Restrictions on Third-Country National Visa Processing In Mexico

November 5th, 2008

The U.S. Consular Mission in Mexico has made it more difficult for Third Country Nationals (TCNs) who are not residents of Mexico to obtain nonimmigrant visas in Mexico.  In particular, it will bar F-1 students who changed status to H-1B from obtaining an initial H-1B visa there.    The following are the specific guidelines for processing of third country national nonimmigrant visas, which can be found at the US Consular Mission in Mexico’s website.

Third Country Nationals

*Visas for Non Mexican Nationals (”third country nationals” - TCNs) Who Live in the United States and Who Wish to Apply for Visas in Mexico

Third Country Nationals residing in the United States who wish to apply for a visa in Mexico  may make their interview appointment at any of the ten posts comprising Mission Mexico on-line at http://www.usvisa-mexico.com/ (click on “English” if necessary) or by phone at 1-900-476-1212.  Appointment numbers are limited and may be unavailable at some posts because of other demands so flexibility in where you wish to apply is helpful.

Who Can Apply in Mexico

  • Applicants seeking to renew their visa in any category except B1/2 (tourist/business), if the initial visa was issued in the applicant’s country of former residence. 

  • Applicants seeking to renew their visa in any category except B1/2 (tourist/business), if the initial visa was issued in the applicant’s country of former residence, and a subsequent visa by a consular post in Mexico. 

Notice:  Certain visa applicants may be subject to additional administrative processing.  This administrative processing may last weeks, thus delaying visa delivery and the applicant’s return to the United States.  Every effort will be made to expedite these procedures; however, it is not possible to guarantee completion of this process by a particular date.

 

Who Cannot Apply in Mexico: 

  • Applicants for B1/2 visas, including renewals are not accepted from third country nationals who are not resident in Mexico. 

  • Applicants who entered the U.S. with a  visa issued in their home country and changed status with Department of Homeland Security in the U.S. who seek a new visa in the new visa category 

  • Applicants who entered the United States in one visa category and are seeking to re-enter the U.S. in a different visa category. 

  • Applicants who have been out of status in the U.S. having violated the terms of their visas or having overstayed the validity indicated on their I-94s. 

  • Applicants who entered the U.S. under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program. 

  • Applicants who obtained their current visa in a country other than that of their legal residence. 

  • PLEASE NOTE:  If you were informed when you obtained the original visa in your home country that you are subject to National Security Entry Exit Registrations (NSEERs) or are a national of North Korea, Cuba, Syria, Sudan or Iran, you are not eligible to renew your visa in Mexico. 

*TCN Visa RenewalsBefore deciding to apply at a consular section in Mexico, third country nationals should keep in mind that traveling to the country may require the appropriate Mexican visa from a Mexico’s embassy or consulate before making the trip. Potential applicants should be sure they have a visa, if necessary, and are prepared to wait several days in Mexico while their visa is being processed.

DHS Issues Final Rule on No-Match Letters

October 27th, 2008

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has issued a Supplemental Final Rule that provides guidance and analysis for the department’s No-Match Rule.  It supplements the original Final Rule of August 2007 and makes very few changes to it.  It states what steps responsible employers can take to resolve discrepancies identified in no-match letters so that they will be covered under a “safe harbor” and not be deemed to have constructive knowledge of illegally employing unauthorized workers.  In order for the rule to take effect, DHS will have to return to the Northern District Court in California to lift a preliminary injunction, originally issued last year.

Every year, the Social Security Administration informs thousands of employers through “no-match” letters that employees’ names and corresponding Social Security numbers, recorded on Form W-2 wage reports, do not match SSA’s records.  The No-Match provides guidance on the steps an employer may take when receiving such letters.  Employers who follow these steps will be protected against a finding of constructive knowledge of employing undocumented workers.

In particular, employers must try to resolve the discrepancy, or have the employee do so, within 90 days of receipt of the no-match letter.  If it is resolved, then the employer must complete a new Form I-9 within 93 days of receipt of the letter.  If the discrepancy is not resolved and the employee’s work authorization and identity are not verified, then the employer must terminate the employee or risk being found to have constructive knowledge of lack of employment authorization by DHS.

