September 2007

Dear Readers:
I hope our US readers had a restful Labor Day holiday. The return from Labor Day means something very important in legislative circles. It means that the long August recess is at an end and Congress is back in session. Immigration legislation is likely to come up over the next few weeks and, in fact, there will be a push to try and get as much done as possible before the presidential campaign is going in earnest after January. The conventional wisdom holds that we will not see any action on immigration after November. However, I do recall a number of important immigration bills that passed in election years. But don’t expect larger or more controversial measures to move after this winter.
So what issues are likely to come up? Here are a few I’ve heard might move –
– nursing immigration relief
– physician immigration reform
– an arts/sports/fashion immigration bill
– H-1B cap relief
– Employment-based green card numbers changes
– AgJobs
– DREAM Act
Expect to see some news on this front shortly.
*****

I was a speaker on two national teleconferences last week. The American Bar Association sponsored a program on the impact of immigration issues on mergers and acquisitions. Later that same day I was a panelist on a program sponsored by the American Immigration Lawyers Association on alternatives to the H-1B.
This weekend I’m off to Philadelphia where I’m being inducted in to theCollege of Law Practice Management and will be presenting at the College’s annual educational program on the subject of lawyer blogging.
We also want to welcome new paralegal Linda Mitchell in our Memphis office as well as law clerk Daniel Susser. Welcome Linda and Daniel!
*****
As always, we remind readers that if they are interested in Siskind Susser handling their immigration matters, you can call our office at 901-682-6455 to set up an appointment. Have a great weekend! The ABCs of Immigration: P Visas for Athletes and Entertainers The P-1 visa category is the visa of choice for athletes and entertainers who do not meet the “extraordinary ability” standard required for an O visa. In practice, P visas are most often used for athletes and entertainers who perform as part of a team or entertainment group for trips of limited duration, such as a concert tour or a sports season. Because the P-1 visa is employer-specific, P-1 athletes and entertainers who are members of a team or group may not perform work or services separate and apart from the team or entertainment group during their P-1 time.
There are two ways for an athletic team or entertainment group to obtain P-1 status for its members. First, P-1 visas may be granted to an athletic team or entertainment group based on its own international reputation. When the visa is granted to the team or group, as a whole, each member of the team or group is given P-1 classification based on the reputation of the team or group.Second, a team or group may seek P-1 visas for individual members of the team or group based on their individual, international reputations.
It is important to note that an athletic team or entertainment group that employs a P-1 alien must be “internationally recognized,” which the USCIS defines as “having a high level of achievement in a field evidenced by a degree of skill and recognition substantially above that ordinarily encountered, to the extent that such achievement is renowned, leading, or well-known in more than one country.” P-1 Athletes A clear advantage of the P-1 category is the wide variety of athletes who may qualify under its provisions. The P-1 category encompasses all athletes who perform at an internationally recognized level of performance and who fall into one of four sub-categories: 1) individual athletes, 2) athletes who are members of certain professional leagues, 3) athletes and coaches who participate in certain amateur leagues, or 4) athletes who participate in theatrical ice skating productions.
A P-1 athlete must be coming to the US to participate in an athletic competition that has a distinguished reputation and that requires participation of an athlete or athletic team that has an international reputation.

• An individual athlete may obtain P-1 classification if he or she is an internationally recognized athlete based on his or her own reputation and achievements as an individual or if he or she is as member of a foreign team that is internationally recognized. The alien must be coming to the US to perform services that require an internationally recognized athlete. Individual athletes must be coming to the US to participate in an athletic competition with a distinguished reputation that requires participation of an athlete or a foreign athletic team with an international reputation.

• Professional team athletes may qualify for a P-1 visa so long as they are employed by a team that either is a member of an association of 6 or more professional sports teams whose total combined revenue exceed $10 million per year where the association governs the conduct of its members and regulates the contests and exhibitions in which its member teams regularly engage or is a minor league team that is affiliated with such an association.

• Amateur athletes and coaches may obtain a P-1 visa if they are part of a team or franchise that is located in the US and is a member of a foreign league or association of 15 or more amateur sports teams, if 1) the foreign league or association is the highest level of amateur performance of that sport in the relevant foreign country; 2) participation in such league or association renders players ineligible to participate in sports at the collegiate level in the US under NCAA rules; and 3) a significant number of individuals who play in such league or association are drafted by a major sports league or its minor league affiliate.

• Finally, professional or amateur athletes who perform in a theatrical ice skating production may qualify for a P-1 visa. These athletes may come to the US either to perform in a specific theatrical ice skating production or tour or to perform as an athlete in a specific athletic competition.Thus, professional or amateur figure skaters who are part of such productions are not limited to seeking a P-1 visa for theatrical ice skating in the US .

