- Los estafadores se dirigen a personas con apellidos extranjeros, de base de datos recopiladas por empresas que realizan muchas contrataciones a través de las visas H-1B. Los estafadores pueden obtener una gran cantidad de información de varios sitios web, incluyendo las listas de solicitud de condición laboral del Departamento de Trabajo, LinkedIn, medios de comunicación social, y otras fuentes. Los estafadores son capaces de recoger información en una variedad de formas y la utilizan para convencer a las víctimas honorables de su supuesta autenticidad.
- Los estafadores se identifican como agentes del Departamento de Seguridad Nacional o Servicio de Ciudadanía e Inmigración (I.C.E.). Se reporta que contactan a las victimas bajo el pretexto de que la documentación de la víctima tiene problemas y amenazan con deportar a la víctima o con enviar a las autoridades a la casa de la persona si él o ella no coopera. Luego instruyen a la víctima que vaya a la tienda más cercana, obtenga tarjetas pre-pagadas como ‘Green Dot’ o Visa, depositen una cierta cantidad de dinero y proporcionen los números de comprobantes por teléfono. Una vez que los estafadores obtienen los números de comprobantes, ellos desconectan la llamada y desaparecen con el dinero de la víctima.
- Los estafadores dicen ser del Servicio de Impuestos Internos (IRS), afirmando que la víctima debe impuestos atrasados y le ordenan que proporcione números de tarjetas pre-pagadas como ‘Green Dot’ o Visa, para luego desaparecer con el dinero de la víctima .
- Los estafadores utilizan tecnología que proporciona números de teléfonos suplentes para mostrar un número de teléfono que no es realmente de su propia cuenta y que pueden aparecer como el de una agencia de gobierno legítimo.
- Hay estafadores que envían correos electrónicos afirmando que el destinatario es un ganador de diversas visas de lotería y que debe enviar una cuota para reclamar su visa. Tenga en cuenta que el Departamento de Estado NO ENVIA correos electrónicos a los solicitantes de visa.
- También hay estafadores que dicen poder recortar los tiempos de los procesos de visas, autorizaciones de trabajo, o tarjetas de residencia, a cambio de una cuota. Eso no es verdad.
- Las agencias gubernamentales no hacen negocios de esta manera. Una llamada exigiendo dinero y amenazando con consecuencias negativas si no se paga de inmediato ES UNA ESTAFA, y los que reciben este tipo de llamadas deben colgar de inmediato y no proporcionar ninguna información. USCIS señala: "USCIS no llama para a solicitar ninguna forma de pago a través del teléfono. No realice pagos a través del teléfono a ninguna persona que dice ser un oficial de USCIS".
- Scammers are targeting people based on foreign-sounding names or based on information gathered about companies hiring many H-1Bs. The scammers can get a lot of information from various websites, labor condition application listings from the Department of Labor, LinkedIn, social media, and other sources. Scammers are able to collect information in a variety of ways and use it to convince unwitting victims of their purported authenticity.
- Scammers claiming to be from the Department of Homeland Security or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. They call and state that the victim's paperwork has problems and threaten to deport the victim or to send authorities to the person's home if he or she does not cooperate. They then order the person to go to the nearest convenience store, obtain merchant cards or vouchers for a certain amount of money, and provide the voucher numbers over the phone. Once the scammers obtain the voucher numbers, they disconnect the call and disappear with the victim's money.
- Scammers claiming to be from the Internal Revenue Service, who state that the victim owes back taxes and ordering them to provide merchant card or voucher numbers, then disappearing with the victim's money.
- Scammers who use "Caller ID spoofing" to display a telephone number that is not really their own, and that may appear to be from a legitimate government agency.
- Scammers who send e-mails claiming that the recipient is a Diversity Visa lottery winner and must send in a fee. The Department of State does not send e-mails to applicants.
- Scammers who claim faster processing times or guarantee visas, work authorizations, or green cards, for a fee.
