Author Archive Phillip Kim

ByPhillip Kim

USCIS released earlier dates on Visa Bulletin- when to file for IV or AOS

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 align with procedures DOS uses for foreign nationals who seek to become U.S. permanent residents by applying for immigrant visas at U.S. consulates and embassies abroad.

This revised process will enhance DOS’s ability to more accurately predict overall immigrant visa demand and determine the cut-off dates for visa issuance published in the Visa Bulletin. This will help ensure that the maximum number of immigrant visas are issued annually as intended by Congress, and minimize month-to-month fluctuations in Visa Bulletin final action dates.

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.

October 2015
Dates for Filing Family-Sponsored Adjustment of Status Applications
Family-Sponsored All Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed
CHINA INDIA MEXICO PHILIPPINES
F1 01MAY09 01MAY09 01MAY09 01JUL95 01SEP05
F2A 01MAR15 01MAR15 01MAR15 01MAR15 01MAR15
F2B 01JUL10 01JUL10 01JUL10 01JAN96 01JAN05
F3 01APR05 01APR05 01APR05 01OCT96 01AUG95
F4 01FEB04 01FEB04 01FEB04 01MAY98 01JAN93

Dates for Filing Employment-Based Adjustment of Status Applications
Employment-Based All Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed
CHINA INDIA MEXICO PHILIPPINES
1st C C C C C
2nd C 01MAY14 01JUL11 C C
3rd 01SEP15 01OCT13 01JUL05 01SEP15 01JAN15
Other Workers 01SEP15 01JAN07 01JUL05 01SEP15 01JAN15
4th C C C C C
Relig C C C C C
5th C 01MAY15 C C C

What is Changing:

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

Application Final Action Dates (dates when visas may finally be issued); and
Dates for Filing Applications (earliest dates when applicants may be able to apply).

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.

ByPhillip Kim

F-1 & J-1 Students: Be Careful – Scams on SEVIS

If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

Recently, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security
Investigations (HSI) has seen an increase in the number of scams targeting
unsuspecting international students. Cultural and language barriers often make
it difficult for international students to discern genuine offers for assistance from
scams, making them particularly vulnerable to deceitful solicitations.

For example, scams may take the form of all-inclusive student visa service packages or great deals on travel. Often students realize too late that the fees they paid to a company to organize their trip to the United States are lost forever or they have not been properly registered as promised by the scammer.

Scam companies will often produce websites or addresses that are similar in name to legitimate student organizations or government agencies. To avoid falling prey to these solicitations, students should carefully scrutinize websites and thoroughly
research companies before submitting any payments or personal information.
School officials should work with their international students to ensure they are aware of how to avoid scams.

International students are required to adhere to many rules and regulations to maintain their student status, so it is especially alarming when they receive an email or telephone call advising them that their immigration status is in jeopardy unless they provide immediate payment for services, fees or fines.

With these scams, students are typically contacted by email or telephone, and often the sender or caller will know specific information about the student. The scammer will usually request immediate payment either by credit card or electronic
transfer, and may even claim to be from a U.S. government agency or known student organization.

Students should be aware that a government agency would never contact them by telephone to demand immediate payment and would never request that the student wire money for immediate payment. Students should always consult with their designated school official (DSO) about their immigration status. Additionally, students should pay careful attention to the email address of any contact, as government emails and websites will always end in “.gov” and never “.com.”

HSI recommends that school officials communicate to their students that if they receive a scam telephone call or email, they should:
–Not give out any personal information.
–Not send money.
–Obtain as much information from the caller or email as possible without
alerting the scammer so they can report it to police, HSI or the Student and
Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), and their DSO.

We ask DSOs to immediately alert their student body when they learn of any scams
targeted toward international students so others are not harmed and to also contact
their local HSI office or SEVP to notify them of any identified scams. DSOs may
also contact the HSI Tip Line at 866-DHS-2-ICE (866-347-2423) if calling from the
United States.
(from SEVP)

ByPhillip Kim

California Theft Conviction is Not an Aggravated Felony

The Ninth Circuit granted the petition for review and remanded, finding that a conviction under California’s theft statute is categorically not a theft offense, and thus not an aggravated felony, because the statute is both overbroad and indivisible, and such a conviction is not susceptible to the modified categorical approach pursuant to Descamps v. United States and Rendon v. Holder.

The court of appeals granted a petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals. The court held that a California conviction for theft is never an aggravated felony because it is categorically not a theft offense.

Lawful permanent resident Roberto Lopez-Valencia pleaded guilty to petty theft as defined in California Penal Code §§484 and 488 and was sentenced to probation. He later admitted violating his probation terms and was sentenced to state prison. After a subsequent conviction for being under the influence of a controlled substance, Lopez-Valencia was placed in removal proceedings.

