Thailand Call: 02-266 3698
USA Call: 1-(316)-974-0454
Integrity Legal
- Legal Blog
- Integrity Legal Home
- Thai Visa
- Company in Thailand
- Real Estate Thailand
- US Visa
- Contact Us
Archive for the ‘USCIS’ Category
3rd September 2010
American Authorities Continue Efforts to Apprehend Human Traffickers
Posted by : admin
Those who read this blog on a regular basis may have noticed that the administration routinely posts information about efforts by various law enforcement authorities to discourage human trafficking. Unfortunately, as the world becomes increasingly integrated due to globalization the instances of human trafficking seem to be rising. This apparent increase could be due to the fact that there are more media outlets covering this issue, but this author believes in giving credit where credit is due and many of those apprehended by American authorities were caught thanks to the diligent efforts of American and international law enforcement agencies and organizations.
To quote a recent story from the Associated Press that this author found distributed on the internet by Google:
HONOLULU — Six recruiters were accused Thursday of luring 400 laborers from Thailand to the United States and forcing them to work, according to a federal indictment that the FBI called the largest human-trafficking case ever charged in U.S. history.
The indictment alleges that the scheme was orchestrated by four employees of labor recruiting company Global Horizons Manpower Inc. and two Thailand-based recruiters. It said the recruiters lured the workers with false promises of lucrative jobs, then confiscated their passports, failed to honor their employment contracts and threatened to deport them.
Once the Thai laborers arrived in the United States starting in May 2004, they were put to work and have since been sent to sites in states including Hawaii, Washington, California, Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Utah, according to attorneys and advocates.
Many laborers were initially taken to farms in Hawaii and Washington, where work conditions were the worst, said Chancee Martorell, executive director for the Los Angeles-based Thai Community Development Center, which represents 263 Thai workers who were brought to the U.S. by Global Horizons.
A woman who answered the phone at Global Horizons’ Los Angeles office refused to take a message seeking comment Thursday.
The six defendants include Global Horizons President and CEO Mordechai Orian, 45; Director of International Relations Pranee Tubchumpol, 44; Hawaii regional supervisor Shane Germann, 41; and onsite field supervisor Sam Wongsesanit, 39. The Thailand recruiters were identified as Ratawan Chunharutai and Podjanee Sinchai.
They face maximum sentences ranging from five years to 70 years in prison, according to the Department of Justice.
The penalties imposed upon those who engage in human trafficking activities can be severe. This is likely due to the fact that this activity often leads to many negative results as noted in the story above. Many of those who are smuggled from one country to another are forced to work under inhumane conditions that are considered to be illegal in many jurisdictions.
This author is pleased to see public resources being expended upon truly worthy law enforcement programs such as this. Thwarting the activities of human traffickers should definitely be a top priority for international law enforcement agents. Hopefully, arrests such as those noted above will discourage and deter individuals in the future as such activity has an extremely detrimental impact upon society as a whole.
It should also be noted that human trafficking is considered by US Immigration authorities to be a legal grounds of inadmissibility. Therefore a finding by a Consular Officer that an individual previously engaged in human trafficking may lead to visa denial in a pending immigration petition or application. Furthermore, this ground of inadmissibility is unlikely to be remedied through use of an I-601 waiver.
For related information please see: US Visa Thailand.
31st August 2010
New Procedures for Those Wishing to Adopt Orphans from Nepal
Posted by : admin
Adoption is one of the greatest things that people can do to provide love and care to orphaned children. This is especially true in cases where American or bi-national couples adopt orphans from less prosperous nations abroad. In the past, many Americans and foreign nationals have traveled to Nepal in order to adopt children from this small Asian nation. In a recent press release from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), under the authority of the US Department of Homeland Security, it was announced that there will be new processing procedures in cases where Americans petition for immigration benefits in connection with adoption of orphans from Nepal. To quote the press release directly:
WASHINGTON — U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today announced that any U.S. citizen seeking to adopt a Nepali child, whose case is not affected by the suspension of processing of adoption cases involving Nepali children claimed to have been found abandoned, should file the Form I 600, Petition to Classify an Orphan as an Immediate Relative, with the U.S. Embassy in Kathmandu, Nepal.
Usually, Immigrant visa petitions are initially adjudicated by a USCIS office in the United States. This change to processing procedures seems to indicate that special considerations are being taken by Immigration officials tasked with adjudicating Nepali adoption based immigration petitions. To quote the aforementioned press release further:
This change in the filing location for the Form I-600 petitions applies to two groups of prospective adoptive parents who are not affected by the suspension. The first group is those who received a referral letter from the Government of Nepal’s Ministry of Women, Children and Social Welfare before Aug. 6, 2010, informing them of a proposed match of an abandoned child. The second group is those who seek to adopt Nepali children who were relinquished by known parent(s) and whose identity and relationship can be confirmed.
USCIS strongly encourages prospective adoptive parents to follow this procedure for their own benefit, based on growing concerns about unreliable documents, irregularities in the methods used to identify children for adoption in Nepal, and the resulting difficulties in classifying those children as orphans under U.S. immigration law. Please see the Aug. 6, 2010 announcement online regarding the suspension.
