Congressional Report Discusses Role of the Military to Secure U.S. Borders
Dallas-based immigration attorney Stewart Rabinowitz offers informed commentary about Congressional Report.
The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is charged with preventing the entry of terrorists, securing the borders, and carrying out immigration enforcement functions. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), a component of DHS, has primary responsibility for securing the borders of the United States, preventing terrorists and their weapons from entering the United States, and enforcing hundreds of U.S. trade and immigration laws. Within CBP, the U.S. Border Patrol’s mission is to detect and prevent the illegal entry of aliens across the nearly 7,000 miles of Mexican and Canadian international borders and 2,000 miles of coastal borders surrounding Florida and Puerto Rico.
In 2006, in response to requests for support enforcing federal immigration laws from the governors of Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas, President George W. Bush announced the deployment of up to 6,000 National Guard troops along the southern border to support the Border Patrol.
“What Bush did was unprecedented only in respect to the large potential number of National Guard troops to be used explicitly for that purpose, but it was certainly an escalation of the status quo,” explained Dallas-based immigration attorney Stewart Rabinowitz, “Bush also received a lot of political pressure from Conservatives to take such action.”
During 2006-2008, more than 30,000 individuals participated in the mission “Operation Jump Start.”
“There’s considerable debate about what the mission actually jump started,” Rabinowitz said.
The report concluded that illegal drug activities and crime continue. The day after the murder of Arizona rancher Robert Krentz on March 27, 2010, the Border Patrol seized 290 pounds of marijuana near his ranch. “That incident was also one of several catalysts in helping to bring about Arizona’s controversial and now somewhat embattled immigration law, Senate Bill 1070,” Rabinowitz concluded, “Of course it more directly brought about an increased military presence, especially along Arizona’s border with Mexico.”
The primary restriction on military participation in civilian law enforcement activities is the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA). The PCA prohibits the use of the Army and Air Force to execute the domestic laws of the United States except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress.
To learn more about Rabinowitz & Rabinowitz, P.C., call 1.972.233.6200 or visit http://www.rabinowitzrabinowitz.com.
U.S. Department of Justice Sues Arizona over SB 1070 on Preemptive Grounds
Dallas-based immigration lawyer Stewart Rabinowitz provides timely insights about the controversial suit.
Citing conflict with Federal Law, the Department of Justice has challenged Arizona immigration law Senate Bill 1070. In a brief filed in the District of Arizona, the Department said S.B. 1070 unconstitutionally interferes with the federal government’s authority to set and enforce immigration policy, explaining that “The Constitution and federal law do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country.”
“Having contradictory state and local policies would disrupt federal immigration enforcement, which isn’t necessarily a good idea,” asserts Dallas-based immigration lawyer Stewart Rabinowitz, “It can be argued that the state of Arizona has crossed a constitutional line.”
The Department’s brief said that S.B. 1070 will place significant burdens on federal agencies, diverting their resources away from high-priority targets, such as aliens implicated in terrorism, drug smuggling, gang activity, and those with criminal records. The law’s mandates on Arizona law enforcement will also result in the harassment and detention of foreign visitors and legal immigrants, as well as U.S. citizens, who cannot readily prove their lawful status.
Rabinowitz amplifies the latter point. “Although the Arizona proponents of S.B. 1070 always insist that racial profiling is expressly prohibited in the language of the bill, in practice, just the opposite effect is likely to occur – considering the socio-political milieu which exists in Arizona,” he said.
In declarations filed with the brief, Arizona law enforcement officials, including the Chiefs of Police of Phoenix and Tucson, said that S.B. 1070 will hamper their ability to effectively police their communities. The chiefs said that victims of or witnesses to crimes would be less likely to contact or cooperate with law enforcement officials and that implementation of the law would require them to reassign officers from critical areas such as violent crimes, property crimes, and home invasions.
“It’s likely that enforcement of S.B. 1070 would lead to near-zero enforcement in many areas – creating a kind of chaos,” Rabinowitz concludes.
