Tag: dhs

Categories
Updates

Who Will Be Affected by Trump’s Proposed Public Charge Rules?

Share this:

On September 22, 2018, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security published on its website a 447 page proposal called the “Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds”. This proposal would have the effect of denying green cards to immigrants who have legally availed public benefits. Obviously, this is part of Trump administration’s overall trend of cracking down on both legal and illegal immigration.

Most non-immigrants and unauthorized immigrants in the United States are not eligible for most public benefits. But for those who find themselves availing of food stamps, housing vouchers and Medicaid, they may face risk to their future immigrant status if the proposal is fully implemented.

What is this new proposal about?

This new proposal refers to a “public charge” finding as a ground for inadmissibility or basis for denial of visas. An individual is considered a public charge if s/he is dependent primarily on government assistance for her/his subsistence.

Currently the public charge rule is that a person who is dependent primarily on welfare or government assistance will be denied a visa if s/he availed of monetary public benefits such as (1) Supplemental Security Income or SSI for the aged, blind and disabled; (2) Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) cash assistance, and (3) State and local cash assistance programs known as General Assistance (GA).

Under the recent proposal, the definition of public benefits in determining whether one is a public charge has been expanded. The additional public benefits are Medicaid (with limited exceptions for medicaid benefits paid for an “emergency medical condition,” and for certain disability services related to education), Medicare part D low income subsidy, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, or Food Stamps), institutionalization for long-term care at government expense, Section 8 housing choice voucher program, Section 8 project-based rental assistance, and public housing.

In addition, the proposal added the totality of circumstances test in determining whether one is a public charge. This means that USCIS examiner or consular officers may now examine varying factors that may lead them to the conclusion that the applicant for visa is likely to become a public charge. These factors include applicant’s age, health, family status, assets, resources, and financial status, and education and skills.

Who are affected by this proposal?

Those affected are those (1) non-immigrants present in the United States who are applicants for adjustment of status; (2) those applying for visas at consular offices abroad and (3) those entering the United States who are found to be receiving public benefits within 5 years of of being a lawful residents or in green card status.

Will green card holders applying for U.S. citizenship be affected?

Generally, a finding of public charge is not a ground for denial of U.S. citizenship and so a green card holder who is an applicant for naturalization is not affected by the proposal. The issue of public charge will only matter and result in denial of U.S. citizenship if during the examination on the naturalization application, it is determined that the green card holder had engaged in fraud and misrepresentation in obtaining public benefits.

Should prospective immigrants withdraw from receiving public assistance?

Several community immigrant advocates had opposed the new proposals as being discriminatory against low income immigrants who may happen to receive some benefits because of sudden illness or they have unexpectedly lost their jobs due to economic downturns or changes in their company. In most cases receipt of benefits is only temporary and simply served as a basic economic safety nets to provide economic stability until the individuals becomes self sufficient again. To take this safety net against them in their future application for green cards is cruel and unjust.

A person who is prospectively affected by this proposal may be compelled to choose between risking his future immigration status and meeting his basic need. But it is premature to make a decision on whether those who are receiving public assistance should start withdrawing from these government programs. Although in anticipation of the implementation of the proposals, several public benefit recipients already stopped receiving public benefits at the expense of their health and safety. This proposal becomes a final rule 60 days after it is published with the Federal Register. It must be clear that the proposal is not yet a final rule. It was just recently published on the DHS website. Once it is published with the Federal Register the public will be afforded 60 days to comment and oppose these restrictive proposals. There is still an opportunity to completely negate the impact of this proposal.

(Atty. Lourdes Santos Tancinco, Esq. is a San Francisco based immigration attorney and an immigrant rights advocate. She may be reached at 1 888 930 0808, law@tancinco.com or facebook.com/tancincolaw, or through this website tancinco.weareph.com/old)

Categories
Updates

3 Categories of Immigrants Who Risk Being Stripped of U.S. Citizenship

Share this:

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced in June 2018 the establishment of a Denaturalization Task Force within the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). The new USCIS office will focus on investigating cases of naturalized U.S. citizens and determine whether they will be recommended for denaturalization.

From among the 20 million naturalized U.S. citizens, who are at risk of being stripped of their U.S. Citizenship?

Denaturalization may be found in Section 340 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. There are only certain legal basis to denaturalize an individual and this is initiated by the government through the federal district courts. In the past, it was seldom utilized except in extreme cases like in denaturalization of former Nazis who lied about their past who illegally procured naturalization.

