August Visa Bulletin: EB-1 backlogs for India and China, EB-2 Backlogged for Everyone

UnknownThe August 2016 visa bulletin was released by the Department of State yesterday.   It features backlogs for ALL countries in the EB-2 category and other changed.  However, readers should understand, that while certain countries (India and China) have regular backlogs in the EB-2 category, those for other countries in the EB-2 category and those in the EB-1 category are  temporary.  I will discuss this more in depth below as we  look at the specifics of the Visa Bulletin:

Family Based Applications

F2A (spouses and children of permanent residents):  No movement

F4 (siblings of US citizens): No movement

F1 (unmarried sons and daughters of US Citizens):  The priority date for most countries moved forward about 2 months to May 22, 2009.  The exceptions are Mexico (no change) and the Philippines (moved forward 1 month to March 22, 2005)

F2B (unmarried sons and daughters of permanent residents):Not much movement.  Most countries moved forward about 1 month to January 8, 2010.  The exceptions are Mexico (no movement) and the Philippines (moved forward 2 months to Sep. 15, 2005)

F3 (married sons and daughters of US Citizens):  Almost no movement, except the Philippines moved forward about 2 weeks to March 15, 1994

Work Based Applications

EB1:  As discussed in previous blog posts, there was always a change of a backlog, and it has occurred.  India and China are backlogged to January 1, 2010.  This will be a TEMPORARY backlog, however.  These dates will become current again on October 1, 2016. The beginning of the new fiscal year.  Every other country remains current.

EB2:  Worldwide is backlogged to February 1, 2014.  Again, this is temporary and will become current again on October 1, 2016 the beginning of the new fiscal year.  China remained unchanged at January 1, 2010 and India moved forward very slightly to November 15, 2004

EB3: Worldwide numbers moved forward about 2 weeks to March 15, 2016.  China, again, remained unchanged at Jan. 1, 2010 and India, again, moved forward slightly to November 8. 2004.  The Philippines also moved forward in this category about two months to May 15, 2009.

Please remember, as always, this blog does not offer legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult with a lawyer instead of a blog. Thank you.

July 2016 Visa Bulletin and Check-In with DOS

Unknown.jpegThe Department of State (DOS) released the July visa bulletin recently and Charlie Oppenheim, the person at the DOS who is in charge of the visa bulletin also updated the American Immigration Lawyer’s Association on what further movement or backlogs can be expected in the near future.

For family based cases, there was not much movement at all.  Below is a table showing the movement.

Family Based All Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed China – Mainland Born India Mexico Philippines
F1 2 Months 2 Months 2 Months 2 Weeks 1 month
F2A 1 Week ! Week ! Week None 1 Week
F2B 2 Weeks 2 Weeks 2 Weeks None 1 Month
F3 None None None None 1 Month
F4 1 Month None None None 1 Month

For employment based, there was also not a lot of movement.  Again, the movement and new dates are listed below:

 

Employ.

Based

All Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed China – Mainland Born India Mexico Philippines
1st C C C C C
2nd C None (Jan 1, 2010) 1 Month (Nov 1, 2004) C C
3rd 2 Weeks (Mar 1, 2016) None (Jan 1, 2010) I Month (Oct 22, 2004) 1 Month (Oct 22, 2004) 3.5 Months (Feb 15, 2009)

In terms of future movements, we will look at family based categories first.

FB4- China: For China, the FB-4 category just recently retrogressed and will remain at its current date through July, and perhaps through the rest of the fiscal year (it will depend on usage for FB-1 through FB-3).  However it will return to the prior cut off date by November of this year.

FB-4 India:  Similar to FB-4 China, FB-4 India recently tracked the FB-4 Worldwide final action date until it retrogressed in June. However, unlike FB-4 China, the final action date for FB-4 India will definitely remain at January 1, 2001, through September. Mr. Oppenheim predicts that FB-4 India will advance to the former July 2003 cutoff date early in the next fiscal year, but expects that recovery to happen more slowly than for FB-4 China. Mr. Oppenheim anticipates that the FB-4 India date will reach late 2002 for October, and may fully recover to July 2003 by the end of the calendar year.

Moving on to employment based categories:

EB-2 and EB-3 China:   There will be no forward movement in these categories for the rest of this fiscal year (the fiscal year ends on September 30, 2016).  We will have to see what the new fiscal year brings, but hopefully there will be forward movement shortly after the new fiscal year.

