 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
July 2004 Newsletter
I am writing this update on new immigration-related developments just prior to the Fourth of July, the holiday that commemorates the independence of the United States. In years gone by, this particular holiday had devolved largely into an opportunity to gather with family and friends without too much regard to its underlying symbolism. But in this post-9/11 period, many have developed a new commitment to understanding the unique history and positive features of the United States, and the Fourth of July has once again taken on symbolic significance. I would submit that no phenomena has impacted more greatly our national character or heritage than the ongoing saga of immigration. It is particularly at this time of year that I take a renewed pride not only in serving client needs, but also more generally in contributing to a diverse, multi-cultural, energized, productive, and tolerant nation called the United States of America. In my opinion, there continues to exist a major tension today in the administration of our immigration laws. The 9/11 tragedy has not led to the dismantling of U.S. immigration laws or policies as many had initially predicted. Rather, the basic legal framework, quite thankfully and appropriately, remains largely unchanged. But unquestionably, there have been a growing number of stark abnormalities in the administration of our laws since the 9/11 tragedy that frustrate the underlying policies of the law by injecting delay and uncertainty into the delivery of benefits to foreign nationals. Specifically, the administrative processing of cases has become incredibly belabored, characterized by long and still-growing backlogs, and government adjudicators continue to refuse to exercise favorable discretion in a broad range of cases. These inefficiencies in the processing system of an otherwise laudable, workable set of laws have become a matter of growing concern, reminiscent of the observation that “justice delayed is justice denied.” In light of the importance of ethnic voting blocs in this election year, we expect to see increased media coverage on immigration issues ranging from stories on the human face of immigration (largely, lengthy periods of family separation) to the troubling and more nuanced balance involving national security, individual privacy, and due process protections for foreign nationals. In writing this newsletter, I hope to continue a tradition of surveying some of the most pressing immigration-related issues to our own clientele and analyzing the implications of these developments for those whom we serve. H-1B Temporary Worker Classification The H-1B temporary worker classification is a widely used temporary, nonimmigrant classification authorizing the employment of foreign professionals in the United States working in “specialty occupations,” which refers to jobs requiring a university degree as an entry-level requirement. Effective October 1, 2003, the H-1B quota allotment was reduced from 195,000 to 65,000 numbers. Not surprisingly, this allotment proved to be insufficient to cover the needs of U.S. business entities recruiting H-1B workers. As a consequence, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS, legacy INS) announced on February 17, 2004, that the H-1B numbers were exhausted for Fiscal Year (FY) 2004. The next infusion of the H-1B numbers will occur on October 1, 2004, which marks the first day of the new fiscal year. Given that H-1B Petitions can be filed up to six months prior to the commencement date of an alien’s employment, the CIS has been accepting H-1B Petitions since April 1, 2004. Particularly given a measured rebound in the economy and an expansion in new job creation, no one expects the H-1B numbers to last throughout the coming fiscal year. Consequently, there are two salient questions pertaining to H-1B cases: 1) the expected date on which the new H-1B numbers will become depleted; and 2) the available strategies existing under our immigration laws to avoid the H-1B quota cap. In the first 60 days of the current processing period (that is, through the end of May), the CIS issued just over 16,000 H-1B approvals for cap-subject cases. This figure is considerably behind earlier projections of H-1B utilization. This means that the CIS has approved roughly 25% of the total H-1B numerical allotment, and were this processing rate to continue, H-1B numbers would be available through the end of the calendar year. No one, though, expects this measured rate of H-1B filings to continue. Rather, once the new fiscal year begins on October 1, 2004, and employers can actively recruit and hire H-1B professionals, we expect to see a surge in the rate of new H-1B filings. I cannot predict in good conscience when the H-1B numbers will again become exhausted. Whereas earlier predictions postulated that the H-1B numbers would become depleted by this coming October, it now appears increasingly likely – although by no means assured – that these numbers will continue to be available well into the autumn or perhaps even until mid-winter. Regardless of these timing estimations, it is generally a foregone conclusion that the H-1B numbers will again become exhausted. Therefore, there are already growing pressures to file cases that do not fall within the H-1B quota cap since any such cases can be approved at any point in the year, regardless of the availability of an H-1B number. Here are the most commonly encountered situations that fall outside of the H-1B quota cap:
