Tag: Immigration

Immigration and Compliance Briefing: COVID-19 Summary of Government Relief and Potential “Public Charge Rule” Impact on Nonimmigrant and Immigrant Visa Applications

Public Charge Rule

The “Public Charge Rule” implemented by the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) on February 24, 2020 mandates that certain individuals applying for U.S. immigration status are generally inadmissible into the U.S. if they are found likely to become a public charge at any time. Individuals inside or outside the U.S. who seek to either obtain Lawful Permanent Resident status (apply for immigrant visas and “green cards”) or to extend or change nonimmigrant status (temporary visas) must now demonstrate that they have not received public benefits, or have received limited public benefits, with some exceptions. This requires individuals to provide with their applications for immigration status additional detailed information regarding finances (such as income, assets, credit scores, bank accounts, taxes, debts, etc.). Public benefits received prior to February 24, 2020 will not weigh heavily against these individuals. Immigration case impact and processing trends are still being determined given the fairly recent implementation of the Public Charge Rule.

Available guidance notes that public benefits considered for a public charge determination include, but are not limited to, the following: any federal, state, local, or tribal cash assistance for income maintenance. Examples include Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Cash Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Section 8 Housing Assistance & Project-Based Rental Assistance, Public Housing; and Medicaid. In contrast, the following are not considered for a public charge determination: tax credits; unemployment benefits; disaster relief assistance; certain forms of nutritional support, including Special Supplemental Nutrition for Women Infants and Children (WIC) and school breakfast and lunch; and certain Medicaid benefits, including emergency medical care, school-based services and benefits, and Medicaid for individuals under 21 years of age.

As a reminder, many non-immigrants (temporary visa holders) are not eligible to receive public benefits. Eligibility for public benefits depends on immigration status, age, and other factors. Use of public benefits to which an individual is not entitled may have adverse immigration consequences beyond the public charge determination. All individuals should carefully review eligibility criteria prior to applying for and/or using public benefits.

COVID-19 Relief Measures

In response to COVID-19, the federal government has enacted broad economic relief policies. These measures include direct financial aid to families through tax credit rebates, expanded unemployment benefits and new relief programs as well as indirect aid through increased federal funding for businesses and healthcare providers. Generally, the use of disaster relief assistance will not impact a public charge determination for individuals seeking immigration benefits. However, the use of public benefits during COVID-19 can still be considered in the public charge analysis.

Healthcare Measures

Federal legislation passed in response to COVID-19 provides additional federal funding for COVID-related testing and treatment, including increased funding for Community Health Centers and for testing and treatment of uninsured and underinsured individuals. USCIS is encouraging anyone experiencing COVID-19 symptoms to seek medical treatment and/or preventative care. Seeking testing, prevention, or treatment of COVID-19 will not factor into a public charge determination for purposes of seeking an immigration benefit, even if the testing/prevention/treatment is federally funded. However, eligibility for Medicaid has not changed, and enrollment in Medicaid during COVID-19 may still be used as a factor for determining an immigration benefit under the Public Charge Rule.

Stimulus Bill Rebate Payments

The CARES Act authorized the federal government to issue one-time tax credit rebate payments to certain taxpaying individuals and households, including certain temporary nonimmigrants. Depending on income, eligible individuals can receive up to $1,200 while eligible households can receive up to $2,400. In addition, eligible individuals with children can receive $500 per dependent child under 17 years of age.

The rebate payments authorized by the CARES Act are considered tax credit payments, which will not factor into a public charge determination.  However, note the following:

  • Eligibility for tax-credit rebate payments depends on filing 2018 and/or 2019 taxes and tax residency status and requires all recipients to possess a valid social security number with limited exceptions for certain military households and adopted dependent children. This means that many mixed-status families (families with individuals in different immigration statuses) may not be eligible for the stimulus check.
  • Receiving tax credit payments in error may lead to an individual or household owing taxes, which could be used in a public charge determination for purposes of seeking an immigration benefit. It is very important that any individual receiving a tax credit rebate check ensure that they are in fact eligible to receive it.

Food and Nutritional Assistance

The Families First Act authorizes states to provide supplemental SNAP benefits to SNAP households and creates a new program, Pandemic EBT (“P-EBT”), authorizing states to provide meal assistance to children who are out of school due to COVID-19 and who would otherwise receive free or reduced school lunches. P-EBT is considered disaster relief assistance and will not factor into a Public Charge determination. However, eligibility for SNAP has not changed and enrollment in SNAP may still be used as a factor for determining an immigration benefit under the Public Charge Rule.

Unemployment Benefits

When individuals become unemployed through no fault of their own, they may qualify for relief through unemployment benefits. Unemployment benefits pay out a portion of an individual’s prior income while the individual is unemployed, and are administered by states with oversight from the Department of Labor (DOL). The benefits program is funded through taxes paid by employers. Although the federal government has set a few eligibility requirements, states are largely able to determine their own individual eligibility criteria and benefit levels for basic unemployment benefits.

While eligibility requirements for unemployment benefits vary by state, generally someone must be considered “able and available to work” before s/he is eligible to collect unemployment benefits. Since many temporary nonimmigrant work visas (such as H-1Bs and L-1s) require employer sponsorship prior to employment authorization, most people with these types of visas are not considered to be able and available to work. Individuals with other types of work authorization, such as an unrestricted EAD (Employment Authorization Document), may be eligible for unemployment benefits.

The CARES Act expands on basic unemployment benefits through three programs: Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (PUC), Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation (PEUC), and Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA). These programs increase coverage and availability, but eligibility criteria are still determined by individual states.   Some states have temporarily waived eligibility requirements due to COVID-19, including the able and available requirement. This waiver may expand the types of non-U.S. workers who qualify for unemployment benefits in those states. Additionally, some states have waived waiting periods and increased payments.

