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.

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.

After almost three months of using facial recognition biometrics to help verify international travelers at U.S. points of entry, Customs and Border Protection officials say they have used the technology to prevent 26 alleged imposters from entering the country.

Border Protection officials began rolling out facial biometric projects at airports and land crossings this summer. As travelers enter the U.S., they are ushered directly to a CBP official, who checks their documentation while overhead cameras match their faces to a gallery of images. For U.S. citizens, the picture is matched to the passport photo on file. If the photos don’t match, the travel is pulled aside for further investigation.

Washington Dulles International Airport recorded the first detention due to facial recognition technology just three days after the new system was turned on, stopping a Congolese national attempting to enter the country on a false French passport. Since that time, Dulles’ program has stopped two more alleged imposters.

The facial recognition entry program is currently running at 15 international airports, though no others have reported detentions or arrests due to the systems, according to CBP figures.

Facial biometric programs in place at land border crossings have proven more useful, according to the numbers. As of Nov. 20, 2018, CBP officers have apprehended 23 people trying to enter the country illegally at the southwest border in Arizona: 18 at the crossing in Nogales and five at San Luis.

With land and air pilots running, CBP recently began testing the technology at sea, as well. Facial recognition pilots have started for travelers debarking in the U.S. from Royal Caribbean, Norwegian and Celebrity cruise lines. These pilots have yet to flag any potential imposters traveling aboard.

Several airlines and eight international airports are also using facial recognition for boarding planes, including Air France/KLM, Scandinavian Airlines and some United flights out of Dulles.

Read here.

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.

On September 1, 2017, the U.S. Department of State (DOS) has published an updated policy guidance on inadmissibility under INA 212(a)(6)(c)(i) (“Misrepresentation”).

9 FAM 302.9 was updated and effective September 1, 2017, new "90-day rule" replaced old "30-60 day rule".

In the new guidance, 9 FAM 302.9, entitled “Inconsistent Conduct Within 90 Days of Entry” Consular Officers are advised:

“…if an alien violates or engages in conduct inconsistent with his or her nonimmigrant status within 90 days of entry…you may presume that the applicant's representations about engaging in only status-compliant activity were willful misrepresentations of his or her intention in seeking a visa or entry.

For purposes of applying the 90-day rule, conduct that violates or is otherwise inconsistent with an alien’s nonimmigrant status includes, but is not limited to:

1. Engaging in unauthorized employment;
2. Enrolling in a course of academic study, if such study is not authorized for that nonimmigrant classification (e.g. B status);
3. A nonimmigrant in B or F status, or any other status prohibiting immigrant intent, marrying a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident and taking up residence in the United States; or
4. Undertaking any other activity for which a change of status or an adjustment of status would be required, without the benefit of such a change or adjustment.”

