The P visa was created to provide opportunities for aliens primarily performing as a group and not individually to tour in the US. The P visa, like the O1 visa, was also created by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1990. In addition to covering performing and fine artists, the P1 also covers athletes.

It is important to make clear that the O1 visa (aliens of extraordinary ability) enables individuals to enter and work in their field of specialty, the P visa does not allow individuals to work unless they meet the criteria set in the law. This having been said P visa applicants do not have to have reached the pinnacle of their careers like O1 visa applicants, but P visa applicants do need to be nationally, or internationally known. For example, the group may have performed in other countries, or tour their own country and known to the community appreciating their artistic endeavors.

In the case at issue, the Skirball Cultural Center filed a P-3 nonimmigrant petition on behalf of a musical group from Argentina that was denied a performing artists’ visa for failing to establish that the group’s performance was “culturally unique” as required for this visa classification. Due to the unusually complex and novel issue and the likelihood that the same issue could arise in future decisions, the decision was recommended for review.

USCIS’s AAO approved the petition after its review of the entire record, which included expert written testimony and corroborating evidence on behalf of the musical group. The regulatory definition of “culturally unique” requires USCIS to make a case-by-case factual determination.

The decision clarifies that a “culturally unique” style of art or entertainment is not limited to traditional art forms, but may include artistic expression that is deemed to be a hybrid or fusion of more than one culture or region.

The decision is a positive step in allowing a broader range of groups to enter the US and perform. If you have any questions about the P3 visa, feel free to contact us.

The recently added STEM designated-degree programs include pharmaceutical sciences, econometrics and quantitative economics. These programs qualify eligible graduates on student visas for an optional practical training (OPT) extension. Generally, OPT allows eligible international students to remain in the United States for up to 12 months while they gain work experience and receive training related to their programs of study. This is great for a student wanting to gain valuable experience in their field while allowing a company a chance to see if this person would be a good fit and worth sponsoring on another work visa.

For students who graduate with a STEM designated degree, they can remain for an additional 17 months on an OPT STEM extension. A student may be eligible for the 17-Month OPT STEM extension under the following circumstances:

- The degree for your current period of post-completion OPT is a bachelor’s, master’s or doctoral degree in a STEM program listed,
- The employer from which you are seeking work uses the E-Verify Program, and
- A student has not already received a 17-month extension of OPT.

"Attracting the best and brightest international talent to our colleges and universities and enabling them to contribute to their professional growth is an important part of our nation's economic, scientific and technological competitiveness," said Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. "International students and exchange visitors bring invaluable contributions to our nation, and this helps empower the next generation of international entrepreneurs, right here in America."

By expanding the list of designated STEM degree programs to include such fields as pharmaceutical sciences, econometrics and quantitative economics, the Department is helping bring the best, most qualified international students to the United States.

These reforms reflect the Obama administration's ongoing commitment to promote policies that embrace talented students from other countries, who come to study in our finest colleges and universities and enrich the nation by allowing highly skilled foreign graduates to extend their post-graduate training in the United States and work in their field of study upon graduation.

Let us hope that with the expansion of the STEM degree program that it will indeed keep more talented students here in the U.S. with the potential to build our Economic infrastructure and stay competitive in the global economy.

The J-1 Summer Work and Travel program, which allows college students to visit for up to four months, is one of the State Department's most popular visas. Participation has boomed from about 20,000 in 1996 to a peak of more than 150,000 in 2008.

The visas are issued year-round, since students come from both hemispheres on their summer breaks. They work all over the country, at theme parks in Florida and California, fish factories in Alaska and upscale ski destinations in Colorado and Montana. The influx has been especially overwhelming for some resort towns.

The State Department announced major changes to cultural-exchange programs following an investigation by the Associated Press that found widespread abuses.

The agency issued new rules for the J-1 Summer Work and Travel Program, which brings more than 100,000 foreign college students to the United States each year.

The changes are the latest in a series of steps the State Department has taken to fix the program since the 2010 AP investigation. The investigation found that some participants were working in strip clubs, not always willingly, while others were put in living and working conditions they compared to indentured servitude.

