I’m going to explain how the immigration service has been unlawfully revoking the approval of petitions for nearly a quarter of a century. The impact of this unauthorized action on hopeful immigrants has been terrible, resulting in many thousands losing their place in the queue after having waited many years, and having to move to the back of a line in some cases decades long. To understand how this has happened, you’ll need to understand some basics of the immigration process.
We have a petition process in the U.S., which allows U.S. citizens and permanent residents to file an immigrant petition for a close relative, and allows a U.S. employer to file a petition for an employee after certain prerequisites are met. The petition is a form that is filed with USCIS, the immigration agency, and when the petition is approved it is assigned a priority date which is the date the person got in line for one of the limited immigrant
As the U.S. plans to resettle 10,000 Syrians next year, many are eyeing the news with concern. Critics fear that refugee resettlement, though a compassionate program, will prove to be a far too costly endeavor. Yet economic evidence clearly suggests that, despite upfront costs, the long-run impact of resettlement will be neutral — and could actually trigger modest economic stimulus.
From a humanitarian angle, it is hard to argue against resettling Syrians in the United States. Seven and a half million Syrians have been internally displaced, and 4 million externally displaced since 2011. Over 200,000 civilians have been killed since the onset of the civil war four years ago. Life expectancy has dropped by 20 years, and 80 percent of Syrians now live in poverty.
Resettlement in the U.S. is one of the only ways to save refugees from a nightmare situation back home.
Fiscal conservatives, however, worry that an influx of refugees will dramatically strain government budgets and take jobs from American citizens. These are understandable concerns. Yet current case studies largely alleviate them, making the case against resettling refugees substantially weaker.
Take Lebanon, for example. Since 2011, the country has taken in more than a million refugees. The
TSC update I-485 link still available – The Texas Service Center reports that the TSC EB update email address,email@example.com will continue to be available to provide updates for pending I-485’s. There had been some question as to whether the link was still available. The purposes for use are:
On October 22, 2015, Mr. Oppenheim released critical information at the IIUSA conference in Dallas, Texas regarding the EB-5 program, including predictions as to the Chinese EB-5 waiting line
In May 2015, the DOS announced the establishment of a cut-off date for the Chinese EB-5 category of May 2013, establishing a waiting line of 2 years for persons chargeable to the China quota. Remarkably, in the seven months from May 2015 to November 2015, the waiting line has not retrogressed once and has moved forward at the rate of about one month in every one of the 7 past visa bulletins. Fortunately this trend continues for the entire first quarter of Fiscal Year 2016 (October, 2015-December 2015), and slows down only slightly in the second quarter of FY 2016 (January 2016-March 2016).
It may be noted Mr. Oppenheim has refrained from making predictions for the March 2016 EB-5 Visa Bulletin. This is despite the unprecedented surge in filings leading up to the critical September 30, 2015 sunset date when the program was extended for 10 weeks to
The approved immigrant visa
petition, Form I-140, is truly precious, especially when foreign nationals
caught in the employment-based second and third preference backlogs have to
wait for several years before they can get their green cards. The beneficiary
of an I-140 petition can also “port” to a new employer after an I-485
adjustment of status application has been pending for 180 days. Once the
beneficiary has ported and is no longer in contact with the former employer,
the USCIS may discover that it improperly approved the I-140 petition and revoke
it. Only the prior employer may get notification, which may no longer care to
contest the grounds for revoking the I-140 or this employer may no longer even
be in existence. The hapless foreign national who is enjoying job mobility
under INA 204(j) does not know any better, but this individual may no longer be
able to obtain permanent residency.
Should this foreign national
beneficiary at least be notified about the I-140 being revoked and allowed to
contest it? In 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Herrera
v. USCISanswered in the
negative by holding that the government’s authority to revoke an I-140 petition
under INA 205 survived portability under INA 204(j). Since Herrera, progress has been
made in favor of the foreign national’s interest in the I-140 petition although
it may have been filed by the employer. In 2014, the Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals in Kurupati
v. USCIS held that a foreign national had standing notwithstanding the
USCIS rule in 8 CFR 103.3(a)(1)(iii)(B) that precluded the beneficiary from
challenging the revocation of an I-140.The Kurupati court observed
that the foreign national was clearly harmed as the revocation of the I-140
petition resulted in the denial of the I-485 adjustment application. The Court
further observed that the notion of prudential standing, where a court may
disregard standing based on prudence, has been discredited by the Supreme Court in
Last week, Congressman Joaquin Castro (TX-20) introduced legislation to remove derogatory language describing noncitizens as “aliens” from federal law. The bill, known as the Correcting Hurtful and Alienating Names in Government Expression (CHANGE) Act, eliminates the use of this terminology in U.S. code and federal agencies’ materials and documentation.
If enacted, the CHANGE Act would (a) change the term “alien” in federal law to the term “foreign national;” (b) strike the term “illegal alien” from federal law and replace it with the term “undocumented foreign national;” and (c) ensure all Executive Branch agencies do not use the terms “alien” and “illegal alien” in signage and literature.
Current law utilizes the term “alien” to depict a person who is not a citizen or national of the United States. This language has been used in U.S. code since the Naturalization Act of 1790, which represented the country’s initial effort to establish the rules under which a foreign-born person could become a U.S. citizen. The term, however, has a markedly pejorative meaning.
As we approach the sunset of the temporary extension of the Regional Center EB-5 Program (the “Program”), there continues to be little consensus among lawmakers concerning how to define a Targeted Employment Area (“TEA”).
Currently, a TEA is defined as an area which, “at the time of investment, is a rural area or an area which has experienced unemployment of at least 150 per cent of the national average rate”.
Rural “means any area not within either a metropolitan statistical area (as designated by the Office of Management and Budget) or the outer boundary of any city or town having a population of 20,000 or more.”
A project’s TEA qualification matters because when an EB-5 project is located in a TEA the investment amount required is $500,000 per investor instead of $1,000,000. Clearly, TEA status is a major benefit to the EB-5 project seeking investors.
There is much to discuss in properly defining a TEA. For example, the concept of “rural” seems simple and not problematic. However, that is not the case. For example, the EB-5 definition of rural requires that the project
Visa Gate – In our recent article series, “The New Visa Charts – A Primer in Interpreting Them, Historical Perspective, Use in Forecasting Demand, How the New System Will Work, and Their Additional Benefits to All,” this author expressed the hope that the Department of State would throw out its net as far as possible on its dates of filing charts for I-485 applications; and that better coordination
With floods of migrants pouring out of the Middle East and a simmering debate about immigration in Europe, politicians and the public should make sure not to throw the baby out with the bath water when formulating policies. Immigration can have some very positive effects and one of our recent IMD Competitiveness Center studies backs this up.
Competitiveness greatly depends on the extent to which governments facilitate an environment conducive to business. One key indicator is the impact of immigration laws; that is, whether or not immigration
Why did your client or employee get an education RFE? The three-year bachelor’s degree is one of the most common reasons well qualified and even over-qualified candidates receive an RFE instead of an outright approval. The USCIS reasons that a three-year degree does not equate to a US four-year bachelor’s degree on the grounds of that missing year. Another common reason is a mismatched major. In the recent past, the USCIS would accept that a candidate is qualified for his