The Department filed the suit after extensive consultation with Arizona officials, law enforcement officers and groups, and civil rights advocates. The suit was filed on behalf of the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of State, which share responsibilities in administering federal immigration law.
To learn more about Rabinowitz & Rabinowitz, P.C., call 1.972.233.6200 or visit http://www.rabinowitzrabinowitz.com.
ICE Releases 5-Year Strategic Plan Including High Priority to Workplace Compliance
Between fiscal years 2010 and 2014, ICE will prioritize its efforts on the first three homeland security missions identified in the 2010 Quadrennial Homeland Security Report.
Between fiscal years (FY) 2010 and 2014, ICE will prioritize its efforts on the first three homeland security missions identified in the 2010 Quadrennial Homeland Security Report: (1) preventing terrorism and enhancing security; (2) securing and managing our borders; and (3) enforcing and administering our immigration laws.
These priorities, along with ICE’s goals, objectives, and strategies, leave room for adjustment during the next five fiscal years. These goals will guide enforcement initiatives, budget requests, budget execution, resource allocations, and policy decisions.
1. Prevent Terrorism and Enhance Security
ICE seeks to prevent terrorist attacks against the United States and to dismantle threats to homeland security before they materialize. This includes preventing the entry of people and materials that pose a threat to national security; investigating and removing suspected terrorists or their supporters; and preventing the export of weapons and sensitive technologies that could be used to harm the United States, its people, and its allies. Objectives under this heading include: (1.1) prevent terrorist entry into the United States; (1.2) remove individuals posing a security threat; (1.3) support direct investigation of terrorists, and (1.4) protect the United States and its allies through counter-proliferation investigations.
2. Protect the Borders Against Illicit Trade, Travel, and Finance
Transnational criminal and terrorist organizations attempt to exploit lawful movements and transportation systems and to create alternative, illicit pathways through which people and illegal goods – narcotics, funds and weaponry – can cross the border. ICE plays a critical role in the Department’s layered approach to border security. As DHS’s largest investigative agency, ICE responds to investigate criminal activity if U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) interdicts contraband at the border.
3. Protect the Borders Through Smart and Tough Interior Immigration Enforcement
Protecting and securing the borders involves action overseas, at the border and ports of entry, and inside the United States. ICE will engage in effective enforcement at the border and ports of entry by supporting the apprehension, detention, and removal of newly arriving aliens seeking to enter illegally. Within the United States, ICE will pursue an enhanced worksite enforcement program to reduce the incentive for aliens to come to, enter, and remain unlawfully. Towards this end, ICE will make increasing use of employer I-9 audits, fines and criminal indictments where warranted.
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
U. S. Embassy and Consulates Ease Visa Appointments in China
U.S. embassies and consulates liberalize interview appointment policy.
Effective immediately, non-immigrant visa applicants may book interview appointments at any U.S. Consular Section in China, regardless of the province or city where they live. Consular Sections are located at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing and U.S. Consulates General in Chengdu, Guangzhou, Shanghai, and Shenyang.
In 2009, almost half-a-million people received non-immigrant visas in China, more than ever before. The United States government is committed to increasing mutual understanding between the United States and China through people-to-people exchange. The U.S. Department of State is hoping that the elimination of restrictions on where visa applicants can make their applications will promote this exchange by making the application process more convenient.
With the boom of non-immigrant visa applications in U.S. embassies and consulates all over the world, the U.S. Department of State is adopting and transitioning office-by-office to its new online Nonimmigrant Visa Electronic Application recently introduced worldwide. The online application is intended to efficiently collect application information from nonimmigrant visa applicants and to facilitate the visa application process.
Formerly, prior to the streamlining of interview appointment policy which has occurred, appointments for non-immigrant visas had to be made at least 45 days in advance of travel. Even after a visa interview was completed, if special processing/checking, or additional information was required, a background check became a necessary prerequisite, and issuance of nonimmigrant visas were typically delayed.
