Deferred Action Immigration Event Draws Thousands Of DREAMers On First Day

By: Elise Foley, Huffington Post: 08/15/2012

CHICAGO — Nayeli Manzano, a 16-year-old undocumented immigrant, woke at midnight Wednesday after about an hour of sleep. A friend had called, saying a large crowd was gathering on Chicago’s Navy Pier.

Manzano wanted to be among the first in line for an event that would help thousands of young undocumented immigrants apply for work authorization and reprieve from deportation under a new Obama administration policy. Wednesday was the first day to apply. The event at Navy Pier, and others like it, ensured thousands would.

“This is my chance, I’m not going to let it go,” said Manzano, who wears black-rimmed glasses and sounds older than she is. “I’m the right age, I haven’t done anything wrong, I don’t have a criminal record. I am a good student. So I told my parents, [Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights] is going to have an event, and I want to be one of the first ones to be there.”

Manzano had planned to take the El train with her parents to the pier around 4:30 a.m. The line would have been hours longer by then. At 6 a.m., organizers at the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights blasted out an email saying more than a thousand people were in line. By 7 a.m, there were more than 2,200 in a line snaking through hallways in the Navy Pier event center and down the pier, past a charter yacht and a Ferris wheel and south along Lake Michigan.
deferred action Nayeli Manzano, 16, waits in line to submit her application for deferred action at Navy Pier in Chicago.

By 1 p.m., organizers estimated that 13,000 people had come to Navy Pier for the event, making it the biggest deferred action gathering in the U.S. on Wednesday. The earliest applicants arrived at 6 p.m. Tuesday and slept there, some carrying sleeping bags with them on Wednesday. Others brought board games, laptop computers or knitting projects. But most passed the time by talking to those around them about plans, once they’re approved — they hope — and able to work, attend school and drive without fear of deportation.

Manzano and her parents arrived at Navy Pier in the middle of the night, around 2:30 a.m. Manzano, one of 800 event volunteers, got to work immediately, donning a yellow Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights vest over her purple dress and walking the halls, helping fellow attendees organize their application documents. Her father, who immigrated from Mexico a few years before the rest of the family, held her place in line. Her mother, who crossed the border illegally with Manzano when her daughter was 4, rested in the car.

The Obama administration announced June 15 it would stop deporting many young undocumented immigrants, mostly following the lines of the Dream Act, a decade-old bill that came within five votes of passage in the Senate in 2010. The bill has gone nowhere since, and Obama, frustrated with the lack of progress and facing a Latino electorate increasingly frustrated with him for a record number of deportations, took the matter into his own hands with a directive to give deferred action and work authorization to some undocumented young people. It may have been a political move, but among all of the chatter about who’s up and who’s down, it shows how a policy can matter beyond an election: from the 13,000 people at Navy Pier on Wednesday to the 1.7 million estimated to be eligible nationwide.

The administration has promised it will hire enough staff to handle the influx of applications. Still, long wait times are expected, especially with high turnout at events around the country like this one. Groups held similar events in New York, the District of Columbia, Los Angeles and Detroit, among other cities.

The hundreds of volunteers at the half-dome-shaped grand ballroom at Navy Pier included 60 lawyers, but the process moved slowly. Manzano made it into the ballroom around 9 a.m. and went through a series of tables, where she showed documents and answered questions about whether she has a criminal record and whether she meets other requirements. She finally made it through the process around 2 p.m. Many others were still waiting. Closer to the end of the line, volunteers gave mini-sessions to those who wouldn’t make it to the front by the end of the event, giving them information about future events. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), the biggest champions of the Dream Act in Congress, walked through the crowd to offer support.

Attendees were instructed to bring documents showing their age and identity, proving they came to the U.S. more than five years ago and before they turned 16. They also need to show that they are either in high school, graduated, or obtained a GED, or that they were honorably discharged from the military. Immigrants were also told to bring $465 to pay for the application to the government, meant to cover the cost of processing. The administration has said applications will not lead to detention or deportation except in rare cases, and most seemed to trust that they were not putting themselves in the hands of a government that would then use the information to deport them.