The immigration judge (IJ) concluded that both of Lopez-Valencia’s convictions rendered him removable. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, concluding that Valencia’s theft conviction was an aggravated felony because it was a “theft offense” under 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(43)(G). Lopez-Valencia petitioned for review.

The court of appeals granted the petition, holding that the BIA erred in affirming on the basis that Lopez-Valencia’s conviction was an aggravated felony because it was a “theft offense.”

The key issue was whether a conviction under California’s theft statute may qualify as an “aggravated felony” because it is a “theft offense” as defined by 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(43)(G). Following the rule of (I)Descamps v. United States(I), 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013), and its circuit progeny, the court held that a California conviction for theft is never an aggravated felony because it is categorically not a theft offense.

California’s theft statute is indivisible because the jury is not required to agree unanimously on how a defendant committed theft. The California Supreme Court and the state legislature have each, in their respective realms, made it clear that while all jurors must agree that the defendant engaged in some type of unlawful taking, they need not unanimously agree as to the way in which the unlawful taking was committed.

The court declared California’s theft statute overbroad and indivisible, with the result that the modified categorical approach did not apply.

The court rejected the government’s attempt to point to the charging documents in Lopez-Valencia’s case in support of a single theory of theft that the jury must have found. That factual approach had been abrogated in light of (I)Descamps(I). In addition, in a California theft prosecution there is no requirement that the charging documents spell out the defendant’s offense with any particularity.

Instead, the court declared that California’s overbroad and indivisible theft statute is not amenable to the modified categorical approach, and a conviction under it can never be a “theft offense” under §1101(a)(43)(G).
from Recorder.

ByPhillip Kim

Yemeni Nationals’ Immigration Relief Options

USCIS is closely monitoring conditions in Yemen. Due to the current unstable security situation, USCIS seeks to highlight several available immigration relief measures that may assist eligible Yemeni nationals.

Immigration relief measures that may be available upon request include:

Change or extension of nonimmigrant status for an individual currently in the United States, even if the request is filed after the authorized period of admission has expired;
Extension of certain grants of parole made by USCIS;
Expedited adjudication and approval, where possible, of requests for off-campus employment authorization for F-1 students experiencing severe economic hardship;
Expedited adjudication of employment authorization applications, where appropriate; and
Consideration for waiver of fees associated with USCIS benefit applications, based on an inability to pay.

To learn more about how USCIS provides assistance to customers affected by unforeseen circumstances in their home country and how to request relief, please visit uscis.gov/humanitarian/special-situations.

ByPhillip Kim

One of every 15 children in USA has an undocumented parent

Something happened while the immigration system in the United States got broken, something that should change the way we talk about fixing it. Years went by, and nature took its course. More than 11 million unauthorized immigrants settled into our communities; many formed families and had children. Now at least one of every 15 children living in the United States has an unauthorized parent, and nearly all of those children are native-born United States citizens.

Think of that statistic, one in 15, the next time you drive by a school or a playground. Think of those children living with the knowledge that the federal government can take their parents away. Common sense tells you that the threat of a parent’s deportation will exact a terrible price.

Now it’s possible to get some measure of how big the cost is. In a recent report, we assessed more than 50 research studies of the children of unauthorized immigrants conducted by scholars in a variety of fields. This growing body of work shows that fear and uncertainty breed difficulties that manifest themselves in delayed cognitive development, lower educational performance and clinical levels of anxiety.

By one estimate, more than six million children are paying the price of having an unauthorized immigrant parent, and more than five million of them were born here. A study that followed 380 New York City newborns for three years found evidence of lower cognitive skills as early as 24 months among the children of the undocumented and concluded that parents’ psychological distress played a major role. A 2004-8 Los Angeles survey of more than 5,000 immigrants found that having an unauthorized immigrant mother means children will end their education with one and a half years less schooling than those growing up under identical circumstances, with a mother who is in the country legally.

The research not only diagnoses the costs of policy failure but also points the way to a solution. The same Los Angeles study found that 43 percent of children with a father legalized in the 1986 immigration reform act received some college education, compared with 14 percent of similar children whose father remained an unauthorized immigrant. Legalization can place these young people on a life trajectory equal to that of their peers.

Once you take this evidence into consideration, the challenges change. The nation has an interest in regulating immigration, yet it also has a stake in its children. Current policies do not succeed in regulating immigration, but they do force these children into life-stifling insecurity.

Though now blocked by a legal challenge, the executive actions issued by President Obama in November offered an immediate if short-term fix. One of the proposed programs would grant permission to parents of American citizens and legal residents to remain in the United States for three years and to work legally, as long as they meet a number of conditions. An amicus brief signed by an array of educational organizations and children’s advocacy groups cited our report as evidence of the harm current policies inflict on children who are United States citizens, and the federal government made the same argument during an appellate court hearing this month.