Verifying documentation can be a major issue in any Immigration proceeding, but this problem can be particularly acute in cases involving adoption. A decision, one way or the other, in an immigrant adoptee’s adjudication proceeding could have a tremendous impact upon the lives of everyone involved. Therefore, caution is required in order to attempt to ensure an equitable decision. The press release went on to state:
To file the Form I-600 petition with the U.S. Embassy in Kathmandu, prospective adoptive parents should complete and sign the Form I-600 and send the Form I-600 with all required supporting documents and evidence, other than the adoption or custody decree, to their respective local agency representatives in Nepal…Based on this filing, the U.S. Embassy in Kathmandu will then complete the required orphan determination before prospective adoptive parents travel to, or adopt a child in, Nepal.
Following this procedure will protect the interests of the prospective adoptive parents and the children by ensuring that the adoptive children will be eligible to immigrate to the United States before the prospective adoptive parents travel to Nepal and complete the Nepali adoption process. It is anticipated that most determinations will be completed within 90 days of receipt of the case by the U.S. Embassy in Kathmandu.
If, after completing its investigation of the case, the Embassy finds that the child qualifies as an orphan under U.S. immigration law, the prospective adoptive parents will be notified in writing that they may travel to Nepal to complete the adoption process.
It would seem that this new policy is designed to allow for increased scrutiny of relevant documentation in Nepali adoption cases. Consular Officers are often in a unique position to adjudicate pending immigration applications abroad. Should the officer find that the application is bona fide then he or she can issue the visa. If, on the other hand, the Consular Officer finds that there are further issues to be explored, then he or she can issue a 221g refusal and request for further evidence or deny the application outright based upon a ground of inadmissibility. In most immigrant visa applications, when Consular Officers deny the application, they usually do so pursuant to section 221(G) of the US Immigration and Nationality Act which allows the applicant to rectify the problem through presentation of further documentation or evidence.
For further information about American Immigration from Asia please see: US Visa India or K1 Visa Vietnam.
30th August 2010
In previous posts on this blog, this author has discussed so-called visa companies and other organizations that claim to be licensed to provide legal services to immigrants and prospective immigrants. In a previous post, the New York Attorney General’s campaign to combat fraudulent immigration practitioners was discussed at length. It would appear that Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is still intent upon seeing that this type of activity is thwarted. To quote directly from a press release distributed by the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA):
NEW YORK, NY (August 17, 2010) – Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo today announced the latest actions in his ongoing effort to combat scams that target New York’s immigrant communities. As part of his broad investigation into immigration fraud, Cuomo has shut down seven companies and sued two other organizations for providing fraudulent legal services to immigrants.
The following seven companies and their owners have been permanently barred from operating any immigration services businesses and must collectively pay $370,000 in damages to the State of New York: (1) Centro Santa Ana, Inc. and Ana Lucia Baquero, in Queens; (2) Margo’s Immigration Services and Margarita Davidov a/k/a Margo Davidov, in Queens; (3) Miguel Fittipaldi, J.D., Ltd. and Miguel Fittipaldi, in Manhattan; (4) Arthur C. Hurwitz, in Manhattan; (5) Oficina Legal Para
Hispanos, P.C. and Geoffrey S. Stewart, in Manhattan; (6) Asilos and Camilo Perdomo, in Queens; and (7) Mision Hispana, Inc. and Mayra Liz, in Queens.The Attorney General began an investigation and issued subpoenas to these companies after receiving information that they were engaged in fraudulent and illegal business practices. The illegal conduct included, among other things, misrepresenting their authorization to submit documents on behalf of immigrants to the government and giving legal advice to immigrants. Further, some of these companies involved attorneys who aided others in the unauthorized practice of the law and simply lent their name to provide legitimacy to the business. Collectively, these companies abused hundreds of immigrants.
This author is pleased to see Attorney General Cuomo taking such a keen interest in an often overlooked problem plaguing the United States at large as well as immigrant communities in the USA. These immigrant groups are often targeted by unlicensed “visa agents” or “Immigration specialists” who prey upon uninformed consumers.
This can be a real problem outside of the United States as well. In Asia, there are many unlicensed practitioners who claim to be authorized to practice US law. When dealing with someone who claims to be US lawyer abroad it is always wise to ask for credentials in order to ascertain whether or not an individual really is qualified to provide legal advice on American immigration matters. An American attorney’s credentials can be proven by producing either a State of Federal license to practice law or a Bar Association membership card for a State or Federal Bar Association. Even after production of such documents consumers are well advised to check with the attorney’s licensing body in order to verify that the individual in question is a licensed practitioner.
For related information please see: US Attorney Bangkok
26th August 2010
Fee Increases for the L1 Visa
Posted by : admin
The United States L-1 visa can be a very useful travel document for those who wish to work in the United States for a multi-national corporation. In recent months, many of the fees associated with visa processing have increased. For example, the Consular Processing fees for the K1 visa and the K3 Visa have risen as demands upon resources required an adjustment of costs payable by customers. Other visa categories were also subjected to fee increases.
The L1 visa is the latest subject of a fee increase as noted by the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) in this quotation from a press release distributed through their network:
WASHINGTON—On Aug. 13, 2010, President Obama signed into law Public Law 111-230, which contains provisions to increase certain H-1B and L-1 petition fees. Effective immediately, Public Law 111-230 requires the submission of an additional fee of $2,000 for certain H-1B petitions and $2,250 for certain L-1A and L-1B petitions postmarked on or after Aug. 14, 2010, and will remain in effect through Sept. 30, 2014.
