USCIS Opens the Humanitarian, Adjustment, Removing Conditions and Travel Documents (HART) Service CenterU.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is announcing the opening of the Humanitarian, Adjustment, Removing Conditions, and Travel Documents (HART) Service Center, the sixth service center within its Service Center Operations (SCOPS) directorate, and the first to focus on humanitarian and other workload cases.
HART will promote cohesive and consistent adjudicative operations, and its dedicated workforce will improve the quality and efficiency of our humanitarian caseload processing. This workforce will continue to receive the robust, specialized training currently provided to employees who are processing these forms. These applications and benefits affect the most vulnerable of noncitizens, and the opening of this service center will make a positive impact in the quality, timeliness, and scale of our humanitarian processing abilities.
After a review of USCIS processing times, we deemed that the greater focus should be provided to these humanitarian-based benefits, which led to the creation of the HART Service Center. With HART, we are taking action to improve our service in partnership with community groups. In fact, the creation of HART is partially the result of the feedback we have received from our partnership with stakeholders and community groups. 
HART will initially exist as a hybrid service center, with virtual adjudication capabilities and coordination with existing service centers for certain administrative support. HART will ultimately transition to a 100% virtual service center with no geographic physical location, across multiple time zones. This center will be identified by the specialized work adjudicated by its staff and not by a brick-and-mortar facility or location. 
HART will process both digital and paper-based applications and petitions and will partner with existing service centers to support physical onsite necessities such as file exchange and administrative support.

The HART Service Center will initially focus on the following case types: 

• Form I-601A, Application for Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver;
• Bona Fide Determination (BFD) for Form I-918, Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status;
• Form I-730, Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition; and
• VAWA-based Form I-360, Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant.

The establishment of HART is associated with five hiring phases. We completed the first two phases of forming HART on Jan. 29, 2023, with internal reassignments and leadership details of approximately 150 current SCOPS personnel.
The third phase of internal reassignments is currently in process, pending onboarding and training. On Feb. 28, HART was operational with 30% staffing levels and is currently staffed with 150 positions. Through this phased approach, HART will ultimately grow to 480 positions. Phase four is expected to begin in the coming weeks, with the posting of a public USCIS job notice that will seek to attract a pool of applicants from across the country with experience working with the vulnerable populations HART serves. Phase four hiring will focus on bringing staffing levels to 60%-85% of authorized positions by the end of FY 2023. We anticipate by the end of FY 2024, staffing levels will be at 95%-98% of authorized positions. These benchmarks will determine hiring and training which will ultimately establish HART as fully operational. 
Customer Service: Existing customer service channels will continue to be operational during this transition. Customer Service inquires for HART will be supported by the existing service centers.
Address Changes: Address changes for VAWA-based Form I-360 and Form I-918 BFD will continue to be sent to the Vermont Service Center physical address for processing per the instructions on our website at uscis.gov/addresschange. 
Inquiries from Attorney and Accredited Representatives: Attorneys and accredited representatives may send inquiries to the same email boxes they have historically used, as these email addresses are not changing. Unrepresented petitioners and applicants may send signed written inquires/requests for biometrics appointments, including a new date/time or location, to the physical address found on our website.  
Filing Instructions: The transition to HART will not affect current filing instructions. Please continue to follow the filing instructions as indicated in the “where to file” section on each form type’s webpage. Any future changes to filing locations will be posted on webpages for each form and announced via alerts. To register for alerts and updates, please visit: uscis.gov/news/alerts.

Since 2005, our office is helping clients with VAWA humanitarian cases. To contact an attorney, please email  us.

С 2005 года мы помогаем нашим клиентам получить грин карты самостоятельно через гуманитарную петицию ВАВА. Обращайтесь за помощью по емейл.

​

USCIS is extending the validity of Permanent Resident Cards (also known as Green Cards) for petitioners who properly file Form I-751, Petition to Remove Conditions on Residence, or Form I-829, Petition by Investor to Remove Conditions on Permanent Resident Status for 48 months (4 years) beyond the card’s expiration date. This change started on January 11, 2023, for Form I-829 and will start on January 25, 2023, for Form I-751.

