On January 25 and 27, 2017, President signed several Executive Orders. Here are the links to full text of three Executive Orders on Immigration:

1. Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements (01-25-2017)
2. Enhancing Security in the Interior of the United States (01-25-2017)
3. Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States (01-27-2017)

Executive Order Number 1 concerns building a wall along the 2,000 mile border between the US and Mexico.

Executive Order Number 2 would prioritize the deportation or removal of criminals from USA. It would also compel state and local agencies to participate in federal deportation program, by targeting so called Sanctuary Cities, Districts, states. If a sanctuary city doesn't comply, the federal funding can be cut off. Lawsuits are expected to follow. Some jurisdictions, such as, for example, Miami, already declared that they are abolishing their sanctuary city status.

Executive Order Number 3 immediately (1) Implemented a travel ban from seven designated predominantly Muslim countries for 90 days (Iran; Iraq; Libya; Somalia; Sudan; Syria; and Yemen); (2) suspended refugee admissions from all countries of the world for 120 days; (3) indefinitely suspended admission for nationals of Syria, and (4) suspends interview waivers at US consulates abroad.

On Monday January 30, 2017, the USCIS has announced that it will put a hold on all applications and petitions benefitting citizens/nationals of the 7 countries (Iran; Iraq; Libya; Somalia; Sudan; Syria; and Yemen), be they in the US or abroad.  That means that a green card holder from one of seven countries cannot be sworn in as a US citizen, or a work permit can't be approved, or a green card application can't be approved -- even if a person was already interviewed, and there are no issues with the person's background and he/she is otherwise eligible for a green card, work permit, visa or US citizenship. Because a person is a "national" of one of the seven countries, his or her application will be placed on hold "until further notice". 

The US Department of State had stopped issuing any visas to nationals from the seven enumerated countries: Iran; Iraq; Libya; Somalia; Sudan; Syria; and Yemen.

If you are a national of one of the seven countries, even if you were already issued a visa, you are no longer able to travel to USA on a that visa while this ban remains in place. Effective January 27, 2017, US Department of State had "provisionally revoked" all visas issued to the nationals of seven countries (click here to read the DoS memorandum).

Even if a national of one of the seven countries has a passport from another "unrestricted" country (dual citizenship), he or she will not be allowed to travel to USA while the ban is in place.  (Update: on Feb 2, 2017, DOS issued a clarification on dual nationals: "We will continue to issue nonimmigrant and immigrant visas to otherwise eligible visa applicants who apply with a passport from an unrestricted country, even if they hold dual nationality from one of the seven restricted countries.")

The executive order also suspends the “interview waiver” program at US consulates abroad. However, ESTA or the Visa Waiver Program is not directly impacted by the new executive order. The “interview waiver” program is a policy whereby some foreign nationals applying for a renewal of a visa abroad are exempt from an in person interview at US consulates since they have been previously screened. By eliminating the interview waiver program, interview wait times at US consulates will likely increase.

The executive order also suspends all refugee admissions for 120 days and indefinitely suspends admission of Syrian refugees for an undefined amount of time. During the 120 days, government agencies are instructed to implement new procedures to help secure the “national interest.”

Upon resumption of the refugee program, the executive order instructs the government to prioritize admission of Christians over other religions, which will result in more lawsuits to follow.

Yes, the executive order still applies to lawful permanent residents. Please keep in mind that the ban was not cancelled but merely modified as it applies to green card holders nationals of one of the seven enumerated countries. 

As of result of litigation, on Sunday, January 29, 2017 DHS stated that permanent residents are allowed to board planes and come to the US, but will undergo additional secondary inspection screening upon their entry. The same day DHS issued a statement stating that allowing permanent residents to enter the US on a “case by case basis” is in the “national interest” but that permanent residents will continue to undergo increased interrogation. Even after DHS’ announcement softening how the ban applies to permanent residents, anyone returning from one of the seven designated countries should anticipate increased interrogation, potential detention and long delays when returning from trips abroad.

Please see our previous posts on executive orders on travel ban and about sanctuary cities here.

A draft copy of a 4th unsigned Executive Order entitled “Protecting American Jobs and Workers by Strengthening the Integrity of Foreign Worker Visa Program” was made available at some websites.  This Order would impact the H-1B and H-4 EAD programs, provide for site visits to L-1 employers and expand the E-Verify Program. It will change the way the H-1B Lottery is operated, giving preference to "the best and the brightest" applicants with the degree from the US university and higher salary.

A good article about the H-1B visas could be found here.

ADVISORY or GUIDANCE for Lawful Permanent Residents of USA, Dual Citizens, People with Pending Applications, Workers, Students and Visitors to the United States:
​

1. If you are from one of the seven countries listed above, do not leave the country unless you do not plan to return to the USA.
2. If you are a lawful permanent resident (a green card holder) from one of the seven countries, beware that the ban also applies to you. The ban was merely modified by DHS. On 01-29-2017, the DHS clarified that they will allow permanent residents to enter the US on a “case by case basis” is in the “national interest” but that permanent residents will continue to undergo increased interrogation and secondary inspection (therefore, they can be denied re-admission to USA). Read our guidance on what to do if you are being denied admission at the airport and the CBP agent tries to take away your green card.
3. If you are from a Muslim country, remember that your country also maybe added to the list of the "banned countries" while you are outside of the USA. 
4. If you are a national from one of the seven countries, and have a visa in your passport, your visa was "provisionally revoked" by the US Dept of State effective 01-27-2017, which means your visa was made invalid and you can't travel to USA.
5. If you are have a pending application/petition for immigration benefits with USCIS and you are from one of the 7 countries, your application will be placed on hold. At this time, this hold is indefinite or "until further notice". It might be possible to file a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus in Federal Court to try to force the government to take action on your pending application/petition.
6. If you are from a Muslim country which is not on the List of 7, you may want to file your application for immigration benefits now before your country is added to the list of banned countries.
7. If you are a green card holder, no matter what country you were born in, you may be wish to apply for naturalization as soon as possible in order to assure that you will be able to travel abroad and can always return to your home in USA in the future.
8. If you are present in the US on temporary visa and wish to extend or change your status, consult an attorney before filing any application.
9. If you are undocumented, see an immigration attorney to see if there are any possibilities for you to apply for lawful status.
10. If you plan to sponsor a relative for a green card, do so immediately as the family-based categories may be severely restricted in the future.
11. If you are on a temporary working visa and wish to apply for a green card, ask your employer to sponsor you now before it's too late.
12. If you are a dual citizen from one of the seven countries and any other country (except USA), you are not allowed to travel to USA. (Update: on Feb 2, 2017, DOS issued a clarification on dual nationals: "We will continue to issue nonimmigrant and immigrant visas to otherwise eligible visa applicants who apply with a passport from an unrestricted country, even if they hold dual nationality from one of the seven restricted countries.") 
13. Even if you are a lawful permanent resident of USA and plan to travel internationally or plan to return to USA after a trip abroad, you should consult an attorney.
14. The EO also suspends the “interview waiver” program at US consulates abroad. Importantly, ESTA or the Visa Waiver Program is not directly impacted by the new EO. The “interview waiver” program is a policy whereby some foreign nationals applying for a renewal of a visa abroad are exempt from an in person interview at US consulates since they have been previously screened. By eliminating the interview waiver program, interview wait times at US consulates will likely increase.

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS:

​What to Do If a LPR is Asked to Relinquish Their Green Card and Sign Form I-407, Abandonment of LPR Status When Returning to USA.

​This is a helpful reminder, which became important in light of recent events following an executive order when a number of lawful permanent residents (LPRs) were made to sign Forms I-407, were not allowed into the U.S., and returned to the foreign countries were they came from.

First of all, upon returning to the U.S., Legal Permanent Residents (LPR) should not automatically surrender their green cards if asked to do so.

An individual does not lose LPR status as a result of time abroad. They remain an LPR until a final order of removal is issued by Immigration Court and the government must prove abandonment by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence which a higher evidentiary standard than clear and convincing. See Matter of Huang, 19 I&N Dec. 749 (BIA 1988).

Form I-407 must be signed voluntarily and there are no potential negative ramifications for refusing to sign. Neither failure to sign nor abandonment is grounds for detention.

***If a LPR refuses to sign Form I-407 and insists on being admitted to the United States, the CBP officer must issue a Notice to Appear (NTA) so that an immigration judge can determine whether they have lost their LPR status.
When abandonment question is raised, a LPR can offer evidence of the following: their ties to the U.S., the purpose of their visit outside of the U.S., and the expected termination date of the visit abroad or occurrence of facts showing why a date certain is or was not possible. Precedent decision Matter of Kane, 15 I&N Dec. 258 (BIA 1975). The burden of proof at this stage is preponderance of the evidence, which is more likely than not (more than 51%) that you did not abandon your residence in USA. See Matter of Y-G-, 20 I&N Dec. 794 (BIA 1994).

Totality of the circumstances are relevant and must be considered. If the officer is nevertheless, not convinced, you should ask for a hearing before an immigration judge.

***If your green card is confiscated, you must be provided with alternative evidence of their LPR status, such as an I-94 and/or passport stamp that says "Evidence of Temporary Residence."
Abandonment of residence is not a ground of inadmissibility. Thus, the basis for the NTA is violation of INA §237(a)(1)(A) for being inadmissible at the time of admission because LPRs travel abroad and reenter the U.S. as "special immigrants" per INA §101(a)(27).

A LPR who is placed in removal proceedings, doesn't lose his or her status until a final order of removal is issued by Immigration Judge. See 8 CFR §1.2 (defining "lawfully admitted for permanent resident"). Read more at AILA Doc. No. 17012960.

In Russian:

ЗНАЙ СВОИ ПРАВА:

ЧТО ДЕЛАТЬ, ЕСЛИ ВЫ ПОСТОЯННЫЙ ЖИТЕЛЬ США (У ВАС ГРИН КАРТА), И НА ВЪЕЗДЕ В США, СОТРУДНИК ИММИГРАЦИОННОЙ СЛУЖБЫ ПЫТАЕТСЯ ОТОБРАТЬ ВАШУ ГРИН КАРТУ, ЗАСТАВЛЯЕТ ВАС ПОДПИСАТЬ ФОРМУ I-407, И ПЫТАЕТСЯ ВЫДВОРИТЬ ВАС ИЗ СТРАНЫ.

Полезная памятка для грин карт холдеров (постоянных жителей США), которые возвращаются в США и которых принуждают к отказу от грин карты и сдаче грин карты прямо в аэропорту сотруднику CBP. Эта ситуация случается нередко в аэропортах, но в последнее время требования к отказу участились, и нередко без веских оснований.

Помните, что если вас принуждают к подписи на форме I-407, Отказ от грин карты, вы не обязаны ее подписывать. Если вы не согласны и не хотите лишаться вида еа жительство в США, то не подписывайте эту форму.

Если сотрудник CBP продолжает настаивать, что вы потеряли свое резиденство (вид на жительство) в США, например, из-за длительного отсутствия за пределами США (более года), или потому, что вы являетесь лицом родившимся или имеющим паспорт из одной из семи стран на Ближнем Востоке, указанных в недавнем указе президента от 27 января 2017 г  - то они должны вас все же впустить в страну и выписать форму NTA, приглашение на явку в иммиграционный суд США, куда они должны передать ваше дело для решения вопроса о том, потеряли ли вы статус постоянного жителя или нет.

Помните, что хотя существует презумпция, что статус "автоматически" теряется после более одного года, проведенного за границей, но на самом деле все не так уж автоматически. Государство должно это доказать, и у вас есть право на доказательство своей правоты в иммиграционном суде США. Только судья может принять решение  том, чтобы отобрать у вас грин карту, а не сотрудник в аэропорту (естественно, вы можете решить отказаться от своей грин карты и добровольно ее отдать и подписать форму I-407).

Full text of January 27 2017 executive order "PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES" can be found here.