The Office of Special Counsel, in response to the issuance of the rule, has stated that as long as employers applies uniform procedures to all employees in responding to no-match letters, without a purpose to discriminate on the basis of perceived citizenship status or national origin, then employers will not be found to have violated anti-discrimination provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

USCIS Increases Period of Stay for TN Canadians and Mexicans

October 27th, 2008

USCIS has increased the maximum period of stay for citizens of Canada and Mexico who work in the US as professionals pursuant to Trade-NAFTA (TN status).  The initial period and any extensions have been increased from one year to three years.

TN nonimmigrant status is for citizens of Mexico and Canada with at least a bachelor’s degree or appropriate professional credentials who work in certain fields pursuant to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).  Such professions include, but are not limited to, accountants, engineers, attorneys, pharmacists, some scientists and teachers.  The list is far more restrictive than that for the H-1B visa, since the latter is based on the position being a professional or specialty occupation.  This is defined as a position requiring the application of theoretical and practical knowledge that can only be gained through a bachelor’s degree (or equivalent) in a particular field.

USCIS Announces Possible Revisions to H-1B Program

October 12th, 2008

USCIS has announced possible revisions to the H-1B visa in light of its published report documenting fraud and technical violations in the H-1B visa arena.  Such measures could include the use of “independent open-source data” to obtain information about visa seekers or the companies that file the petitions on their behalf.

Another option that USCIS is considering is a risk assessment program for applications “based on objective criteria relating to fraud indicators,” according to a USCIS spokesman, which would lead to greater scrutiny of H-1B petitions during the review process.  In addition, USCIS may modify the H-1B “evidentiary requirements” and revising the forms that employers use when filing applications, according to the USCIS spokesman.

Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), an ardent critic of the H-1B visa, publicly released the report on October 8th.  He quoted the report as demonstrating that 21% of 246 H-1B applications reviewed by USCIS staffers contained either outright fraud or “technical violations” of federal laws and regulations.

Greater scrutiny should be given to this report and its methodology.  The H-1B visa is a desperately needed visa to allow foreign professionals to work in the US and help the US maintain its global competitiveness.  Companies like Microsoft have been forced offshore because they cannot hire the technical professionals they need in the US.  This report should not be relied upon as a justification to restrict the H-1B visa program.  In fact, the cap should be eliminated and the current H-1B dependent provisions in the regulations, which require US workers with a large number of H-1B workers to conduct recruitment and not layoff US workers in certain situations, would protect US workers.  Fraud should continue to be investigated and deterred, but not at the expense of credible companies with genuine positions.

Immigration Fallacy: Essential Workers Don’t Wait Their Turn to Immigrate

September 18th, 2008

One of the most demonizing myths about undocumented aliens is that they blatantly disregard our immigration laws and obtain an unfair advantage.   

The fact is, there is no avenue for the vast majority of undocumented aliens (those that are not documented or whose authorization to remain in the US has expired) to apply to become legal permanent residents or to even work here temporarily.  According to opinion surveys of undocumented aliens, 98 percent would prefer to live and work legally in the US if they were allowed to do so.  However, most of them are not eligible for temporary or permanent visas, and even if they were, the wait for such visas can be many years or even decades.

Nonimmigrant visas run almost the full gamut of the alphabet.  They are visas issued for a temporary period and for a specific activity.   For example, there is a B-1/B-2 visa for tourists, an E-1/E-2 visa for treaty traders and investors, an F-1 visa for students, an H-1B visa for professional workers, a J-1 visa for exchange visitors (au pairs, students, professors, etc.), an L-1 visa for intracompany transferees, a K-1 visa for fiancés, an O-1 visa for extraordinary ability aliens, a P visa for athletes and entertainers, an R visa for religious workers, etc.  These nonimmigrant visas categories are very narrow and restrictive.

The H-2A and H-2B visas, the two primary nonimmigrant visas granting employment-authorization to essential workers, are inadequate for the millions of such workers in demand.  The H-2A visa applies strictly to agricultural workers for a temporary or seasonal position.  For the H-2B visa, the employer must demonstrate that the request for labor is a one-time occurrence, a seasonal need, a peakload need, or an intermittent need.   There are only 66,000 H-2B visas available each year.

