Articles Posted in General Immigration Issues

Published on:

by

The visa bulletin is out at this link:  July 2020 Visa Bulletin   

Employment based preferences must use the Final Action Dates chart. The employment-based categories are as follows: EB-1 is current for all countries except China (August 22, 2017) and India (May 8, 2017); EB-2 is current for all countries except China (November 8, 2015) and India (July 8, 2009); EB-3 is April 15, 2018 for all countries except China (June 22, 2016) and India (June 1, 2009); EB-3 Other Workers is April 15, 2018 for all countries except China (July 22, 2008) and India (June 1, 2009). EB-4 are current for all countries except El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras (February 1, 2017) and Mexico (June 15, 2018); Religious Worker visas are current for all countries except El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras (February 1, 2017) and Mexico (June 15, 2018); EB-5 non-regional centers are current for all countries except China (July 22, 2015) and Vietnam (May 15, 2017); EB-5 regional centers are current for all countries except China (July 22, 2015) and Vietnam (May 15, 2017).

Family based petitions are backlogged, however the F2A category is current in the Final Action Dates. USCIS says that applicants in the F2A category may file using the Final Action Dates Chart for July 2020.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

On March 20, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced an extension of flexibility in rules related to Form I-9  Employment Eligibility Verification compliance due to COVID-19. The original guidance was set to expire on May 19. Due to the continued precautions related to COVID-19, DHS has extended this policy for an additional 30 days.

For more information on how to obtain, remotely inspect, and retain copies of the identity and employment eligibility documents to complete Section 2 of Form I-9, please see the original guidance. The original guidance including eligibility requirements can be found here.

This provision only applies to employers and workplaces that are operating remotely.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

U.S Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced on May 6, 2020, that it recently migrated to Microsoft 365 and that, as of April 24, it is unable to receive and answer emails sent to e-verify@dhs.gov and i-9central@dhs.gov.

Per USCIS’s notice, if you sent an email to these addresses on or after April 24 and have not received a response within 48 hours, please resend your message to the email addresses below:

Continue reading
Published on:

by

According to the Administrative Procedure Act, a court may review a final agency action to determine whether it is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). On February 19, 2020, in the case of Barchart.com v. Koumans, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia exercised this power by reviewing USCIS’s decision to deny the H-1B visa petition for a “Market Analysis Representative.”

USCIS determined that Plaintiff, Barchart.com, failed to show why the position was a specialty occupation requiring a bachelor’s degree. This determination follows the Plaintiff filing an H-1B petition with USCIS, to hire a prospective employee, who held a bachelor’s degree in finance. The employer submitted a letter in support of the petition, detailing the position and the employee’s qualifications, during the initial filing. Additionally, in a Request for Evidence (RFE) Response, the employer submitted a declaration from Ethan Robinson, Senior Program Manager of the company, which detailed the job duties, the job’s significance to the company, and why a finance degree is necessary.

Through the power of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) the District Court decided to vacate and remand the agency’s decision because USCIS lacked to consider the evidence submitted in the RFE Response, mainly the Robinson Declaration. In 463 U.S. 29, 43 the court states, “Normally, an agency rule would be arbitrary and capricious if the agency has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.” In denying the Petition, USCIS faulted Barchart.com for failing to show the position required a bachelor’s degree or higher. However, nowhere in reaching this decision did USCIS consider the Robinson Declaration. According to 613 F.3d at 194 “[A]n agency’s refusal to consider evidence bearing on the issue before it constitutes arbitrary agency action within the meaning of [5 U.S.C.] § 706.” By failing to consider the Robinson Declaration, as evidence bearing on the issue, USCIS constituted arbitrary and capricious action resulting in the Court’s ruling to vacate and remand the H-1B denial.

Published on:

by

UPDATE: USCIS Releases New and Revised Forms associated with Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds Final Rule

February 19, 2020

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has released new and revised forms which must be used for applications and petitions received on and after February 24, 2020. The change is associated with the February 24, 2020 implementation of the Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds Final Rule, which expands USCIS’ grounds to deny applications for permanent residence and petitions for nonimmigrant status based upon the beneficiary’s or applicant’s use of public benefit programs.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

Despite a federal judge’s order that his removal from the United States should be delayed, an Iranian student, Mohammad Shahab Dehghani Hossein Abadi, was deported on January 21, 2020. The Northwestern student attempted to return to the U.S. with a student visa when he was detained by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) at Logan Airport in Boston, MA.

