U.S. Tech Firms, Citing ‘Brain Drain,’ Push to Hire More Skilled Foreigners
Via the Los Angelas Times
0212/2006
President Bush’s recent call for more visas for skilled foreign workers
increases the likelihood that relief is on the way for U.S. technology
firms that say they are struggling to fill key positions.
In a Feb. 2 speech at the Minnesota headquarters of 3M, the president
said it was a “mistake not to encourage more really bright folks who
can fill the jobs that are having trouble being filled here in
America.” He called on Congress to be “realistic” and “reasonable” and
expand the quota of H-1B visas, which are used to bring in skilled
workers on a temporary basis.
Paul Zulkie, a Chicago immigration attorney, said the president’s
statement raised the pressure on Congress to respond to a “crisis faced
by American businesses.” He said he gets at least two calls a week from
companies desperate for help in hiring prospective foreign employees.
Silicon Valley companies are among the most vocal advocates of H-1B
reform. For decades, these companies attracted engineers, computer
programmers and other professionals from around the globe. Now they say
they are experiencing a reverse brain drain as skilled workers flock to
the booming economies of China and India.
“Every employer still
faces a shortage of certain talent,” said Lynda Ward Pierce, head of
human resources for SVB Financial Group, the parent company of Silicon
Valley Bank. “I think people going from here to there exacerbates the
problem.”
Though the debate in this country about outsourcing
work overseas has quieted down in the United States, it remains a
sensitive political issue. In December, an effort to get an H-1B visa
expansion provision attached to a budget bill was defeated in Congress.
“The business community is incredulous at the congressional
intransigence in refusing to raise the cap,” said Zulkie, the immediate
past president of the American Immigration Lawyers Assn.
In
response to high demand for H-1B visas at the start of the decade,
Congress expanded the annual quota to 195,000 visas for three years,
then cut it back to the current 65,000.
The allotment of H-1Bs
for the fiscal year that started Oct. 1 was filled by August, and
companies have to wait until April to apply for next year’s slots. The
U.S. agreed this year to give 20,000 additional visas to foreign
graduates of U.S. master’s and PhD programs, but those were filled last
month.
If no changes are made, immigration experts expect
next year’s quota to be filled even faster, given the improving economy
and tightening of the job market.
Click to read article
BIA Rules on Failure of Trial Court to Advise of Immigration Consequences of Guilty Plea
BIA court rules that a conviction vacated for failure of the trial court to advise the alien defendant of the possible immigration consequences of a guilty plea is no longer a valid conviction for immigration purposes.
INS into DHS – Where is it now?
On November 25, 2002, the President signed the Homeland Security
Act of 2002 into law. This law transferred INS functions to the new Department
of Homeland Security (DHS). Immigration enforcement functions were placed within
the Directorate of Border and Transportation Security (BTS), either directly, or under
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) (which includes the Border Patrol and INS
Inspections) or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) (which includes the
enforcement and investigation components of INS such as Investigations,
Intelligence, Detention and Removals).
As of March 1, 2003, the former Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS) was abolished and its functions and units incorporated into the new
Department. Below are links to Web information about
the new locations, responsibilities and contacts (HQs/field) of the former INS
immigration services and immigration enforcement units.
Three Convicted in Immigrants’ Deaths
Via Yahoo
HOUSTON – A jury Wednesday convicted three people in the nation’s
deadliest human smuggling attempt, in which 19 people died after being
left inside an airtight truck trailer.
The defendants, all U.S. citizens, were convicted of conspiracy to
harbor and transport illegal immigrants, as well as other counts, and
all face life in prison.
They were accused of hiding and transporting some of the immigrants
before the group was packed into the trailer in South Texas. The jury
had to decide whether each defendant was responsible for the smuggling
of each immigrant involved.