Many foreign students pay recruiters to help find employment, then don't get work or wind up making little or no money at menial jobs. Labor recruiters charge students exorbitant rent for packing them into filthy, sparsely furnished apartments so crowded that some endure "hotbunking," where they sleep in shifts.

Students routinely get threatened with deportation or eviction if they quit, or even if they just complain too loudly. Some resort to stealing essentials like food, toothpaste and underwear, according to police.

"The vast majority of participating students in this program find it a rewarding experience and return home safely," the State Department said in an e-mail to the AP.

The new rules are meant to ensure that students are treated properly and that they get jobs where there will be interaction with Americans and exposure to U.S. culture.
Some of the rules are effective immediately, while others will take effect in November, including a significant one that would prohibit participants from working in "goods-producing" industries such as manufacturing, construction and agriculture.

The rules also ban participants from working in jobs in which the primary hours are between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.

"The new reforms for the Summer Work Travel program focus on strengthening protections for the health, safety and welfare of the participants, and on bringing the program back to its primary purpose, which is to provide a cultural experience for international students," Robin Lerner, a deputy assistant secretary for the State Department, said in a statement.

The Work and Travel category allows sponsors to bring foreign university students to the US during their summer vacations to travel and work in the US . Sponsors are encouraged to select visitors who, because of their distance from the US , would most likely not be able to afford to come to the US without temporary work authorization. This is the only J-1 category in which the number of foreign nationals the sponsor helps enter the US must be the same as the number of US students it sends abroad.

Recent case law, provide some guidance on particular issues affecting the Adjustment of Status of certain applicants. On March 17, 2011, the BIA issued Matter of Sesay, in which it concluded that there is no requirement that a K-1 fiancé(e)’s marriage to the I-129F petitioner remain intact in order for the K-1 to adjust status.

On June 23, 2011, the BIA issued Matter of Le, in which it cited Sesay and ruled that there is no requirement that a K-2 remain under 21 years of age in order for the K-2 to adjust status.

USCIS has drafted guidance related to Matter of Le and Matter of Sesay. This guidance is currently undergoing internal review and should be issued soon.

Also, keep in mind that Sesay addresses only whether a visa as an immediate relative is available. The applicant must still establish the he or she is admissible as an immigrant, and that he or she merits a favorable exercise of discretion. 25 I&N Dec. at 441. Admissibility must exist on the date of adjudication of the adjustment application. 8 CFR 103.2(b)(1).

Please keep in mind though that, a K1 fiance visa holder cannot adjust his or her status to a lawful permanent resident based on a marriage to any one other than the U.S. Citizen petitioner. A person in this situation would have to return to his or her country and apply for an visa at the U.S. embassy abroad.

Feel free to email us with any questions.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled on March 21, 2012, that Plaintiff Mirsad Hajro was eligible for naturalization. The decision follows a May 27, 2011 order by the court denying a summary judgment motion by the government. USCIS originally denied Mr. Hajro's Form N-400, alleging that the Mr. Hajro gave false testimony with the intent to obtain an immigration benefit, and thus lacked the good moral character required for naturalization.

The facts in question concerned information provided by Mr. Hajro during an interview for his naturalization. Mr. Hajro had served in the Bosnian military and a question arose asking if he had been in possession of any firearms during his time in the military. The court found that the Mr. Hajro did not provide false testimony on either his I-485 or N-400 applications, noting that, in the instances where Mr. Hajro's responses were deficient, he provided reasonable, credible explanations for the omissions. It also found that Mr. Hajro consistently volunteered information to USCIS to enable it to make its decision. As a result, the court held that the plaintiff was a person of good moral character during the relevant three-year period, and was eligible for naturalization.

In related FOIA litigation, on October 13, 2011, the Northern District of California had ordered USCIS to respond to the Mr. Hajro's FOIA request for his A file in 20 days, absent unusual circumstances. On May 7, 2012, the court issued a final judgment in the FOIA litigation, finding that USCIS was in violation of FOIA for the reasons set forth in the October order, and issued a permanent injunction requiring USCIS to comply with FOIA's provisions.