I further wish to call attention to four (4) more issues of possible interest in the H-1B arena:
Termination of Visa Revalidation Program The U.S. Department of State has announced the termination of its Visa Revalidation Program, effective July 16, 2004. The ostensible reason given for this termination is the State Department’s inability to acquire biometric identifiers (largely, fingerprints and/or digitally recognizable photographs), as required under the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act. This announcement of the termination of the Visa Revalidation Program has caused widespread consternation owing largely to the fact that the Program itself is widely misunderstood. A visa, by definition, is a stamp issued in a passport that enables a foreign national to present himself/herself for admission to the United States. All visa matters fall within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of State that acts through a system of U.S. Consulates located in foreign countries. In contrast, it is within the pervue of Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS), a bureau of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), to authorize the status of foreign nationals living in the United States – that is, the CIS authorizes the duration, terms, and conditions under which foreign nationals may reside in the United States. In a word, therefore, a visa is needed only when a foreign national enters the United States, and visas are issued exclusively by the U.S. Department of State. However, once in this country, it is the CIS and not the Department of State that grants immigration-related benefits to foreign nationals. In a sense, the Visa Revalidation Program affects a relatively small percentage of foreign nationals living in the United States so that this announcement of its termination should not disrupt or even inconvenience the vast majority of nonimmigrants. Specifically, the Visa Revalidation Program does not and never has applied to the following classes:
The only category of nonimmigrants affected by this new announcement is foreign nationals requiring an extension of their previously granted nonimmigrant visa for travel purposes. This sole class of foreign nationals has traditionally been able to apply for new (or revalidated) nonimmigrant visas through the U.S. Department of State in Washington, D.C., although this revalidation process has normally taken 10-16 weeks to accomplish. However, it does have a major benefit of alleviating many of the delays and uncertainty that now plague the issuance of nonimmigrant visas through U.S. Consulates abroad. Effective July 16, 2004, all such applications for new, extended visas will need to be filed to U.S. Consulates located abroad. In some instances, the foreign national can make this application at a third country processing post (the most common ones being U.S. Consulates in Canada or Mexico); in other instances, the foreign national will be compelled to file for the renewed visa application in his/her home country. Nonimmigrant Visa Issuance and Delays Perhaps the most vexing challenge for many of our clients is to obtain their visas through U.S. Consulates abroad. At present, the Consular Officers see themselves as the frontline defense in preventing individuals posing security threats from entering the United States. As a consequence of this very legitimate concern, the entire visa issuance process has become riddled with inconsistencies and delays. In working with our clients on these processing matters, we try to subdivide their concerns into three categories: 1) their substantive entitlement for obtaining the visa; 2) the expected delays in the actual issuance of the visa; and 3) the actual admission process to the United States. In terms of the substantive entitlement to the visa, it is important to be very familiar with the substantive requirements for obtaining a given visa. For example, certain visas – most noticeably the F-1 student and J-1 exchange visitor visas – require the visa applicant to establish nonimmigrant intent, which is defined as a non-relinquished intention to depart the United States after the term of nonimmigrant admission; an applicant for a visitor visa needs to establish nonimmigrant intent as well as sufficient financial means to sustain himself/herself during the period of temporary stay; the H-1B temporary worker classification does not require nonimmigrant intent, but it does require the commitment to work exclusively for the petitioning employer(s). In short, each and every nonimmigrant visa classification contains implicit limitations on the duration of stay and the visa holder’s sanctioned activities in the United States, and each and every answer and/or piece of documentation needs to be consistent with these limitations. In addition, under current law, nearly every visa applicant needs to appear in person at a U.S. Consulate so as to undergo an interview. While the foreign national has the obligation of answering all questions in a truthful manner, preexistent knowledge