Due to the large number of immigration seminars and conferences which we will be participating in during October and November, there will be only one issue of SHUSTERMAN’S IMMIGRATION UPDATE during this time period.
Volume Seven, Number Nine
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.
“After wasting thousands of dollars on other lawyers, Mr. Shusterman was life saver. I recommend him hands down!”
- Mukta Mohan, Buffalo, New York
Read More Reviews
Zoom Consultations Available!
Newsletter US Immigration Update September 2002
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
1. October 2002 State Department Visa Bulletin
2. Immigration Government Processing Times
3. Physicians: Need Plaintiffs to Challenge NIW Regulations
4. INS Commissioner Ziglar Resigns, Or Was He Pushed?
5. New BIA Regulations: Streamlining or Gutting the Board?
6. Immigration Trivia Quiz: “Come Here Watson, I Want You!”
7. Employers – A Primer for Prevailing Wage Issues in H-1B Cases
8. Schedule of Upcoming Immigration Law Seminars
9. Chat Schedule, Transcripts, Audios & Videos
10. Answers to the August 2002 Immigration Trivia Quiz
- §212(c) Regulations ProposedOn September 12, the Justice Department proposed regulations to restore the ability of certain persons to apply for waivers of deportation under last year’s Supreme Court decision in INS v St. Cyr.Primarily affected are persons who pled guilty or nolo contendere to a criminal offense prior to April 1, 1997.We link to the proposed regulations as well as to the EOIR FAQ and Fact Sheet on our “Deportation” page at https://www.shusterman.com/deportationdefense.html#1. We also link to a Practice Advisory issued on August 30 by the American Immigration Law Foundation (AILF) which summarizes the proposed rule on St. Cyr and discusses arguments and strategies to help those who are not eligible for 212(c) relief under the proposed rule. See http://www.ailf.org/lac/2002/083002b.htm (Link is no longer operational).
- AR-11 – The INS announced that during the past few weeks, the agency has received 700,000 change of address forms (“AR-11”) and that it lacks the resources to process them. What a surprise!
- Blanket Closure of Hearings Ruled Unconstitutional – In Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft, No. 02-1437 (6th Cir. Aug. 26, 2002), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit became the first federal appeals court to decide whether the Bush Administration could routinely close removal hearings to the public where the government asserts that the persons involved might have links to terrorism. The court held for the plaintiffs stating that “democracies die behind closed doors” and that “when the government begins closing doors, it selectively controls information rightfully belonging to the people. Selective information is misinformation.”
- Business Immigration News– After an 18-month hiatus, the American Immigration Lawyers Association has resumed publication of “Connect!”, a newsletter regarding the latest developments in business immigration law and procedures. Read “Connect!” on our “Business Immigration Newsletter” page at https://www.shusterman.com/toc-busimm.html (Link is no longer operational).
- Certified Immigration Specialists– How do you go about choosing an excellent immigration attorney to represent you? Some states, like California, make it easy by putting attorneys through rigorous examination, experience and reference checks. They then allow qualifying attorneys to hold themselves out as Certified Specialists in Immigration and Nationality Law. See https://www.shusterman.com/newsletterusimmigrationjuly1997.html#7. I am honored to have been selected by the California State Bar as a member of the Immigration and Nationality Law Advisory Committee for the Legal Specialization Program. See https://www.shusterman.com/pdf/appointmenttoimmigrationlawadvisorycommission-shusterman.pdf (PDF File). Other members of the Advisory Committee are Jan Bejar (Chair), Fred Benson, (Vice Chair), Ann Block, Michael Considine, Howard Hom, Geri Kahn, and J. Antonio Nierras. Throughout my tenure on the Committee, I plan to help educate the public on the value of hiring attorneys who are Certified Specialists in Immigration Law.
- Child Student Protection Act (CSPA)– Both the INS and the State Department have issued memos providing guidance on how to interpret this complex act.The INS memo is limited to the effect of CSPA on children of refugees and asylees. We link to it from our “Asylum” page at https://www.shusterman.com/asylumusimmigration/. The State Department cable offers more comprehensive guidance. See https://www.shusterman.com/childstatusprotectionactmemo2002.html.