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
USCIS Proposes to Increase Fees … Again
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services seeks public comment on proposal to adjust fees for immigration benefits. Dallas-based immigration attorney Stewart Rabinowitz weighs in on what he regards as the opposite of “value-added.”
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is seeking public comment on a proposed federal rule that would adjust fees for immigration benefit applications and petitions. The proposal, posted to the Federal Register on June 9, 2010, for public viewing, would increase overall fees by a weighted average of about 10 percent but would not increase the fee for the naturalization application.
USCIS is a fee-based organization with about 90 percent of its budget coming from fees paid by applicants and petitioners to obtain immigration benefits. The law requires USCIS to conduct fee reviews every two years to determine whether it is recovering its costs to administer the nation’s immigration laws, process applications, and provide the infrastructure needed to support these activities. This proposed rule results from a comprehensive fee review begun in 2009.
“We are mindful of the effect of a fee increase on the communities we serve and have worked hard to minimize the size of the proposed increase through budget cuts and other measures,” said USCIS Director Alejandro Mayorkas. “Requesting and obtaining U.S. citizenship deserves special consideration given the unique nature of this benefit to the individual applicant, the significant public benefit to the nation, and the nation’s proud tradition of welcoming new citizens. Recognizing the unique importance of naturalization, we propose that the naturalization application fee not be increased.”
But Dallas-based immigration attorney Stewart Rabinowitz does not concur with Mayorkas, or with the underlying premise of fee increases for services not well rendered.
“Most people associate a fee increase with an improvement in service, not a greater expense for worse service,” countered Rabinowitz, “Yet today, the USCIS’s culture of saying ‘no’ in its decision-making thrives. USCIS has even developed new reasons to say ‘no’ adding an element of uncertainty to case adjudications which previously were straightforward. It recently issued the Neufeld H-1B memo which skirts the regulatory process and is of questionable authority as a basis for denying IT staffing H-1B petitions. It has made it nearly impossible gaining an approved L-1B petition by applying standards which are much higher than those set forth in USCIS’s own regulations. Even fixing simple USCIS errors on the face of an approval notice remains an exercise in frustration.”
To learn more about Rabinowitz & Rabinowitz, P.C., call 1.972.233.6200 or visit http://www.rabinowitzrabinowitz.com.
Employers Sue to Enjoin USCIS from Applying Definitions of the Employer-Employee Relationship Contained in the Neufeld Memo to H-1B Adjudications
On June 8, 2010, an application for preliminary injunction and complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia which challenges USCIS’s application of the January 8, 2010 Neufeld Memorandum‘s definition of employer-employee relationships. Stewart Rabinowitz, a Dallas-based immigration attorney, offers some pertinent insights.
On June 8, 2010, a group of IT staffing companies, whose H-1B petitions USCIS had denied, filed suit against USCIS in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The lawsuit Broadgate et al versus United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, et al, challenges the controversial Neufeld Memorandum of January 8, 2010, which allegedly clarifies employer-employee relationships within H-1B visa petition adjudications, but in practice has resulted in a preponderance of H-1B denials.
Individual plaintiffs in the case – Broadgate Inc., Logic Planet Inc., DVR Softek Inc., TechServe Alliance, and the American Staffing Association moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent the USCIS from implementing the policy announced in a January 8, 2010 memorandum issued by Donald Neufeld, Associate Director of USCIS. The memorandum declared that a third-party placement contractor is not a United States employer even though the company hires, pays, supervises, fires its employees, and shares control over them, and even though prior to the implementation of the policy initially announced in the memorandum, such an entity was deemed to be a United States employer. It was the preliminary injunction’s contention that this new policy is arbitrary and capricious, while it explicitly changes an existing regulation, limits USCIS’s discretion, and profoundly affects plaintiffs and others outside the government.
Plaintiffs in the suit allege that the Neufeld Memorandum was at odds with the plain language of the statute and its implementing regulations. The Neufeld Memorandum is premised on the assumption that an employee can have only one employer and that “the real employer” is the entity that exercises the greatest day-to-day control. It therefore proclaims that third-party placement contractors that have an overarching right to supervise their employees, that hire, fire and pay their employees and that share control of those employees nevertheless are not valid employees because they have “No Right to Control; No Exercise of Control.” This binding policy is inconsistent with the plain language of the INA which expressly includes contractors as United States employers.
