DISCLAIMER: THE INFORMATION IN THIS BLOG IS PROVIDED FOR GENERAL INFORMATION ONLY. THE OFFICE OF NORKA M. SCHELL, LLC AND/OR ITS MEMBERS AND/OR EMPLOYEES MAKE NO WARRANTY REGARDING THE ACCURACY OF THIS INFORMATION. WHILE SOME OF THE INFORMATION IS ABOUT LEGAL ISSUES, IT IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE.
October 25, 2012
NY Law Offices of Norka M. Schell, LLC IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: Gonzalez v. Arizona
IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: Gonzalez v. Arizona: Posted by NY Attorney Norka M. Schell Law Offices of Norka M. Schell, LLC www.lawschell.com Arizona residents and Indian tribes ...
Gonzalez v. Arizona
Posted by NY Attorney Norka M. Schell
Law Offices of Norka M. Schell, LLC
Arizona residents and Indian tribes filed actions challenging validity of proposition requiring prospective voters in Arizona to present documentary proof of citizenship in order to register to vote and requiring registered voters to present proof of identification in order to cast ballot at polls. Actions were consolidated. The United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Roslyn O. Silver, J., entered judgment in state's favor, and plaintiffs appealed.
Holding:
The Court of Appeals held that: (1) Arizona's requirement that prospective voters provide documentary proof of citizenship was superseded by National Voter Registration Act (NVRA); (2) law of the case doctrine did not bar panel from reconsidering issue following remand from earlier decision; (3) requirement that voters provide proof of identification before voting at polls did not violate Voting Rights Act (VRA); and (4) requirement that voters show identification at polls was not poll tax.
Circuit Judge Ikuta wrote the Opinion:
" Proposition 200 requires prospective voters in Arizona to present documentary proof of citizenship in order to register to vote, Ariz. Rev. Stat. Sections 16-152, 16-166, and requires registered voters to present proof of identification in order to cast a ballot at the polls, Ariz. Rev. Stat. Sec. 16-579. This appeal raises the questions whether Proposition 200 violates the Voting Rights Act § 2, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1973, is unconstitutional under the Fourteenth or Twenty-fourth Amendments of the Constitution, or is void as inconsistent with the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1973gg et seq. We hold that the NVRA supersedes Proposition 200's voter registration procedures, and that Arizona's documentary proof of citizenship requirement for registration is therefore invalid. We reject the remainder of Appellants' arguments". Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: USCIS Launches Spanish Version of I-9 Central
IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: USCIS Launches Spanish Version of I-9 Central: Posted by: NY Immigration Attorney Norka M. Schell Law Offices of Norka M. Schell, LLC www.lawschell.com As you all already know, ...
USCIS Launches Spanish Version of I-9 Central
Posted by: NY Immigration Attorney Norka M. Schell
Law Offices of Norka M. Schell, LLC
As you all already know, in May 2011 the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) launched the I-9 Central, a free online resource center that gives employers and employees simple one-click access to resources, tips, and guidance to properly complete Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, and better understand the Form I-9 process. At the I-9 Central, employers and employees can find information on employer and employee rights and responsibilities, step-by-step instructions for completing the form, and acceptable documents for establishing identity and employment authorization.
Now the USCIS launched the Spanish version of the Central I-9 and it is available at www.uscis.gov/I-9Central/Espanol. At the site, users will find the Handbook for Employers: Instructions for Completing Form I-9 (M-274), Employee's Rights, How to Prevent Discrimination and E-Verify Self Check (a free service that allows workers and job seekers in the U.S. to check their own employment eligibility status online).
If you have questions or need legal assistance with regard employment issues, please contact our office at call me at (212)564-1589.
October 18, 2012
IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: Unfair Immigration Related Employment Practices
IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: Unfair Immigration Related Employment Practices: Posted by the NY Immigration Attorney Norka M. Schell NY Law Offices of Norka M. Schell, LLC www.lawchell.com An agreement was reach...
Unfair Immigration Related Employment Practices
Posted by the NY Immigration Attorney Norka M. Schell
NY Law Offices of Norka M. Schell, LLC
An agreement was reached between the Department of Justice (DOJ), Tuscany Hotel and Casino LLC (Tuscany) in Las Vegas, Nevada. Settling a lawsuit alleging that the company violated INA § 274 B, which bars unfair
immigration-related employment practices.
The DOJ, in a case filed in May 2012,
alleged that Tuscany treated noncitizens differently from U.S. citizens during
the employment eligibility verification and reverification process. The
complaint alleged that Tuscany required noncitizen employees to provide more or
different documents or information than it required from citizen employees
during the initial employment eligibility verification process and then used
the documents or information that it gathered to impose improper document
requests on noncitizens during the reverification process as a condition of
continued employment.
The complaint further alleged that Tuscany subjected
noncitizen employees' documents to a heightened review process by senior human
resources representatives that was not applied to documents presented by U.S.
citizens.
(1) implement new employment eligibility verification policies and procedures that treat all employees equally regardless of citizenship status,
(2) conduct training for its human resources staff on their responsibility to avoid discrimination in the employment eligibility verification process, and
(3) be subject to reporting and monitoring requirements.
For more information on above topic, please contact our New York Office at (212) 564-1589.
IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: Employee Rights Tookkit
IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: Employee Rights Tookkit: Posted by the NY Immigration Attorney Norka M. Schell Employee Rights Toolkit U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has an...
Employee Rights Tookkit
Posted by the NY Immigration Attorney Norka M. Schell
Employee Rights Toolkit
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
(USCIS) has announced that it has released a new online “Employee Rights
Toolkit” to increase awareness about employee rights during the employment
eligibility verification process. This toolkit, designed for workers, worker
advocates, and other stakeholders, contains a variety of educational materials,
such as E-Verify employee rights videos, informative
fliers, brochures, and posters. It also contains information about USCIS
multilingual engagement opportunities and guidance on avoiding immigration
scams or the unauthorized practice of immigration law and videos, audios, and
handouts about Self Check, a free online service of E-Verify that allows
workers to check their own employment eligibility status.
