Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
{00017492}
1. Openers ............................................................................................................... 2
2. ABCs of Immigration: Hardship and Persecution Waivers for the Home Residency Requirement ............................................................................................................. 3
3. AskVisalaw.com .................................................................................................... 8
4. Border and Enforcement News ................................................................................ 9
• California University Violates Federal Civil Rights Law by Refusing to Admit DACA Recipients ...................................................................................................... 9
• Judge Halts Order Demanding DACA Recipients’ Personal Information .................. 10
5. News from the Courts .......................................................................................... 11
• Immigrants Who Provide Support to Terrorists Under Duress Still Subject to Removal .................................................................................................................. 11
6. News Bytes ........................................................................................................ 12
• Anti-Refugee Bill Gets Shut Down by South Carolina Residents ............................ 12
• USCIS Ombudsman Issues Recommendation Regarding U Visa Parole Policy ......... 13
• Nebraska Service Center Will Begin Processing Certain Form I-918 Cases ............. 13
• EB-4 Visa Limits Reached for Special Immigrants from Mexico ............................. 13
• Pro-immigration Activists Begin 350-mile walk to GOP Convention ....................... 14
Table of Contents
{00017492}
7. Washington Watch ............................................................................................... 14
• Supreme Court Reaches Tie in DAPA Case ........................................................ 14
8. In the News at ABIL ............................................................................................. 15
• House Holds Hearing on H-2B Temporary Foreign Worker Program ...................... 15
• State Dept. Releases DV-2017 Results ............................................................. 16
• USCIS Clarifies CW-1 Extension of Stay Petitions ............................................... 17
9. Updates from the Visalaw.com Blogs ...................................................................... 18
10. State Department Visa Bulletin: July 2016 ............................................................ 18
1. Openers Dear Readers:
This has been a tough month for the pro-immigration community as the US Supreme Court decided to send the Texas v. US case on DAPA and DACA+ back to the Fifth Circuit with no ruling. The court was deadlocked in a 4-4 tie over the case. What does this mean? The White House is likely to ask the Fifth Circuit to review again with all judges participating (an en banc review). And they will likely ask the Supreme Court to rehear the case after there is a new Justice on board to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia. In the meantime, neither program can proceed and likely will not move forward until Hillary Clinton is President (assuming she beats Donald Trump) or the program will die for good if Trump is elected since he’s on the record strongly opposing it.
***
I’m just returning from the annual meeting of the American Immigration Lawyers Association in Las Vegas. I’m pleased to report that I was elected to a third term on the organization’s Board of Governors and I’m looking forward to continuing my work there.
***
As always, we invite you to contact us if our firm can be of assistance. Please visit our web page at www.visalaw.com for information on reaching the firm or scheduling a consultation.
Regards,
Greg Siskind
{00017492}
*****
2. ABCs of Immigration: Hardship and Persecution Waivers for the Home Residency Requirement [This month’s ABCs of Immigration issue is adapted from Greg Siskind’s new book, The Physician Immigration Handbook.]
While most physicians seeking to waive INA Section 212(e)’s home residency requirement pursue interested government agency waivers, some physicians choose to pursue one of two other waiver options mentioned in the statute. USCIS may waive the requirement if they determine that enforcing the home residency requirement would “impose exceptional hardship upon the alien’s spouse or child (if such spouse or child is a citizen of the United States or a lawfully resident alien), or that the alien cannot return to the country of his nationality or last residence because he would be subject to persecution on account of his nationality, race, religion, or political opinion.”
What are the steps in a J-1 hardship or persecution waiver?
Hardship and persecution waiver applicants use a different process than in interested government agency cases.
All J-1 waiver cases start with filing a DS-3035 online and hardship waiver applicants would select either “hardship” or “persecution” as the basis of the waiver application and pay the $215 application fee by mail afterwards.
In interested government agency cases, the applicant next files an application with the IGA and the IGA forwards its recommendation to the State Department. The State Department issues a recommendation for the waiver to USCIS and USCIS issues an I-612 approval of the waiver.
In hardship and persecution cases, J-1 waiver applicants file a Form I-612 application with the USCIS service center handling such cases (currently the California Service Center). USCIS makes a determination of whether it believes the hardship or persecution case has been proven and then forwards the file to the DOS Waiver Review Division for a recommendation.
If the WRD recommends the waiver, USCIS routinely will issue a final approval of the waiver application. If the WRD declines to recommend a waiver, USCIS will deny the waiver application. What does “exceptional hardship” mean?
The Immigration and Nationality Act doesn’t define “exceptional hardship” though in general the hardship must be unusual and significant. USCIS’ Adjudicator’s Field Manual instructs examiners to look to a series of cases over the last fifty years to make the determination. But, in general, the Manual instructs adjudicators to consider the following principles:
{00017492}
1. The claimed hardship must be considered for the qualifying spouse and for qualifying children, not for the J-1.
2. An exceptional hardship must be considered under the circumstances of both relocation abroad and separation on the qualifying spouse or children.
3. A variety of common factors may be considered in the aggregate to render a determination of exceptional hardship, but, on the whole, the hardship to qualifying family members must be beyond the normal hardship expected from a temporary relocation or separation.
Hardship waiver applicants often make the mistake – understandably – of assuming that the pain of being separated from a family member is enough to support a hardship case. Unfortunately, that is generally not true unless the waiver applicant can articulate specific factors in the case that distinguishes the applicant’s case from others.
What if the hardship is to the J-1 and not a family member?
If the J-1 does not have qualifying family members, but would face an exceptional hardship if returned home, the application is not eligible for a hardship waiver. However, the State Department will sometimes act as an interested government agency if the facts are suitable.
What are examples of hardship factors?1
Case law provides a number of examples of hardships that will be considered. They tend to fall in to the following areas:
The Composition of the family
-‐ Is the qualifying relative a US citizens or a permanent resident (US citizen cases are considered stronger)?
-‐ Is the qualifying relative a spouse or a child (children tend to make the case stronger and having a qualifying spouse and children make the case stronger with a US citizens spouse and child combination being the strongest)?
-‐ Hardships to third parties (such as grandparents) are not enough on their own to qualify to submit a waiver, but such hardships can strengthen the case in combination with documenting the hardship to a qualifying spouse and/or child.
-‐ Is the US citizen spouse naturalized or native-born (some USCIS examiners may view a naturalized spouse, particularly one originally from the J-1’s home country, better situated to manage the home residency requirement)?
-‐ Is the marriage a long one or performed recently?
Economic hardships
-‐ Will family members face major career disruption if forced to go abroad?
1 Many thanks to my good friend Bruce Hake who is a leading national figure in J-1 hardship processing. His extensive writing on this subject was enormously helpful in preparing this chapter.
{00017492}
-‐ Is the qualifying spouse in the middle of an educational program that will be disrupted by returning to the home country?
