What is The Raise Act? Part 3

The Proposed RAISE Act

Part 3:  Elimination of the ‘Diversity Visa’ Program

On August 2, 2017, President Trump promoted a new Senate Bill drafted by Senators David Perdue of Georgia and Tom Cotton of Arkansas known as the ‘RAISE’ Act.

‘RAISE’ is an acronym for “Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy” Act.

The stated purpose of the Bill is to improve the American economy by limiting the number of immigrants admitted into our country.

Background

As stated in the first Blog installment, we are using the proposed Bill is to ‘raise’ our awareness of the more fundamental underpinnings of America’s unique immigration system.  An analysis of this Bill gives us an opportunity to examine: ‘what would constitute a healthy immigration policy in the U.S.’?  thus, the purpose of this article is to explore what is needed in immigration policy to fit the unique history and present cultural pressures of American society today.

We do this by comparing the provisions of the Bill to the current existing law.

 

1. Elimination of the ‘Diversity Visa’ Program

This third installment of our discussion on the RAISE Act addresses the proposed elimination of a program that is commonly referred to as the ‘Green Card Lottery’.  Most people understand that we have a program that allows foreign nationals who do not otherwise have a way to come to the U.S. to live – an opportunity to seek a ‘green card’.  Applications to enter the lottery are filed around the world each year; 55,000 of those applications are randomly selected to permit the applicant to then formally apply for a ‘green card’.

It is important to recognize that the formal name of that program is actually the ‘Diversity Visa’ program because that explains its purpose.  Here’s why:

History

A very brief and simplified history lesson -  U.S. Immigration laws up until the 1952 McCarran-Walter Act operated on a system of quotas – allowing only a certain number of immigrants from each country to enter the United States.  This was preserved in the Act, but modified in subsequent amendments to open America’s borders to insure there was a variety of nations represented in the melting pot of America, (hence the ‘diversity’).

Keep in mind that in 1952, we were just a few years removed from the end of World War II, the creation of the United Nations, the Cold War was heating up and American Policy was to spread democratic ideals in the world while counterbalancing the influence of the Soviet Union in world events.  In what was then a mere quaint seed of globalization, our leaders recognized the importance of sharing ‘American Ideals’ with the rest of the world.   

From a legislative standpoint, our immigration policy was one tool used to accomplish this goal.  We developed an ‘exchange visitor’ visa (the J-1 visa – that still exists today), to bring persons to the U.S. to study and train here, learn about our system, and then return to their home countries to share these democratic influences.  The ‘Diversity’ visa was another product of this effort.  As Vice President Hubert Humphrey noted in deliberation of the 1952 bill, it was important for America to create alliances and take an influential role in countries around the globe.  The objective was to develop “the respect of people around the world”.

Hence, the Diversity Visa Program.

 

 How it Works

Avoiding a detailed explanation of the complex formulas used by the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to calculate the breakdown of visas available each year, it basically works this way:

The Departments of State and Homeland Security review data for the preceding five (5) year period to determine how many persons from which countries received lawful permanent residency in the United States.  The number of immigrant visas permitting those persons to come to the U.S. are divided among ‘low admission regions’ and ‘high admission regions’.

Then 55,000 ‘diversity visas’ are made available each year to persons living in the ‘low admission regions’.

Persons from these ‘low admission regions’ may apply for one of the ‘diversity visas’ so long as the person can prove either – that she has a high-school diploma or equivalent, or has at least 2 years of work in an occupation that requires at least 2 years of training or experience.

A lottery is then held to select applications for further consideration.  If a person’s application is randomly chosen – (this avoids the history of ‘quotas’ from specific countries) – the person may then apply for a ‘green card’.  Just like anyone else applying for a ‘green card’ in one of the many other pathways to lawful permanent residency, the applicant must still prove that he or she qualifies for admission, (is ‘admissible’).  

As a consequence, anyone from anywhere in the world has a chance to fulfill his or her dream to come to the United States for a chance at a better life.  In return, the United States benefits from the traditional goal of sharing its values and ideals with persons from around the globe – not to mention the contributions that such motivated persons make to American culture, community and economy.

 

The RAISE Act

The RAISE Act proposes to eliminate this program entirely.

 

 

 

 

 

Next:  ‘Reducing the number of Refugees’

What Is The Proposed 'RAISE' Act? Part 2

Part 2:  ‘Focus on Family-Sponsored Immigration for Spouses and Children’

On August 2, 2017, President Trump promoted a new Senate Bill drafted by Senators David Perdue of Georgia and Tom Cotton of Arkansas known as the ‘RAISE’ Act.

‘RAISE’ is an acronym for “Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy” Act.

The stated purpose of the Bill is to improve the American economy by limiting the number of immigrants admitted into our country.

Background

As stated in the first Blog installment, we are using the proposed Bill is to ‘raise’ our awareness of the more fundamental underpinnings of America’s unique immigration system.  An analysis of this Bill gives us an opportunity to examine: ‘what would constitute a healthy immigration policy in the U.S.’?  thus, the purpose of this article is to explore what is needed in immigration policy to fit the unique history and present cultural pressures of American society today.

We do this by comparing the provisions of the Bill to the current existing law.

 

1. ‘Focus’ on Family-Sponsored Immigration for Spouses and Children

This second installment of our discussion on the RAISE Act addresses the ‘focus on family sponsored immigration for spouses and children’

This language from the Bill is perhaps a bit disingenuous in that the implication is that there is a ‘focus’ to enhance the immigration benefits for spouses and children of U.S. citizens and permanent residents.  More accurately, it eliminates all other immigration benefits for family members and simply salvages existing benefits for spouses and children, yet narrowing the definition of a ‘child’.

The proposed changes under the ‘RAISE’ Act for family-sponsored immigration is a bit more complicated than the elimination and replacement of the employer-sponsored immigration system discussed in the first blog because some elements of the family-sponsored system were retained and others were reconfigured.

It may be helpful to begin with describing the current law affected by the changes sought in the RAISE Bill.