These additional fees apply to petitioners who employ 50 or more employees in the United States with more than 50 percent of its employees in the United States in H-1B or L (including L-1A, L-1B and L-2) nonimmigrant status. Petitioners meeting these criteria must submit the fee with an H-1B or L-1 petition filed:
• Initially to grant an alien nonimmigrant status described in subparagraph (H)(i)(b) or (L) of section 101(a)(15), or
• To obtain authorization for an alien having such status to change employers. USCIS is in the process of revising the Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Form I-129), and instructions to comply with Public Law 111-230.
To facilitate implementation of Public Law 111-230, USCIS recommends that all H-1B, L-1A and L-1B petitioners, as part of the filing packet, include the new fee or a statement of other evidence outlining why this new fee does not apply. USCIS requests that petitioners include a notation of whether the fee is required in bold capital letters at the top of the cover letter. Where USCIS does not receive such explanation and/or documentation with the initial filing, it may issue a Request for Evidence (RFE) to determine whether the petition is covered by the public law. An RFE may be required even if such evidence is submitted, if questions remain. The additional fee, if applicable, is in addition to the base processing fee, the existing Fraud Prevention and Detection Fee, and any applicable American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998 (ACWIA) fee, needed to file a petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Form I-129), as well as any premium processing fees, if applicable.
A Request For Evidence (RFE) is analogous to the 221g refusal in that both are requests for further documentation. These types of requests essentially “freeze” the application or petition until the Petitioner, Beneficiary, or their attorney provides the requested documentation or evidence. That said, waiting too long to respond can cause problems as the case could be deemed to have been abandoned. Generally, such forms are issued when the adjudicating officer feels that further evidence is necessary in order to decide the case.
Those interested in learning more about RFEs and visa refusals should see: US Visa Denial
To learn more about L1 visas in the context of American LLC formation please see: US Company Registration.
17th August 2010
Will The Increase in Citizenship Renunciation Continue?
Posted by : admin
United States Citizenship is the highest lawful status that one can reach in the USA, from an Immigration perspective. Many people from around the world seek visas, travel documents, and permanent residence in the United States. Of the relative few who obtain lawful status in the United States, even fewer ultimately naturalize to US Citizenship. American Citizenship accords the Citizen with voting rights, work authorization, and virtually unfettered travel rights within the United States of America. That said, there are some situations where an American Citizen seeks to renounce their United States Citizenship. In a recent article from the New York Times it was noted that citizenship renunciation seems to be on the rise. To quote the article directly:
Amid mounting frustration over taxation and banking problems, small but growing numbers of overseas Americans are taking the weighty step of renouncing their citizenship.
“What we have seen is a substantial change in mentality among the overseas community in the past two years,” said Jackie Bugnion, director of American Citizens Abroad, an advocacy group based in Geneva. “Before, no one would dare mention to other Americans that they were even thinking of renouncing their U.S. nationality. Now, it is an openly discussed issue.”
The Federal Register, the government publication that records such decisions, shows that 502 expatriates gave up their U.S. citizenship or permanent residency status in the last quarter of 2009. That is a tiny portion of the 5.2 million Americans estimated by the State Department to be living abroad.
There are a significant number of American expatriates living throughout the world and it should be noted that not all of these individuals wish to renounce their US Citizenship. However the New York Times went on to point out:
Still, 502 was the largest quarterly figure in years, more than twice the total for all of 2008, and it looms larger, given how agonizing the decision can be. There were 235 renunciations in 2008 and 743 last year. Waiting periods to meet with consular officers to formalize renunciations have grown.
Anecdotally, frustrations over tax and banking questions, not political considerations, appear to be the main drivers of the surge. Expat advocates say that as it becomes more difficult for Americans to live and work abroad, it will become harder for American companies to compete.
Increasingly, international banks and financial institutions are finding it difficult to deal with some American financial regulations. That said, most American expatriates (or expats) seem to be more frustrated by American tax policy rather than American financial restrictions. The New York Times went on to note:
American expats have long complained that the United States is the only industrialized country to tax citizens on income earned abroad, even when they are taxed in their country of residence, though they are allowed to exclude their first $91,400 in foreign-earned income.
One Swiss-based business executive, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of sensitive family issues, said she weighed the decision for 10 years. She had lived abroad for years but had pleasant memories of service in the U.S. Marine Corps.
Yet the notion of double taxation — and of future tax obligations for her children, who will receive few U.S. services — finally pushed her to renounce, she said.
“I loved my time in the Marines, and the U.S. is still a great country,” she said. “But having lived here 20 years and having to pay and file while seeing other countries’ nationals not having to do that, I just think it’s grossly unfair.”
“It’s taxation without representation,” she added.
Stringent new banking regulations — aimed both at curbing tax evasion and, under the Patriot Act, preventing money from flowing to terrorist groups — have inadvertently made it harder for some expats to keep bank accounts in the United States and in some cases abroad.
Some U.S.-based banks have closed expats’ accounts because of difficulty in certifying that the holders still maintain U.S. addresses, as required by a Patriot Act provision.
Even though tax considerations, for both individuals in the present and for those in the future, may be enough for some to renounce their United States Citizenship it would seem that many Americans feel as if renunciation of United States Citizenship is a very drastic measure that should not be taken lightly. Those thinking about giving up their US Citizenship are well advised to seek competent counsel from a US Immigration attorney in order to ascertain all of the relevant ramifications of such a significant decision. Those thinking of renouncing their United States Lawful Permanent Residence (LPR) might also find it useful to seek the advice of a competent attorney who can explain the legal issues that arise as a result of giving up American LPR status.
