On April 2, 2025, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that under a Trump administration executive order, it has updated the USCIS Policy Manual to state that it only recognizes two biological sexes: male and female.

Under this guidance, USCIS considers a person’s sex as “that which is generally evidenced on the birth certificate issued at or nearest to the time of birth. If the birth certificate issued at or nearest to the time of birth indicates a sex other than male or female, USCIS will base the determination of sex on secondary evidence.”

USCIS said it will not deny benefits solely because the benefit requestor “did not properly indicate his or her sex.” However, USCIS noted that it “does not issue documents with a blank sex field,” so “if a benefit requestor does not indicate his or her sex or indicates a sex different from the sex on his or her birth certificate issued at the time of birth (or issued nearest to the time of birth), there may be delays in adjudication.”

USCIS said it “may provide notice to benefit requestors if it issues a USCIS document reflecting a sex different than that indicated by the benefit requestor on the request.”

This guidance applies to benefit requests pending or filed on or after April 2, 2025, USCIS said, adding that the guidance in the Policy Manual “is controlling and supersedes any related prior guidance.”

In March 2024, USCIS updated its Policy Manual on how to request USCIS to expedite adjudication of the application or petition.

USCIS Publicshed a Memo and updated the Manual. 

Immigration benefit requestors or their authorized representative may request that USCIS expedite the adjudication of their application, petition, request, appeal, or motion that is under USCIS jurisdiction.[1] USCIS considers all expedite requests on a case-by-case basis in the exercise of discretion and generally requires documentation to support such requests. The decision to expedite is within the sole discretion of USCIS.

As expediting an application, petition, request, appeal, or motion generally means that USCIS would adjudicate the requestor's benefit ahead of others who filed earlier, USCIS carefully weighs the urgency and merit of each expedite request.

A. Expedite Criteria or CircumstancesUSCIS may expedite adjudication of an application, petition, request, appeal, or motion at its discretion. USCIS considers the totality of the circumstances and evidence submitted in support of an expedite request.

Relevant criteria or circumstances that may be considered in determining whether to grant an expedite request include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Severe financial loss to a company or person, provided that the need for urgent action is not the result of the petitioner’s or applicant’s failure to timely file the benefit request or to timely respond to any requests for evidence.[2]
• Emergencies or urgent humanitarian situations.
• Nonprofit organization (as designated by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)) whose request is in furtherance of the cultural or social interests of the United States.
• Government interests, including cases identified by the government as urgent because they involve the public interest, public safety, national interest, or national security interests.
• Clear USCIS error.

1. Severe Financial Loss as a Basis for Expedited TreatmentA company can demonstrate that it would suffer a severe financial loss if it is at risk of failing, losing a critical contract, or required to lay off other employees. For example, a medical office may suffer severe financial loss if a gap in a doctor’s employment authorization would require the medical practice to lay off its medical assistants.
Job loss may be sufficient to establish severe financial loss for a person, depending on the individual circumstances. For example, the inability to travel for work that would result in job loss might warrant expedited treatment. The need to obtain employment authorization, standing alone, without evidence of other compelling factors, does not warrant expedited treatment.
In addition, severe financial loss may also be established where failure to expedite would result in a loss of critical public benefits or services.

2. Expedited Treatment Based on Emergency or Urgent Humanitarian Situations

In the context of an expedite request, an emergency or urgent humanitarian situation is a pressing or critical circumstance related to human welfare. Human welfare means issues related to the well-being of a person or group. Examples include, but are not limited to, illness, disability, death of a family member or close friend, or extreme living conditions, such as those caused by natural catastrophes or armed conflict.
USCIS considers requests related to a requestor’s individual welfare and requests that are related to the welfare of others. For example, to facilitate the well-being of an individual, USCIS may expedite a benefit request where a vulnerable person’s safety may be otherwise compromised. To facilitate the well-being of others, for example, USCIS may expedite employment authorization for healthcare workers during a pandemic.

Certain benefit requests, such as asylum applications, refugee applications, and requests for humanitarian parole, by their nature involve urgent humanitarian situations. Therefore, filing a humanitarian-based benefit, standing alone, without evidence of other time-sensitive or compelling factors, generally may not warrant expedited treatment under this criterion.[3]

Travel-Related Requests

USCIS considers expedited processing of an Application for Travel Document (Form I-131) when there is a pressing or critical need for an applicant to travel outside the United States.
Expedited processing of a travel document may be warranted when there is an unexpected event, such as the pressing or critical need to travel outside the United States to obtain medical treatment in a limited amount of time, or due to the death or grave illness of a family member or close friend.
Expedited processing of a travel document may also be warranted when there is a pressing or critical need to travel outside the United States for a planned event, but processing times prevent USCIS from issuing the travel document by the planned date of departure. When the need to expedite issuance of a travel document is related to a planned event, USCIS considers whether the applicant timely filed the Form I-131 or timely responded to a request for evidence.[4]

For example, a requestor may have applied for a travel document 5 months ago when they learned of the event, but their case remains pending, and they must travel for an event which is now in 45 days, such as for a:

• Work or professional commitment (such as a meeting, conference, forum, seminar, or training);
• Academic commitment (such as a study abroad program, research trip, forum, seminar, conference, or practicum); or
• Personal commitment (such as a wedding or graduation).

The examples of travel-related emergencies provided above are not exhaustive. Officers should review travel-related expedite requests on a case-by-case basis to determine if the need to travel is pressing or critical.
A benefit requestor’s desire to travel solely for vacation generally does not meet the definition of a pressing or critical need to travel.

3. Nonprofit Organization Seeking Expedited Treatment

A nonprofit organization seeking to expedite a beneficiary’s benefit request must demonstrate an urgent need to expedite the case based on the beneficiary’s specific role within the nonprofit in furthering cultural or social interests (as opposed to the organization’s role in furthering social or cultural interests). Examples may include a medical professional urgently needed for medical research related to a specific “social” U.S. interest (such as the COVID-19 pandemic or other socially impactful research or project) or a university professor urgently needed to participate in a specific and imminent cultural program. Another example is a religious organization that urgently needs a beneficiary’s specific services and skill set to continue a vital social outreach program. In such instances, the religious organization must articulate why the respective beneficiary is specifically needed, as opposed to pointing to a general shortage alone.