Unemployment benefits are considered earned benefits and will not factor into a public charge determination.

SBA Loans

COVID-19 relief packages provide funding for small businesses in the form of loans, interest relief for certain loans, and waivers of certain fees.  Certain non-U.S. citizens who own or share ownership in qualifying businesses may apply for an SBA (Small Business Administration) loan.

SBA loans are unlikely to impact a public charge determination because generally disaster relief programs are not considered in the analysis. Also, an SBA loan is granted to a company rather than to an individual, while a public charge determination focuses on an individual

Given that this is a rapidly changing situation, please also refer to the following online resources, and be sure to review the “last updated” date:

© 1998-2020 Wiggin and Dana LLP

For more on the public charge rule, see the National Law Review Immigration 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 1st. 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 

 

©1994-2020 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

Authored by Colleen DiNicola in the Immigration Practice at Mintz Levin.
For more on travel restrictions, see the National Law Review Immigration law page.

The Ever Thinning Right of Privacy at the Border—A Warning for Attorney Travelers

Immigration Commentary

It was March 2, 2020, at around five in the afternoon, right before the COVID-19 pandemic went out of control, and cities and states started to issue stay-at-home orders.

I had just gotten married to my wife on February 28 in Mexico. On our flight back we traveled with our family, around ten people in total. As we went through the automated customs system, my wife got an X in the receipt that the customs’ machine sometimes gives you. Mine did not have an X but, since hers did, I accompanied her to the agent’s kiosk that reviews receipts marked with Xs. When we got there, the agent reviewed her passport quickly, and told her that she would have to go through a secondary screening in what they call the “little room” or “el cuartico” in Spanish. As her husband, they let me go in with her.

We were in the “little room” for a few minutes, not too long. They reviewed her passport and then we were told to go to another place, following a long pathway full of orange plastic cones that took us to another agent, in a zone where there were scanning machines. The agent opened both of our bags, looked at them carefully, item by item, and then told us to sit and wait.

As we sat and waited for around twenty minutes, two agents came in and introduced themselves as being from the Investigative Unit at the Department of Justice. They showed us their badges. Without giving any details, they told us that they had orders from the agent-supervisor in charge to take our phones and laptops. My wife and I are both lawyers and, as such, reacted quite surprised, and quickly asked why. Both agents–one very polite, the other, not so much–told us that they could not tell us why they needed our phones and laptops, or what the whole thing was about. A back and forth, at times intense, ensued.

Our immediate reaction as lawyers was to say: “You don’t have a right to do that. Please show us a warrant to search our phones or laptops.” We additionally disclosed to them at that point that we were attorneys, and that our phones and laptops contained attorney-client sensitive information, and that such information does not belong to us but to the client. The polite officer did not say much. The not-so-polite officer said, essentially: “I don’t care” and that “at the point of entry we have a right to inspect these things.”

At the time, I did not know the law on this topic. As an immigration lawyer, I knew that non-citizens seeking admissibility do not have a constitutional right to privacy. I thought that a different standard applied to U.S. citizens—which we both are. The agent seemed to disagree. I did not have time to research the law on my phone. The agents made us place our phones on the table, so we could not use them. The back and forth with the not-so-polite agent turned more intense. We managed to persuade him to let us use our phones to call our lawyers.

We called three lawyers. First, a good friend, Juan Carlos Gomez, an immigration law professor. He was of the view that if they were going to search our phones and laptops, they needed a magistrate’s order or a warrant. I then called two good friends and excellent criminal attorneys. Both of them said something similar: “If they want to take it, they are going to take it, and there’s not much you can do about it. You just need to make sure you are making it clear that you don’t consent, and thus, anything inside cannot be used against you.” All three attorneys told us that we did not have to provide the passwords of our phones and laptops; we just had to turn them in physically.

My wife and I were both unconcerned about ourselves. We really had nothing to hide but felt (1) that our right of privacy was being violated, and (2) that our clients’ information was vulnerable. We both run small practices and take our phones and computers everywhere, as most lawyers do.

After some 60 minutes arguing with the agents, we agreed that we were going to wait for their supervisor to come see us before they took any of our laptops or phones. According to the not-so-polite agent, their boss had just been in a car accident and was going to take an additional hour. We said we would wait.

After around three hours since landing, tired, and with our family waiting outside, we said: “Let’s just give it to them, let’s not wait anymore.” As we were about to turn in our phones, the agent-supervisor appeared. He was a nice man. We explained to him the situation, that we were attorneys, that our devices contained confidential attorney-client information, and that if he could give us any details about the topic of their investigation, we could cooperate and provide them with any necessary information. The agent-supervisor was polite, understood our position, and said not to worry about it, that he was going to let us go with our devices. We grabbed them and left.

To this day, we are not sure whether the agent-supervisor let us go because of the hassle of having to deal with two lawyers to obtain information that may not be all that valuable anyway, or if he let us go due to the attorney-client privilege concerns we shared with him.

Can U.S. border agents take an attorney’s device which contains attorney-client privileged information?

The short answer seems to be yes.

The longer answer is laid out in the 2018 U.S Customs and Border Protection Directive No. 3340-049A (the “Directive”).[i] Specifically, section 5.2 of the Directive, titled “Review and Handling of Privileged or Other Sensitive Material,” addresses this issue head-on.

First, the information has to be “identified” or “asserted to be” protected by the attorney-client privilege. This burden is on the attorney. In other words, if you have attorney-client privileged information, it is your duty as a lawyer to make the claim.

Second, after there is a claim of attorney-client privileged information, the “Officer shall seek clarification, if practicable in writing, from the individual asserting [the] privilege as to specific files, folders, categories of files, attorney or client names, email addresses, phone numbers, or other particulars that may assist CBP in identifying privileged information.”