Under existing law, there is a worldwide limit on the number of family-sponsored visas available each year.  Presently, all family-related immigrant visas are limited to 480,000.  (These are reduced by a formula set forth in The Immigration & Nationality Act, Sec. 201(c)(2), but in no case is the number to fall below 226,000.)

The RAISE Bill dramatically reduces this number to 88,000.

The term ‘immediate relative’ currently means the spouse, an unmarried child under the age of 21 and parents of a U.S. citizen who is 21 or older.  Although ‘immediate relatives’ are counted against the worldwide limit, there is no annual numerical limitation for persons seeking lawful permanent residency as an ‘immediate relative’.  In other words, if you meet the definition of an ‘immediate relative’, there will be an immigrant visa available to you, regardless of the numerical limitation.

The RAISE Bill removes ‘parents’ from the category of ‘immediate relative’ and lowers the age of the person defined as a ‘child’ from 21 to 18 years of age.

Under existing law, there are many other family members who can be sponsored for lawful permanent residency despite not being ‘immediate relatives’.  For example, the brother or sister of an adult U.S. citizen, an unmarried son or daughter of a ‘green card’ holder or a married son or daughter of a U.S. citizen may be sponsored for permanent residency (but because of the worldwide limit, these persons may have to wait many years before a visa becomes available).  The problem is that many more than 480,000 foreign persons seek to become U.S. lawful permanent residents each year.  When you consider that there are over 326 million persons living in the U.S., and that nearly all of us trace our ancestry to another country, there are many family members who want to join families that are already here, but there are not enough visas to accommodate the demand.

For example, because of the existing limitation, a person from the Philippines who was sponsored by a sister for a ‘green card’ would have to have filed the immigrant visa petition before April 8, 1994 just to be considered for a ‘green card’ today.  For those who are counting, that was 23 years ago.

One might be surprised by this long delay and might even question whether this current family-sponsored system is even functional.  However, the RAISE Bill eliminates the sibling category all together.   Here are the other family-sponsored categories eliminated by the RAISE Bill:  unmarried sons and daughters of U.S. citizens, spouses, children, unmarried sons and daughters of lawful permanent residents, married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens in addition to brothers and sisters of adult U.S. citizens – as well as the parents of U.S. citizens previously discussed.  Under the proposed Bill, the only remaining option for a ‘green card’ for family members are spouses and ‘children’ of U.S. citizens.

 Hence the ‘Focus’ on spouses and children of U.S. citizens.

One concession the RAISE Bill makes to the parents of American citizens is that it provides a non-immigrant (temporary) visa to parents to stay in the U.S. for five (5) years.  Although this non-immigrant visa (referred to as a ‘W’ visa) could be renewed, there are disincentives for a U.S. citizen to secure such a visa since the parent cannot work during this period, and the U.S. citizen child must prove that he or she will cover all of the parent’s living expenses, (regardless of the parent’s own assets) and secure health insurance for the parent, at no expense to the parent.

One final element in the proposed RAISE bill is a bit tricky; if the Bill were to pass, any visa application of a parent of a U.S. citizen, brother, sister or any other category eliminated by this Bill as discussed above filed after the date this Bill was introduced would be invalid on the date the Bill became law.  Since the Bill was introduced on August 2, 2017, any visa application filed today under one of the extinguished family classifications would be invalid if this Bill were to ever become law.  In other words, it’s already too late.

Again, few people fully expect this Bill to become law, at least not in its original version; but it is helpful to examine the potential consequences if this Bill were to pass Congress and signed into law by the President.  The result would be a dramatic reshaping of the immigration system as we know it – particularly for foreign persons who have family currently living in the United States.

 

 

Next:  ‘Elimination of the Diversity Visa Program’

What Is The 'RAISE' Act?

What Is The Proposed RAISE Act?

On August 2, 2017, President Trump promoted a new Senate Bill drafted by Senators David Perdue of Georgia and Tom Cotton of Arkansas known as the ‘RAISE’ Act.

‘RAISE’ is an acronym for “Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy” Act.

The stated purpose of the Bill is to improve the American economy by limiting the number of immigrants admitted into our country.

A perhaps more valuable use of this Bill is to ‘RAISE’ our awareness of the more fundamental underpinnings of America’s unique immigration system.  If it causes us to pause and reflect on these core principles of American identity and values, it will have served a noble purpose.

Most political observers suggest that this Bill is not likely to pass Congress; nevertheless, an analysis of this Bill gives us an opportunity to examine: ‘what would constitute a healthy immigration policy in the U.S.’?  We will leave the political discussion to those who are more knowledgeably equipped to do so; the purpose of this article is to explore what we need in immigration policy to fit the unique history and present cultural pressures of American society today.

A very strong and simple narrative upon which this Bill rests is the easily accepted notion that Americans are competing for job openings and that the addition of more immigrants would make it more difficult for Americans to get these jobs.

It is, of course, more complicated than that, but rather than debate the economic consequences of immigration – which is a fact-driven analysis that supports various dimensions on both sides of the debate – it may be even more helpful to look at the core values implicated in the Bill.  It is a point that will conclude our discussion, but to begin, it may be helpful to compare the provisions of the Bill to the current existing law.

Thus, the place to begin is the actual language in the Bill.

The Preamble of the Bill states 4 objectives:  “To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to

 

1. Establish a skills-based immigration points system,
    
2. to focus family -sponsored immigration on spouses and minor children,

     3.  to eliminate the Diversity Visa Program, [and]

 

    4.   to set a limit on the number of refugees admitted annually to the

United States, and for other purposes.”

 

We will go through each objective separately.

Today we will address the ‘skills-based immigration points system’.

 

1. Skills-Based Immigration Points System –

The first objective of the Bill is to amend the current Immigration and Nationality Act to establish a ‘skills-based immigration points system’.  The intent here is to ‘filter’ the types of persons coming to the U.S. to only those who can offer their education, skills and salary to meaningfully participate in and prosper the U.S. economy.  The immigration benefit provided is presumably a ‘green card’ – or Lawful Permanent Residency in the U.S.