4. Expedited Treatment Based on Government Interests

Government interests refer to interests of any federal, state, tribal, territorial, or local government of the United States.[5] This includes cases identified as urgent by the government because they involve public interest, public safety, national interest, or national security interests. The request must be made by a person who has authority to represent the agency or department, such as an official, manager, supervisor, or tribal leader, on the matter for which expedited treatment is being requested. The request must demonstrate that the interests are pressing and substantive.
Where a federal agency or department identifies an articulable federal government interest in accordance with these criteria, USCIS generally defers to that federal agency or department’s assessment.
If the request relates to employment authorization, the request must demonstrate that the need for the applicant to be authorized to work is critical to the mission of the requesting agency or department, and goes beyond a general need to retain a particular worker or person. For example, an applicant for employment authorization may warrant expedited processing based on government interests when the applicant is a victim or witness who is cooperating with the government and needs employment authorization because the respective agency is seeking back pay or reinstatement in court proceedings.

5. Clear USCIS Error

USCIS may consider an expedite request based on clear USCIS error when a requestor establishes an urgent need to correct the error. For example, an applicant who receives an Employment Authorization Document with incorrect information that prevents them from being able to work may request a replacement document on an expedited basis if USCIS caused the error.[6]

B. How to Request Expedited Processing

The process to request expedited processing may vary by form type and the office that has jurisdiction over the benefit request. USCIS provides specific information on submitting expedite requests on the Expedite Requests webpage.
Benefit requestors must demonstrate their need for expedited processing. Generally, USCIS requires documentation to support expedite requests. When additional documentation is needed, USCIS asks the requestor to submit supporting evidence.

1. Premium Processing

​A benefit requestor cannot request expedited processing for petitions and applications where premium processing service is available for their filing category unless they meet the exception for certain nonprofit organizations.

A benefit requestor that is designated as a nonprofit organization by the IRS seeking a beneficiary whose services are needed in furtherance of the cultural or social interests of the United States may request that the benefit it seeks be expedited without a fee, even if premium processing is available for that benefit.[7] USCIS retains discretion not to expedite the benefit request. The benefit requestor may also request premium processing for the benefit.

C. How USCIS Processes Requests for Expedited TreatmentUsing its discretion, USCIS considers expedite requests according to the criteria and circumstances described above. Not every circumstance that fits under the criteria or examples above necessarily results in expedited processing.[8]

Circumstances that Impact USCIS' Ability to Expedite

Some circumstances may prolong or inhibit USCIS’ ability to expedite certain benefit requests. Examples include, but are not limited to, when:

• The benefit requestor must perform a certain action or submit additional documentation or evidence, such as attend a biometric services appointment, be interviewed, or complete any required immigration medical examination;[9]
• There is a required background check that remains pending with a third-party agency;
• An application or petition requires an on-site inspection;[10] or
• An application or petition is dependent on the adjudication of a principal’s application or petition.

Responding to Expedite Requests

USCIS generally sends a response to expedite requests that are submitted through the Contact Center. However, to increase efficiency in processing expedite requests, USCIS generally does not provide justifications regarding expedite decisions.

Requestors in Removal Proceedings

Expedited processing of benefit requests for noncitizens with final orders of removal or noncitizens in removal proceedings is coordinated between USCIS and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).[11]

USCIS Policy Manual.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is issuing policy guidance in the USCIS Policy Manual regarding the 2-year foreign residence requirement for the nonimmigrant exchange visitor (J) classification.
The update adds information about how USCIS determines whether the requirement has been met, the evidence a benefit requestor may submit to show compliance with the requirement, and how it considers situations in which it is effectively impossible for the benefit requestor to satisfy the requirement.
It also corrects an omission, from existing Policy Manual content, of one of the foreign medical graduates’ grounds for waivers of the foreign residence requirement. This update includes the ground and clarifies employment requirements.
The guidance is effective immediately on publication.
The J-1 nonimmigrant classification is for exchange visitors who intend to participate in an approved program in the United States for the purpose of teaching, instructing or lecturing, studying, observing, conducting research, consulting, demonstrating special skills, receiving training, or receiving graduate medical education or training.

For more information see here. Also the federal code is here. 

Certain J-1 exchange visitors are subject to a foreign residence requirement, which requires that they reside and be physically present in their country of nationality or last legal residence abroad for an aggregate of at least 2 years before they are eligible to apply for an immigrant visa, adjustment of status, or a nonimmigrant H, L, or K visa.

On June 8, 2023, USCIS published comprehensive guidance on the exchange visitor classification in the Policy Manual. USCIS’s latest Oct. 24б 2023 guidance further clarifies how the agency determines whether a benefit requestor has met this foreign residence requirement.
Policy Update Highlights

• USCIS uses the preponderance of the evidence standard in determining whether the exchange visitor has met the two-year foreign residence requirement.
• Travel days—where a fraction of the day is spent in the country of nationality or last residence—count toward satisfaction of the foreign residence requirement.
• USCIS will and does consult with the U.S. Department of State on a case-by-case basis when it is impossible for the benefit requestor to satisfy the two-year foreign residence requirement.
• The policy guidance defines the three exceptions to the requirement that a foreign medical graduate (FMG) obtain a contract from a health care facility in an underserved area when seeking a waiver of the two-year foreign residence requirement:
  • If the U.S. Department of Veteran’s Affairs (VA) requests the waiver, the FMG must practice medicine with the VA for at least three years, but does not need to do so in a U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS)-designated shortage area.
  • If an interested federal agency requests the waiver, the FMG may fulfill the obligation by working for the agency for at least three years, rather than by practicing medicine in an HHS-designated shortage area.
  • If an interested federal or state agency requests the waiver for an FMG who agrees to practice specialty medicine in a facility located in an HHS-designated geographic area, the FMG may fulfill the obligation by practicing specialty medicine in such a facility for at least three years. The request must demonstrate a shortage of health care professionals able to provide the relevant specialty services.