Still, the policy is a temporary one, and could be ended at any time. It’s a tricky issue for presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney, who admitted at a National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials the week after Obama’s announcement that he would have preferred not to talk about immigration. Romney said during the Republican primary that he would veto the Dream Act, and has said he opposes Obama’s action. He hasn’t gone so far to condemn it as amnesty, though, and has refused to say whether he would end it if he’s elected.

Many advocates of the directive said they don’t think Romney would do something so unpopular as reverse it, although they don’t want to give him the chance. Most Republicans stayed clear of the issue on Wednesday. Only one prominent Republican, immigrant hawk Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), put out a statement criticizing the policy. Luis Tellez, a 19-year-old would-be Marine with a buzzed haircut and a camo-print backpack, said he thinks the Dream Act will eventually pass. “Politicians are looking at the political aspect of it, and it’s not only good for them but it’s good for the country,” he said.

Polling indicates that hard opposition to deferred action may be a bad idea for politicians. Like the Dream Act, deferred action is popular, and aid for young undocumented people is less polarizing than helping older immigrants who came on their own accord.

Undocumented young people at Wednesday’s event said they mostly want to work legally or obtain a driver’s license so they can get around. Many hope to use that work authorization to pay their way through college or to begin saving. For Ilian Claudio, 19, deferred action would mean going to college. She came to Navy Pier around 4:30 a.m. with her friend Jahayra Martinez, 20, and Martinez’s father and sister. She and Martinez have been friends since high school and have similar stories: both were born in Mexico, both came to the U.S. illegally to join their parents as children — Claudio was 13, Martinez was 12 — and both are now working. “It’s a historic day, I want to be part of it,” Claudio said.

That’s why she and others said they came on Day One of the application process, braving the long lines and early wake-up calls.

“It’s a new beginning,” Claudio said. “It’s like that gate opens.”

Luckily, Tadeusz Kościuszko and Kazimierz Pułaski did not need a visa

By Joanna Diane Caytas -Guest Author

These days, they might not have got one.

Keeping the homeland secure rather indiscriminately from allies and friends alike became one of the most ill-advised and unfortunate features of post-9/11 U.S. foreign policy – with detrimental effects on the battle for the hearts and minds in international relations. While 30 European countries, including post-communist Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Slovakia and Slovenia already participate in the U.S. visa waiver program since years, Poland, a committed major U.S. ally in each and every major military conflict of the 20^th century, does not. As president Obama famously said, “no country in Europe loves or loved the United States as much as Poland does or has in the past.” If there was any substance to the previous administration’s rhetoric conjuring up a “New Europe”, Poland had to be Exhibit A: with almost 40 million residents, it is by far the largest and fastest-growing market among the European Union’s Eastern enlargement, the largest addition to NATO with a significant contingent in Iraq, a regional leader in the Partnership for Peace program, a member of the Schengen Treaty.

Polish citizens continue to be denied practically important benefits of the visa waiver program ostensibly because 30% of tourist visa applicants are declined by U.S. consular officers. That rate is so high for the sole reason that the officers “suspect that applicants are going to work in the United States illegally.” Famously, it is not logically possible to prove a negative. The rejection threshold for a country to qualify for the U.S. visa waiver program has been set at 3%. Polish rejection statistics are crassly disproportionate, as a comparison shows: Poland and Lithuania were a single country for centuries – what, aside from its diminutive size, makes Lithuania different today? Its per-capita GDP certainly is much lower, so the motivation of its citizens to seek a better life in the U.S. should be much higher. Its value and track record as a military ally, aside from outposts closer to Russia, is negligible. While the U.S. government claims that some 70,000 Polish citizens have overstayed their visa in the past, it is also true that 75 million Americans claim at least partial Polish descent. Mexico, with three times the population of Poland, gave the U.S. almost one hundred times the number of undocumented Polish aliens.

