rule on the proper penalty in immigration compliance (Form I-9 violations) cases brought by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Welcome aboard, Judge Paddack.

The statutory range for I-9 violations is $110 – $1100 per defective Form I-9. In calculating the proposed penalty amount for I-9 violations, ICE divides the number of violations by the number of employees for which a Form I-9 should have been prepared to obtain a violation percentage. This percentage is used as a baseline fine amount, with deviations available depending on factors such as whether or not this is the employer’s first offense, size of the employer, and whether unauthorized aliens were working for the employer. ICE applies a mechanical calculation when determining the penalty amount and there is little discretion exercised benefitting the employer. ICE’s standard fine amounts are listed in the table below:

 

Standard Fine Amount
Substantive Verification Violations 1st Offense
$110 – $1100		 2nd Offense
$110 – $1100		 3rd Offense +
$110 – $1100

0% – 9%

$110

$550

$1,100

10% – 19%

$275

$650

$1,100

20% – 29%

$440

$750

$1,100

30% – 39%

$605

$850

$1,100

40% – 49%

$770

$950

$1,100

50% or more

$935

$1,100

$1,100

OCAHO is not bound by ICE’s methodology, and ALJs like Judge Paddack can consider factors not included in ICE’s chart when determining the proper penalty amount, such as ability to pay the proposed penalty and any deterrent effect of the proposed penalty, and can weigh the different factors unequally. A review of OCAHO decisions reveals that the final penalty amount ordered by OCAHO is often significantly lower than the figure on the ICE penalty chart.

ARTICLE BY

Scott T. Decker
OF
Greenberg Traurig, LLP

Law Professors’ Letter Advocate that Executive Authority to Extend Deportation Deferrals

Jackson Lewis Law firm

On December 3, 2014, NBC News reportedly obtained a November 3 letter written by Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Stephen Legomsky, Hiroshi Motomura, and Michael Olivas – four distinguished immigration law professors. The professors did not take a position on who should be included in the President’s executive action, but instead advocate that the President is not limited in using prosecutorial discretion to individuals whose dependents are lawfully present in the United States. The professors further encourage the Administration to consider the “broad prosecutorial discretion grounded in the Constitution and other laws of the United States.”

Interestingly, this letter preceded the President’s announcement and advocates a broader use of prosecutorial discretion than the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel. As discussed in another blog post, 17 states are suing the Administration over immigration executive actions.

Obama’s executive action is of major significance to businesses because it includes development of heretofore unavailable mechanisms for certain individuals to gain lawful employment status as well as addressing issues related to individuals in the US in H-1B and H-4 status, such as work authorization for dependent spouses. The potential   for up to 5 million individuals gaining lawful work status has broad implications for employers who may discover that existing workers are undocumented or have questions about employing workers with temporary work permission.  Employers are cautioned however that implementing regulations may not be issued for several months, so taking a wait and see attitude rather than initiating discussions with their workforce may be the most prudent course at this time.

ARTICLE BY

Nicola Ai Ling Prall
OF
Jackson Lewis P.C.

President Obama’s Executive Orders on Immigration – Interagency Cooperation and DOL Initiatives

Godfrey Kahn Law Firm

On November 20, 2014, President Obama announced a series of executive actions designed to reduce the strain on the country’s immigration system.  Many of these policies will have a direct effect on employers and the business community and demonstrate that the increased interagency cooperation and enforcement we have seen in recent years will continue.

Visa Application, Passport

The President has ordered the creation of an interagency working group consisting of U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to identify policies and procedures to promote the consistent enforcement of labor, employment and immigration laws.  Two of the topics the working group will review include 1) promoting worker cooperation with enforcement authorities without fear of retaliation based on immigration status, and 2) ensuring that employers do not use federal agencies to undermine worker protection laws by introducing immigration authorities into labor disputes.  DOL’s interagency working group fact sheet is available here.  This interagency group appears to be ready to continue the DOL-DHS discussions that began with the signing in March 2011 of a Memorandum of Understanding (which has since been revised) between those two agencies governing their coordination with respect to their various civil enforcement activities and avoidance of conflicts.

