ABIL Submitted Comments on the I-9 Form
On January 25, 2016, ABIL submitted comments to the USCIS with suggested revisions for the Employment Eligibility Verification, Form I?9.
On January 25, 2016, ABIL submitted comments to the USCIS with suggested revisions for the Employment Eligibility Verification, Form I?9.
1. House Holds Oversight Hearings on USCIS, EOIR -Leon Rodriguez, USCIS Director, testified at the USCIS hearing. Juan Osuna, EOIR Director, testified at the EOIR hearing.
2. Visa Bulletin Notes Statistics on Applicants in Limited Immigrant Categories for Consular Processing -The Department of State’s Visa Bulletin for February 2016 notes that the National Visa Center has provided totals of applicants registered in the various numerically limited immigrant categories for processing at consular posts as of November 1, 2015.
3. USCIS Issues Reminder About Immigration Relief Measures for Victims of Severe Weather -USCIS issued a reminder about immigration relief measures “that may help people affected by unforeseen circumstances, such as the recent severe weather and flooding in areas of the Southern and Midwestern United States.”
4. USCIS Updates Request for Premium Processing Service Form -The new edition is dated 12/11/15. The 01/29/15 version will also still be accepted.
5. DHS Secretary Releases Statement on Southwest Border Security in Light of Removals -As part of recent operations, DHS Secretary Johnson said, 121 individuals were taken into custody, primarily from Georgia, Texas, and North Carolina, and they are now in the process of being removed from the United States and repatriated.
6. New Publications and Items of Interest -New Publications and Items of Interest
7. ABIL Member/Firm News -ABIL Member/Firm News
The U.S. House of Representatives’ Judiciary Committee held oversight hearings in December 2015 on U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and on the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). Leon Rodriguez, USCIS Director, testified at the USCIS hearing. Juan Osuna, EOIR Director, testified at the EOIR hearing.
At the USCIS oversight hearing, Mr. Rodriguez noted that his agency’s priorities include, in addition to safety and security issues, implementing the executive actions on immigration announced in November 2014. Those include reducing unauthorized immigration at the border; prioritizing removal of the most dangerous; improving the legal immigration system for families, employers, students, entrepreneurs and workers; and, on a case-by-case basis, considering for deferred action certain undocumented immigrants under two initiatives—Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), and expanding the population of individuals eligible for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Mr. Rodriguez noted that while DAPA and expanded DACA are on hold pursuant to a court injunction, USCIS and its partners in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other departments have been working to implement the other parts of the executive actions. Mr. Rodriguez said that other top priorities were effective management of the Refugee Admissions Program, continuing modernization of USCIS business and applicant interaction processes and service, anti-fraud and national security screening, and other efforts.
At the EOIR oversight hearing, Mr. Osuna noted that previous budget cuts led to backlogs of more than 457,000 immigration cases across the United States as of the end of fiscal year (FY) 2015, which was exacerbated by the 2014 influx of border-crossers. Mr. Osuna said a number of new immigration judges are being hired to deal with the backlogs, as a result of new appropriations. Among other things, he also mentioned the installation of new video equipment that allows immigration judges to hear some cases remotely.
Mr. Osuna said that after taking into account attrition through the end of FY 2015, EOIR has increased the total number of immigration judges for the first time since FY 2011, and aggressive hiring efforts continue. He noted that a total of 23 new immigration judges have entered on duty since November 2014, and that as of November 15, 2015, the Attorney General had selected another 25 new judges, who are now going through the required background and security checks before they can start hearing cases. Another two dozen immigration judge candidates, he noted, are going through the final stages of the hiring process. Mr. Osuna said that all of these new judges “will greatly assist in reducing the pending caseload when they arrive in immigration courts over the coming months.”
MR. RODRIGUEZ’S TESIMONY FROM THE USCIS HEARING
VIDEO OF FULL HEARING, including questions and answers
VIDEO OF FULL HEARING, including questions and answers
The Department of State’s Visa Bulletin for February 2016 notes that the National Visa Center (NVC) has provided totals of applicants registered in the various numerically limited immigrant categories for processing at consular posts as of November 1, 2015.
In October, the Department of State asked the NVC at Portsmouth, New Hampshire, to report the totals of applicants on waiting lists in the various numerically limited immigrant categories. Applications for adjustment of status under INA § 245 pending at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) offices are not included in the tabulation of this immigrant waiting list data. As such, these figures only reflect petitions the Department of State has received, and do not include the significant number of applications held at USCIS offices.
VISA BULLETIN FOR FEBRUARY 2016
USCIS issued a reminder on December 31, 2015, about immigration relief measures “that may help people affected by unforeseen circumstances, such as the recent severe weather and flooding in areas of the Southern and Midwestern United States.”
USCIS said these measures may be available upon request:
USCIS said that when making a request, the affected individual should explain how the severe weather created a need for the requested relief.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has posted an update to Form I-907, Request for Premium Processing Service. The new edition is dated 12/11/15. The 01/29/15 version will also still be accepted.
Employers may use the I-907 to request faster processing of certain employment-based petitions and applications. Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker and Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, have been designated for premium processing service, for example. Not all designated classifications within these forms are eligible, however, and the R-1 classification is only eligible after a successful onsite inspection at the place of employment.
MORE INFORMATION on categories eligible for premium processing
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Jeh Johnson released a statement on January 4, 2016, on southwest border security, in light of stepped-up removal operations underway.
Secretary Johnson noted that in the spring and summer of 2014, a significant spike occurred in families and unaccompanied children from Central America attempting to cross the U.S. southern border without authorization. In response, he noted, DHS took a number of actions in collaboration with the governments of Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, and the numbers declined dramatically. In FY 2015, he said, the number of apprehensions by U.S. Border Patrol of those attempting to cross the southern border without authorization decreased to 331,333. With the exception of one year, this was the lowest number of apprehensions on the southern border since 1972, he noted. In recent months, however, the rate of apprehensions on the southern border has begun to climb again, he said.
Secretary Johnson noted that the focus of the recent weekend’s “operations” were adults and their children who (i) were apprehended after May 1, 2014, crossing the southern border illegally, (ii) have been issued final orders of removal by an immigration court, and (iii) have exhausted appropriate legal remedies, and have no outstanding appeal or claim for asylum or other humanitarian relief under U.S. laws. As part of these operations, he said, 121 individuals were taken into custody, primarily from Georgia, Texas, and North Carolina, and they are now in the process of being removed from the United States and repatriated. Most of these families are first being transported to one of ICE’s family residential centers for temporary processing before being issued travel documents and boarding a return flight to their home countries.