Those with questions about the J-1 foreign residency requirement or related waivers should consult with experienced immigration counsel

Policy Manual:

F. Foreign Residence Requirement

Certain J-1 exchange visitors are subject to a 2-year foreign residence requirement.[11] After leaving the United States, J-1 exchange visitors subject to the requirement must reside and be physically present in their country of nationality or last legal residence abroad for an aggregate of at least 2 years before they are eligible to apply for an immigrant visa, adjustment of status, or a nonimmigrant H, L, or K visa.[12] Such country is the country of nationality or legal permanent residence listed on the Certificate of Eligibility for Exchange Visitor Status (Form DS-2019), and is referred to herein as the “Home Country.”
These exchange visitors are further prohibited from changing status from J nonimmigrant status to another nonimmigrant status, other than A, G, T, or U, or H-1B for physicians receiving waivers on the basis of a 3-year waiver position.[13]
Exchange visitors participating in the following programs are subject to the foreign residence requirement: [14]

• Programs facilitated by the DOS designated sponsor, Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG), for medical trainees. (ECFMG sponsored medical researchers are generally not subject to the requirement as medical trainees, but may be subject to the requirement on another basis);
• Programs in which the exchange visitor has received any type of government funding or support from the exchange visitor’s home country or country of last legal permanent residence, the U.S. Government, or an international organization, as indicated on the Form DS-2019. (Government-sponsored programs beginning with G in the program number on Form DS-2019 are usually government-funded where the exchange visitor received financial support from the sponsor);
• Programs in which the exchange visitor’s field of endeavor appears on the DOS Exchange Visitor Skills List (list of fields of specialized knowledge or skills in which the services of exchange visitor participants are critically needed) for the exchange visitor’s home country or country of last legal permanent residence; [15] and
• Programs whose purpose is graduate medical training, typically a residency or fellowship.

Determining if the Foreign Residence Requirement Has Been Met
USCIS determines whether the exchange visitor has met the 2-year foreign residence requirement within the context of a subsequent application or petition. USCIS applies the preponderance of the evidence standard when it makes this determination.
Benefit requestors may submit any relevant evidence showing their physical presence in the Home Country. For example, benefit requestors may submit a chart of days spent in the Home Country. Benefit requestors may also submit supporting evidence such as passport stamps, travel receipts, employment records, school transcripts, leases, or affidavits.
Any day where a fraction of a day is spent in the Home Country counts toward satisfaction of the requirement. For example, a travel day, where a fraction of the day is spent in the country of last permanent residence, counts as a day towards satisfying the requirement.
In certain cases, conditions in the applicant’s Home Country, such as war or civil unrest, may make compliance with the 2-year residence requirement effectively impossible. Additionally, some countries have periodically imposed travel bans that have made traveling to the Home Country effectively impossible. In other cases, the applicant’s Home Country is now part of another country due to shifting borders or other political changes. USCIS considers these circumstances, on a case-by-case basis, in consultation with the Department of State.


​

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is revising policy guidance in the USCIS Policy Manual to clarify that benefit requestors may select their gender on nearly all USCIS forms (or change a prior gender selection) without the need to specifically provide or match supporting documentation.
This update applies to both initial benefit requests as well as requests to change gender markers on USCIS-issued documents after the initial submission. This policy manual update does not apply to Form N-565, Application for Replacement Naturalization/Citizenship Document. Individuals requesting to change their gender marker on a previously issued Certificate of Naturalization or Certificate of Citizenship must submit Form N-565 with documents supporting their request to change their gender marker. See 8 CFR 103.2(a)(1).
Benefit requestors seeking to change their gender marker after their initial filing should refer to the Updating or Correcting Your Documents webpage. Currently, the only gender markers available are “Male” (M) or “Female” (F). DHS is working on options to include an additional gender marker (“X”) for another or unspecified gender identity. USCIS will update its forms and the Policy Manual accordingly.
This guidance, contained in Volumes 1, 11, and 12 of the Policy Manual, is effective immediately. 
​Memo and the new policy.

USCIS Updates Policy on Time Frames for Paper-Based Filings and Responses Ending on Saturdays, Sundays, or Federal Holidays 

​USCIS is updating the USCIS Policy Manual to address situations when the last day to file a benefit request or respond to a USCIS action falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or federal holiday. In these situations, USCIS will consider a filing or response submitted on paper timely if we receive it by the end of the next business day. While the receipt date for these cases will continue to reflect the date USCIS physically received the request, USCIS will consider the benefit request timely filed.

In some cases, benefit requestors must file a benefit request or submit a response to a USCIS action within a certain time period prescribed by statute, regulation, or form instructions. Examples include filing a paper-based benefit request on the last day before a requestor’s or beneficiary’s birthday or the last day of a qualifying time period for filing, or responding to a Request for Evidence or a notice of intent to deny, rescind, revoke or terminate within the specified time frame for a response.

USCIS is pursuing several ways to increase flexibility related to filing deadlines, including this Policy Manual update. This update is effective immediately and will apply to all benefit requests or responses to a USCIS action that we receive on paper on or after March 29, 2023. This update does not affect electronic filings or responses submitted electronically, which we consider received immediately upon submission. We are not applying this policy retroactively.
​
Visit the Policy Manual for Comment page to comment on this update. 

Briefly in Russian:

Если вы подали петицию или заявление в USCIS, или ваш ответ на RFE был получен в выходной или праздничный день, то дата получения будет продлена до следующего рабочегно дня, что имеет значение если ответ на RFE был получен в последний день deadline и этот день нерабочий. Дата received on останется тем днем когда заявление посланное по почте было реально получено в USCIS. 