DOL has also proposed to review the permanent labor certification program (PERM), which is used to certify a shortage of U.S. workers who are able, willing and qualified to fill certain positions.  This certification is a necessary prerequisite for many employment-based legal permanent residence processes.  For example, DOL has reported that employers filed more than 70,000 PERM applications seeking to certify shortages of U.S. workers for specific positions in fiscal year 2014.  Among other key changes, DOL will attempt to modernize the PERM program so that it can identify worker shortages more effectively.  This part of the President’s directives will hopefully have a positive impact on employers trying to fill positions for which the pool of qualified applicants is limited.  DOL’s PERM fact sheet is available here.

Other initiatives flowing from the President’s announcement but whose details are not yet known include improved allocation of immigrant (legal permanent resident) visas; increased portability of work authorization without jeopardizing a pending legal permanent resident process; expanded work authorization for students, recent graduates and the spouses of certain professional-level workers; and efforts to increase the number of investors eligible to enter the country.

ARTICLE BY

Gene T. Schaeffer, Jr.
Monica Santa Maria
OF
Godfrey & Kahn S.C.

Immigration Developments for Highly Skilled Workers: Changes the Business Community Can Expect as a Result of President Obama’s Executive Action on Immigration Reform

Mintz Levin Law Firm

On Thursday, November 20th, coinciding with President Obama’s announcement regarding his forthcoming executive action on immigration, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Jeh Johnson issued a memo to the directors of US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) directing the agencies to take action on the president’s announcements. The DHS memo provides a framework for changes the government wishes to make, relating to skilled immigration, to alleviate some longstanding problems in our business immigration system.

Many of the suggested changes are laudable but regulatory rulemaking will be required for most of these changes to take effect. Unfortunately, whereas President Obama was very clear in his announcement about timelines for the changes he is taking to protect certain undocumented immigrants, timeframes for producing regulations or for most of the business immigration changes are lacking in the secretary’s memo. The business community is left to wonder when these announced changes will materialize and what specific forms they will take.

Modernize the Employment-Based Immigrant Visa System

There are caps (quotas) on various types of immigrant visas (green cards) that result in extremely long backlogs and delays for people born in certain countries such as India and China.  If two software engineers at the same company are sponsored for green cards at the same time, and one of them is from Germany and the other is from India, the German applicant will get his green card in about two years while it will likely take his Indian colleague ten years to conclude the process. During this excruciatingly long waiting period, the Indian software engineer is supposed to remain in the same position for which he was originally sponsored. This benefits neither the employer nor the software engineer.

The existing visa distribution is deeply flawed beyond the backlog problem. Every year tens of thousands of visas in some categories go unused. These unused visas go to waste because they don’t roll over from one fiscal year to the next. It’s like vacation days at a company – in many companies if you don’t use them, you lose them. Secretary Johnson directed USCIS to work with the Department of State to better understand immigrant visa availability over the course of the fiscal year and to rationalize the visa distribution system so available visas do not go unused.  Secretary Johnson also ordered the Department of State to modernize the currently unwieldy visa bulletin.

Reform “Optional Practical Training” for Foreign Students and Graduates from US Universities

Most foreign students on F-1 student visas are eligible for a year of post-graduate optional practical training (OPT) as long as the work experience that they gain is in a field that relates to their degree program. But 12 months of authorized OPT frequently is not enough time to bridge the time between the foreign student’s authorization to work on OPT and the granting of a temporary work visa status. The H-1B quota opens every year on April 1st, and the H-1B visas do not become effective until the following October 1st, at the beginning of the government’s new fiscal year. The quota has been exhausted immediately in the last several years, leaving no H-1B visas available until the next government fiscal year – resulting in a 17-month period with no H-1B visa availability.

This problem is less severe for F-1 foreign students who major in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering or Math) fields. These students are eligible to apply to extend their OPT work authorization for an additional 17 months, as long as they are employed by US employers participating in the government’s E-Verify program. (E-Verify is a program that any employer can participate in, if it is willing to check its employees’ documents through a government database to ensure the employees are legally authorized to work in the United States. Some employers don’t have a choice: if they have certain federal government contracts, or operate in certain states, they must sign up for E-Verify.) Qualified foreign students who graduate with US STEM degrees are able to continue to work legally through multiple government fiscal years, increasing their chances of “winning” an H-1B visa before their OPT period expires.