Update from DHS 01-29-2017:

STATEMENT BY DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY JOHN KELLY ON THE ENTRY OF LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENTS INTO THE UNITED STATES
WASHINGTON – In applying the provisions of the president's executive order, I hereby deem the entry of lawful permanent residents to be in the national interest.
Accordingly, absent the receipt of significant derogatory information indicating a serious threat to public safety and welfare, lawful permanent resident status will be a dispositive factor in our case-by-case determinations.
------------------------------

Updated 01-29-2017: Importantly, however, Lawful Permanent Residents of the United States traveling on a valid I-551 (aka Green Card) will be allowed to board U.S. bound aircraft and will be assessed for exceptions at arrival ports of entry, as appropriate.  The entry of these individuals, subject to national security checks, is in the national interest. Therefore, we expect swift entry for these individuals.

​Read here 
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/29/protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states
​---------------------------------------------

The 90-day visa moratorium and ban on entry to USA extends beyond just citizens of Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Libya and Yemen, the US Dept of State officials said. It also applies to DUAL citizens.

For example, if you are holding an Italian or UK passport, and normally can travel to USA without a visa on a Visa Waiver program, now under the new executive order, you will not be able to travel on your second European passport if you are also a national of one of the seven enumerated nations.

New executive order also applies to lawful permanent residents of the United States.

Please note that even if you have a green card and happen to be a native/national of one of the enumerated counties - stay put and avoid international travel for the next 90 days because you may not be allowed to return home to the US after a trip abroad.

Google said more than 100 employees who were out of the country on vacation or work assignments are subject to the order and afraid they won't be able to return to USA using their green cards or visas.

As per decision of federal judge of January 28, 2017, "there is imminent danger that, absent the stay of removal, there will be substantial and irreparable injury to refugees, visa-holders, and other individuals from nations subject" to Trump's order.

The federal judge ruled in favor of a habeas corpus petition filed by attorneys of  two Iraqis. 

Text of the habeas corpus petition can be found here.

Exception: The dual-citizenship ban doesn’t apply to U.S. citizens who are also citizens of the seven nations enumerated in executive order, and to holders of diplomatic passports.
​
“Travelers who have nationality or dual nationality of one of these countries will not be permitted for 90 days to enter the United States or be issued an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa,” a State Department official said. “Those nationals or dual nationals holding valid immigrant or nonimmigrant visas will not be permitted to enter the United States during this period. Visa interviews will generally not be scheduled for nationals of these countries during this period.”

January 29, 2017 DHS Press Release in response to recent litigation regarding the president's executive orders:
"The Department of Homeland Security will continue to enforce all of President Trump’s Executive Orders in a manner that ensures the safety and security of the American people. President Trump’s Executive Orders remain in place—prohibited travel will remain prohibited, and the U.S. government retains its right to revoke visas at any time if required for national security or public safety. President Trump’s Executive Order affects a minor portion of international travelers, and is a first step towards reestablishing control over America's borders and national security...
The Department of Homeland Security will comply with judicial orders; faithfully enforce our immigration laws, and implement President Trump’s Executive Orders to ensure that those entering the United States do not pose a threat to our country or the American people."

You can read full text here. 

On the same day, January 29, 2017, the CEOs of Google, Twitter, Facebook and Apple all issued statements condemning the ban and complaining that the order was pushed through so quickly it left great uncertainty about the status of some of their best employees.

In Russian:

В соответствии с указом президента от 27 января 2017 запрет на въезд в США на 90 дней распространяется не только на граждан Сирии, Ирака, Ирана, Ливии, Судана и Йемена, НО и на людей с ДВОЙНЫМ ГРАЖДАНСТВОМ.

Например, если у вас есть второе гражданство и паспорт Германии, Англии, Италии, и обычно вам не нужна виза на въезд в США, то по новым правилам вы не сможете въехать в США, т.к. вам будет отказано во въезде на основании того, что у вас есть второе гражданство из одной из стран, названных в указе.

Также запрет распространяется на постоянных жителей США (людей с грин картами), которые являются гражданами или выходцами из стран, названных в указе.

Решение федерельного судьи от 28 января 2017, ограничило применение указа по отношении тех лиц, которые уже въехали в США и находятся в аэропортах, или летят в США на борту самолета. Эта ситуация быстро меняется и ожидаются новые решения федеральных судей по конституционости нового указа.

Посольства и консульства США уже перестали выдавать любые визы гражданам из этих стран, и советуют не приходить на интервью даже если вам было назначено и вы заплатили за визу и интервью, т.к. вам откажут в визе.

On January 17, 2017, a new rule requiring automatic extension of a work permit for additional 180 days after the expiration date was published at Federal Register.

Federal Register: "Finally provide additional stability and certainty to U.S. employers and individuals eligible for employment authorization in the United States, this final rule changes several DHS regulations governing the processing of applications for employment authorization.

First, to minimize the risk of any gaps in employment authorization, this final rule automatically extends the validity of Employment Authorization Documents (EADs or Forms I-766) in certain circumstances based on the timely filing of EAD renewal applications." 

Concurrently, DHS eliminates the regulatory provisions that require adjudication of the Application for Employment Authorization (Form I-765 or EAD application) within 90 days of filing and that authorize interim EADs in cases where such adjudications are not conducted within the 90-day timeframe.

See final 8 CFR 247a.13(d).

17 января 2017 в Федеральном Регистре были опубликованы изменения в процедуру продления разрешения на работу. Это было сделано бывшей администрацией президента. 

Новое правило установило порядок автоматическое продление срока действия разрешения на работу на 180 дней, пока ваше заявление на продление находится на рассмотрении, учитывая, что подано вовремя до истечения срока действия предыдущего разрешения на работу. 

В соответствии с новым правилом, после подачи заявления в USCIS на продление разрешения на работу, форма USCIS I-765, пока заявление рассматривается, заявителям пришлют по почте форму нового образца (форма I-797), которая будет автоматически продлевать предыдущее разрешение на работу на 180 дней.

Полный перечень заявителей, на которых распространяются эти правила внизу.

List of the work permit renewal applicants, who are authorized automatic 180-day extension:

1) Aliens admitted as refugees (274a.12(a)(3))
2) Aliens granted asylum (274a.12(a)(3))
3) Aliens admitted as parents or dependent children of aliens granted permanent residence under section 101(a)(27)(I) of the INA (274a.12(a)(7))
4) Aliens admitted to the United States as citizens of the Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, or Palau under agreements between the United States and those nations (274a.12(a)(8))
5) Aliens granted withholding of deportation or removal (274a.12(a)(10))
6) Aliens granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS) (regardless of the employment authorization category on their current EADs) (274a.12(a)(12) and (c)(19))
7) Aliens who have properly filed applications for TPS and who have been deemed prima facie eligible for TPS under 8 CFR 244.10(a) and have received an EAD as a “temporary treatment benefit” under 8 CFR 244.10(e) and 274a.12(c)(19)
8) Aliens who have properly filed applications for asylum or withholding of deportation or removal (274a.12(c)(8))
9) Aliens who have filed applications for adjustment of status under section 245 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1255 (274a.12(c)(9))
10) Aliens who have filed applications for suspension of deportation under section 244 of the INA (as it existed prior to April 1, 1997), cancellation of removal under section 240A of the INA, or special rule cancellation of removal under section 309(f)(1) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (274a.12(c)(10))
11) Aliens who have filed applications for creation of record of lawful admission for permanent residence (274a.12(c)(16))
12) Aliens who have properly filed legalization applications pursuant to section 210 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1160 (274a.12(c)(20))
13) Aliens who have properly filed legalization applications pursuant to section 245A of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1255a (274a.12(c)(22))
14) Aliens who have filed applications for adjustment of status pursuant to section 1104 of the LIFE Act (274a.12(c)(24))
15) Aliens who are the principal beneficiaries or qualified children of approved VAWA self-petitioners, under the employment authorization category “(c)(31)”

​

​What is a Sanctuary city or a county? Sanctuary cities or counties offer safe harbor for undocumented immigrants who might otherwise be deported by federal immigration law enforcement officials, and refuse to participate in federal efforts to deport city's or county's residents without a proper warrant.  Usually, police in a sanctuary city is not interested in immigration status of people arrested or detained, or refuse to honor ICE "detainer" (request "to hold" an alien for ICE without a proper warrant).
There are approximately 140 sanctuary jurisdictions -- cities and counties -- across the U.S., including at least 37 cities -- San Francisco, New York, Chicago, Seattle, Boston and Los Angeles, among others. 

You can view a Map of Sanctuary cities, counties and states here .

Новый указ президента от 25 января 2017, касающийся прекращения федерального финансирования городов и округов в США, которые не выдают нелегальных иммигрантов иммиграционной полиции без ордера - Sanctuary Cities and Counties. Read in Russian below.

On Wednesday, January 25, 2017, President Trump signed an executive order that would withhold federal grant money from sanctuary cities.

"Jurisdictions that willfully refuse to comply with federal immigration laws," the order says, “are not eligible to receive Federal grants, except as deemed necessary for law enforcement purposes by the attorney general or the secretary."

Many mayors, including Chicago, Bay Area's largest cities, Oakland, San Francisco and San Jose, and the City of Berkeley said they’d defy the order.

However, this Executive Order scared many city officials who are afraid to lose federal funding for their programs. A day after president signed the order, Miami-Dade County Mayor ordered officials to abandon a sanctuary city status, and ordered county jails to begin complying with federal immigration detention demands, becoming the first mayor to abandon the sanctuary status over the fear that his city would lose millions in federal funds. 

The Executive Order does not specify how much or what kind of funding would be or could be blocked, although White House press secretary said that the homeland security secretary would “look at funding streams that are going to those cities and look at how we can defund those streams.”

Just a bit of statistics. In 2016, a Justice Department inspector general’s report investigated how much in Justice Department federal grants some sanctuary jurisdictions receive (as of Mar. 2016). Over 60 percent of the funding goes to 10 jurisdictions identified by the report:

• Connecticut: $69,305,444
• California $132,409,635
• Orleans Parish, Louisiana: $4,737,964
• New York, New York: $60,091,942
• Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: $16,505,312
• Cook County, Illinois: $6,018,544
• Chicago, Illinois: $28,523,222
• Miami-Dade County, Florida: $10,778,815
• Milwaukee, Wisconsin: $7,539,572
• Clark County, Nevada: $6,257,951

As reported by The Hill, new Executive Order on sanctuary cities is unlikely to threaten their federal funding.

Sec. 9 of the Order clarifies that “sanctuary jurisdictions” are those that “willfully refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373.” The administration intends to withhold Federal grants from those jurisdictions, “except as deemed necessary for law enforcement purposes,” and from any that have a policy that “prevents or hinders the enforcement of Federal law."

In fact, the EO is extremely narrow in scope, and the many reports of cities like Boston and Los Angeles being under threat of losing millions of dollars are simply wrong.

8 U.S.C. 1373 bans state and local policies that prohibit the sharing of information with the federal government about the immigration status of an individual.

However, while there is no uniform set of actions being implemented by sanctuary cities, few, if any, have policies in place that actually conflict with this particular federal law. Instead, they generally do one of two things, or both:
1) Ban law enforcement from asking a person about their immigration status.
2) Prohibit keeping a person in jail beyond the time they’re required to be there upon receipt of a federal immigration detainer request.
Number one basically creates an end-run. This won’t trigger a withdrawal of federal funds under 8 U.S.C. 1373 because agencies can’t share information they don’t have.
Number two has already proven to be particularly troublesome for the federal government, and will likely continue to be so.

Sec. 7 of his order calls for the hiring of 10,000 additional ICE immigration officers.
It is important to keep in mind that under the anti-commandeering doctrine, the Supreme Court has long-held that the federal government cannot force state or local governments to implement or enforce federal laws or regulatory programs.

For example, in the 1842 case, Prigg v. Pennsylvania, the Court held that while the federal Fugitive Slave Act could not be physically impeded by states, they simply weren’t required to help the federal government capture runaway slaves and return them to bondage in the South.

