USA Green Card Immigration Blog

The U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that the Advance Parole Documents (Form I-512) will be reissued to the applicants who have received the forms with an incorrect issue date of January 5, 1990. The USCIS has identified all the incorrect documents. All the individuals who received an incorrect document will automatically be reissued with correct documents.The applicants with pending applications need not worry or call the USCIS as the documents with correct expiration date will remain accurate. If the applications have not been processed within the normal processing time of 90 days, then the applicants can contact the USCIS for the processing of their pending applications.

Travel documents are important for non-USA citizens, giving them the permission to return to USA after travelling abroad. Advance parole documents give the foreign nationals permission to enter the U.S. even if they do not have a valid immigrant visa. The Advance Parole Documents must be approved before you make travel plans to allow you to re-enter U.S.A. Advance Parole documents should be obtained before you travel if you are on an adjustment of status application, waiting to receive a decision from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; holding refugee’s or asylee’s status departing temporarily to apply for a US visa; or having a valid reason to travel abroad temporarily. You need to fill Form I-131 in order to receive the Advance Parole Documents and Form I-512 for the renewal of Advance Parole documents.

If the applicants need to travel urgently, the Advance Parole Documents with the incorrect issue date can be used to travel. The applicants will be enquired by the U. S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), so it is safer to print the re-issue information to communicate with them.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and Los Angeles have announced the immigration integration partnership program. This partnership program used citizenship awareness, education, and outreach to strengthen the immigration integration efforts. This partnership program had a free citizenship information session and naturalization workshop scheduled on January 30, 2010 at Felicitas and Gonzalo Mendez learning center in Northeast Los Angeles. The Los Angeles District Director, Jane Arellano was available for the interaction and question and answer sessions.

The director of U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Alejandro Mayorkas commented that citizenship is a key to create opportunities, strengthen communities and allow immigrants to become legal members of the nation. He also added that it was an honor to partner with the Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa in serving the public to help them receive their citizenships.

The Los Angeles residents attended a series of well-planned citizenship information sessions and other activities. The activities included broadcasting of USCIS educational materials with respect to U.S. citizenship and immigration process at facilities in the city. This program was targeted to create awareness among capable residents about citizenship rights, responsibilities, and the naturalization process.

Los Angeles is the second largest city with a diverse population with immigrants who come from140 countries and speak 224 languages. Mayor Villaraigosa stated that the city of Los Angeles will open the economical opportunities to diligent immigrants and their families. This immigration integration partnership with U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is to educate and encourage the Angelenos to become American citizens. As the first city to enter into this partnership with USCIS, Los Angeles decided to work hard to strengthen the local immigration integration process. This immigration integration partnership program will be in effect for two years and the USCIS will continue to assess the efficacy of the program to replicate the same in other locations.

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services have announced two specialized categories for screening Haitian children authorized by the Department of Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano after the Haitian earthquake. These two categories is applicable to those Haitian children who were adopted or in the process by American families before Jan12, 2010.

The first category applies to children who have been legally confirmed as orphans and termed eligible for inter country adoption by the Government of Haiti (GOH.) The second category applies to children who can be matched to American prospective adoptive parents and have been previously identified through an Adoption Service Provider (ASP) or an inter country adoption facilitator. Each category has a list of eligibility requirements.

Eligible children for this program are required to be taken for orphan screening. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has given a set of instructions to adoptive parent in the United States, adoptive parents in Haiti with adoptive child, and orphanage directors or other individuals caring for orphan children. As per the instructions, it is essential that an appointment for orphan screening is requested. Adoptive parent in the United States are required to send an email with the appointment request as the subject line.

The body of the email should have the child’s full name, child’s date of birth, where the child is living, and any vulnerability regarding the child. It is better to have the adoption document, identity document, and current photos of the child during orphan screening. Groups of children in an orphanage can be brought together for the orphan screening. It is advised to take an appointment earlier so that all the children in one orphanage can be screened at the same time.

For a kid in an orphanage, the appointment request email’s subject line should be orphanage seeking appointment. The body of the email should have details about all the children and details about prospective parents. For an adoptive parent in Haiti with adoptive child, the subject line of the appointment request email, should state urgent-adoptive parent in Haiti. The body of the email must contain the parent’s name and the address in addition to the child’s details.