The list of STEM “majors” that qualify a foreign student for a STEM OPT extension is limited, however, and the focus until now has been on the US degree program that the foreign student has just completed. It would be much more useful if the government would expand the program to allow for STEM-based OPT extensions for F-1 students who either graduate with a US STEM degree OR complete a STEM degree prior to studying in the United States. For example, many of our MBA students come to the United States with a STEM undergraduate degree. Furthermore, the list of STEM “degrees” should be expanded to be much more robust.

Accordingly, Secretary Johnson directed USCIS and ICE to “develop regulations for notice and comment to expand the degree programs eligible for OPT and extend the time period and use of OPT for foreign STEM students and graduates.”  The business community would like to see a significant expansion of STEM eligibility in the new rules. But the business community may not appreciate some OPT restrictions that the Secretary has suggested might be paired with expanded STEM eligibility. Currently there is great flexibility associated with OPT. F-1 graduates on OPT can be self-employed or work as independent contractors, and if they work as employees on a W-2, there is no prevailing wage requirement associated with their employment. The flexibility associated with OPT has proven extremely helpful to foreign entrepreneurs and inventors who use the post-graduation period to refine their inventions, products and business ideas, form companies, and find investors.

Promote Research and Development in the United States

In his announcement regarding executive immigration reform, the president emphasized the importance to the United States of the contributions of foreign entrepreneurs, researchers, start-up company founders and investors. Secretary Johnson’s memo recognizes that the existing immigration law does not meet the needs of these creative individuals who contribute to the vitality of the United States. In his memo, he directs the agencies to expand two existing immigration law provisions. The first, the National Interest Waiver provision, provides a pathway for a permanent immigration status. The second, the “parole” authority in the law, provides a temporary status.

The National Interest Waiver application allows people with “exceptional ability” to bypass the labor market test required for most employment-based green card applicants if the individual can demonstrate that his or her work is in the national interest. USCIS takes a narrow view of who can qualify in this immigration category and therefore its usefulness as an immigration vehicle has been extremely limited. Secretary Johnson recognized this in his memo and directed USCIS to “issue guidance or regulations to clarify the standard by which a national interest waiver can be granted, with the aim of promoting its greater use for the benefit of the U.S. economy.”  Hopefully we will see a significant expansion for eligibility, including for people who found companies and are stimulating the economy, even if it is a local economy. Stimulating the local economy is certainly in the national interest. Asking someone who founds a start-up company to demonstrate an immediate and obvious “national” impact across the entire United States would not be realistic and would run counter to the desire expressed in the memo to expand the reach and usefulness of the national interest waiver green card option.

The government’s parole authority in immigration law, which authorizes certain individuals to enter the United States without a visa, would be expanded by Secretary Johnson’s directive to accommodate entrepreneurs, inventors, and researchers. We have no viable visa option in the United States for entrepreneurs, researchers, and inventors. Over the past years, multiple “Start-up Visa” bills were introduced into Congress, only to languish and die there. Consequently, many of these brilliant individuals leave the United States and set up their businesses or engage in their research in more welcoming countries. This is a creative approach to solving the problem in the short term. It will be interesting to see the criteria that will be applied and the mechanism for implementing this change, especially for the applicants who may already be in the United States. In terms of eligibility criteria, we already know that applicants will understandably have to demonstrate that they have sufficient financial means to ensure that they will not become a burden on the US government.   Bring Greater Consistency to the L-1B Visa Program

Multinational companies in the United States use the L-1 visa program to transfer personnel to the United States from overseas offices. These transferees can either be “managers or executives” or individuals with “specialized knowledge” needed by the US employer. The Obama administration has heard the repeated outcries from the business community that the government’s interpretations of what constitutes “specialized knowledge” for L-1 intracompany transferee purposes are inconsistent, flawed, unreasonable, and unduly protectionist. Employers filing these petitions over the last many years have not been able to expect that a strong petition will be approved and have had to expend inordinate legal fees to fight and appeal incorrect government decisions and unjust denials. This has had a material negative impact on multinational US businesses.

Recognizing “vague guidance and inconsistent interpretation” of the term “specialized knowledge,” Secretary Johnson directed USCIS to “issue a policy memorandum that provides clear, consolidated guidance” for this visa category with the goal to “improve consistency in adjudications, and enhance companies’ confidence in the program.” Over the years, USCIS has issued plenty of policy memoranda regarding “specialized knowledge” but the accumulated guidance has been confusing. This time around the guidance must be crystal clear, reasonable, and consistent with the real-world business practices of multinational companies. But regardless of what the memo says, the guidance will be worthless if it is not actually implemented by the adjudicators in the field. At the end of the day, DHS must demonstrate a commitment to enforce the terms of the memo and USCIS officers who apply an inappropriate standard to their adjudications must be held to account by the US government.