He said a number of precautions were taken as part of these operations. Among other things, ICE “exercised prosecutorial discretion in a number of cases for health or other personal reasons,” he noted.
Various individuals and groups have criticized the controversial removal operations, including the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Chairwoman Linda Sanchez (D-Cal.) said, “Our federal government should not be separating parents from their children. As the mother of a young son, it’s easy for me to imagine how traumatizing having ICE agents storm someone’s home and tearing families apart can be for a young child. Invading homes is inhumane and adds to the trauma of these families fleeing violence and oppression.” And Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) said, “We hear that children are not going to school and parents are not going to work out of fear. Not even a week into the New Year and 2016 has turned into one of fear and hiding. But let us be very clear. Deporting families will not resolve the violence and corruption that push people from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras to risk assault, rape, and murder to seek refuge in the United States.”
Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said she “believes we should not be conducting large-scale raids and roundups that sow fear and division in our communities.” On the Republican side, however, candidate Donald Trump took credit for the Obama administration’s decision to conduct the raids.
On January 15, 2016, protesters came to the White House. A group of Central American organizations posted a statement against the “inhumane” raids. The Guatemalan Foreign Relations Ministry released a list of steps in Spanish for migrants in the United States who encounter U.S. immigration officials, and the Guatemalan and Salvadoran governments released statements against the raids. The Honduran government, however, reportedly did not join in the protests.
There have been business ramifications too, as people across the country stay inside due to fears and perceptions of random targeting. According to news reports, for example, shop owners in Wheaton, Maryland, have complained that it has become difficult to cover rent and other bills because many fewer Latinos are out shopping. One owner of a popular Mexican-Salvadoran restaurant said that normally she sees around 300 customers per day but now she is only getting about 20. “Customers were telling me that the rumor was, ‘Don’t come to Wheaton. ICE is in the neighborhood,” she said. Another shop owner said that his business income has dropped by 50 to 60 percent since the beginning of 2016.
Montgomery County, Maryland, which includes Wheaton, said that local police will not cooperate with the raids. Montgomery County Executive Isiah Leggett called the raids “ill-founded and counter-productive.” County leaders expressed concerns that people are staying home from work and school, and are afraid to call the police when a crime is committed. On the other side, Corey Stewart, the board chair of Prince William County, Virginia, who is the leader of Mr. Trump’s campaign in Virginia, said, “I’m going to do the very best that I can to encourage illegal aliens who want to commit crimes to leave Prince William County, in fact to leave Virginia all together, [and] go up to Maryland, because you’re welcome up there.”
The January E-Verify webinar schedule from USCIS is available HERE.
The 2015 edition of the Global Business Immigration Practice Guide has been released by LexisNexis. Dozens of members of the Alliance of Business Immigration Lawyers (ABIL) co-authored and edited the guide, which is a one-stop resource for dealing with questions related to business immigration issues in immigration hotspots around the world.
The latest edition adds chapters on Ghana and Peru. Other chapters cover Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Costa Rica, the European Union, France, Germany, Hong Kong, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
Latchi Delchev, a global mobility and immigration specialist for Boeing, called the guide “first-rate” and said the key strong point of the book is its “outstanding usability.” She said she highly recommends the book and notes that it “is helpful even to seasoned professionals, as it provides a level of detail which is not easily gained from daily case management.”
Mireya Serra-Janer, head of European immigration for a multinational IT company, says she particularly likes “the fact that the [guide] focuses not just on each country’s immigration law itself but also addresses related matters such as tax and social security issues.” She noted that the India chapter “is particularly good. The immigration regulations in India have always been hard to understand. Having a clear explanation of the rules there helps us sort out many mobility challenges.”
Charles Gould, Director-General of the International Co-operative Alliance, said the guide is “an invaluable resource for both legal practitioners and business professionals. The country-specific chapters are comprehensive and answer the vast majority of questions that arise in immigration practice. Its clear and easy-to-follow structure and format make it the one volume to keep close at hand.”
This comprehensive guide is designed to be used by:
This publication provides:
Each chapter follows a similar format, making it easy to compare practices and procedures from country to country. Useful links to additional resources and forms are included. Collected in this Practice Guide, the expertise of ABIL’s attorney members across the globe will serve as an ideal starting point in your research into global business immigration issues.
The list price is $359, but a 15% discount is available by visiting LexisNexis and entering discount code “ABIL15”. Contact your Lexis/Nexis sales representative; call 1-800-833-9844 (United States), 1-518-487-3385 (international); fax 1-518-487-3584
ABIL on Twitter. The Alliance of Business Immigration Lawyers is available on Twitter: @ABILImmigration. RECENT ABIL BLOGS
Several ABIL members will speak at the 2016 EB-5 Seminar, sponsored by the Los Angeles County Bar Association. The panel will speak on “EB-5 Securities Law Hot Topics,” including recent SEC enforcement developments against attorneys, regional centers, and project principals; best securities law practices; and forecasting securities law provisions of future EB-5 integrity legislation. Speakers will include:
Mr. Klasko has authored several new blog entries. “Winning the Numbers Game” “EB-5 Legislation: Retrospective and Prospective” “Does December 11 Matter?”
Mr. Klasko was recently interviewed on the expiration of the present regional center program and changes that are likely to occur in the EB-5 program, published in “It may get harder for rich Chinese to buy green cards,” CNNMoney.
Charles Kuck was quoted in “ICE Arrests 121 in Crackdown on Central Americans,” published on January 4, 2016, in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Mr. Kuck noted, “It just doesn’t seem right to send back women and children who were truly fleeing for their lives, especially since the Obama administration rigged the system against these people. You are enforcing the law, but you are doing it at the consequence of human rights.”
Mr. Kuck was quoted in “U.S. Begins Immigration Crackdown on Central Americans” published in the Wall Street Journal on January 3, 2016.
Robert Loughran was quoted in the Dallas Morning News on Texas’ efforts to halt placement of Syrian refugees. Mr. Loughran offered his expertise on the merits of the case and reasons why the state withdrew its request for a temporary restraining order.
Mr. Loughran‘s article, “How Companies Can Staff Projects In Iraq,” was published in the Texas Lawyer on November 14, 2015.
