Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Articles

Collapse

Immigration law news on visas, greencard and citizenship. Find how to get US visas, green cards and citizenship. Immigration CLE Seminars for Lawyers. Immigration Law Books for Attorneys.

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Article: Cutting Interpreters From Immigration Court Risks Due Process By Aaron Reichlin-Melnick

    Cutting Interpreters From Immigration Court Risks Due Process by Aaron Reichlin-Melnick Every day, hundreds of non-English speaking immigrants show up to court for initial hearings where they will see an immigration judge for the first time. But due to a new policy, many immigrants will lose the help of dedicated court interpreters to ensure they understand what’s going on in the hearing. Instead, in-person simultaneous interpreters will be replaced with orientation videos and telephonic interpretation. According to news reports, the policy was officially announced to judges on Thursday. The policy is set to begin nationwide on the week of July 15. However, it has not been publicly confirmed by the Executive Office for Immigration Review, the agency which oversees the immigration courts. It was reportedly previewed to some immigration judges in late June and first revealed by Paul W. Schmidt, a former immigration judge who reports on developments in the courts. All immigrants in removal proceedings have a right to interpretation, but how that interpretation is carried out varies from place to place. In most locations, interpreters sit next to immigrants when they appear in front of a judge, translating from the immigrants’ language to English and vice versa. By being in court, interpreters can quietly ask follow-up questions without breaking the flow of the conversation, take body language into account, and provide high quality interpretation. Under the new policy, in-court interpreters will not be available for initial hearings. Instead, immigrants who don’t speak English will watch a video orientation in “multiple languages,” and will not be permitted to ask questions about the video. Once the immigrant appears in front of the judge, they will only be able to receive interpretation through the phone. However, interpreters will still be available for full hearings on any applications for relief from removal, such as asylum. Telephonic interpretation is often of lower quality than in-person interpretation. Telephonic interpreters have to wait longer to determine whether someone has finished talking, slowing proceedings down. Since they can’t see people, they can’t consider facial expressions or body language in their interpretation. Low-quality telephone lines and volume problems may prevent them from understanding everything that was said. Before the policy rolled out, immigration judges expressed significant reservations. In leaked emails revealed by BuzzFeed, judges attacked the policy as misguided, with one judge suggesting that playing a video means he will be sitting in court “twiddling my...
    See more | Go to post

  • Article: ICE Quietly Expands Immigration Detention in the Deep South By Katie Shepherd

    ICE Quietly Expands Immigration Detention in the Deep South by Katie Shepherd While members of Congress were struggling to reach a bipartisan deal in February in order to end the government shutdown, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) quietly expanded its complicated network of immigration jails—this time in the Deep South. In late June, ICE started using three jails in Louisiana and Mississippi, with bed-space for 4,000 people. Just two years ago—at the beginning of the Trump presidency—ICE had the capacity to hold only about 2,000 people. This expansion increase’s ICE’s capacity in Louisiana and Mississippi by 50 percent. All three of the detention centers are run by private prison companies: Adams County Correctional Center in Mississippi is run by CoreCivic, the Catahoula Correctional Center in Louisiana is run by LaSalle Corrections, and the South Louisiana ICE Processing Center is run by GEO Group. Private prison companies are driven by financial incentive and so historically have cut corners in order to maximize profit. As a result, privately run jails are chronically understaffed in order to save money and incarcerated individuals may have more limited access to critical services, including medical care and adequate food. This expansion is particularly concerning given the long and horrifying track record of human rights abuses, staff mistreatment, and inadequate medical care in these facilities in recent years. Deplorable conditions at one of the jails—the Adams County prison—contributed to a 2012 riot that left one guard dead and at least a dozen people injured. The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced in May that it would no longer use Adams County to hold federal inmates, giving ICE—and CoreCivic, which now runs Adams County—the chance to take over. In fact, the horrifying conditions in facilities just like these were uncovered by Mother Jones in the summer of 2016, when an investigative reporter went undercover for four months as a guard at a CoreCivic-run jail in Louisiana. Ramping up ICE detention in the Deep South is particularly problematic given the remoteness of the facilities, and their distance from available attorneys, expert witnesses, and loved ones.  The region is notorious for particularly harsh immigration judges. Many of the hearings are likely to be heard by video teleconference (VTC), which disadvantages immigrants.  Attorneys and advocates have complained that video technology often breaks down, and the lines may have bad sound quality. Congress must fully exercise its constitutional oversight authority and hold ICE accountable for repeatedly overspending its detention budget. Further, the Trump administration must decrease its over-reliance on private prison companies, which systemically cut corners at the cost of the well-being and health of the individuals in their custody. Until that happens, individuals in facilities like Adams County, Catahoula, and South Louisiana Processing Center will continue to suffer out of sight of attor...
    See more | Go to post

