Visa Lawyer Blog

This is a recent update from the AILA Rome Chapter for the benefit of our readers. The State Department has substantially rewritten the FAM provisions relating to physical or mental disorders as medical grounds of inadmissibility. These significant changes, set forth at 9 FAM 40.11 N11, focus on physical or mental disorders with harmful behavior, and on substance-related disorders, corresponding to INA 212(a)(1)(A)(iii) and (iv), respectively.

The following is a summary of these sweeping revisions.

Introduction

As before, the mere presence of a physical or mental disorder does not by itself render a visa applicant inadmissible to the United States under 212(a)(1)(A)(iii). The trigger to inadmissibility is the presence of associated harmful behavior.

Key Concepts of Mental Health

In this new section, the Department defines the key concepts of physical and mental health disorders:

A "physical disorder" is a clinically diagnosed medical condition where the focus of attention is physical manifestations.

A "mental disorder" is a health condition characterized by alterations in thinking, mood or behavior.

"Harmful behavior" is an action associated with a physical or mental disorder that causes (or has caused) one or more of the following:

1. Serious injury (psychological or physical) to the foreign national or others. An example of harmful behavior to the foreign national is attempted suicide. An example of harmful behavior to others is pedophilia.
2. A serious threat to the health or safety of the foreign national or others. An example of a serious threat to both the foreign national and to others is driving while intoxicated.
3. Major property damage.

NOTE: The Department emphasizes the following principle: Only harmful behavior that is associated with a physical or mental disorder is relevant for the purpose of determining a medical inadmissibility.

A "substance-related disorder" can involve one of the following:

1. Substance dependence - compulsive long-term use of alcohol or other psychoactive substance despite significant problems (physical, social, and others).
2. Substance abuse - a pattern of recurrent use of alcohol or other psychoactive substance despite adverse consequences or impairment.

Remission in the context of mental or substance-related disorders is defined as "a period of at least 12 months during which no substance use or associated harmful behavior have occurred."

Class "A" medical conditions are those which render a visa applicant ineligible for a visa.

Class "B" medical conditions do not render a visa applicant ineligible for a visa, even though the applicant has a disease, disability or abnormality amounting to a substantial departure from well-being.

Alcohol Abuse or Dependence

The FAM changes stress that alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence constitutes a medical condition which can lead to inadmissibility. That said, a panel physician's diagnosis of alcohol abuse or dependence alone does not make an applicant ineligible to receive a visa unless there is evidence of associated harmful behavior which has, or is likely to pose a threat to the property, safety or welfare of the foreign national or others.

Consular officers are instructed to refer nonimmigrant and immigrant visa applicants to panel physicians if the applicant has a single alcohol-related arrest or conviction within the past five years, or if the applicant has two or more such arrests or convictions within the past decade. Officers should also refer applicants to panel physicians if, in the absence of DUI arrests or convictions, there is any other evidence to suggest that the visa applicant has an alcohol problem.

Role of the Panel Physician

Panel physicians have a central role in evaluating the existence of a physical or mental disorder or a substance-related disorder that would render an applicant ineligible for a visa. In performing a medical examination, the panel physician is responsible (inter alia) for identifying and diagnosing physical or mental disorders (including alcohol-related disorders); identifying harmful behavior associated with a disorder; and determining the remission status of any previously diagnosed disorder.

Class "A" or Class "B" Medical Conditions

Panel physicians may make the following diagnoses with regard to applicants referred for examination:

Class "A": The applicant has a physical or mental disorder with associated harmful behavior.

Class "A": The applicant has a disorder characterized by substance abuse or dependence.

Class "B": The applicant has a physical or mental disorder with no associated harmful behavior.

Class "B": The applicant has a history of a physical or mental disorder with associated harmful behavior which is unlikely to recur.

Class "B": The applicant's substance abuse or dependence is in full remission.

Neither "A" nor "B": The applicant has not been diagnosed as having a physical or mental disorder or a substance-related disorder.