Stewart Rabinowitz, a Dallas-based immigration attorney, concurs. “Broadgate appropriately challenges USCIS agency action on many grounds. Its Complaint alleges a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) by substituting a USCIS-issued memo by a person not authorized to issue a rule, instead of following the statutorily mandated notice and comment requirements of the APA.”
To learn more about Rabinowitz & Rabinowitz, P.C., call 1.972.233.6200 or visit http://www.rabinowitzrabinowitz.com.
July, 2010 Visa Bulletin
Visa Bulletin for July 2010
Number 22
Volume IX
Washington, D.C.
A. STATUTORY NUMBERS
1. This bulletin summarizes the availability of immigrant numbers during July. Consular officers are required to report to the Department of State documentarily qualified applicants for numerically limited visas; U.S. 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 June 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 01APR05 01APR05 01APR05 01APR05 01NOV92 01SEP95
2A 01JUL08 01JUL08 01JUN07 01JUL08 01JUN07 01JUL08
2B 01MAY03 01MAY03 01MAY03 01MAY03 15JUN92 01MAR00
3rd 01SEP01 01SEP01 01SEP01 01SEP01 01MAR92 01MAY93
4th 01JAN01 01JAN01 01JAN01 01JAN01 01MAR95 01APR89
*NOTE: For July, 2A numbers EXEMPT from per-country limit are available to applicants from all countries with priority dates earlier than 01JUN07. 2A numbers SUBJECT to per-country limit are available to applicants chargeable to all countries EXCEPT the DOMINICAN REPUBLIC and MEXICO with priority dates beginning 01JUN07 and earlier than 01JUL08. (All 2A numbers provided for the DOMINICAN REPUBLIC AND MEXICO are exempt from the per-country limit; there are no 2A numbers for the DOMINICAN REPUBLIC AND 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 22NOV05 C 01OCT05 C C
3rd 15AUG03 15AUG03 15AUG03 22NOV01 U 15AUG03
Other Workers 01JUN01 01JUN01 01JUN01 01JUN01 U 01JUN01
4th C C C C C C
Certain Religious Workers C C C C C C
5th C C C C C C
Targeted Employ-ment 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-2010 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 July, immigrant numbers in the DV category are available to qualified DV-2010 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 54,100 Except:
Egypt: 24,500
Ethiopia: 25,100
Nigeria: 18,850
ASIA 23,500
EUROPE 32,000
NORTH AMERICA (BAHAMAS) 5
OCEANIA 1,300
SOUTH AMERICA, and the CARIBBEAN 1,500
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-2010 program ends as of September 30, 2010. DV visas may not be issued to DV-2010 applicants after that date. Similarly, spouses and children accompanying or following to join DV-2010 principals are only entitled to derivative DV status until September 30, 2010. DV visa availability through the very end of FY-2010 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 AUGUST
For August, immigrant numbers in the DV category are available to qualified DV-2010 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 64,300 Except:
Egypt: 26,000
Ethiopia: 25,625
Nigeria: 22,000
ASIA 28,700
EUROPE CURRENT
NORTH AMERICA (BAHAMAS) 5
OCEANIA CURRENT
SOUTH AMERICA, and the CARIBBEAN CURRENT
D. VISA AVAILABILITY IN THE FAMILY-SPONSORED CATEGORIES
There continues to be extremely rapid forward movement of most Family preference cut-off dates. This is a direct result of the lack of demand by potential applicants who have chosen not to pursue final action on their cases, or who may no longer be eligible for status. The rapid movement provides the best opportunity to maximize number use under the FY-2010 annual numerical limitations. Should applicants eventually decide to pursue action on their cases it will have a significant impact on the cut-off dates.