-‐ Do the qualifying relatives lack familiarity with the country’s culture and customs? -‐ Will a child’s essential needs go unmet as a result of complying with the home
residency requirement? -‐ Will a mortgage go unpaid as a result of satisfying the home residency requirement? -‐ Are there major medical bills that will not be able to be paid as a result of complying
with the home residency requirement?
Medical hardships
-‐ Does the qualifying relative suffer from a serious medical condition? Note that both USCIS and the State Department routinely seek the opinions of medical experts.
-‐ Does more than one family member suffer from a serious medical condition? -‐ Are effective treatment available in the home country? -‐ Does the qualifying relative need the J-1 to help as a caregiver in the US? -‐ Would the qualifying relative suffer from a mental hardship beyond the norm such as
fear if the J-1 is returning to an unstable country? -‐ Are the environmental conditions in the home country particularly dangerous?
Political and security-related hardships
-‐ Is the home country dangerous as a result of extreme crime rates, political instability, kidnapping risks, or for other reasons?
-‐ Is the US State Department warning Americans to avoid travel to the country? -‐ Is the family potentially at greater risk because of being a member of a particular
religion, minority or other group? -‐ Are families with American ties more likely to be targeted for violence in the home
country?
Psychological hardships
-‐ Was the qualifying relative receiving regular psychiatric treatment before the waiver application was submitted?
-‐ Would the return to the home country interfere in the qualifying relative’s psychological treatment?
Sociocultural hardships
-‐ Are women routinely mistreated in the home country’s culture? -‐ Do the qualifying relatives speak the language of the home country (this tends to be
more important for the spouse than for children)? -‐ Is the educational system in the home country adequate to meet the needs of
qualifying children?
Source of funds
{00017492}
-‐ Did the J-1 receive funds from a US government agency? If so, the application will be adjudicated under a much tougher standard.
Public policy
-‐ Will the J-1’s return to the US harm US citizens (e.g. a teacher of deaf children in an area where such teachers are difficult to recruit or an employer of many US workers will have to terminate the employees because the company will need to be shut down as a result of the J-1’s departing the US)
-‐ Will the loss of the J-1’s services negatively affect a government agency? -‐ Does the J-1’s family have particularly strong ties to the community? -‐ Is the J-1 engaged in work which will provide the American public with an important
benefit (e.g. one engaged in critical medical research or an engineer whose work has key safety benefits)?
-‐ Is the US citizen or permanent resident spouse in the military (thus making it impossible for the spouse to go to the home country or to care for the American children if and when the spouse is deployed)?
Isn’t being separated for two years itself a hardship?
Unfortunately, the case law and the history of adjudication in this area makes it difficult to win on this argument alone. The adjudicating agencies take the position that the hardships associated with a family being separated must be greater than other families facing the home residency requirement. There must be additional aggravating factors at work for the separation argument to work. This is not to say that one should skip making the argument. But relying on this as the main factor in a hardship case will normally not work.
What does one need to prove to base a waiver on persecution?
A J-1 may seek a waiver if he or she “would be subject to persecution on account of race, religion, or political opinion.” To win a persecution claim, an applicant must show that it is probable the applicant will be subjected to persecution. If USCIS finds persecution is a genuine probability, then the State Department’s Waiver Review Division will make it’s determination. Under the regulation found at 2 CFR 41.63(b), after the Waiver Review Division determines that the persecution claim is meritorious, it is to review the program, policy and foreign relations aspects of the case, including consulting with the Bureau of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs of the Department of State before making a favorable recommendation.
Is a J-1 who gets a hardship or persecution waiver exempt from the H-1B cap?
No. Unlike shortage area waivers, physicians who secure hardship and persecution waivers cannot avoid the H-1B cap.
Does a J-1 who gets a hardship or persecution waiver need to wait three years before seeking permanent residency?
{00017492}
No. Unlike shortage area waivers, physicians who secure a hardship or persecution waiver can immediately seek permanent residency (assuming they have a basis for a green card application). So, for example, a successful hardship waiver based on a US citizen spouse usually means the physician can immediately seek a green card through the US citizen’s sponsorship.
What’s the difference between “persecution” and the asylum process? Why choose one over the other?
There are several important differences between a persecution waiver and an asylum application and these differences often are enough to make one pick one category over the other.
First, the definition of “persecution” for a persecution waiver is narrower than for an asylum petition. Asylum applications require one demonstrate that he or she has a “well-founded fear of persecution” as opposed to showing that the alien “would be subject to persecution”.
Second, the bases for a persecution are narrower
for an asylum claim. J-1s can only seek a persecution waiver on account of the following:
-‐ race -‐ religion -‐ political opinion
Asylum applications can be based on
-‐ race -‐ religion -‐ nationality -‐ membership in a particular social group -‐ political opinion
However, many practitioners believe that the overall adjudication standard applied in asylum cases is higher than persecution cases despite the narrower definition of persecution.
Third, asylum applications must be filed within one year of arrival in the US unless circumstances have changed in the home country after the J-1 arrived in the US. There is no one-year filing requirement applicable to persecution waivers.
Fourth, asylum applicants can file for permanent residency once the individual has been in asylum status for more than one year. There is no green card available to the J-1 persecution waiver holder other than those available based on family, employment or the Diversity Visa Lottery.
Asylees can lose that status if circumstances change in the home country and the asylee has not yet become a permanent resident. J-1 persecution waiver applicants are required to inform DOS if circumstances change while the waiver application is pending. However,
{00017492}
there is no provision in the rules for revoking a persecution waiver after it has been issued based on changed circumstances in the home country.
What happens to the J-1 home residency requirement if asylum is granted?
Individuals granted asylum are no longer subject to the home residency requirement.
Can one apply for both a persecution waiver and asylum?
Yes. There is no bar to pursuing both strategies simultaneously.
What is one’s status after being granted a J-1 hardship or persecution waiver?
The individual would still be a J-1 visa holder and there is no non-immigrant or other status granted to the waiver recipient simply because the waiver has been granted. So the J-1 would need to eventually transition to a work visa, a green card, or some other status or risk being out of status.
Can a hardship or persecution waiver denial be appealed?
If USCIS denies the first part of the hardship or persecution waiver application, an appeal is permitted. State Department determinations may normally not be appealed except in very unusual circumstances. However, unless US government agency funding is involved, the State Department has routinely granted waiver recommendations when USCIS has found persecution or hardship.
*****
3. AskVisalaw.com In our AskVisalaw.com section of the SIB, attorney Ari Sauer answers immigration law questions sent in by our readers. If you enjoy reading this section, we encourage you to visit Ari’s blog, The Immigration Answer Man, where he provides more answers to your immigration questions. You can also follow The Immigration Answer Man on Facebook and Twitter.
If you have a question on immigration matters, write [email protected]. We can’t answer every question, but if you ask a short question that can be answered concisely, we’ll consider it for publication. Remember, these questions are only intended to provide general information. You should consult with your own attorney before acting on information you see here.