On December 23, 2022, USCIS released a new edition of Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (aka Application for a Green Card), because a new public charge ground of inadmissibility rule went into effect on December 23, 2022.

USCIS advised that any I-485 application filed on or after December 23, 2022, must use the new version of Form I-485. Failure to do so will result in the USCIS rejecting the filing.

While a new Form I-485 is required, the form I-864, Affidavit of Support remains the same.

On December 19, 2022, USCIS issued a follow-up Policy Alert regarding implementing the new public charge rule visa changes to the USCIS Policy Manual and provided a resources page for reference.

On September 8, 2022, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a new final rule to be published in the Federal Register on September 9, 2022, addressing the public charge ground of inadmissibility found at INA §212(a)(4). The final rule came into effect on December 23, 2022. The final rule announcement also noted that USCIS would issue a revised Form I-485.

The public charge ground of inadmissibility is found at §212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (INA). INA §212 provides several grounds for a noncitizen being considered “inadmissible” to the United States. The public charge ground of inadmissibility applies to applicants for visas, admission, and adjustment of status, unless the noncitizen is exempt. 

INA §212(a)(4)(A) states that a noncitizen “likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible.” INA §212(a)(4)(B) states that, at a minimum, adjudicators should consider the applicant’s “age, health, family status, assets, resources, and financial status; and education and skills” when determining whether a noncitizen is likely to become a public charge. Additionally, an adjudicator “may also consider any affidavit of support” under INA §213(a) when applicable, noting that in cases where an affidavit of support is required, a noncitizen’s failure to provide a sufficient affidavit of support from the petitioner and any additional sponsor(s) makes the noncitizen inadmissible regardless of other factors.

For decades, USCIS interpreted the meaning of “likely to become a public charge” based on a 1999 Interim Field Guidance release. Under this guidance, a noncitizen would be considered likely to become a public charge if DHS determined that they were likely to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence. For example, it would apply if the individual was likely to become dependent on direct cash assistance, like Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), or to individuals who rely on Medicaid-financed “long-term institutionalization,” such as a nursing or psychiatric facility. A 2019 rule put into effect by the Trump Administration sought to change this longstanding guidance, which significantly expanded the policy to include anyone who used a broader array of public benefits for more than 12 cumulative months over any 36 months. The courts held up the 2019 rule, but the Biden Administration ultimately rescinded it. The “new” 2022 public charge rule essentially restores the status quo.

Under the new rule, “likely at any time to become a public charge” means likely at any time to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term institutionalization at government expense. According to the preamble to the final rule, primarily dependent “connotes significant reliance on the government for support, and means something more than dependence that is merely transient or supplementary.”

For purposes of a public charge inadmissibility determination, “public cash assistance for income maintenance” means:

Supplemental Security Income (SSI);
Cash assistance for income maintenance under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program; or
State, tribal, territorial, or local cash benefit programs for income maintenance, commonly called “General Assistance.”.

For a public charge inadmissibility determination, “long-term institutionalization at government expense” means government assistance for long-term institutionalization (in the case of Medicaid, limited to institutional services under section 1905(a) of the Social Security Act) received by a beneficiary, including in a nursing facility or mental health institution. Long-term institutionalization at government expense is the only category of Medicaid-funded services (limited to institutional services under section 1905(a) of the Social Security Act) considered in a public charge inadmissibility determination.

USCIS Adjudicators, using a totality of the circumstances test, will consider the statutory minimum factors, an affidavit of support when required, and the additional factor of current and/or past receipt of public benefits. However, this additional factor is limited to the applicant’s receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term institutionalization at government expense, with several exemptions, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

Importantly, any USCIS denial under the public charge inadmissibility ground must be in writing, “reflect consideration of each of the factors outlined (under the rule), and specifically articulate the reasons for the officer’s determination.”

Unless specifically exempted, all applicants for adjustment of status, including those applying through family-based petitions, employment-based petitions, and diversity applications, are subject to the public charge ground of admissibility. The appendices to Part G of Volume 8 of the USCIS Policy Manual provide helpful charts and guidance regarding when an affidavit of support is necessary.

The vast majority of both employment-based and family-based petitions are subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility. In the employment-based categories, noncitizens are generally subject unless the applicant is adjusting based on an employment-based petition where the petition is filed by either a qualifying relative, or an entity in which such relative has a significant ownership interest (5 percent or more).

The applicant must also qualify for a category exempted under INA §212(a)(4)(E) (T nonimmigrants, U nonimmigrants, and VAWA self-petitioners, for example) at both the time of filing and adjudication of Form I-485. The applicant is not subject to INA 212(a)(4) (but is still required to file Form I-864).  A qualifying relative means a husband, wife, father, mother, child, adult son, adult daughter, brother, or sister. 

Even where exempt, some noncitizens applying to adjust status may still be required to submit an Affidavits of Support under Section 213A of the INA. This includes noncitizens whose employment-based petition was filed by a relative or by an entity in which the noncitizen’s relative has a significant ownership interest.

The public charge ground of inadmissibility does not apply to certain applicants for visas, admission, and adjustment of status applicants based on statutory or regulatory authority. For example:

Asylees and refugees
Applicants adjusting under the Cuban Adjustment Act
Special immigrant juveniles
Applicants seeking Temporary Protected Status (TPS),
Victims of human trafficking (T nonimmigrants),
Victims of qualifying criminal activity (U nonimmigrants),
Certain ambassadors and diplomats.

The new 12/23/22 edition of the I-485 Form includes a series of new questions in Part 8:

Q 61.  Are you subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility under INA section 212(a)(4)? This question is challenging for any applicant. USCIS includes appendices to Volume 8, Part G of its Policy Manual regarding the interpretation of this question for employment-based, family-based, special immigrant, refugee, asylee, parolee, and other adjustment applicants. 

