Volume Three, Number Eleven
SHUSTERMAN’S IMMIGRATION UPDATE is the Web’s most popular e-mail newsletter regarding U.S. immigration laws and procedures with over 60,000 subscribers located in more than 150 countries. It is written by a former INS Trial Attorney (1976-82) with 40 years of experience practicing immigration law.
Published by the Law Offices of Carl Shusterman, 600 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1550, Los Angeles, California, 90017. Phone: (213) 623-4592 x0.
“I have been dealing with immigration lawyers for almost a decade. This office is by far the best office I have worked with.”
- Faras Shakir, Detroit, Michigan
Read More Reviews
Skype Consultations Available!
Newsletter US Immigration November 1998 contains the following topics:
- 1. November 1998 State Department Visa Bulletin
- 2. Latest Processing Times for INS and Labor Department
- 3. H-1B Legislation Signed by President Clinton – A Brief Analysis
- 4. Legislation: 1998 Was A Very Good Year For Immigrants
- 5. Health Care Professionals: INS Issues Rules on Nurses and OT’s
- 6. Immigration Trivia Quiz: Nobel Prize Winning Immigrants
- 7. Elections 98: “Adios Anti-Immigrant Politicians”
- 8. Physicians: Finding Employment Through the Internet
- 9. Human Resource Directors: Tax Treaties and Social Security Agreements
- 10. Answers to October’s Immigration Trivia Quiz
- Temporary Protected Status for certain nationals of Burundi, Sierra Leone and Sudan was extended to November 3, 1999.
On October 8 , 1998, we posted the November 1998 Visa Bulletin, the same day that the State Department posted the dates on their web site.
For the Family categories, the picture is not bright. The numbers moved forward, if they moved at all, between one and four weeks. Mexico first (unmarried sons and daughters of U.S. citizens) and 2B (unmarried sons and daughters of permanent residents) categories failed to move at all.
Most of the Employment categories remain ‘current’ (no backlogs). The unskilled workers category advanced two weeks to March 1, 1992.
For persons born in the Peoples Republic of China and India, the employment categories were practically moribund. The first, second and third categories for China moved not at all, one week and one week, respectively. Similarly, the second and third categories for Indians advanced two weeks and one week, respectively.
Section 203© of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides 50,000 immigrant visas each fiscal year to permit immigration opportunities for persons from countries other than the principal sources of current immigration to the United States. DV visas are divided among six geographic regions. Not more than 3,500 visas (7% of the 50,000 visa limit) may be provided to immigrants from any one country. For November, immigrant numbers in the DV category are available to qualified DV-99 applicants chargeable to all regions/eligible countries as follows:
AFRICA (9,038), ASIA (2,323), EUROPE (7,441, except Albania: 3,805 and Bulgaria: 6,997); NORTH AMERICA (Bahamas: 24); OCEANIA (261): SOUTH AMERICA, CENTRAL AMERICA and the CARIBBEAN (1,422). The registration period for the DV-2000 program is currently in process. Applications must be received by the State Department prior to noon on October 31, 1998.
For an explanation of what the categories, dates and symbols listed below mean, see
For the State Department’s official version, complete with information about the movement of family, employment and lottery numbers, see
http://travel.state.gov/visa_bulletin.html (Link is no longer operational.)
Most immigration applications and petitions must be submitted to one of the following INS Regional Service Centers: (1) Laguna Niguel, California; (2) Lincoln, Nebraska; (3) Irving, Texas; and (4) St. Albans, Vermont.
Each list contains the waiting times of each center enumerates each state served by the center and any foreign offices within the center’s jurisdiction.
The service centers periodically issue lists of their processing times for various types of applications. Our web page contains the latest list issued by each service center.
Warning: Processing times may appear faster on the official lists than they are in reality.
To see how fast (or slow) your service center is processing a particular type of petition or application, see
You can also click above to check the processing times of your local INS District Office, your Department of Labor Regional Office and your State Employment Service Agency. Caveat: These waiting times are compiled by volunteer attorneys and are usually posted weeks or months after the fact.
Long before the last list of DOL waiting times was compiled, the Labor Department has been experiencing a “meltdown”. It takes two years or longer to obtain an approved labor certification in much of the U.S.
On October 21, 1998, President Clinton signed a compromise bill to raise the cap on the number of foreign-born professionals who are permitted to enter the U.S. on temporary (H-1B) visas. The new law provides for 115,000 H-1B visas in fiscal years 1999 and 2000, and 107,500 in 2001. After that, the numerical cap would revert to 65,000 annually.
Starting on December 1, 1998, employers of H-1B professionals will have to pay $610 instead of the current $110 every time that they (1) submit an initial petition for an H-1B worker; (2) submit the first application for an extension for an H-1B worker; (3) petition for concurrent employment for an H-1B worker. University (and affiliated entities), non-profit and governmental research centers are exempted from the additional $500 fee.
These fees are earmarked largely to finance job training for U.S. workers, university scholarship for low-income student in the math, engineering and computer science, and math and science training in elementary and secondary schools. A small percentage of the fees will be given to DOL and INS to, among other things, reduce LCA processing to the legally-required 7 days, and to process H-1B petitions within one month.
As soon as the Labor Department issues final regulations, the law requires “H-1B dependent employers”, generally those with 15% or more H-1B employees in the workforce to attest to two additional requirements on their LCA’s. These employers will have to comply with both the (1) recruitment attestation and the (2) displacement (“no lay-off”) attestation. The recruitment attestation requires these employers to use good faith efforts to recruit U.S. workers if they are equally qualified with H-1B employees for a particular job opening. Both objective and subjective factors may be considered in determining who is better qualified. The displacement attestation requires these employers to promise that they will not submit a petition for an H-1B worker for a position where a U.S. worker has been laid-off within the past 90 days or where a U.S. worker will be laid-off within the next 90 days.
Additional attestations and increased enforcement and penalties are provided for all employers of H-1B workers. Basic fees start at $1,000 per violations plus at least one year debarment. Willful violations begin at $5,000 per violation and at least two years debarment. Certain severe violations are punishable by $35,000 per violations plus at least three years debarment.
For the first time, the Labor Department is given the authority to initiate investigations on LCA violations in the absence of a complaint filed an aggrieved party. Where an employer has been found to have willfully violated an LCA, the DOL is allowed to initiate random investigations against the employer for the next five years. More importantly, where the DOL receives “specific, credible information” that an LCA violation has occurred, given the approval of the Secretary of Labor, the DOL may, if there is “reasonable cause”, initiate a 30-day investigation against the employer. Such information need not be provided by a complainant, but may even be developed in the course of a routine audit by one of DOL’s operating divisions.
Despite the increased numbers, all in all, the new law is, at best, a mixed blessing for employers of H-1B professionals. The only group of employers which emerge as clear winners are colleges and universities (and affiliated entities), and nonprofit and governmental research organizations. Not only are these organizations exempt from the new fees, they are no longer required to match the wages of for-profit organizations in order to petition for H-1B workers. They are permitted to pay a “prevailing wage” which is comparable to other similar organizations in their geographical area. This method for determining the prevailing wage is valid for both H-1B status and for permanent residence. In addition, the rules for “academic honoraria” for professors entering the U.S. as visitors have been amended to provide universities with greater flexibility.
Employers wishing to avoid the $500 surcharge should submit H-1B petitions and extensions to INS before the December 1 deadline. H-1B professionals who have not yet applied for permanent residence should consider doing so immediately. With no increase in the number of green cards, and with an additional 142,500 H-1B slots opening up over the next three years, employment-based preference categories for India, PRC, and possibly the worldwide category are sure to become increasingly backlogged. The name of the game is to obtain the earliest possible priority date.
To read the complete text of the compromise bill, see
To read a section-by-section summary of the bill prepared by the American Immigration Lawyers Association, see
For highlights of the bill prepared by the American Immigration Lawyers Association on October 21, 1998, see
Finally, in order to fully comprehend the new law, make sure to read the extremely important remarks made by Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI) in Congressional Record of October 21, 1998 which serve as the conference report for the new law. Click on
and scroll down the page until you see “Senator Abraham’s Remarks”.
- Section 110: Though the Senate was poised to repeal this provision which the Americans for Better Borders maintains would be a hindrance to trade, tourism and legitimate cross-border traffic, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) kept the House of Representatives from the outright killing of this controversial portion of IIRAIRA. The result was that the Senate and House Leadership agreed that a 30-month delay in the section’s implementation would be included in the Omnibus Appropriations Bill which was signed by the President on October 21, 1998.
- Section 245(I): Though the Senate had included the restoration of section 245(I) in the Commerce, Justice and State Department Appropriations Bill, opposition in the House of Representatives kept this provision from being included in the Omnibus Bill.
- Bracero II: The agricultural guest worker bill was dropped from the Omnibus Bill.
- Haitians: The Omnibus Bill contains a provision which prevents the deportation of approximately 49,700 Haitians who fled persecution in Haiti and sought refuge in the U.S. To qualify for relief, the applicant must have been in the U.S. since 1995, and be one of the following: (1) Orphaned, abandoned, or unaccompanied minor children at the time of entry; (2) Paroled into the U.S. because our government determined that they had a credible fear of persecution; (3) Paroled into the U.S. by our government for emergent reasons deemed strictly in the public interest; or (4) Applied for asylum prior to December 31, 1995. Eligible spouses and minor children who meet these requirements may also apply for adjustment of status. The last day to apply is April 1, 2000. (The Republican leadership agreed to these provisions despite stiff opposition from Rep. Lamar Smith.)
- More Funding to Reduce INS Backlogs: The Omnibus Appropriations Bill contains $171 million in “reprogrammed” funds to (1) Support efforts to reduce the naturalization backlog; (2) Hire more examiners and support staff to serve on backlog reduction teams; (3) Centralize record keeping and files; and (4) Reduce the backlogs for non-naturalization benefit applications. Backlog reduction efforts will be primarily concentrated in the five INS districts with the largest backlogs: Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, New York and San Francisco.
- USIA: The Omnibus Bill includes a provision which merges the USIA into the State Department by October 1, 1999.
For more information regarding these and other legislative matters, see the National Immigration Forum’s All-Member Fax, dated October 16, 1998, at
https://www.shusterman.com/1998leg.html (Link no longer operational)
On October 14, 1998, more than two years after the passage of the 1996 immigration law, the INS finally issued “interim” regulations which will allow nurses and occupational therapists to obtain permanent residence starting on December 14, 1998. Other health care workers (i.e., physical therapists, medical technologists, medical technicians, speech language pathologists, and physician’s assistants) are still unable to obtain permanent residence, and INS estimates that regulations covering these occupations will not be issued for another year.
The interim regulations provide that in order for nurses to become permanent residents through their employment, they must obtain (1) A Certificate from the Commission on Graduates on Foreign Nursing Schools (CGFNS) and (2) A passing score on the English-language proficiency exams given by either the Educational Testing Service (ETS) or that given by the Michigan English Language Assessment Battery (MELAB).
Occupational therapists must obtain a certificate from the National Board for Certification in Occupational Therapy (NBCOT) and must achieve a passing score on the English-language proficiency exams offered by ETS.
To read the full text of the regulations, click on
https://www.shusterman.com/hcw10.html (Link no longer operational)
To read our “Analysis of INS Rules Regarding Health Care Workers (10-14-98)”, click on
https://www.shusterman.com/343regs.html (Link no longer operational)
This site links to the CGFNS, NBCOT, ETS and MELAB web sites.
There is a Frequently Asked Questions page on the CGFNS web site at http://www.cgfns.org/343faq.htm
(Link is no longer operational.)
CGFNS has established a division known as the International Commission on Healthcare Professions (ICHP) to issue “VisaScreen” certifications to nurses. ICHP may be contacted: (1) By mail at 3600 Market Street, Suite 400, Philadelphia, PA 19104-2665 U.S.A.; (2) By fax at (215) 349-0026: or (3) By e-mail at ADMINI@ICHP.org
We have received several hundred VisaScreen applications from ICHP for our clients, several of whom have already received VisaScreen certifications so that they can be ready for the December 14, 1998 effective date of the rules.
NBCOT’s press release regarding the new regulations may be read by clicking on
http://www.nbcot.org/interim_memo.htm (Link is no longer operational.)
Alien occupational therapists should not confuse the certificate required by these interim rules with NBCOT certification. Depending on when the individual completed the NBCOT prescreening process, there may be additional requirements for obtaining a certificate for immigrant visa purposes. Contact NBCOT for information regarding visa certificates by e-mail, fax, phone and letter (e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org, fax: (301) 869-8492, phone: (301) 990-7979; mail: 800 S. Frederick Ave., Suite 200, Gaithersburg, MD 20877-4150, U.S.A.
The cost of the NBCOT examination is $325. The deadline for submission of internationally educated candidates to submit eligibility applications for the next NBCOT exam on March 20, 1999 was November 1, 1998. The deadline of submission of eligibility applications from internationally educated applicants for the next exam on September 18, 1999 is on May 1, 1999.
ETS may be contacted: (1) By mail at TOEFL/TSE Services, P.O. Box 6151, Princeton, NJ 08541-6151 U.S.A.; (2) By phone at (609) 771-7100; and (3) By fax at (609) 771-7500.
A MELAB Information Bulletin and Registration Form may be obtained: (1) By mail at MELAB, The English Language Institute, Testing and Certification, 3020 North University Building, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-1057 U.S.A.; (2) By phone at (313) 764-2416 or (313) 763-3452; or (3) By fax at (313) 764-2416. The fee for the MELAB Exam is $60.
This regulation was issued in “interim” form only. Written comments may be submitted until February 11, 1998, in triplicate, to the Director, Policy Directives and Instructions Branch, Immigration and Naturalization Service, 425 I Street NW., Room 5307, Washington, DC 20536. To ensure proper handling, pleaser reference the INS No. 1879-97 on your correspondence.
In Los Angeles, on election day, one of the most popular bumper stickers was one which read “Adios Pete Wilson!”. Never mind that California Governor Pete Wilson’s name did not appear on the ballot, many voters were all too happy to say goodbye, if not good riddance, to Wilson’s election strategy of pitting U.S. citizens against immigrants, and one ethnic group against another.
In 1998, there was no proposition dealing with immigration on the ballot. This was in clear contrast to the 1994 election which featured the infamous anti-immigrant measure, Proposition 187. In 1998, the candidates talked about education, taxes and crime, but rarely about immigration. Attorney General Dan Lungren (R-CA) lost the governor’s race by a landslide, not solely because of his support of Proposition 187 in 1994 but also his close identification with Pete Wilson mind you.
Republicans had so offended Latinos and African-Americans by supporting Proposition 187 in 1994 and an anti-affirmative action proposition in 1996 that Lungren was unsuccessful in campaigning for votes among these voters. In addition, women voted for his opponent in droves because of his strong pro-life position. All this mixed together resulted in the Democrats electing one of their own to be Governor of California, the only one of the eight most populous states to elect a Democrat as Governor in 1998.
It went way beyond the Governor’s race as Cruz Bustamante became the new Lieutenant Governor, Antonio Villaraigosa held on to his job as Speaker of the Assembly and Lee Baca became the new L.A. County Sheriff. Even in conservative Orange County, ex-Congressman Bob Dornan was roundly defeated in his rematch with Rep. Loretta Sanchez. Ironically, Dornan billed himself as “the true Latino candidate” over his Latina opponent because of his pro-life position.
Things were far different in Texas where Republican Governor George Bush, Jr. promoted trade with Mexico, fought against English-only programs, and supported other programs important to Latino voters. He said that his efforts were not just about putting a new face on the Republican party, but about bringing new faces into the party. Bush, who was reelected by over a two-to-one margin, stated, “People want leadership that unites, not divides. You can’t bash people and lead.”
According to the Hispanic Leadership Institute (HLI), during the past 20 years, Latino voter registration is up 164% while registration for voters in general is up 34%. HLI’s leaders have observed that “newly naturalized citizens are actually turning out to vote in higher percentages than native-born Hispanics. That is exactly the kind of enthusiasm, energy and freshness new citizens bring to the whole process.”
The Democrats seem to understand the importance of the immigrant vote. Their party actually gained seats in the House of Representatives. This is the first time in generations that a party in control of the White House has gained seats in Congress midway through the President’s second term.
In a press conference with Hispanic journalists the day before the election, President Clinton stated: “…As you know, I have worked very hard to reverse anti-immigrant provisions of the law. We now have reversed almost all the anti- immigrant provisions of the welfare reform law, just as I said I would do. We have beat back anti-immigrant legislation in other areas here. And I am working very, very hard to reduce the backlog that we have in the naturalization and immigration process, which I think is very, very important. So from my point of view, the whole issue of how to deal with immigration is very important. I have also tried to get changes in our law or changes in Justice Department policy to let immigrants stay here who came here under difficult circumstances many years ago and would otherwise have to now turn around and go back. So I want to see America continuing to have an open and fair and welcoming process for legal immigrants, and I believe that that’s an important issue. I also think that’s an important issue that all the voters should consider in this election, because it would be hard to find an issue on which the parties have differed more than the Democrats and the Republicans on the issue of immigration for the last four years. And I would hope that everyone who cares about this issue would think that that issue alone is a justification to go out and support our Democratic candidates.”
Of course, not all Republican politicians are anti-immigrant. Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI) courageously fought to stop his party from reducing the number of legal immigrants sponsored by family members and was instrumental in crafting a compromise bill to raise the quota for U.S. employers needing to hire H-1B temporary professional workers.
However, his counterpart in the House of Representatives, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) is Abraham’s polar opposite. He favors cuts in legal immigration and almost killed the H-1B cap bill. The Republican leadership overruled him on this year’s battle to delay the implementation of section 110 (See topic #4 above.) and his bill making it more difficult to become an American citizen did not even make to the House floor.
Fanning the fires of nativism is not only immoral, but is not a viable long-term electoral strategy as I stated in December 1997 at
Leaving Smith in his powerful post as the Chairman of the House Immigration Subcommittee is the wrong signal for the Republican Party to send to newly-enfranchised immigrant voters. This is the time for the Republican leadership to find a new moderate chairman for the House Immigration Subcommittee and say “Adios, Lamar Smith!”
Over two years ago, we added a page on our website to aid physicians and other health care professionals in finding suitable employment. To see this page, click on
The page was a huge success. Hundreds of physicians contacted one or more of the recruitment firms and associations listed on the page. Among these were many Canadian and IMGs who were successful in finding suitable employment opportunities. Happily, many of these physicians retained our law firm to assist them in obtaining both temporary working visas and permanent residence.
Now there are a number of sites which post employment opportunities and resumes of health care professionals on the Internet. Among them are the following:
A. PracticeLink ( http://www.practicelink.com)
Together with it’s new companion site PracticeChoice (http://www.practicechoice.com), PracticeLink, allows in-house recruiters and private physician recruitment firms to post advertisements (for a fee) on it’s website.
Who advertises on PracticeLink? Healthcare facilities such as Kaiser Permanente (Atlanta), Aultman Hospital (Ohio), Bromenn Healthcare (Illinois), Community General Hospital (New York) and Presbyterian Healthcare System (North Carolina) and over a dozen other hospitals and healthcare systems.
PracticeLink which claims to be a healthcare recruitment “supersite” frequented by over 16,000 physicians monthly also list job opportunities for allied medical professionals including registered nurses, occupation therapists, nurse practitioners, physician’s assistants and physical therapists. Some of the sites for allied healthcare professionals are still in the “under construction” phase, however.
PracticeLink works only with in-house recruiters while PracticeChoice works with both in-house recruiters and independent recruiter firms. Physicians can sort through job opportunities by hospital, location or specialty. You can contact the recruitment by phone, fax or e-mail, or even submit your CV online.
Many of PracticeLink’s features, including it’s free e-mail newsletter reference Canadian healthcare professionals. Also, of interest to IMG’s, is a small section called “The J-1 Page”.
B. Medsearch ( http://www.medsearchcorp.com/ )
Medsearch bills itself as a “career center, bulletin board, news group and employment site all rolled into one”. It claims to be the “first online career resource designed specifically for healthcare professionals”.
Among the companies who advertise on Medsearch are Aerotek Scientific Staffing, Kaiser Permanente, Presbyterian Healthcare Services, Methodist Health Care System (Houston), SmithKline Beecham and Meridia Health System (Ohio).
Job seekers may search for employment opportunities in hospitals, biotechnology firms and a number of other types of companies. You may search by location or by company. Click “California” on a map of the U.S. and 703 job opportunities are listed.
You may post your resume online for free, or by mail for $15. The resume database may be accessed by all Medsearch subscribers.
There is an “International” section for jobs in different parts of the world. For instance, click “Canada” and 871 jobs are listed, many of them in non-medical fields.
There is also a ” Library” of links to other sites, and a “Cultural Diversity” section which contains “HealthCare Community/Minority Programs”, “Women’s Career Resources” and “Minority Career Resources”.
C. Physicians Employment ( http://www.physemp.com)
This site claims to be the “oldest (continuously since 1994) and largest (over 2000 listings) online clearinghouse for physician opportunities”.
The homepage is simplicity itself, inviting visitors to view job opportunities for (1) physicians or (2) allied health professionals, or to post listings for (2) hospitals and clinics, or (2) recruiting firms.
A form is provided for physicians to enter their names, residential and e-mail addresses, phone numbers, areas where they wish to practice, specialties, when they completed their medical residencies and whether they are interested in permanent or Locum Tenans positions. They are asked whether they wish to be contacted by employers when suitable positions become available.
Upon clicking the “Submit” button, they are permitted to view the existing job opportunities. I clicked on “Cardiology” and a list of states appeared on the left side of the screen. I clicked on “Texas” and two opportunities appeared. The first job listing was posted the day before for a job offer in Dallas. However, as it said “no J-1 or H-1 opportunities”, I skipped over this listing and looked at the second listing which was for a fellowship at the Baylor College of Medicine in Heart Failure Research.
I then clicked on “New York” and was pleased to find 15 listing, half of them brand new. A couple of them specified, however, “not a J-1 opportunity”.
The Nursing and Allied Health listings included employment opportunities for CRNA’s, Histologists, Nurses, Nurse Practitioners, Nurse Management, Occupational Therapists, Physicians Assistants, Podiatrists, Physical Therapists, Hospital Management, Respiratory Therapists and Ultrasound Technologists.
I clicked “Nurse” and found ten job listings, including three on the Pacific island of Saipan. There were no listings for Occupational Therapists. However, clicking on “Physical Therapy” yielded ten listings.
International Tax Treaties
The U.S. has entered into income tax treaties with 61 countries. The main purpose of an income tax treaty is to avoid double taxation of persons or transactions by designating which of the two countries will be permitted to impose its tax when their respective tax laws conflict. Most income tax treaties also address other topics, such as lowering the rate at which tax on investment income might otherwise be imposed, raising the threshold of business activity within a country before tax will be imposed on business profits, and exchanging information between the tax authorities of the two relevant countries.
To see the list of countries having income tax treaties with the U.S., click
https://www.shusterman.com/tax-tr.html (Link no longer operational)
Social Security Totalization Agreements
Since 1978, the U.S. has entered into Social Security Totalization Agreements with Canada and 16 European countries. The aim is to prevent multinational employers and their employees from paying into two social security programs at the same time.
For a list of countries which have entered into such agreements with the U.S., see
This page also contains links with the web site of the Social Security Administration (SSA) which (1) explains what Social Security Totalization Agreements are, and (2) provides links to the text of each of the 17 agreements and gives a description of each agreement.
The following information excerpted from the SSA web site explains the problem of dual coverage and how the totalization agreements seek to resolve this problem:
Without some means of coordinating Social Security coverage, people who work outside their country of origin may find themselves covered under the systems of two countries simultaneously for the same work. When this happens, both countries generally require the employer and employee or self-employed person to pay Social Security taxes.
Dual Social Security tax liability is a widespread problem for U.S. multinational companies and their employees because the U.S. Social Security program covers expatriate workers–those coming to the United States and those going abroad–to a greater extent than the programs of most other countries. U.S. Social Security extends to American citizens and U.S. resident aliens employed abroad by American employers without regard to the duration of an employee’s foreign assignment, and even if the employee has been hired abroad. This extraterritorial U.S. coverage frequently results in dual tax liability for the employer and employee since most countries, as a rule, impose Social Security contributions on anyone working in their territory.
An employee’s foreign Social Security coverage results in a substantially greater tax burden for the employer than the nominal Social Security tax alone. Depending on the other country’s tax rates, in some countries this “pyramid” effect has been known to increase an employer’s foreign Social Security costs to as much as 65-70 percent of the employee’s salary.
The aim of U.S. social security totalization agreements is to eliminate dual Social Security coverage and taxation while maintaining the coverage of as many workers as possible under the system of the country where they are likely to have the greatest attachment, both while working and after retirement.
Despite a large number of entries, there was no winner to October’s Immigration Trivia Quiz. Most of you correctly named the actor (Mel Gibson) and the athlete (Sammy Sosa). A few applicants incorrectly named Alex Trebeck, the Canadian-born host of the television game show “Jeopardy”.
Many people realized that Mel Gibson does not qualify as an immigrant to the U.S. since he was born in this country. Most people ignored my clues and named Sammy Sosa as an immigrant. However, Sammy is not, to my knowledge, a permanent resident of the U.S. He and his family live in his native Dominican Republic during the off-season. If I am incorrect, I offer to complete and submit an application for naturalization for Sammy for free (although he can probably afford to pay my fees!)
Since I have raised the ante (See topic #6), I wish you all better luck with November’s quiz.
Certified Specialist in Immigration Law, State Bar of California
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) Attorney (1976-82)
Member of AILA Board of Governors (1988-97)
Law Offices of Carl Shusterman, 600 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1550
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (213) 623-4592 x0, Fax: (213) 623-3720
Newsletter US Immigration November 1998 Quick Links
Back Issues of Our Newsletter
Schedule a Legal Consultation
Subscribe to Our Newsletter
November 10, 1998
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.