USCIS has updated the language on Form I-751 and Form I-829 receipt notices to extend the validity of a Green Card for 48 months for individuals with a newly filed Form I-751 or Form I-829.

USCIS will issue new receipt notices to eligible conditional permanent residents who previously received notices with an extension shorter than 48 months and whose cases are still pending.

These receipt notices can be presented with an expired Green Card as evidence of continued status, while the case remains pending with USCIS. By presenting your updated receipt notice with your expired Green Card, you remain authorized to work and travel for 48 months from the expiration date on the front of your expired Green Card.
As a reminder, conditional permanent residents who plan to be outside of the United States for a year or more should apply for a reentry permit by filing Form I-131, Application for Travel Document, before leaving the United States. For more information, see our International Travel as a Permanent Resident webpage.

Briefly in Russian:

Правильная и своевременная подача формы I-751 с 25 января 2023 будет продлять срок действия условной грин карты на 4 года (48 месяцев) с даты истечения грин карты.

Если вы уже подали вашу петицию, и она все еще на рассмотрении, вы получите письмо продляющее срок действия грин карты.

Traveling Outside the United States as an Asylum Applicant, an Asylee, or a Lawful Permanent Resident Who Obtained Such Status Based on Asylum.

Asylum applicants, asylees, and lawful permanent residents who obtained such status based on their asylum status are subject to special rules with regard to traveling outside the United States.

--> An asylum applicant who leaves the United States without first obtaining advance parole shall be presumed to have abandoned his or her asylum application. Advance parole (see: USCIS Form I-131) allows certain aliens to return to the United States without a visa after traveling abroad.
Asylum applicants must receive advance parole before leaving the United States.
Advance parole does not guarantee that the alien will be paroled into the United States. Rather, the asylum applicant must still undergo inspection by an immigration inspector from United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

--> Asylees: Asylees (individuals who have been granted asylum) may travel abroad with the prior approval of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Such prior approval comes in the form of a refugee travel document. A refugee travel document is valid for one year and is issued to an asylee to allow his or her return to the United States after temporary travel abroad.
Generally, the asylee should obtain the refugee travel document prior to departure from the United States, though the applicable regulations also permit the issuance of a refugee travel document abroad under certain circumstances. Like advance parole, a refugee travel document does not guarantee admission into the United States. Rather, the asylee must still undergo inspection by an immigration inspector from CBP.

--> Lawful Permanent Residents: Lawful permanent residents who obtained such status based on their asylum status may also travel abroad with refugee travel documents.  

​Read more here and here.

On Monday, December 4, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two orders staying lower courts’ (Maryland & Hawaii) preliminary injunctions of President's September 24, 2017 presidential proclamation or 3rd travel ban. 

Accordingly, President's most recent travel ban, so-called Muslim Ban 3, will go into effect while the appeals are pending.  The U.S. Supreme Court encouraged the appeals courts to quickly decide whether the most recent travel ban was lawful.

The September 24, 2017, Presidential Proclamation on Enhancing Vetting Capabilities & Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats indefinitely blocks the entry for certain individuals from eight countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Chad, North Korea, Syria, Somalia, Venezuela and Yemen. 

Travel Restriction for Nationals of Eight Countries – Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Venezuela, Syria, and Yemen

General Rules:

• Only applies to individuals who are (i) outside of the U.S. on the day the travel ban goes into effect, and (ii) who do not have a valid visa on the day travel ban goes into effect, and (iii) who have not obtained a waiver under Section 3(c) of the Proclamation
• Does not apply to:
  • Lawful permanent residents (green card holders);
  • Individuals admitted or paroled into the U.S. on or after the effective date;
  • Those with a document other than a visa that allows them to travel to the U.S., if the document is dated on or after the effective date;
  • Dual-nationals traveling on a passport from a non-designated country;
  • Individuals granted asylum;
  • Refugees already admitted to the U.S.; or
  • Individuals granted withholding of removal, advance parole, or protection under the Convention against Torture