Perhaps more importantly, continuation of the U.S. visa waiver criteria would not stand up to legal scrutiny if a rational standard of equal justice applied and the matter were subject to judicial review: while 30% of Polish applicants are denied visas on the mere suspicion by a consular officer of possible future overstaying, this disproportionate suspicion is unsupported by rational justification other than the fact that Polish undocumented aliens exist at all. A few exist, of course, but that is true of any country. This provides no valid reason to continue imposing a truly cumbersome visa requirement on 40 million Polish citizens that, for example, forces senior citizens wishing to visit relatives to travel hundreds of miles for a personal appearance for a mandatory visa interview at the nearest U.S. consulate. It would be worth researching my suspicion that the vast majority of undocumented Poles had, in fact, arrived in the U.S. before Poland joined the European Union in 2004. It is easy to see why: used to a fairly high standard of social benefits including universal health care at home, work-minded Poles can now find far better, risk-free employment in Northern and Western Europe including low-cost bus trips home, without a need to convince some border agent that they are “not terrorists.”

Today, Poland is growing rapidly, a fully industrialized and increasingly service-oriented emerging market, a hub in Central and Eastern Europe. Unemployment is barely higher than in the U.S. today. Of all post-communist countries already participating in the U.S. visa waiver program, Poland’s per capita GDP is higher than any other except for Slovenia and Slovakia. While foreign direct investment in the U.S. amounts to about 16% of GDP, Poland boasts more than twice that, 35% of GDP. This is an enormous vote of investor confidence in the local economy, and certainly not the harbinger of an exodus of skilled or unskilled labor.

Given the much higher cost of urban living in the U.S and a near total absence of medical and social benefits for unskilled labor, the proverbial expatriate Polish maid or Polish plumber are incomparably better off today in Britain, Germany or Italy where they neither need a visa nor a work permit. Hence, the diehard myth of some irresistible temptation to overstay U.S. visas to “make a quick buck” is no longer credible 22 years after Poland embraced capitalism in 1989. It is also nigh impossible to argue that inclusion of Poland in the U.S. visa waiver program would create some type of moral hazard: skilled labor typically will not turn to undocumented employment, and unskilled labor from Eastern Europe typically cannot or will not compete on price with Latin American, Asian or African undocumented immigrants already so readily available in the U.S.

Government statistics show that, overall, well over 5 million undocumented aliens from a variety of countries have entered the U.S. on a legal visa. This amounts to between one-third and one-half of the overall undocumented population. Visa requirements have appear not to have stemmed illegal immigration at all. While it is undeniable that an occasional Polish maid or construction crew might enter as tourists and sometimes depart a bit later than permitted, it should be noted that the U.S. Customs and Immigration Service upgraded their IT capabilities by leaps and bounds so that it is now easy for any immigration officer to determine if the traveler before him has ever overstayed his visa in the past – a determination would be grounds to deny the person re-entry and lead to deportation at his or her own expense. As overstaying becomes part of their permanent immigration record, extremely few individuals would choose to forgo future travel home along with any possibility of inviting relatives, compounded by substantial risk of deportation if caught out of status, or to abandon hopes of returning to the U.S. Poles do not have the option of the Rio Grande, nor would almost any consider entering through the woods of Maine. But if all this holds true, then all stated rational purposes of continuing the U.S. visa requirement (aside from national security which is not a significant consideration in the case of Poland) have in reality already been accomplished by improved electronic record keeping and has thus rendered the visa requirement for Polish visitors moot.

Not one valid reason remains to deny visa-free entry to the citizens of a country resoundingly acknowledged as America’s most loyal ally and friend besides Great Britain, whose intensely pro-American population once served as the model for the legend of a ‘New Europe.’ While the considerable expense for maintaining reliable electronic arrivals and departure records has become a necessary bureaucratic overhead after 9/11, continuing to devote resources to processing Polish visa applications is not. Since the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in 1991, Poland unilaterally abolished visa requirements for U.S. visitors. More than twenty years later, the U.S. has yet to reciprocate. This stretches unacceptably the oft-cited “need for a transitory period.” The U.S. Senate approved in 2006 visa-free admission of Polish visitors by way of an amendment to an immigration reform bill. But since then, the matter has been mired hopelessly in the arcane politics and horse-trading surrounding U.S. immigration reform in general. It is difficult to imagine a cost-cutting move by the U.S. government that would create a bigger, more instantly effective surge of foreign goodwill and tourism than by abolishing visa requirements for Poles. Seeing this demand persistently ignored has already led the European Union to threaten imposition of visa requirements for U.S. citizens in all of Europe as a matter of reciprocity if the “Polish visa question” cannot be resolved now, at long last.