Revisions to the Form I-601, application for Waiver of Ground of Inadmissibility, have been announced by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). As per the revisions made to the application for Waiver of Ground of Inadmissibility, from January 4, 2010, individuals infected with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) are admissible to the United States and they also don’t have to file the Form I-601 due to HIV infection.

In the new version, USCIS has also declared the revised filing instructions and addresses that are to be followed by the individuals filing Form I-601. The basic idea behind all the efforts taken to change the filling location is to shift the intake of benefit forms from USCIS local offices and Service Centres to USCIS Lockbox facilities. USCIS aims at providing customers with more proficient and effectual initial processing of applications and fees by centralizing form and fee intake to a Lockbox environment.

The filing location changes for applicants located in the United States have been put into effect from 1/27/2010. For instance, the USCIS Vermont Service Center takes in applications from people who have an approved Form I-360 in several categories, such as a self-petitioning spouse, a legal permanent resident, or T nonimmigrant’s trying to adjust their status.

On the other hand, applicants from outside United States as usual can file their forms for Waiver of Ground of Inadmissibility with the with the U.S. Embassy or consulate where they are applying for a visa.

Applicants filing for Form I-601 at a Lockbox facility can also opt to receive an email or a text regarding USCIS acceptance of their application. For this the applicant only needs to attach an E-Notification of Application to the first page of the application.

USCIS offices plan to forward the incorrectly filed Form I-601 applications to the Lockbox facilities, where they will be retained till 2/27/2010, before being sent back to the applicant.

US Immigration Service Grants Reprieve to Haitian Immigrants | Americas | English.

A new immigration program for Haitian citizens living in the United States:

Haitian nationals will be able to remain in the U.S. legally, be able to obtain authorization to work legally in the United States, and be eligible to obtain permission to travel outside the United  States.

Being able to travel home to help without fear of being denied re-entry to the U.S. is key.

Only Haitians already in the U.S. are eligible for temporary protected status.

Hiring of foreign nationals for skilled labor in agricultural and farm needs dates back to history in the U.S. Sheepherding demands around the clock work and not many U.S nationals were ready to take it up as an occupation. Growing need for sheepherders called for importing trained foreign nationals as sheepherders. Earlier in 1950s, three laws were enforced by congress, which approved entry of the other nationals for permanent employment as sheepherders, speedy visa issuance, and permanent residence in the U.S.

Later, numerous allegations arose concerning the foreign national sheepherders who quit the sheepherding in a short while and started finding jobs in other industries. Further investigations by the House Judiciary Committee corroborated that the animal husbandry industry had not gained much from the other national sheepherding recruits as expected. The special legislations in favor of the foreign national sheepherders came to an end. They were classified as the H-2 temporary workers under the Immigration and National Act as per which the sheepherders were allowed to seasonal stay only. H2-A visa program enabled the agricultural employers to bring foreign nationals as H2-A sheepherders to work in the U.S. for a short period on a contract basis.

Later in January 2010, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Grants One announced the one time accommodation for sheepherders, which extends the H2-A shepherds transitory period to a maximum of three years. This came into vogue from January 17, 2010. The tenure of foreign nationals as sheepherders before the announcement would not be taken into account the three year period. The H2-A sheepherders are to depart from the U.S. after completion of three years, for a period of three months. This departure is a necessary for the sheepherder to become once again be acknowledged for the H2-A status.

The Department of State, on December 14, 2009, published a proposed rule to increase the U.S non-immigration visa application fees, also called as the Machine-Readable Visa (MRV) fee and Border Crossing Card (BCC) fees. The non-immigration visa application fees have been raised from its current $131 to $140 and the immigration rule is published in the Federal Register. The proposed rule will bring a layered structure with separate fees based upon the visa category.

The proposed new non-immigration visa application fees are meant to cover the cost of processing non-immigrant visas and border crossing cards. Border crossing cards are issued to certain adult applicants in Mexico. Basically this proposal is initiated to overpower the growing cost of processing non-immigrant visas (NIVs). Some of the categories of non-immigrant visas are very intricate that need profound consideration than other categories of non-immigrant visas, resulting in higher costs.