Third, before any search may occur, where there is a claim of privilege, “the Officer will contact the CBP Associate/Assistant Chief Counsel (ACC) office.” Then, in coordination with the ACC, the Officer “will ensure segregation of any privileged material from other information examined during a border search to ensure that any privileged material is handled appropriately.”

Finally, at the completion of segregation and review, “unless any materials are identified that indicate threat to homeland security, copies of materials maintained by CBP and determined to be privileged will be destroyed, except for any copy maintained . . . for purposes of . . . a litigation hold.”

In short, CBP officers may search a lawyer’s phone, but they have to “segregate” the privileged information. How confident can you feel about border agents “segregating” and not looking at privileged material in searches they do out of your sight? I think we don’t need to answer that question.

Can U.S. border agents access information remotely stored in “the cloud”?

The next question is how far they can search. We have not defined what a “device” is. Today, almost all smartphones are connected to “the cloud,” which allows you to access vast amounts of information beyond what is stored in the actual physical device.

The Directive also addresses this. It specifically states that “[t]he border search will include an examination of only the information that is resident upon the device and accessible through the device’s operating system or through other software, tools, or applications.” In fact, “Officers may not intentionally use the device to access information that is solely stored remotely.” The Directive goes on to recommend that “Officers request that the traveler disable connectivity to any network . . . or where warranted . . . Officers will themselves disable network connectivity.”

In other words, Officers can search your phone, but they cannot go into your Dropbox, iCloud, Google Drive or any other information that is stored in “the cloud” and that is accessed through internet connectivity. The question again becomes, how confident can you feel about border agents not accessing readily available information in Gmail, iCloud, Dropbox, and other cloud-based services? You really have no assurances that officers will not look at things you keep in “the cloud” that are so readily accessible. This underscores the importance of always having such applications logged out in your devices, but especially when you travel internationally.

Do you have to give U.S. border agents your password?

The Directive states that “[t]travelers are obligated to present electronic devices and the information contained therein in a condition that allows inspection of the device and its contents.” “Passcodes or other means of access may be requested and retained as needed to facilitate the examination of an electronic device.”

Thus, the Directive clearly says that you have to provide your password. However, it is unclear what remedy border agents have if U.S. citizens refuse to do so. In the case of non-U.S. citizens, it is clear that they could be denied admission into the country. It is highly unlikely, however, that a U.S. citizen attorney, making a claim of privilege, has to voluntarily disclose the password of the device that contains the privileged information. What happens if the attorney refuses to give his password? Will he be arrested? What if he is arrested and still refuses to give his password? Will he be physically forced? It seems to be one of those situations where it will be difficult for U.S. agents to enforce. Of course, U.S. Customs is not completely without remedy, as the refusal to turn in the password will result in the impounding of the device and its opening using other electronic means.

What to do?

We will never know why they wanted our devices. Likely, it was something related to one of the hundreds of clients we have represented. But we do not know exactly which client or what the investigation was about.

What we do know now and learned from this experience is that we live in a world with increasingly fading privacy rights, and that we have to learn, as lawyers, to take necessary precautions to protect our clients’ information. These precautions include traveling with devices that do not have access to cloud-stored information, such as Dropbox, Google Drive, Gmail, iCloud, or some legal software that relies on cloud computing. It is also important to travel with computers or phones that do not have anything in it that can be privileged. As seen above, even if the Directive says that the Officer has to “segregate” and not look at attorney-client privileged material, these searches happen out of your sight, and you have no control whatsoever over what the Officers look at. Until the Directive is challenged in court, Attorneys have to be extremely careful when they travel internationally.

[i] The legal authority or weight that the Directive carries is not the subject of this article; this article merely describes the current policy used by CBP in doing searches of attorneys’ devices.

© 2020 Eduardo Ayala Maura
For more on attorney-client privilege matters, see the National Law Review Law Office Management section.

President Trump Expected to Sign Executive Order to “Temporarily Suspend Immigration to the United States”

Shortly after 10:00 p.m. last night, President Donald Trump announced—through Twitter—that he “will be signing an Executive Order to temporarily suspend immigration into the United States,” because of the “attack” from the COVID-19 pandemic on the United States and “to protect the jobs of our GREAT American Citizens.”

Other than President Trump’s Tweet, neither the White House, the Department of Homeland Security, State Department, nor any other federal agency provided any guidance or information as to what exactly the suspension of immigration into the United States actually means, how expansive such a suspension would be, or the number of individuals and countries that such an executive order could affect.

Global Travel Ban to the United States

On March 19, 2020, we wrote about the travel restrictions the White House imposed on the admission of foreign nationals into the United States, to limit the spread of COVID-19. Since then,

foreign nationals who were in any of the following countries in the 14-days before traveling to the United States (were and still) are barred from entering and will be turned away at U.S. airports, ports, border crossings, and other ports-of-entry: Austria, Belgium, China, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.

Moreover, all non-essential travel between the United States, Canada, and Mexico was initially restricted on March 18, 2020, for 30 days. Yesterday, however, President Trump extended the non-essential travel restriction between the three counties for an additional 30 days—through May 20, 2020.

Official Guidance to Suspend Immigration

As of today, there are no other restrictions on the entry to the United States related to the COVID-19 pandemic, other than those noted here. President Trump’s Tweet is still just a Tweet. No official guidance has been issued as to the halting of “all immigration” into the United States.

©2020 Norris McLaughlin P.A., All Rights Reserved

An Overview of STEM OPT Employer Site Visits

Employers who have employed F-1 students in the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) category of the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program can expect site visits by the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP). The March 2016 STEM OPT rule allows the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to conduct site visits of employers that train STEM OPT students.

Conducting Site Visits

The site visits are aimed to ensure that STEM OPT students are in compliance with the OPT program rules. Employers must engage the students in a structured, work-based learning experience consistent with the practical training and other information provided in Form I-983 – Training Plan for STEM OPT students. Employers will receive prior notification of such visit and the DHS will then assess if the program mentoring is working for both the student and employer.