When looking at the motions on this case, it is frustrating to see the government fight this person's citizenship over such a small matter when our resources need to be put to better use. USCIS felt Mr. Hajro was trying to withhold information about his service in the Bosnian military when that was not the case, which the Court properly concluded. USCIS wasted taxpayer money filing motions to get its own determination upheld when as a matter of law Mr. Hajro was allowed to petition the Court to review his entire case De Novo and reach its own conclusion.

The Court's decision highlights a frightening concern over the great discretion USCIS has in making capricious and arbitrary decisions. Without the good lawyers that worked on Mr. Hajro's case, Mr. Hajro would not be able to call himself an American, something every citizen is proud to carry. Cases like Mr. Hajro's are a call for greater transparency in the immigration process, and quite possibly another reason for why the system is in need of a serious overhaul.

* Requirement for a Five Year Employment Contract. In a 2007 policy memorandum, USCIS confirmed that the NIW petition may be filed at any time before, after or during the five year commitment period and that the five year commitment need not be completed within any specific period of time. However, the regulations still require the submission of a five year employment contract with the NIW petition filing.

This can present challenges for physicians who may have completed some or all of the qualifying five years of employment before filing the NIW petition. Common sense would indicate that the length of the employment contract need only be five years if the physician had not already completed part of the commitment prior to filing the petition. The literal language of the regulation requires “a full-time employment contract for the required period of clinical medical practice, or an employment commitment letter from a VA facility.”

In the event that the physician had completed all five years of service before filing the petition, the remaining “required period of clinical service” would be zero and the physician should be able to provide evidence of service completion at the time of filing the I-140 petition instead of an employment contract. In the event that the physician had completed a portion of the service requirement before filing the I-140, the physician should be able to present evidence of the completed portion, together with a signed employment agreement for a term covering the balance of the five years.

Instead, USCIS continues to insist upon an agreement dated within 6 months of filing the NIW petition that either runs for a full five year term, or acknowledges whatever time has already been worked toward the commitment with prior employers. For the physician who is currently working for the same employer with whom he or she began her service commitment, the contract can be amended to extend the term for however long is required to reach a maximum of five years.

The contract addendum should have been executed within 6 months prior to the filing of the NIW petition, and should acknowledge the amount of time the physician has already worked for the employer and the fact that the term of the contract is being extended to cover a total of five years of employment.

Physicians who have already completed the full five year term, or who are no longer employed by the employer with whom they began the service commitment should execute an addendum to their current employment contract within 6 months prior to filing the NIW petition in which both parties acknowledge the time the physician previously worked toward completion of the five year commitment.

In the alternative, such physicians could file the NIW petition with a new five year contract with an underserved area employer notwithstanding that some or all of the qualifying five years of employment was completed before filing the NIW petition. This would not mean that these physicians would have to wait an additional five years to be approved for adjustment of status; USCIS will agree to consider the prior employment evidence in the context of the adjustment of status application.

Upon submission of tax returns, pay stubs and a letter from the prior employer, USCIS will credit the previous time worked toward the five year medical service period required for approval of the I-485. Be sure to document that each location is underserved, or was underserved at the time the physician began practice there. However, at the present time, USCIS will not accept this same evidence in support of the I-140 petition because it does not take the form of a five year contract dated within six months prior to filing the NIW I-140 petition.

What Time Counts Toward the Five Year NIW Commitment Period?

Physicians who are subject to the three year J-1 waiver commitment pursuant to INA §214(l) may count that three years of employment toward completion of a five year NIW commitment. In addition, during an August 2011, USCIS confirmed that physicians who completed U.S. residency or fellowship training in a status other than J-1 may also count that training time toward completion of the five year commitment so long as the training occurred at a location that otherwise qualifies under the statute.

When May the Physician Stop Working at a Qualifying Facility?