- DV-2004 Green Card Lottery– The State Department has issued its official instructions regarding the DV-2004 Green Card Lottery. As reported in our August 2002 newsletter, the application period runs from noon on October 7, 2002 to noon on November 6, 2002. This year, the instructions include a Sample Entry Form. We link to the instructions from our “Lottery” page at https://www.shusterman.com/greencardlottery.html.
- H-1B Report– Want to know the breakdown of H-1B petitions by occupation, the beneficiary’s country of birth, by the age of the beneficiary, month of filing, etc.? Then browse through the newly-available (The report was issued in April 2002.) INS statistical report for fiscal year 2000 on our “H-1B Visa” page under “Reports and Articles” at https://www.shusterman.com/h1bvisaguide.html#4.
- INS Proposes Online System to Check Status of ApplicationsThe INS seeks comments on its proposal to implement an electronic website that would allow individuals or their representatives to request their case status online.
- J Web Site– The State Department has significantly improved the organization of information regarding exchange visitors on its web site. Information is available regarding exchange visitor programs, waivers, contact information, status inquiries, forms, processing fees and more. The site contains information about each category of exchange visitor from physicians to professors to trainees. (Editor’s Note: We cannot seem to find where the State Department placed the “Exchange Visitor’s Skills List” or where they put Form DS-2019 which replaced the venerable Form IAP-66 on September 1, 2002.)We link numerous times to the newly revamped site from our “Exchange Visitor (“J-1″)” page at https://www.shusterman.com/j1exchangevisitors.html.
- Legal Immigration Figures For FY-2001– On August 30, the INS released a report which showed that over one million persons immigrated to the United States during fiscal year 2001.Over 40% of immigrants were immediate relatives of U.S. citizens while less than 20% immigrated under the employment-based categories.Almost two-thirds immigrated to the following states: California, New York, Florida, Texas, New Jersey and Illinois.About 40% of the immigrants were born in the following countries: Mexico, India, China, the Philippines and Vietnam. See http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2001/yearbook2001.pdf.
- NIV Slowdown– The State Department advises, on their web site that, due to security concerns, the processing of nonimmigrant visa applications is slower than in the past. See http://travel.state.gov/specialnotimmigrationandcustomsenforcement.html (Link is no longer operational).
- Nurses– NCLEX May Be Administered Internationally – On August 21, the National Council of State Boards of Nursing (NCSBN) agreed to negotiate with its testing vendor to administer the NCLEX internationally. See the NCSBN Press Release at https://www.shusterman.com/pdf/nclex-intl.pdf (PDF File). Currently, the NCLEX, the licensure test for registered nurses, is administered in all 50 states, American Samoa, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands (Saipan) and the Virgin Islands. The NCSBN Press Release states that the Examinations Committee in considering establishing international test center locations in “Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.” It cautions that “international administration NCLEX examinations will not occur before August 1, 2004.Editor’s Note: Given the increasing severity of nationwide nurse shortage, this is a step in the right direction. However, we would like to see the nurse shortage addressed more expeditiously. A previous NCSBN press release mentioned the date of October 1, 2002 for international testing. Now, the date has been pushed back an additional 22 months. Also, we believe that locating test sites in countries like that the Philippines and India are more apt to produce more registered nurses than are sites in Europe, Japan and Australia.
- Physicians – The number of IMGs who are seeking graduate medical training in the U.S. has dropped by over 50% since the imposition of the Clinical Skills Assessment (CSA) examination. In 1997, over 36,000 IMGs took the CSA. By last year, the number had fallen to 16,000. The examination costs $1,200, an enormous sum for most IMGs, and is administered at a single test site in Philadelphia. Is the CSA effective? The American Medical Association and many other groups question this, and refuse to allow a test similar to the CSA to be administered to U.S. medical graduates. Is it effective in keeping foreign-born physicians from training in the U.S.? Very!
- Physicians Report– A new report, issued by the Rural Policy Research Institute examines the impact of the J Waiver program for physicians on rural, underserved areas.It examines both federal and state participation in the program, concerns over homeland security and possible alternative sources of physicians in underserved areas. It provides figures on the number of IMGs sponsored yearly by each interested government agency.