Under the newly proposed immigration rule, the following visa categories will pay the new non-immigration visa application fees that include

• E (treaty trader and investor)

• H (temporary worker or trainee)

• K (fiancé(e))

• L (Intracompany transferee)

• O (alien with extraordinary ability)

• P (athlete, artist or entertainer)

• Q (international cultural exchange visitors)

• R (religious worker).

Visas that are not petition-based, such as B1/B2 tourist and business visitor visas and all student and exchange-visitor visas are required to pay a fee of $140. Petition-based visas would pay $150 for an application. This category includes H visa for temporary workers and trainees, L visa for Intracompany transferees, O visa for aliens with extraordinary ability, P visa for athletes, artists and entertainers, Q visa for international cultural exchange visitors, and R visa for religious occupations. The K and E visa applications will cost $350 and $390 respectively.

The new immigration rule regarding the U.S non-immigrant visa application fees will come into effect only after the Department of State considering public comments.

The Department of State is proposing to redress and enhance the present Exchange Visitor Program regulations by arranging more specificity and clarity to the sponsors of the visiting students of the Secondary School Student category. This decision is in respect to the implementation of the responsibilities of the sponsor under exchange visitor programs.

The Exchange Visitor Program is for promoting mutual discernment between the people of the United States of America and the people of other countries. This is carried out by implementing cultural and educational exchanges under the U.S. law. The Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) help the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the U.S. Department of State to school and exchange programs and also the visitors.

The existing regulations about the screening, selection, school enrolment, orientation, and monitoring overall caliber assurance of student participants in the immigration policy are to be upgraded by the U.S. Department of State. It has also decided to rework on quality assurance monitoring.

This is in effect to the placement of students with undesirable or poorly selected host families, affecting the safety, and well being of the student exchange visitors. According to the Department of State, the inefficient screening of the host families is due to the dearth of fair specificity in the decree or lack of minimum industry standards.

The Department also concedes that the coordinators, who act as agents for the visiting students, are important for a fruitful exchange program. These local coordinators practice unconstrained judgment related the host families’ capabilities. Their main concern is to determine the key factors, such as the family’s potential to provide appropriate and developing home conditions for a student and whether the family is an applicable match for the student. The financial condition of the host family will also be taken into consideration.

With these specifications, the U.S. Department of State will also conduct a testing and certification programme annually for all local as well as regional coordinators. Among other things, this programme will necessitate enumerating the Department’s regulatory conditions and also the sponsoring the organization.

An announcement was made by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s on November 27, 2009 regarding immigration laws of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI.) The announcement states that the immigration laws of CNMI will be replaced by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and other U.S. immigration laws on November 28, 2009. This new amendment eases restrictions and provides new privileges to CNMI residents who wish to live and work in the United States.

In order to address key changes under the Consolidated Natural Resources Act, five new transition rules were published in the Federal Register in the year 2009. They are listed below:

• The U.S. Customs and Border Protection issued a rule on the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program extending the admission period from 15 days to 45 days. The geographic area has also been extended from Guam-only to Guam and the CNMI. The list of eligible countries and geographical areas has also been modified.

• USCIS has opened an Application Support Center (ASC) at TSL Plaza in Saipan to provide biometric services including fingerprint capture, photographs, and signature. They also provide other services like naturalization and adjustment of status interviews and answer questions on immigration to the public.

• USCIS has published a proposed rule that created CNMI-specific nonimmigrant investor visa classification known as “E-2 CNMI Investor” status. This status allows CNMI investors to remain in CNMI for a transition period under the “E-2 CNMI Investor” status. They can enter and exit CNMI with E-2 CNMI Investor visas.

• USCIS has also published an interim rule that classifies Transitional Worker visa during the transition period. Alien workers, who have performed services for an employer, but were ineligible for other INA classifications were allowed to receive nonimmigrant visa classification.

• USCIS and the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review published an interim rule to revise immigration rules to implement the new laws applying to CNMI.

Keep ugliness out of immigration debate – CNN.com.

San Diego, California (CNN) — ‘Tis the season of peace on Earth and good will toward men. Yet you wouldn’t know it from the screed from the conservative radio talk show host who recently charged into the immigration debate with gums flapping.

He called for a crackdown on illegal immigration but also a wholesale tightening of immigration policy so we admit fewer legal immigrants as well.