  • Article: TN Visa Requirements To Work In Canada, Mexico Or The United States By Edward C. Corrigan

    TN Visa Requirements To Work In Canada, Mexico Or The United States. by Edward C. Corrigan American, Canadian and Mexican citizens, with the right professional qualifications, have the opportunity to work anywhere in North America under trade agreements negotiated by their respective governments. This agreement was formerly called the North American Free Trade Agreement or NAFTA for short. Under US President Trump a new agreement, called the United States, Mexico, Canada Agreement (USMCA) took NAFTA’s place. There are only minor changes in the new agreement. These agreements were designed to facilitated trade between Canada, Mexico and the United States. Part of these agreements was to allow qualified professionals from these three countries to work on a temporary basis in Canada, Mexico and the United States on a reciprocal basis. These visas’ are called TN Visas. To qualify for a TN Visa, one need’s to have meet the requirements expressly set out in the Appendix 1603-D.1 in the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) . There are 61 professional categories recognized as being eligible for TN Visas. For most professional categories one need’s to have a Bachelor Degree which is issued by a recognized Canadian, American, or Mexican University, or a Licentura (Licence) Degree that allows the applicant to practice in a particular area. You also have to be a Citizen of Canada, Mexico or the United States. Permanent Residents of Canadas and Mexico or United States Green Card holders and other non-Citizens are not eligible for a TN Visa. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA Canadian citizens are generally eligible for admission into the United States0 as nonimmigrants without a visa. The TN category, a nonimmigrant classification, simply reflects this general exemption for Canadians from the visa requirement. NAFTA governs the process that is required to prove whether a Canadian or Mexican citizen is a professional in a qualifying profession. Mexican Citizens are required to obtain a Visa to Enter the United States. CANADIAN CITIZENS Canadian citizens can apply for a TN Visa at designated Ports of Entry into the United States. Applicants’ can establish eligibility for TN classification at the time they seek admission to the United States. They must present the required documentation to a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer at a designated port of entry or at a designated pre-clearance/pre-flight inspection station. Applicants’ must provide the following documentation to qualify fo...
    See more | Go to post

  • Article: Rand Paul Bill Fixes Hr 1044 Removal Of Per Country Cap Bill With A Bill That Would Double Employment-based Green Cards By Mona Shah

    Rand Paul Bill Fixes Hr 1044 Removal Of Per Country Cap Bill With A Bill That Would Double Employment-based Green Cards by Mona Shah On July 10th, 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives passed HR 1044, the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act of 2019, that aims to remove per-country caps for employment-based visas, including EB-5. For a detailed discussion on the bill, please refer to our published article “EB-5 Regulations Get Closer to the Finishing Line…HR 1044…Should the EB-5 Industry be Worried?” here. While HR 1044 passed the House, it is yet to pass in the U.S. Senate and be signed by the President to become law. A companion bill on the Senate’s side, S.386 (Sen. Lee, R-UT), which does not provide a transition period for EB-5, was recently “hot lined,” i.e. the bill was distributed to all the Senate offices for review. A hot lined bill may be passed with unanimous consent if no Senator puts it on hold for any reason.  If a Senator raises any issue, however, the process can be stopped, and the bill may be on hold for an indefinite time. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has voiced its opposition to S.386, which resonates with the EB-5 industry’s widespread belief that the bill would likely kill the industry (or at least, the rest of the world apart from China) for years to come until the Chinese visa backlog is cleared, for any new investor will need to wait approximately 8 years for a visa number pursuant to its enforcement. “The Department of Homeland Security does not support S. 386. The bill would do nothing to move the current employer-sponsored system toward a more merit-based system. The adverse effect on immigrant visa wait times for nationals of countries currently with lesser demand would be an obstacle to any potential plan to promote or increase immigration from countries who immigrants present reduced risk, such as Visa Waiver Program countries, or any other class of countries which the Administration may desire to provide preferential treatment (e.g., countries with which the U.S. has negotiated favorable trade deals).” – Joseph Joh, Assistant Director and Senior Adviser for the Office of Legislative Affairs at DHS.   Employment-Based Green Cards Would Double Under Senator Rand Paul’s Senate Bill Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), a public opponent of HR 1044 and S. 386 (and an EB-5 supporter) has placed “a hold” on S.386 and introduced his own bill yesterday (July 11, 2019) that changes the per country limitation (without elimin...
    See more | Go to post