And in the 2012 case, N.F.I.B v. Sebelius, the Court held that states can’t be forced to expand their Medicaid programs, even under the threat of losing federal funding, as the Affordable Care Act attempted to do.

Sec. 8 of new EO explains how the new administration intends to do so: the federal government intends to “empower State and local law enforcement agencies … to perform the functions of an immigration officer.” To achieve that goal the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is directed to work with governors and local officials to “enter into agreements” to perform federal immigration enforcement duties. The order also includes a big caveat, the agreements will be made “with the consent of State or local officials, as appropriate.”

In short, while Trump is certainly ramping up the pressure to fulfill campaign promises to take on “sanctuary cities,” should cities and states hold fast in their policies, they’ll likely come out on top in court, and on the ground. 

 Briefly in Russian:
​
Новый указ президента от 25 января 2017, касающийся прекращения федерального финансирования городов и округов в США, которые не выдают нелегальных иммигрантов иммиграционной полиции без ордера - Sanctuary Cities and Counties.

25 января 2017 новый президент подписал указ о прекращении федерального финансирования некоторых программ в тех городах и округах США, которые отказываются выдавать нелегальных иммигрантов полиции.

Что такое город или округ, кторый не выдает нелагальных иммигрантов федеральной иммиграционной полиции США? Как именно они это делают?

В США около 140 городов и округов, которые считаются sanctuary cities. Карта таких городов может быть найдена тут.  Например, Чикаго, Сан Франциско, Сиэттл, Бостон, Лос Анджелес.

По некоторым данным, даже округ Дуглас, в котором находится город Омаха, штат Небраска, а также Сарпи округ и Ланкастер округ все они в настоящий момент являются такими округами.

Но Мэр города Омаха и прокурор округа Ланкастер сразу же после выхода нового указа выступили с заявлением, что город Омаха не является sanctuary city, и поэтому новый указ президента на Омаху не распространяется, и в результате город не должен потерять никаких федеральных грантов.

Как города о округа поддерживают такой статус и зачем это нужно?

Полиция в таких городах считает, что их основная работа - это борьба с преступностью и обеспечение порядка. И в их обязанности не входит выяснение иммиграционного статуса (или отсутствие статуса/визы) у нарушителей закона (например, при обычной остановке водителя за нарушение правил). То есть полиция в таких городах просто этих вопросов не задает задержанным лицам.

Или же второй вариант, полиция и тюрьмы в таких городах и округах отказываются держать в заключении иностранца (за счет города) после того, как его срок задержания под стражей истек, и если иммиграционная полиция вместе с дитейнером (запросом "подержать этого гражданина под стражей подольше для ICE") не получила официальный ордер на арест и задержание.

Это конституционная норма, что отдельные штаты не могут устанавливать свои иммиграционные законы (это прерогатива федерального правительства), и как следствие, во многих случаях штаты и города не обязаны помогать федеральному правительству с депортацией иммигрантов (так как это дело федеральных органов власти и полиции).

Суть нового указа президента заключается в том, что хотя федеральное правительство США не имеет право заставить отдельные штаты помогать им в области иммиграции и депортации, НО они пытаются принудить города и штаты к сотрудничеству, путем угрозы удержания федерального финансирования. ​

TSA to Notify Travelers of Upcoming 2018 REAL ID Airport Enforcement.

Beginning January 22, 2018 TSA will start enforcing REAL ID requirements at all airport security checkpoints, meaning that travelers seeking to use their state-issued driver’s license or identification card for boarding commercial aircraft may only use such documents if they are issued by a REAL ID compliant state or a non-compliant state with an extension.

Effective January 22, 2018, TSA will only accept state-issued driver’s licenses or identification cards if they are issued by a REAL ID compliant state or a non-compliant state with an extension. As always, travelers may use alternate forms of identification such as a passport, military ID, or permanent resident card. A complete list of identification documents accepted at TSA checkpoints is available on tsa.gov and at dhs.gov here.

The REAL ID Act, passed by Congress in 2005, establishes the minimum security standards for state-issued driver’s licenses and identification cards.

List of acceptable ID documents: 

IdentificationAdult passengers 18 and over must show valid identification at the airport checkpoint in order to travel. TSA does not require children under 18 to provide identification when traveling with a companion within the United States. Contact the airline for questions regarding specific ID requirements for travelers under 18.

• Driver's licenses or other state photo identity cards issued by Department of Motor Vehicles (or equivalent)
• U.S. passport
• U.S. passport card
• DHS trusted traveler cards (Global Entry, NEXUS, SENTRI, FAST)
• U.S. military ID (active duty or retired military and their dependents, and DoD civilians)
• Permanent resident card
• Border crossing card
• DHS-designated enhanced driver's license
• Airline or airport-issued ID (if issued under a TSA-approved security plan)
• Federally recognized, tribal-issued photo ID
• HSPD-12 PIV card
• Foreign government-issued passport
• Canadian provincial driver's license or Indian and Northern Affairs Canada card
• Transportation worker identification credential
• U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Employment Authorization Card (I-766), work permit
• U.S. Merchant Mariner Credential

ID requirements at the checkpoint will change beginning Jan. 22, 2018.
You can check if your state and your driver's license is in compliance with federal Real ID Act here.

Briefly in Russian:

Сегодня TSA напомнила, что начиная с 22 января 2018 года в аэропортах в США TSA будут принимать только те водительские права, которые выданы штатами США, полностью в соответствии с требованиями закона Real ID Act или теми штатами, кторые получили отсрочку.

Некоторые штаты США до сих пор выдают водительские права, которые не соответствуют требованиям этого закона. Тем кто путешествуют по таким "несоответствующим" водительским правам после 22 января 2018 г будет отказано в посадке на рейс в аэророрту.

Список штатов, водительские права которых соответствуют Real ID Act, штатов, которые получили отсрочку, или штатов, которые до сих пор не соответствуют закону - тут по ссылке.

​

AAO issued a decision in a case involving grant of U visa, I-918 approval, where a U visa applicant had a previous deportation or removal order reinstated after second illegal entry.

In the new case decided on 01-12-2017, AAO held that once USCIS grants U nonimmigrant status to an individual, any prior or reinstated exclusion, deportation, or removal order is CANCELLED by operation of law. 8 C.F.R. § 214.14(c)(5)(i ).

Accordingly, it is not proper to subsequently revoke U nonimmigrant status based on a reinstated order that was issued prior to the approval of the U petition.

See full text of the decision here.

Briefly in Russian:

12 января 2017 Офис Административных апелляций по иммиграционным делам США вынес решение по делу выдачи визы для жертвы преступления, U виза, которая также имела ордер о депортации, и нелегально въехала в США после депортации, из-за чего старый ордер о депортации был восстановлен.

​ААО принял решение, что если иммиграционная служба США утвердила визу U для жертвы преступления, то все предыдушие ордеры о депортации автоматически аннулируются, и она не может быть депортирована из США.

Текст судебного решения тут.
​

On January 17, 2017, USCIS updated the following USCIS form(s):

- Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status
New edition dated 01/17/17. Starting 02/21/17, USCIS will only accept the 01/17/17 edition. Until then, you can use previous editions. However, all filings postmarked 12/23/16 or later must include the new fees or we will reject them.
- Form I-485 Supplement A to Form I-485, Adjustment of Status Under Section 245(i)
New edition dated 01/17/17. Starting 02/21/17, USCIS will only accept the 01/17/17 edition.
- Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker
New edition dated 01/17/17. Previous editions dated 12/23/16, 08/13/15, 03/26/15 and 10/23/14 are also accepted. However, all filings postmarked 12/23/16 or later must include the new fees or we will reject them.
- Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker
New edition dated 01/17/17. Starting 02/21/17, USCIS will only accept the 01/17/17 edition.
- Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization
New edition dated 01/17/17. Starting 02/21/17, USCIS will only accept the 01/17/17 edition.

Briefly in-Russian: 

17 января 2017 иммиграционная служба США обновила формы нескольких важных иммиграционных заявлений, включая заявление на грин карту I-485 и на разрешение на работу I-765 (а также I-129, I-140 etc). Старые формы действительны только по 21 февраля 2017. Рекомендуется использовать новые формы, не дожидаясь февраля, и не забывать о том, что суммы госпошлин тоже поменялись 23 декабря 2016. Новые формы уже опубликованы на вебсайте иммиграционной службы.

You can see all current and valid USCIS immigration forms and filing fees here.

On January 17, 2017, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a final rule International Entrepreneur Rule or "Startup Parole" to improve the ability of certain foreign start-up founders to begin growing their companies within the United States.

Under this final rule, DHS may use its "PAROLE" authority to grant a "Startup Parole", or a period of authorized stay, on a case-by-case basis, to foreign entrepreneurs who demonstrate that their stay in the United States would provide a significant public benefit through the potential for rapid business growth and job creation.

The new rule effective date is July 17, 2017, which is 180 days after its publication in the Federal Register.

This final rule adds a new section 8 CFR 212.19 to provide guidance with respect to the use of parole for entrepreneurs of start-up entities based upon significant public benefit. 

DHS estimates that 2,940 entrepreneurs will be eligible under this rule annually. Eligible entrepreneurs may be granted a stay of up to 30 months, with the possibility to extend the period by up to 30 additional months if they meet certain criteria, in the discretion of DHS.

Under this final rule, eligibility may be extended to up to three entrepreneurs per start-up entity, as well as spouses and children. Entrepreneurs granted stays will be eligible to work only for their start-up business. Their spouses may apply for work authorization in the United States, but their children will not be eligible.An applicant would need to demonstrate that he or she meets the following criteria to be considered under this rule:

• The applicant possesses a substantial ownership interest in a start-up entity created within the past five years in the United States that has substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation.
• The applicant has a central and active role in the start-up entity such that the applicant is well-positioned to substantially assist with the growth and success of the business.
• The applicant can prove that his or her stay will provide a significant public benefit to the United States based on the applicant’s role as an entrepreneur of the start-up entity by:
  • Showing that the start-up entity has received a significant investment of capital from certain qualified U.S. investors with established records of successful investments;
  • Showing that the start-up entity has received significant awards or grants for economic development, research and development, or job creation (or other types of grants or awards typically given to start-up entities) from federal, state or local government entities that regularly provide such awards or grants to start-up entities; or

Showing that they partially meet either or both of the previous two requirements and providing additional reliable and compelling evidence of the start-up entity’s substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation.

Briefly in Russian:

Стартап Пароль или Виза на 30 месяцев для предпринимателей в США.
17 января 2017, Иммиграционная служба США (USCIS / DHS) опубликовала новый Закон по поощрению предпринимательства и стартапов в США.

Иностранным бизнесменам и предпринимателям открывающим новый бизнес в США (и членам семей - супругам и детям) будет предоставлятся Пароль (разрешение на въезд и проживание в США сроком на 30 месяцев с продлением, разрешение на работу для предпринимателя и его супруга(-и), но не детей).

Закон вступает в силу 17 июля 2017 года.

Новый статус Пароль для предпринимателей стартапа будут доступен лицам, чьи стартапы были сформированы в течение последних 5 лет, при условии что данный инвестор продолжает играть в нем “центральную и активную роль”. 

Одна стартап компания сможет получить пароли не более, чем на 3-х своих иностранных учредителей (плюс члены их семей). 

Супруги предпринимателя будут иметь право подать заявление на разрешение на работу, и смогут работать в любом бизнесе или организации, а не только в стартапе. Сам предприниматель имеет право только руководить и работать в своем стартапе. Дети предпринимателя не имеют право на работу, находясь в США по этому паролю.

Госпошлина в USCIS за подачу заявления на такой Пароль составит US$1,200.