Waivers for Immigrant Visa Applicants

An immigrant visa applicant who is determined to have a communicable disease of public health significance may be eligible for a waiver of the inadmissibility set forth in INA 212(a)(1)(A)(i).

An immigrant visa applicant who objects on religious or moral grounds to receiving required vaccinations against vaccine-preventable diseases may be eligible for a waiver of the inadmissibility set forth in INA 212(a)(1)(A)(ii).

An immigrant visa applicant who is determined to have a physical or mental disorder with associated harmful behavior may be eligible for a waiver of the inadmissibility set forth in INA 212(a)(1)(A)(iii).

An immigrant visa applicant diagnosed with substance abuse or addiction is NOT eligible for waiver relief of the inadmissibility set forth in INA 212(a)(1)(A)(iv).

Waivers for Nonimmigrant Visa Applicants

Consular officers may recommend waivers per 212(d)(3)(A) for any of the medical-related grounds of inadmissibility set forth in 212(a)(1)(A).

The Kentucky Consular Center (KCC) has begun to audit certain nonimmigrant petitions filed with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to verify information submitted in the petitions. Additionally, KCC is piloting a program wherein information about the beneficiaries and the proposed U.S. employment is verified. KCC has made and will continue to make unannounced phone calls to petitioners to verify such information.

Questions include, but are not limited to:

1. Whether the petitioner, in fact, submitted the petition;
2. When the petitioner was incorporated;
3. The physical location of the petitioner;
4. Number of employees;
5. Names of shareholders;
6. Location of Attorney of Record;
7. General information regarding the petitioner's operations and business plan.

Employers should be consistent when submitting information to the government, keep good records on file and update counsel of any corporate changes.

Great Videos to share from the U.S. Consulate General in Ciudad Juarez on what to expect when going to the Consulate for a visa interview as well as a video on how to avoid people who engage in unlawful practices outside the consulate, such as people who sell false documents.

Here are links to both videos:

http://www.youtube.com/user/pasjuarez

http://www.youtube.com/user/pasjuarez#p/u/3/KCft0XrCBg8

Despite the deployment of thousands of Mexican soldiers and a reinforced contingent of Federal Police ostensibly to suppress the criminal gangs, violence has only worsened in Ciudad Juarez since January 2008, when the long-simmering drug war exploded in fury. More than 4,600 people have been slain, and anywhere from 30,000 to 420,000 people have fled from a city that was nudging 1.5 million inhabitants prior to the war, according to wildly varied estimates.

We always tell our clients to be very careful when spending time in the City before and during the visa interviews.

The local San Diego USCIS office suggests that certain remedies may be available for military families facing the problem of ineligibility to adjust status because of unlawful entry by a family member seeking adjustment of status. Most often the situation occurs when a United States citizen service member’s spouse entered without inspection and thus cannot adjust status. Current way to fix the status is via Ciudad Juarez waiver process (I-601 waiver application).

One potential remedy is “Parole in Place,” where the District Director in San Diego, Mr. Paul Pierre, can parole the alien, who then will be eligible to adjust status. Paroling only cures the issue of admission or parole under INA § 245, not other inadmissibility issues. To seek Parole in Place, address the request to Mr. Pierre. Include the following:

1. Form I-131 (but it does not need to be paid for when applying)
2. Evidence of impending deployment
3. Proof of relationship of alien to the United States citizen service member
4. Evidence of hardship to the service member and how the situation affects the service member’s “readiness” to perform his or her mission in defense of the United States.

USCIS also has a program where I-601's will be adjudicated at the United States Consulate in Ciudad Juarez at the time of an immigrant visa interview for the relatives of service members. Mr. Pierre also has the authority to grant Deferred Action. (Regarding issues of admission for adjustment of status purposes, read Sum v. Holder, 602 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2010).)

Citing security concerns, the U.S. Consulate General in Ciudad Juarez is closed on July 30, 2010 and has cancelled all scheduled appointments and services for that date. Information on date of reopening will be announced by warden notice and posting on their web page.