Under the provisions of the Bill, a person accrues ‘points’ based upon age, education, English proficiency, extraordinary achievement and salary related to a job offer.  A person who accumulates a minimum of 30 points is eligible to be placed in an ‘Applicant Pool’ for up to one year.

An applicant calculates his or her points based upon a strong showing under the metrics of age, education, English proficiency, extraordinary achievement and salary for a job offered.

For example, a young person aged 22 – 25 accrues 8 points, while an older person, aged 41 through 45 accrues only 4 points.  Likewise, someone with a bachelor’s degree from a foreign institution is allowed 5 points, but a person with a master’s degree in the U.S. in a STEM discipline is entitled to 8 points.  The English exam is scored on ‘deciles’ where the higher the decile, the more points someone gets.

If an applicant reaches 30 points, he or she may file an application with USCIS and is placed in a ‘pool’ of other applicants and sorted on the basis of an applicant’s overall score.

Every 6 months, USCIS will invite the highest ranked applicants to file an immigrant visa petition for a visa.  There would be only 140,000 visas available each year, so the invitation will go out to a number that will be expected to result in 70,000 visas being issued for that 6 month period.

 

To assess the effectiveness of such a ‘points-based’ system, we should consider the present system in light of the Bill’s stated objective of helping the U.S. Economy.

Our present Employment-Based Visa system offers a number of different types of ‘temporary’ visas to employees with the opportunity to eventually apply for an immigrant visa – (or ‘green card’).

Types of Nonimmigrant Visas Available Under The Present System

To make this a manageable comparison, we will look only at those nonimmigrant visas that are comparable to the ‘highly-skilled’ sector contemplated by the Bill that also provide a pathway to a ‘green card’, (lawful permanent residency).

One of the most sought-after nonimmigrant visas is the ‘H-1B’ visa for foreign workers in a ‘specialty occupation’.  By legal definition, a ‘specialty occupation’ is one in which the job requires a person with at least a college bachelor’s degree in that occupational field to perform the work.  There is an annual allotment of 65,000 H-1B visas available each year. 

Another visa is an ‘L-1A’ visa for foreign employees who are either multinational executives or managers, and the ‘L-1B’ visa for foreign employees who have unique ‘specialized knowledge’ in the specific field or work required by an employer.

It is important to note that both of these require the foreign employee to work only for the employer that sponsored him or her for the visa.  Thus, the visa process is targeted to specific job openings for specific job duties that an employer needs filled.

For the H-1B visa, the demand for specific employees is so great that in the most recent fiscal year when H-1B visas were available, employers filed over 235,000 petitions for only 65,000 visas.  When one considers that the cost of filing an H-1B petition includes a $500.00 ‘Fraud Detection Fee’, and $1,500.00 ‘Education and Training Fee’ and a $460.00 ‘petition filing fee’, not to mention additional legal fees, the cost of filing an H-1B visa petition is not taken lightly.  Furthermore, the employer must show the U.S. Dept. of Labor that it will be paying the foreign worker as much as or more than American workers – (to insure that the wages of American workers are not ‘undercut’ by hiring foreign workers at lower pay).  All of these factors give an economic incentive for U.S. employers to hire U.S. workers before considering the hire of a foreign worker.  Despite these additional costs, the fact that U.S. employers still filed over 235,000 petitions with the hope of having their applications randomly chosen for processing gives a pretty clear indication of the current inability of U.S. employers to fill crucial positions in their companies.

The ‘EB-5’ visa is known as the ‘job-creation’ visa.  This specialized visa generally currently requires an investment of at least $500,000 or $1 million, (depending upon other factors) in a new commercial enterprise in the U.S. and proof that the investment will result in the creation of at least 10 full-time jobs for American Workers.

Also, in 2016, the prior Administration issued an executive order providing for ‘entrepreneurs’ who could provide a ‘significant public benefit’ by creating or maintaining a new commercial enterprise to be admitted into the U.S. to manage these investments.  The Order was purposely suited for high-tech entrepreneurs and was set to go into effect on July 17, 2017.  This executive order was ‘suspended’ by the Trump Administration on July 10^th for review and possible rescission or implementation on March 14, 2018.  

So to make a comparison between the proposed Bill’s intent to let in only 140,000 persons who reach a high score on age, education, job salary and/or extraordinary achievements, and the current system that offers employers the opportunity to seek foreign workers for specific needs, one needs to consider the benefits from an employer’s perspective.

First, one might consider whether average companies who typically utilize the H-1B, L-1A or L-1B visa programs to meet specific specialized needs would be able to compete with the largest well-sourced corporations for the top 140,000 individuals who might apply under the proposed bill.  (Remember, over the course of 5 days this past April, employers of all sizes filed over 235,000 petitions just for H-1B visas.).  Second, consider the challenge of employers planning to fill a position with the uncertainty of not knowing where a prospective employee might stand in the ‘applicant pool’, especially considering that only 70,000 visas would become available each 6-month period; (and that the family members of a successful applicant are also included in that limited number of 70,000).  It might also be useful to consider whether the top individuals who attain a high score under these metrics actually align with the specific needs of employers if they came to the U.S.  The proposed Bill does not necessarily clarify this, but presumably, a person in the ‘applicant pool’ does not necessarily have to work for a specific employer and might otherwise compete on the open marketplace for other employment. 

If the objective of the proposed Bill is to land the world’s ‘best and the brightest’ in the U.S. so that they can contribute to the American economy and possibly create new opportunities for U.S. workers, it is fair to question whether the sample of current immigration programs described above also seek the same goals.  A fair criticism of the current immigration system is that these immigration programs do a poor job of meeting these same goals.  In fact, when one considers that 2 out of every 3 H-1B petitions are rejected because there are too few visas to go around, and that many high-tech companies are moving operations to other countries because they cannot bring the world’s ‘best and brightest’ to the U.S., it is apparent that seeking creative solutions to identify and secure the highest qualifying individuals to come to the U.S. is a crucial need.  The proposed Bill helpfully exposes the flaws and limitations of our current employment-based immigration programs.

