In a 6-3 ruling in U.S. Department of State et al v. Munoz et al (Case Number 23-334), the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) reaffirmed the doctrine of consular nonreviewability ruling against a U.S. citizen’s spouse who argued that the federal government violated her due process rights by denying her Salvadoran spouse an immigrant visa based on an approved family-based petition. The doctrine of consular nonreviewability holds that because the INA fails to authorize judicial review of consular decisions denying visas, federal courts do not have the authority to review visa denials.
In Munoz, SCOTUS held that U.S. citizens do not have a constitutional fundamental liberty interest in their non-citizen spouse’s ability to be admitted to United States, moreover, that U.S. citizens are not constitutionally entitled to review of denied visas as they could not raise this issue indirectly in their spouse’s case.
Ms. Munoz, a U.S. citizen, and her non-citizen spouse of over 10 years, Mr. Munoz, were forced to live apart for several years. Mr. Munoz was denied a visa following several interviews and without any explanation other than a broad reference to section 212(a)(3)(A)Iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which makes an individual inadmissible if the consular officer “knows, or has reasonable ground to believe” that the individual seeks to enter the United States to engage in unlawful activity. Ms. Munoz eventually guessed (correctly) that the Consulate believed her husband was a member of MS-13, a transnational criminal gang, due to his tattoo. Mr. Munoz asked the Consulate to reconsider its visa denial, but the Consulate denied this request. The couple then filed a federal lawsuit against the Consulate and the Department of State (DOS), arguing, inter alia, that the government had abridged Ms. Munoz’s constitutional liberty interest in her husband’s visa application by failing to give a sufficient reason he was inadmissible under the cited INA provision. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of DOS after DOS admitted the denial was in fact based on a consular officer’s determination that Mr. Munoz had religious tattoos that looked like gang logos. Thereafter, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the judgment, which brought the case next to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In its ruling, SCOTUS indicated that the “’the Due Process Clause specially protects’ only ‘those fundamental rights and liberties which are, objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.’” While Munoz invoked the fundamental right to marriage, SCOTUS concluded that Ms. Munoz was in fact claiming something different – the right to reside with her non-citizen spouse in the U.S. And that, SCOTUS concluded, is not a right deeply rooted in the nation’s history. Indeed, the country’s history instead recognizes instead the government’s sovereign authority to set the terms of admission and exclusion. SCOTUS also noted that while Congress has made some specific exceptions for spouses, Congress has not made spousal immigration a matter of right.
In its decision, SCOTUS distinguished an earlier case, Kerry v. Din, 576 U.S. 86 (2015) where in a concurring opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy assumed that a U.S. citizen would have a liberty interest that would be burdened by a spouse’s visa denial and was therefore entitled to more information than a simple citation explaining the denial. In that case, Justice Kennedy was referring to the fact that a U.S. citizen should have some right to question a denial of a spouse’s visa because there could be “bad faith” denial.
Some advocates are concerned that SCOTUS’ opinion in Munoz could lead to unnecessary family separations and subject U.S. citizen spouses to arbitrary decisions by consular officers, denying them the opportunity to build their lives together with their spouses in the U.S. Moreover, this decision casts fear and uncertainty on non-citizen spouses who have an approved family-based petition who must leave the country temporarily to process their immigrant visas abroad – not knowing whether a consular officer may erroneously deny their visa. Ultimately, SCOTUS’ decision may force U.S. citizen spouses to leave the U.S. so they can live with their spouses abroad – without having had the ability to challenge a potentially erroneous visa denial by a consular officer.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-334.html

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/602/23-334/

On June 8, 2023, the U.S. Department of State announced that it had adopted new technology to reduce the time for Administrative Processing. Currently, Administrative Processing lacks any predictability and transparency, and many U.S. visa applications wait for the decision for many weeks, months or years.
Many Administrative Processing visa cases are still taking a very long time. This is particularly true for Russian, Chinese, and Iranian applicants, including individuals who held visas in the past, are currently living in the United States, or have U.S. citizen family members. 

As the DOS stated: "National security is our top priority.  Before issuing any visa, we ensure that every prospective traveler is subject to extensive security screening.  Now, we can do this in a much more streamlined manner."

Applicants living in the United States needing a visa to return should seek advice on the risk of a lengthy delay before leaving the country. In some instances, deferring travel may be advisable.

If a visa applicant is told that they will be placed into Administrative Processing, they should take the following steps:

• Ask the interviewing officer why the application is going into Administrative Processing, what are the reasons;
• Ask how long the officer believes it will take for the application to clear Administrative Processing, what is an estimate;
• Make notes immediately after the interview of all of the questions asked by the consular officer, write it down;
• Preserve any paperwork given to you after the interview, keep the copies of all paperwork;
• Seek professional legal advice BEFORE (not after) submitting responses to any questionnaires or requests for additional evidence.

To schedule a consultation with an attorney, please email or use our scheduling app.

Using marijuana for any reason, even without a conviction, can result in denial of your green card application, either through adjustment of status in the United States (I-485) or through consular processing abroad.

Using marijuana can result in being considered inadmissible - could be under both health related and criminal related grounds

In recent years, USCIS denied applications for naturalization or citizenship (N-400) to applicants who were using marijuana or even worked in marijuana-related industry, for example, in the states where marijuana was legalized. Currently, work related to marijuana is interpreted by USCIS very broadly, to include anything from growing, distribution to providing IT services.

Colorado officials are warning legal immigrants that working in the state’s marijuana industry could jeopardize their legal status, after two people said they were denied U.S. citizenship because of their jobs.

Although 10 states broadly allow its use and sale, federal law still bans marijuana and immigration authorities say they are bound to follow that prohibition when reviewing citizenship applications.

The use and sale of marijuana for adults is broadly permitted in 10 states. More than 30 states allow a variety of marijuana-based products for medical purposes.

Lawyers have warned immigrants of the risk that using state-permitted marijuana could do to their legal status for years and are expanding that message to include employment by marijuana businesses. 

Please note that in 2019 USCIS issued a bulletin (pdf) clarifying that marijuana use is a disqualifying factor in citizenship applications, regardless of whether it’s legal in your state.

Policy Highlights  Clarifies that violation of federal controlled substance law, including for marijuana, established by a conviction or admission, is generally a bar to establishing GMC for naturalization even where the conduct would not be a violation of state law.  An applicant who is involved in certain marijuana related activities may lack GMC if found to have violated federal law, even if such activity is not unlawful under applicable state or foreign laws. Citation Volume 12: Citizenship and Naturalization, Part F, Good Moral Character, Chapter 5, Conditional Bars for Acts in Statutory Period [12 USCIS-PM F.5]

​Read here. 