H-1B Portability and Travel under AC21
I often receive questions concerning whether travel abroad is possible based on the previously stamped H-1B visa (with unexpired dates) through a former employer. The legacy INS
Memorandum from Michael A. Pearson, Executive Assoc. Comm’r, Office of Field
Operations (January 29, 2001) states
that an H-1B beneficiary is admissible at a port of entry even if he or she is
no longer working for the original petitioner, provided that the following
conditions are met:
1. The applicant is otherwise
admissible;
2. The applicant, unless exempt under
8 CFR §212.1, §1212.1, is in possession of a valid, unexpired passport and visa
(including a valid, unexpired visa endorsed with the name of the original
petitioner);
3. The applicant establishes to the
satisfaction of the inspecting officer that he or she was previously admitted as
an H-1B or otherwise accorded H-1B status. If a visa exempt applicant is not in
possession of the previously issued Form I-94, Arrival/Departure Record, or a
copy of the previously issued I-94, the applicant may present a copy of the Form
I-797, Notice of Action, with the original petition’s validity dates; and
4. The applicant presents evidence
that the new petition was filed timely with the Service Center, in the form of a
dated filing receipt, Form I-797, or other credible evidence of timely filing.
In order to be a timely filing, the petition must have been filed prior to the
expiration of the H-1B’s previous period of admission. The burden of proof is on
the applicant to show that he or she is admissible as an H-1B and eligible for
visa portability provisions described in AC21. Please ensure that you collect all proper documentation prior to utilizing this process. In addition, you should obtain a letter from your current employer certifying that they are aware of your trip. If possible, consult an attorney for details concerning your specific case.
Visa Bulletin for February 2006
Number 90
Volume VIII
Washington, D.C.
VISA BULLETIN FOR FEBRUARY 2006
IMMIGRANT NUMBERS FOR FEBRUARY 2006
A. STATUTORY NUMBERS
1.
This bulletin summarizes the availability of immigrant numbers during
February. 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 January 9th in the
chronological order of the reported priority dates. If the demand could
not be satisfied within the statutory or regulatory limits, the
category or foreign state in which demand was excessive was deemed
oversubscribed. The cut-off date for an oversubscribed category is the
priority date of the first applicant who could not be reached within
the numerical limits. Only applicants who have a priority date
earlier than the cut-off date may be allotted a number. Immediately
that it becomes necessary during the monthly allocation process to
retrogress a cut-off date, supplemental requests for numbers will be
honored only if the priority date falls within the new cut-off date.
2.
Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual
minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide
level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least
140,000. Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for
preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored
and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent
area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320.
3. Section 203 of the INA prescribes preference classes for allotment of immigrant visas as follows:
FAMILY-SPONSORED PREFERENCES
First: Unmarried Sons and Daughters of Citizens: 23,400 plus any numbers not required for fourth preference.
Second: Spouses and Children, and Unmarried Sons and Daughters of Permanent Residents: 114,200, plus the number (if any) by which
the worldwide family preference level exceeds 226,000, and any unused first preference numbers:
A. Spouses and Children: 77% of the overall second preference limitation,
of which 75% are exempt from the per-country limit;
B. Unmarried Sons and Daughters (21 years of age or older): 23% of the overall second preference limitation.
Third: Married Sons and Daughters of Citizens: 23,400, plus any numbers not required by first and second preferences.
Fourth: Brothers and Sisters of Adult Citizens: 65,000, plus any numbers not required by first three preferences.
EMPLOYMENT-BASED PREFERENCES
First: Priority Workers: 28.6% of the worldwide employment-based preference level, plus any numbers not required for fourth and
fifth preferences.
Second: Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or Persons of Exceptional Ability: 28.6% of the worldwide employment-based
preference level, plus any numbers not required by first preference.
Third: Skilled Workers, Professionals, and Other Workers: 28.6% of the worldwide level, plus any numbers not required by first and
second preferences, not more than 10,000 of which to “Other Workers”.
