Archive for February, 2011
Sunday, February 20th, 2011
One of the safest large cities in the United States may go under the spotlight as the governor of a budget-stricken state goes on the offensive against illegal immigration.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry stated in early January that he believes immigration enforcement is a duty of both state officials and federal authority, mirroring Arizona’s controversial stance on the issue.
Meanwhile, the city of El Paso, Tex. – which sits right on the Texas border with Mexico – ranks as the safest large city in the United States due to the mutual trust between the law enforcement community there and the largely Mexican immigrant community.
That trust, however, may soon be diminished, as Perry has asked the state’s Republican-led state legislature to enact a law similar to Arizona’s controversial SB 1070, requiring police and sheriffs to ask the immigration status of the people they encounter while at work.
“Isn’t it ironic that in the face of a $25 billion budget shortfall, Gov. Perry insists that a crackdown on illegal immigration is an emergency item for the state to consider?” asked Dallas-based immigration attorney Stewart Rabinowitz of the firm Rabinowitz & Rabinowitz. “The immigration issue appears to be a convenient diversion. Requiring state and local immigration-related action will cost state and local resources, and actually lessen public safety.”
State Republicans plan to bring approximately 40 bills targeting illegal immigration to the floor of Texas legislature this session. One would require local law enforcement to ask those pulled over at a traffic stop if they are in the country illegally if they are not carrying identification. Another requires schools to identify children who are illegal immigrants.
Sheriff Richard Wiles of El Paso County has stated that he believes the laws would do more harm than good. He said that it should not be the job of local police to do a federal duty, and many officers are ill prepared to handle the judgment calls that they may be required to make.
“What is the incentive to report crimes or even to testify for persons illegally in the U.S. if the result of police contact is removal from the U.S.? Law enforcement in many cities, including El Paso, have worked hard to develop a trusted and close relationship, which state imposed immigration status checks will undermine,” Rabinowitz said.
To learn more about Rabinowitz & Rabinowitz, P.C., call 1.972.233.6200 or visit Rabinowitzrabinowitz.com.
Tags: Dallas immigration, Dallas Immigration attorney, Dallas Immigration lawyer
Posted in Press Releases | No Comments »
Tuesday, February 15th, 2011
The United States Government Accountability Office recently completed a comprehensive study of the H-1B visa program. Congress asked the GAO to investigate several aspects of the H-1B program to ensure that the program was serving its purpose.
The H-1B program allows U.S. employers to temporarily hire foreign workers in specialty occupations. Congress asked the GAO to examine the employer demand for H-1B workers and how the cap of 65,000 H-1B visas per fiscal year affects employers’ bottom lines and their ability to maintain their business in the U.S., rather than shuttering and relocating to foreign countries. Congress also asked the GAO to study H-1B worker characteristics, the potential impact of raising the 65,000-visa cap and how well the H-1B requirements protect U.S. workers.
The study found that demand for H-1B workers exceeded the 65,000-visa cap. A small group of employers made up a large percent of businesses applying for H-1B visas, with 1 percent of businesses requesting over one quarter of H-1B allotment.
The report also found that H-1B employees generally earn favorable salaries.
“When comparing reported U.S. worker salaries to H-1B workers in the same fields and age groups, the GAO reported that the H-1B workers earned either the same or more than similarly employed U.S. workers,” said Dallas-based immigration attorney Stewart Rabinowitz of the firm Rabinowitz & Rabinowitz. “This finding undercuts H-1B opponents’ contention that US employers hire H-1B workers because such workers will and do work for lower wages than U.S. workers.”
Some employers reported to the GAO that the cap resulted in increased costs. When the cap was hit, small firms reported that they had to fill their positions with different candidates, costing them delays and some economic losses. Some employers also reported that the H-1B lottery process that goes into effect when the cap is reached was unfavorable, as it did not allow them to prioritize candidates if they submitted more than one position.
“Numerical limitations on the H-1B visa classification, according to the GAO, affected certain U.S. employers with research and development centers abroad. Better than 25 percent of U.S. employers responded that the H-1B program in its current confiuration played an important role in setting up those centers abroad, based in part, on the uncertainty of obtaining H-1B visas for needed talent in the U.S.,” Rabinowitz said.
Upon completion of the study, GAO recommended that Congress re-examine provisions of the H-1B program and attempt to improve efficiency, flexibility and monitoring.
To learn more about Rabinowitz & Rabinowitz, P.C., call 1.972.233.6200 or visit .Rabinowitzrabinowitz.com.