The DHS is looking to verify if the employer has enough supervisory personnel to effectively maintain the program. The DHS might first request information through phone or email and conduct a site visit right after giving notice or do so later.  The DHS may ask employers to provide evidence that they use to assess the wages of similarly situated U.S. workers. The DHS will maintain all the information that is obtained during a site visit.

Consequences of Site Visits

The DHS’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will be overseeing employer location site visits. The DHS may refer matters to the U.S. Department of Labor or any other appropriate federal agency if the site visit warrants such referral.

If the DHS determines that an employee or student needs to update or clarify any information, the DHS will send a request in writing to the employer on how they should provide that necessary information.

Preparation for Students and School Officials

Students and Designated School Officials (DSO) must be prepared in anticipation of these upcoming site visits. Students must update their information in the SEVP portal or report updates to their school officials to make sure that their employer information and home addresses are up-to-date. Students must also be careful to update the address and name of the employer’s location where they are working. DSOs should also be prepared to provide the student’s up-to-date Form I-983 if requested.

Preparation for Employers

Now will be a good time for the employers to ensure that Form I-983 is updated and to ensure that the student’s training complies with the training plan. Also, to designate a company representative and train them on how to handle any such site visits by ICE. Employers must also maintain audit files containing all relevant STEM OPT form copies and supporting documents.

©2020 Norris McLaughlin P.A., All Rights Reserved

For more on DHS STEM OPT visits, see the National Law Review Immigration law sections.

U.S. Halting Travel to the U.S. By All Foreign Nationals Who Have Been in China within the last 14 days

The Trump Administration has publicly announced that on 5 p.m. eastern time Sunday, February 2, 2020, it will deny entry to all foreign nationals who have been in China within the last 14 days (since January 19, 2020). This ban does not apply to the following individuals:

(1) Lawful permanent residents (Green Card holders);

(2) Spouses of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents;

(3) The parent or legal guardian of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident who is unmarried and under the age of 21;

(4) The siblings of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, provided both are unmarried and under the age of 21;

(5) The child, foster child, prospective adoptee or ward of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident;

(6) Crew members traveling as air or sea crew;

(7) Any foreign national traveling at the invitation of the U.S. government to assist with containing or mitigating the coronavirus;

(8) Foreign nationals holding diplomatic visas, including dependents of such individuals holding derivative visas;

(9) Foreign nationals the CDC has determined would not pose a significant risk to the U.S.; and

(10) Foreign nationals whose entry is determined to be in the national interest or further important law enforcement objectives.

Therefore, the ban applies to any foreign nationals holding nonimmigrant visas such as H, L, O, E, among others, who have traveled in China within the last 14 days (since January 19, 2020).

Any foreign nationals who believe they are subject to this ban may want to explore traveling back into the U.S. before the imposition of the ban at 5 p.m. eastern time Sunday, February 2, 2020.

U.S. citizens who have been in the Hubei Province in the last 14 days will be subject to up to 14 days of mandatory quarantine upon return to the United States. U.S. citizens returning from the rest of mainland China who have been there in the last 14 days will undergo screening at US ports of entry and up to 14 days of self-monitoring.

This ban will remain in effect indefinitely. However, every 15 days, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will recommend to the President whether to continue, modify or terminate the ban.

We will provide updates if more information becomes available.

©2020 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

For more US Travel Bans, see the National Law Review Immigration Law section.

New USCIS Policy Guidance Alters Criminal Sentence Evaluation, Clarifies Definition of “Good Moral Character”

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) recently adopted new policy guidance altering the way immigration officers evaluate criminal sentences and make good moral character determinations. These changes may impact a foreign national’s eligibility for certain immigration benefits, including admissibility as a visa holder, permanent resident, or naturalized citizen.

USCIS’s recent policy guidance changes include the following:

Post-Sentencing Charges

What changed?

USCIS incorporated into policy Attorney General William Barr’s recent decision in Matter of Thomas and Thompson that, for immigration purposes, the relevant term of imprisonment or sentence for a criminal act will generally be the original sentence imposed by a state court.

What’s the impact?

Where a state court order subsequently modifies, clarifies, or vacates the original sentence, the new term of imprisonment or sentence will only be relevant for immigration purposes if the change was due to a procedural or substantive defect in the underlying criminal proceeding. If such a change was based on other considerations—such as rehabilitation or the avoidance of immigration consequences—the original sentence will still be considered for purposes of immigration decisions.

DUI Convictions

What changed?

USCIS also incorporated into policy the attorney general’s decision in Matter of Castillo-Perez that two or more convictions for driving under the influence (DUI) during the relevant lookback period may affect a foreign national’s good moral character determination.

What’s the impact?

Convictions for multiple DUIs will likely prompt an assessment by USCIS to determine whether the foreign national is a “habitual drunkard,” which would statutorily preclude him or her from possessing good moral character under the immigration regulations. Further, evidence of rehabilitation subsequent to two or more DUI convictions is insufficient on its own to rebut the presumption that a foreign national lacks the required showing of good moral character. Rather, the foreign national must provide evidence that good moral character was sustained for the entire lookback period, even at the time of the DUI convictions.

Conditional Bars for Unlawful Acts

What changed?

USCIS expanded its policy guidance to provide examples of unlawful acts that may prevent a foreign national from meeting the good moral character requirement for certain immigration benefits. The agency also emphasized the discretion of immigration officers to determine if the commission of an unlawful act reflects negatively on a foreign national’s moral character, and whether there were any extenuating circumstances involved.

What’s the impact?

Immigration officers may look to an expanded list of unlawful acts recognized as a bar to good moral character, including but not limited to:

  • failure to pay or file taxes;
  • false claim to U.S. citizenship;
  • falsification of records;
  • unlawful registration to vote; and
  • unlawful voting.