Last year when comprehensive immigration reform was on the political table, bipartisan guest worker legislation was proposed.  Such legislation would have created a nonimmigrant visa for sorely needed essential workers in positions that are permanent in nature, not seasonal like the H-2s.  If the guestworker visa had succeeded, it could have greatly ameliorated the illegal immigration conundrum in our country by legalizing essential workers alien in high demand.
 
There are four primary ways for foreigners to obtain the green card, which is legal permanent residency in the US.  These are through:  (1) employment; (2) family; (3) asylee and refugee status and (4) the Diversity Visa Lottery.  For the employment-based category, there are only 5,000 immigrant visas available each year for low-skilled workers such as gardeners and construction workers.  This means that it can be many years before they can apply for legal permanent residency.  As discussed above, there is no viable nonimmigrant working visa to allow the bulk of unskilled workers to remain in the US while they wait for permanent legal status in the US.

For the family-based category, if they are not sponsored by an immediate relative – US citizen spouse, parent or child (over 21) – then the wait can also be many years and even decades.  Also, the family-based category is restricted to spouses, parents and children (under 21) of US citizens (immediate relatives); unmarried children and spouses of legal permanent residents; married sons and daughters of US citizens; and brothers and sisters of US citizens.

Obtaining asylee or refugee status is very difficult and only a small percentage of applications for such status are approved each year.  The applicant must show that he or she has a reasonable fear of persecution, or suffered past persecution, on account of race, religion, political opinion, nationality or ethnicity, or membership in a particular social group.  Asylee or refugee status is not available for victims of civil war, natural disasters, violent crime or extreme poverty.  There is temporary protected status (TPS) for citizens of countries in which the Attorney General finds that there exist extraordinary and temporary conditions in the foreign state that are so unsafe as to prevent the return of the foreign national.  The current countries designated for TPS are Burundi, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Sudan, Somalia and Liberia.

The Diversity Visa Lottery is exactly what it says – a lottery.  Only 50,000 visas are available each year and 100,000 individuals are selected each year to apply for one of these visas.  Only individuals from certain countries – low demand countries - can apply and citizens from India or China are not included.

Almost all undocumented workers wish to become legal and permanent members of our society but are unable to do so because of the dearth of visas.  They do not gain any unfair advantages living in the shadows, but rather are some of the most disadvantaged, vulnerable and exploited members of our community.  It is time that we grant these hard-working and critically needed workers the status they covet and deserve.

Bill to Level Employment-Based Visas Numbers Among Countries

September 11th, 2008
On April 29, 2008, Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) introduced H.R. 5921:  High Skilled Per Country Level Elimination Act.  According to the Congressional Research Service, this Act “amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to: (1) eliminate the per-country numerical limitation for employment-based immigrants; (2) increase the per-country numerical limitation for family-sponsored immigrants; (3) establish the fiscal year worldwide level of employment-based immigrants at 140,000 plus the previous year’s unused visas; and (4) establish the fiscal year worldwide level of family-sponsored immigrants at 480,000 minus the number of certain aliens not subject to direct numerical limitations plus the previous year’s unused visas (such annual level shall not be less than 226,000.)” 
On June 3, 2008, it was referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law.  To read the full text, go to the government tracker website.

USCIS Clarifies 245(k) Exemption

July 30th, 2008

Donald Neufeld, Acting Associate Director, Domestic Operations for USCIS, in a memo published July 14, 2008, explains how section 245(k) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) renders waives three grounds of inadmissibility to adjustment of status to legal permanent residency under section 245(c).  He states that 245(k) waives status violations, unauthorized employment and other violations of the alien’s admission normally applicable to employment-based adjustment of status applicants, provided that, since the applicant’s last lawful admission to the United States, the violations did not occur for more than an aggregate period of 180 days.  He states that 245(k) applies to the EB1 through EB-4 categories and to the eligible derivatives of the applicants in these categories. 