***
1) Question: My dad applied for an I-130 relative petition for me in 2013. After following up with USCIS, we just learned that it was approved in February of 2015. But we never received the approval notice. How can I get a copy of the approval notice for this I-130 petition?
{00017492}
Answer: You can request a duplicate Notice of Approval for your petition, as long as the petition is approved and it has not since been revoked, using immigration Form I-824, which is available on the USCIS website. I will warn you that USCIS is currently taking a long time to adjudicate Forms I-824 requests. The form must be filed by the Petitioner for the petition, which is usually the sponsoring relative or the sponsoring employer (in your case, your father is the Petitioner). If the Form I-824 is filed by the foreign national beneficiary, USCIS probably will not issue the duplicate Approval Notice.
There is a filing fee for this application, so it might be best to have a consultation appointment with me or another experienced immigration attorney first, so that you can determine whether you actually need the duplicate approval notice or not.
When the I-130 approval notice is lost, it often happens because the petitioner (in this case your father), moved and did not update their address with USCIS. So it is important for Petitioners to remember to update their address with USCIS each time they move, throughout the entire process, even after the petition is approved. Updating your address is currently done by submitting an immigration Form AR-11, which can be completed and submitted online, on the USCIS website.
***
2) Question: If a green card holder living outside the US no longer wishes to pursue getting his/her American citizenship – can he/she let go of the green card and apply for a simple travel visa without being adversely affected?
Answer: I have previously posted about giving up a green card (also known as abandoning permanent residence).
Someone who abandons their permanent residence can later apply for a visitor visa. As with all applicants for a visitor visa to the US, they will need to show that their ties to their home country are stronger than their ties to the US, and that they are unlikely to remain in the US. This can sometimes be tougher for foreign nationals who have been living in the US as permanent residents. So giving up permanent residence does not guarantee that the person will be able to obtain a visitor visa soon afterwards, but it is an option.
*****
4. Border and Enforcement News
California University Violates Federal Civil Rights Law by Refusing to Admit DACA Recipients
Loma Linda University, a private religious school in San Bernardino, CA has violated federal civil rights law by refusing to allow DACA recipients to enroll, according to the ACLU of Southern California.
{00017492}
The ACLU sent a letter to the school warning that the policy is unlawful. The letter was sent after Veronica Velasquez was notified in April that she had been accepted to the school’s graduate program for physical therapy, but eight days later her acceptance was abruptly rescinded because of her DACA status.
The university further told Valasquez that DACA recipients are prohibited from obtaining professional licenses and that they will have difficulty obtaining financial assistance. This was especially disturbing to the ACLU because in January, a new law took effect in California that requires licensing boards to consider applicants regardless of immigration status. Moreover, Valasquez’s financial situation should not have prevented her from being allowed to attend the school.
In addition to being unlawful, Loma Linda’s policy does not reflect DACA policies at other California colleges. Both public and private universities across the state accept students with DACA status.
https://www.aclusocal.org/pr-loma-linda-daca-policy/
***
Judge Halts Order Demanding DACA Recipients’ Personal Information
On May 19, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen ordered the federal government to turn over personal data for tens of thousands of DACA recipients. Judge Hanen is the judge in Texas who first heard United States v. Texas, the lawsuit brought by Texas and 25 other states against the federal government in an effort to block Obama’s 2014 executive actions to initiate DAPA and expand DACA. His role in the suit has caused many to believe that he is anti-immigrant.
But on June 7, he halted the order pending the outcome of the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Texas. A hearing has been set for August 22 to review the order following the Supreme Court decision.
The June 7th announcement was praised by many who felt that the initial order was grossly out of bounds, calling it an unconstitutional violation of privacy and security. While the order may still go into effect in August, critics are relieved that Judge Hanen decided to wait for Supreme Court guidance before initiating a measure that they say will cause irreversible damage to thousands of immigrant youth.
The decision to halt the order came after four people represented by the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the ACLU of Texas, petitioned the Fifth Circuit for a writ of mandamus, a legal tool that allows someone who is not party to a case, but who is hurt by the order, to seek relief from a higher court.
DACA recipients are relieved that for the time being, their private information is safe. But they have vowed to keep fighting until their protection is permanent.
https://www.nilc.org/2016/06/07/dreamers-private-information-safe-for-now/
{00017492}
*****
5. News from the Courts
Immigrants Who Provide Support to Terrorists Under Duress Still Subject to Removal
A case recently came before the Board of Immigration Appeals asking them to determine whether or not the “material support bar” in section 212(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI) of the Immigration and Nationality Act includes an implied exception for an immigrant who has provided material support to a terrorist organization under duress.
The case revolves around a Colombian national who owned a store and a hotel in the town of El Bordo. In the early 1990’s she began receiving messages from the FARC, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia. The FARC demanded goods and money and made a number of threats, including that they would kill her if she did not comply with their demands.
She relented and from 1997 to 1999, she supplied food and other products as the FARC requested. On March 7, 2000, the FARC attacked El Bordo, and her store and hotel were destroyed.
In 2001 she entered the United States on a nonimmigrant visitor visa. In August 2002, DHS demanded that she appear in court, charging her with removability as an overstayed nonimmigrant.
At a hearing before the Immigration Judge, the respondent admitted to the charge against her and applied for asylum in 2002. She also applied to withhold removal under sections 208(a)(1) and 241(b)(3)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and she applied to have her removal withheld or deferred under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
The Immigration Judge denied her applications on the grounds that the respondent was barred from relief because she had committed an act that she knew or reasonably should have known afforded material support to a terrorist organization. The Immigration Judge also determined that the respondent had failed to establish eligibility for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture.
On appeal, the Board of Appeals generally agreed with the Immigration Judge. But they asked the Immigration Judge to make an explicit determination whether, in the absence of the material support bar, the respondent would otherwise be eligible for relief, which would allow her to request a discretionary waiver of the material support bar from DHS.
On December 13, 2010, the Immigration Judge ruled that if not for the material support bar, the respondent would be eligible for asylum based on her past persecution by the FARC. The respondent filed a petition for review with the Second Circuit, which issued a summary order. The court ruled that the support that the respondent provided to the FARC
{00017492}
was “material” because it aided the terrorist organization in its fight against the Colombian government. However, the Second Circuit remanded the Board of Appeals to determine whether the statute contains an implied exception to the material support bar for immigrants whose support was supplied under duress.
The respondent argued that she should not be accountable for her actions because she was under duress, specifically the threat of death. She asserted that she should be exempt from the material support bar.
But the Board of Appeals disagrees. The law makes it clear that any individual engaged in terrorist activity is inadmissible and is barred from establishing eligibility for asylum and for withholding removal. Individuals who have provided material support are subject to the material support bar, which contains no express duress exception. As such, the Board declined to recognize one, concluding that in the past, every court that has addressed this question has ruled that both voluntary and involuntary support are encompassed in the material support bar. Moreover, there are other instances where the law does include an express provision about voluntary and involuntary activity. Therefore, if Congress intended to make an exception for this case, they would have included a provision for that. In addition, the Board felt that an assertion that a duress defense should be read into the material support bar undermines the fact that Congress created a waiver for deserving foreign nationals to avoid the consequences of the bar. Congress’s use of the waiver in other circumstances implies that the omission of any duress exception was intentional.
