No announcement yet.

Article: NTA Issuance Policy, October Visa Bulletin, PERM, ITIN, H-1B, and DHS Electronic Information Systems by Alan Lee, Esq


  • Article: NTA Issuance Policy, October Visa Bulletin, PERM, ITIN, H-1B, and DHS Electronic Information Systems by Alan Lee, Esq

    NTA Issuance Policy, October Visa Bulletin, PERM, ITIN, H-1B, and DHS Electronic Information Systems.

    Alan Lee, Esq.

    This article will explore various topical areas of immigration which may be of interest to readers dependent upon their fields of focus or cases.

    1. NTA issuance as per U.S.C.I.S. policy memorandum of November 7, 2011.

    This is of interest to anyone applying for benefits with U.S.C.I.S. as the question is what the agency will do if it denies the application. DREAMERS are especially concerned as many are contemplating the merits of filing for DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals). Current NTA (Notice To Appear before the immigration court) policy is as follows:

    • National security cases will be guided by the Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate (FDNS).
    • NTA issuance is required for terminations of conditional residence status and denied I-751s, I-829s, termination of refugee status by District Director, NACARA 202 and HRIFA adjustment denials, asylum referrals/termination of asylum or withholding of removal or deportation/positive credible fear findings (negative findings not automatically entitled), and NACARA 203 cases where suspension of deportation/cancellation of removal are not granted. U.S.C.I.S. is not required to but will issue NTAs in fraud cases with a statement of findings (SOF) substantiating fraud. Criminal cases and NSEERS violator cases will be referred to ICE for decision on an NTA issuance. Criminal cases are divided into the egregious and non-egregious and U.S.C.I.S. will pend and refer egregious cases to ICE, while it will complete the adjudication and refer the case to ICE if non-egregious. Here ICE will decide if and how it will institute removal proceedings and whether it will detain the alien and U.S.C.I.S. will not issue an NTA if ICE declines to issue. For N-400 naturalization cases mainly involving aggravated felonies prior to November 29, 1990, or applicants convicted of deportable offenses after obtaining permanent residence status that did not fall within the good moral character period, or where the applicant was inadmissible at the time of adjustment or admission to the United States, the ISO (Immigration Services Officer) will make a recommendation on whether to issue the NTA, and the case is forwarded to an N-400 NTA review panel which consists of a U.S.C.I.S. supervisor, U.S.C.I.S. attorney, District representative, and an ICE attorney (invited).
    • Other than these, an NTA is not to be issued except through written request by aliens or if U.S.C.I.S. initiated, after concurrence from regional or center directors, who are to consult with ICE before issuing an NTA.

    2. The visa chart for October shows very limited advances.

    Family based cases: For all categories, the forward movement was less than one month, and for F-2B adult sons and daughters of permanent residents, there was no movement at all.

    Employment based cases: The surprises were here. Although EB-1 (Priority workers) remained current as expected, EB-2 (advanced degree holders or persons of exceptional ability) for most countries only opened the fiscal year at January 1, 2012 for most countries, July 15, 2007 for China born, and September 1, 2004 for India born. You may recall that before the category backlogged in May 2012, EB-2 was current for most of the world and up to May 1, 2010 for both China and India born. EB-3 (skilled workers or professionals) for most countries was at October 22, 2006, up three weeks; China born moved from December 15, 2005, to February 8, 2006, and India moved one week to October 15, 2002. The quota for religious workers who are not members of the clergy became unavailable along with EB-5 immigrant investor pilot program cases as Congress had not renewed either program as of date of visa bulletin issuance. Both categories would immediately become current with the renewal of the programs. In late breaking news, the House by a vote of 412-3 reauthorized the EB-5 pilot program for three years until September 30, 2015. President Obama is expected to sign the bill as soon as it reaches his desk.

    3. PERM processing times.

    DOL (Department of Labor) processing times as of September 4, 2012, on labor certification applications were as follows:

    • First reviews - June 2012
    • Audits - January 2012
    • Reconsideration to certifying officer - October 1, 2011
    • Government error - current In general, the times mean that the Department is currently reviewing labor certification applications filed 2-3 months ago; is only now adjudicating cases involving auditing and the sending in of a rebuttal that were first filed 9 months ago; making decisions on denied applications filed 11 months ago in which reconsideration was requested of the certifying officer; and making almost immediate decisions on cases denied due to acknowledged government error.