Most of the materials are available in
English and Spanish. The entire toolkit may be viewed online at http://1.usa.gov/PnX3XM
IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: Visa Bulletin for November 2012
IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: Visa Bulletin for November 2012: Posted by the New York Immigration Attorney Norka M. Schell NY Law Offices of Norka M. Schell, LLC www.lawschell.com ...
Visa Bulletin for November 2012
Posted by the New York Immigration Attorney Norka M. Schell
NY Law Offices of Norka M. Schell, LLC
www.lawschell.com
NY Law Offices of Norka M. Schell, LLC
www.lawschell.com
Visa Bulletin for November 2012
Family Priority Date
F2A numbers EXEMPT from per-country limit are available to
applicants from all countries
with priority dates earlier than 22JUN10.
F2A numbers SUBJECT to per-country
limit are available to applicants chargeable to all countries EXCEPT MEXICO
with priority dates beginning 22JUN10 and earlier than 15JUL10.
All F2A
numbers provided for MEXICO are exempt from the per-country limit; there are no
F2A numbers for MEXICO subject to per-country limit.
Employment Preference Categories
The Employment First Preference category
remained current for all chargeability areas.
The Second Preference cutoff for
all areas except China mainland-born and India are now current. The cut-off for
China mainland-born advanced six weeks to September 1, 2007. The cut-off for
India remained at September 1, 2004.
The Employment Third Preference category for
Mexico and Worldwide advanced one month to stand at November 22, 2006. The
cut-off for the Philippines advanced one week to August 8, 2006. The cutoff
date for India also advanced one week to stand at October 22, 2002. The cutoff
for mainland-born China advanced 10 weeks to April 15, 2006. For the Third
Preference Other Workers category, the Worldwide and Mexico dates advanced one
month to November 22, 2006. The Philippines cutoff date advanced one week to
August 8, 2006. China mainland-born advanced over one week to stand at July 1,
2003. The cutoff date for India advanced one week to October 22, 2002.
The
Fourth Preference categories are now all current as is the Fifth Preference.
Important Note:
Immigrant visa numbers in the
diversity visa (DV) category are now available to qualified DV-2013 applicants
chargeable to all regions and eligible countries as follows (visas are
available only for applicants with DV lottery rank numbers below the cutoff
number): Africa: 13,900, except Egypt: 6,600, Ethiopia: 9,100, and Nigeria:
8,500; Asia: 2,350; Europe: 7,000; North America (Bahamas): 2; Oceania: 400;
South America and the Caribbean: 500.
For more information please view our website news and resources or contact the New York Law Offices of Norka M. Schell, LLC at (212) 564-1589.
October 9, 2012
IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: Designation of Military Physicians as Civil Surgeo...
IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: Designation of Military Physicians as Civil Surgeo...: Posted by Norka M. Schell, Esquire www.lawschell.com U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services INS ...
Designation of Military Physicians as Civil Surgeons for Members and Veterans of the Armed Forces and Eligible Dependents
Posted by Norka M. Schell, Esquire
www.lawschell.com
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
INS Policy and Procedural Memoranda
Policy Memorandum
SUBJECT: Designation of Military Physicians as Civil Surgeons for Members and Veterans of the Armed Forces and Eligible Dependents Dated September 26, 2012
Purpose
*1 The purpose of this policy memorandum (PM) is to grant military physicians a blanket designation as civil surgeons to facilitate the medical exam required for members and veterans of the Armed Forces and certain eligible dependents. This blanket designation will assist members and veterans of the Armed Forces and their eligible dependents in receiving immigration medical examinations in a timely fashion.
Scope
Unless specifically exempted herein, this PM applies to and is binding on all USCIS employees. Authority Section 232(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1222(b) 8 CFR 232.2(b) 42 CFR 34.2(c).
Background INA section 232 requires arriving aliens to be examined by medical officers of the United States Public Health Services (USPHS). If medical officers of USPHS are not available, USCIS may designate civil surgeons to perform these testing requirements. Currently, under 8 CFR 232.2(b), civil surgeons are designated by the District Directors. According to 8 CFR 232.2(b), physicians qualify for civil surgeon designation if they are licensed physicians and if they have no less than 4 years of professional experience. Current guidance in Adjudicator's Field Manual(AFM) Chapter 83.4(a)(2) specifies that “licensed physicians” are physicians licensed to practice medicine in the state where they render medical services. This licensing requirement may discourage medical officers of the Armed Forces (military physicians) from becoming designated civil surgeons.
As a result, Armed Forces members and their dependents must pay for the immigration medical examination, even though the services could easily be provided by these military physicians at no cost. Additionally, the logistics to arrange for the medical examination by a non-military designated civil surgeon may prove burdensome to the military member and his or her dependent, and distract from a military member's readiness.
Policy
To ease difficulties encountered by physicians and applicants in the military, USCIS is issuing a blanket civil surgeon designation to qualifying military physicians to permit them to perform the immigration medical examination and complete the Report of Medical Examination and Vaccination Record, Form I-693, for eligible members and veterans of the Armed Forces and their dependents.
Participation in this blanket civil surgeon designation is entirely voluntary and at the discretion of each military medical facility. This blanket designation only applies to military physicians who:
• Meet the professional qualifications of a civil surgeon, as described in AFM Chapter 83.4(a)(2), except that the physician may be licensed in any state, and is not required to be licensed in the state in which the physician is performing the immigration medical examination;
• Are employed by DoD (either as Armed Forces physicians or as civilian physicians) or are civilian contract providers; and
• Are authorized to provide medical services at an MTF for Armed Forces personnel, veterans, and dependents that is located within the United States.
*2 Neither the medical facility nor the physician who qualifies for and wishes to participate in the blanket designation needs to obtain approval from USCIS prior to performing immigration medical examinations for Armed Forces personnel, veterans, and dependents at an MTF. However, military physicians must review and be familiar with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) Technical Instructions for the Medical Examination of Aliens in the United States (Technical Instructions) before they can begin performing immigration medical examinations. They must comply with the Technical Instructions in completing all immigration medical examinations.