Effective September 1, 2017, this new 90-day rule applies to the U.S. consulates and embassies abroad.
It's possible that the DHS and USCIS will adopt this more strict interpretation instead of the current 30-60 day rule
--------------------------------------
*** 9 FAM 302.9-4(B)(3)  (U) Interpretation of the Term Misrepresentation
g. (U) Activities that Indicate Violation of Status or Conduct Inconsistent with Status
(1)  (U) In General:
(a)  (U) In determining whether a misrepresentation has been made, some of the most difficult questions arise from cases involving aliens in the United States who conduct themselves in a manner inconsistent with representations they made to consular officers concerning their intentions at the time of visa application or to DHS when applying for admission or for an immigration benefit.  Such cases occur most frequently with respect to aliens who, after having obtained visas as nonimmigrants and been admitted to the United States, either:
(i)     (U) Apply for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident; or
(ii)    (U) Fail to maintain their nonimmigrant status (for example, by engaging in unauthorized study or employment).
(b)  (U) Applications for adjustment or change of status in the United States are adjudicated by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), other than in those cases where the application is made before an Immigration Judge.  If you become aware of derogatory information indicating that an alien in the United States who has a valid visa, may have misrepresented his or her intentions to you at the time of visa application, or to DHS at the port of entry or in a filing for an immigration benefit, you may bring the derogatory information to the attention of the Department for potential revocation.  See 9 FAM 403.11-5.  If you become aware of derogatory information indicating that an alien in the United States without a valid visa but who is not a Lawful Permanent Resident may have misrepresented his or her intentions to you at the time of visa application, or to DHS at the port of entry or in a filing for an immigration benefit, then you may enter a P6C1 lookout in CLASS with the appropriate information.  See 9 FAM 403.10-3(C)(1).  Do not request an advisory opinion from the Advisory Opinions Division (CA/VO/L/A) in these cases, because it would not be binding on USCIS.
(c)  (U) With respect to the second category referred to above in subparagraph g(1)(a)(ii), nonimmigrant visa holders who fail to maintain their nonimmigrant status, the fact that an alien's subsequent actions are inconsistent with those stated at the time of visa application or admission or in a filing for an immigrant benefit does not necessarily prove that the alien's intentions were misrepresented at the time of application or entry.  You should consider carefully the precise circumstances of the change in activities when determining whether the applicant made a knowing and willful misrepresentation.  To conclude there was a misrepresentation, you must have direct or circumstantial evidence sufficient to meet the "reason to believe” standard, which requires more than mere suspicion but less than a preponderance of the evidence.
(2)  (U) Inconsistent Conduct Within 90 Days of Entry:
(a)  (U) However, if an alien violates or engages in conduct inconsistent with his or her nonimmigrant status within 90 days of entry, as described in subparagraph (2)(b) below, you may presume that the applicant's representations about engaging in only status-compliant activity were willful misrepresentations of his or her intention in seeking a visa or entry.  To make a finding of inadmissibility for misrepresentation based on conduct inconsistent with status within 90 days of entry, you must request an AO from CA/VO/L/A. As with other grounds that do not require a formal AO, the AO may be informal.  See 9 FAM 304.3-2.
(b)  (U) For purposes of applying the 90-day rule, conduct that violates or is otherwise inconsistent with an alien’s nonimmigrant status includes, but is not limited to:
(i)     (U) Engaging in unauthorized employment;
(ii      (U) Enrolling in a course of academic study, if such study is not authorized for that nonimmigrant classification (e.g. B status);
(iii)    (U) A nonimmigrant in B or F status, or any other status prohibiting immigrant intent, marrying a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident and taking up residence in the United States; or
(iv)    (U) Undertaking any other activity for which a change of status or an adjustment of status would be required, without the benefit of such a change or adjustment.
(3)  (U) After 90 Days:  If an alien violates or engages in conduct inconsistent with his or her nonimmigrant status more than 90 days after entry into the United States, no presumption of willful misrepresentation arises.  However, if the facts in the case give you reasonable belief 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.  (See 9 FAM 302.9-4(C)(2)).  

9 FAM 302.9-4(B)(3)(g)(2) link is here.
--------------------------------------------------

In Russian:

Если в течение первых 90 дней после вашего въезда в США, вы подадите заявление на смену статуса, выйдите замуж, или совершите другие действия, не совместимые с вашим неиммиграционным статусом -- то Госдеп США, посольства, консульства, пограничные и иммиграционные службы теперь будут рассматривать это как обманное действие (мошенничество), что может повлечь пожизненный запрет на въезд в США.

1 сентября 2017 года Государственный департамент США обновил правило в Кодексе для Консульских Сотрудников, под номером 9 FAM 302.9-4(B)(3). Эта статья описывает “несогласования” между типом визы, полученной неиммигрантом, и его действиями по приезде в США.

Новая статья содержит раздел под названием "Непоследовательное поведение в течение 90 дней после въезда", в котором говорится: 

“Если иностранец предпринимает действия, несовместимые с полученным им или ею неиммиграционным статусом, в течение 90 дней после въезда США, стоит понимать, что указанные им данные для получения визы или статуса были умышленно искаженными с намерением получить возможность въехать в США”.
В случае, если иммиграционный офицер "установит, что иностранец, находящийся в Соединенных Штатах по действительной визе, исказил свои намерения в момент подачи заявления на визу, в порту въезда в страну или при подаче заявки об иммиграции", он обязан “предоставить эту информацию Департаменту внутренней безопасности (DHS) для возможного отзыва визы”.
В статье Иммиграционного Кодекса 212 (a) (6) (C) говорится, что любому иностранцу, который путем преднамеренного искажения существенного факта пытался получить визу, другие документы при въезде в США или любые иммиграционные привилегии, может быть пожизненно запрещен въезд в США.
--------------------------------------
​
1. Несогласованное поведение (не соответствует визе или заявлениям сделанным в посольстве)
Поведение, которое нарушает или противоречит неиммиграционному статусу иностранцев, включает в себя:

• Трудовая деятельность без соответствующего разрешения;
• Регистрация на курсы или другие виды обучения в США, если это не разрешено полученной визой;
• Заключение брака с гражданином или постоянным резидентом США и подача заявки на проживание в стране, если въезд в страну осуществлялся по туристической, студенческой или любой другой визе, не предусматривающей дальнейшее получение иммиграционного статуса;
• Выполнение любых других видов деятельности, для которых потребуется изменение или корректировка статуса даже в случае, если заявка на эти изменения не была подана.