    4. New rules on obtaining ITIN's.

    Many undocumented immigrants obtain Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITIN's) to pay taxes on money earned in the U.S. They are not eligible for Social Security numbers, so the ITIN is the best compromise between them and the U.S. government to allow the payment of taxes while not giving undocumented immigrants some form of legal status. However, IRS's new interim rules as of June 22, 2012, will discourage persons from applying for such. Under the rules, original documents must be mailed to IRS such as passports or other appropriate identification documents and the IRS says it could take up to 60 days to return. IRS will also accept a copy certified by the foreign issuing agency, but some applicants have been advised by home consulates that the consulates will not issue certified copies of passports. The passport is especially relevant here as it is the only stand-alone document which satisfies both requirements to prove foreign status and identity. If not a passport, the applicant must submit certified copies of at least two documents, one to prove foreign status and the other identity. Documents that can be used to prove foreign status are a U.S. visa, foreign military identification card, national ID card, foreign voter's registration card, and birth certificate. Documents to establish identity include a visa issued by the U.S., U.S. or foreign driver's license, U.S. or foreign military I.D. card, national ID card, U.S. state identification card, foreign voter's registration card, or birth certificate. To many foreign nationals, their passport is the most precious document, and the only document that they brought with them to the States. Most would be reluctant to let the passport out of their possession, much less for up to 60 days. IRS should reconsider the rule.

    5. H-1B items of interest from California Service Center.

    Two items of interest were gleaned from the California Service Center's stakeholder meeting of November 8, 2011:

    • It is permissible to request a change of status from H-1B or L-1 to B-2 if the individual has been laid off and is seeking the change of status for the purpose of seeking a school in which to enroll. Applicants must state the purpose of the requested change of status and U.S.C.I.S. takes into consideration all factors in its discretionary determination. (A change of status to B-2 visitor to gain time to obtain eligibility for another visa status is not that common an application, but perhaps more acceptable in this age of stubborn joblessness and layoffs).
    • On maintenance of status for I-129 RFE's (Request For Evidence), the Center clarified that the standard number of paystubs to show that the applicant has been working for the authorized employer is two. The Center's officers have been instructed to use that figure if requesting paystubs. (If this is the trend, it is positive as RFE's have usually requested W-2's and proof of many more paystubs than two where maintenance of status is at issue).

    6. DHS electronic information systems news.

    • Because U.S.C.I.S. implemented the Electronic Immigration System (ELIS) on May 22, 2012 to electronically adjudicate I-539's, CBP (Customs and Border Protection) to maintain consistency has instructed its inspectors at the ports of entry to no longer stamp I-20 forms presented by prospective and returning students seeking admission to the U.S.
    • U.S.C.I.S. has apparently tied in with the Advance Passenger Information System (APIS) and where a person plans an international flight, cancels it, and later applies for immigration benefits that require physical presence at the time of filing such as adjustment of status/extension of non-immigrant status, he/she is being denied. CBP's advice on November 9, 2011, was that a person who does not take a scheduled flight should keep documentation to establish physical presence in the U.S.
    • CBP announced on August 7, 2012, that it will automate the I-94 from paper form to electronic. The actual process has not been clearly communicated to the public and a paper I-94 may or may not still be issued at various points of entry while the electronic I-94 record is being generated. More on this at a later date.

    This article © 2012 Alan Lee, Esq.

    About The Author

    Alan Lee, Esq. is a 30+ year practitioner of immigration law based in New York City holding an AV preeminent rating in the Martindale-Hubbell Law Director, registered in the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers, and on the New York Super Lawyers list. He was awarded the Sidney A. Levine prize for best legal writing at the Cleveland-Marshall College of Law in 1977 and has written extensively on immigration over the past years for Interpreter Releases, Immigration Daily, and the ethnic newspapers, World Journal, Sing Tao, Pakistan Calling, Muhasha and OCS. He has testified as an expert on immigration in civil court proceedings and was recognized by the Taiwan government in 1985 for his work protecting human rights. His article, "The Bush Temporary Worker Proposal and Comparative Pending Legislation: an Analysis" was Interpreter Releases' cover display article at the American Immigration Lawyers Association annual conference in 2004, and his victory in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in a case of first impression nationwide, Firstland International v. INS, successfully challenged INS' policy of over 40 years of revoking approved immigrant visa petitions under a nebulous standard of proof. Its value as precedent, however, was short-lived as it was specifically targeted by the Bush Administration in the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004.