Increase Worker Portability

It can take a decade for certain skilled immigrants’ green card applications to be approved.   These skilled workers find themselves “stuck” for years in the same position and with the same sponsoring employer. Their career development and job mobility are terribly hampered by the visa backlogs. Under current law, a green card applicant can only “port” his or her green card application to a new employer or accept a promotion with the same employer towards the very end of this lengthy green card process, which can take 10 years. In order for an applicant to take advantage of the green card “portability” provisions, he or she has to jump through many hoops: the first two (out of three) steps in the green card process have to be filed and approved, the third and final application must be lodged with the government, and on top of that, the new job must be “the same or similar” to the one for which the original employer tested the labor market. This “portability” rule has been particularly unhelpful, precisely because many of the affected green card applicants cannot take advantage of it. They can’t benefit from “portability” because of the ridiculously long backlogs: it takes them 8-10 years to reach the third and final step of the green card process, so effectively it does not help them at all.

Cognizant of the current limitations of green card “portability,” Secretary Johnson has directed USCIS to issue a policy memorandum clarifying the meaning of “same or similar” for this purpose. It remains to be seen how much flexibility will be built into the memo. The guidance in the memo should be designed to serve the needs of the business marketplace to facilitate career development and labor mobility.

Preregistration for Adjustment of Status

This development is quite radical. Dovetailing with the emphasis on facilitating worker portability, USCIS is expected to develop regulations to allow foreign nationals with an approved employment-based immigrant petition who are caught in the immigrant visa quota backlogs to preregister for adjustment of status in order to obtain the benefits of a pending application. This is expected to impact approximately 410,000 people. This is a marked departure from anything in the current business immigration regulations. It would not only benefit the employee who is the principal green card applicant, but would enable his or her dependents to obtain employment authorization and immediately enter the US labor market.  These impacted foreign nationals will be thrilled with this change.

Proposed Rule to Extend Work Authorization to Certain H-1B Spouses

The proposed rule published in May 2014 to extend work authorization to the spouses of H-1B employees with approved I-140 employment-based immigrant visa petitions is still outstanding, but is expected to be finalized in the next few months.

Summary

The Obama administration’s proposals to streamline and modernize key aspects of the country’s skilled immigration provisions are laudable and reflect that the administration has heard the lamentations and complaints from the users of these programs (employers and employees alike) that the current system is unworkable and archaic. Ultimately legislation must be passed to address the shortcomings in the US immigration system on a more fundamental and permanent basis. But no one knows how many more years it will take for the law to be changed.  Accordingly, the administration’s proposals for executive, administrative improvements may result in some significant temporary solutions and benefits for the business community in the United States. Now we must wait and see (a) what shape the concrete solutions will take, and (b) how long it will take to roll them out.

ARTICLE BY

Susan J. Cohen
OF
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

Department of State Releases December 2014 Visa Bulletin

Morgan Lewis

The Bulletin shows that cutoff dates in the EB-2 India category remain severely backlogged, cutoff dates in EB-3 for the Rest of the World and China advance by five months, and EB-3 China is now ahead of EB-2 China.

The U.S. Department of State (DOS) has released its December 2014 Visa Bulletin. The Visa Bulletin sets out per-country priority date cutoffs that regulate the flow of adjustment of status (AOS) and consular immigrant visa applications. Foreign nationals may file applications to adjust their statuses to that of permanent residents or to obtain approval of immigrant visas at a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad, provided that their priority dates are prior to the respective cutoff dates specified by the DOS.

What Does the December 2014 Visa Bulletin Say?

The December Visa Bulletin shows no change in the cutoff date for the EB-2 India category. EB-3 cutoff dates for the Rest of the World and China will advance by five months.

The cutoff date for F2A applicants from all countries will advance slightly in December.

EB-1: All EB-1 categories will remain current.

EB-2: The cutoff date for applicants in the EB-2 category chargeable to India will remain at February 15, 2005. The cutoff date for applicants in the EB-2 category chargeable to China will advance to January 1, 2010. The EB-2 category for all other countries will remain current.