2. Презумпция умышленного искажения основывается на сроке 90 дней после въезда в США.
Новая статья в FAM устанавливает презумпцию преднамеренного искажения данных при подаче на визу, если деятельность иностранца противоречит полученному статусу в течение 90 дней после въезда в США. В таком случае бремя доказывания невиновности ложится на иностранца, который должен доказать, что его поведение и действия в этот 90-дневный срок были допустимы в соответствии с полученным им неиммиграционным статусом.
Консульские должностные лица должны предоставить иностранцу «возможность опровергнуть презумпцию преднамеренного искажения информации путем представления доказательств для ее опровержения».
3. Что случилось со старым правилом “30-60”, и может ли новое руководство FAM иметь обратное действие?
Обновленное правило по сути дело заменило старое правило "30-60 дней" в отношении изменения неиммиграционного статуса после въезда в США.
Правило 30-60 дней действовало так:

• Иностранец, который подал заявку на смену статуса в течение 30 дней после въезда, автоматически сталкивается с презумпцией преднамеренного искажения информации и намерений при подаче заявки на визу. В результате чего лицо могло быть выдворено из страны с пожизненным запретом на въезд в США.
• Если заявка на смену статуса подавалась в период от 30 до 60 дней после въезда, презумпция намеренного искажения информации не возникала. Однако, если чиновники имели логические доводы и факты, доказывающие возможное искажение, тогда иностранец должен был представить встречные доказательства.
• Если заявка на смену  статуса происходила более чем через 60 дней после въезда в США, как правило, должностные лица считали, что оснований для подозрений в преднамеренном искажении информации при въезде нет.

На вебсайте USCIS правило “30-60” пока не было заменено, но это может произойти в ближайшем будущем.

9 FAM 302.9 не упоминает о ретроспективном применении нового руководства, но указывает, что оно вступило в силу с 1 сентября 2017 года. 

4. Будьте внимательны, подавая заявку на смену статуса
Новое правило предполагает, что Госдепартамент США проверит иностранцев, которые въехали в США по программе Visa Waiver (она разрешает поездки в США гражданам некоторых стран для туризма или бизнеса на срок до 90 дней без предварительного получения визы), а также тех, кто въехал по визе B-1/B-2, и подали заявки на получение статуса постоянного резидента.

Даже если заявление на смену статуса подается по истечении 90 дней после въезда, от иностранца могут потребовать доказательств того, что произошло конкретное событие, на которое он не рассчитывал и которого не планировал, требующее изменения его иммиграционного статуса.

5. Является ли подача заявки на иммиграционную визу и получение визы (грин карты) через посольство или консульство лучшим вариантом?

Несмотря на то что USCIS пока не ввела новое руководство DOS в действие, и пока не ясно, намерена ли USCIS это делать, становится все более безопасным получение статуса постоянного резидента США через консульские учреждения за рубежом (consular processing), чем подача заявки на изменение статуса, находясь на территории США (adjustment of status). 

Всегда лучше проконсультироваться с компетентным иммиграционным адвокатом перед тем, как начинать какой-то иммиграционный процесс, например, по смене статуса, или если вы планируете боак и подать заявление на грин карту, не выезжая из страны.

​Если вам нужна помощь или совет, вы можете связаться с нами по электронной почте.

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/

In Russian: 

Российская газета "Новые Известия" опубликовала дельную статью про опасность "бесплатных юридических консультаций". Журналисты проинтервьюировали некоторых моих московских партнеров и коллег. 

Как известно, бесплатный сыр бывает только в мышеловке. Ты получаешь то, за что заплатил.

Хороший компетентный и этический адвокат НЕ будет предоставлять консультацию (давать юридический совет) бесплатно. В оказании юридических услуг самое главное - это получить правильный совет и знать что делать и как поступить.  

Среди "юридических фирм" и "иммиграционных консультантов" попадается немало мошенников или недобросовестных и малограмотных "специалистов". Особенно много вебсайтов на интернете, которые в поисковике выходят в самом начале как реклама (так как вебсайт платит за такое выгодное размещение) и нелицензированных "иммиграционных консультантов" или "нотариусов", которые предлагают "первую" консультацию бесплатно и готовы перезвонить потенциальному клиенту в течение 5 минут. Что следует дальше, об этом люди не задумываются. А им навязывается контракт на завышенную сумму, с ненужными сервисами или предлагаются ненужные или вредные для дела действия (которые дорого стоят). После предоставления бесплатной консультации, такому специалисту ведь нужно как-то заработать на клиенте (на которого было потрачено время) -- если уж не брать оплату за консультацию, то ее используют как ловушку для доверчивых граждан, готовых повестись на обман.