    The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) alone and should not be imputed to ILW.COM.
      Posting comments is disabled.





    There are no tags yet.

    Latest Articles


    • Article: The EB-5 Immigration Program and the Investors Process By H. Ronald Klasko

      If you are having difficulty viewing this document please click here.

      08-20-2018, 08:15 AM
    • Article: Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence By Karolina Walters
      Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence by Karolina Walters The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), the union that represents the nation’s immigration judges, is challenging the government’s decision to remove an immigration judge from a well-known case and replace him with a judge who immediately ordered the immigrant in the case deported. NAIJ’s grievance addresses the treatment of one immigration judge, but its resolution will have implications for judicial independence throughout the entire immigration court system. The grievance was filed on behalf of Philadelphia-based immigration judge Steven A. Morley, who was presiding over the case of Mr. Reynaldo Castro-Tum. Castro-Tum’s case rose to national importance earlier this year when Attorney General Jeff Sessions chose to refer the case to himself to reconsider the Board of Immigration Appeals’ previous decision in the case. In reconsidering the decision, Sessions effectively eliminated judges’ use of administrative closure, a docket management tool. Sessions sent Castro-Tum’s case back to Judge Morley, noting that the immigration court order Castro-Tum removed if he did not appear at his next hearing. Castro-Tum did not appear at the next hearing. However, Judge Morley continued the case to resolve whether Castro-Tum received adequate notice of the hearing. Due process requires, at a minimum, that an individual be given notice of proceedings and an opportunity to be heard by a judge. But before the next hearing could take place, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) replaced Judge Morley with an Assistant Chief Immigration Judge who ordered Castro-Tum removed when he did not appear at court again. In their grievance, NAIJ asserts that the decision to remove Judge Morley from Castro-Tum’s case and reassign many other cases from his docket resulted in unacceptable interference with judicial independence. The grievance specifically claims that EOIR’s actions violate immigration judges’ authority under the regulations to exerci...
      08-17-2018, 11:12 AM
    • Article: Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico By Sophia Genovese
      Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico by Sophia Genovese The Trump Administration is seeking to create and implement a safe third country agreement with Mexico . Under this agreement, asylum seekers arriving at the US border who have travelled through Mexico would be denied the ability to file their asylum claims in the US. Such an agreement would trample on the rights of asylum-seekers, violating both international and US asylum law. In particular, the US would be violating the international principle of non-refoulement , which provides that no State “shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his [or her] life or freedom would be threatened,” where Mexico has a proven track record of being anything but safe for asylum seekers . The US has also codified Article 33(1) of the Refugee Convention into Section 208(a)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) which provides that it will not return an asylum seeker to his or her country of origin, but may, at the determination of the Attorney General, remove the asylum seeker to a “safe third country… where the [asylum seeker] would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection.” Although Mexican officials have not yet indicated whether they would sign a safe third country agreement with the US, asylum advocates should proactively seek to prevent such a devastating policy with a country that lacks adequate asylum protections. As reported by Human Rights First and Amnesty International , 75 percent of asylum seekers apprehended and detained by the National Institute of Migration (INM), the Mexican immigration enforcement agency, were not informed of their right to seek asylum. Even if asylum seekers are able to make their claims, only 30% of the asylum proceedings are ever concluded , and even fewer are granted, leaving many bona fide asylum seekers stranded without a resolution. The treatment of unaccompanied minors’ asylum claims in Mexico are even more dismal. Of the 35,000 minors apprehended by the INM in the first half of 2016, only 138 were able to apply for asylum , of which only 77 were granted protection. Beyond the failing asylum system in Mexico, asylum seekers are also in extreme danger of kidnapping, murder, rape, trafficking, and other crimes by INM officers and civilians. A safe third country agreement with Mexico would violate the United States’ international obligations under the 1967 Optional Protocol to the Refugee Convention, to which we are a signatory, which adopts by incorporation the obligations outlined in the 1951 Refugee Convention, to which the US is not a signatory. Take the example of an asylum-seeker, Mrs. H, who is fleeing politically-motivated violence in Honduras. Her husband, Mr. H, was a vocal political activist who opposed the National Party and members of the Honduran government. Mr. H began to receive death threats due to his political beliefs and reported such threats to the authorities. The authorities, however, di...
      08-16-2018, 02:32 PM
    • Article: Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence By Eugene Goldstein, Esq.

      Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence


      On August 9, 2018 USCIS published a “Policy Memorandum” restricting the 20-year-old calculation of Duration of Status (D/S) for F-1, J-1 and M-1 entrants (and their derivative families).

      USCIS also published an announcement (hereinafter “announcement”) “USCIS Issues Revised Guidance on Unlawful Presence for Students and Exchange Visitors , and a general discussion “Unlawful Presence and Bars to Admissibility” ...

      08-15-2018, 12:57 PM
    • Article: Update On Express Entry Immigration To Canada By Edward C. Corrigan and Selvin Mejia
      Update On Express Entry Immigration To Canada by Edward C. Corrigan and Selvin Mejia On January 1, 2015 the Federal Conservatives introduced significant changes to Canada’s economic immigration program. Formerly called the Skilled Worker program the new program was re-branded as Express Entry which included Skilled Workers, the Federal Skilled Trades program, and the In-Canada Experience Program. Canada modelled its revamped economic immigration program on New Zealand’s. There is also an Atlantic Immigration program. In addition there is a separate Live-In Caregiver program where individuals can apply for Permanent Residence after two years employment in this category. EXPRESS ENTRY The initial object of the changes was to create a list of Applicants where the Federal Government could select the best and the brightest from the list of Applicants. The Express Entry was supposed have applicants who had an approved Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) and a valid job offer from an approved Canadian Employer. Under the Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS) candidates were award 600 points for having an approved job offer. Applicants would have achieved a point score of around 1,000 with the 600 points for having a valid offer of employment under the CRS. The provinces in Canada were also allowed to select Applicants according to their economic needs and these applicants that were selected through the respective provincial nominee programs by a province were awarded 600 points to be added to their score. Ontario also has a program where graduates from an Ontario University with a Master’s or who were in a PhD. program would be approved and awarded 600 points which virtually assured that they would be approved and provided with an invitation to apply. There is a quota that governs this graduate program. LABOUR MARKET IMPACT ASSESSMENTS Things did not go according to plan with Federal Express Entry. Very few Applicants were able to attai...
      08-14-2018, 12:50 PM
    • Article: USCIS Finalizes Unlawful Presence Policy Putting F, J and M Nonimmigrants In Great Jeopardy By Cyrus D. Mehta
      USCIS Finalizes Unlawful Presence Policy Putting F, J and M Nonimmigrants In Great Jeopardy by Cyrus D. Mehta The USCIS finalized its unlawful presence policy for F, J and M nonimmigrants on August 9, 2018. The final policy makes no significant changes from the draft policy of May 10, 2018. My earlier blog noted the flaws in the draft policy, which persist in the final policy. The final policy incorrectly breaks down the distinction between violating status and being unlawfully present in the US. As of August 9, 2018, F, J and M nonimmigrants who have failed to maintain nonimmigrant status will start accruing unlawful presence. Individuals who have accrued more than 180 days of unlawful presence during a single stay, and then depart, may be subject to 3-year or 10-year bars to admission, depending on how much unlawful presence they accrued before they departed the United States. See INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) & (II) . Individuals who have accrued a total period of more than one year of unlawful presence, whether in a single stay or during multiple stays in the United States, and who then reenter or attempt to reenter the United States without being admitted or paroled, are permanently inadmissible. See INA § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(1). Prior to August 9, 2018, foreign students (F nonimmigrants) and exchange visitors (J nonimmigrants) who were admitted for, or present in the United States in, Duration of Status started accruing unlawful presence on the day after USCIS formally found a nonimmigrant status violation while adjudicating a request for another immigrant benefit or on the day after an immigration judge ordered the applicant excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision was appealed), whichever came first. F and J nonimmigrants, and foreign vocational students (M nonimmigrants), who were admitted until a specific date certain accrued unlawful presence on the day after their Form I-94 expired, on the day after USCIS formally found a nonimmigrant status violation while adjudicating a request for another immigration benefit, or on the day after an immigration judge ordered the applicant excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision was appealed), whichever came first. This will no longer be the case. Under the new policy effective August 9, 2018, any status violation will start the accrual of unlawful presence. The nonimmigrant will not be provided with any formal notice of a status violation, and any violation from the past that has been discovered would have already started the accrual of unlawful presence. According to the pol...
      08-14-2018, 10:51 AM