Tags: Dallas immigration, Dallas Immigration attorney, Dallas Immigration lawyer
Posted in Press Releases | No Comments »
Friday, February 11th, 2011
Number 30
Volume IX
Washington, D.C.
A. STATUTORY NUMBERS
1. This bulletin summarizes the availability of immigrant numbers during March. Consular officers are required to report to the Department of State documentarily qualified applicants for numerically limited visas; the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services in the Department of Homeland Security reports applicants for adjustment of status. Allocations were made, to the extent possible under the numerical limitations, for the demand received by February 9th in the chronological order of the reported priority dates. If the demand could not be satisfied within the statutory or regulatory limits, the category or foreign state in which demand was excessive was deemed oversubscribed. The cut-off date for an oversubscribed category is the priority date of the first applicant who could not be reached within the numerical limits. Only applicants who have a priority date earlier than the cut-off date may be allotted a number. Immediately that it becomes necessary during the monthly allocation process to retrogress a cut-off date, supplemental requests for numbers will be honored only if the priority date falls within the new cut-off date which has been announced in this bulletin.
2. Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320.
3. Section 203 of the INA prescribes preference classes for allotment of immigrant visas as follows:
FAMILY-SPONSORED PREFERENCES
First: Unmarried Sons and Daughters of Citizens: 23,400 plus any numbers not required for fourth preference.
Second: Spouses and Children, and Unmarried Sons and Daughters of Permanent
Residents: 114,200, plus the number (if any) by which the worldwide family preference level exceeds 226,000, and any unused first preference numbers:
A. Spouses and Children: 77% of the overall second preference limitation,
of which 75% are exempt from the per-country limit;
B. Unmarried Sons and Daughters (21 years of age or older): 23% of the overall second preference limitation.
Third: Married Sons and Daughters of Citizens: 23,400, plus any numbers not required by first and second preferences.
Fourth: Brothers and Sisters of Adult Citizens: 65,000, plus any numbers not required by first three preferences.
EMPLOYMENT-BASED PREFERENCES
First: Priority Workers: 28.6% of the worldwide employment-based preference level, plus any numbers not required for fourth and fifth preferences.
Second: Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or Persons of Exceptional Ability: 28.6% of the worldwide employment-based preference level, plus any numbers not required by first preference.
Third: Skilled Workers, Professionals, and Other Workers: 28.6% of the worldwide level, plus any numbers not required by first and second preferences, not more than 10,000 of which to “Other Workers”.
Fourth: Certain Special Immigrants: 7.1% of the worldwide level.
Fifth: Employment Creation: 7.1% of the worldwide level, not less than 3,000 of which reserved for investors in a targeted rural or high-unemployment area, and 3,000 set aside for investors in regional centers by Sec. 610 of P.L. 102-395.
4. INA Section 203(e) provides that family-sponsored and employment-based preference visas be issued to eligible immigrants in the order in which a petition in behalf of each has been filed. Section 203(d) provides that spouses and children of preference immigrants are entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration, if accompanying or following to join the principal. The visa prorating provisions of Section 202(e) apply to allocations for a foreign state or dependent area when visa demand exceeds the per-country limit. These provisions apply at present to the following oversubscribed chargeability areas: CHINA-mainland born, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, INDIA, MEXICO, and PHILIPPINES.
5. On the chart below, the listing of a date for any class indicates that the class is oversubscribed (see paragraph 1); “C” means current, i.e., numbers are available for all qualified applicants; and “U” means unavailable, i.e., no numbers are available. (NOTE: Numbers are available only for applicants whose priority date is earlier than the cut-off date listed below.)
| Family |
All Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed |
CHINA-mainland born |
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC |
INDIA |
MEXICO |
PHILIPPINES |
| 1st |
01JAN05 |
01JAN05 |
01JAN05 |
01JAN05 |
01FEB93 |
15DEC94 |
| 2A |
01JAN07 |
01JAN07 |
01JAN07 |
01JAN07 |
01JAN06 |
01JAN07 |
| 2B |
15APR03 |
15APR03 |
01JAN01 |
15APR03 |
15JUL92 |
01AUG99 |
| 3rd |
01JAN01 |
01JAN01 |
01JAN01 |
01JAN01 |
01NOV92 |
08DEC91 |
| 4th |
01JAN00 |
01JAN00 |
01JAN00 |
01JAN00 |
22JAN96 |
15JAN88 |
*NOTE: For March, 2A numbers EXEMPT from per-country limit are available to applicants from all countries with priority dates earlier than 01JAN06. 2A numbers SUBJECT to per-country limit are available to applicants chargeable to all countries EXCEPT MEXICO with priority dates beginning 01JAN06 and earlier than 01JAN07. (All 2A numbers provided for MEXICO are exempt from the per-country limit; there are no 2A numbers for MEXICO subject to per-country limit.)