- September 11 Detainees– The U.S. government’s investigation of the September 11 attacks has been marred by arbitrary detentions, due process violations, and secret arrests, Human Rights Watch said in a news report released on August 15th. The U.S. Department of Justice has misused immigration charges to dodge legal restraints on its power to detain and interrogate people as it pursues its terrorist probe.”An immigration violation should not give the government license to rip up the rule book,” said Jamie Fellner, director of Human Rights Watch’s U.S. Program. “By restricting judicial oversight and blocking public scrutiny, the government has exercised virtually unchecked power over those it has detained.”The ninety-five page report, “Presumption of Guilt: Human Rights Abuses of Post-September 11 Detainees,” is based on Human Rights Watch interviews with scores of current and former detainees and their attorneys. The report provides the most comprehensive analysis yet of the Justice Department’s treatment of non-citizens swept up in the post-September 11 investigation.We link to the report on our “September 11” page at https://www.shusterman.com/september11immigration.html#5.
- September 11– ” A Year of Loss: Reexamining Civil Liberties since September 11″ – The Lawyers Committee for Human Rights has released a thoughtful report which examines the loss of civil liberties in the United States since September 11, and concludes “that many of the extraordinary measures taken over the last twelve months now require repeal or substantial adjustments and refinements by the Executive Branch, Congress and the Courts.”We link to the press release, the power point presentation and the complete report on our “September 11” page at https://www.shusterman.com/september11immigration.html#5.
- Special Registration Requirements– On September 6, the Justice Department designated five countries (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan and Syria) whose nationals must undergo special registration, fingerprint and photograph requirements prior to entering the United States. We link to these regulations, as well as a detailed explanation of the requirements, which became effective on September 11, 2002 at https://www.shusterman.com/september11immigration.html#1.
- Special Visa Processing Procedures The State Department has posted a new section on its web site regarding visa processing for individuals from countries which have be designated as “state sponsors of terrorism”. See http://travel.state.gov/section306.html (Link is no longer operational.)
- Temporary Protected Status– The INS has extended TPS for certain nationals of Burundi and Sudan until November 2, 2003. See the INS News Releases at http://uscis.gov/graphics/publicaffairs/newsrels/Burundi_Extension_NR.htm (Link is no longer operational) and http://uscis.gov/graphics/publicaffairs/newsrels/Sudan_Extension_NR.htm (Link is no longer operational).
On September 12, we posted the October 2002 Visa Bulletin, before the State Department posted the dates on their web site.
October is the first month for the new fiscal year, and if there any significant advances in the visa numbers, they usually occur then. Viewed in this light, most of the advances during October were not dramatic. The worldwide 1st preference category (unmarried, adult sons and daughters of U.S. citizens), after regressing severely this spring, moved back to where it was, March 1, 1999. The worldwide 2A preference category (spouses and unmarried children of permanent residents) and the 4th category (brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens) both moved forward four weeks. The worldwide 2B preference category (unmarried adult sons and daughters of lawful permanent residents) and the 3rd preference category (married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens) moved ahead three weeks.
Most of the Mexican and Philippine categories are not yet available.
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 more than three years since the priority date, for the worldwide family-based 1st preference category is March 1, 1999. The unfortunate reality is that the there has been no forward movement in this category 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 time to apply for your labor certification or visa petition is now.
The October 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 (as soon as it is posted online) 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.)
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.
INS regulations regarding National Interest Waivers (NIW) for physicians published in September 2000 nearly repealed the law enacted in November 1999 which was intended to restore the ability of International Medical Graduates to qualify for NIWs.
Our law firm intends to bring a nationwide lawsuit to challenge the INS regulations. We have demanded that the INS grant adjustment of status to our lead plaintiff and his spouse within 30 days. Otherwise, we are prepared to assert the rights of our clients in Federal Court.
In order to bring a nationwide lawsuit, we need physicians who are adversely affected by the NIW regulations to participate as plaintiffs.
You may be eligible to be a plaintiff if you meet ANY of the following criteria:
A) You are a specialist who is employed in a medically underserved area. The law allows specialists to obtain NIWs. The regulations do not.
B) You practice in a medically underserved area and you were in H-1B status during your medical residency. Alternately, you practiced in a medically underserved area in O-1 status prior to receiving a J waiver.
C) You had an NIW filed on your behalf prior to November 1, 1998 which was denied before November 12, 1999, and you did not appeal the denial. Alternately, if you did appeal, INS dismissed your appeal prior to November 12, 1999.