Q 62. What is the size of your household? According to the I-485 Form Instructions, the following individuals should be included in your household size:

You;
Your spouse, if physically residing with you;
Your parents, if physically residing with you;
Your unmarried siblings under 21 years of age, if physically residing with you;
Your children as defined in INA 101(b)(1), if physically residing with you;
Any other individuals (including a spouse or child not physically residing with you) who are listed as dependents on your federal income tax return; and
Any other individuals who list you as a dependent on their federal income tax return.

Q 63. Indicate your annual household income.

Applicants are instructed to check an income range based on the household’s total income. According to the I-485 Form Instructions, you may include income provided to your household from sources who are not members of your household, including but not limited to alimony or child support. You must exclude any income from Supplemental Security Income (SSI); Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF); State, Tribal, territorial, or local cash benefit programs for income maintenance (often called “General Assistance” in the State context, but which also exist under other names)..

Q 64. Identify the total value of your assets. Applicants are instructed to check the appropriate box for the total value of household assets. When considering the applicant’s financial status, USCIS also considers the noncitizen’s household’s assets and resources, for example, investments or home equity, excluding any assets from illegal activities or sources, such as proceeds from illegal gambling or drug sales.

Q 65. Identify the total value of your household liabilities (such as loans, alimony, and child support payments.). Applicants are instructed to check the appropriate box for the total value of household liabilities. See explanation above.

Q 66. What is the highest degree or level of school you have completed? 

Q 67. List your certifications, licenses, skills obtained through work experience, and educational certificates. According to the I-485 Form Instructions, applicants are to list all of your certifications, licenses, skills obtained through work experience, and educational certificates. This includes but is not limited to workforce skills, training, licenses for specific occupations or professions, foreign language skills, and certificates documenting mastery or apprenticeships in skilled trades or professions. Educational certificates are issued by an educational institution (or a training provider) and certify that an occupation specific program of study was completed.

Q 68.a. Have you ever received Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), or State, Tribal, territorial, or local, cash benefit programs for income maintenance (often called “General Assistance” in the State context, but which also exist under different names)?

Q 68.b. Have you ever received long-term institutionalization at government expense?

Q 68.c. If you answer to Item Number 68.a. is “Yes,” list the benefit(s) you received, the start and end dates of each period of receipt, and the dollar amount of benefits received.

Q 68.d.      If your answer to 68.b. is “Yes,” list the name, city, and state for each institution, the start and end dates of each period of institutionalization, and the reason you were institutionalized.

Questions 68.a. – 68.d. are only asking about public benefits (in other words, public cash assistance for income maintenance and long-term institutionalization at government expense) you received in the past or are currently receiving at the time the Form I-485 is filed, and where you were/are a listed beneficiary.

Exceptions: Do not include any public benefits for which you are not listed as a beneficiary, even if you assisted with the application. Do not include benefits that you only applied for, or were approved to receive in the future but have not received in the past and/or are not currently receiving. Do not include public benefits you received only on behalf of another individual.

USCIS explained that public assistance for COVID-19 testing, vaccinations, or treatment is not considered in evaluating the public charge. Nor does USCIS consider public assistance in other forms if related explicitly to COVID-19, such as food, housing, cash assistance, rental assistance, tax credits, stimulus payments, unemployment, and financial aid grants to students, the Paycheck Protection Program, and student loan forbearance.

New public charge section of the adjustment application Form I485 added a lot of new questions. In addition, applicants not only swear that all information on the application is correct but also that all information provided with the application is complete, true, and correct.

USCIS may reject or deny an adjustment application for failure to submit requested evidence or supporting documents as stated in the instructions to Form I-485 and as stated in 8 CFR §103.2(b)(1).

Currently, the USCIS Policy Guidance states that noncitizens are not required to submit any specific evidence relating to their household’s income, assets, and liabilities; however, USCIS may request additional evidence on a case-by-case basis if more information is needed to make a public charge inadmissibility determination. The new I-485 changes made it more difficult for applicants to complete forms I-485 by themselves.

Resources:

- New form I485 https://www.uscis.gov/i-485 
- See 8 CFR §212.21(b). USCIS does not consider benefits that are not referenced above when making a public charge inadmissibility determination. See 8 CFR §212.22(a)(3).
- See 8 CFR §212.21(c)
- 8 CFR §213a.1.
- USCIS Policy Manual: https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-processes-and-procedures/public-charge/public-charge-resources
and here:
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-8-part-g

Question: 
I filed an I-751 application by myself without my abusive US citizen husband's help or signature. My I-751 petition to remove conditions from residency was recently granted on the basis of abuse and extreme cruelty by U.S. citizen spouse. I received my 10-year green card card.  I have been an permanent resident for more than 3 years. 

Can I apply for U.S. citizenship through naturalization after just 3 years, instead of waiting for additional two years?  

Могу ли я подать заявление на американское гражданство через 3 года после первой грин карты, если моя постоянная 10-летняя грин карта была недавно утверждена на основании моей петиции, которую я подала без участия мужа на основании домашнего насилия? Я была резидентом более 3-х лет и не хотелf бы ждать еще два года.


Answer:
Yes, you can! If you filed your I-751, Petition to Remove Conditions from Residency by yourself as a waiver based on abuse and extreme cruelty, it was the only basis for a waiver, and your application was approved. It means that you can submit your N-400 Application for Naturalization after three years instead of five years.

I recommend that you consult an attorney to review your I-751 petition and naturalization eligibility to make sure that you are eligible.

Да, вы можете подать на гражданство после 3-х лет ЕСЛИ ваша петиция I-751 была подана и утверждена на основании только одного основания "домашнее насилие со стороны мужа-американца".

Перед тем как подавать на гражданство через 3 (а не 5 лет), проконсультируйтесь с адвоктом, чтобы убедиться, что вы соответствуете требованиям закона.

Сам закон внизу из Руководства офицеров иммиграционной службы США.