Предприниматель должен владеть не менее чем 10% от стартапа, при этом показать, что стартап имеет потенциал для быстрого роста и создания новых рабочих мест. Это показывается:

А) наличием американского инвестора, который инвестировал от US$250,000 в стартап, или
В) получением государственных грантов от US$100,000; или
С) частично # А или # В выше с предоставлением "убедительных доказательств", что стартап обеспечит «значительный положительный эффект для общества" в США.

Предприниматель сможет продлить Пароль по истечении 30 месяцев, если он докажет, что стартап создал как минимум 5 рабочих мест, соответствующим требованиям закона, и его доля в стартапе не упала ниже 5 процентов.

​Все детали внизу по линку.

​​You can read the new rule in the Federal Register or download the PDF file here.​

​Полезная информация (контакты, даты, сроки, как с ними связаться) об иммиграционной службе США, Национальном Визовом Центре, офисах по политубежищу, посольствам и консульствам США.
​
USCIS or DHS website where you can find USCIS contact number, webforms and download all applications and forms for free is here.

USCIS Case Status: you can check status of your pending case online here.

USCIS Processing Times: you can see how fast cases are being adjudicated or decided by different USCIS / DHS offices around the United States here.

USCIS Change of Address Form Online: you can submit your change of address form online here.

USCIS Case Inquiry Webforms: you can submit your questions or case inquiry directly to USCIS by using one of the webforms here.

How to find USCIS field offices, ASC Application Support Centers, Asylum officers - use USCIS Officer Locator here.

How to Find a Medical Doctor for a USCIS I-693 Medical Examination - use USCIS Designated Doctor Locator. 

How to verify if a particular USCIS office is open or closed due to bad weather or other circumstances - use USCIS Office Closings Daily Bulletin, which is updated daily. 

USCIS International Offices Processing Times - use this link to find out current processing times at USCIS offices located overseas.

Asylum Office Scheduling Bulletin is posted by Asylum Office here.

US Department of State Monthly Visa Bulletin: you can find monthly visa bulletin and check how fast your priority date is progressing here.

NVC National Visa Center contact information - if you need to contact NVC regarding a pending case.

You can find out current Visa Fees for various visas to USA here.

Know Your Rights: What to do during the ICE or immigration raid at work, at home, in a public place; what questions you must answer and when you shall remain current. Download a PDF file in English here. 

To schedule a consultation with an experienced immigration attorney who speaks English and Russian, please email us to schedule.

​

​Warning: Please beware of scammers pretending to be U.S. government, or USCIS or US embassy or consulate officials, and using @usa.com email addresses.

Usa.com is NOT an official government website - even if it has USA in it. If you receive an email from someone using @usa.com email address, please keep in mind that they are not affiliated with the U.S. government. Govemnte officials use email addresses @gov not @com.

Government websites and email addresses use .gov, and very rarely some affiliated websites use .com (for example, a website to register a passport and schedule a date of a visa interview).

​You can see the list of the most common immigration scams here. 

In Russian: 

Не доверяйте скаммерам, притворяющимся сотрудниками иммиграционной службы США или посольства США, которые связываются с вами с адресов @usa.com или подобных .com адресов -- помните, что если адрес заканчивается на .com - это частный емейл сервер, частная компания или фирма, а не государственная служба.

Официальные вебсайты иммиграционной службы США или посольства США используют официальные емейл адреса, заканчивающиеся на gov. Официальный вебсайт иммиграционной службы США USCIS - www.uscis.gov .  Главный официальный вебсайт Госдепартамента США - www.state.gov , и все американских посольства и консульства имеют официальные вебсайты. Также подача заявлений на визы в США и регистрация паспортов для виз осуществляется ТОЛЬКО через официальные вебсайты Госдепа США. Большинство вебсайтов заканчиваются на .gov, и только некоторые на .com - например, для получения инструкций, дат собеседования и регистрации паспортов - http://www.ustraveldocs.com .

Не попадайтесь на удочку мошенников! 

Вы можете почитать о наиболее распространенных мошеннических схемах в области иммиграции и как их распознать на официальном вебсайте США тут. 
​

02/02/2017 UPDATE:

C 7 февраля 2017 года ФСБ России вводит режим пограничной зоны вдоль границы с Белоруссией. 
​
Пределы пограничной зоны устанавливаются в Брянской, Смоленской и Псковской областях вдоль белорусской границы. Приказы главы ФСБ вступают в силу 7 февраля 2017. Сами документы датированы 29 декабря.

Как известно, в феврале 2017 года в Белоруссии начинает действовать безвизовый режим для граждан 80 стран, включая весь Евросоюз и США. Новые правила будут применяться только к туристам, прибывающим в Белоруссию не более чем на пять суток.

Власти Белоруссии подчеркивали, что новый порядок не будет распространяться на лиц, намеревающихся осуществить вылет в аэропорты России, и лиц, прилетающих из российских аэропортов. Пограничный контроль на таких рейсах сейчас не осуществляется.

О введении Белоруссией безвизового режима было объявлено 9 января 2017. Через неделю белорусские СМИ сообщили о том, что на рейсах из Минска в Москву во всех аэропортах прилета начали проверять пас​порта.

​Read more here. 

-------------------------------
​
Belarus signed a new law: effective February 9, 2017, citizens of 80 countries, including USA, Canada, EU, Japan, can visit Belarus for up to 5 days without a visa, visa-free, if arriving in Belarus at Minsk International Airport. Effective date is Feb 9, 2017.

This is a very welcome news for many Americans, citizens of Poland, EU and many other countries, who can now visit their families in Belarus without having to apply for a visitor's visa.

Беларусь вводит пятидневный безвизовый режим для граждан 80 стран, включая граждан США, Канада, Евросоюз, Япония, при условии, что они прилетают в Беларусь через международный аэропорт в Минске и имеют медстраховку.

​Официальный источник - офис Президента - 
http://president.gov.by/ru/news_ru/view/belarus-vvodit-pjatidnevnyj-bezvizovyj-rezhim-dlja-grazhdan-80-stran-15342/

Starting on December 29, 2016, citizens of Kazakhstan applying for a B1/B2 visitor, tourist or business visa to USA at the U.S. Embassy or Consulates in Kazakhstan will be able to receive a 10-year multiple entry visa.  

Simultaneously, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Kazakhstan introduced ten-year validity visas for U.S. business and tourism visitors to Kazakhstan.

In addition, starting January 1, 2017, U.S. citizens visiting Kazakhstan for 30 days or less can do so without a visa. Starting January 1, citizens of EU and OECD countries, as well as Malaysia, Monaco, the United Arab Emirates, and Singapore could also travel to Kazakhstan for up to 30 days without a visa.

(Last month, Uzbekistan introduced visa-free travel for citizens from 27 countries).

The cost to apply for a business or tourism visa remains the same, US$160.

Full information on the visa application process is available here. 

Read more here.

In Russian: С 29 декабря 2016 граждане Казахстана, подающие заявления на гостевые, туристические или бизнес визы в США смогут получить многократные визы, действительные на 10 лет.

Стоимость 10-летней визы остается таже - 160 долларов США.

С 1 января 2017 года, граждане США временно посещающие Казахстан на срок до 30 дней, смогут сделать это без визы (безвизовый режим). Также, граждане США смогут получить 10-летнюю многократную гостевую или бизнес визу в Казахстан.
 

On December 27, 2016,  the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security has designated as precedential the USCIS Administrative Appeals Office’s (AAO) decision in Matter of Dhanasar.  This precedent decision vacated the previous precedent, NYSDOT --  Matter of New York State Dep’t of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Acting Assoc. Comm’r 1998). 
  
The Dhanasar case overview:
 
Mr. Dhanasar has a Ph.D. in aeronautical engineering, 2 M.S. degrees and an impressive credentials and resume, a "rocket scientist". However, when he self-petitioned for a green card under the National Interest Waiver program, the USCIS denied his I-140 petition under the old law (old 1998 precedent, case NYSDOT, which was now overruled by Dhanasar case). The AAO applied a preponderance of the evidence standard and a new NIW test, and decided that: (1) the petitioner’s research in aerospace engineering has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) the petitioner is well positioned to advance his research; and (3) on balance, it is beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. We find that the petitioner has established eligibility for and otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion.

On appeal, on 12/27/2016 the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) concluded that the old precedent, NYSDOT test, was overly restrictive and approved the I-140 petition as a National Interest Waiver. AAO also changed the NIW test.
 
On December 27, 2016, DHS had relaxed rules for applying for NIW National Interest Waiver green card in EB-2 category. It will benefit many potential immigrants who consider applying for a green card under NIW. Many will be able to concurrently submit I-140, I-485, and applications for a work permit and advance parole. Except for India and China, where because of a backlog in EB-2 category, applicants from India and China will be unable to apply immediately for adjustment of status. Being able to qualify for a EB-2 green card as a NIW, will help many to avoid PERM and having an employer to petition for them, and will speed up the process of becoming a permanent resident.
 
This new precedent decision means that USCIS may grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner proves three elements of the test:

(1) that the foreign national’s proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; and
(2) that he or she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and
(3) that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirement of a job offer and thus of a labor certification.
 
The new NIW test still leaves discretion in the USCIS hands to determine whether to approve or deny the National Interest Waiver I-140 EB-2 petition. However, each of the three NIW requirements has been relaxed to make it easier for an applicant to prove his case.  
 
For more information on the AAO please visit www.uscis.gov/aao.
The case can be found in the Virtual Law Library of the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review.
 
Вкратце по-русски:

27 декабря 2016 решение Административного аппеляционного офиса по иммиграционным делам по делу Дханасар было официально признано DHS / USCIS новым прецедентом для всех последующих дел и петиций USCIS I-140 на грин карту по программе Вейвера в Национальных Интересах (National Interest Waiver).
Вкратце факты дела Дханасар: Г-н Дханасар имеет степень доктора наук и две степени мастера, а также длинный послужной список и впечатляюшее резюме, он эксперт в области ракетостроения и космоса. Когда он подал заявление на грин карту по программе Вейвера в Национальных Интересах, ему было отказано по причине несоответствия тесту на NIW в предыдущем прецеденте, деле 1998 года NYSDOT. Старый тест было очень сложно доказать, особенно третье требование.
Новое прецедентное решение ААО в корне изменило старый тест на NIW: все три требования по тесту были изменены и облегчены. В результате многим заявителям будет проще получить грин карту по этой программе, и избежать PERM и петицию от работодателя. Также многие смогут сразу подать заявления на грин карту adjustment of status, разрешение на работу и поездки за границу пока adjustment of status находится на рассмотрении.
Дело Дханасар тут: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/920996/download

​

​ ITIN GUIDE: Information and Updates About the IRS's Individual Tax Identification Number (ITIN)
was prepared by Educators for Fair Consideration (E4FC). The purpose of this guide is to provide information and updates about the IRS's Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN). 

Facts:

• An Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) is a tax processing number issued by the Internal Revenue Service.

• The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issues ITINs to individuals who are required to have a U.S. taxpayer identification number but who do not have, and are not eligible to obtain, a Social Security number (SSN) from the Social Security Administration (SSA).

• ITINs allow individuals ineligible for an SSN to (1) report their earnings to the IRS, (2) open interest-bearing bank accounts with certain banks and, (3) conduct business in the U.S.

• The IRS issues ITINs regardless of immigration status, because both citizens and noncitizens may have a U.S. tax filing or reporting requirement under the Internal Revenue Code.

• ITINs are intended primarily to facilitate federal tax reporting. An ITIN does not authorize work in the U.S. or provide eligibility for Social Security benefits or the Earned Income Tax Credit.

This guide will walk readers through the initial application and renewal process. A separate guide discussing the use of ITINs to earn a living as an independent contractor and entrepreneur is currently being written and will be released in early January.