To schedule a consultation with immigration attorney, please email.

Briefly in Russian:

Проблемы с получением грин карты и гражданства США при употреблении марихуаны, даже в штатах где она легализована. А также для тех, кто работает в сфере марихуаны, даже в тех штатах где это легально, и даже в тех случаях, когда работа не включает в себя разведение и распространение марихуаны. Перед подачей любого иммиграционного заявления, проконсультируйтесь с адвокатом.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, US embassies and consulates were instructed to suspend routine visa services and provide only mission critical and emergency services in late March 2020. This had a significant impact on the provision of Immigrant and Nonimmigrant Visa-related services. Posts were only able to resume limited services on a post-by-post basis beginning in July, as local conditions allowed.

In FY 2020, all US embassies approved 16,849 K-1 fiancee visas, and denied 5,143 K-1 fiancee visas (total number of K-1 visas adjudicated in FY2020 was 21,992). In FY2020 denial rate for K-1 visa was 23%. 

K-2 visas are visas for K-1 dependent children. In FY 2020, 2,460 K-2 dependent of a fiancee visas were approved and issued, and 55 K-2 visas were denied (total of 2,515 K-2 visas were adjudicated in FY2020).

We often hear questions about K-3 and K-4 visas. In FY 2020, only 2 K-3 visas were approved and 6 K-3 visas were denied (total of 8 visas adjudicated).

In FY2020, 4 K-4 visas were approved and 1 K-4 visa was denied (total of 5 visas worldwide).

This most recent statistics shows that K-3 and K-4 visas are obsolete.

To be approved for a K-1 fiancee visa, it is important to prove that the relationship is real and in good faith.

Before we can accept and give you a quote for a K-1 fiancee visa case, we usually ask our prospective clients to complete a questionnaire, answer a few questions, send us copies of the ID documents and some proof of an ongoing good faith fiancee relationship.

NIV non-immigrant visas FY2020 workload can be seen here: 

Summary of all IV and NIV issued by posts around the world in FY2020 in here. and here . 

To schedule a consultation with immigration attorney, please email us. We can't give a quote over the phone until after we received your questionnaire and reviewed your information.

​

The Board of Immigration Appeals BIA has issued an important precedent decision in Matter of PAK, 28 I&N Dec. 113 (BIA 2020).

SUMMARY: Where there is substantial and probative evidence that a beneficiary’s prior marriage was fraudulent and entered into for the purpose of evading the immigration laws, a subsequent visa petition filed on the beneficiary’s behalf is properly denied pursuant to section 204(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154(c) (2018), even if the first visa petition was denied because of insufficient evidence of a bona fide marital relationship.

Analysis: "The plain language of the statute and the regulation does not foreclose the application of the section 204(c) bar in cases where the prior visa petition filed on the beneficiary’s behalf was denied based on failure to establish a bona fide marital relationship, but the marriage had not been determined to be fraudulent.3 See Matter of R.I. Ortega, 28 I&N Dec. 9, 12 (BIA 2020) (stating that “[u]nder settled rules of statutory construction, we look first to the plain meaning of the language”). Instead, the broad phrasing and the absence of a temporal requirement suggest that section 204(c) may be applied based on a marriage fraud finding whenever it becomes evident that there is substantial and probative evidence of an attempt or conspiracy to enter into a marriage for the purpose of evading the immigration laws. Our prior precedent further supports this interpretation. In Matter of Kahy, 19 I&N Dec. 803, 804–05 (BIA 1988), we considered whether the District Director properly denied a subsequent visa petition under section 204(c) of the Act where the beneficiary’s ex-wife had indicated in a sworn statement that she agreed to marry him for $1,000 so he could remain in the United States, but she never actually sought an immigration benefit based on the fraudulent marriage because an unidentified person had forged her signature on the visa petition. Even though the beneficiary had not pursued an immigration benefit, we held that “where there is evidence in the record to indicate that the beneficiary has been an active participant in a marriage fraud conspiracy, the burden shifts to the petitioner to establish that the beneficiary did not seek nonquota or preference status based on a prior fraudulent marriage.” Id. at 806–07. Since the petitioner did not rebut the charge, we affirmed the denial of the visa petition. We similarly addressed the breadth of section 204(c) of the Act and the absence of a specific timeline for its imposition in Matter of Tawfik, 20 I&N Dec. at 168–69. In that case, the District Director revoked approval of the petitioner’s subsequent visa petition on the ground that the beneficiary had previously attempted to be accorded immediate relative status as the spouse of a United States citizen by reason of a fraudulent marriage. Id. at 166–67. In reviewing this determination, we stated that “[n]either section 204(c) of the Act nor the regulations specify . . . at what point” the determination of whether an alien has attempted or conspired to enter into a marriage for the purpose of evading the immigration laws may be made. Id. at 168. We also concluded that the Director “should not give conclusive effect to determinations made in a prior proceeding, but, rather, should reach his own independent conclusion based on the evidence before him.” Id. In that regard, we held that the approvability of the subsequent visa petition “will depend on a determination of whether there is, at present, sufficient evidence, inclusive of evidence relied upon in the determination of the first visa petition, to support the contention that the beneficiary’s previous marriage to a United States citizen was entered into for purposes of evading the immigration laws.” Id. at 168–69. Applying these standards, we found that the record lacked sufficient documentation to support the District Director’s conclusion that the beneficiary had entered into a fraudulent marriage, and we reversed the revocation of the visa petition. Id. at 169–70. The petitioner also contests the propriety of the Director’s finding that the beneficiary’s prior marriage was fraudulent. Evidence of a fraudulent marriage “must be documented in the alien’s file and must be substantial and probative.” Id. at 167. “[T]he degree of proof required for a finding of marriage fraud sufficient to support the denial of a visa petition under section 204(c) of the Act [is] higher than a preponderance of the evidence and closer to clear and convincing evidence.” Matter of P. Singh, 27 I&N Dec. 598, 607 (BIA 2019). Thus, “to be ‘substantial and probative,’ the evidence must establish that it is more than probably true that the marriage is fraudulent.” Id. “The application of the ‘substantial and probative evidence’ standard requires the examination of all of the relevant evidence and a determination as to whether such evidence, when viewed in its totality, establishes, with sufficient probability, that the marriage is fraudulent.” Id. In response to the Notice of Intent to Deny, the petitioner submitted a psychological report in support of her assertion that the beneficiary has memory problems, which she claims explain the discrepancies in his answers about his prior marriage. The Director provided reasons for discounting the psychological report. However, even crediting this evidence, the Director identified conduct of the couple after the marriage that, unrelated to any memory issues, indicates their subjective state of mind when they married. In particular, he concluded that the Summary of Findings detailing the September 21, 2012, site visit to the claimed marital residence establishes fraud. See id. at 609 (“Detailed reports from on-site visits and field investigations are especially important pieces of evidence that may reveal the presence of fraud.”). The Summary of Findings describes significant discrepancies in the accounts given by the beneficiary and his first wife regarding (1) whether and for how long the couple lived at the claimed marital residence; (2) their places and type of employment (and whether they, in fact, worked at the same store owned by the beneficiary’s father); and (3) the former wife’s living arrangements in Salem and the reasons why the beneficiary paid rent for her apartment there. Additionally, the record contains documentation of contradictions that arose during the beneficiary’s two visa interviews regarding how, when, and where he met his first wife, as well as how their relationship progressed to marriage. The petitioner submitted no new documentary evidence showing a joint life between the beneficiary and his first wife, apart from affidavits from the petitioner, the beneficiary, and the pastor who conducted the beneficiary’s ​first wedding ceremony. Affidavits of this nature, alone, “will generally not be sufficient to overcome evidence of marriage fraud in the record without objective documentary evidence to corroborate the assertions made by the affiants.” Id. The Director correctly conducted an independent determination based on the facts available when the petitioner filed the current visa petition. See Matter of Tawfik, 20 I&N Dec. at 168–69. In doing so, the Director permissibly relied on “relevant evidence, including evidence having its origin in prior [visa petition] proceedings involving the beneficiary.” Id. at 168. We conclude that the Director properly conducted an independent analysis of section 204(c)’s applicability in adjudicating the petitioner’s visa petition. In so doing, he did not erroneously equate the beneficiary’s first wife’s failure to prove the bona fides of their marriage with the beneficiary’s intent in entering into that marriage. III. CONCLUSION The fact that the visa petition filed by the beneficiary’s first wife was denied for failure to establish a bona fide marriage does not preclude the Director from denying the petitioner’s visa petition under section 204(c) of the Act. Moreover, having reviewed all the relevant evidence in its totality, we uphold the Director’s finding that there is substantial and probative evidence in the record that the beneficiary’s prior marriage was fraudulent and entered into for the purpose of evading the immigration laws. See Matter of P. Singh, 27 I&N Dec. at 607; Matter of Tawfik, 20 I&N Dec. at 167. We further conclude that the petitioner did not rebut this evidence when given the opportunity to do so. We therefore affirm the denial of the petitioner’s visa petition pursuant to section 204(c) of the Act."