In 2008, Operation Janus was launched by the Department of Homeland Security and identified 854 individuals who had prior removal order, criminal convictions who were able to naturalize. These individuals’ fingerprint records were missing from the centralized DHS database. Now the current administration is planning to refer 1,600 more cases to the Department of Justice for denaturalization.

Those who are most likely to be affected by the administration’s effort to strip U.S. citizenship from naturalized citizens may be divided mainly into 3 categories. These are immigrants who procured their citizenship illegally because of the presence of:

  • Prior criminal conviction that was concealed: Those who concealed their criminal convictions on their naturalization applications and their criminal cases are grounds for removal may have their cases referred for naturalization. Note that criminal charges or convictions must have occurred before and during the naturalization process.
  • Prior removal cases and assumed identities: Ten (10) years ago, the U.S. government discovered hundreds of individuals who had prior deportation orders and who used different names in their green card and naturalization applications. These cases are now being investigated and may be re-opened for denaturalization.
  • Material fraud and misrepresentation. This refers to those who lied in obtaining their green cards through fraud and misrepresentation. The lie must have a relation to the eligibility for green card or naturalization to be a basis for denaturalization.

Once an immigrant is identified for investigation by USCIS for purposes of denaturalization, the matter will be referred to the Office of Immigration Litigation and the Assistant U.S. Attorney. Thereafter, the case will be filed with the federal district court having jurisdiction over the residence of the immigrant being stripped of citizenship. When the case is filed with the court, the naturalized U.S. citizen may present evidence to avoid denaturalization. Note that this is a judicial process and only a federal judge may strip one of U.S. citizenship. There is a due process involved and a right to a hearing. If a citizen is denaturalized, most probably this individual will be put in removal proceedings. Whether or not he will be deported depends on available relief or waivers.

These days the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is not the only agency in charge of immigration enforcement. The USCIS, with the creation of the Denaturalization Task Force, is now also involved indirectly in enforcement matters. Likewise, naturalized U.S. citizens must now realize that they no longer have a sense of permanence when it comes to their immigration status. If you believe that you fall into any of the categories of those who might be affected by this denaturalization effort of USCIS, it will be best to revisit and re-examine your naturalization application and have your case assessed by competent legal counsel. If there is a possibility of denaturalization, prepare yourself to defend yourself in the federal court and, in the worst case scenario, explore applicable waivers or defenses to avoid removal.

(Atty. Lourdes Santos Tancinco, Esq. is a San Francisco based immigration attorney and an immigrant rights advocate. She may be reached at 1 888 930 0808, law@tancinco.com or facebook.com/tancincolaw)

Categories
Updates

Supreme Court Spares Filipino from Deportation: Sessions v. Dimaya

Share this:

On April 17, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a decision in the case of Sessions v. Dimaya ruling that the definition of the crime of violence as an aggravated felony is void for being vague. The Respondent (deportee) in this case is James Dimaya who is a Filipino citizen and a lawful permanent resident of the United States. Mr. Dimaya’s deportation case was terminated as a result of the Supreme Court ruling.

James Garcia Dimaya, who is citizen of the Philippines, was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1992. In 2007 and 2009, Dimaya was convicted under the California Penal Code for first-degree residential burglary; both convictions resulted in two years’ imprisonment. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), a non-citizen convicted of an aggravated felony is subject to deportation.

The INA definition of aggravated felony includes a ‘crime of violence,’ which is any offense that involves the use or substantial risk of physical force against another person or property. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) subsequently initiated deportation proceedings against Dimaya and claimed that his burglary convictions constituted crimes of violence under the Act. The Immigration Judge held that Dimaya was deportable and that burglary constitutes a crime of violence because it always involves a risk of physical violence. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. On appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the definition of crime of violence was struck down as being vague. The Supreme Court ruled the same way stating that the crime of violence provision was unconstitutionally vague and could therefore not be a basis of the deportation or removal.

Since the decision was rendered last week, several questions were raised by those who may potentially be affected by this Supreme Court ruling.

Among these questions are the following:

Why did majority the Supreme Court Justices rule in favor of the immigrant in this case?