Cyrus Mehta has published a new blog entry. “Including Early Adjustment Filing in Proposed DHS Rule Impacting High-Skilled Workers Would Give Big Boost To Delayed Green Card Applicants”
Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners, PLLC, announced that David A. Isaacson and Cora-Ann V. Pestaina have become partners in the firm. Mr. Isaacson’s practice includes family- and employment-based applications for nonimmigrant visas and permanent residence, as well as waivers, naturalization and citizenship matters, asylum cases, other removal proceedings such as those stemming from criminal convictions or denied applications for adjustment of status, and federal appellate litigation. Ms. Pestaina represents large global corporate clients, emerging growth companies, and individuals in a wide range of industries including information technology, finance, management consulting, pharmaceuticals, health care, and design. She also represents individuals in family-based applications and naturalization. Ms. Pestaina has extensive experience in representing employers in PERM labor certification matters and regularly counsels clients regarding temporary employment-based nonimmigrant visas and permanent residence sponsorship for their foreign national employees. She also represents artists and investors, including EB-5 investors.
Bernard Wolfsdorf of Wolfsdorf Rosenthal LLP presented two workshops at Stanford University on January 12, 2016, on “Visa Options for Students (in Lieu of the Elusive H-1B).”
This article provides an overview of various countries’ short-term visa options for temporary assignments.
Belgium
Under Belgian law, there are several work permit exemptions for short-term assignments. One is the Vander Elst exemption: if some conditions are met, no work permit is required for non-EEA (European Economic Area = European Union, Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway) workers employed by a company that is established in an EEA Member State and who come to Belgium to provide services.
Training at the Belgian site of a multinational group can also be possible depending on the circumstances (for example, nationality of employee and location of employer) without a work permit for up to three months. On-the-job training is possible on a very limited scale only: the training cannot involve “significant productive interventions” within the company.
Foreign employees who test prototypes of vehicles or other prototypes developed by an accredited research facility do not need a work permit. The exemption is limited to the required testing time, and up to four weeks per calendar year per employee.
Initial product assembly and/or first installation does not require a work permit if it is an essential part of a supply agreement, is necessary for the use of the product, and is provided by qualified and/or specialized employees of the supplier who are posted to Belgium. This exemption is limited to eight days and does not apply to construction workers.
The exemption for urgent maintenance and repair work performed by specialized technical workers on a product supplied by the foreign employer to a Belgian customer is limited to a stay in Belgium of five days per month.
Fast-track work permits are available for specialized technical workers who are posted to Belgium and who come to Belgium to install, start up, or repair products manufactured or supplied by their foreign employer. The work may not take longer than six months.
Training at the Belgian site of a multinational group may be fast-tracked if no work permit exemption can be invoked.
Canada
Companies sending their employees to Canada for six months or less may opt for their employees to enter Canada as Business Visitors where their activities will be confined to “business visitor” activities within the meaning of Canada’s regulatory framework and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) if the employees are citizens of the United States or Mexico. Permissible business visitor activities include attending business meetings, performing after-sales services, scoping and information gathering, giving training at a Canadian affiliate, and performing sales to defined clients. While business visitors cannot perform hands-on work in Canada, their business visitor activities may permit companies to achieve certain short-term objectives in Canada without requiring a work permit. Citizens of countries requiring a temporary resident visa (TRV) to enter Canada must apply for the TRV by demonstrating their required business activities in Canada, whereas foreign nationals who do not require a TRV to enter Canada should travel with a Business Visitor Invitation letter from the Canadian destination company.
In other cases where hands-on work will be performed in Canada during the short-term assignment, the employees will need work permits and, in some instances, Labour Market Impact Assessments (LMIAs) to be granted the work permits. Companies may wish to seek an exemption to the costly and lengthy LMIA process wherever possible via one of the LMIA exemption categories, such as Intra-Company Transferees (C12 or NAFTA T24) or NAFTA Professionals (T23). If proceeding by way of the LMIA, companies should consider whether a variation to the minimum advertising requirements exists for the Canadian position in question, to ease their recruitment and advertising efforts in seeking the LMIA if applicable.
If the Canadian company is a start-up, it may be possible to obtain an initial work permit for up to one year if the company is sufficiently advanced in its operations. Typically, a start-up should have leased premises, particularly in the case of Specialized Knowledge Intra-Company Transferees, and must demonstrate plans to staff the Canadian business and be financially sound enough to pay the employees’ salaries.
In very unique circumstances, companies may seek a work permit for an employee pursuant to the C10 Significant Benefits category of the LMIA exemption where the employee’s presence in Canada will have a demonstrated significant social, cultural, or economic benefit in Canada.
France
Business Visitor of Less Than 90 days
Foreign nationals may come to France under a business visitor status if their stay in France is for less than 90 days, and their activity in France is limited to business visitor activity.
A business visitor may attend meetings, prospect for business, and negotiate agreements. This activity may be carried out for his or her own personal account or in the name of his or her foreign employer. However, this activity may not be carried out in the name of a French business or create value for French business.
There are two types of classifications for business visitors:
1. The Schengen visa for short-term business visits; and
2. Visa-free entry for third-country nationals who are exempt from the visa requirement by treaty or bilateral agreement with the third country national’s home country (e.g., United States, Canada, Japan, Australia, Mexico). These foreign nationals do not need a visa to enter France as long as their assignment within the Schengen space does not exceed 90 days over any 180-day period and their activity is limited to that of an authorized business visitor. (The Schengen Area consists of 26 countries: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands (Holland), Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland.)
They should remain on the home country payroll, not be subordinated to the management of the host entity in France, and not carry out any productive work in France. Tasks that clearly fit into allowed business visitor activity include attending meetings, seminars, negotiations, visiting sites, and exploring business opportunities.
If the French consulate considers that the activity in France requires a work permit, it will refuse the business visa application and require the third-country national to apply for a work permit with the labor authorities before visa issuance.
Italy
According to a decree of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of May 11, 2011, a business visitor can come to Italy for a short stay (90 days in a 180-day period) for “travel that has an economic/commercial basis, to make contacts or conduct negotiations, to learn or carry out maintenance and repairs on equipment and machinery purchased or sold pursuant to a commercial contract or joint venture agreement.”
