Visa Lawyer Blog

by

5632075031_8dfb19b581_b
If a petitioner filed an FY16 H-1B cap petition in a timely manner for the fiscal year 2016 and has received notification from the delivery service used suggesting that there may be a delay or damage to the package, the petitioner may file a second H-1B petition.

The second H-1B petition must contain the following: a new fee payment, an explanation as to why a second petition is being filed with supporting evidence (such as the notice from the delivery service), and a request to withdraw the first petition.

If a second petition is sent without these items, it will considered a duplicate filing. USCIS would like to remind employers that it will deny or revoke petitions that are filed in the multiple or duplicate by an employer in the same fiscal year for the same H-1B employee, and they will not refund the filing fees.

Continue reading

by

By Lupe Lopez

It was 1984 and I was meeting a friend at the Immigration office in San Francisco.  My friend was running late and asked that I wait for her in the courtroom.  She gave me the number of the room and as I walked into the courtroom I saw a small, thin, older woman crying – throwing herself down on her knees begging the judge to not deport her son.  “We have been here since he was 4 months old.  We don’t even know anyone in Germany.”  She cried and told him that they were alone and didn’t have anyone else but each other.  The judge looked empathetic but he said his hands were tied.  The young man of 19 had committed a crime that made him deportable.  The judge said to her “if only your son had become a citizen.  You both had plenty of time.”  The young man was taken away and the older woman had to be carried out of the courtroom screaming and crying for her son.

I have never forgotten that courtroom scene.  In 1984 I never dreamed that someday I would be working with Immigration lawyers or in an immigration law firm.  But, since I started working in the field of immigration, there has not been a month that goes by that I have not heard this same scenario in one form or another.  Parents become legal permanent residents and then for any of a multitude of reasons, never become U.S. Citizens; leaving their children to make the decision themselves as to whether or not they want to become citizens.  They never imagine that one day their child can be in the wrong place at the wrong time, or simply that their child may never get into trouble with the law.

Continue reading

by

5790405952_4e6dee6274
On March 4, 2015, the federal district court in the Northern District of Florida ruled in Perez v. Perez that the Department of Labor (DOL) lacks authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to issue regulations in the H-2B program. This decision vacated and permanently enjoined DOL from enforcing the 2008 H-2B regulations. DOL was forced to immediately discontinue processing applications for temporary labor certification and can no longer accept or process requests for prevailing wage determinations or applications for labor certification.

On March 5, 2015, US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that it is also temporarily suspending their adjudication of Form I-129 H-2B Petitions for Temporary Non-Agricultural Workers as these petitions require temporary labor certifications as issued by DOL. The government is considering the options to continue processing these petitions following the March 4 court decision. USCIS will continue to adjudicate H-2B petitions on Guam if those petitions are accompanied by temporary labor certifications issued by the Guam Department of Labor.

On March 6, 2015, USCIS suspended premium processing on all H-2B petitions until further notice. USCIS will issue a refund on all petitions filed using the premium processing service that were not acted upon by the agency within the 15 calendar day period.

Continue reading

by

By Lupe Lopez

Inez made the dangerous journey from Guatemala to the border in Tijuana.  She believed that she had been lucky.  She was able to make it to Tijuana without incident.  When she arrived in Tijuana she kept to herself just as she had been warned.  Within a few days, Inez was in San Diego happily working in a small restaurant meeting new people every day.  There she met her first love.  Ernesto worked for his uncle, the owner of the restaurant. Over the next few months, Ernesto and Inez became romantically involved.  One night, Ernesto told Inez that they would be going to see a friend at a hotel.  When they arrived at the hotel, they both went to the friend’s room and knocked on the door.  When there was no answer, Ernesto pulled out the key and told Inez his friend had given him the key just in case.  Inez didn’t think anything of this and went into the hotel room with Ernesto.

While waiting for the supposed friend, Ernesto began trying to get intimate with Inez.  She refused and told him that she was not ready for this.  He insisted.  She continued to refuse.  Inez was surprised when the man she had trusted became violent.  Ernesto began beating her, then proceeded to rape her.  He warned her that if she called the police, he would kill her.  Meanwhile, a guest in the next room heard all the commotion and had contacted the police.  Inez was crying and trying to get dressed when the police knocked on the door.

Continue reading

by

3917027964_2e901f7a86_z
The power of the purse has spoken and the Democrats have come out on top. On Tuesday March 3rd the Republican led House of Representatives passed a bill funding the Department of Homeland Security up until September of this year. The bill passed by a vote of 257 to 167, with 75 Republicans and 182 Democrats voting in favor of the bill. The bill included no mention of the Obama administration’s executive actions on immigration, causing a split within the Republican Party to vote on the bill. Conservative Republicans had said that if the bill did not include language opposing Obama’s executive actions they would not be supportive of the bill.

The leader of the House of Representatives, Boehner, placed the blame on Republican inability to break a Democratic filibuster in the Senate and for failing to impose conditions on the bill, a prerequisite for Republican votes. The outcome of the bill was a victory for Democrats who were able to effectively block the Republican agenda by preventing them from placing immigration restrictions on the bill.

