On January 20, 2017, Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Richard Durbin (D-IL) reintroduced their H-1B and L-1 Visa Reform Act. Currently, the Trump administration is circulating a draft executive order targeting employment-based immigration. As the draft order mostly contains vague directions regarding numerous visa programs, the proposed bill serves as an indicator of where the H-1B and L-1 visa programs could potentially be headed under the current administration.
During President Trump's first two weeks in office, he signed numerous executive orders, including several controversial immigration-related orders. More changes are potentially on the way, as the administration is now circulating drafts of several more immigration-related orders. One such draft order, entitled "Executive Order on Protecting American Jobs and Workers by Strengthening the Integrity of Foreign Worker Visa Programs," includes a number of provisions that could potentially restrict employment-based immigration.
***** This is not meant as legal advice and you should consult with an immigration attorney if you believe you may be affected by these new Orders. ******
19/08/2016 USCIS Alerta a clientes afectados por las tormentas severas e inundaciones en Louisiana sobre un Apoyo Migratorio Disponible | USCIS
El 28 de julio de 2016, el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional amplió considerablemente el programa del Perdón Provisional. Este programa ha permitido que los beneficiarios de determinadas peticiones familiares puedan obtener una dispensa de inadmisibilidad por presencia ilegal de más de 180 días antes de la entrevista de visa de inmigrante, evitando la necesidad de obtener en el extranjero tal perdón ante la Embajada o el Consulado de EE.UU., por lo tanto acorta enormemente el tiempo lejos de sus familiares.
On July 28, 2016, the Department of Homeland Security significantly expanded the provisional waiver program. The provisional waiver program had allowed beneficiaries of certain family petitions to obtain a waiver of inadmissibility for unlawful presence of greater than 180 days before the immigrant visa interview, avoiding the necessity to obtain such a waiver at the US embassy or consulate abroad, thus greatly shortening the time away from their families.
¡Buenas noticias sobre la acción diferida! Abogado Nicolas Chávez de Chavez & Valko, en un esfuerzo colaborativo con otros abogados, presento un memorial legal de amicus curiae ("amigo de la corte") a la Corte en Crane en apoyo de DACA.
The USCIS announced today that on May 26, 2015, it will begin accepting applications for employment authorization documents (EAD) from certain H-4 spouses. This regulation amendment will apply to spouses of H-1B workers (1) whose I-140 immigrant petitions have been approved, or (2) who have had their H-1B status extended because their labor certifications (PERMs) or I-140 petitions have been pending for over 365 days, pursuant to American Competitiveness in the Twenty First Century Act (AC21). The filing fee for the I-765 form will be $380. The agency expects as high as 179,600 applications in the first year and 55,000 annually in subsequent years.
Our client came to the United States in 2001 on a B-2 visitor's visa. In 2005 he married a U.S. citizen and sponsored our client's permanent resident status. Four years later, the Immigration Service denied his application because they believed he married he committed marriage fraud (what immigration calls an INA §204(c) decision). Such a decision is generally treated as the "death penalty" by the Immigration Service and Immigration Judges for any future applications a person might file to seek resident status. As a result of the denial, our client was put into removal proceedings -- not because of the fraud the government thought he had committed, but solely because he had remained in the United States longer than he was authorized.
Last month, the Firm represented three individuals in removal proceedings. Each of the individuals had been longtime permanent residents (LPR) and each had been placed in removal proceedings based on criminal convictions that had occurred at least ten years ago. In each of the cases, the convictions were for offenses that most would view as serious to very serious. Because the immigration judge had the authority to deport them, the individuals all sought relief under INA §212(c) or INA §240A. In each case, the immigration judge was required to balance the positive factors of their lives against the negative aspects in deciding whether to allow these individuals to stay in our country. These factors can be found in an immigration case called Matter of Marin, 16 I&N Dec. 581 (BIA 1978).