Pursuant to the understanding reached between USCIS and the CDC, military physicians who qualify under this blanket civil surgeon designation may perform the entire immigration medical examination as long as the exam is conducted in the United States on the premises of an MTF and conducted for an Armed Forces member, veteran, or dependent who is eligible to receive medical care at that MTF. Military physicians must apply for civil surgeon designation under the standard designation process, as outlined in AFM Chapter 83.4(a)(4), if they wish to complete immigration medical examinations:
• In a U.S. location other than on the premises of an MTF; or
• For individuals other than those Armed Forces members, veterans, or dependents who are authorized to receive medical services at an MTF. Armed Forces members, veterans, and dependents will need to visit a physician designated as a civil surgeon through USCIS's standard application process if they:
• Prefer to have the immigration medical examination performed by a physician who does not qualify under this blanket designation for military physicians;
• Prefer to have the immigration medical examination performed in a U.S. location other than at the MTF at which they are authorized to receive medical services; or
• Do not have access to a military physician who is performing immigration medical examinations under this blanket designation. Military physicians operating under the blanket civil surgeon designation must record the results of the immigration medical examination on the Form I-693 according to the standard procedures all civil surgeons are required to follow. In accordance with the agreements reached with the CDC, a military physician operating under the blanket civil surgeon designation is required to certify the Form I-693 by providing both of the following on the form:
• The blanket designated civil surgeon's signature on the Form I-693. The signature may be the original (handwritten) or stamped signature. Nurses or other health care professionals may, but are not required to, co-sign the Form I-693. However, a form that has been signed only by a registered nurse, physician's assistant, or other medical professional who is not a licensed physician is not sufficient. USCIS will send the applicant a Request for Evidence (RFE) for corrective action if the Form I-693 was not signed by a licensed physician who qualifies as a civil surgeon under this blanket designation.
*3 The official stamp or raised seal of the MTF. The signed Form I-693 must be placed in a sealed envelope, according to the instructions listed on the form. Use This PM is intended solely for the guidance of USCIS personnel in the performance of their official duties. It is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or by any individual or other party in removal proceedings, in litigation with the United States, or in any other form or manner.
Contact Information Questions or suggestions regarding this PM should be directed through appropriate channels to the Office of Policy and Strategy, Residence and Naturalization Division.
www.lawschell.com
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
INS Policy and Procedural Memoranda
Policy Memorandum
SUBJECT: Designation of Military Physicians as Civil Surgeons for Members and Veterans of the Armed Forces and Eligible Dependents Dated September 26, 2012
Purpose
*1 The purpose of this policy memorandum (PM) is to grant military physicians a blanket designation as civil surgeons to facilitate the medical exam required for members and veterans of the Armed Forces and certain eligible dependents. This blanket designation will assist members and veterans of the Armed Forces and their eligible dependents in receiving immigration medical examinations in a timely fashion.
Scope
Unless specifically exempted herein, this PM applies to and is binding on all USCIS employees. Authority Section 232(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1222(b) 8 CFR 232.2(b) 42 CFR 34.2(c).
Background INA section 232 requires arriving aliens to be examined by medical officers of the United States Public Health Services (USPHS). If medical officers of USPHS are not available, USCIS may designate civil surgeons to perform these testing requirements. Currently, under 8 CFR 232.2(b), civil surgeons are designated by the District Directors. According to 8 CFR 232.2(b), physicians qualify for civil surgeon designation if they are licensed physicians and if they have no less than 4 years of professional experience. Current guidance in Adjudicator's Field Manual(AFM) Chapter 83.4(a)(2) specifies that “licensed physicians” are physicians licensed to practice medicine in the state where they render medical services. This licensing requirement may discourage medical officers of the Armed Forces (military physicians) from becoming designated civil surgeons.
As a result, Armed Forces members and their dependents must pay for the immigration medical examination, even though the services could easily be provided by these military physicians at no cost. Additionally, the logistics to arrange for the medical examination by a non-military designated civil surgeon may prove burdensome to the military member and his or her dependent, and distract from a military member's readiness.
Policy
To ease difficulties encountered by physicians and applicants in the military, USCIS is issuing a blanket civil surgeon designation to qualifying military physicians to permit them to perform the immigration medical examination and complete the Report of Medical Examination and Vaccination Record, Form I-693, for eligible members and veterans of the Armed Forces and their dependents.
Participation in this blanket civil surgeon designation is entirely voluntary and at the discretion of each military medical facility. This blanket designation only applies to military physicians who:
• Meet the professional qualifications of a civil surgeon, as described in AFM Chapter 83.4(a)(2), except that the physician may be licensed in any state, and is not required to be licensed in the state in which the physician is performing the immigration medical examination;
• Are employed by DoD (either as Armed Forces physicians or as civilian physicians) or are civilian contract providers; and
• Are authorized to provide medical services at an MTF for Armed Forces personnel, veterans, and dependents that is located within the United States.
*2 Neither the medical facility nor the physician who qualifies for and wishes to participate in the blanket designation needs to obtain approval from USCIS prior to performing immigration medical examinations for Armed Forces personnel, veterans, and dependents at an MTF. However, military physicians must review and be familiar with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) Technical Instructions for the Medical Examination of Aliens in the United States (Technical Instructions) before they can begin performing immigration medical examinations. They must comply with the Technical Instructions in completing all immigration medical examinations.
