Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for June, 2010

By Renee Loth
June 26, 2010
Boston Globe

FEW WOULD say that the tide is turning in the rancorous debate on immigration, but could it be that a sense of proportion is returning? In Massachusetts, some of the more extreme crackdowns on individ
Late last month, spooked by a Suffolk University poll, the Senate reversed an earlier vote essentially codifying rules that bar illegal immigrants from receiving most state benefits. Instead, it adopted a far more sweeping amendment pushed by Senate Republicans. There were panicky caucus meetings and fast-gavel approvals of the 22-page amendment. Some members complained they had not had sufficient time to read it. Others said they disliked some provisions but wanted to show “toughness’’ on the issue.

The Suffolk poll found a thumping 84 percent of respondents agreed that the Legislature should “force individuals to provide proof of citizenship or legal residency if they seek state benefits.’’ It’s too bad the poll didn’t also ask a few questions of fact, since it almost surely would have revealed a depth of ignorance among voters about current law. For example: Are illegal immigrants eligible for food stamps, welfare, health benefits, or in-state tuition rates in Massachusetts? (No.) Or, do illegal immigrants generally pay more in taxes than they use in government services? (Yes.)

Details, details. In its amendment, the Senate embraced an odd mix of burdensome mandate and ineffectual duplication. The measure would have set up a snitcher’s hotline within the attorney general’s office, and required the AG to investigate every tip about employers hiring illegal immigrants. Of course, this legislative intrusion into the executive branch provided no funding for the new legal and police work.

The amendment also would have required any company seeking a government contract (including from local cities and towns) to verify the immigration status of every one of its employees — even if they wouldn’t be working on that contract. The provision required use of a verification system that is costly, burdensome, and fraught with error. And it conflicted with the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which explicitly bars states from penalizing employers for hiring illegal immigrants. Even the US Chamber of Commerce, hardly a bleeding heart group, is suing the state of Arizona over a similar provision.

Happily, this lawsuit-in-the-making was also removed in the conference committee. What was included — and what will have the force of law after the budget is signed — are current agency practices in the departments of Transitional Assistance (welfare), Health and Human Services (Medicaid) and Unemployment Assistance. The agencies also are required to pursue cases of attempted fraud and report findings to the Legislature and governor.

Meanwhile, several recent cases have put a human face on the immigration issue. From the brilliant Harvard student who was illegally brought into the country by his mother at age 4, to the Homeland Security officer who faces five years in prison for hiring an undocumented cleaning lady, to the married couple who endured a forced separation of three years because immigration laws don’t recognize same-sex marriage, these cases make fair-minded people pause and consider. Each case is unique, but they all challenge the stereotype of invading hordes of criminal illegal immigrants depicted by opponents.

In sticking mostly to budget language that clarifies or reinforces existing rules, Massachusetts will be spared costly lawsuits — and Governor Patrick may be spared a politically risky veto. The state budget confirms what the US Supreme Court has found: that immigration law is the purview of the federal government. Now if only Congress could find a way to cool the rhetoric and debate the facts.
uals Before enraged citizens pillory legislators for “caving’’ on the immigration measures, they should review the facts. It’s actually good news that cooler heads prevailed in the conference committee, because both business and government would have been living with the consequences of the hastily-adopted amendment for a long time.
caught in the nation’s tangled immigration laws are getting a second look. And the most onerous provisions in a state budget amendment targeting illegal immigrants — and the businesses that might employ them — were stripped out this week in a conference committee.

Read Full Post »

Man was not charged with deportable offense but got expelled anyway.

ASSOCIATED PRESS – Monday, June 14, 2010

WASHINGTON — A single tablet of an anti-anxiety drug got Jose Angel Carachuri-Rosendo 10 days in jail in Harris County and a quick deportation to his native Mexico.

Too quick, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court said Monday in a ruling that could affect thousands of legal immigrants who face deportation over minor criminal records.

The lone Xanax tablet that Carachuri-Rosendo had without a prescription was his second minor drug crime, a year after he received 20 days in jail for possessing less than two ounces of marijuana.

When the federal government began deportation proceedings, it said Carachuri-Rosendo could not appeal for leniency because his second conviction amounted to a serious, or aggravated, felony. But Justice John Paul Stevens said that although local prosecutors could have charged Carachuri-Rosendo with being a repeat offender, they didn’t, so he was not convicted of a crime that would have made his deportation automatic.

In the unanimous opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, “The conviction itself is the starting place, not what might have or could have been charged.”