EB-3: The cutoff date for applicants in the EB-3 category chargeable to India will advance by seven days to December 1, 2003. The cutoff date for applicants in the EB-3 category chargeable to China will advance by five months to June 1, 2010, which is now ahead of the cutoff date for EB-2 China. The cutoff date for applicants in the EB-3 category chargeable to the Philippines, Mexico, and the Rest of the World will advance by five months to November 1, 2012.

The relevant priority date cutoffs for foreign nationals in the EB-3 category are as follows:

China: June 1, 2010 (forward movement of 152 days)

India: December 1, 2003 (forward movement of 7 days)

Mexico: November 1, 2012 (forward movement of 153 days)

Philippines: November 1, 2012 (forward movement of 153 days)

Rest of the World: November 1, 2012 (forward movement of 153 days)

Developments Affecting the EB-2 Employment-Based Category

Mexico, the Philippines, and the Rest of the World

The EB-2 category for applicants chargeable to all countries other than China and India has been current since November 2012. The December Visa Bulletin indicates no change to this trend. This means that applicants in the EB-2 category chargeable to all countries other than China and India may continue to file AOS applications or have applications approved through December 2014.

China

The November Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of December 8, 2009 for EB-2 applicants chargeable to China. The December Visa Bulletin indicates a cutoff date of January 1, 2010, reflecting forward movement of 23 days. This means that applicants in the EB-2 category chargeable to China with a priority date prior to January 1, 2010 may file AOS applications or have applications approved in December 2014.

India

The cutoff date for EB-2 applicants chargeable to India remains at February 15, 2005. This means that only applicants in the EB-2 category chargeable to India with a priority date prior to February 15, 2005 may file AOS applications or have applications approved in December 2014.

Developments Affecting the EB-3 Employment-Based Category

China

The November Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of January 1, 2010. The December Visa Bulletin remains unchanged, with a cutoff date of June 1, 2010. This means that applicants in the EB-3 category chargeable to China with a priority date prior to June 1, 2010 may file AOS applications or have applications approved in December 2014.

India

The November Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of November 22, 2003. The December Visa Bulletin indicates a cutoff date of December 1, 2003, reflecting forward movement of seven days. This means that EB-3 applicants chargeable to India with a priority date prior to December 1, 2003 may file AOS applications or have applications approved in December 2014.

Rest of the World

The November Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of June 1, 2012 for EB-3 applicants chargeable to the Rest of the World. The December Visa Bulletin indicates a cutoff date of November 1, 2012, reflecting forward movement of 153 days. This means that applicants in the EB-3 category chargeable to the Rest of the World with a priority date prior to November 1, 2012 may file AOS applications or have applications approved in December 2014.

Developments Affecting the F2A Family-Sponsored Category

The November Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of September 22, 2012 for F2A applicants from Mexico. The December Visa Bulletin indicates a cutoff date of January 1, 2013, reflecting forward movement of 75 days. This means that applicants from Mexico with a priority date prior to January 1, 2013 will be able to file AOS applications or have applications approved in December 2014.

The November Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of March 1, 2013 for F2A applicants from all other countries. The December Visa Bulletin indicates a cutoff date of March 22, 2013, reflecting forward movement of 21 days. This means that F2A applicants from all other countries with a priority date prior to March 22, 2013 will be able to file AOS applications or have applications approved in December 2014.

Developments in the Coming Months

As noted in last month’s alert, the DOS Visa Office predicts the following movement in the next three months:

F2A Family-Sponsored Category

  • The cutoff date in the F2A category will likely advance by three to five weeks per month.

Employment-Based Second Preference Category

  • The worldwide category will likely remain current.
  • The cutoff date in the EB-2 China category will likely advance by three to five weeks per month.
  • The cutoff date in the EB-2 India category will likely remain unchanged.

Employment-Based Third Preference Category

  • The cutoff date in the EB-3 worldwide category will continue to advance rapidly for the next several months. Demand is expected to increase significantly, at which point, the cutoff dates will be adjusted accordingly.
  • The cutoff date in the EB-3 China category is expected to advance rapidly in the next few months. Demand is expected to increase and may result in adjustments to the cutoff date by February 2015.
  • The cutoff date in the EB-3 India category will advance little, if at all.
  • The cutoff date in the EB-3 Mexico category will remain at the worldwide date.
  • The cutoff date in the EB-3 Philippines category will remain at the worldwide date. Increased demand in this category may result in adjustments to the cutoff date later in the fiscal year.