Although the visa category requirements are fairly specific, most athletes who play for major and minor league sports leagues may qualify. The P-1 visa also has benefits for team administrators, because there is no limit on the number of athletes for whom a team may petition, and there is no national cap on the number of nonimmigrants who may enter the US on a P-1 visa as there is with the H-2B visa category that most minor league teams used previously.This flexibility will allow teams to more easily add players mid-season, assuming they encounter no difficulties from the USCIS or relevant consulate during the actual petition process. Trades and Waivers: When a player is traded, released or put on waivers, additional issues are raised. A player who is traded may legally play for the new team prior to filing an appropriate petition, so long as the acquiring team files a new petition with the USCIS within 30 days of the trade. Once the 30-day deadline is met, the athlete will remain in status and will be able to play until the P-1 petition is decided. There is no need to premium process a trade petition, because the athlete is in legal status while the petition is pending.
The law does not specifically address the issue of players placed on waivers. “Waivers” refers to a player being released by a team whereby another team can pick up the player within 24 hours or the player is made a free agent. The rules are not clear whether a waiver is to be treated as a trade when the player is picked up by another team, though in practice USCIS appears to read the law broadly. Nevertheless, it would be considered good practice to file a new P-1 petition for the player. That player will not be able to enter theUS to play until the new petition is decided. It is strongly advisable to premium process this type of petition so the player can resume play as soon as possible. P-1 Entertainers The P-1 visa category is also an attractive method for entertainers who are part of an entertainment group to come to the US to perform as an integral part of that group’s performance. Dance troupes, acting companies, orchestras and vocal groups are examples of the type of groups that use the P-1 visa for their members. This visa category is usually reserved only for those entertainers who are part of a group. In fact, individual performers cannot obtain a P-1 visa, unless they are coming to the US to join a foreign entertainment group.
The group with which a P-1 entertainer will perform in the US must be internationally recognized as outstanding in the discipline for a “sustained and substantial period of time,” although the government may waive this requirement where the group is nationally recognized for a sustained and substantial period of time in consideration of special circumstances. For example, this exception may be available where a group has had difficulty gaining recognition outside its home country because of lack of access to news media or because of geographical considerations. The group also must have been established for a minimum of one year.
The P-1 visa also requires that an entertainer have a “sustained and substantial” relationship with the group, which is usually at least one-year.This requirement has three exceptions, however. First, this requirement only applies to 75% of the group’s performers and entertainers. Conversely, 25% of the group need not have a one-year relationship with the group. Second, the government may waive this requirement where an alien replaces an essential member of the group in the case of illness or unanticipated and exigent circumstances or where an alien augments the group by performing a critical role. Third, the one-year requirement does not apply to circus personnel who perform as part of a circus that is nationally recognized as outstanding for a sustained and substantial period of time. Support Personnel A P-1S visa may be available to aliens coming to the US to work as essential support personnel for P-1 athletes, teams or entertainment groups. In the context of a P-1 athlete or entertainer, an essential support alien is defined as a highly skilled, essential person who is an integral part of the performance of a P-1 athlete or entertainer, because he or she performs support services that cannot be readily performed by a US worker and that are essential to the successful performance of the P -1 athlete or entertainer. Essential support personnel must have appropriate qualifications to perform the services, critical knowledge if the specific services to be performed and experience in providing such support to the P-1 athlete or entertainer. For example, coaches, league officials or referees, front office personnel, camera operators, lighting technicians and stage personnel are all examples of individuals who might be categorized as P-1S essential support personnel. Other P Categories More than one alien may be included in a petition so long as each alien will complete the visa process in the same manner. For instance, all Canadian players for a sports team may be included on one petition as they will all be processed at a port of entry (Canadians do not require P-1 visas to be endorsed by a consular post). All other players (such as Russian, Slovakian, Finnish, etc) may be included on another petition together, as they will all consular process. Coaches must be listed on separate, individual petitions. Support personnel must also be listed on a separate petition. A petitioner may file for multiple aliens that are already in the US, but those aliens must be included on a petition that is separate from aliens that are outside the US. Labor Consultation To have a P-1 petition approved, the employer/petitioner must show that it consulted with a labor organization with experience in the field of athletics or entertainment involved and must submit with the petition an advisory opinion from that organization. In the alternative, if the petitioner establishes that no appropriate labor organization exists, the government may decide the petition without requiring an advisory opinion. If the petitioner does not submit an advisory opinion and does not establish that an appropriate labor organization does not exist, then the government will forward a copy of the petition and all supporting documentation to the national office of an appropriate labor organization within 5 days of the date of receipt of the petition. The labor organization must then meet certain requirements for responding to the petition. General P-1 Application Procedures More than one alien may be included in a petition so long as each alien will complete the visa process in the same manner. For instance, all Canadian players for a sports team may be included on one petition as they will all be processed at a port of entry (Canadians do not require P-1 visas to be endorsed by a consular post). All other players (such as Russian, Slovakian, Finnish, etc) may be included on another petition together, as they will all consular process. Coaches must be listed on separate, individual petitions. Support personnel must also be listed on a separate petition. A petitioner may file for multiple aliens that are already in the US, but those aliens must be included on a petition that is separate from aliens that are outside the US. Required Evidence to Support a P-1 Athlete or Athletic Team When an application is filed on behalf of an individual athlete or athletic team, except for an application for a player in a league with six teams and $10,000,000 in revenue (or an affiliated league), the petitioner must present a tendered contract with a major US sports league or team or a tendered contract in an individual sport commensurate with international recognition in that sport, if such contracts are normally executed in the sport, and at least two of the following types of evidence:

• Participation to a significant extent in a prior season with a major USsports league;
• Participation on a national team at international events;
• Participation to a significant extent in a prior season with a UScollegiate team;
• A written statement from an official in the governing body of the sport outlining how the athlete or team is internationally recognized;
• A written statement from a member of the sports media or other recognized expert outlining how the athlete or team is internationally recognized;
• Evidence that the alien is highly ranked if the sport uses a ranking system; and
• Evidence that the alien or team has received a significant award for performance.

For players on teams qualifying based on the size of the league and the league revenue, a contract with a team, evidence of the league meeting the threshold requirements noted above, evidence of the player’s qualifications and either the labor consultation or documentation that no appropriate group exists. Required Evidence to Support a P-1 Entertainer or Entertainment Group When the application is being filed on behalf of an entertainment group, the petition must be supported by the following evidence:

• Evidence that the group has been established and performing regularly for at least one year;
• A statement from the petitioner listing each member of the group and the exact dates for which each member has been employed on a regular basis with the group; and
• Evidence that the group has been internationally recognized in the discipline for a sustained and substantial period of time, which may be shown in two ways: first, by nomination or receipt of awards for outstanding achievement in the field; second, by submitting three of the following types of evidence:

• The group has and will continue to perform a starring role in productions or events with a distinguished reputation, evidenced by reviews, advertisements, press releases, contracts or endorsements;
• The group has international recognition, evidenced by reviews in papers, trade journals, etc.;
• The group has and will continue to perform a starring role in productions or events with a distinguished reputation, evidenced by articles in newspapers, trade journals, etc.;
• The group has had commercial success;
• The group has gained significant recognition for achievements from leaders in the field; or
• The group commands a high salary compared to others similarly situated.

