|
At
the Department of State's daily press briefing on October 5,
2010, the following answer was provided to the question of how
people in areas with limited Internet access can apply for the
Diversity Visa Lottery program:
Lottery
applicants may prepare and submit their own entries, or have
others, who have Internet access, submit them on their
behalf. Regardless of whether an entry is submitted by the
individual directly, or assistance is provided by an
attorney, friend, relative, etc., only one entry may be
submitted in the name of each person, and the entrant
remains responsible for ensuring that information in the
entry is correct and complete.
There were over 16
million applications entered into the system last year.
Related
Materials:
Back
to Top 
U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services released a frequently
asked questions (FAQ) sheet on October 7, 2010, that discusses
the new additional fees of $2,000 for certain H-1B petitions
and $2,250 for certain L-1A and L-1B petitions. The additional
fee applies to H-1B or L-1 petitioners that employ 50 or more
employees in the United States with more than 50 percent of
their employees in the U.S. in H-1B, L-1A, or L-1B
nonimmigrant status. USCIS noted that all employees in the
U.S., regardless of whether they are paid through a U.S. or
foreign payroll, will count toward the percentage calculation.
The
fee increase applies to covered petitions postmarked August
14, 2010, or later. For petitions filed by courier service,
the fee applies to packets picked up by the courier on August
14 or later.
Among
other things, the FAQ notes that until the Petition for
Nonimmigrant Worker (Form I-129) and the Nonimmigrant Petition
Based on Blanket L Petition (Form I-129S) are revised, the
agency recommends that all H-1B, L-1A, and L-1B petitioners
include, as part of the filing packet, the new fee or a
statement or other evidence outlining why this new fee does
not apply. USCIS requests that petitioners include a notation
indicating whether or not the fee is required in bold capital
letters at the top of the cover letter. The fee, statement,
notation, or other evidence should be provided with each
petition submitted.
Where
the fee or documentation is not submitted with the filing, or
where questions remain, USCIS may issue a Request for Evidence
(RFE) to determine whether the additional fee applies to the
petition. Because an RFE will be issued for the fee, rather
than a rejection for the omission of the fee, USCIS will
maintain the original filing date as the receipt date.
Petitioners should wait to respond to the RFE before sending
in the additional fee or an explanation of why the new fee
does not apply, USCIS said. Once the revised I-129 and 1-129S
are in place, USCIS will reject covered petitions submitted
without the new fee. USCIS said it will release those revised
forms "as soon as possible."
Related
Materials:
Back
to Top
U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services seeks comments on a new
E-Verify self-check program. Self-Check will allow workers to
enter data into the E-Verify system to ensure that information
relating to their eligibility to work in the U.S. is
correct.
Related
Materials:
- USCIS
Notice, including instructions on how to submit
comments.
Back
to Top
On
September 22, 2010, Charles Oppenheim of the Department of
State's (DOS) Visa Office met with the American Immigration
Lawyers Association's (AILA) DC Chapter, where he discussed
the Visa Bulletin, family- and employment-based priority
dates, and other issues.
Among
other things, AILA reported Mr. Oppenheim as noting that many
EB‐3 beneficiaries from India and China are now eligible for
and applying under the EB‐2 category. He said that he does not
expect priority dates in the EB‐3 category for Indian and
Chinese nationals to advance at a pace greater than that
experienced during fiscal year (FY) 2010.
According
to AILA, Mr. Oppenheim made the following short‐term
predictions about the employment‐based priority dates:
- EB‐2
and EB‐3, China. These two categories are expected to move
slowly over the next few months, by one or two weeks at a
time.
- EB‐2,
India. This category is expected to remain unchanged or to
move very slowly forward, by a week or so. This is mainly a
result of EB‐3 Indian applicants (approximately 60,000 cases
pending) "porting" their priority dates into the EB‐2
category and thus using visa numbers, he said.
- EB‐3,
India. Similarly, this category is expected to move very
slowly over the next few months, perhaps by one or two weeks
at a time.
- EB‐3,
Rest of World (ROW). This category is expected to move
slightly forward or to remain unchanged in the November 2010
Visa Bulletin due to the high number of applications waiting
for a visa number in this category.
- E‐4,
Special Immigrant Religious Workers, may have cut-off dates
by the end of this year.
- EW
has such a small number of visas (5,000 per year) that it
will advance very slowly. As with those in the EB‐3
category, many of these cases are at the District Offices,
so Mr. Oppenheim does not know the numbers until after
moving the cut‐off date forward.