Pursuant to the understanding reached between USCIS and the CDC, military physicians who qualify under this blanket civil surgeon designation may perform the entire immigration medical examination as long as the exam is conducted in the United States on the premises of an MTF and conducted for an Armed Forces member, veteran, or dependent who is eligible to receive medical care at that MTF. Military physicians must apply for civil surgeon designation under the standard designation process, as outlined in AFM Chapter 83.4(a)(4), if they wish to complete immigration medical examinations:
• In a U.S. location other than on the premises of an MTF; or
• For individuals other than those Armed Forces members, veterans, or dependents who are authorized to receive medical services at an MTF. Armed Forces members, veterans, and dependents will need to visit a physician designated as a civil surgeon through USCIS's standard application process if they:
• Prefer to have the immigration medical examination performed by a physician who does not qualify under this blanket designation for military physicians;
• Prefer to have the immigration medical examination performed in a U.S. location other than at the MTF at which they are authorized to receive medical services; or
• Do not have access to a military physician who is performing immigration medical examinations under this blanket designation. Military physicians operating under the blanket civil surgeon designation must record the results of the immigration medical examination on the Form I-693 according to the standard procedures all civil surgeons are required to follow. In accordance with the agreements reached with the CDC, a military physician operating under the blanket civil surgeon designation is required to certify the Form I-693 by providing both of the following on the form:
• The blanket designated civil surgeon's signature on the Form I-693. The signature may be the original (handwritten) or stamped signature. Nurses or other health care professionals may, but are not required to, co-sign the Form I-693. However, a form that has been signed only by a registered nurse, physician's assistant, or other medical professional who is not a licensed physician is not sufficient. USCIS will send the applicant a Request for Evidence (RFE) for corrective action if the Form I-693 was not signed by a licensed physician who qualifies as a civil surgeon under this blanket designation.
*3 The official stamp or raised seal of the MTF. The signed Form I-693 must be placed in a sealed envelope, according to the instructions listed on the form. Use This PM is intended solely for the guidance of USCIS personnel in the performance of their official duties. It is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or by any individual or other party in removal proceedings, in litigation with the United States, or in any other form or manner.
Contact Information Questions or suggestions regarding this PM should be directed through appropriate channels to the Office of Policy and Strategy, Residence and Naturalization Division.
September 26, 2012
IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: UNDERSTANDING THE VISA BULLETIN
IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: UNDERSTANDING THE VISA BULLETIN: By Attorney Norka M. Schell Law Offices of Norka M. Schell, LLC How are are visa numbers allocated? Do you read a Visa Bulletin? Takin...
UNDERSTANDING THE VISA BULLETIN
By Attorney Norka M. Schell
Law Offices of Norka M. Schell, LLC
How are are visa numbers allocated? Do you read a Visa Bulletin?
Taking as an example the Visa Bulletin for the month of October of 2012, you first should be aware of the following rules:
The Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320. Section 203(e) provides that family-sponsored and employment-based preference visas be issued to eligible immigrants in the order in which a petition in behalf of each has been filed. Section 203(d) provides that spouses and children of preference immigrants are entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration, if accompanying or following to join the principal.
Section 203(a) of the INA prescribes preference classes for allotment of Family-sponsored immigrant visas as follows: FAMILY-SPONSORED PREFERENCES First: (F1) Unmarried Sons and Daughters of U.S. Citizens: 23,400 plus any numbers not required for fourth preference. Second: Spouses and Children, and Unmarried Sons and Daughters of Permanent Residents 114,200, plus the number (if any) by which the worldwide family preference level exceeds 226,000, plus any unused first preference numbers: A. (F2A) Spouses and Children of Permanent Residents: 77% of the overall second preference limitation, of which 75% are exempt from the per-country limit; B. (F2B) Unmarried Sons and Daughters (21 years of age or older) of Permanent Residents: 23% of the overall second preference limitation. Third: (F3) Married Sons and Daughters of U.S. Citizens: 23,400, plus any numbers not required by first and second preferences. Fourth: (F4) Brothers and Sisters of Adult U.S. Citizens: 65,000, plus any numbers not required by first three preferences. Here is how you read a Visa Bulletin: On the chart below, the listing of a date for any class indicates that the class is oversubscribed (see paragraph 1); "C" means current, i.e., numbers are available for all qualified applicants; and "U" means unavailable, i.e., no numbers are available.
Let's view the Visa Bulletin for month of October 2012. But keep in mind that numbers are available only to applicants whose priority date is earlier than the cut-off date.
Family-Sponsored
ALL CHINA INDIA MEXICO PHILIPPINES
Countries
F1 08OCT05 08OCT05 08OCT05 15JUN93 01APR96
F2A 01JUN10 01JUN10 01JUN10 15MAY10 01JUN10
F2B 15SEP04 15SEP04 15SEP04 01OCT92 22JAN02
F3 22MAY02 22MAY02 22MAY02 08FEB93 22JUL92
F4 15MAR01 5FEB01 15MAR01 22JUN96 08FEB89
For October, F2A numbers exempt from per-country limit are available to applicants from all countries with priority dates earlier than 15 MAY 10. The F2A numbers subject to per-country limit are available to applicants chargeable to all countries except Mexico with priority dates beginning 15 MAY 10 and earlier than 01 JUN 2010.
The visa numbers are also allocated to people who are seeking to enter the United States to work under the employment-based preference. Under the employment-based preference there are:
First: Priority Workers: 28.6% of the worldwide employment-based preference level, plus any numbers not required for fourth and fifth preferences.
Second: Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or Persons of Exceptional Ability: 28.6% of the worldwide employment-based preference level, plus any numbers not required by first preference.
Third: Skilled Workers, Professionals, and Other Workers: 28.6% of the worldwide level, plus any numbers not required by first and second preferences, not more than 10,000 of which to "*Other Workers".
Fourth: Certain Special Immigrants: 7.1% of the worldwide level.
Fifth: Employment Creation: 7.1% of the worldwide level, not less than 3,000 of which reserved for investors in a targeted rural or high-unemployment area, and 3,000 set aside for investors in regional centers by Sec. 610 of Pub. L. 102-395.
Here are how you read: the letter "C" means current, i.e., numbers are available for all qualified applicants; and letter "U" means that there are no numbers available.
Here is how you read it: Employment- Based All Chargeability Areas Except those listed CHINA- mainland born INDIA MEXICO PHILIPPINES
Employment-based
ALL CHINA INDIA MEXICO PHILIPPINES
Countries
1st C C C C C
2nd 01JAN12 15JUL07 01SEP04 01JAN12 01JAN12
3rd 22OCT06 08FEB06 15OCT02 22OCT06 01AUG06
*Other Workers
22OCT06 22JUN03 15OCT02 22OCT06 01AUG06
4th C C C C C
Certain Religious Workers
U U U U U
5th Targeted Employment Areas/ Regional Centers
C C C C C
5th Pilot Programs
U U U U U
Department of State Visa Office releases a new visa bulletin on or about the tenth of each month with information on cut-off dates for the following month.
