In the past few months, the waiting time for immigrant visa applicants under the 2A category (spouses and minor children of permanent residents) had decreased significantly. In December 2010, applicants under the 2A category who have a priority date on or before August 1, 2010 might apply for adjustment of status or consular processing through the National Visa Center (NVC).
However, the waiting time for applicants under 2A will be 2-3 years again after the State Department issued the Visa Bulletin for January 2011 last week. The priority date for applicants under 2A is moved back to January 1, 2008 because the demand for IV under the categpry has exceeded the visa number available. Therefore, if your priority date is between January 2008 and August 2010, you should apply for adjustment of status or consualr processing now, or you will be out of luck and have to wait again.
Disclaimer: Information included in this page does not constitute as legal advice and receipt of this page does not establish attorney-client relationship. For specific inquiries, please call my office and schedule an appointment.
在過去幾個月，2A類別的移民簽證申請人(永久居民的配偶或未成年的子女)的等待時間比以前大大減少。 在2010年12月，如果2A類別的申請人的優先權日期是2010年8月1日或更早，他們便可以申請調整身份或透過國家簽證中心(NVC)到在海外的美國領事館申請移民簽證。
然而，2A類別的移民簽證申請人的等候時間將會回到從前的2年到3年左右。國務院在上星期發布了2011年1月的簽證公報。 因為2A類別的移民簽證需求超出了配額，2A類別的移民簽證申請人的優先權日期被移回到2008年1月1日。 所以，如果您的優先權日期是在2008年1月及2010年8月之間，那您應該在十二月底前申請調整身份或在海外的美國領事館申請移民簽證，否則您必須再等待多一些時間。
以上資料僅供參考之用，並非法律意見。如有個別問題，請致電本所查詢。
12/08/2010
The DREAM Act 夢想法案 (2)
According to the Immigration Policy Center, the House will vote on the DREAM Act as well, but it differs from the Senate version in 2 significant ways:
- Instead of granting one ten-year conditional NIV status, the House version will divide the 10 years and grant the beneficiary two 5-year conditional NIV status.
- The House bill requires applicants to pay 2 separate fees for getting the conditional NIV status; the application fee for the first 5 years would be $525 and the second five years would be $2,000.
Disclaimer: Information included in this page does not constitute as legal advice and receipt of this page does not establish attorney-client relationship. For specific inquiries, please call my office and schedule an appointment.
眾議院今天晚上亦會對夢想法案進行表決，但是它與參議院版本有2處很大的差別
- 眾議院的版本會給予受益人兩次為期五年的有條件非移民身份，而不是授予一次十年的有條件非移民身份。
-申請人在申請有條件非移民身份的時候需要支付費用：首5年的申請費是$525，而次五年的申請費是$2,000。
以上資料僅供參考之用，並非法律意見。如有個別問題，請致電本所查詢。
- Instead of granting one ten-year conditional NIV status, the House version will divide the 10 years and grant the beneficiary two 5-year conditional NIV status.
- The House bill requires applicants to pay 2 separate fees for getting the conditional NIV status; the application fee for the first 5 years would be $525 and the second five years would be $2,000.
Disclaimer: Information included in this page does not constitute as legal advice and receipt of this page does not establish attorney-client relationship. For specific inquiries, please call my office and schedule an appointment.
眾議院今天晚上亦會對夢想法案進行表決，但是它與參議院版本有2處很大的差別
- 眾議院的版本會給予受益人兩次為期五年的有條件非移民身份，而不是授予一次十年的有條件非移民身份。
-申請人在申請有條件非移民身份的時候需要支付費用：首5年的申請費是$525，而次五年的申請費是$2,000。
以上資料僅供參考之用，並非法律意見。如有個別問題，請致電本所查詢。
12/07/2010
The DREAM Act 夢想法案
The DREAM Act is a potential legislation that will provide thousands of illegal children and students a path to citizenship. It will likely be voted on December 8 in the Senate. The key provisions of the DREAM Act include the following:
-10 years of conditional non-immigrant status
- 3 years of permanent residency
- eligible for citizenship after 3 years of permanent residency
To be eligible for the DREAM Act, an undocument child/student has to meet the following requirements:
- the student must be 30 years old or younger when the Act is enacted;
- the student must have entered the United States before his or her 16th birthday;
- the student must have been present in the United States for at least five years immediately before the DREAM Act is enacted;
-the student must have graduated from high school or been admitted to a college;
- the student has not commited a serious felony or three petty offenses;
- the student is not inadmissible or deportable under specified grounds of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA);
- the student must not be subject to a deportation order before turning 16; and
- the student cannot be guilty of persecuting others based on the grounds of current U.S. asylum law.
Finally, students who will receive legal status under this legislation is not eligible for government benefits and in-state tuitions.
Disclaimer: Information included in this page does not constitute as legal advice and receipt of this page does not establish attorney-client relationship. For specific inquiries, please call my office and schedule an appointment.
在12月8日參議院表決的夢想法案下，某些非法居留的學生可以獲得十年非移民的合法身份，然後可以申請綠卡，再過三年後可申請入藉。
只有符合下資格的學生才可透過夢想法案獲得合法身份：
-年齡上限為30歲以下
-在16歲之前進入美國
-在美國住滿至少五年
-已高中畢業或被大學取錄
-不能犯過一項重罪，或三項輕罪
-不屬於禁止入境或可被驅逐出境的類別
-不可在16歲之前被下令驅逐出境
-不能在過去參與迫害
再者，夢想法案的受益人不能獲得本州學費的優惠或其他社會福利。
以上資料僅供參考之用，並非法律意見。如有個別問題，請致電本所查詢。
-10 years of conditional non-immigrant status
- 3 years of permanent residency
- eligible for citizenship after 3 years of permanent residency
To be eligible for the DREAM Act, an undocument child/student has to meet the following requirements:
- the student must be 30 years old or younger when the Act is enacted;
- the student must have entered the United States before his or her 16th birthday;
- the student must have been present in the United States for at least five years immediately before the DREAM Act is enacted;
-the student must have graduated from high school or been admitted to a college;
- the student has not commited a serious felony or three petty offenses;
- the student is not inadmissible or deportable under specified grounds of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA);
- the student must not be subject to a deportation order before turning 16; and
- the student cannot be guilty of persecuting others based on the grounds of current U.S. asylum law.
Finally, students who will receive legal status under this legislation is not eligible for government benefits and in-state tuitions.
Disclaimer: Information included in this page does not constitute as legal advice and receipt of this page does not establish attorney-client relationship. For specific inquiries, please call my office and schedule an appointment.
只有符合下資格的學生才可透過夢想法案獲得合法身份：
-年齡上限為30歲以下
-在16歲之前進入美國
-在美國住滿至少五年
-已高中畢業或被大學取錄
-不能犯過一項重罪，或三項輕罪
-不屬於禁止入境或可被驅逐出境的類別
-不可在16歲之前被下令驅逐出境
-不能在過去參與迫害
再者，夢想法案的受益人不能獲得本州學費的優惠或其他社會福利。
以上資料僅供參考之用，並非法律意見。如有個別問題，請致電本所查詢。
12/02/2010
11/30/2010
I-912 Fee Waiver
USCIS has issued a new form named I-912 Request for Fee Waiver. Several categories of immigrants may file the form and request for a fee waiver. For a list of who may apply for a waiver, please read the instructions for Form I-912. In general, applicants who are filing for immigration benefits based on employment are not eligible for a waiver.
Normally, USCIS will grant the waiver if the applicants can show that they are receiving means-test benefits or are living at or under 150% of the federal povety guidelines. For those who are under financial stress such as unemployment or high medical expense, USCIS may grant a fee waiver if the applicant may provide sufficient information of the applicant's income and assets and a detailed description of the applicant's financial difficulties.
Disclaimer: Information included in this page does not constitute as legal advice and receipt of this page does not establish attorney-client relationship. For specific inquiries, please call my office and schedule an appointment.
移民局頒布了新的豁免費用申請表I - 912。幾個不同類別的移民可以遞交此申請表要求豁免遞交移民申請的費用。至於誰可以申請豁免，請流覽移民局關於I - 912表格的說明。一般來說，工作移民的申請人是不能申請豁免費用的。
在一般情況下，如果申請人能夠證明他們正在接受援助，或生活在低於聯邦貧窮準則150％以下的水平，移民局將給予豁免。對於那些活在財政壓力下，如失業或需要支付高額醫療費用的人士，如果申請人可以提供足夠的資料，包括申請人的收入和資產以及能夠詳細說明申請人的經濟困難，移民局或會給予豁免。
以上資料僅供參考之用，並非法律意見。如有個別問題，請致電本所查詢。
Normally, USCIS will grant the waiver if the applicants can show that they are receiving means-test benefits or are living at or under 150% of the federal povety guidelines. For those who are under financial stress such as unemployment or high medical expense, USCIS may grant a fee waiver if the applicant may provide sufficient information of the applicant's income and assets and a detailed description of the applicant's financial difficulties.
Disclaimer: Information included in this page does not constitute as legal advice and receipt of this page does not establish attorney-client relationship. For specific inquiries, please call my office and schedule an appointment.
