Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Article: H.R. 6429 Another Zero Sum Game That Does Not Have To Be, Disturbing News For China EB-5 Picture, More Reason To Appeal USCIS Decisions by Alan Lee, Esq

Collapse
X
Collapse

  • Article: H.R. 6429 Another Zero Sum Game That Does Not Have To Be, Disturbing News For China EB-5 Picture, More Reason To Appeal USCIS Decisions by Alan Lee, Esq

    H.R. 6429 Another Zero Sum Game That Does Not Have To Be, Disturbing News For China EB-5 Picture, More Reason To Appeal USCIS Decisions

    Alan Lee, Esq.

    How to Improve H.R. 6429.

    Republicans are pushing the STEM Jobs Act (H.R. 6429) (presently opposed by the White House as being too narrowly drawn), which would eliminate the 55,000 visa numbers of the annual visa lottery program and reallocate the numbers for foreign graduates of U.S. universities with advanced STEM degrees. The visa numbers would first be made available for those with doctorates with the remaining ones going to those with masters. The legislation passed in the House by 245-139 vote on November 30, 2012.

    • Ph.D's - Applicants must have received a doctorate from a U.S. university in Science, Technology, Engineering, or Math (STEM), took all Ph.D coursework while physically present in the U.S., and be petitioned for by an employer who went through the labor certification process or had the requirement waived in the national interest. A labor certification already acquired by the same employer for the applicant may be used in satisfaction thereof.
    • Master's - Applicants must have a two year master's degree or master's from a 5 year combined bachelor's/master's program from a U.S. university in a STEM subject, took all their master's coursework while physically present in the U.S., hold a bachelor's degree in a STEM field or one included in the Department of Education's classification of instructional programs taxonomy within the summary group of biological and biomedical sciences, and be petitioned for by an employer who went through the labor certification process or had the requirement waived in the national interest. A labor certification already acquired by the same employer for the applicant may be used in satisfaction thereof.

    We oppose the legislation with our first objection being also that the legislation is drawn too narrowly. It should be more inclusive of others with advanced degrees received in this country such as was offered in the now stalled H.R. 3012, the Fairness for High Skilled Immigrants Act of 2011, which would also have eliminated the visa lottery program in exchange. Our second objection is the same as it was with H.R. 3012 - that there are no additional visa numbers. The Republicans unfortunately appear to view both pieces of legislation as zero sum games in which winners profit at the expense of others. Instead of swapping one category of immigrants for another, there should be recognition that both groups enrich the fabric of this country, and additional visa numbers should be allotted by Congress, instead of numbers merely being transferred. If Congress is unwilling to do that, it should give some consideration to recapturing some of the approximate 325,000 unused employment preference numbers which have not yet been touched by special legislation. Our third objection is making applicants go through the labor certification process. That requirement runs counter to both candidates' position when running for President that these individuals should be given green cards upon graduation. Breaking down the bill as it stands, it eliminates most of the waiting period to obtain permanent residence, but still requires the applicant to have an employer willing to go through the burdensome and expensive permanent labor certification process, and disenfranchises another set of immigrants in return.

    China EB-5 and Retrogression Concerns.

    There was disturbing news in the December visa bulletin that the EB-5 investment immigration category for China born individuals may backlog in this fiscal year (FY-2013) based on current demand - that "it appears likely" that a cutoff date will be needed during the second half of fiscal year 2013 (4/1/13-9/30/13). The Visa Office stated that it would delay the action as long as possible. The worldwide EB-5 limit per year is 9,940 and USCIS Director Alejandro Mayorkas stated in the EB-5 public engagement of December 3, 2012, that the program had grown exponentially - in 2008 USCIS had approved 640 I-526 petitions; and that 3700 petitions were approved and 7,500 EB-5 visas issued in the last fiscal year. Natives of China are large users of the numbers. An interesting subject that was explored in the meeting was the job creation requirement of creating 10 jobs for each investor within two years of I-526 petition approval (USCIS in practice adds another half year for the individual to complete immigration and enter the U.S.), and the thought that if the requirement was strictly adhered to, and the quota backlogged as expected for China born, all the jobs might have to be created before the investors actually came to the United States. Mr. Mayorkas said that he would take another look at whether actual job creation was a requirement to remove the conditional basis of residence status in the I-829 filing in light of this and other arguments by American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) attorneys at the meeting. USCIS also recently released EB-5 statistics showing that for fiscal year 2012 (10/1/11-9/30/12), the rate of I-526 approvals was 79% and I-829 petitions 92%. The first figure was slightly lower than the average seven years approval rate of 81% and the second higher than the average of 84%.

    More Reason to Launch USCIS Adverse Decision Appeals Now.

    The latest Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) report shows that USCIS's appeals unit has largely reduced the amount of time that it is taking to adjudicate appeals of adverse decisions. According to the processing time chart, the AAO now processes H-1B specialized occupation appeals in 9 months, L-1 intracompany transferees in 10 months, EB-1C multinationals in 10 months, EB-3 professional and skilled workers in 24 months, and I-601 waivers of inadmissibility in 13 months. Everything else is current. AAO is to be commended for its drastic reduction of times from even our February 2012 article in which we cited that office's problematic handling of H-1B appeals taking 22 months; L-1 denials 23 months; EB-2 advanced degree professionals 24 months; EB-3 skilled and professional workers 35 months; and I-601 waivers of inadmissibility 26 months. See our articles H-1B'S To Move Faster; Perm Approval httStats Down; AAO Adjudication Times Too Long etc; Grading The Various Governmental Bodies For Their Work On Immigration In 2008 This is extremely encouraging news for affected parties receiving negative decisions from the agency as many in the past have chosen to forgo the appeal route because of the long periods of time required to await an appellate decision. As the waiting times come down to more reasonable ranges (USCIS's stated goal being six months on all categories), many companies and organizations that disagree with USCIS's decisions will believe it within their capacities to wait for an appeal to go through, and many individual parties may come to believe that they are not necessarily bound by the first decision of the agency.

    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.

    Categories

    Collapse

    article_tags

    Collapse

    There are no tags yet.

    Latest Articles

    Collapse

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

      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
      ImmigrationDaily
      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
      ImmigrationDaily
      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.
      ImmigrationDaily

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

      by


      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). https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/...immigrants.pdf

      USCIS also published an announcement (hereinafter “announcement”) “USCIS Issues Revised Guidance on Unlawful Presence for Students and Exchange Visitors https://www.uscis.gov/news/uscis-iss...hange-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
      ImmigrationDaily
      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
      ImmigrationDaily
      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
    Working...
    X