It is advisable to have a contract in place between the sending company and the host company that regulates the services the sending company is to provide the host company for hands-on activities other than normal business activities such as attending exhibitions, business meetings, and negotiations with potential customers.
The application of this rule requires review on a case-by-case basis of what the visitor intends to do in Italy. The criteria to be taken into account include:
Non-visa nationals must have documents (such as invitation letters and assignment letters from their employers) supporting the scope and duration of the visit.
Visa nationals (citizens of countries that do not have a visa waiver program with Italy) must apply for business visas.
Mexico
The extensive changes in Mexican immigration law as of November 2012 eliminated the more than 30 former immigration statuses and subcategories. Those were replaced by just three statuses: Visitor, Temporary Resident, and Permanent Resident.
Visitor status is appropriate for short-term assignments of up to 180 days. Foreign nationals in this category may engage in most kinds of business and work activities, as long as they are remunerated on foreign payrolls. Mexican law does not distinguish among business activities.
Nationals from several designated countries may freely enter Mexico in business visitor status without having to apply for a visa. Visa-waivered entry is also allowed for “regulated nationalities” under several schemes, such as having a valid U.S. visa of any kind, or permanent residence in the United Kingdom, Japan, United States, Canada, or the Schengen countries.
Visitor status may allow the foreigner to perform job duties, but it entails restrictions on activities such as opening a bank account, signing on behalf of the company, signing a lease contract, and some other issues related to a business visitor’s ability to live comfortably in Mexico.
Peru
The Peruvian immigration authority (MIGRACIONES) has no specific visa that may be obtained quickly for short-term assignments. When technical workers, for example, are coming to work in Peru, they must obtain work permits, which take approximately 30 to 45 days. The work permit may be either a temporary worker visa (for foreign workers on a local company’s payroll) or an appointed worker temporary visa (for workers who are not staff of the local company).
Appointed workers are those who come to Peru with no intention of establishing a residence to carry out labor activities assigned by their foreign employers for limited and defined terms to perform specific tasks or duties, or to perform work that requires professional, commercial, or technical knowledge or any other type of highly specialized knowledge. This category applies to consultants or advisors. Although they are paid by a company abroad, they must pay taxes in Peru.
To obtain this type of visa (Visa Temporal de Trabajador Designado), the following documents must be legalized by a Peruvian consulate abroad or certified by apostille abroad:
Translations of the documents must be made in Peru by an official public translator.
The processing time from the date of filing of the application with all required documents is 30 working days for “Obtaining Visa Proceeding,” and 60 working days for in-country processing, according to the rules. At present, however, in-country processing is taking less time.
The holder of this type of visa cannot open a bank account in Peru, obtain a credit card, or obtain a driver’s license, because he or she is not considered a resident.
South Africa
Overview of Short-Term Work Authorizations—Section 11(2) Visas
The South Africa Department of Home Affairs can issue a visitor’s visa to authorize a foreign national to do his or her “work” in South Africa for a period of up to three months. This visa cannot be extended.
In the past, short-term employment in South Africa was largely characterized by one of two common scenarios, both involving mainly holders of passports who do not need visas to come to the Republic of South Africa (RSA) for “visits” (e.g., from North America and Europe).
The first scenario arose when such a passport holder would, on arrival, claim that he or she was coming for “business.” Such person would then be admitted for a period of up to three months to do “business” even though, taking advantage of definition confusions, these persons were in fact “working.”
The second scenario occurred where the passport holder arrived at a port of entry and announced that he or she was coming to “work.” If the person had a letter from the host/South African company confirming that the foreign national was coming to “work” at the offices of the South African company, he or she would usually then have a section 11(2) visitor visa endorsed into his or her passport, at the port of entry. This would allow the expat to work at the company for whatever period was required, up to three months.
There was, however, no control over how many times such section 11(2) visas would be issued. There have been cases of people in effect blatantly using the section 11(2) visa to bypass ordinary work visa requirements or processes (and even being advised to do so). Both situations were massively abused. The Department of Home Affairs has been compelled to clamp down and get the short-term work authorizations under control.
To understand current Department policy, it is essential to first appreciate the statutory definition, in the Immigration Act 13 of 2002, of what constitutes “work.” The Act provides very simply that “work” is doing anything that is “consistent with being employed” in a particular field or profession (and similarly with self-employment). In other words, if you are employed in the United States as an accountant and you are coming to South Africa as part of your job, that constitutes “work” as it is defined. And if you are coming to “work” for a period of three months or less, you will need to get a section 11(2) visa.
The test is not limited to persons who are employed “in South Africa.” The Immigration Act expressly provides that the definition includes persons who are not being paid to do that work: it is irrelevant whether the person is being paid or how he or she is being paid. The test is deliberately wide and allows for few exceptions or gray areas.
Also, for purposes of the definition of “work,” it is immaterial how long the person is coming to SA to do work. It can be days, weeks, months, or years.
Obviously, there may be further obscure instances that could challenge the limits of the statutory definition. The best approach to adopt, if you are in doubt, is to get the correct permission to “work.” The joy in having bypassed bureaucracy will be seriously short-lived if an evasion comes to light. So, if a person is coming to SA to do “work” for a period of up to three months, he or she needs to get a section 11(2) authorization from Home Affairs.
Rules for Section 11(2) Visa Applications
1. A section 11(2) visa can only be issued—
a. On arrival at a port of entry (if the passport is visa-exempt for “visits”; or
b. At an Embassy or High Commission (if the passport is not visa-exempt for “visits”).
The section 11(2) visa cannot be applied for or issued inside South Africa.
2. Where the applicant holds a visa-exempt passport, before he or she leaves for SA, he or she must first have applied in writing for and obtained written permission from the relevant South African embassy to ask for the 11(2) on arrival at the port of entry. Without that prior written permission from the embassy, the port of entry will not issue the section 11(2) visa.
3. The section 11(2) visa is not, under any circumstances, to be applied for as an interim work visa while a person applies for a longer-term work visa.
4. Other than in quite exceptional circumstances, the Department of Home Affairs will not entertain applications to extend a section 11(2) visa.
Requirements for Section 11(2) Applications to the Director General
5. There is no prescribed application form. The request should be included in a letter addressed to the Consular Section at the relevant embassy.
6. The request should come from the South African company (or other such entity or person) who will be hosting the foreign national in South Africa.