Kuck Immigration Partners is extremely proud that our client, Eduardo Samaniego, volunteered to be one of the 11 to present his case. Eduardo came to the United States legally from Mexico in 2009 when he was 17 years old. Eduardo attended high school in Georgia and learned English in just six months. He graduated top of his class and has been accepted to college in Massachusetts on a full scholarship.
By Anna Erwin, Associate Attorney
Regardless of the sentence imposed, is an offense of domestic violence; sexual abuse or exploitation; burglary; unlawful possession or use of a firearm; drug distribution or trafficking; or, driving under the influence; or,
If not an offense listed above, is one for which the individual was sentenced to time in custody of more than 90 days. The sentence must involve time to be served in custody, and therefore does not include a suspended sentence.
Commits domestic violence
Commits an abusive or exploitive sexual act
Carries unlicensed firearms
Deals drugs; or
Someone who spends an entire 3 months in jail
- MYTH: Immigrants will take jobs away from US citizens. FACT: Demand continues to increase for many jobs that not many Americans are willing or able to perform including increasing need for high-skilled workers in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) fields. Not to mention the countless number of immigrants who are skilled in business and invest in job-creating enterprises in the United States.
- MYTH: Immigrants who are here illegally are probably running from the law or are engaged in illegal activity here in the U.S.FACT: Most undocumented immigrants contribute positively to society and have a clean background. Studies have shown that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes or be behind bars than U.S.-born citizens and high rates of immigration are not associated with higher rates of crime.
- MYTH: There’s a way to enter the country legally for anyone who wants to get in line. FACT: For undocumented immigrants, there is no “line”. There are no papers for them to file to get on path to legal status. And undocumented immigrants already in the U.S. have virtually no way to legalize their status. If they leave the country to apply for legal status, current immigration laws bar them from reentering the country for 3 to 10 years, separated from their families (often children and spouses who are U.S. citizens) for over a decade.
- MYTH: Immigrants, whether documented or undocumented, are an economic burden. FACT: Immigrants are essential to the U.S. economy and are a critical part of the workforce. They work hard and perform essential jobs that are vital to keeping the U.S. economy moving forward. In 2010, undocumented immigrants paid $8.4 billion in sales taxes, $1.6 billion in property tax, and $1.2 billion in personal income tax. They also contribute to the Social Security system and they will never be able to receive any benefits from it. Plus U.S. law strictly prohibit undocumented aliens from obtaining welfare, food stamps, or any other type of public assistance.
- MYTH: Most Americans support mass deportations and are against immigration reform. FACT: The estimated 11 million undocumented individuals in the United States is equivalent to the entire populations of Washington, Oregon and Idaho combined. It would be impossible to locate and deport that many people. Even if realistic, a mass deportation would cost billions (over $200 billion by one estimate), translating into $1000 in new taxes for every person in America. Not to mention numerous polls have shown that 60-70% of Americans are actually in favor of comprehensive immigration reform.
- “Parole-in-Place” for immediate relatives of USC who are beneficiaries of approved visa petitions. There is precedent for this remedy as the administration already uses parole-in-place for Cuban entrants and family members of former and current US military personnel. Section 212(d)(5) of the INA provides the Attorney General (now DHS), the authority to parole into the U.S. temporarily under such conditions as he may prescribe on a case-by case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit any alien applying for admission to the U.S. Section 235(a)(1) of the INA sets out that aliens present in the U.S. who have not been admitted are treated as applicants for admission to the U.S. Thus, these aliens can lawfully be paroled.