Boehner has spent the last few months struggling to keep the Republic front united against Democrats in the Senate, who have pushed back against Republican pressure. During his re-election as speaker in January, some Republicans were re-considering voting for Boehner. Boehner still remains the subject of criticism within his own party; the only common denominator bringing the Republican Party together remains their hard line stance on immigration and border security. During a closed door caucus addressing the GOP, Boehner said that Republicans have one last card to play—Judge Hanen’s decision to halt implementation of President Obama’s executive actions on immigration. Hanen’s decision has proved a great cause for concern for Democrats. As previously reported, dozens of states came out of the shadows accusing Obama of overstepping his executive power.

Continue reading

by

525286636_7c05b48907_z

As a refresher for our readers, earlier this week the federal government filed an expedited emergency motion to stay (prevent execution) of the injunction issued by the federal judge in Texas stopping implementation of expanded DACA and DAPA programs. The federal government warned in its motion that if judge Hanen did not act on the motion by the end of the business day on Wednesday (February 25), the government would move to the court of appeals.

As sources, such as Politico, report, the federal judge who issued the injunction indicated on Tuesday that he is not inclined to rush a decision on the federal government’s request to lift the injunction, which means that the next stop would most likely be the 5th Circuit Court of Appeal in New Orleans.

by

5674635631_8c26088e86_z

Today, on February 24, 2015, USCIS announced that effective May 26, 2015 it will extend eligibility for employment authorization to certain H-4 dependent spouses of H-1B nonimmigrants to allow them to accept employment in the U.S.

Finalizing the H-4 work authorization was an important step toward implementation of the President’s executive action initiatives announced in November 2014 for a purpose to modernize and improve our immigration system.

Not all H-4 holders will benefit from the employment authorization. Under the new regulation, eligible individuals include H-4 dependents whose H-1B spouses:

  • Are the principal beneficiaries of an approved Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker; or
  • Have been granted H-1B status under sections 106(a) and (b) of the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000 as amended by the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act. The Act permits H-1B nonimmigrants seeking lawful permanent residence to work and remain in the United States beyond the six-year limit on their H-1B status.

In other words, only those H-4 dependents whose H-1B spouses are in the process of obtaining a green card through employment will be able to benefit from work authorization.

Continue reading

by

15558329057_8c48b4a564_z

By Ekaterina Powell, Esq.

As you may already know from reading our prior posts, on February 16, 2015, the Texas federal district court issued a preliminary injunction to stop expanded DACA (expanded guidance concerning deferred action for certain individuals who came to the United States as children) and DAPA (deferred action for the parents of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents) from going into effect. The case is known as Texas v. United States, the Lawsuit Challenging DAPA and DACA Expansion.

The decision came only two days before USCIS was supposed to start accepting applications under Expanded DACA guidelines issued by the President in November of 2014.

The decision was a surprise to many of those who were prepared to file their applications on February 18, 2015.

What does the preliminary injunction mean?

Since the preliminary injunction was issued, USCIS cannot accept any applications under expanded DACA, which was supposed to become effective on February 18, 2015, and will not implement its policies regarding DAPA, the program that was set to start in May 2015.

This injunction also affects those who file for extension of their existing DACA. Since expanded DACA rules have not become effective, USCIS will continue to issue employment authorization documents (EADs) for renewals of existing DACA requests for two-year periods as opposed to three-year periods.

What is a solution?

After the preliminary injunction was issued, the federal government promised to appeal the decision of the Texas district court in the Court of Appeals. However, an appeal can take a considerable amount of time and delay can detrimentally harm millions of families, causing unnecessary deportation for those who could qualify under expanded DACA and DAPA relief.

In order to prevent the harm caused by the appeal’s delays, today, February 23, 2015, the federal government filed an emergency expedited motion to stay,  pending appeal, its February 16 Order.

Continue reading

by

10073697206_45826e2230_z
Earlier this year, California DMV has started issuing AB 60 driver licenses, which are available to California residents regardless of their immigration status. This change became effective on January 1st, 2015.

AB 60 driver’s license can be used for personal identification and gives the right to legally drive in California but does not grant any other privileges. An AB 60 driver license looks the same as a regular driver’s license except for one feature. In the right corner, there is a pre-printed notation “Federal Limits Apply”.

If you want to get AB 60 driver license, you need to prove your identity and residency in the State of California, pass the knowledge tests and behind-the-wheel driving exams. In order to apply for AB 60 driver’s license, you need to make an appointment or visit DMV office.

Continue reading

by

7526267232_2e3a502b29_z

On Monday February 16, 2015 Judge Andrew Hanen of the U.S. District Court in Brownsville, Texas issued a preliminary injunction temporarily preventing President Obama’s executive actions on immigration (expanded deferred action) from going forward. The injunction does not make Obama’s executive actions illegal, however it does prevent the Obama administration from implementing expanded DACA and DAPA until the courts determine the constitutionality of the executive actions announced by Obama on November 20, 2014. According to Judge Hanen, 26 states brought the suit to his attention, all of whom he determined had standing to sue. A lawsuit against President Obama is expected to move its way through the court system in the coming months. The injunction claims that the President lacks the constitutional power to make such executive actions. As a result of the injunction, USCIS will no longer accept applications for DACA on February 18th the date that USCIS initially announced it would begin to accept applications. Additionally, plans to accept requests for DAPA will be suspended until further notice.

The Secretary of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson announced that while he disagreed with the injunction, that the Department of Homeland Security would be forced to comply. Nevertheless, the Department of Justice plans to appeal on behalf of the federal government.

Will the court order affect existing DACA?

Continue reading