Previously-Impacted Countries – Restrictions Effective Immediately:

• Iran
  • Effective immediately, immigrant and nonimmigrant entry are suspended for Iranian nationals except for those with F, J, or M visas.
  • Those with F, J, or M visas will most likely be subject to “enhanced screening and vetting requirements.”
• Libya
  • Effective immediately, immigrants and nonimmigrants on business (B-1), tourist (B-2), business/tourist (B-1/B-2) visas are suspended except those with a bona fide relationship to the U.S.
• Somalia
  • Effective immediately, immigrant visas are suspended for Somali nationals
  • Non-immigrant visas are permitted, subjected to heightened screening.
  • The bona fide relationship exemption ends October 18, 2017.
• Syria
  • Effective immediately, immigrant and nonimmigrant entry is suspended for Syrian nationals
• Sudan
  • Sudan was removed from the list of restricted countries in MB-4.
  • Sudanese visa holders who were impacted by earlier Muslim Bans should now be able to reapply for visa.
• Yemen
  • Effective immediately, all immigrant visas and nonimmigrant business (B-1), tourist (B-2), and business/tourist (B-1/B-2) visas are suspended,

​Newly Impacted Countries (Added):

• Chad
  • All immigrant visas and with nonimmigrant business (B-1), tourist (B-2), and business/tourist (B-1/B-2) visas are suspended from entering the U.S.
• North Korea
  • All immigrant and nonimmigrant visa holders are suspended from entering the U.S.
• Venezuela
  • The entry of officials of government agencies of Venezuela involved in screening and vetting procedures and their immediate family members, as nonimmigrants on business (B-1), tourist (B-2), and business/tourist (B-1/B-2) visas, is suspended. Additionally, nationals of Venezuela who are visa holders are subject to additional measures.
  • Per Section 3(b)(v) of MB-4, certain Venezuelans traveling on diplomatic visas are not affected by this order.

Waivers:

If you are from one of the countries covered by the travel ban and do not yet have a valid U.S. visa, you cannot obtain a visa at this time unless you qualify for a waiver.  Consular officers may, on a case-by-case and discretionary basis, grant a waiver to affected individuals for certain reasons. To obtain a waiver and a visa, the person seeking admission must prove:

• denying entry to the U.S. would cause the foreign national undue hardship;
• admission would not pose a threat to the national security or public safety of the United States; 
• entry would be in the U.S. national interest.

 
Travel Risks for People from Affected Countries with Valid Visas:

If you are from one of the impacted countries and hold a valid visa, you may be able to apply for admission to the United States. The newest travel ban states that no visas will be automatically revoked and that those with a valid visa are not covered by the travel ban. However, travel outside the United States at this time carries risk. 

Affirming the district court's summary judgment, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that under INA §244(f)(4), a Temporary Protected Status (TPS) recipient is deemed to be in lawful status as a nonimmigrant—and has thereby satisfied the requirements for becoming a nonimmigrant, including inspection and admission--for purposes of adjustment of status under INA §245(a).

The 9th Circuit court of appeals decision means that a person in TPS status (even the person who came to the U.S. without a visa, EWI) is eligible to obtain lawful permanent residence through adjustment of status application. 

The court's decision published on March 31, 2017 is 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.
​

ПРАКТИЧЕСКИЕ СОВЕТЫ: ЗНАЙ СВОИ ПРАВА И КРАТКИЙ ОБЗОР УКАЗОВ ПРЕЗИДЕНТА ОБ ИММИГРАЦИИ ОТ 25 И 27 ЯНВАРЯ 2017.

****************************************************************************************************************
Ситуация с указами президента меняется каждый день: помните, что информация и законодательство постоянно обновляются, и мы не в состоянии вовремя опубликовать изменения и дополнения на этом блоге. Если вам нужен юридический совет адвоката, свяжитесь с нами по электронной почте и мы договоримся о дате и времени консультации по телефону или через скайп.