7. The request should include the following:
a. The applicant’s full name, and passport nationality and number, along with a copy of the bio page of the passport;
b. The proposed departure flight number(s) and date(s) with the port of entry and estimated date and arrival time in SA;
c. Date of departure from South Africa with corresponding flight details;
d. How long he or she will be coming to actually work for (as opposed to the total length of the visit);
e. Full details of contact persons in SA and in the country of origin along with full details of the host company in SA including details of what it does, where, and (where appropriate) statutory registration details;
f. The applicant’s address and contact details both in SA and in the country of employment;
g. The applicant’s CV;
h. Full details of why the person needs to come to SA, to do what and where; how SA and South Africans will benefit from the person’s activities;
i. A written undertaking by the SA host: (1) assuming full responsibility for all the costs of removing the applicant from SA, should removal become necessary; and (2) assuming responsibility for ensuring that the applicant complies with all the conditions of the visa and the applicable requirements of the Immigration Act; and
j. Confirmation from the SA host that it is fully aware of the Department’s rules applicable to section 11(2) visas, as set out above.
8. If the application is approved, the embassy will usually e-mail the written consent back to the applicant, although some embassies ask the applicant to collect the letter.
9. When the foreign national arrives at the port of entry, he or she will then present to the port of entry the following documentation as part of the request for the section 11(2) visa:
a. A copy of the request submitted to the embassy; and
b. The embassy’s written approval of the request.
10. The passport will then be stamped recording that permission to work has been granted.
11. Where the applicant is travelling on a non-visa-exempt passport, he or she must apply both for the “consent” and for a visitor visa to the appropriate embassy or High Commission.
12. If the visa is approved by the embassy or High Commission, the visa will set out such other conditions as are to be complied with.
United Kingdom
The United Kingdom (UK) offers a number of options for employers seeking to engage migrants on a short-term basis.
While migrants from within the European Economic Area (EEA) and Switzerland are free to enter and work in the UK without prior permission, non-EEA employees must obtain authorization. For short-term work, this typically falls within a sponsored category of the Points-Based System (PBS).
Tier 2 (Intra-Company Transfer—Short-Term Staff)
This route is intended for short-term placement of staff for up to 12 months. Prospective transferees must have been employed by the sponsoring organization for at least 12 months and meet minimum salary and maintenance requirements.
Tier 2 (Intra-Company Transfer—Graduate Trainee)
This subcategory allows recent graduate trainees on paths for managerial or specialist roles to undertake clearly defined training programs at UK-based branches of their employer. Graduate Trainees may enter the UK for up to 12 months. Prospective transferees must have been employed by the sponsoring organization for at least three months and meet minimum salary and maintenance requirements.
Tier 2 (Intra-Company Transfer—Skills Transfer)
Tier 2 (ICT—Skills Transfer) enables employees in graduate occupations to enter the UK for up to six months to learn vital skills for their jobs overseas, or to train their UK colleagues. Although prospective transferees need not have been employed previously by the sponsoring organization, they still must meet specified minimum salary and maintenance requirements.
Tier 5 (Temporary Worker—Government Authorised Exchange)
This route is intended for migrants moving to the UK to participate in pre-approved schemes to share knowledge and experience through work, research, language, or training programs. The primary purpose of this category is to encourage social and cultural learning through life in the UK. Migrants in this category may stay in the UK for up 24 months for research, training, or language programs, or up to 12 months for work schemes. Applicants must meet minimum maintenance requirements.
1. USCIS Seeks Comments on Proposed Rule to Change Certain Employment-Based Visa Programs -USCIS seeks public comments on a proposed rule published on December 31, 2015, “Retention of EB-1, EB-2 and EB-3 Immigrant Workers and Program Improvements Affecting High-Skilled Nonimmigrant Workers,” that would change certain aspects of employment-based visa programs.
2. Omnibus Bill Includes Hefty Fee Increases for L-1 and H-1B Visas, EB-5 Regional Center Extension, Other Immigration-Related Provisions -The combined omnibus bill that Congress passed on December 18, 2015, includes several immigration measures.
3. Labor Dept. Issues Emergency Guidance on H-2B Changes -The Office of Foreign Labor Certification has provided emergency guidance to employers seeking to employ nonimmigrant workers in H-2B temporary or seasonal nonagricultural employment. The guidance is for employers seeking to obtain prevailing wage determinations and temporary labor certifications.
4. Secretary of State Kerry Sends Letter to Iranian Foreign Minister re Visa Waiver Issues -Kerry said, among other things, that the United States remained committed to lifting visa sanctions as provided under a recent nuclear deal with Iran.
5. DHS Considers Removing Hundreds of Newly Arrived Undocumented Families; Candidates React -According to reports, the Obama administration is considering removing hundreds of families who came to the United States without authorization and have been ordered to leave by an immigration judge. The vast majority are said to have fled violence in Central America.
6. OSC Opines on Terminating U.S. Workers and Hiring Contract Workers -An individual recently received a response to a question about whether an employer may terminate U.S. workers and rely instead on contract workers with temporary work visas.
7. OSC, ICE Issue Joint Guidance for Employers Conducting I-9 Audits -The guidance notes that although not required by law, an employer may conduct an internal audit of I-9 forms to ensure ongoing compliance with the employer sanctions provision of the INA. An employer may choose to review all or a sample of I-9 forms selected based on neutral and nondiscriminatory criteria.
8. USCIS Transfers Some Cases From Vermont Service Center -USCIS will notify those whose cases are transferred. The original receipt number will not change, and processing of the case will not be delayed “except for the additional time needed to transfer the file.” The filing location and instructions for these forms will not change.
9. USCIS Updates Petition to Remove Conditions on Residence for Marriage-Based Green Cards -The new edition is dated 11/23/15.
10. USCIS Changes Filing Location for Notices of Motion or Appeal Related to Citizenship Applications -Starting on January 1, 2016, those filing a Notice of Motion or Appeal in response to a decision on citizenship application must mail the I-290B to the Chicago Lockbox. USCIS will no longer accept these forms at local field offices.
11. New Publications and Items of Interest -New Publications and Items of Interest
12. ABIL Member/Firm News -ABIL Member/Firm News
13. Government Agency Links -Government Agency Links
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) seeks public comments on a proposed rule published on December 31, 2015, “Retention of EB-1, EB-2 and EB-3 Immigrant Workers and Program Improvements Affecting High-Skilled Nonimmigrant Workers,” that would change certain aspects of employment-based visa programs. USCIS is also proposing regulatory amendments “to better enable U.S. employers to hire and retain certain foreign workers who are beneficiaries of approved employment-based immigrant visa petitions and are waiting to become lawful permanent residents (LPRs).”