DOWNLOAD THE GUIDE HERE  http://www.e4fc.org/images/ITIN_Guide.pdf
http://www.e4fc.org/itinguide.html

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS:

Can undocumented individuals apply for an ITIN? Yes. Any individual not eligible for a SSN may apply and file for an ITIN.
Who is eligible to apply for ITIN? Individuals who identify with one the following categories may file for an ITIN:
» Does not have a SSN and are not eligible to obtain one
» Nonresident alien who is required to file a U.S. tax return
» U.S. resident alien who is (based on days present in the United States) filing a U.S. tax return.
» Dependent or spouse of a U.S. citizen/resident alien.
» Dependent or spouse of a nonresident alien visa holder.
Are ITINs valid for identification? No. ITINs are not valid identification outside the federal tax system. Since ITINs are strictly for tax processing, the IRS does not apply the same standards as agencies that provide genuine identity certification (e.g. state IDs/ driver’s license, passports, green cards, etc.).
Can I open a bank account with an ITIN? Yes. Some banks will accept the ITIN instead of the SSN. However, you still need to provide some form of identification. We suggest calling or visiting your local bank or credit union  to ensure they accept the ITIN and inquire about the types of ID they accept.
Do ITINs enable someone to work legally? No. ITINs are for federal income tax purposes only. Getting an ITIN does not change your immigration status or your authorization to work in the United States.
Can ITINs be used as proof of identification to obtain a state driver’s license? No. ITINs are not valid for identification outside the federal tax system. However, some states may accept the ITIN as part of the driver’s license application or verification of residency.
Who should renew their ITIN? Anyone who has not used their ITIN on a federal tax return at least once in the last three years should renew. All ITINs issued before 2013 will begin expiring this year based on a rolling schedule. You will be notified via postal mail (using the address on your most recent income tax form on which the ITIN appears) if your ITIN is expiring.
When does renewal of ITINs begin? January 1, 2017.
Which ITINs are expiring? Individuals who hold ITINs with middle digits of 78 and 79 (e.g. 9NN-78-NNNN). The IRS began sending Letter 5821 to taxpayers with these expiring ITINs in Summer 2016.
When may I renew my ITIN? Taxpayers whose ITINs will expire on January 1, 2017 can begin the renewal process beginning October 1, 2016.
How do I renew my ITIN? Complete your federal tax return, complete W-7 form and provide original documentation (or certified copies of the documentation from the issuing agency) required to support the information provided on Form W-7.
Should I apply or renew an ITIN if I have a valid SSN? No. Any person who applied for and received an SSN will no longer be eligible for an ITIN, since his/her SSN remains valid, even if his/her work authorization expires.
Should I apply or renew an ITIN if I am a DACA recipient? No. If you obtained DACA and used it to get a SSN you should not continue to use or renew your ITIN. Regardless of the possible termination of DACA, the assigned SSN will remain your SSN even if the individual’s work authorization terminates.
A new policy was introduced on June 30, 2016, but it became obsolete with the passage of the Tax Hikes Act of 2015 (PATH Act), enacted on December 18, 2015. The new law states that ITINs that have not been used on a federal tax return at least once in the last three years would no longer be valid for use on a tax return unless renewed by a taxpayer. In addition, ITINs issued prior to 2013 and not used on a federal tax return in the last three years need to be renewed starting October 1, 2016, based on a rolling renewal schedule.
What May Happen if an ITIN is Not Renewed Some individuals may not be aware that their ITIN has expired or that they must renew an expired ITIN. According to the IRS, returns filed by these individuals will be accepted by the IRS; however, there may be a delay in processing these returns, and certain credits, such as the Child Tax Credit6 and the American Opportunity Tax Credit7 , may not be allowed unless the ITIN is renewed. This could result in a reduced refund or additional penalties and interest. The IRS will notify these filers about the delay and any reduction in refunds and credits claimed and will inform them about the need to file Form W-7 to renew their ITIN.
Can I use both ITIN and SSN? No. Holders of Expired ITINs Who Have Obtained or Become Eligible for a SSN An individual with an expired ITIN who has obtained or become eligible for an SSN (for example through DACA) should not renew the ITIN and should discontinue using it. It is improper to use both the ITIN and the SSN assigned to the same person to file tax returns.
How to Notify the IRS About Your New SSN? It is your responsibility to notify the IRS so it can combine all of your tax records under one identification number. If you do not notify the IRS when you are assigned a SSN, you may not receive credit for all wages paid and taxes withheld, which could reduce the amount of any refund due. Individuals who become eligible to obtain a SSN (i.e. DACA or permanent residents) should obtain one from the Social Security Administration (SSA) and visit a local IRS office, or write a letter explaining that you have now been assigned a SSN and want your tax records combined. Include your complete name, mailing address, and ITIN along with a copy of your social security card and a copy of the CP 565, Notice of ITIN Assignment, if available. The IRS will void the ITIN and associate all prior tax information filed under the ITIN with the SSN. Send your letter to: Internal Revenue Service Austin, TX 73301-0057 Note: In addition to sending a letter to the IRS, you may also send letters to the credit agencies requesting to change your ITIN to a SSN. The letter should include name, mailing address and copies of your ITIN, SSN and identification.
Information Specific to DACA Recipients. DACA recipients are eligible to receive a social security number (SSN) and therefore should not continue to use or renew their ITIN. Regardless of the possible termination of DACA, the assigned SSN will remain their SSN even if the individual’s work authorization terminates. As stated above, all people who have obtained a SSN should send letters to the IRS and credit agencies requesting to transfer all tax and credit history from the ITIN to their SSN.
How to apply for ITIN? This information comes directly from the IRS, for additional information see the updated online instructions (Instructions for Form W-7 (09/2016), https://www.irs.gov/ instructions/iw7/index.html ). You may file or renew an ITIN by completing Form W-7 (Application for IRIS ITIN, https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/ fw7.pdf ), which you may download for free on the IRS website. The form and instructions were updated September 2016, so make sure to download and complete the most current version of the forms. The form requires supporting documentation to prove foreign status and identity. The documentation you provide must meet the following requirements:
1. You must submit documentation to establish your identity and your connection to a foreign country (“foreign status”). Applicants claimed as dependents must also prove U.S. residency unless the applicant is from Mexico or Canada or the applicant is a dependent of U.S. military personnel stationed overseas.
2. You must submit original documents, or certified copies of these documents from the issuing agency, that support the information provided on Form W-7. A certified document is one that the original issuing agency provides and certifies as an exact copy of the original document and contains an official stamped seal from the agency. You may be able to request a certified copy of documents at an embassy or consulate. However, services may vary between countries, so it is recommended that you contact the appropriate consulate or embassy for specific information.
3. Note: Original documents you submit will be returned to you at the mailing address shown on your Form W-7. You don’t need to provide a return envelope. Applicants are permitted to include a prepaid Express Mail or courier envelope for faster return delivery of their documents. The IRS will then return the documents in the envelope provided by the applicant. If your original documents aren’t returned within 60 days, you can call the IRS (see Telephone help, earlier). If you will need your documents for any purpose within 60 days of submitting your
Processing times. Allow 7 weeks for the IRS to notify you of your ITIN application status (9 to 11 weeks if you submit the application during peak processing periods (January 15 through April 30) or if you’re filing from overseas). If you haven’t received your ITIN or correspondence at the end of that time, you can call the IRS to find out the status of your application.
Telephone help. Call 1-800-829-1040 if you’re in the United States. If you’re outside the United States, call 267-941-1000 (not a toll-free number) for assistance.
ITIN GUIDE http://www.e4fc.org/images/ITIN_Guide.pdf
​

USCIS reminds applicants and petitioners to pay new fiing fees with forms postmarked or filed on or after Dec. 23, 2016, or they will not be able to accept the filings. USCIS will only accept previous fees if they are postmarked Dec. 22 or earlier.

Beginning on Dec. 23, 2016, you will no longer have a 14-day grace period to correct a failed fee payment. USCIS will immediately reject a benefit request for nonpayment. USCIS will no longer hold benefit requests submitted without the correct biometric services fees. You must pay biometric services fees, if applicable, at the time of filing. USCIS will reject a benefit request if it is received without the correct biometric services fee, if required for an application.

Along with the fee changes, USCIS introduced a reduced fee option for certain low-income naturalization applicants who do not qualify for a fee waiver. For eligibility details and filing instructions, see Form I-942, Request for Reduced Fee, and Form N-400, Application for Naturalization. Please note that this redced fee option is available only for N-400, Application for Naturalization.

As a general rule, ou should always refer to uscis.gov website and review the current rules and filing procedures as they often change.

New filing USCIS fees are available here.

--> Please note that in addition to the new fees schedule, which was announced in advance, USCIS unexpectedly published new updated editions of many immigration forms and applications without any warning. The older editions of these forms are no longer acceptable!
​
Affected forms include the following: I-90, I-102, I-129, I-129CW, I-129F, I-130, I-131, I-131A, I-140, I-191, I-192, I-212, I-290B, I-360, I-485, I-485 Supplement A, I-525, I-539, I-600, I-600A, I-601, I-601A, I-612, I-690, I-694, I-698, I-751, I-765, I-800, I-800A, I-817, I-824, I-910, I-924, I-924A, I-929, I-942, I-942P, N-300, N-336, N-400, N-470, N-600, and N-600K.

Please also note that regardless of the form edition submitted, applications and petitions postmarked or filed on or after December 23, 2016, must include the new fees or USCIS will reject the submission.

Update: USCIS will accept prior versions of forms, with the exception of Form N-400, until February 21, 2017. However, all filings postmarked 12/23/16 or later must include the new fees or we will reject them. USCIS will accept only the 12/23/16 edition of Form N-400, Application for Naturalization.

Напоминание: новые пошлины за иммиграционные заявления и петиции вступили в силу 23 декабря 2016. USCIS примет заявления с оплатой по старым расценкам только, если они отправлены по почте 22 декабря, и на письмах стоит штам почтовой службы 22 декабря 2016 или ранее.

Помните, что теперь по новым правилам USCIS не будет присылать вам запрос на правильную пошлину или запрос на стоимость отпечатков пальцев. По новым правилам, они будут отказывать и возвращать ваши пакеты с заявлениями и петициями без всяких запросов и без 14-дневного периода для досылки чеков на правильную сумму. То есть если вы послали чек на неправильную сумму или забыли оплатить за отпечатки пальцев, то вам вернут весь пакет с документами, и вам придется посылать его еще раз.

Уточнение: USCIS уточнил 29 декабря, что они все же будут принимать старые издания форм, за исключением заявления на гражданство, форма N-400, до 21 февряля 2017 года. Но все заявления должны сопровождаться новыми пошлинами. Только новая форма заявления на гражданство принимается, это издание N-400 датированное 23 декабря 2016.

Новые расценки и пошлины от тут.

Если вам нужна помощь или совет адвоката перед подачей заявлений, пожалуйста свяжитесь с нами по электронной почте.

A an adult Korean adoptee who is awaiting deportation from an immigration detention center in Washington State because he lacks American citizenship, even though he has lived in the United States since he was 3 years old.

Last month, an immigration court denied his final request to stay in the United States.

Officials at South Korea’s Ministry say they know of at least five adoptees who were deported back from the United States. But advocates for Korean adoptees say there may be more than twice as many, some undocumented.
Tossed back to a country they had left decades ago, these adoptees were once again foreigners struggling to adapt to an unfamiliar culture and language.

This can happen to a person who was adopted from a foreign country without following a proper procedure for applying for legal document, a proof his or her US citizenship. Sometimes people don't even realize the seriousness of their situation and lack of legal status in the United States until it's too late.

​Read more here. 

TRAC, Nov. 10, 2016 -

TRAC has just published the ninth in its long running series of reports covering each Immigration Judge's decisions on asylum cases. The latest report series consists of 268 separate reports and includes each Immigration Judge who decided at least 100 asylum cases between FY 2011 and FY 2016.

Each individual report provides a short biography for that judge, along with details on the judge's overall denial rates during this six year period. Separate charts provide a time series view of the judge's decisions year-by-year, along with a comparison of the judge's denial rate as contrasted with the rate for the nation as a whole, along with a comparison with just those judges sitting on the same court.