These young citizens are at risk of being less than full members of society. Removing the threat of deportation from their families gives them a chance to prosper. That serves the public interest more effectively than maintaining an enforcement system widely decried as ineffective and unjust.

In the universe of manufactured disadvantage, we cannot think of many instances in which sitting judges, with the stroke of a pen, can bring immediate and measurable relief to millions of children. Here, they can. The remedy begins by understanding that the adults can no longer be seen simply as people who slipped the border to find work. We must begin to see them as parents, as the people raising our nation’s children. Some will reject that view and fault the adults for being in this country without proper immigration status.

But the American sense of fairness and system of justice have long embraced the notion that the “sins of the father” should not be visited on the children. Reasonable minds can debate whether there is blame to attach to the parents. There is no reasonable case to be made for punishing their children, who are citizens of the United States. Yet they are punished every day.

(Source: The New York Times)

ByPhillip Kim

Certain H-4 Dependent Spouses Are Now Eligible For Employment Authorization

USCIS announced today that starting May 26, 2015 certain eligible H-4 dependents may apply for employment authorization (work permits). USCIS believes this change will reduce the economic burdens and stress that H-1B nonimmigrants and their families will have, especially when an H-4 dependent spouse is unable to work and generate income.

Eligible individuals under this new initiative include certain H-4 dependent spouses of H-1B nonimmigrants who:

1. Are the principal beneficiaries of an approved Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker; or
2. Have been granted H-1B status under sections 106(a) and (b) of the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000 as amended by the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act. The Act permits H-1B nonimmigrants seeking lawful permanent residence to work and remain in the United States beyond the six-year limit on their H-1B status.

USCIS Director Leon Rodriguez states “Allowing the spouses of these visa holders to legally work in the United States makes perfect sense. It helps U.S. businesses keep their highly skilled workers by increasing the chances these workers will choose to stay in this country during the transition from temporary workers to permanent residents. It also provides more economic stability and better quality of life for the affected families.”

The number of individuals eligible to apply for employment authorization under this rule could be as high as 179,600 in the first year and 55,000 annually in subsequent years as estimated by USCIS.

ByPhillip Kim

Latest News on DAPA; DACA under 2012 announcement is NOT affected by the 02/16/15 court decision.

DACA under 2012 announcement is NOT affected by the 02/16/15 court decision.

It means that you may still file for DACA if you meet the requirements under 2012 announcement; and you may also renew it if your DACA was approved.

Here is the Statement by Secretary Jeh C. Johnson Concerning the District Court’s Ruling Concerning DAPA and DACA:

I strongly disagree with Judge Hanen’s decision to temporarily enjoin implementation of Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) and expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The Department of Justice will appeal that temporary injunction; in the meantime, we recognize we must comply with it.

Accordingly, the Department of Homeland Security will not begin accepting requests for the expansion of DACA tomorrow, February 18, as originally planned. Until further notice, we will also suspend the plan to accept requests for DAPA.

The Department of Justice, legal scholars, immigration experts and even other courts have said that our actions are well within our legal authority. Our actions will also benefit the economy and promote law enforcement. We fully expect to ultimately prevail in the courts, and we will be prepared to implement DAPA and expanded DACA once we do.

It is important to emphasize what the District Court’s order does not affect.

The Court’s order does not affect the existing DACA. Individuals may continue to come forward and request initial grant of DACA or renewal of DACA pursuant to the guidelines established in 2012.

Nor does the Court’s order affect this Department’s ability to set and implement enforcement priorities. The priorities established in my November 20, 2014 memorandum entitled “Policies for the Apprehension, Detention and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants” remain in full force and effect. Pursuant to those enforcement priorities, we continue to prioritize public safety, national security, and border security. I am pleased that an increasing percentage of removals each year are of those convicted of crimes. I am also pleased that, due in large part to our investments in and prioritization of border security, apprehensions at the southern border – a large indicator of total attempts to cross the border illegally — are now at the lowest levels in years.

ByPhillip Kim

DACA & DAPA on Temporary Hold- latest news on executive action

DACA DAPA Latest News: USCIS will not process DACA & DAPA applications until the further decisions from the court.

On 02/16/2015, Monday, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen granted the preliminary injunction after hearing arguments in Brownsville, Texas last month. He wrote in a memorandum accompanying his order that the lawsuit should go forward and that without a preliminary injunction the states will “suffer irreparable harm in this case.”

In a statement early Tuesday, 02/17/15, the White House defended the executive orders issued in November as within the president’s legal authority, saying the U.S. Supreme Court and Congress have said federal officials can establish priorities in enforcing immigration laws.

