Archive for March, 2012

USCIS Announces Syrians Eligible for Temporary Protected Status

Friday, March 23rd, 2012

Late today, USCIS posted an announcement on its website that nationals of Syria will be eligible to apply for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) in the near future.  USCIS indicated that Syrians would be designated for an 18-month period of protection, and that details of how and when to apply would be forthcoming in the Federal Register next week.

TPS is a temporary form of permission to remain in the United States for humanitarian reasons.  TPS prevents the removal of nationals of countries undergoing civil strife, natural disasters, and similar country conditions.  It provides work authorization during the period of TPS, but does not provide for any long-term status or permanent residence after the government decides TPS is no longer warranted.

Nationals of Syria eligible for TPS should consult an attorney about the advantages and disadvantages of applying before seeking TPS, particularly if they currently hold a lawful nonimmigrant status.  In addition, Syrian nationals who fear to return to Syria should consult an attorney to discuss other possible forms of relief from removal.

Share

Perspectives from Trip to China

Wednesday, March 21st, 2012

I recently returned from a two week trip to China, which included a presentation at the International EB-5 Summit in Shanghai.  I left with two distinct and related impressions:

The first impression is that there are far more interested EB-5 investors than there are investment projects that are considered to be low risk for immigration purposes (particularly condition removal) and high probability for the investor getting his money back in a definable period of time.

Second, and related, is the difficulty that agents who promote the projects to investors have in performing both the immigration due diligence and the financial due diligence that is necessary to advise investors.

The lack of good projects is, in part, a function of the USCIS long hold on I-924 adjudications pending resolution of its new position on the economic methodology to be used in tenant occupancy projects. Perhaps with RFEs being issued on all of those projects, some of the RFE responses will result in approved projects that can be made available to investors.

It is difficult to understand how overseas migration agents can be expected to perform the required immigration due diligence necessary to properly advise investors.  Immigration due diligence of projects is both complex and ever-changing.  Complicating matters is the fact that the Service steadfastly sticks to its position that it is not bound by an approval of an exemplar I-526 petition.  Migration agents should certainly seek the counsel of experienced EB-5 immigration lawyers to perform immigration due diligence prior to making a decision to promote a particular project to investors.  Failure to do so has resulted in some significant losses by investors and by their agents.

Share

April Visa Bulletin and India/China EB-2 Retrogression Prediction

Friday, March 16th, 2012

The State Department’s Visa Bulletin for April did not continue the dramatic forward movement of India and China EB-2 priority dates that has been observed for the past several months.  Klasko, Rulon, Stock and Seltzer has also learned that the Visa Control Office of the State Department is predicting a retrogression of priority dates in the India and China EB-2 category, effective in the May or June Visa Bulletin, to a 2007 priority date.  It is not expected that the EB-2 category for natives of “All Other” countries will be affected.

Applicants for adjustment of status must have a priority date earlier than the priority date listed as “available” in the Visa Bulletin each month in order for their application to be filed, or for a pending application to be approved.  As of March 1, 2012, that priority date has been set at cases with a labor certification (or EB-2 I-140 not requiring a labor certification) filed prior to May 1, 2010 for natives of India and China.  The Visa Control Office rapidly advanced the priority dates in order to build an “inventory” of cases ready to be approved at the USCIS offices, and those cases will now be processed by USCIS between now and the end of the government’s fiscal year, September 30.

For the month of April, the Visa Bulletin holds the priority date for India and China EB-2 steady at May 1, 2010.  For May, the Visa Control Office recently announced that they expect the priority date will “retrogress” or be set earlier, possibly as early as August of 2007.  This retrogression will mean that new applications for adjustment of status will not be able to be filed after April 30, 2012 for cases with priority dates in 2008, 2009 and early 2010.  Priority dates are not expected to advance again until October 1, 2012, at least, when the government’s new fiscal year begins.

It is very important to note that if an I-485 Application for Adjustment of Status is filed while the person’s priority date is current, it will remain pending until the priority date is current again.  Since the I-485 will remain pending, the applicant can continue to apply for interim benefits, such as work authorization and advance parole, during the time the priority date is retrogressed.

Due to this recent announcement, we recommend that anyone with a priority date before March 2010 who is eligible to apply for adjustment of status do so by late April, as their opportunity to file the application will likely end as of May 1, 2012, and will not return until at least October 1, 2012 (and likely much later).

Share

BALCA Grants “Special Handling” for Librarian Position; Confirms Interpretation of “College and University Teacher”

Monday, March 12th, 2012

In a recent decision, Matter of Mercer University, the Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) – the Department of Labor’s appeal body – adopted a flexible approach to determining who qualifies for optional special recruitment. This type of recruitment under the PERM regulations can be performed when an employer is preparing to file a labor certification for an employee qualifying as a “college or university teacher,” and is completed under the different standard of having to demonstrate that the foreign national on whose behalf the labor certification is being filed, was the “best qualified” of all the candidates.
BALCA reviewed this case after it was by the Certifying Officer because he did not believe that the position in question, a librarian position titled “Instructional Coordinator,” included teaching responsibilities. Specifically, in the decision denying the Application for Permanent Labor Certification , the certifying officer found that “the principal duties described [were] not those involved in teaching, evaluating and advising students within an assigned instructor workload in a classroom setting.” Mercer University, however, argued that its requirement that the instructional coordinator “participate in instruction activities” clearly referred to “college and university teaching” job duties needing to be performed in this position. Additionally, Mercer University argued that there has never been a requirement setting forth the minimum amount of teaching duties to be performed in order for the position to qualify for optional special recruitment under the PERM regulations.
BALCA reviewed the job duties of the position, as well as the documentation prepared by Mercer University prior to the filing of the Application for Permanent Labor Certification. Upon completing this review, BALCA found that the responsibilities of teaching were clearly reflected in the job duties of the position as well as the employer’s education and experience requirements, and that the documentation contained in the labor certification file clearly described the foreign national as having teaching responsibilities. Finally, BALCA agreed with the employer and stressed that the regulations lack any requirements of “special definitions” to describe the position or duties of college or university teacher. BALCA further noted that the Application for Permanent Labor Certification clearly set forth that teaching responsibilities were part of the job duties of the Instructional Coordinator with Mercer University. In so finding, BALCA reaffirmed the long held belief of institutions of higher education, and immigration law practitioners, that in order to qualify for optional special recruitment under the regulation, the position must involve any amount of teaching with a college or university.

Share
       
Copyright © 2013 Klasko, Rulon, Stock & Seltzer, LLP. All rights reserved. Review our disclaimer.
Disclosure: Law firm web sites such as this one are considered 'Attorney Advertising' by the State Bar of New York.