USCIS confirmed that a physician who has completed the five year qualifying service commitment need not remain employed at a qualifying site until the I-485 is ultimately approved. This is particularly relevant for physicians from India and China who, because of backlogs in immigrant visa availability, may complete their five years of service long before their adjustment of status applications are ultimately approved.

May Specialist Physicians Submit NIW Petitions?

The physician NIW program was initially limited to primary care physicians (internal medicine, family practice, OB/GYN, pediatrics and psychiatry) unless the physician was to be employed at a Veteran’s Administration facility. In 2007, USCIS issued a policy memorandum confirming that specialist physicians working at non-VA facilities are also eligible for a physician NIW, so long as the facility is located in a Physician Scarcity Area (PSA), Health Professional Shortage Area (HPSA) or Medically Underserved Area (MUA).

What Types of Medical Practitioners Qualify for the NIW Petition?

An NIW petition under INA §203(b)(2)(B)(ii) may only be filed on behalf of clinical physicians. Dentists, chiropractors, podiatrists, and optometrists do not qualify, although they may meet the evidentiary criteria for a standard NIW petition filed under INA §203(b)(2)(B)(i).

Feel free to email us with any questions.

The statistics reveal an increase across the board in all EB-5 related filings including I-924 applications for both initial regional center designation as well as amendments to existing regional centers. Individuals also filed the highest level of I-526, EB-5 Immigrant Investor Petitions and I-829, Petitions to Remove Conditions to date.

The Immigrant Investor Program, also known as “EB-5,” was created by Congress in 1990 to stimulate the U.S. economy through job creation and capital investment by immigrant investors by creating a new commercial enterprise or investing in a troubled business. There are 10,000 EB-5 immigrant visas available annually. In 1992 and regularly reauthorized since then, 3,000 EB-5 visas are also set aside for investors in Regional Centers designated by USCIS based on proposals for promoting economic growth.

There are two distinct EB-5 pathways for an immigrant investor to gain lawful permanent residence for themselves and their immediate family—the Basic Program and the Regional Center Pilot Program. Both programs require that the immigrant make a capital investment of either $500,000 or $1,000,000 (depending on whether the investment is in a Targeted Employment Area [TEA] or not) in a new commercial enterprise located within the United States. TEA 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.”

The new commercial enterprise must create or preserve 10 full-time jobs for qualifying U.S. workers within two years (or under certain circumstances, within a reasonable time after the two year period) of the immigrant investor’s admission to the United States as a Conditional Permanent Resident (CPR).

Summary of Statistics:

* 92% of all EB-5 applications submitted to USCIS are for Investors who are investing in Regional Center affiliated commerical enterprises.
* EB-5 Visa usage has increased tremendously with 1,293 Form I-526 petitions receipted in by USCIS in the first quarter of fiscal year 2012 alone.
* In fiscal year 2011, USCIS receipted in a total of 3,805 I-526 petitions. This is a significant increase from a total of 1,955 in 2010 and only 332 applications total in 2005.
* USCIS also received their highest level of I-829 petitions to date in 2011, with a total of 2,345 receipted in as compared to only 768 in 2010.
* Denial rates have also increased. In fiscal year 2011, 39% of I-924 filings for either initial Regional Center Designation and/ or Amendments were denied by USCIS. Individual I-526 adjudications also saw an increased denial rate of 19% in 2011. Interestingly, although I-829 filings in 2011 were at their highest level in the history of the EB-5 program, they only saw a 4% rate of denial.

Known as Secure Communities, the program compels state and local law enforcement officers to enter the fingerprints of anyone they detain into a federal database. Federal immigration officials can cross-reference those fingerprints and initiate deportation proceedings if the detained person is in the country illegally.

The result: many undocumented immigrants being deported over minor breaches like broken tail lights and speeding. The number of deportations stemming from a traffic stop increased sharply last year, amplifying immigration advocates' critique that the Obama administration is failing in its stated goal of targeting immigrants who have criminal records or could undermine public safety.