Bizarrely enough, modern-day Kościuszkos and Pułaskis could end up needing a European visa if it occurred to them to visit their folks at home….

The U.S. Visa Waiver Program was created in 1986, during the Cold War, in an era when surgical removal of pointless and ineffectual bureaucratic malignancy was still a programmatic priority to the Reagan administration.

Can we start finding our way back to the future?

U.S. to Stop Deporting Some Young Immigrants: Obama to Permit Young Migrants to Remain

NEW YORK TIMES

By JULIA PRESTON and JOHN H. CUSHMAN Jr.

Published: June 15, 2012

Hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who came to the United States as children will be allowed to remain in the country without fear of deportation and able to work, under an executive action the Obama administration announced on Friday.

Administration officials said the president used existing legal authority to make the broad policy change, which could temporarily benefit more than 800,000 young people. He did not consult with Congress, where Republicans have generally opposed measures to benefit illegal immigrants.

The policy, while not granting any permanent legal status, clears the way for young illegal immigrants to come out of the shadows, work legally and obtain driver’s licenses and many other documents they have lacked.

“They are Americans in their heart, in their minds, in every single way but one: on paper,” President Obama said in announcing the new policy in the White House Rose Garden on Friday. He said he was taking “a temporary stopgap measure” that would “lift the shadow of deportation from these young people” and make immigration policy “more fair, more efficient and more just.”

Under the change, the Department of Homeland Security will no longer initiate the deportation of illegal immigrants who came to the United States before age 16u, have lived here for at least five years, and are in school, are high school graduates or are military veterans in good standing. The immigrants must also be not more than 30 and have clean criminal records.  It applies to people who came to the United States as children and were no more than 30 years old — not “under 30 years old” — at the time the policy was changed by the administrative action.

Young people, who have been highly visible and vocal activists despite their undocumented status, have been calling on Mr. Obama for more than a year to stop deporting them and allow them to work. Many of them were elated and relieved on Friday.

“People are just breaking down and crying for joy when they find out what the president did,” said Lorella Praeli, a leader of the United We Dream Network, the largest coalition of illegal immigrant students.

Republicans reacted angrily, saying the president had overstepped his legal bounds to do an end run around Congress. Some Republicans accused Mr. Obama of violating the law. “The president’s action is an affront to the process of representative government by circumventing Congress and with a directive he may not have the authority to execute,” said Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee. “It seems the president has put election-year politics above responsible policies.”

In many ways, the president’s move was a clear play for a crucial voting bloc in states that will decide whether he gets another term. It also held the potential for considerable payoff.

The action was the first measure by Mr. Obama that offers immediate relief to large numbers of illegal immigrants, in contrast to smaller steps the administration had taken that were intended to ease the impact of deportations but in practice had little effect. During the three years of his term, Mr. Obama has deported more than 1.1 million immigrants, the most by any president since the 1950s.

“Now let’s be clear: this is not an amnesty,” Mr. Obama said in the Rose Garden, anticipating the Republican response. “This is not a path to citizenship. It is not a permanent fix.”

The group of illegal immigrants that will benefit from the policy is similar to those who would have been eligible to become legal permanent residents under the Dream Act, legislation that Mr. Obama has long supported. An effort by the White House to pass the bill in late 2010 was blocked by Republicans in the Senate. Mr. Obama called on Congress again Friday to pass that legislation.

The president was facing growing pressure from Latino leaders and Democrats who warned that because of his harsh immigration enforcement, his support was lagging among Latinos who could be crucial voters in his race for re-election.

Illegal immigrants said the new policy would make a major difference in their lives. As students, when they graduate from high school, they often cannot go on to college because they are not eligible for financial aid and must pay higher tuition rates. If they do succeed in graduating from college, regardless of their academic accomplishments, they cannot be legally employed in the United States or obtain driver’s or professional licenses.

The Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research group in Washington, estimated on Friday that as many as 1.4 million immigrants might be eligible for the new measure. The vast majority are Latinos, with about 70 percent born in Mexico. Many of the students live in states that could be pivotal for Mr. Obama’s re-election prospects, including Colorado, Florida, Nevada and New Mexico.

Nationally, a Pew Center survey in December found that 91 percent of Latinos supported the Dream Act.

