ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily




The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
© 1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

Recent Blogs Posts

  1. USCIS Introduces Redesigned Form for Green Card Applicants

    by , 06-26-2017 at 01:46 PM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
    Agency Publishes Revised Form I-485 and Instructions

    WASHINGTON—U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services today published a revised Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (Form I-485). The new Form I-485 and instructions have been substantially updated to reduce complexity after collecting comments from the public and stakeholders.

    The revised version gives applicants better information to accurately complete Form I-485, including clear navigation to the parts of the form and instructions that are relevant to the applicants’ specific situations. These updates should increase the efficiency of the adjudication process by reducing errors and requests for evidence.

    Applicants living in the United States file Form I-485 to adjust their immigration status and become lawful permanent residents, which allows one to live and work permanently in the United States. Adjusting status is a critical step for those seeking U.S. citizenship.


    USCIS also revised the Form I-485 Supplement A and Form I-485 Supplement J (as well as each supplement’s instructions), to provide applicants with more detailed information about how to properly complete, file, and submit evidence if those supplements are applicable to their situation.


    Beginning today, there will be a 60-day grace period during which USCIS will accept both the 01/17/17 and 06/26/17 editions of Form I-485 and Supplement A and J. Beginning Aug. 25, USCIS will only accept the revised Form and Supplement A and J of Form I-485 and will no longer accept earlier versions of either form.


    What’s New? USCIS improved Form I-485 to include:


    • Better flow and organization of questions to make it user-friendly for both the applicants and USCIS. In addition, readability has significantly improved due to new spacing, columns, flow, white space, and formatting.
    • The questions about biographic information (Form G-325A) so applicants will no longer need to file a separate form;
    • A list of 27 immigrant categories, which allows applicants to identify the specific immigrant category under which they are applying; and
    • A comprehensive, updated list of admissibility-related questions. The added questions to ensure USCIS officers have the necessary information to better assess the applicant’s admissibility and eligibility.


    What Remains the Same

    While both Form I-485 and its instructions may look different from earlier versions, the process for filing Form I-485 and Form I-485 Supplement A and Form I-485 Supplement J remains the same. Applicants must still submit their paper applications to the location listed in the form instructions.

    Further information

    Visit the Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status page and the Form I-485 Supplement A page for further information about the new forms and instructions.
    Applicants can visit the USCIS Green Card Eligibility Categories page for information on eligibility requirements for each immigrant category.
    All USCIS forms are free on our website at www.uscis.gov/forms.
    For more information on USCIS and its programs, please visit www.uscis.gov or follow us on Twitter (@uscis), YouTube (/uscis), Facebook(/uscis), and Instagram (@uscis).

    - USCIS -
  2. DHS Statement On SCOTUS Decision On Trump's Executive Order

    by , 06-26-2017 at 01:38 PM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
    Release Date:
    June 26, 2017

    For Immediate Release
    Office of the Press Secretary
    Contact: 202-282-8010

    WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court today has allowed the Department of Homeland Security to largely implement the President's Executive Order and take rational and necessary steps to protect our nation from persons looking to enter and potentially do harm. The granting of a partial stay of the circuit injunctions with regard to many aliens abroad restores to the Executive Branch crucial and long-held constitutional authority to defend our national borders.

    The Department will provide additional details on implementation after consultation with the Departments of Justice and State. The implementation of the Executive Order will be done professionally, with clear and sufficient public notice, particularly to potentially affected travelers, and in coordination with partners in the travel industry.
  3. Supreme Court Hands Trump Pyrrhic "Victory" by Upholding Muslim Ban Only Against People Not Likely to Come to U.S. Anyway. Roger Algase

    Update: June 26, 9:15 pm:

    For another opinion supporting my own view that the June 26 Supreme Court decision reinstating parts of Trump's Muslim entry ban order was considerably less than an overwhelming victory for the president; and that it can even be looked at a resounding defeat for Trump if one focuses on the fact that lifting the injunction will probably make very little difference in who actually gets admitted to the US from the six countries affected, with or without the entry ban, see:

    Sabrina Saddiqui, writing in The Guardian:

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...uling-analysis

    Nonetheless, even if the president's "victory" in having at least part of his ban reinstated may be more symbolic than in actual practice, the message that the Supreme Court is sending to the Muslims of America - and the world - is highly disconcerting for the future of religious freedom in America and of our democracy.

    The message is that the highest court in the most powerful and respected nation in the world is willing to wheel and deal away basic religious equality and human rights for almost 200 million people in the six countries and their co-religionists in the US, and accept second-class status for American Muslims, while branding their religion as a pariah one that is just a bit less "equal" than the others.

    By banning, even "temporarily" (and of course Trump is going to extend the ban, most likely re-branded as "extreme vetting", for as long and as often as he can, especially encouraged by the failure of the Supreme Court to oppose him more vigorously this time around - that is a given) almost 200 million people who do not have close ties with America, simply because of their religion, the Court is not only rewarding the president for his bigotry, bad faith and grab at imperial power in issuing the ban orders in the first place, but is encouraging him to adopt even wider, more bigoted and dangerous (for our democracy) ban or exclusion policies in the future.

    Today, Trump may have only succeeded in imposing a largely theoretical ban against a group of people who might not have been able to get visas anyway even without the ban.

    But who knows who will be the object of Trump's immigration bans or "extreme vetting" tomorrow? Most or all immigrants from outside Europe, as in the infamous 1924 Johnson-Reed law which both Trump's AG, Jeff Sessions (in 2015) and, (90 years earlier) an aspiring young German politician named Adolf Hitler wrote about so favorably?

    Any immigrant or visitor from anywhere in the world who has ever spoken out against Trump, or who refuses to pledge personal loyalty to him, as Trump allegedly asked former FBI Director James Comey to do before firing him? It has happened in other countries. It could happen in America.