Here's hoping that the dialogue opened by the presentation of the prospective ‘RAISE’ Bill will help invigorate a bi-partisan legislative solution to our poorly functioning immigration system for U.S. employers.

 

Next:  ‘The Focus on Family-Sponsored Immigration for Spouses and Minor Children’

Keep Calm and Carry...your Papers

With the release of President Trump’s most recent Executive Order asserting travel bans on certain immigrants from certain countries, there is understandably much confusion and anxiety over what this and his prior executive orders mean to immigrants now living in the United States and foreign nationals hoping to travel here.

Unraveling all of these issues will take some time.  Federal courts were quick to identify the legal and constitutional flaws in various parts of the orders and variously enjoined the Department of Homeland Security from taking actions to deport persons who arrived legally.  The Department of Homeland Security also properly conceded that the ban should not apply to persons who are lawful Permanent Residents of the United States.  But as the legal entanglements continue and the Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security figure out how to process these measures, what are noncitizens in the U.S. to do?

Keep Calm and Carry…your Papers

At this point, most of the immediate confusion is taking place at the borders and ports of entry into the U.S. and relates to persons outside of the U.S. trying to return or get into the U.S.  If you are already here, it would make sense to avoid traveling abroad until the Administration, the Courts and the Agencies can give us a clearer definition of exactly what type of enforcement will be taking place.  Of course, the January 27, 2017 Executive Order deals primarily with Refugees and visitors from 8 countries, but reports of others being stranded abroad in the confusion would indicate that there is still some uncertainty in international travel to and from the United States for noncitizens for now.

The January 25^th Executive Orders deal with internal enforcement of immigration laws; like the January 27^th Order, there is still some room for the Courts and the Administration to figure out to what extent these provisions are legally enforceable.  However, it is a general conclusion among the immigration bar that Immigration and Customs Enforcement is not restrained by the executive memoranda from the previous administration giving clear enforcement priorities on who should (or should not) be placed in removal proceedings.  Thus, in this heightened environment of enforcement, if you are a noncitizen of the U.S., it would be prudent to make sure that you carry your authorizing documents, (e.g., ‘green cards’, copies of visas, etc.) with you at all times.

Finally, keep in mind the long-view.  Although this is a period of great uncertainty, anxiety and disorientation for immigrants in the U.S. – irrespective of one’s legal status – we are also an exceptional democracy that has mechanisms and tools to give balance and, ultimately, greater certainty to the legal rights and constitutional protections that have evolved and continue to improve through the testing of these principles that have shaped our nation for the past two centuries.

So Keep Calm, Carry On…and Be Careful until we can get this sorted out.

Troubling The Waters...New Executive Orders Challenge The Way We Look At Immigration

Troubling the Waters…

If you are even remotely keeping up with the news, you are aware that the Trump Administration has started its term with a swarm of Executive Orders, tweets and announcements that affect the millions of immigrants presently in the U.S. and those dreaming of one day entering our country.

This is just the beginning of what we expect to be a long and turbulent period of changes to the immigration system as it now exists and challenges to the law, regulations, policies and memoranda that immigration attorneys use to try to help guide clients to secure the benefits that the law offers to them.

The early waves of the expected sea-change in immigration policy began with a series of Executive Orders issued on Wednesday, January 25, 2017.

We will endeavor to process these developments as soon as they occur so that we can help explain how these changes affect all of us.   We will therefore be regularly providing blogs at this site to help you remain fully informed as to the actual substantive actions that are taken, as well as some context for understanding their significance.

 

PART I – Executive Order of January 25, 2017:

 

 Executive Order 1:  “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States”

The basic purpose of this Executive Order is to tighten the enforcement of those immigration laws relating to unlawful presence and to more aggressively pursue foreign nationals who are unlawfully present for removal. 

Here are the provisions intended to do this:

1.       Prioritize for removal noncitizens who are present in the U.S. and who are inadmissible on the basis of criminal, national security, fraud, misrepresentation and other related grounds of inadmissibility.

 

2.       Promulgate new regulations to collect penalties from noncitizens who are unlawfully present… as well as “those who facilitate their presence” in the U.S.

 

3.       Hire 10,000 additional Immigration & Customs Enforcement, (‘ICE’) Officers

 

 

4.       Resurrect a Program known as the ‘287(g)’ Program that authorize state and local law enforcement officials to investigate, apprehend and detain noncitizens who are unlawfully present in the U.S.

 

5.       Declare the authority of the Attorney General to take enforcement actions against ‘Sanctuary Cities’ by challenging their eligibility for certain federal grants.  This provision also directs the Department of Homeland Security to publicize any criminal acts committed by ‘aliens’ in those communities where they are not detained for ICE enforcement.

 

6.       Pressure other countries that do not accept their nationals who have been removed from the U.S. by suspension of visas from those countries; this also threatens these countries with their acceptance of removed nationals as a ‘condition precedent’ to diplomatic negotiations.

 

7.       Creation of an ‘office’ to assist victims of crimes perpetrated by ‘removable aliens’.

 

 

8.       Exclude non-U.S. citizens from the protections of the Privacy Act.

 

9.       Direct the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security and the Attorney General to provide quarterly reports on the immigration status of all noncitizens incarcerated by the Bureau of Prisons, state and local prisons and jails.

 

These are the basic provisions of this Executive Order.  Please stay-tuned for a context-driven analysis of these provisions in the days ahead.

Finding Your Place In Line For A 'Green Card'

For many foreign nationals living in the United States waiting to apply for a ‘green card’, a daily routine is to log-on to the U.S. Department of State website to check the status of their ‘priority date’ on the State Department’s ‘Visa Bulletin’.  Those who logged in yesterday were surprised to see the publication of the October 2015 Visa Bulletin with an extra Priority Date table.  But what does it mean? 

It’s a fairly significant new development.

But to grasp its significance, let’s take a step back to look at the big picture.