What the law says:

INA sec 319(a) and USCIS Policy Manual Chapter 3 - Spouses of U.S. Citizens Residing in the United States
​
F. Eligibility for Persons Subjected to Battery or Extreme Cruelty1. General Eligibility for Persons Subjected to Battery or Extreme CrueltyOn October 28, 2000, Congress expanded the provision regarding naturalization based on marriage to a U.S. citizen for persons who reside in the United States. The amendments added that any person who obtained LPR status as the spouse, former spouse, or intended spouse[13] of a U.S. citizen who subjected him or her to battery or extreme cruelty may naturalize under this provision.[14]
Specifically, the person must have obtained LPR status based on:

• An approved Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant (Form I-360) as the self-petitioning spouse of an abusive U.S. citizen;
• An approved Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant (Form I-360) as the self-petitioning spouse of an abusive LPR, if the abusive spouse naturalizes after the petition has been approved;[15] or
• Special rule cancellation of removal for battered spouses and children in cases where the applicant was the spouse, or intended spouse of a U.S. citizen, who subjected him or her to battery or extreme cruelty.[16]

A person is also eligible for naturalization under the spousal naturalization provisions if he or she had the conditions on his or her residence removed based on:

• An approved battery or extreme cruelty waiver of the joint filing requirement for Petition to Remove Conditions on Residence (Form I-751), for a conditional permanent resident, if the marriage was entered into in good faith and the spouse was subjected to battery or extreme cruelty by the petitioning citizen or LPR spouse.[17]

2. Exception to Marital Union and U.S. Citizenship Requirements for SpousesA person subjected to battery or extreme cruelty by his or her U.S. citizen spouse is exempt from the following naturalization requirements:[18]

• Married to the U.S. citizen spouse at the time of filing the naturalization application;
• Living in marital union with the citizen spouse for at least 3 years at the time of filing the naturalization application; and
• Applicant’s spouse has U.S. citizenship from the time of filing until the time the applicant takes the Oath of Allegiance.[19]

The spouse must meet all other eligibility requirements for naturalization.[20]

2005 USCIS Memorandum is here.

USCIS is updating guidance in the USCIS Policy Manual regarding Afghan and Iraqi nationals seeking special immigrant classification. The new guidance is effective immediately.
The updated guidance:

• Explains that noncitizens seeking an Afghan Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) on or after July 20, 2022, must file Form DS-157, Petition for Special Immigrant Classification for Afghan SIV Applicants, with the Department of State when they are applying for Chief of Mission approval. In some circumstances, noncitizens must still file a petition with USCIS to pursue an Afghan SIV;
• Updates eligibility criteria to reflect that the employment requirement for an Afghan SIV is now one year and clarifies what type of employment with the International Security Assistance Force qualifies;
• Updates eligibility criteria for surviving spouses and children of deceased principal noncitizens to expand the scope of who may apply for Afghan and Iraqi SIVs;
• In cases where a visa is not immediately available, removes the date limitation to convert an approved petition for an Afghan or Iraqi translator or interpreter to an approved petition for an Iraqi or Afghan employed by or on behalf of the U.S. government; and
• Clarifies statutory requirements that a noncitizen seeking an Afghan or Iraqi SIV must establish that they provided faithful and valuable service to the U.S. government by submitting a positive recommendation or evaluation from their supervisor.

For more information, see the Policy Alert (PDF, 347.6 KB). Visit the Policy Manual Feedback page to provide feedback on this update. USCIS welcomes feedback on this guidance and will consider any feedback received in future updates.

​USCIS Policy Manual is here.
​July 20, 2022 USCIS Policy Alert is here.

Conditional or permanent bars to GMC good moral character can result in the denial of your application for Naturalization, N-400, and also other applications for immigration benefits.

For example, a VAWA self-petitioner or applicant for naturalization (citizenship) will generally fail to establish that they possess good moral character if they were engaged or continue to be engaged in prostitution or gave false testimony. It can also bar a person from adjusting their status to the status of a lawful permanent resident in the United States.

Prostitution.

An applicant may not establish GMC if he or she has engaged in prostitution, procured or attempted to procure or to import prostitutes or persons for the purpose of prostitution, or received proceeds from prostitution during the statutory period.[39] The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has held that to “engage in” prostitution, one must have engaged in a regular pattern of behavior or conduct.[40] The BIA has also determined that a single act of soliciting prostitution on one’s own behalf is not the same as procurement.[41]

Another ground is False Testimony: 

An applicant who gives false testimony to obtain any immigration benefit during the statutory period cannot establish GMC.[33] 
False testimony occurs when the applicant deliberately intends to deceive the U.S. Government while under oath in order to obtain an immigration benefit. This holds true regardless of whether the information provided in the false testimony would have impacted the applicant’s eligibility. The statute does not require that the benefit be obtained, only that the false testimony is given in an attempt to obtain the benefit.[34]
While the most common occurrence of false testimony is failure to disclose a criminal or other adverse record, false testimony can occur in other areas. False testimony may include, but is not limited to, facts about lawful admission, absences, residence, marital status or infidelity, employment, organizational membership, or tax filing information. 

​Good Moral Character requirement for Naturalization. 

There are many other conditional bars to good moral character listed in the USCIS Manual.

Permanent bars to good moral character are listed in the USCIS Manual here.

If in doubt, you should consult an immigration attorney, and have your case evaluated before applying for any immigration benefits.

In Russian:

Для многих иммиграционных заявлений требуется доказательство того, что заявитель не является аморальным человеком. В законе есть перечень условных оснований для отказа в заявлении и постоянных оснований для отказе в заявлении, на том основании, что человек считается "аморальным" (или у него/нее отсутствует "good moral character"). 

Например, проституция, дача ложных показаний и другие основания могут привести к отказу.

Если вы сомневаетесь, касается ли это вашей ситуации, проконсультируйтесь конфиденциально с адвокатом по вашему делу перед тем как подавать заявления в USCIS, а иногда и до того как начинать подготовку по делу, чтобы реально оценить ваши шансы и не терять время и ресурсы.