​See text of the decision here.

​What is a fiancée K-1 and K-2 visa? Who can apply? What is the process, timeframes and the costs?
The fiancée K-1 nonimmigrant visa is for the foreign national fiancée of a United States citizen. Only a U.S. citizen can petition for his or her foreign fiancée. A U.S. citizen can file a fiancée visa petition only after they have met in person in the previous two years: meeting each other online or through a video chat or messenger is not enough. The purpose of a K-1 visa is for foreign citizen fiancée to travel to the United States and marry his or her U.S. citizen sponsor within 90 days of arrival. 
The foreign fiancee will then apply for adjustment of status (aka “green card”) with the USCIS at the Department of Homeland Security. This is a separate legal process.
K-1 visa is a non-immigrant visa. However, because a fiancée visa is intended to help a foreign national to immigrate to the U.S. and allows him or her to apply for a green card after marriage to a U.S. citizen petitioner shortly after arrival in the United States, the fiancé(e) must meet most of the requirements of an immigrant visa.
K-2 visa is a fiancée visa for eligible children of K-1 visa applicant (unmarried children under 21).
As of 12/2018, current processing times are approx. 5 to 7 months for a I-129F Petition, plus additional 3 to 6 weeks for the NVC stage, plus additional 1-3 months for a visa application process (varies depending on a Consulate and your own readiness).

The First Step: Filing the Petition, USCIS Form I-129F
 (1) The U.S. citizen fiancé, must file Form I-129F, Petition for Alien Fiancé(e), with the USCIS. Form I-129F cannot be filed at a U.S. Embassy, Consulate, or USCIS office abroad.
 (2) When USCIS approves the I-129F petition, it is sent to the National Visa Center (NVC). The NVC will assign a new a case number and directly forward the approved fiancée visa petition to the U.S. Embassy or Consulate where a foreign fiancée will apply for a visa.

The Second Step: Applying for a Visa
The NVC will mail a letter with a new case number after it sends a fiancée visa case to the U.S. Embassy or Consulate. Once you receive this letter, it is time to apply for a K-1 visa and prepare for the interview.
Eligible children of K-1 visa applicants may apply for K-2 visas. Children are included into the I-129F petition. However, separate visa applications and visa fees are required for every child.

Required Documentation The foreign national fiancée and eligible children applying for K-2 visas will be required to bring the following forms and documents to the visa interview:

• Completed Form DS-160, Nonimmigrant Visa Application. Each K-1 and K-2 visa applicant must: (1) complete Form DS-160 online, (2) pay a visa fee, and (3) print the DS-160 confirmation page to bring to a visa interview. 
• A passport valid for travel to the United States and with a validity date at least six months beyond your intended period of stay in the U.S.
• Divorce or death certificate(s) of any and all previous spouse(s) for both you and the U.S. citizen petitioner.
• Police certificates from your home country and all other countries where you have lived for six months or more since age 16 (Police certificates are also required for a foreign fiancée and all accompanying children age 16 or older)
• Medical examination (for K-1 and K-2 visa applicants)
• Evidence of financial support (Form I-134, Affidavit of Support, and proof of sponsor’s employment and income usually are required). There is no extra fee for the Form I-134. For a fiancée visa, the Affidavit of Support, Form I-134, is required. There is another Affidavit of Support, Form I-864, which will be required later, when you apply for a green card after marriage. The forms are different. The income requirements are also different. When submitting the Affidavit of Support, Form I-134, you need to show that your U.S. sponsor's income is 100 percent of the federal poverty guideline. When submitting the Affidavit of Support, Form I-864, the sponsor must be able to demonstrate that his or her income is at least 125 percent of the federal poverty guideline minimum income requirement. If you estimate that both K-1 visa and a green card will be applied for during the same tax year, you should plan and gather all required documentation in advance.
• Evidence of relationship with your U.S. citizen fiancée, which is very important at the last stage, as well as at the first stage.

