The following article covers CBP standards for accepting L-1 petitions for Canadians under NAFTA. The standards discuss the burden of proof, package completeness, review of the petition, and submission to USCIS by CBP.

With the institution of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the use of L-1 visas has been supplemented by the use of E-1 and E-2 visas. However, the L-1 can be easier to apply for because it requires less documentation and can be immediately obtained at the border and other Ports of Entry. The L-1 visa, therefore, continues to be a useful immigration tool for companies that do not qualify for E status.

1. The burden of proof for establishing eligibility rests with both the petitioner who is filing the petition; and the beneficiary, who is applying for admission.

Some good News about the February Visa Bulletin. The employment-based, second preference (EB2) category cutoff date moves forward by a full year, to January 1, 2010 for India and China. This is actually very encouraging for many applicant out there.

The decision to dramatically advance the cutoff dates is based on USCIS reports of low rates for adjustment-of-status (I-485) filings, despite recent EB2 cutoff date advancement. This greatly expands the number of individuals who soon will be eligible to file Form I-485 toward becoming U.S. permanent residents. Nevertheless, visa numbers could stop advancing or even retrogress very soon. The logical thing to do is act fast and file if your number is current.

It is sad to see so many qualified well educated applicants, struggling to plan a future in the US. If the priority date system is not to change in the near future, expect more qualified talent leaving our shores to Europe, Canada and Australia. They know how to welcome qualified, well educated immigrants.

Following our updates on the Visa Waiver Adjustments, here is a summary from USCIS Headquarters Liaison Meeting. We report some good news for many Visa Waiver Overstay clients that are married to US Citizens.

The American Immigration Lawyers Association presented the following question to the Service:

Members continue to report inconsistencies in the treatment of these cases. AILA requests that USCIS remind the field that immediate relatives admitted on a visa waiver are eligible to adjust and to release that guidance to the public, so that AILA members and stakeholders in general can address issues that may arise in field offices that are not adjudicating applications in a manner that is consistent with the guidance.

Attorney Ekaterina Powell from our law office has prepared the following article about the effects of prior deportations and unlawful presence on the possibility to immigrate to the U.S. Many Applicants come to our office to inquire about the consequences of prior deportations and periods of unlawful presence in the U.S.

There are two common scenarios.

The first scenario is usually similar to this: a foreign citizen had been previously deported from the U.S. and then entered or attempted to enter the U.S. illegally. Then the foreign citizen gets married to a U.S. citizen. The U.S. citizen comes to our office to inquiry about the immigration process for the spouse and to find out whether there are any issues associated with the alien spouse’s prior immigration violations.

As Lawyers specializing in the I-601 Extreme Hardship Waivers, we are happy to report on the upcoming changes in the Waiver process as provided by AILA.

An I-601, Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility, is filed to permit an alien who has been denied admission to the United States to gain admission as a lawful permanent resident or fiancé(e) under certain circumstances. This waiver is based on extreme hardship to United States citizen or lawful permanent resident relatives of the alien which would result if the alien’s inadmissibility cannot be waived.

What was announced on January 6?

Great Video that gives a glimpse into the life of a foreign job seeker trying to make it America.

At this rate of mechanical efficiency, supported by technology, it will be extremely difficult to create jobs for the entire world population (not that I’m arguing these companies SHOULD create jobs for the entire population). Again, assuming that I attended school at the of this revolution, I have therefore not worked in a professional capacity with digital marketing. However, I have been able to learn on my own and at school, albeit not at the same pace with which technology has evolved. For formal education to keep pace with changing industries, changes will need to be made in the current academic institution mind-set/process, such as: a refresh of curriculum at schools; dynamic teaching processes to prepare students and professors for the future, focuses on unlearning outdated material and learning new technologies and new material (this is not to say that all old learnings should be forgotten, but rather to say that they should be refreshed at a more rapid pace); and, more classes emphasizing how technology is rapidly being employed to change the face of the world. For example, I can count on one hand the number of classes at my MBA program that even mention technology, much less emphasize it. In a job market where only people who understand technology are in high-demand, academia cannot afford to neglect incorporating more technology-focused courses and learnings into its curricula.