American citizens with appointments for passport or other services may make a new appointment via the Consulate website below. For non-immigrant visa applicants, the call center will call or e-mail applicants to reschedule appointments. Alternatively, applicants may re-schedule non-immigrant visa appointments without being charged by calling 01-800-719-2525. Immigrant visa applicants should be advised that the medical clinics where they will receive their medical exams may also close on short notice. Immigrant visa applicants will be rescheduled for their interviews at a later date.

Earlier today, a federal judge blocked key portions of Arizona’s controversial immigration enforcement law from going into effect. In her ruling, United States District Court Judge Susan Bolton stated that some portions of Arizona’s immigration law will be able to go into effect today, as scheduled. However, the judge issued a preliminary injection against the parts of the law that call for police officers to check and verify people’s immigration status when they are enforcing other. In addition, the preliminary injunction also took issue with the part of the law that would require immigrants to carry documentation of their immigration status at all times. Both of these parts of the law have been placed on hold while Judge Bolton listens to various challenges to the law.

“There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens,” wrote Judge Bolton. “By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a ‘distinct, unusual and extraordinary’ burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose.”

Arizona’s immigration enforcement law was adopted in April 2010 and has caused much controversy from both sides of the immigration debate. Opponents of the law have prevailed for now: The provisions that most angered opponents will not take effect, including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.

I met with a new client in my office the other day, he presented to me a Notice of Intent to Rescind his status by USCIS. The Service alleges that he is subject to rescission, because he was not living together with his wife at the time of the adjustment interview, and that he had lied about their living arrangements to the interviewing USCIS officer. What can one do in this situation?

The first analysis that comes to mind is Matter of McKee, 17 I & N Dec. 332 (BIA 1980). In Matter of McKee the Board of Appeals held that a visa petition could be approved, even though the parties had separated and the marriage was no longer viable, as long as the marriage was bona fide at inception, and had not been terminated. This is a key point even today and many USCIS officers seems to ignore this concept.

In another case, Matter of Boromand, 17 I&N. Dec. 2811 (BIA 1980), The Board reviewed the evidence and concluded that it did "not appear that the respondent married" his United States citizen wife for the "sole purpose of evading the immigration laws. Based on this finding, the Board concluded that the adjustment could not be rescinded, based on the charge that he had materially misrepresented his living arrangements with his wife at the time of the adjustment interview.

The Board went on to hold that, "since we have concluded that an adjustment application cannot be denied based solely on the nonviability of the marriage at the time of adjustment, the respondent’s misrepresentation cannot be considered material in this regard. The Board concluded that since the marriage was not a sham, the respondent’s misrepresentations, "did not cut off a line of inquiry which would have lead to a denial of his adjustment application.

Thus, the crucial determination in both McKee and Boromand, was the bona fides of the marriage at the time it was entered into, not whether the parties were living together at the time of the adjustment, or whether the marriage was even viable at that point. As long as the marriage was not a sham and had not been terminated, adjustment can still be granted if the parties have separated and no longer have a viable marriage. This is not always east to accomplish, but having this concept down can be very helpful to clients that are in a bind due to circumstances of life and not due to fraud.

So back to my client, I told him that if he could prove that his marriage was bonafide when incepted he may have a chance to fight his Green Card revocation.

This is not the same case when a determination of fraud marriage is in place. Take the recent case of a U.S. citizen, who was paid to engage in a phony marriage with a Cambodian national to evade immigration laws, pleaded guilty Tuesday in federal court. The guilty plea resulted from an investigation by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Martin and Yota Em participated in a marriage interview with immigration officials in Louisville and falsely claimed that they married in good faith. Phearoun Peter Em acted as an interpreter for Yota Em. On June 30, 2009, Martin and Yota Em were divorced. The marriage between Martin and Yota Em was fraudulent and was entered into solely to evade U.S. immigration laws. Martin admitted that he was paid about $7,000 for participating in the marriage fraud scheme. The maximum potential penalties for Martin are 10 years' imprisonment, a $500,000 fine, and supervised release for a period of six years.