The consular officer may ask for additional information, such as photographs, chat logs, emails and other proof that the relationship with your U.S. citizen fiancé(e) is genuine and real. Documents in foreign languages, other than the language of the country in which the application takes place, should be translated. Applicants should take to the visa interview legible photocopies of civil documents and translations, such as birth and divorce certificates.

Fees

​Government filing fees are subject to change (as of 12/2018, the fees are as follows): 

• US$535 -- Filing fee for an Alien Fiancé(e) Petition, Form I-129F
• US$265 -- Nonimmigrant visa application processing fee, Form DS-160 (required for each K visa applicant)
• Medical examination fee, paid directly to a designated clinic (required for each K-1 and K-2 visa applicant) – costs vary, please check with the U.S. embassy in the country where a fiancée will apply for a visa
• Other costs may include translation and notarization charges, fees for getting the documents required for the visa application (such as passport, police certificates, birth certificates, etc.). Costs vary from country to country.
• US$1,225 -- Filing Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or to Adjust Status. Your spouse will submit this application after marriage. There could be additional applications filed concurrently: Application for a work permit and Application for advance parole. These applications are optional, but could be advisable.
• Legal fees – we charge flat fee which could vary from case to case, depending on difficulty and the number of dependents. Please contact attorney for a case evaluation, and we will gladly give you a quote.

To ensure that your application is accepted and not rejected, the most current edition of the form must be submitted, accompanied by a correct filing fee. It is recommended that you check the most current edition of every application and the most current filing fees at USCIS and Department of State websites shortly before applying.

Please note that the approved I-129F petition is valid for four (4) months from the date of approval by USCIS. However, a consular officer can extend the validity of the petition if it expires before visa processing is completed.

Certain conditions and activities can make a visa applicant ineligible for a visa. Examples of these ineligibilities include: certain criminal records; overstaying a previous visa in the U.S.; submitting fraudulent documents; previous deportation or removal order, or voluntary departure; failure to prove bona fide fiancée relationship; etc. If you are found to be ineligible for a visa, the Consular Officer will advise you whether there is waiver of the ineligibility and what the waiver process is.

After your K-1 Fiancé(e) Visa was approved, you will generally wait 5 to 7 business days to pick up your passport, a visa, and a sealed packet containing the documents you provided, plus other documents prepared by the U.S. Embassy or Consulate. It is important that you do not open the sealed packet. Only the DHS immigration official should open this packet when you enter the United States.
If you have children who received K-2 visas, you will either travel together or your children holding K-2 visas will have to follow you to the U.S.

Please note that K-1 and K-2 visas are valid for a single admission to the United States within the validity of the visa, which will be a maximum of 6 months from the date of issuance.
 
It is advisable not to purchase the tickets, not to sell real estate and business abroad until after a K-1 visa has been approved and issued. In order to limit the risk even more, some of other clients preferred not to sell their apartments, cars, businesses until after they became lawful permanent residents of the United States.

Please note that you must either marry your U.S. citizen fiance within 90 days of your entry into the United States, or depart the U.S. before the expiration of the 90-day period of admission. If not married within the 90-day window, or married within 90 days, but didn’t apply for a green card, if you wish to stay in the United States and apply for a green card, contact a competent immigration attorney for legal advice.

If you would like to schedule a telephone consultation or need help, please contact attorney for a case evaluation, and we will gladly give you a quote and advise you.

Please see below a few brief videos: Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3.

Information and videos in Russian can be found here.

​

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.

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. 

US Department of State 09/16/2017 cable provides guidance to U.S. consular posts, embassies and consulates abroad, on applying the new “90 day rule,” introduced on September 1, 2017. 

This new rule presumes that individuals have made a material misrepresentation on prior visa applications or in their applications for admission to the U.S. if they violate or engage in conduct inconsistent with their nonimmigrant status within the first 90 days of entry into the U.S.

SUMMARY: This cable advises posts on the application of INA section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) as it pertains to revised guidance at 9 FAM 302.9-4(B)(3)(g-h) regarding the 90 day rule, formerly known as the “30/60 day rule.” Interagency working groups agreed to a change in policy and expanded the 30/60 day timeframe to 90 days for aliens who enter the United States and engage in activity inconsistent with their nonimmigrant status before procuring a change or adjustment of status. 

The 90 day rule

The following revised guidance replaces the 30/60 day rule and applies to all adjudications that occur after September 1, 2017.

The guidance should not be applied retroactively.

As detailed in the revisions to 9 FAM 302.9-4(B)(3)(g-h), aliens who violate or engage in conduct inconsistent with his or her nonimmigrant status within 90 days of entry into the United States by:
1) engaging in unauthorized employment;
2) enrolling in a course of unauthorized academic study;
3) marrying a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident and taking up residence in the United States while in a nonimmigrant visa classification that prohibits immigrant intent; or
4) undertaking any other activity for which a change of status or adjustment of status would be required prior to obtaining such change or adjustment, may be presumed to have made a material misrepresentation.

You must give the alien the opportunity to present evidence to rebut the presumption that he or she made a willful misrepresentation on prior visa applications or in their applications for admission to the United States before you can find the applicant ineligible under 212(a)(6)(C)(i).

If the applicant is unable to overcome the presumption that he or she engaged in a willful misrepresentation, post must request an Advisory Opinion (AO) from the Visa Office of Advisory Opinions (CA/VO/L/A) per 9 FAM 302.9-4(B)(3)(h)(2)(b).

If an alien violates or engages in conduct inconsistent with his or her nonimmigrant status after 90 days of entry into the United States, there generally is no presumption of willful misrepresentation. However, if facts in the case give you a reason to believe that the alien misrepresented his or her purpose of travel at the time of the visa application or application for admission, you must request an AO from CA/VO/L/A.

You can see the text of the DoS cable here. Or download a pdf file here.

The denial rates vary from 0% in San Marino, Liechtenstein, and Andorra to 96% in Republic of Palau, 63% Syria, 34% Ukraine, 13% Belarus, and 10% Russia.

Please note that this applies only to applications for B-1 and B-2 visitor or tourist visa.

If you have questions or need help applying for your visitor or tourist visa to the United States, please email an attorney to schedule a consultation.

