FREE NEWSLETTER

Learn how to benefit from United States immigration laws and procedures from a former INS Attorney (1976-82) with over 30 years of experience. SHUSTERMAN'S IMMIGRATION UPDATE is must reading for potential immigrants, employers, human resources managers, immigration attorneys, reporters and policy makers. Join over 55,000 persons in more than 150 countries in subscribing to our FREE monthly e-mail newsletter. E-Mail Address: Your Name:

Free Subscription to SHUSTERMAN'S IMMIGRATION UPDATE
Back Issues of SHUSTERMAN'S IMMIGRATION UPDATE

Volume Twelve, Number Four

SHUSTERMAN'S IMMIGRATION UPDATE is the most popular e-mail newsletter regarding U.S. immigration laws and procedures with over 48,000 subscribers located in more than 150 countries.

Published by the Law Offices of Carl Shusterman, 600 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1550, Los Angeles, California, 90017. Phone: (213) 623-4592 x0

To subscribe, type in your name and e-mail address at http://shusterman.com/subscribe.html#subscribe and click on "Subscribe".

To unsubscribe, type in your e-mail address at http://shusterman.com/subscribe.html#unsubscribe and click on "Unsubscribe".

Disclaimer: This newsletter is not intended to establish an attorney- client relationship. All information contained in this newsletter is generalized. Any reliance on information contained herein is taken at your own risk.

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

NEWS FLASHES:

• Career Opportunities - Our law firm is seeking the services of a paralegal experienced in employment-based immigration. For more information, see
  http://shusterman.com/careers.html

• Citizen's Almanac - On April 17, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), released The Citizen's Almanac, a publication specifically developed for new citizens. The Citizen's Almanac is a collection of America's most cherished symbols of freedom and liberty. The Almanac links our newest citizens with the rich civic history we all share as Americans. In an effort to enhance the naturalization process for the more than 700,000 new citizens the United States welcomes each year, USCIS will distribute The Citizen's Almanac at all naturalization ceremonies. We link to the "The Citizen’s Almanac" from our "Citizenship" page at
  http://shusterman.com/toc-usc.html#2

• NOIDs/RFEs - No longer will petitioners and applicants who receive Notices of Intent to Deny (NOIDs) or Requests for Evidence (RFEs) automatically get 30 or 84 days to respond to the CIS. A new regulation gives the government the "flexibility" to demand responses within a shorter period of time. The new rule will take effect on June 16. We link to the new regulation from our "Temporary Visas" page at
  http://shusterman.com/toc-temp.html#6
  and from our "Green Card" page at
  http://shusterman.com/toc-gc.html#2

• O/P Petitions - On April 16, the CIS issued new regulations to permit employers to petition persons in "O" (Extraordinary Ability) and "P" (Performers and Athletes) up to one year in advance: "This final rule amends Department of Homeland Security regulations to permit petitioners to file O and P nonimmigrant petitions up to one year prior to the petitioner's need for the alien's services. This amendment will enable petitioners who are aware of their need for the services of an O or P nonimmigrant well in advance of a scheduled event, competition, or performance to file their petitions under normal processing procedures." We link to the new regulations which will become effective on May 16 from our "Temporary Visas" page at
  http://shusterman.com/toc-temp.html#4

• PERM Statistics - The Department of Labor released statistics regarding the PERM program from March 28, 2005 to March 2, 2007. During this time period, over 180,000 PERM applications were received, and 75% of the applications were approved. The statistics break down PERM applications by the nationality of the worker, the most common types of employment, etc. We link to the report from our "Department of Labor: Immigration Resources" page at
  http://shusterman.com/toc-dol.html#3A

• USCIS Today - We link to the most recent issue of "USCIS Today", CIS' newsletter, from our "CIS" page at
  http://shusterman.com/ins.html#2A

• Visa Bulletin - The big news in May 2007 was the great leap forward in EB-3 numbers (one year). To view the May 2007 Visa Bulletin, see our "Visa Bulletin" page at
  http://shusterman.com/vb.html

CONTENTS:

1. Immigration Reform: Family-Based vs. Employment-Based?

1. The President's new immigration plan which was leaked to the press recently, see
   http://shusterman.com/toc-leg.html#6B

2. The Senate bill which was passed in 2006, see
   http://shusterman.com/toc-leg.html#6D

3. The STRIVE Act which was introduced in the House of Representatives in March 2007, see
   http://shusterman.com/toc-leg.html#6E

All of the above have one important thing in common, and it has nothing to do with amnesty, guest workers or increased levels of immigration enforcement.

All would change the way most people immigrate to the United States. For over 40 years, we have had a family-based system where citizens could apply for their spouses, parents, sons and daughters and brothers and sisters. Less than 10% of immigrants qualify through their jobs. Their employers are required to prove that they are not displacing U.S. workers.

Each of the proposals listed above would make employment-based immigration the main component of our laws. The Senate and House bills would greatly expand the employment-based system by lifting the yearly quota from 140,000 to 500,000 to 1,000,000.

At the same time, under the existing law, over 3.5 million relatives of U.S. citizens and permanent residents have been waiting for five to over 20 years to obtain green cards through their relatives.

The President's plan would go further than the Senate and House bills, and increase employment-based immigration at the expense of family-based immigration. No longer would U.S. citizens be able to apply for their siblings and adult sons and daughters to come to the U.S.

Supporters of the President's proposal like Senator Jeff Sessions (R- ALA) says that without dramatically increasing immigration based on employment, the U.S. will be at a competitive disadvantage worldwide. Critics like Angela Kelley of the National Immigration Forum, say that family-based immigration should remain the cornerstone of our system.

Almost everyone agrees that we will either have a new immigration law in place before August or the issue won't be debated again until 2009.

The question is: Can our immigration system increase the percentage of employment-based immigrants without leaving family-based immigrants out in the cold?

The Senate has set aside the last two weeks in May to discuss Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

We say, "Let the debate begin!"

2. H-1B Cap Reached on First Filing Day: What Now?

These companies probably played a large part in this year's "H-1B Debacle". On April 2 and 3, the first two days that the CIS accepted filings of H-1B petitions, the agency received more than 120,000 petitions, far above the 65,000 and the 20,000 caps combined (although the 20,000 cap was not reached until later in the month).

The result was that H-1B "winners" were chosen by random selection (as opposed to intelligent design ;-). Within a week, Senator Cornyn (R-TX) reintroduced the SKIL Act (S.1083) and Senator Hagel (R-NE) introduced "The High-Tech Worker Relief Act of 2007" (S.1092). Both bills would significantly raise the H-1B numerical cap and exempt additional workers from the cap.

Other senators have introduced bills designed to restrict the ability of "job shops" to petition for both H-1B and L-1 visas. In this category is Senator Durbin's (D-IL) "H-1B and L-1 Visa Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act of 2007" (S.1035).

We link to the complete text of each of these bills from our "Immigration Legislation" page at

Legislators, prior to introducing bills to restrict the number of H-1B visas should do a little homework on the U.S. labor market. How many vacancies are there for teachers in inner-city schools? What will be the fate of families living in the 20-30% of the U.S. which the Department of Health and Human Services has designated as medically underserved if they are deprived of access to medical care due to an arbitrary numerical cap on H-1B visas imposed by Congress?

From 1952 to 1990, the number of "H-1" (as they were called then) visas was not limited by a quota. I don't remember hearing a lot of complaints about how the system was working. Maybe a return to a market-based system should be considered.

If Congress is determined to impose a quota on H-1B visas for U.S. employers, labor needs and market forces should be considered, and the quota should be flexible.

For more information about H-1B visas, see our "H-1B Page" at

3. Physicians: Many Ways to Cope with the H-1B Debacle

By using an H-1B visa, they are not subject to the two-year home residency requirement which is imposed on medical residents and fellows who use J visas.

Is there a downside to using an H-1B visa? Some foreign-born physicians find out that they cannot complete both a residency and a fellowship within the six-month duration of their H-1B status, but otherwise there are few problems.

At least there were few problems until this year when the H-1B cap was exceeded on the first day of filing.

The problem this year is that H-1B physicians who are finishing their residencies and fellowship this summer at "H-1B cap-exempt" university (and university-affiliated) hospitals may not be permitted to work in "H-1B cap-subject" practices after completing their training.

Fortunately, these physicians should not be in a hurry to purchase a plane ticket back to their countries. They have a number of options to remain in the U.S.:

1. Unless they have exhausted the six-year duration of their H-1B status, they may continue to work in H-1B status at cap-exempt jobs. This may take the form of continuing to work for their present employers (or for another cap-exempt employer) as fellows, attending physicians, researchers, etc. They may also work for other cap-exempt employers including universities (or university-affiliated or university-related entities), government research organizations or non-profit research organizations. Finally, they may work for cap-subject employers as long as they perform their job duties at a cap-exempt location (e.g., an internist who works for a private company as a hospitalist at a university hospital).

2. Physicians who are about to exhaust their six years in H-1B status also have legal methods to remain in the U.S. For example, if a physician is about to complete his medical fellowship, he may choose to work in a medically-underserved area. Since worldwide EB-2 is current for May 2007, he may self-petition for a National Interest Waiver (NIW) and simultaneously submit applications for adjustment of status, for a work permit and a travel document. Within 90 days, he may begin working, not on an H-1B, but using an Employment Authorization Document (EAD). In response to our legal victory in the case of Schneider v. Chertoff, the CIS issued a memo on January 23, 2007 graciously extending the right to obtain permanent residence through an NIW to physicians who are specialists.

3. What if the physician in the above example is born in a country where the EB-2 category is not current (i.e., China or India)? The physician may promise to form a practice, or may obtain a job offer, in an underserved area, and immediately self-petition for an NIW using premium processing. Once this petition is approved in 15 days or less, the physician may apply for a three-year extension of his or her H-1B status under section 104(c) of AC-21 on the ground that he cannot apply for adjustment of status due to per-country ceilings. Under this scenario, he must use his H-1B status to work for cap-exempt petitioners. Under CIS' January 23rd memo, the physician must explain that he can not start a practice or work for cap-subject employer in an underserved area until he is permitted to obtain a cap-subject H-1B or an EAD.

Of course, there are many other ways to avoid the harsh consequences of this year's H-1B debacle, both for physicians and for other professionals (e.g., O-1 status, E-3 status, TN status, using the Free Trade Agreements with Chile and Singapore, etc.), but we hope that the information that we have listed above will be of assistance to physicians who were not fortunate enough to have their cap-subject H-1B petitions approved this year.

All of this may be great news for medically-underserved areas which have seen their supply of physicians dwindle as more and more foreign-born physicians opt to do their training using H-1B rather than J visas.

We link to the complete text of AC-21 at

4. Success Story: Winning an Appeal Before the AAO

Mr. A was the president and general manager of a foreign corporation based in Argentina. This corporation established a New York-based subsidiary, and Mr. A was scheduled to come to the United States to help the New York company begin its operations.

To this end, the corporation submitted an I-129 petition to classify Mr. A as an "intracompany transferee" under Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

The L-1 category applies to aliens who work for a company with a parent, subsidiary, branch, or affiliate in the U.S. These workers come to the U.S. as intracompany transferees who are coming temporarily to perform services either in a managerial or executive capacity (L-1A) or which entail specialized knowledge (L-1B) for a parent, branch, subsidiary or affiliate of the overseas employer.

Unfortunately, the CIS denied Mr. A's L-1 petition on the grounds that the evidence failed to establish that the U.S. corporation was a subsidiary of the Argentinean parent corporation. Mr. A's prior attorney timely submitted a Notice of Appeal and a lengthy brief with many supporting documents.

Having waited patiently for almost a year with no resolution to the appeal, Mr. A decided to seek out our services. Upon reviewing his case, we decided to submit a supplement to the pending appeal.

While Mr. A's prior attorney provided the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) with the proper citations of law to show that the CIS had applied the wrong legal standard in its denial, the brief was a bit confusing. We felt it was perhaps the lack of organization and brevity in the legal brief that contributed to the fact that Mr. A's appeal was still pending after so much time.

We revisited some of the legal arguments included in Mr. A's original appeal, reduced the 20-plus pages of legal arguments down to a couple of pages, added our own concise legal assessment of the case, and presented the AAO with a six-page supplemental brief. More importantly, we made sure that our supplemental brief was well-organized, while articulating succinctly how the CIS had applied the wrong legal standards in denying Mr. A's petition.

Within two weeks of our filing the supplemental brief, the AAO reversed the denial and granted Mr. A's L-1 petition.

We believe that Mr. A's case demonstrates how much preparation and presentation matter. Since the government is inundated with pending appeals, presenting a brief, clear and easily understandable argument is essential. To read more of our Immigration Success Stories, see

5. Immigration Trivia Quiz: Just a Little American Ingenuity

6. Immigrants' List: Promoting Immigration Reform