ICE and USCIS are spending large amount of capital and human power to fight Immigration fraud, we expect this trend to continue in 2011 as well.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced today that a new version of the Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card (Form I-90), is available on the USCIS website. The new version of the form is dated 8/10/09 and contains more user-friendly features.

Applicants may file Form I-90 electronically (through e-filing), or through the mail to the USCIS Phoenix Lockbox facility.

We're only four days away from the World Cup opener between South Africa and Mexico, so it's a good time to cover some immigration related points. DOS alerted U.S. citizens traveling to or residing in South Africa to safety and security issues related to the FIFA World Cup from 06/11/10 to 7/11/10. This travel alert includes a section on immigration.

Scrutiny of foreign travelers arriving at South African ports of entry will be tightened during the World Cup. U.S. citizens should ensure they have two blank pages marked “Visas” in their passports as required for South African entry formalities. Those travelers with criminal records should consult the nearest South African Consulate or the South African Embassy in Washington, D.C., before traveling. Questions about carrying firearms or other unusual items into the country may also be directed to the nearest South African embassy or consulate. Any traveler coming from or passing through the so-called “yellow fever belt” of Africa and South America must carry certification of having received a yellow fever vaccination upon entry into South Africa.

More from the State Department here....

This is a great tip from AILA, many applicants are often confused about the I-751 receipt number. Be aware that the receipt number listed on a receipt notice for Form I-751, Petition to Remove the Conditions of Residence is not the actual receipt number for that case. In fact, if the receipt number shown on the receipt notice for the I-751 is tracked through the USCIS online case status, an error message will appear. The correct receipt number for an I-751 is listed on the I-751 biometrics notice.

Also a recap for the issue of Procedures for Parties Separated but Not Yet Divorced. Until last year, USCIS held that separated, but not yet divorced, conditional residents were ineligible to file I-751 waivers. According to a USCIS memo, things have changed.

The Memo provides that:

If a waiver is filed post separation but prior to final divorce:

* Petitioners will receive an RFE requiring that the divorce be finalized in 87 days.
* If the divorce is finalized before the response to the RFE is due, petitioners may submit the divorce decree in response to the RFE and the case will be processed as a waiver case.
* If petitioners are not divorced in time to respond to the RFE, they will receive a notice revoking CPR status, and an NTA will be issued.

If a joint petition is filed post separation but prior to final divorce:

* Petitioners will receive an RFE asking for a divorce decree, and when it is submitted, petitioners must then request that their case be converted to a waiver case. This will avoid the need to refile the case as a waiver. When this occurs, the case may or may not, depending on the strength of its merits, be referred for interview.
* If petitioners are not yet divorced when the RFE response is due, then the case will be evaluated on the strength of the bona fides of the marriage. USCIS will then approve, deny, or interview.

In most cases where divorce is pending or the parties have separated, the U.S. citizen spouse will not agree to sign a joint petition. Thus, the conditional resident will have no choice but to file a waiver and hope that his or her pending divorce becomes final within or close to 87 days after filing.

It is also important to note that the Memo states specifically that USCIS may not deny a petition solely because the spouses are separated and/or have initiated divorce or annulment proceedings.

On 5/27/10, the Senate voted on four enforcement-only immigration amendments during debate on the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2010 (H.R. 4899).

The following amendments, which needed at least 60 votes to pass, were all rejected:

* Amendment 4214: Introduced by Senator McCain (R-AZ), would have added 6,000 more National Guard agents to the southern border. The amendment failed to pass 51-46.
* Amendment 4228: Introduced by Senator Kyl (R-AZ), would have fully funded Operation Streamline at the southern border. The amendment failed to pass 54-44.
* Amendment 4202: Introduced by Senator Cornyn (R-TX), would have added enforcement personnel, and 3,300 new detention beds at the southern border. The amendment failed to pass 54-43.
* Amendment 4177: Introduced by Senator DeMint (R-SC), would have required the completion, within a year, of 700-miles of double-layered fencing along the southern border. The amendment failed to pass 45-52.