По-русски: статистика отказов в выдаче гостевой или туристической визы в США в 2015 году.
​Это относится только к визе B1 | B2.
Украина - 34% заявлений отказано.
Россия - 10% заявлений отказано.
Беларусь - 13% заявлений отказано.
Грузия - более 50% отказано.
Франция - 16% отказано.
Казахстан - 12.7% отказано.
Молдова - 42% отказано.
Узбекистан - 50% отказано.
Таджикистан - 44.44% отказано. 

Interesting and detailed statistics for the last fiscal year 2015 can be found here: 
https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/Non-Immigrant-Statistics/RefusalRates/FY15.pdf

U.S. Customs and Border Protection launched today the redesigned website for Visa Waiver Program (VWP) visitors to apply for an Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) prior to traveling to the United States. The new website makes the process of applying for an ESTA more user-friendly and will improve and better facilitate the experience for VWP travelers wishing to visit the United States. 

Some of the new and updated features include:

• Access to frequently asked questions at any time during the application process.
• Mobile-friendly design allows VWP visitors to apply and check the status of their ESTA using their smartphones.
• Users will be able to translate the page into a different language at any point in the application by choosing one of the 23 languages in the language selector.
• The Group feature has been moved to the beginning of the application process making it easier for families and groups to submit their applications at once.

VWP visitors who have already applied for an ESTA using the old site will be able to access their ESTA on the new site. Travelers with a valid ESTA will not have to reapply for a new ESTA until their current ESTA expires or they receive a new passport.
CBP reminds VWP visitors that ESTA applications can only be submitted through the official website. ESTA is not affiliated with any third-party sites. CBP recommends ESTA applications be submitted as soon as an applicant begins making travel plans.
The VWP enables nationals of 38 designated countries to travel to the United States for tourism or business purposes for stays of 90 days or less without first obtaining a visa. All nationals or citizens of VWP countries are required to have an approved ESTA prior to boarding a carrier to travel by air or sea to the United States under the VWP. ESTA applications should be submitted at least 72 hours before travel, and once approved, will generally be valid for up to two years or until the applicant’s passport expires, whichever comes first. Authorizations will be valid for multiple entries into the United States.

New redesigned VWP ESTA website at: https://esta.cbp.dhs.gov/esta/

On September 09 2015, USCIS Announces Revised Procedures for Determining Visa Availability for Applicants Waiting to File for Adjustment of Status.

USCIS, in coordination with Department of State (DOS), is revising the procedures for determining visa availability for applicants waiting to file for employment-based or family-sponsored preference adjustment of status. The revised process will better connect USCIS procedures with the US Department of State (DOS) procedures, which are used for foreign nationals who seek to become U.S. permanent residents by applying for immigrant visas at U.S. consulates and embassies abroad.

The Visa Bulletin revisions implement November 2014 executive actions on immigration announced by President Obama and Secretary of Homeland Security Johnson, as detailed in the White House report, Modernizing and Streamlining Our Legal Immigration System for the 21st century, issued in July 2015. 

What is Changing.

Starting October 1, 2015, you will be able to submit your application for adjustment of status or for an immigrant visa before your priority date is current. 

Two charts per visa preference category will be posted in the DOS Visa Bulletin:

• Current priority dates for particular visa categories; and
• The earliest dates for filing application for adjustment of status (earliest dates when applicants may be able to apply).

See October 2015 Visa Bulletin here. However, the priority dates in the Visa Bulletin can retrogress in November. Consult an attorney about your specific case so you won't miss the opportunity of applying earlier.

When filing an application for adjustment of status, I-485, an applicant can concurrently file an application for a work permit and advance parole. This is great news for many immigrants waiting for many years for their priority dates to become current. However, it's a good idea to consult an immigration attorney before applying.

Each month, in coordination with DOS, USCIS will monitor visa numbers and post the relevant DOS Visa Bulletin chart. Applicants can use the charts to determine when to file their Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status.

To determine whether additional visas are available, USCIS will compare the number of visas available for the remainder of the fiscal year with:

• Documentarily qualified visa applicants reported by DOS;
• Pending adjustment of status applications reported by USCIS; and
• Historical drop off rate (for example, denials, withdrawals, abandonments).

About the Visa Bulletin.

DOS publishes current immigrant visa availability information in a monthly Visa Bulletin. The Visa Bulletin indicates when statutorily limited visas are available to prospective immigrants based on their individual priority date.

• The priority date is generally the date when the applicant’s relative or employer properly filed the immigrant visa petition on the applicant’s behalf with USCIS. If a labor certification is required to be filed with the applicant’s immigrant visa petition, then the priority date is when the labor certification application was accepted for processing by Department of Labor.
• Availability of an immigrant visa means eligible applicants are able to take one of the final steps in the process of becoming U.S. permanent residents. 

Read more here.  

On August 17 2015, USCIS published L-1B adjudications policy memorandum. New memo provides guidance on the adjudication of the L-1B classification, which permits multinational companies to transfer employees who possess "specialized knowledge" from their foreign operations to their operations in the United States. 

New memo provides consolidated guidance on the L-1B program, superseding and rescinding all prior L-1B memoranda. This memo applies only to L-1B visas/employees with specialized knowledge (not L-1A visas).

"Preponderance of the Evidence" Standard of Proof: a petitioner seeking approval of the L-1B visa, must establish that they meets each eligibility requirement of the L-1B classification by preponderance of evidence. This standard of proof is lower than that of "clear and convincing evidence" or "beyond a reasonable doubt" standards. 

Elements of the L-1B Classification:

In order to establish eligibility for approval, the L-1B petitioner must show: 
(1) that the beneficiary possesses “specialized knowledge”; 
(2) that the position offered involves the “specialized knowledge” held by the beneficiary; and 
(3) that the beneficiary has at least one continuous year of employment abroad in a managerial, executive, or specialized knowledge capacity with the petitioning employer and/or any qualifying organization (collectively referred to as the “petitioning organization”) within the preceding 3 years. 

If the beneficiary will be located primarily at the workplace of an unaffiliated company, the petitioner also must establish that the beneficiary is eligible for L-1B classification under the requirements of the L-1 Visa Reform Act, discussed below in section VI.

The new memo provides definition of "specialized knowledge".

A petitioner can demonstrate “specialized knowledge” by establishing either one of two statutory criteria. Under the statute, a beneficiary is deemed to have specialized knowledge if he or she has: 
(1) a “special” knowledge of the company product and its application in international markets; or 
(2) an “advanced” level of knowledge of the processes and procedures of the company. 
INA 214(c)(2)(B). 