- The administration can deem extreme hardship as in special rule cancellation (there is historical precedent for this in special rule cancellation for NACARA). In order to be eligible for a waiver of the unlawful presence bars under § 212(a)(9) of the INA, a foreign national subject to those bars must demonstrate that a qualifying relative will suffer extreme hardship if he/she is not allowed to return to the U.S. This same requirement existed under the former § 244(a) of the INA (suspension of deportation). In order to facilitate the adjudication of suspension applications in the past under NACARA, the administration, at the time, deemed the existence of extreme hardship for those with qualifying relatives. See Limited Presumption of Extreme Hardship under Section 203 of NACARA, HQCOU 90/16.11-C, Feb. 12, 1999, by Paul Virtue. There are times that the administration has elevated the hardship requirement for a waiver. For example, though the statute requires a foreign national to demonstrate extreme hardship when applying for a waiver under § 212(h) of the INA when convicted of certain criminal acts, the administration elevated the requirement to exceptional and extremely unusual hardship for those convicted of violent or dangerous crimes. Under 8 C.F.R. § 1212.7(d), the Attorney General will not favorably exercise discretion in cases involving violent or dangerous crimes, except in extraordinary circumstances, such as those involving national security or foreign policy considerations, or cases in which the alien clearly demonstrates that a denial of the waiver would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. Moreover, depending on the gravity of the alien’s underlying criminal offense, a showing of extraordinary circumstances might still be insufficient to warrant a favorable exercise of discretion under INA § 212(h). 8 C.F.R. § 1212.7(d). Matter of Jean, 23 I&N Dec. 373, 383 (BIA 2002).
- The administration can enable those granted TPS to adjust status to lawful residence if otherwise qualified through an approved visa petition. See Flores v. USCIS, 718 F.3d 548 (6th Cir. 2013). Currently, but for those living within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, the administration will not allow a foreign national granted TPS to adjust status, finding that TPS is not a lawful status from which one can adjust status. The 6th Circuit, in sound reasoning, found that TPS is a lawful status from which foreign nationals can adjust status. This decision should be adopted nationally.
- The administration can expand the 601A waiver process stateside to all foreign nationals who are the beneficiaries of approved visa petitions. This administration currently allows beneficiaries of approved immediate relative petitions, who require unlawful presence waivers, to apply for those waivers while physically present in the U.S. Foreign nationals who are not the beneficiaries of immediate relative petitions, but who nonetheless qualify for residence and who are eligible for waivers have to apply for waivers after being denied visas abroad. These waivers take many months to adjudicate. Fearful of not being granted the waivers, these foreign nationals do not proceed abroad, even though many of these waivers would be favorably adjudicated. By moving the entire process stateside, many more foreign nationals would pursue the currently available immigrant visa process.
- The administration could also include the ability to process waivers of deportation (I-212), or other waivers, along with unlawful presence waivers while the applicants are in the US. As many aliens subject the unlawful presence bar also require deportation waivers or other waivers, they are not eligible to take advantage of the I-601A waiver process, which has effectively rendered the existing policy useless for a large segment of the immigrant population.
- The administration can relax interpretations of those deemed unlawfully present under § 212(a)(9) of the INA. The administration has never enacted any regulations on unlawful presence. A foreign national who is in a period of stay authorized by the Attorney General is not unlawfully present. The administration has latitude in determining what foreign nationals are present in a period of stay authorized by the Attorney General. Moreover, section 212(a)(9)(B)(iii) of the INA provides exceptions for period for unlawful presence, i.e., for minors, those that have filed for asylum etc. Section 212(a)(9)(B)(iv) provides for tolling of unlawful presence. These exceptions and tolling have only been applied to the 10 year bar to admissibility. The administration can apply these to all periods of unlawful presence, including the permanent bar to admission under § 212(a)(9)(c).
- Section 245(i) of the INA provides that certain foreign nationals and their spouses and children who commenced the residence process on or before April 30, 2001 and were physically present on December 20, 2000 can seek residence in the U.S. upon payment of a fine of $1000, if otherwise eligible for residence. At one time, the administration interpreted the relatives covered by section 245(i) broadly (i.e. as covering after-acquired spouses). More recently, the Board of Immigration Appeals found that after -acquired spouses of beneficiaries covered by §245(i) would not benefit from this provisions. This is a reversal in policy. National Cable & Telecommunications Association et al. v. Brand X Internet Services et al., 545 U.S. 967 (2005), allows the administration to rethink prior interpretations of law. The administration should use the Brand X decision to broaden its interpretation of 245(i).
