Posts Categorized: Immigration Reform

29
August 2017

USCIS to Expand In-Person Interview Requirements for Certain Permanent Residency Applicants

WASHINGTON – U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will begin expanding in-person interviews for certain immigration benefit applicants whose benefit, if granted, would allow them to permanently reside in the United States. This change complies with Executive Order 13780, “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States,” and is part of the agency’s comprehensive strategy to further improve the detection and prevention of fraud and further enhance the integrity of the immigration system.

Effective Oct. 1, USCIS will begin to phase-in interviews for the following:

  • Adjustment of status applications based on employment (Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status).
  • Refugee/asylee relative petitions (Form I-730, Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition) for beneficiaries who are in the United States and are petitioning to join a principal asylee/refugee applicant.

Previously, applicants in these categories did not require an in-person interview with USCIS officers in order for their application for permanent residency to be adjudicated. Beyond these categories, USCIS is planning an incremental expansion of interviews to other benefit types.

“This change reflects the Administration’s commitment to upholding and strengthening the integrity of our nation’s immigration system,” said Acting USCIS Director James W. McCament. “USCIS and our federal partners are working collaboratively to develop more robust screening and vetting procedures for individuals seeking immigration benefits to reside in the United States.”

Conducting in-person interviews will provide USCIS officers with the opportunity to verify the information provided in an individual’s application, to discover new information that may be relevant to the adjudication process, and to determine the credibility of the individual seeking permanent residence in the United States. USCIS will meet the additional interview requirement through enhancements in training and technology as well as transitions in some aspects of case management.

Additionally, individuals can report allegations of immigration fraud or abuse by completing ICE’s HSI Tip Form.

For more information on USCIS and its programs, please visit uscis.gov.

 

We serve the following localities: San Diego County including San Diego, Carlsbad, and Escondido; Los Angeles County including Beverly Hills, Los Angeles, West Los Angeles, Burbank, Hollywood, Van Nuys, Whittier, Woodland Hills, and Long Beach; Santa Clara County including San Jose, Milpitas, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale; Alameda County including Oakland, San Leandro, and Berkeley; Sacramento County including Sacramento, Elk Grove, and Folsom; and Orange County including Santa Ana and Anaheim.

 

26
May 2016

MAKE AMERICA IMMIGRATE AGAIN!

Donald Trump will be appearing at the San Diego Convention Center this Friday at 2:00pm. Immigration lawyers will be gathering in the Federal Plaza in front of the ICE offices at 880 Front Street, and will march in unison to the Convention Center to protest against Donald Trump’s anti-immigration policies. Please join these caring immigration advocate at 12:00pm show your continued support of the Immigrant Community here in San Diego!

For more information contact Anna Hysell anna@northcountyimmigration.com or Robin Carr at rcarrlaw@yahoo.com.

For more information on “Trump’s Immigration Reform” see below,

Real immigration reform puts the needs of working people first – not wealthy globetrotting donors. We are the only country in the world whose immigration system puts the needs of other nations ahead of our own. That must change. Here are the three core principles of real immigration reform:

1. A nation without borders is not a nation. There must be a wall across the southern border.

2. A nation without laws is not a nation. Laws passed in accordance with our Constitutional system of government must be enforced.

3. A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation. Any immigration plan must improve jobs, wages and security for all Americans.

25
May 2016

Empleadores Pueden Presentar Consultas en Línea para Ciertas Peticiones del Formulario I-129

 

A partir del 21 de abril, 2016, los peticionarios que presentaron un Formulario I-129, Petición de Trabajador No Inmigrante, y que solicitaron una extensión de estatus o cambio de empleador, pueden presentar una consulta despues de que la petición ha estado pendiente por 210 días o más. Ahora los solicitantes pueden presentar esta consulta en línea seleccionando “caso está fuera del tiempo normal de procesamiento”.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Se les recuerda a todos los clientes de USCIS que si se mudan mientras su caso está pendiente, debe informarnos acerca de su cambio de dirección. Puede hacerlo electrónicamente en uscis.gov/es/cambiodireccion. También puede llamar al Centro Nacional de Servicio al Cliente al 1-800-375-5283 (TDD para sordos y personas con impedimentos auditivos: 1-800-767-1833) o enviarnos por correo su Formulario AR-11.

As of April 21, 2016, petitioners who filed Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, requesting an extension of stay or change of employer, can submit an inquiry after their petition has been pending for 210 days or more. Petitioners may now submit this inquiry online by selecting “case outside normal processing time.”