Some judge's asylum denial rate could be as low as 30%, while another judge's denial rate could be almost 100%.

​For example, in 2016, Omaha, Nebraska Immigration Court asylum denial rate is approx. 80%. Average national denial rate is approx. 50%.

To see any particular Judge's denial rate statistics, use the drop down menu.

Reasons for judge-to-judge differences in asylum denial rates are highlighted including whether the asylum seeker was represented or not, and the countries from which these individuals came. This is contrasted with patterns for the United States as a whole. Information presented is current through the end of September 2016.

To view a particular judge's report, go to:
http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/judgereports/

For an index to the full list of TRAC's free immigration tools go to:
http://trac.syr.edu/imm/tools/

 National Visa Center / AILA DOS Liaison Committee Meeting on November 3, 2016 in Portsmouth, NH

​SUBMITTED QUESTIONS & ANSWERS can be viewed here or posted below.

1. Policy Clearances.

Some countries will only send police clearances directly to the Embassy/ Consulate (e.g. Hong Kong). How NVC is notified that when Embassy/ Consulate has received the required police clearances so that an appointment can be scheduled? How are attorneys/applicants notified? RESPONSE: 9 FAM 504.4-4(A) outlines the basic document requirements for the immigrant visa process. The Visa Reciprocity Schedule provides further clarification as to availability of documents in a particular country. NVC uses the Reciprocity Schedule during the collection process to determine whether or not an applicant needs to submit the police certificate to NVC for review. If the Reciprocity Schedule indicates the local police authority sends the document directly to the Consular Section, NVC will not request a copy of the document from the applicant and will set an appointment when the case is otherwise documentarily complete. The attorney/applicant should ensure the police certificate is sent to the Consular Section prior to the interview. The Consular Officer overseas will determine the acceptability of the document at the time of adjudication. Please check travel.state.gov, post supplements and post websites for additional guidance.

2. Document Checklists.

Attorneys report that they continue to receive checklists from NVC asking for documents that have already been submitted. Should attorneys resend the same documents to NVC? Or should they send an email to [email protected] to request clarification? RESPONSE: When NVC sends a checklist letter for a document already submitted, please respond to NVC’s concerns by providing a written explanation to the [email protected] mailbox. NVC will re-review the case file in an attempt to locate the document and update the case record accordingly. If attorneys or applicants receive a checklist letter after an appointment has been made and the case has gone to post, applicants should make sure to bring copies of the items requested in the latest or final checklist letter.

3. Civil Documents.

Please confirm NVC’s requirements regarding translation of civil documents. For example, are translations required where the document is to be sent to a post where consular officers speak the language in which the documents are written? Where can applicants find information as to which documents require translations? RESPONSE: All documents not written in English or the official language of the country in which you are applying for a visa must be accompanied by certified translations. The translation must include a statement signed by the translator stating that the: Page 2  Translation is accurate and  The translator is competent to translate. Some embassies or consulates may have additional requirements. Applicants should always follow the documentary instructions on the embassy or consulate’s interview instructions on travel.state.gov.

4. CSPA.

It appears that NVC generally does not issue fee bills to dependent children who have turned 21, as they are not able to determine whether the child can benefit under CSPA when the priority date is not current. Often, these children will not age out until 1-2 years in the future; however, if the attorney waits until the priority date is current to request the child’s fee bill, valuable time is lost from the time the fee bill is requested to the time it is actually issued and paid. As such, would NVC consider issuing fee bills for such dependent children when the fee bills are issued for the rest of the family? Allowing the child’s immigrant visa (IV) fee to be paid before the CSPA age is determined by the consular officer at the IV interview would enable the dependent child to “seek to acquire” and potentially lock in their CSPA age, prevent delays for the rest of the family’s IV interviews, ensure that the child is able to immigrate with the rest of the family, and prevent NVC from receiving an influx of fee bill requests when priority dates advance. AILA understands that there may be some cases where the fee bill is paid but the child ages out before the priority date becomes current but notes that most in this situation would opt to pay the fee bill to lock in the CSPA age despite this risk. AILA has raised this with NVC in the past but has not received a final answer from the NVC or Visa Office; as such, please confirm whether DOS has made a decision on whether to issue fee bills to such dependents and allow them to potentially lock in their CSPA age when their parent is current under the Filing Date chart. RESPONSE: The Visa Office and NVC are currently examining CSPA guidelines, including the question of whether or not NVC would be able to issue an IV fee bill in these circumstances.

5. Duplicate Notices.

AILA has received reports from members regarding approved I-730 cases where the attorney and applicant are getting identical approval/transfer notices from NVC at least every other, and sometimes twice a day. Is NVC aware of this issue and if so, is there a reason for the duplicate notices? RESPONSE: Yes, the public made us aware of this issue and we were able to quickly address the underlying technical issue. We appreciate AILA’s regular feedback on these types of issues. Individual attorneys experiencing potential computer errors can use the attorney email, [email protected], to provide feedback. For online issues with CEAC or CTRAC, we recommend providing screenshots of any error messages or incongruities. Page 3

6. Transfer Issues – Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. AILA members representing nationals of Tajikistan are receiving notices explaining that their cases have been transferred to Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan with new case numbers reflecting the change. However, the Bishkek Embassy’s website indicates that they do not process immigrant visas. Additionally, the Dushanbe Embassy’s website still states that all immigrant visas are processed via Almaty, Kazakhstan. Has there been a change in processing for Tajik cases? Will all Tajik cases be processed through Bishkek or will processing in Almaty continue for some cases? RESPONSE: The U.S. Embassy in Bishkek will begin accepting IV cases from NVC in November 2016. With this launch in mind, NVC is beginning to assign Kyrgyz applicants to process in Bishkek, instead of Almaty. Bishkek’s website is currently under construction to add IV processing information, and interview instructions for Bishkek will soon be available on travel.state.gov. Tajikistani applicants, however, will continue to process in Almaty, Kazakhstan. If you’ve received notification indicating that a Tajikistani’s case was transferred to Bishkek, we’d appreciate receiving case specific information via [email protected] so we can investigate further.

7. Affidavit of Support. An affidavit of support sponsor is permitted to supplement their income with proof of assets to make up any shortfall of income to meet the affidavit of support requirements. Despite providing proof of value, equity, and ownership of assets, NVC seems to regularly deem the affidavit of support inadequate. Does this information need to be provided to NVC, or can it instead be brought to the interview? RESPONSE: NVC will assess affidavits of support based on the income information provided by the petitioner. As a matter of procedure, NVC staff will not consider proof of assets that were submitted to supplement petitioner income. In any situation where the petitioner’s income does not overcome poverty guidelines, NVC will send an assessment letter suggesting that the applicant bring a joint-sponsor document or other proof of income/assets to the IV appointment. It is important to note that this NVC-generated assessment letter will not hold up the qualification of the case for appointment at post. As mentioned in the assessment letter, applicants should bring any completed joint-sponsor documents, as well as proof of petitioner assets to the immigrant visa interview, where the consular officer will make the final determination regarding the affidavit of support and whether the supporting income and asset documents overcome poverty guidelines.

8. Modernized Immigrant Visa (MIV) Process

a. We understand that the Consular Electronic Application Center (CEAC) has been undergoing significant program developments. Please provide an update on the implementation of the Modernized Immigrant Visa (MIV) application process at the initial six pilot posts. RESPONSE: The Bureau of Consular Affairs is planning a spring 2017 release of a new CEAC module for IV applicants on a pilot basis. This module will feature:  Online submission of financial and civil documents;  The ability to add or remove derivative applicants online;  The ability to change derivatives from accompanying to follow-to-join online; Page 4  NVC feedback and status updates provided electronically; and  Online case follow-ups to avoid entering termination status – you no longer need to call or email us once per year, you can simply log into CEAC to prevent your case from entering termination. We will pilot this new module with six embassies and consulates (Montreal, Rio de Janeiro, Buenos Aires, Frankfurt, Sydney, and Hong Kong). b. We also understand that the second phase of the MIV was scheduled to take place in mid- 2016 at six additional posts with lower Internet penetration and where applicants have greater reliance on third-party assistance in order to evaluate the robustness of the CEAC system and its ability to respond to a variety of situations. Please provide an update on the results, to date, of this second phase. RESPONSE: In September 2016, we added eight posts to our electronic processing pilot: Addis Ababa, Baghdad, Guatemala City, Kiev, Monrovia, Phnom Penh, Tegucigalpa, and Tashkent. Applicants processing at these embassies now have the option to e-mail their documents to the [email protected] mailbox rather than mailing hard copies to NVC. We scheduled interviews for the first round of electronic cases at these posts in November. If you have clients from one of these posts, please encourage them to join email processing. Customer tip: Applicants who submit documents via email should not also mail them; that can delay case review. c. What is the current target date for worldwide deployment of MIV processing? RESPONSE: It is too early to give a definitive date for worldwide deployment at this time. We hope to be able to answer this question after our planned pilot in spring 2017.

9. NVC Operations

a. We understand that the NVC is transitioning from a paper warehouse to a customer service center and as part of this process; teams of regional experts have been created to identify and respond to obstacles confronting visa applicants. Please provide an update on the activities of regional teams. Are there any plans to extend this model to the non-immigrant visa application process? RESPONSE: NVC Post Liaisons act as the intermediary between consular sections worldwide and NVC’s regional processing teams. They communicate trends, guidance, interview capacity, and other processing updates between the regional teams and the posts served. Post Liaisons have a thorough understanding of IV processing at posts overseas. They also work with posts to ensure public information is up-to-date and understandable. We are always looking at the service we provide and considering ways to improve customer service. Thank you for the suggestion. b. We understand that NVC added a consular officer to its staff in the fall of 2015 in order to facilitate the relationship between NVC and overseas posts. Has this addition yielded the expected results? RESPONSE: NVC added a consular officer position to its staff in the fall of 2015 to Page 5 serve as the Government Technical Monitor (GTM) of its Case Processing and Document Review units. In addition to providing oversight and IV expertise from the field, the consular officer oversees the new Post Liaison program, described above. c. What is the role of the subject matter expert assigned to the customer service division? RESPONSE: NVC added a consular officer position to its staff in summer 2015 to serve as Government Technical Monitor (GTM) of its Telephone Inquiry and Written Correspondence units. In addition to providing oversight and IV expertise from the field, the consular officer oversees the Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) program and monitors compliance with Personally Identifiable Information (PII) regulations and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. d. Please confirm the current timeframe for the following: i. How long it takes to receive a file from USCIS after approval of an immigrant petition; RESPONSE: It can take up to six weeks to receive a case from USCIS. ii. How long it takes to enter data in the NVC system once a file is received from USCIS; RESPONSE: As of October 28, 2016, it takes seven business days. iii. How long an applicant should wait after approval of a petition by USCIS before inquiring about the status of the application with the NVC; and RESPONSE: We recommend waiting up to six weeks after receiving notice of petition approval before inquiring with NVC. iv. How long it takes for an applicant or attorney to receive a response from [email protected]; or [email protected]. RESPONSE: As of October 28, 2016, it takes five business days to respond to emails submitted to the [email protected] mailbox and five business days to respond to inquiries sent to the [email protected] mailbox. Please keep in mind that processing timeframes and inquiry response times change weekly based on the quantity of questions and casework received at NVC.