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.)
| All Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed | CHINA-mainland born | INDIA | MEXICO | PHILIP-PINES | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Family | |||||
| 1st | 22APR01 | 22APR01 | 22APR01 | 08AUG94 | 22AUG91 |
| 2A* | 08FEB02 | 08FEB02 | 08FEB02 | 15APR99 | 08FEB02 |
| 2B | 01JUL96 | 01JUL96 | 01JUL96 | 15FEB92 | 01JUL96 |
| 3rd | 15JUL98 | 15JUL98 | 15JUL98 | 01JAN95 | 08FEB91 |
| 4th | 22AUG94 | 22AUG94 | 01FEB94 | 01JAN93 | 01OCT83 |
*NOTE:
For February, 2A numbers EXEMPT from per-country limit are available to
applicants from all countries with priority dates earlier than 15APR99.
2A numbers SUBJECT to per-country limit are available to applicants
chargeable to all countries EXCEPT MEXICO with priority dates beginning
15APR99 and earlier than 08FEB02. (All 2A numbers provided for MEXICO
are exempt from the per-country limit; there are no 2A numbers for
MEXICO subject to per-country limit.)
| All Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed | CHINA | INDIA | MEXICO | PHILLIPINES | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Employment–Based | |||||
| 1st | C | 01JAN03 | 01FEB04 | C | C |
| 2nd | C | 01APR02 | 01AUG01 | C | C |
| 3rd | 22APR01 | 22APR01 | 01JAN00 | 15MAR01 | 22APR01 |
| Schedule A Workers | C | C | C | C | C |
| Other Workers | 01OCT01 | 01OCT01 | 01OCT01 | 01OCT01 | 01OCT01 |
| 4th | C | C | C | C | C |
| Certain Religious Workers | C | C | C | C | C |
| 5th | C | C | C | C | C |
| Targeted Employment Areas/Regional Centers | C | C | C | C | C |
The
Department of State has available a recorded message with visa
availability information which can be heard at: (area code 202)
663-1541. This recording will be updated in the middle of each month
with information on cut-off dates for the following month.
Employment
Third Preference Other Workers Category: Section 203(e) of the NACARA,
as amended by Section 1(e) of Pub. L. 105 – 139, provides that once the
Employment Third Preference Other Worker (EW) cut-off date has reached
the priority date of the latest EW petition approved prior to November
19, 1997, the 10,000 EW numbers available for a fiscal year are to be
reduced by up to 5,000 annually beginning in the following fiscal year.
This reduction is to be made for as long as necessary to offset
adjustments under the NACARA program. Since the EW cut-off date reached
November 19, 1997 during Fiscal Year 2001, the reduction in the EW
annual limit to 5,000 began in Fiscal Year 2002.
B. DIVERSITY IMMIGRANT (DV) CATEGORY
Section
203(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides a maximum of up
to 55,000 immigrant visas each fiscal year to permit immigration
opportunities for persons from countries other than the principal
sources of current immigration to the United States. The Nicaraguan and
Central American Relief Act (NACARA) passed by Congress in November
1997 stipulates that beginning with DV-99, and for as long as
necessary, up to 5,000 of the 55,000 annually-allocated diversity visas
will be made available for use under the NACARA program. This reduction has resulted in the DV-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
February, 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 | AF | 11,600 |
Nigeria 8,150 |
| ASIA | AS | 3,900 | |
| EUROPE | EU | 8,300 | |
| NORTH AMERICA (BAHAMAS) | NA | 6 | |
| OCEANIA | OC | 400 | |
| SOUTH AMERICA, and the CARIBBEAN | SA | 700 |
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 MARCH
For
March, 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 Region Listed Separately | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| AFRICA | AF | 14,200 |
Nigeria 9,550 |
| ASIA | AS | 4,700 | |
| EUROPE | EU | 9,850 | |
| NORTH AMERICA (BAHAMAS) | NA | 7 | |
| OCEANIA | OC | 500 | |
| SOUTH AMERICA, and the CARIBBEAN | SA | 820 |
D. VISA AVAILABILITLY IN THE EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCE CATEGORIES
The
movement of Employment cut-off dates during the past several months has
been greater than originally anticipated. This has been a direct result
of low visa number demand by Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS)
for adjustment of status cases. It is not possible at present to
speculate how soon CIS number use will significantly increase. Once
increased demand does materialize, however, cut-off date movements will
necessarily slow or stop.
E. 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:
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:January 9, 2006
State wins $10 Million judgment in immigration scam perpetrated by Non-lawyer “Immigration Consultant”
Houston Chronicle (02/07/2006)
The Texas Attorney General’s Office announced Monday that it had won a
$10 million judgment against a Pasadena-based immigration consultant
accused of bilking hundreds of immigrants out of hundreds of thousands
of dollars for fraudulent services.
The lawsuit alleged Perez charged customers for legal advice and help in preparing immigration documents though she was not a lawyer and was not authorized to offer immigration consultant services. She also told clients she was a former employee of the then-Immigration and Naturalization Service.
Click here to read the full story
Click here to view Perez’ deceptive business card
Click here to view the lawsuit
When dreams turn to dust
The government plans on setting up a
gender cell that will address the problems of girls who are abandoned
or abused by their NRI grooms, reports Bishakha De Sarkar in The
Telegraph.
Ranjana Kumari, director of the New Delhi-based Centre for Social
Research (CSR), led a session on gender issues at the fourth Pravasi
Bharatiya Divas in the southern Indian city of Hyderabad.
“When the session started, the hall was overflowing with people,”
Ranjana Kumari recalls days later, sitting in her Delhi office. “For
two years, we have been trying to persuade the government to discuss
issues relating to Non-Resident Indian (NRI) women. We had suggested
that there be three sessions. Finally, there was just one — but it was
such a success.”
Quite possibly, Smriti was at the back of Ranjana Kumari’s mind
when, as the president of WomenPowerConnect (WPC), an umbrella body of
groups seeking to lobby on gender issues, she approached the government
to include the problems of NRI women in its annual Pravasi Divas
meetings. “A lot of women come as delegates or spouses — but all that
the government organises for them are bazaars,” says Kumari. “We wanted
it to address the many serious issues that concern women.”
Issues, for instance, that confronted Smriti, a Delhi-based
journalist who had worked with CSR for a while. Daughter of a colonel,
she had been married to an NRI groom 10 years ago. Her father paid for
all the wedding expenses, including the travel costs of the groom and
his family. The groom spent one night with his wife and left for home
in the United States the day after. He took her jewellery as well,
stressing that it would be safer with him. She was supposed to have
joined him a month later.
But once the groom was gone, he never got back to her. Smriti and
her family made frantic enquiries. They got in touch with the place
where he said he was employed — but were told he had never worked
there. The home address didn’t lead to the groom or his family either.
“Smriti was in a curious position. She had spent a night with her
husband and believed that she was married to him and had to find him
somehow,” says Kumari.
Her family did all that it could do to trace him. Finally, Smriti
left for the United States some years ago in search of her elusive
husband. Kumari hasn’t heard of her since then.
At the Hyderabad conference, though, there were several women who
had similar stories to tell. Abandonment by NRI husbands was a common
complaint. Some men did it for money, some because they felt their
wives wouldn’t be able to adjust to the West, and some because they had
been forced into marriage by their parents.
The Indian Government responds
But the government — aided by the WPC and the National Commission
for Women (NCW) — now hopes to put an end to this trend. Plans are
afoot to set up an NRI gender cell which will deal with issues such as
marriages and abandonment. “The government is very serious about going
ahead with this,” says Malay Mishra, joint secretary, ministry of
overseas Indian affairs, the organisers of the Pravasi meets.
Married life for NRI women in the West, the activists seem to
stress, is not necessarily an El Dorado. “There are some genuine
problems that Indian women living abroad face,” says Girija Vyas,
chairperson of the New Delhi-based NCW. “There are three major problems
— that of married women being abandoned, trafficking and the plight of
domestic workers,” she says.
The problem of wives being abandoned by their NRI husbands is
rampant in the north and in cities such as Hyderabad — regions from
where men migrate to the West, or the Gulf, in large numbers. According
to one estimate, some 70,000 Indians migrated to the United States in
2001 alone.
“There are many cases of men demanding a dowry from the bride’s
family in India,” says Vyas. “And these are some of the reasons we need
a regular gender cell which people can approach when they face
problems,” she says.
Domestic violence is another problem among NRIs. Recent studies
conducted in the United States and the United Kingdom highlight the
fact that south Asians living there are subject to domestic violence.
Women’s groups have questioned a particular study — the National
Violence against Women (NVAW) survey — which, after contacting some
16,000 people on the telephone, said only 12.8 per cent of south Asian
women faced physical assault.
“Some doubt is cast on the NVAW survey by two in-depth studies of
domestic violence among south Asian women in the US, both of which
found high levels of abuse,” says the CSR. One of the studies —
conducted in 2000 — found a lifetime prevalence of violence in 77 per
cent south Asian women. The other — carried out in 2002 — said 41 per
cent of south Asian women it had interviewed in Boston had faced
violence from their partners, leading to physical or sexual injury.
The cell — once it does come up — may ultimately look at issues
such as domestic violence. Right now, though, the three subjects it
seeks to take up are marriage, adoption and employment — issues that
were discussed in Hyderabad.
The government is planning to start a national consultation from
next month on the role of a gender cell. “The cell is very much on our
agenda,” stresses Sandhya Shukla, director, social services of the
ministry of overseas Indian affairs. “We are going to look at different
views and then conceptualise the cell,” she says.
WPC believes that a booklet — listing all the dos and don’ts of a
marriage — would help both men and women. One of the complaints heard
in Hyderabad, for instance, was from a middle-class girl who had been
married abroad and had found, much to her dismay, that she was expected
to clean the house and wash dishes. “We had to tell her that this was
the way of the West. A booklet would also explain that is not just a
woman’s chore, but is shared by men,” says Ranjana.
The cell, the group hopes, would make people aware of their rights
and the laws that are applicable to them. WPC also hopes that the US
government would bring about a change in some visa rules. The spouse of
a person working in the US on an H1B visa, for instance, does not have
the protection that the Violence against Women Act gives to other
immigrant women.
There is a plan to rope in the Indian missions abroad as well.
“For every marriage, there should be a system under which a potential
groom would have to submit his social security number to the mission,”
says Ranjana. “Marriages would have to be registered. And all this
would curb fraudulent marriages,” she says.
Smriti, wherever she may be, would be pleased.
Do Not Lose Your H-1B Over Wage Issues
many guest workers the H-1B status is an excellent opportunity to work
and remain in the U.S. while a green card is processing.When the USCIS
grants a worker H-1B status, it places certain obligations, that if not
kept, may jeopardize the worker’s ability to extend the status or even
obtain the green card.
The
most serious and draconian obligation is for the worker to receive the
wage listed on the petition. The CIS has interpreted immigration law in
such a way that it finds the H-1B employee is in violation of H-1B
status if the employee does not at least receive the wage listed on the
petition.The CIS maintains that the employee, who is receiving lower
than the required wage, has the obligation to file a formal complaint
with the employer and even the Department of Labor.If the H-1B employee
takes no steps to try and receive the required wage, the CIS finds that
this worker is not maintaining status and therefore cannot obtain an
extension of status.If the failure to maintain status reaches 180 days,
the person also generally becomes ineligible to adjust status to a
green card holder.
This is a very harsh interpretation by the CIS and
does not take into consideration that the employer is the one filing
the petition or that the employer exercises a much higher bargaining
power.It is unrealistic to expect a worker to challenge his employer
over a wage received for fear the worker may wind up terminated.But,
the CIS is unsympathetic and states that if the worker is terminated,
so be it.CIS’s position is that U.S. labor laws can protect this
employee.This policy fails to take into account the great time and
expense it takes to pursue labor law relief through the Department of
Labor and the courts.The CIS has stated that H-1B employees who show
that they have made an effort to correct wage issues from the beginning
can receive a favorable exercise of discretion and may change H-1B
employers and extend H-1B status.