​ALERT: Effective February 24, 2020, USCIS will implement the Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds final rule, except in Illinois, where the rule remains enjoined by a federal court as of Jan 31, 2020. DHS has sought a stay of this injunction from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in light of the Supreme Court decision to stay the last nationwide injunctions. USCIS will provide additional guidance if the injunction in Illinois is lifted.

The final rule will apply only to applications and petitions postmarked (or if applicable, submitted electronically) on or after Feb. 24, 2020. For applications and petitions sent by commercial courier (such as UPS, FedEx, and DHL), the postmark date is the date reflected on the courier receipt.

When determining whether an alien is likely to become a public charge at any time in the future, DHS will NOT consider an alien’s application for, certification or approval to receive, or receipt of certain non-cash public benefits BEFORE Feb. 24, 2020. Similarly, when determining whether the public benefits condition applies to applications or petitions for extension of stay or change of status, USCIS will only consider public benefits received on or after Feb. 24, 2020.

USCIS will post updated forms and submission instructions to the USCIS website during the week of Feb. 3 to give applicants, petitioners, and others time to review updated procedures and adjust filing methods. After Feb. 24, except in Illinois, USCIS will reject prior editions of forms if the form is postmarked on or after Feb. 24, 2020. If USCIS receives an application or petition for benefits using an incorrect edition of the forms, the petitioner or alien will need to submit a new application or petition.

DHS remains enjoined from implementing the final rule in Illinois. If the injunction in Illinois is lifted, USCIS will provide additional public guidance.

https://www.uscis.gov/i-864

Public Charge Toolkit.
​

On June 28, 2018, USCIS published Policy Memorandum entitled “Updated Guidance for the Referral of Cases and Issuance of Notices to Appear (NTAs) in Cases Involving Inadmissible and Deportable Aliens.” 

Starting October 1, 2018, USCIS started issuing NTA (referrals for deportation) in some cases where they denied a I-485 or I-539 application and the applicant is out-of-status.

Now, USCIS is expanding its right to issue a NTA to other applications as well. It will result in more cases being referred for deportation (removal) to Immigration Court.

Beginning November 19, 2018, USCIS will apply the memorandum to the following denied applications and petitions:

I-914/I-914A, Application for T Nonimmigrant Status
I-918/I-918A, Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status
I-360, Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), and
I-360 VAWA Special Immigrant (Violence Against Women Act self-petitions) and 
I-360 Special Immigrant Juvenile Status petitions)
I-730, Refugee/Asylee Relative Petitions when the beneficiary is present in the US
I-929, Petition for Qualifying Family Member of a U-1 Nonimmigrant
I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (with the underlying form types listed above).

U, T, VAWA, SIJS are humanitarian applications. Previously, a denial usually didn't result in deportation. This policy changes on November 19, 2018.

Read here.

The American Immigration Lawyers Association’s Customs and Border Patrol Office of Field Operations Liaison Committee released new guidance (ed. 03-22-2017) on the due process rights of lawful permanent residents (LPRs, or Green Card holders) at U.S. ports of entry.  It is important that LPRs understand their rights when attempting to enter the country, especially in this new age of increased immigration enforcement. Nonimmigrants applying for admission to the United States may have even less rights at the border.

Rights of LPRs at Ports of Entry

Upon return to the United States from travel abroad, Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs) have certain due process rights, including the right to a hearing before an immigration judge before they can be stripped of their permanent resident status. In addition, given the increasing reports of CBP inspection of traveler’s electronic devices and/or social media accounts, it is important for members to advise LPR clients of the risks of refusing such a request.

Due Process Rights of LPRs (lawful permanent residents)

LPRs enjoy greater due process rights than nonimmigrants when returning to the United States after travel abroad. Like all international travelers, upon return, LPRs are subject to inspection by CBP. CBP may question and screen LPRs to determine whether they are a “returning resident” or whether they should be treated as an “arriving alien.”

Under INA §101(a)(13)(C), a returning resident shall not be regarded as seeking “admission” to the United States, (i.e., shall not be treated as an arriving alien), unless he or she:

• Has abandoned or relinquished LPR status;
• Has been absent from the United States for a continuous period in excess of 180 days;
• Has engaged in illegal activity after having departed the United States;
• Has departed from the United States while under legal process seeking removal of the alien from the United States, including removal proceedings under the INA and extradition proceedings;
• Has committed an offense under INA §212(a)(2) [criminal and related grounds of inadmissibility], unless since such offense the alien has been granted relief under INA §212(h) [waiver of inadmissibility] or §240A(a) [cancellation of removal for permanent residents]; or
• Is attempting to enter at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers or has not been admitted to the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer.

An LPR who is deemed to be seeking admission may be charged as removable from the United States as an arriving alien. LPRs that are charged as removable, including those who are alleged to have abandoned their U.S. residence, have the right to a hearing before an immigration judge. See Matter of Huang, 19 I&N Dec. 749 (BIA 1988). Despite this, CBP may attempt to convince an LPR that their absence from the United States resulted in automatic abandonment of their U.S. residence, and urge them to sign a Form I-407, Record of Abandonment of Lawful Permanent Resident Status. As AILA recently advised, an individual does not lose LPR status merely because of time spent abroad. An LPR remains an LPR unless the government proves abandonment by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence and until an order of removal is issued and becomes final.

Form I-407 must be signed voluntarily and there are no negative consequences if an LPR refuses to sign the form. Neither failure to sign nor abandonment of LPR status by itself is grounds for detention by CBP. If CBP makes a determination, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the LPR abandoned his or her residence in the U.S., and the LPR refuses to sign a Form I-407, CBP’s only recourse is to issue a Notice to Appear (NTA) before an immigration judge. Even LPRs who have signed a Form I-407 retain the right to request a hearing before an immigration judge to determine whether LPR status was abandoned. See Matter of Wood, No. A24-653-925 (BIA 1992). Should CBP confiscate the LPR’s permanent resident card, the LPR has the right to alternative evidence of LPR status, such as an I-94 card and/or passport stamp.