How This Affects You

Priority date cutoffs are assessed on a monthly basis by the DOS, based on anticipated demand. Cutoff dates can move forward or backward or remain static. Employers and employees should take the immigrant visa backlogs into account in their long-term planning and take measures to mitigate their effects. To see the December 2014 Visa Bulletin in its entirety, please visit the DOS website.

ARTICLE BY

Eric S. Bord
Lisa Stephanian Burton
Tracy Evlogidis
Malcolm K. Goeschl
Eleanor Pelta
A. James Vázquez-Azpiri
OF
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

USCIS Has a New Looking Website with Enhancements

Greenberg Traurig Law firm

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) launched its new-look website late last week.  Visitors to the website will find a cleaner looking page with better navigation tools than before.  The mobile device version of USCIS’s website has been updated with an enhanced Case Status tool that allows visitors to get updates on pending cases, including case history, next steps and more detailed case-related information than before.  The updated home page also makes finding USCIS news, outreach events, educational webinars, and other services easier.  Additional updates from USCIS are expected in the upcoming months as part of the agency’s effort to allow visitors to obtain more and more information online, rather than spending hours on the phone with USCIS Customer Service or visiting a local USCIS District Office.

Article by:
Ian R. Macdonald

Of:
Greenberg Traurig

Retrogression for EB-5 Predicted at IIUSA Conference; July 2013 Cut-Off Discussed

Greenberg Traurig Law firm

The Chief of the Visa Control and Reporting Division of the U.S. Department of State, Charles Oppenheim, reported that the EB-5 immigrant visa category would likely retrogress in July 2015. However, this does contradict his prediction provided to AILA earlier last week of retrogression occurring in May 2015. What is striking about Oppenheim’s announcement was that retrogression of the EB-5 immigrant visa category would cause him to establish a cut-off date of July 2013. A cut-off date has the effect of establishing an orderly line for the issuance of EB-5 immigrant visas. The cut-off date is determined based on the date an I-526 Petition was filed and is the date included on each I-526 Petition approval notice in the “Priority Date” box. For example, if a cut-off date of July 2013 is established in July 2015, during the month of July 2015, only those EB-5 investors (and their derivative beneficiaries) with a Priority Date in July 2013 or earlier (i.e. June 2013, May 2013, etc.) may apply for an EB-5 immigrant visa.

As we have stated previously, EB-5 investors should continue to file I-526 Petitions in the regular course of business because retrogression will have no effect on the adjudication of I-526 Petitions by the U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services. By filing an I-526 Petition, an EB-5 investor is reserving his or her place in line by establishing his or her Priority Date, which has the effect of determining when he or she may apply for an EB-5 immigrant visa after receiving approval of his or her I-526 Petition. However, there are other effects of retrogression which should be evaluated when making a decision to pursue an EB-5 immigrant visa.

Oppenheim attributed the establishment of a July 2013 cut-off date to the increasing volume of I-526 Petition approvals by the U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (the USCIS) and his estimation of approximately three derivatives per I-526 Petition. According to his own calculations, this would indicate that there are roughly 3,333 principal investors under the EB-5 Program, with the remaining 6,667 EB-5 immigrant visa slots filled by family members of EB-5 investors. As retrogression of the EB-5 immigrant visa category may cause a drop in market demand for the EB-5 immigrant visa, it appears the inclusion of dependents against the 10,000 limit of EB-5 immigrant visas available for each U.S. government fiscal year (Oct. 1 to Sept. 30) would likely constrain the flow of foreign investor capital to the United States.

ARTICLE BY

Dillon R. Colucci
OF
Greenberg Traurig, LLP

SCOTUS Grants Certiorari to Two Immigration-Based Cases for 2015 Term: Will the Government Have to Explain Its Exercise of “Discretion”?

Greenberg Traurig Law firm

The United States Supreme Court is back in session as of last Monday, Oct. 6—often referred to as “First Monday” due to the fact that the term must begin on the first Monday of October by law. Among its roughly 50 case docket, featuring headliners that will refine Fourth Amendment jurisprudence and agency regulatory authority, the Justices will tackle two cases that stand to have a considerable impact on American immigration law and procedure.