The corresponding regulation similarly defines specialized knowledge in terms of “special” or “advanced” knowledge:
[S]pecial knowledge possessed by an individual of the petitioning organization’s product, service, research, equipment, techniques, management, or other interests and its application in international markets, or an advanced level of knowledge or expertise in the organization’s processes and procedures.
8 CFR 214.2(l)(1)(ii)(D).

Other important things to keep in mind:
>>Specialized knowledge generally cannot be commonly held, lacking in complexity, or easily imparted to other individuals. 
>>Specialized knowledge need not be proprietary or unique to the petitioning organization. 
>>The L-1B classification does not involve a test of the U.S. labor market.
>>Specialized knowledge workers need not occupy managerial or similar positions or command higher compensation than their peers.

The memo notes the following "non-exhaustive" list of factors USCIS may consider when determining whether a beneficiary’s knowledge is specialized:

• The beneficiary possesses knowledge of foreign operating conditions that is of significant value to the petitioning organization's U.S. operations.
• The beneficiary has been employed abroad in a capacity involving assignments that have significantly enhanced the employer's productivity, competitiveness, image, or financial position.
• The beneficiary's claimed specialized knowledge normally can be gained only through prior experience with the petitioning organization.
• The beneficiary possesses knowledge of a product or process that cannot be easily transferred or taught to another individual without significant economic cost or inconvenience (because, for example, such knowledge may require substantial training, work experience, or education).
• The beneficiary has knowledge of a process or a product that either is sophisticated or complex, or of a highly technical nature, although not necessarily unique to the petitioning organization.
• The beneficiary possesses knowledge that is particularly beneficial to the petitioning organization's competitiveness in the marketplace.

Other evidence that a petitioner may submit to demonstrate that an individual’s knowledge is special or advanced, includes, but is not limited to:
• Documentation of training, work experience, or education establishing the number of years the individual has been using or developing the claimed specialized knowledge as an employee of the petitioning organization or in the industry;
• Evidence of the impact, if any, the transfer of the individual would have on the petitioning organization’s U.S. operations;
• Evidence that the alien is qualified to contribute significantly to the U.S. operation’s knowledge of foreign operating conditions as a result of knowledge not generally found in the petitioning organization’s U.S. operations;
• Contracts, statements of work, or other documentation that shows that the beneficiary possesses knowledge that is particularly beneficial to the petitioning organization’s competitiveness in the marketplace;
• Evidence, such as correspondence or reports, establishing that the beneficiary has been employed abroad in a capacity involving assignments that have significantly enhanced the petitioning organization’s productivity, competitiveness, image, or financial position;
• Personnel or in-house training records that establish that the beneficiary’s claimed specialized knowledge normally can be gained only through prior experience or training with the petitioning organization;
• Curricula and training manuals for internal training courses, financial documents, or other evidence that may demonstrate that the beneficiary possesses knowledge of a product or process that cannot be transferred or taught to another individual without significant economic cost or inconvenience;
*Evidence of patents, trademarks, licenses, or contracts awarded to the petitioning organization based on the beneficiary’s work, or similar evidence that the beneficiary has knowledge of a process or a product that either is sophisticated or complex, or of a highly technical nature, although not necessarily proprietary or unique to the petitioning organization; and
• Payroll documents, federal or state wage statements, documentation of other forms of compensation, resumes, organizational charts, or similar evidence documenting the positions held and the compensation provided to the beneficiary and parallel employees in the petitioning organization.

A petitioner may submit any other evidence it chooses. In all cases, USCIS will review the entire record to determine whether the petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the beneficiary has specialized knowledge under the totality of the circumstances. Merely stating that a beneficiary’s knowledge is somehow different from others or greatly developed does not, in and of itself, establish that he or she possesses specialized knowledge. Ultimately, it is the weight and type of evidence that establishes whether the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge.

USCIS can issue a RFE (Request for Evidence) for various reasons to I-129 Petitioner. Denial rate is high, RFE rate is even higher for L-1B petition. The new memo is intended to help to solve many difficulties with obtaining a L-1B visa for qualifying applicants.

See August 17, 2015 memo at http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2015/L-1B_Memorandum_8_14_15_draft_for_FINAL_4pmAPPROVED.pdf

On November 20, 2014, the President announced a series of executive actions. However, not all of these initiatives have been implemented, and USCIS is not accepting any DAPA or expanded DACA applications at this time. 

Beware of anyone who offers to help you submit an application or a request for any of these actions before they are available. You could become a victim of an immigration scam. 

If you need legal advice on immigration matters, make sure that the person you rely on is an attorney who is authorized to give you legal advice. Only an attorney or an accredited representative working for a Board of Immigration Appeals-recognized organization can give you legal advice. An immigration attorney can be licensed in any state because immigration law is federal law. It's important to consult an experienced and knowledgeable attorney before submitting any immigration applications.

The Internet, newspapers, radio, community bulletin boards and local businesses storefronts are filled with advertisements offering immigration help. Not all of this information is from attorneys and accredited representatives. There is a lot of information that comes from organizations and individuals who are not authorized to give you legal advice, such as “notarios” and other unauthorized representatives. The wrong help can hurt. Here is some important information that can help you avoid common immigration scams.

Here are some examples of common immigration scams:

**Telephone Scams**.

Do not fall victim to telephone scammers posing as USCIS personnel or other government officials. In most instances, scammers will:

• request personal information (Social Security number, Passport number, or A-number);
• identify false problems with your immigration record; and
• ask for payment to correct the records.

If a scammer calls you, say “No, thank you” and hang up. These phone calls are being made by immigration scammers attempting to take your money and your credit card information. USCIS will not call you to ask for any form of payment over the phone. Don’t give payment over the phone to anyone who claims to be a USCIS official.

If you have been a victim of this telephone scam, please report it to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Learn more about telephone scams and telephone scammers’ techniques by visiting Federal Trade Commission-Telemarketing-Scams. 

**"Notario Publico"**.

In many Latin American countries, the term “notario publico” (for “notary public”) stands for something very different than what it means in the United States. In many Spanish-speaking nations, “notarios” are powerful attorneys with special legal credentials. In the U.S., however, notary publics are people appointed by state governments to witness the signing of important documents and administer oaths. "Notarios publico,” are not authorized to provide you with any legal services related to immigration.

Please see the National Notary Association website "What is a Notary Public" for more information.