E. RETROGRESSION OF THE MEXICO FAMILY THIRD AND FOURTH PREFERENCE CUT-OFF DATES
As the end of the fiscal year approaches, it has been necessary to retrogress the Mexico Family Third and Fourth preference cut-off dates to keep visa issuances within the annual numerical limitations set by law. It is anticipated that for October, the first month of the new fiscal year, these preferences will return to the latest cut-off dates reached during FY-2010.
F. VISA AVAILABILITY IN THE EMPLOYMENT-BASED CATEGORIES
Based on current indications of demand, the best case scenarios for cut-off dates which will be reached by the end of FY-2010 are as follows:
Employment First: Current
Employment Second:
China and India: March or April 2006
Employment Third:
Worldwide: June through September 2004
China: October through December 2003
India: February 2002
Mexico: Unavailable
Philippines: June through September 2004
Employment Fourth:
Worldwide: It may be necessary to establish a cut-off date for September.
Employment Fifth: Current
Please be advised that the above date ranges are only estimates which are subject to fluctuations in demand. Continued heavy demand during recent months has reduced the estimated forward movements projected earlier in the year. It is possible that some annual limits could be reached or that some preferences could retrogress prior to the end of the fiscal year. Those categories with a “Current” projection will remain so for the foreseeable future.
G. DIVERSITY VISA LOTTERY 2011 (DV-2011) RESULTS
The Kentucky Consular Center in Williamsburg, Kentucky has registered and notified the winners of the DV-2011 diversity lottery. The diversity lottery was conducted under the terms of section 203(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and makes available *50,000 permanent resident visas annually to persons from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States. Approximately 100,600 applicants have been registered and notified and may now make an application for an immigrant visa. Since it is likely that some of the first *50,000 persons registered will not pursue their cases to visa issuance, this larger figure should insure that all DV-2011 numbers will be used during fiscal year 2011 (October 1, 2010 until September 30, 2011).
Applicants registered for the DV-2011 program were selected at random from over 12.1 million qualified entries (16.5 million with derivatives) received during the 60-day application period that ran from noon on October 2, 2009, until noon, November 30, 2009. The visas have been apportioned among six geographic regions with a maximum of seven percent available to persons born in any single country. During the visa interview, principal applicants must provide proof of a high school education or its equivalent, or show two years of work experience in an occupation that requires at least two years of training or experience within the past five years. Those selected will need to act on their immigrant visa applications quickly. Applicants should follow the instructions in their notification letter and must fully complete the information requested.
Registrants living legally in the United States who wish to apply for adjustment of their status must contact U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for information on the requirements and procedures. Once the total *50,000 visa numbers have been used, the program for fiscal year 2011 will end. Selected applicants who do not receive visas by September 30, 2011 will derive no further benefit from their DV-2011 registration. Similarly, spouses and children accompanying or following to join DV-2011 principal applicants are only entitled to derivative diversity visa status until September 30, 2011.
Only participants in the DV-2011 program who were selected for further processing have been notified. Those who have not received notification were not selected. They may try for the upcoming DV-2012 lottery if they wish. The dates for the registration period for the DV-2012 lottery program will be widely publicized during August 2010.
* The Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) passed by Congress in November 1997 stipulated that up to 5,000 of the 55,000 annually-allocated diversity visas be made available for use under the NACARA program. The reduction of the limit of available visas to 50,000 began with DV-2000.