CBP Search of Electronic Devices and Social Media Accounts

In 2009, CBP released to the public its current policy on searches of electronic devices. This policy states that all electronic devices, including those belonging to U.S. citizens, can be searched at a port of entry “without individualized suspicion.” There appear to be only very narrow limitations to the scope of CBP’s search authority. For example, section 5.2.1 indicates that privileged material, such as attorney/client communications, while not necessarily exempt from a search, may be subject to special handling procedures which require approval from CBP Associate/Assistant Chief Counsel.
CBP’s right to conduct suspicion-less searches of persons and conveyances has long been upheld by the Supreme Court as a “border search exception” to the 4th Amendment. While the 4th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” the Supreme Court held in Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925), that it is “reasonable” to conduct border searches without a warrant due to national security interests.

CBP’s policy of conducting suspicion-less searches of electronic devices has not yet been meaningfully challenged. Following the publication of the 2009 guidance, the Supreme Court held, in Riley v California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014), that the police may not search and seize the digital contents of a person’s cell phone or electronic device, incident to an arrest, without first obtaining a search warrant.  In arriving at this conclusion, the Court noted that cell phones have become “such a pervasive and insistent part of daily life that the proverbial visitor from Mars might conclude they were an important feature of human anatomy.” Riley, 134 S. Ct. at 2484. The ability of modern cell phones to contain the digital sum total of one’s “papers and effects,” the Court held, makes police searches of these devices unreasonable without a warrant. This ruling, however, only applies to arrests occurring in the interior of the United States and does not address arrests or searches at the border. Though this issue could be considered by a federal court, given the dire consequences to a foreign national who refuses to submit to such a search (including expedited removal), it is more likely that this issue will be pursued by a U.S. citizen who does not consent and is willing to litigate the matter.

A subsidiary issue to warrantless searches of cell phones and electronic devices is whether CBP may access an individual’s social media accounts. In 2016 CBP began collecting social media identifiers from Visa Waiver travelers through changes to the ESTA application. While the ESTA form makes this question optional, and only asks for social media “identifiers,” (as opposed to “passwords”) so that CBP can presumably view the traveler’s public information, AILA has received several reports of CBP officers requesting log in information so that they can view private social media accounts and messages. While the CBP electronic device search policy has not been updated to address this specific situation, it appears that CBP may view this information as falling within the “border search exception” to the 4th Amendment. For more information, see CBP Inspection of Electronic Devices Tear Sheet.

If a U.S. citizen refuses to consent to a search, CBP may do one of several things, including any of the following or a combination of the following:

• Detain the person until he or she consents.
• Have the person arrested for obstruction of justice.
• Let the person go and seize the device in question.

The CBP policy on search of electronic devices provides that CBP officers (with supervisory approval) make take physical possession of an electronic device either (a) when, upon a search of such a device, with or without suspicion of wrongdoing, a CBP officers discovers probable cause to seize it; or (b) when officers have “technical difficulties” in searching the device, such that technical assistance is required to continue the border search. In the latter case, inability to unlock the device due to non-consent could be deemed a “technical difficulty” justifying detention of the device. The policy provides that devices shall generally be returned within five days, but devices may be kept for up to 15 days and extensions beyond 15 days can be approved in 7-day increments thereafter. While CBP policy is to carefully record information about these detentions in its records, the policy sets no maximum period after which a device is required to be returned to its owner.

If an LPR or nonimmigrant refuses to consent to a search, CBP could follow any of the courses of action outlined in the previous paragraph with regard to U.S. Citizens and may, in addition, refuse a nonimmigrant admission to the United States and/or utilize the agency’s expedited removal authority. See generally, INA §235 and 8 CFR Part 235.

Right to Counsel (right to an attorney)

CBP has long held that there is no “right to counsel” during the inspection and admission process, although attorneys are sometimes permitted, at the agency’s discretion, to accompany clients who are detained in secondary inspection and/or are ordered to appear at a deferred inspection office. This interpretation is supported by 8 CFR §292.5(b) which applies generally to all immigration proceedings and states:

(b) Right to representation. Whenever an examination is provided for in this chapter, the person involved shall have the right to be represented by an attorney or representative who shall be permitted to examine or cross-examine such person and witnesses, to introduce evidence, to make objections which shall be stated succinctly and entered on the record, and to submit briefs. Provided, that nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to provide any applicant for admission in either primary or secondary inspection the right to representation, unless the applicant for admission has become the focus of a criminal investigation and has been taken into custody. 

In addition, the CBP Inspector’s Field Manual, at chapter 2.9, states:

Dealing with Attorneys and Other Representatives. No applicant for admission, either during primary or secondary inspection has a right to be represented by an attorney – unless the applicant has become the focus of a criminal investigation and has been taken into custody. An attorney who attempts to impede in any way your inspection should be courteously advised of this regulation. This does not preclude you, as an inspecting officer, to permit a relative, friend, or representative access to the inspectional area to provide assistance when the situation warrants such action. he Inspector’s Field Manual (“IFM”) is no longer relied upon as an official source of agency guidance and has been at least partially replaced by the CBP Officer’s Reference Tool (ORT). The ORT is the subject of FOIA litigation and has not yet been released. Nevertheless, the IFM guidance appears to comport with current agency practice.  (Emphasis added).

Should CBP choose to issue an NTA and initiate removal proceedings, INA §101(a)(27) states that there must be at least ten days between service of the NTA and the first removal hearing. However, the issuance of an NTA does not impose upon CBP an obligation to allow the individual to speak with an attorney while being held in a CBP facility, “unless the applicant has become the focus of a criminal investigation and has been taken into custody.” In addition, should CBP detain and hold the person until Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) takes him or her into custody pending a bond hearing, the right to counsel would then attach, as the individual would no longer be an applicant for admission.

​You can view updated Know Your Rights Guidance here.

​If you need legal advice, want to schedule a consultation or want to hire an attorney, please email us and we will get back to you to schedule the best time to talk on the phone or video chat.
​

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.​

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.​
​