For immigrants who come forward and qualify, Homeland Security authorities will use prosecutorial discretion to grant deferred action, a reprieve that will be valid for two years and will have to be renewed. Under current law, that status allows immigrants to apply for work permits.

In a memorandum issued Friday referring to the students, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano instructed all enforcement agents to “immediately exercise their discretion, on an individual basis, in order to prevent low-priority individuals from being placed into removal proceedings.”

But Homeland Security officials said they would begin accepting requests from immigrant students in 60 days, leaving time to prepare procedures to handle the huge response they expect.

Representative Steve King, Republican of Iowa, who is an outspoken critic of illegal immigrants, said he would bring a lawsuit against the White House to stop the measure.

White House officials said they chose Friday for the policy shift because it is the 30th anniversary of a Supreme Court decision, Plyler v. Doe, that effectively established that all children, regardless of immigration status, were entitled to public education through high school.

Immigrant student leaders praised Mr. Obama, saying his action should convince other students that advocacy could be effective, even for immigrants without legal status. Although the reprieve is temporary, the leaders said they expected that the majority of students would seize the opportunity to work and come out into the open.

“We’ve done away with the fear,” said Gaby Pacheco, 27, an Ecuadorean-born immigrant who was among the first in a wave of students in recent years who “came out” to declare publicly that they were in this country illegally.

Mr. Obama also received praise from Democratic lawmakers, including the Hispanic Caucus in the House and Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the second-highest Democrat in the Senate who is the leading author of the Dream Act. Mr. Durbin first proposed in April 2010 that the president should grant deferred action to young students.

Over the past two months Mr. Durbin and other top Democrats, including Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, have quietly urged Mr. Obama to do something significant to help immigrant students.

Maricela Aguilar, 21, who was born in Mexico and lives in Wisconsin, said she was in Los Angeles with a group of students when the news came of the new policy.

“We were all watching and listening and screaming out in joy,” she said. Ms. Aguilar graduated last month from Marquette University, but feared she would never find work professionally.

Some students were cautious, recalling that Mr. Obama had promised them help before. “We don’t want to get too excited,” said Daniela Alulema, 25, an illegal immigrant from Ecuador who is a leader of the New York State Youth Leadership Council. “We hope that what was announced will be implemented and will actually help our community.”

Kirk Semple and Richard W. Stevenson contributed reporting.

USCIS Unable to Resume Processing Adoptions from Montenegro

USCIS blog The Beacon

7/5/2012

Intercountry Adoptions Under the Hague Adoption Convention

On July 1, 2012, Montenegro became a party to the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (Hague Adoption Convention). However, the Department of State (DOS) has determined that Montenegro does not yet have a fully functional Convention process in place. DOS consular officers are unable to certify that adoption decrees or custody orders obtained in Montenegro for a child habitually resident in Montenegro have been issued in compliance with the Hague Adoption Convention. Without this certification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) cannot approve a Form I-800, Petition to Classify Convention Adoptee as an Immediate Relative.

Because U.S. prospective adoptive parents cannot complete the immigration process for an adopted child from Montenegro, USCIS strongly urges these parents to not file any Form I-800 on behalf of a child to be adopted from Montenegro. USCIS also strongly urges them not to file Form I-800A, Application for Determination of Suitability to Adopt a Child from a Convention Country, identifying Montenegro as the country from which they seek to adopt.

USCIS will promptly advise the public when DOS determines that Montenegro is compliant with the Hague Adoption Convention, which will allow USCIS to process Forms I-800 for adoptions from Montenegro.

The Hague Adoption Convention, which entered into force for the U.S. on April 1, 2008, protects the welfare of children, birth parent(s) and adoptive parent(s) engaged in intercountry adoptions. Effective April 1, 2008, new intercountry adoptions between the United States and other Hague Adoption Convention countries must comply with Hague Adoption Convention standards. Montenegro acceded to the Hague Adoption Convention on March 9, 2012, and the Hague Adoption Convention entered into force in Montenegro on July 1, 2012. In the U.S., Hague Convention adoptions are processed on USCIS Forms I-800A and I-800.

Before the Hague Adoption Convention entered into force for the U.S. and Montenegro, Montenegrin intercountry adoption cases were processed on USCIS Forms I-600A, Application for Advance Processing of Orphan Petition, and I-600, Petition to Classify Orphan as an Immediate Relative.