Reminder: If you move while your case is pending, you must inform us of your address change so that you continue to receive our notifications. You may do so online at uscis.gov/addresschange, by calling the National Customer Service Center at 800-375-5283 (TDD for deaf and hard of hearing 800-767-1833) or by mailing Form AR-11, Change of Address.

 

 

25
May 2016

Less than One Week Away, the June Visa Bulletin Diversity Visas are Ready to Use

DIVERSITY IMMIGRANT (DV) CATEGORY FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE

Section 203(c) of the INA provides up to 55,000 immigrant visas each fiscal year to permit additional immigration opportunities for persons from countries with low admissions during the previous five years. The NACARA stipulates that beginning with DV-99, and for as long as necessary, up to 5,000 of the 55,000 annually-allocated diversity visas will be made available for use under the NACARA program. This resulted in reduction of the DV-2016 annual limit to 50,000. DV visas are divided among six geographic regions. No one country can receive more than seven percent of the available diversity visas in any one year.

Contact Us

For June, immigrant numbers in the DV category are available to qualified DV-2016 applicants chargeable to all regions/eligible countries as follows. When an allocation cut-off number is shown, visas are available only for applicants with DV regional lottery rank numbers BELOW the specified allocation cut-off number:

Region All DV Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed Separately
AFRICA 34,400
ASIA 8,000 Except:
Nepal: 6,200
EUROPE 34,000
NORTH AMERICA (BAHAMAS) 10
OCEANIA 1,100
SOUTH AMERICA,
and the CARIBBEAN		 1,175

Entitlement to immigrant status in the DV category lasts only through the end of the fiscal (visa) year for which the applicant is selected in the lottery. The year of entitlement for all applicants registered for the DV-2016 program ends as of September 30, 2016. DV visas may not be issued to DV-2016 applicants after that date. Similarly, spouses and children accompanying or following to join DV-2016 principals are only entitled to derivative DV status until September 30, 2016. DV visa availability through the very end of FY-2016 cannot be taken for granted. Numbers could be exhausted prior to September 30.

 

THE DIVERSITY (DV) IMMIGRANT CATEGORY RANK CUT-OFFS WHICH WILL APPLY IN JULY

For July, immigrant numbers in the DV category are available to qualified DV-2016 applicants chargeable to all regions/eligible countries as follows. When an allocation cut-off number is shown, visas are available only for applicants with DV regional lottery rank numbers BELOW the specified allocation cut-off number:

Region All DV Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed Separately
AFRICA 43,825
ASIA 10,550 Except:
Nepal: 6,725
EUROPE CURRENT
NORTH AMERICA (BAHAMAS) CURRENT
OCEANIA CURRENT
SOUTH AMERICA,
and the CARIBBEAN		 CURRENT

 

 

25
May 2016

The Future of Immigration Law…..

Iis published each and every month on approximately the 10th of the preceeding month and we call it the VISA BULLETIN, find out more here or contact our office below.

 

 

Contact Us

This bulletin summarizes the availability of immigrant numbers during the succeeding month. Consular officers are required to report to the Department of State documentarily qualified applicants for numerically limited visas; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in the Department of Homeland Security reports applicants for adjustment of status. Allocations were made, to the extent possible, in chronological order of reported priority dates, for demand received by the 7th of the preceeding month. If not all demand could be satisfied, the category or foreign state in which demand was excessive was deemed oversubscribed. The cut-off date for an oversubscribed category is the priority date of the first applicant who could not be reached within the numerical limits. Only applicants who have a priority date earlier than the cut-off date may be allotted a number. If it becomes necessary during the monthly allocation process to retrogress a cut-off date, supplemental requests for numbers will be honored only if the priority date falls within the new cut-off date announced in this bulletin.

23
May 2016

New Round of Immigration Raids

 

Over the past few days, many of you probably heard that the Obama Administration is launching a new round of immigration raids targeting Central American women and children. The CARA Pro Bono Project staff have already begun to meet with families with final orders who were transferred to Dilley, Texas, over the past few days, and we will continue to monitor and report on the types of cases we see.

 

The American Immigration Council has been in the fight to defend Central American refugees through advocacy and research. The Council issued two pieces this week critical to the debate around how the United States should be responding to the Central American crisis. The first is a report on deported families, which tells the first-hand stories of women (former CARA clients) we interviewed who now are living in hiding in Central America because they fear for their lives. The second is an updated fact sheet highlighting the fact that a majority of children do attend their immigration hearings, particularly when they have legal representation. Both papers help explain how the current system is failing asylum-seeking children and families.