A task force convened by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and comprised of law enforcement officials, immigration attorneys and immigration enforcement union representatives, among others, recently issued a report detailing how critics of Secure Communities believe it is breaking apart families and breeding distrust of law enforcement.

"Many state and local officials believed they were joining a program targeting serious offenders" by participating in Secure Communities, the report's authors wrote, but the impact of Secure Communities has not been limited to convicted criminals, dangerous and violent offenders, or threats to public safety and national security."

In response to the report, the Department of Homeland Security announced changes to how officials will handle immigrants detained at traffic stops. The reform affects immigrants without any prior criminal record. Federal agents will only request that local officers hold immigrants arrested at traffic stops if those immigrants are subsequently convicted. The change will not apply to immigrants stopped for drunk driving. This change is more in line with the DHS memo concerning prosecutorial discretion over cases of low immigration offenders.

The Obama administration inherited Secure Communities from the Bush administration and has moved to expand its reach, touting the initiative as an effective way to combat illegal immigration because of conservative complaints about his weak stance on immigration enforcement.

But the program has faced push back from states and municipalities concerned that the program is ineffective and unfairly punishes non-criminal immigrants. The Obama administration overrode the objections of New York, Illinois and Massachusetts -- all of whom sought to suspend their participation in the program.

The criticism of Secure Communities parallels objections to an Arizona law that requires police officers to check the immigration status of people who they suspect to be illegal immigrants. That law was challenged by the Obama administration and was taken up last week by the United States Supreme Court. Depending on how the Supreme Court rules on that case, it will certainly have its own impact on the Secure Communities program as well.

Demonstrating the Legitimacy of Startups through Investments

USCIS acknowledged that many of the unique characteristics of startups and small businesses are also traditional indicators of fraud or ineligibility and asked stakeholders for input on what evidentiary criteria could help USCIS evaluate the legitimacy of startups. Several stakeholders commented that researching the investors of a startup venture can provide reliable information on the startup’s legitimacy. An investor will not invest if he or she doubts the founders and their organization. One stakeholder suggested creating a database of accredited investors to provide reliable information to USCIS. Other stakeholders recognized that it is easy to conduct a background check on domestic investors, but that it can be very difficult to conduct checks on foreign entrepreneurs who provide their own equity. When discussing the
subject of investors, stakeholders asked USCIS to provide further guidance as to how much equity the entrepreneur can own in the enterprise.

Understanding the Organizational Structure of a Startup

USCIS acknowledged that it is less familiar with the organizational structure of a startup than traditional large businesses. Several participants offered several common features of a startup enterprise, and suggested that USCIS could benefit from visiting the work locations of startups and other small business ventures. Several participants noted that a lack of office space had raised concern in their adjudications process. These participants explained that many startups are run out of more informal spaces such as a coffee shop or a living room, and that a lack of office space should not raise immediate concerns of illegitimacy. One participant explained that a startup company should be easily located on an internet search engine, and that internet searches were a reliable way to prove a small business venture’s legitimacy. Another participant explained that the roles and titles in a startup are more fluid. A startup can often lack the features of a big business such as a CEO and a board of directors, and one stakeholder explained that these features are often not established until funding is obtained. Participants emphasized that partnerships with big companies are easier to document than organizational structure. One participant reflected that most early stage companies do not create an organizational chart until USCIS asks for one. Another participant asked USCIS to provide information on how to structure small businesses and startups, and that venture capitalists and entrepreneurs will try and work within these standards.