The immigration bar disagrees with the CIS’s analysis
that penalizes a worker who is not receiving the required wage.But
until the CIS is challenged in Federal Court, its interpretation will
control.Practitioners have recently seen an alarming new trend coming
out of the CIS in H-1B extensions where the worker has not received the
proper wage.The CIS is deciding that since the employer did not pay the
wage in the first H-1B, it does not intend to pay the wage in the
extension. So, the filing of the extension is deemed to be fraudulent
and must be denied.This is particularly onerous for the worker because
when a petition is denied on the basis of fraud, the worker is also
deemed to have been out of status on the date his I-94 card expired.If
the worker has 180 days or more out of status, this triggers a
3-year-bar to reentering the U.S.Since many CIS offices take 180 days
or more to decide a case, this places many workers at risk for harsh
and unwarranted punishment by the CIS.
There are a myriad of legitimate reasons that a
worker does not receive the wages listed on the petition.The most
common is the employer’s need for the position is reduced from
full-time to part-time.In this type of situation the employer should
immediately file an amendment to show the position’s hours have been
reduced.Employers should not wait until it is time to file the
extension to inform the CIS.And despite contrary belief, one can be
petitioned for part-time H-1B employment.
Because the CIS treats the non-receipt of the proper
wages so harshly, it is very important for H-1B employees to regularly
check their wage statements and confirm that they are receiving the
correct wage.If they are not, they should immediately contact an
immigration practitioner to advise them on what steps need to be taken
to preserve their H-1B status.The problem should not be ignored because
it will not just go away.Failure to address it straight on can result
in the permanent loss of H-1B status (either with the same employer or
a new employer), triggering of 3 and 10-year-bars, and loss of the
ability to adjust status to a permanent resident.The solution may be as
simple as filing an H-1B amendment, or as complex as contesting the
wage with the employer and perhaps even the Department of Labor.This
can be a delicate situation and should only be entrusted to those who
have the experience to handle it properly.
Foreign citizens held as they go to court
Via the Miami Herald – 02/02/2006 – Federal immigration agents deployed at the immigration court in
downtown Miami have begun to systematically detain foreign nationals
who show up for hearings — particularly those who are ordered deported
or have criminal convictions.
Detentions at immigration court have always occurred but until
recently were sporadic. Now, immigration lawyers who litigate cases say
detentions are taking place every day. One lawyer, however, said
detainees with no criminal records are held for hours or a few days and
then released under supervision while they await deportation or the
outcome of pending asylum cases.
Immigration officials this week confirmed the detentions and noted
that foreign nationals in proceedings who qualify for supervised
release are picked up at the court building, 333 S. Miami Ave., and
then placed under a system dubbed Intensive Supervision Program. One of
its features is electronic-monitoring ankle bracelets. Those who
qualify for supervised release include foreign nationals who have no
criminal record and are seeking asylum.
Court detentions mark yet another example of toughened enforcement
of immigration laws and regulations. The goal is to ensure that foreign
nationals in immigration court proceedings comply with appearances and
not flee.
More than 400,000 foreign nationals ordered deported nationwide have
been classified as fugitives over the years. They allegedly would go
underground when an immigration judge ordered expulsion, although in
some cases, court-hearing notifications were sent to the wrong address.
Detentions at the Miami court are part of a nationwide program.
Court detentions stem from pilot programs begun three years ago in
Hartford, Conn.
The first indication that systematic detentions were occurring at
the downtown court in Miami came during a Dec. 22 meeting between local
representatives of the American Immigration Lawyers Association and
Michael Rozos, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Florida field
office director for detention and removal operations.
Immigration attorney Mary Kramer, who attended that meeting, said
the lawyers group was concerned about the detentions and had asked
Rozos about the possibility of “limiting the number of arrests at
court to ensure due process of law.”
Kramer noted in an e-mail to The Miami Herald that attorneys for the
lawyers group told Rozos that their organization was “strongly opposed
to arresting people in the courthouse halls at their hearings, because
it is upsetting to the family members, raises security concerns, and in
some cases may be neither legally required nor justified.”
Kramer said that not all foreign nationals in immigration court
proceedings are detained. ”Percentagewise, the majority of individuals
appearing in court are not arrested,” she said.