После решения федерального судьи о том, что некоторые положения указа президента должны быть приостановлены от 3 февраля 2017, 4 февраля DHS, USCIS, CBP, ICE DOS и все другие департаменты и агенства официально заявили, что они возвращаются к старым процедурам, как это было в силе до подписания указа. И пока указ президента находится на рассмотрении в суде, они не будут его применять.
****************************************************************************************************************

25 и 27 января 2017 Президент США Трамп подписал три важных указа, касающихся иммиграции, виз и национальной безопасности страны.
 
Полный текст этих указов можно прочитать по линкам:

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)

Указ номер 1 касается постройки стены на границе между США и Мексикой.
 
Указ номер 2 касается новых приоритетов в депортации из США, а также изменения во взаимоотношении федерального правительства и так называемых "sanctuary cities", городов, не выдающих нелегальных иммигрантов. Если такие города будут отказываться сотрудничать с федеральными орнанами, и не согласятся передавать им информацию о нелегалах, федеральное правительство угрожает отменой федерального финансирования для некоторых программ. Следует помнить, что это касается только тех программ, которые финансируются федералным правительством США, так как большая часть программ в любом штате финансируется за счет бюджета штата.

Указ номер 3 был подписан и вступил в силу 27 января 2017, и получил самую большую огласку и вызвал шквал негодования и возмущения граждан и политиков как в нутри США, так и за пределами. Указ предусматривает следующее: (1) вводится временный на 90 дней запрет на въезд в США лиц имеющих отношение к семи исламским странам Ближнего Востока (указ не расшифровал, что значит national): Иран, Ирак, Сирия, Судан, Ливия, Йемен и Сомалия; (2) временно на 120 дней приостанавливается въезд беженцев в США изо всех стран мира; (3) на неопределенное время запрещен въезд в США лиц, имеющих отношение к Сирии (важно подчеркнуть, что запрет не ограничен по времени, он относится как к лицам, имеющим гражданство Сирии, так и рожденным там, и может относится к лицам, которые имеют паспорта или travel documents, выданные Сирией, но рожденным в других странах, (4) отменена процедура выдачи виз в США без интервью.

Также в понедельник 30 января 2017 года Иммиграционная Служба США USCIS объявила своим сотрудникам, что на неопределенное время приостанавливается вынесение решений по всем заявлениям и петициям от заявителей из этих семи стран (Иран, Ирак, Сирия, Судан, Ливия, Йемен и Сомалия). Вот это уже очень серьезно. Так как большая часть заявителей находятся в США, и они будут подавать заявления на продление и смену статуса, на получение или продление разрешения на работу, на грин карту, на гражданство и т.п., и USCIS будет вынуждено откладывать их дела "until further notice", так как им запрещено принимать окончательные решения, даже если заявитель успешно прошел интервью (например, на грин карту или гражданство). Пока не понятно, что будет происходить на практике. Скорее всего в течение 2017 года этот запрет будет снят, но конкретной информации пока нет.

Также Госдеп США прекратил выдачу виз гражданам из этих же семи стран (Иран, Ирак, Сирия, Судан, Ливия, Йемен и Сомалия). 27 января 2017 мы получили меморандум из Госдепа о том, что все визы, выданные гражданам этих стран считаются "условно аннулированы" с 27 января.

Запрет на въезд в США относится также к лицам с двойным гражданством. Например, если у вас одно гражданство Ирана и второе Германии, и ранее вы могли ездить в США без визы по Visa Waiver Program по немецкому паспорту, то теперь это невозможно. (2 февраля 2017 Госдеп США опубликовал инструкцию о том, что они продолжают выдавать визы лицам с двойным гражданством, и ставят визу в паспорт той страны, которая не включена в список семи стран).

Запрет на въезд в США по этому указу президента от 27 января 2017 все также относится и к постоянным жителям США (тем, у кого грин карта или вид на жительство в США). За последние дни несколько федеральных судов приняли решения о том, что постоянные жители должны быть допущены в США, но это пока не отменило положение указа. И инструкции от DHS позволяют въезд постоянных жителей, так как это "в национальных интересах" США, что не отменяет сам запрет. Постоянные жители США должны пройти secondary inspection при въезде в США, и доказать, что не являются риском для национальной безопасности.