Training and Culture
Several stakeholders commented that streamlining the immigration pathway for foreign entrepreneurs requires new training practices for USCIS officers. One participant suggested that success for the EIR Tactical Team requires closing the knowledge gap between USCIS and immigrant entrepreneurs. Another participant said that USCIS should provide more opportunities for officers to meet the people they are working with, and several participants felt that USCIS needs a cultural change. One participant felt that USCIS tended to look at smaller and newer operations with more suspicion, and with a more limited understanding as to how these new business practices would qualify the beneficiaries for the benefits under existing laws and regulations. One stakeholder explained that USCIS should look at the size of the business in light of the age and type of company, and that the smallest companies should be evaluated by the most experienced adjudicators. Another participant felt that USCIS should create specialized teams of officers as a good solution to evaluating startups. Several participants felt that it would be helpful to have more USCIS contact with entrepreneurs to humanize the process. One stakeholder suggested that officers should host a panel where they can discuss their cases and share promising practices with immigrant entrepreneurs. Several participants expressed the belief that education for both communities must occur
simultaneously.

Requests for Evidence (RFEs)

Several participants raised concerns about RFEs in the immigration process. One participant suggested that USCIS should create a more updated framework to continue dialogue with the entrepreneurial community. Another participant believes that direct access would be more useful than a long RFE, especially when only one piece of evidence is missing. Similarly, one stakeholder asked if RFEs could be sent via an electronic platform. Several participants said they would prefer to talk to officers directly, and that there is a feeling of trying to guess exactly what the officer is interpreting. Other participants discussed having no idea what is happening during the immigration process, and that USCIS should release more information on the process flow. One participant discussed an old Department of Labor (DOL) feature where DOL had state agencies where you could pick up the phone and quickly clarify a situation. Several participants felt that being able to resolve things more directly would reduce suspicion and the perceived adversarial attitude between immigrant entrepreneurs and USCIS officers. Several participants said they would prefer to communicate in real time.

USCIS aims to have the Tactical Team in place to begin their work this past March to more fully merge the strategic thinking gathered at the EIR Information Summit with specific proposals and looks forward to updating stakeholders with the results of those efforts. Stakeholders interested in sharing additional feedback and concrete suggestions with the Tactical Team can email us at public.engagement@dhs.gov with the subject line “Entrepreneurs in Residence.”

Most of the oral arguments today concerned the part of the law requiring state officials to check immigration status in some circumstances. Several justices said states were entitled to enact such provisions, which make mandatory inquiries to federal authorities from local police officers that are already commonplace.

Chief Justice Roberts said the state law merely requires that the federal government be informed of immigration violations and leaves enforcement decisions to it. “It seems to me that the federal government just doesn’t want to know who is here illegally or not,” he said.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer suggested that he would be prepared to uphold the provision if it were clear the process of checking immigration status would not result in “detention for a significantly longer time” than in the ordinary case.

The law also makes it a crime under state law for immigrants to fail to register under a federal law and for illegal immigrants to work or to try to find work. Federal law penalizes employers who hire illegal workers but does not punish employees for working.

Chief Justice Roberts indicated that the employment provision of the state law was vulnerable. “That does seem to expand beyond the federal government’s determination about the types of sanctions that should govern the employment relationship,” he said.

Mr. Verrilli urged the court to consider the Arizona law against the backdrop of the foreign policy considerations that arise from taking actions against citizens of other nations.

Toward the end of the argument, Justice Sotomayor asked Mr. Verrilli how immigration status was verified as a practical matter. “Today,” she said, reflecting on the matter, “if you use the names Sonia Sotomayor, they would probably figure out I was a citizen.”

Should the court uphold any part of the law, immigration groups are likely to challenge it based on an argument not before that court on Wednesday — that the law discriminates on the basis of race and ethnic background.

Indeed, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. made clear that the case, like last month’s arguments over President Obama’s health care law, was about the allocation of state and federal power.

“No part of your argument has to do with racial or ethnic profiling, does it?” the chief justice asked Mr. Verrilli, who agreed.

Mr. Clement, the attorney who represented the 26 states in the health care law case against the federal government, said the state was making an effort to address a crisis with a law that complemented federal immigration policy. “Arizona borrowed the federal standards as its own,” he said. Mr. Verrilli countered that Arizona’s approach was in conflict with the federal efforts. “The Constitution vests exclusive authority over immigration matters with the national government,” he said.