AILA
reported that Mr. Oppenheim also said, among other things,
that under AC21, EB‐1 China/India cases are not currently
subject to the per-country limit, because of the crossover in
that category of otherwise unused numbers from other
countries. This has allowed 5,000‐6,000 visa numbers to be
allocated to the India and China EB‐1 categories when
approximately 2,800 would be the normal limit. The remaining
unused EB‐1 numbers "fall down" into the EB‐2 categories,
which has allowed approximately 20,000 EB‐2 numbers for India
and nearly 6,500 for China. The availability of these numbers
"fall across" strictly in priority date order, not by country,
Mr. Oppenheim noted.
Related
Materials:
Back
to Top
The
U.S. District Court for New York ruled in a consolidated case
on September 29, 2010, that a New York education law was
unconstitutional because it violated the plaintiffs' rights
under the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution and
encroached on federal immigration authority.
The
plaintiffs were 26 otherwise qualified pharmacists with
temporary authorization to work in the U.S. Twenty-two of them
had obtained H-1B visas. Most had applied for permanent
residence and all had remained in the U.S. in compliance with
federal immigration laws while their cases were pending. New
York Education Law § 6805(1)(6) provides that "[t]o qualify
for a pharmacist’s license, an applicant shall...be a United
States citizen or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent
residence in the United States." The law excludes, among
others, those who have received federal authorization to work
in the U.S. temporarily.
Among
other things, the court said:
The
theory is that courts must be wary of state laws that
exploit aliens' political powerlessness by denying them the
fruits of their societal contributions. Here, the State does
not explain why this theory would apply any less to
nonimmigrants, who also work, pay taxes, contribute to
society, and have no political voice while they remain in
this country. At one point, the State seems to suggest that
non-LPR classifications should not receive strict scrutiny
because non-LPRs have a different "constitutional status" by
virtue of their weaker ties to the country....But what does
it mean to say that nonimmigrants have a different
"constitutional status" than LPRs, or that nonimmigrants
"need not" be protected to the same extent as LPRs? The
Supreme Court has already established that all aliens, even
undocumented aliens, have rights under the equal protection
clause.
The
court pointed out that New York purported to ameliorate the
dangers posed by transient or judgment-proof pharmacists
through § 6805(1)(6), which was aimed at only a tiny subclass
of pharmacists, instead of imposing generally applicable
insurance or similar malpractice-related requirements upon the
entire profession. The state also did not put forth any
evidence that transience among New York pharmacists threatened
public health or that nonimmigrant pharmacists, as a class,
were considerably more transient than LPR and U.S. citizen
pharmacists. As a consequence, the court said, the law did
nothing to reduce the dangers of transience among citizen and
LPR pharmacists while at the same time excluding longtime
nonimmigrant residents, many of whom will become LPRs as soon
as their pending green card applications are processed. "The
question is not close; under any form of heightened scrutiny,
§ 6805(1)(6) fails," the court concluded.
Related
Materials:
Back
to Top
U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is hosting open
houses in October and November 2010 nationwide. The agency is
inviting community stakeholders and the general public to the
open houses at its offices across the country to meet USCIS
personnel and learn more about the agency's programs. The
effort "is designed to enhance USCIS's presence in the
community and strengthen its partnership with stakeholders,"
the agency said. In addition to meeting local USCIS staff,
attendees will tour USCIS offices and witness mock
naturalization interviews.
USCIS
Director Alejandro Mayorkas kicked off the series of open
houses October 4 at the USCIS Field Office in Baltimore,
Maryland.
Related
Materials:
Back
to Top
Effective
November 23, 2010, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
(USCIS) is making changes to its fee structure. Applications
or petitions mailed, postmarked, or otherwise filed on or
after November 23, 2010, must include the new fees. Among
other things, USCIS is raising fees for most immigration
benefits by a weighted average of 10 percent, establishing
several new fees, and raising the premium processing service
fee. An application to replace a green card will cost $365
instead of $290; an immigrant petition for alien worker will
cost $580 instead of $475; and an application for employment
authorization will cost $380 instead of $340. The premium
processing fee will increase from $1,000 to $1,225. There will
be a new fee for a civil surgeon designation of $615, and a
new fee of $6,230 for an application for a regional center
designation under the EB-5 immigrant investor pilot
program.
Related
Materials:
Back
to Top
|
Connecting to Facebook
Join Us On Facebook 
Follow Us On Twitter 
View Our Profile 
Join Our List