The following is a summary of other key parts of the memo:

1.  “USCIS reads the phrase “aggregate period exceeding 180 days” in section 245(k)(2) to refer to the total of all three types of violations rather than permit up to 180 days of each type of violation.” 2.  “The adjudicator must only examine the period from the date of the alien’s last lawful admission to the United States and must not count violations that occurred before the alien’s last lawful admission.”

3.  “An alien, however, who entered the United States pursuant to an advance parole document is not “lawfully admitted,” because the parole is not a final act with respect to admission. Thus, reentry based on a parole or advance parole does not start the clock over for the purpose of section 245(k).”

4.  “[A]ll periods of unauthorized employment since the date of the alien’s last lawful admission, including any periods after the filing of an application for adjustment of status, must be counted until the date of the adjudication of the pending adjustment of status application.”

5.  “With respect to engaging in unlawful employment, the count commences on the first date of the unauthorized employment and continues until the date the unauthorized employment ended, the date an employment authorization document (EAD) is approved, or the date the pending adjustment of status application is adjudicated.”

6.  “Unlike an alien who has failed to maintain lawful nonimmigrant status, an alien who has worked without authorization may unilaterally avoid the accrual of additional days counted against such violation by simply terminating the unauthorized employment.”

7.  “An alien’s engagement in unauthorized employment is dependent upon the existence of the alien’s employment or employer-employee relationship rather than simply the number of days the alien actually works or claims to have worked. Each day an alien engaged in unauthorized employment must be counted against the 180-day period regardless of whether or not the alien unlawfully worked a few hours on a given day, a part-time schedule, or a full-time schedule with leave benefits and weekend and holidays off. Absent evidence of interruptions in unauthorized employment, the adjudicator must consider each day since the date the unauthorized employment began as a day of unauthorized work regardless of the work schedule agreed to or maintained by the alien for the particular employer. For example, if an alien worked without authorization for four hours a day Monday through Friday throughout the month of April, all 30 days for that month must be counted as unauthorized employment.”

8.  “In most cases, the 180-day counting period commences on the date the alien’s status expires, is revoked, or is violated following the alien’s most recent admission.”

9.  ”With the exception of a dual intent nonimmigrant, a nonimmigrant is only required to maintain his or her nonimmigrant status until the time he or she properly files an adjustment of status application with USCIS. . .” 

10.  “[F]or purposes of the 180-day counting period, calculation of the number of days for failing to maintain status or violating a nonimmigrant visa will stop as of the date USCIS receives a properly filed adjustment of status application.”

11.  “In examining any period where an application for extension of stay (EOS) or change of status (COS) was ultimately approved, the period during which the EOS or COS had been pending would be considered, in retrospect, a period in which the alien was in a lawful nonimmigrant status regardless of whether the EOS or COS application was timely or untimely filed. The period would not be disqualifying for section 245(c) purposes, and the period would not count against the 180-day period.”

12.  “The period during which an alien has a pending EOS, COS, or adjustment of status application does not constitute, in and of itself, a period in which the alien is in a lawful “status.” “  This means that if the EOS or COS is denied, the time during which either was pending will be counted toward the 180-day aggregate period.

13.  If the period of unlawful status results from only a ”technical violation” or through no fault of the applicant, then “such period does not count against the 180-day period.”

USCIS Announces Two-Year EADs

July 24th, 2008

On June 12, 2008, USCIS announced that it will issue Employment Authorization Documents (EAD) valid for two years. According to USCIS, the two-year EAD is only available to pending adjustment applicants (filed Form I-485) who have filed for EAD and who are currently unable to adjust status because an immigrant visa number is not currently available.  Also, USCIS requires that the Form I-140 be approved.  USCIS will continue to grant EADs that are valid for one year for adjustment of status applications who have an available immigrant visa number.  

DOL Publishes Guidance on Attorney Involvement in Recruitment Process

June 20th, 2008

The US Department of Labor (DOL) has issued a guidance regarding attorney involvement in the recruitment process, entitled “PERM Program Guidance Bulletin on the Clarification of Scope of Consideration Rule in 20 CFR 656.10(b)(2).”  In this guidance, DOL discusses the primary role of the PERM labor certification, which is to protect US workers by testing the US labor market to identify any able, available, qualified and willing US workers for the position.  If any such workers are found, then the PERM labor certification may not be filed.  A critical issue regarding the recruitment process is the attorney’s involvement.  The DOL wants to ensure that attorneys are not disqualifying otherwise eligible workers.