- The administration can use greater prosecutorial discretion (stop trying to deport immediate relatives). The administration should formalize a policy of not putting certain foreign nationals in removal proceedings and target border enforcement.
- No child under 16 should be charged with entry without inspection (“EWI”) because EWI requires the actual evasion of inspection coupled with the intent to evade inspection (the intent to evade inspection requires a level of sophistication that most children do not have- this is clearly legally provided for) Matter of Pierre, I.D. 2238 (BIA 1973).
- The administration spends tens of millions or more each year to detain foreign nationals. Foreign nationals convicted of certain criminal offenses, including lawful permanent residents convicted of possession with intent to distribute a small amount of marijuana, are subject to mandatory custody. See § 236(c) of the INA. This is true even though the foreign national may pose no security or flight risk and may not have served any time in criminal custody. The administration can save millions of dollars by finding that electronic surveillance satisfies the statutory requirement of mandatory custody. This will require no change in the law and assure that the foreign national will be present at future immigration hearings.
- There is no legal support in the Immigration Act for charging worldwide visa quotas against all immigrating family members, as opposed to the legally support use of one (1) visa as per family unit. This would essentially solve most family and employment quota backlogs.
- The administration can grant employment authorization for spouses of foreign nationals allowed to work in the U.S. on H1B, TN, E3 and H1B1, O and P visas. This will lessen the demand on the H1B professional visa. The demand is so great for the H-1B professional visa that the visas are exhausted the first day they are available. In fact, this year, a foreign national applicant for an H-1B visa, with a U.S. bachelor’s degree, had about a 43% chance of getting selected for the H-1B. The administration has already granted work permission to spouses of L and E visa holders. It is a logical extension for the administration to extend work permission to spouses of other visas.
- The administration can grant longer periods of optional practical training for students. The administration already extended the practical training granted to STEM majors in U.S. universities from 12 months to 29 months, as long as the STEM’s employer participates in E-verify. Why not extend this to all foreign graduates of U.S. universities? This would help alleviate the H-1B crisis and encourage more employers to use E-verify.
- The administration can go back to less restrictive interpretations on those not subject to H-1B quotas, i.e., those employed at institutions affiliated with qualified institutions of higher education or non-profit research institutions are exempt from the H-1B cap. Prior administrations more liberally interpreted exemptions from the H-1B cap allowing institutions that had any type of affiliation with a qualifying organization to qualify for the exemption. This administration has interpreted the H-1B exemption more stringently; i.e., public schools that served as training grounds for student teachers having affiliation agreements with qualifying universities used to be able to claim H-1B cap exemption and now cannot. With the H-1B demand so high, and the cap so low, why not interpret these exemptions broadly?
- The Brand X decision allows the administration to rethink its interpretation of prior statutory provisions. In some recent cases, Courts actually encouraged the administration to re-think interpretations of the law. See recent Supreme Court decision in Scialabba v. Vuellar de Osario.
Individuals may request DACA renewal if they continue to meet the initial criteria and the additional guidelines below:
1. Arrived in the United States prior to age 16 and before June 15, 2007;
2. Remained in the United States since June 15, 2007 and were present on June 15, 2012 when the program was announced;
3. Under 31 years of age on June 15, 2012;
4. Must be enrolled in school, have graduated from high school, or have a GED; and
5. Have not been convicted of a felony, a significant misdemeanor or three or more misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.
1. You did not depart the United States on or after Aug. 15, 2012, without advance parole;
2. You have continuously resided in the United States since they submitted their most recent DACA request that was approved; and
3. You Have not been convicted of a felony, a significant misdemeanor or three or more misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.
Those DACA beneficiaries who were approved based upon being enrolled in GED programs when they initially applied will need to demonstrate continued enrollment if they have not yet been awarded a GED. Applicants for renewal who did not continue their GED programs after receiving employment authorization will be subject to additional scrutiny and may be unable to renew their deferred action.