The radio talker was half-right. Americans must get serious about stopping illegal immigration, mostly by doing something we never seem to do with much enthusiasm: punish employers. But legal immigration shouldn’t be dragged into the mix.

Legal immigrants — with their energy, passion and optimism — have always been this country’s most valuable import. Even in bad economic times, we need more of them and not less.

Still, the worst part was the wildly inappropriate language the host used to justify his position. He was dangerously out-of-bounds in framing the issue as one of protecting society from the latest wave of immigrants, most of whom come from Mexico and Latin America. Unless something was done to curb the flow, he said, these foreigners would continue to “alter our demographics, erode our culture, and threaten our language.”

Demographics. Culture. Language.

And people wonder why accusations of racism and ethnocentrism keep surfacing in the immigration debate. It’s because of ugly, alarmist and bigoted statements like these — the sort of poison that has a familiar ring to it.

Let’s be real. Americans have been griping, “There goes the neighborhood” for more than 200 years. The first group of immigrants to the United States who were accused of diminishing the quality of life for everyone else — by altering the demographics, eroding the culture and threatening the language — were the Germans, followed by the Chinese, the Irish, the Italians, the Greeks, the Jews, the Muslims, etc.

Now, it’s the Latinos’ turn to be in the rhetorical crosshairs. They’ll be there again this spring, when the Obama administration has promised to join in an encore to the immigration debate of a few years ago, which, as you may recall, provided substantially more heat than light.

One of the people leading that debate will be Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Illinois, who has said he plans to introduce a comprehensive immigration bill on Tuesday.

The 10-point plan provides for enforcement, but also gives illegal immigrants a pathway to earned legalization, promotes integration of immigrants and tries to manage the future flow of immigrants by protecting American workers from having to compete with foreign workers.

Last week, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, the White House’s designated point person to shepherd immigration reform, told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee what she has in mind.

“We must seize this moment to build a truly effective immigration system that deters illegal immigration, provides effective and enduring enforcement tools, protects workers from exploitation and retaliation and creates a tough but fair path to legalization for the millions of illegal immigrants already here,” Napolitano said.

It’s that last item, a path to legalization for illegal immigrants, that will be the main sticking point. For many Americans, this translates into amnesty for lawbreakers.

Yet, critics come up empty when asked what we should do with 12 million illegal immigrants, given that our deportation process works like a revolving door. Many of those who we deport to a neighboring country like Mexico return before the paperwork is processed. And those who we hope will “self deport” when jobs disappear can opt to “self re-enter” when the economy improves. So that’s no solution.

That’s one of the problems with the immigration debate. Confronted with a complicated situation, the extremes on both sides propose simplistic solutions — whether to build a wall, or unconditionally pardon millions of illegal immigrants with the stroke of a pen.

Another problem with the debate: Both sides insist on blaming others. Neither side wants to take any degree of responsibility for fueling, through their own behavior and hiring practices, America’s addiction to cheap and reliable illegal immigrant labor.

Another problem: Even when the conversation does turn to employers, it is always framed as being about huge companies. What happened to soccer moms? Our leaders in Congress somehow got through months of debate without ever uttering the words “nanny” or “housekeeper.” That’s not easy to do unless you’re really trying to avoid drawing attention to our domestic workforce.

Another problem: Those Americans who are also parents always refuse to accept their role in creating the demand for illegal immigrant workers by raising teenagers and young adults who refuse to do the hard and dirty jobs that their grandparents did a couple of generations ago. Someone has to do those jobs. Guess who does them?

Then, of course, there’s the divisive language and the tendency for some groups to look down on others.

Critics of comprehensive immigration reform can talk all they want about the alleged strain that illegal immigrants put on the U.S. economy, the alleged burden on social services, the porous borders, the undermining of the rule of law, the swelling of the U.S. population, or the alleged lowering of wages by illegal workers and the claim that it puts working-class Americans at an unfair disadvantage.

Those arguments are totally acceptable. But when opponents get down in the mud by mentioning things like demographics or culture or language, they shouldn’t be surprised when they’re accused of racism and ethnocentrism. And even less surprised when the label sticks.

The United States is a remarkable and compassionate country unlike any the world has ever seen. It deserves an immigration debate that is principled, high-minded and purged of the ugliness that has been part of this discussion since the first immigrants arrived. Let’s make it happen this time.