D) You had to resort to obtaining a labor certification rather than a NIW for any of the above reasons, or because you were unable to obtain a “public interest” letter from your state department of public health.
E) You are unable to comply with the complex two-tiered NIW system described in the regulations;
F) You have relocated from one medically underserved area to another,
G) YOU MEET ANY OF THE ABOVE CRITERIA, AND YOU RESIDE IN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING CALIFORNIA COUNTIES: LOS ANGELES, ORANGE, RIVERSIDE, SANTA BARBARA, SAN BERNARDINO, SAN LUIS OBISPO OR VENTURA.
If you an IMG who wishes to be a plaintiff, please contact us at your earliest convenience.
We will represent you in Federal Court AT NO CHARGE TO YOU.
If you are wish us to represent you in Federal Court, you may contact us by calling our office
Carl Shusterman, Esq.
Elif Keles, Esq.
Please state in your message which of the above classes that you fall into, and explain the facts of your case in detail. If you are currently represented by an immigration attorney, he or she will continue to represent you before the INS and/or the Labor Department.
For more information, see https://www.shusterman.com/newsletterusimmigrationjuly2002.html#7
On August 15, after a little more than a year in office, INS Commissioner James Ziglar announced that he would resign his position effective at the end of the year. In a letter to President Bush, he stated:
“Restructuring will now be achieved through the merger of the INS into the new department, and border security will now receive the priority status it deserves. Knowing these goals will be successfully accomplished as part of a larger and stronger agency, it is an appropriate time for me to return to private life.”
Although his resignation was portrayed as voluntary, some INS insiders maintain that Ziglar was forced out of his job.
Ziglar’s resignation comes just a month after the “retirement” of Mary Ryan, the State Department official in charge of issuing visas. It was widely suspected that Ms. Ryan was forced to retire due to perceived flaws in the State Department’s procedures in granting visas abroad.
Attorney General Ashcroft’s response to Ziglar’s resignation was perfunctory: “Commissioner Ziglar has served the administration and the Department of Justice admirably during a very important time under extraordinarily difficult circumstances. We appreciate his commitment and service to the country.”
Certainly, there is no love loss between Ziglar and prominent immigration restrictionists.
For example, Rep. Thomas G. Tancredo (R-Colo.) stated, “He’s a nice guy … but he is completely and totally incapable of running an agency of this magnitude. They should have fired him a long time ago. We’re absolutely better off from this. I’d have been willing to kick in for a golden parachute if he would have left earlier.”
Instead, it is the immigrant advocates who are sorry to see Ziglar depart the scene:
“I suspect it was becoming increasingly difficult for a pro-immigration Republican to feel that he has a place at the table within this administration, which is increasingly perceived by immigrants as hostile to hard-working, law-abiding newcomers,” said Angela Kelley, deputy director of the National Immigration Forum.
“It’s too bad,” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, (D-CA), a harsh critic of the INS. “I think he was one of the more competent commissioners we’ve had in recent history, and he came in at a time when the agency was a mess. Then 9/11 hit, and he has managed to make some progress. Obviously, the agency is still in the Dark Ages technologically, but at least he recognized that and took steps to try to move some technology into the agency.”
It is certainly no secret that Ziglar, who describes himself as a “libertarian”, is often out-of-sync with Attorney General Ashcroft apparently because he does not emphasize the enforcement aspect of the INS to the exclusion of pursuing initiatives to improve the service functions of the agency. Persons interfacing with the INS are “customers” to Ziglar, “aliens” to Ashcroft.
Attention now focuses on choosing a successor to Ziglar. Will President Bush yield to hardliners like Ashcroft and Tancredo and choose a military-style Commissioner who focuses almost exclusively on enforcement and who pays only lip service to reducing processing times for immigration applications and petitions? Are we really going to back to the days of General Swing (INS Commissioner appointed by President Eisenhower and leader of the infamous “Operation Wetback”) and General Chapman (INS Commissioner appointed by President Ford)?
See Commissioner Ziglar’s resignation letter at http://www.hooyou.com/news/081702ziglar_resignation.pdf (PDF File) and his message to INS employees at http://www.hooyou.com/news/081902ziglar_employee.pdf
On August 26, the Justice Department issued final regulations which severely diminish the level of review of removal and deportation decisions by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). See
The new regulations, which are almost identical to the regulations proposed on February 19, 2002, will become effective on September 25.