Если вы имеете вид на жительство США и при въезде в США, сотрудники CBP пытаются отобрать вашу грин карту или не впустить вас в страну, читайте наши практические советы тут.
 
Будьте осторожны, если вы подпадаете под одну из невъездных категорий. Всегда лучше проконсультироваться с адвокатом заранее.

Ожидается еще один указ президента о рабочих визах H-1B visa. Некоторые веб сайты поместили черновик предполагаемого указа. Этот указ внесет изменения в порядок выдачи рабочей визы H-1B и разрешения на работу EAD для супругов H-4. Предполагается, что указ изменит порядок проведения лотереи для виз H-1B, где упор будет делаться на том, получено ли образование в США и какую зарплату готов платить работодатель, а также фокус будет на выдаче рабочих виз "самым лучшим и самым умным" (расшифровка такой нетипичной для юридического документа фразы, я надеюсь, последует когда указ будут подписан).

ПРАКТИЧЕСКИЕ СОВЕТЫ:

1. Если вы из одной из семи стран (гражданин, рождены, имеете какое-то другое задокументированное отношение), воздержитесь от поездок в США или от поездок за пределы США в ближайшие 90 дней, или пока указ находится в силе, или вообще на неопределенное время, если вы имеете отношение к Сирии
2. Если вы постоянный житель США, имеющий отношение к одной из семи стран, воздержитесь от поездок за предеыл США в течение 90 дней или пока указ находится в силе (а если вы из Сирии - то вообще не выезжайте из США, так как запрет на неопределенное время).
3. Если вы из любой другой мусульманской страны, будьте на чеку. Ваша страна может быть добавлена в "список семи". Возможно, что вам стоит заранее подать какие-то заявления, которые вы откладывали, продлить документы, истекающие в скором будущем.
4. Если вы из одной из семи стран, и ваше заявление уже находится на рассмотрении в USCIS, будьте готовы к долгому ожиданию, так как они обязаны отложить все такие заявления и им запрещено выносить решения по делу. Теоретически возможно подать иск в федеральный суд, чтобы принудить государство принять решение по вашему делу, но практический совет будет подождать прецедентов и официальных разъяснений от иммиграционной службы.
5. Визы уже выданные лицам из семи стран были "условно аннулированы" 27 января 2017. Выдача новых виза в настоящий момент приостановлена.
6. Если вы планируете подать петицию на маму, отца, брата, сестру, детей, жену или мужа - и по настоящим законам вы вправе подать такую петицию, не откладывайте и подавайте петицию. По некоторым сведениям целые визовые категории могут быть отменены, изменены или уменьшены в будущем.
7. Если вы нелегал, проконсультируйтесь с адвокатом и определитесь, есть ли у вас какие-то варианты.

 
В заключение я хочу добавить, что хотя в большинстве случаев, этот третий указ президента от 27 января 2017 не имеет отношения к лицам из русскоговорящего сообщества в США, но есть и такие, к кому этот указ имеет прямое отношение. Например, если вы родились на территории одной из семи стран, где ваши родители жили, учились или работали, даже если у вас нет гражданства из одной из семи стран, вы подпадаете под действие указа. Например, если вы лицо без гражданства, но ваши документы были выданы Сирией или одной из семи стран, или вы в прошлом постоянно указывали Сирию, Ирак, Иран и т.п. как страну своей национальности -  вы тоже подпадаете под действие указа. Многие положения указа нуждаются в дальнейшей расшифровке и детальном объяснении (например, что такое "лицо имеющее отношение к одной из семи стран"). Такие официальные объяснения обычно публикуются через соответствующие каналы в иммиграционной службе USCIS и через Госдеп США Department of State. Мы будем вас держать в курсе!

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

​

Putro v. Lynch, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decided this case on July 07, 2016. This case clarified application of a joint filing exemption for an alien seeking to obtain unconditional lawful permanent resident status as a result of her marriage to a U.S. citizen, when applying as a widow after the death of her/his US citizen husband (USCIS Petition I-751).

