Badmus

On July 30, 2008, USCIS announced that individuals with pending Freedom of Information Act requests can now check the status of their request online.

 To read the accouncement, click here.

 To check the status of your FOIA request, click here.

 By Michelle Richart

Categories: Immigration Litigation and Removal, Blogroll, General |

This month the Office of the Inspector General released the results of their FBI Security Procedures Audit.  The redacted, 123 page report released to the public summarizes the current FBI name check program, it’s deficiencies, and makes recommendations.

Notably, last year, the FBI received 4 million name check requests and approximately 14% of those checks took more than 60 days, many taking several months.  The report also notes that approximately 50,000 naturalization applications are still pending background checks initiated more than one year ago and the same is true for approximately 45,000 application to adjust status to permanent resident.

 To read the report, click here. 

 By Michelle Richart

Categories: Immigration Litigation and Removal, Legislation and Policy, Family Immigration, Medical Professionals, Blogroll, General |

On May 16, 2008, USCIS issued the newest Fact Sheet regarding the process for Iraqi refugees which outlines the proceedures for Iraqis located both in and outside of Iraq.  To read the Fact Sheet, click here.

 By Michelle Richart

Categories: Immigration Litigation and Removal, Family Immigration, Blogroll, General |

In March, 2008, the 8th Circuit held that an individual who checked the box on the I-9 Form given to him by a private employer stating that he was U.S. Citizen was found inadmissible.  Despite marrying a U.S. Citizen five years later and claiming that someone instructed him to check the box so that he would be able to work, the petitioner is ineligible for permanent residency.   The court reasoned that in checking that he was a U.S. Citizen on his I-9 form to a private employer, the petitioner was fraudulently seeking a benefit under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

To read the case, Rodriguez v. Mukasey, click here.

 By Michelle Richart

Categories: Employer Compliance, Employment Immigration, Immigration Litigation and Removal, Family Immigration, Medical Professionals, Blogroll |

On April 4, 2008, the CIS announced that optional practical training (OPT) may be extended in two situations.  First, if an F-1 student has a pending H-1B petition and is working pursuant to post-completion OPT, the student’s status is automatically extended until the October 1 start date indicated on the approved H-1B petition.  The extension terminates when the CIS rejects, denies or revokes the H-1B petition.  A person here in F-1 status may remain in the United States during this period and if the student is working pursuant to OPT, that student may continue working until the October 1 start date.

Second, a student may be eligible to extend post-completion OPT by an additional 17 months.  To be eligible for this extension, the student must have at least a bachelor’s degree in certain designated fields (STEM degree), the student must be in an approved post-completion OPT period based on that STEM degree, the student’s employer must be enrolled in E-Verify, and the student must apply for the OPT extension before the current post-completion OPT expires.  Note that this is not an automatic extension, but one that must be applied for timely.

The STEM designated degrees include the following courses of study:

*  Computer Science Applications                    *  Biological and Biomedical Sciences
*  Actuarial Science                                          *  Mathematics and Statistics
*  Engineering                                                  *  Military Technologies
*  Engineering Technologies                            *  Physical Sciences

For more information on these extensions,  click here

 By:  Martha James

Categories: Employment Immigration, Employer Compliance, Immigration Litigation and Removal, General |

On March 8, 2008, Stephen L. Klineberg, Professor of Sociology at Rice University, spoke at the ACLU of Texas 70^th Anniversary Conference where he highlighted his research over two and a half decades and the changing demographics in Texas, most specifically, in the Houston area.  To see information about the Houston Area Survey that Professor Klineberg has been conducted since 1982, click here. 

Professor Klineberg suggests that Texas has a burgeoning diversity which is a tremendous asset to the State.  However, unless educational differentials can be reduced between ethnic and immigrant groups and if Texans continue to live and work in segregated enclaves full of mutual misperceptions, Texas will not be able to fully capitalize on this diversity.  Professor Klineberg surmised that in order for Texas to continue to be successful with its multi-ethnic society, the state will need to grow more unified and inclusive with a commitment to civil rights and full participation for all residents. In nearly three decades of researching demographics in the Houston area, which began at approximately the same time as the oil bust in the 1980s, Klineberg believes that the traditional ‘blue collar’ approach to financial security has predominately disappeared.  Almost all good-paying jobs now require higher levels of education and technical skills.  With this in mind, consider the following below history and statistics as presented by Professor Klineberg. 

It was not until the past decade that the United States surpassed the 1900’s high level of immigrants to the United States, which, at the time, was almost exclusively comprised of individuals of European decent.  According to the U.S. Census, immigration levels were at a historical low during the Great Depression and it has taken nearly 70 years to rebound to levels prior to the Great Depression.  It is noteworthy that in the past few years, immigration has once again slowed, mostly due to Congressionally-imposed caps on various types of immigrant categories. 

Additionally, until 1965, it was virtually impossible for any non-Anglo individual to immigrate to the United States.  In fact, it was not until 1965, when President Kennedy announced that the United States was no longer a ‘racist nation,’ were immigrant visas to the United States available to other parts of the world such as Asia and Africa.  As immigration is primarily based and sponsored on the basis of family reunification or employment, and because those from Africa and Asian nations had no family with whom to reunify, beginning in the late 1960s, those individuals primarily immigrated to the United States based on employment and had high levels of education.  They mostly came from predominant and educated families.  In the meantime, individuals from areas such as Europe and Central America often had relatives whom could apply on their behalf. Professor Klineberg uses Houston as a model for the rest of Texas and believes that while Houston is a few years ahead of Texas in general, Texas demographics frequently follow that of Houston within a few years.  In 1960, the U.S. Census showed that Houston was 73.9% Anglo, 19.3% Black, 6% Hispanic, and 0.3% Asian and other groups.  Since that time, however, the demographics have greatly changed both before and after the oil bust in the 1980s.  Unlike other cities such as Detroit, Cincinnati, and others without such an immigrant surge, but who also suffered from an economic depression, such as the oil bust, Houston continues to thrive economically through a greater balance of groups of individuals working together.  In 2006, Houston was estimated to be 36.9% Anglo, 18.4% Black, 38.2% Hispanic, and 6.5% Asian and other groups.  Klineberg also points out that today’s seniors are primarily Anglos, with that number expected to double in the next 30 years.  Therefore, the younger generation, which is predominately non-Anglo and less privileged will replace the baby boom generation.  It is projected that by 2040, 80% of all Texans will be non-Anglos, primarily Blacks and Latinos.   

Because of this shift in demographics, and considering a high school diploma no longer ensures financial security, it is important to look at educational and technical statistics for those populations.  Currently, approximately 44.7% of individuals aged 14-29 in the Houston area are Hispanic.  According to Klineberg’s Houston Area Survey, between 1997 and 2004, of all ethnic groups 36% of Asian Immigrants have a college degree, with another 25% having a post-graduate degree.  This number was higher than all U.S.-born groups including U.S.-born Anglos, U.S.-born Blacks, U.S.-born Latinos and Latino immigrants.  In fact, 50% of first-generation Latino Immigrants have less than a high school diploma and only 7% have a college degree.  However, all groups of U.S.-born populations, whether Anglo, Black, or Latino, have approximately one-third percent of respondents with at least have some college education.  Some attribute this to a process of assimilation for those individuals who were born in the United States, whether or not their previous generations had immigrated.  In any case, within the past decade, the State of Texas rated last among all 50 states for individuals over the age of 25 who have a high school diploma.  During that same time, Texas rated 35^th for those over the age of 25 who had a college degree.  This lack of education could greatly hinder Texas’ increased growth and prosperity in the future. 

Professor Klineberg has also done extensive research on assimilation indicators among different immigrant groups.  It is important to note that according to his research, beginning in 2004 when immigration reform and debates came to the forefront of politics, attitudes toward both diversity and immigration drastically took a downturn with increased negativity. 

To read more about the Houston Area Survey, its findings, and methodology since 1982, click here.  The website also has contact information for Professor Klineberg and information about his many publications and articles.

By Michelle Richart 

Categories: Immigration Litigation and Removal, Family Immigration, Blogroll, General |

On March 13, 2008, Director of USCIS, Emilio T. Gonzalez, announced his resignation.  To read the story, click here.

To read Michael Chertoff’s comments, from the Department of Homeland Security, click here. 

 By Michelle Richart

Categories: Employer Compliance, Employment Immigration, Immigration Litigation and Removal, Family Immigration, Firm News, Medical Professionals, General |

When filing almost any type of immigration application, one will need to show that they have not overstayed a period of authorized admission in the United States. Often, when someone departs the U.S. by air or sea, their information should be entered into the Department of Homeland Security’s database after their I-94 card is collected. However, this does not always happen, or the information may be entered incorrectly. This is especially true when one departs the United States by land when I-94s are often not collected at all.