The U.S. Department of State regulates the issuance of ‘green cards’ based upon the distribution of immigrant visas around the world.  Since the demand for ‘green cards’ by natives of some countries (such as China, Mexico and India) is greater than the demand from other countries, there are not enough immigrant visas to supply the demand from these oversubscribed countries.  Consequently, there is a backlog of ‘green cards’ for these natives.

 Foreign nationals who originate from these countries must therefore ‘stand in line’ to wait to apply for their ‘green card’.  Their place in line is determined by the date the person either filed an immigrant visa petition – or an employer filed a labor certification application on this person’s behalf.  This date is known as a ‘Priority Date’.

Each month the U.S. Department of State publishes a ‘Visa Bulletin’ that charts the Dates of ‘green card’ applications being processed.  If a foreign national’s own ‘Priority Date’ is a date that precedes the ‘Priority Date’ published in the Visa Bulletin, that person is then eligible to file an application for a ‘green card’.  For example, if a foreign national has a ‘Priority Date’ of October 3, 2011, and the Priority Date shown on the Visa Bulletin for that person’s category shows January 1, 2012, then that foreign national may then apply for a ‘green card’.

Until the individual’s Priority Date precedes the Priority Date published in the Visa Bulletin, one could not file an application for a ‘green card’.   Until now…

The October 2015 Visa Bulletin offered a pleasant surprise for many:  a new, second chart known as a ‘Filing Date’ Chart.  Under this new provision, the U.S. Department of State will allow foreign nationals to file a ‘green card’ application based upon a new ‘Filing Date’ – rather than waiting for the date previously referred to simply as the ‘Priority Date’.  For most visa categories, the ‘Filing Date’ is more recent than the older ‘Priority Date’ (which is now also referred to as the ‘Final Action’ Date).

What this means is that the ‘Final Action Date’ is the date that the U.S. Department of State will actually process the ‘green card’ application.  This generally corresponds with the previous ‘Priority Date’ charts to which we were accustomed.  In other words, the U.S. Department of State will still wait until the foreign national’s ‘Priority Date’ is current before making a decision on the application – but the individual may now file the application well beforehand – based upon the new ‘Filing Date’ chart.

 Why is this important?  Because when a foreign national gets to file an Application for a ‘green card’, she may also concurrently file an application for Employment Authorization and Advance Parole (the ability to travel while the ‘green card’ application is pending).  In other words, ‘green card’ applicants from the oversubscribed countries may get some of the benefits that accompany a ‘green card’ application while still waiting in line for their ‘green card’ application to be processed.

So for example, this is how it might work: a foreign national from China in the EB-2 category (professional holding an advanced degree) may have a ‘Priority Date’ of June 12, 2013 based upon a Labor Certification Application filed on her behalf.  The ‘Priority Date’ / (Final Action Date) published in the October 2015 Visa Bulletin shows the Priority Date for that category to be January 1, 2012.  In previous months, this person would have to continue waiting until the Visa Bulletin shows a Priority Date in that category after June 12, 2013, before she could file an application – which may be a year or more away.  However, the new Visa Bulletin now shows a second ‘Filing Date’ chart that shows a date of May 1, 2014.  Since the foreign national’s ‘Priority Date’ precedes this new ‘Filing Date’, she is eligible to go ahead and file the ‘green card’ application.  Even though it still will not be processed until her June 12, 2013 Priority Date becomes current under the ‘Priority Date / Final Action Date, she can nonetheless go ahead and file the application and get Employment Authorization and Advance Parole for a family member(s) while they continue to wait in line for her Priority Date to become current.

The U.S. Department of State also asserts that allowing these foreign nationals to apply ahead of time will allow the State Department to more accurately predict the future availability of immigrant visas that will need to be processed.  Based upon the recent wild fluctuations in the Priority Dates for some of these categories in the past year, this can only be a good thing.

So, at the end of the day, these foreign nationals will still have to wait in line, as before – but at least they get to snack on some fairly significant benefits while standing there.

Is There a Doctor In The House…or Senate?

 

A long-term patient known as ‘Conrad’ is about to expire on September 30, 2015 unless Congress can resuscitate it and provide a permanent cure.

The ‘Conrad 30’ Program, named after former North Dakota Senator Kent Conrad - the law’s original sponsor, is a program for foreign physicians who come to the U.S. with a J-1 visa to complete their medical residency.  The J-1 visa permits foreign medical graduates to receive education and training in a Residency program in the U.S.  However, one of the terms of the J-1 visa – also known as an ‘exchange-visitor’ visa – is that it requires the visa holder to return to his or her home residence for 2 years before being eligible to adjust status or change to another type of visa that permits her to practice medicine in the U.S.  In other words, the newly-trained physician must return home for 2 years before being able to practice medicine in the U.S… unless….

…the physician is able to get a ‘waiver’ of the 2-year home residency requirement found in §212(e) of the Immigration & Nationality Act.

There are several ways in which any J-1 visa holder may request a ‘waiver’ of the 2-year home residency requirement; among these are ‘subject to persecution’ if she were to return to her home residence, exceptional hardship, and other scenarios with very high standards that not everyone can meet.  But physicians have a friend in ‘Conrad’.

The ‘Conrad 30’ program is designed specifically for physicians who desire a waiver of the 2-year home residency requirement.  Each state runs its own ‘Conrad 30’ program with its own set of guidelines, but there are a few fundamental terms that all ‘Conrad 30’ programs share; among those are that a physician must be willing to serve at least 3 years in H-1B visa status working at least 40 hours/week in a federally-designated medically underserved area providing primary care – and sometimes specialty care – to the underserved population.   You already know why it’s named ‘Conrad’; the ‘30’ stands for the number of slots available in each state for physicians willing to serve in these medically underserved areas.

Although there are some other programs that provide ‘waivers’ for physicians in J-1 visa status, (for example, Appalachian Regional Commission, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, etc.), these other programs have narrow restrictions that limit their availability.  It is recognized that the Conrad 30 program is likely the most useful waiver program for physicians in J-1 status.