| Employment- Based |
All Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed |
CHINA- mainland born |
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC |
INDIA |
MEXICO |
PHILIPPINES |
| 1st |
C |
C |
C |
C |
C |
C |
| 2nd |
C |
08JUL06 |
C |
08MAY06 |
C |
C |
| 3rd |
01JUL05 |
22JAN04 |
01JUL05 |
15MAR02 |
08JAN04 |
01JUL05 |
| Other Workers |
15JUN03 |
22APR03 |
15JUN03 |
15MAR02 |
01MAY03 |
15JUN03 |
| 4th |
C |
C |
C |
C |
C |
C |
| Certain Religious Workers |
C |
C |
C |
C |
C |
C |
| 5th |
C |
C |
C |
C |
C |
C |
| Targeted Employment Areas/ Regional Centers |
C |
C |
C |
C |
C |
C |
| 5th Pilot Programs |
C |
C |
C |
C |
C |
C |
The Department of State has available a recorded message with visa availability information which can be heard at: (area code 202) 663-1541. This recording will be updated in the middle of each month with information on cut-off dates for the following month.
Employment Third Preference Other Workers Category: Section 203(e) of the NACARA, as amended by Section 1(e) of Pub. L. 105-139, provides that once the Employment Third Preference Other Worker (EW) cut-off date has reached the priority date of the latest EW petition approved prior to November 19, 1997, the 10,000 EW numbers available for a fiscal year are to be reduced by up to 5,000 annually beginning in the following fiscal year. This reduction is to be made for as long as necessary to offset adjustments under the NACARA program. Since the EW cut-off date reached November 19, 1997 during Fiscal Year 2001, the reduction in the EW annual limit to 5,000 began in Fiscal Year 2002.
B. DIVERSITY IMMIGRANT (DV) CATEGORY
Section 203(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides a maximum of up to 55,000 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. The Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) passed by Congress in November 1997 stipulates that beginning with DV-99, and for as long as necessary, up to 5,000 of the 55,000 annually-allocated diversity visas will be made available for use under the NACARA program. This reduction has resulted in the DV-2011 annual limit being reduced to 50,000. DV visas are divided among six geographic regions. No one country can receive more than seven percent of the available diversity visas in any one year.
For March, immigrant numbers in the DV category are available to qualified DV-2011 applicants chargeable to all regions/eligible countries as follows. When an allocation cut-off number is shown, visas are available only for applicants with DV regional lottery rank numbers BELOW the specified allocation cut-off number:
| Region |
All DV Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed Separately |
|
| AFRICA |
31,950 |
Except: Egypt 24,275
Ethiopia 18,650
Nigeria 13,100 |
| ASIA |
17,200 |
|
| EUROPE |
20,450 |
|
| NORTH AMERICA (BAHAMAS) |
7 |
|
| OCEANIA |
900 |
|
| SOUTH AMERICA, and the CARIBBEAN |
1,025 |
|
Entitlement to immigrant status in the DV category lasts only through the end of the fiscal (visa) year for which the applicant is selected in the lottery. The year of entitlement for all applicants registered for the DV-2011 program ends as of September 30, 2011. DV visas may not be issued to DV-2011 applicants after that date. Similarly, spouses and children accompanying or following to join DV-2011 principals are only entitled to derivative DV status until September 30, 2011. DV visa availability through the very end of FY-2011 cannot be taken for granted. Numbers could be exhausted prior to September 30.
C. ADVANCE NOTIFICATION OF THE DIVERSITY (DV) IMMIGRANT CATEGORY RANK
CUT-OFFS WHICH WILL APPLY IN APRIL
For April, immigrant numbers in the DV category are available to qualified DV-2011 applicants chargeable to all regions/eligible countries as follows. When an allocation cut-off number is shown, visas are available only for applicants with DV regional lottery rank numbers BELOW the specified allocation cut-off number:
| Region |
All DV Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed Separately |
|
| AFRICA |
35,450 |
Except: Egypt 27,600
Ethiopia 22,150
Nigeria 14,100 |
| ASIA |
19,250 |
Except: Bangladesh 18,350 |
| EUROPE |
23,200 |
|
| NORTH AMERICA (BAHAMAS) |
8 |
|
| OCEANIA |
1,000 |
|
| SOUTH AMERICA, and the CARIBBEAN |
1,075 |
|
D. RETROGRESSION OF FAMILY PREFERENCE CUT-OFF DATES
Continued heavy applicant demand for numbers in the Family F2A preference category has required the retrogression of the Worldwide, China-mainland born, Dominican Republic, India, and Philippines cut-off dates for the month of March. Should the current and recent retrogressions have the intended impact to slow demand for numbers, it is anticipated that these cut-off could begin to move forward slowly in the coming months.