Law Offices of Norka M. Schell, LLC
How are are visa numbers allocated? Do you read a Visa Bulletin?
Taking as an example the Visa Bulletin for the month of October of 2012, you first should be aware of the following rules:
The Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320. Section 203(e) provides that family-sponsored and employment-based preference visas be issued to eligible immigrants in the order in which a petition in behalf of each has been filed. Section 203(d) provides that spouses and children of preference immigrants are entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration, if accompanying or following to join the principal.
The visa prorating provisions of Section 202(e) apply to allocations for a foreign state or dependent area when visa demand exceeds the per-country limit. These provisions apply at present to the following oversubscribed chargeability areas: CHINA-mainland born, INDIA, MEXICO, and PHILIPPINES.
Section 203(a) of the INA prescribes preference classes for allotment of Family-sponsored immigrant visas as follows: FAMILY-SPONSORED PREFERENCES First: (F1) Unmarried Sons and Daughters of U.S. Citizens: 23,400 plus any numbers not required for fourth preference. Second: Spouses and Children, and Unmarried Sons and Daughters of Permanent Residents 114,200, plus the number (if any) by which the worldwide family preference level exceeds 226,000, plus any unused first preference numbers: A. (F2A) Spouses and Children of Permanent Residents: 77% of the overall second preference limitation, of which 75% are exempt from the per-country limit; B. (F2B) Unmarried Sons and Daughters (21 years of age or older) of Permanent Residents: 23% of the overall second preference limitation. Third: (F3) Married Sons and Daughters of U.S. Citizens: 23,400, plus any numbers not required by first and second preferences. Fourth: (F4) Brothers and Sisters of Adult U.S. Citizens: 65,000, plus any numbers not required by first three preferences. Here is how you read a Visa Bulletin: On the chart below, the listing of a date for any class indicates that the class is oversubscribed (see paragraph 1); "C" means current, i.e., numbers are available for all qualified applicants; and "U" means unavailable, i.e., no numbers are available.
Let's view the Visa Bulletin for month of October 2012. But keep in mind that numbers are available only to applicants whose priority date is earlier than the cut-off date.
Family-Sponsored
ALL CHINA INDIA MEXICO PHILIPPINES
Countries
F1 08OCT05 08OCT05 08OCT05 15JUN93 01APR96
F2A 01JUN10 01JUN10 01JUN10 15MAY10 01JUN10
F2B 15SEP04 15SEP04 15SEP04 01OCT92 22JAN02
F3 22MAY02 22MAY02 22MAY02 08FEB93 22JUL92
F4 15MAR01 5FEB01 15MAR01 22JUN96 08FEB89
For October, F2A numbers exempt from per-country limit are available to applicants from all countries with priority dates earlier than 15 MAY 10. The F2A numbers subject to per-country limit are available to applicants chargeable to all countries except Mexico with priority dates beginning 15 MAY 10 and earlier than 01 JUN 2010.
The visa numbers are also allocated to people who are seeking to enter the United States to work under the employment-based preference. Under the employment-based preference there are:
First: Priority Workers: 28.6% of the worldwide employment-based preference level, plus any numbers not required for fourth and fifth preferences.
Second: Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or Persons of Exceptional Ability: 28.6% of the worldwide employment-based preference level, plus any numbers not required by first preference.
Third: Skilled Workers, Professionals, and Other Workers: 28.6% of the worldwide level, plus any numbers not required by first and second preferences, not more than 10,000 of which to "*Other Workers".
Fourth: Certain Special Immigrants: 7.1% of the worldwide level.
Fifth: Employment Creation: 7.1% of the worldwide level, not less than 3,000 of which reserved for investors in a targeted rural or high-unemployment area, and 3,000 set aside for investors in regional centers by Sec. 610 of Pub. L. 102-395.
Here are how you read: the letter "C" means current, i.e., numbers are available for all qualified applicants; and letter "U" means that there are no numbers available.
Here is how you read it: Employment- Based All Chargeability Areas Except those listed CHINA- mainland born INDIA MEXICO PHILIPPINES
Employment-based
ALL CHINA INDIA MEXICO PHILIPPINES
Countries
1st C C C C C
2nd 01JAN12 15JUL07 01SEP04 01JAN12 01JAN12
3rd 22OCT06 08FEB06 15OCT02 22OCT06 01AUG06
*Other Workers
22OCT06 22JUN03 15OCT02 22OCT06 01AUG06
4th C C C C C
Certain Religious Workers
U U U U U
5th Targeted Employment Areas/ Regional Centers
C C C C C
5th Pilot Programs
U U U U U
Department of State Visa Office releases a new visa bulletin on or about the tenth of each month with information on cut-off dates for the following month.
IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: EB-5 Regional Center Program
IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: EB-5 Regional Center Program: The House of Representative has passed S. 3235, a bill to extend by three years the authorization of the EB-5 Regional Center Program. Th...
EB-5 Regional Center Program
The House of Representative has passed S. 3235, a bill to extend by three years the authorization of the EB-5 Regional Center Program.
The Immigration and Nationality Act, section 203(b)(5) established a class of immigrant visas (EB-5) for individuals who invest either $500,000 or $1 million (depending on whether the investment is in a targeted employment area or not) in a new commercial enterprise located within the U.S. and who will create full-time employment for not fewer than 10 qualified employees. There are two distinct EB-5 pathways for an alien investor to gain lawful permanent residence:
(1) Basic Program and
(2) Immigrant Investor Pilot Program.
It is important to note that the EB-5 requirements for an investor under the pilot program are essentially the same as in the basic EB-5 investor program except the Pilot Program provides for investments that are affiliated with an economic unit known as a “regional center.”
Investments made through regional centers can take advantage of a more expansive concept of job creation, including both “indirect” and “direct” jobs.
The S. 3235 bill is now pending the President's signature.