**Local Businesses who are not law firms and not attorneys or lawyers**.

Some businesses in your community “guarantee” they can get you benefits such as a:

• Visa
• Green Card
• Employment Authorization Document

These businesses sometimes charge you a higher fee to file the application than even a licensed attorney (but will tell you that attorneys charge more "for the same work"). They claim they can do this faster than if you applied directly with USCIS. These claims are false. 

**Dot-com websites - operated by non-attorneys or people not authorized to give legal advice**.

Some websites offering step-by-step guidance on completing a USCIS application or petition will claim to be affiliated with USCIS. Many of these websites are scammers or fraudsters, often taking money for blank forms or minimal assistance without attorney supervision.

USCIS has its own official website: www.uscis.gov with:

• Free downloadable forms
• Form Instructions
• Information on filing fees and processing times

Do not pay for blank USCIS forms either in person or over the Internet. You can download forms for free at www.uscis.gov.

Do not pay to a non-attorney (not a lawyer) for help with immigration paperwork, applications, affidavit. Oftentimes, they give you wrong advice and can potentially damage your chances of ever becoming a permanent resident (getting a green card).

**Green Card Lottery or DV Lottery scams**.

Once a year in fall, the Department of State (DOS) makes 50,000 diversity visas (DVs) available via random selection to persons meeting strict eligibility requirements and who come from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States. During this time or often around the year, it is common for immigration scammers to advertise in emails or websites that reference either the:

• DV lottery
• Visa lottery
• Green Card lottery

These emails and websites often claim that they can make it easier to enter the annual Diversity Immigrant Visa Program. Some scammers even identify you as a DV lottery “winner” and ask for significant amount of money "helping get a visa". These emails and websites are fraudulent. 

The only way to apply for the DV lottery is through an official government application process (Department of State website, and only when it's open, during an application period which is usually in October-November only). DOS does not send emails to applicants. 

On or after May 1st, you can visit the Department of State website to verify if you are actually a winner in the DV lottery. 

If need help, consult a licensed attorney (not one of the "green card lottery" websites).

**INS doesn't exist. It's been replaced by DHS and USCIS**.

To this day, some local businesses, websites, "notarios"  and individuals make reference to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). This agency no longer exists! 

If someone refers to USCIS as "INS", it's a sign that they are not an attorney, but rather someone unqualified with little knowledge in immigration matters.

INS was dismantled on March 1, 2003, and most of its functions were transferred from the Department of Justice to three new components within the newly formed Department of Homeland Security. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is the component that grants immigration benefits. The other two components are U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

All official correspondence regarding your immigration case will come from USCIS. USCIS will communicate with you and your attorney by mail, by mailing you notices, approved work permit and green card through USPS (postal service).

If you need a legal assistance, we will be glad to help. Our contact information is here.

Read here. 

As reported by Bloomberg Business News, birth tourism from China to the US is booming. Although it’s not illegal to travel to the U.S. to give birth, it’s illegal to lie about the purpose of a visit when interviewed by American Consul or by immigration or customs officers at the US airport—or coach someone to do so. 

If a woman says she’s traveling to the U.S. to give birth, the consular and customs officers may request proof that she can pay for her hospital stay. (The same would be asked of anybody seeking medical treatment in the U.S.) 

Department of Homeland Security and the IRS have been investigating the growing business of “birth tourism,” which operates in a legal gray area, since last June. The industry is totally unregulated and mostly hidden.

No one knows the exact number of Chinese birth tourists or services catering to them. Online ads and accounts in the Chinese-language press suggest there could be hundreds, maybe thousands, of operators. A California association of these services called All American Mother Service Management Center claims 20,000 women from China gave birth in the U.S. in 2012 and about the same number in 2013. These figures are often cited by Chinese state media, but the center didn’t reply to a request for comment. The Center for Immigration Studies, an American organization that advocates limiting the scope of the 14th Amendment, estimates there could have been as many as 36,000 birth tourists from around the world in 2012. Estimated fees paid by Chinese birth tourists to the agencies catering to them are around USD30,000 to USD60,000.

Department of Homeland Security declined to discuss the investigation because it is ongoing, but the agent in charge said: “Visa fraud is a huge vulnerability for the country. These women allegedly lied to come have a baby. Other people could come to do something bad. We have to maintain the integrity of the system.” 

Read the story here. 

Almost daily, I hear from some of our callers: "I don't need legal consultation, I don't want to hire an attorney. I have only one or two very simple (or quick, or easy) questions, and I want an attorney to answer my questions right now and free of charge because my questions are so simple, quick, and easy!"

I will try to explain why this request doesn't make any sense and how to get proper legal advice.

U.S. immigration law is very complex and constantly changing. There have been no major immigration reforms or amnesties in the past few years (which requires a law to be approved by Congress and signed by the President). However, there have been significant changes introduced by our current and former administrations and the executive branch of the government: executive actions; executive orders of the President; USCIS and DHS memorandums and policy guidance; official and unofficial practice advisories; and changes through our judicial branch (federal and immigration courts), such as, the decisions by the BIA, AAO, Courts of Appeals, US Supreme Court, and even by federal district court judges (for example, an injunction by a federal judge can place on hold an executive order of the President of the United States).

U.S. immigration law is federal in nature and is the same in all states. However, it may apply differently to your situation depending on your background, your place of residence or domicile, US embassy in the country where you apply for a visa, etc.

An experienced immigration attorney may be able to guide you and advise you about specifics, loopholes, various options, and can spot possible problems before they happen, even if it seems to you that your case is pretty straightforward and you have only "one quick question". A seemingly simple or quick question not always can be answered with a simple "yes" or "no" answer. You may not realize it, but a situation may have a lot of hidden issues or variables depending on your venue, court jurisdiction, your factual circumstances, your arrest and criminal record, your family situation and status, prior legal assistance, prior legal actions and applications filed, or even timing, etc.

You can find a lot of useful immigration-related INFORMATION on our Blog. We compiled useful information and links: USCIS forms and fees, case status inquiry, processing times, AR-11 Change of Address, Department of State and NVC, and much more here. Hope you find this information helpful!

To ask basic questions about USCIS immigration forms, filing fees or to inquire about status of your pending case, you can contact USCIS, Department of Homeland Security, by calling their 800 Customer Service Hotline (number is on their website), or send an e-request via a webportal at USCIS website. Case status can be checked online, as well. Immigration courts, U.S. embassies and consulates and National Visa Center each have their own hotlines, call centers or other ways to contact them.