Vera Putro, a citizen of Latvia, married a U.S. citizen in 2004 and based on that marriage gained conditional permanent residency. Her residency did not become unconditional, however, because her husband passed away before they could petition jointly to remove the conditions. Putro petitioned on her own to have the conditions removed. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services construed the petition as a request for a discretionary waiver of the joint-petition requirement, denied the waiver, and ordered Putro removed.

Decision: The Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit decided that in fact, Putro did not need a waiver because her husband’s death during the conditional period exempted her from the joint-filing requirement. In mistakenly evaluating her petition as a request for a waiver, the agency erroneously placed on Putro the burden of proving that the marriage was bona fide.

The Court of Appeals granted petition and remanded the case to Immigration Judge for determination under the proper standard. 

Finally, after 8 years the petitioner might have her petition for unconditional permanent resident status approved (it's not approved yet, merely was remanded for another review and decision following the correct standard of proof by the same IJ immigration judge). When the I751 is approved, she will become eligible to apply for USA citizenship as well (because it's been over five years since the grant of her conditional residence in 2006).

********************************
To read in Russian - please scroll down. По-русски смотрите внизу страницы.
*******************************

Facts: Ms. Putro first entered the U.S. on a 4-month, foreign exchange student visa in 1999 and overstayed. In November 2004 she married Michael Zalesky, a U.S. citizen. Putro was granted conditional legal permanent residence (“LPR”) status as the spouse of a U.S. citizen in July 2006, see 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(1); 8 C.F.R. § 216.1. Four months later, in November, Zalesky died. Zalesky’s untimely death complicated Putro’s immigration status. To gain unconditional LPR status, Putro and Zalesky had to jointly petition the agency for removal of the conditions within the 90-day period before the second anniversary of her obtaining conditional permanent residency (i.e., between mid-April and mid-July of 2008). See 8 U.S.C. § 1186(c)(1)(A), (d)(2); 8 C.F.R. § 216.4(a)(1). Of course filing a joint petition was no longer possible, so in June 2008 Putro filed a Form I-751 Petition to Remove Conditions on Residence, checking the box specifying that she sought a waiver of the joint-filing requirement because her spouse had died.

USCIS had denied her I-751 petition filed as a waiver for failure to prove a good faith marriage.

She reapplied in Immigration court removal proceedings, and was denied again. The IJ immigration judge denied Putro’s application for the waiver of the joint-filing requirement and concluded that she was removable. The IJ found that Putro had failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that she and Zalesky had a bona fide marriage. Her testimony and that of her witnesses, he said, was “unpersuasive.” The government, in contrast, had presented “reliable” evidence that family members and Armstrong had told investigators that the marriage was a fraud.

Putro appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, but it upheld the IJ’s ruling and dismissed her appeal.

On petition for review, Putro argued that the IJ had misapplied the standard of proof, and at oral argument we ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing on how this case is affected by the decision in Matter of Rose, and particularly the portion of the decision in which the Board states:
[T]he death of a petitioning spouse during the 2-year conditional period excuses the general requirement that a petition to remove the conditional basis of an alien spouse’s status must be “joint.” Thus, a separate waiver under section 216(c)(4) of the Act is not required if the surviving spouse timely files an I-751 petition requesting removal of the conditional basis of his or her status and appears for a personal interview. 25 I. & N. Dec. 181, 182 (BIA 2010).
We agree with Putro that the IJ mishandled her petition to remove conditions on her status by construing it as a request for a waiver of the joint-filing requirement rather than recognizing that she qualified for an exemption of that requirement. Because Zalesky died within the two-year conditional period and Putro timely petitioned to remove her conditional status, she should have been excused from the joint-filing requirement. Matter of Rose, 25 I. & N. Dec. at 182.