American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts and other attorneys on Abadi’s behalf filed an emergency suite and U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs issued an order delaying the student’s deportation for 48 hours. About an hour after the order was issues Abadhi was put on a plane bound for France.

Abadi’s legal team will file a motion that seeks to force the government to explain why it defied the judge’s instructions and deported Abadi.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

On January 12, 2020, in the case of Wagafe et al. v. Trump et al, U.S. District Judge Richard A. Jones decided that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) must provide over two dozen documents detailing how USCIS evaluates immigration applications.

The class action suit was filed in 2017 by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of individuals whose applications for citizenship and legal residency were delayed for long periods of time without being informed why. The lawsuit argues that government’s extreme vetting of people applying for citizenship and permanent residency under Trump’s January 2017 executive order suspending the issuance of visas and other immigration statuses to nationals of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen, along with the existing Controlled Application Review and Resolution Program (CARRP) violate federal laws and due process protections. The ACLU argues the executive order and CARP are designed to delay and deny citizenship and permanent residency to Muslim immigrants and immigrants from Muslim majority countries, despite their eligibility under the law.

The documents that Judge Jones has ordered USCIS to turn over, after finding that the data is directly relevant to the case, include documents regarding USCIS’ scoring methodologies, risk factors and indicators of national security concerns. Judge Jones explained, “The withheld information regarding USCIS’s processes is directly relevant to plaintiff’s claims and does not appear to be obtainable from alternative sources.” USICS has three weeks to provide the documents.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

A U.S. District Judge in Oregon has temporarily blocked the Trump administrations’ healthcare mandate which would bar U.S. entry for any prospective immigrant who cannot prove they would be covered by qualifying health insurance within their first 30 days in the U.S. or have the financial means to pay for all “reasonably foreseeable” medical expenses.

The judge’s order, which was issued on November 2, will block the Trump Administration from implementing the healthcare ban for 28 days. On November 22, the judge will determine whether to issue a preliminary injunction in the case, which would last for the entire time the case is pending.

The lawsuit against the ban was filed by the American Immigration Council (AIC), an organization that utilizes litigation, research, and legislative and administrative advocacy to work towards a more and just immigration system. The lawsuit contends that the healthcare ban violates the law and will radically reduce the number of people who could enter the U.S. As many as two-thirds of all prospective immigrants (an estimated 375,000 people, annually) who would otherwise qualify for an immigrant visa would be banned.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) published policy guidance regarding the responsibilities of F-1 students who are employed based on Optional Practical Training (OPT) and STEM OPT.  ICE reminds these students that they are responsible for providing a description of how their job relates to their major area of study to the Designated School Official (DSO) at their college or university.

OPT permits up to 12 months of temporary employment for certain foreign national students.  Science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) OPT permits an additional 24-month period of temporary employment with qualified employers of foreign national students who have graduated with degrees in approved STEM fields.

The DSO must review the student’s description, and determine whether there is a direct relationship between the job and the student’s major area of study.  The decision should be made on a case-by-case basis, and the DSO can request additional documentation if he or she has concerns.  The DSO must retain the description of the direct relationship and monitor and update the student’s records in the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), the ICE web-based system that maintains information on foreign national students and exchange visitors in the U.S.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

Forbes reports that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is conducting on-site inspections at worksites of students working on STEM OPT.  Science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) Optional Practical Training (OPT) employment is a 24-month period of temporary training for certain foreign national students, which directly relates to the students program of study in an approved STEM field.  Although this is a new practice, under the regulations ICE has the authority to conduct these compliance site inspections.

According to the Department of Homeland Security’s Study in the States website, the site inspection will address how the salary of STEM OPT employees is determined, whether there is sufficient structure to provide supervision and training of the employee, and the nature of the employer/employee relationship at any third party worksites.  The website states the following:

Site [inspections] will be limited to checking information related to student STEM OPT employment and ensuring that students and employers are engaged in work-based learning experiences that are consistent with the information supplied on the student’s Form I-983.

Continue reading
Contact Information
351 California St
#600
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: 415.357.2095
Photos by JeffRogers.com

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2016, Cornerstone Law Group
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design