Interestingly in this 5-4 ruling, the arguments raised were regarding a constitutional protection that is extended to immigrants or non citizens. The issue that was resolved was whether the law in question which is the definition of a crime of violence under 8 USC 16(b) met the constitutional standard for due process and that accused is aware of the conduct that is proscribed by the statute. If it is not then it is considered void for vagueness. After hearing the arguments, majority of the justices ruled that the definition of a crime of violence is unconstitutionally vague and therefore this particular provision may not be used as basis to deport an immigrant.

Clearly this is a precedent case decided by the Supreme Court – who will benefit from this decision?

This is a deportation/removal case where the basis for removal is a criminal conviction relating to a crime of violence as an aggravated felony. This decision affects favorably those who are charged with removal based on crime of violence as in this case which is the crime of burglary.

What is the impact of this Supreme Court decision on future removal/deportation cases?

Those who are similarly situated as Dimaya – meaning those who are being charged with deportation because of a “crime of violence” – may have their cases revisited, reopened and terminated. Again this case affects those who are in removal proceedings because of the vague definition of “crime of violence” under 8 USC 16(b). It does not affect those aggravated felonies where the definition is contained elsewhere in the Immigration and Nationality Act.

(Atty. Lourdes S. Tancinco is a San Francisco based immigration lawyer and immigrant’s right advocate. She may be reached at law@tancinco.com, facebook.com/tancincolaw, or 1 888 930 0808)

Categories
Global Pinoy

Immigration: Entrepreneur parole program at risk of being axed

Share this:

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security released its official rule on July 11, 2017 seeking to delay the implementation of the International Entrepreneur Rule or the entrepreneur’s parole program. With the publication of this rule, the effective date of implementation is moved from July 17, 2017 to March 14, 2018.

Entrepreneur Parole Program

At the beginning of this year, the DHS published the International Entrepreneur Final Rule (aka the entrepreneur parole program) with an effectivity date of July 17, 2017. Many startup companies have been looking forward to the implementation of this program as it will attract talented foreign entrepreneurs who are well positioned to advance U.S. businesses.

Most of those who stand to benefit from this program are foreign entrepreneurs who can prove that their knowledge, skills or experience would substantially assist a U.S. entity in conducting and growing its business in the United States.

Parole Authority

The current immigration law allows the DHS to exercise its parole authority under section 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act if the presence of the paroled non-U.S. citizen would provide a significant public benefit to the United States.

Under the entrepreneur parole program, eligible applicants may be granted a stay of up to 30 months, with the possibility to extend it for a period of up to 30 additional months. Those targeted to receive parole are entrepreneurs who shall work with the start up businesses.

Delaying Its Implementation

The rule that was just recently released reveals that the DHS decided to delay the effective date of the entrepreneur parole program to further consider it in light of the Executive Order on Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements (EO13767).

Under this executive order, the DHS Secretary is mandated to take appropriate action to ensure that the parole authority is exercised on a case-to-case basis in accordance with the plain language of the law and that it so demonstrates urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. It is in this light that the DHS delayed its implementation in order to re-examine the program based on EO 13767.

The rule on entrepreneurs parole program was first published on August 31, 2016 by the DHS and the final rule was published on January 17, 2017. The policy was not finalized without considering comments from the public about the benefit it will bring if implemented.

Approximately 3,000 entrepreneurs were expected to apply for this program. Most of those who are planning to apply are in the tech industry as well as those who are planning to develop new business ventures that will spur economic growth and job creation.

It is sad that the present administration’s perspective is just the opposite. While other nations are inviting foreign entrepreneurs, the United States will be turning them away by delaying implementation of the program (and possibly terminating it altogether).

Many billion-dollar startup companies including Google, Uber and SpaceX were founded by immigrant entrepreneurs. They now hire thousands of U.S. citizens. Obviously, strengthening startup companies, job creation and innovation are a significant public benefit and this entrepreneur parole program should not have been stalled.

(Atty. Lourdes S. Tancinco is a San Francisco based immigration lawyer and immigrant’s right advocate. She may be reached at law@tancinco.com, facebook.com/tancincolaw, or 1 888 930 0808)

Categories
Updates

Expedited removal may be expanded under Trump

Share this:

Several advocates are distributing “Know Your Rights” literature to those who may possibly be affected by the enhanced enforcement of immigration law brought by Trump’s Executive Orders. One of the rights that one should know is the right to a hearing before an immigration judge. This is a constitutional due process right that may be asserted during apprehension and prior to removal.