10. Inquiring on Pending Cases

a. At our last meeting, NVC provided the following process for attorneys to inquire about cases pending with NVC. When inquiring about a case, send an e-mail to [email protected]. If you do not receive a response within 15 days, send a second follow-up e-mail to [email protected]. If you still don’t receive a response after 15 days, send a third e-mail to [email protected], with “Attention PI Supervisor” in the subject line. You should receive a response from the PI Supervisor within 5 to 7 business days. Page 6 Are there any changes to this escalation protocol? RESPONSE: Given that we are now responding to attorney e-mails well within one week, we have revised the guidance as follows: When inquiring about a case, send an e-mail to [email protected]. If you do not receive a response within eight days, send a second follow-up e-mail to [email protected]. If you still don’t receive a response after eight days, send a third e-mail to [email protected] with “Attention PI Supervisor” in the subject line. You should receive a response from the PI Supervisor within five to seven business days. b. We understand that NVC receives telephone inquiries regarding processes and procedures relating to the nonimmigrant visa application process. This role is confined to providing general application information, directing applicants to the appropriate consulate web page, identifying the status of an application at a post, and informing applicants of a visa refusal. Are there any plans to expand the role of NVC in the nonimmigrant visa application process? RESPONSE: There are no plans to expand our role at this time.

11. DS-260. Are any planned updates for Form DS-260?

RESPONSE: There are no planned updates for the Form DS-260 at this time.

12. Attorney as Agent.

If an attorney is designated as an agent, is it also necessary to have a Form G-28 on file in order to be able to communicate with NVC on behalf of the visa applicant? RESPONSE: As an attorney, you can either file a Form G-28 or submit a signed statement on your law office letterhead that indicates you are now representing the beneficiary. We accept both of these items as proof that there is an attorney-client relationship, and either can be submitted to [email protected].

13. Revoked I-130s

After Death of USC Spouse Petitioner. AILA has recently received reports of certain I-130 petitions being revoked erroneously after the death of a United States Citizen (USC) petitioner (examples available upon request). Pursuant to 8 CFR 204.2(i)(1)(iv), a visa petition previously approved to classify the beneficiary as an immediate relative spouse of a USC should automatically convert to an approved Form I-360, Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er) or Special Immigrant. Examples are submitted for your review at Appendix A. As a result, I-130 petitions that fall into this category should not be revoked. Although these cases are being revoked by USCIS, they are being sent for revocation to USCIS by the NVC. Is the NVC aware of this issue? If a case is erroneously sent for revocation and an attorney/beneficiary receives notice of such a transfer and/or revocation, what is the process to resolve this error and ensure that the case is properly converted to an I-360 as noted in 9 FAM 502.1-2(C)(c.)(2)? RESPONSE: Thank you for your feedback. You are correct that many IR1/CR1 (and in some circumstances IR2/CR2) cases are eligible for automatic conversion to I-360. Page 7 NVC has an existing procedure in place that converts these petitions upon notification of the death of the petitioner. Thank you for providing examples of cases where AILA believes a petition should have been automatically converted. We note that 8 CFR 204.2 (i)(1)(iv) and 8 CFR 204.2(b)(1) set requirements for automatic conversion. Depending on the facts of the case, if there is a question about whether these requirements were met, the appropriate course of action may be to send a petition to USCIS for review and possible revocation. It is especially difficult for us to determine that a petition was returned to USCIS in error where USCIS in fact revoked the petition. We understand from previous discussions that AILA also intended to raise this issue with USCIS. We look forward to learning USCIS’ response and with this clarity will work to ensure interagency consistency. With respect to the specific examples, we will work with the Visa Office and respond directly to the inquiring attorney. If you encounter similar cases, please send an email with case specifics to [email protected] with “Attention PI Supervisor” in the subject line and we will review the issue for you. 

Please see here or here.

Post-Election DACA update and resources provided by ILRC.

November 10, 2016
 

• President-elect Donald Trump pledged to end DACA immigration program when he becomes President. He will be inaugurated on January 20, 2017. Until that time, DACA will remain in place and USCIS will continue to process both initial and renewal DACA requests. 

The risk. Those who receive or apply for DACA will not necessarily be targeted for deportation. Administrative programs like this have never been used for wholesale deportation in the past. It would be extremely costly for the government to try to deport all 700K+ DACA recipients. However, we do not really know what to expect. Anything is possible.
 
Initial DACA applications. For those who have not yet applied for DACA, the processing of those applications is taking long enough now that they would likely not be adjudicated until after January 2017, and it is possible the DACA program will not exist by then. Therefore, at this point potential applicants’ efforts to assemble an initial DACA application and pay the filing fees (which go up in December 2016) may result in no benefit and expose them to DHS.
 
DACA renewals. It is unknown whether the next Administration will terminate existing DACA grants or instead not allow DACA recipients to renew. Those who have already received DACA are known by the government. Therefore, renewing DACA does not carry a new risk. In fact, renewing DACA may mean a DACA recipient can have a work permit until it expires one to two years into the next Administration. One risk, however, is again that the renewal might not be adjudicated before Trump becomes President, and the effort and money to renew will be for nothing. People who file to renew soon may be successful, as DACA renewals are currently being processed in 8 weeks with USCIS' upgraded system. The cost may be offset by loans and other funding available through Mission Asset Fund, the Mexican Consulate, some DACA collaboratives and/or other programs.
 
Advance parole. At this point, advance parole may be a little bit harder to get, because processing time is three months or more, which would put approvals (even if filed today) and subsequent travel in February 2017. Emergency advance parole requests, however, may still be useful in helping people travel and subsequently adjust status under 245(a). 
 

•  What the Future Holds

 

• Based on Trump’s campaign rhetoric and the new composition of Congress, we do not expect a comprehensive immigration reform that includes legalization to be introduced in the coming years.

 

• We do not expect expanded DACA or DAPA to make it through the courts.

 
It is possible that some states will try to introduce additional state legislation creating benefits and some protections for immigrants like California has done. Some other states may introduce legislation that increases immigration enforcement at the local level.
 

• What Immigrants Can Do Now

 
People should go to a legal services provider to be screened for any possible immigration options other than DACA for which they may already be eligible.
 
The ILRC has a comprehensive client intake form to assist practitioners in screening. It can be found online at https://www.ilrc.org/screening-immigration-relief-client-intake-form-and-notes.
 
The Immigration Advocates Network maintains a national directory of more than 950 free or low-cost nonprofit immigration legal services providers in all 50 states. It can be found online at https://www.immigrationlawhelp.org.
 
Community members should be warned of fraudulent service provider schemes and educated about how to seek competent immigration help. The ILRC has created community education flyers about this available in English and Spanish available online at https://www.ilrc.org/anti-fraud-flyers.
 

• People should know their rights when in contact with an immigration agency.

 
The ILRC has created Red Cards to help both citizens and noncitizens defend themselves against constitutional violations during ICE raids. These cards provide citizens and noncitizens with information about how to assert their constitution rights and an explanation for ICE agents that the individuals are indeed asserting their constitutional rights. Go https://www.ilrc.org/red-cards for more information and contact us at[email protected] to order.
 

• People should continue to avoid negative interaction with law enforcement. Something like a DUI or conviction related to drugs can have irreversible negative immigration consequences.

 

• If filing to renew DACA, applicants need to be aware that the filing fee increases to $495 on December 23, 2016.

 
Information provided by ILRC.
 

A new federal lawsuit filed in California advances efforts to reinstate the Obama administration’s immigration relief initiatives, DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents) and expanded DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals).

The lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by Rocío Sanchez Ponce, a DACA recipient, is the third lawsuit to challenge the reach of an injunction in U.S. v. Texas.

It follows similar lawsuits by Martín Batalla Vidal in the Eastern District of New York and by José Lopez in the Northern District of Illinois.

The three lawsuits seek to fix a wrongdoing suffered by thousands of DACA recipients who are not party to the Texas case, and they could open up a new pathway for the implementation of DAPA and expanded DACA outside of Texas, providing relief to millions of families.

Sanchez Ponce, 23, is a longtime resident of Hayward, Calif., who came to the U.S. from Mexico when she was six years old. She is represented by the National Immigration Law Center (NILC).

In February 2015, Sanchez Ponce received a three-year work permit from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services under newly issued rules for DACA. That same month, Judge Andrew S. Hanen, of the federal district court in South Texas, issued an injunction in U.S. v. Texas that blocked DAPA and the expansion of DACA nationwide, based solely on claims of alleged costs to Texas. The federal government relied on that injunction to revoke three-year work permits that had been issued to thousands of DACA recipients across the country, including to Sanchez Ponce and the plaintiffs in the New York and Illinois lawsuits.

Sanchez Ponce seeks reinstatement of her three-year work permit because its revocation on the basis of the overbroad injunction was unlawful. Furthermore, by challenging the scope of the Texas injunction, the lawsuit could lead to the reinstatement of DAPA and expanded DACA for millions of families in states that are not part of the Texas lawsuit.

Announced in 2012, DACA allows some young undocumented immigrants such as Sanchez Ponce, who came to the U.S. as children, to live and work in the country temporarily if they meet certain eligibility requirements.

In November 2014, the Obama administration sought to build on the success of that initiative by expanding eligibility requirements to include more immigrant youth and by creating the DAPA program, which would similarly allow some undocumented parents of U.S. citizen and lawful permanent resident children to live and work in the U.S. temporarily. At the same time, the Department of Homeland Security announced that new and renewing DACA applicants would be approved for three- rather than two-year periods. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services began issuing three-year work permits that same month.

In December 2014, Texas and 25 other states sued to stop the implementation of DAPA and expansion of DACA. In February 2015, Judge Hanen issued a nationwide injunction blocking both initiatives. The case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which last refused to rehear the case after deadlocking and issuing no decision in June 2016. This federal injunction still stands.

The complaint filed today is available at www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Sanchez-Ponce-v-Baran-complaint-2016-11-03.pdf.

​

November 2, 2016

PA-2016-07
Policy Alert

SUBJECT: Definition of Certain Classes of Medical Conditions and Other Updates Relating to Health-Related Grounds of Inadmissibility

Purpose:

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is updating guidance in the USCIS Policy Manual regarding health-related grounds of inadmissibility in accordance with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) rulemaking updating Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 34 (42 CFR 34).

Background:

On January 26, 2016, HHS published the final rule updating HHS’s regulation. USCIS is updating its guidance in Volume 8, Part B of the Policy Manual to reflect the changes to the HHS regulation. The HHS final rule was effective on March 28, 2016. Accordingly, the updates made to the USCIS Policy Manual are effective as of March 28, 2016. The guidance contained in the Policy Manual is controlling and supersedes any prior guidance.

Policy Highlights:

Updates the definition of a Class A condition, to include failure to present documentation of having received vaccinations against vaccine preventable diseases.
 Updates the definition of a Class B condition to “health conditions, diseases, or disability serious in degree or permanent in nature.”
 Updates the definition of physical and mental disorders with associated harmful behavior and the definition of drug abuse and drug addiction.
 Removes 3 medical conditions (chancroid, granuloma inguinale, and lymphogranuloma venereum) from the list of communicable diseases of public health significance that would render an applicant for immigration benefits inadmissible on health-related grounds of inadmissibility.

Citation Volume 8: Admissibility, Part B, Health-Related Grounds of Inadmissibility [8 USCIS-PM B].

The USCIS Policy Manual has been updated to provide guidance regarding health-related grounds of inadmissibility in accordance with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services rulemaking updating Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 34 (42 CFR 34).  