The respondent claimed that because duress is a valid defense to negate criminal culpability, an exception for duress should be made to the material support bar. The Board found this argument to be misplaced because immigration proceedings are civil in nature. Moreover, the criminal law concept of duress does not excuse most acts listed in the definition of terrorist activity.
For all of these reasons the Board has ruled that without a waiver, any foreign national who provides material support to a terrorist organization is inadmissible and legally barred from establishing eligibility for asylum and for withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Convention Against Torture, even if such support was provided under duress.
https://www.justice.gov/eoir/file/865856/download
*****
6. News Bytes
Anti-Refugee Bill Gets Shut Down by South Carolina Residents
An anti-refugee bill died without a single vote when a broad coalition of South Carolina residents firmly opposed the bill. 22 people including refugees, pastors, teachers, and
{00017492}
veterans testified before the House subcommittee to oppose the bill, many basing their objection on Christian values, which they claim rejects anti-refugee rhetoric.
A week later the bill advanced out of the subcommittee. But after the persuasive testimony of the coalition, comprised of people from both sides of the political spectrum, including the far-right evangelical movement, the full House Judiciary Committee opted not to take up the bill, despite anti-refugee and anti-immigrant sentiment amongst government officials.
https://immigrationforum.org/blog/victory-in-south-carolina-anti-refugee-bill-dies-as-house-session-ends/
***
USCIS Ombudsman Issues Recommendation Regarding U Visa Parole Policy
The Office of Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman has issued its recommendation to USCIS regarding a U visa parole policy. This new policy would facilitate parole for individuals who have established eligibility for U nonimmigrant status and who reside outside the U.S.
The recommendation was issued after numerous humanitarian concerns were expressed by principals and beneficiaries residing abroad. The recommendation is also designed to help USCIS develop a consistent parole policy and to help streamline the adjudications of parole requests.
USCIS will respond to the recommendation within 3 months.
To view the full text of the recommendation, click here.
***
Nebraska Service Center Will Begin Processing Certain Form I-918 Cases
In July, the Nebraska Service Center will begin processing cases involving the Form I-918, Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status. It will share the workload with the Vermont Service Center in order to balance the work, improve processing time, and maximize efficiency and customer service. USVIS will implement the transition in phases, allowing Nebraska Service Center officers to receive specialized training from Vermont Service Center officers and to gain experience adjudicating the U nonimmigrant petitions before they begin processing cases.
For more information, click here.
***
EB-4 Visa Limits Reached for Special Immigrants from Mexico
The July 2016 Visa Bulletin notes a final action date of January 1, 2010, for EB-4 visas for special immigrants from Mexico. This means that starting on July 1, 2016, applicants from
{00017492}
Mexico who filed Form I-360, Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant on or after January 1, 2010, will not be able to obtain an immigrant visa or adjudicate status until new visas become available.
Mexico has reached its EB-4 visa limit as congressionally mandated for fiscal year 2016. Information on EB-4 visa availability for fiscal year 2017 will appear in the September edition of the Visa Bulletin.
Petitioners from any country, including Mexico, may continue to file Form I-360. There is no annual limit on the number of Form I-360 petitions USCIS may approve.
For more information, click here.
***
Pro-immigration Activists Begin 350-mile walk to GOP Convention
Reverend Jose Landaverde is leading a 25-day march to the Republican National Convention in Cleveland. So far he is accompanied by activist Juan Gonzalez and a handful of supporters. He expects that there will be 75-100 marchers by the time they reach the convention, which runs from July 18-21.
The march is meant to send a message to Republican leaders and politicians to stop their racist and xenophobic rhetoric and to advocate for immigrant and refugee rights.
http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/pro-immigration-leaders-350-mile-walk-gop-convention/
*****
7. Washington Watch
Supreme Court Reaches Tie in DAPA Case
Last Thursday the Supreme Court deadlocked in a 4-4 vote on Obama’s 2014 executive actions on immigration. The program, called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), would have temporarily shielded millions of immigrants from deportation and allowed them to legally work.
The case began when Texas and a coalition of 25 states sued the Obama administration for circumventing Congress following the President’s 2014 announcement of the program. Texas also complained that DAPA would force the state to spend millions of dollars to provide driver’s licenses to immigrants.
The suit was brought before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals where a panel of three judges ruled that Obama had overstepped the bounds of his authority, particularly because he did not give notice or seek public comments on his program.
{00017492}
The tie in the Supreme Court last week means that the decision made by the lower court will be upheld, at least until a 9th justice is sworn in, at which point SCOTUS may decide to revisit the case. Regardless, the program is dead for the duration of Obama’s presidential term.
Immigrants and activists around the country are sorely disappointed by the outcome of the case. Many have vowed to keep fighting until comprehensive immigration reform is passed.
The President himself has said that Congress’s trajectory is unsustainable, and that a complete overhaul of the U.S. immigration system is only a matter of time.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/24/us/supreme-court-immigration-obama-dapa.html?_r=0
*****
8. In the News at ABIL Siskind Susser is excited to announce that Lynn Susser was recently elected to ABIL, the Alliance of Business Immigration Lawyers. ABIL is comprised of over 20 lawyers from top tier immigration practices with years of expertise and a comprehensive understanding of immigration law. For more information on ABIL, including a map of ABIL attorneys worldwide, visit their website at www.abil.com. The following articles are excerpts from ABIL’s monthly Immigration Insider, available here on their website.
***
House Holds Hearing on H-2B Temporary Foreign Worker Program
The U.S. House of Representatives held a hearing on June 8, 2016, entitled "The H-2B Temporary Foreign Worker Program: Examining the Effects on Americans' Job Opportunities and Wages." Testifying were Michael Cunningham, Executive Director and Secretary/Treasurer, Texas State Building and Construction Trade Council; Meredith Stewart, Staff Attorney, Southern Poverty Law Center; Daniel Costa, Director of Immigration Law and Policy Research, Economic Policy Institute; Stephen G. Bronaers, Partner, Edgeworth Economics; and Steven A. Camarota, Director of Research, Center for Immigration Studies. Presiding was Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).
Sen. Grassley noted, among other things, that according to statistics from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), as of June 2, 2016, the agency had already approved petitions for 12,727 returning H-2B workers, "with 1,171 potential additional returning workers in the pipeline." That’s a potential total, so far, of 13,898 returning workers this fiscal year, he noted. "That number exceeds by almost 75% the Congressional Budget office's estimate of only 8,000 H-2B returning workers this fiscal year," Sen. Grassley said.
