A former member of the Bosnian Serb Army has left the U.S. to return to Serbia after a federal judge ordered his denaturalization based on concealment during his application for U.S. citizenship that he served in the military during the Bosnian war.

What is Denaturalization ? Denaturalization is the reverse of naturalization, when a state deprives one of its citizens of his or her citizenship. From the point of view of the individual, denaturalization means “revocation” or “loss” of citizenship. Denaturalization can be based on various legal justifications. The most severe form is the “stripping of citizenship” when denaturalization takes place as a penalty for actions considered criminal by the state, often only indirectly related to nationality, for instance for having served in a foreign military. In countries that enforce single citizenship, voluntary naturalization in another country will lead to an automatic loss of the original citizenship; the language of the law often refers to such cases as “giving up one’s citizenship” or (implicit) renunciation of citizenship.

In this case Jadranko Gostic, 47, a former resident of St. Petersburg, Fla., departed the United States on June 1, 2010. U.S. District Court Judge James Moody in Tampa, Fla., ordered his denaturalization on May 26, 2010.

As the Hospitality business was booming in the US, more and more Hospitality professionals in Europe came to the US and started their own businesses via the E2 visa investment. The same happened to Dean and Laura Franks, a British couple who opened the restaurant in 2000 in the state of Maine.

They used the E2 visa, the nonimmigrant investor visa. It is a temporary category that is granted in two-year to five year increments with no limits on the number of extensions. Now they found that after nine years of running their business, they could not renew their visa, forcing them to shutter the restaurant and leave the country. They are not alone. In the past few months we have seen numerous, E2 and L1A visas get denied for no valid reason. Is the US government turning investors away, are they denying cases intentionally? If so why now?

In denying the Franks’ renewal application last year, immigration officials said their restaurant had become a marginal business. The government sets no specific dollar amount, but it defines a marginal enterprise as one that “does not have the present or future capacity to generate more than enough income to provide a minimal living” for the visa holder and his family.

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:

A brief note to thank the brave men and women of the Armed Forces, and remember those who have lost their lives defending liberty. Have a safe and happy Memorial Day!…

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.

Here is the latest on the H1B visa numbers. May 21, 2010 H-2B Cap Count

As of 05/21/10, USCIS receipted 26,422 H-2B petitions, towards the 47,000 beneficiaries target for the second half of the fiscal year.* This count includes 25,178 approved and 1,244 pending petitions.

With all the hype, hysteria and hot air generated around the H1-B visa program issue during the past several years, one fundamental truism remains: the current annual level of H-1B visas being utilized in the United States is about the same level as in 1990.

As the H1B season still in full force, we would like to share this great tip from AILA. This post discuss where to file H-1B extensions for beneficiaries working for petitioners, which are not cap exempt, but who are “employed at” cap exempt facilities.

The VSC (Vermont Service Center) refers to the September 10, 2009, USCIS Guidance regarding the direct filing address for I-129 petitions, noting that H-1B employers filing petitions which are cap exempt must file such petitions exclusively with the California Service Center.

VSC notes that in this instance, the term “cap exempt” refers only to those petitioners who are exempt from the numerical limitations identified in 8 CFR 214.2 (h)(8)(i)(A). “Cap exempt” petitioners are those described in 8 CFR 214.2(h)(19)(iii), and include:

Take a look at this second grader who asked First Lady Michelle Obama whether the President was going to “take away” people who didn’t have “papers”. Apparently, the child’s mother had expressed some fear in the privacy of their home.

Michelle Obama, who is also the nation’s “First Mom” handled the question beautifully, assuring the little girl that the broken immigration law was a problem Congress would “have to fix”. How do you think the first lady handled this question?

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.