EB-2 and EB-3 India:  There may be some moderate movement forward in September, but it depends (see next category)

EB-2 Worldwide:  It is looking increasingly likely that this category will become unavailable in September.  However, since the new fiscal year begins October 1, they will, again, become current on that date.

EB-1 for India and China:  Similar to EB-2 Worldwide, these categories will most likely become unavailable in September but go back to current in October.

If you have any questions leave a comment below or send me an email.  Please remember, as always, this blog does not offer legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult with a lawyer instead of a blog. Thank you.

June 2016 Visa Bulletin is Out

In the last week, the Department of State released the June, 2016 visa bulletin,  USCIS has announced which tables they will utilize for this month and Charlie Oppenheim, the Department of State employee in charge of immigrant visa numbers, issued guidance for the coming months.   Below is a summary of the relevant points for all three of these documents.

Family Based Cases

There was some slight forward movement in some categories, but not much.  The largest movement was a backlog in the F4 category (Brothers and Sisters of US Citizens) for India and Chine.  India dropped from 2003 to 2001, and there is little hope of forward movement until the next fiscal year.  There has been high demand across the board in this category, and this is what is causing the retrogression.  China went back to January of 2013, about a seven month retrogression.  Again, high demand has caused the retrogression, but, in the case of China, there may still be some forward movement this fiscal year – depending on usage.

Employment Based

EB-1:  While EB-1 remains current across the board, it should be noted that there us unusually high usage of EB-1 numbers this fiscal year.  According to a recent update by Charlie Oppenheim this may result in corrective action later this fiscal year.

EB-2:  China will retrogress to January 1, 2010 (as will China EB-3).  Since EB-2 and EB-3 for China will be at the same date for the rest of the fiscal year (most likely) this should stop the upswell of downgrades from EB-2 to EB-3.

India is also retrogressing, but much more severely.  India will be at October 1, 2004.   There is a large amount of usage for EB-2’s in general, meaning that there most likely will not be any “unused” numbers for other countries that could be given to India.  This, in conjunction with the number of EB-3 cases that have moved up to EB-2s, has led to this need for retrogression.  However, Charlie Oppenheim, in his latest update, said this date could move forward if more EB-3 India cases are adjudicated, alleviating the burden of older EB-3 priority dates moving up to EB-2.

It does not appear that the EB-2 worldwide category will be retrogressed at this time.

EB-3:  As stated above, China has retrogressed to 2010.  India, on the other hand, moved forward slightly to September 22, 2004.

Worldwide held steady at February 15, 2016.  Charlie did not indicate anything about what the future holds for EB-3 Worldwide numbers.  If  we get an update on this we will certainly let you know.

USICS

USCIS has, once again, decided that the final action table should be used for both Family based and Employment based green cards.  This is frustrating to not only attorneys and their clients, but also to the Department of State.  The only way they can get a good handle on what the actual backlogs are for both EB-2 India and China and EB-3s for everyone, is if those in the backlog are able to file their adjustment of status applications.  If USCIS would utilize the Dates for Filing Table, it would give DOS the visibility they need to accurately predict usage and would prevent these wildly swinging priority date movements.  Alas, USCIS does not look like they will employe these dates any time soon.  This is unfortunate and shows that USCI was not serious about reforming the current visa processing, as if they were, they would at least explain why they are failing to utilize the Dates for Filing and helping the DOS get more visibility into these issues.  We will certainly update you if there is any change in this area.

If you have any questions leave a comment below or send me an email.  Please remember, as always, this blog does not offer legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult with a lawyer instead of a blog. Thank you.

National Interest Waiver: You May Be Surprised

Does the National Interest Waiver (a self-sponsored green card application) require that you be working for or funded by the US Government?  The short answer is no, it most certainly does not.  thIs it as hard as the Extraordinary Ability application?  Again, the short answer is no, definitely not.  The National Interest Waiver is actually a very appropriate application for many researchers and others who either cannot be or do not want to be sponsored by their employers.  It allows you to sponsor yourself, and to change jobs and employers fairly easily throughout the process.

So what are the actual qualifications for this application and how do you show your work is in the national interest? Unfortunately, this is a case in which both Congress and USCIS did not issue any guidance as to what the standard should be, so it was left to the courts. Specifically, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO), in a precedent case (Matter of New York State Department of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Comm. 1998)(NYSDOT)) did explain what is needed to show that your work is in the national interest. After the AAO issued this decision, USCIS formally adopted the decision as their standard.

The NYSDOT case laid out a three part test to determine if your work is in the national interest: 1) you must be seeking work in an area that has substantial intrinsic merit; 2) you must demonstrate that the proposed benefit to be provided by your work will be national in scope; and, 3) you must demonstrate that it would be contrary to the national interest to potentially deprive the prospective employer of your services by making your position available to US Workers.  While the above can seem daunting in theory, it is not quite so daunting in practice. What it comes down to is showing you are, and will be, working in an important area and that you have already made a significant impact on your field. What type of documentation can show this?

If you are a scientist you can show this through publishing and presenting your work, citation history, peer reviewing, being accepted for oral presentation or invited to talk, having a paper highlighted at a journal website or elsewhere, having press about your findings. Please note, the above is a list of documents that CAN be used to show eligibility, and it is not a list of ALL documents that are needed, as you can be approved with less than all the above documents.    In fact, many of our clients may have 30-50 citations total, they may have anywhere from 2-5 papers, or more.  Sometimes they have peer reviewing activities, sometimes they do not.  Sometimes they have oral presentations, sometimes not.  Every case is different and has to be judged on the totality of the evidence to show whether the evidence shows that the impact of your work has been substantial.

For areas other than the sciences, such as foreign relations, health policy, etc, while the type of documentation can be much the same as above – publications, press, etc, you also have the opportunity to look at your role within projects, programs, or other initiatives. It can also be much more letter focused with letters from government officials or NGOs about the use and implementation of your work, etc. It all depends on whether your work is more academic related or applied in the field.

In essence, US interests are broad in nature, and thus, depending upon the extent of your standing within a specific area, you may very well be a good candidate for this type of visa application.

Please remember, always get your legal advice from an attorney and not a blog. Call and talk to an attorney to get the specifics of this application and your ability to qualify.

Free Webinar on Self-Sponsored Green Cards!

We will be hosting a free webinar for those interested in self-sponsored green card (Extraordinary Ability and National Interest Waiver applications).  It will be on January 27th, 2016 at 12:00 pm.  If you are interested you can sign up by sending your name and email address to webinar@leavyfrank.com.  Space will be limited.

Presentations and Self-Sponsored Green Cards: What you need to know

Almost all researchers, be they scientific researcher, social science researchers, or foreign relations researchers, have presented their work scientific-presentationat symposia, and other venues.  In terms of the Extraordinary Ability and National Interest Waiver applications, of what help are these presentations?  This greatly depends on the type of presentations and where you presented, as not all presentations are equal.

The first question is where did you present?  Was this a student event, or for professionals?  Was it put on by an organization in your field, or a University just for their faculty, students, etc.?  The answers to these questions can make a huge difference in terms of the helpfulness of the presentation.  USCIS is looking for professional presentations made at events put on by national or international organizations.  They want to see that it was prestigious to be asked to present there.  They want, in short, to see that the venue is such that it helps show the importance and impact of your work or that it helps show your renown.

The next question is what kind of presentation was it?  Was it a poster presentation? Oral presentations? Invited talk?  And most importantly of all, regardless of the type of presentation, what evidence can you get regarding the importance or impact of that work?  For example, if you were selected for an oral presentation at a conference, USCIS will not assume that this means your work was judges as being more important than those not selected for oral presentation.  USCIS needs evidence of this, and without it such presentations are not very helpful.  For panel discussions, look at why you were invited to be on the panel, who else was on the panel, etc.  Regardless of the kind of presentation, USCIS will need some evidence to show this importance.

As you can see, it is not sufficient to just give USCIS information of what you have done – you need to also explain to them the importance of what you have done and the impact your work has had.  Please remember, as always, this blog does not offer legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult with a lawyer instead of a blog. Thank you.

Judge of the Work of Others: What Evidence is needed?

For the National Interest Waiver, the Extraordinary Ability and the Outstanding Researcher applications, evidence that you have judged the work of others in your field or a related imagesfield can be extremely helpful.  However, the level of helpfulness of this evidence depends greatly on the type of judging and the kind of evidence submitted to USCIS.

First, in terms of the type of judging:  What USCIS is looking for is that you judged the work of other scientists.  Not Master’s or undergraduate students, not Ph.D. students, but scientists.  And then, even if you have reviewed the work of scientists, there are still two levels of evidence:  reviews of just postdocs, and reviews of postdocs and others researchers (or just other researchers).  If you have just reviewed postdoc work, while it will help, it will not help as uch as if you actually reviewed work of others at a higher level.  The reason for this is that USCIS looks at just post-doc reviewing as being a lower level than reviewing the work of other researchers.  Primarily this is because a Postdoc is considered to still be in training.  Also, Postdocs are at the beginning of their career, so if they are the only ones eligible, you are only judging those people at the beginning of their career and not those in advanced states of their careers.  Whether this view is warranted or not, it is the view of USCIS, so it is important to keep it in mind.  It is certainly possible to provide evidence to USCIS that, even though you were just judging the work of postdocs it was still extremely prestigious position in the field, but the burden of proof is on you to show this.

Assuming you now have your evidence of reviewing the work of other scientists, the next question is what kinds of evidence will be most helpful to USCIS.  There are two kinds of evidence that you can provide USCIS:  evidence of WHAT you did and evidence of the IMPORTANCE of what you did.  It is important to emphasis that BOTH types are needed for this evidence to be really useful for these cases.  The first type of evidence, proof that you actually conducted the judging, proves that you actually performed the act, but it does not show USCIS why it should regard this evidence as helping to show that you have made substantial contributions to the field (National Interest Waiver) or that you have received renown in the field (Extraordinary Ability andOutstanding Researcher).  In order to do that you need evidence as to the criteria that was used to select you for that position (evidence of the importance of what you have done).  The letter needs to explain the criteria in a way that shows USCIS that you were selected because of your renown, because of the importance of your work to the field, etc.  Without this second type of evidence, there is no proof that USCIS can use to show it what the importance of your judging  is, and, therefore, this evidence will not help your case get approved nearly as much as it would have had you provided documentation as to the importance of the work.

Please remember, as always, this blog does not offer legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult with a lawyer instead of a blog. Thank you.

The National Interest Waiver – Within the Reach of Many

The National Interest Waiver application is a self-sponsored application that is a good fit for many, many researchers and others looking to get permanent residence inth
the US. While many people feel that they need to show they are working for our government or something similar in order to show that their work i
s in the National Interest, this is actually not the case. The National Interest Waiver, while not easy to get approved, is much less restrictive than the E
xtraordinary Ability application and many people may be surprised that once they review the standard, that they can in fact qualify for this green card category.

So what are the actual qualifications for this application and how do you show your work is in the national interest? Unfortunately, this is a case in which both Congress and USCIS did not issue any guidance as to what the standard should be, so it was left to the courts. Specifically, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO), in a precedent case (Matter of New York State Department of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Comm. 1998)(NYSDOT)) did explain what is needed to show that your work is in the national interest. After the AAO issued this decision, USCIS formally adopted the decision as their standard.

The NYSDOT case laid out a three part test to determine if your work is in the national interest: 1) you must be seeking work in an area that has substantial intrinsic merit; 2) you must demonstrate that the proposed benefit to be provided by your work will be national in scope; and, 3) you must demonstrate that it would be contrary to the national interest to potentially deprive the prospective employer of your services by making your position available to US Workers.
While the above can seem daunting in theory, it is not quite so daunting in practice. What it comes down to is showing you are, and will be, working in an important area and that you have already made a significant impact on your field. What type of documentation can show this?

If you are a scientist you can show this through publishing and presenting your work, citation history, peer reviewing, being accepted for oral presentation or invited to talk, having a paper highlighted at a journal website or elsewhere, having press about your findings. Please note, the above is a list of documents that CAN be used to show eligibility, and it is not a list of ALL documents that are needed, as you can be approved with less than all the above documents.
In general, while this is similar to the same type of documentation that is used for the Extraordinary Ability application, a key difference is that the NIW is a less restrictive standard than the EA. For instance, the Administrative Appeals Office, in looking at EA cases has indicated that perhaps 200 or more citations would be considered “a good number”. For the NIW application much less citations are needed. Many cases we have seen there are only 40-70 citations overall. Instead of having to show you are one of the few at the top of your field, the extent of your impact and influence on your area is key. This also me
ans that you do not need to be the first named author on your papers as it is the impact, not your renown, that is the key for the NIW.

For areas other than the sciences, such as foreign relations, health policy, etc, while the type of documentation can be much the same as above – publications, press, etc, you also have the opportunity to look at your role within projects, programs, or other initiatives. It can also be much more letter focused with letters from government officials or NGOs about the use and implementation of your work, etc. It all depends on whether your work is more academic related or applied in the field.

In essence, US interests are broad in nature, and thus, depending upon the extent of your standing within a specific area, you may very well be a good candidate for this type of visa application.

Please remember, always get your legal advice from an attorney and not a blog. Call and talk to an attorney to get the specifics of this status and your ability to qualify.