Further retrogressions cannot be ruled out should demand continue at the current levels for some categories and countries.
Tags: Dallas immigration, Dallas Immigration attorney, Dallas Immigration Attorneys, Dallas Immigration lawyer, Dallas Immigration lawyers
Posted in Visa Bulletin Fiscal Year 2011 | No Comments »
The five former communist nations of Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Macedonia and Slovenia were added to a list of countries whose nationals are eligible to participate in the H-2A and H-2B programs. Also added were the Oceanic countries of Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuval and Vanuatu. The island nation of Barbados in the Caribbean was also added. The new additions bring the total of countries who are eligible for temporary guest-worker visas this year to 53.
Countries eligible for the program are updated yearly. A total of 38 countries remained on the list from last year to this year, though Indonesia was removed because it “is not meeting the standards set out in the regulation,” according to USCIS.
A country must meet four factors to have its citizens deemed eligible to apply for H-2A and H-2B visas. The factors include: the country’s cooperation in issuing travel documents for citizens and residents who are subject to a final order of removal, the number of final and unexecuted orders of removal against citizens and residents, the number of executed orders of removal against citizens and residents, and other factors that serve the U.S. interest.
H-2A and H-2B allow U.S. businesses to hire foreign nationals to fill jobs for which U.S. citizens cannot meet the need.
H-2A visas allow foreign nationals into the U.S. for temporary or seasonal agricultural work. There are currently 30,000 such workers in the United States, who are covered under law by U.S. wage laws, worker’s compensation and other standards.
H-2B visas allow employers to hire foreign nationals for temporary nonagricultural services or labor. Employers who wish to employ H-2B workers must apply for certification. H-2B workers can only be hired if there are insufficient U.S. workers who can fulfill the need for the temporary service and if their employment will not affect the wages and conditions of similarly situated U.S. workers, in addition to meeting other requirements.
Stewart Rabinowitz is President of Rabinowitz & Rabinowitz, P.C. Mr. Rabinowitz is Board Certified in Immigration and Nationality Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. To contact a Dallas immigration lawyer or Dallas immigration attorney visit Rabinowitzrabinowitz.com
The Obama Administration pulled the plug in mid-January, 2011, on a plan to build a high-tech border fence on the United States and Mexico border in Arizona.
The project, which would have cost taxpayers $2.5 billion, involved the installation of sensors and cameras at the U.S.-Mexico border to detect illegal crossers.
The Department of Homeland Defense has been reviewing the plan for the past year, after DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano asked for an assessment of the program to determine its value. Initial results proved poor for the plan, which has been plagued since its inception by cost overruns, technological failures and delays.
The plan took a huge hit in May when a Government Accountability Office determined that the capabilities of the fence had shrunk from the initial plan.
In its place, the DHS plans to implement a new plan comprised of a combination existing, proven technology. It will use mobile surveillance systems, unmanned aircraft and thermal-imaging devices, and will cost $750 million, significantly lower than the cost of the canceled plan. Napolitano said that the new plan will also cover 323 miles of the Arizona border, a dramatic increase from the 53 miles that the canceled plan would have covered.
Funding for the program, known as SBInet, had been frozen since March while the assessment was being carried out.
DHS officials said that some aspects of the SBInet system had been successful in testing, including stationary radar and infrared and optical sensor towers, and may be included in future plans.
Some members of Congress applauded the DHS decision, calling the program “unrealistic” and “long-troubled.” Even Obama’s critics in Congress did not challenge the decision to shut down the project.
“The SBInet program has been a grave and expensive disappointment since its inception,” said Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, the ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee. “Our committee has held 11 hearings on the project, commissioned five critical GAO reports, all while costing taxpayers nearly $1 billion for only 53 miles of coverage. I am glad that DHS and [U.S. Customs and Border Protection] are finally listening to what we have been saying for years – that the sheer size and variations of our borders show us a one-stop solution has never been best.”
Stewart Rabinowitz is President of Rabinowitz & Rabinowitz, P.C. Mr. Rabinowitz is Board Certified in Immigration and Nationality Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. To contact a Dallas immigration lawyer or Dallas immigration attorney visit Rabinowitzrabinowitz.com