The two sides are so far apart on these provisions in the Arizona law that it appears a decision must be made one way or the other whether the law is constitutional. Regardless of the outcome of the case, it highlights the necessity for immigration reform in more meaningful ways. If Arizona has any of its provisions upheld, other states will follow, which will have serious consequences in many communities across the U.S. Already, many communities have felt the impact from laws in other states being passed that are similar to Arizona, as some communities have just disappeared as a consequence. We will keep you posted on what is to come in the immigration landscape once the U.S. Supreme Court has made a decision on this case.

The standstill appears to be the result of many factors, including the weakened U.S. job and housing construction markets, heightened border enforcement, a rise in deportations, the growing dangers associated with illegal border crossings, the long-term decline in Mexico’s birth rates and changing economic conditions in Mexico.

The report is based on the Center’s analysis of data from five different Mexican government sources and four U.S. government sources. The Mexican data come from the Mexican Decennial Censuses (Censos de Población y Vivienda), the Mexican Population Counts (Conteos de Población y Vivienda), the National Survey of Demographic Dynamics (Encuesta Nacional de la Dinámica Demográfica or ENADID), the National Survey of Occupation and Employment (Encuesta Nacional de Ocupación y Empleo or ENOE), and the Survey on Migration at the Northern Border of Mexico (Encuesta sobre Migración en la Frontera Norte de México or EMIF-Norte). The U.S. data come from the 2010 Census, the American Community Survey, the Current Population Survey and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Among the report’s key findings:

In the five-year period from 2005 to 2010, about 1.4 million Mexicans immigrated to the United States and about 1.4 million Mexican immigrants and their U.S.-born children moved from the United States to Mexico.

In the five-year period a decade earlier (1995 to 2000), about 3 million Mexicans had immigrated to the U.S. and fewer than 700,000 Mexicans and their U.S. born-children had moved from the U.S. to Mexico.

This sharp downward trend in net migration has led to the first significant decrease in at least two decades in the number of unauthorized Mexican immigrants living in the U.S.—to 6.1 million in 2011, down from a peak of nearly 7 million in 2007. Over the same period the number of authorized Mexican immigrants rose modestly, from 5.6 million in 2007 to 5.8 million in 2011.

Mexicans now comprise about 58% of the unauthorized immigrants living in the United States. They also account for 30% of all U.S. immigrants. The next largest country of origin for U.S. immigrants, China, accounts for just 5% of the nation’s stock of nearly 40 million immigrants.

Apprehensions of Mexicans trying to cross the border illegally have plummeted by more than 70% in recent years, from more than 1 million in 2005 to 286,000 in 2011—a likely indication that fewer unauthorized immigrants are trying to cross. This decline has occurred at a time when funding in the U.S. for border enforcement—including more agents and more fencing—has risen sharply.

As apprehensions at the border have declined, deportations of unauthorized Mexican immigrants—some of them picked up at work or after being arrested for other criminal violations—have risen to record levels. In 2010, nearly 400,000 unauthorized immigrants—73% of them Mexicans—were deported by U.S. authorities.

Although most unauthorized Mexican immigrants sent home by U.S. authorities say they plan to try to return, a growing share say they will not try to come back to the U.S. According to a survey by Mexican authorities of repatriated immigrants, 20% of labor migrants in 2010 said they would not return, compared with just 7% in 2005.

Looking back over the entire span of U.S. history, no country has ever sent as many immigrants to this country as Mexico has in the past four decades. However, when measured not in absolute numbers but as a share of the immigrant population at the time, immigration waves from Germany and Ireland in the late 19th century equaled or exceeded the modern wave from Mexico.

These findings by the Pew Hispanic Center are quite startling. When considering the broader picture of immigration into and out of the U.S., these numbers reflect a growing trend where immigration into the U.S. is not as appealing as it once was. The combination of many factors, most notably the economic situation in the U.S., has been a major factor for immigrants to come into the U.S. Whether we continue to see a downward trend among Mexican immigrants and immigrants across the board will be whether the U.S. sees any turnaround with the economy and whether the trend for immigration enforcement continues to discourage legal migration for opportunities in one's home country or elsewhere.