Comments are due by February 29, 2016. To submit comments, follow the instructions in the notice.
Among other things, USCIS said it proposes to amend its regulations to:
Such employment authorization may only be renewed in limited circumstances.
These proposed changes do not take effect now. Instead, they would take effect on the date indicated in the final rule when the final rule is published in the Federal Register.
DETAILED SUMMARY OF PROPOSED RULE
The combined omnibus spending bill that Congress passed on December 18, 2015, includes several immigration measures. Among other things, the supplemental fees for L-1 and H-1B petitions are increasing for companies that employ 50 or more employees in the United States and have more than 50 percent of their U.S. workforce in H-1B, L-1A, or L-1B nonimmigrant status. Specifically, the previously expired fees for L-1 petitions will increase from $2,250 to $4,500, and the fees for H-1B petitions will increase from $2,000 to $4,000. These supplemental fees must be paid on initial and extension petitions.
The bill also extends without substantive changes through September 30, 2016, four immigration programs: the EB-5 regional center program, the E-Verify program, the religious worker visa program, and the Conrad State 30 waiver program for certain foreign doctors on J-1 visas.
Also passed was a prohibition against foreign nationals in the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) if they have visited Syria or Iraq at any time on or after March 1, 2011. The new law also excludes from the VWP individuals who are nationals of Iraq, Syria, Iran, or Sudan. The omnibus spending law exempts those performing military service in the armed forces of a VWP country or those carrying out official duties in a full-time capacity in the employment of a VWP country government. In addition, the U.S. government may waive exclusion from the VWP program if it would be in the law enforcement or national security interests of the United States.
The new law also allows certain workers previously counted against the H-2B cap to return to the United States without being counted against the cap a second time.
Responding to new requirements contained in the 2016 Department of Labor Appropriations Act, which was signed into law on December 18, 2015, as part of the omnibus spending bill mentioned in the prior article, the Labor Department’s Office of Foreign Labor Certification (OFLC) has provided emergency guidance to employers seeking to employ nonimmigrant workers in H-2B temporary or seasonal nonagricultural employment. The operational guidance is for employers seeking to obtain prevailing wage determinations and temporary labor certifications under the H-2B nonimmigrant visa classification.
Among other things, the guidance notes that certain provisions in the Appropriations Act require non-substantive modifications to ETA Form 9165. To comply with the law, OFLC has requested emergency approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on non-substantive changes to the form. The guidance states that until a notice of action is issued by the OMB, the Certifying Officer (CO) cannot issue a prevailing wage determination where use of a private survey has been requested.
The new provisions also require non-substantive modifications to Appendix B of the Form ETA-9142B. Specifically, the current Appendix B contains references to an employer’s compliance with the wage offer guarantee, corresponding employment, three-fourths guarantee, and the definition of temporary need under 20 CFR § 655.6. To comply with the new law, OFLC has requested emergency approval from OMB on non-substantive changes to the Appendix B. Until a notice of action is issued by OMB, the CO cannot issue any certification determinations on H-2B applications for temporary labor certification.
When a certification decision is issued, the CO will provide the employer with a copy of the revised Appendix B approved by OMB as well as a Final Determination Letter containing instructions for submitting all appropriate documentation to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Until OMB approves a revised Appendix B, employers may continue to file H-2B applications with the prior version of Appendix B. After receipt of the notice of action from the OMB, the OFLC will provide a revised Appendix B to the employer with a certification decision.
The OFLC said it will issue a further announcement as soon as the agency has received the notices from the OMB.
ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE ON PREVAILING WAGE DETERMINATIONS, issued December 29, 2015
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry sent a letter on December 19, 2015, to Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif assuring him that the United States remains committed to lifting visa sanctions as provided for under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The JCPOA is a diplomatic agreement intended to ensure that Iran’s nuclear program remains peaceful. Among other things the JCPOA will eventually lift certain economic and visa sanctions on Iran.
Secretary of State Kerry noted that the Obama administration has the authority to waive recent changes in visa requirements passed in Congress as part of the omnibus spending bill. See the omnibus article in this issue, above. Secretary Kerry expressed confidence that the visa provisions in the omnibus spending bill “will not in any way prevent us from meeting our JCPOA commitments, and that we will implement them so as not to interfere with legitimate business interests of Iran.” To this end, he noted that the United States has “a number of potential tools available to us, including multiple entry ten-year business visas, programs for expediting business visas, and the waiver authority provided under the new legislation.” He said he would be “happy to discuss this further and provide any additional clarification.”
MORE ON JCPOA. The visa provisions are set forth in JCPOA Annex 2.
According to news reports, the Obama administration is considering removing hundreds of families who came to the United States without authorization since early 2015 and have been ordered to leave by an immigration judge. The vast majority are said to have fled violence in Central America.
The reports of possible removals, or “raids,” are providing fodder for controversy among the candidates for President. Republican frontrunner Donald Trump took credit for the possible deportations: “Wow, because of the pressure put on by me, ICE TO LAUNCH LARGE SCALE DEPORTATION RAIDS. It’s about time!” Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton’s campaign spokesperson said, “Hillary Clinton has real concerns about these reports, especially as families are coming together during this holiday season. She believes it is critical that everyone has a full and fair hearing, and that our country provides refuge to those that need it. And we should be guided by a spirit of humanity and generosity as we approach these issues.” Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders said, “I am very disturbed by reports that the government may commence raids to deport families who have fled here to escape violence in Central America. We need to take steps to protect children and families seeking refuge here, not cast them out.”
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement recently released statistics showing a steep drop in removals in fiscal year (FY) 2015. In FY 2012, there were 409,849 removals; by FY 2015, the number had dropped to 235,413.
An individual recently received a response to a question about whether an employer may terminate U.S. workers and rely instead on contract workers with temporary work visas. Bruce A. Morrison, chairman of the Bethesda, Maryland-based Morrison Public Affairs Group, also asked whether a violation can be established where an employer replaces a protected employee with a nonprotected employee provided by a third-party company rather than by directly hiring a replacement from outside of the protected class. The Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC), Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, responded on December 22, 2015.