For related information please see: I-407 or naturalization.
5th August 2010
New Lockbox Facility To Receive K1 Visa Petitions
Posted by : admin
This blog routinely discusses both the US Marriage Visa and the US fiance visa as these are popular travel documents for the loved ones of Americans Citizens or Lawful Permanent Residents. The Fiancee visa is generally referred to as the K1 visa while many refer to the US Marriage Visa as the K3 Visa. Strictly speaking, this is not the correct appellation as the K3 Visa is a special non-immigrant marriage visa that has been phased out through the National Visa Center’s use of “Administrative Closure”.
Those who file for a classic US marriage visa are likely to have noted that the petition was sent to a “lockbox” of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS). These “lockboxes” are used to receive documentation. In a way, they are something of a clearinghouse for visa petitions as they receipt the petitions in, assign them a number, and forward the file on to the appropriate service center.
In the recent past, this was not the way in which I-129f visa petitions were submitted to USCIS. In the past, the petitioner would submit the petition directly to the appropriate service center. However, a recent announcement from USCIS confirmed that this will no longer be the procedure for filing petitions for an American fiance visa. To quote directly from the USCIS press release:
WASHINGTON – U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today announced a change in filing location instructions and addresses for the Petition for Alien Fiancé(e) (Form I-129F). The new instructions, dated 6/14/10, are part of an overall effort to transition the intake of forms from Service Centers to USCIS Lockbox facilities. Centralizing form and fee intake to a Lockbox environment allows USCIS to provide customers with more efficient and effective initial processing of applications/petitions and fees.
Many feel that utilization of a “lockbox” facility will help streamline the adjudication process for fiancee visa petitions. Every year, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service processes a large number of fiance visa petitions. The caseload is currently rather bifurcated as these petitions are sent directly to a service center (currently there is one service center in Vermont and one in California). However, this method is rather cumbersome. Hopefully, by receiving all I-129f petitions in one centralized facility the process will be streamlined and made more efficient as cases can be sent to the service center with the capacity to handle the caseload.
For more about USCIS processing of K1 visa petitions please see: processing times.
30th July 2010
The EB-5 Visa: What Is It?
Posted by : admin
In recent months, this author has received a number of inquires regarding the American EB-5 visa. Many seem interested in this visa category because it accords the bearer with substantial benefits in the United States and also puts EB-5 visa holders on track to obtain United States Citizenship. In order to provide the reading public with relevant information, this post will provide a brief overview of the EB-5 visa and some information regarding the application process.
A well rounded layman’s definition of the EB-5 visa can be found at wikipedia.com. To briefly quote wikipedia’s entry regarding the EB-5 visa directly:
“The EB-5 visa for Immigrant Investors is a United States visa created by the Immigration Act of 1990. This visa provides a method of obtaining a green card for foreign nationals who invest money in the United States.[1] To obtain the visa, individuals must invest at least $1 million, creating at least 10 jobs.[2]
By investing in certain qualified investments or regional centers with high unemployment rates, the required investment amount is $500,000. The Immigrant Investor Pilot Program was created by Section 610 of Public Law 102-395 on October 6, 1992. This was in accordance to a Congressional mandate aimed at stimulating economic activity and job growth, while allowing eligible aliens the opportunity to become lawful permanent residents. This “Pilot Program” required only $500,000 of investment in exchange for permanent resident status. The investment could only be received by an economic unit defined as a Regional Center.”
Although the above definition provides superficial insight into the mechanics of the EB-5 visa, the official website of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) may provide deeper elucidation into the eligibility requirements for an EB-5 visa:
Eligibility Criteria
New Business Enterprise
To qualify you must:
- Invest or be in the process of investing at least $1,000,000. If your investment is in a designated targeted employment area (discussed further below) then the minimum investment requirement is $500,000.
- Benefit the U.S. economy by providing goods or services to U.S. markets.
- Create full-time employment for at least 10 U.S. workers. This includes U.S. citizens, Green Card holders (lawful permanent residents) and other individuals lawfully authorized to work in the U.S. (however it does not include you (the immigrant), or your spouse, sons or daughters).
- Be involved in the day-to-day management of the new business or directly manage it through formulating business policy – for example as a corporate officer or board member.
Targeted Employment Area is defined by law as “a rural area or an area that has experienced high unemployment of at least 150 percent of the national average.” For further detail click on the Laws section of this website and access section 203(b)(5)(B) of the Immigration Nationality Act (INA).
Troubled Business
To qualify you must:
- Invest in a business that has existed for at least two years.
- Invest in a business that has incurred a net loss, based on generally accepted accounting principles, for the 12 to 24 month period before you filed the Form I-526 Immigrant Petition by an Alien Entrepreneur.
- The loss for the 12 to 24 month period must be at least equal to 20 percent of the business’s net worth before the loss.
- Maintain the number of jobs at no less than the pre-investment level for a period of at least two years.
- Be involved in the day-to-day management of the troubled business or directly manage it through formulating business policy. For example as a corporate officer or board member.
- The same investment requirements of the new commercial enterprise investment apply to a troubled business investment ($1,000,000 or $500,000 in a targeted employment area).