{00017492}
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) released a related statement. AILA President Victor Nieblas Pradis noted, "The H-2B visa program is capped at 66,000 visas per year, and that numerical cap has not once been changed since the visa category was established in 1990, despite changing market demands. Small and seasonal businesses seek qualified American workers to fill seasonal or temporary short-term positions, but when those positions remain unfilled, U.S. employers need the H-2B program to meet their business demands. I very much hope that the hearing today gives a fair shake to this vital program." He added, "Ultimately, however, what would best meet the needs of the U.S. economy is a real essential worker visa, one that would allow a sufficient number of these workers to come to the U.S. and would include an opportunity to apply for permanent status if they so desired. We hope that today's hearing will bring Congress closer to understanding the critical need for a workable essential worker visa."
SEN. GRASSLEY'S STATEMENT AND WITNESS TESTIMONY
AILA'S STATEMENT
***
State Dept. Releases DV-2017 Results
The Department of State's Visa Bulletin for July 2016 includes the diversity visa lottery 2017 (DV-2017) results.
The bulletin notes that the Kentucky Consular Center in Williamsburg, Kentucky, has registered and notified the winners of the DV-2017 diversity lottery. Approximately 83,910 applicants have been registered and notified and may now apply for an immigrant visa. Because it is likely that some of the first 50,000 persons registered will not pursue their cases to visa issuance, the State Department noted, this larger figure should ensure that all DV-2017 numbers will be used during fiscal year 2017 (October 1, 2016, until September 30, 2017).
The bulletin explains that applicants registered for the DV-2017 program were selected at random from 12,437,190 qualified entries (19,344,586 with derivatives) received during the application period that ran from October 1, 2015, until November 3, 2015. The visas have been apportioned among six geographic regions with a maximum of seven percent available to persons born in any single country.
During the visa interview, principal applicants must provide proof of a high school education or its equivalent, or show two years of work experience in an occupation that requires at least two years of training or experience within the past five years. Those selected will need to act on their immigrant visa applications quickly, the bulletin notes. Applicants should follow the instructions in their notification letters.
Registrants living legally in the United States who wish to apply for adjustment of status must contact U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for information on the requirements and procedures. Once the visa numbers have been used, the program for fiscal year 2017 will end. Selected applicants who do not receive visas by September 30, 2017, will derive no
{00017492}
further benefit from their DV-2017 registration. Similarly, spouses and children accompanying or following to join DV-2017 principal applicants are only entitled to derivative diversity visa status until September 30, 2017.
Dates for the DV-2018 program registration period will be widely publicized in the coming months. Those interested in entering the DV-2018 program should check the Department of State's Visas webpage.
The Visa Bulletin for July 2016 includes a chart showing the statistical breakdown by foreign-state chargeability of those registered for the DV-2017 program.
***
USCIS Clarifies CW-1 Extension of Stay Petitions
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced on May 20, 2016, that it had received a sufficient number of petitions to reach the numerical limit (cap) of 12,999 workers who may be issued CW-1 visas or otherwise provided with CW-1 status for fiscal year (FY) 2016. May 5 was the final receipt date for CW-1 worker petitions requesting an employment start date before October 1, 2016. USCIS subsequently clarified that although extension of stay petitions for current CW-1 workers are counted toward the CW-1 cap, these petitions will be accepted under certain circumstances.
All CW-1 workers are subject to the cap unless the worker has already been counted toward the cap in the same fiscal year. The U.S. government's fiscal year begins on October 1 and ends the following September 30.
If CW-1 workers were already counted toward the CW-1 cap for FY 2016, meaning that their previous employment start dates were on or after October 1, 2015, their employers can file a petition to change employer or extend CW-1 status in FY 2016, even though the FY 2016 CW-1 cap was reached on May 5, 2016.
Additionally, USCIS said it is currently accepting CW-1 petitions requesting employment start dates on or after October 1, 2016, which are counted toward the FY 2017 CW-1 cap.
USCIS encourages CW-1 employers to file a petition for a CW-1 nonimmigrant worker up to 6 months in advance of the proposed employment start date, and as early as possible within that time frame. USCIS said it will reject a petition filed more than 6 months in advance.
NOTICE
*** This newsletter was prepared with the assistance of ABIL, the Alliance of Business Immigration Lawyers (www.abil.com), of which Lynn Susser is an active member.
{00017492}
*****
9. Updates from the Visalaw.com Blogs Greg Siskind’s Blog on ILW.com
• E-Verify About to Become Much More Onerous for Small Businesses • Immigration Lawyers Seeking Public Office • Immigrant of the Day – Larissa Martinez – Valedictorian • Immigrant of the Day – Harry Shum, Jr. – Actor, Singer, Dancer, Choreographer
Bruce Buchanan's Blog on ILW.com
• Another Company Owes Back Pay to H-1B Worker • Soccer Camp Settles H-1B Case for $185,000 • Company and Owner Sentenced for Knowingly Hiring Unauthorized Workers • OSC Settles with Villa Rancho Bernardo Care Center concerning Immigration
Discriminat • Four Charged in H-1B Visa Fraud Scheme
*****
10. State Department Visa Bulletin: July 2016 Number 94 Volume IX Washington, D.C
A. STATUTORY NUMBERS This bulletin summarizes the availability of immigrant numbers during Julyfor: “Application Final Action Dates” and “Dates for Filing Applications,” indicating when immigrant visa applicants should be notified to assemble and submit required documentation to the National Visa Center. Unless otherwise indicated on the USCIS website atwww.uscis.gov/visabulletininfo, individuals seeking to file applications for adjustment of status with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in the Department of Homeland Security must use the “Application Final Action Dates” charts below for determining when they can file such applications. When USCIS determines that there are more immigrant visas available for the fiscal year than there are known applicants for such visas, USCIS will state on its website that applicants may instead use the "Dates for Filing Visa Applications" charts in this Bulletin. Applicants for adjustment of status may refer to USCIS for additional information by visitingwww.uscis.gov/visabulletininfo.
{00017492}
1. Procedures for determining dates. Consular officers are required to report to the Department of State documentarily qualified applicants for numerically limited visas; USCIS reports applicants for adjustment of status. Allocations in the charts below were made, to the extent possible, in chronological order of reported priority dates, for demand received by June 8th. If not all demand could be satisfied, the category or foreign state in which demand was excessive was deemed oversubscribed. The cut-off date for an oversubscribed category is the priority date of the first applicant who could not be reached within the numerical limits. If it becomes necessary during the monthly allocation process to retrogress a cut-off date, supplemental requests for numbers will be honored only if the priority date falls within the new cut-off date announced in this bulletin. If at any time an annual limit were reached, it would be necessary to immediately make the preference category “unavailable”, and no further requests for numbers would be honored. 2. 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.
3. INA 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, EL SALVADOR, GUATEMALA, HONDURAS, INDIA, MEXICO, and PHILIPPINES.
4. 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.
{00017492}
A. APPLICATION FINAL ACTION DATES FOR FAMILY-SPONSORED PREFERENCE CASES
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 authorized for issuance to all qualified applicants; and "U" means unauthorized, i.e., numbers are not authorized for issuance. (NOTE: Numbers are authorized for issuance only for applicants whose priority date is earlier than the cut-off date listed below.)