  • Article: Corporate Corner: Employer Risks and Strategies in the Era of ‘Buy American, Hire American’ By Wolfsdorf Rosenthal LLP

    Corporate Corner: Employer Risks and Strategies in the Era of ‘Buy American, Hire American’ by Wolfsdorf Rosenthal LLP Employers and practitioners are reporting growing difficulty in hiring foreign workers, and increasing numbers of requests for evidence and petition delays and denials, since President Trump signed the “Buy American and Hire American” executive order in April 2017. It calls for stepping up monitoring and enforcement efforts, with the H-1B program particularly targeted. Many actions have followed, both formal and informal. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has stepped up “random and unannounced” employer site visits, for example. The agency said it would focus on: Cases where USCIS cannot validate the employer’s basic business information through commercially available data; H-1B-dependent employers (those who have a high ratio of H-1B workers as compared to U.S. workers, as defined by statute); and Employers petitioning for H-1B workers who work off site at another company or organization’s location. Practically speaking, according to reports, the executive order has led to USCIS challenging H-1B new or extension applications for a variety of reasons, such as on the basis of salary levels seeming to indicate that the sponsored position is insufficiently complex to qualify for an H-1B visa, and requiring employers to provide extensive information on contracts and itineraries for H-1B workers at third-party worksites. There has been spillover beyond H-1B issues, too, such as lengthier adjudications, unpredictable policy changes, increasing scrutiny, a sense of arbitrariness and unpredictability, and requests for evidence into other visa categories of interest to employers, including H-2B, L-1, and TN visas, and calls to reduce or eliminate STEM Optional Practical Training. Although the terrain for employing foreign workers in the United States remains difficult, there are ways you can meet these challenges head-on: Review your existing workforce, decide which employees should be sponsored for H-1B visas, and plan in advance. Perform an immigration audit and verify that all documentation is current. Get your financial documentation in order, for verification that your company is able to support a foreign worker throughout his or her employment. This may include tax returns, contracts, and other documents. Pay attention to application details. Small technical mistakes can be disqualifying. Keep in mind that agents may be looking for reasons to deny. Be prepared to defend your need for an H-1B worker. This issue comes up repeatedly. Take a look at foreign graduating students; don’t rely solely on the H-1B lottery. Contact your WR immigration attorney for help with strategizing, minimizing risks, global migration and employment issues, and specific cases.     Resources: USCIS notice on “Buy American and Hire American”  USCIS notice on “further measures” USCIS notice on “combating H-1B visa fraud and abuse” Executive Order #13788 E-Verify, https://www.e-verify.gov/ Canada Work Permit: Global Talent Stream, https://www.immigration.ca/canada-work-permit-global-talent-stream and https://www.immigration.ca/plan-to-make-global-talent-stream-permanent-sparks-surge-in-interest News, analysis, and commentary: “Buy American, Hire American: How Renewed Protectionism Is Reshaping Supply Chains” “The Impact of Buy American and Hire American” Executive Order No. 13788 “How President Trump’s Buy American, Hire American Executive Order Has Affected H-1B Work Visas” “USCIS Holds a One-Sided Listening Session About the Buy American and Hire American Executive Order Progress”  “How Will Trump’s ‘Hire American’ Order Change Labor Policy?” “What Will Trump’s Executive Order Do to H-1B Visas?” “Prepping for the H-1B Hiring Cycle: New Administration, New Rules” This post originally appeared on Wolfsdorf.com. Reprinted with permission. About The Author Wolfsdorf Rosenthal LLP Established in 1986, Wolfsdorf Rosenthal LLP is a full-service, top-rated immigration law firm providing exceptional immigration and visa services. With over 30 years of experience and offices in Los Angeles, New York, Oakland, San Francisco, and Shanghai, the firm specializes in providing global immigration solutions for investors, multinational corporations, small businesses, academic and research institutions, artists and individuals. Wolfsdorf Rosenthal attorneys are experts in their field and are featured contributors and speakers at local, national and global immigration forums and publications. They are also consistently recognized for their work and honored by the most prestigious awards on a national and global level. The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM. ...
    See more | Go to post

