VIP Lawyer Network
High Net Worth
Connect to us
Make us Homepage
The leadingimmigration lawpublisher - over50000 pages offree
Copyright© 1995-ILW.COM,AmericanImmigration LLC.
Who is more of an American idol than Elvis Presley?
The Beatles? No, those lads were from Liverpool.
What made a teenager from Tupelo, Mississippi, into an icon of music, television and film?
Yes, Elvis was extremely talented. His rock and rock style was fabulous, but he did not write his own songs, wasn't much of a guitarist and his acting left a lot to be desired.
One thing that Elvis had that many of his contemporaries lacked was his manager, Colonel Tom Parker. Colonel Tom, as he was called, was the reason both he and Elvis made millions of dollars (a 50-50 split, yes really!) and the reason that Elvis never toured abroad.
Elvis said of Colonel Tom, "I don't think I'd have ever been very big if it wasn't for him. He's a very smart man."
Colonel Tom was frequently seen wearing his trademark cowboy hat and puffing on his cigar. According to legend, he was born in Huntington, West Virginia and ran away from home to join the circus. He served in the US Army in the 1920s and married Marie Mott, a US citizen, in 1935.
But though the true facts did not come out until years after Elvis's death, in 1977, "Colonel Tom" was an invented persona. In responding to a lawsuit in 1982, Colonel Tom revealed that he was a Dutch citizen. His real name was Andreas Cornelis van Kujik and he was born in the Netherlands.
And why did Mr. van Kujik turn down multi-million dollar offers received for Elvis to perform abroad?
You guessed it! Colonel Tom was living illegally in the US from the 1920s until his death in 1997. And control freak that he was, he knew that if he ever accompanied Elvis abroad, there was no way for the Colonel to reenter the US.
Colonel Tom may have been able to legalize his immigration status through his US citizen wife or through other means, but he choose not to do so. We may never know why, although his Wikipedia bio provides some possible reasons.
Perhaps, his life can best be summed up by Priscilla Presley's eulogy at his funeral:
"Elvis and the Colonel made history together, and the world is richer, better and far more interesting because of their collaboration. And now I need to locate my wallet, because I noticed there was no ticket booth on the way in here, but I'm sure that the Colonel must have arranged for some toll on the way out."
On December 16, it was announced that members of Congress had finalized a 2,009-page budget bill. The bill is expected to be approved and signed by President Obama before the end of the year.
The bill contains a number of immigration law changes, each of which is listed below:
H-1B and L-1 Filing Fees - Additional filing fees will be imposed on companies which employ 50 or more workers in the US, and whose workforce consists more than 50% of H-1B and L-1 employees. The additional fees amount to $4,000 per H-1B petition and $4,500 for each L-1 petition. These fees will also apply to extensions as well as to first-time petitions. These fees will remain in effect until September 30, 2025.
EB-5, Conrad 30, E-Verify and Non-Ministerial Religious Workers – Each of these programs will be extended to September 30, 2016 without any material changes. Changes to the EB-5 program are essential. It is anticipated that Congress will amend the EB-5 investor program sometime in 2016. H-2B Workers – Returning workers who were counted against the 66,000 cap in fiscal years 2013-15 will not be subject to the fiscal year 2016 cap. Employers will be required to pay workers at the prevailing wage or the actual wage, whichever is higher. Visa Waiver Program (VWP) – The rules will be tightened on this program which allows tens of millions of people from 38 countries to enter the US as visitors without visas each year. For example, persons who visited Syria, Iraq, Iran, Sudan (or any country designated by DHS) since March 2011 will be barred from visiting the US without a visa. These immigration law changes are meant to promote security and increase "vetting" of foreign visitors to the United States.
On December 2, 2015, the USCIS introduced the feature “Ask Emma”, a virtual assistant, on www.uscis.gov. Emma is named after Emma Lazarus, the woman who wrote the sonnet “The New Colossus” which appears on a bronze plaque at the base of the Statute of Liberty (“Give me your tired, your poor…”)
The USCIS press release states as follows: “Although Emma can currently answer many questions our customers commonly ask, her knowledge base is still growing. As customers ask more questions, Emma gets smarter and can better assist future customers.
You can access Emma on a desktop or laptop. Soon, she’ll be expanding to mobile devices, and her Spanish language capabilities will be arriving early next year.”
However, unlike her older Sister Siri who was born in 2011 and who speaks over a dozen languages, Emma prefers to answer your questions in writing and in English, rather than by speaking to you.
You can ask Emma questions by clicking the “Ask a Question” link in the upper right corner of www.uscis.gov, right next to the “Search Our Site” link and typing in your question(s).
Carl and Emma’s First Conversation
I first talked with Emma on December 3. Below is a transcript of our brief conversation. While Emma directed me to the same pages that USCIS’s internal Bing search engine did, I found her answers to my question a bit more precise. Please share your experiences with Emma with me.
Emma: Hi, I’m Emma. I’m here to help you with your questions about this site. What would you like to ask me?
Carl: Can my child immigrate with me under CSPA?
Emma: The Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) amended the Immigration Nationality Act (INA) by changing who qualifies as a child for purposes of immigrant. This permits certain beneficiaries to retain classification as a “child,” even if he or she has reached the age of 21.