Family- Sponsored
All Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed
CHINA-mainland born INDIA MEXICO PHILIPPINES
F1 22MAR09 22MAR09 22MAR09 08MAR95 01FEB05
F2A 15NOV14 15NOV14 15NOV14 01SEP14 15NOV14
F2B 08DEC09 08DEC09 08DEC09 08SEP95 01JUL05
F3 01DEC04 01DEC04 01DEC04 22OCT94 01MAR94
F4 08SEP03 01JAN03 01JAN01 15APR97 01JAN93
*NOTE: For July, F2A numbers EXEMPT from per-country limit are authorized for issuance to applicants from all countries with priority dates earlier than 01SEP14. F2A numbers SUBJECT to per-country limit are authorized for issuance to applicants chargeable to all countries EXCEPT MEXICO with priority dates beginning 01SEP14 and earlier than 15NOV14. (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.)
B. DATES FOR FILING FAMILY-SPONSORED VISA APPLICATIONS
The chart below reflects dates for filing visa applications within a timeframe justifying immediate action in the application process. Applicants for immigrant visas who have a priority date earlier than the cut-off date in the chart below may assemble and submit required documents to the Department of State’s National Visa Center, following receipt of notification from the National Visa Center containing detailed instructions. The cut-off date for an oversubscribed category is the priority date of the first applicant who cannot submit documentation to the National Visa Center for an immigrant visa. If a category is designated “current,” all applicants in the relevant category may file applications,
{00017492}
regardless of priority date. The “C” listing indicates that the category is current, and that applications may be filed regardless of the applicant’s priority date. The listing of a date for any category indicates that only applicants with a priority date which is earlier than the listed date may file their application. Visit www.uscis.gov/visabulletininfo for information on whether USCIS has determined that this chart can be used (in lieu of the chart in paragraph 4.A.) this month for filing applications for adjustment of status with USCIS.
Family- Sponsored
All Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed
CHINA- mainland born INDIA MEXICO PHILIPPINES
F1 01OCT09 01OCT09 01OCT09 01APR95 01SEP05
F2A 15OCT15 15OCT15 15OCT15 15OCT15 15OCT15
F2B 15DEC10 15DEC10 15DEC10 15MAY96 01JAN06
F3 01AUG05 01AUG05 01AUG05 01MAY95 01AUG95
F4 01MAY04 01MAY04 01MAY04 01JUN98 01APR93
5. Section 203(b) of the INA prescribes preference classes for allotment of Employment-based immigrant visas as follows:
EMPLOYMENT-BASED PREFERENCES 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.
{00017492}
A. APPLICATION FINAL ACTION DATES FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED PREFERENCE CASES
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 authorized for issuance to all qualified applicants; and "U" means unauthorized, i.e., numbers are not authorized for issuance. (NOTE: Numbers are authorized for issuance only for applicants whose priority date is earlier than the cut-off date listed below.)
Employ- ment based
All Charge- ability Areas Except Those Listed
CHINA- mainland born
EL SALVADOR GUATEMALA HONDURAS INDIA MEXICO PHILIPPINES
1st C C C C C C
2nd C 01JAN10 C 01NOV04 C C
3rd 01MAR16 01JAN10 01MAR16 22OCT04 01MAR16 15FEB09
Other Workers 01MAR16 01JAN04 01MAR16 22OCT04 01MAR16 15FEB09
4th C C 01JAN10 C 01JAN10 C
Certain Religious Workers C C 01JAN10 C 01JAN10 C
5th Non-Regional Center (C5 and T5) C 15FEB14 C C C C
{00017492}
5th Regional Center (I5 and R5) C 15FEB14 C C C C
*Employment Third Preference Other Workers Category: Section 203(e) of the Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) passed by Congress in November 1997, as amended by Section 1(e) of Pub. L. 105-139, provides that once the Employment Third Preference Other Worker (EW) cut-off date has reached the priority date of the latest EW petition approved prior to November 19, 1997, the 10,000 EW numbers available for a fiscal year are to be reduced by up to 5,000 annually beginning in the following fiscal year. This reduction is to be made for as long as necessary to offset adjustments under the NACARA program. Since the EW cut-off date reached November 19, 1997 during Fiscal Year 2001, the reduction in the EW annual limit to 5,000 began in Fiscal Year 2002.
B. DATES FOR FILING OF EMPLOYMENT-BASED VISA APPLICATIONS
The chart below reflects dates for filing visa applications within a timeframe justifying immediate action in the application process. Applicants for immigrant visas who have a priority date earlier than the cut-off date in the chart may assemble and submit required documents to the Department of State’s National Visa Center, following receipt of notification from the National Visa Center containing detailed instructions. The cut-off date for an oversubscribed category is the priority date of the first applicant who cannot submit documentation to the National Visa Center for an immigrant visa. If a category is designated “current,” all applicants in the relevant category may file, regardless of priority date. The “C” listing indicates that the category is current, and that applications may be filed regardless of the applicant’s priority date. The listing of a date for any category indicates that only applicants with a priority date which is earlier than the listed date may file their application. Visit www.uscis.gov/visabulletininfo for information on whether USCIS has determined that this chart can be used (in lieu of the chart in paragraph 5.A.) this month for filing applications for adjustment of status with USCIS.
Employment- based
All Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed
CHINA- mainland born INDIA MEXICO PHILIPPINES
{00017492}
1st C C C C C
2nd C 01JUN13 01JUL09 C C
3rd C 01MAY15 01JUL05 C 01JAN10
Other Workers C 01AUG09 01JUL05 C 01JAN10
4th C C C C C
Certain Religious Workers C C C C C
5th Non-Regional Center (C5 and T5) C 01MAY15 C C C
5th Regional Center (I5 and R5) C 01MAY15 C C C
6. The Department of State has a recorded message with the cut-off date information for Final Application Action which can be heard at: (202) 485-7699. This recording is updated on or about the tenth of each month with information on cut-off dates for the following month.
B. DIVERSITY IMMIGRANT (DV) CATEGORY FOR THE MONTH OF JULY Section 203(c) of the INA provides up to 55,000 immigrant visas each fiscal year to permit additional immigration opportunities for persons from countries with low admissions during the previous five years. The NACARA stipulates that beginning with DV-99, and for as long as necessary, up to 5,000 of the 55,000 annually-allocated diversity visas will be made available for use under the NACARA program. This resulted in reduction of the DV-2016 annual limit to 50,000. DV visas are divided among six geographic regions. No one country can receive more than seven percent of the available diversity visas in any one year.