  • Article: Immigration Law Ramifications of Unlawful Presence Litigation By H. Ronald Klasko

    Immigration Law Ramifications of Unlawful Presence Litigation by H. Ronald Klasko On May 3, the Honorable Loretta C. Biggs of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina issued a Decision in the F, J and M unlawful presence litigation. Her decision rejected the government’s Motion to Dismiss on standing and ripeness grounds and granted the plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The Decision enjoins implementation “in all applications” of the USCIS August 9, 2018 Policy Memorandum that had changed 21 years of USCIS policy regarding unlawful presence for foreign nationals in D/S status. Very significantly, the Judge granted the Preliminary Injunction to have nationwide impact because of the “likelihood of success” on the merits of the plaintiffs’ challenges to the unlawful presence memorandum.Because the Judge has ordered an accelerated briefing schedule (commencing on May 13 and ending on May 30), and since the Judge has already considered the legal challenges that are the basis for plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment in determining the plaintiffs’ “likelihood of success”, it may be reasonable to expect a final decision from the court in the month of June or shortly thereafter. Of course, the decision of the court on each party’s Motion for Summary Judgment, as well as issues of whether the government will appeal the Preliminary Injunction and, if the Judge rules in favor of the plaintiffs, any final order, remain speculative.Background of D/S Unlawful Presence IssueA brief background of the issue is helpful before I explore some of the ramifications of t...
    See more | Go to post

  • Article: Recent Events in Mexican Migration Policy By Alexander Voisine

    Article: Recent Events in Mexican Migration Policy By Alexander Voisine

    Recent Events in Mexican Migration Policy

    by


    Following the Trump administration’s announcement (and subsequent revocation) of tariffs on Mexican products, which were designed to push Mexico towards a stricter regulation of its southern border, the two countries reached an agreement about what Mexico’s role will be in managing regional migration. 

    In a joint declaration, the two countries agreed that: Mexico would take “unprecedented” steps to curb irregular migration, that the United States would expand its Migrant Protection Protocols—also known as the Remain in Mexico Policy—that the two countries would take further actions if the agreed-upon measures “don’t have the expected results,” and that the U.S. and Mexico would uphold the terms of their December 18, 2019 commitment to launch the Comprehensive Development Plan, in concert with the governments of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. 

    Since then, Mexico has implemented various changes to its migration policy. Outlined below are some recent events that will affect migration in the region, as well as what the implications might be for U.S. immigration policy. 

    The Numbers

    On World Refugee Day, Alejandro Encinas Rodriguez, Mexico’s Sub-Secretary for Human Rights, Population and Migration, announced that Mexico may receive 80,000 applications for refugee status in 2019 —up from previous predictions of 60,000. This would be a 6,000 percent increase from the total number of applications received in 2013. So far, during the first six months of 2019, over 30,000 individuals have applied for refugee status in Mexico.

    https://niskanencenter.org/wp-conten...y1-300x180.png 300w, https://niskanencenter.org/wp-conten...y1-768x461.png 768w" sizes="(max-width: 731px) 100vw, 731px">

    In addition to applications for refugee status Mexico has, to date, received more than 15,000 individuals through the Remain in Mexico policy, who have been sent to border towns that lack the capacity to properly house them. As stipulated in the joint declaration, these numbers have recently increased; in fact, of the 15,000 sent to Mexico since January, the majority have been sent within the past month. Added to all the above are the 68,800 Mexicans that have been deported from the United States between January to April of 2019, many of whom were sent back to the same border cities that have recently received large numbers of asylum seekers. 