The Immigration and Nationality Act, section 203(b)(5) established a class of immigrant visas (EB-5) for individuals who invest either $500,000 or $1 million (depending on whether the investment is in a targeted employment area or not) in a new commercial enterprise located within the U.S. and who will create full-time employment for not fewer than 10 qualified employees. There are two distinct EB-5 pathways for an alien investor to gain lawful permanent residence:
(1) Basic Program and
(2) Immigrant Investor Pilot Program.
It is important to note that the EB-5 requirements for an investor under the pilot program are essentially the same as in the basic EB-5 investor program except the Pilot Program provides for investments that are affiliated with an economic unit known as a “regional center.”
Investments made through regional centers can take advantage of a more expansive concept of job creation, including both “indirect” and “direct” jobs.
The S. 3235 bill is now pending the President's signature.
September 19, 2012
IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: U.S. v. Santiago's Repacking, Inc.
IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: U.S. v. Santiago's Repacking, Inc.: U. S. v. Santiago’s Repacking, Inc. The Office of Chief Administrative Hearing Officer ("OCAHO") granted...
U.S. v. Santiago's Repacking, Inc.
U. S. v. Santiago’s Repacking, Inc.
The Office of Chief Administrative Hearing Officer ("OCAHO") granted Immigration and Customs Enforcement partial summary decision in employer sanctions case and reduced penalties assessed
for I-9 violations.
The OCAHO is within the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), and it has
jurisdiction over, among other things, civil penalty cases arising under the
Immigration Nationality Act's employer sanctions provision, section 274A.
In U.S. v. Santiago's Repacking, Inc, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Ellen K. Thomas
granted U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE's) motion for summary
decision with respect to liability on two counts of its three-count complaint, granted
the respondent Santiago's Repacking, Inc. summary judgment on the third count, and imposed reduced
penalties.
Count I of ICE's complaint against Santiago's
Repacking, Inc. (Santiago's) asserted that Santiago's hired 24 individuals and
failed to prepare or present Form I-9 for them upon request.
Count II alleged
that Santiago's hired 30 additional individuals and also failed to prepare or
present Forms I-9 for them upon request but sought lesser penalties.
Count III
alleged that the company hired one individual, Santiago Moreno, for whom it
failed to ensure that the individual properly completed Section 1 of the form
and/or failed itself to properly complete Section 2 or 3.
Penalties sought were
assessed at the rate of $981 for each of the violations in Count I, $935 for
each of the violations in Count II, and $935 for the violation in Count III,
for a total civil money penalty of $52,529.
At the conclusion of the hearing, ALJ Thomas concluded that Santiago's Repacking, Inc. is a small business and it has no history of previous violation. As a result she found that the proposed fines were at the high end of
the permissible penalty range and, considering the record as a whole, the
statutory factors, and the evidentiary submissions, concluded that they should
be adjusted as Santiago's Repacking, Inc.'s is a small company with ordinary business income in
2010 of only $58,457 and its payroll for that entire year was $226,531, so that
the proposed penalties are close to the total of the company's business income
for 2010. Thus, she adjusted the penalty to $400
for each of the violations in Count I and $350 for each of the violations in
Count II, for a total of $20,100. For more information please see the September 10, 2012, 89 No. 35 Interpreter Releases 1713.
September 12, 2012
IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: DHS OUTLINES TIPS FOR STUDENTS
IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: DHS OUTLINES TIPS FOR STUDENTS: Posted by Norka M. Schell, Esq. Law Offices of Norka M. Schell, LLC www.lawschell.com DHS Outlines Tips for Students Seeking Driv...
DHS OUTLINES TIPS FOR STUDENTS
Posted by Norka M. Schell, Esq.
Law Offices of Norka M. Schell, LLC
DHS Outlines Tips for Students Seeking Driver's License or
Social Security Number
Seeking a driver's license and a social security number can be complicated, especially for a foreigner. Knowing this, the Department of Homeland Security outlines six very useful tips for foreign students on how to seek a driver's license or/or a social security number in the United States.
1. Wait ten
days after you arrive in the United States. You may want to apply for a driver's
license or SSN [social security number] right away, but be patient. This step
saves you 20 or more days of waiting! These ten days allow time for all the
government databases to update with your arrival information. While you are
waiting, talk with your designated school official (DSO) to learn more about
your state's driving rules and regulations.
2. Make sure you are in active
status in the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS). SEVIS is
the database that manages information for all F and M students and J exchange
visitors in the United States. Your DSO activates your record in SEVIS when you
register for classes or check in for a program. Talk with your DSO before you
apply for a license to make sure you are active in SEVIS.
3. Wait two days after your DSO
activates you in SEVIS. After your DSO activates your record in SEVIS, you should
wait at least two business days before you apply for a driver's license or SSN.
This gives all the databases time to update with your new information. This
step can also save you 20 or more days of waiting.
4. Check your forms. You should
check all your forms to make sure your information is correct. This is called
data integrity. Data integrity is very important because if you have different
information on different forms, it will only cause more delays. For guidance,
see SEVP's FAQ on Data Integrity.
5. Bring all your paperwork. When you go to the
Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) - the common name for a state government
office that issues driver's licenses - or to the Social Security office,
remember to bring all your paperwork. For most states, the paperwork includes
these documents:
• Form I-20, “Certificate of
Eligibility for Nonimmigrant Student Status” or DS-2019, “Certificate of
Eligibility for Exchange Visitor (J-1) Status”
• Form I-94, “Arrival/Departure
Record”
• Passport (with visa if
applicable)
• Proof of legal presence or
residence (ask your DSO what your state requires)
• For an SSN, you must also
bring a letter of employment and an endorsed Form I-20 (for F students). See
SEVP's DMV Fact Sheet for more details on the appropriate paperwork you should
bring.
If we can assist you, please feel free to contact our office at (212)564-1589.
September 4, 2012
LAW OFFICES OF NORKA M. SCHELL, LLC: MANOHOR RAO ARRABALLY UPDATED
IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: MANOHOR RAO ARRABALLY UPDATED: Posted by: Norka M. Schell New York Immigration Attorney Law Offices of Norka M. Schell, LLC www.lawschell.com Here is the...