Despite these shortcomings in policy, there are things one may do to be sure that they document the fact that they have, indeed, departed the United States in a timely manner. For example, if you did not turn over your I-94 when you departed the U.S., you can mail the card and information to:

ACS—CBP SBU
1084 South Laurel Road
London, KY 40744

The card should NOT, however, be mailed to a local consulate or embassy. Also be sure that you keep a copy of what you are mailing and mail it in a way that it can be tracked.

If you need to find out if your I-94 and departure were recorded correctly, you can contact the following department to make a FOIA request:

US Customs and Border Protection
1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Attn: Mint Annex Bldg
FOIA Division
Washington, DC 20229

However, if you did not surrender an I-94 card when you departed the United States, there are other documents that you can use to show that you have departed the United States such as a used airline ticket or boarding pass, a passport stamp showing the date of arrival in one’s home country, pay stubs for employment outside the United States, Credit card slips showing purchases made outside the U.S. post-departure, and others.

Delays beyond the traveler’s control, such as cancelled flights, medical emergencies, and others are not authorized overstays, however, if you bring proof that your late departure was out of your control, bring that evidence when you next travel to the U.S. to be forgiven. For cancelled tickets, ask the airline to issue you a letter confirming the delay or cancellation.

By Michelle Richart

Categories: Employment Immigration, Immigration Litigation and Removal, Family Immigration, General |

The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) has confirmed that the USCIS service centers are conducting “sweeps” to find adjustment of status  (I-485) cases that can be reviewed for adjudication under the changes in background check procedures announced by USCIS on February 4, 2008. AILA national has asked USCIS  for information on processing of adjustment of status cases at local offices that can be reviewed under the same memo, and many chapters have already contacted local USCIS offices for further information on local processing.

According to AILA,  the USCIS hopes to have identified and taken action on cases by April 30, 2008.

AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 08021366 (posted Feb. 13, 2008)

Categories: Employment Immigration, Immigration Litigation and Removal, Family Immigration, General |

On February 4, 2008, the USCIS announced that it will no longer delay the adjudication permanent residence (”green card”) applications because of uncompleted FBI name checks. This is a welcome change in policy for nearly 400,000 applicants who have been waiting many years for their green cards while most who apply gain approvals in less than a year.

The USCIS conducts a three-part security check on every application, consisting of an FBI fingerprint check, IBIS (government record) check, and an FBI name check. The majority of applications clear all of these checks within six months, according to the FBI. The name check, however, has posed a problem for many because their name may turn up as a potential match in the FBI database. For example, an applicant with a common name like “John Smith” may turn up as a “hit” and require further investigation. When this happens, the FBI must manually review records to determine if the name is a true match to a potential threat. Because of the FBI’s admittedly limited resources and staffing, many years could pass before the FBI even began to review a case.

Before this most recent announcement, the USCIS would hold an I-485 application in limbo until the FBI completed its name check, no matter how long it took, even if the fingerprint check and IBIS check were clear. Because of these inordinate delays with no end in sight, many applicants sued the government in federal court and won.

Now, if the FBI fails to complete the name check in six months, the USCIS will now approve applicants who clear the fingerprint check and IBIS check and meet all other immigration requirements. If the completed name check reveals that the applicant is inadmissible as a permanent resident, the USCIS can institute revocation or removal proceedings to reverse the grant of permanent residence.

Although some will be displeased, in all practicality, the government’s new policy does not compromise our national security. Applicants must continue to undergo the same rigorous security checks. Under the previous policy, delayed applicants could live and work among us even though their name checks were not completed.  Given this, it should be apparent that this change in policy does not impose any greater security threat. And, if the name check as the last security test does turn up negative information about the applicant, the government has the ability and resources to remove him or her.

The great majority of green card applicants are law-abiding people who want to become a part of our country, not destroy it. The name check system has been inefficient and devastating for those who are unfortunate enough to have a name that is a preliminary match to that of an undesirable. At the same time, the government’s past insistence on placing these unlucky applicants on hold for years has done little to advance our national security. This change in policy was the right thing to do.

By Ann Massey Badmus

Categories: Employment Immigration, Immigration Litigation and Removal, Family Immigration, General |