    https://niskanencenter.org/wp-conten...y2-300x143.png 300w, https://niskanencenter.org/wp-conten...y2-768x366.png 768w" sizes="(max-width: 731px) 100vw, 731px"> Safe Third Country Talks  Though not mentioned explicitly in the joint declaration, the United States has also been pressuring Mexico to declare itself a safe third country, which would force Central American migrants to apply for asylum status in Mexico and make them ineligible to apply in the U.S. While Mexico’s Foreign Secretary has reiterated that Mexico will not accept a safe third country agreement, Guatemala and the United States are nearing completion of a safe third country agreement that would require Salvadorans and Hondurans to apply for asylum in Guatemala.  This would prove to be problematic because neither Mexico nor Guatemala are fit to be considered safe third countries; Mexico’s migration system currently lacks the capacity to adjudicate thousands more claims and Guatemalans comprise the second highest number of U.S. asylum applications, mostly due to widespread gang violence.  INM Overhaul  Recent changes within Mexico’s National Institute of Migration (INM by its Spanish abbreviation) may also impact the terms of the joint declaration. Tonatiuh Guillén López—an academic and the former president of the Colegio de la Frontera Norte, a Mexican think tank well-known for its immigration studies—resigned from the INM in mid-June. He was replaced by Francisco Garduno Yañez, the former director of Mexico’s prison system, who has experience in human rights, but little experience in migration. Garduno said he will focus on reducing corruption within the INM and protecting the human rights of migrants. But, he’s also said he plans to deport over 70,000 migrants a month; for reference Mexico deported only 60,000 migrants between October-April of 2018.   In its efforts to crack down on corruption, the INM has fired 500 officials since the beginning of the year, but since April, it has only hired 239 new officials. This puts it far behind its target of 3,000 agents; the INM currently has around 1,400.  COMAR, Mexico’s refugee agency, which operates separately from the INM, is also understaffed. As of June, COMAR has about 50 officials countrywide, who would be responsible for reviewing the estimated 80,000 refugee applications for 2019—as well as the roughly 40,000 applications that have been backlogged from previous years. To date, the United States has not pledged any money in support for COMAR, but the UNHCR recently pledged an additional $1 million, nearly doubling COMAR’s budget.  Deployment of Troops to the Border As stipulated in the joint declaration, Mexico has sent 2,000 members of its newly minted National Guard to its southern border with Guatemala, joining the 4,500 troops that had already been deployed. Additionally, Mexico sent 15,000 troops to its northern border, which wasn’t required by the joint declaration. Mexico’s defense minister reiterated last week that the National Guard will be chiefly tasked with turning undocumented migrants over to the INM, and not carrying out deportation operations.  Still, human rights experts have expr...
    See more | Go to post

  • Article: View from the Left: HR 1044 is – like Trump’s Tax Bill – a Gift to the Haves By David North

    View from the Left: HR 1044 is – like Trump’s Tax Bill – a Gift to the Haves by David North As a dyed-in-the wool, life-long, New Deal Democrat, I am equally opposed to the GOP-backed Trump Tax Law as I am to the Democrat-backed HR 1044, the so-called "Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act of 2019", which seeks to damage our nearly 100-year-old tradition of numerically-limited immigration. The reason: both the tax bill and HR 1044 do exactly the same thing: they bring unneeded additional benefits to the Haves, and provide no benefits to the Have Nots. As my colleague Jessica Vaughan wrote recently, House Democrats were trying to move ahead the misnamed "Fairness to High Skilled Immigrants Act" on a consensus calendar without hearings or committee votes. The bill would not lift the total number of green cards issued, but it would speed up issuances for people from nations sending us large number of immigrants, notably those from China and from India, the second and fourth largest producers of immigrants. Mexico is first, Cuba is third. More precisely, currently no more than 7 percent of any category of admissions may go to people from any one nation. The bill would eliminate that ceiling, which has created large backlogs of would-be migrants from China and India, in the employment-based groupings, and raise it to 15 percent in the family-based migration categories. The bill favors four already lucky groups of Haves while disadvantaging everyone else: the high-tech industries that use the H-1B program to increase their already high profits; the big city (notably Manhattan) real estate developers in the EB-5 program; rich Chinese in the same immigrant investor program; and upper crust Indian nationals in the H-1B program. The Winners and What They Win Big Tech wins because it will allow a large number of Indian nationals who are now on their payrolls as H-1B temporary workers to get green cards; this will dampen down some of the unrest currently in H-1B ranks as Indian and Chinese aliens with these visas have chafed at the length of time to the green card. There are at least some reports that some H-1Bs have moved on to Canada and other ...
    See more | Go to post