The Justice Department issued a news release about the new regulations at http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2002/August/02_eoir_489.htm and a five-paged Fact Sheet at http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/biafinalrule.pdf (PDF File)
We expressed our opinion about these regulations when they were proposed. See “Proposed BIA Regulations Would Make Mockery Of Due Process” at https://www.shusterman.com/newsletterusimmigrationmarch2002.html#8
In the August 2002 issue of SHUSTERMAN’S IMMIGRATION UPDATE, we reported on the huge increase in immigration appeals being submitted to the Federal Courts.
Last week, the “Legal Times” discussed the new regulations in an article entitled “In the Line of Fire” at
It’s not uncommon for there to be a discrepancy between what an employer thinks a foreign worker should be paid and what the State Workforce Agency (SWA) says they MUST be paid. This is a basic conflict in many employment-based cases, and the resolution isn’t always obvious.
An employer’s confusion at being told their wage is not “prevailing” is understandable – after all, since they are a part of their local industry, and they go to great lengths to ensure their wages are in line with their competitors, they consider their wage to be in line with the “prevailing” standards for their geographic area.
However, the notion of a “Prevailing Wage” is more subtle than just reflecting the standards of the local wages for a position. Specifically, it is the wage rate at which the wages of U.S. workers are not adversely affected. The agencies involved, whether state or federal, have been directed by Congress to protect U.S. workers from having their wages undercut by foreign workers. Thus the prevailing wage line for a professional position may be higher than expected.
We examine two areas in immigration where Prevailing Wages frequently come into play: H-1B Nonimmigrant Visa Petitions and Labor Certification Applications. Each requires a different approach when there is a discrepancy between the Employer’s offered wage and what the SWA wants it to be.
This month, we will deal with H-1B Nonimmigrant Visa wages.
How can you find out what a prevailing wage will be for a specific position? The Employer can request a Prevailing Wage Determination from their state’s SWA by fax. Each State’s SWA is different, but most have a fax form available online for requesting prevailing wage determinations. For example, the form in California may be accessed online at:
http://www.calmis.cahwnet.gov/htmlfile/programs/pwdescrip.htm (Link no longer operational)
Each SWA obtains their prevailing wage data from the Department of Labor’s Occupational Employment Statistics/Standard Occupational Classification (OES/SOC) online database. We link to the Department of Labor’s Online Wage Library through our website’s “Department of Labor” page at: https://www.shusterman.com/departmentoflaborusimmigration.html#9
Sometimes OES/SOC figures are accurate, but not always. Because of problems collecting data, and the limited number of categories in the surveys for entry-level and experienced-level positions, the OES/SOC figure might prove to be unrealistic for the position.
As an alternative, the employer may determine the prevailing wage by relying on a published survey. Examples include private data sources such as the Watson-Wyatt Survey and the Employer’s Group. Public databases, including the one maintained by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), can be accessed from our “Department of Labor” page at the address listed above.
Once the prevailing wage is determined, both the wage and its source must be included by the employer on the Labor Condition Application (LCA) which underlies every H-1B Petition. A copy of the data used for the determination, whether a private survey or a Prevailing Wage Determination from the SWA, should be kept in the worker’s file, so that it will be handy should the U.S. Department of Labor request justification of the wage.
There is another factor to consider in determining the prevailing wage before filing the LCA. The employer is required to pay a rate determined by either a prevailing wage or the employer’s actual wages * whichever is higher. Why is this? The government agencies involved do not want employers to use the OES/SOC survey or other wage data to undercut U.S. worker wages where the employer is paying more than the prevailing wage.
How are actual wages determined? Very simply, by averaging the wages of workers in similar positions at the company to that of the H-1B worker. For example, if you employ six Jr. Engineers, only one of which is in H-1B visa status, you may simply average the wages of the remaining five. If this figure is higher than the prevailing wage, the employer is required to pay the H-1B worker at the actual wage rate.
A prudent employer, with several workers in the same position as the H-1B worker, will provide actual wages to support the LCA as well as a survey or other data regarding the prevailing wage. In case the U.S. Department of Labor questions the wage offered for the position, the employer will not have to go back through their archives to justify their figures.