Следует иметь в виду, что хороший опытный адвокат не будет и не имеет права давать "гарантии" успеха или гарантии выигрыша вашего дела. Опытный адвокат ценит свое и ваше время, и для того, чтобы проконсультировать клиента ей/ему нужно изучить ваши обстоятельства и проанализировать возможные варианты и осложнения перед тем как давать платный (ни в коем случае не бесплатный совет). 

Хорошая статья обо всем этом в Новых Известиях, с консультациями моих Московских партнеров и коллег.

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. 

Did you apply for the 2016 DV lottery? It's time to find your DV-2016 confirmation number! 

Starting May 5, 2015, y ou can check your DV-2016 Green Card Lottery entry status at dvlottery.state.gov .

Please keep in mind that Entrant Status Check online is the ONLY means by which you will be notified of your selection for further processing in the Diversity Visa lottery. You will never be notified or requested to pay fees by mail, email, phone -- ONLY through online status check. 

If you have misplaced your DV lottery confirmation number, you can use the retrieval tool in Entrant Status Check to recover it at https://www.dvlottery.state.gov/

If you have been selected as a WINNER and need help with the visa application process (if you are outside of the United States and will apply at the US embassy or consulate in your country) or with adjustment of status (if you are residing in the United States and eligible for adjustment of status), you are welcome to contact our office for advice or legal assistance. We would be glad to help!

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.

A lawsuit was filed on behalf of 11 Filipino workers at L’Amande French Bakery, Los Angeles, CA, who were fraudulently lured by their employer to the United States on E-2 visas and then subjected to exploitative working conditions including forced labor, severe wage theft, immigration-related retaliation, and national origin discrimination.  
(L’Amande is a popular bakery in the Los Angeles-area with stores in Beverly Hills and Torrance.  The owners of L’Amande are Ana Moitinho de Almeida, the daughter of a wealthy and powerful government official in the Philippines, and her husband Goncalo).

The E-2 visa provides temporary work authorization for immigrants with specialized or supervisory skills who are employed by a foreign national who has invested a substantial amount of capital in a U.S.-based business. Like other temporary (or guest) worker visas, E-2 visa holders are dependent on their employers for legal status, with few – and in this case no – protections against employer exploitation and retaliation for asserting workplace rights. In the lawsuit, the workers were recruited under false pretenses for their specialized pastry chef skills, but were forced to do menial labor once they arrived in the United States.

The employer used threats of debt, deportation, and financial ruin in the Philippines to maintain their economic exploitation of the workers while paying legally mandated wages to local workers. After the workers arrived in the United States, the Almeidas threatened them with a significant debt of $11,000 each unless they agreed to work under these illegal conditions for at least three years.  After an investigation by the California Labor Commissioner's Office revealed egregious wage and hour abuses, including 14-hour work days for more than three consecutive months and wages of less than $3 per hour, the Almeidas retaliated against the workers when they refused to lie about their working conditions. As the lawsuit details, half of the workers were fired after they cooperated in the labor investigation. Since the E-2 visa is bound to the employer, the termination has left the workers without a livelihood. Yet, they fear returning to the Philippines because of what the politically powerful Almeida family will do to them there.

“When Ana promised me $2,000 a month to work at her bakery in the United States, I jumped at the chance to provide a better future for my sons than I had. I had no idea that I would be forced to work for 12 hours a day for five weeks straight or that I would be forced to act as a general servant for the Almeidas. When I stood up for my rights and refused to lie to the labor investigator about the conditions I was working in, Ana threatened to sue me and ruin my life and that of my family in the Philippines. Now that she has terminated me, I worry she will make good on her threats, and I worry for my own safety and that of my family if I return to the Philippines. But I feel I have to fight back, because my family is counting on me.”

The lawsuit alleges claims for labor exploitation, discrimination, unfair immigration-related practices, trafficking, and racketeering based on visa fraud, retaliation, and seeks to enjoin ongoing unfair practices. Some of the wage and hour claims alone for the 11 workers amount to more than $700,000, and we will pursue additional damages and penalties based on the many legal claims.

“What is particularly egregious about what the Almeidas did here is that they engaged in a scheme to defraud the U.S. government and the workers, lying about the workers’ wages and conditions,” said Philip Wang, one of the attorneys for the workers at Latham & Watkins LLP. “It wasn’t until the workers arrived in the U.S. that they were threatened with substantial debt unless they kept working. No one should be allowed to profit in this way, especially when it is on the backs of workers who are alone and new to the U.S., and have poor English skills and limited legal recourse.”

Advancing Justice – LA is also seeking immigration relief for the workers, U visas, as victims of labor trafficking, coercive labor practices, and potential persecution if they return to the Philippines. 

The filed complaint can be found here." - Advancing Justice - LA, Mar. 19, 2015.

Beverly Hills bakery workers say they were paid as little as $2 an hour - L.A. Times, Mar. 19, 2015.