This gap is extending and unless checked there will be a huge void between the required skill sets demanded by employers. I would go so far as to say that this gap might hamper and curtail the progress of the digital infrastructure. I wonder if we can somehow make use of the same technologies and support passionate people who are taking the leap of faith to ensure they remain educated, and at the same time needed in the workforce (for example, corporate outreach in the form of technology course sponsorship, etc)? Unless this happens the unemployment rate will, at best, stagnate, at worse increase to a level never before seen in the past 50 years.

This is a tough questions to answer isn’t it? On a 1999 fishing trip, two bullies threw a third man into New Jersey’s Sandy Hook Bay, knowing he couldn’t swim. The drowning death of Michael Augulis was ruled an accident, and it stayed that way until a Lebanese immigrant came to cops with the truth seven years later. Police and prosecutors say the tip from Charbel Chehoud, who wasn’t involved in the drowning, was so critical to solving the case, he should be allowed to stay in the United States. The feds disagree.

The S visa is granted to those who act as witnesses or informants to federal or state government agencies. The S visa holder is a person providing information regarding crimes and terrorism.

S visas are granted to individuals who possess critical and reliable information concerning criminal or terrorist organizations. Foreign nationals who are holders of an S visa are willing to share this information with federal or state authorities. S visas are also granted to individuals whose presence in the United States is critical to the success of a criminal investigation or prosecution.

There is no doubt that there is a clear connection between our Immigration policy and how well our economy is doing.

Immigration increases the overall size of the U.S. economy. Of this there is no question. In 2009 immigrants accounted for 15 percent of all workers. More workers and more people mean a bigger GDP. Immigrants are 15 percent of U.S. workers. They likely account for about 10 percent of GDP or more than a trillion dollars annually. However, this does not mean that the native-born population benefits from immigration.

Basic economic theory shows that the overwhelming majority of this increase in economic activity goes to the immigrants themselves in the form of wages and other compensation. It is important to understand that the increase in the size of the economy is not, by itself, a benefit to the existing population. Moreover, immigrants who arrived in the last 10, 20, or 50 years are without question earning and living better on average then they would be had they remained in their home countries.

The cost of hiring illegal workers can be great, local bakery owners will have to pay a high price. A La Jolla, Calif., bakery, along with its owner and manager, were sentenced in federal court last week on charges stemming from a four-year probe by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) that the business hired illegal alien workers.

U.S. District Judge Thomas J. Whelan ordered The French Gourmet, Inc. to forfeit $109,200 in illicit proceeds gained from the illegal hiring practices and pay $277,375 for its felony conviction of employing more than 10 illegal alien workers in a 12-month period.

The company owner and president Michel Malecot, 59, was sentenced to five years of supervised probation after pleading guilty earlier this year to knowingly employing numerous illegal alien workers over an extended period of time. Malecot was also held liable to pay the total financial penalty of $396,575.

As we return to work on this Jan 2, 2012, one can only wonder what will 2012 be like for Immigration. 2011 will be remembered as the year Alabama enacted HB56, the most unreasonable immigration law in U.S. history. The bill was passed to go into effect Sept. 1 before a series of legal challenges from civil rights organizations, churches and the federal government delayed implementation for weeks. A federal judge put portions of the law on hold to consider the challenge, while allowing some aspects of the law to move forward.

The National Conference of State Legislatures reported recently that in 2011, there were 1,607 bills and resolutions relating to immigrants and refugees introduced in all 50 states and Puerto Rico, significantly up from a little more than 1,400 in 2010. Bolstered by the relative success of SB 1070, even as parts of the law remain hung up in court, immigration restriction-minded legislators in many states banded together, working with the same legal teams to help them draft immigration crackdown bills.

Interestingly, in spite of the bill-filing fury, 11 percent fewer of these state immigration bills became in 2011 than in 2010. Among those that didn’t get anywhere were a series of bills intended to end birthright citizenship for the U.S.-born babies of undocumented immigrants, written with the aid of the same legal counsel behind SB 1070 and introduced in states like Arizona, Indiana and Iowa. Also voted down was an Arizona “omnibus” bill that would have denied public services to undocumented immigrants, similarly to California’s ill-fated Proposition 187 in 1994, and an Arizona bill requiring that hospitals check for patients’ immigration status.