Length of Status A P-1 alien may be admitted for as much time as is approved for the subject competition, event or performance. If an alien is admitted on a P-1 as an individual athlete, the period of initial status may be any length of time not more than five years, and that period of time may be extended for a period of up to 5 years. Processing Time Premium processing is available for P-1 visas and ensures that the petition will be decided within 15 calendar days from the date USCIS receives it.Premium processing requires an extra government filing fee of $1000. Without premium processing, the processing time for a P-1 visa is approximately two to five months, but it could be longer. For this reason, a petition for a P visa that is not being premium processed should be filed six months before the visa is needed.

If you have a question on immigration matters, write Ask-visalaw@visalaw.com. We can’t answer every question, but if you ask a short question that can be answered concisely, we’ll consider it for publication. Remember, these questions are only intended to provide general information. You should consult with your own attorney before acting on information you see here.
Q – Background: Mother files for and adjusts status in the US based on employment. Child files for adjustment of status as a derivative beneficiary of mother and qualifies under CSPA. Child is now over the age of 21. Later, due to a missing document at the time of child’s I-485 interview, his case is denied.
My question is, once a qualified child files an I-485 under the CSPA, is he entitled to only a single opportunity to adjust under CSPA? If his I-485 is denied for reasons other than CSPA eligibility (e.g., failure to submit documents timely, etc.) can he re-file another I-485 based on the same circumstances and still adjust status as a derivative child beneficiary?)
A – As long as the applicant is covered by the CSPA, they can file a new I-485 based upon the same petition.
*****
Q – I am in the Philippine working as physical therapist. My original USAsponsor (A) has applied green card visa I-140 last June 27,2007 and while it is pending, I found another employer (B) who has applied a non-cap H1B visa which was approved until August 31, 2010. I would like to work for sponsor B at the earliest time. What action should I do with my original sponsor so I will not have problems later on? Shall I declare in my visa interview at the US Consulate in Manila about my pending green card application?
A – A pending I-140 will have no bearing on the approval of an H-1B because an H-1B is what is known as a “dual intent” visa. A green card application is not considered in determining whether an applicant intends to comply with the terms of the H-1B visa. This is not the case for other types of non-immigrant visas (except for the L-1 visa) and is a major benefit of the H-1B.
*****
Q – I am on H1B and I have filed from my 485 recently on July 2nd 07. I have serious health problem and I need to take 3-5 months rest and
this will be unpaid leave. I am really worried if this long break will create any problem in my immigration status. I don’t even have my advance parole yet to even travel back to India .
A – Taking a leave of absence for illness is normally permitted on an H-1B as long as US citizen and permanent resident employees at the company have the same option to take a sick leave. Check with your immigration lawyer, but this is not unusual.
*****
Q -As a conditional permanent resident, can I apply for removal of condition when I divorce my spouse? What is the law about it?
A – Yes, you can request a waiver of the requirement that you jointly petition with your spouse. You’ll need to document that the marriage was genuinely entered in to and that the divorce was not due to immigration reasons. These types of cases are complicated and need to be well-documented so you will definitely want to consult with an immigration lawyer.
*****
Q – I am a US citizen and would like to sponsor my mother who is currently living outside the US . Do I just file the I-130 in the US or in the local consulate where she lives? Does she need to be here in the US when the papers are filed?
A – If you reside in the US , you file the papers with the USCIS regional service center having jurisdiction over your state. You can find out which one when you download the I-130 form at www.uscis.gov. Your mother does not need to be in the US when you file.

The Associated Press reports that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement has confirmed that the 2010 census will not be an issue with regards to enforcement raids; an ICE press release announced that the federal government will not “entertain any request to scale back our efforts” with regards to enforcement raids. The Constitution requires the Census Bureau to count everyone, including illegal immigrants, in the census.
Immigration agents informally agreed to cooperate with the Census Bureau during the 2000 census by not conducting any large-scale raids, according to Census Bureau officials.
*****
Elivra Arellano, an immigrant and activist who took refuge in a Chicago church for a year to avoid separation from her son, has been deported to Mexico , the church’s pastor said. According to The Washington Post, Arellano became a symbol of the struggles of undocumented immigrant parents when she took refuge in Chicago ’s Adalberto United Methodist Church to avoid separated from her 8-year-old son Saul, a U.S. born citizen.
“From the time I took sanctuary the possibility has existed that they arrest me in the place and time they want,” she said in Spanish. “I only have two choices: I either go to my country, Mexico , or stay and keep fighting. I decided to stay and fight.”
Rev. Walter Coleman, pastor of the church where Arellano sought refuge, said that she had brought light to her struggle and for that, “she has one a victory.” Arellano’s son will remain in the U.S. ; Rev. Coleman and his wife are Saul’s legal guardians.
*****
The US Customs and Border Protection has issued a written apology in a case involving an Iraqi refugee who was improperly imprisoned and pushed toward deportation by federal agents, according to the New York Times. “The whole reason that he was stopped to begin with was that he appeared Middle Eastern to the agents at the train station,” said Doug Honig, an ACLU spokesperson. “This sends a strong message that basing law enforcement solely on ethnic profiling is not proper.”
US attorney Jeffrey Sullivan, who signed the apology, said the case was about getting the law wrong and nothing else. “We all sometimes make good-faith mistakes, and that is all that was done in this case.”
The refugee, Abdulameer Habeeb, 41, had been in the United States for 10 months on April 1, 2003, when he stepped off an Amtrak train near the Canadian border in Havre , Montana . Here he was stopped by Border Patrol agents who asked if he had registered under the “special registration” system, which is now largely suspended. He was not, so he was arrested and spent seven days in custody, and was in the queue for deportation, before ACLU attorneys successfully intervened.
Mr. Habeeb declared himself happy. “My nightmare stopped,” he said. “It is not just a personal case; it is a human case. Everybody should be treated well. News from the Courts