The following is the statistical breakdown by foreign-state chargeability of those registered for the DV-2011 program:
AFRICA
ALGERIA 1,753
ANGOLA 55
BENIN 508
BOTSWANA 13
BURKINA FASO 183
BURUNDI 72
CAMEROON 3,674
CAPE VERDE 26
CENTRAL AFRICAN REP. 18
CHAD 59
COMOROS 7
CONGO 144
CONGO, DEMOCRATIC
REPUBLIC OF THE 2,575
COTE D’IVOIRE 759
DJIBOUTI 45
EGYPT 4,251
EQUATORIAL GUINEA 13
ERITREA 851 ETHIOPIA 5,200
GABON 41
GAMBIA, THE 72
GHANA 6,002
GUINEA 701
GUINEA-BISSAU 5
KENYA 4,689
LESOTHO 11
LIBERIA 1,826
LIBYA 114
MADAGASCAR 55
MALAWI 33
MALI 88
MAURITANIA 25
MAURITIUS 61
MOROCCO 2,003
MOZAMBIQUE 2
NAMIBIA 13
NIGER 89 NIGERIA 6,000
RWANDA 204
SAO TOME AND PRINCIPE 0
SENEGAL 427
SEYCHELLES 4
SIERRA LEONE 3,911
SOMALIA 201
SOUTH AFRICA 963
SUDAN 1,156
SWAZILAND 4
TANZANIA 174
TOGO 1,011
TUNISIA 132
UGANDA 490
WESTERN SAHARA 0
ZAMBIA 128
ZIMBABWE 163
ASIA
AFGHANISTAN 97
BAHRAIN 15
BANGLADESH 5,999
BHUTAN 5
BRUNEI 5
BURMA 367
CAMBODIA 434
HONG KONG SPECIAL
ADMIN. REGION 43
INDONESIA 205
IRAN 2,819 IRAQ 147
ISRAEL 129
JAPAN 298
JORDAN 136
NORTH KOREA 2
KUWAIT 88
LAOS 3
LEBANON 214
MALAYSIA 133
MALDIVES 4
MONGOLIA 279 NEPAL 2,189
OMAN 3
QATAR 9
SAUDI ARABIA 91
SINGAPORE 35
SRI LANKA 515
SYRIA 132
TAIWAN 365
THAILAND 77
TIMOR-LESTE 0
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 66
YEMEN 95
DHS Uses Video Surveillance at the Northern Border
Surveillance systems deployed to northern border provide situational awareness.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection recently announced the use of the
Remote Video Surveillance System (RVSS) in the Detroit Border Patrol Sector as part of the Secure Border Initiative’s Northern Border Project. The Northern Border Project is part of CBP’s program to use technology as part of its efforts to secure the northern border against illegal border crossers. The project also deployed the surveillance system in the Buffalo Border Patrol Sector in February 2010.
“The Northern Border Project technology deployment provides immediate capability to help Border Patrol agents expand their ability to detect, identify, classify, respond to and resolve illegal cross border activity,” said Secure Border Initiative Executive Director Mark Borkowski. “At the same time, this deployment will provide lessons learned that will enable CBP to design better-tailored, longer-term technology options for the northern border.”
Each RVSS system has a total of four cameras – two day and two night cameras for round-the-clock operations. The Detroit sector deployment has 11 RVSS sites along the St. Clair River, ten of which are completed and operational with the eleventh scheduled for completion by year’s end. The Buffalo sector deployment has 5 RVSS sites along the upper Niagara River all of which are completed and operational.
The use of technology along the northern border is part of a larger border security strategy to assist CBP officers and agents. SBInet is the portion of SBI charged with developing and installing technology solutions to help gain effective control of our borders. The goal is the right mix of technology and personnel for each border sector based on the operational needs of Border Patrol agents.
CBP chose the Detroit and Buffalo sectors for this latest RVSS deployment based on the needs of the Border Patrol and the unique operational area, which consists of coastal maritime, river, urban and rural environments.
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
DHS Enhances Air Traveler Security
On June 7, 2010, Secretary Napolitano announced a major aviation security milestone.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano recently announced that all passengers traveling in the United States and its territories are now being checked against terrorist watchlists through the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) Secure Flight program—a major step in fulfilling a key 9/11 Commission recommendation.
Before Secure Flight, each airline conducted its own passenger watchlist screening.
“Secure Flight fulfills a key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission Report, enabling TSA to screen passengers directly against government watchlists using passenger name, date of birth, and gender before a boarding pass is issued,” said Secretary Napolitano. “This program is one of our many layers of security—coordinated with our partners in the airline industry and governments around the world—that we leverage to protect the traveling public against threats of terrorism.”