Regional Center Pilot Program
To qualify you must:
- Invest at least $1,000,000 or $500,000 in a regional center affiliated new commercial enterpriose or a troubled business located within the area of the USCIS designated Regional Center. Regional Centers are defined and discussed further below.
- Create at least 10 new full-time jobs either directly through the capital investment.
A Regional Center is defined as any economic unit, public or private, which is involved with the promotion of economic growth, improved regional productivity, job creation, and increased domestic capital investment. The organizers of a regional center seeking the regional center designation from USCIS must submit a proposal showing:
- How the regional center plans to focus on a geographical region within the U.S., and msut explain how the regional center will achieve the required economic growth within this regional area
- That the regional center’s business plan can be relied upon as a viable business model grounded in reasonable and credible estimates and assumptions for market conditions, project costs, and activity timelines
- How in verifiable detail (using economic models in some instances) jobs will be created directly or indirectly through capital investments made in accordance with the regional center’s business plan
- The amount and source of capital committed to the project and the promotional efforts made and planned for the business project.
As can be seen from the above citation, the eligibility criteria for an EB-5 visa are rigorous, but not insurmountable for an applicant who has the assistance of a competent and experienced US Immigration attorney. Obtainment of EB-5 visas can require a great deal of time and expense in an effort to ensure that the eligibility and application requirements are met at the time of application submission. Those interested in obtaining such a travel document are well advised to contact an American Immigration lawyer.
For further details about US Immigration in general please see: US Visa.
27th July 2010
This author has recently been informed that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) is poised to conduct a thorough policy review which will delve into USCIS’s customer service procedures and look for ways to improve the US immigration system. As a first step, USCIS announced that a public survey would be conducted. Below are excerpts from a USCIS press release (distributed by the American Immigration Lawyers Association [AILA]), which outlines the purpose of the policy review and provides guidance regarding further methods of information gathering in an effort to improve USCIS customer service policies:
WASHINGTON— U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has announced the results of a public survey that launched the USCIS Policy Review, an unprecedented, top-to-bottom examination of the agency’s adjudication and customer-service policies. The survey results helped USCIS select the first 10 issue areas to address in the agency-wide review.
Informed by the survey responses, the agency’s needs, and input from the workforce, the USCIS Policy Review will begin by examining policies in the following issue areas: National Customer Service Center; Nonimmigrant H-1B; Naturalization and Citizenship; Employment-based Adjustment of Status; Family-based Adjustment of Status; Employment-Based Preference Categories 1, 2 and 3; Refugee and Asylum Adjustment of Status; Form I-601; General Humanitarian; and Employment
Authorization and Travel Documents.
“As an agency, we must achieve consistency in the policies that guide us and in how we implement them for the public benefit,” said USCIS Director Alejandro Mayorkas. “To achieve that critical goal, we are partnering with the public in this major undertaking to review our adjudication and customer-service policies. We will work collaboratively toward the shared objectives of consistency, integrity, transparency and efficiency.”
In April 2010, USCIS issued a survey that asked any interested member of the public, as well as its own workforce, to help identify the issue areas that the agency should examine first. USCIS received approximately 5,600 survey responses from diverse stakeholders. Those results are now available, along with a summary developed by USCIS’s new Office of Performance and Quality.
Some have questioned the need for such a survey as there are those who feel that USCIS’s current policies do not need improvement. Clearly, this is not the official view of USCIS as can be evidenced by the following statement:
On April 15, 2010, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) launched the USCIS Policy Review, an unprecedented, top-to-bottom examination the agency’s adjudication and customer service policies with the engaged participation of the USCIS workforce and the public. USCIS issued a survey that asked any interested member of the public, as well as its own workforce, to help identify the issue areas that the agency should examine first. Nearly 5,600 stakeholders responded to the survey, representing current immigrant and non-immigrant visa holders, employers, immigration attorneys and advocates, among others, in addition to responses from approximately 2,400 members of the USCIS workforce. Those responses helped USCIS select the first 10 issue areas to address in the agency-wide review. USCIS is now convening working groups to review the first 10 issue areas.
The press release went further than merely providing information regarding this important policy review. In an effort to provide the public with relevant information, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) also provided a “Q & A” component to the recent press release. The following are questions and answers arising in connection with USCIS’s policy review initiative:
Questions and Answers
Q. What is the USCIS Policy Review?
A. The USCIS Policy Review is a comprehensive review of policy, guidance, and procedures related to our adjudications and customer service. The Policy Review is divided into four stages: (1) assembling and categorizing existing policy documents; (2) deciding which issue areas to review first, with input from surveys of the workforce and external stakeholders; (3) completing a review of policies in each identified issue area; and (4) consolidating and publishing updated policy documents (as appropriate), once approved.
Q. How does the Policy Review advance major goals already established for USCIS and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)?
A. In the 2010 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR), DHS identified the effective administration of the immigration system as a key priority. In particular, the QHSR emphasized the importance of a system that produces fair, consistent and prompt decisions for the public it serves. The Policy Review is designed to ensure that USCIS meets that standard in its work.
Q. How does the Policy Review relate to USCIS’s responsibilities and authority under federal law?
A. By law, USCIS is charged with setting policies and priorities for the administration of immigration services. USCIS will be reviewing those policies in our current effort. If the Policy Review identifies the need for proposed regulatory changes, we will fully engage in the federal rulemaking process. The purpose of the Policy Review is not to develop proposed changes to the immigration statutes established by Congress.Q. Will the Policy Review change USCIS policy?