of the criteria for granting the visa can certainly be indispensable in providing appropriate and probative information leading to a successful outcome to the application. Second, the entire visa processing system has become riddled with substantial delays. Owing to the above-mentioned requirement that nearly each and every visa applicant needs to make a personal appearance at a Consulate (the Personal Appearance Waiver program, or PAW), already overburdened Consular Officers now need to conduct several million additional interviews. As a result, more and more Consulates are implementing formal, scheduled interview procedures for nonimmigrant visas, thereby replacing the previous system that either allowed walk-in appointments or drop box applications. In addition, the Visa Waiver Program (VWP), which allows citizens of many countries to enter the United States for up to six months without physically obtaining a visa, is at present scheduled to terminate on October 26, 2004, unless the participating countries can develop machine-readable, tamper-resistant passports that incorporate biometric and document authentification identifiers. Over the last fiscal year alone, roughly 18 million travelers entered the United States pursuant to this program. Thus far, none of the 22 participating countries are expected to meet this deadline for a reengineering of their passports. If the VWP is not extended, the U.S. Consulates abroad are expecting roughly a 70% increase in the number of visa applicants. Any such development could inject interminably long delays in scheduling interviews, much less in actually issuing the visas. In order to stave off this glut of new applications, the Congress with the strong support of the U.S. Department of State is currently considering a two-year extension of the VWP, which will enable participating countries to develop secure passports. But the major cause of delay is attributable to the tight security clearance procedures that need to be fulfilled before a visa can be issued. Essentially, each nonimmigrant visa applicant now needs or in the very near future will need to provide an inkless fingerprint scan. These fingerprints are then sent to the Consular Consolidated Database (CCD) in Washington, D.C., which then relays the fingerprint files to the database maintained by the Department of Homeland Security. If there is no problem at this stage, the clearance may then be given to the Consular Officer to issue the visa. However, there is a much more elaborate clearance system for the following three classes of nonimmigrant visa applicants: Nonimmigrant males largely drawn largely from the Middle East who need to undergo more extensive name check and security clearance procedures under the Visa Condor program; Nevertheless, this entire background security check procedure has injected a great deal of uncertainty and delay into the system. It is simply impossible to predict whether a visa will be issued within a few days or if the completion of the security background check procedures will take weeks or even months. Furthermore, the Consular Officers do not have the discretion to issue a visa without a security clearance release and the security agencies conducting these reviews remain largely impervious to outside pressure. Third, the foreign national must actually gain admission to the United States. The United States this past January launched the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology Program (US-VISIT), which is essentially an across-the-board registration system of foreign nationals coming to the United States. In contrast, the previous incarnation of this program known as the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) profiled individuals from selected countries so as to subject them to special and arguably discriminatory registration provisions. The NSEERS Program was indefinitely suspended on December 2, 2003. Under US-VISIT, the Immigration Inspector at the Port of Entry has access to a great deal of information on the arriving alien, including scanned copies of his/her travel documents, a digital photograph, and inkless fingerprints. This information is then displayed to the Inspector on three computer panels so as to provide for an on-the-spot verification of the identity and security risk factors of the foreign national. If any of the biometric data is missing, the Inspecting Officer is required to obtain the missing identifiers at the time of admission. The foreign national’s name will also again be checked against the Interagency Border Inspection Service (IBIS) database, as well as portions of the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database. The information registered during the US-VISIT admission procedure forms the basis for monitoring the foreign national’s ongoing activities in the United States, as well as registering their departure from the United States. It is intended to make it easier for the immigration enforcement agencies to monitor, apprehend, and evict foreign nationals who violate the terms of their immigration status. In addition, holders of F-1 student visas, M-1 vocational visas, and J-1 exchange visitor visas need to comply with the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), which is an expanded database which monitors the foreign national’s activities and compliance with U.S. immigration requirements. Labor Certification Application Reforms The first required step in many employment-based cases for permanent residence is known as the Labor Certification Application process. Through this process, the employer is required to engage in a good-faith recruitment so as to determine whether its employment of a foreign national will harm the U.S. labor market either by depressing the wage structure for similarly employed workers or by taking a job away from a fully qualified U.S. applicant. The existing Labor Certification Application program has been widely criticized over the years for its gross inefficiencies (in certain parts of the country this process can take over three years) and its alleged insufficient protections for U.S. workers. At present, the Department of Labor is in the process of completely reengineering the Labor Certification Application program, and the indications are that it will unveil its new Program Electronic Review Management (PERM) program this coming October. On February 23, 2004, the Department of Labor filed its final PERM proposal to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which is a federal clearinghouse for all such pronouncements. Assuming OMB approval, the Department of Labor will then publish the final regulation. The proposed system will essentially streamline the Labor Certification Application system into an attestation-based system through which employers will need to provide written answers to 56 questions regarding their anticipated plans to sponsor a foreign national for permanent resident status. In its current proposed state, this new PERM program will greatly reduce the flexibility of an employer to define the actual, special requirements needed for the position, and will instead essentially standardize the experience, education, and skill set for any given position. Applications filed under the PERM program in all likelihood will be processed very quickly, thereby (and thankfully) eliminating the substantial backlogs that now plague the Labor Certification Application program. In fact, the State Workforce Agencies (SWA) will be entirely eliminated from the Labor Certification Application process, and instead PERM applications will be filed directly to two designated federal processing centers located in Atlanta and Chicago. However, any employer filing a PERM application will face severe liability if it does not adequately recruit for the position or fulfill the 56 listed requirements in the PERM application. The Department of Labor is expected to develop an active audit and enforcement program so as to ensure that employers do not abuse the relatively streamlined filing and approval procedures created under PERM. Once PERM’s implementation has been set, the Department of Labor also intends to implement a concerted effort to clean out its existing backlog of pending Labor Certification Applications by establishing two large regional centers located in Philadelphia and Dallas to process expeditiously the roughly 300,000 applications now pending within the State Workforce Agencies or the U.S. Department of Labor. Our own feeling is that PERM will become at best a mixed blessing. While we certainly endorse a time-efficient, streamlined process, we are very concerned that employers will face vastly increased exposure and audit liability. Furthermore, we are very concerned that PERM will not recognize the unique staffing needs and requirements of individual employers so as to make it exceedingly difficult to utilize special job skills as legitimate requirements for the position. Therefore, as a general course of action, we are trying to file Labor Certification Applications for our clients under the existing procedures. We certainly hope that the announced backlog reduction plan will take effect so as to enable our pending applications to be processed in a time-efficient manner. In the event that this new system provides a more desirable filing procedure for certain occupations (e.g., physicians and researchers), it should be possible to withdraw a Labor Certification Application and to then re-file it under the PERM procedures. But until we have a greater understanding of PERM’s mechanisms, we believe that our clients’ immigration interests will be best served by pursuing their employment-based immigration cases under the current Labor Certification Application procedure. USCIS Backlog Reduction and Streamlining Efforts Processing delays are now endemic to the system, infecting applications pending at the Department of State and the Department of Labor. It is certainly not surprising to note that the central immigration agency – the Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) – has experienced profound delays that are only now being addressed. In this era of post-9/11 security concerns, the Immigration Service has slowed down the adjudication process and in some areas halted adjudication all together. The ostensible reason for this slowdown is its preoccupation with security matters since every request for an immigration benefit now needs to be checked against various security databases. But I believe it is a misnomer to attribute this massive slowdown solely to security concerns. Rather, the USCIS system is antiquated, characterized by delays in applying new technological innovations such as on-line processing of immigration petitions and applications. There is now a pervasive culture within the USCIS to resist the exercise of discretion, meaning that USCIS examiners resist issuing approvals without a heightened level of explanation and documentation on even relatively straightforward issues. But perhaps most detrimental to this system is the fact that USCIS examiners are insulated from the public’s inquiry so as to enable them to delay, equivocate, and misapply the law without accountability. (Under the current system, it is no longer possible to call into the USCIS office issuing a decision and instead, inquiry calls get routed to impersonal bureaucratic call-in centers that invariably prove to be useless in untangling problems in any given case.) One delaying tactic of frustration to practitioners has been the issuance of blanket requests for further evidence, once reserved only for those instances where something was truly missing from the application. Recently, there has been almost a 50% increase in such requests. In response to the resulting backlog caused by the escalation of Requests for Further Evidence, William Yates, Associate Director of Operations at the Immigration Service, issued two memos intended to rationalize this process. The first memo, dated May 4, 2004, states that the Service will curtail the issuance of such requests, but in so doing he expanded the Service’s power to deny applications without a chance to cure the defect in the filing. While prompt adjudication is obviously desirable, it should not be at the cost of unfettered Service latitude to preemptively issue a denial notice. The second USCIS directive appeared on April 23, 2004, and states that in instances in which a nonimmigrant visa status has previously been approved, the Service should approve extensions of this same status absent 1) fraud or misrepresentation; 2) new material evidence; or 3) gross error. In short, a Service adjudicator should exercise deference to a previous adjudicator’s decision. This policy will hopefully normalize the disruption experienced by our O-1 clientele and should bode well for many other applicants for extensions of their nonimmigrant visa status, and may even impact favorably certain filings for permanent resident status. In terms of backlog reduction, this spring the USCIS launched several pilot programs to speed up the adjudication process for permanent residence. At present, it is taking the USCIS over two years to process an Adjustment of Status application; the goal is to reduce this processing period to six months by the end of 2006. One pilot project expedites the background security checks for Adjustment of Status applicants. Another pilot project aims to provide the issuance of Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) for multi-year periods coinciding with the total processing time of a case. (In other words, if the processing times for permanent residence applications is two years, then the Employment Authorization Card would also be valid for that period of time.) Some local district offices have also been attempting to process marriage based permanent residence cases in 90 days or less. Others have been providing electronic appointments to clients so as to overcome the long waiting lines at the local office. The Service has also provided options for electronic filing of certain forms through the web and plans to expand this option in the future to include the 12 most utilized forms. Additionally, it is now possible to receive an e-mail update on case status. Recently, the USCIS announced its forthcoming intention to restore the public’s ability to directly call the USCIS office having jurisdiction over a given case, which will hopefully restore the accountability of individual Service adjudicators for the promptness and accuracy of their adjudications. Personally, I can think of no more fundamental guarantee of professional conduct or elemental fairness than to require Service examiners to justify their actions to the precise individuals affected by their decisions. Concurrent Filing Rule Changes - A Mixed Blessing? Recent changes to USCIS procedures for implementing the “concurrent filing rule” now require careful consideration before a client can make an informed decision on whether to file concurrently or not. In this section, we will discuss these changes and offer our opinion on how best to proceed in an ever-shifting regulatory environment. First, by way of background, “concurrent filing” refers to filing a Form I-485 Application for Adjustment of Status to Permanent Resident at any time before the Form I-140 Petition for Immigrant Worker is approved. The I-140 is the form that in the vast majority of cases must be filed by a foreign national’s employer in order for the foreign employee to gain Permanent Resident status (a “green card”). (In a small class of cases, the foreign worker can file the Form I-140 themselves as a “self-petition.”) Whether the I-140 is filed by an employer or by the worker as a self-petition, it is axiomatic that the Immigrant Visa Petition must be approved before the status of Permanent Resident can ultimately be conferred on the worker. It is only at the moment of approval of the Petition that a “visa number becomes available” so as to allow the CIS to grant Permanent Resident status after processing a background check and verifying other personal information about the worker. Since Form I-140 processing can take a very long time - sometimes even a year or more - in the summer of 2002 the then-INS made a welcome change in the rules on filing of I-485s. Previous law had required the foreign worker to wait until the I-140 was approved before the worker could even file his/her Adjustment Application. The “concurrent filing rule” promulgated in July 2002 now permits the I-485 to be filed before the Form I-140 is approved. Unquestionably, this rule benefited many foreign workers, particularly the spouses of H-1B workers in H-4 dependent status who thereby could gain the interim benefit of an Employment Authorization Document. But the concurrent filing created new problems at the same time. One of the greatest areas of uncertainty in immigration law today is in how the concurrent filing rule should be applied in conjunction with the “portability” rule. The “portability” rule was a major change in employment-based immigration law made by Congress as part of the generally immigration-friendly American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000, commonly called “AC21.” Before AC21, if a worker with an approved I-140 petition and a pending Adjustment of Status application lost his/her job (or quit their job), it negated their entire permanent residence case. That is, by leaving the job before the I-485 was approved (that is, before they were granted Permanent Resident status), the foreign national would need to start a new permanent residence case all over again. Because processing times for I-485s have been taking on average 2 – 3 years for the past several years, this situation was common, and it resulted in thousands of immigrant workers spending years of effort and expense only to be denied permanent residence owing to a failure for whatever reason to work for the petitioning employer. And since before AC21 there was no possibility of extending H-1B temporary work authorized status beyond its six-year limit, many workers were forced to leave the United States after having spent several years working through the Labor Certification and I-140 stages of their cases. To ameliorate this harsh result, Congress created the portability rule. Under the portability rule, once (1) the Form I-140 is approved and (2) the worker’s I-485 application has been pending for 180 days or more, even if the worker’s employment comes to an end, the I-140 approval remains valid and the worker’s I-485 can be approved as long as the worker continues to work in the “same or similar” occupation with another company. This rule has been an enormous benefit to foreign workers, although it admittedly creates some uncertainty for employers as to the expected duration of a foreign worker’s employment. While the portability rule was well-received by foreign workers in 2000 when it was passed, the creation of the concurrent filing rule two years later created a great deal of uncertainty for some foreign workers’ prospects of ultimately obtaining permanent resident status. This is because under the current slow processing times for I-140s, if an I-140 and I-485 are filed at the same time under the concurrent filing rule, in nearly all cases the I-140 would still be pending and unapproved 180 days later. In that situation, the question becomes whether or not the portability rule applies— if the worker’s employment came to an end at that time, could the I-485 still be approved in the future if the worker found a “same or similar job”? One reading of the portability rule says that at that time, i.e., 180 days after filing of the I-485, the foreign worker is eligible to move to a “same or similar job” regardless of whether the I-140 is ever approved or not. As much as we might like to see the implementation of such an interpretation at CIS, at the present time in our professional opinion this stance is too risky and unsupported by the law. Several months after we expressed our opinion on this matter in a widely read article that was one of the first comprehensive articles on the concurrent filing rule, the CIS came out taking the same stance. CIS held that regardless of whether 180 days have passed since the I-485 was filed along with the I-140, until the I-140 is approved the portability rule does not apply. If it takes CIS a year to approve the I-140, then it means the worker’s ability to “port” to a new job does not kick in for a year. As professional advisers and counselors, we recommend that no foreign worker leave their employment pursuant to the portability rule until the Form I-140 is approved. As individuals concerned with the larger issues behind the processing of I-140 forms and I-485s forms, we think it deplorable that it takes the government routinely six months or more to make a decision on I-140 cases, particularly for those cases based on an approved Labor Certification where it is clear that the foreign worker qualifies to perform the job duties and the I-140 should be approved. While the concurrent filing rule makes good sense as a way to permit foreign workers (and particularly their spouses) to obtain the benefits