However, the original Conrad 30 program had a ‘sunset’ date that has been extended by Congress to keep the program alive for years.

Unless you’ve been in a coma for the past several years, you must recognize that the volatility and rancor of our elected leaders in Congress make the prognosis of their cooperation on an immigration bill anything but certain.

 This year presents a risk that the program will die due to the negligence – and perhaps the intentional refusal of care - of our politicians.

The good news is that Senators Klobuchar of Minnesota and Heitkamp of North Dakota have introduced a Bill in the Senate, (S. 1189) that not only extends the life of the Conrad 30 program, but makes it a permanent federal law by removing the ‘sunset’ provisions.

Known as the ‘Conrad State 30 and Physician Access Act’, this bill would also clarify certain elements of the National Interest Waiver for physicians and permitting the spouses of H-1B visa-holding physicians to change status to other types of visas besides the ‘H-4’ derivative visa, among other things.

The ‘Conrad State 30’ Program is a powerful incentive for healthcare systems in rural, urban and other medically underserved areas to attract and keep physicians to care for communities in need of primary care medical services.  Many healthcare systems rely heavily upon the benefits of the Conrad 30 program to staff their hospitals and facilities - and foreign medical graduates recognize the valuable benefit it provides for them; its demise would impact these communities disproportionately.

So if you were waiting for the right opportunity to contact your U.S. Senator or Representative on an issue that overwhelmingly affects the health of small, rural communities, this would be a good time to ask for their support of Senate Bill 1189 – before it’s too late.

Immigration by Executive Order

Last night, President Barack Obama announced a new Executive Order designed to address several (of many) immigration issues facing our country.  The first understatement is to acknowledge that his use of an Executive Order has drawn considerable controversy.

First, let's address the Executive Order issue.  President Obama, like Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush before him, has used an 'Executive Order' to address the problem of undocumented persons in the United States - but that doesn't necessarily make it a desirable approach.  I think everyone would agree that a well-considered, bi-partisan Congressional bill reflecting joint compromise would be a more acceptable and supportable approach to dealing with this issue.  Most people have forgotten, but a mere 16 months ago, the U.S. Senate was able to overwhelmingly pass such a comprehensive bi-partisan immigration bill.  Unfortunately, it never made it into the House of Representatives for a vote, so it appears that the best chance of handling the immigration issue in a cooperative legislative fashion is in our past.
 It should also be noted that since the President cannot pass legislation on his own, he is actually fairly limited in what he can do from an Executive standpoint.  Taking this action does not create a new opportunity for legal status, it does not create a new law and does not change the law as it now exists; it does, however, change the way certain portions of the law, interpreted in the federal regulations, are carried out.  In doing so, however, it broadens and expands benefits that certain undocumented persons may secure.

The Executive Order addresses five different initiatives to address the immigration system.  Three of these initiatives are concrete proposals that have real impact on certain immigration procedures.  The other two statements are simply aspirational comments.

Briefly, here are 3 fundamental areas of immigration practice affected by the President's actions:



DEFERRED ACTION FOR PARENTS OF U.S. CITIZENS

What it does:  Under this provision, certain persons who are not lawfully present in the U.S. but have children who are U.S. citizens or Lawful Permanent Residents ('green card' holders) would be able to gain the benefit of not being removed from the country ('deported').  And while they are in the U.S., they are given permission to work, pay taxes and abide by the labor laws of this country.

Who is affected:  Only parents who have been in the U.S. since January 1, 2010 and whose children are U.S. citizens or Lawful Permanent Residents may apply for this benefit.

What this changes:  Presently, this benefit known as 'Deferred Action' is already available in certain cases, and by Executive Order in the summer of 2012, was expanded to specifically include children who were brought to the U.S. before the age of 16.  This prior Executive Order is referred to as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, (or 'DACA'). 
     Currently, U.S citizens over the age of 21 may sponsor a parent for Lawful Permanent Residency - but - typically the parent has accrued unlawful presence such that he or she would be barred from entering the U.S. for 10 years if the parent were to leave the U.S. to obtain his or her 'green card'.  
     The President's Executive Order of November 20, 2014 further extends 'Deferred Action' to allow these same parents the opportunity to remain in the U.S. and work based upon the presence of a son or daughter - regardless of age - who is either a U.S. citizen or a Lawful Permanent Resident.  It does not permit them an alternative opportunity to get Lawful Permanent Residency.

When it starts:  It is anticipated that this benefit will become available before the end of May 2015.



DEFERRED ACTION FOR CHILDHOOD ARRIVALS ('DACA')

What it does:  Under this provision, the population of eligible applicants for DACA (described above) is expanded by allowing more recent arrivals to apply, eliminates the age limit and extends work authorization to three (3) years.

Who is affected:  Persons who were brought here as children well before June 15, 1981 - as well as those who have arrived after June 15, 2007 but before January 1, 2010 -  may now apply for this benefit.  Current DACA recipients can take advantage of an additional 1 year of work authorization when they renew their request for DACA benefits.

What this changes:  Presently, one of the criteria for DACA is that the person was under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012; this leaves out persons born before June 15, 1981 and who came to the U.S. as children.  Now, the age limit is eliminated and anyone meeting the rest of the criteria is eligible to apply.  In addition, the present policy requires that an applicant also prove that he or she has resided in the U.S. continuously since June 15, 2007.  The new provision extends that date to January 1, 2010, so that more recent arrivals may now also apply for this benefit.
     Finally, the original DACA Executive Order permits work authorization to a successful applicant for two (2) years.  That period of work authorization will now be extended to three (3) years.

When it starts:  It is anticipated that these extended benefits will become available before the end of February 2015.



PROVISIONAL WAIVERS OF UNLAWFUL PRESENCE

What it does:  Under this provision, the population of eligible applicants for a Provisional Waiver, ('601A' Waiver), is expanded to include sons and/or daughters of U.S. citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents.

Who is affected:  Older children of U.S. citizens - as well as children of Lawful Permanent Residents - who are now permitted to apply for a Provisional Waiver.

