U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) still has slots available in fiscal year 2012 for foreign workers in specialty occupations under the H-1B program.

Thus, employers who seek an employment start date on or after October 1, 2011 (the start of the 2012 fiscal year) for foreign workers in specialty occupations can still file visa petitions on behalf of those workers. By rule, the specialty occupations include, but are not limited to: scientists, engineers and computer programmers.

Petitions should be filed as soon as possible in order to avoid being shut down by the annual cap limitation for the H-1B program (cap amount of 65,000 for FY 2012).

Some petitions will be exempt from the cap if they are made on behalf of certain individuals who have obtained an advanced U.S.degree, but USCIS grants the exemption only to the first 20,000 applications.

The current H-1B counts for petitions filed to date are as follows through July 1, 2011:

• H-1B Regular Cap: 18,400 cap-eligible petitions

• H-1B Advanced Degree Exemption: 11,900 petitions

Up to 6,800 visas may also be set aside for workers from Chile and Singapore, pursuant to the H-1B1 program arising out of the U.S.-Chile and U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreements.

H-1B petitions, in order to be properly filed, must be complete and accurate. Necessary documents include, but are not limited to the following:

• A Form I-129 petition with appropriate supplements;

• Labor condition applications on Form ETA 9035;

• Required evidence of a beneficiary’s educational background;

• Duplicate copies of certain documents; and

• Consulate-specific forms required by the Department of State where appropriate.

If you are in need of more information about business immigration, please check the pertinent section of our Website at www.visaserve.com or call our offices at (201) 670-0006.

One of ICE’s central responsibilities is to enforce the nation’s civil immigration laws in coordination with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). ICE, however, has limited resources to remove those illegally in the United States. ICE must prioritize the use of its enforcement personnel, detention space, and removal assets to ensure that the aliens it removes represent, as much as reasonably possible, the agency’s enforcement priorities, namely the promotion of national security, border security, public safety, and the integrity of the immigration system. These priorities are outlined in the ICE Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities memorandum of March 2,2011, which this memorandum the attached memorandum is intended to support.

To read the memorandum, please see the link at:

http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f36c5a91-4913-4f5a-92e1-3ab7ba72db4a

For more information about the memorandum and its application, please feel free to e-mail to us at info@visaserve.com.

There were a great deal of concerns about visa processing shared by AILA
members with Alejandro Mayorkis, the USCIS Director. Mr. Mayorkis
addressed issues such as the issuance of RFEs, the possibility of speeding
the processing of EB-5 green card cases and the onerous legal standard in
the EB-1 context (Kazarian v. U.S.). Most important is that, all in all,
Mr. Mayorkis (a lawyer himself) reflected a willingness to deal with these
issues in a fairly rapid and balanced manner. Mr. Mayorkis also afforded
the membership a glimpse into the future by stating that USCIS plans for
implementing online profile system would be targeted for December 2011. He
indicated that online profile system will be “kicked-off” with the I-539.

John Morton, the Director of ICE spoke about the improved removals
process. In his presentation he pointed out that his mother is still a
lawful permanent resident and that he was not born in the U.S. Mr. Morton
reminded the attendees at the Conference that his regime brought an online
detainee location system that allows lawyers to find their clients in
detention facilities throughout the U.S. Further, Mr. Morton told the
attendees about a new memorandum, issued last Friday, that further hons
the legal standards for the use of “prosecutorial discretion” by Trial
Attorneys, ICE Officials, Immigration Judges and other Immigration and
Nationality Officials. This new memorandum signifies a huge movement by
ICE to further clarify the use of discretion by Law Enforcement Officials
in secured communities programs and in connection with withholding of
removal and immigration enforcement in general.

For more information about other new developments in the immigration and
nationality arena, please feel free to contact us at info@visaserve.com.

TO SIGN-UP FOR A FREE SUBSCRIPTION OF THE VISASERVE NEWSLETTER, PLEASE EMAIL TO INFO@VISASERVE.COM OR VISIT OUR WEBSITE AT WWW.VISASERVE.COM.
.

June 3, 2011

Federal Agencies Combat Immigration Services Scams
DHS, DOJ and FTC Collaborate with State and Local Partners in Unprecedented Effort

WASHINGTON—The U.S. government will unveil a national initiative to combat immigration services scams on June 9 at 1 p.m. The Departments of Homeland Security (DHS) and Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) are leading this historic effort.