Butt v. Gonzales

The US Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in the matter of Butt v. Gonzales where Petitioner sought review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming a decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying petitioner’s request for a continuance while his employer’s application for a labor certification was pending. The Court granted the petition, vacating the BIA’s decision, remanding the case for the BIA.
Muhammad Butt, a native and citizen of Pakistan, entered the US without inspection in February 2000, an shortly thereafter sought permanent residency under 8 USC § 1255; since he entered without inspection, he could only apply for status adjustment under section 204 of the Immigration & Nationality Act, and establish that he was physically present in the US on December 21, 2000. The defendant contents that petitioner may not have been physically present in the US on this date.
On April 6, 2001, petitioner married a US citizen, and his wife filed Form I-130 to classify Butt as an alien relative, and petitioner filed Form I-485 for a status adjustment. Both forms were denied, because petitioner was a “no show” and thus defaulted. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) commenced removal proceedings in July 2003, after denial of petitions.
Petitioner countered the INS’ decision, advising the IJ ordering the deportation that he intended to seek adjustment of status on the basis of an employment-based immigrant visa. Said visa was filed by Butt’s employer on December 30, 2003 and accepted for processing on January 7, 2004. Petitioner then requested continuance of his removal proceedings while the application was pending; the IJ denied request because “the fact that there is as [pending] labor certification isn’t grounds for an adjournment.”
Both parties mutually argue whether it was an abuse of discretion for the IJ to deny a continuance while the application was pending. Instead the Court declined to consider the question and instead remand the case to the BIA to consider antecedent questions regarding Butt’s eligibility for adjustment of status, the answers to which may bear consideration of whether the IJ abused her discretion in denying a continuance.
The remand to the BIA was to consider (1) whether petitioner was physically present in the US on December 21, 2000, and (2)whether the section 204 petition for classification was “approvable when filed,” as required by 8 CFR § 245.10(a)(1)(i).
For (1), the Government argues that Butt has not met this burden because there is no evidence in the record that establishes his physical presence in theUS on the date in question. They claim that his I-140 employment-based visa petition filed by Butt’s employer states he entered on April 6, 2001. Butt does not address this argument in his supplemental submission.
For (2), Butt is the beneficiary of a section 204 petition for classification filed on or before April 30,2001, and this Court assumes that he was physically present in the US on December 21, 2000, thus fulfilling this portion section 204 requirement. Nonetheless, the remand is based on determining the ambiguous meaning of “approvable when filed.” The Government contends that the phrase means that if it is “meritorious in fact.” The defendant concedes that the record is unclea whether the spousal visa petition filed on Butt’s behalf was indeed, approvable when filed. The Petitioner contends that “approvable when filed” status occurs if there is no evidence of fraud or if the application states a prima facie case for eligibility. The murkiness of the statutory language contributed to the Court’s decision to remand. Government Processing Times There are new processing times for the following service centers:
Vermont (8/16/2007): http://visalaw.wpengine.com/vermont.html California (8/16/2007): http://visalaw.wpengine.com/california.html Missouri (8/16/2007): http://visalaw.wpengine.com/missouri.html Nebraska (8/16/2007): http://visalaw.wpengine.com/nebraska.html Texas (8/16/2007): http://visalaw.wpengine.com/texas.html News Bytes Citizenship and Immigration Services has announced that it has received approximately 300,000 applications employment-based green cards, since July 1. According to official figures from CIS, in the three months before the July cutoff, the agency had received an average of 54,700 applications a month for all green cards. The New York Times reports that applications were already surging then as foreigners sought to file papers before higher processing fees took effect on July 30.
The shift from the CIS curtailing applications in July to accepting a surge in applications was a relief for thousands of high-skilled immigrants seeking green cards after working in the U.S. on temporary visas. Once their applications have been officially received, they will have more job mobility and will allow their spouses to apply for work authorization. However, the surge will vastly increase backlogs. Most new applicants will face waits as long as five years before they are approved. “The root of the problem is the arcane and ridiculous limit on visas for skilled immigrants whom the United States wants,” said Murtuza Bahrainwala, 38, an Indian doctor in Decatur , Ill., who applied last month.
*****
Guatemalan officials have began raids on Antigua-area adoption centers, placing the nation, which last year alone sent 4,000 babies to U.S. homes, at odds with Americans hoping to adopt a child from the South American Country. The Associated Press reports that Guatemalan government has taken custody of their countries’ adoption centers based on claims that a number of U.S. applicant’s paperwork didn’t meet legal standards. Parents and adoption directors instead have cited political motivation after the U.S. had pressured the country to clean up a multimillion dollar industry that involves the theft and sale of orphans.
Days after last week’s raid, U.S. parents have flooded the U.S. Embassy with desperate calls and complained that the temporary caretakers hired by the Guatemalan government were failing to provide the babies with proper food, medical care, and clean conditions within the orphanage. The government has denied the allegations.
The U.S. has pushed hard in recent years for a crackdown in an industry that has placed more than 25,000 Guatemalan children in U.S. homes since 1990, so many that every 100^th baby born in Guatemala grows up as an adopted American. International Roundup Finland ‘s Directorate of Immigration has decided to refuse entry to Naze Aghai, a Kurd from Iran who was given sanctuary by an Evangelical-Lutheran church in Turku in June after she was first denied asylum.
According to The Newsroom Finland, Helsinki immigration police notified Ms. Aghai of the decision on Monday. The directorate’s decision says Ms Aghai shall not enter Finland or any other Schengen country for two years.
***** The Chosunilbo of South Korea reports that Japan plans to fingerprint all foreign visitors aged 16 and up at immigration checkpoints starting in November. The move is in accordance with an immigration law that was revised last year. The tips of visitors’ two forefingers will be scanned at checkpoints on arrival. Those who refuse will be denied entry.
The fingerprint information will be stored in a database held by the Japanese public safety authority. The prints will be compared with information from a list of criminals, including terrorists. Visitors regarded as questionable will also be rejected from Japan . Last year, 8.1 million foreigners entered Japan.
Currently the U.S. is the only country that fingerprints foreign visitors. The Japan Bar Association opposed the revision of the immigration law last year, saying it would infringe on the privacy of foreign visitors. Legislative Update Immigration legislation will be seen in Capitol Hill again soon, according to Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein. The California senator assured her constituency earlier this week that Congress will once again try to pass a large-scale guest-worker bill. The Fresno Bee of California reports that Sen. Feinstein spoke at a town hall meeting in San Joaquin Valley , home to a large number of farmers in California . If passed, the comprehensive agricultural guest-worker bill, dubbed AgJobs, would offer legal residency, and eventually citizenship, to approximately 1.5 million undocumented immigrants now working in agriculture, as well as streamline a guest-worker program.
The bill is considered a priority for the remaining legislative calendar, by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. “I am committed to doing something about AgJobs,” Reid declared in late July. “I hope we can do something soon.” Reid assured that he “will do everything” he can to include the agricultural guest-worker package as part of a larger farm bill.
Thirty senators currently co-sponsor the AgJobs bill, although Feinstein said she believes she has the 60 votes needed to overcome a potential filibuster. Even so, the House would have to approve its own version of the bill; The house has already passed a version of the farm bill, but theirs did not include immigration provisions. It is also not clear what the impact of the controversy surrounding Senator Larry Craig will be. Craig, a Republican, was the primary force behind AgJobs in the Republican Party.