With the first DACA approvals expiring in September 2014, eligible individuals should apply immediately to avoid any lapse in their employment authorization. We strongly encourage DACA beneficiaries to submit their renewal requests 120 days (four months) before their current period of deferred action expires. To avoid a lapse in employment eligibility and to continue their protection rom removal.
Individuals can renew their grant of deferred action by filing the new version of Form I-821D “Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals,” Form I-765 “Application for Employment Authorization,” and the I-765 Worksheet. The old firm can no longer be used and will not be accepted by USCIS. The filing fee of $465.00 will be the same as for initial applications. As with the initial request, USCIS will conduct a background check when processing DACA renewals.
Contact the attorneys at Kuck Immigration Partners today to being your timely renewal process. You can reach is at 404-816-8611 or at firstname.lastname@example.org. Much of the renewal process can be done without an in person visit by most people. We look forward to continuing to serve you.
Immigration is a key component of many companies forward-looking strategy for workplace competitiveness. American employers who currently hired foreign national workers, and those who plan to do so in the future, need to have a formal corporate immigration policy to ensure that they are competitive in the marketplace and can attract and hold top foreign talent.
A US employer can legally hire foreign nationals under a variety of visa categories, but each visa category has one commonality--many of these foreign national employees want to remain permanently in the United States. Just as important, given training and lost opportunity costs associated with departing "star" employees, most companies want to keep the foreign talent they have already sponsored for a work visa.
Give the lengthy waiting period for so many immigrant visa categories, many employees want to start as soon as possible on their "green card" process. At the same time, before a company spends a considerable amount of money on that same process they want to be sure that the employee is one worth keeping! These competing interests are the primary reason why having a corporate immigration policy is necessary. This policy puts every potential employee (and their managers and recruiters) on notice of what it will take to be "sponsored" and how long an employee needs to be employed before that process starts.
In order to be competitive in their industry, many companies want to know the immigration policies of their competitors and their industry. The Alliance of Business Immigration Lawyers, of which Kuck Immigration Partners is a member, conducted a survey of our members' experience with corporate immigration policies to try to provide a better outlook of where corporate immigration policies lay in 2014.
The survey requested information from ABIL member firms regarding their corporate clients’ policies on such topics as: (1) how long a foreign national employee would have to work for the company before sponsorship would be started; (2) whether that timing has changed since the height of the financial crisis; and (3) whether there are contingencies on initiating/continuing the green card sponsorship process.
- The majority of ABIL members that responded to the survey (66%) reported that their client companies wait one year before starting the green card process. The next highest percentage responded that their clients wait more than 1 year; the third highest reported a wait of six months.
- When asked whether this time frame changed since the height of the financial crisis, an equal percentage of respondents reported that the wait time had shortened, as those responding that there was no change to the wait time.
- When asked about contingencies on starting (or continuing) the process, over 80% of respondents stated that the employee’s manager must “sign off” to have the process initiated. One-half of respondents stated that an employee on a performance plan or under some other “disciplinary action” would cause the process to be delayed of stopped.
- One member reported that some client companies have “nomination periods” when managers can nominate certain employees deserving of green card sponsorship.
- When asked about the payment of green card sponsorship, most members (over 80%) reported that the employer pays all fees and expenses in connection with sponsorship. The next highest percentage reported that the employer pays all fees for the employee, but requires the FN employee to pay costs related to family members. The smallest percentage reported a policy whereby the employer would pay up to a certain amount towards the process and the employee would cover the balance.
- When asked about the source of immigration-related costs, the largest percentage (over 90%) reported that the business unit hiring the employee pays for the process. A few respondents reported situations where the Legal or HR Department would pay.
- Responses were varied when asked about reimbursement policy. An equal number of ABIL members reported that their corporate clients had no reimbursement policy as those who reported that their clients had such a policy (where the employee agrees to repay a portion of the costs of sponsorship if the employee leaves the company within a certain time frame after receiving the green card).