Visa Bulletin For July 2012

Number 46
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, in chronological order of reported priority dates, for demand received by June 8th. If not all demand could be satisfied, 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. If 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 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. 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, INDIA, MEXICO, and PHILIPPINES.

4. Section 203(a) of the INA prescribes preference classes for allotment of Family-sponsored immigrant visas as follows:

FAMILY-SPONSORED PREFERENCES

First: (F1) Unmarried Sons and Daughters of U.S. 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, plus any unused first preference numbers:

A. (F2A) Spouses and Children of Permanent Residents: 77% of the overall second preference limitation, of which 75% are exempt from the per-country limit;

B. (F2B) Unmarried Sons and Daughters (21 years of age or older) of Permanent Residents: 23% of the overall second preference limitation.

Third: (F3) Married Sons and Daughters of U.S. Citizens: 23,400, plus any numbers not required by first and second preferences.

Fourth: (F4) Brothers and Sisters of Adult U.S. Citizens: 65,000, plus any numbers not required by first three preferences.

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-Sponsored
All Charge-ability Areas Except Those Listed CHINA- mainland born INDIA MEXICO PHILIPPINES
F1 08JUL05 08JUL05 08JUL05 08JUN93 15JUL97
F2A 15FEB10 15FEB10 15FEB10 01FEB10 15FEB10
F2B 01MAY04 01MAY04 01MAY04 01JAN92 22DEC01
F3 15APR02 15APR02 15APR02 22JAN93 22JUL92
F4 22JAN01 08JAN01 22JAN01 08JUN96 01FEB89

*NOTE: For July, F2A numbers EXEMPT from per-country limit are available to applicants from all countries with priority dates earlier than 01FEB10. F2A numbers SUBJECT to per-country limit are available to applicants chargeable to all countries EXCEPT MEXICO with priority dates beginning 01FEB10 and earlier than 15FEB10. (All F2A numbers provided for MEXICO are exempt from the per-country limit; there are no F2A numbers for MEXICO subject to per-country limit.)

5. Section 203(b) of the INA prescribes preference classes for allotment of Employment-based immigrant visas as follows:

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 Pub. L. 102-395.

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.)
Employment- Based

All Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed
CHINA- mainland born INDIA MEXICO PHILIPPINES
1st C C C C C
2nd 01JAN09 U U 01JAN09 01JAN09
3rd 22JUL06 22SEP05 22SEP02 22JUL06 08JUN06
Other Workers 22JUL06 15JUN03 22SEP02 22JUL06 08JUN06
4th C C C C C
Certain Religious Workers C C C C C

5th
Targeted
Employment Areas/
Regional Centers
and Pilot Programs
C C C C C

*Employment Third Preference Other Workers Category: Section 203(e) of the Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) passed by Congress in November 1997, 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.

6. The Department of State has a recorded message with visa availability information which can be heard at: (202) 663-1541. This recording is updated on or about the tenth of each month with information on cut-off dates for the following month.

B. DIVERSITY IMMIGRANT (DV) CATEGORY

Section 203(c) of the INA provides up to 55,000 immigrant visas each fiscal year to permit additional immigration opportunities for persons from countries with low admissions during the previous five years. The NACARA 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 resulted in reduction of the DV-2012 annual limit 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-2012 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 CURRENT
ASIA CURRENT
EUROPE CURRENT Except: Uzbekistan 17,700
NORTH AMERICA (BAHAMAS) CURRENT
OCEANIA CURRENT
SOUTH AMERICA, and the CARIBBEAN CURRENT

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-2012 program ends as of September 30, 2012. DV visas may not be issued to DV-2012 applicants after that date. Similarly, spouses and children accompanying or following to join DV-2012 principals are only entitled to derivative DV status until September 30, 2012. DV visa availability through the very end of FY-2012 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-2012 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 CURRENT
ASIA CURRENT
EUROPE CURRENT
NORTH AMERICA (BAHAMAS) CURRENT
OCEANIA CURRENT
SOUTH AMERICA, and the CARIBBEAN CURRENT

D. EMPLOYMENT SECOND PREFERENCE VISA AVAILABILITY
Continued heavy demand for numbers in the Employment Second preference category has required the establishment of a Worldwide cut-off date for the month of July. This action has been taken in an effort to hold number use within the annual numerical limit. Should there be an increase in the current demand pattern, it may be necessary to make this category completely “unavailable” prior to September 30, 2012.