To receive a case-specific legal advice you should talk to a lawyer. Before a lawyer can advise you, we usually email you our confidential immigration questionnaire, and ask you to complete and return it to us. In some cases, we can ask you to email us copies of your immigration forms, paperwork, personal documents. When an attorney reviews your answers to our questionnaire and your documents, it helps her to get to know you, your situation, and decide what legal and/or visa options you shall consider, what are your best chances of obtaining certain visas and immigration benefits, how and when can you bring your family to USA, are you eligible for permanent residency or a green card in the United States, are you eligible to apply for U.S. citizenship, how can your children become U.S. citizens, etc.

It's important that you provide truthful, accurate and complete answers to our questions because an attorney's advice to you is based on information you provide to an attorney. It could be dangerous to give misleading, incomplete or incorrect answers to an attorney.

An attorney or a lawyer is often called "a counselor in law". It means that an attorney counsels and advises you, helps you to understand your situation better, anticipates any possible future issues or complications, offers guidance, and a long-term strategy and planning for yourself and your family.

Legal advice is never a simple "yes" or "no" answer, it's never "use this form"  or "this is the link where you can find all information and all answers you need". Legal advice or consultation is like going to see a doctor. A doctor will ask you questions, take your vitals and administer necessary tests, then she will be able to diagnose you and offer you an appropriate treatment plan. The same is true about work of a good and ethical attorney. An attorney will have to ask you a number of questions, review your documents and paperwork, and only then she will be able to advise you, and offer you guidance and counsel.

In order to avoid mistakes and future complications, it's smart to consult an attorney before starting any legal, immigrant or visa process. Consultation with knowledgeable and ethical attorney should serve as a preventative measure and a way to establish a roadmap and plan your future.

In over twelve years of practice as an immigration attorney in the United States, I have come across of many unfortunate individuals who got themselves into trouble after reading and following wrong advice on internet forums, listening to their friends, co-workers, relatives and neighbors advice, or paying to complete their "paperwork" to an unlicensed "immigration consultant", or "notario", or "tax preparer", or somebody else who speaks their native language in their immigrant community but has no proper training and is not a licensed attorney. In some of these cases, individual's chances of living in USA legally can be permanently destroyed. Some people can become permanently banned from the United States, no matter how many close family members (wife, kids, parents) and other ties they have in USA. Immigration law is very complex and unforgiving, and non-compliance, fraud or misrepresentation could bring consequences more severe than penalties in an average criminal case. Where a convicted criminal can usually expect to be released from prison after a number of months or years and be reunited with his family, a person who was deported and permanently banned from USA may never be able to reunite with his family and loved ones in the United States. Lack of knowledge or bad advice is not an excuse in immigration law. "Simple mistakes" in immigration law context could be costly and often irreversible.

Do yourself a favor and consult a knowledgeable immigration attorney before filing any applications or petitions with the USCIS Department of Homeland Security, or before submitting any visa applications online. You can also schedule a consultation to seek a second opinion, if not sure that your current or former attorney's advice is correct as applies to you. When you have questions or need legal advice you can email us to schedule a consultation. We will be glad to help you.

This case proves once again that O visas (visas for individuals with Extraordinary Ability or Achievement) could be tricky and sometimes unpredictable. This O-1B (extraordinary ability visa in arts) was approved and extended two times prior to subsequent denial of another extension.

A popular thoroughbred racehorse trainer has accused the USCIS in a D.C. federal court of engaging in “capricious” and “arbitrary” behavior by denying an assistant trainer an extension of his nonimmigrant worker status after previously granting it without incident.

Mott Thoroughbred Stables Inc. said in its Friday complaint that by surprisingly and abruptly denying an O-1B petition extension to an “indispensable employee” on which the famed stables has relied since he began working there in 2010, the USCIS has caused irreparable harm to Mott Stables’ multimillion-dollar horse-training business.

The complaint asks the court to compel the USCIS to set aside the petition denial and promptly re-adjudicate the petition with deference to the prior approvals. It also asks the court to order the agency to postpone the effective date of its denial of the petition for assistant horse trainer Rodolphe Brisset and grant a temporary visa status pending the outcome of the instant suit.

“The USCIS failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the denial, failed to cite relevant authority for its decision and failed to clearly articulate the reasons for its abrupt departure from past and ongoing practice of approving O-1B petitions for horse trainers,” the complaint says.

The lawsuit says the unsuccessful petition is virtually the same as the ones USCIS previously approved, and that the agency only now has decided that its past approvals were a “material error” on the part of the agency, “in contravention of internal agency guidance on deference to prior approvals.”

Petitioner also asked the court to open up limited discovery to ascertain the agency’s grounds for denying the company’s petition in light of the two previous approvals of the same petition.

Mott Stables is challenging an October 2014 decision by the USCIS Administrative Appeals Office to uphold the denial of an O-1B extension to the trainer.

After two successful approvals, in 2013 the USCIS sent Mott Stables a request for evidence ( RFE )regarding the international acclaim and recognition Brisset has received a horse trainer, according to the complaint.

Among the types of evidence Mott Stables could hand over was “comparable evidence” of Brisset’s distinction as a prominent horse trainer, and in February 2014 the company sent to the USCIS a letter signed by six expert member of the equine community attesting to Brisset’s skills, according to the complaint. Mott Stables also explained the “unique nature” of the thoroughbred racing industry and why the trainer plays “an essential and critical role” in successful training operations, the complaint says.

In March 2014, the USCIS denied the petition, saying Mott Stables hadn’t demonstrated that Brisset had extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor nor that he had sustained national or international acclaim, according to the complaint.

On appeal, Mott Stables argued that a Department of Homeland Security memo says that deference must be given to a prior determination that an individual is eligible for a particular nonimmigrant classification, where extension of that nonimmigrant petition’s validity “involves the same parties and the same underlying facts,” the complaint says.

Mott Stables argued that the USCIS had not explicitly said why it refused the petition and that changed circumstances and new material information — possibly dispositive developments — did not form the basis of the agency’s decision.

When the USCIS’ appellate body AAO upheld the denial, it ruled that the memo's deference order didn’t apply when there was a "material error," which in this case was that since 2010 the agency had incorrectly found that Brisset’s occupation fell within the O-1B classification, according to the complaint.

Mott Stables said in its Friday complaint that this was the first time the USCIS had ever ruled that Brisset’s horse-trainer position did not qualify as a creative activity or endeavor, such that he could have been classified as an alien of extraordinary ability in the arts.

- Law360, Mar. 10, 2015.