What this changes:  An individual who has remained in the U.S. unlawfully for 180 days - and leaves the U.S. - is subject to a 'bar' of returning to the U.S. for 3 years.  If the individual is in the U.S. unlawfully for 1 year or more, the 'bar' is 10 years.  A 'Waiver' of the 3 or 10 year bar is available for an individual who is subject to the 'bar' - but is nonetheless eligible to get a 'green card' at a U.S. Consulate abroad - if the person can show that it would create an 'extreme hardship' to a U.S. citizen spouse or parent of the applicant.  The 'Waiver'  gives this applicant the ability to return to the U.S. immediately without having to wait for the end of the 3 or 10 year 'bar'.  Normally, one applies for the 'Waiver' after he or she has left the country (thus triggering the 'bar') to interview for the 'green card' at the U.S. Consulate abroad. 
     Through executive action in 2013, President Obama created a 'Provisional' or '601A' Waiver that permitted an individual who is a spouse or child of a U.S. citizen to take advantage of the Waiver before the individual left the country for a 'green card' - thus giving certainty to the applicant that he or she could immediately return to the U.S. after the 'green card' appointment. 
     Under the new provisions of the November 20, 2014 Executive action, persons eligible to take advantage of the '601A Provisional Waiver' program will be expanded to include adult children of U.S. citizens as well as spouses and children of Lawful Permanent Residents, as well.
     Finally, the term 'extreme hardship' will be more clearly defined and, presumably, less restrictive, than before (although this remains to be seen).

When it starts: Unknown; generally whenever new regulations are issued.


Finally, there are several aspirational statements committing the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government to work towards refining, expanding and expediting the process for the Labor Certification Applications ('PERM'), employment authorization for certain dependents of H-1B visa holders, the immigration visa issuance process and others.

Over the next several weeks, we will be exploring in more depth the significance and practicalities of these new initiatives so that you can gain a better understanding of what may lie ahead.

Thoughts Following the 11^th Annual FBA Immigration Seminar:

The I-601(a) Waiver, DUIs, Tattoos, DACA and Arrabally and Yerrabelly, and My-a-Belly

May 2014

                Earlier this month, May 16-17, 2014, the Federal Bar Association hosted the 11^th Annual Immigration Law Seminar in Memphis, Tennessee. The Seminar kicked off with a presentation rejoicing of the (partial) death of DOMA and the good news this brought for same-sex couples seeking immigration benefits. It closed with a celebratory beverage on Beale Street for most attendees. I opted for a celebratory catfish dinner at a local creole restaurant with some old friends, but have no doubt Beale Street would have been a fabulous option as well.

                The general mood throughout the seminar was a mixture of hope—many practicing attorneys are still optimistic that comprehensive immigration reform is coming—and the sort of nervous energy that only trying to absorb enough information to make your head spin will create. Personally, I found the dense nature of the information being presented to be daunting and invigorating at the same time. As a new attorney, nothing is more encouraging than reviewing skills that are old hat, and as exciting as realizing how much more there is to learn when you are confident that it can be learned.

                The relatively new I-601(a) waiver took center stage for one of the presentations I attended and will be discussed in depth in this post. Issues regarding DUIs (citations for driving under the influence) and tattoos popped up in multiple presentations in a variety of contexts and will also be discussed. This post will end with a discussion of the potentially positive consequences of the recent Arrabally and Yerrabelly decision for DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) recipients who have received Advance Parole. As for the reference in the title to My-a-Belly, suffice it to say My-a-Belly enjoyed some tasty Memphis barbeque at the Memphis in May barbeque festival on the river…no event in Memphis would be complete without it!

                The 601(a) waiver is designed to help individuals who apply for immigrant visas through a qualifying relative, but would be barred from re-entering the US following their visa interview abroad. Unfortunately, prior to this waiver, individuals who would otherwise be eligible for a green card were not obtaining these benefits for fear they would leave the country to complete the process and then be found inadmissible based on their prior unlawful presence. This waiver allows the individual to prove that disallowing them from re-entering would cause extreme hardship to their U.S. relative(s) and grants them a waiver that cures the inadmissibility prior to their departure from the U.S. This removes the uncertainty of applying for a waiver after leaving the country from the equation.

                When this waiver was introduced immigration attorneys rejoiced—this cured a catch 22 too many clients faced! However, the high expectations for this waiver were thwarted by USCIS’s aggressive approach to the adjudication of these waivers. Attorneys at the Seminar estimated the denial rate was as high as 40%--half of which was based on USCIS’s belief there might be other grounds of inadmissibility—i.e. a criminal basis. In fact, nearly all waiver applications that included a DUI were denied on the ‘reason to believe there are other grounds of inadmissibility’ exception and most applications were subjected to boilerplate Requests for Evidence that delayed the process by requesting evidence already submitted. Fortunately, USCIS has decided to re-review previous denial sua sponte and has become more generous with approvals over the last month or so, but this waiver still has not lived up to the expectations many attorneys had at its inception.

                As mentioned, USCIS treated DUIs much more harshly in the 601(a) waiver context than anticipated, but it appears that this is part of a growing trend. In fact, many attorneys at the seminar reported that although DUIs are not considered a crime involving moral turpitude, and generally are not a ground for inadmissibility alone, they are increasingly used as a medical ground for inadmissibility. Individuals who have had a recent DUI may be requested to attend a psychological screening (especially if the process is in Juarez, Mexico), and some have even been required to attend Alcoholics Anonymous on the assumption that having even a single DUI may be indicative of alcoholism or other mental illness.

                Tattoos, often discovered in medical examinations, are also receiving a heightened level of scrutiny. There is a general assumption that tattoos indicate gang affiliations. Therefore, ask your clients about their body art, what it means, and why they have it so that they can be prepared to answer questions associated to these issues at their interviews. In extreme circumstances, be prepared to hire an expert to provide evidence that a tattoo is not gang-related.