Under the DHS program, TSA checks each passenger’s name, date of birth and gender against government watchlists for domestic and international flights. In addition to facilitating secure travel for all passengers, the program is designed to prevent the misidentification of passengers who have names similar to individuals on government watchlists. Misidentification has led to a significant number of such cases, a few of them well-publicized.
“We are quite pleased to see the positive outcome from the collaborative work that ATA, its member airlines and TSA have invested in the development of the Secure Flight program,” said Air Transport Association (ATA) President and CEO James C. May. “We are especially pleased that TSA phased program implementation to ensure that commercial airline travelers experience a seamless transition.”
Ninety-nine percent of passengers clear Secure Flight enabling them to print boarding passes at home by providing their date of birth, gender and name as it appears on the government ID they plan to use when traveling at the time of booking their airline tickets. Persons who match watchlist parameters are subject to secondary screening, a law enforcement interview or prohibition from boarding an aircraft, as the facts merit.
The TSA began implementing Secure Flight in late 2009 and expects all international carriers with direct flights to the U.S. to begin using Secure Flight by the end of 2010.
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
Dallas-based Immigration Lawyer Stewart Rabinowitz Offers Insights on Recently Released Report
According to Rabinowitz, of the firm Rabinowitz & Rabinowitz, the report released on April 1, 2010, by Congressional Research Services on U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions implies that U.S. policy faces conflicting and still unresolved issues.
Four major principles underlie current U.S. policy on permanent immigration: the reunification of families, the admission of immigrants with needed skills, the protection of refugees, and the diversity of admissions by country of origin. These principles are embodied in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The INA specifies a complex set of numerical limits and preference categories that give priorities for permanent immigration reflecting these principles. Legal permanent residents (LPRs) refer to foreign nationals who live permanently in the United States.
During FY2008, a total of 1.1 million aliens became LPRs in the United States. Of this total, 64.7% entered on the basis of family ties. Other major categories in FY2008 were employment based LPRs (including spouses and children) at 15.0%, and refugees/asylees adjusting to LPR status at 15.0%. Over 17% of all LPRs come from Mexico, which sent 189,989 LPRs in FY2008.
“But U.S. Immigration Policy is not working well,” asserts Stewart Rabinowitz, a Dallas-based lawyer of the firm Rabinowitz & Rabinowitz, “and neither are efforts to reform it.”
Substantial efforts to reform legal information have failed in the recent past, prompting some to characterize the issue as a “zero-sum game” or a “third rail.”
“The trick is to initiate reforms that balance employer needs by increasing the supply of legally present foreign workers whom the country needs. These include temporary, low skilled, guest workers, and permanent high skilled “best and brightest” workers to keep the U.S. globally competitive while allowing foreign workers to re-unite with their families, and by improving the policies governing immigration comprehensively – and simultaneously,” explains Rabinowitz.
But while state initiated solutions like the controversial Senate Bill 1070 in Arizona have become law to solely address the undocumented population, and an existing federal piece meal enforcement policy such as the somewhat similar 287 (g) program deputizing local and county police to act as immigration officers, neither can be mistaken for an elusive comprehensive policy for immigration reform. Comprehensive reform must address strengthening our borders, creating and implementing a meaningful guest worker program, adequately providing for the high skilled worker needs of the country and deciding upon a policy to address the sizable undocumented population in the country.
“The Arizona law is poorly conceived and sets a dangerous precedent, acting more to polarize and foster discrimination,” Rabinowitz asserts, “and 287 (g) has been an unmitigated disaster, if only from the perspective of documented abuses involving foreign nationals detained by ICE. As far as addressing the significant issues involved, we are still very distant from any sort of comprehensive or meaningful reform. To address competing priorities, some genuine leadership and far-sighted initiatives will be needed, but right now, such a solution seems more like a pipedream,” Rabinowitz concludes.
To learn more about Rabinowitz & Rabinowitz, P.C., call 1.972.233.6200 or visit http://www.rabinowitzrabinowitz.com.