© 2020, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.

For more USCIS policy guidance, see the National Law Review Immigration Law page.

USCIS Announces More Fees and Fee Increases

Nearly 96% of the USCIS budget derives from fees. In our coverage of Congress, appropriations, continuing resolutions, and government shutdowns, we are reminded that USCIS is a fee-driven agency, as it does not depend on appropriations for its operations and, for example, remains open during government shutdowns over appropriations. We wrote last week about a $10.00 fee for H-1B Registration.

On Nov. 8, USCIS published a notice of proposed rulemaking for an adjustment of fees to meet operational needs. Among the diversity and breadth of fees addressed in the Examinations Fee Accounts 300+ page posting, a few proposed fees have received a lot of public attention:

  • DACA renewal fee from $495 to $765;

  • $50 dollar asylum application fee; and

  • Citizenship application fee from $640 to $1170.00, among others.

As we enter public discourse on the current Continuing Resolution and related Congressional discussions, we remind readers that in all likelihood USCIS will be fee-funded and open for business!

©2019 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

For more USCIS news, see the National Law Review Immigration Law page.

DACA: Updates and Options for Dreamers

This November, the United States Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on the case that will decide the fate of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.[1] This program, established through executive action, has offered a temporary reprieve from removal (deportation) to nearly 800,000 students and young professionals raised in the United States.[2] While the program protects a generation categorically denied opportunity to gain legal status,[3] it is very limited in scope. Remarkably, DACA does not confer any immigration status itself nor offer a separate pathway to any other status including permanent residency.[4]

The idea that someone can be present in the United States without legal status while not unlawfully present is confusing – not only to the general public, but apparently to the Supreme Court. In oral argument for U.S. v. Texas, Chief Justice John Roberts wondered, “I’m sorry, that just so I get that right… Lawfully present does not mean that you’re legally present.”[5] Justice Samuel Alito also asked, “[H]ow can it be lawful to work here but not lawful to be here?”[6] If members of this nation’s highest court struggle with this concept, it is no wonder there is confusion surrounding DACA.

DACA: Benefits and Limitations

The DACA recipients, or “Dreamers,”[*] are in legal limbo: allowed to work in the United States, but with no legal status. DACA recipients are permitted to continue their education, and receive a social security number.[7] In some states, recipients can also apply for a driver’s license.[8] DACA also offers a reprieve from accruing “unlawful presence,” a legal term for time spent in the United States without status as an adult, which can lead to future bars to reentry to the US.[9] However, the deferred action program does not, on its own basis, allow its recipients to apply for a separate status.[10] DACA protections expire every two years, and require subsequent renewal applications.[11]

It is no wonder that Dreamers have been called “the best and brightest young people.”[12] The DACA protections only extend to a group of educated youth that have never been convicted of most categories of crimes.[13] To qualify, an applicant must have arrived to the country under the age of sixteen, attend school or have completed their education, and be under the age of thirty, among other requirements.[14] By the nature of the program, recipients arrived as children and therefore may not have a connection to their country of birth. As a result, many Dreamers are attending universities, building careers, and living their lives in the United States without a guarantee that they can obtain legal status to stay permanently.

DACA is Unique Only in its Limited Scope

Deferred action is a commonly used exercise of prosecutorial discretion.[15] As with many other government actions, officials set enforcement priorities to manage limited resources. In addition, the Department of Homeland Security can grant deferred action on an individual basis at any time.[16] The Dreamers’ immigration standing is also not unique, because, as Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito learned, many foreign nationals in the US can work legally but do not have legal status. This includes applicants for adjustment of status to permanent residence, and foreign nationals of countries granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS).[17] Applicants for political asylum are also permitted to work legally in the US after a certain time period while awaiting a final decision on their applications.[18]

The DACA program is part of a long history of executive actions related to immigration. In 1961, the Kennedy Administration established a program to give immigrant visas to Cuban refugees, as well as provide financial help, medical care, and other resettlement services.[19] The program benefitted around one million Cuban Americans.[20] Subsequently, when an influx of both Cubans and Haitians arrived on Florida shores in 1980, most were discretionarily admitted to the country.[21] Several years later, President Reagan announced that immigration standards for 200,000 undocumented Nicaraguans would be eased, and directed the immigration service to “encourage and expedite” their work authorizations.[22] After the 1986 immigration reform bill offered a pathway to residence to many undocumented families, around 100,000 children of those families were shielded from deportation by executive action.[23] In 1990, former President Bush expanded the program by creating an application process for undocumented individuals to stay in the United States and receive work permits.[24] Two consecutive administrations also expanded the TPS status of thousands of Salvadorans and Nicaraguans until they were offered a pathway to permanent residency by law.[25] Within this context, DACA is much less beneficial to eligible foreign nationals than other major executive actions on immigration, because it provides no pathway to any other immigration status and certainly not permanent residence.

The DACA program was designed as a solution to a problem created by more recent changes to immigration law, which were promoted by many of the same immigration restrictionists that now oppose DACA. For most of American history, migrants from Mexico and other countries travelled back and forth across the border for work in the United States, but maintained a primary residence in their home countries.[26] Migration consisted of seasonal flows from Mexico corresponding to the need for agricultural and railroad workers.[27] There was often no need to stay permanently, so workers returned home in the winter.[28] As a result, families often stayed in Central America instead of relocating to the U.S.[29]

During the second half of the 20th century, U.S. law made it difficult to legally migrate from Central America.[30] As a result, it became risky to travel across the border and entire families settled undocumented.[31] While DACA did not fix this legal status discrepancy, it allowed the children of these families to stay and continue their education and careers.