    Did the Supreme Court, on June 26, 2017 just make it even more likely that, one day soon, it will happen in America?

    Update: June 26, 2:10 pm:

    In its decision to uphold the parts of the lower courts' temporary injunctions against enforcing Trump's entry ban that would bar citizens of the six targeted Muslim countries against people from those countries who have bona fide connections with the United States (see below), the Supreme Court, for the fist time that I am aware of, appears to be putting non-permanent resident foreign citizens who have bona fide connections with the US in the same category along with permanent residents in terms of having rights that take precedence over the executive's claimed unlimited right to decide who can enter the United States under the Plenary Power doctrine.

    In doing so, the Supreme Court may have opened the door to a significant weakening of that doctrine, which dates from the period of the infamous Chinese exclusion laws. "Plenary Power" at least in theory, gives the executive and Congress exclusive power over all admissions to the US by foreign citizens.

    While the Court did not specifically discuss Plenary Power in its decision, by making this important distinction, the Court may have weakened the Plenary Power doctrine to the point where, possibly at some time in the future, this doctrine might wind up in the dustbin of American immigration law history where it deserves to be.

    This is not to deny, of course, that any judicial support for Trump's Muslim ban, directed against even one person based on religion, is still a vote in favor of prejudice and bigotry, and against the values of equal justice and human rights on which America is based, and which are now under unprecedented attack in this administration.

    My original comment follows:

    In a per curiam decision from which the Court's three most conservative Justices dissented in part, the Supreme Court on June 26 agreed to hear the Trump administration's appeal from two Circuit Court decision enjoining implementation of the entry ban against citizens of six targeted almost 100 percent Muslim countries, but denied the government's motion to lift the Circuit Court injunctions against enforcing the ban against citizens of those countries who have a bona fide connection to the US - i.e. the people who are most likely to want to come to this country and who were the main targets of Trumps ban orders.

    The Court, in an evident bone thrown to the administration and to the Justice Department lawyers defending the Muslim ban, agreed to lift, for 90 days, the lower courts' injunctions against banning people who would be the least likely to want to come to the US or to be able to receive visas if they applied - namely people who have no connection with the U.S.

    The Supreme Court, in its decision, also indicated that by the time the case comes up for hearing in October, the entire entry ban order may be moot.

    While the president may no doubt try to "Trumpet" this decision as a resounding victory, it is, in reality, closer to the type of victory won by King Pyrrhus in ancient Greek history. This is not the type of "victory" that most rational people are looking for in any situation.

    The decision, however, is likely to cause a good deal of inconvenience, hardship and confusion at US airports this summer as various immigration officers raise questions about whether people from the six countries entering the US have the requisite bona fide connections with the U.S.

    There will no doubt be a good deal of litigation in the lower courts over this question during the next 90 days, and during the periods over which it is virtually certain that Trump will seek to extent the "temporary" (ha, ha, ho, ho, haw, haw haw, - who on earth really believes that?) ban.

    The three dissenting Justices wanted to lift the Circuit Court injunctions in their entirely and reinstate Trump's original six-country ban order against all of the approximately 180 million citizens of those countries, almost all of whom choose to attend mosques rather than churches or synagogues.

    No surprise here in the case of Justices Thomas and Alito, but one can express some surprise about Justice Gorsuch, who strongly stood up in favor of immigrant rights against executive overreach when Obama was president and Gorsuch was sitting on the 10th Circuit, but who now is evidently willing to give Trump virtually imperial powers in this area.

    Et tu, Neil?

    The full text of the Court's decision can be accessed by going to the June 26 Washington Post article:

    Supreme Court Will Hear Travel Ban Case

    and clicking on the direct link to the decision in that article.
    __________________________________
    Roger Algase is a New York immigration lawyer, and a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, who has been helping mainly skilled and professional immigrants from diverse parts of the world with work visas and green cards for more than 35 years.

    Roger focuses mainly on H-1B, O-1 and J-1 work visas, and on green cards through labor certification (PERM) and through opposite sex or same sex marriage. Roger's email address is algaselex@gmail.com

    Updated 06-27-2017 at 06:08 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  4. BALCA Finds Job Duties Outweigh Job Title

    By: Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law PLLC

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Sumeru.jpg 
Views:	11 
Size:	5.0 KB 
ID:	1199

    The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) reversed a Certifying Officer’s denial of PERM application stating that a denial based primarily on the foreign national’s lack of prior experience with congruent job titles must be reversed. (Sumeru Inc, 2013-PER-01241).

    Sumeru, Inc. filed an Application for Permanent Employment Certification (“Form 9089”) listing the Alien with a Section H job title of “project manager” and requiring either a master’s degree in Engineering and 24 months’ experience in the field or alternately a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science or Information Systems and 5 years’ experience in the field. The foreign national possessed a bachelor’s degree in Engineering and 4 and ½ years’ experience with Sumeru and 5 years’ prior experience in 3 jobs with titles other than “project manager” but with like duties and responsibilities.

    The CO denied the PERM application stating that hiring the foreign national is not in accordance with the minimum requirements for the job opportunity listed in Form 9089. On appeal, Sumeru filed a Request for Review asked the DOL to focus on the duties of the position in question, not mere title only. Sumeru cited Matter of Maple Derby, Inc., 1989-INA-185 in which an alien qualified for a position despite a difference in job titles. Sumeru also provided a detailed chart aligning each required duty to a duty the Alien maintained in a previous position.

    Upon review, BALCA reversed the denial of labor on grounds that the foreign national’s prior experience was substantially equivalent to the duties required by the employer.
  5. Letters of the Week: June 26 - July 2

Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: