The cap for H-1B non-immigrant worker visas for the 2006 fiscal year (FY) is currently 65,000, with a total of 51,939 cases approved and pending.  The H-1B visas allow U.S. workers to enhance their existing labor force with highly skilled temporary workers, usually in specialty occupations that call for technical or theoretical expertise.  Those admitted under H-1B visas can work in the U.S. for a period of three years with the possibility of an extension for another three years.  The H-1B Visa Reform Act of 2004 made available an additional 20,000 visas for foreign workers with a master’s or higher-level degree from a U.S. institution.

Under the H-2B visa category, the current cap is 35,000, with 24,404 cases approved and pending.  This category applies to industries with peak load, seasonal or intermittent needs to increase their labor force with temporary workers, usually in such areas as construction, health care, landscaping, manufacturing, and food service/processing.  As of May 2005, USCIS began accepting applications under two categories.  For FY 2005, the cap is 35,000 workers who are new workers or who are not certified returning workers.  For FY 2005 and 2006, all returning workers must be those who “were counted against the H-2B annual numerical limit of 66,000 during any one of the three preceding fiscal years of the requested start date.  Any worker not approved during the three fiscal years before the requested start date will not be considered a returning worker and will therefore be subject to the relevant numerical limit that fiscal year.

*****

In the latest version of the I-90 form from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, instructions are outlined for replacing a Permanent Residence Card (Green Card). Filing for any of the following reasons will result in a base application fee of $185 and a biometrics fee of $70: the card was lost, stolen, destroyed, or mutilated; biographic information has changed since the card was issued; the card is nearing its expiration; the holder has taken up Commuter status; the holder was formerly on Commuter status and will now become a resident; the status of the holder has been converted to permanent resident; the card is an old edition. Filing for any of the following reasons will result in a $70 biometrics fee: the holder has passed his or her 14^th birthday since the issuance of the card.  Filing for any of the following reasons requires no fee, but special instructions must be followed: the card was never received; the card contains incorrect information due to an administrative error. Effective as of October 26^th, 2005, the base filing fee is increasing from $185 to $190 and proper payment must be submitted with the forms.

*****

Anti-immigrant groups are complaining that relief aid is being given to evacuees of the Gulf Coast in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina without requiring proof of being a legal resident of the United States.  The Arizona Daily Star reports that some evacuees who cannot produce the proper identification have been given the opportunity to sign a sworn affidavit of eligibility in order to receive the aid otherwise prohibited under Arizona state law, which requires proper ID to receive public benefits.  This exception has been granted in order to ensure that assistance is given to those who need it, and the Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES) will confirm the Social Security numbers from the affidavits with those from the national database.  The affidavits are signed under the penalty of perjury, which DES believes to be an adequate deterrent for any illegal aliens applying for aid. 

*****

Philippine News recently reported that a U.S.-based immigration law firm, Reeves and Associates, sued the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Embassy in Manila over “improper” questioning of individuals during a mandatory medical examination.  The questioning concerned the experimental use of illegal drugs and was imposed upon visa applicants in order to bar them permanently from entering the U.S. as habitual drug users.  The firm hopes to lift this ban on qualified applicants.  The suit was filed on Aug. 29 of this year. 

The Manila Embassy allegedly used deceit and misrepresentation to obtain “admissions” from visa applicants concerning any experimental or one-time use of drugs in order to impose a life-time ban on their entry into the U.S.  One of the lawyers involved in the case, Robert DuPont, pointed out that many of American high-schoolers have experimented with drugs and that the deception involved in these medical exams will be detrimental to the process of the exam and the trust between the doctor and patient.  The far-reaching effects of the lawsuit are expected to impact thousands of cases of wrongfully denied visa applicants and to reunite separated families. 

*****

According to Mike McKee of The Recorder, several years ago California passed a law that required all applicants to the bar to give a Social Security number in order to be eligible in an attempt to crack down on dads that owed family- or child-support.  One adverse effect of this law, however, has been that foreign lawyers applying to the bar were ineligible.  Consulates from Great Britain, Ireland, and Italy have expressed concern over the law’s apparent, if undesired, ban on foreign lawyers joining the California Bar.

A new bill was passed on Sept. 6 and 7 that would create an exception for lawyers living abroad who desired to become members of the California Bar, under which they could present a federal tax identification number or another appropriate form of identification en lieu of a Social Security number.  The dilemma that currently faces the governor concerns the fact that the proposal was attached to bill AB 664, which would refer tenants in eviction actions with providers funded by State Bar trust funds in addition to federal funds.  Despite the passage of the bill in its entirety, Californian Republicans strongly disapprove of the trust fund proposal and would like to see the bill vetoed.  Gov. Schwarzenegger has not indicated whether or not he will approve or veto the bill, and he has until Oct. 9 to make a decision or allow it to pass into law without his signature.