Greg Siskind’s Blog on ILW.com

• America ’s Most Anti-Immigrant Paper Apoplectic over Fred Thompson Record
• Deadly Consequences: The Hidden Impact of America’s Nursing Shortage
• Dobbswatch
• Rights Groups Target Arizona Law
• Outsourcing Farms?
• “Why would Anyone Who is a Reasonable, Rational Thinker Want to Reduce Resources and Protect Inefficiencies?”
• Immigrant of the Day – Zuben Mehta – Conductor

Visalaw Fashion, Sports, & Entertainment

• Popstar Lily Allen has Work Visa Revoked
• ABA and SSB Attorneys to Present Seminar on Sports and Entertainment Immigration

Visalaw Health Blog

• Medical Tourism Association Formed
• Cuban Doctors Defecting
• My USA Today Column – US Savior: Foreign Doctors

Visalaw International Blog

• Canada : Sergio Karas Elected Chair of the Ontario Bar Association Citizenship and Immigration Section
• Visalaw International Lawyers Attend ABA Conference
• Canada : Sergio Karas Writes About Border Security and Privacy
• Sergio Karas and Greg Siskind Co-Author Article on Work Visas forChina

Two GOP candidates have found themselves in a lengthy debate between each other concerning where they stand on the issue of immigration. The Washington Post reports that Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and formerNew York mayor Rudolph Giuliani have recently been focusing their campaign stops and radio ads to accuse each other of supporting efforts to give undocumented immigrants sanctuary from federal immigration laws.
Romney started the fight, as his advisers would like to brand their candidate as the true conservative in the race, compared to Giuliani. Romney has said that New York , under Giuliani’s leadership, became a magnet for illegal immigrants when city officials refused to strictly enforce federal deprtation laws. Giuilani fired back, accusing Romney of looking the other way as cities and towns in Massachusetts declared themselves ‘sanctuaries’ for lawbreakers. Both sides have had Congressmen write scathing opinion piece’s on the other’s immigration stances (Rep. Peter King wrote a piece attacking Romney, and Rep. Lamar Smith, wrote a piece attacking Giuliani).
“They are trying to rattle their sabers louder than the other and thump on their chests,” said Angela Kelley, deputy director of the National Immigration Forum. “Both of these guys are trying to remake themselves.”
*****
GOP Presidential candidate Rep. Tom Tancredo ( Colo. ) said last week that fellow GOP presidential candidates are increasingly mimicking his hard-line stance on immigration. “I’m happy now that almost every one of my colleagues, standing up there on the stage, running for the Republican nomination, is sounding like Tom Tancredo when it comes to illegal immigration,” the congressman said.
Despite the similar stance to Tancredo, the Colorado congressman wants the tough talk of GOP candidates to be “more than just rhetoric.”
According to Washington ’s The Hill, Tancredo has lately cited Newark in his assault against sanctuary cities; the New Jersey city was in the news regarding an undocumented immigrant involved in a high-profile murder case. “Hundreds and hundreds of people die in this country, or are robbed, or are raped, every single year by someone who is here illegally.” Tancredo told MSNBC. “We have to begin punishing these cities in some way or it’s going to spread all over this country and we are all going to be in jeopardy as a result of it.” USCIS Proposes Renewal of Green Cards; 750,000 Card Holders Could be Affected The Department of Homeland Security announced last week that it will require legal residents with green cards without expiration dates to get these cards replaced. The Associate Press reports that this category of green card will affect 750,000 cardholders.
The proposal, published in the Federal Register, would require people who were issued green cards between 1977 and 1989 to pass a fingerprint and background check and pay a $370 processing fee, or face criminal penalties. Under the proposal, legal resident would have 120 days to replace their cards. Those who fail to comply could face up to 30 days in prison. “We’re doing this for security reasons,” said Maria Elena Garcia-Upson, a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service spokeswoman in Texas . “We need to make sure that everyone out there is walking around with a secured card. Our world changed after 9/11.”
Some affected immigrants and immigrant right groups are wary of the proposal. According to the Houston Chronicle, a 1996 immigration law expanded the list of crimes for which immigrants, even as legal residents, could be deported. “This is a way of asking people to come report themselves,” said Crystal Williams, associate director for programs at the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
Affected immigrants are wary of the proposal and suspect the change will cause pain in the immigrant community. Jorge Ruiz, a 54-year-old Houstonbutcher, has an older ‘green card’ that the USCIS wished to replace. Ruiz said of the proposal: “Do you think someone who earns $7 an hour is going to be able to afford a new credential, and still pay all the bills? And especially if only one in the household is working?”
The difficulty associate with a green card renewal may have immigrants turning to another alternative: citizenship application. “The best move is to become a U.S. citizen,” said Nelson Reyes, executive director of the Central American Resource Center. “Because it costs $675 to become a U.S. citizen, and to renew the card is nearly $400. These costs are similar, but the benefits of becoming a U.S. citizen greater.” Jorge Ruiz is considering the same: Instead of renewing the card, Ruiz is now considering spending a little bit more and becoming a U.S. citizen. “I’m thinking about that because I’m getting older and because of the benefits American citizens have.”

A. STATUTORY NUMBERS 1. This bulletin summarizes the availability of immigrant numbers during October. Consular officers are required to report to the Department of State documentarily qualified applicants for numerically limited visas; the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services in the Department of Homeland Security reports applicants for adjustment of status. Allocations were made, to the extent possible under the numerical limitations, for the demand received by September 6th in the chronological order of the reported priority dates. If the demand could not be satisfied within the statutory or regulatory limits, the category or foreign state in which demand was excessive was deemed oversubscribed. The cut-off date for an oversubscribed category is the priority date of the first applicant who could not be reached within the numerical limits.
Only applicants who have a priority date earlier than the cut-off date may be allotted a number. Immediately that it becomes necessary during the monthly allocation process to retrogress a cut-off date, supplemental requests for numbers will be honored only if the priority date falls within the new cut-off date.
2.Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The fiscal year 2007 limit for employment-based preference immigrants calculated under INA 201 is at least 140,000. Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 26,120. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320.
3. Section 203 of the INA prescribes preference classes for allotment of immigrant visas as follows: FAMILY-SPONSORED PREFERENCES First : Unmarried Sons and Daughters of Citizens: 23,400 plus any numbers not required for fourth preference.
Second : Spouses and Children, and Unmarried Sons and Daughters of Permanent Residents: 114,200, plus the number (if any) by which the worldwide family preference level exceeds 226,000, and any unused first preference numbers:
A. Spouses and Children: 77% of the overall second preference limitation, of which 75% are exempt from the per-country limit;
B. Unmarried Sons and Daughters (21 years of age or older): 23% of the overall second preference limitation.
Third : Married Sons and Daughters of Citizens: 23,400, plus any numbers not required by first and second preferences.
Fourth : Brothers and Sisters of Adult Citizens: 65,000, plus any numbers not required by first three preferences. EMPLOYMENT-BASED PREFERENCES First : Priority Workers: 28.6% of the worldwide employment-based preference level, plus any numbers not required for fourth and fifth preferences.
Second : Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or Persons of Exceptional Ability: 28.6% of the worldwide employment-based preference level, plus any numbers not required by first preference.
Third : Skilled Workers, Professionals, and Other Workers: 28.6% of the worldwide level, plus any numbers not required by first and second preferences, not more than 10,000 of which to “Other Workers”.
Fourth : Certain Special Immigrants: 7.1% of the worldwide level.
Fifth : Employment Creation: 7.1% of the worldwide level, not less than 3,000 of which reserved for investors in a targeted rural or high-unemployment area, and 3,000 set aside for investors in regional centers by Sec. 610 of P.L. 102-395.
4. INA Section 203(e) provides that family-sponsored and employment-based preference visas be issued to eligible immigrants in the order in which a petition in behalf of each has been filed. Section 203(d) provides that spouses and children of preference immigrants are entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration, if accompanying or following to join the principal. The visa prorating provisions of Section 202(e) apply to allocations for a foreign state or dependent area when visa demand exceeds the per-country limit. These provisions apply at present to the following oversubscribed chargeability areas: CHINA-mainland born, INDIA, MEXICO, and PHILIPPINES.
5. On the chart below, the listing of a date for any class indicates that the class is oversubscribed (see paragraph 1); “C” means current, i.e., numbers are available for all qualified applicants; and “U” means unavailable, i.e., no numbers are available. (NOTE: Numbers are available only for applicants whose priority date is earlier than the cut-off date listed below.)

Family	All Charge- ability Areas Except Those Listed	CHINA-mainland born	INDIA	MEXICO	PHILIPPINES
1st	08NOV1	08NOV1	08NOV1	01MAY92	15JUN92
2A	15NOV02	15NOV02	15NOV02	01MAY02	15NOV02
2B	15AUG98	15AUG98	15AUG98	15MAR92	08DEC96
3rd	15FEB00	15FEB00	15FEB00	01MAY92	22FEB91
4th	15APR97	15AUG96	08MAY96	22JUL94	08JUL85

*NOTE: For oCTOBER, 2A numbers EXEMPT from per-country limit are available to applicants from all countries with priority dates earlier than 01MAY02. 2A numbers SUBJECT to per-country limit are available to applicants chargeable to all countries EXCEPT MEXICO with priority dates beginning 01MAY02 and earlier than 15NOV02. (All 2A numbers provided for MEXICO are exempt from the per-country limit; there are no 2A numbers for MEXICO subject to per-country limit.)

	All Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed	CHINA- mainland born	INDIA	MEXICO	PHILIPPINES
Employment -Based
1st	C	C	C	C	C
2nd	C	01JAN06	01APR04	C	C
3rd	01AUG02	01SEP01	22APR01	22APR01	01AUG02
Other Workers	01OCT01	01OCT01	01OCT01	01OCT01	01OCT01
4th	C	C	C	C	C
Certain Religious Workers	C	C	C	C	C
5th	C	C	C	C	C
Targeted Employment Areas/ Regional Centers	C	C	C	C	C

The Department of State has available a recorded message with visa availability information which can be heard at: (area code 202) 663-1541. This recording will be updated in the middle of each month with information on cut-off dates for the following month.
Employment Third Preference Other Workers Category: Section 203(e) of the NACARA, as amended by Section 1(e) of Pub. L. 105 – 139, provides that once the Employment Third Preference Other Worker (EW) cut-off date has reached the priority date of the latest EW petition approved prior to November 19, 1997, the 10,000 EW numbers available for a fiscal year are to be reduced by up to 5,000 annually beginning in the following fiscal year. This reduction is to be made for as long as necessary to offset adjustments under the NACARA program. Since the EW cut-off date reached November 19, 1997 during Fiscal Year 2001, the reduction in the EW annual limit to 5,000 began in Fiscal Year 2002. B. DIVERSITY IMMIGRANT (DV) CATEGORY Section 203(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides a maximum of up to 55,000 immigrant visas each fiscal year to permit immigration opportunities for persons from countries other than the principal sources of current immigration to the United States. The Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) passed by Congress in November 1997 stipulates that beginning with DV-99, and for as long as necessary, up to 5,000 of the 55,000 annually-allocated diversity visas will be made available for use under the NACARA program. This reduction has resulted in the DV-2008 annual limit being reduced to 50,000. DV visas are divided among six geographic regions. No one country can receive more than seven percent of the available diversity visas in any one year.
For September, immigrant numbers in the DV category are available to qualified DV-2007 applicants chargeable to all regions/eligible countries as follows. When an allocation cut-off number is shown, visas are available only for applicants with DV regional lottery rank numbers BELOW the specified allocation cut-off number:

Region	All DV Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed Separately
AFRICA	6,700	Except:Egypt: 3,400 Ethiopia 2,900 Nigeria 4,700
ASIA	2,100
EUROPE	5,800
NORTH AMERICA (BAHAMAS)	2
OCEANIA	300
SOUTH AMERICA, and the CARIBBEAN	400

Entitlement to immigrant status in the DV category lasts only through the end of the fiscal (visa) year for which the applicant is selected in the lottery. The year of entitlement for all applicants registered for the DV-2008 program ends as of September 30, 2008. DV visas may not be issued to DV-2008 applicants after that date. Similarly, spouses and children accompanying or following to join DV-2008 principals are only entitled to derivative DV status until September 30, 2008. DV visa availability through the very end of FY-2008 cannot be taken for granted. Numbers could be exhausted prior to September 30. C. ADVANCE NOTIFICATION OF THE DIVERSITY (DV) IMMIGRANT CATEGORY RANK CUT-OFFS WHICH WILL APPLY IN OCTOBER For November, immigrant numbers in the DV category are available to qualified DV-2008 applicants chargeable to all regions/eligible countries as follows. When an allocation cut-off number is shown, visas are available only for applicants with DV regional lottery rank numbers BELOW the specified allocation cut-off number:

Region	All DV Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed Separately
AFRICA	10,000	Except:Egypt: 6,000 Ethiopia 5,000 Nigeria 6,300
ASIA	3,500
EUROPE	9,200
NORTH AMERICA (BAHAMAS)	3
OCEANIA	500
SOUTH AMERICA, and the CARIBBEAN	700

D. EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCE VISA AVAILABILITY FOR SEPTEMBER Due to the return of unused July numbers by consular posts abroad, and the limited amount of pending demand eligible for final processing at consular posts, it has been possible to reestablish cut-off dates in many of the Employment preference categories. E. MEXICO FAMILY FOURTH PREFERENCE RETROGRESSION There has been a significant increase in number use in the Mexico Family Fourth preference category. As a result, it has been necessary to retrogress this cut-off date for September in an effort to hold number use within the annual numerical limit. F. DETERMINATION OF THE NUMERICAL LIMITS ON IMMIGRANT REQUIRED UNDER THE TERMS OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT (INA) The State Department is required to make a determination of the worldwide numerical limitations, as outlined in Section 201(c) and (d) of the INA, on an annual basis. These calculations are based in part on data provided by the Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) regarding the number of immediate relative adjustments in the preceding year and the number of aliens paroled into the United States under Section 212(d)(5) in the second preceding year. Without this information, it is impossible to make an official determination of the annual limits. To avoid delays in processing while waiting for the CIS data, the Visa Office (VO) bases allocation on the minimum annual limits outlined in Section 201 of the INA. On July 29 th , CIS provided the required data to VO.
The Department of State has determined the family and employment preference numerical limits for FY-2007 in accordance with the terms of Section 201 of the INA. These numerical limitations for FY-2007 are as
follows:
Worldwide Family-Sponsored preference limit: 226,000
Worldwide Employment-Based preference limit: 147,148
Under INA Section 202(A), the per-country limit is fixed at 7% of the family and employment annual limits. For FY-2007 the per-country limit is 26,120. The dependent area annual limit is 2%, or 7,463. G. DIVERSITY VISA LOTTERY 2007 (DV-2008 RESULTS) The Kentucky Consular Center in Williamsburg, Kentucky has registered and notified the winners of the DV-2008 diversity lottery. The diversity lottery was conducted under the terms of section 203(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and makes available *50,000 permanent resident visas annually to persons from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States. Approximately 96,000 applicants have been registered and notified and may now make an application for an immigrant visa. Since it is likely that some of the first *50,000 persons registered will not pursue their cases to visa
issuance, this larger figure should insure that all DV-2008 numbers will be used during fiscal year 2008 (October 1, 2007 until September 30, 2008).
Applicants registered for the DV-2008 program were selected at random from over 6.4 million qualified entries received during the 60-day application period that ran from 12:00 AM on October 4, 2006, until midnight, December 3, 2006. The visas have been apportioned among six geographic regions with a maximum of seven percent available to persons born in any single country. During the visa interview, principal applicants must provide proof of a high school education or its equivalent, or show two years of work experience in an occupation that requires at least two years of training or experience within the
past five years. Those selected will need to act on their immigrant visa applications quickly. Applicants should follow the instructions in their notification letter and must fully complete the information requested.
Registrants living legally in the United States who wish to apply for adjustment of their status must contact the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services for information on the requirements and procedures. Once the total *50,000 visa numbers have been used, the program for fiscal year 2008 will
end. Selected applicants who do not receive visas by September 30, 2008 will derive no further benefit from their DV-2008 registration. Similarly, spouses and children accompanying or following to join DV-2008 principal applicants are only entitled to derivative diversity visa status until September 30,
2008.
Only participants in the DV-2008 program who were selected for further processing have been notified. Those who have not received notification were not selected. They may try for the upcoming DV-2009 lottery if they wish. The dates for the registration period for the DV-2009 lottery program will be
widely publicized during August 2007.
* The Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) passed by Congress in November 1997 stipulated that up to 5,000 of the 55,000 annually-allocated diversity visas be made available for use under the NACARA program. The reduction of the limit of available visas to 50,000 began with DV-2000.
The following is the statistical breakdown by foreign-state chargeability of those registered for the DV-2008
program:

AFRICA
ALGERIA1,926	ETHIOPIA5,241	NIGER165
ANGOLA27	GABON37	NIGERIA8,773
BENIN438	GAMBIA, THE57	RWANDA138
BOTSWANA22	GUINEA463	SENEGAL917
BURKINA FASO186	BENIN438	SIERRA LEONE1,137
BURUNDI39	GUINEA-BISSAU4	SOMALIA214
CAMEROON3,152	KENYA4,547	SOUTH AFRICA713
CAPE VERDE13	LESOTHO4	SUDAN1,147
CENTRAL AFRICAN REP.8	LIBERIA2,148	SWAZILAND4
COMOROS5	MADAGASGAR43	TOGO1,509
CONGO1,206	MALAWI53	TUNISIA 150
CONGO,DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE 111	MALI171	UGANDA370
COTED’IVOIRE 614	MAURITANIA27	WESTERNSAHARA 1
DJIBOUTI20	MAURITIUS 62	ZAMBIA 214
EGYPT4,392	MOROCCO5,017	ZIMBABWE167
EQUATORIAL GUINEA 7	MOZAMBIQUE 8	ERITREA 878
NAMIBIA12

 

ASIA
AFGHANISTAN57	ISRAEL150	QATAR6
BAHRAIN11	JAPAN382	SAUDIARABIA 61
BANGLADESH5,983	JORDAN56	SINGAPORE70
BHUTAN10	NORTHKOREA 4	SRI LANKA675
BRUNEI2	KUWAIT46	SYRIA94
BURMA653	LAOS7	THAILAND108
CAMBODIA187	LEBANON190	TAIWAN446
HONG KONGSPECIAL ADMIN. REGION 69	MALAYSIA87	UNITED ARABEMIRATES 27
INDONESIA266	MONGOLIA259	YEMEN70
IRAN1,435	NEPAL2,562
IRAQ164	OMAN5

EUROPE
ALBANIA2,862	GERMANY1,469	NORTHERNIRELAND 34
ANDORRA1	GREECE77	NORWAY43
ARMENIA1,130	HUNGARY182	PORTUGAL 48Macau 19
AUSTRIA70	ICELAND13	ROMANIA1,526
AZERBAIJAN271	IRELAND162	SERBIA557
BELARUS1,072	ITALY363	SLOVAKIA157
BELGIUM89	KAZAKHSTAN304	SLOVENIA12
BOSNIA &HERZEGOVINA 73	KYRGYZSTAN304	SPAIN135
BULGARIA1,567	LATVIA75	SWEDEN118
CROATIA41	LITHUANIA334	SWITZERLAND132
CYPRUS16	LUXEMBORG12	TAJIKISTAN126
CZECH REPUBLIC158	MACEDONIA343	TURKEY2,188
DENMARK58	MALTA5	TURKMENISTAN124
ESTONIA37	MOLDOVA474	UKRAINE5,018
FINLAND59	MONACO4	UZBEKISTAN3,101
FRANCE 603French Guiana 6 Fr. Polynesia 6 Guadaloupe 4 Martinque 4	MONTENEGRO22
GEORGIA516	NETHERLANDS123 Aruba 8 Antilles 18

 

NORTH AMERICA
BAHAMAS, THE17

OCEANIA
AUSTRALIA649	NEW ZEALAND260 Niue 5	SAMOA27
FIJI630	PALAU7	SOLOMONISLANDS2
KIRIBATI 9	PAPUA NEWGUINEA4	TONGA120

SOUTHAMERICA
ANTIGUA ANDBARBUDA1	DOMINICA9	PARAGUAY26
ARGENTINA106	ECUADOR217	SAINT KITTSAND NEVIS 1
BARBADOS17	GRENADA1	SAINT LUCIA5
BELIZE14	GUATEMALA74	SAINT VINCENT AND THEGRENADINES1
BOLIVIA148	GUYANA24	SURINAME3
CHILE26	HONDURAS42	TRINADAD &TOBAGO82
COSTA RICA22	NICARAGUA39	URUGUAY23
CUBA691	PANAMA17	VENEZUELA256

Natives of the following countries were not eligible to participate in DV-2008: Brazil, Canada, China (mainland-born, excluding Hong Kong S.A.R. and Taiwan), Colombia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Mexico, Pakistan, Peru, the Philippines, Poland, Russia, South Korea, the United Kingdom (except Northern Ireland) and its dependent territories, and Vietnam. H. OBTAINING THE MONTHLY VISA BULLETIN

The Department of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs offers the monthly “Visa Bulletin” on the INTERNET’S WORLDWIDE WEB. The INTERNET Web address to access the Bulletin is:

http://travel.state.gov

From the home page, select the VISA section which contains the Visa Bulletin.
To be placed on the Department of State’s E-mail subscription list for the “Visa Bulletin”, please send an E-mail to the following E-mail address:

listserv@calist.state.gov

and in the message body type: Subscribe Visa-Bulletin First name/Last name
(example: Subscribe Visa-Bulletin Sally Doe) To be removed from the Department of State’s E-mail subscription list for the “Visa Bulletin”, send an e-mail message to the following E-mail address :

listserv@calist.state.gov

and in the message body type: Signoff Visa-Bulletin The Department of State also has available a recorded message with visa cut-off dates which can be heard at: (area code 202) 663-1541. The recording is normally updated by the middle of each month with information on cut-off dates for the following month.
Readers may submit questions regarding Visa Bulletin related items by E-mail at the following address: VISABULLETIN@STATE.GOV (This address cannot be used to subscribe to the Visa Bulletin.) Disclaimer: This is provided as a public service and not intended to establish an attorney client relationship. Any reliance on information contained herein is taken at your own risk.