Recent Changes to the DACA Program

In 2017, the Trump Administration attempted to end the DACA program.[32] After several lawsuits were filed to challenge the termination of DACA, injunctions were issued to order the Department of Homeland Security to continue to process DACA renewals and employment authorizations, but the government could refuse new applications.[33] The pending litigation challenges whether the Trump administration acted with proper authority in attempting to end the program, and whether the Court has the authority to review the administration’s decision.[34]

Even if the Supreme Court upholds the Trump Administration’s decision to end the DACA program, there remains a chance that Congress will act to protect Dreamers. An amendment to immigration law would render the pending case moot and take precedence over any Department of Homeland Security administrative decision. Although at least ten iterations of the bill have been introduced, none have passed.[35] This year, the House passed the American Dream and Promise Act which would grant DACA recipients permanent, statutory protections.[36] However, the bill still has to pass the hurdle of a favorable Senate vote.[37]

The situation of Dreamers is that of legal purgatory – with the door shut to legal status and very few options to leave the United States and return with a visa. Legislative action has been stalled for decades and now a conservative Court is poised to hear the case in the coming weeks. Dreamers and activists alike hope the Court will see DACA as a rational response to protect 800,000 young people from the legal conundrum created by U.S. immigration law.

Options for the Future

With the future of the DACA program uncertain, many Dreamers and employers are assessing their options. The following section is an overview of considerations for DACA recipients, who are in a unique and challenging legal position. With each type of visa, there are exceptions and complicating factors, such as criminal convictions, that may affect eligibility. Although immigration law permits waivers of certain conditions, waivers are granted only in narrow circumstances. As a result, each individual should discuss their unique situation with an experienced immigration attorney.

Immigrant Visa Petitions.

There are several types of immigrant visas available for individuals wishing to become permanent residents, including primarily (1) immediate relative petitions, (2) family-based petitions, and (3) employment-based petitions.[38] The first category can be filed by a U.S. citizen spouse, parent, or an adult child (over the age of twenty-one).[39] The second two types of immigrant visas, based on family and employment, each have different subcategories and are subject to numerical annual limits.[40]

Even if a DACA recipient can qualify for an immigrant visa, there are unique issues that may prevent many from receiving the green card. There are two avenues to receive permanent residency: consular processing at a U.S. Consular Post abroad; and adjustment of status while present in the United States.

Adjustment of Status. Whether a DACA recipient can adjust their immigration status to permanent resident depends on the time spent in the United States without legal status, the manner of U.S. entry, and the type of immigration sponsor. As a general rule, Dreamers cannot adjust status with a family-based petition because it requires continuous lawful status.[41] Employment-based petitions are only available if the individual has less than 180 days of unlawful presence.[42] Thankfully, the immediate relative petition allows adjustment to those who have been undocumented for many years.[43] However, like all petitions, the immediate relative petition requires lawful entry to the United States with either a visa or a travel authorization document.[44] Dreamers who marry a U.S. citizen may have other options even without lawful entry, but will want to seek the advice of an immigration attorney.

Consular Processing. The alternative to adjustment of status is applying for an immigrant visa and interviewing at a U.S. embassy. Most DACA recipients will face challenges in this method, as well. Beginning at age eighteen, any person who has spent over 180 days without legal status faces a three year bar to reentry to the United States.[45] This bar increases to ten years after one year of unlawful presence.[46] Therefore, leaving the country for an interview at a U.S. embassy is a practical impossibility for many recipients who have accrued unlawful presence before approval under DACA.

Non-Immigrant Visa Petitions.

There are numerous types of temporary visas. The F-1 student visa, the O-1 extraordinary ability visa, H-1B work visa, and the B visas for tourism and business are all examples.[47] Most DACA recipients face one fundamental challenge to receiving any of these visas: a grant of a temporary status while living in the U.S. requires an existing, valid underlying status. DACA does not confer any non-immigrant status for this purpose.

Thus, Dreamers seeking a temporary visa are in a similar position as those hoping to receive a green card through consular processing. The process requires leaving the United States and reentering with a visa, a path complicated by three-year and ten-year statutory bars. If available, Dreamers may want to pursue a position abroad with their company. In addition, individuals who are eligible may want to consider whether they qualify for Temporary Protected Status (TPS), which would confer the ability to apply for other temporary statuses.

Humanitarian Petitions.

It is worth noting that there are a few pathways in immigration law for humanitarian-based relief, including the special immigrant juvenile visa, asylum, and visas available for survivors of crimes and domestic abuse.[48] These options may present a pathway to permanent residency for DACA recipients, but only for those that qualify and receive a favorable exercise of discretion.

In summary, individuals temporarily protected under DACA should consider alternatives in the coming months before the Supreme Court’s decision. Though the pathway to permanent residency is narrow, there may be a few options available to stay continuously or to work abroad and return after a few years. The most important step is to continue to renew DACA in the meantime. Finally, it is important to consult with an experienced immigration attorney to help navigate the available options.

[*] The name “Dreamers” originated from the name of the legislative act, the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, originally introduced in 2001.

[1] See DHS v. Regents of the Univ. of Calif., 139 S.Ct. 2779 (2019). The case was consolidated with two other lawsuits, Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen and NAACP v. Trump, with oral arguments set for November 12, 2019 and decision expected around June 2020. DACA Litigation Timeline, Nat’l Immigration Law Center, https://www.nilc.org/issues/daca/daca-litigation-timeline/ (Last updated Sep. 28, 2019).

[2] Gustavo Lopez & Jens Manuel Krogstad, Key Facts about Unauthorized Immigrants Enrolled in DACA, Pew Research Cent. (Sep. 25, 2017), https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/25/key-facts-about-unauthorized-immigrants-enrolled-in-daca/.

[3] See Dara Lind, Why Ending DACA is so Unprecedented, Vox (Sep. 5, 2017), https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/5/16236116/daca-history (noting DACA protects individuals largely without legal pathways to permanent residency).