Among other things, OSC noted that citizenship status discrimination occurs when protected individuals are denied or deprived of employment because of their real or perceived immigration or citizenship status. U.S. citizens and nationals, refugees, asylees, and recent lawful permanent residents are protected from citizenship status discrimination under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the OSC noted, adding that the INA grants OSC jurisdiction over citizenship status discrimination claims involving employers with four or more employees.
OSC explained that except in very narrow circumstances, an employer violates the antidiscrimination provision if it terminates workers or hires their replacements because of citizenship or immigration status. This is true, OSC said, regardless of whether the employer takes the discriminatory employment actions itself through direct hiring or contracts as a joint employer with an outside agency to implement its discriminatory staffing plan. Whether an employer has violated the antidiscrimination provision through its use of contract workers will depend upon the facts of each case, OSC noted, including: (1) whether there is evidence of intentional discrimination in the selection of employees for discharge or rehire; (2) the circumstances surrounding the selection of the third-party staffing contractor; and (3) the extent to which the original employer could be considered a joint employer of the contract workers. In addition, OSC pointed out that nothing prevents the filing of a charge against the contractor for potential citizenship status discrimination, or prevents OSC from independently investigating the contractor for potential discrimination if OSC receives information indicating a possible violation.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) jointly issued new “Guidance for Employers Conducting Internal Employment Eligibility Verification Form I-9 Audits” on December 17, 2015. The guidance notes that although not required by law, an employer may conduct an internal audit of I-9 forms to ensure ongoing compliance with the employer sanctions provision of the INA. An employer may choose to review all or a sample of I-9 forms selected based on neutral and nondiscriminatory criteria. If a subset of I-9 forms is audited, “the employer should consider carefully how it chooses Forms I-9 to be audited to avoid discriminatory or retaliatory audits, or the perception of discriminatory or retaliatory audits,” the guidance notes. Penalties for violations “may be imposed even if an internal audit has been performed.” The guidance states that internal audits should not be conducted on the basis of an employee’s citizenship status or national origin, or in retaliation against any employee for any reason. An employer “should also consider whether the audit is or could be perceived to be discriminatory or retaliatory based on its timing, scope or selective nature.”
The guidance recommends a “transparent process” for interacting with employees during any internal audit. This includes informing employees in writing that the employer will conduct an internal audit of I-9 forms, explaining the scope and reason for the internal audit, and stating whether the internal audit is independent of or in response to a government directive. The guidance states that when a deficiency is discovered in an employee’s Form I-9, the employer should notify the affected employee, in private, of the specific deficiency. The employer should provide the employee with copies of his or her Form I-9, any accompanying documents, and any other documentation showing the alleged deficiency. If the employee is not proficient in English, the employer should communicate in the appropriate language where possible. The employer should also provide clear instructions to employees with questions or concerns related to the internal audit on how to seek additional information from the employer to resolve those questions or concerns.
An employer cannot correct errors or omissions in Section 1 of the I-9 form, only in Sections 2 or 3, the guidance notes. The employer should ask the employee to correct any errors in Section 1. The guidance states that the best way to correct such an error is to have the employee draw a line through the incorrect information, enter the correct or omitted information, and initial and date the corrected or omitted information. A preparer or translator can help by making the correction or helping the employee to make the correction.
The guidance recommends that before conducting an audit, an employer should consider the purpose and scope of the audit and how it will communicate information to employees, such as the reasons for the internal audit and what employees can expect from the process. An employer should consider the process it will have for fielding questions or concerns about the audit, how it will inform the employees of that process, how it will document its communications with employees, and how it will ensure consistent standards when addressing any I-9 deficiencies revealed by the audit, the guidance notes.
Among other things, the guidance also notes that an employer is not required to terminate employees who, as a result of the employer’s internal I-9 audit, disclose that they were previously not work-authorized, even though they are currently work-authorized. An employer may continue to employ the employee upon completion of a new I-9 noting the authorizing document(s), and should attach the new I-9 to the previously completed I-9 together with a signed and dated explanation, the guidance states.
The guidance also notes that an employer should not use the Social Security Number Verification Service (SSNVS) during an internal I-9 audit. The Social Security Administration (SSA) will verify Social Security numbers and names solely to ensure that the records of current or former employees are correct for the purpose of completing Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form W-2 (Wage and Tax Statement). Additionally, any notification about a mismatch makes no statement about an employee’s immigration status. Rather, it simply indicates an error in either the employer’s records or SSA’s records “and should not be used as a basis to take adverse action against an employee. In other words, SSNVS is not intended to be used to verify employment authorization in connection with the Form I-9 process,” the guidance notes.
GUIDANCE, including additional information, such as how to correct other types of errors and determining whether documentation is acceptable
For further information about the proper use of SSNVS, see the SSNVS HANDBOOK
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) recently began transferring some casework from the Vermont Service Center (VSC) to the California Service Center (CSC) and the Nebraska Service Center (NSC) “to balance workloads.”
The CSC will now process Forms I-539, Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status. The NSC will process Forms I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, filed by asylum applicants with pending asylum applications filed on or after January 4, 1995. The eligibility category for the application is (c)(8).
USCIS will notify those whose cases are transferred. The original receipt number will not change, and processing of the case will not be delayed “except for the additional time needed to transfer the file.” The filing location and instructions for these forms will not change.
USCIS noted that an individual’s case status can be checked at Case Status Online by entering the receipt number. Applicants can also sign up to receive automatic case status updates by email, and can submit an inquiry if they do not receive a decision within the published processing time. Inquiries may be made at 800-375-5283 (TDD 800-767-1833), or ONLINE.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has published an update to Form I-751, Petition to Remove Conditions on Residence. The new edition is dated 11/23/15.
Beginning on February 29, 2016, USCIS will accept only the 11/23/15 edition. The edition date is at the bottom of every page of the form and instructions. The expiration date at the top says 11/30/2017.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that starting on January 1, 2016, those filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Motion or Appeal, in response to a decision on a Form N-600 (Application for Certificate of Citizenship) or N-600K (Application for Citizenship and Issuance of Certificate Under Section 322) must mail the I-290B to the Chicago Lockbox. USCIS will no longer accept these forms at local field offices.
USCIS will provide a 30-day grace period from January 1-30, 2016, for those who file an I-290B with the local office. Local field offices that receive a Form I-290B during this time will forward it to the Chicago Lockbox. After January 30, 2016, local field offices will return all I-290Bs for Forms N-600 or N-600K they receive and advise applicants to file instead at the Chicago Lockbox.