Further to the Department's proposed rule to amend the Schedule of Fees for Consular Services (Schedule) for nonimmigrant visa and border crossing card application processing fees, this rule raises from $131 to $140 the fee charged for the processing of an application for most non-petition-based nonimmigrant visas (Machine-Readable Visas or MRVs) and adult Border Crossing Cards (BCCs).

The rule also provides new tiers of the application fee for certain categories of petition- based nonimmigrant visas and treaty trader and investor visas (all of which are also MRVs).

Finally, the rule increases the $13 BCC fee charged to Mexican citizen minors who apply in Mexico, and whose parent or guardian already has a BCC or is applying for one, by raising that fee to $14 by virtue of a congressionally mandated surcharge that went into effect in 2009.

Why the fee hike? The Department of State is adjusting the fees to ensure that sufficient resources are available to meet the costs of providing consular services in light of an independent cost of service study's findings that the U.S. Government is not fully covering its costs for the processing of these visas under the current cost structure.

More on the above referenced in this Blog and in the upcoming newsletter.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that it has redesigned the Permanent Resident Card—commonly known as the “Green Card”—to incorporate several
major new security features. State-of-the-art technology prevents counterfeiting, obstructs
tampering, and facilitates quick and accurate authentication of the card. Beginning today,
USCIS will issue all Green Cards in the new, more secure format.

I-9 Administrators should become familiar with the new green card, as it is on the List A of Acceptable documents for Form I-9 purposes. M-274, the I-9 Handbook, does not yet have a sample of the new green card.

Read the press release and see sample card here

This past week we saw people from all walks of life debating about this unreasonable law. Even Arizona law enforcement personnel feel that this is going to create more harm than good. The shine of light to the Arizona law - if there is one - is that it has shaken our nation's leaders into dealing with the need for immigration reform. In large numbers in Arizona and nationwide, people have turned out protesting the law. For more information about the new Arizona Law email me.

Arizona's new immigration law is a bad idea whether you are an anti or a supporter of comprehensive immigration reform. The reasons are different for each but the idea of a state taking crazy measures points to the failure of congress and the administration to take meaningful action to correct what is becoming a system that is failing the immigrant community and our entire nation.

What does the Arizona law do?

Arizona's law orders immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and requires police to question people if there's reason to suspect they're in the United States illegally.

What do opponents say?

Critics, including immigrant advocates and the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, say they are concerned the law will foster racial profiling, arguing that most police officers don't have enough training to look past race while investigating a person's legal status.
It also targets those who hire illegal immigrant laborers or knowingly transport them.

Are other states considering similar legislation?

Michael Hethmon, general counsel for the Immigration Reform Law Institute, helped draft the language of the Arizona bill. Hethmon said lawmakers from four other states have approached him asking for advice on how they can do the same thing where they live. He declined to identify which states, citing attorney-client privilege.

Is federal immigration legislation coming?

Democrats say that if they don't get Republican commitments soon, they likely will push to move a bill without GOP support.

Democratic sources said the chances of passing immigration reform in that scenario this year are slim, but they want to make clear to key constituencies they are at least trying.

President Obama is still pushing for a bill, though.

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina is the only GOP senator on board, but he has told Democrats they will lose his support unless they find another Republican. Obama recently called Sen. Scott Brown, R-Massachusetts, to try to get him on board, a Brown spokeswoman said.

Bottom line is that this bill does not make Arizona safer or its residents free of criminals. It's anti-immigrant and unconstitutional.

I can't remember so much controversy and anger over an immigration measure like the Arizona law passed in the past few days. The measure — set to take effect in late July or early August — would make it a crime under state law to be in the U.S. illegally. It directs state and local police to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are illegal.