There is one particular instance where there is no right to hearing, and that is during an expedited removal. Given the changes brought about by Trump’s Executive Order, will an extension of this process affect those who are present in the United States in unlawful status?

Expedited removal

For 20 years now, the expedited removal has been a process used by the Department of Homeland Security to fast track the removal of certain individuals at the ports of entry, who are in violation of immigration law relating to fraud or are unable to show proper legal documents to prove lawful status.

It is commonly referred to by Filipino travelers as “Airport to Airport” or “A to A,” referring to a case where a passenger at the port of entry in the United States is found inadmissible and is returned the same day of arrival (or the next available flight) to the country of origin. In these cases, the arriving alien is not entitled to a hearing, and a determination of a federal agent is sufficient to send the traveler back to his home country.

Expedited removal has been extended twice. The first expansion of expedited removal is in 2002 when it applied it to those who:

  1. entered the United States by sea, either by boat or other means;
  2. were not admitted or paroled in the United States (entered without inspection) and
  3. have not been continuously present in the United States for at least 2 years.

In 2004, the DHS expanded the application of expedited removal to non-citizens who are encountered within 100 miles of the border, and who entered the United States without inspection less than 14 days before they are encountered by immigration authorities.

Due process right to a hearing

President Trump’s Executive Order instructs the Secretary of Homeland Security to apply expedited removal to the fullest extent of the law. Section 11(c) of the Executive Order states in full: “Pursuant to section 235(b)(1)(A)(iii)(I) of the INA, the Secretary shall take appropriate action to apply, in his sole and un-reviewable discretion, the provisions of section 235(b)(1)(A)(i) and (ii) of the INA to the aliens designated under section 235(b)(1)(A)(iii)(II).”

Applying expedited removal to the fullest extent of the law means putting millions of unauthorized immigrants who have been in the United States for less than 2 years at risk of an expedited removal without a hearing even if apprehended beyond 100 miles from the border.

The DHS rules are still being developed and they will soon be published in the Federal Register. Yet, overzealous immigration officers may put anyone in expedited removal if apprehended and if unable to prove legal status and 2 years of physical presence.

The right to a hearing of those who have been residing in the United States extends even those who are without legal status. The Supreme Court had settled this issue many years ago. Should there be a deprivation of the right to a hearing because of the proposed expanded expedited removal, the Executive Order entitled “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements,” will be challenged in the judicial courts as being unconstitutional just like the executive order on the travel ban.

(Atty. Lourdes Santos Tancinco, Esq. is a San Francisco-based immigration attorney and an immigrant rights advocate. She may be reached at 1 888 930 0808, law@tancinco.com or facebook.com/tancincolaw.)

Categories
Updates

Re-written Travel Ban Released March 6, 2017: Green Card Holders and Visa Holders are Exempt

Share this:

An Executive Order titled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, which is the re-written travel ban, was signed by President Trump on March 6, 2017. The prior travel ban, Executive order 13769 of January 27, 2017, will be revoked on March 16, 2017.

This travel ban covers on 6 countries and Iraq was taken off the list. Also, green card holders and visas from these 6 countries are not affected by the new travel ban.

Travel Ban for Nationals of 6 Countries

For the next 90 days, foreign nationals from Sudan, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen who are outside the United States on the effective date of the order, do not currently have a valid visa on the effective date of this order, and did not have a valid visa at 5:00 eastern standard time on January 27, 2017, are not eligible to travel to the United States. The 90-day period will allow for proper review and establishment of standards to prevent terrorist or criminal infiltration by foreign nationals.

Iraq Nationals are Exempt from the Travel Ban

As a result of this increased information sharing, Iraqi citizens are not affected by the Executive Order. Of course, all normal immigration processing requirements continue to apply, including the grounds of inadmissibility that may be applicable.

Green Card Holders and Visa Holders Exempt from the Travel Ban

The Executive Order does not apply to certain individuals, such as lawful permanent residents of the United States; foreign nationals admitted to the United States after the effective date of the order; individuals with a document that is valid on the effective date of the order or any date thereafter which permits travel to the United States; dual nationals when traveling on a passport issued by a non-designated country; foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic, NATO, C-2 for travel to the United Nations, G-1, G-2, G-3, or G-4 visas; and individuals already granted asylum or refugee status in the United States before the effective date of the order.