 

 

 

 

You may have also seen that, the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law asked a judge to order the government to comply with the Flores Settlement and appoint an independent monitor to oversee the Obama Administration’s ongoing family detention policy. The Council and CARA Pro Bono Project partners assisted in the collection of declarations that are the basis for the Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the Flores Settlement. These declarations attest to the deplorable conditions in Customs and Border Protection holding facilities, as well as the rampant violations of the rights of children and mothers detained in family detention facilities.

We will continue to update you as things develop through public statements, as well as the blog Immigration Impact.

Please reach out with any questions.

Contact Us

 

19
April 2016

US Supreme Court hearing dispute over Obama immigration actions

 

 

 

 

 

Texas is leading 26 states dominated by Republicans in challenging the programs that Obama announced in 2014 and that have been put on hold by lower courts.

 

The programs would apply to parents whose children are citizens or are living in the country legally. Eligibility also would be expanded for the president’s 2012 effort that applies to people who were brought here illegally as children. More than 700,000 people have taken advantage of that earlier program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. The new program for parents, known as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans, and the expanded program for children could reach as many as 4 million people, according to the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute.

 

 

 

The high court is expected to decide by late June whether the efforts can move forward in the waning months of Obama’s presidency, amid a presidential campaign that has been marked by harsh Republican rhetoric over immigration.

Republican governors and members of Congress have argued that Obama doesn’t have the power to effectively change immigration law. When he announced the measures 17 months ago, Obama said he was acting under his own authority because Congress had failed to overhaul the immigration system. The Senate had passed legislation on a bipartisan vote, but House Republicans refused to put the matter to a vote.

 

 

 

The administration and immigration advocates say the immigration orders are neither unprecedented nor even unusual. Rather, they say, Obama’s programs build on past efforts by Democratic and Republican administrations to use discretion in deciding whom to deport.

 

The administration and its supporters said the challenged programs do not offer blanket protection, but depend on case-by-case reviews. The protection from deportation also would be temporary, for three years.

 

Contact Us

 

15
February 2016

Call For Examples: DACA Denials, EAD Adjudication Delays, Prosecutorial Discretion After DUI Charge or Conviction or Domestic Violence Charge or Conviction

As Texas v. United States heads to the Supreme Court, the American Immigration Council is looking for sympathetic examples of DACA applications that have been denied solely for failure to establish that the applicant warrants a favorable exercise of discretion. Specifically, we are looking for sympathetic cases where the following checkbox on the template DACA denial is marked: “You have not established that you warrant a favorable exercise of prosecutorial discretion,” and where the agency has given no other reason for the denial.

If you have such a case that you have not previously submitted, please e-mail the following information to Joshua Breisblatt at jbreisblatt@immcouncil.org by COB on Friday, February 19, 2016:

  • Your name
  • The applicant’s name
  • A short description of the case
  • A copy of the denial
  • A copy of the initial application (without supporting documents)
  • A copy of the cover letter submitted with the initial application

Immigration Council Call for Plaintiffs: EAD Adjudication Delays

The American Immigration Council filed a class action lawsuit challenging USCIS’s failure to timely adjudicate applications for employment authorization documents (EADs) and to issue interim employment authorization. If your client’s EAD application has not been adjudicated within the regulatory time period and s/he may be interested in serving as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, please fill out the form below.

Plaintiffs’ counsel are collecting examples of cases that have been pending past 90 days and cases where initial asylum applicants have had to wait beyond the regulatory 30 day period. Please do NOT include any EAD applications based on initial DACA applications (Form I-821D) at this time. Also please do not submit cases if you have “asylum clock problems,” i.e., where the government may disagree that the required 150 days have elapsed. If you have questions, please e-mail Clearinghouse@immcouncil.org with the subject line “EAD Processing Delays.”

Prosecutorial Discretion After Domestic Violence Charge or Conviction

The purpose of this survey/call for case examples is to obtain case examples regarding the exercise of prosecutorial discretion by DHS at various stages of the proceedings subsequent to DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson’s 11/20/14 Memorandum “Policies for Apprehension, Detention and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants” (AILA Doc. No. 14112004). AILA is looking for case examples involving the exercise of prosecutorial discretion when an individual has an incident involving an arrest or conviction for a domestic violence offense. Please e-mail any technical questions to reports@aila.org with the subject line “PD Survey- DV.”