Steve Forester, senior policy advocate for Haitian Women of Miami
Inc., an immigrant rights group, said his sources knew of almost 50
foreign nationals picked up at the court over a two-day period in late
January.
Some immigrants detained at court are taken to a site where they are
placed on supervised release, immigration attorneys said. At the site,
detainees are asked to identify a sponsor, watch a video on supervision
requirements, and then get a monitoring bracelet placed on an ankle —
prior to release.
Barbara Gonzalez, a Miami spokeswoman for U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, confirmed that court detentions were taking place.
She said no figures on detentions were immediately available.
”We have always been present at the court,” Gonzalez said. “Every
case is evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and among the criteria
looked at is whether someone is a mandatory detention case, flight
risk, and obviously a top priority is expeditiously removing
criminals.”
Eduardo Soto, a Coral Gables immigration attorney, said that a
Colombian was placed in detention at the court last month after a judge
denied his asylum petition. Soto said the Colombian had arrived at
Miami International Airport with an allegedly false passport. He was
detained, then released because an asylum officer concluded that he had
a credible fear of persecution if returned home.
But when the Colombian went to immigration court, the judge found
that he did not qualify for asylum, and immigration officers detained
him. Soto said the Colombian is still detained.
Matthew Archambeault, an immigration attorney, said that last Aug.
31, one of his clients, a Sudanese seeking protection from deportation,
was detained after showing up late for a hearing, at which the judge
ordered deportation.
Press Gaggle by Scott McClellan, John Marburger, Director of Office of Science & Technology Policy and Claude Allen, Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy
Excerpts from Press Gaggle Aboard Air Force One
En route Maplewood, Minnesota
11:01 A.M. EST
…
Claude Allen, Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy: “The last piece of
the puzzle is in immigration. The President’s proposal calls for being
able to recruit the world’s best and brightest to come to America to
work alongside America’s best and brightest in terms of science,
engineering and high skilled laborers to come in under this proposal.
And so we will be working to work with Congress the H1B program, which
is the high skilled labor visas, which right now is about 65,000 visas
a year. They are consumed very quickly at the first of the year, and we
need to look at increasing that to do that. We’re looking also at other
visa initiatives, working with Congress to address that, as well, for
skilled laborers, high skilled laborers to come into the country.”
…
“Q On the immigration initiative, how many — you said 65,000 visas, H1B visas are issued?
MR. ALLEN: That’s the current number.
Q Okay. And what do you want to increase it to?
MR.
ALLEN: Well, we’ll let the President talk about that today; you’ll hear
him talk about that. But, again, we have not looked at a specific
number as yet. I know the President may have one that he’s spoken about
that we’ve looked at. But, historically, we have had — between 2001
and 2003 there was about 119,000 — let me make sure of that number —
195,000, I’m sorry — 195,000 H1B visas between ’01 and ’03.
We anticipate that the 65,000 clearly is too low. You would want to bump that up.
Q
Wasn’t that that huge number difference during that time — wasn’t that
during the bubble of Silicon Valley, a lot of third world —
MR. ALLEN: That’s correct. That’s correct — that many —
DR. MARBURGER: — and you need significantly more than we have.
MR.
ALLEN: Some of reports have called for increases of 10,000; others
between 20,000 and 40,000. So there is a number of options on the table
to be considered. But we’ll work with Congress on that.”
Writer Yiyun Li’s Petition for Residency Denied on Appeal
Chinese-born
fiction writer Yiyun Li’s petition for permanent residency in the
United States on the grounds of “extraordinary ability in the arts” has
been denied on appeal, most likely because a substantial portion of her literary achievements occurred after she filed the petition for permanent residency. She intends to re-file her case.
The U.S. Immigration Law Blog by Ashwin Sharma 
An Open Letter To USCIS Ombudsman Prakash Khatri: AC21 In Court
Julie Soininen’s open letter to Mr. Prakash Khatri, Ombudsman, USCIS requesting clarification of AC21.
Click here to read the article