Visas to Be Issued on Case by Base Basis

DHS and the Department of State have the discretionary authority, on a case-by-case basis, to issue visas or allow the entry of nationals of these six countries into the United States when a national from one of the countries demonstrates that the denial of entry would cause undue hardship, that his or her entry would not pose a threat to national security, and that his or her entry would be in the national interest.

Country by Country Review of Identity and Security Information

In the first 20 days, DHS will perform a global, country-by-country review of the identity and security information that each country provides to the U.S. Government to support U.S. visa and other immigration benefit determinations. Countries will then have 50 days to comply with requests from the U.S. Government to update or improve the quality of the information they provide.

Refugee Program Suspended for 120 Days

Similarly, the Refugee Admissions Program will be temporarily suspended for the next 120 days while DHS and interagency partners review screening procedures to ensure refugees admitted in the future do not pose a security risk to the United States. Upon resumption of the Refugee Admissions Program, refugee admissions to the United States will not exceed 50,000 for fiscal year 2017. The Executive Order does not apply to those refugees who have already been formally scheduled for transit by the State Department. During this 120-day period, similar to the waiver authority for visas, the Secretary of State and Secretary of Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the entry of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest and would not pose a threat to the security or welfare of the United States.

Uniform Screening for All Immigration Programs

The Department of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the Department of State, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the Department of Justice, will develop uniform screening standards for all immigration programs government-wide as appropriate and in the national interest.

Improving the Entry-Exit System

The Secretary of Homeland Security will expedite the completion and implementation of a biometric entry-exit system for all in-scope travelers entering and departing the United States. As part of a broader set of government actions, the Secretary of State will review all nonimmigrant visa reciprocity agreements to ensure that they are, with respect to each visa classification, truly reciprocal.

Visa Waiver Program to be Restricted

The Department of State will restrict the Visa Interview Waiver Program and require additional nonimmigrant visa applicants to undergo an in-person interview.

Effective Date

The Executive Order is effective at 12:01 A.M., Eastern Standard Time, on March 16, 2017.

Categories
Global Pinoy

Love of Family Is their Underlying Reason for Staying

Share this:

A significant number of Filipino immigrants have thrived and have become productive U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. Yet, there are categories of immigrants who, despite having resided in the U.S. for many years could not find ways to obtain legal status. The immigration system is dysfunctional and that there is no pathway to obtaining legal status.

Angela was able to enter the U.S. on an H1B visa but worked only for a year. Her U.S. employer suffered financial setbacks during the recession in 2008 and Angela was laid off from her job. When this happened, she was pregnant. His son who was born in the U.S. with a congenital heart problem that requires regular medical attention. The U.S.citizen father of the child abandoned Angela. She continued to work in the U.S. but only as a caregiver to be able to provide for the support of her child. Angela admits that it was wrong to stay without legal status but her decision to stay was motivated by her desire to ensure her son’s well being. She knows that she will not be able to afford medical treatment in the Philippines. Angela has no history of arrest or any criminal arrest. She takes care of elderly patients. With the new immigration policy, she fears that she will be arrested and be deported. She fears that her son’s health condition will worsen if she is sent back to the Philippines.

Amando is a son of a Filipino World War II veteran. Many Filipino veterans immigrated without family members and lived in isolation. Amando was able to come to the United States on a B2 visa. He took care of his father and was present at his father’s deathbed. Unfortunately, Amando’s B2 visa expired during the time he was taking care of his father. If he returns to the Philippines, it will take more than 10 years before he could return to the United States because of the 3-10 year bar rule. He is taking care now of his aging mother who likewise needs his presence and support just like his late father. Amanda has an approved petition but unfortunately, the visa petition will take more than 15 years for the visa to become available. Amando decided to stay in the United States to care for his mom. With Trump’s policy, Amando is at risk of being arrested and removed.

Angela and Amando are profiles of undocumented immigrants whose future in the United States is uncertain with the current political climate. The Department of Homeland Security stated that they will prioritize for removal those who poses threat to national security and public safety. But the recent DHS rules do not reflect such priority. The 11 million undocumented are at risk of being removed if they are caught by ICE without the proper legal documents to stay. This will include those who have same cases as Angela, and Amando who are neither threat to national security or public safety. Their only intention of continued stay is to be with their families, their U.S. citizen children or parents.

Hopefully, the present administration will desist from stereotyping unauthorized immigrants and look at the lives of these ordinary family-loving people through a different lens.