This conclusion was applied in the only federal appellate decision (an unpublished one) to address the issue. See Zerrouk v. U.S. Att’y. Gen., 553 F. App’x. 957, 959 (11th Cir. 2014) (recognizing exemption of “joint” filing requirement for alien whose spouse dies within two-year conditional period, but concluding that substantial evidence supported determination that marriage was not bona fide).
Moreover, the discretionary waiver does not even apply to Putro, because that waiver requires that the marriage be “terminated (other than through the death of the spouse).” 8 U.S.C. § 1186(c)(4)(B). That requires divorce or annulment, see Memorandum from Donald Neufeld, Acting Assoc. Director, USCIS, to Directors, I-751 Filed Prior to Termination of Marriage (Apr. 3, 2009). Though Putro separated from her husband before his death, they never divorced, and the marriage was terminated by his death.

The error was significant because it had the effect of shifting the burden of proof that Putro’s marriage to Zalesky was bona fide. Because the IJ thought that Putro needed a waiver, he placed the burden of proof on her and ultimately found that she failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that she had a bona fide marriage. Had the burden of proof properly been applied, the government would have had to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the marriage was not bona fide. See Matter of Rose, 25 I. & N. Dec. at 185; 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(3)(D); cf. Lara v. Lynch, 789 F.3d 800, 804 (7th Cir. 2015) (noncitizen applying for discretionary waiver of joint filing petition bears burden of proving that marriage at time of inception was bona fide). Moreover, unlike a grant of the waiver—which is discretionary—the agency “shall” remove the conditional basis of the petitioner’s status as long as he or she meets the petitioning requirements and the government cannot disprove that the marriage is bona fide. See 8 U.S.C. § 1186(a)(3)(B).

This case must be remanded to the agency so that the IJ can evaluate her petition under the proper standard of proof. See Matter of Rose, 25 I. & N. Dec., at 184–85. Accordingly, we GRANT the petition and REMAND the case for determination under the proper standard.

Read the text of the decision of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals here. 
Or you can download file here.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D07-07/C:14-2430:J:Williams:aut:T:fnOp:N:1788032:S:0

Вкратце по-русски:

Вера Путро, гражданка Латвии, приехала в США в 1999 году по летней программе по обмену студентов,  J1 summer work-travel program. Она осталась в США нелегально, и через много лет вышла замуж за американского гражданина. Ее первая условная грин карта была утверждена без особых проблем в 2006. Через 4 месяца после этого ее американский муж умер от передозировки наркотиков. В 2008 Вера подала петицию на постоянную грин карту сама, без участия мужа (так как он к тому времени уже не мог поставить свою подпись по причине своей смерти). По фактам дела не понятно, но скорее всего Вера не проконсультировалась со знающим адвокатом перед подачей петиции, и подавала петицию либо сама, либо при помощи кого-то, кто не является экспертом в этой области права.

В результате, Вера получила отказ от USCIS и ее дело передали на депортацию с иммиграционный суд. 

Судья также приняла решения отказать Вере в виде на жительстве (постоянной грин карте) и приказала ей выехать из США (депортация).

Вера подала аппеляцию в следующую инстанцию, и там тоже получила отказ и указание покинуть страну.

В конце концов через 8 лет после начала этой эпопеи (дело тянется с 2008 г), Аппеляционный Суд 7 Округа США принял решение в пользу Веры. Но это еще не конец пути. Суд передал ее дело на повторное рассмотрение в суд нижестоящей инстанции с указаниями пересмотреть дело еще раз, и принять решение на основании ПРАВИЛЬНОЙ ИНТЕРПРЕТАЦИИ ЗАКОНА. Как оказалось, все предыдущие суды просто напросто неверно трактовали закон и неправильно применяли закон к Вериной ситуации. Вот такая простая ошибка стоила человеку 8 лет ее жизни и многих тысях долларов, потраченных на адвокатов и судебные разбирательства.

В конце концов, если ее петицию утвердят (пока еще только передали на повторное рассмотрение), то Вера сможет сразу же подать заявление на американское гражданство (так как прошло более 5 лет), если она докажет, что соответствует всем требованиям закона о гражданстве.

​Текст судебного решения на английском тут: