Volume Seven, Number Ten

SHUSTERMAN’S IMMIGRATION UPDATE is the Web’s most popular e-mail newsletter regarding U.S. immigration laws and procedures with over 40,000 subscribers located in more than 150 countries. It is written by a former INS Trial Attorney (1976-82) with over 30 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.

Subscribe to our E-Mail Newsletter, join the conversation on our Immigration Facebook Page, follow our Blog Posts and subscribe to our “How-To” Immigration Videos.

Client Reviews

Newsletter US Immigration Update October 2002

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

1. November 2002 State Department Visa Bulletin
2. Immigration Government Processing Times
3. Legislation: 7th Year H-1Bs, Physicians and More
4. Anti-Immigration Groups in Bed with Hate Groups?
5. Immigration Trivia Quiz: American Cultural Imperialism?
6. Students: SEVIS, ISEAS & DOS Resources for Students
7. Establishing Hardship to Qualify for Cancellation of Removal
8. Schedule of Upcoming Immigration Law Seminars
9. Chat Schedule, Transcripts, Audios & Videos
10. Answers to the September 2002 Immigration Trivia Quiz

NEWS FLASHES:

• Amnesty Bill Proposed– House Democratic leader Richard Gephardt unveiled the Earned Legalization and Family Unification Act of 2002 at a news conference in the Capitol. The bill would provide legal status, including a path to citizenship, to illegal immigrants who have lived in the United States at least five years and have held a job for at least two years. Applicants would be required to pass a background check.Editor’s Note: Don’t look for this bill to pass Congress this year.

• Check the Status of Your INS Case Online– If your case is currently at one of the INS’s Service Centers, you can now check the status of the case online. In our opinion, this represents a significant improvement from INS’s telephonic system. With a web- based system, there is no need to incur toll call charges or be bothered by busy signals. The system is accessible world-wide, 24/7/365. Simply enter your 13-digit receipt, click on the box marked “Submit”, and instantaneously, the status of your application or petition is displayed on the screen. Our hats are off to the folks at the INS who made this possible.

• Closed Immigration Hearings – On October 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit ruled, in a 2-1 decision, that closing all removal hearings which involve terrorist suspects is lawful notwithstanding that the removal charge may have nothing to do with terrorism. The decision in North Jersey Media Group vs. Ashcroft is in direct conflict with the recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit in Detroit Free Press vs. Ashcroft which we mentioned in the September 2002 issue of our newsletter. The conflict of circuits practically guarantees that the issue will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

• Congressman Tancredo – It’s been a stressful month for the leader of the anti-immigration forces in the House of Representatives. As the election race heats up (Tancredo has a safe seat.), the Congressman is running for re-election despite his prior pledge to step down due to self-imposed term limits. Recently, when the Denver Post ran a story about a young Mexican honor student, Jesus Apodaca, who was prohibited from attending a university due to his undocumented status, Tancredo called the INS and demanded that they investigate the young man. Then, the Post did a little investigating on their own, and found that Congressman Tancredo had hired a contractor to refurbish his house, and that all but one of the workers were illegally present in the U.S. As Tancredo pled ignorance, Senator Nighthorse Campbell (R-Colo) introduced a private bill on behalf of Mr. Apodaca thus granting him a stay of deportation. Now, Tancredo is criticizing the Republican Governor of Colorado for his support of the private bill. It seems that Republicans who are aiming for more of the Hispanic vote have had it with Tancredo and his righteous attitude. Let he who is without sin…

• DV-2004– The Green Card Lottery application period which started on October 7 will continue until noon, November 6. All applications must be received by the Kentucky Consular Center by then. Before applying, be sure to read the official State Department rules and look at the sample entry form. We link to both from our “Lottery” page at https://www.shusterman.com/greencardlottery.html.

• Oregon Conrad 30 Program– Physicians and their potential employers may wish to apply as soon as possible for the new Oregon J waiver program for physicians. Oregon will not charge their proposed $2,000 fee for applications received before the state legislature passes enabling legislation. The projected start date for fee collection is January 1, 2003. See the rules for the Oregon program at https://www.shusterman.com/pdf/oregon20.pdf (PDF File).

• Physicians Lawsuit– We have received a number of responses from physicians across the United States asking that they be included as plaintiffs in our law suit challenging INS’s regulations relating to National Interest Waivers. Before we file our complaint in Federal Court, it is important to stress the following two points: (1)This will not be a class action law suit. Therefore, unless you participate as a plaintiff, we cannot assure you that you will benefit from the law suit; (2) We are offering our services to potential plaintiffs free of charge. If you are interested in being a plaintiff, please contact Elif Keles, Esq. of our office by e-mail at ekeles@shusterman.com as soon as possible.

• Refugees – On September 17, President Bush issued a memorandum authorizing the admission of 70,000 refugees in fiscal year 2003. This is the lowest amount of refugees in recent memory. However, Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass), the chairman of the Senate’s Immigration Subcommittee indicates that he wants to increase this number. The State Department is required to consult with Congress regarding this matter.

• Temporary Protected Status (TPS) – The INS has extended TPS for certain qualified Liberians until October 1, 2003.

• Visa Fees to Rise – The State Department has announced that the filing fee for a nonimmigrant machine-readable visa (MRV) to the United States will rise from $65 to $100, effective November 1, 2002.

1. November 2002 State Department Visa Bulletin

On October 11, we posted the November 2002 Visa Bulletin, before the State Department posted the dates on their web site.

The worldwide 1st preference category (unmarried, adult sons and daughters of U.S. citizens) inched forward two weeks. The worldwide 2A preference category (spouses and unmarried children of permanent residents) and the 2B category (unmarried sons and daughters of permanent residents) both moved forward four weeks. The worldwide 3rd preference category (married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens) advanced five weeks while the 4th preference category (brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens) moved ahead eight weeks.

Most of the Mexican and Philippine categories also advanced with the exception of Mexican 2B. The most significant advance occurred in the Mexican 1st preference category which moved forward by seven months.

The Visa Bulletin creates false expectations. For example, a U.S. citizen parent of a single adult son or daughter is led to believe that his or her child will be able to immigrate in a little less than three years since the priority date for the worldwide family- based 1st preference category is March 15, 1999. The unfortunate reality is that this date has only advanced by 15 days since November 2000. The parents and children should be informed of this fact, and advised either to seek other means to immigrate or to reconcile themselves to the fact that they will have to live their lives in different countries.

Unless Congress acts to reform the family-based system, the 3.5 million persons waiting to immigrate to the U.S. based on approved family-based petitions should consider other options for immigrating.

All of the employment-based numbers remain current.

The November 2002 Visa Numbers can be found at

https://www.shusterman.com/statedepartmentvisabulletin/

For an explanation of what the categories, dates and symbols listed below mean, see

https://www.shusterman.com/greencardsthroughrelatives.html

Check the State Department’s official version (when they post the November 2002 Visa Bulletin on their web site) to see complete information about the movement of family, employment and lottery numbers, at

http://travel.state.gov/visa_bulletin.html (Link is no longer operational.)

2. Immigration Government Processing Times

We link to the most recent immigration waiting times for each of the four USCIS Service Centers, the National Benefits Center and the Administrative Appeals Office. We also link to the processing times of all of the 83 USCIS District Offices and Sub-offices. We link to the Labor Department’s page entitled “Processing dates for labor certification applications”. Finally, we link to the State Department’s “Visa Wait Times” page.

Read more…

3. Legislation: 7th Year H-1Bs, Physicians and More

On October 4, Congress passed the Justice Department appropriations bill and sent it to the President for his expected signature. Included in the bill are a number of immigration provisions. We focus on two sections of the bill which are of significant interest to many of our readers:

(A) Post-6th Year H-1B Extensions – The American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act of 2002 (AC-21) provides that it is possible, under certain circumstances, for persons in H-1B status to obtain extensions of stay beyond the usual 6th year maximum. See

https://www.shusterman.com/h1bvisaguide.html#1

This is true if an application for a foreign labor certification remained pending for over one year AND an immigrant visa petition was submitted to the INS, OR if an immigrant visa petition remained pending before the INS for over one year.

The problem is that many persons in H-1B status have been waiting for the approval of labor certification applications for over one year, but their employers cannot submit an I-140 immigrant visa petition on their behalf until the labor certification is approved.

The new bill amends AC-21 to provide that if the application for labor certification has been pending for over 365 days, this alone will permit the employer of a person in H-1B status to apply to extend the employee’s H-1B status beyond the 6th year in one-year increments. The H-1B may be extended until any of the following events occur: (1) the application for labor certification is denied; (2) the immigrant visa petition is denied; or (3) the application for adjustment of status or for an immigrant visa is either approved or denied.

In order to benefit from this amendment, it is NOT necessary that the person still be in H-1B status or even be present in the United States.

(B) Extension and Expansion of Conrad State 20 Program

Last year, I had the privilege of assisting the staff of Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) in drafting the “Rural and Urban Health Care Act of 2001” (S.1259). Section 5 of that bill would have expanded and extended the Conrad State Program which allows states to sponsor up to 20 J waivers annually for physicians who agree to practice in medically underserved areas.

Following the untimely demise of the Department of Agriculture’s J waiver program for physicians, Congress decided that the time was right to extend the Conrad program for two years and expand the number of physicians which each state may sponsor from 20 to 30. Kudos to Senators Kent Conrad (D-ND) and Sam Brownback (R-KS) and to Congressman Jerry Moran (R-KS). See Senator Brownback’s press release on the expanded J waiver program at

http://brownback.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=187586 (Link no longer operational)

The legislation also contains immigration provisions regarding immigrant investors, derivative citizenship, and various other topics.

We have posted the complete text of the 169-page “21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act” (H.R.2215) on our web site at

https://www.shusterman.com/pdf/hr2215.pdf

(PDF File)
An informative summary of the bill appears in AILA’s “Washington Update” dated October 4, 2002 which we include on our “Advocacy” page at

https://www.shusterman.com/toc-advocacy.htm (Link is no longer operational.)

4. Anti-Immigration Groups in Bed with Hate Groups?

In a recent issue of “Intelligence Reports”, a magazine published by the respected Southern Poverty Law Center, two disturbing articles appear which discuss the proliferation of anti-immigration groups in the United States. These articles conclude (1) that these groups are not mass-based, receiving the majority of their funding from a few individuals, and (2) that some of the groups have ties with racist organizations.

The first article, “The Puppeteer”, is subtitled “The organized anti-immigration ‘movement,’ increasingly in bed with racist hate groups, is dominated by one man”.

After conducting a four-month investigation after September 11th, the report concludes that “the appearance of an array of groups with large membership bases is nothing more than a mirage. In fact, the vast majority of American anti-immigration groups – more than a dozen in all – were either formed, led, or in other ways made possible through” the efforts of one man.

The report identifies this man as John Tanton, a Michigan ophthalmologist. Mr. Tanton started his political activities innocently enough as an environmentalist who focused on overpopulation. The report details his transformation to an anti- immigration zealot and founder of the largest anti-immigration group, the Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform (FAIR).

According to Rick Swartz, a pro-immigration activist who founded the National Immigration Forum in 1982, “Tanton is the puppeteer behind this entire movement… He is the organizer of a significant amount of its financing, and is both the major recruiter of key personnel and the intellectual leader of the whole network of groups.”

What groups are involved and who finances the anti-immigration movement?

The report identifies FAIR which was founded by Tanton in 1979, U.S. Inc. which he created in 1982, and U.S. English in 1983. The report states that, in 1985, FAIR spun off another Tanton creation, the Center for Immigration Studies, which portrays itself as an impartial think tank and regularly is invited to testify before congressional committees regarding immigration policies. “Today, the Center regularly dispatches experts to testify on Capitol Hill, and last year it was awarded a six-figure research contract by the U.S. Census Bureau.”

Racism?

The report states that as far back as 1988, certain memos written by Tanton and then-FAIR chairman Roger O’Connor revealed the racist nature of these men. The derogatory references to Latinos in these memos provoked major defections from the anti-immigration movement. Linda Chavez, executive director of U.S English and a conservative, Republican columnist quit her post when she learned of Tanton’s bigoted anti-Latino bias. Similarly, esteemed newsman Walter Cronkite resigned from the board of U.S. English calling the memos “embarrassing”.

The report goes on to document the collaboration between many of Tanton’s groups with openly racist organizations.

Although FAIR and related anti-immigration groups like to portray themselves as mass organizations in order to enhance their political power, the report contends that their membership numbers are highly inflated and that they are funded by huge contributions from a few wealthy contributors.

For example, between 1985 and 1994, FAIR received over $1 million from the Pioneer Fund, a pro-eugenics group which was tied to the Nazi eugenics program in the 1930s. Even as late as 2000, over half of FAIR’s funding was provided by six donors. Similarly, the report states that 14 donors accounted for over 90% of the funding for the Center for Immigration Studies.

Wealthy right-wing individuals like Richard Mellon Scaife and his sister Cordelia May Scaife, both heirs to the Mellon bank fortune, have contributed over $1 million to FAIR and related organizations. The report also identifies the following foundations as major contributors: McConnell (whose President, Scott McConnell, is on the board of both FAIR and CIS), Shea, Weeden, Salisbury, Smith Richardson, Blair and Sikes.

Despite the connection between groups within the Tanton network and racist organizations (Please read the report for details.), the Tanton alumni have been able to elevate themselves into prominent positions within the INS and congressional staffs.

For example, both Rosemary Jenks (a former researcher for the Center for Immigration Studies) and Linda Purdue (a Tanton associate) are both lobbyists for Numbers USA. At a recent meeting with Representative Thomas Tancredo (R-Colo), the leader of the anti- immigration forces in the House of Representatives, Jenks announced that both she and Purdue could be reached in Tancredo’s congressional offices where they were “virtual staffers”. Cordia Strom, who the report identifies as FAIR’s former legal director, is now “counsel to the director and coordinator of congressional affairs for the Immigration and Naturalization Service.”

The report paints an alarming picture of Tanton’s organization, their influence on our country’s immigration policies, and their ties to hate groups.

We recommend that our subscribers read the articles and draw their own conclusions.

We link to “The Puppeteer” at

http://www.splcenter.org/intelligenceproject/ip-4v1.html (Link is no longer operational.)

and to a second article entitled “Defending Immigrants” at

http://www.splcenter.org/intelligenceproject/ip-4v2.html (Link is no longer operational.)

We also link to both of these articles from our “Immigration Reports and Organizations” page at

https://www.shusterman.com/immigrationorganizations/

The Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus web site links to the web site of many of the organizations named in the report including the Center for Immigration Studies, Numbers U.S.A., FAIR, and a host of other anti-immigration (or as they prefer to be called “immigration reduction”) groups. In small print at the bottom of the list, it contains the following disclaimer: “Neither Rep. Tancredo nor the Members of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus endorse the views that may appear on the above sites.”

5. Immigration Trivia Quiz: American Cultural Imperialism?

Quiz Removed

6. Students: SEVIS, ISEAS & DOS Resources for Students

Back in 1996, a law maintaining a tracking system for students was enacted. The system, dubbed CIPRIS (Coordinated Interagency Partnership Regulating International Students), would have required colleges and universities to collect a $95 fee from each international student to establish a system to monitor F-1 academic students, M-1 vocational students and J-1 exchange visitors.

CIPRIS never got off the ground due to almost unanimous opposition from colleges and universities. See

https://www.shusterman.com/pdf/sevp-capris.pdf (Link no longer operational)

(PDF File)
After the events of September 11, the opposition to CIPRIS faded away. On May 14, 2002, President Bush signed the Border Security Act which mandates that a system to track foreign students and exchange visitors be up and running by January 30, 2003. Renamed SEVIS (Student and Exchange Visitor Information System), the program will enable schools and program sponsors to transmit electronic information and event notifications via the Internet to the INS and the Department of State throughout a student or exchange visitor’s stay in the United States.

On September 18, the State Department published interim regulations implementing the ISEAS (Interim Student and Exchange Authentication System) program which will remain in place until SEVIS is fully operational.

We link to INS’s online SEVIS resources, to the ISEAS regulations and to two recent State Department cables regarding ISEAS from our “Student” page at

https://www.shusterman.com/f1students.html#5

On September 18, the House Immigration Subcommittee conducted an oversight hearing on the INS’s Implementation of the Foreign Student Tracking Program. Witness included Janis Sposato (INS), Glenn Fine (Inspector General, Justice Department), Catheryn Cotton (NAFSA) and Terry Hartle (American Council on Education).

The INS representative was very positive. “If we can keep to our schedule, SEVIS will be fully deployed by Jan. 1. We are doing everything we can to meet that schedule, and frankly the toughest part is behind us,” said Janis Sposato, an assistant deputy executive associate commissioner at the INS. She stated that while she is confident that the INS will be able to make SEVIS available to eligible schools by the January deadline, she doesn’t expect that all students will be entered into the database by that time.

Glenn Fine, the DOJ Inspector General who studied the implementation of the SEVIS program was not optimistic. Mr. Fine testified that “despite the substantial efforts made by the INS, we continue to believe that full implementation of SEVIS is unlikely by January 30.”

Another skeptic is Catheryn Cotten, director of the International Office at Duke University in North Carolina. Ms. Cotton, representing NAFSA, conceded that the INS had improved since the Inspector General’s first report in May 2002. However, she is concerned about the adequacy of the training being provided to schools, and the lack of INS personnel available to input student information into the system. Her university has been participating in the pilot program to test the system, and despite INS’s reassurances, she remains concerned about the existing bugs in the system.

Ms. Sposato countered that these bugs would be corrected in the upcoming version of SEVIS which is due out in October.

Stay tuned!

The complete text of the witness testimony is available online at

http://www.house.gov/judiciary/immigration.htm (Link no longer operational)

Finally, we call to your attention the extensive materials guiding foreign students who wish to study in the U.S. which are available on the State Department web site. We link to these materials from our “Student” page at

https://www.shusterman.com/f1students

7. Establishing Hardship to Qualify for Cancellation of Removal

Back before the 1996 anti-immigrant law, there was a remedy for persons who had lived in the United States for a long period of time (a minimum of seven years), who were persons of good moral character, and whose deportation would result in “extreme hardship” for themselves and any close family members who were U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents.

This remedy was called “suspension of deportation” and could only be granted at the discretion of an Immigration Judge. What kind of people benefited from suspension of deportation? We feature a couple of examples on our web site. We link to their photos and their stories from our “Photo Gallery” at

https://www.shusterman.com/honorstudentbeatsdeportation.html

– Honor Student Beats Deportation, Obtains Green Card and

https://www.shusterman.com/illegalmarinegainsgreencard.html

– Illegal Immigrant Marine Gains Green Card

In 1996, a law was enacted which abolished the remedy of suspension of deportation, and substituted in its place, cancellation of removal for persons who are not permanent residents.

Cancellation of removal is much more restrictive than suspension of deportation. Congress raised the period of continuous physical presence from seven years to ten years. In addition, all ten years must occur BEFORE the INS institutes removal proceedings. In addition, certain persons with petty criminal convictions in the distant past are prohibited from showing good moral character. Finally, and most importantly, the hardship requirement was made much more restrictive. The “extreme hardship” standard was replaced by the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” standard. The hardship to the applicant is no longer counted, only the hardship to his or her parents, spouse and/or children who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents.

In those rare cases where an Immigration Judge grants cancellation of removal, the INS regularly appeals the decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). In its two previous precedent cases, the BIA both found that the applicants had failed to meet the strict hardship requirement.

Recently, the BIA published a precedent decision where the applicant did meet the hardship for cancellation of removal requirement.

In a unanimous en banc decision decided on September 19, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) further clarified what constitutes “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” for purposes of qualifying for cancellation of removal for persons who are not permanent residents.

In Matter of Recinas, 23 I&N Dec.467 (BIA 2002), the Board overturned the decision of an Immigration Judge and held that a single mother who supports and cares for her six children, four of whom are U.S. citizens aged 12, 11, 8 and 5, who has no immediate family in Mexico, and who has limited financial resources, established the requisite hardship to qualify for cancellation of removal. Other relevant factors were the children’s unfamiliarity with the Spanish language and the lack of alternate means for the mother to immigrate to the United States. The mother’s parents are lawful permanent residents of the U.S. and her five siblings are citizens of the U.S.

In reaching this conclusion, the BIA cited its holding in Matter of Monreal, 23 I&N Dec. 56 (BIA 2001) in which the Board held that while the hardship must be “substantially beyond that which would ordinarily be expected to result from the person’s departure”, it need not be “unconscionable”. Monreal holds that consideration must be given to the “age, health and circumstances of qualifying family members including how a lower standard of living or adverse country conditions” may affect qualifying relatives. In Monreal, the Board failed to find the requisite hardship since, among other factors, the respondent would be reunited with his wife who had already returned to Mexico with one of their children.

The Board also cited Matter of Andazola, 23 I&N Dec 319 (BIA 2002), another case where the respondent failed to meet the requisite standard for hardship where her husband had legal status in the U.S. and could support the family in Mexico and where the respondent had accumulated assets sufficient to ease the transition of moving her family to Mexico.

The Board distinguished the instant case from Monreal and Andazola, finding that the respondent’s mother was taking care of her grandchildren which made it possible for the respondent to start a business which allowed her to provide for her children.

Significantly, even though the noncitizen children had no qualifying relatives, the Board ordered that their cases be held in abeyance. As soon as their mother adjusted her status, the children would have a qualifying relative and would then be eligible to be granted cancellation of removal.

We link to the complete text of the BIA decisions in Recinas, Monreal and Andazola from our “Deportation” page at

https://www.shusterman.com/deportationdefense.html#6

under “Recent Precedent Decisions of the BIA.”

8. Schedule of Upcoming Immigration Law Seminars

Here is a partial list of Immigration Seminars in which I will participate during the next few weeks:

A) October 24-25, 2002 San Antonio, Texas
“26th Annual Conference on Immigration & Nationality Law”
– Sponsored by the University of Texas School of Law
(I will speak about “Using the Web to Practice Immigration Law”)

B) November 1, 2002 Scottsdale, Arizona
– Sponsored by NAFSA Association of International Educators
(I will speak on advanced topics related to the employment of H-1B workers.)

C) November 14-16, 2002 Monterey, California
“15th Annual California Chapters Conference”
– Sponsored by the American Immigration Lawyers Association
(I will speak about “Health Care Workers”.)

For additional information, see

http://www.aila.org

under “Events and CLE”

D) November 18-19, 2002 San Francisco, California
“35th Annual Immigration & Naturalization Institute”
– Sponsored by the Practising Law Institute

(I am participating in a panel entitled “INS & State Department Update” with Stephen K. Fischel, Office Director; Legislation, Regulation and Advisory Opinions – State Department; Jacquelyn A. Bednarz, Special Assistant to INS’s Executive Associate Commissioner, Office of Policy and Planning; and Jeffrey J. Rummel, Esq.)

Register online at

http://www.pli.edu

or call (800) 260-4PLI

E) December 4-6, 2002 Sacramento, California
– California State Rural Health Association Annual Conference
“Shoulder to Shoulder: Building on our Successes for Rural Health Solutions”
I am participating in a panel entitled “Attracting and Retaining a Qualified Workforce.”