移民局頒布了新的豁免費用申請表I - 912。幾個不同類別的移民可以遞交此申請表要求豁免遞交移民申請的費用。至於誰可以申請豁免，請流覽移民局關於I - 912表格的說明。一般來說，工作移民的申請人是不能申請豁免費用的。
在一般情況下，如果申請人能夠證明他們正在接受援助，或生活在低於聯邦貧窮準則150％以下的水平，移民局將給予豁免。對於那些活在財政壓力下，如失業或需要支付高額醫療費用的人士，如果申請人可以提供足夠的資料，包括申請人的收入和資產以及能夠詳細說明申請人的經濟困難，移民局或會給予豁免。
以上資料僅供參考之用，並非法律意見。如有個別問題，請致電本所查詢。
11/17/2010
More International Sudents Than Ever 國際學生創歷年新高
An annual report released by the Insitute of International Education (IIE) suggests that in the academic year of 2009-2010, there were 690,923 international students in universities and colleges in the U.S. This is a record high number of international students in American higher educational instutions. In addition, 23.6% of all international students are from Mainland China (18.5%), Taiwan (3.9%), and Hong Kong (1.2%). In other words, almost every 1 out of 4 international student in the U.S. is from a Chinese-speaking town! You may read the entire report, named Open Doors, online.
What does this information mean? This could mean that the State Department is fairly generous in issuing student visas to foreign nationals. Granted, the report fails to mention how many F-1 applicants have been turned down by the State Department. Nonetheless, the increase in number of international students shows that international students are welcome in higher institutions and the State Department is willing to issue more F visas to allow international students to study in the U.S. If you have ever considered attending college/university in the U.S. and your situation permits you to do so, now may be a good time to do that.
Disclaimer: Information included in this page does not constitute as legal advice and receipt of this page does not establish attorney-client relationship. For specific inquiries, please call my office and schedule an appointment.
國際教育研究所(IIE)於星期一發表了一年一度關於國際學生在美國大專院校就讀的報告。該報告指出，在2009-2010學年期間，有690,923名國際學生在在美國的大學和學院就讀，創下歷年新高。另外，在國際學生當中，有23.6%來自中國(18.5%)、臺灣(3.9%)和香港(1.2%)。 換句話說，幾乎每4名國際學生中就有一位是來自說中文的家鄉! 你可以在此處閱讀整個報告。
這代表什麼呢？ 這可能意味著國務院放寬了對簽發學生簽證的限制。雖然報告沒有提及有多少F-1申請被國務院拒絕， 但是從國際學生總人數的增加可以知道，國際學生在美國的大專院校深受歡迎，而國務院亦願意簽發更多F簽證來配合這些院校的需求。 如果你正考慮到美國上大學而你的情況亦允許你這樣做，那現在可能是個好時機！
以上資料僅供參考之用，並非法律意見。如有個別問題，請致電本所查詢。
What does this information mean? This could mean that the State Department is fairly generous in issuing student visas to foreign nationals. Granted, the report fails to mention how many F-1 applicants have been turned down by the State Department. Nonetheless, the increase in number of international students shows that international students are welcome in higher institutions and the State Department is willing to issue more F visas to allow international students to study in the U.S. If you have ever considered attending college/university in the U.S. and your situation permits you to do so, now may be a good time to do that.
Disclaimer: Information included in this page does not constitute as legal advice and receipt of this page does not establish attorney-client relationship. For specific inquiries, please call my office and schedule an appointment.
國際教育研究所(IIE)於星期一發表了一年一度關於國際學生在美國大專院校就讀的報告。該報告指出，在2009-2010學年期間，有690,923名國際學生在在美國的大學和學院就讀，創下歷年新高。另外，在國際學生當中，有23.6%來自中國(18.5%)、臺灣(3.9%)和香港(1.2%)。 換句話說，幾乎每4名國際學生中就有一位是來自說中文的家鄉! 你可以在此處閱讀整個報告。
這代表什麼呢？ 這可能意味著國務院放寬了對簽發學生簽證的限制。雖然報告沒有提及有多少F-1申請被國務院拒絕， 但是從國際學生總人數的增加可以知道，國際學生在美國的大專院校深受歡迎，而國務院亦願意簽發更多F簽證來配合這些院校的需求。 如果你正考慮到美國上大學而你的情況亦允許你這樣做，那現在可能是個好時機！
以上資料僅供參考之用，並非法律意見。如有個別問題，請致電本所查詢。
11/02/2010
Optional Practical Training (OPT)
Many international students would like to work in the U.S. after they graduate from an American institution. One of the easiest ways for them to do so is to apply for post-graduation optional practical training (OPT). The two most frequently asked questions regarding OPT are related to unemployment period and the nature of jobs that are permissible for an international graduate to take under OPT.
According to 8 CFR §214.2(f)(10)(ii)(E), an international graduate may not accumulate more than 90 days of unemployment during he OPT authorization. If the international graduate has obtained an STEM extension, the graduate may not accumulate more than 120 days of unemployment from the initial 12 months of OPT to the end of the STEM extension.
8 CFR §214.2(f)(10) states that "[a]n eligible student may request employment authorization for practical training in a position that is directly related to his or her major area of study." The Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), a program administered by Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE), has elaborated what kind of jobs are permissible under OPT in a Policy Guidance issued on April 23, 2010. These jobs include working for multiple employers, paid employments, unpaid employments/internships, and even self-employment. Moreover, the OPT student can work either as a W-2 worker or an 1099 independent contractor. Thus, an OPT student has a large variety of jobs that he/she can choose from. The Policy Guidance has explanation on each type of employment, so those who are interested in applying for OPT should carefully review it.
Finally, 8 CFR §214.2(f)(12)(i) requires an OPT student to report to his/her school officials if there is a change of name, address, or employment status. When to report these changes are different for those who are under the initial OPT and those who are under the STEM extension. For those who are under the initial OPT authorization, SEVP "recommends the student to report any change within 10 business days[.]" supra, 7.3.1. of Policy Guidance. In contrast, a student under STEM extension must report any change in name, address, employer, employer's address, and/or loss of employment. 8 CFR §214.2(f)(12)(ii)(A). In addition, the student needs to provide a validation report to his/her school official every 6 months during the STEM extension. 8 CFR §214.2(f)(12)(ii)(B).
Disclaimer: Information included in this page does not constitute as legal advice and receipt of this page does not establish attorney-client relationship. For specific inquiries, please call my office and schedule an appointment.
許多國際學生希望在畢業之後留下來在美國工作。其中一個最容易這樣做的方法是申請實習工作證(OPT)。 關於OPT的兩個最常見問題是與失業時間及工作的本質有關。
根據8 CFR §214.2(f)(10)(ii)(E)，一個國際畢業生不可以在他OPT期間積累超過90天的失業。 如果國際畢業生透過STEM計畫延長OPT，那麼從最初的OPT到延期的結尾不可以積累超過120天的失業時間。
8 CFR §214.2(f)(10)規定OPT的工作必須與國際畢業生就讀的專業有關。負責學生及交換生計畫的SEVP表示，這些OPT工作包括為多個雇主工作、有薪的工作、沒有薪水的工作或者實習、以及自僱。 另外， OPT學生可以是以W-2或者1099的身份工作。 因此， OPT學生其實有很多工作可以選擇。SEVP發出的政策指引對每一種就業的形式皆有解釋，因此有興趣申請OPT的學生應細心閱讀該文件。
最後，8 CFR §214.2(f)(12)(i) 規定持有OPT工作證的國際畢業生如果更改了姓名、地址、或就業情況必須向學校報告。什麼時候要報告這些變動會因人而異。所有持有OPT的畢業生， 應在上述變更後的10個工作天向學校報告有關的改動。透過STEM計畫延長OPT的國際畢業生但凡變更了姓名、地址、雇主、雇主地址、或失業，皆須要向學校報告，而且每6個月要向學校提供報告。
以上資料僅供參考之用，並非法律意見。如有個別問題，請致電本所查詢。
According to 8 CFR §214.2(f)(10)(ii)(E), an international graduate may not accumulate more than 90 days of unemployment during he OPT authorization. If the international graduate has obtained an STEM extension, the graduate may not accumulate more than 120 days of unemployment from the initial 12 months of OPT to the end of the STEM extension.
8 CFR §214.2(f)(10) states that "[a]n eligible student may request employment authorization for practical training in a position that is directly related to his or her major area of study." The Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), a program administered by Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE), has elaborated what kind of jobs are permissible under OPT in a Policy Guidance issued on April 23, 2010. These jobs include working for multiple employers, paid employments, unpaid employments/internships, and even self-employment. Moreover, the OPT student can work either as a W-2 worker or an 1099 independent contractor. Thus, an OPT student has a large variety of jobs that he/she can choose from. The Policy Guidance has explanation on each type of employment, so those who are interested in applying for OPT should carefully review it.
Finally, 8 CFR §214.2(f)(12)(i) requires an OPT student to report to his/her school officials if there is a change of name, address, or employment status. When to report these changes are different for those who are under the initial OPT and those who are under the STEM extension. For those who are under the initial OPT authorization, SEVP "recommends the student to report any change within 10 business days[.]" supra, 7.3.1. of Policy Guidance. In contrast, a student under STEM extension must report any change in name, address, employer, employer's address, and/or loss of employment. 8 CFR §214.2(f)(12)(ii)(A). In addition, the student needs to provide a validation report to his/her school official every 6 months during the STEM extension. 8 CFR §214.2(f)(12)(ii)(B).
Disclaimer: Information included in this page does not constitute as legal advice and receipt of this page does not establish attorney-client relationship. For specific inquiries, please call my office and schedule an appointment.
許多國際學生希望在畢業之後留下來在美國工作。其中一個最容易這樣做的方法是申請實習工作證(OPT)。 關於OPT的兩個最常見問題是與失業時間及工作的本質有關。
根據8 CFR §214.2(f)(10)(ii)(E)，一個國際畢業生不可以在他OPT期間積累超過90天的失業。 如果國際畢業生透過STEM計畫延長OPT，那麼從最初的OPT到延期的結尾不可以積累超過120天的失業時間。
8 CFR §214.2(f)(10)規定OPT的工作必須與國際畢業生就讀的專業有關。負責學生及交換生計畫的SEVP表示，這些OPT工作包括為多個雇主工作、有薪的工作、沒有薪水的工作或者實習、以及自僱。 另外， OPT學生可以是以W-2或者1099的身份工作。 因此， OPT學生其實有很多工作可以選擇。SEVP發出的政策指引對每一種就業的形式皆有解釋，因此有興趣申請OPT的學生應細心閱讀該文件。
最後，8 CFR §214.2(f)(12)(i) 規定持有OPT工作證的國際畢業生如果更改了姓名、地址、或就業情況必須向學校報告。什麼時候要報告這些變動會因人而異。所有持有OPT的畢業生， 應在上述變更後的10個工作天向學校報告有關的改動。透過STEM計畫延長OPT的國際畢業生但凡變更了姓名、地址、雇主、雇主地址、或失業，皆須要向學校報告，而且每6個月要向學校提供報告。
以上資料僅供參考之用，並非法律意見。如有個別問題，請致電本所查詢。
10/25/2010
Definition of "American Firm or Corporation" for Preserving Residence Clarified
On October 20, 2010, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) issued a precedent that clarifies the meaning of "American Firm or Corporation" in N-470 applications if the corporation in question is a publicly held company. Under current immigration law, a legal permanent resident (LPR) needs to file N-470 Application Preserve Residence for Naturalization Purpose if the LPR needs to be absent from the United States to work overseas for an employer that is an American firm or corporation. But how do we define "American firm or corporation" when the corporation is a publicly held company and its stocks are sold in the market? The AAO clarifies the law in this new precedent, Matter of Chawathe. In this decision, the AAO held that if a N-470 applicant can show that his/her employer is incorporated in the United States and its stocks are EXCLUSIVELY traded in the United States, then the N-470 applicant does not need to show that the majority of the corporation's shareholders are U.S. citizens (51% of shares are owned by U.S. citizens). As a result, many potential naturalization applicants who work for these publicly held and traded companies can have one fewer thing to worry about when they decide to work for their companies overseas.
Disclaimer: Information included in this page does not constitute as legal advice and receipt of this page does not establish attorney-client relationship. For specific inquiries, please call my office and schedule an appointment.
在2010年10月20日，負責處理移民局上訴的行政上訴辦事處(AAO) 判下新的案例，闡明在N-470申請中「美國公司」的定義。根據現行法例，永久居民/綠卡持有人如果會因被美國公司雇主派往海外工作而無法滿足在美國連續居住五年的入籍條件，那他們應該到移民局遞交N-470申請表。但是在N-470申請中如果美國公司是一家上市公司，其股份可以在市場公開買賣，那麼申請人應如果證明他的雇主是一家美國公司？行政上訴辦事處(AAO) 在Matter of Chawathe一案中裁定N-470申請人只要能夠證明他們的雇主是一家上市公司，而公司是在美國註冊，及其股份只可以在美國買賣，那就已經可以證明其雇主是一所美國公司。這對很多N-470的申請人真是一項喜訊！
以上資料僅供參考之用，並非法律意見。如有個別問題，請致電本所查詢。
Disclaimer: Information included in this page does not constitute as legal advice and receipt of this page does not establish attorney-client relationship. For specific inquiries, please call my office and schedule an appointment.
在2010年10月20日，負責處理移民局上訴的行政上訴辦事處(AAO) 判下新的案例，闡明在N-470申請中「美國公司」的定義。根據現行法例，永久居民/綠卡持有人如果會因被美國公司雇主派往海外工作而無法滿足在美國連續居住五年的入籍條件，那他們應該到移民局遞交N-470申請表。但是在N-470申請中如果美國公司是一家上市公司，其股份可以在市場公開買賣，那麼申請人應如果證明他的雇主是一家美國公司？行政上訴辦事處(AAO) 在Matter of Chawathe一案中裁定N-470申請人只要能夠證明他們的雇主是一家上市公司，而公司是在美國註冊，及其股份只可以在美國買賣，那就已經可以證明其雇主是一所美國公司。這對很多N-470的申請人真是一項喜訊！
以上資料僅供參考之用，並非法律意見。如有個別問題，請致電本所查詢。
10/18/2010
Election and Immigration Law 投票與移民法
The mid-election of 2010 is around the corner and many campaign volunteers are going around to ask people to complete voter registration and vote for the candidate/party they support. If you are not a U.S. citizen, please beware of this dangerous trap.
According to current law, only U.S. citizens are allowed to register and vote in a federal election in the United States. In other words, even permanent residents (i.e., green card holders) are not allowed to vote in a federal election, including presidential and congressional elections. If a non-citizen votes in a federal election, he/she is subject to deportation. A New York Times Article published on October 15, 2010 reports that a legal permanent resident from St. Kitts is currently being placed under deportation proceeding for voting in presidential elections in the past.
To muddy the waters, several municipalities allow legal permanent residents to vote in county or city elections. State legislatures can also adopt their own set of eligibility rules on statewide elections. Therefore, if you are a legal permanent resident and not a United States citizen, it may be wise for you to just stay at home and watch the elections on TV, unless the county office of where you reside have confirmed with you (preferably in writing) that you are eligible to vote as a non-citizen in a local election. Doing so can protect you and your family from unnecessary hardship.
Disclaimer: Information included in this page does not constitute as legal advice and receipt of this page does not establish attorney-client relationship. For specific inquiries, please call my office and schedule an appointment.
2010年的中期選舉快將來到，很多不同的志願者都在馬不停蹄地為自己支持的候選人拉票及呼籲他人登記當選民。但是如果您不是美國公民，投票可以變成一個陷阱。
根據現行法例，只有美國公民可以在聯邦選舉中投票。換言之合法永久居民/綠卡持有人是不能在如總統或國會等聯邦選舉中投票。如果非公民在聯邦選舉中投票，他們有可能會被驅逐出境。紐約時報在十月十五日中便報導有一位來自聖基茨島的合法永久居民因為曾經在總統選舉中投票而面臨被驅逐出境的危險。
令情況更糟的是有一些地區及市政府容許非公民在地方市政府選舉中投票。另一方面，各州政府可以自行訂立州政府選舉的選民資格。因此，如果您並不是美國公民，除非您得到您所居住的郡政府的確認(最好是書面的確認)，您可以在某次選舉中投票，否則您應該留在家中，避免投票及因投票而惹來的問題。
以上資料僅供參考之用，並非法律意見。如有個別問題，請致電本人查詢。
According to current law, only U.S. citizens are allowed to register and vote in a federal election in the United States. In other words, even permanent residents (i.e., green card holders) are not allowed to vote in a federal election, including presidential and congressional elections. If a non-citizen votes in a federal election, he/she is subject to deportation. A New York Times Article published on October 15, 2010 reports that a legal permanent resident from St. Kitts is currently being placed under deportation proceeding for voting in presidential elections in the past.
To muddy the waters, several municipalities allow legal permanent residents to vote in county or city elections. State legislatures can also adopt their own set of eligibility rules on statewide elections. Therefore, if you are a legal permanent resident and not a United States citizen, it may be wise for you to just stay at home and watch the elections on TV, unless the county office of where you reside have confirmed with you (preferably in writing) that you are eligible to vote as a non-citizen in a local election. Doing so can protect you and your family from unnecessary hardship.
Disclaimer: Information included in this page does not constitute as legal advice and receipt of this page does not establish attorney-client relationship. For specific inquiries, please call my office and schedule an appointment.
2010年的中期選舉快將來到，很多不同的志願者都在馬不停蹄地為自己支持的候選人拉票及呼籲他人登記當選民。但是如果您不是美國公民，投票可以變成一個陷阱。
根據現行法例，只有美國公民可以在聯邦選舉中投票。換言之合法永久居民/綠卡持有人是不能在如總統或國會等聯邦選舉中投票。如果非公民在聯邦選舉中投票，他們有可能會被驅逐出境。紐約時報在十月十五日中便報導有一位來自聖基茨島的合法永久居民因為曾經在總統選舉中投票而面臨被驅逐出境的危險。
令情況更糟的是有一些地區及市政府容許非公民在地方市政府選舉中投票。另一方面，各州政府可以自行訂立州政府選舉的選民資格。因此，如果您並不是美國公民，除非您得到您所居住的郡政府的確認(最好是書面的確認)，您可以在某次選舉中投票，否則您應該留在家中，避免投票及因投票而惹來的問題。
以上資料僅供參考之用，並非法律意見。如有個別問題，請致電本人查詢。
10/04/2010
2012 Diversity Visa Lottery Program 多國籍移民簽證計劃
If you are interested in the diversity lottery program for the fiscal year of 2012, you may start submitting application from October 5 to November 3, 2010. Like last year, 50,000 immigrant visas will be available under the program for the fiscal year of 2012. Result of the lottery will be made available on May 1, 2011.
Please notice that there are a couple of changes in this year's program. First of all, the State Department is reverting the registration period from 60 days to 30 days. Therefore, you would have less time to submit an application for the lottery and should act quickly.
Second, the State Department will not mail a selection notice to those who have been selected under the program. Moreover, the Kentucky Consular Center will not mail an interview notice as well. Instead, online notification and interview notice will be made through the Entry Status Check function at dvlottery.state.gov.
Finally, it is free to participate in the lottery. Only those who have been selected for interviews will have to pay a fee at the U.S. consulate or embassy at the time of the interview. The interviewee will have to pay $745 USD ($305 for immigrant visa fee and $440 for diversity visa fee).
If you wonder how well of a chance you can win to get an immigrant visa, it is not very high. For the fiscal year of 2011, the chance of winning was 1/320, or 0.31%. This year would probably be more or less the same.
Disclaimer: Information included in this page does not constitute as legal advice and receipt of this page does not establish attorney-client relationship. For specific inquiries, please call my office and schedule an appointment.
申請人請注意今年美國國務院對計劃所作出的改變。首先，今年的申請期限由60天縮短至30天。因此申請人會比去年少了一些時間準備其申請。
其次，國務院不會將中籤通知書寄給被抽中的幸運兒。肯塔基領事中心也不會將面談通知書寄給符合資格的申請人。取而代之的是申請人需到國務院多國籍移民簽證計劃的網址，輸入在遞交申請表時得到的個人申請號碼，自行檢查是否被抽中及面談時間。
多國籍移民簽證計劃是免費參加的。只有符合資格而被選中面談的申請人需在前往美國駐海外的領事館面談的時候繳交$745美元的申請費(包括$305移民簽證申請費及格$440的多國籍移民簽證計劃申請費)。
透過多國籍移民簽證計劃成功被抽中的機會不算太高。在2011年的財政年度，有一千六百萬申請人爭奪五萬個簽證配額(每一個配額有三百二十個申請人爭奪)，即中籤機會大概有0.31%。
以上資料僅供參考之用，並非法律意見。如有個別問題，請致電本人查詢。
Please notice that there are a couple of changes in this year's program. First of all, the State Department is reverting the registration period from 60 days to 30 days. Therefore, you would have less time to submit an application for the lottery and should act quickly.
Second, the State Department will not mail a selection notice to those who have been selected under the program. Moreover, the Kentucky Consular Center will not mail an interview notice as well. Instead, online notification and interview notice will be made through the Entry Status Check function at dvlottery.state.gov.
Finally, it is free to participate in the lottery. Only those who have been selected for interviews will have to pay a fee at the U.S. consulate or embassy at the time of the interview. The interviewee will have to pay $745 USD ($305 for immigrant visa fee and $440 for diversity visa fee).
If you wonder how well of a chance you can win to get an immigrant visa, it is not very high. For the fiscal year of 2011, the chance of winning was 1/320, or 0.31%. This year would probably be more or less the same.
Disclaimer: Information included in this page does not constitute as legal advice and receipt of this page does not establish attorney-client relationship. For specific inquiries, please call my office and schedule an appointment.
如果你有興趣參加2012財政年度的多國籍移民簽證計劃，你需要在2010年10月5日至11月3日期間遞交申請表。與去年一樣，多國籍移民簽證計劃今年將會提供50,000個移民簽證配額。抽籤結果將會在2011年5月1日公佈。
申請人請注意今年美國國務院對計劃所作出的改變。首先，今年的申請期限由60天縮短至30天。因此申請人會比去年少了一些時間準備其申請。
其次，國務院不會將中籤通知書寄給被抽中的幸運兒。肯塔基領事中心也不會將面談通知書寄給符合資格的申請人。取而代之的是申請人需到國務院多國籍移民簽證計劃的網址，輸入在遞交申請表時得到的個人申請號碼，自行檢查是否被抽中及面談時間。
多國籍移民簽證計劃是免費參加的。只有符合資格而被選中面談的申請人需在前往美國駐海外的領事館面談的時候繳交$745美元的申請費(包括$305移民簽證申請費及格$440的多國籍移民簽證計劃申請費)。
透過多國籍移民簽證計劃成功被抽中的機會不算太高。在2011年的財政年度，有一千六百萬申請人爭奪五萬個簽證配額(每一個配額有三百二十個申請人爭奪)，即中籤機會大概有0.31%。
以上資料僅供參考之用，並非法律意見。如有個別問題，請致電本人查詢。
9/24/2010
USCIS Will Raise Filing Fees for Most Applications on Nov. 23, 2010
On September 23, 2010, USCIS announced that it will raise filing fees for many different applications starting on Nov. 23, 2010. The most notable exception is naturalization application (N-400), which application fee will remain unchanged ($595). In addition, I-129F, petition for fiance(e) visa, will have a lower fee than the current fee after Nov. 23 ($340 instead of $455).
The new filing fees for some of the most common forms are as follows:
Disclaimer: Information included in this page does not constitute as legal advice and receipt of this page does not establish attorney-client relationship. For specific inquiries, please call my office and schedule an appointment.
The new filing fees for some of the most common forms are as follows:
- I-129 Petition for a Non-immigrant Worker, such as E, H, and L visa: $320-->$325
- I-130 Petition for Alien Relative (to become an immigrant): $355-->$420
- I-131 Application for travel document/advanced parole: $305-->$360
- I-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (such as EB 1, 2, and 3): $475-->$580
- I-485 Adjustment of Status Application: $930-->$985
- I-526 Petition to be an Investor Immigrant (EB-5): $1435 -->$1500
- I-601 Inadmissibility Waiver: $545-->$585
- I-751 Petition to Remove Condition (such as marriage green card): $465-->505
- I-765 Application for Work Authorization (such as OPT): $340-->380
Disclaimer: Information included in this page does not constitute as legal advice and receipt of this page does not establish attorney-client relationship. For specific inquiries, please call my office and schedule an appointment.
8/20/2010
Student Visa
Summer break is almost over and the new school year is around the corner. If you are a non-U.S. citizen or permanent resident, unless you are a language student who plans to attend a short course for less than 18 hours per week, you need to obtain a F-1/M-1 status before you are allowed to attend a school in the U.S. A F-1/M-1 status may be obtained through consular processing by getting a visa or change of non-immigrant status in the U.S.
USCIS released a specific instruction titled "Special Instructions for B-1/B-2 Visitors Who Want to Enroll in School" yesterday and the instruction is a good reminder of the above-said policy. If you are in the U.S. on a B-2 visitor visa, you must not enroll in a school until your change of status application to a F-1/M-1 student is approved by USCIS. Attending school while you are a visitor is not only a violation of your status but will also make you ineligible to change your status to a F or M status.
On the other hand, if a request to change from B-2 to F-1 status is made within 60 days of a B-2 entry, USCIS will assume that the visitor has a preconceived intent to come to the U.S. to study and the request would likely be denied, especially if the alien has obtained an I-20 before his/her entry as a B-2 visitor.
Therefore, if you want to study in the U.S., you must plan carefully so that you will not be caught off guard.
Disclaimer: Information included in this page does not constitute as legal advice and receipt of this page does not establish attorney-client relationship. For specific inquiries, please call my office and schedule an appointment.
USCIS released a specific instruction titled "Special Instructions for B-1/B-2 Visitors Who Want to Enroll in School" yesterday and the instruction is a good reminder of the above-said policy. If you are in the U.S. on a B-2 visitor visa, you must not enroll in a school until your change of status application to a F-1/M-1 student is approved by USCIS. Attending school while you are a visitor is not only a violation of your status but will also make you ineligible to change your status to a F or M status.
On the other hand, if a request to change from B-2 to F-1 status is made within 60 days of a B-2 entry, USCIS will assume that the visitor has a preconceived intent to come to the U.S. to study and the request would likely be denied, especially if the alien has obtained an I-20 before his/her entry as a B-2 visitor.
Therefore, if you want to study in the U.S., you must plan carefully so that you will not be caught off guard.
Disclaimer: Information included in this page does not constitute as legal advice and receipt of this page does not establish attorney-client relationship. For specific inquiries, please call my office and schedule an appointment.
7/19/2010
USCIS Ombudsman Report (2)
The Ombudsman recommends USCIS provide an option for users to talk to a center representative immediately after reaching the main menu of the toll free number of USCIS. If this recommendation is adopted, it would help a lot.
Any one who has ever used the USCIS toll-free hotline would have frustrating experience to tell you. I still remember the first time I called that hotline, I had waited for over 45 minutes before connecting to an agent. In the last year or two, the waiting time had been significantly cut. Last time when I called I had to wait for about 3 minutes.
Despite this improvement, one thing I do not understand is why we cannot have an option to choose to talk to a representative in the main menu. A lot of times I have to randomly choose an option and either press the wrong button or ignore the instructions before I get connected to a USCIS representative.
Although I hope this option to immediately connect to an officer will come true, I hope users of the toll free hotline will not abuse it. If users want to find out their case status or have simple questions answered, I hope they will utilize the website of USCIS and find out the answers to their questions there. This will help maintain the efficiency of the hotline and allow those who really need the assistance of a representative to get help with the shortest amount of time possible.
Disclaimer: Information included in this page does not constitute as legal advice and receipt of this page does not establish attorney-client relationship. For specific inquiries, please call my office and schedule an appointment.
Any one who has ever used the USCIS toll-free hotline would have frustrating experience to tell you. I still remember the first time I called that hotline, I had waited for over 45 minutes before connecting to an agent. In the last year or two, the waiting time had been significantly cut. Last time when I called I had to wait for about 3 minutes.
Despite this improvement, one thing I do not understand is why we cannot have an option to choose to talk to a representative in the main menu. A lot of times I have to randomly choose an option and either press the wrong button or ignore the instructions before I get connected to a USCIS representative.
Although I hope this option to immediately connect to an officer will come true, I hope users of the toll free hotline will not abuse it. If users want to find out their case status or have simple questions answered, I hope they will utilize the website of USCIS and find out the answers to their questions there. This will help maintain the efficiency of the hotline and allow those who really need the assistance of a representative to get help with the shortest amount of time possible.
Disclaimer: Information included in this page does not constitute as legal advice and receipt of this page does not establish attorney-client relationship. For specific inquiries, please call my office and schedule an appointment.
7/15/2010
Women as a Particular Social Group for Asylum Purposes
A while ago in one episode of "Law and Order: Special Victim Unit", ADA Alex Cabot and Detective Olivia Benson had a discussion on how gender is not a basis for political asylum. Well, this may no longer be the case in states under the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit, at least for now. On July 12, 2010, the 9th Circuit of ruled in a case named Perdomo v. Holder that being a woman could fall under the definition of "membership in a particular social group" and be eligible to claim political asylum.
Generally, under current law, an asylum applicant has the responsibility to show that the applicant either had suffered past persecution or will face future persecution if the applicant returns to his/her home country. Moreover, the persecution must be based on race, nationality, religion, political opinion, or membership in a social group.
In Perdomo, the petitioner is a female from Guatemala. Ms. Perdomo applied for political asylum and her primary argument was that because of the high murder rate for women in Guatemala, she had established well-founded fear of future persecution. Both the Immigration Judge ("IJ") and the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") denied her asylum application because they did not agree that being a woman from Guatemala was a sufficient to prove fear of future persecution based on membership of a social group. Specifically, the BIA agreed with the IJ that gender alone was "too broad to qualify as a protected social group".
The 9th Circuit used a two-prong approach it had developed in a 2000 case to decide whether being a woman alone can fall under membership in a particular social group for asylum purpose. The first prong is to decide whether members of the "group" are united by "a voluntary association" or "innate characteristics." The 9th Circuit further explained that "innate characteristics" is a fundamental and common traits among the members that they either cannot or should not be asked to changed. The second prong is that the group has to be persecuted because of the innate characteristics. Based on this two-prong test and some precedents from the 9th circuit, the court reached the conclusion that females in a particular country could form a particular social group. Furthermore, the court ruled that the size and breadth of a group alone are not determinative.
This is certainly an interesting case and could possible open the door for many asylum applicants who cannot establish fear of persecution based on the other 4 grounds. We will see the implication of the ruling in the future.
Disclaimer: Information included in this page does not constitute as legal advice and receipt of this page does not establish attorney-client relationship. For specific inquiries, please schedule an appointment with my office.
Generally, under current law, an asylum applicant has the responsibility to show that the applicant either had suffered past persecution or will face future persecution if the applicant returns to his/her home country. Moreover, the persecution must be based on race, nationality, religion, political opinion, or membership in a social group.
In Perdomo, the petitioner is a female from Guatemala. Ms. Perdomo applied for political asylum and her primary argument was that because of the high murder rate for women in Guatemala, she had established well-founded fear of future persecution. Both the Immigration Judge ("IJ") and the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") denied her asylum application because they did not agree that being a woman from Guatemala was a sufficient to prove fear of future persecution based on membership of a social group. Specifically, the BIA agreed with the IJ that gender alone was "too broad to qualify as a protected social group".
The 9th Circuit used a two-prong approach it had developed in a 2000 case to decide whether being a woman alone can fall under membership in a particular social group for asylum purpose. The first prong is to decide whether members of the "group" are united by "a voluntary association" or "innate characteristics." The 9th Circuit further explained that "innate characteristics" is a fundamental and common traits among the members that they either cannot or should not be asked to changed. The second prong is that the group has to be persecuted because of the innate characteristics. Based on this two-prong test and some precedents from the 9th circuit, the court reached the conclusion that females in a particular country could form a particular social group. Furthermore, the court ruled that the size and breadth of a group alone are not determinative.
This is certainly an interesting case and could possible open the door for many asylum applicants who cannot establish fear of persecution based on the other 4 grounds. We will see the implication of the ruling in the future.
Disclaimer: Information included in this page does not constitute as legal advice and receipt of this page does not establish attorney-client relationship. For specific inquiries, please schedule an appointment with my office.
7/13/2010
USCIS Ombudsman Annual Report (1)
On June 30, USCIS Ombudsman January Contreras released the annual ombudsman report. The report has some interesting findings and suggestions and I will discuss some of them in this and next few entries.
One interesting observation the Ombudsman report points out is that the demand for family-based immigrant visas is "very low" in the previous 15 months (p.32). In other words, immigrant visas available to petitioners who have a current priority date exceeds the number of petitioners who actually go to the consulate to apply for an immigrant visa. Why do not applicants, after waiting for so long to have their priority date to become current, go to apply for the actual visa when it becomes available?
Although the actual reasons are not clear, the ombudsman report makes a few guesses, such as change in health, employment, and family situations or financial and economic concerns (p.32). In addition, many petitioners choose not to leave the United States and return to their home country to go through consulate process because of their illegal or problematic immigrant status (p.33). Because many of the low demand, many visas number become unused.
This situation highlights the needs of a comprehensive immigration reform as soon as possible. It is obvious that the wait for these applicants, who have parents, siblings, and children that are citizens and legal permanent residents of the U.S., is simply too long. For example, according to the August Visa Bulletin released yesterday by the Department of State, unmarried children over 21 years old and born in Mexico to a U.S. citizen/legal permanent resident have to wait for about 18 years before they are eligible to apply for a green card. If they get married, they will have to wait in a different category or may even lose their eligibility to migrate to the U.S. (currently there is no immigrant visa category for married children of lawful permanent residents)!
Thus, we can see there is a real need to eliminate this backlog and allow family members of naturalized U.S. citizens and permanent residents to be reunited with them in a more effective manner. Of course some people will argue that those citizens do not need to choose to come to the United States at the first place. But given how many science and engineering graduates in our country are foreign-born and how many of these naturalized citizens gain their residency in the U.S. through jobs that need their advanced skills and knowledge, we simply cannot afford to tell them to all go home or stop coming, then expect our country to remain the same in innovation, technology research, and long-term development.
Meanwhile, it is wise for petitioners to remain alert to the monthly visa bulletin so they can apply for an immigrant visa at their local consulate as soon as a visa number is available to them. If there are concerns regarding prior violation of immigration status or change of family situation, it is a good idea to talk to an attorney instead of simply forgoing the chance to apply for a visa. Many attorneys are willing to give free initial consultation and will keep the content of their consultation confidential, so it would not hurt to talk to them.
Disclaimer: Information included in this post does not constitute as legal advice and receipt of this page does not constitute attorney-client relationship. For specific inquiries, please contact my office for an appointment.
One interesting observation the Ombudsman report points out is that the demand for family-based immigrant visas is "very low" in the previous 15 months (p.32). In other words, immigrant visas available to petitioners who have a current priority date exceeds the number of petitioners who actually go to the consulate to apply for an immigrant visa. Why do not applicants, after waiting for so long to have their priority date to become current, go to apply for the actual visa when it becomes available?
Although the actual reasons are not clear, the ombudsman report makes a few guesses, such as change in health, employment, and family situations or financial and economic concerns (p.32). In addition, many petitioners choose not to leave the United States and return to their home country to go through consulate process because of their illegal or problematic immigrant status (p.33). Because many of the low demand, many visas number become unused.
This situation highlights the needs of a comprehensive immigration reform as soon as possible. It is obvious that the wait for these applicants, who have parents, siblings, and children that are citizens and legal permanent residents of the U.S., is simply too long. For example, according to the August Visa Bulletin released yesterday by the Department of State, unmarried children over 21 years old and born in Mexico to a U.S. citizen/legal permanent resident have to wait for about 18 years before they are eligible to apply for a green card. If they get married, they will have to wait in a different category or may even lose their eligibility to migrate to the U.S. (currently there is no immigrant visa category for married children of lawful permanent residents)!
Thus, we can see there is a real need to eliminate this backlog and allow family members of naturalized U.S. citizens and permanent residents to be reunited with them in a more effective manner. Of course some people will argue that those citizens do not need to choose to come to the United States at the first place. But given how many science and engineering graduates in our country are foreign-born and how many of these naturalized citizens gain their residency in the U.S. through jobs that need their advanced skills and knowledge, we simply cannot afford to tell them to all go home or stop coming, then expect our country to remain the same in innovation, technology research, and long-term development.
Meanwhile, it is wise for petitioners to remain alert to the monthly visa bulletin so they can apply for an immigrant visa at their local consulate as soon as a visa number is available to them. If there are concerns regarding prior violation of immigration status or change of family situation, it is a good idea to talk to an attorney instead of simply forgoing the chance to apply for a visa. Many attorneys are willing to give free initial consultation and will keep the content of their consultation confidential, so it would not hurt to talk to them.
Disclaimer: Information included in this post does not constitute as legal advice and receipt of this page does not constitute attorney-client relationship. For specific inquiries, please contact my office for an appointment.
7/08/2010
H-1B
Every summer, a lot of college graduates enter into the job market. Given the state of the economy, many of the graduates are having a hard time to find a job. This is particularly true for international graduates.
In most situations, prior to their graduation, international students usually apply for work authorization under the optional practical training (OPT) program and then seek employment with their OPT. However, an OPT authorization is only valid for 12 months (and an additional 17 months for students who have graduated from science, technology, and math majors). As a result, many employers are not willing to consider international students because they are not willing to hire someone who may have to leave the job in 12 months or simply do not want to pay the immigration fees to sponsor an international student.
To make things worse, a student under OPT cannot accrue more than 90 days of unemployment. Therefore, unless an international student can find some kind of work within 3 months of the start date of his/her OPT, the student may risk falling out of status. Thus, many international students would have to take low-skill and/or low-salary jobs during their OPT while they seek long-term employment.
For those who are lucky enough to find an employer who is willing to hire and sponsor their work visa petition (usually H-1B visa for college graduates), there is still no guarantee that they will be able to stay in the U.S. and continue to work after their OPT authorization expires. Prior to 2009, H-1B visa applicants usually had to file their petition on the very first day USCIS start accepting petition (usually April 1) because Congress has set a quota for the number of H-1B visas that can be issued in every fiscal year. If an applicant failed to do so, his/her application might not even be considered if USCIS had received sufficient petitions to meet the annual quota. Since 2009, fewer petitions have been filed because 1) fewer employment opportunities are available; 2) fewer employers have the resources to sponsor international graduates; and 3) companies that have received TARP money from the government may not sponsor H-1B petitions.
Although there are fewer petitions, that does not mean approval is automatic. In order to improve the chance of approval, an H-1B applicant should do the following:
A) an applicant should ensure the proposed employment requires a professional to fill it, such as someone with a college degree. If in doubt, it would be wise to check case law and BIA precedents to see whether there are any cases that can support the proposed employment to be qualified for H-1B.
B) An applicant should show a strong connection between the applicant's college education and the proposed job duties. If an applicant is qualified to perform the job duties without his/her college education, then USCIS will likely reject the application. On the other hand, if the applicant's professional qualifications have nothing to do with the applicant's job duties, it is also difficult to get an H-1B visa approved. For example, if a student majored in chemical engineering but his proposed job duties are linguistic in nature, it may be difficult to get an approval by USCIS.
Disclaimer: Information included in this post does not constitute as legal advice and receipt of this page does not constitute attorney-client relationship. For specific inquires, please contact my office for an appointment.
In most situations, prior to their graduation, international students usually apply for work authorization under the optional practical training (OPT) program and then seek employment with their OPT. However, an OPT authorization is only valid for 12 months (and an additional 17 months for students who have graduated from science, technology, and math majors). As a result, many employers are not willing to consider international students because they are not willing to hire someone who may have to leave the job in 12 months or simply do not want to pay the immigration fees to sponsor an international student.
To make things worse, a student under OPT cannot accrue more than 90 days of unemployment. Therefore, unless an international student can find some kind of work within 3 months of the start date of his/her OPT, the student may risk falling out of status. Thus, many international students would have to take low-skill and/or low-salary jobs during their OPT while they seek long-term employment.
For those who are lucky enough to find an employer who is willing to hire and sponsor their work visa petition (usually H-1B visa for college graduates), there is still no guarantee that they will be able to stay in the U.S. and continue to work after their OPT authorization expires. Prior to 2009, H-1B visa applicants usually had to file their petition on the very first day USCIS start accepting petition (usually April 1) because Congress has set a quota for the number of H-1B visas that can be issued in every fiscal year. If an applicant failed to do so, his/her application might not even be considered if USCIS had received sufficient petitions to meet the annual quota. Since 2009, fewer petitions have been filed because 1) fewer employment opportunities are available; 2) fewer employers have the resources to sponsor international graduates; and 3) companies that have received TARP money from the government may not sponsor H-1B petitions.
Although there are fewer petitions, that does not mean approval is automatic. In order to improve the chance of approval, an H-1B applicant should do the following:
A) an applicant should ensure the proposed employment requires a professional to fill it, such as someone with a college degree. If in doubt, it would be wise to check case law and BIA precedents to see whether there are any cases that can support the proposed employment to be qualified for H-1B.
B) An applicant should show a strong connection between the applicant's college education and the proposed job duties. If an applicant is qualified to perform the job duties without his/her college education, then USCIS will likely reject the application. On the other hand, if the applicant's professional qualifications have nothing to do with the applicant's job duties, it is also difficult to get an H-1B visa approved. For example, if a student majored in chemical engineering but his proposed job duties are linguistic in nature, it may be difficult to get an approval by USCIS.
Disclaimer: Information included in this post does not constitute as legal advice and receipt of this page does not constitute attorney-client relationship. For specific inquires, please contact my office for an appointment.
5/27/2010
Can Money Buy a Visa to Live in the U.S.
EB-5 has traditionally been the visa category that allows foreigners to get a green card. However, many foreigners, especially small business owners and small investors, find it difficult to put so much money (at least 500k and 1 million USD in general) at risk in exchange for a visa. Congress has made different efforts to reform the investor visa category, such as the Start Up Visa Act that was introduced in February 2010. But before this bill becomes law, foreigners are bound by the current rules and regulations.
So the question is: what can small owners do to come and work in the U.S. RIGHT NOW? Some short term non-immigrant visas may worth taking a look if you are really interested in coming to the U.S. through investment. The most obvious choice would be the E-2 visa, which allows foreigners to come and work in the U.S. for 2 years if they can invest a substantial amount of money in the U.S. and benefits the economy of the U.S. However, to qualify for an E-2 visa, the applicant must come from a country that has a trade treaty with the U.S. Thus, for example, nationals of China (PRC) will not be eligible to come to the U.S. through an E-visa.
Another common way for investors to come to the U.S. is through the L-1A visa. Some foreigners may consider expanding their overseas companies into the U.S. by setting up a branch or an affiliate in the U.S. The government currently allows investors who act as executives to enter into the U.S. and manage their new branch or affiliate company. Executives for new entities will get a visa that is valid for 1 year and can be renewed for up to 7 years. In additional, current law allows an L-1 visa holder to have an immigrant intent while in L-status, i.e., may apply for a green card and/or adjustment of status while the investor is in L-1A status.
Although these two visas are non-immigrant visas, they may actually serve the interests of investors better. Some potential investors I have talked to actually do not have the intent to move and live in the U.S. permanently. As a result, getting an E or L visa may be a better alternative because the amount of money needed is significantly lower than an EB-5.
Disclaimer: information included in this post does not constitute as legal advice and receipt of this information does not constitute attorney-client relationship. For specific inquiries, please contact my office for an appointment.
So the question is: what can small owners do to come and work in the U.S. RIGHT NOW? Some short term non-immigrant visas may worth taking a look if you are really interested in coming to the U.S. through investment. The most obvious choice would be the E-2 visa, which allows foreigners to come and work in the U.S. for 2 years if they can invest a substantial amount of money in the U.S. and benefits the economy of the U.S. However, to qualify for an E-2 visa, the applicant must come from a country that has a trade treaty with the U.S. Thus, for example, nationals of China (PRC) will not be eligible to come to the U.S. through an E-visa.
Another common way for investors to come to the U.S. is through the L-1A visa. Some foreigners may consider expanding their overseas companies into the U.S. by setting up a branch or an affiliate in the U.S. The government currently allows investors who act as executives to enter into the U.S. and manage their new branch or affiliate company. Executives for new entities will get a visa that is valid for 1 year and can be renewed for up to 7 years. In additional, current law allows an L-1 visa holder to have an immigrant intent while in L-status, i.e., may apply for a green card and/or adjustment of status while the investor is in L-1A status.
Although these two visas are non-immigrant visas, they may actually serve the interests of investors better. Some potential investors I have talked to actually do not have the intent to move and live in the U.S. permanently. As a result, getting an E or L visa may be a better alternative because the amount of money needed is significantly lower than an EB-5.
Disclaimer: information included in this post does not constitute as legal advice and receipt of this information does not constitute attorney-client relationship. For specific inquiries, please contact my office for an appointment.
5/19/2010
Incentives to be Here Illegally
Immigration has definitely been a hot issue ever since Arizona passed SB 1030. However, we need a basic understanding of the law before we can engage in a civil and informed debate, regarless of which side you are on.
First of all, we need to understand who illegal immigrants are. There are three kinds of illegal immigrants: 1) foreigners who enter the U.S. without proper inspection by our custom and immigration officers; 2) foreigners who entered into the U.S. legally but have failed to leave the country after their authorized period of stay expires and 3) those who does not comply with their condition of stay in the U.S., such as students working off campus without authorization.
Second, we need to understand what it means to violate a law and the consequences of different violation. Obviously, there are different kinds of law. Laws that are enacted by the government to protect the society as a whole are generally criminal law. On the other hand, laws that are enated to protect a specific group of citizens and customers are generally civil laws, such as contract. Of course this is a pretty basic generalization and sometimes the two interwine with each other. When someone violates a criminal law, such as committing a murder, the government, i.e., district attorney, will file the charges against the suspect. If the government prevails, the defendant would usually serve time behind the bars. In contrast, violation of civil law does not impose jail time usually. Instead, the offending party would have to compensate the victim in monetary terms.
Third, our legal system has long been a balancing act between mercy and justice. A violation of the law does not automatically put the offending party into jail or impose a fine. Instead, the offending party can raise some so-called affirmative defenses to justify their violation. A classic example would be to kill someone when the defendant himself is in jeopardy of losing his own life if he did not kill.
Our immigration law is a very unique set of law. We punish those who violate our immigration law by expelling the violators from our country. No jail time or fine is imposed for violating our immigration law. In addition, we have allowed affirmative defenses and afford those who are in our country due process to present their case and why they should not be deported in most situations.
I think these are some of the facts we need to understand before we engage in a debate of what we should do with our immigration system. Some people say illegals are illegals and they should be deported. Saying so is simply to saying criminals are criminals and they should be jailed without trial. However, our system does not work this way. In fact, it is the Constitution, which we support and are proud of, that says we cannot put people in jail and expel them out of this country without due process.
Moreover, as much as I hate to admit that, but I think our immigration system provides far too many incentives for people to disobey it. Take a married couple for example. I doubt how many of us would ask our date whether he/she has legal papers. Moreover, if you marry a legal permanent resident/green card holder, you are subject to immigrant visa quota and have to wait for a few years to gain residency in the U.S. Because of the wait, you may have to make a hard choice when your current visa or authorized period of stay expires: do you go home and leave your spouse behind or do you break the law but stay with your family? Why can't our law treat spouses and minor children of permanent residents the same as US citizens, namely giving them residency right away without imposing a quota system? Can you see why our immigration ststem helps create illegals?
Our immigration system does not punish employers who hire illegal aliens hard enough. This is simply a supply and demand calculation. The benefits and costs saved for hiring illegal workers simply outweigh the penalties of breaking the law. Although companies who hire illegals can be subject to criminal liabilities, the burden of proof is often so high that prosecutors simply cannot meet. Again, our system encourages people to break the law.
People often complain that our federal government fails to enforce our immigration law. But how is the federal government going to enforce the law when they do not have funds to hire agents and border patrols that could safeguard our coastline or our land border? Are we willing to pay more taxes and expand our government in the area of immigration?
I think we need to enforce our law, but I also think we need to enact laws that will not encourage people to disobey it. Also, I am not sure how much our country is willing to sacrifice to provide the resources that our immigration authority needs to enforce the law.
Disclaimer: Information included in this post does not constitute as legal advice and receipt of this page does not constitute attorney-client relationship. For specific inquires, please contact my office for an appointment.
First of all, we need to understand who illegal immigrants are. There are three kinds of illegal immigrants: 1) foreigners who enter the U.S. without proper inspection by our custom and immigration officers; 2) foreigners who entered into the U.S. legally but have failed to leave the country after their authorized period of stay expires and 3) those who does not comply with their condition of stay in the U.S., such as students working off campus without authorization.
Second, we need to understand what it means to violate a law and the consequences of different violation. Obviously, there are different kinds of law. Laws that are enacted by the government to protect the society as a whole are generally criminal law. On the other hand, laws that are enated to protect a specific group of citizens and customers are generally civil laws, such as contract. Of course this is a pretty basic generalization and sometimes the two interwine with each other. When someone violates a criminal law, such as committing a murder, the government, i.e., district attorney, will file the charges against the suspect. If the government prevails, the defendant would usually serve time behind the bars. In contrast, violation of civil law does not impose jail time usually. Instead, the offending party would have to compensate the victim in monetary terms.
Third, our legal system has long been a balancing act between mercy and justice. A violation of the law does not automatically put the offending party into jail or impose a fine. Instead, the offending party can raise some so-called affirmative defenses to justify their violation. A classic example would be to kill someone when the defendant himself is in jeopardy of losing his own life if he did not kill.
Our immigration law is a very unique set of law. We punish those who violate our immigration law by expelling the violators from our country. No jail time or fine is imposed for violating our immigration law. In addition, we have allowed affirmative defenses and afford those who are in our country due process to present their case and why they should not be deported in most situations.
I think these are some of the facts we need to understand before we engage in a debate of what we should do with our immigration system. Some people say illegals are illegals and they should be deported. Saying so is simply to saying criminals are criminals and they should be jailed without trial. However, our system does not work this way. In fact, it is the Constitution, which we support and are proud of, that says we cannot put people in jail and expel them out of this country without due process.
Moreover, as much as I hate to admit that, but I think our immigration system provides far too many incentives for people to disobey it. Take a married couple for example. I doubt how many of us would ask our date whether he/she has legal papers. Moreover, if you marry a legal permanent resident/green card holder, you are subject to immigrant visa quota and have to wait for a few years to gain residency in the U.S. Because of the wait, you may have to make a hard choice when your current visa or authorized period of stay expires: do you go home and leave your spouse behind or do you break the law but stay with your family? Why can't our law treat spouses and minor children of permanent residents the same as US citizens, namely giving them residency right away without imposing a quota system? Can you see why our immigration ststem helps create illegals?
Our immigration system does not punish employers who hire illegal aliens hard enough. This is simply a supply and demand calculation. The benefits and costs saved for hiring illegal workers simply outweigh the penalties of breaking the law. Although companies who hire illegals can be subject to criminal liabilities, the burden of proof is often so high that prosecutors simply cannot meet. Again, our system encourages people to break the law.
People often complain that our federal government fails to enforce our immigration law. But how is the federal government going to enforce the law when they do not have funds to hire agents and border patrols that could safeguard our coastline or our land border? Are we willing to pay more taxes and expand our government in the area of immigration?
I think we need to enforce our law, but I also think we need to enact laws that will not encourage people to disobey it. Also, I am not sure how much our country is willing to sacrifice to provide the resources that our immigration authority needs to enforce the law.
Disclaimer: Information included in this post does not constitute as legal advice and receipt of this page does not constitute attorney-client relationship. For specific inquires, please contact my office for an appointment.
4/19/2010
Arizona's Pending Immigration Bill
The Bill
By now most people have heard about the pending legislation regarding illegal immigration in Arizona. The most controversial features of S.B. 1070 include the following:
- allows a state, county, or town official/agent to inquire the immigration status of an alien if the official/agent has reasonable suspicion that the alien is not in the U.S. legally;
- makes it a criminal trespass if an alien fails to carry proof of his/her legal status in any private or public land in Arizona;
- makes it a crime to transport an illegal alien in Arizona, if the government can prove that the driver knows or reckless disregards of the alien's immigration status;
- allows private citizens to sue the state, county, city, or town for not enforcing federal immigration law.
Problems
While I think we should enforce our federal immigration law, I am very concerned on the negative effects this bill has on people who are in the U.S. LEGALLY.
Vague Definition
First of all, there is no clear definition of "reasonable suspicion." Is speaking English with an accent good enough to cast reasonable suspicion on the immigration status of a person? If yes, then I may be stopped a lot by police officers when I visit Arizona!
Second, how do you define "reckless disregard" of an alien's immigration status? If someone at school/church asked me to give him a ride, should I inquire about his immigration status before saying yes? For example, if a boy who came from Australia had overstayed his visa in the U.S. since age 2 and speaks English with no accent, I probably would not know or check his illegal status and I could get arrested for giving him a ride. What about driving an alien who had overstayed his visa because his flight to go home was cancelled due to natural diasters like earthquake or volcanic ash? Because I knew of his illegal status, I could be arrested when I drove him to the airport and sent him home!
Big Inconvenience, Could Even Be Unconstitutional
It is even more problematic to require an alien to carry proof of legal status whenever he/she is in Arizona. It is true that federal law requires permanent residents to carry their green cards with them wherever they go. But what about citizens? Do all citizens need to bring their birth certificate, naturalization certificate, or passport when they go to shop at a local grovery store or their neighbor's home? If yes, then it would be a big inconvenience for any citizen who lives or visits Arizona. If only naturalized citizens need to do that, then we are definitely making them second-class citizens and it is a clear violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. What about non-immigrant visa holders like students or H-1B workers? Do they need to bring their passports or USCIS documents with them wherever they go in Arizona? This could particularly affect those who are visiting from other states. For example, it is totally possible for an H-1B worker who worked in the U.S. after graduation to drive to Arizona to visit the Grand Canyon and got arrested for not carrying his H-1B approval notice to prove his current legal status when he stopped at a gas station! To make things even worse, because it is a crime for not carrying his proof of legal status in Arizona, the poor guy could be deported and barred from entering the U.S. in the future! That does not make sense to me and I hope it will never happen.
Now some people may argue that a driver's license would be a good enough proof for legal status. However, as of 2009, four states still issue driver's license to illegal aliens. Moreover, many states have issued driver's license to students and temporal visitors as long as they can prove their legal status at the time of issuance. Therefore, aliens who have overstayed their visas can nonetheless hold valid driver's license.
Hurting Arizona Financially
Needless to say, allowing private citizens to sue their local government for not enforcing immigration law and attaches civil penalties to it would drain the financial resources of the local government in Arizona. Can a resident of Arizona sue the city officials for not arresting my neighbor who has overstayed his visa? If yes, then people who are running out of money could find a new way to make some.
This legislation could potentially hurt tourism in Arizona as well. Aliens, legal or not, may want to avoid Arizona to ensure they are safe. Would that be a good thing for towns who rely on the millions of tourists who visit the Grand Canyon and other scenic places in the state? I think so.
Conclusion
I know some of the examples I have used are a bit extreme, but those are possible and undesirable effects of the AZ legislation. We should not tolerate any violation of law, but this particular Arizona legislation is going to create more problems than solving them.
Disclaimer: Information included in this post does nto constitute as legal advice and receipt of this page does not establish attorney-client relationship. For specific inquries, please contact my office for an appointment.
By now most people have heard about the pending legislation regarding illegal immigration in Arizona. The most controversial features of S.B. 1070 include the following:
- allows a state, county, or town official/agent to inquire the immigration status of an alien if the official/agent has reasonable suspicion that the alien is not in the U.S. legally;
- makes it a criminal trespass if an alien fails to carry proof of his/her legal status in any private or public land in Arizona;
- makes it a crime to transport an illegal alien in Arizona, if the government can prove that the driver knows or reckless disregards of the alien's immigration status;
- allows private citizens to sue the state, county, city, or town for not enforcing federal immigration law.
Problems
While I think we should enforce our federal immigration law, I am very concerned on the negative effects this bill has on people who are in the U.S. LEGALLY.
Vague Definition
First of all, there is no clear definition of "reasonable suspicion." Is speaking English with an accent good enough to cast reasonable suspicion on the immigration status of a person? If yes, then I may be stopped a lot by police officers when I visit Arizona!
Second, how do you define "reckless disregard" of an alien's immigration status? If someone at school/church asked me to give him a ride, should I inquire about his immigration status before saying yes? For example, if a boy who came from Australia had overstayed his visa in the U.S. since age 2 and speaks English with no accent, I probably would not know or check his illegal status and I could get arrested for giving him a ride. What about driving an alien who had overstayed his visa because his flight to go home was cancelled due to natural diasters like earthquake or volcanic ash? Because I knew of his illegal status, I could be arrested when I drove him to the airport and sent him home!
Big Inconvenience, Could Even Be Unconstitutional
It is even more problematic to require an alien to carry proof of legal status whenever he/she is in Arizona. It is true that federal law requires permanent residents to carry their green cards with them wherever they go. But what about citizens? Do all citizens need to bring their birth certificate, naturalization certificate, or passport when they go to shop at a local grovery store or their neighbor's home? If yes, then it would be a big inconvenience for any citizen who lives or visits Arizona. If only naturalized citizens need to do that, then we are definitely making them second-class citizens and it is a clear violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. What about non-immigrant visa holders like students or H-1B workers? Do they need to bring their passports or USCIS documents with them wherever they go in Arizona? This could particularly affect those who are visiting from other states. For example, it is totally possible for an H-1B worker who worked in the U.S. after graduation to drive to Arizona to visit the Grand Canyon and got arrested for not carrying his H-1B approval notice to prove his current legal status when he stopped at a gas station! To make things even worse, because it is a crime for not carrying his proof of legal status in Arizona, the poor guy could be deported and barred from entering the U.S. in the future! That does not make sense to me and I hope it will never happen.