"Effficacy in movement is paramount to this project's success. We are always trying to improve the flow of legitimate traffic while enforcing the laws of the United States," said Patrick Wilson, CBP Sault Ste. Marie Assistant Director.

The Sault Ste. Marie port of entry has a unique design that separates commercial traffic from car traffic, creating an upper and lower plaza. The focus of this project will be on the upper plaza only and will not affect the flow of traffic on the lower plaza.

Stop signs will be placed in all three upper lanes. The stop signs will shorten the "pull up" distance to the booth. This allows vehicles to queue up quicker. The stop signs will be placed near Radio Frequency Identification readers where the traveling public can display their Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative RFID-enabled document to pre-populate the officer's computer screens.

CBP is testing the theory that they can process more travelers each hour by reducing the amount of time it takes each vehicle to get to the inspecting officer.

The pilot project will incorporate a two-stop sign process. Upon entering the upper plaza, vehicles will be required to stop at the first existing stop sign. As the vehicle ahead clears, travelers will move to the next new stop sign and present their ID to the RFID reader. Once the vehicle at the inspection booth clears, travelers will proceed to the inspection booth. In addition to the new setup for crossing at the Sault Ste. Marie port of entry, CBP officers will direct traffic periodically during this project to help educate travelers on this new process.

The hope is that with the new procedure for crossing at this port of entry, the data will show enough time being saved here that other busier port of entries will implement similar processes to speed up crossing times into the U.S.

In an effort to decrease waiting times at our port of entries, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Office of Field Operations (CBP) has recently enacted a pilot program at the International Bridge at the Sault Ste Marie port of entry. The hope of this program is to bring vehicles to the inspection booths in less time.

"Effficacy in movement is paramount to this project's success. We are always trying to improve the flow of legitimate traffic while enforcing the laws of the United States," said Patrick Wilson, CBP Sault Ste. Marie Assistant Director.

The Sault Ste. Marie port of entry has a unique design that separates commercial traffic from car traffic, creating an upper and lower plaza. The focus of this project will be on the upper plaza only and will not affect the flow of traffic on the lower plaza.

Stop signs will be placed in all three upper lanes. The stop signs will shorten the "pull up" distance to the booth. This allows vehicles to queue up quicker. The stop signs will be placed near Radio Frequency Identification readers where the traveling public can display their Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative RFID-enabled document to pre-populate the officer's computer screens.

CBP is testing the theory that they can process more travelers each hour by reducing the amount of time it takes each vehicle to get to the inspecting officer.

The pilot project will incorporate a two-stop sign process. Upon entering the upper plaza, vehicles will be required to stop at the first existing stop sign. As the vehicle ahead clears, travelers will move to the next new stop sign and present their ID to the RFID reader. Once the vehicle at the inspection booth clears, travelers will proceed to the inspection booth. In addition to the new setup for crossing at the Sault Ste. Marie port of entry, CBP officers will direct traffic periodically during this project to help educate travelers on this new process.

The hope is that with the new procedure for crossing at this port of entry, the data will show enough time being saved here that other busier port of entries will implement similar processes to speed up crossing times into the U.S.

USCIS will continue to accept adjustment applications based upon cut-off dates published in the April and May Visa Bulletins. However, requests from USCIS service centers and field offices for visas in the EB-2 category aliens chargeable to China-mainland born or India will be retained by DOS for authorization in FY2013, beginning on October 1, 2012.

Visa applicants processing in April at consulates abroad will still receive visas, as those numbers were allocated before the cut-off date was established. USCIS will continue to accept applications for adjustment of status for aliens with priority dates prior to the date established in the April 2012 Visa Bulletin. Those cases with priority dates of August 15, 2007, or later, will be processed by USCIS to the point of approval (pre-adjudicated) and a request for a visa number will be forwarded Visa Control at DOS to be held in a "pending" file until new visas are available beginning with FY2013 on October 1, 2012 as we explained above.

We will keep you posted as new developments become available.