The China and India Employment Second preference categories are already “unavailable”, and will remain so for the remainder of the fiscal year.

E. OBTAINING THE MONTHLY VISA BULLETIN

The Department of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs publishes the monthly Visa Bulletin on their website at http://www.travel.state.gov under the Visas section. Alternatively, visitors may access the Visa Bulletin directly by going to:

http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_1360.html

Miami Valedictorian Could Be Deported

March 2, 2012: By Seni Tienabeso @Senijr_ABC and Matt Gutman @mattgutmanABC | ABC News

North Miami High School senior Daniela Palaez has a 6.7 GPA, the valedictory nod from her classmates, a brother in the U.S. Army and deportation papers to Colombia.

In a hearing on Monday a federal immigration judge ordered the 18-year-old Palaez, in the U.S. since she was 4 years old, to voluntarily leave the the country for her native Colombia by the end of the month after her request for a green card was denied.

“Everything I’ve worked for, it’s, like going down the drain in a matter of days,” says the aspiring surgeon who has already applied to a number of Ivy League colleges. “I consider myself an American. [Deportation] would mean I’d leave a country and go back to a country that I don’t remember, a country [where] I don’t feel at home, and I don’t even graduate high school,”

Flanked by American flags and backed by chants of “justice for Daniela” from the thousands gathered Friday outside her school, Miami Dade Superintendent Alberto Caravalho upped the ante, saying “over my dead body will this student be deported,” to roaring approval by the students.

After the judges’ order on Monday, Emily Sell, a longtime friend, began a petition in support of Palaez on Facebook. It already has 5,000 signatures and is picking up momentum, with new signatures coming in at the rate of about 200 an hour.

“My goal is not to make Daniela another statistic, but rather the face of the American Dream,” Sell told ABC News. “Her possible deportation is very hard for her friends and family and community to hear.”

Palaez was 4 years old when she arrived in the U.S. with her family from Columbia on a tourist visa. Her residency application was denied in 2010. Her mother returned traveled to Columbia five years ago to get treatment for colon cancer and now can’t return to the U.S. Palaez’s brother is in the U.S Army and just returned from a tour in Afghanistan. Her father received permanent residency through Palaez’s brother, but she is stuck.

Her departure is not imminent, and her attorney is planning to file an appeal that would prevent her removal from the U.S. Right now, Palaez is trying to get a pre-approved student visa, but congressional support is needed to expedite such a request. She has gained the strong support of three Florida members of Congress, at least two of who plan to write to the U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement on her behalf.

Palaez’s attorney, Jack Wallace, says it may be years before she is actually deported.

This latest case has renewed calls for comprehensive immigration reform. The proposed Dream Act, a legislative bill that would allow undocumented children to receive permanent residency either by enrolling in college or the military, has stalled despite strong support from President Obama.

There are nearly 200,000 students in Florida alone who would benefit from the Dream Act, which some criticize as promoting illegal immigration.

“Once I make the appeal, I think I will be able to stay,” says Palaez, who hopes her bright future won’t be cut short by a situation that was never in her control. “ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] says everything will be fine as long as I continue my legal proceedings.”

Visa Bulletin For November 2011

Number 38
Volume IX
Washington, D.C.

• View as Printer Friendly PDF

A. STATUTORY NUMBERS

1. This bulletin summarizes the availability of immigrant numbers during November. 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, in chronological order of reported priority dates, for demand received by October 5th. If not all demand could be satisfied, 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. If 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 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. 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, INDIA, MEXICO, and PHILIPPINES.

4. Section 203(a) of the INA prescribes preference classes for allotment of Family-sponsored immigrant visas as follows:

FAMILY-SPONSORED PREFERENCES

First:(F1) Unmarried Sons and Daughters of U.S. 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, plus any unused first preference numbers:

A. (F2A) Spouses and Children of Permanent Residents: 77% of the overall second preference limitation, of which 75% are exempt from the per-country limit;

B. (F2B) Unmarried Sons and Daughters (21 years of age or older) of Permanent Residents: 23% of the overall second preference limitation.