Now some people may argue that a driver's license would be a good enough proof for legal status. However, as of 2009, four states still issue driver's license to illegal aliens. Moreover, many states have issued driver's license to students and temporal visitors as long as they can prove their legal status at the time of issuance. Therefore, aliens who have overstayed their visas can nonetheless hold valid driver's license.
Hurting Arizona Financially
Needless to say, allowing private citizens to sue their local government for not enforcing immigration law and attaches civil penalties to it would drain the financial resources of the local government in Arizona. Can a resident of Arizona sue the city officials for not arresting my neighbor who has overstayed his visa? If yes, then people who are running out of money could find a new way to make some.
This legislation could potentially hurt tourism in Arizona as well. Aliens, legal or not, may want to avoid Arizona to ensure they are safe. Would that be a good thing for towns who rely on the millions of tourists who visit the Grand Canyon and other scenic places in the state? I think so.
Conclusion
I know some of the examples I have used are a bit extreme, but those are possible and undesirable effects of the AZ legislation. We should not tolerate any violation of law, but this particular Arizona legislation is going to create more problems than solving them.
Disclaimer: Information included in this post does nto constitute as legal advice and receipt of this page does not establish attorney-client relationship. For specific inquries, please contact my office for an appointment.
2/26/2010
H-1B Process: Are You Ready to File?
As April 1 is only a few weeks away, those who are lucky enough to have a job offer and find an employer that is willing to petition an H-1B application should start putting their application together NOW. The following is a brief explanation on the process of filing an H-1B application.
Starting from this year, the Department of Labor (DOL) has centralized the process of prevailing wage determination (PWD) for H-1B. You should file ETA Form 9141 through iCert (icert.doleta.gov), a website run by the Department of Labor. Applicants should expect to get the prevailing wage determination back in about 60 days. That means if your employer has not filed a PWD yet, you most likely will not be able to file your H-1B application by April 1.
While your are waiting for your PWD, your employer should inform other U.S. workers that you, an international worker, will be hired. Usually a notice on the company's bulletin board or an email is sufficient (hard notice of soft notice), depending on the usual channel of communication between the employer and the employees. You should receive a copy of the LCA as well.
After informing the U.S. workers about the intent of hiring an international worker and getting the PWD back, your employer should file a Labor Condition Application (LCA) with the DOL through iCert. A LCA will generally be approved within 7 business days unless something in the LCA is inaccurate or incomplete, which will require the employer to correct the information and resubmit the LCA.
After the LCA is approved, you may submit your I-129 application with H-supplement pages filled out and other supporting evidence, such as documents that prove your qualifications.
Disclaimer: Information included in this post does not constitute as legal advice and receipt of this page does not establish attorney-client relationship. For specific inquiries, please contact my office for an appointment.
Starting from this year, the Department of Labor (DOL) has centralized the process of prevailing wage determination (PWD) for H-1B. You should file ETA Form 9141 through iCert (icert.doleta.gov), a website run by the Department of Labor. Applicants should expect to get the prevailing wage determination back in about 60 days. That means if your employer has not filed a PWD yet, you most likely will not be able to file your H-1B application by April 1.
While your are waiting for your PWD, your employer should inform other U.S. workers that you, an international worker, will be hired. Usually a notice on the company's bulletin board or an email is sufficient (hard notice of soft notice), depending on the usual channel of communication between the employer and the employees. You should receive a copy of the LCA as well.
After informing the U.S. workers about the intent of hiring an international worker and getting the PWD back, your employer should file a Labor Condition Application (LCA) with the DOL through iCert. A LCA will generally be approved within 7 business days unless something in the LCA is inaccurate or incomplete, which will require the employer to correct the information and resubmit the LCA.
After the LCA is approved, you may submit your I-129 application with H-supplement pages filled out and other supporting evidence, such as documents that prove your qualifications.
Disclaimer: Information included in this post does not constitute as legal advice and receipt of this page does not establish attorney-client relationship. For specific inquiries, please contact my office for an appointment.
2/01/2010
Advance Parole
If you are applying for adjustment of status (AOS) and need to leave the U.S. before the AOS application is approved, please remember to apply for and obtain an advance parole before you leave the country. The fee of applying an advance parole is included in your adjustment of status application, so you do not have to pay extra to apply for it. However, you need to file an I-131 along with your I-485 to take advantage of this fee arrangement.
If you are a legal permanent resident but need to leave the country for longer than 180 consecutive days, you may also need an advance parole to return to the U.S.
Before an advance parole application is granted, you need to complete a biometric, i.e., have your fingerprint taken by the Application Support Center. If you fail to attend your biometric appointment, your advance parole application may be denied based on abandonment.
Usually an advance parole application would be processed by USCIS within 90 days. If you have not received a decision within 90 days, you may contact the local office of USCIS to follow up on your application.
What if you have an emergency and cannot wait for 90 days? You need to bring documentations to your local USCIS office and show why your advance parole application should be expedited. If the local USCIS office determines that you have a legitimate need to get an advance parole right away, it will likely process and issue an advance parole to you within a few hours.
In short, please remember you have to apply for an advance parole while you are in the U.S and do not leave the country until you have obtained the advance parole.
Disclaimer: Information included in this post does not constitute as legal advice and receipt of this page does not establish attorney-client relationship. For specific inquiries, please contact my office for an appointment.
If you are a legal permanent resident but need to leave the country for longer than 180 consecutive days, you may also need an advance parole to return to the U.S.
Before an advance parole application is granted, you need to complete a biometric, i.e., have your fingerprint taken by the Application Support Center. If you fail to attend your biometric appointment, your advance parole application may be denied based on abandonment.
Usually an advance parole application would be processed by USCIS within 90 days. If you have not received a decision within 90 days, you may contact the local office of USCIS to follow up on your application.
What if you have an emergency and cannot wait for 90 days? You need to bring documentations to your local USCIS office and show why your advance parole application should be expedited. If the local USCIS office determines that you have a legitimate need to get an advance parole right away, it will likely process and issue an advance parole to you within a few hours.
In short, please remember you have to apply for an advance parole while you are in the U.S and do not leave the country until you have obtained the advance parole.
Disclaimer: Information included in this post does not constitute as legal advice and receipt of this page does not establish attorney-client relationship. For specific inquiries, please contact my office for an appointment.
1/29/2010
F-1 International Academic Students
In general, there are a few requirements for an overseas student to apply for a F-1 visa and study in an academic institution in the United States. These requirements generally include:
1. The applicant of a F-1 visa has a foreign residence outside the U.S. and the applicant has to show he/she intends to return to that residence after finishing school in the U.S.
2. The applicant is a bona fide student and is not using the visa for purposes other thana ttending school (such as waiting for an immigrant visa number).
3. The applicant must obtain an I-20 issued by the school he/she intends to enroll.
4. The applicant has sufficient financial resources to sustain his/her study in the U.S.
5. F-1 students are not allowed to attend public high schools for more than one academic year and have to pay the school district/board their tuition prior to issuance of an I-20.
However, meeting these requirements alone may still be insufficient for you to attend a school in the U.S.
Recently, my alma mater, Brigham Young University (commonly known as BYU), has decided to enforce a new policy regarding F-1 international students. The policy requires all new international students (including freshman or transferred students) to pay a $4,000 deposit to an escrow account upon admission and prior to the issuance of an I-20 for visa application. The rationale of the University is that this policy will ensure international students have sufficient funds to complete their education in the U.S.
This will undoubtedly make it harder for international students to attend my alma mater, but it is not illegal for a school to have admission requirements in addition to the ones set forth by the law. Thus, if you are an itnernational student, be sure to check with the institution you plan to enroll carefully to see whether they have specific admission requirements for international students. Otherwise, you may be disappointed or even abandon your plan to study in the U.S.
Disclaimer: Information included in this post does not constitute as legal advice and receipt of this page does not establish an attorney-client relationship. For specific inquiries, please contact my office for an appointment.
1. The applicant of a F-1 visa has a foreign residence outside the U.S. and the applicant has to show he/she intends to return to that residence after finishing school in the U.S.
2. The applicant is a bona fide student and is not using the visa for purposes other thana ttending school (such as waiting for an immigrant visa number).
3. The applicant must obtain an I-20 issued by the school he/she intends to enroll.
4. The applicant has sufficient financial resources to sustain his/her study in the U.S.
5. F-1 students are not allowed to attend public high schools for more than one academic year and have to pay the school district/board their tuition prior to issuance of an I-20.
However, meeting these requirements alone may still be insufficient for you to attend a school in the U.S.
Recently, my alma mater, Brigham Young University (commonly known as BYU), has decided to enforce a new policy regarding F-1 international students. The policy requires all new international students (including freshman or transferred students) to pay a $4,000 deposit to an escrow account upon admission and prior to the issuance of an I-20 for visa application. The rationale of the University is that this policy will ensure international students have sufficient funds to complete their education in the U.S.
This will undoubtedly make it harder for international students to attend my alma mater, but it is not illegal for a school to have admission requirements in addition to the ones set forth by the law. Thus, if you are an itnernational student, be sure to check with the institution you plan to enroll carefully to see whether they have specific admission requirements for international students. Otherwise, you may be disappointed or even abandon your plan to study in the U.S.
Disclaimer: Information included in this post does not constitute as legal advice and receipt of this page does not establish an attorney-client relationship. For specific inquiries, please contact my office for an appointment.
1/10/2010
Facebook Link
Please visit my facebook page, where I often post links and articles from other sources related to immigration law. To access it, please click the facebook badge on the right handside of this blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)