[4] See U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children 3 (2012), https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/s1-exercising-prosecutorial-discretion-individuals-who-came-to-us-as-children.pdf; See also Frequently Asked Questions, Nat’l Immigration Law Center https://www.nilc.org/issues/daca/faqdeferredactionyouth/ (Last updated Dec. 16, 2016).

[5] Transcript of Oral Argument at 28, United States v. Texas, 136 S.Ct. 2271 (2016) (No. 15-674).

[6] Transcript of Oral Argument at 28, United States v. Texas, 136 S.Ct. 2271 (2016) (No. 15-674).

[7] DACA, Immigration Legal Resource Center, https://www.ilrc.org/daca, (Last visited Oct. 18, 2019).

[8] Immigration Legal Resource Center, Preparing for the Future 15 (2019), https://www.ilrc.org/preparing-future-understanding-rights-and-options-daca-recipients.

[9] Unlawful Presence and Bars to Admissibility, USCIS, https://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/unlawful-presence-and-bars-admissi… (Last visited Oct. 18, 2019); Understanding Unlawful Presence Under INA § 212(a)(9)(B) and Waivers of Unlawful Presence, Immigrant Legal resource Center 3 (2019), https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/resources/understanding_unlawful_presence_march_2019.pdf.

[10] See U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children 1 (2012), https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/s1-exercising-prosecutorial-discretion-individuals-who-came-to-us-as-children.pdf (“This memorandum confers no substantive right, immigration status or pathway to citizenship.”).

[11] See Id.; The Dream Act, DACA, and Other Policies Designed to Protect Dreamers, American Immigration Council 3 (2019), https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/the_dream_act_daca_and_other_policies_designed_to_protect_dreamers.pdf.

[12] Get the Facts on the DREAM Act, The White House President Barack Obama (Dec. 1, 2010), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2010/12/01/get-facts-dream-act; See also The Dreamers Are a Good Part of America’s Future, The Wall Street Journal (July 25, 2017), https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-dreamers-are-a-good-part-of-americas-future-1501002274; Power to the Doers and Dreamers, Unleashing the Best and Brightest, Int’l Business Times (Aug. 16, 2010), https://www.ibtimes.com/power-doers-dreamers-unleashing-best-brightest-193274; Gabrielle Levy, Obama: Trump’s DACA Decision ‘Cast a Shadow’ of Deportation Over ‘Best and Brightest’ U.S. News (Sep. 5, 2017), https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-09-05/obama-trumps-daca-decision-cast-a-shadow-of-deportation-over-best-and-brightest.

[13] U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children 1 (2012), https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/s1-exercising-prosecutorial-discretion-individuals-who-came-to-us-as-children.pdf.

[14] Id.

[15] See Shoba S. Wadhia, The Role of Prosecutorial Discretion in Immigration Law, 9 Conn. Pub. L. J. 243, 246 (2010)

[16] Id.

[17]Employment Authorization Document, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, https://www.uscis.gov/greencard/employment-authorization-document (Last updated Apr. 5, 2018).

[18] Id.

[19] See Larry Nackerud et al., The End of the Cuban Contradiction in U.S. Refugee Policy, 33 Int’l Migration Rev. 176, 177 (1999); See also Drew Desilver, Executive Actions on Immigration Have a Long History, Pew Research Center (Nov. 4, 2014), https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/11/21/executive-actions-on-immigration-have-long-history/.

[20] See Larry Nackerud et al., The End of the Cuban Contradiction in U.S. Refugee Policy, 33 Int’l Migration Rev. 176, 177 (1999)

[21] See Drew Desilver, Executive Actions on Immigration Have a Long History, Pew Research Center (Nov. 4, 2014), https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/11/21/executive-actions-on-immigration-have-long-history/; See also Julio Capo, The White House Used This Moment as Proof the U.S. Should Cut Immigration, It’s Real History is More Complicated, Time (Aug. 4, 2017), https://time.com/4888381/immigration-act-mariel-boatlift-history/.

[22] Immigration Rules Are Eased for Nicaraguan Exiles in the U.S., New York Times (July 9, 1987), https://www.nytimes.com/1987/07/09/world/immigration-rules-are-eased-for-nicaraguan-exiles-in-us.html.

[23] Am. Immigration Council, Reagan-Bush Family Fairness (Dec. 2014), https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/reagan_bush_family_fairness_final_0.pdf.

[24] Id.

[25] See Drew Desilver, Executive Actions on Immigration Have a Long History, Pew Research Center (Nov. 4, 2014), https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/11/21/executive-actions-on-immigration-have-long-history/; See also Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act, 8 C.F.R. § 240.60 (2014).

[26] See Dara Lind, Why Ending DACA is so Unprecedented, Vox (Sep. 5, 2017), https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/5/16236116/daca-history (noting DACA protects individuals largely without legal pathways to permanent residency); See also Douglas Massey & Karen Pren, Unintended Consequences of US Immigration Policy 38 Population and Dev. Review 1-3 (2012), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2012.00470.x.; Marc Rosenblum & Kate Brick, US Migration and Policy and Mexican/Central American Migration Flows 1-3 (2011)

[27] Marc Rosenblum & Kate Brick, US Migration and Policy and Mexican/Central American Migration Flows 3 (2011).

[28] Id.

[29] See Dara Lind, Why Ending DACA is so Unprecedented, Vox (Sep. 5, 2017), https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/5/16236116/daca-history

[30] See Douglas Massey & Karen Pren, Unintended Consequences of US Immigration Policy 38 Population & Dev. Rev. 1-3 (2012), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2012.00470.x; Marc Rosenblum & Kate Brick, US Migration and Policy and Mexican/Central American Migration Flows 1-3 (2011).

[31] See Dara Lind, Why Ending DACA is so Unprecedented, Vox (Sep. 5, 2017), https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/5/16236116/daca-history.