A. In many cases, yes. Working groups will evaluate policy based on USCIS goals, legal requirements and stakeholder concerns. These working groups will draft updated policy documents and proceed through USCIS’s policy-approval process. If the Policy Review identifies the need for proposed regulatory changes, USCIS will fully engage in the federal rulemaking process.
Q. What happens to existing policies during the course of the Policy Review?
A. While the Policy Review is underway, all policies already in place remain in full force and will be honored. From time to time in the course of the agency’s operations, policy issues may arise that require immediate attention outside the course of the formal Policy Review. We will continue to give these issues immediate attention as the need arises.
Q: What prompted the Policy Review?
A. USCIS is committed to ensuring that our policies are consistent and up to date. To that end, the agency has launched the USCIS Policy Review to examine our policies with input from the public it serves and from its workforce.
Q. Has USCIS previously undertaken a comprehensive review of its policies?
A: No. The effort to undertake a top-to-bottom review of our adjudication and customer service policies is an unprecedented initiative for USCIS.
Q. How will USCIS seek the public’s input during the Policy Review?
A. In keeping with our commitments to customer service and transparency, USCIS will engage practitioners, advocates, businesses, applicants, and other interested stakeholders throughout the course of the Policy Review. The survey was the first opportunity for stakeholders to participate. As we review policies in specific issue areas, we will offer a number of further opportunities for the public to offer input. For example, in some issue areas, we will conduct public meetings to solicit stakeholders’ views on specific policy matters. In many cases, we will also published drafts of new or revised policy memoranda on our website for public comment, now a regular step in USCIS’s policy development process.
Q. What did the survey ask?
A. The survey asked any interested member of the public, as well as the USCIS workforce, to help identify the issue areas that the agency should examine first. The survey also included comment sections.
Q. How many people responded to the survey?
A. Nearly 5,600 external stakeholders responded to the survey, representing current immigrant and nonimmigrant visa holders, employers, immigration attorneys and advocates, among others. Nearly 2,400 members of the workforce from USCIS offices worldwide also participated in the survey.
Q. How has USCIS used the survey results?
A. The survey results helped USCIS identify which issue areas to address first in its agency-wide review. USCIS considered quantitative and qualitative feedback from the surveys along with operational and programmatic needs to develop the initial list of issue areas for review.Q. In addition to the survey, what progress has USCIS made in the Policy Review?
A. USCIS has assembled thousands of existing policy documents and categorized them into issue areas. USICS is now convening internal working groups to begin examining and evaluating the policy documents in the first 10 issue areas.
Q. What is the expected length and scope of the Policy Review?
A. The Policy Review is a multi-year effort designed to work thoughtfully through thousands of policy documents, many of which overlap or complement each other, in collaboration with the USCIS workforce and external stakeholders. New policy documents, once drafted, will be submitted through the USCIS clearance process, with many posted on the USCIS website for public comment.
At the time of this writing, there have been relatively few changes in the law regarding US Family Visas. Although administrative and regulatory changes have had a significant impact upon processing of the US Marriage Visa and the US fiance visa. That said, the recent fee increase for Consular Processing of the K1 visa (fiance visa) and the administrative closure of K3 Visa applications by the National Visa Center were promulgated by the Department of State (DOS) as there has been little recent change in the fee structure and administration of USCIS’s adjudication of family based visa petitions.
This author is of the opinion that this unprecedented policy review should be welcomed as it may herald further improvements to the American Immigration system and provide immigrants and Americans with better overall service. One must applaud USCIS for taking the initiative and promoting positive change.
For related information from the perspective of Southeast Asia please see: K1 Visa Thailand.
21st July 2010
USCIS Announces Proposed Fee Waiver Form
Posted by : admin
In a recent press release from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) it was announced that a fee waiver form has been proposed in an effort to streamline the process whereby indigent aliens in the USA apply for relief from Immigration fees. To quote the announcement, as promulgated by USCIS and distributed by the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA):
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has proposed for the first time a standardized fee waiver form in an effort to provide relief for financially disadvantaged individuals seeking immigration benefits…
Apparently, the current version of the fee waiver form is the product of time, research, and study as USCIS has attempted to provide relief to those who cannot pay the government processing fees while still maintaining the integrity of the overall system. To quote the aforementioned announcement further:
The proposed fee waiver form is the product of extensive collaboration with the public. In meetings with stakeholders, USCIS heard concerns that the absence of a standardized fee waiver form led to confusion about the criteria that had to be met as well as the adjudication standards. USCIS worked with stakeholders in developing the fee waiver form that is now posted for comment. “Our goal is to bring clarity and consistency to our processes,” said USCIS Director Alejandro Mayorkas. “We are doing so now in the critical area of providing the financially disadvantaged with access to immigration benefits.”
Mayorkas further stated that the method by which the proposed fee waiver form was devised – through extensive collaboration with the public – will be a hallmark of his approach to improving agency processes. Currently, applicants requesting a fee waiver must do so by submitting an affidavit or unsworn declaration requesting a fee waiver and stating the reasons why he/she is unable to pay the filing fee. The new proposed fee waiver form is designed to verify that an applicant for an immigration benefit is unable to pay the fee for the benefit sought. The proposed form provides clear criteria and an efficient way to collect and process the information.