{00017492}
For July, immigrant numbers in the DV category are available to qualified DV-2016 applicants chargeable to all regions/eligible countries as follows. When an allocation cut-off number is shown, visas are available only for applicants with DV regional lottery rank numbers BELOW the specified allocation cut-off number:
Region
All DV Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed Separately
AFRICA 43,825
ASIA 10,550 Except: Nepal: 6,725
EUROPE CURRENT
NORTH AMERICA (BAHAMAS) CURRENT
OCEANIA CURRENT
SOUTH AMERICA, and the CARIBBEAN CURRENT
Entitlement to immigrant status in the DV category lasts only through the end of the fiscal (visa) year for which the applicant is selected in the lottery. The year of entitlement for all applicants registered for the DV-2016 program ends as of September 30, 2016. DV visas may not be issued to DV-2016 applicants after that date. Similarly, spouses and children accompanying or following to join DV-2016 principals are only entitled to derivative DV status until September 30, 2016. DV visa availability through the very end of FY-2016 cannot be taken for granted. Numbers could be exhausted prior to September 30.
C. THE DIVERSITY (DV) IMMIGRANT CATEGORY RANK CUT-OFFS WHICH WILL APPLY IN AUGUST For August, immigrant numbers in the DV category are available to qualified DV-2016 applicants chargeable to all regions/eligible countries as follows. When an allocation
{00017492}
cut-off number is shown, visas are available only for applicants with DV regional lottery rank numbers BELOW the specified allocation cut-off number:
Region
All DV Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed Separately
AFRICA CURRENT
ASIA CURRENT Except: Nepal: 7,100
EUROPE CURRENT
NORTH AMERICA (BAHAMAS) CURRENT
OCEANIA CURRENT
SOUTH AMERICA, and the CARIBBEAN CURRENT
D. OVERSUBSCRIPTION OF THE MEXICO EMPLOYMENT-BASED FOURTH (E4) AND CERTAIN RELIGIOUS WORKERS (SR) PREFERENCE CATEGORIES As readers were advised in the May Visa Bulletin number 92, there has been extremely high demand in the E4 and SR categories, primarily for Juvenile Court Dependent cases filed with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for adjustment of status. Pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act, this has now required the implementation of E4 and SR Application Final Action Dates for Mexico, which has reached its per-country limit. This action will allow the Department to hold worldwide number use within the maximum allowed under the FY-2016 annual limits.
E. VISA AVAILABILITY FOR THOSE COUNTRIES WHICH ARE, OR WILL BE, SUBJECT TO A FINAL ACTION DATE IN THE EMPLOYMENT-BASED FOURTH (E4) AND CERTAIN
{00017492}
RELIGIOUS WORKERS (SR) PREFERENCE CATEGORIES INA Section 202 sets an annual per-country limitation for preference immigrants of 7 percent of the worldwide level, to avoid monopolization of the annual limit by applicants from only a few countries.
INA Section 202(a)(5)(A) provides that if total demand will be insufficient to use all available numbers in an Employment preference during a calendar quarter, then the otherwise unused numbers may be made available in that preference without regard to the per-country limits. This provision helps to assure that all available Employment preference numbers may be used. Through late winter, this provision allowed countries with demand in excess of their normal per-country limit to utilize numbers that would have otherwise gone unused. Those countries were El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.
By April, the level of worldwide Employment Fourth preference demand had increased to the point where there was sufficient demand to fully utilize the FY-2016 worldwide preference limit. It therefore became necessary to impose a final action date on those countries which had already reached their per-country limit, followed by those which would reach their limit in the coming months.
Readers should be aware that the establishment of the Employment Fourth preference Final Action date of January 1, 2010 does not mean that applicants are now subject to a wait in excess of six years. That Final Action Date is intended only to stop any further use of numbers by applicants from those countries under the FY-2016 annual limit, not to indicate how long it will be before applicants will be eligible for final action.
What are the Employment Fourth Final Action Dates likely to be for October when the FY-2017 annual limits take effect? Mexico: The Employment Fourth Preference category will become CURRENT for October.
El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras: A determination regarding the final action date(s) which may be required for these countries cannot be made at this time. Demand versus availability of numbers for these countries will be continuously monitored throughout the coming months, and official determination will be made in early September. Based on current indications which are very much subject to change, it is anticipated that the Final Action Date(s) for these three countries will be a date in 2015.
F. VISA AVAILABILITY IN THE COMING MONTHS FAMILY-sponsored categories (August and September) Worldwide dates: F1: Up to two months F2A: One or two weeks F2B: Four to six weeks F3: Up to two weeks F4: Up to one month EMPLOYMENT-based categories (August and September) Employment First: Current for most.
{00017492}
China and India: A date will be established no later than September. Will return to “Current” status for October.
Employment Second: Worldwide: Date likely to be imposed by September. Will return to “Current” status for October. China: No forward movement.
India: One week beyond India EB-3.
Employment Third: Worldwide: Up to one month. China: No forward movement.
India: Indications are that there will be “otherwise” unused numbers available under the Worldwide limit. This should allow the September date to reach early 2005.
Mexico: Worldwide date for the foreseeable future.
Philippines: Likely to reach late 2009, possibly early 2010.
Employment Fourth: Current for most. El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico will be subject to the January 1, 2010 Final Action Date through September. That date will be applied to India in August.
El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras are expected to have a 2015 Final Action Date(s) for October.
India and Mexico: Will return to “Current” status for October.
Employment Fifth: Current for all but China. China: Best case scenario is March 1st by September. Slow forward movement for October and beyond. The above projections for the Family and Employment categories indicate what is likely to happen on a monthly basis based on current applicant demand patterns. Readers should never assume that recent trends in Final Action Date movements are guaranteed for the future, or that "corrective" action will not be required at some point during the year in an effort to maintain number use within the applicable annual limits. The determination of the actual monthly Final Action Dates is subject to fluctuations in applicant demand and a number of other variables.
G. DIVERSITY VISA LOTTERY 2017 (DV-2017) RESULTS The Kentucky Consular Center in Williamsburg, Kentucky has registered and notified the winners of the DV-2017 diversity lottery. The diversity lottery was conducted under the terms of section 203(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and makes available *50,000 permanent resident visas annually to persons from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States. Approximately 83,910 applicants have been registered and notified and may now make an application for an immigrant visa. Since it is likely that some of the first *50,000 persons registered will not pursue their cases
{00017492}
to visa issuance, this larger figure should insure that all DV-2017 numbers will be used during fiscal year 2017 (October 1, 2016 until September 30, 2017).
Applicants registered for the DV-2017 program were selected at random from 12,437,190 qualified entries (19,344,586 with derivatives) received during the application period that ran from noon, Eastern Daylight Time on Thursday, October 1, 2015, until noon, Eastern Daylight Time on Tuesday, November 3, 2015. The visas have been apportioned among six geographic regions with a maximum of seven percent available to persons born in any single country. During the visa interview, principal applicants must provide proof of a high school education or its equivalent, or show two years of work experience in an occupation that requires at least two years of training or experience within the past five years. Those selected will need to act on their immigrant visa applications quickly. Applicants should follow the instructions in their notification letter and must fully complete the information requested.