                Not all of the reports from the Seminar were negative—one recent case, Arrabelly and Yerrabelly, provides a potential benefit for DACA recipients and others who receive Advance Parole. In the Arrabelly case, a couple seeking benefits received Advance Parole to visit their aging parents and left the country. Unfortunately, they had overstayed their visas and accrued more than one year of unlawful presence, triggering the ten year bar which disallows re-entry. Following an order of removal and an appeal, the BIA held that leaving the U.S. under Advance Parole did not effect a ‘departure’ under the Immigration and Nationality Act that would result in inadmissibility based on their prior, unlawful presence.

By logical extension, this may apply to DACA recipients who travel abroad on Advance Parole and re-enter with inspection—effectively curing problems created by a prior entry without inspection. In response to this notion USCIS has tightened up approvals of Advanced Parole for DACA recipients and it is expected that a future Memorandum interpreting Arrabelly will limit the case to its facts. But, for the moment DACA recipients lucky to receive Advance Parole may want to consider adjusting status, if possible, to avoid the issues any prior entry without inspection will inevitably create.

This year’s Seminar certainly left my colleagues and I with a lot to consider. We have clients who received DACA for whom we are anxious to try to adjust status, and may have future clients with DUIs or tattoos who will benefit from the information gathered at the Seminar related to these issues. I am looking forward to next year’s Seminar and learning more about these complex issues as my practice, and Hunter Smith and Davis’s practice grows in general.

Experience Counts

Most of the employees I see coming to this country for professional jobs for my client employers want to become Lawful Permanent Resident, and, eventually, U. S. Citizens.  It is their goal not only to work here, but also to “live the dream”.  One of the first questions I get when filing for their L or H status is: “When can I get my ‘green card’?” 

For non-immigrant workers, that path to a green card often begins with the PERM Process, or the Permanent Labor Certification Process.  This is a process that must be initiated by an employer for an employee, and often employees will make that a condition of their employment during their hiring process.  A benefit of this process is that it takes into account the derivatives listed on the non-immigrant petition when the employee came to work in the United States.  Therefore, within one process, a non-immigrant worker, his/her spouse, and their minor children can all get their “green cards” at once.  Another benefit of this process is that if the filing is done within a certain time period, non-immigrant workers in H-1B status can extend their stay past the normal expiration date for a non-immigrant worker in H-1B status.  This is particularly important for those workers from one of the countries that have a waiting period before the actual lawful permanent resident application (Form I-485) can be filed. 

One of the most important steps in this process is the proof that the beneficiary of this process is qualified for the job for which the recruitment was done and the Labor Certification was issued.  An important part of that proof is the experience letter, which is the best and most useful documentation of the experience of the employee to be sponsored.  An experience letter is a letter from your previous employer(s) showing not only that the applicant has experience, but also that the applicant has the relevant experience for the job being offered.   Unfortunately for the applicant, that experience shouldn’t come from their current employer, even at another location.

As we work with the employers to obtain lawful permanent resident status for one of their employees, we will assist in the preparation of the experience letter to be sent to a previous employer.  The reason for this is that experience letters are more than just a matter of detailing that an employee worked somewhere and the dates of that employment, but also what that employee did while there to show that the employee has the experience required for the position.  Experience letters need to be on the letterhead of the previous employer, contain the name and contact information for the person signing the letter, the title and relationship to the employee of the person signing the letter, the start and end date of the employee’s employment, the title of the employee while at that company, whether the position was full or part-time, and a brief job description of the duties performed by the employee while at the company.  The job description should contain duties and tasks which are relevant to the position that employee has, or will have, with the employer who is sponsoring that employee for their lawful permanent resident status.   All of these elements should be in the experience letter as proper evidence of the employee’s experience and/or training.  If any of these elements are missing or lacking, USCIS can, and most likely will, reject the letter and conclude that the petitioner has failed to prove that the employee has the required experience or training.

These experience letters must be from a person who has direct knowledge of the actual work the employee performed while working for the previous employer.  This also needs to be a person who directed that work, not just a co-worker.  The best person to provide that experience letter will be a manager that was directly over the employee or their supervisor, either of whom is still working for the previous employer.  Other alternatives are managers or supervisors further up in leadership chain of the company who have managerial or supervisory responsibilities over the former employee’s direct manager and/or supervisor and are still with the previous employer.  Finally, if there are no managers or supervisors that were there when the employee was at the previous employer, then the letter can be signed by someone in the human resources department to confirm the dates of hire and the job duties for the position the previous employee was in.

However, some of the employee’s previous employers may have been acquired by another company in a merger or buyout.  This can create problems, but, with enough forewarning, steps can be taken to get a previous manager or supervisor, who is with the new company, sign an experience letter while providing USCIS enough information regarding why the information is being provided by the a new company.  This will allow USCIS to determine that the information from this new company is actually the same as if it had come from the previous employer.  This process, however, takes more time and can delay the filing of the I-140 if not started early in the PERM Process.

Another problem is when the previous employer is no longer in business.  Sometimes, if an employee is aware of his employer’s financial difficulties and is concerned over that employer’s viability to continue to do business, it is advisable to have that employer write an experience letter, detailing all of the information above, very shortly after the employee obtains new employment so that the employee is not stuck without the very valuable experience letter if the company closes.  When a company dissolves, the records are often lost or destroyed and there is no way to obtain an experience letter from that previous employer.  However, all is not lost.  USCIS has allowed for former managers or supervisors who are with new companies to write experience letters on behalf of a former employer since it is impossible to obtain an experience letter from that previous employer.  The requirements of the experience letter do not change, but the wording has to address why the letter is not from the previous employer, but rather from a different company where the employee had no previous contact and detailing that the previous employer is no longer in business.

While experience letters are not needed until the I-140 petition filing stage, we get them as soon as possible in the PERM Process.  Experience letters allow us to confirm exact dates of employment for the Labor Certification Application; to verify experience needed for the job being recruited for to make sure that the employee has the required experience for the job; and to determine if additional steps are going to have to be taken to get the experience letter that is needed due to some of the scenarios discussed herein.  The experience letter relates to the entire PERM Process; and experience counts.