H-1B Advanced Degree Exemption Cap Count as of 07/20/2006
On July 19, 2006, USCIS updated the current cap count with new data gathered
as of July 18. The number of approved and receipted pending petitions has
now reached 16,991. Approximately 360 H-1B Advanced Degree petitions have
been received but have not yet been data-entered and receipted. As of July
19, the combined approximate total is 17,351. Data gathered on July 11 and
posted to the USCIS website on July 12 showed that approximately 16,008
petitions had been approved, data-entered, or received but not yet processed as
of July 11. Thus, USCIS received a little over 1,343 petitions in the
course of 5 business days.
H-1B Advanced Degree Exemption
|
|
Cap |
Beneficiaries Approved |
Beneficiaries Pending |
Beneficiary Target 1 |
Total |
Date of Last Count |
|
H-1B |
58,200 2 |
—— |
—— |
—— |
Cap Reached |
5/26/2006 |
|
H-1B Advanced Degree Exemption |
20,000 |
5,943 |
11,505 |
21,000 |
16,991 |
7/18/20063 |
|
H-1B (FY 06) |
58,200 |
—— |
—— |
—— |
Cap Reached |
8/10/2005 |
|
H-1B Advanced Degree Exemption (FY 06) |
20,000 |
—— |
—— |
—— |
Cap Reached |
1/17/2006 |
1
Refers to the estimated numbers of beneficiary applications needed to
reach the cap, with an allowance for denials and revocations. Each
target is subject to revision later in the cap cycle as more petitions
are processed.
2 6,800
visas are set aside during the fiscal year for the H-1B1 program under
the terms of the legislation implementing the U.S.-Chile and
U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreements. Unused numbers in this pool can
be made available for H-1B use with start dates beginning on October 1,
2006, the start of FY 2007. USCIS has added the projected number of
unused H-1B1 Chile/Singapore visas to the FY 2007 H-1B cap as announced
in the H-1B Press Release, dated June 1, 2006.
3
The numbers on the table for H-1B Advanced Degree Exemption include
only receipted petitions. As of July 18, 2006, an estimated 360 I-129
H-1B petitions seeking the Advanced Degree exemption had yet to be
receipted. Several hundred of these petitions were received prior to
July 18, 2006.
Jobs that get you US visas (NEWS.COM.AU)
Via News.com.au
07/17/2006
By Tara Weiss
WHAT is the easiest way to legally enter the US? Love. Fall in love with an American citizen, get married and you’re in. Unfortunately, not everyone can rely on romance. Only select few like Australians can breeze into the country.
Most people have to work their way into the US. But to do that, you need to find a job, a company willing to sponsor you and then apply for one of the country’s precious H1B visas.
With up to 100,000 applications filed each year (that’s where the US Government cuts it off), getting one of the 65,000 H1Bs given out annually is a bit like winning the lottery.
The same is true for other highly coveted visas like the L1 work visa, which enable multinational firms to transfer employees and executives to the US. For would-be immigrants, such visas can often lead to the ultimate golden ticket: a US green card, 140,000 of which are available each year.
Clearly, there just aren’t enough visas or green cards to go around. “Those caps are both backed up,” says Crystal Williams, deputy director for programs at the American Immigration Lawyers Association. That means it can take years to legally enter the US workforce.
That is unless you happen to be a university professor, nurse, physical therapist or work in any one of several professions that are in such great demand you’re practically guaranteed a US visa. It also helps if your home nation has signed a free trade agreement with the US.
“(But) need is the very first step,” says Chris Bentley, a spokesperson with US Citizenship and Immigration Services.
“We’re looking for people that have some type of skill and whose job is in demand here in the US.”
In the late 1990s, software engineers and other IT specialists were in demand. Now, immigration lawyers say, they’re a dime a dozen and aren’t usually successful getting into the country.
Topping America’s most wanted list these days: academics. Bentley says that someone petitioning to teach Medieval History is more likely to get approved than an accountant because the professor position is specialised and more difficult to fill.
“With other professions, employers have to test the labour market to see if someone else is qualified and willing to do the job that’s offered,” says Elizabeth Kirberger an immigration attorney who practices in New York.
“With a college professor, the standard is different. Employers get to pick the most highly qualified, but there’s no particular standard for that. You flesh out (the argument for that) in the application.” That’s because there aren’t enough American professors to fill the available jobs.
The same goes for nurses and physical therapists. According to The American Hospital Association, the country will need 2.8 million nurses by 2020, but only 2 million will be available.
Still, foreign nurses should be mindful of a few caveats. According to Greg Siskind , founding partner of the immigration law firm Siskind Susser, nurses aren’t eligible for temporary work visas. They can only enter the country as green card applicants; a process that can take two years. While that may sound like an eternity, foreign nurses have a relatively easy time finding hospitals and companies willing to sponsor them.
“As an employer, hiring two years ahead of time is not ideal. But because of the shortage, employers are willing to do it,” says Mr Siskind.
You’re also in luck if you’re especially talented in the arts or in sports. Artists and athletes can get in with virtually no hold-up. But you can’t just brag your way into the US.
But remember, immigration is ultimately a numbers game. The limited number of H1Bs and green cards available each year is first divvied up into categories and further divided among certain nationalities. Immigration officials can reconfigure the numbers based on need and demand. For instance, the quota for nurses from India may get maxed out before the quota set for Scandinavian nurses.
Aside from professions, some nationalities have a breeze coming into this country.
“If you’re Australian you’re sitting pretty,” says Mr Siskind. “They can bypass the whole H1B process.”
Last year, Congress created a new visa class: the E-3, which is solely for Australian workers. That means there are up to 10,000 slots for our friends down under – that’s separate from the 65,000 cap. There’s also an exemption for workers from Singapore and Chile because of the free trade agreements with those countries.
While the demand will continue to exceed the supply of US visas and green cards, achieving the “American Dream” is still possible. But working toward that goal is a lot easier when you know which jobs can get you in the country to begin with.
US immigration law unlikely soon, Bush tells Fox
Via Reuters
07/18/2006
MEXICO CITY (Reuters) – President Bush has told Mexican President Vicente Fox that the U.S. Congress is unlikely to pass immigration reforms before elections in November, Fox said on Monday.
The Mexican president asked Bush about the negotiations in Congress over an immigration overhaul when the two leaders met at the G-8 summit in Russia at the weekend.
Bush cautioned that time was running out.
“He pointed out that this period is very short, there are only two or three weeks before Congress members go on the election campaign,” Fox told Mexican radio on a flight from St Petersburg to Madrid.
“So the chance of the immigration issue reaching approval in the House of Representatives and reaching joint approval isn’t very high,” Fox said.
Fox has pushed for a loosening of U.S. immigration laws to allow more Mexicans to work legally in the United States since he came to power more than five years ago.
But Mexican government officials complain this push became more difficult after the September 11 attacks and the growing U.S. focus on homeland security.
White House spokesman Ken Lisaius said Bush “did acknowledge the limited number of days the Congress is in session between now and August recess, which brings to question whether it can be approved by that date.”
“But that doesn’t change the fact that the president will push for a comprehensive bill before they adjourn for the year,” he said.
Continue reading
Information on Visa Processing in Beirut
Via AILA
07/17/2006
Excerpt from a message from the State Department regarding conditions and operations in Lebanon:
“The U.S. Embassy remains open for business; however, Nonimmigrant Visa processing has been suspended. American Citizen Services and Immigrant Visa processing are functioning normally. American citizens are urged to continue to evaluate their personal security and to keep in contact with the U.S. Embassy for continuing information on developments.”
VISA BULLETIN FOR AUGUST 2006
Visa Bulletin
Number 95
Volume VIII
Washington, D.C.
VISA BULLETIN FOR AUGUST 2006
IMMIGRANT NUMBERS FOR AUGUST 2006
A. STATUTORY NUMBERS
1. This bulletin summarizes the availability of immigrant numbers during August. 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 July 10th 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. The fiscal year 2006 limit for Family-sponsored preference immigrants determined in accordance with Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) is 226,000. The fiscal year 2006 limit for Employment-based preference immigrants calculated under INA 201 is 143,949. 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., 25,896 for
FY-2006. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,399.
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”.
Schedule A Workers: Employment First, Second, and Third preference Schedule A applicants are entitled to up to 50,000 “recaptured” numbers.
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 | PHILIP-PINES |
| 1st | 01JAN97 | 01JAN97 | 01JAN97 | 01JUN92 | 01OCT92 |
| 2A | 08SEP99 | 08SEP99 | 08SEP99 | 08SEP99 | 08SEP99 |
| 2B | 22SEP96 | 22SEP96 | 22SEP96 | 01DEC91 | 01DEC92 |
| 3rd | 08SEP98 | 08SEP98 | 08SEP98 | 01JAN81 | 01DEC85 |
| 4th | 15JUN95 | 01JUL94 | 01JAN95 | 01JAN93 | 15JAN84 |
*NOTE: For August, 2A numbers EXEMPT from per-country limit are available to applicants from all countries with priority dates earlier than 08SEP99. 2A numbers SUBJECT to per-country limit are “Unavailable”.
| Employ- ment Based | All Charge-ability Areas Except Those Listed | CHINA | INDIA | MEXICO | PHILIP-PINES |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st | C | C | 01JAN06 | C | C |
| 2nd | C | 01MAR05 | U | C | C |
| 3rd | 01OCT01 | 01OCT01 | 01APR01 | 22APR01 | 01OCT01 |
| Schedule A Workers | C | C | C | C | C |
| Other Workers | U | U | U | U | U |
| 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-2006 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 August, immigrant numbers in the DV category are available to qualified DV-2006 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 | 33,900 | Except: |
| ASIA | 7,700 | |
| EUROPE | 16,000 | |
| NORTH AMERICA (BAHAMAS) | 15 | |
| OCEANIA | 1,115 | |
| SOUTH AMERICA, and the CARIBBEAN | 1,900 |
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-2006 program ends as of September 30, 2006. DV visas may not be issued to DV-2006 applicants after that date. Similarly, spouses and children accompanying or following to join DV-2006 principals are only entitled to derivative DV status until September 30, 2006. DV visa availability through the very end of FY-2006
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 SEPTEMBER
For September, immigrant numbers in the DV category are available to qualified DV-2006 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 | Current | Except: |
| ASIA | Current | |
| EUROPE | Current | |
| NORTH AMERICA (BAHAMAS) | Current | |
| OCEANIA | Current | |
| SOUTH AMERICA, and the CARIBBEAN | Current |
D. RETROGRESSION OF FAMILY AND EMPLOYMENT CUT-OFF DATES
For August, it has been necessary to retrogress many of the cut-off dates in the Family-sponsored and Employment-based visa categories. This has been done in an effort to hold the issuance levels within the applicable annual numerical limits for the affected categories. Those retrogressions are listed below:
Worldwide: Family 1st (to 01JAN97)
China: Family 4th (to 01JUL94)
India: Employment 2nd has become “Unavailable”; Employment 3rd (to 01APR01)
Mexico: Family 3rd (to 01JAN81) and Family 4th (to 01JAN93)
Philippines: Family 2B (to 01DEC92) and Family 3rd (to 01DEC85)
E. IMMIGRANT VISA AVAILABILITY FOR SEPTEMBER
Immigrant visa number use is approaching the annual limits for the year in many categories, and the supply of numbers remaining for allocation is limited. Therefore, for September there is increased possibility of additional retrogressions of cut-off dates such as those experienced in August. Readers should not assume visa availability until the cut-off dates are announced. Categories which could experience retrogressions are:
Worldwide: Employment 4th
China: Employment 2nd and 3rd
India: Employment 1st
Mexico: Employment 3rd
F. SCHEDULE A VISA AVAILABILITY DURING FY-2007
A total of 50,000 numbers were provided for use in the Schedule A (EX) visa category which was established last May. Visa demand in this category is approaching that limit, and may require the establishment of a cut-off date as early as October. Once all 50,000 numbers have been made available under the current limitation, processing under this category will end.
G. DIVERSITY VISA LOTTERY 2007 (DV-2007) RESULTS
The Kentucky Consular Center in Williamsburg, Kentucky has registered and notified the winners of the DV-2007 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 82,000 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-2007 numbers will be used during fiscal year 2007 (October 1, 2006 until September 30, 2007).
Applicants registered for the DV-2007program were selected at random from over 5.5 million qualified entries received during the 60-day application period that ran from 12:00 AM on October 5, 2005, until midnight, December 4, 2005. 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 2007 will end. Selected applicants who do not receive visas by September 30, 2007 will derive no further benefit from their DV-2007 registration. Similarly, spouses and children accompanying or following to join DV-2007 principal applicants are only entitled to derivative diversity visa status until September 30, 2007.
Only participants in the DV-2007 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-2008 lottery if they wish. The dates for the registration period for the DV-2008 lottery program will be widely publicized during August 2006.
* 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-2007 program:
| AFRICA | ||
| ALGERIA 912 | ERITREA 582 | NAMIBIA 8 |
| ANGOLA 13 | ETHIOPIA 6,871 | NIGER 62 |
| BENIN 218 | GABON 42 | NIGERIA 9,849 |
| BOTSWANA 1 | GAMBIA, THE 50 | RWANDA 41 |
| BURKINA FASO 95 | GHANA 3,088 | SAO TOME AND PRINCIPE 2 |
| BURUNDI 16 | GUINEA 146 | SENEGAL 228 |
| CAMEROON 1,461 | GUINEA-BISSAU 5 | SEYCHELLES 4 |
| CAPE VERDE 3 | KENYA 2,337 | SIERRA LEONE 540 |
| CENTRAL AFRICAN REP. 13 | LESOTHO 0 | SOMALIA 160 |
| CHAD 28 | LIBERIA 734 | SOUTH AFRICA 287 |
| COMOROS 7 | LIBYA 37 | SUDAN 569 |
| CONGO 687 | MADAGASCAR 21 | SWAZILAND 5 |
| CONGO, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE 42 | MALAWI 18 | TANZANIA 148 |
| COTE D’IVOIRE 308 | MALI 76 | TOGO 1,592 |
| DJIBOUTI 11 | MAURITANIA 17 | TUNISIA 122 |
| EGYPT 7,229 | MAURITIUS 8 | UGANDA 213 |
| EQUATORIAL GUINEA 1 | MOROCCO 4,922 | ZAMBIA 92 |
| MOZAMBIQUE 4 | ZIMBABWE 73 |
| ASIA | ||
| AFGHANISTAN 80 | IRAQ 8 | NEPAL 1,529 |
| BAHRAIN 1 | ISRAEL 126 | OMAN 1 |
| BANGLADESH 5,901 | JAPAN 333 | QATAR 1 |
| BHUTAN 2 | JORDAN 63 | SAUDI ARABIA 27 |
| BRUNEI 0 | NORTH KOREA 6 | SINGAPORE 46 |
| BURMA 651 | KUWAIT 42 | SRI LANKA 383 |
| CAMBODIA 177 | LAOS 9 | SYRIA 40 |
| HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMIN. REGION 81 | LEBANON 86 | THAILAND 81 |
| INDONESIA 245 | MALAYSIA 76 | TAIWAN 398 |
| IRAN 1,361 | MALDIVES 0 | UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 19 |
| MONGOLIA 113 | YEMEN 43 |
| EUROPE | ||
ALBANIA 1,988 | GERMANY 1,047 | NORTHERN IRELAND 42 |
ANDORRA 0 | GREECE 41 | NORWAY 21 |
| ARMENIA, 691 | GREENLAND 3 | PORTUGAL 29 Macau 8 |
ARUBA 5 | HUNGARY 138 | ROMANIA 1,255 |
AUSTRIA 74 | ICELAND 13 | SAN MARINO 0 |
AZERBAIJAN 125 | IRELAND 160 | SERBIA & MONTENEGRO 505 |
BELARUS 705 | ITALY 214 | SLOVAKIA 171 |
BELGIUM 57 | KAZAKHSTAN 177 | SLOVENIA 7 |
BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA 90 | KYRGYZSTAN 123 | SPAIN 97 |
BULGARIA 1,674 | LATVIA 75 | SWEDEN 121 |
CROATIA 40 | LIECHTENSTEIN 0 | SWITZERLAND 104 |
CYPRUS 7 | LITHUANIA 298 | TAJIKISTAN 84 |
CZECH REPUBLIC 85 | LUXEMBOURG 6 | TURKEY 1,418 |
DENMARK 50 | MACEDONIA , FORMER YUGOSLAV REP. | TURKMENISTAN 59 |
ESTONIA 40 | MALTA 4 | UKRAINE 7,205 |
FINLAND 33 | MOLDOVA 273 | TUNISIA 124 |
FRANCE 380 | MONACO, 1 | UZBEKISTAN 1,536 |
GEORGIA 323 | NETHERLANDS 88 Netherlands Antilles 8 | VATICAN CITY 0 |
| NORTH AMERICA | ||
BAHAMAS , THE 12 |
|
|
OCEANIA | ||
AUSTRALIA 532 Christmas Islands 0 Cocos Islands 1 | NAURU 1 | SOLOMON |
| FIJI 514 | NEW ZEALAND 205 Cook Islands 3 | TONGA 109 |
KIRIBATI 0 | PALAU 3 | TUVALU 7 |
MARSHALL ISLANDS 1 | PAPUA NEW GUINEA 6 | VANUATU 0 |
MICRONESIA , FEDERATED STATES OF 4 | SAMOA 10 |
|
SOUTH AMERICA, CENTRAL AMERICA, AND THE CARIBBEAN | ||
ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA 2 | DOMINICA 12 | PERU 1,274 |
ARGENTINA 86 | ECUADOR 170 | SAINT KITTS AND NEVIS 4 |
BARBADOS 9 | GRENADA 6 | SAINT LUCIA 4 |
BELIZE 5 | GUATEMALA 43 | SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES 3 |
BOLIVIA 88 | GUYANA 17 | SURINAME 3 |
BRAZIL 488 | HONDURAS 28 | TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO 85 |
CHILE 42 | NICARAGUA 19 | URUGUAY 4 |
COSTA RICA 18 | PANAMA 14 | VENEZUELA 226 |
CUBA 427 | PARAGUAY 20 |
Natives of the following countries were not eligible to participate in DV-2007: Canada, China (mainland-born, excluding Hong Kong S.A.R., and Taiwan), Colombia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Mexico, Pakistan, the Philippines, Poland, Russia, South Korea, United Kingdom (except Northern Ireland) and its dependent territories, and Vietnam.
H. 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 Naturalization Service 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.
- Worldwide Family-Sponsored preference limit: 226,000
Worldwide Employment-Based preference limit: 143,949
Under INA Section 202(A), the per-country limit is fixed at 7% of the family and employment annual limits. For FY-2006 the per-country limit is 25,896. The dependent area annual limit is 2%, or 7,399.
I. 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.)
Department of State Publication 9514
CA/VO: July 10, 2006.
SSA Updates Guidance Manual to Include E and L Spouses As Authorized to Work Without DHS Authorization
RM 00203.500 Employment Authorization for Nonimmigrants
A. Introduction
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) determines whether an alien can work in either employment or self-employment in the U.S. Under certain circumstances, DHS authorizes nonimmigrants to work. Some nonimmigrant aliens have employment authorization by virtue of their alien classification. Some can work but only for specific employers. Others must apply to DHS for employment authorization. Still others are not allowed to work while in the U.S. and cannot apply to DHS for authorization to work.
It is important to distinguish whether the alien can work and what document(s) is needed to establish authorization to work.
B. Policy – Evidence of Employment Authorization
Required evidence for employment authorization is either a Form I-94, Arrival/Departure Record, showing a class of admission that indicates the person can work without specific DHS authorization (RM00203.500C.1.) or an employment authorization document (EAD) (Form I-766 or I-688
.
DO NOT process an application for an SSN card for an alien for work purposes unless the alien is authorized to work and shows the appropriate immigration document authorizing work. See RM 00203.510 and RM 00203.560 for processing SS-5s to issue SSN cards for nonwork purposes.
1. General – Evidence of Employment Authorization
Employment authorization for nonimmigrants can be determined by:
the alien’s class of admission code as shown on the I-94 (the non-immigrant classifications shown on the I-94 with employment authorization inherent in status are listed in RM 00203.500C.1.); or
the stamp or annotation on the I-94 shows the alien has been admitted as a refugee (see RM 00203.460B.); or
the stamp or annotation on the I-94 shows the alien had been granted asylum (see RM 00203.460D.) ; or
the Executive Office of Immigration Review granted the alien asylum and issued an order stating this (see RM 00203.460D.); or
the DHS-issued Employment Authorization Document (EAD), either Form I-766 or I-688B.
the designated school official’s annotation on Form I-20 A-B for certain F-1s or documentation of on-campus work (see RM 00203.470 ); or
the category shown on the DS-2019 for J-1s or a sponsor’s letter if the J-1 category is “student” or “international visitor” (see RM 00203.480).
The documents listed above are the only documents which FOs may accept as evidence of employment authorization.
NOTE: In some situations, the alien was issued an I-94 when admitted to the U.S. Later, applied for another immigration benefit and DHS issued the alien an EAD card. The alien may apply for an SSN card after the I-94 expired. If the alien shows a currently valid EAD, this is acceptable proof of authorization to work. In this situation, do not consider the expired I-94 when making a decision about alien status/work authorization; consider only the current immigration document (the EAD card).
2. Form I-766 or I-688B, Employment Authorization Document (EAD)
a. General
DHS issues Form I-766 and I-688B EAD cards to certain aliens regardless of age who are temporarily work authorized (see RM 00203.500C.2). The I-766 and I-688B are both standardized and uniform documents that provide evidence of authorization for the alien to accept temporary employment in the U.S.
Each card contains the following:
A statement of any regulatory limits on the time elements involved and a definite date as to when employment begins and ends (not indefinite).
A statement of any regulatory limits on the type of employment authorized (e.g., “A-5” or “274A.12 (A)(5)) or the statement “Without Further Limitation, “ if no such regulatory limits exist.
NOTE: DHS does not issue EAD cards to aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence or nonimmigrants whose work authorization is incident to their class of admission.
b. Description
The I-766 is a card produced mechanically by an integrated card processing system only at DHS service centers. Form I-688B is a manually prepared laminated card produced and issued at local USCIS offices servicing the area where the person resides.
The front of both cards contains the alien’s photograph, fingerprint (or “W” for waived in lieu of the fingerprint), signature, biographic information (name, date of birth), the provision of law or category allowing the alien to work, any restrictions as to type or length of employment authorization, and the date and place of issue.
The issuing office’s location code is on the right side of the photo box on the I-688B. This code is four letters which indicates the District or POE code and the specific workstation at that location that issued the card.
See the ACM for exhibits of authentic I-766 and I-688B cards.
REMINDER: Any EAD card that does not conform to these criteria is not acceptable.
3. Period of Authorization to Work
The period during which the alien is authorized to work in the U.S. is shown on the face of the EAD card or on other documents such as the I-20 A-B.
Generally, when DHS extends the validity period of an EAD card a new card is not issued but rather an extension sticker is affixed to the card.
4. Automatic Extension of Validity Period
a. General
In certain extreme situations DHS may automatically extend the validity period of the EAD card for a temporary period but may not affix an extension sticker to the card.
Generally, these are situations where the extension applies to a significant number of aliens who either previously applied for or were granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and were previously issued EAD cards by DHS. If the designated TPS period expires but the country cannot receive the TPS aliens back, DHS may extend the TPS period for certain people from that country. In certain cases, the expiration period of the previously issued EAD card may be automatically extended for a temporary period until DHS can process replacement EAD cards for all affected aliens (see RM 00203.500B.4.c. for EAD cards issued to nationals of certain countries that are currently automatically extended).
In these cases, SAVE will not verify that the EAD card has automatically been extended or show the new expiration date of the employment period until the replacement EAD card is issued. If the alien has not received the new EAD card and submits the expired EAD card, the online SAVE query response will show “Institute Additional Verification.” Although the validity period of the document has automatically been extended, the new expiration date is not reflected in the DHS system. You must send a G-845 to the appropriate DHS office to verify that the expired document was validly issued (see RM 00203.748).
b. Processing the SS-5 When the Validity of EAD Card Has Been Automatically Extended
To process the SS-5 through the SS-5 Assistant in this situation, enter on the POC/Proof of Alien Status screen the expiration date for the EAD card as “D/S;” and the “category” or “provision of law” as “Other.”
Since the SAVE query response will show “Institute Additional Verification,” use the SS-5 Assistant to generate Form G-845. Send the completed G-845 to the appropriate DHS office (see RM 00203.748for the appropriate DHS office address). The G-845 response from DHS will generally show item 12. a. checked (“This document is not valid because it appears to be expired.”). Therefore when DHS returns the G-845 with this response, in Update Mode of the SS-5 Assistant:
Select Update Option #10 G-845 Received from the SS-5 Assistant Update Options screen
Check Block # 3, “This Document appears valid and relates to an alien authorized employment as indicated below:” on the SS-5 Assistant G845 Section B. Screen.
Select the “Full Time” and “Expires on” radio buttons and input the expiration date of (the date of the automatic extension).
Do not check block #12 “This document is not valid because it appears to be – expired” on the G-845 Section B. Screen in SS-5 Assistant because when you do this the case will remain in suspect status and you will not be able to clear the SS-5 application.
If DHS returns the G-845 and it shows a different response follow the appropriate instructions for the response provided (RM00203.740E.).
c. Automatic Extension of Validity Period of EADs issued to certain citizens/residents of Honduras and Nicaragua
DHS automatically extended until January 5, 2007, the EADs for certain Hondurans and Nicaraguans who applied for TPS and whose I-766 EAD cards expired on July 5, 2006.
DHS published notices in the Federal Register on March 31, 2006, about the extension of TPS for Honduras and Nicaragua and the automatic extension of employment authorization for certain nationals of these countries.
Because all aliens who qualify for this automatic extension have I-766 EAD cards and have continuously resided in the U.S. since December 30, 1998, most have been assigned SSNs but may apply for a replacement SSN card.
Many Honduran and Nicaraguan TPS re-registrants will not receive their new EAD cards until after their current I-766s expire. Therefore, DHS is automatically extending until January 5, 2007, the validity of I-766 EADs issued to certain nationals of Honduras and Nicaragua when the EAD cards expire on July 5, 2006. Re-registrants for TPS must apply to DHS for new EAD cards authorizing them to work after January 5, 2007.
Accept as valid through January 4, 2007, an I-766 EAD card for an alien who is a national of Honduras or Nicaragua when the I-766 expired on July 5, 2006 and shows the notation “A-12” or “C-19” on the face of the card under “Category.” Use the Numident record (when the person applies for a replacement SSN card), the alien’s expired I-94, or other evidence showing nationality to establish that he/she is a national of Honduras or Nicaragua.
When the G-845 shows “This document is not valid because it appears to be expired,” as the response for an EAD that expired on July 5, 2006, and the bearer is a national of Honduras or Nicaragua, presume the validity period of the EAD has automatically been extended until January 5, 2007. If the G-845 shows another response, follow RM 00203.740 E. (Procedure – Interpreting the G-845 Response).
When processing the SS-5 through the SS-5 Assistant, add the remark “HOND” or “NIC,” as appropriate in the Additional Remarks field on the Print Summary Screen.
d. Automatic Extension of Validity Period of EADs Issued to Certain Citizens/residents of El Salvador
DHS automatically extended until March 9, 2007, the EAD cards for certain El Salvadorans who applied for TPS and whose I-766 EAD cards expired on July 5, 2006 or whose cards will expire on September 9, 2006 or September 30, 2006.
DHS published a notice in the Federal Register on June 15, 2006, about the extension of TPS for El Salvadorans and the automatic extension of employment authorization for certain nationals of this country.
Because all aliens who qualify for this automatic extension of the validity period of the I-766 EAD cards have continuously resided in the U.S. since before March 9, 2001, most have been assigned SSNs but may apply for replacement SSN cards.
Many El Salvadoran TPS re-registrants will not receive their new EAD cards (with an expiration date of September 9, 2007) until after their current I-766 cards expire. Therefore, DHS is automatically extending until March 9, 2007, the validity of I-766 EAD cards issued to certain nationals of El Salvador when the EAD cards expired on July 5, 2006, or will expire on September 9, 2006, or September 30, 2006. Re-registrants for TPS must apply to DHS for new EAD cards authorizing them to work after March 9, 2007.
Accept as valid through March 8, 2007, an I-766 EAD card issued to an alien who is a national or resident of El Salvador when the I-766 card expired on July 5, 2006 or will expire on September 9, 2006, or September 30, 2006, and shows the notation “A-12” or “C-19” on the face of the card under “Category.” Use the Numident record (when the person applies for a replacement SSN card), the alien’s expired I-94, or other evidence showing nationality to establish that he/she is a national of El Salvador.
When the G-845 response shows “This document is not valid because it appears to be expired,” as the response for an EAD that expired on July 5, 2006, September 9, 2006, or September 30, 2006, and the bearer is a national of El Salvador, presume the validity period of the EAD card has automatically been extended until March 9, 2007 when the document shows “A-12” or “C-19” under Category. If the G-845 shows another response, follow RM 00203.740E. (Procedure – Interpreting the G-845 Response).
When processing the SS-5 through the SS-5 Assistant, add the remark “EL SAL” as appropriate in the Additional Remarks field on the Print Summary Screen.
C. Policy – Employment Authorization by Class of Admission
The following policy applies to employment authorization by class of admission:
1. Aliens Work Authorized Without Specific DHS Authorization
The following sections list nonimmigrants, by alien class of admission codes, who are authorized to work in the U.S. without specific authorization from DHS. The person’s I-94 will not have the DHS employment authorization stamp and the alien will generally not have an EAD.
For those with an asterisk (*), the principal alien, spouse, and child all have the same classification code. In some instances, both the husband and wife are both principal aliens when the classification is E-1, E-2. Accept their statements that both are principals.
For those with a double asterisk (**) (non-immigrant E-1, E-2, and L-2 classifications), the spouse is also authorized to work without specific DHS authorization. The E-1, E-2, and L-2 spouse is not required to apply to DHS for an EAD card as documentary evidence of work authorization but may choose to do so. When the E-1, E-2, or L-2 spouse applies for an SSN card and does not submit an EAD as evidence of employment authorization, he/she must submit, in addition to evidence of immigration status, evidence of a marital relationship to the principal E-1, E-2, or L-1 alien. The evidence of marital relationship between the applicant and the principal E-1, E-2, or L-1 alien is a marriage document (issued prior to admission to the U.S. as an E-1, E-2, or L-2 non-immigrant).
NOTE: Ask the alien whether he/she is the principal alien who is authorized to work or the spouse, child or other dependent of the principal alien and see RM 00203.500C.1,, RM 00203.500C.2., and RM 00203.500C.3. when the alien is the spouse (other than an E-1, E-2 or L-2 spouse) or child.
Class of Admission | Description |
|---|---|
A-1* | Ambassador, public minister, career diplomat or consular officer |
A-2* | Other foreign government official or employee |
A-3* | Attendant, servant, or personal employee of principal A-1, or A-2 |
C-3* | Foreign government official in transit through the U.S. |
E-1* | Treaty trader (principal) |
E-1** | Spouse of principal E-1 When an EAD card is issued in these situations to an E-1 spouse, the I-766 shows “A-17” under Category and the I-688B shows “274a.12(A)(17)” under Provision of Law. If an EAD is not submitted, applicant must submit a marriage document as evidence that he/she is spouse of the principal E-1 alien |
E-2* | Treaty investor (principal) |
E-2** | Spouse of principal E-2 When an EAD card is issued in these situations to an E-2 spouse, the I-766 shows “A-17” under Category and the I-688B shows “274a.12 (A)(17)” under Provision of Law. If an EAD is not submitted, applicant must submit a marriage document as evidence that he/she is spouse of the principal E-2 alien |
E-3* | Treaty trader in a specialty occupation |
F-1 | Academic student – for on-campus employment, and DSO authorized curricular practical training. (See RM 00203.470 for the proof required) |
F-3 | Canadian or Mexican national academic student who commutes to school in the U.S. – for DSO authorized curricular practical training (see RM 00203.470C.5.a.) |
G-1* | Resident representative of recognized foreign member government to an international organization |
G-2* | Other temporary representative of recognized foreign member government to an international organization |
G-3* | Representative of unrecognized or nonmember foreign government to an international organization |
G-4* | Representative of international organization (officer or employee) |
G-5* | Attendant, servant, or personal employee of principal G-1, G-2, G-3, or G-4 |
H-1B | Worker in a specialty occupation |
H-1B1 | Temporary worker from Chile or Singapore under the U.S.-Chile and U.S-Singapore free trade agreements |
H-1C | Registered nurse |
H-2A | Agricultural worker |
H-2B | Non-agrarian seasonal worker |
H-2R | Returning H-2B worker (worker was previously admitted as H-2B, left the U.S. temporarily and is returning to the U.S. |
H-3 | Trainee |
I* | Foreign information media representative |
J-1 | Exchange visitor (pursuant to an approved program) (See RM 00203.480) An exchange visitor whose DS-2019 shows the category as “international visitor” or “student” in item 4 of the form must provide a letter from the program sponsor as evidence of authority to work. Otherwise, presume the J-1 is authorized to work as part of the exchange program. |
K-1 | Fiancé(e) of U.S. citizen |
L-1 | Intracompany transferee |
L-2** | Spouse or dependent of an intracompany transferee When an EAD card is issued to an L-2 spouse, the I-766 shows “A-18” under Category and the I-688B shows “274a.12 (A)(18)” under Provision of Law. If an EAD is not submitted, applicant must submit a marriage document as evidence that he/she is spouse of the L-1 alien |
NATO-1 through 6* | NATO officer, representative, or personnel |
NATO-7* | Attendant, servant, of personal employee of principal NATO-1 through 6 |
O-1 | Alien with extraordinary ability in sciences, arts, education, business or athletics |
O-2 | Alien accompanying O-1 |
P-1 | Internationally recognized athlete or entertainer in an internationally recognized group |
P-2 | Artist or entertainer in an exchange program |
P-3 | Artist or entertainer in a culturally unique program |
Q-1 | Cultural exchange visitor |
Q-2 | Irish Peace Process Cultural and Training Program Visitor |
R-1 | Religious worker with a nonprofit religious organization |
TC | Professional business person, United States-Canada Free Trade Act (FTA) |
TN | Professional business person from Canada or Mexico, North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) |
Refugee | Alien admitted pursuant to section 207 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) The I-766 shows “A-3” under Category; the I-688B shows “274a.12 (A)(3)” under Provision of Law. |
Asylee | Asylee under 208 of the INA The I-766 shows “A-5” under Category; the I-688B shows “274a.12 (A)(5)” under Provision of Law. |
2. Aliens Who Require an EAD from DHS Authorizing Employment
The following lists nonimmigrants, by alien class of admission, who are authorized to work only with authorization from DHS. Employment authorization for these aliens must be shown on an EAD. For those with an asterisk (*), the principal alien, spouse, and child all have the same classification code. The visa of the dependent may show the name of principal.
EXCEPTION: Employment authorization may be shown on the I-94 for a refugee or asylee, on Form I-20 A-B for curricular practical training (CPT) for an F-1, or on a sponsor’s letter for a J-1 whose category as shown in item 4 of the DS-2019 is “student” or “international visitor.”
Class of Admission | Description |
|---|---|
A-1*, A-2* | Spouse or child of principal A-1, A-2 alien The I-766 shows “C-1” under Category; the I-688B shows “274a.12 (C)(1)” under Provision of Law. |
B-1
| Visitor for business who is:
The I-766 shows “C-17” under Category; the I-688B shows “274a.12 (C)(17)” under Provision of Law. NOTE: The instructions in section C.3. apply if the B-1 alien is not authorized to work under one of the above situations. |
E-3* | Spouse or child of principal treaty trader in a specialty occupation |
F-1 | Academic student – for employment in authorized optional practical training (provision of law: optional practical training -274a.12(c)(3)(i); employment with an international organization -274a.12(c)(3)(ii); economic hardship – 274a.12(c)(3)(iii)) The I-766 shows “C-3” under Category; the I-688B shows “274a.12 (C)(3)” under Provision of Law. See RM 00203.470 for employment authorization documentation required for F-1s employed on campus or in curricular practical training (an EAD is not required for these types of employment). |
F-3 | Canadian or Mexican national academic student who commutes to school in the U.S.– for employment in optional practical training The I-766 shows “C-3” under Category; the I-688B shows “274a.12 (C)(3)(i)” under Provision of Law. |
G-1*, G-3*, G-4* | Spouse or child of J-1 alien The I-766 shows “C-4 under Category; the I-688B shows “274a.12 (C)(5)” under Provision of Law. |
J-2 | Spouse or minor child of J-1 alien The I-766 shows “C-5” under Category; the I-688B shows “274a.12 (C)(5)” under Provision of Law. |
K-2 | Child of K-1 The I-766 shows “A-6” under Category; the I-688B shows “(A)(6)” under Provision of Law. |
K-3 | Spouse of U.S. Citizen The I-766 shows “A-9” under Category; the I-688B shows “274a.12 (A)(9)” under Provision of Law. |
K-4 | Child of K-3 The I-766 shows “A-9” under Category; the I-688B shows “274a.12 (A)(9)” under Provision of Law. |
L-2 | Child of L-1 intra-company transferee The I-766 shows “A-18” under Category; the I-688B shows “274a.12 (A)(18)” under Provision of Law. |
M-1 | Nonacademic student – for practical training The I-766 shows “C-6” under Category; the I-688B shows “274a.12 (C)(6)” under Provision of Law. |
M-3 | Canadian or Mexican national nonacademic commuter student – for practical training The I-766 shows “C-6” under Category; the I-688B shows “274a.12 (C)(6)” under Provision of Law. |
NATO – 1* through 7* | Spouse or child of principal NATO – 1 through 7 alien The I-766 shows “C-7” under Category; the I-688B shows “274a.12 (C)(6)” under Provision of Law. |
N-8 | Parent of alien granted permanent residence The I-766 shows “A-7” under Category; the I-688B shows “274a.12 (A)(7)” under Provision of Law. |
N-9 | Child of alien granted permanent residence The I-766 shows “A-7” under Category; the I-688B shows “274a.12 (A)(7)” under Provision of Law. |
S-5 | Alien supplying critical information relating to a criminal organization or enterprise The I-766 shows “C-21” under Category; the I-688B shows “274a.12 (C)(21)” under Provision of Law. |
S-6 | Alien supplying critical information relating to a counter terrorism matter The I-766 shows “C-21” under Category; the I-688B shows “274a.12 (C)(21)” under Provision of Law. |
S-7 | Spouse or child of S-5 or S-6 alien The I-766 shows “C-21” under Category; the I-688B shows “274a.12 (C)(21)” under Provision of Law. |
T-1 | Victim of severe form of trafficking The I-766 shows “A-16” under Category; the I-688B shows “274a.12 (A)(16)” under Provision of Law. |
T-2 | Spouse of victim of severe form of trafficking The I-766 shows “C-25” under Category; the I-688B shows “274a.12 (C)(25)” under Provision of Law. |
T-3 | Child of victim of severe form of trafficking The I-766 shows “C-25” under Category; the I-688B shows “274a.12 (C)(25)” under Provision of Law. |
T-4 | Parent of victim of severe form of trafficking The I-766 shows “C-25” under Category; the I-688B shows “274a.12 (C)(25)” under Provision of Law. |
T-5 | Sibling of victim of a severe form of trafficking in persons |
U-1 | Victim of Certain Criminal Activity The I-766 shows “C-11,” “C-14,” or “C-18” under Category; the I-688B shows “274a.12 (C)(11),” “274a.12(c)(14),” or 274a.12 (c)(18)” under Provision of Law. |
U-2 | Spouse of U-1 The I-766 shows “C-11,” “C-14,” or “C-18” under Category; the I-688B shows “274a.12 (C)(11),” “274a.12(c)(14),” or 274a.12 (c)(18)” under Provision of Law. |
U-3 | Child of U-1 The I-766 shows “C-11,” “C-14,” or “C-18” under Category; the I-688B shows “274a.12 (C)(11),” “274a.12(c)(14),” or 274a.12 (c)(18)” under Provision of Law. |
U-4 | Parent of U-1, if U-1 is under 21 years of age The I-766 shows “C-11,” “C-14,” or “C-18” under Category; the I-688B shows “274a.12 (C)(11),” “274a.12(c)(14),” or 274a.12 (c)(18)” under Provision of Law. |
V-1 | Spouse of a permanent resident The I-766 shows “A-15” under Category; the I-688B shows “274a.12 (A)(15)” under Provision of Law. |
V-2 | Child of a permanent resident The I-766 shows “A-15” under Category; the I-688B shows “274a.12 (A)(15)” under Provision of Law. |
V-3 | Parent of a permanent resident The I-766 shows “A-15” under Category; the I-688B shows “274a.12 (A)(15)” under Provision of Law. |
Parolee | Alien paroled temporarily into the U.S. The I-766 shows “A-4” or “C-11” under Category; the I-688B shows “274a.12 (A)(4)” or “274a.12 (C)(11)” under Provision of Law. |
Adjustment applicant |
The I-766 shows “C-9” under Category; the I-688B shows “274a.12 (C)(9)” under Provision of Law.
The I-766 shows “C-16” under Category; the I-688B shows “274a.12 (C)(16)” under Provision of Law. |
Family Unity | Alien granted voluntary departure under the Family Unity Program The I-766 shows “A-13” under Category; the I-688B shows “274a.12 (A)(13)” under Provision of Law. |
Temporary Protected Status alien |
|
Deportable Alien |
|
3. Aliens Who Are Not Authorized To Work In The U.S.
The following temporary nonimmigrants are not authorized to work in the U.S.:
Class of Admission | Description |
|---|---|
A-3 | Spouse or child of principal A-3 alien |
B-1 | Visitor for business (see section C.2. above if the B-1 alien alleges employment as a personal or domestic servant or employee of a foreign airline) |
B-2 | Visitor for pleasure |
BE | Bering Straight Agreement visa-free visitor for pleasure to certain designated areas of Alaska |
C-1 | Alien in transit through the U.S. |
C-2 | Alien in transit to UN headquarters |
C-3 | Attendant, servant, other personal employee, spouse or child of principal C-3 alien |
D-1, D-2 | Crew member |
E-1 | Child of principal E-1 alien who is not an employee of the Coordination Council for North American Affairs |
E-2 | Child of principal E-2 alien |
F-2 | Spouse or child of F-1 alien |
G-2, G-5 | Spouse or child of principal G-2 or G-5 alien |
H-4 | Spouse or child of H-1A, H-1B, H-2A, H-2B, or H-3 alien |
I | Spouse or child of principal I alien |
L-2 | Child of L-1 alien |
M-2 | Spouse or child of M-1 alien |
M-3 | Canadian or Mexican national commuter vocational or non-academic student |
O-3 | Spouse or child of O-1 or O-2 alien |
P-4 | Spouse or child of P-1, P-2, or P-3 alien |
Q-3 | Spouse or child of Q-2 |
R-2 | Spouse or child of R-1 alien |
TD | Spouse or child of TN alien |
WB | Visitor for business from a visa waiver country |
WT | Tourist from a visa waiver country |
<!– internal date use only
| Added to this file 07/14/2006 | Last Updated: 07/14/2006 |
–>
RM 00203.500 – Employment Authorization for Nonimmigrants – 07/14/2006
Backlog holds up legal path into U.S.
Via The Charlotte Observer
07/15/2006
Millions forced to wait for thousands of visas
Members of the Morales family have been waiting almost two decades for green cards.
Family patriarch Miguel Morales Alcala gained legal permanent residence through a 1986 amnesty. He has since tried to get residency for his wife and six of his children.
But the wait became such an ordeal that he ended up paying a coyote $7,000 to smuggle his family into the U.S. from Mexico.
“It’s such a long time,” Morales, 66, said from his Charlotte home. “They told me I could bring my children, but we’re still waiting and wondering when we can get the papers.”
Often lost in the debate over illegal immigration is the massive list of applicants waiting to legally move to the United States.
The wait for a visa can take years, even decades, as several million people worldwide petition for limited spots.
Many immigration lawyers and advocates argue that immigration limits are too restrictive and it should be made easier for people to come here legally.
At the same time, advocates for more restrictive immigration rules acknowledge the process is cumbersome, but say limits benefit the country.
“There are way too many people than we can absorb,” said Ron Woodard, director of NC Listen, an immigration reform group. “Would-be immigrants need to understand that just because you’re a nice person willing to work hard doesn’t mean you can come to America.”
Continue reading
U.S. immigration overhaul given less than even odds
Via Reuters
07/14/2006
WASHINGTON, July 14 (Reuters) – U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist on Friday gave less than even odds that Congress would pass an immigration law overhaul before the November congressional elections.
The Tennessee Republican said that election year politics and lack of movement by the House of Representatives toward a comprehensive approach sought by the Senate and President George W. Bush complicate negotiations for final legislation and that odds for a bill this year were “less than 50-50, realistically.”
Continue reading
Bolante rejects consular help
By Jose Katigbak
STAR Washington bureau
The Philippine Star 07/14/2006
WASHINGTON — Former [Philippines] agriculture undersecretary
Jocelyn Bolante, who was arrested by US immigration officials in Los
Angeles last July 7, rejected consular representation at an immigration
hearing of his case, following Malacañang’s reported refusal to help
post a $100,000 bond for his temporary release.
“He requested the hearing on Wednesday be held privately so we did not send a representative,” Consul Helen Barber said.
Barber said she did not know what transpired at the hearing and
a spokeswoman for the immigration and customs enforcement in Los
Angeles said she could not immediately comment on the case.
Bolante was detained on arrival at Los Angeles airport from Seoul after his B1-B2 visa was canceled.
The B visa category is reserved for individuals seeking to
enter the United States for short periods for business or pleasure. A
B1 visa allows foreign doctors or scientists to enter the US to attend
meetings and conferences while a B2 visa is for all tourist-related
travel, including visiting friends and relatives.
The Consulate General in a statement said all queries about Bolante should be coursed through his Manila lawyer Antonio Zulueta.
At a press conference yesterday, Justice Secretary Raul
Gonzalez denied insinuations that the Arroyo administration had a hand
in the cancellation of Bolante’s US visa.
Gonzalez said the government wants to distance itself from Bolante’s case as it might trigger more speculations.
“Right now, that (Bolante’s case) is between the US government
and Bolante. The government has nothing to do with it,” he stressed.
Gonzalez also clarified that Bolante cannot avail himself of
political asylum in the United States because the case he is facing is
not political in nature. It is expected, he said, that Bolante would be
deported to the country by the US government because of his visa
problem.
Individuals arrested for visa-related cases are immediately
sent back to their country of origin. However, in Bolante’s case, the
former agriculture official was arrested and detained, which required
the involvement of both countries’ law enforcement authorities, fanning
speculations that it was not merely a consular matter but involves
serious charges.
US Ambassador Kristie Kenney, in a chance interview at the
Dusit Hotel in Makati City, insisted however that it is a law
enforcement issue.
“It is a matter that our law enforcement authorities are
coordinating on. So, I can’t have any comment or information to say
because it is a law enforcement issue,” Kenny said. “I am really
pleased with how well our law enforcement authorities work together. It
is really a big example of the kind of cooperation that we have.”
Meanwhile, the US Immigration has yet to announce the reason for the cancellation of Bolante’s visa.
Barber told The STAR that the Philippine Consulate
General in Los Angeles first became aware of Bolante’s arrest after his
son called Ambassador Willy Gaa Friday night to inquire about his
father.
Gaa asked the consulate legal officer Naomi Diaz to look into
the matter and found out Bolante was being held at the San Pedro
detention center near Los Angeles.
| Clamor for extradition |
Sen. Ramon Magsaysay Jr.,
chairman of the Senate committee on agriculture, said the pressure is
now on the Office of the Ombudsman to file a case against Bolante to
facilitate his extradition from the US.
Various groups have clamored for Bolante’s extradition to the
Philippines, including the staunch anti-Arroyo group Laban ng Masa
(LnM).
“If they are really interested in clearing the administration,
then they should do what they have to do to bring back Bolante here in
the Philippines,” LnM chairman Francisco Nemenzo told reporters
following a press conference of the Alyansa ng Maliliit na Magbubukid
at Mangingisda (AMMM), who were also pressing for Bolante’s
extradition.
“The point is not mainly about Bolante’s return to the
country. What we are after, as with the rest of the Filipino people, is
to know the truth about the fertilizer scam. It is in our interest that
Bolante returns to shed light on the issue,” Nemenzo added.
Bayan Muna Rep. Joel Virador said it is the duty of the
government to extradite Bolante. “It is best for Malacañang to initiate
the extradition of Bolante to shed light on the controversies which
also involves them. Otherwise, this administration is evading justice
all in the name of saving the illegitimate president,” militant
lawmaker said.
In light of the clamor, Magsaysay said he has written
Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez to emphasize the urgency of resolving
the fertilizer fund scam, which has Bolante as one of the principal
suspects.
“With the arrest of Bolante in Los Angeles last July 7, it is
imperative that the necessary charges are immediately filed by the
Office of the Ombudsman to facilitate his extradition to the country
and to strengthen the Philippine government’s grip on Bolante,”
Magsaysay said.
Without a warrant of arrest issued by a judge against Bolante,
the Philippine government cannot request for extradition of Bolante
from the US government.
In his letter dated July 13, Magsaysay also reminded Gutierrez
that the Senate had already turned over to her office all the necessary
documents and evidence regarding the fertilizer fund scam last Feb. 20.
A committee report approved by the Senate on its investigation
into the fertilizer fund has also been submitted to the Ombudsman last
March 1.
Magsaysay also wrote to Presidential Anti-Graft Commission
(PAGC) chairman Dr. Constancia de Guzman inquiring about the status of
the fertilizer fund scam.
“Our investigation is ongoing. We are still gathering
documents from the auditors of local government units,” De Guzman said,
noting though that although the PAGC is conducting a probe on the
fertilizer fund scam, Bolante is no longer covered by the probe, as he
is no longer connected with government.
“We are only concerned with the administrative aspect of the
case. It is the Office of the Ombudsman who should investigate him
(Bolante),” she said.
| ‘Come home, clear your name’ |
Executive Secretary Eduardo
Ermita admitted yesterday that the government could not seek the
extradition of Bolante since there were no formal charges against him
in Philippine courts.
He said it would be better if Bolante, amid his visa problems
in the US, would just come home and voluntarily face investigations
here.
Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye said Bolante could explore all
legal options available to him, including asylum. He said Bolante would
be given “proper consular assistance” but remarked that the former
official had not asked Manila for help.
“In fairness, he never asked the Palace to help him. We are
confident that he will be accorded due process by the US authorities
and that this matter will be cleared up in due time,” Bunye said.
He did not comment though on opposition calls for Bolante to
be extradited so he can be investigated for allegedly acting as
President Arroyo’s bagman in dispensing money to help her win in the
hotly contested May 2004 presidential elections.
“There is a process for extradition. We leave this to US
authorities,” he said, reiterating that what is important now is to
ensure that his rights as a citizen are protected.
Anakpawis Rep. Rafael Mariano, however, expressed doubts on
the sincerity of the Arroyo administration to force Bolante back to the
country.
“Mrs. Arroyo will not allow fertilizer scam probers to have
access to Bolante,” he said. “If the government is serious in getting
to the bottom of the fertilizer scam, it should take active steps to
immediately extradite Bolante.”
For his part, Parañaque Rep. Roilo Golez said he believes the Bolante case is more of a deportation than an extradition case.
“Extradition is government to government, assuming our
government is initiating the extradition. I doubt if the government
would initiate,” he said.
Bolante is linked to an alleged P3-billion scam where funds
of the Department of Agriculture were reportedly channeled to
politicians who helped campaign for Mrs. Arroyo in the hotly contested
May 2004 presidential elections.
A Senate committee investigating the scandal ordered his
arrest after it found strong probable criminal culpability on his part
and former agriculture secretary Luisito Lorenzo.
Lorenzo is believed to be living in the Maryland area near
Washington DC. He was spotted last month at an annual Filipino fair to
celebrate Independence Day. — With Jose Rodel Clapano, Pia
Lee-Brago, Marvin Sy, Aurea Calica, Paolo Romero, Delon Porcalla, Ding
Cervantes, Mike Frialde, Katherine Adraneda, AFP
Miami Irish Welcomed by McCain
Via IrishAbroad.com
THE 25 Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform (ILIR) volunteers who attended
a field hearing on immigration reform in Miami on Monday, July 10 were
warmly welcomed by Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona.
“I am really glad to see the representatives of the ILIR here today.
They have been following me around this country, and I am delighted to
see that they are well behaved because when I saw them in Washington they
were a little unruly,” McCain laughed.
“We were mentioned three times and Senator McCain even stopped his
speech to mention us,” said ILIR volunteer Brian McKenna, 30, who
flew from New York to Miami to attend the hearing.
Lisa Handley from Dublin organized the Miami turnout, and is hoping to
capitalize on the new ILIR chapter in Florida gaining momentum by drawing
out more volunteers (her number is 954-643-0898 for anyone who wants to
join the effort).
“The ones that came from Fort Lauderdale are really seeing how serious
this issue is. It was great to see them turn out and the ones from New
York,” she said.
“I was a Morrison visa recipient and got my citizenship four years
ago. It would be great to see more Morrison holders coming out for this,
even if they aren’t in Fort Lauderdale where I am, even if they
are in Tampa or Miami or neighboring states. Everyone is welcome,”
she added.
Colorado passes bill to bar illegal immigrants from state benefits
Via USAToday.com
measure that could deny tens of thousands of illegal immigrants access
to public housing, unemployment insurance and other state benefits.
The bill, which Gov. Bill Owens said he will
sign soon, is the latest action by states as Congress struggles to
agree on a federal strategy to deal with the nation’s estimated 12
million illegal immigrants.
Colorado’s legislation, one of several
immigration bills passed during a five-day special session that ended
late Monday, would bar adult undocumented immigrants from receiving
most state benefits.
Up to 50,000 illegal immigrants could be stripped of benefits they receive, according to Nate Strauch, a spokesman for Owens.
The U.S. Immigration Law Blog by Ashwin Sharma 
Langberg: Tech visas come with obligation for valley leaders
By Mike Langberg
Via Mercury News
Silicon Valley’s lobbyists in Washington are reviving a touchy topic
that’s been largely dormant since the tech bubble burst in 2001:
whether we need to continue importing thousands of foreign engineers
and other skilled professionals on temporary H-1B visas.
Many U.S. engineers believe the H-1B program is nothing more than a
back door for greedy corporate bosses to get low-cost workers who can
be quickly sent home if they complain.
Employers, on the other hand, say they have lots of jobs they can’t
fill, and argue that U.S. tech companies will lose ground to foreign
competition without H-1B talent or will be forced to move even more
operations overseas.
Whatever the truth about H-1Bs, Silicon Valley companies need to do more to resolve the issues surrounding these visas.
The dispute, meanwhile, is likely to land in the lap of Congress.
Rep. John Shadegg, a Republican from Arizona, is planning to
introduce a bill this week or next that would nearly double the number
of H-1B visas granted every year to 115,000 from 65,000 — a key goal
of lobbying groups including TechNet and AeA, formerly the American
Electronics Association.
This would complement a similar bill introduced in the Senate last month by Sen. John Cornyn, a Republican from Texas.
Also in D.C., the H-1B process is getting new scrutiny. The
Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
released a report last week criticizing federal agencies for lax
enforcement of H-1B rules.
The IEEE-USA, a group representing engineers, seized on the GAO report as further evidence the H-1B program is a failure.
AeA, meanwhile, added fuel to the H-1B fire last week by sending
every member of Congress a position paper arguing that criticisms of
the H-1B program are “myths,” three of which are worthy of debate.
The first AeA myth is that foreign nationals steal American jobs.
“High-tech companies are increasingly seeking skilled labor to feed
a growing industry and cannot find it,” the position paper says.
“Visit the website of many American technology companies and you will
find thousands of unfilled U.S.-based positions. Foreign nationals are
critical for filling this void.”
Norman S. Matloff, a professor of computer science at UC-Davis and a
longtime H-1B critic, counters that claims of low unemployment among
engineers don’t count underemployment.
For example, many Silicon Valley professionals were driven out of
the tech industry during the downturn from 2001 to 2004. A former
software engineer now working as a teacher or a real estate agent
doesn’t count in the statistics, and may be making significantly less
money.
Current engineering vacancies could reflect employers unwilling to
hire older engineers, even if they’ve retrained themselves, when the
companies can hold out for the alternative of cheaper H-1B labor.
The AFL-CIO, in a February position paper, argued that H-1Bs and
other loopholes allow employers “to turn permanent jobs into temporary
jobs. . . . As a result, working conditions for all professional
workers have suffered: pressures caused by employer exploitation of
professional guest workers coupled with increases in outsourcing
continue to have a chilling effect on any real wage increases for
professionals, even those not directly or immediately impacted.”
AeA’s second myth is that foreign nationals are paid less than U.S. workers.
“The vast majority of companies (hiring H-1B workers) play by the
rules, pay market wages and do not wish to see the integrity of the
program called into question by a minority of infractors,” the
position paper says.
AeA cites several supporting studies, although Matloff and other
critics cite competing studies and even interpret the same studies in
different ways.
It’s impossible to settle the question definitively, in part because
immigration laws don’t require H-1B employers to disclose sufficient
data.
AeA’s third myth is that H-1B employers are bound to their U.S.
employers “and are therefore little more than indentured servants.”
Legally, H-1B visa holders are free to take other jobs in the United
States, and some do. But any H-1B hoping for a “green card,” the
much-sought-after ticket to permanent residence, must restart the
application process if they switch employers. Given the glacial pace of
green-card approvals, this can create a de facto obligation to stay put.
Last week’s report by the GAO said the U.S. Department of Labor
isn’t doing enough to verify even the minimal protections built into
the current H-1B law.
From January 2002 through September 2005, the GAO reported, the
Labor Department approved 99.5 percent of the 960,563 applications it
received for H-1Bs — a suspiciously high number.
“We do not know the true magnitude of the error rate in the certification process,” the GAO report concluded.
Ralph W. Wyndrum Jr., president of the IEEE-USA, issued a statement in response to the GAO’s findings:
“Implementation of the H-1B program fails every test of the
principles its advocates have asserted. Employers can and do give
preference to H-1Bs over U.S. workers. Employers who choose to do so
can easily manipulate the system to pay below-market wages.”
Silicon Valley’s tech leaders have a broader immigration agenda with
some laudable objectives, such as making it easier for bright foreign
students to study at U.S. universities and for those students to remain
when they graduate.
To keep that agenda on track, valley companies should balance their
demand for H-1Bs with a commitment to making the program more
transparent. They should also support clearly visible programs to
retain and retrain their existing employees, so we can accept at face
value their requests for more temporary foreign workers.