Registrants living legally in the United States who wish to apply for adjustment of their status must contact the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services for information on the requirements and procedures. Once the total *50,000 visa numbers have been used, the program for fiscal year 2017 will end. Selected applicants who do not receive visas by September 30, 2017 will derive no further benefit from their DV-2017 registration. Similarly, spouses and children accompanying or following to join DV-2017 principal applicants are only entitled to derivative diversity visa status until September 30, 2017.
Dates for the DV-2018 program registration period will be widely publicized in the coming months. Those interested in entering the DV-2018 program should check the Department of State’s Visa web page in the coming months.
*The Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) passed by Congress in November 1997 stipulated that up to 5,000 of the 55,000 annually-allocated diversity visas be made available for use under the NACARA program. The reduction of the limit of available visas to 50,000 began with DV-2000.
The following is the statistical breakdown by foreign-state chargeability of those registered for the DV-2017 program:
AFRICA
ALGERIA 1,561 ETHIOPIA 4,500 NIGER 34
ANGOLA 80 GABON 26 RWANDA 277
BENIN 617 GAMBIA, THE 46 SAO TOME AND PRINCIPE 0
{00017492}
BOTSWANA 15 GHANA 3,170 SENEGAL 357
BURKINA FASO 217 GUINEA 1,233 SEYCHELLES 1
BURUNDI 106 GUINEA-BISSAU 3 SIERRA LEONE 2,065
CABO VERDE 7 KENYA 2,090 SOMALIA 215
CAMEROON 2,096 LESOTHO 1 SOUTH AFRICA 427
CENTRAL AFRICAN REP. 9 LIBERIA 3,105 SOUTH SUDAN 17
CHAD 52 LIBYA 274 SUDAN 2,522
COMOROS 5 MADAGASCAR 13 SWAZILAND 4
CONGO 94 MALAWI 17 TANZANIA 89
CONGO, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE 3,835 MALI 82 TOGO 963
COTE D’IVOIRE 891 MAURITANIA 27 TUNISIA 169
DJIBOUTI 53 MAURITIUS 9 UGANDA 240
EGYPT 4,501 MOROCCO 1,905 ZAMBIA 36
EQUATORIAL GUINEA 3 MOZAMBIQUE 7 ZIMBABWE 106
ERITREA 316 NAMIBIA 12
ASIA
{00017492}
AFGHANISTAN 285 JAPAN 204 QATAR 33
BAHRAIN 12 JORDAN 259 SAUDI ARABIA 253
BHUTAN 16 NORTH KOREA 0 SINGAPORE 20
BRUNEI 0 KUWAIT 101 SRI LANKA 375
BURMA 213 LAOS 0 SYRIA 356
CAMBODIA 824 LEBANON 183 TAIWAN 260
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMIN. REGION 37 MALAYSIA 39 THAILAND 41
INDONESIA 115 MALDIVES 0 TIMOR-LESTE 0
IRAN 4,500 MONGOLIA 144 UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 97
IRAQ 302 NEPAL 4,000 YEMEN 694
ISRAEL 127 OMAN 9
EUROPE
ALBANIA 2,373 HUNGARY 153 NORWAY 24
ANDORRA 0 ICELAND 13 POLAND 517
ARMENIA 1,669 IRELAND 63 PORTUGAL 36
AUSTRIA 71 ITALY 443 ROMANIA 480
{00017492}
AZERBAIJAN 470 KAZAKHSTAN 518 RUSSIA 2,290
BELARUS 899 KOSOVO 348 SAN MARINO 0
BELGIUM 95 KYRGYZSTAN 292 SERBIA 376
BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA 119 LATVIA 64 SLOVAKIA 49
BULGARIA 666 LIECHTENSTEIN 3 SLOVENIA 16
CROATIA 36 LITHUANIA 183 SPAIN 204
CYPRUS 12 LUXEMBOURG 5 SWEDEN 94
CZECH REPUBLIC 53 MACEDONIA 286 SWITZERLAND 96
DENMARK 44 MALTA 3 TAJIKISTAN 414
ESTONIA 34 MOLDOVA 1,762 TURKEY 2,186
FINLAND 51 MONACO 4 TURKMENISTAN 91
FRANCE 467 MONTENEGRO 25 UKRAINE 4,500
French Polynesia 1 NETHERLANDS 82 UZBEKISTAN 4,501
New Calendonia 1 Aruba 2 VATICAN CITY 0
GEORGIA 680 Curacao 1
GERMANY 532 Sint Maarten 4
{00017492}
GREECE 86 NORTHERN IRELAND 13
NORTH AMERICA
BAHAMAS, THE 10
OCEANIA
AUSTRALIA 748 NAURU 5 SOLOMON ISLANDS 0
Cocos Islands 3 NEW ZEALAND 213 TONGA 42
FIJI 404 Cook Islands 8 TUVALU 1
KIRIBATI 3 PALAU 0 VANUATU 5
MARSHALL ISLANDS 0 PAPUA NEW GUINEA 6
MICRONESIA, FEDERATED STATES OF 2 SAMOA 10
SOUTH AMERICA, CENTRAL AMERICA, AND THE CARIBBEAN
ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA 11 DOMINICA 8
SAINT KITTS AND NEVIS 0
ARGENTINA 53 GRENADA 7 SAINT LUCIA 9
BARBADOS 1 GUATEMALA 29 SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES 4
BELIZE 3 GUYANA 10 SURINAME 0
{00017492}
BOLIVIA 30 HONDURAS 44 TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO 34
CHILE 27 NICARAGUA 9 URUGUAY 12
COSTA RICA 18 PANAMA 12 VENEZUELA 1,134
CUBA 493 PARAGUAY 3
Natives of the following countries were not eligible to participate in DV-2017: Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, China (mainland-born, excluding Hong Kong S.A.R., Macau S.A.R., and Taiwan), Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, the Philippines, South Korea, United Kingdom (except Northern Ireland) and its dependent territories, and Vietnam. H. OBTAINING THE MONTHLY VISA BULLETIN To be placed on the Department of State’s E-mail subscription list for the “Visa Bulletin”, please send an E-mail to the following E-mail address:
[email protected] and in the message body type:
Subscribe Visa-Bulletin (example: Subscribe Visa-Bulletin)
To be removed from the Department of State’s E-mail subscription list for the “Visa Bulletin”, send an e-mail message to the following E-mail address:
[email protected] and in the message body type: Signoff Visa-Bulletin
The Department of State also has available a recorded message with visa final action dates which can be heard at: (202) 485-7699. The recording is normally updated on/about the 10th of each month with information on cut-off dates for the following month. Readers may submit questions regarding Visa Bulletin related items by E-mail at the following address:
[email protected] (This address cannot be used to subscribe to the Visa Bulletin.)
Department of State Publication 9514 CA/VO: June 8, 2016
{00017492}
Siskind Susser PC – Immigration Lawyers 901-682-6455 or 800-343-4890