Third:(F3) Married Sons and Daughters of U.S. Citizens: 23,400, plus any numbers not required by first and second preferences.

Fourth:(F4) Brothers and Sisters of Adult U.S. Citizens: 65,000, plus any numbers not required by first three preferences.

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- Sponsored	All Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed	CHINA- mainland born	INDIA	MEXICO	PHILIPPINES
F1	22JUL04	22JUL04	22JUL04	01APR93	08FEB97
F2A *	15FEB09	15FEB09	15FEB09	01DEC08	15FEB09
F2B	01AUG03	01AUG03	01AUG03	22NOV92	15JUL01
F3	22SEP01	22SEP01	22SEP01	08DEC92	22JUN92
F4	15JUN00	15JUN00	15JUN00	22APR96	22AUG88

*NOTE: For November, F2A numbers EXEMPT from per-country limit are available to applicants from all countries with priority dates earlier than 01DEC08. F2A numbers SUBJECT to per-country limit are available to applicants chargeable to all countries EXCEPT MEXICO with priority dates beginning 01DEC08 and earlier than 15FEB09. (All F2A numbers provided for MEXICO are exempt from the per-country limit; there are no F2A numbers for MEXICO subject to per-country limit.)

5. Section 203(b) of the INA prescribes preference classes for allotment of Employment-based immigrant visas as follows:

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 Pub. L. 102-395.

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.)

Employment- Based	All Charge-ability Areas Except Those Listed	CHINA- mainland born	INDIA	MEXICO	PHILIPPINES
1st	C	C	C	C	C
2nd	C	01NOV07	01NOV07	C	C
3rd	22DEC05	22AUG04	22JUL02	22DEC05	22DEC05
Other Workers*	15NOV05	22APR03	15JUN02	15NOV05	15NOV05
4th	C	C	C	C	C
Certain Religious Workers	C	C	C	C	C
5th Targeted Employment Areas/Regional Centers and Pilot Programs	C	C	C	C	C

*Employment Third Preference Other Workers Category: Section 203(e) of the Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) passed by Congress in November 1997, 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.

6. The Department of State has a recorded message with visa availability information which can be heard at: (202) 663-1541. This recording is updated on or about the tenth of each month with information on cut-off dates for the following month.

B. DIVERSITY IMMIGRANT (DV) CATEGORY

Section 203(c) of the INA provides up to 55,000 immigrant visas each fiscal year to permit additional immigration opportunities for persons from countries with low admissions during the previous five years. The NACARA 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 resulted in reduction of the DV-2012 annual limit 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 November, immigrant numbers in the DV category are available to qualified DV-2012 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	13,000	Except: Egypt 8,000 Ethiopia 10,000 Nigeria 10,000
ASIA	10,000
EUROPE	11,000
NORTH AMERICA (BAHAMAS)	4
OCEANIA	500
SOUTH AMERICA, and the CARIBBEAN	550

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-2012 program ends as of September 30, 2012. DV visas may not be issued to DV-2012 applicants after that date. Similarly, spouses and children accompanying or following to join DV-2012 principals are only entitled to derivative DV status until September 30, 2012. DV visa availability through the very end of FY-2012 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 DECEMBER

For December, immigrant numbers in the DV category are available to qualified DV-2012 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	18,500	Except: Egypt 12,700 Ethiopia 13,500 Nigeria 12,000
ASIA	15,000
EUROPE	13,500
NORTH AMERICA (BAHAMAS)	5
OCEANIA	575
SOUTH AMERICA, and the CARIBBEAN	600

D. CHINA-MAINLAND BORN AND INDIA EMPLOYMENT-BASED SECOND PREFERENCE VISA AVAILABILITY IN THE COMING MONTHS

The November Employment-based Second preference cut-off date for applicants from China and India is the most favorable since August 2007.  This advancement is expected to generate significant levels of demand based on new filings for adjustment of status at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services offices.  While significant future cut-off date movements are anticipated, they may not be made on a monthly basis.  Readers should not expect such movements to be the norm throughout the fiscal year, and an eventual retrogression of the cut-off at some point during the year is a distinct possibility.