--------------------------------------------
CHAPTER 7:

A. Physical or Mental Disorders with Associated Harmful Behavior​ [1]​Applicants who have physical or mental disorders and harmful behavior associated with those disorders are inadmissible.​ [2] The inadmissibility ground is divided into two subcategories:​
​•Current physical or mental disorders, with associated harmful behavior. ​
​
•Past physical or mental disorders, with associated harmful behavior that is likely to recur or lead to other harmful behavior. ​
​There must be both a physical or mental disorder and harmful behavior to make an applicant inadmissible based on this ground. Neither ​harmful behavior nor a physical or ​mental disorder alone renders an applicant inadmissible on this ground. Harmful behavior is defined as behavior that may pose, or has posed, a threat to the property, safety, or welfare of the applicant or others.​
​
A physical disorder is a currently accepted medical diagnosis as defined by the current edition of the Manual of International Classification of Diseases, Injuries, and Causes of Death published by the World Health Organization or by another authoritative source as determined by the Director.​ [3] Officers should consult the Technical Instructions for additional information, if needed.​
​A mental disorder is a currently accepted psychiatric diagnosis, as defined by the current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders published by the American Psychiatric Association or by another authoritative source as determined by the Director.​ [4] Officers should consult the Technical Instructions for additional information, if needed.​
​Under the Technical Instructions, a diagnosis of substance abuse/addiction for a substance that ​is not listed​ in Section 202 of the Controlled Substance​s​ Act (with current associated harmful behavior or a history of associated harmful behavior judged likely to recur) is classified as a mental disorder.​ [5]
​Under prior Technical Instructions and the July 20, 2010 or older versions of the form, these conditions were summarized under the drug abuse/addiction part of the form. An officer, however, should not find an applicant inadmissible for “drug abuse/addiction” if a non-controlled substance is involved.​
​
B. Relevance of Alcohol-Related Driving Arrests or Convictions​​
1. Alcohol Use and Driving​
​Alcohol ​is not listed​ in Section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act.​ [6] Therefore, alcohol use disorders ​are treated​ as a physical or mental disorder for purposes of determining inadmissibility. As a result, an applicant with an alcohol use disorder will not be deemed inadmissible unless there is current associated harmful behavior or past associated harmful behavior likely to recur. The harmful behavior must be such that it poses, has posed, or is likely to pose a threat to the property, safety, or welfare of the applicant or others. ​
​In the course of adjudicating benefit applications, officers frequently encounter criminal histories that include arrests and/or convictions for alcohol-related driving incidents, such as DUI (driving under the influence) and DWI (driving while intoxicated). These histories may or may not rise to the level of a criminal ground of inadmissibility.​ [7] A record of criminal arrests and/or convictions for alcohol-related driving incidents may constitute evidence of a health-related inadmissibility as a physical or mental disorder with associated harmful behavior.​
​Operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol is clearly an associated harmful behavior that poses a threat to the property, safety, or welfare of the applicant or others. Where a civil surgeon’s mental status evaluation diagnoses the presence of an alcohol use disorder (abuse or dependence), and where there is evidence of harmful behavior associated with the disorder, a Class A medical condition should be certified on ​Form I-693​. ​
2. Re-Examination​s​ ​

​Requesting ​Re-Examinations​
​Some applicants may fail to report, or may underreport, alcohol-related driving incidents in response to the civil surgeon’s queries. Where these incidents resulted in an arrest, they may be subsequently revealed in the criminal history record resulting from a routine fingerprint check. Consequently, a criminal record printout revealing a significant history of alcohol-related driving arrests may conflict with the medical examination report that indicates no alcohol-related driving incidents were reported to or evaluated by the civil surgeon.​
​In such an instance, an officer may require the applicant to be re-examined. The re-examination would be limited to a mental status​ ​evaluation specifically considering the record of alcohol-related driving incidents. On the ​Request for Evidence (​RFE​)​, officers should use the following language: “Please return to the civil surgeon for purposes of conducting a mental status evaluation specifically considering the record of alcohol-related driving incidents.”​
​Upon re-examination, the civil surgeon may refer the applicant for further evaluation to a psychiatrist or to a specialist in substance-abuse disorders as provided for under the Technical Instructions. After such referral, the civil surgeon will determine whether a Class A medical condition exists and amend the ​Form I-693​ accordingly. The determination of a Class A condition is wholly dependent on the medical diagnosis of a designated civil surgeon.​ ​
​
Re-Examination for​ Significant Criminal Record of Alcohol-Related Driving Incidents​
​Only applicants with a significant criminal record of alcohol-related driving incidents that were not considered by the civil surgeon during the original medical examination should be referred for re-examination. ​
​The actual criminal charges for alcohol-related driving incidents vary among the different states. A significant criminal record of alcohol-related driving incidents includes:​
​•One or more arrests/convictions for alcohol-related driving incidents (DUI/DWI) while the driver’s license was suspended, revoked, or restricted at the time of the arrest due to a previous alcohol-related driving incident(s).​
​•One or more arrests/convictions for alcohol-related driving incidents where personal injury or death resulted from the incident(s).​
​•One or more convictions for alcohol-related driving incidents where the conviction was a felony in the jurisdiction in which it occurred or where a sentence of incarceration was actually imposed.​
​•One arrest/conviction for alcohol-related driving incidents within the preceding ​5​ years.​ [8]
​​•Two or more arrests/convictions for alcohol-related driving incidents within the preceding ​10​ years.​ [9]
​
If the officer finds that the criminal record appears to contradict the civil surgeon’s finding in the medical examination report, then the officer should request a re-examination.​
​
Example:​ An applicant’s criminal record shows that she was convicted for DWI-related vehicular manslaughter. However, the medical examination report reflects that no Class A or B physical or mental disorder was found. In this case, the officer should request a re-examination because the medical examination report finding should have reflected that the applicant has a history relating to an alcohol-related driving incident that could indicate a physical or mental disorder with associated harmful behavior. ​
​

3. Determination Based on Re-Examination​​

Upon completion of the re-examination, the officer should determine whether the applicant is inadmissible. If the civil surgeon annotated a Class A condition, the applicant is inadmissible. If no Class A condition is certified by the civil surgeon, the officer may not determine that the applicant is inadmissible. In exceptional cases, the officer may seek review of the civil surgeon’s determination from CDC. ​
​
If the applicant is inadmissible, he or she may file an application for waiver of inadmissibility.​ [10] ​
​
C. Relevance of Other Evidence​​
The guidance relating to alcohol-related driving arrests or convictions described above applies to any similar scenario where the record of proceeding contains evidence that may indicate inadmissibility due to a mental or physical disorder with associated harmful behavior that was not considered by the civil surgeon in the original medical examination. Such evidence includes, but is not limited to: ​
​
•A prior finding of inadmissibility due to a mental disorder. ​
​
•A history of institutionalization for a mental disorder. ​
​
•A criminal history other than ​drunk​ driving arrests/convictions, such as assaults and domestic violence, in which alcohol or a psychoactive substance was a contributing factor. ​
​
•Any other evidence that suggests an alcohol problem.​
​
•Other criminal arrests where there is a reasonable possibility of a mental disorder as a contributing factor. ​
​
Accordingly, where the record of proceeding available to the officer contains evidence suggestive of a mental disorder, and the ​Form I-693​ medical report does not reflect that the evidence was considered by the civil surgeon, the applicant must be required to undergo a mental status re-examination by a civil surgeon specifically addressing the adverse evidence that may not have initially been revealed to the civil surgeon.​
​
------------------------------------------
CHAPTER 8:

A. Drug Abuse or Drug Addiction​​Applicants who ​are found​ to be drug abusers or addicts are inadmissible.​ [1] 

Drug abuse and drug addiction ​are current substance-use disorders or substance-induced disorders of a controlled substance listed in Section 202 of the Controlled Substance​s​ Act, as defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) published by the American Psychiatric Association or by another authoritative source as determined by the Director.​ [2] ​
​In 2010, ​the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (​CDC​)​ changed the Technical Instructions on how a civil surgeon determines whether an applicant is a drug abuser or drug addict.​ [3] The civil surgeon must now make this determination according to the DSM as specified in the Technical Instructions.​ [4] ​
​If the applicant is classified as a drug abuser or addict, the applicant can apply again for an immigration benefit if his or her drug abuse or addiction is in remission. Remission is now defined by DSM criteria, and no longer by a set timeframe as it was under previous Technical Instructions.​ [5] In order for an applicant’s drug abuse or addiction to be classified as in remission, the applicant must return to a civil surgeon for a new assessment. ​
​If the officer has reason to question the completeness or accuracy of the medical examination report, the officer should ask CDC to review the ​medical report before sending a Request for Evidence​ ​(​RFE​)​.​
​Most applicants who are found to be drug abusers or addicts are ineligible for a waiver; the availability depends, however, on the immigration benefit the ​applicant seeks.​ [6] ​
B. Part of ​Form I-693​ Addressing Drug Abuse or Drug Addiction​

​The civil surgeon must check the appropriate findings box on the medical examination report. The civil surgeon should also either annotate the findings in the remarks section or attach a report, if the space provided is not sufficient. However, the officer should not RFE simply because the civil surgeon has omitted the remarks or failed to attach a report. ​
-------------------------------

CHAPTER 11: INADMISSIBILITY DETERMINATION

A. Civil Surgeon or Panel Physician​ ​Documentation​​
If a “Class A condition” is noted on the medical form, it is conclusive evidence that the applicant is inadmissible. The Class A annotation may also indicate that an applicant could be inadmissible on other grounds of inadmissibility. For example, “harmful behavior” associated with a physical or mental disorder, or illegal drug use, may have resulted in criminal convictions that make an applicant inadmissible under ​INA 212(a)(2)​. However, a criminal conviction should be supported by conviction records or similar evidence, and not just the medical examination report.​ [1] ​
​
If a civil surgeon or panel physician only annotates a “Class B condition” (per HHS regulations), the applicant is ​never​ inadmissible on health-related grounds. The officer should remember that if the civil surgeon or panel physician indicates on the ​Form I-693​ that a former Class A condition is now a Class B condition, the applicant is no longer inadmissible. However, a Class B condition may indicate that the applicant could be inadmissible on other grounds because of the condition, such as public charge.​ [2] ​
​
The officer may encounter medical documentation that is not fully completed. In this c​ase, the officer should issue a Request for Evidence​ ​(​RFE​)​. If the physician fails to properly complete the form in response to the RFE, the applicant has not established that he or she is clearly admissible to the United States.​ [3] ​
​
B. Applicant’s Declaration​​
If the applicant indicates that he or she may be inadmissible based on a medical reason, the officer must order a medical examination of the applicant. Based on the results of that medical exam, the officer should ascertain whether the applicant actually has a Class A, Class B, or no condition at all that is relevant to the applicant’s admissibility. The applicant should not be found inadmissible unless the medical examination confirms the presence of a Class A medical condition.​
​
C. Other Information​ ​​
Even if the civil surgeon or panel physician did not annotate a Class A or B condition in the medical documentation, or if the applicant was not required to undergo a medical examination, the officer may order or reorder an immigration medical examination at any time if he or she has concerns as to an applicant’s inadmissibility on health-related grounds. ​
​
The concern should be based on information in the A-file, information that is revealed by the applicant or another applicant during an interview, or information revealed during a background investigation. ​
​

D. Other Grounds ​of ​Inadmissibility​​
1. General​ ​Considerations​​
Where relevant, the information contained in the medical examination can be used to determine whether other grounds of inadmissibility may apply. For instance, health is one factor to consider when determining if someone is inadmissible on public charge grounds. This factor must, however, be considered in light of all other factors specified by law​ [4] and in standard public charge guidance.​ [5] ​
​
2. Criminal ​Grounds​​
An applicant may be inadmissible on criminal grounds if he or she has admitted to committing certain controlled substance violations.​ [6] ​An applicant may acknowledge to a civil surgeon or a panel physician that he or she has used a controlled substance, which the physician then may annotate on the medical documentation. ​
​
USCIS does not consider this acknowledgement, in and of itself, a valid admission that would make an applicant inadmissible on criminal grounds.​ [7]However such an acknowledgment of drug use may open a line of questioning to determine c​riminal inadmissibility. USCIS o​fficers should find that an applicant has made a valid “admission” of a crime only when the admission is made in accordance with the requirements outlined by the Bo​ard of Immigration Appeals​.​[8] ​
​
E. Privacy Concerns​
​An officer should take great care to regard the privacy of the applicant. The officer should generally not discuss the applicant’s medical issues with applicants other than the applicant, his or her counsel, immigration officers, or other government officials​ [9] who clearly have a need to know the information.​

​​The officer should not directly contact a civil surgeon to discuss an applicant’s inadmissibility or medical issues. If the officer has any concerns that cannot be resolved by reviewing the evidence in the record, the officer should issue an RFE.​
​