For those filing via the U.S. Postal Service, the address is:
USCIS
P.O. Box 805887
Chicago, IL 60680-4120
For those filing via USPS express mail/courier, the address is:
USCIS
Attn: FBAS
131 S. Dearborn, 3rd Floor
Chicago, IL 60603-5517
The January E-Verify webinar schedule from USCIS is now available HERE.
The 2015 edition of the Global Business Immigration Practice Guide has been released by LexisNexis. Dozens of members of the Alliance of Business Immigration Lawyers (ABIL) co-authored and edited the guide, which is a one-stop resource for dealing with questions related to business immigration issues in immigration hotspots around the world.
The latest edition adds chapters on Ghana and Peru. Other chapters cover Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Costa Rica, the European Union, France, Germany, Hong Kong, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
Latchi Delchev, a global mobility and immigration specialist for Boeing, called the guide “first-rate” and said the key strong point of the book is its “outstanding usability.” She said she highly recommends the book and notes that it “is helpful even to seasoned professionals, as it provides a level of detail which is not easily gained from daily case management.”
Mireya Serra-Janer, head of European immigration for a multinational IT company, says she particularly likes “the fact that the [guide] focuses not just on each country’s immigration law itself but also addresses related matters such as tax and social security issues.” She noted that the India chapter “is particularly good. The immigration regulations in India have always been hard to understand. Having a clear explanation of the rules there helps us sort out many mobility challenges.”
Charles Gould, Director-General of the International Co-operative Alliance, said the guide is “an invaluable resource for both legal practitioners and business professionals. The country-specific chapters are comprehensive and answer the vast majority of questions that arise in immigration practice. Its clear and easy-to-follow structure and format make it the one volume to keep close at hand.”
This comprehensive guide is designed to be used by:
This publication provides:
Each chapter follows a similar format, making it easy to compare practices and procedures from country to country. Useful links to additional resources and forms are included. Collected in this Practice Guide, the expertise of ABIL’s attorney members across the globe will serve as an ideal starting point in your research into global business immigration issues.
The list price is $359, but a 15% discount is available by visiting LexisNexis and entering discount code “ABIL15”. Contact your Lexis/Nexis sales representative; call 1-800-833-9844 (United States), 1-518-487-3385 (international); fax 1-518-487-3584
ABIL on Twitter. The Alliance of Business Immigration Lawyers is available on Twitter: @ABILImmigration. RECENT ABIL BLOGS
David Isaacson, of Cyrus D. Mehta & Associates, PLLC, has authored a new blog entry. “How Recent Changes To The Visa Waiver Program Have Gone Too Far”
Cora-Ann V. Pestaina, of Cyrus D. Mehta & Associates, PLLC, has authored a new blog entry. “How One Employee’s Complaint Can Lead To A Full Blown Investigation Of An H-1B Employer’s LCA Records”
Angelo Paparelli was quoted by the Wall Street Journal on planned raids of families for removal from the United States. In “U.S. Plan To Deport Central American Families Is Widely Criticized,” published on December 25, 2015, Mr. Paparelli said the effort “seems like an about-face from the president’s actions in prioritizing the enforcement of immigration laws. I worry that a terrorist incident might occur because the eyes of DHS are distracted.”
Bernard Wolfsdorf and Avi Friedman of Wolfsdorf Rosenthal LLP will speak at the 2016 AILA Midwinter Conference on January 22, 2016, at Atlantis Paradise Island in the Bahamas. They will speak about advanced issues in consular processing, nonimmigrant waivers, and humanitarian parole.
Mr. Wolfsdorf discussed the impact of recent terrorist attacks on immigration in an ABC News article, “San Bernardino Attack: Visas, Wives and Terror.” Mr. Wolfsdorf commented that “the unusual circumstances surrounding Chernykh’s marriage to Marquez would likely attract the interest of immigration authorities.”
Mr. Wolfsdorf was interviewed in “The Wealthy Migrant,” published in The Economist. In the report, Mr. Wolfsdorf discussed the motivations propelling high-net-worth individuals to relocate and seek citizenship abroad. THE FULL REPORT
Wolfsdorf Rosenthal LLP was honored as the “2015 EB-5 Immigration Law Firm of the Year” by EB5NewsBlog.org. EB5NewsBlog.org is sponsored by the investment consulting firm, Artisan Business Group, Inc., that reports on EB-5 practice.
Wolfsdorf Rosenthal LLP announced the addition of three new partners. Avi Friedman and Richard Yemm are in the Los Angeles office, and Naveen Bhora is in the New York office.
Stephen Yale-Loehr and H. Ronald Klasko will lead an “EB-5 Due Diligence Workshop” on January 15, 2016, at EB-5 Investors.com’s 2016 Las Vegas EB-5 Conference. Designed for migration agents, the workshop will cover due diligence matters and conclude with legislative analysis. Attendance is limited. For more information or to register.
Mr. Yale-Loehr recently wrote a blog recapping the EB-5 legislative battle. “Congress Extends EB-5 Program for One Year Without Changes”
Mr. Yale-Loehr was quoted in Law360 on December 24, 2015, in “Immigration Regulation and Legislation To Watch in 2016.” He noted that topics that may come up include whether changes to the EB-5 program will apply retroactively, as well as issues related to target employment areas. “I think there is going to be another summer of intense negotiations to try to come with a compromise on EB-5,” he said.
Mr. Yale-Loehr was quoted in the McClatchy newspapers about the fiancée visa application for Tashfeen Malik, the wife involved in the San Bernardino, California, terrorist attack. The article was published by the Sacramento Bee and the Miami Herald
Mr. Yale-Loehr was quoted in China Daily USA in “Congress To Extend EB-5 Program,” published on December 17, 2015. He noted that “Congress was on the verge of enacting major changes to the EB-5 program, but deleted the EB-5 reform package from the omnibus spending bill at the last minute.”
Follow these links to access current processing times of the USCIS Service Centers and the Department of Labor, or the Department of State’s latest Visa Bulletin with the most recent cut-off dates for visa numbers:
USCIS Service Center processing times online
Department of Labor processing times and information on backlogs
Department of State Visa Bulletin
ABIL is a corporation with over 40 top-rated immigration law firms and 1,500+ professionals.