It is admirable to see USCIS taking an active interest in providing relief to those customers who are truly in need. That said, it remains to be seen how this proposal will be received particularly in light of the fact that USCIS has recently announced shortfalls in its budget. Some feel that providing this type of relief runs counter to the notion of USCIS as a self-funded agency. In any case, this author hopes to see this proposal passed if it increases the probability of providing much needed assistance to those wishing to travel to, or remain in, the United States of America for bona fide reasons.
17th July 2010
As regular readers will likely note, we try to provide relevant and useful information to those interested in obtaining a US family visa from abroad. Below are the processing times for the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) Centers which process Immigrant and non-immigrant family based petitions for visas such as the K1 visa, the K3 Visa, the CR1 Visa, and the IR-1 Visa. The following processing time estimates for the California Service Center were quoted directly from the USCIS website:
| I-129F | Petition for Alien Fiance(e) | K-1/K-2 – Not yet married – fiance and/or dependent child | 5 Months |
|---|---|---|---|
| I-129F | Petition for Alien Fiance(e) | K-3/K-4 – Already married – spouse and/or dependent child | 5 Months |
| I-130 | Petition for Alien Relative | U.S. citizen filing for a spouse, parent, or child under 21 | 5 Months |
| I-130 | Petition for Alien Relative | U.S. citizen filing for an unmarried son or daughter over 21 | April 02, 2006 |
| I-130 | Petition for Alien Relative | U.S. citizen filing for a married son or daughter over 21 | September 02, 2002 |
| I-130 | Petition for Alien Relative | U.S. citizen filing for a brother or sister | January 02, 2002 |
| I-130 | Petition for Alien Relative | Permanent resident filling for a spouse or child under 21 | March 23, 2009 |
| I-130 | Petition for Alien Relative | Permanent resident filling for an unmarried son or daughter over 21 |
May 02, 2004 |
| I-131 | Application for Travel Document | All other applicants for advance parole | 3 Months |
| I-129 | Petition for A Nonimmigrant Worker | E – Treaty traders and investors | 2 Months |
|---|---|---|---|
| I-129 | Petition for A Nonimmigrant Worker | L – Intracompany transfers | 1 Months |
As USCIS has two service centers which handle Family based Immigration adjudications it is fitting to post both both sets of processing time estimates. The following processing time estimates for the California Service Center were quoted
directly from the USCIS website:
| I-129F | Petition for Alien Fiance(e) | K-1/K-2 – Not yet married – fiance and/or dependent child | 5 Months |
|---|---|---|---|
| I-129F | Petition for Alien Fiance(e) | K-3/K-4 – Already married – spouse and/or dependent child | 5 Months |
| I-130 | Petition for Alien Relative | U.S. citizen filing for a spouse, parent, or child under 21 | 5 Months |
| I-130 | Petition for Alien Relative | U.S. citizen filing for an unmarried son or daughter over 21 | October 16, 2009 |
| I-130 | Petition for Alien Relative | U.S. citizen filing for a married son or daughter over 21 | September 20, 2009 |
| I-130 | Petition for Alien Relative | U.S. citizen filing for a brother or sister | 5 Months |
| I-130 | Petition for Alien Relative | Permanent resident filling for a spouse or child under 21 | January 02, 2009 |
| I-130 | Petition for Alien Relative | Permanent resident filling for an unmarried son or daughter over 21 |
October 03, 2009 |
| I-131 | Application for Travel Document | Permanent resident applying for a re-entry permit | 3 Months |
| I-131 | Application for Travel Document | Refugee or asylee applying for a refugee travel document | 3 Months |
| I-131 | Application for Travel Document | Haitian Refugee Immigrant Fairness Act (HRIFA) principal applying for advance parole |
3 Months |
| I-131 | Application for Travel Document | Haitian Refugee Immigrant Fairness Act (HRIFA) dependent applying for advance parole |
3 Months |
| I-131 | Application for Travel Document | All other applicants for advance parole | 3 Months |
| I-129 | Petition for A Nonimmigrant Worker | E – Treaty traders and investors | 2 Months |
|---|---|---|---|
| I-129 | Petition for A Nonimmigrant Worker | L – Intracompany transfers | 1 Months |
If a family based petition is adjudicated and approved by USCIS, then it will be forwarded to the National Visa Center in New Hampshire where it will be processed and sent to the the US Embassy or US Consulate with appropriate jurisdiction. For further information about US Family Immigration generally please see: US Marriage Visa.