Before CSPA took effect on August 6, 2002, a beneficiary who turned 21 at any time prior to receiving permanent residence could not be considered a child for immigration purposes. This situation is described as “aging out.” Congress recognized that many beneficiaries were aging out because of large backlogs and long processing times for visa petitions. CSPA is designed to protect a beneficiary’s immigration classification as a child when he or she ages out due to excessive processing times.
Please see the page I have opened for you for additional information on how to qualify under the act and for a list of the eligibility criteria or select the link below to review visa availability.View Page
Visa Availability and Priority Dates
Need to go back?
Return To Previous Page
Carl: He was 15 when my sister filed a visa petition for me. Now, my priority date is current, but he is 22 years old.
Emma: The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets the number of immigrant visas that may be issued to individuals seeking permanent resident status (a green card) each year. Immigrant visas available to “immediate relatives” of U.S. citizens are unlimited, so are always available. Immediate relatives include, parents of a U.S. citizen, spouses of a U.S. citizen and, unmarried children under the age of 21 of a U.S. citizen.
Immigrant visa numbers for individuals in a “preference category” are limited, so are not always available. Because the demand is higher than the supply of visas for a given year for some categories, a visa queue (waiting list) forms. To distribute the visas among all preference categories, the Department of State gives out the visas by providing visa numbers according to the preference category and one’s priority date.
See the page I've opened for you for more information.View Page
Family Preference Categories Eligibility
Need to go back?
Return To Previous Page
Updated 12-04-2015 at 03:24 PM by CShusterman
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (aka the “Hart-Celler Act”) turned 50 years old on October 3, 2015.
The Act was passed shortly after the Civil Rights Acts in 1964 and 1965, and ended the National Origins quota system which had restricted most U.S. immigration to natives of Germany, Great Britain and Ireland. For example, in 1929, out of 150,000 immigrate slots, over 50,000 were reserved for Germans, 100 to Greeks and zero to Chinese.
With the 1965 Act, we committed ourselves, for the first time, to accepting immigrants of all nationalities. However, when the Act was passed, there was little certainty that more than a few thousand persons from non-European countries would be able to immigrate to the U.S.
The Act, as introduced, would have based most immigration on the skills of each immigrant. However, in order to secure the support for the bill, the Johnson Administration agreed to let Representative Michael Feighan (D-Ohio), the Chairman of the House Immigration Subcommittee, amend the bill to grant most green cards to relatives of U.S. citizens and a far lesser amount to persons based on their skills. Representative Feighan’s intent was to make sure that U.S. immigration would remain European-based. Since over 90% of the U.S. citizens were of white, European background, he reasoned that a mostly family-based system would keep America white. What Rep. Feighan and his allies failed to consider was that most Europeans no longer wished to immigrate to the U.S.
Senators and members of the House of Representatives voted for the bill in overwhelming numbers. The primary opposition came from segregationist Southerners who did not want to change the National Origins quota system. Senator Sam Ervin (D-NC) was able to amend the bill in order to impose a first-time 120,000 person quota on immigration from the Western Hemisphere, a move that made it impossible for many people to legally immigrate to the U.S.
Upon signing the bill into law, President Johnson’s statement included the following:
“This bill says simply that from this day forth those wishing to immigrate to America shall be admitted on the basis of their skills and their close relationship to those already here. This is a simple test, and it is a fair test. Those who can contribute most to this country – to its growth, to its strength, to its spirit – will be the first that are admitted to this land.”
These days, we welcome immigrants from all countries. An increasing number are admitted due to their education and skills. True, there is more work to be done, but the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 was revolutionary.
September 25, 2015 will go down as a sad day in immigration history. The Federal Government, which had published the Visa Bulletin for October 2015 on September 9 which promised that thousands of persons who had been waiting in line for green cards for many years would be able to submit applications for adjustment of status starting on October 1st even though their priority dates were far from current, suddenly and without explanation, reneged on its promise.
What a cruel, delayed April Fools Joke to play on immigrants and their families!
Ever since the Government's September 9th announcement, many thousands of immigrants who qualified for benefits have rushed to see their immigration attorneys, completed forms, paid for medical examinations and got ready to submit applications for adjustment of status, employment authorization and advance parole... but all in vain.
On September 25, just a few days before the implementation of the October Visa Bulletin, the Government issued an "updated" October Visa Bulletin. In the revised bulletin, the following filing dates that had been announced by the Government earlier in September were retrogressed as follows:
EB-2 India: from 7/1/2011 to 7/1/2009 (2 years)EB-2 China: from 5/1/2014 to 1/1/2013 (1 year and 5 months)EB-3 Philippines: from 1/1/2015 to 1/1/2010 (5 years)FB-1 Mexico: from 7/1/1995 to 4/1/1995 (3 months)FB-3 Mexico: from 10/1/1996 to 5/1/1995 (1 year and 5 months)
Immigrants who relied on the October Visa Bulletin issued on September 9 are shocked and disappointed by the Government's decision to change the rules of the game just two weeks later. Did the revised Visa Bulletin result from a conflict between the State Department and the USCIS? Possibly, but let's not speculate about this. We promise to keep you updated as we learn more.
Immigrants, their employers and their attorneys need to ban together to express our disapproval.
Updated 09-28-2015 at 12:38 PM by CShusterman