MANOHOR RAO ARRABALLY UPDATED
Posted by: Norka M. Schell
New York Immigration Attorney
Law Offices of Norka M. Schell, LLC
Here is the amended on the decision of Matterr of Manohar Rao Arrabally and Yerrabelly which was
decided on August 16, 2012.
The Board of Immigration Appeals held that the Respondents, who left the United States temporarily under a grant of advance parole, thereby effected a “departure,” which resulted in their inadmissibility under section
212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II). We hold that they did not.
Background
An alien who leaves the United States
temporarily pursuant to a grant of advance parole
does not thereby make a “departure . . . from
the United States” within the meaning
of section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1182(a)(9)(B)(i)(II) (2006). Matter of
Lemus, 24 I&N Dec. 373 (BIA 2007), clarified.
In a decision dated August 20, 2009, an
Immigration Judge found the
Respondents inadmissible as charged under
section 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §
1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) (2006),
as intending immigrants not in possession of
valid immigrant visas or other
entry documents. He further found them
ineligible for adjustment of status
under section 245(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. §
1255(i) (2006), based on their
inadmissibility under section
212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II), and he ordered them removed
from the United States.
Board of Immigration Appeals
This case presents the question whether the
respondents, who left
the United States temporarily under a grant
of advance parole, thereby
effected a “departure,” which resulted in
their inadmissibility under section
212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II). We hold that they did
not. Consequently, the respondents’
Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 771 (BIA 2012).
The respondents seek adjustment of status
under section 245(i) of the Act (rather than
section 245(a)) because they “failed . . . to
maintain continuously a lawful status since entry into the United States”
within the meaning of section 245(c) of the Act. Section 245(i) adjustment is
available for a fee to certain aliens who are “physically present in the United States” but covered by section 245(c).
Section 245(i)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act. The appeal will be sustained in part and the
record will be remanded to the
LAW OFFICES OF NORKA M. SCHELL, LLC: MATTER OF Mahvah AKRAM, Respondent
IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: MATTER OF Mahvah AKRAM, Respondent: Posted by Norka M. Schell, Immigration Attorney Law Offices of Norka M. Schell, LLC www.lawschell.com Decided on August 1, 2012 This c...
MATTER OF Mahvah AKRAM, Respondent
Posted by Norka M. Schell, Immigration Attorney
Law Offices of Norka M. Schell, LLC
www.lawschell.com
Decided on August 1, 2012
This case addresses the question whether an alien who was admitted to the United States as a K-4 non immigrant pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(K)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act,
(1) An alien who was admitted to the United States as a K-4 nonimmigrant may not
Law Offices of Norka M. Schell, LLC
www.lawschell.com
Decided on August 1, 2012
This case addresses the question whether an alien who was admitted to the United States as a K-4 non immigrant pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(K)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act,
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(K)(iii) (2006), can adjust status without demonstrating immigrant visa eligibility and availability as the beneficiary of an approved immigrant visa petition filed by his or her stepparent, the United States citizen K visa petitioner.
(1) An alien who was admitted to the United States as a K-4 nonimmigrant may not
adjust status without demonstrating immigrant
visa eligibility and availability as the
beneficiary of a Petition for Alien Relative
(Form I-130) filed by his or her stepparent,
the United States citizen K visa petitioner.
(2) A K-4 derivative child of a K-3
nonimmigrant who married the United States citizen
K visa petitioner after the K-4 reached the
age of 18 is ineligible for adjustment of status
because he or she
cannot qualify as the petitioner’s “stepchild.”
In a decision dated May 21, 2010, an
Immigration Judge denied Mahvash Akram's application for adjustment of
status and granted her request for voluntary departure. Mahvash Akram appealed from that decision and submitted two motions to remand.
The case
addressed the question whether an alien who was admitted to the United
States as a K-4 nonimmigrant pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(K)(iii) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act,
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(K)(iii) (2006), can
adjust status without demonstrating
immigrant visa eligibility and availability
as the beneficiary of an approved
immigrant visa petition filed by his or her
stepparent, the United States citizen
K visa petitioner.
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) concluded that the Respondent, a K-4 nonimmigrant who was over 18 years of age when her K-3 mother
married the K visa petitioner, was ineligible to adjust her status under
section 245(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) (2006), because she can not qualify
as the petitioner’s “stepchild.” The BIA denied the two motions and dismissed the appeal.
For assistance with your legal matter, please contact our office at (212)564-1589.
August 30, 2012
IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: ICE AGENTS SUES DHS AND ICE OVER DACA
IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: ICE AGENTS SUES DHS AND ICE OVER DACA: Posted by Norka M. Schell, Esq. www.lawschell.com The Consideration for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals ("DACA") is under attack....
ICE AGENTS SUES DHS AND ICE OVER DACA
Posted by Norka M. Schell, Esq.
www.lawschell.com
The Consideration for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals ("DACA") is under attack. Ten officers and agents of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") have filed a lawsuit in the District Court for the Northern District of Texas against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano and ICE Director John Morton challenging the Obama administration's deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA) directive and associated prosecutorial discretion memorandum "that prevent ICE officers, employees, and agents from fulfilling their sworn oath to uphold the law and defend defended the United States Constitution." The Plaintiffs allege that the directive "commands ICE officers to violates federal law... commands ICE officers to violate their oaths to uphold and support federal law, violates the Administrative Procedure Act, unconstitutionally usurps and encroaches upon the legislative powers of Congress, as defined in Article I of the United States Constitution, and violates the obligation of the executive branch to faithfully execute the law, as required by Article II, Section 3, of the United States Constitution.
The Consideration for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals ("DACA") is under attack. Ten officers and agents of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") have filed a lawsuit in the District Court for the Northern District of Texas against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano and ICE Director John Morton challenging the Obama administration's deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA) directive and associated prosecutorial discretion memorandum "that prevent ICE officers, employees, and agents from fulfilling their sworn oath to uphold the law and defend defended the United States Constitution." The Plaintiffs allege that the directive "commands ICE officers to violates federal law... commands ICE officers to violate their oaths to uphold and support federal law, violates the Administrative Procedure Act, unconstitutionally usurps and encroaches upon the legislative powers of Congress, as defined in Article I of the United States Constitution, and violates the obligation of the executive branch to faithfully execute the law, as required by Article II, Section 3, of the United States Constitution.