of work authorization cards and Advance Parole travel papers earlier than had been possible in the past, the fact remains that if the majority of I-140 cases took only one month to be approved, there would be no need for the concurrent filing rule. And the applicability of the portability rule would be that much clearer if I-140 adjudications took only a month because it would be the rare case where an I-485 application could be pending for 180 days or more and portability eligibility would not have been “locked in.” As if the existing concerns about the concurrent filing rule vis-à-vis the portability rule were not serious enough already, a further monkey wrench was thrown into the works recently when CIS announced that in any case in which the I-485 application is filed before the I-140 is approved (any concurrently filed case), the I-140 will no longer be adjudicated separately first, but instead will be adjudicated along with the Form I-485. Given that I-485 processing is backlogged roughly two years or more all around the country, this raises the possibility that the I-140 will remain pending and unapproved for just as long— the worker literally will not know until the bitter end when their I-485 is finally adjudicated whether or not they are going to get Permanent Residence. As noted above, the portability rule does not kick in until the I-140 is approved; this recent change in CIS processing policy arguably undermines Congressional intent in having enacted the portability rule. A worker essentially must choose between the benefits of concurrent filing or the benefits of preserving eligibility for portability, but not both. In closing the discussion in this section, we must note that this area of law and practice remains in flux. Deciding whether or not to concurrently file the I-140 and I-485, and deciding whether or not a worker is eligible to change employers under the portability rule and still get Permanent Residence approved is a multi-faceted inquiry that will be specific to each individual’s case. Some Final Personal Notes To say the least, it has been a busy, challenging, and professionally gratifying period of my practice, and I remain very grateful at the opportunity to serve a diverse professional clientele of incomparable talent. I am constantly aware that the services performed here touch deeply the lives of our clients and we try to honor the trust you have directed toward us. As noted above, the overall immigration system is plagued with a great many problems and we value the relationships forged with our clientele during this very challenging period of time. We have hired two new legal assistants within the firm: Sarah Stein and Jason Laube, and we look forward to their contributions in the period of time to come. I believe that you will value your interactions with these individuals.I have been quite involved in various professional activities. I have again been appointed to the Department of State Liaison Committee of my professional association, the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), and will again serve as its principal liaison with the Department of State on J 1 waiver matters. I also hope to participate meaningfully in ongoing efforts to ameliorate some of the visa processing delays described above. Once again this year, I was a presenter at the Annual Conference of AILA, speaking on strategies for handling kickbacks from CIS on nonimmigrant petitions. I then flew to Chicago to appear at a conference of the J-1 Waiver Officers of the various states where I was asked to make a presentation on National Interest Waiver developments for physicians. Together with my colleague in the firm, Dinesh Shenoy, I co-authored a major article on J-1 waiver strategies for foreign physicians that was published as a two-part series in the April-May issues of Immigration Briefings, which is a high-impact journal for the immigration bar. Evidently this article is being widely circulated within various government circles as the Congress considers legislation to extend the waiver program for physicians. I am also quite proud of my position as the Vice Chair of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS), which is perhaps the most honored national organization dealing in refugee migration and immigrant rights. This organization has an over 120-year legacy of assisting persecuted minorities seeking refuge in lands of opportunity. HIAS has served not only Jewish populations of refugees, but also has assisted such groups as Bosnian Moslems, Albanian Kosovars, Iranian Christians, Vietnamese boat people, Iraqi Kurds, Rwandan Tutsis and moderate Hutus, Liberian dissidents, and Burundi rape victims, just to name a few, to find new lives in this country. At present, HIAS is undertaking a major initiative calling for fundamental modifications in the immigration enforcement system. I hope you find this Newsletter to be timely and informative, and I would welcome your comments and thoughts on this effort. I further wish to acknowledge the contributions of the following attorneys in the preparation of this immigration update: Salima Khakoo, Piyumi Samaratunga, and Dinesh Shenoy. I wish you a good summer and look forward to hearing from you in the near future. Cordially,
ROBERT D. ARONSON
|
Aronson & Associates, P.A. |