The anger over Arizona's new law cracking down on illegal immigrants grew stronger today as opponents used refried beans to smear swastikas on the state Capitol, civil rights leaders demanded a boycott of the state, and the Obama administration weighed a possible legal challenge. Immigration lawyers in Arizona are also gearing up to defend clients and take on some new kind of cases.

Under the new Arizona law, immigrants unable to produce documents showing they are allowed to be in the U.S. could be arrested, jailed for up to six months and fined $2,500. That is a significant escalation of the typical federal punishment for being here illegally.

People arrested by Arizona police would be turned over to federal immigration officers. Opponents said the federal government could thwart the law by refusing to accept them.

Activists are planning a challenge of their own, hoping to block the law from taking effect by arguing that it encroaches on the federal government's authority to regulate immigration and violates people's constitutional rights by giving police too much power.

The White House would not rule out the possibility that the administration would take legal action against Arizona. President Barack Obama, who warned last week that the measure could lead to police abuses, asked the Justice Department to complete a review of the law's implications before deciding how to proceed.

Mexican President Felipe Calderon said the law is discriminatory and warned that trade and political ties with Arizona will be seriously strained by the crackdown.

Yet Arizona Governor is living in her own bubble. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer today deflected concerns that the state's new immigration law will hurt economic development, saying many businesses have long wanted tougher action.

"I believe it's not going to have the kind of economic impact that some people think that it might," Brewer, a Republican, said.

Not all Arizona residents are siding with this. Mr. Gordon, Phoenix's mayor and a Democrat, said his office hopes the City Council will authorize the city to file a lawsuit Tuesday. San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera urged policymakers in the city to stop dealing with Arizona and Arizona businesses. Leaders in Mexico and California also demanded a boycott, as did civil rights leader Al Sharpton. More opposition is expected both from inside and outside Arizona.

Continue reading "New Arizona Immigration Law - Will it hurt the economy and cause tourists, businesses to stay away?" »

This Update is from AILA Rome Chapter, very important information for HIV infected immigrants and family members.

This Post will attempt to lend clarity to the dynamic process by which HIV infection is being removed as a ground of inadmissibility under INA 212(a)(1). Although the date for final removal of HIV infection from the list of communicable diseases of public health significance is just a few weeks away, DHS and DOS are at very different stages in their attempts to align their respective regulations to this welcome new reality.

On July 2, 2009, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register, announcing its intent to remove HIV infection from its list of communicable diseases of public health significance and inviting public comment on the issue. The Final Rule implementing this change was published on November 2, 2009; following a 60-day waiting period, the rule will become effective on January 4, 2010.

In a Memorandum dated November 24, 2009, USCIS amplified its previous guidance instructing adjudicators to hold in abeyance any cases they encounter in which the sole reason for denial would be HIV infection; USCIS will automatically reconsider these cases after the new rule takes effect on January 4, 2010. If, between now and January, an officer encounters a case in which a foreign national has already filed an approvable waiver of inadmissibility relating to HIV infection, then the case should be adjudicated as is. If an already-filed HIV waiver is not approvable, the adjudicator should delay action on the case until after January 4, at which point the inadmissibility will no longer exist.

Applicants whose cases were denied solely on HIV grounds on or after July 2, 2009, may file a motion for USCIS to reopen or reconsider the decisions. USCIS has waived the requirement that such motions be filed within 30 days of the original decision, but applicants must still submit the relevant filing fee. These cases will then be reconsidered within the new regulatory framework in effect after January 4, 2010.

As of January 4, 2010, USCIS adjudicators will disregard a diagnosis of HIV infection when processing cases. After this date, moreover, adjudicators will administratively close any waiver requests they encounter pertaining to HIV infection. Furthermore, HIV testing will cease to be part of the medical examination for immigration benefits.

Regrettably, the Department of State has so far publically released scant guidance detailing how consular officers, in light of the new rules, will treat immigrant and nonimmigrant cases involving HIV infection. Although the pertinent provisions at 9 FAM 40.11 were updated as recently as the end of October 2009, these provision still instruct consular officers, inter alia, to deny immigrant visas for applicants who are found to be HIV-positive.