Why all these number games? Let’s look at some possible outcomes.
If both the prevailing wage and the actual wage are lower than the wage being offered for the H-1B position, there is no problem. The employer should feel confident requesting a Prevailing Wage Determination from their state’s SWA. This will give them a greater degree of protection (a “safe harbor”) should the U.S. Department of Labor ever inquire as to how the H-1B wage was determined.
What if the actual wage is lower, but the prevailing wage is higher than the wage being offered? When this happens, one possible solution is to use the “95% rule”. Because the prevailing wage is based on survey data that can be flawed, there is a 5% cushion that can cover wages very close to the prevailing wage. Thus, the employer can offer a wage on the LCA that represents 95% of the prevailing wage figure.
What if the actual wage is higher and the prevailing wage is lower than the wage offered to the H-1B worker? When this happens, the employer must pay the H-1B worker at the actual wage rate. Employers can double check to see if their actual wage figures really represent the wages of the H-1B worker’s peers. Are they all in the same profession and skill level? Are there employees factored into the actuals that are senior to the H-1B worker’s position?
Where both the prevailing wage and the actual wage are higher than the H-1B wage there is a concern. It will look like the employer is trying to undercut the wages of U.S. workers * exactly the situation the government wants to prevent. The employer may wish to re-visit their job offer, and adjust the wage upward.
To learn more about immigration laws and regulations relating to H-1B status and LCAs, see https://www.shusterman.com/departmentoflaborusimmigration.html#5 and click on “H-1B and LCA Regulations” and/or “H-1B Specialty (Professional) Workers”.
Next month – Prevailing wages for Labor Certification Applications.
Here is a partial list of Immigration Seminars in which I will participate during the next few months:
A) September 19, 2002 – Los Angeles, California
“Immigration Law Training Course” – Sponsored by the Immigrant Legal Assistant Project, Los Angeles County Bar Association
(I will speak on “Introduction to Immigrant Visas”.)
B) October 3, 2002, 7:00-9:00pm – New York City, New York
“Transaction into the Post-Residency Period”
I will speak on “J-1 Waivers for IMGs”.
and click on “IMG Slide Show”. You then have the option of clicking on the titles of individual slides to the left of the screen, or seeing the entire automated Slide Show by clicking on the words “Slide Show” in the bottom, right corner of the pop-up window.
Roosevelt Hospital, 1000 10th Avenue
(between 58th and 59th Street), 2nd Floor
Conference Room 2B
Please RSVP to Dinu Gangure, MD
Free entrance, free food
C) October 31 – 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.)
D) 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 on “Using the Web to Practice Immigration Law”)
E) November 14-16, 2002 Monterey, California
“15th Annual California Chapters Conference” – Sponsored by the American Immigration Lawyers Association
(I will be speaking about “Health Care Workers”.)
For additional information, see
“under Events and CLE”
F) November 18-19, 2002 San Francisco, California
“35th Annual Immigration & Naturalization Institute” – Sponsored by the Practising Law Institute
(I am on 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
or call (800) 260-4PLI
G) December 5, 2002 Sacramento, California
“Shoulder to Shoulder: Building on our Successes for Rural Health Solutions” – California State Rural Health Association Annual Conference
Dear Mr. Shusterman:
The gentleman in the photograph is Gerald Gunther, a renowned jurist, writer, and scholar. His casebook “Constitutional Law” is the bible for thousands of law students. He was born in Usingen im Taunus, Germany, on May 26, 1927. Mr. Gunther immigrated to the United States at the age of 11. He was a Professor of Constitutional Law at Stanford University from 1962 until his death on July 30, 2002.
Congratulations, America! You are our first “Triple Crown” winner!
For more detailed information on Professor Gunther, a Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany who became a top constitutional scholar, see
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/report/news/august7/guntherobit-87.html (Link no longer operational)
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
America is like a quilt — many patches, many pieces, many colors, many sizes, all woven and held together by a common thread.”
– Henry M. Jackson
Newsletter US Immigration Update September 2002 – Quick Links
Back Issues of Our Newsletter
Schedule a Legal Consultation
Subscribe to Our Newsletter
September 12, 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.