DHS’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the lead agency responsible for administering the U.S. legal immigration system, will announce the initiative while hosting events in seven cities around the country as well as the national launch in Washington, D.C.
The unauthorized practice of immigration law is an exploitative practice that endangers the integrity of our immigration system and victimizes members of the immigrant community. Understanding the gravity of this deceptive practice, federal, state and local partners have come together to combat immigration services scams on all fronts. The initiative is set upon three pillars: enforcement, education, and continued collaboration. Each agency plays a critical role to ensure the success of this national effort.

This initiative exemplifies how government and community can work together to effectively address a serious problem.

WHO: Alejandro Mayorkas, Director, USCIS, DHS John Morton, Assistant Secretary, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, DHS Tony West, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, DOJ Edith Ramirez, Commissioner, FTC Juan Osuna, Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review, DOJ

WHEN: Thursday, June 9, 2011, 1 p.m. EDT

WHERE: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Tomich Center 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, D.C.

CONTACTS: Lauren Alder Reid Counsel, Office of Legislative and Public Affairs 703-305-0289; PAO.EOIR@usdoj.gov

NOTES: For planning purposes, media attending are requested to RSVP to OCOMM.MediaDivision@dhs.gov by close of business June 8, 2011.

- EOIR -

Posted by Aneesh Chopra on May 16, 2011 at 02:29 PM EDT

Last week, President Obama called for a national conversation on how to fix our broken immigration system so it works for the 21st Century economy. On Thursday, I joined 25 entrepreneurs — drawn from the local business community and attendees of the inspiring Big Omaha conference — in Omaha, NE, to engage in such a discussion. Though many in the room hadn’t known each other, we quickly shared personal stories of hope and frustration with the current immigration system.

Given the high-tech focus of many of the entrepreneurs in the room, the message I heard was clear — if we are to effectively compete in the global economy, we need access to the very best talent our communities can attract, especially in regions that lack the kind of talent concentration one finds in areas like Silicon Valley or Austin, TX.

I met Nick Hudson, a British-born entrepreneur three times over who described the Omaha community as very welcoming of immigrants, despite the difficulties of navigating our national immigration system.
I met an immigrant entrepreneur whose daughter successfully completed a master’s degree in engineering, precisely the kind of science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) training the President has emphasized as key to our economic future, but who lacked a clear pathway to join our workforce.
To that end, I shared news from Washington that, effective immediately, an expanded pool of STEM graduates qualifies for an additional 17 months of optional practical training, exposing the best and brightest to our economic growth engines.

Best of all, I heard feedback that we might be able to address administratively, including calls for:
clearer, simpler rules to navigate the legal immigration system and clarity on the importance of immigrant entrepreneurs when adjudicating applications.

I want to thank the Omaha Chamber of Commerce and the folks organizing Big Omaha for convening last Thursday’s roundtable, and for the participants who pledged to continue the discussion with their friends and neighbors. I left Omaha with a bit more confidence that we can finally tackle this important component of our economic growth strategy. Please join us in this conversation by hosting a roundtable.

Aneesh Chopra is U.S. Chief Technology Officer

We regret to inform you that, due to a computer programming problem, the results of the 2012 Diversity Lottery that were previously posted on this website have been voided. They were not valid and were posted in error. The results were not valid because they did not represent a fair, random selection of entrants, as required by U.S. law.

If you checked this website during the first week in May and found a notice that you had been selected for further processing or a notice that you had not been selected, that notice has been rescinded and is no longer valid.

A new selection process will be conducted based on the original entries for the 2012 program.

If you submitted a qualified entry from October 5, 2010 to November 3, 2010, your entry remains with us. It will be included in the new selection lottery. Your confirmation number to check results on this website is still valid.

We expect the results of the new selection process to be available on this website on or about July 15, 2011.

We regret any inconvenience this might have caused.

Click here to view a message from David T. Donahue, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Visa Services:

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1857622883?
bckey=AQ~~,AAAAAGWqYgE~,KxHPzbPALrFGi6o0QhQY9IxyliWBJ3Vq&bctid=942119090001

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Why was it necessary to invalidate the names that were selected?

␣ U.S. law requires that Diversity Immigrant visas be made available through a strictly random process. A computer programming error resulted in a selection that was not truly random.

␣ Since the computer programming error caused an outcome that was not random, the outcome did not meet the requirements of the law, and would have been unfair to many DV entrants.

Q: Is the 2012 Diversity Visa Program cancelled?

␣ No. The 2012 program will continue. The computer programming error has been identified and corrected. The Department of State will run a new selection using all the qualified entries (ones received between October 5, 2010 and November 3, 2010) it received for the 2012 program.

Q: Do I have to submit a new application?

␣ No. You may not submit a new application. We will use all qualified entries received during the
Electronic Diversity Visa October 5 to November 3, 2010 registration period.

Q: Will you open a new entry period?

␣ New entries will not be accepted. Q: I checked the Entry Status Check website after May 1 and it said I had been selected. Can I
apply for a DV visa?

␣ Unfortunately results previously posted on this website were not valid because the selection process was not fair or random. We will take the entries of all individuals who sent in their registration during the original October 5 to November 3, 2010 time period and run a new lottery. We regret any inconvenience or disappointment this has caused. We expect new results to be available on this website on or about July 15, 2011.
Q: How can I check the results of the new selection?

␣ The new results should be available on this website on or about July 15, 2011. The confirmation code you received when you registered is still valid for use on the website.

Q: Was the Department of State hacked? Was my personal information at risk?

␣ We have no evidence that this problem was caused by any intentional act. No unauthorized party accessed data related to the DV program.

␣ This appears to be solely the result of a computer programming error.

(From the DOS website posting made on May 13, 2011)

-and-

U.S. Department of Education
Civil Rights Division Office for Civil Rights Office of the General Counsel

May 6, 2011

Dear Colleague:
Under Federal law, State and local educational agencies (hereinafter “districts”) are required to provide all children with equal access to public education at the elementary and secondary level. Recently, we have become aware of student enrollment practices that may chill or discourage the participation, or lead to the exclusion, of students based on their or their parents’ or guardians’ actual or perceived citizenship or immigration status. These practices contravene Federal law. Both the United States Department of Justice and the United States Department of Education (Departments) write to remind you of the Federal obligation to provide equal educational opportunities to all children residing within your district and to offer our assistance in ensuring that you comply with the law.
The Departments enforce numerous statutes that prohibit discrimination, including Titles IV and VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title IV prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin, among other factors, by public elementary and secondary schools. 42 U.S.C. § 2000c-6. Title VI prohibits discrimination by recipients of Federal financial assistance on the basis of race, color, or national origin. 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. Title VI regulations, moreover, prohibit districts from unjustifiably utilizing criteria or methods of administration that have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin, or have the effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of a program for individuals of a particular race, color, or national origin. See 28 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) and 34 C.F.R. § 100.3(b)(2).
Additionally, the United States Supreme Court held in the case of Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), that a State may not deny access to a basic public education to any child residing in the State, whether present in the United States legally or otherwise. Denying “innocent children” access to a public education, the Court explained, “imposes a lifetime hardship on a discrete class of children not accountable for their disabling status. . . . By denying these children a basic education, we deny them the ability to live within the structure of our civic institutions, and foreclose any realistic possibility that they will contribute in even the smallest way to the progress of our Nation.” Plyler, 457 U.S. at 223. As Plyler makes clear, the undocumented or non-citizen status of a student (or his or her parent or guardian) is irrelevant to that student’s entitlement to an elementary and secondary public education.

To comply with these Federal civil rights laws, as well as the mandates of the Supreme Court, you must ensure that you do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin, and that students are not barred from enrolling in public schools at the elementary and secondary level on the basis of their own citizenship or immigration status or that of their parents

Page 2- Dear Colleague Letter

or guardians. Moreover, districts may not request information with the purpose or result of denying access to public schools on the basis of race, color, or national origin. To assist you in meeting these obligations, we provide below some examples of permissible enrollment practices, as well as examples of the types of information that may not be used as a basis for denying a student entrance to school.
In order to ensure that its educational services are enjoyed only by residents of the district, a district may require students or their parents to provide proof of residency within the district. See, e.g., Martinez v. Bynum, 461 U.S. 321, 328 (1983).1 For example, a district may require copies of phone and water bills or lease agreements to establish residency. While a district may restrict attendance to district residents, inquiring into students’ citizenship or immigration status, or that of their parents or guardians would not be relevant to establishing residency within the district.
A school district may require a birth certificate to ensure that a student falls within district-mandated minimum and maximum age requirements; however, a district may not bar a student from enrolling in its schools based on a foreign birth certificate. Moreover, we recognize that districts have Federal obligations, and in some instances State obligations, to report certain data such as the race and ethnicity of their student population. While the Department of Education requires districts to collect and report such information, districts cannot use the acquired data to discriminate against students; nor should a parent’s or guardian’s refusal to respond to a request for this data lead to a denial of his or her child’s enrollment.
Similarly, we are aware that many districts request a student’s social security number at enrollment for use as a student identification number. A district may not deny enrollment to a student if he or she (or his or her parent or guardian) chooses not to provide a social security number. See 5 U.S.C. §552a (note).2 If a district chooses to request a social security number, it shall inform the individual that the disclosure is voluntary, provide the statutory or other basis upon which it is seeking the number, and explain what uses will be made of it. Id. In all instances of information collection and review, it is essential that any request be uniformly applied to all students and not applied in a selective manner to specific groups of students.
As the Supreme Court noted in the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), “it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he [or she] is denied the opportunity of an education.” Id. at 493. Both Departments are committed to vigorously enforcing the Federal civil rights laws outlined above and to providing any technical assistance that may be helpful to you so that all students are afforded equal educational opportunities. As immediate steps, you first may wish to review the documents your district requires for school enrollment to ensure that the requested documents do not have a chilling effect on a student’s enrollment in school. Second, in the process of assessing your compliance with the law, you might review State and district level enrollment data. Precipitous drops in the
1 Homeless children and youth often do not have the documents ordinarily required for school enrollment such as proof of residency or birth certificates. A school selected for a homeless child must immediately enroll the homeless child, even if the child or the child’s parent or guardian is unable to produce the records normally required for enrollment. See 42 U.S.C. § 11432(g)(3)(C)(i). 2 Federal law provides for certain limited exceptions to this requirement. See Pub. L. 93-579 § 7(a)(2)(B).

Page 3- Dear Colleague Letter

enrollment of any group of students in a district or school may signal that there are barriers to their attendance that you should further investigate.
Please contact us if you have any questions or if we can provide you with assistance in ensuring that your programs comply with Federal law. You may contact the Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Educational Opportunities Section, at (877) 292-3804 or education@usdoj.gov, or the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) at (800) 421- 3481 or ocr@ed.gov. You may also visit http://wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/CFAPPS/OCR/contactus.cfm for the OCR enforcement office that serves your area. For general information about equal access to public education, please visit our websites at http://www.justice.gov/crt/edo and http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/index.html.

We look forward to working with you. Thank you for your attention to this matter and for taking the necessary steps to ensure that no child is denied a public education.

/s/ Russlynn Ali Assistant Secretary Office for Civil Rights U.S. Department of Education

See the following links on this page to find information on the following:

-Renewing a Green Card
-Replacing a Green Card
-Conditional Permanent Residence and Removing Conditions
-International Travel as a Permanent Resident
-Maintaining Permanent Residence
-Rights and Responsibilities of a Permanent Resident
-Voting as a Permanent Resident (The Right to Vote)
-Granted a Green Card by an Immigration Judge

A green card is issued to all permanent residents as proof that they are authorized to live and work in the United States. If you are a permanent resident age 18 or older, you are required to have a valid green card in your possession at all times. Current green cards are valid for 10 years, or 2 years in the case of a conditional resident, and must be renewed before the card expires.

A green card can be used to prove employment eligibility in the United States when completing the Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification. It can also be used to apply for a Social Security Card and a state issued driver’s license. A green card is valid for readmission to the United States after a trip abroad if you do not leave for longer than 1 year. If your trip will last longer than 1 year, a reentry permit is needed.

You have certain rights and responsibilities as a permanent resident. This section will give you a general idea of what these are and provide you with some other useful information related to your immigration status.

You may also wish to read Welcome to the United States: A Guide for New Immigrants, a guide (in English and 10 other languages) containing practical information to help immigrants settle into everyday life in the United States, as well as basic civics information that introduces new immigrants to the U.S. system of government (see the links to the right).

Check out: http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=f1903a4107083210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f1903a4107083210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD

Last updated: 11/04/2010

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is a government
agency that oversees lawful immigration to the United States. The USCIS
intention is to secure America’s promise as a nation of immigrants by
providing accurate and useful information, granting immigration and
citizenship benefits, promoting an awareness and understanding of
citizenship, and ensuring the integrity of our immigration system.