Among those supporting Obama’s executive order is a group of 12 mostly liberal states, including Washington and California, as well as the District of Columbia. They filed a motion with Judge Hanen in support of Obama, arguing the directives will substantially benefit states and will further the public interest.
A group of law enforcement officials, including the Major Cities Chiefs Association and more than 20 police chiefs and sheriffs from across the country, also filed a motion in support, arguing the executive action will improve public safety by encouraging cooperation between police and individuals with concerns about their immigration status.
The appeal will be heard by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

The DHS and USCIS and others are enjoined from implementing any part of DAPA and DACA until the further order of the court.

ByPhillip Kim

USCIS Will Start Accepting Expanded DACA Applications On February 18, 2015

Eligible applicants may submit their expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) applications to USCIS beginning February 18, 2015.

The expanded DACA will allow an even greater population of people to qualify under the program than under the existing DACA program. In order to qualify, you must meet the following requirements:

(1) Have no lawful immigration status
(2) Entered the United States before the age of 16
(3) Have lived in the United States continuously since at least January 1, 2010
(4) Be of any age
(5) Graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, have a GED, or currently enrolled in school, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States
(6) Have not been convicted of certain criminal offenses

Even if you do not qualify for expanded DACA, you may still be eligible under the Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA) Program.

Under the DAPA program, you qualify if you:

(1) Have no lawful immigration status
(2) Have a US citizen or lawful permanent resident son or daughter as of November 20, 2014
(3) Lived in the United States continuously since January 1, 2010
(4) Was physically present in the United States on November 20, 2014
(5) Are not an enforcement priority for removal from the United States and have not been convicted of certain criminal offenses

The application period for DAPA is expected to start sometime in mid to late May 2015. If you are granted DACA or DAPA, you will receive a work permit valid for three years subject to renewal.

ByPhillip Kim

How to Get a Green Card under Parole In Place PIP Permanent Resident Cards

Our Client received a Permanent Resident Card under Parole In Place (PIP). It took only a few months from filing to approval. I attended the interview with my clients and it took only 10 minutes.

PIP allows spouses/children/parents of Military Service personnel to apply for a Green Card in the US without leaving the country. No waiver (perdón) is required.

Authority

INA §§ 212(a)(6)(A)(i), 212(d)(5)(A), 235(a), and 245(a), (c); 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(6)(A)(i),1182(d)(5)(A), 1225(a), and 1255(a), (c)

Background
Parole of Spouses, children and parents of Armed Forces personnel

In partnership with the Department of Defense (DoD), USCIS has launched a number of initiatives to assist military members, veterans, and their families to navigate our complex immigration system and apply for naturalization and other immigration services and benefits.
This PM builds on these important initiatives as there is concern within DoD that some active members of the U.S. Armed Services, individuals serving in the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve and individuals who have previously served in the U.S. Armed Forces or Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve face stress and anxiety because of the immigration status of their family members in the United States.
Military preparedness can potentially be adversely affected if active members of the U.S. Armed Forces and individuals serving in the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve, who can be quickly called into active duty, worry about the immigration status of their spouses, parents and children.
Similarly, our veterans, who have served and sacrificed for our nation, can face stress and anxiety because of the immigration status of their family members in the United States. We as a nation have made a commitment to our veterans, to support and care for them. It is a commitment that begins at enlistment, and continues as they become veterans.
Responding to these and similar concerns by several Members of Congress about soldiers and veterans, the Secretary of Homeland Security on August 30, 2010 emphasized the Department’s commitment to assisting military families. The Secretary identified several of the discretionary tools that the Department utilizes “to help military dependents secure permanent immigration status in the United States as soon as possible.” Among the tools listed was “parole … to minimize periods of family separation, and to facilitate adjustment of status within the United States by immigrants who are the spouses, parents and children of military members.” 1
INA § 212(d)(5)(A) gives the Secretary the discretion, on a case-by-case basis, to “parole” for “urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit” an alien applying for admission to the United States. Although it is most frequently used to permit an alien who is outside the United States to come into U.S. territory, parole may also be granted to aliens who are already physically present in the U.S. without inspection or admission. This latter use of parole is sometimes called “parole in place.”

A. Parole in Place for Spouses, Children and Parents of Active Members of the U.S. Armed Forces, Individuals in the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve or Individuals Who Previously Served in the U.S. Armed Forces or the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve

As noted above, the decision whether to grant parole under INA § 212(d)(5)(A) is discretionary. Generally, parole in place is to be granted only sparingly. The fact that the individual is a spouse, child or parent of an Active Duty member of the U.S. Armed Forces, an individual in the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve or an individual who previously served in the U.S. Armed Forces or the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve, however, ordinarily weighs heavily in favor of parole in place. Absent a criminal conviction or other serious adverse factors, parole in place would generally be an appropriate exercise of discretion for such an individual. If USCIS5 decides to grant parole in that situation, the parole should be authorized in one-year increments, with re-parole as appropriate.