The first of those cases, Mellouli v. Holder, concerns the issue of whether a noncitizen—even a green card holder—can be mandatorily detained and deported for possessing drug paraphernalia.Section 237(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act broadly authorizes the deportation of noncitizens that find themselves caught up in charges related to a “controlled substance.” Currently, the circuits are split as to whether the drug paraphernalia itself, the possession of which is prohibited by some states, must be related to a substance listed in Section 802 of Title 21, the Controlled Substances Act, in order to properly form the basis of a deportation order under the immigration laws.

The defendant, Moones Mellouli, is a lawful permanent resident who earned two master’s degrees and worked as an actuary. He was convicted of a Kansas misdemeanor offense, “possession of drug paraphernalia,” a charge that did not make reference to a controlled substance. In fact, his conduct would constitute a crime neither under federal law nor under the laws of many states. Nonetheless, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) arrested Mellouli and sought to deport him for violating a state law “relating to a controlled substance.” This case could also simultaneously serve as a conduit for showing the public at large how draconian adherence to prioritizing the prosecution of “alien criminals” produces undesirable effects, such as insufficient due process and wildly disproportionate consequences—like deportation—for minor offenders.

The second case, Kerry v. Din, also has at its base important due process concerns. Here, they flow from a U.S. citizen petitioner’s rights before a Department of State (“DOS”) denial of her husband’s visa at one of its consular posts. At issue is (1) whether the consular officer’s refusal of a visa to a spouse of a U.S. citizen impinges upon a constitutionally protected interest of the citizen; and (2) whether a citizen-petitioner is entitled to challenge in court the refusal of a visa to her spouse and to require the government to identify a specific statutory provision rendering him inadmissible and the explicit conduct that would render the spouse ineligible in order to sustain the visa refusal.

Thus, Kerry v. Din will squarely exhort a review of the doctrine of “consular nonreviewability”—sometimes referred to as “consular absolutism.” This principle surged following the SCOTUS decision in United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy roughly 65 years ago and embodies the notion that a consular officer’s (i.e., at an exterior post, by definition) decision to grant or deny a visa petition is not subject to judicial review. The Knauff court explicitly stated that “[w]hatever the procedure authorized by Congress is, it is due process as far as an alien denied entry is concerned.” [338 U.S. 537, 544 (1950)]. Those familiar with immigration law will recognize that this was but a culmination of successive rulings reinforcing the idea that the power to exclude aliens is both inherent in the sovereign and exclusive to its political branches of government; that a noncitizen’s rights are at their lowest prior to acceding to our borders. In practice, this means that the exercise of “discretion” by immigration agents often results in an unsatisfactory “because I said so” explanation by the government, without more, as if it were dealing with insolent children. In an area that impacts many fundamental facets of an individual’s daily life, the current dearth of due process and unquestioning reliance on a particular agent’s determinations is grossly misplaced.

Amber and Victor Ramirez of Kankakee, Illinois, is just one couple that has experienced the negative consequences of this amorphous agency “discretion” in 2011. USCIS granted Amber’s petition for a visa for Victor, her spouse. Victor then traveled to the U.S. consulate abroad—a routine practice for noncitizens that switch immigration status—in Juarez, Mexico to obtain the visa. The DOS consular officer refused to grant the already-approved visa, citing only that there was “reason to believe” Victor might engage in illegal activity in the United States. No further explanation was given.

As it turns out Victor has tattoos and the couple perceived that the consular office was focusing on them. “Victor has never been in a gang, and is not listed in Illinois’ gang database. Amber worked with the local police to explain that Victor’s tattoos did not match any known gang tattoos. The couple explained each of his tattoos, including the tattoo of the name of their daughter. The consulate refused to reconsider or to explain its reasoning, even though over 40 percent of American households include a member with tattoos. The family remains separated based solely on the word of an anonymous bureaucrat.”

This is precisely the category of government action that would be unreviewable under the prevailing consular nonreviewability doctrine, which forms the foundation of the government’s argument in Din. And Din, for its part, bears on the extent to which the government can get away with vague and perfunctory rationales—perhaps not even truly reaching the substantive inquiry of whether an agent’s subjective profiling of an individual is a lawful basis upon which a discretionary immigration action may be made.

Shaun Staller also contributed to this article.

©2014 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.