Pages
Archives
- June 2023
- April 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- March 2015
- January 2015
- November 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- October 2012
- September 2012
- April 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- October 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
Categories
- Adjustment of Status (51)
- American Business (27)
- American Institute Taiwan (33)
- arrest warrant (2)
- ASEAN Business (84)
- ASEAN Visa (22)
- Australian Migration (1)
- Brazil Business (2)
- Cambodia Business (26)
- China Business (51)
- Comprehensive Immigration Reform (16)
- CR1 Visa (147)
- Department of Homeland Security (99)
- Transportation Security Administration (TSA) (10)
- USCBP (39)
- USICE (23)
- E1 visa (13)
- E2 Visa (17)
- EB-1 Visa (7)
- EB-2 Visa (7)
- EB-3 Visa (7)
- EB-4 Visa (7)
- EB5 Visa (34)
- Ecommerce (6)
- Editorial (24)
- Election 2012 (6)
- F1 Visa Thailand (25)
- Fiance Visa Thailand (178)
- Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) (3)
- Gaming Law (7)
- General Legal Information (115)
- I-601 Waiver (24)
- India Business (7)
- Indonesia Business (6)
- IR1 Visa (114)
- J1 visa (15)
- J1 Visa Thailand (29)
- K-3 Visa Thailand (160)
- K1 Visa (195)
- K2 Visa (104)
- K1 Visa Thailand (212)
- K2 Visa Thailand (77)
- K3 Visa (158)
- L1 Visa (36)
- Laos Business (22)
- Legal News (19)
- Thailand Legal News (12)
- Legal Opinion (107)
- Legal Process Outsourcing (5)
- lgbt immigration (97)
- same sex visa (95)
- Malaysia Business (14)
- Miscellaneous (107)
- Myanmar (Burma) Business (19)
- National Visa Center (47)
- News (86)
- Online Gaming (7)
- Opinion (29)
- prenuptial agreement (3)
- Russia Business (6)
- South Africa Business (3)
- T Visa (1)
- Thai Family Law (24)
- Thailand Business (158)
- Thailand company (35)
- Amity Treaty (20)
- Thailand Condo (11)
- Thailand Customs (1)
- Thailand Embassy (20)
- Thailand Marriage Registration (22)
- Thailand Notary (3)
- Thailand Property (39)
- Thailand Real Estate (39)
- Thailand Visa (153)
- Thailand Work Permit (16)
- Upcoming Legislation (61)
- US Business (27)
- US Company Registration (13)
- US LLC (9)
- US Citizenship (27)
- US Constitution (22)
- States' Rights (16)
- US Consulate HCMC (70)
- US Emassy Mongolia (10)
- US Embassy Afghanistan (4)
- US Embassy Kabul (4)
- US Embassy Australia (35)
- us embassy bangkok (178)
- US Embassy Bangladesh (51)
- US Embassy Dhaka (51)
- US Embassy Brunei Darussalam (10)
- US Embassy Burma (90)
- US Embassy Myanmar (86)
- US Embassy Rangoon (84)
- US Embassy Yangon (84)
- US Embassy Cambodia (85)
- US Embassy China (64)
- US Consulate ChengDu (52)
- US Consulate Guangzhou (53)
- US Consulate Hong Kong (28)
- US Consulate Macau (28)
- US Consulate Shanghai (53)
- US Consulate Shenyang (53)
- US Consulate Wuhan (52)
- US Embassy Beijing (51)
- US Embassy Fiji (39)
- US Embassy Kiribati (38)
- US Embassy Nauru (38)
- US Embassy Suva (38)
- US Embassy Tonga (38)
- US Embassy Tuvalu (37)
- US Embassy India (81)
- US Consulate Chennai (49)
- US Consulate Hyderabad (48)
- US Consulate Kolkata (48)
- US Consulate Mumbai (47)
- US Embassy New Dehli (71)
- US Embassy Indonesia (72)
- US Embassy Jakarta (71)
- US Embassy Iraq (23)
- US Embassy Japan (52)
- US Embassy Kyrgyz Republic (Kyrgyzstan) (9)
- US Embassy Laos (51)
- US Embassy Malaysia (74)
- US Embassy Maldives (44)
- US Embassy Mauritius (33)
- US Embassy Mongolia (33)
- US Embassy Nepal (71)
- US Embassy Kathmandu (69)
- US Embassy New Zealand (35)
- US Embassy Pakistan (28)
- US Embassy Islamabad (27)
- US Embassy Papua New Guinea (42)
- US Embassy Philippines (45)
- US Embassy Manila (44)
- US Embassy Russia (13)
- US Embassy Singapore (69)
- US Embassy South Korea (44)
- US Embassy Sri Lanka (45)
- US Embassy Tokyo (49)
- US Embassy Turkmenistan (8)
- US Embassy Uzbekistan (8)
- US Embassy Vietnam (78)
- US Consulate HCMC (1)
- US Embassy Hanoi (75)
- US State Department (64)
- US Mission ASEAN (9)
- US Taxes (7)
- US Tourist Visa (69)
- US Visa (97)
- US Visa and Immigration (414)
- US Embassy Thailand (187)
- US Consulate Chiang Mai (120)
- US Embassy Thailand (187)
- US Visa Thailand (299)
- US Warrants (20)
- Extradition (13)
- USCIS (184)
- Vietnam Business (11)
- Visa Waiver (39)
- Weird Law (8)
- ข่าวกฎหมาย (1)
- ข่าวในพม่า (2)
- ธุรกิจในนพม่า (2)
- ตลาดหลักทรัพย์กัมพูชา (1)
- ธุรกิจกัมพูชา (1)
- ธุรกิจในกัมพูชา (1)
- ธุรกิจในประเทศจีน (6)
- ธุรกิจในประเทศลาว (2)
- ธุรกิจในอาเซียน (1)
- ธูรกิจในประเทศไทย (6)
- บริการทางกฎหมายจีน (2)
- บริษัทอเมริกัน (5)
- ธุรกิจในอเมริกา (2)
- ภาษีอเมริกัน (1)
- วีซ่าคู่เพศเดียวกัน (3)
- วีซ่าไทย (1)
- โนตารี (1)
- ้วีซ่าอเมริกาจากประเทศไทย (59)
-
RSS Feeds
The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely on advertisement. Before you decide, ask us to send you free written information about our qualifications and experience. The information presented on this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship.