2004 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics

2004 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics

The Yearbook is a compendium of
tables that provides data on foreign nationals who, during fiscal year
2004, were granted lawful permanent residence, were admitted into the
United States on a temporary basis, applied for asylum or refugee
status, or were naturalized. The Yearbook also presents data on immigration law enforcement actions.

DHHS Announces 2006 Poverty Guidelines

[Federal Register: January 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 15)]
[Notices]
[Page 3848-3849]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24ja06-66]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Office of the Secretary


Annual Update of the HHS Poverty Guidelines

AGENCY: Department of Health and Human Services.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice provides an update of the HHS poverty guidelines
to account for last calendar year's increase in prices as measured by
the Consumer Price Index.

DATES: Effective Date: Date of publication, unless an office
administering a program using the guidelines specifies a different
effective date for that particular program.

ADDRESSES: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and
Evaluation, Room 404E, Humphrey Building, Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS), Washington, DC 20201.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about how the
guidelines are used or how income is defined in a particular program,
contact the Federal, state, or local office that is responsible for
that program. Contact information for two frequently requested programs
is given below:
For information about the Hill-Burton Uncompensated Services
Program (free or reduced-fee health care services at certain hospitals
and other facilities for persons meeting eligibility criteria involving
the poverty guidelines), contact the Office of the Director, Division
of Facilities Compliance and Recovery, Health Resources and Services
Administration, HHS, Room 10-105, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane,
Rockville, Maryland 20857. To speak to a person, call (301) 443-5656.
To receive a Hill-Burton information package, call 1-800-638-0742 (for
callers outside Maryland) or 1-800-492-0359 (for callers in Maryland).
You may also visit http://www.hrsa.gov/osp/dfcr/. The Division of

Facilities Compliance and Recovery notes that as set by 42 CFR
124.505(b), the effective date of this update of the poverty guidelines
for facilities obligated under the Hill-Burton Uncompensated Services
Program is sixty days from the date of this publication.
For information about the percentage multiple of the poverty
guidelines to be used on immigration forms such as USCIS Form I-864,
Affidavit of Support, contact U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
at 1-800-375-5283 or visit http://uscis.gov/graphics/howdoi/affsupp.htm
.

For information about the number of people in poverty or about the
Census Bureau poverty thresholds, visit the Poverty section of the
Census Bureau's Web site at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty.html
or contact the Housing and Household Economic Statistics

Information Staff at (301) 763-3242.
For general questions about the poverty guidelines themselves,
contact Gordon Fisher, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning
and Evaluation, Room 404E, Humphrey Building, Department of Health and
Human Services, Washington, DC 20201--telephone: (202) 690-7507--or
visit http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 673(2) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of
1981 (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)) requires the Secretary of the Department of
Health and Human Services to update, at least annually, the poverty
guidelines, which shall be used as an eligibility criterion for the
Community Services Block Grant program. The poverty guidelines also are
used as an eligibility criterion by a number of other Federal programs.
The poverty guidelines issued here are a simplified version of the
poverty thresholds that the Census Bureau uses to prepare its estimates
of the number of individuals and families in poverty.
As required by law, this update is accomplished by increasing the
latest published Census Bureau poverty thresholds by the relevant
percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers
(CPI-U). The guidelines in this 2006 notice reflect the 3.4 percent
price increase between calendar years 2004 and 2005. After this
inflation adjustment, the guidelines are rounded and adjusted to
standardize the differences between family sizes. The same calculation
procedure was used this year as in previous years. (Note that these
2006 guidelines are roughly equal to the poverty thresholds for
calendar year 2005 which the Census Bureau expects to publish in final
form in August 2006.)

2006 Poverty Guidelines for the 48 Contiguous States and the District of
Columbia
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Poverty
Persons in family unit guideline
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................................... $9,800
2....................................................... 13,200
3....................................................... 16,600
4....................................................... 20,000
5....................................................... 23,400
6....................................................... 26,800
7....................................................... 30,200
8....................................................... 33,600
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For family units with more than 8 persons, add $3,400 for each
additional person.


2006 Poverty Guidelines for Alaska
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Poverty
Persons in family unit guideline
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................................... $12,250
2....................................................... 16,500
3....................................................... 20,750
4....................................................... 25,000
5....................................................... 29,250
6....................................................... 33,500
7....................................................... 37,750
8....................................................... 42,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For family units with more than 8 persons, add $4,250 for each
additional person.


2006 Poverty Guidelines for Hawaii
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Poverty
Persons in family unit guideline
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................................... $11,270
2....................................................... 15,180
3....................................................... 19,090
4....................................................... 23,000
5....................................................... 26,910
6....................................................... 30,820
7................................................. ...... 34,730

[[Page 3849]]


8....................................................... 38,640
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For family units with more than 8 persons, add $3,910 for each
additional person.

Separate poverty guideline figures for Alaska and Hawaii reflect
Office of Economic Opportunity administrative practice beginning in the
1966-1970 period. (Note that the Census Bureau poverty thresholds--the
version of the poverty measure used for statistical purposes--have
never had separate figures for Alaska and Hawaii). The poverty
guidelines are not defined for Puerto Rico or other outlying
jurisdictions. In cases in which a Federal program using the poverty
guidelines serves any of those jurisdictions, the Federal office that
administers the program is responsible for deciding whether to use the
contiguous-states-and-DC guidelines for those jurisdictions or to
follow some other procedure.
Due to confusing legislative language dating back to 1972, the
poverty guidelines have sometimes been mistakenly referred to as the
``OMB'' (Office of Management and Budget) poverty guidelines or poverty
line. In fact, OMB has never issued the guidelines; the guidelines are
issued each year by the Department of Health and Human Services. The
poverty guidelines may be formally referenced as ``the poverty
guidelines updated periodically in the Federal Register by the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services under the authority of 42
U.S.C. 9902(2).''
Some programs use a percentage multiple of the guidelines (for
example, 125 percent or 185 percent of the guidelines), as noted in
relevant authorizing legislation or program regulations. Non-Federal
organizations that use the poverty guidelines under their own authority
in non-Federally-funded activities can choose to use a percentage
multiple of the guidelines such as 125 percent or 185 percent.
The poverty guidelines do not make a distinction between farm and
non-farm families or between aged and non-aged units. (Only the Census
Bureau poverty thresholds have separate figures for aged and non-aged
one-person and two-person units).
Note that this notice does not provide definitions of such terms as
``income'' or ``family.'' This is because there is considerable
variation in how different programs that use the guidelines define
these terms, traceable to the different laws and regulations that
govern the various programs. Therefore, questions about how a
particular program applies the poverty guidelines (e.g., Is income
before or after taxes? Should a particular type of income be counted?
Should a particular person be counted in the family or household unit?)
should be directed to the organization that administers the program.

Dated: January 18, 2006.
Michael O. Leavitt,
Secretary of Health and Human Services.
[FR Doc. 06-624 Filed 1-20-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4151-05-P

Infosys May Face Legal Trouble

Times News Network

Bangalore, Feb 17: Information available on the web
says that Infosys Technologies might face a possible class action suit
in California from a law firm for allegedly not paying overtime wages
to its employees who are working on H-1B visas there.

However, an Infosys spokesperson told ET, “We have read this report
and are currently examining the issue. Until we do so, we are not in a
position to discuss this matter.”

A class action is generally defined as a practical procedural device
in litigation for determining the rights of and remedies, if any, for
large numbers of people who have in common questions of law and fact.
 
The
law firm — United Employees Law Group, PC has alleged that it is
investigating claims against Infosys offices in California for
allegedly not paying overtime wages to ‘immigrant computer programmers’
ie, Indians working in the US on H-1B visas.

It has further said that if a California-based employee, whether a
US citizen or a foreign citizen holding a H-1B visa, works in computer
software and is not paid at least $47.81 per hour or the annual salary
equivalent of approximately $99,445, and works more than eight hours a
day or 40 hours a week, they may be entitled to overtime wages.

The law firm has further said, “If you are an employee of Infosys in
California and make less than $47.81 per hour and do not receive
overtime wages, you may qualify for damage or remedies.” 

Bridge suit rests on policy

02/17/2006
Via The Miami Herald

U.S. District Judge Federico Moreno will play the dual role of judge
and geographer in deciding the fate of 15 Cubans who arrived last month
on an abandoned bridge in the Florida Keys but were repatriated because
it was not considered U.S. soil.

The legal dispute, now unfolding in Miami federal court, has turned
a harsh spotlight on the federal government’s controversial ”wet-foot,
dry-foot” immigration policy.

Click to continue reading story

Unlicensed doctor charged with providing fake immigration exams

Associated Press

An
unlicensed doctor who allegedly injected immigrants with a saline
solution he claimed was a vaccine faces more than 100 criminal counts,
prosecutors said Thursday.

Stephen Brian Turner, 51, has been charged with 106 felonies for
allegedly providing fake immigration medical exams while unlicensed.
Charges include practicing medicine without a license, mishandling
blood samples and felony grand theft, according to prosecutors.

“Instead of helping these people, this defendant allegedly
manipulated them for his own personal profit,” San Francisco District
Attorney Kamala Harris said in a statement.

Turner was being held in county jail Thursday on $1.45 million bail after being arrested the day before at his Hayward home.

Prosecutors claim Turner stole $247,000 from 1,417 victims, most of
whom thought they were receiving legitimate immigration medical exams,
Harris said. Immigrants need to get routine physicals and vaccinations
to become citizens.

Investigators said in court documents that Turner injected patients
with saline rather than vaccines for illnesses like mumps and rubella.
Many of the patients visited Turner in a clinic in the city’s Mission
District, a hub for Latino immigrants, prosecutors said. He also is
accused of drawing blood for AIDS and syphilis tests that weren’t
performed.

Prosecutors said Turner surrendered his California medical license in 1998, but continued seeing patients until late last year.

Herman Franck, Turner’s lawyer, could not immediately be reached for comment.

Authorities are encouraging former patients to have medical exams performed again by another doctor.

Turner previously pleaded no contest to charges that he masturbated
in front of two young girls in 1984 while a radiology resident at the
University of Southern California, according to medical board records.
He was later convicted in Alameda County in 1993 of indecent exposure
for an incident near the University of California, Berkeley, campus,
board records show.

McCain Plans a Visit To Rally For Immigration Reform Plan

Via the New York Sun
02/17/2006

A Republican senator is
coming to New York to rally support for an immigration reform plan that
is winning many fans in immigrant circles. He’ll likely arrive before
New York’s Democratic senators even take a public stance on the
divisive issue.

Senator McCain, a Republican of Arizona who will likely run for
president in 2008, will headline a town hall meeting and rally for
immigration reform expected to attract 1,000 people to Lower Manhattan
on February 27. The evening will be an opportunity for him to push the
bipartisan bill he is sponsoring with Senator Kennedy, a Democrat of
Massachusetts.

He likely will not have to push very hard: Of the four immigration
reform plans in the Senate, it is by far the most popular with
immigrant organizers, lawyers, and union leaders in the city. Key to
its favorable reception is its inclusion of a legalization plan for the
nation’s estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants, as well as a new
guest worker program.

More than a dozen local immigration groups, as well as the New York
branch of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, the Archdiocese
of New York, and various unions are sponsoring the town hall meeting.
In addition, key Democratic congressmen from New York are expected to
attend, including Rep. Charles Rangel.

New York immigrant leaders expressed frustration that their own
senators will not be standing with Mr. McCain and pushing for a path to
legal status for the city’s estimated 525,000 illegal immigrants, more
rapid family reunification, and new legal channels for immigrants to
work in America.

“We will know what Senator McCain thinks about this issue, but we
continue to be in the dark about what our own two senators think should
be done,” said Chung-Wha Hong, the executive director of the New York
Immigration Coalition, one of the groups sponsoring the event. “More
and more immigrants are asking why they aren’t taking a stance on this
issue and fighting for reform.”

In the past few weeks there has been an increase in organizing
efforts pertaining to immigration re form and criticism of Senators
Clinton and Schumer for their absence from the debate. Earlier this
month, hundreds of Irish immigrants congregated in Yonkers to organize
a campaign to promote the passage of the McCain-Kennedy bill. Taking a
different approach, dozens of immigrants from Queens on Tuesday rallied
in front of Mr. Schumer’s Midtown office, asking him to support
legalization and to take a stance against a bill that passed in the
House that would turn illegal immigrants into criminals. They then
marched to Mrs. Clinton’s office.

“They really have a responsibility to their constituency in New York
to play a leadership role in the Senate,” the director of Desis Rising
Up and Moving, Monami Maulik, said of New York’s senators. The group
has invited the senators to their own town hall-style meeting on
immigration in Queens, but Ms. Maulik said they have received no
response. “I think many immigrant communities have been disappointed
that they are not publicly saying anything,” she said.

In response to the protest, a spokeswoman for Mr. Schumer, Risa
Heller, touted his record, saying, “Senator Schumer has long been a
supporter of fair and rational immigration policy.” She said he “will
fight for legislation that both improves security and treats immigrants
fairly.” Mrs. Clinton’s office did not respond to requests for comment.

The Senate next month will take up what is expected to be a highly
contentious debate about how to solve the problems of immigration in
America. Some observers are saying Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Schumer are
biding their time to see which bill reaches the next level, a
politically savvy move considering that the McCain-Kennedy provisions
may not be included in the final bill.

“With immigration such a divisive issue in the country now, the New
York senators might not see it in their political interests to take a
stance on an issue that they may not get anything concrete to show for
later,” a visiting scholar at the Migration Policy Institute, Marc
Rosenblum, said. “Unless they’re going to come out and lead on it, it
makes sense to follow.”

Employee files class action suite against Tata America

VIA INDIATIMES NEWS NETWORK
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2006 02:23:52 PM


A
Nationwide Class Action Lawsuit has been filed against Tata America
International Corporation in the US against the company practice of forcing workers to hand
over federal and state tax refunds, reports Business Wire India. Tata America is
a subsidiary of the Tata
group.

Click here to continue reading story

New and Improved SEVIS I-901 Fee Transfer Capability

The Student and Exchange Visitor Program is pleased to announce an enhancement to the
SEVIS I-901 fee processing system effective February 12, 2006. The new system release includes an
automated process for transferring I-901 fee payment information for students and exchange visitors
from one SEVIS ID to another and recording the transfers in the SEVIS database. The enhancement will
provide SEVP with the capability to issue an updated Form I-797 receipt reflecting the fee payment
transfer to the requested SEVIS ID.

For more information regarding the new transfer capability, please see
http://www.ice.gov/graphics/sevis/i901/faq7.htm.

Please note: Any student or exchange visitor previously approved for an I-901 fee transfer,
who requires an updated Form I-797 receipt, should contact SEVP by emailing fmjfee.sevis@dhs.gov.
All emails regarding this issue should specify “Transfer Receipt” in the subject line. The email should
include the following information:

  • name
  • date of birth
  • student or exchange visitor’s original SEVIS ID number
  • new SEVIS ID number to which the fee payment will be transferred

Students and exchange
visitors will also need to provide a current, valid address so that their updated Form I-797 receipt
can be mailed to them.

Should you have any questions or require further assistance with the fee transfer function,
please contact the I-901 Fee Case Resolution Unit by emailing fmjfee.sevis@dhs.gov.

11 countries plan to lobby against U.S. immigration law

Via The Miami Herald

Latin
American diplomats teamed up Monday to lobby Washington against a tough
immigration plan that would include a large wall along the Mexico-U.S.
border to keep out illegal immigrants.

Foreign ministers from 11 Latin American countries gathered in the
seaside resort city of Cartagena, where they decided to send a scouting
mission to Washington next week to identify key U.S. lawmakers on the
immigration debate, Salvadoran Foreign Minister Francisco Lainez
announced.

The region will urge those lawmakers in coming weeks to change or
defeat altogether a bill making its way through the U.S. Congress that
would make it harder for undocumented immigrants to get jobs and would
authorize construction of a fence along parts of the 2,000-mile
Mexico-U.S. border.

Carolina Barco, Colombia’s foreign minister, said immigrants’
contribution to U.S. development “has been fundamental . . . but due
to Sept. 11, the pendulum seems to have shifted in the opposite
direction and migration is looked upon with a distrusting eye.”

”The point we have made with clarity is that [the border wall]
doesn’t seem to us to be the solution,” said Mexican Foreign Secretary
Luis Ernesto Derbez.

The countries meeting in Cartagena — Mexico, Central American
nations, Colombia, Ecuador and the Dominican Republic — met in January
in Mexico City to discuss the same issue, demanding the United States
to implement guest-worker programs and legalize undocumented migrants.
At that meeting, they also condemned proposals for tougher border
enforcement.

The U.S. House of Representatives already approved the bill in
December, and the Senate will consider a version of the law next month.

Authorities estimate there are about 11 million undocumented
migrants in the United States, the majority of them coming from Latin
America — mostly Mexico, but also countries as far away as Colombia
and Ecuador.

These workers have come to play an important part in Latin American
economies, sending billions of dollars home to their families each year.

Click here to read story

Some Immigrants Meet Harsh Face of Justice

Via the LA Times

The complaints about immigration judges were alarming.

In
San Francisco, a U.S. citizen was wrongly deported to Mexico after a
judge failed to verify the authenticity of his birth certificate and
tax records — actions that drew harsh criticism from a federal appeals
court.

In Chicago, an appellate board found that a political asylum case
involving an Albanian citizen was mishandled because the judge relied
on testimony from a document expert who did not speak or read Albanian.

And in Boston, a judge was suspended for more than a year after he
referred to himself as “Tarzan” during a court proceeding for a Ugandan
woman named Jane.

Describing the conduct of some judges as
“intemperate and even abusive,” U.S. Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales
recently announced that the Justice Department was launching a
comprehensive review of the nation’s immigration courts.

“To
the aliens who stand before you, you are the face of American justice,”
Gonzales wrote in a Jan. 9 memo to immigration judges. “I insist that
each be treated with courtesy and respect.”

Click to read story

US-VISIT under the microscope

Via FCW.com
02/13/2006

The honeymoon appears to be over for the Homeland Security
Department’s system for spotting criminal aliens when they cross U.S.
borders.

For the past three years, the U.S. Visitor and
Immigrant Status Indicator Technology program had escaped much of the
criticism other DHS programs received. Congress generally praised the
program’s progress since its creation in 2003 in response to the 2001
terrorist attacks. The 9/11 Public Discourse Project, successor to the
9/11 Commission, gave US-VISIT a B, the highest grade it gave to any
DHS program, when its members issued a final report last December.

Last
month, however, the Senate Appropriations Committee’s Homeland Security
Subcommittee and the Government Accountability Office said they had
concerns about whether US-VISIT is effective and well-managed.

Click to read story