[32] Michael Shear & Julie Davis, Trump Moves to End DACA and Calls on Congress to Act, New York Times (Sep. 5, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/us/politics/trump-daca-dreamers-immigration.html.

[33] See DACA Litigation Timeline, Nat’l Immigrant Justice Cent., https://www.nilc.org/issues/daca/daca-litigation-timeline/ (Last Updated Sep. 28, 2019); See also Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. DHS, 908 F.3d 476 (9th Cir. 2018).

[34] Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. DHS, 908 F.3d 476 (9th Cir. 2018).

[35] Id.

[36] American Dream and Promise Act of 2019, 116th Congress, H.R.6 https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/6.

[37] See Alan Gomez and Ledyard King, House Passes Bill to Protect ‘Dreamers’, but Faces Long Odds in Republican-led Senate, U.S.A. Today (Jun. 4, 2019), https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/06/04/house-passes-bill-dreamers-tps-but-senate-unlikely/1337753001/; Natalie Andrews & Andrew Duehren, House Passes Bill Aimed at Protecting Immigrants Brought Illegally to the U.S. as Children, Wall Street Journal (Jun. 4, 2019), https://www.wsj.com/articles/house-passes-bill-aimed-at-protecting-immigrants-brought-illegally-to-u-s-as-children-11559689659.

[38] See 8. U.S.C. § 1151 (2018).

[39] See 8. U.S.C. § 1151(b)(2)(A)(i) (2018).

[40] See 8. U.S.C. § 1151 (2018).

[41] See 8 C.F.R. §245.1(b)(6) (2018).

[42] Applicability of Section 245(k) to Certain Employment-Based Adjustment of Status Applications, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (July 14, 2008), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/Static_Files_Memoranda/Archives%201998-2008/2008/245%28k%29_14jul08.pdf.

[43] See 8 C.F.R. §245.1(b)(6) (2018).

[44] See 8 C.F.R. §245.1(b)(3) (2018).

[45] See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(b) (2018).

[46] See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(b) (2018).

[47] See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15) (2018).

[48] See Humanitarian, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian (Last visited Nov. 1, 2019). For additional resources, see Humanitarian Protection, Am. Immigration Council https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/topics/humanitarian-protection (Last visited Nov. 1, 2019).

©1994-2019 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

ARTICLE BY Lauren Watford & the Immigration Practice at Mintz Levin.
For more on DACA/Dreamers, see the National Law Review Immigration law page.

Social Media Scrutiny on Visa Applications

On May 31, 2019, the Department of State added new questions to Forms DS-160/DS-156 Nonimmigrant Visa Application and Form DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application. These additional questions require the foreign national to disclose social media platforms they have used within the past five years, as well as provide their username(s) for each platform. Passwords for these accounts do not have to be disclosed and should not be provided. Additional questions request the visa applicant’s current e-mail and phone number, in addition to contact information for the previous five years. If applicants are unable to recall precise details, they may insert “unknown,” but should be prepared for the possibility of additional screening during the visa process. Please note, this a question that must be answered as fully as possible by the Foreign National. Not providing the requested details could result in denial or quite possibly the denial of subsequent immigration applications.

Forms DS-160/DS-156 and DS-260 are the online applications used by individuals seeking a nonimmigrant or immigrant visa from the U.S. Department of State. Completion of the forms is the first step in the process with the Department of State, and must be submitted before scheduling and attending the visa interview. The Department of State has stated that the changes are intended “to improve … screening processes to protect U.S. citizens, while supporting legitimate travel to the United States,” as well as “vetting … applicants and confirming their identity.”

Further, on September 4, 2019, the Department of Homeland Security proposed a federal rule to add similar social media questions to several forms, including the applications for naturalization, advance parole, adjustment of status, asylum, and to remove conditions on permanent residents, along with many others. Additionally, applicants for the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) and the Electronic Visa Update System (EVUS), used for frequent international travel, are included in the proposed rule.

These changes stem from the President’s March 6, 2017 Executive Order, requesting heightened screening and vetting of visa applicants. The March 2017 Executive Order requested that the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence create “a uniform baseline for screening and vetting standards and procedures.” The addition of the social media and contact information requirements to these application forms is part of the Department of State’s response to that Order. This represents a step up for the Department of State, which previously only asked that applicants voluntarily provide their social media information.

An individual’s social media content can be easily taken out of context, even more so when the postings are from long ago and/or are in a foreign language. Social media also provides an individual’s history of contacts, associations and preferences. While much (justifiable) concern has been expressed about the scrutiny of foreign nationals’ associations and political speech, many social media platforms and the posts thereon will provide information on a foreign national’s employment history and residency. Employment history and residency information can be particularly relevant in employment-based nonimmigrant and immigrant visa applications, such as the H-1B, L-1A and I-140 petitions. These details can also be very important in that the Department of State can use them to compare the information on social media to the information contained in the visa applications. Any discrepancies in that information can lead to difficulty in successfully obtaining both nonimmigrant and immigrant visas. Possible discrepancies can lead to delays in processing, requests for additional information, increased scrutiny in other areas of the application and even denial.

Additionally, many individuals do not keep their social media accounts up to date. As the requested information covers the last five years of the applicant’s social media history (including those accounts that may be closed at the time of the application) information is likely to be out of date, incomplete and out of context. Further, the tendency to embellish employment history or to inadvertently misstate employer information (e.g., indicating Company A as the employer while actually working for placement agency Company B that has been assigned to Company A) can work against an applicant. Both of these scenarios can result in the Department of State obtaining information contradictory to the nonimmigrant or immigrant form and can create obstacles to obtaining the desired visa.

Accordingly, it is imperative that foreign nationals are cognizant of the information they are posting on their social media accounts regarding their residency and employment history, paying particular attention that information contained on the social media platforms is consistent with the information contained in the visa applications.

© 2019 Vedder Price

For more on visa application requirements, see the National Law Review Immigration Law section.