9. Chat Schedule, Transcripts, Audios & Videos

Deleted

10. Answers To September 2002 Immigration Trivia Quiz

Quiz Removed

This month, we had many correct answers to our quiz. Who was the first person to correctly answer the quiz? The envelope please…

Dear Mr. Shusterman,

Alexander Graham Bell was born on March 3, 1847 in Edinburgh, Scotland. Bell is best known for his invention of the telephone

Bell’s first telephone patent was granted on March 7, 1876. Three days later he and Watson, located in different rooms, were about to test the new type of transmitter described in his patent. Watson heard Bell’s voice saying, “Mr. Watson, come here. I want you.”

Antonio Meucci was born in San Frediano, near Florence, in April 1808.

Recently, the US Congress recognised Meucci, the Florentine immigrant as the inventor of the telephone rather than Alexander Graham Bell. Historians and Italian-Americans won their battle to persuade Washington to recognize a little-known mechanical genius, Antonio Meucci, as a father of modern communications, 113 years after his death.

The vote by the House of Representatives prompted joyous claims in Meucci’s homeland that finally Bell had been outed as a (person) who found fortune and fame by stealing another man’s work.

Calling the Italian’s career extraordinary and tragic, the resolution said his “teletrofono”, demonstrated in New York in 1860, made him the inventor of the telephone in the place of Bell, who had access to Meucci’s materials and who took out a patent 16 years later.

Aimee Dizon, MD

And when we asked Dr. Dizon to talk about herself and how she solved the quiz, we received the following message:
Hi, Mr. Shusterman!

First of all, I would like to say that I have followed your website since 1997. I would like to extend my personal thanks and appreciation for the work and effort it takes to maintain such an excellent website. Many of my friends and colleagues subscribe to your newsletter, which we find such a tremendous and invaluable source of information.

I was really surprised to find that I won the quiz. This is the first time I ever attempted to solve it, but I have always enjoyed the quizzes. You never know when it’ll come out in “Jeopardy”.

From the clues about Watson and ET, I was pretty sure you were talking about Alexander Graham Bell, although I was not sure what he looked like. I used the search words “immigrant/inventor/telephone” and I found an article entitled, “Bell cut off as phone inventor” by Rory Carroll. The article talks about a certain Antonio Meucci and how the US Congress recently recognized him as the true inventor of the telephone. Unfortunately, the article also did not have a picture of the inventor.

To confirm my answers, I found The Italian Historical Society of America website which details the Meucci story and the exact photograph you posted. The photograph of Bell I later found on the online version of the Alexander Graham Bell Family Papers at the Library of Congress.

I am a physician from the Philippines and I currently work for the Oklahoma Department of Veterans Affairs. I am currently in the process of filing for permanent residency.

My personal goals center around health, happiness, professional fulfillment and satisfaction and the hope that one day that people stop killing each other and that the INS can get its act together. Please do not print that last statement, if you think the bureaucracy will not find it funny :-)

Sincerely,
Aimee Dizon, MD
Dear Aimee,

I can’t pretend to speak for the “bureaucracy” since I have not worked for the INS for over 20 years. However, I enjoyed your message enough to include it in its entirety. Congratulations, Super Sleuth! By the way, when I traveled to Manhattan to participate in a seminar for IMGs, I stopped in Staten Island, and took a photograph of the Garibaldi-Meucci Museum. See

images/meucci2.jpg

Carl Shusterman

Certified Specialist in Immigration Law, State Bar of California
Former U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service Trial Attorney (1976-82)
Board of Governors, American Immigration Lawyers Association (1988-97)
Phone: (213) 623-4592 Fax: (213) 623-3720
Law Offices of Carl Shusterman, 600 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1550
Los Angeles, California 90017

“Once I thought to write a history of the immigrants in America. Then I discovered that the immigrants were American history.”

– Professor Oscar Handlin, Harvard Historian

Newsletter US Immigration Update October 2002 – Quick Links

About Us
Back Issues of Our Newsletter
Citizenship
Client Testimonials
Forms Download
Green Cards
Job Search
PERM
Processing Times
Schedule a Legal Consultation
Subscribe to Our Newsletter
Success Stories
Temporary Visas
Visa Bulletin

October 11, 2002

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.