The following is the actual guidance from DOL: 

“The Department has long held the view that good faith recruitment requires that an employer’s process for considering U.S. workers who respond to certification-related recruitment closely resembles the employer’s normal consideration process. In most situations, that normal process does not involve a role for an attorney or agent (as defined in 20 C.F.R. 656.3) in assessing the ability of applicants to fill the employer’s needs. It also does not involve any role for the foreign worker or foreign national in any aspect of the consideration process. However, given that the permanent labor certification program imposes recruitment standards on the employer that may deviate from the employer’s normal standards of evaluation, the Department understands and appreciates the legitimate role attorneys and agents play in the permanent labor certification process, and respects the right of employers to consult with their attorney or agent during that process to ensure they are complying with all applicable legal requirements.

By prohibiting attorneys, agents, and foreign workers from interviewing and considering U.S. workers during the permanent labor certification process, as described in 20 C.F.R. 656.10 (b)(2)(i) and (ii), the Department does not thereby prohibit attorneys and agents from performing the analyses necessary to counsel their clients on legal questions that may arise with respect to this process. The employer, and not the attorney or agent, must determine whether a U.S. applicant’s credentials meet the minimum qualifications for the position, unless the attorney or agent is the representative of the employer who routinely performs this function for positions for which labor certifications are not filed. After an employer evaluates a U.S. worker and concludes that the worker is unqualified, the employer may seek the advice of its attorney or agent to ensure that its reasons for rejecting the U.S. worker are lawful, and the attorney or agent may review the qualifications of the U.S. worker to the extent necessary to provide that advice. By contrast, if an employer evaluates a U.S. worker and determines that the worker is minimally qualified, the attorney, agent, or foreign worker may not thereafter consider the applicants’ qualifications and attempt to substitute his or her own judgment for that of the employer. In the Department’s view, an employer’s determination that a U.S. worker is minimally qualified for a position constitutes clear evidence that there are U.S. workers who are able, willing, qualified and available for the work to be undertaken.

More specifically, the types of actions prohibited by 20 C.F.R. 656.10(b)(2)(i) and (ii) include:

• Attorneys and agents may receive resumes and applications from U.S. workers who respond to the employer’s recruitment efforts; however, they may not conduct any preliminary screening of applications before the employer does so, unless the attorney or agent is the representative of the employer who routinely performs this function for positions for which labor certifications are not filed. The attorney or agent may not withhold from the employer any resumes or applications that it receives from U.S. workers.

 

 

• Attorneys and agents may not participate in the interviewing of U.S. worker applicants, unless the attorney or agent is the representative of the employer who routinely performs this function for positions for which labor certifications are not filed. Such involvement, because of its uniqueness, has resulted in an impermissible “chilling effect” on the interests of U.S. worker-applicants in the position.

 

• After the evaluation of applications by the employer has been completed, the employer may consult with its attorney or agent about the implications of its qualification determinations on the labor certification application. Those consultations can encompass the question of whether applicants who were found by the employer to be unqualified were rejected for lawful, job related reasons. Under no circumstances, however, should an attorney or agent seek to dissuade an employer from its initial determination that a particular applicant is minimally qualified, able, willing and available for the position in question.

Where the Department finds evidence of potentially improper attorney, agent, or foreign worker involvement in considering U.S. worker applicants, the Department may audit applications to determine whether the employer’s recruitment and hiring processes were conducted in good faith and to ensure adherence to all statutory and regulatory requirements.”

 

Immigration Court Practice Manual Effective July 1, 2008

June 17th, 2008

The Executive Office for Immigration Review’s  (EOIR) Immigration Court Practice Manual will be effective nationwide on July 1, 2008, and all parties appearing before a US immigration on or after this date must comply with the rules and procedures in this manual.   This will provide consistency to parties, where before they were compelled to learn the varying rules of the different immigration courts.