Prosecutorial Discretion After DUI Charge or Conviction

The purpose of this survey/call for case examples is to obtain case examples regarding the exercise of prosecutorial discretion by DHS at various stages of the proceedings subsequent to DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson’s 11/20/14 Memorandum “Policies for Apprehension, Detention and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants” (AILA Doc. No. 14112004). AILA is looking for case examples involving the exercise of prosecutorial discretion when an individual has an incident involving driving under the influence of alcohol. Please e-mail any technical questions to reports@aila.org with the subject line “PD Survey- DUI.”

 

10
February 2016

AIC: Why the DAPA/DACA Case is Simpler Than it Seems

 

 

 

 

 

 

This week, SCOTUSblog is publishing a multi-part online symposium on United States v. Texas, a challenge by Texas and twenty-five other states to the Obama administration’s deferred action initiatives.

The Council’s Legal Director, Melissa Crow contributed a post to this symposium debunking the argument that the Obama administration is overstepping its authority by making DAPA and DACA-plus beneficiaries lawfully present and eligible for employment authorization.

She writes:

“While the twenty-six states challenging the initiatives concede that the secretary of Homeland Security has unreviewable discretion to set immigration enforcement priorities (which the Supreme Court affirmed most recently in Arizona v. United States), they contend that the Obama administration has attempted to “effectively rewrite the laws” through this particular use of its discretion. In particular, they argue that the Obama administration has exceeded the bounds of its authority on the basis that beneficiaries of DAPA and expanded DACA would be lawfully present and eligible for employment authorization while these initiatives are in effect. But the reality is that neither DAPA nor expanded DACA creates or grants legal status, and prospective beneficiaries’ eligibility for employment authorization would derive from longstanding federal law. Simply put: nothing about DAPA or expanded DACA is new or involves unlawful legislating by the executive branch.”

 

10
February 2016

USCIS Stakeholder Engagement-Enhancing Opportunities for H-1B1, E-3 and CW-1 Nonimmigrants and Certain EB-1 Immigrants

Modernizing & Streamlining our Legal Immigration System for the 21st Century

Attorneys at Guerra & Johnson are participating in a stakeholder engagement on Wednesday, Feb. 10, from 2 to 3 p.m. (Eastern) to discuss the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) final rule, “Enhancing Opportunities.” This is one of the recommendations published in the White House Report for Modernizing & Streamlining our Legal Immigration System for the 21st Century.

This final rule, posted to the Federal Register on Friday, Jan. 15, 2016 and effective on Tuesday, Feb. 16, 2016, revises regulations affecting highly skilled workers in the nonimmigrant classifications for specialty occupations from Chile, Singapore (H-1B1) and Australia (E-3); the immigrant classification for employment-based first preference (EB-1) outstanding professors and researchers; and nonimmigrant workers in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)-Only Transitional Worker (CW-1) classification. The revisions to these regulations remove unnecessary hurdles that place such workers at a disadvantage when compared to similarly situated workers in other visa classifications.

The final rule amends DHS regulations as follows:

  • DHS is including H-1B1 and principal E-3 classifications in the list of classes of foreign nationals authorized for employment incident to status with a specific employer. This means that H-1B1 and principal E-3 nonimmigrants are allowed to work for the sponsoring employer without having to separately apply for employment authorization.
  • DHS is authorizing continued employment with the same employer for up to 240 days for H-1B1 and principal E-3 nonimmigrants whose status has expired while their employer’s timely filed extension of stay request remains pending.
  • DHS is providing this same continued employment authorization for CW-1 nonimmigrants whose status has expired while their employer’s timely filed Form I-129CW, Petition for a CNMI-Only Nonimmigrant Transitional Worker, request for an extension of stay remains pending.
  • Existing regulations on the filing procedures for extensions of stay and change of status requests now include principal E-3 and H-1B1 nonimmigrant classifications.
  • Employers petitioning for EB-1 outstanding professors and researchers may now submit initial evidence comparable to the other forms of evidence already listed in 8 CFR 204.5(I)(3)(I), much like certain employment-based immigrant categories that already allow for submission of comparable evidence.

According to DHS, the regulatory changes are meant to “improve the programs serving the H-1B1, E-3 and CW-1 nonimmigrant classifications and the EB-1 immigrant classification” and “remove unnecessary hurdles that place such workers at a disadvantage when compared to similarly situated workers in other visa classifications.”

Contact Us