August 14, 2012
IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: DEFERRED ACTION FOR CHILDHOOD ARRIVALS PROCESS
IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: DEFERRED ACTION FOR CHILDHOOD ARRIVALS PROCESS: By Norka M. Schell, Esq. Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival Questions and Answers In the light of the estimate 12 plus million undocu...
DEFERRED ACTION FOR CHILDHOOD ARRIVALS PROCESS
By Norka M. Schell, Esq.
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival Questions and Answers
In the light of the estimate 12 plus million undocumented immigrants in the United States, mounting visa application backlogs, minimal workplace enforcement, it is clear that our current immigration laws do not meet the needs of our economy or hundreds of thousands of undocumented high school students and graduates. Despite of our broken immigration system, Congress still has not passed a comprehensive immigration reform.
On the other hand, the Obama's Administration in an attempt to fulfill the President's promises to undocumented immigrant communities, announced on June 15, 2012 that it will grant Deferred Action status to young child undocumented high school students and graduates. Beginning tomorrow, August 16, 2012, the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service will accept applications for request consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.
Where did the Obama's Administration get the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals idea?
The idea to grant and extend Deferred Action to young people -- Childhood Arrival -- originated from Temporary Protected Status program, also known as "TPS."
Generally, a Temporary Protected Status program establishes a temporary safe haven in the United States for nationals or a foreign status (or if stateless if person habitually resided in the foreign state) if the Attorney General, after consultation with appropriate government agencies, determines with respect to that foreign state that:
1. There is an ongoing armed conflict within the state (or a part of the state) posing a serious threat to the personal safety of the county's nationals if returned there. INA Section 244(b)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C 124a(b)(1)(A); or
2. There has been an earthquake, flood, drought, epidemic or other environmental disaster resulting in a substantial but temporary disruption of living conditions in the area affected; the foreign state is unable temporarily to handle the return of its nationals and the foreign state has affirmatively requested designation, INA Section 244(b)(1)(8), 8 U.S.C. Section 1245a(b)(1)(B); or
3. There exist extraordinary and temporary conditions in the foreign state preventing its nationals from returning safely, unless Attorney General determines that it is contrary to national interest to allow those aliens to remain temporarily. INA Section 244(b)(1)(C), 8 U.S.C Section 125a(b)(1)(C).
A Temporary Protected Status Program can be withdrawn or terminated if:
1. The Attorney General finds person was not eligible
2. The person fails maintain continuous physical presence
3. The person fails without good cause, to re-register with Department of Homeland Security
4. The Attorney General terminate the program.
"Bravo" to the Obama's Administration for its cleverness and courage to find a way for temporary relief to the undocumented high school students and graduates. I hope that the U.S. Congress re-examine immigration reform and find the way to grant to the "undocumented" high school students and graduates permanent safe haven in the United States.
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival Questions and Answers
In the light of the estimate 12 plus million undocumented immigrants in the United States, mounting visa application backlogs, minimal workplace enforcement, it is clear that our current immigration laws do not meet the needs of our economy or hundreds of thousands of undocumented high school students and graduates. Despite of our broken immigration system, Congress still has not passed a comprehensive immigration reform.
On the other hand, the Obama's Administration in an attempt to fulfill the President's promises to undocumented immigrant communities, announced on June 15, 2012 that it will grant Deferred Action status to young child undocumented high school students and graduates. Beginning tomorrow, August 16, 2012, the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service will accept applications for request consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.
Where did the Obama's Administration get the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals idea?
The idea to grant and extend Deferred Action to young people -- Childhood Arrival -- originated from Temporary Protected Status program, also known as "TPS."
Generally, a Temporary Protected Status program establishes a temporary safe haven in the United States for nationals or a foreign status (or if stateless if person habitually resided in the foreign state) if the Attorney General, after consultation with appropriate government agencies, determines with respect to that foreign state that:
1. There is an ongoing armed conflict within the state (or a part of the state) posing a serious threat to the personal safety of the county's nationals if returned there. INA Section 244(b)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C 124a(b)(1)(A); or
2. There has been an earthquake, flood, drought, epidemic or other environmental disaster resulting in a substantial but temporary disruption of living conditions in the area affected; the foreign state is unable temporarily to handle the return of its nationals and the foreign state has affirmatively requested designation, INA Section 244(b)(1)(8), 8 U.S.C. Section 1245a(b)(1)(B); or
3. There exist extraordinary and temporary conditions in the foreign state preventing its nationals from returning safely, unless Attorney General determines that it is contrary to national interest to allow those aliens to remain temporarily. INA Section 244(b)(1)(C), 8 U.S.C Section 125a(b)(1)(C).
A Temporary Protected Status Program can be withdrawn or terminated if:
1. The Attorney General finds person was not eligible
2. The person fails maintain continuous physical presence
3. The person fails without good cause, to re-register with Department of Homeland Security
4. The Attorney General terminate the program.
"Bravo" to the Obama's Administration for its cleverness and courage to find a way for temporary relief to the undocumented high school students and graduates. I hope that the U.S. Congress re-examine immigration reform and find the way to grant to the "undocumented" high school students and graduates permanent safe haven in the United States.
August 13, 2012
IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: DEFERRED ACTION FOR CHILDH...
IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: DEFERRED ACTION FOR CHILDH...: IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: DEFERRED ACTION FOR CHILDHOOD ARRIVALS : By Attorney Norka M. Schell On August 3, 2012, the Department of Homeland...
August 11, 2012
IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: DEFERRED ACTION FOR CHILDHOOD ARRIVALS
IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: DEFERRED ACTION FOR CHILDHOOD ARRIVALS: By Attorney Norka M. Schell On August 3, 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that USCIS will begin accepting request...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)