Some of the Immigration Services they provide are:

* Green Card Permanent Residence
* Green Card Through Family
* Green Card Through a Job
* Green Card Through Refugee or Asylee Status
* Other Ways to Get a Green Card
* After a Green Card is Granted
* Working in the US
* Information for Employers and Employees
* Permanent Workers
* Temporary (Nonimmigrant) Workers
* Temporary Visitors for Business
* Student and Exchange Visitors
* Citizenship
* Citizenship Through Naturalization
* Citizenship Through Parents
* The Naturalization Test
* Family
* Family of U.S. Citizens
* Family of Green Card Holders Permanent Residents
* Family of Refugees & Asylees
* Humanitarian
* Haiti Earthquake Response
* Refugees & Asylum
* Humanitarian Parole
* Battered Spouse, Children, Parents
* Victims of Human Trafficking, Other Crimes
* Special Situations
* Temporary Protected Status
* Adoption
* Before Your Child Immigrates to the United States
* Immigration through Adoption
* Country Information
* After Approval of Orphan and Hague Application
* Visit the US
* Extend My Stay
* Change My Nonimmigrant Status
* Military
* Citizenship for Military Members & Dependents
* Military Help Line

Resource: http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced today a final rule, scheduled to be published in tomorrow’s Federal Register, that adopts, without change, an interim rule to improve the integrity of the Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) process. USCIS received approximately 75 public comments in response to the interim rule, which has been in effect since April 3, 2009.

All employers, agricultural recruiters and referrers-for-a-fee are required to verify the identity and employment authorization of each person they hire for employment in the United States. This requirement is set forth in section 274A(a)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1324a(a)(1)(B). The key changes made to the Form I-9 process by the interim rule and adopted by the final rule include: prohibiting employers from accepting expired documents for completion of Form I-9 and adding and modifying several documents on the Lists of Acceptable Documents. The final rule will be effective on May 16, 2011. Employers may continue to use the current version of the Form I-9 (Rev. 08/07/2009), or the previous version (Rev. 02/02/2009).

Questions and Answers

Q. What does the final rule accomplish?

A. The final rule adopts, without change, the changes made to the Form I-9 process by the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) interim final rule that has been in effect since April 3, 2009. The changes further DHS’s ongoing effort to increase the integrity of the employment authorization verification process. The key changes include:

* Prohibiting employers from accepting expired documents
* Eliminating from List A identity and employment authorization documentation Forms I-688, I-688A, and I-688B (Temporary Resident Card and outdated Employment Authorization Cards)
* Adding to List A foreign passports containing temporary I-551 printed notations on certain machine-readable immigrant visas
* Adding to List A as evidence of identity and employment authorization valid passports for citizens of the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) and the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), along with Form I-94 or Form I-94A indicating nonimmigrant admission under the Compact of Free Association Between the United States and the FSM or RMI

Q. Why can’t I present an expired document?

A. DHS wants to ensure that documents presented for use in the Form I-9 process are valid and reliably establish both identity and employment authorization. Expired documents are prone to tampering and fraudulent use. The requirement to present only unexpired documents takes into account the time limits placed on these documents by their issuing authorities. If a document does not contain an expiration date, as is often the case with a Social Security card, it is considered unexpired.

Q: Does this final rule make any changes to how Form I-9 is completed?

A: No. The final rule adopts, without change, the interim final rule published on December 17, 2008 and in effect since April 3, 2009. It does not make any changes to how the Form I-9 is currently completed.

Q: Is USCIS issuing a new Form I-9 with this final rule?

A: No. Because the final rule adopts the interim rule without change, USCIS is not issuing a new
Form I-9 with this rule.

Q: Which versions of Form I-9 may I use?

A: Employers may continue to use either the current version of Form I-9 (Rev. 08/07/2009) or the previous version (Rev. 02/02/2009). These dates are located on the bottom right-hand corner of the form.

Q: Where can I obtain detailed information about the comments you received and how you responded?

A: Discussion of the public comments is featured in the final rule, available for review on USCIS’s website at www.uscis.gov and published in the Federal Register. The largest number of comments addressed the interim rule’s requirement that all documents presented for Form I-9 purposes be unexpired. Several commentators suggested that the expired documents should be acceptable for some period of time after expiration, e.g., from 30 days to up to five years after expiration. USCIS did not adopt these suggestions because of its concerns about document fraud and employer confusion.

Q: Are the public comments still available for viewing?

A: Yes. The public comments are available on www.regulations.gov under DHS Docket No. USCIS-2008-0001. A description of those comments and the USCIS responses to them are also available in the final rule itself. We have posted a link to the final rule on www.uscis.gov.

Q: Where may I obtain a copy of the newly revised Employer Handbook?

A: The Handbook for Employers, Instructions for Completing the Form I-9 (M-274) was updated on January 5, 2011, and is available on the USCIS website at www.uscis.gov/files/form/m-274.pdf.

Last updated:04/14/2011