Until we receive this guidance, a word to the wise: the elimination of HIV infection as a medical ineligibility does not rule out the possibility of an HIV-positive immigrant being found inadmissible as a potential public charge. A public charge finding may result in denial of permission to adjust to legal permanent resident status, denial of a visa to enter the United States, denial of re-admission to the United States after a trip abroad for more than six months, or, in very rare circumstances, deportation. Recent research suggests that public charge concerns, along with other "chilling effects" related to welfare reform and confusion about eligibility rules for benefits, have kept many legal immigrants from accessing benefits for which they are eligible.

As with other medical conditions, Affidavits of Support for profoundly sick individuals should be as strong as possible in order to overcome INA 212(a)(4).

As you may know, USCIS requires photographs and fingerprints for certain applications, this process is called Biometrics. Until the Biometrics step is complete, an applicant can not proceed with the rest of the application, get his work permit or be scheduled for his Naturalization interview if it a Citizenship Application.

In many cases, applicants can not make it to the assigned fingerprints/biometrics date assigned by USCIS. Failure to show up can be detrimental to the case in hand, and can result in case termination.

A recent update from the San Diego AILA chapter may be useful to readers of this Blog and is applicable in all 50 states.

The first questions AILA asked the USCIS is:

If an applicant's fingerprints expired, Would it be possible for client to go directly to the fingerprint facility, show that their prints are expired and have them re-taken there and then?

USCIS Answer:

No, the ASC [Application Support Center) staff does not re-take fingerprints for anyone
without an appointment notice (except military members. If an appointment is not
available in the scheduling system, a G-56 from the District will be accepted on any
expedite or special cases. [Previously, appointment notices were provided at the Infopass
Appointment when requesting re-scheduling. This is no longer possible as appointments
are not immediately re-schednled. If a client misses an appointment, he or she should go
to the ASC after 2 p.m. to see if they can be accommodated or the ASC will arrange for rescheduling.

The same is true if a client is unavailable on the date of the actual appointment and goes earlier. A case is not denied for at least 30 days after a missed appointment so there is time to arrange for re-fingerprinting without fear the case will be immediately denied.)

So bottom line, try to make your biometrics appointments. But if you still miss it, the case will not be closed immediately and the applicant will have 30 days to try to take the prints.

We are all still shocked from the recent events in Ciudad Juarez. The story of the Couple slain by drug gang while heading home from birthday party is a scary precedent. For unknown reasons, a drug gang followed the family car through the streets and riddled it with bullets, authorities said. When it was over, 35-year-old Enriquez and Redelfs, who was 34, were dead. Enriquez was an employee at the busy US Consulate in Ciudad Juarez.

In light of the recent shootings of US Consulate officials in Ciudad Juarez Mexico, the Consulate in Ciudad Juarez will be closed for the next few days. The U.S. State Department has also updated its warning on travel to Mexico to say it had authorized the departure of dependents of U.S. government personnel from consulates in Ciudad Juarez and five other northern border cities.

The USCIS office at Ciudad Juarez has informed that the Teletech call center has been advised to reschedule all of today's waiver appointments to March 26th, 2010, which was previously scheduled as an administrative day. The applicants will be notified by email or phone, or they may contact the call center at 1-800-919-1754 in the United States and 01-477-788-7070 in Mexico.

We will keep our readers posted.

Important notice to our clients from Eritrea. Consular operations, including visa services, at the U.S. Embassy in Eritrea have been suspended until further notice. According to Embassy Asmara, the closure is in response to the Government of Eritrea's flagrant violations of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. These violations include failing to notify U.S. consular staff of the arrest of American citizens, hindering the travel of Embassy officials to visit American citizens in distress, and interfering with the delivery of the U.S. Embassy's diplomatic pouches. The Consular Section will continue to provide emergency services to U.S. citizens.

Information courtesy of the Rome District Chapter (RDC) of AILA.