  • Article: A New EOIR Rule Expands Powers of the Board of Immigration Appeals and Attorney General By Hillary Marston

    A New EOIR Rule Expands Powers of the Board of Immigration Appeals and Attorney General by Hillary Marston The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) issued a final rule last week that expands the authority of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and Attorney General William Barr when reviewing an immigration judge’s decision following a removal proceeding. The BIA reviews an immigration judge’s decision if ether the individual or the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appeals. The appeal is assigned to either a single Board member or a panel of three Board members, who must either affirm the judge’s decision, reverse it, or send it back with instructions for making a new decision. If the BIA rules against the immigrant, the individual then has the option of appealing the BIA’s decision to a federal district court. Currently, a single Board member can issue what’s called an “affirmance without opinion” (AWO), a two-sentence order that states that the BIA agrees with the immigration judge’s decision. An AWO decision does not include any further explanation or reasoning from the BIA. The government justified AWOs by claiming they would cut through the backlog of pending cases in immigration courts. In practice, they don’t achieve this goal because noncitizens often appeal AWOs to the federal courts. This causes a strain on the federal court system and continues the backlog in the immigration courts, as federal courts often send the case back to the BIA to decide again. The new rule—which takes effect on August 31, 2019—not only upholds the AWO practice but expands the powers of the BIA and Attorney General Barr in three major ways: 1. The Attorney General can order a BIA-issued decision to be binding on all immigration judges and DHS. Prior to the new rule, the Attorney General’s own decisions were binding on all of DHS, but the BIA’s decisions weren’t binding on the entire system unless a majority of Board members voted to publish them. Currently, this happens about 30 times a year. By giving the Attorney General unilateral power to designate BIA decisions as precedent with the stroke of a pen, the regulation destabilizes the fair checks and balances in the court process. 2. In any appeal to a federal court, the court must assume the BIA properly handled the case. Courts must assume that the BIA thoroughly considered all issues, arguments, and claims, even if the BIA did not mention some of them in the decision. This rule applies both to AWO decisions and full written decisions of single Board members or panels. This will negatively affect an immigrant’s ability to demonstrate that the BIA decision is wrong. If immigrants and federal judges don’t have an explanation of how the BIA reached their conclusion, they ar...
    See more | Go to post

  • Article: So, You Received a 221(g) Visa Refusal Notice? By Joseph Barnett*

    Article: So, You Received a 221(g) Visa Refusal Notice? By Joseph Barnett*

    So, You Received a 221(g) Visa Refusal Notice? by Joseph Barnett In FY 2018, the U.S. Department of State (DOS) issued over 1 million visa refusals under Section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).  The consular officer who interviews a visa applicant will tell him/her at the end of his/her interview if action on his/her case is being refused under 221(g).  Refusal under Section 221(g) means that essential information is missing from an application (such as an unabridged birth certificate) or that an application has been placed on administrative hold.  Although disheartening to a visa applicant, many immigration attorneys consider a 221(g) refusal as a “soft refusal” which can be overcome in a majority of cases.  Yet, for many, a visa refusal under 221(g) pending further information presents a unique challenge due to the black hole of DOS “administrative processing,” a catch-all term for all post-interview processing before a final visa decision is made.  The most common causes of delay relate to fraud detection, Security Advisory Opinions (SAOs), “extreme vetting,” and processing under President Trump’s Travel Ban.  Here are four things to know about 221(g) visa refusals: 1. Non-Issuance v. Ineligibility. The subtitle of INA 221(g) is “Nonissuance of visas or other documents,” and consular officers rely on terms such as “[if] it appears to the consular officer” or “[if] the consular officer knows or has reason to believe” to request additional documentation from an applicant or to request a SAO from the DOS Bureau of Consular Affairs in Washington D.C. (discussed below).  The Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM), the source of DOS’ policies and procedures that govern the operations and responsibilities of DOS, states that 221(g) is not to be used when a provision of INA 212(a), which relates to classes of aliens ineligible for visas or admission, is applicable.  Moreover, the FAM requires consular officers to consider the petition for reconsideration, if the visa applicant provides further evidence to overcome the “non-issuance” upon which the 221(g) refusal was entered.   2. Not A Visa Denial. The FAM ...
    See more | Go to post
There are no articles in this category.
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Please log in to your account to view your subscribed posts.


Working...
X