(Atty. Lourdes S. Tancinco is a partner at Tancinco Law Offices, a San Francisco based law firm and may be reached at law@tancinco.com, facebook.com/tancincolaw, or 1 888 930 0808)

Categories
Global Pinoy

Prosecutorial discretion as an option for the undocumented

Share this:

Ten years after arriving in the United States, Eva seems to have lost her hope of legalizing her stay. She was petitioned by her U.S. citizen fiancé, but after a few weeks of living together as a couple, her petitioner abandoned her. Her U.S. citizen fiancé never married her. She now has a child who was born in the United States from a subsequent relationship, but the father also refuses to acknowledge the child; and, neither is he marrying Eva.

In 2014 when President Obama announced the Executive Actions for parents of U.S. citizens (DAPA), Eva became hopeful that she would have an opportunity to stay and work legally. After an adverse ruling was rendered on June 23, 2016 by the U.S. Supreme Court upholding the injunction on the DACA+ and DAPA, Eva became fearful that this setback would have the effect of immediate removal/deportation from the United States for the millions of immigrants who were prospective beneficiaries of the DAPA and DACA+.

Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson, made a public statement that the enforcement priorities will be focused on those who have criminal convictions, threats to public safety and national security and border security. New immigration violators or those who just arrived and are now in unlawful status are second in priority for enforcement. Last in priority of enforcement are those with other immigration violations or those who are in the country in unauthorized status. This last category of immigrants is considered non-priority.

Despite these categories of enforcement priorities, there are recent cases where the DHS still placed in removal proceedings individuals who are in a non-priority category. This is quite troubling for those who are already in authorized stay. While there is no increase in the apprehension of undocumented immigrants, it is important to understand that if there is no immediate relief available, prosecutorial discretion may still be requested.

This prosecutorial discretion refers to different actions by the DHS to avoid removal, placing an individual in removal proceedings, dismissing an action, deciding to release a detained individual or whether to grant deferred action or parole. There is a broader deferred action policy that may be asserted in requesting for prosecutorial discretion.

There are different factors taken into account in order to warrant a favorable exercise of discretion from DHS. It may include, among others, the following: length of time in the United States; military service; family or community ties in the United States; status as a victim, witness or plaintiff in civil or criminal proceedings; or compelling humanitarian factors such as poor health, age, pregnancy, a young child, or a seriously ill relative.

Eva may take still have the option of requesting for prosecutorial discretion if she ever finds herself in immigration court for removal proceedings. Whether or not she will be granted favorable exercise of discretion will depend on the circumstances of her case.

Absent comprehensive immigration reform as well as the DACA and DAPA programs, prosecutorial discretion remains good policy and may always be requested especially in humanitarian cases where removal will affect families with U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents.

(Atty. Lourdes Santos Tancinco, Esq. is an immigration attorney with the Tancinco Law Offices, a San Francisco CA based law firm. She may be reached at 1 888 930 0808, law@tancinco.com, facebook.com/tancincolaw, or through tancinco.weareph.com/old)

Categories
Updates

DHS to launch known Employer Pilot Program

Share this:

The Employer pilot program is announced by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This program is to assess a new process for employers seeking to hire certain workers through employment-based visa categories.

The program will be designed to make adjudications more efficient and less costly and also to reduce paperwork and delays for both the department and U.S. employers who seek to employ foreign workers.

GOALS OF THE KNOWN EMPLOYER PILOT PROGRAM

  • Reducing the amount of paperwork filed by employers and retained by USCIS
  • Encouraging the stability in the settlement of employment-based petitions and applications.
  • Restructuring the adjudicative process to achieve greater efficiency within USCIS
  • Providing greater support to CBP and DOS in support of greater efficiency and consistency at ports of entry and consular posts.

Under the Known Employer pilot, up to nine preselected employers will file applications requesting that USCIS predetermine that they meet certain requirements relating to certain immigrant and nonimmigrant visa classifications. Employers will create a profile in the Web-based Known Employer Document Library (KEDL), and upload documents relating to the requirements, when making this request.

USCIS officers will review and decide whether a prospective employer has met certain requirements relating to the visa classifications, and if USCIS approves the employer’s predetermination request, the employer may then file petitions or applications for individual employees without needing to resubmit company information with each petition or application.

No additional fee is charged to participate in this program. At any time, USCIS may terminate or extend the pilot at any time. DHS and DOS will solicit on going feedback from the participants.