“Carachuri-Rosendo, and others in his position, may now seek cancellation of removal and thereby avoid the harsh consequence of mandatory removal,” Stevens wrote for the court. He noted that immigrants may still be deported in such instances but that immigration judges have the discretion to allow people to remain in this country.

Alina Das, a supervising attorney with the immigrant rights clinic at the New York University law school, said Congress intended automatic deportation to apply to drug traffickers, not people convicted of simple possession crimes.

Carachuri-Rosendo, in his early 30s, had been in the United States legally since he was 5. His wife, four children, mother and two sisters all are U.S. citizens, Stevens said.

Geoffrey Hoffman, a law professor at the University of Houston who represented Carachuri-Rosendo throughout the deportation proceedings, said after the ruling that the Supreme Court had viewed the government’s argument as “too speculative and too far from removed from the intent of Congress.”

Hoffman said he was unsure if Carachuri-Rosendo, who is thought to be living in Mexico, was aware of the ruling, which he called a “victory for due process.”

He said attorneys were working with family members in the Houston area to locate Carachuri-Rosendo to determine the next step.

“My understanding is that we’re going to do everything we can to follow through with his case and continue to represent him in terms of getting him the remedy he deserves,” Hoffman said.

Read Full Post »

By Maria Sacchetti

Boston Globe / June 12, 2010

A 19-year-old Harvard biology student, who has been in the United States unlawfully since he was 4 years old, was detained at a Texas airport this week and is fighting deportation to his native Mexico.

Eric Balderas, a sophomore on a full scholarship to Harvard, was detained Monday while preparing to board a flight back to Boston to spend the summer conducting research at the university. He had been visiting his mother in San Antonio, where he grew up and was valedictorian of his high school class.

Balderas said he had lost his Mexican passport and tried to board the flight using a consular card from the Mexican government and his Harvard identification. Instead, he said, airport security called immigration officials, who handcuffed and fingerprinted him and detained him for five hours before letting him go. He boarded a flight back to Boston the next day, pending a July 6 court date with an immigration judge, probably in Boston.

Yesterday, Balderas was shaken and fearful of being forced to return to a country he barely remembers. He hopes to finish school and become a cancer researcher.

“I’m very worried, to be honest,’’ he said in an interview. “I’m willing to fight this, of course. I’m just hanging in there.’’

Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesman Brian P. Hale would not comment on Balderas’s case because of privacy laws, but he said ICE evaluates each case on an individual basis.

Balderas was arrested a year after Drew Gilpin Faust, Harvard president, urged Congress to support the Dream Act, federal legislation that would allow immigrant youths to apply for legal residency, under certain conditions. Faust recently met with US Senator Scott Brown, in part to urge him to support the measure.

Yesterday, a Harvard spokeswoman praised Balderas and said he is an example of why Congress should pass the act.

“Eric Balderas has already demonstrated the discipline and work ethic required for rigorous university work and has, like so many of our undergraduates, expressed an interest in making a difference in the world,’’ said Harvard spokeswoman Christine Heenan. “These dedicated young people are vital to our nation’s future, and President Faust’s support of the Dream Act reflects Harvard’s commitment to access and opportunity for students like Eric.’’

The Dream Act would create a path to legal residency for youths who arrived before they turned 16 and have lived here for five years. They would have to complete two years of college or the military, among other requirements to qualify.

Opponents say it would reward students and their families who broke the law by entering the country illegally, but supporters point out that children had no say in their parents’ decision to bring them to the United States. The presidents of Harvard, Brown, Tufts, and other universities have backed the legislation, which has been stalled since 2001.

Yesterday, Balderas’s stunned friends and classmates rallied to his defense, joining a Facebook page and urging immigration officials to let him stay. They said he has tried to be a good citizen and stellar student.

Friends pointed out that Balderas barely remembers Mexico and considers English to be his first language.

“He’s like an American, but without documents,’’ said Mario Rodas, a member of the Student Immigrant Movement, which has been pushing for legal residency for immigrant youth. “These are the kind of people we need in this country, doing research for cancer.’’

Balderas said he is the son of a single mother who left an abusive husband and worked 12-hour days packing biscuits while raising him and his younger brother and sister in San Antonio. At home, he would baby sit his siblings while juggling homework.

“I honestly never thought I’d make it into college because of my status, but I just really enjoyed school too much and I gave it a shot,’’ he said. “I did strive for this.’’

Now he is at one of the world’s best universities, majoring in molecular and cellular biology.

But on Monday, as he sat handcuffed, he said he contemplated suicide at the thought of being sent back to Mexico. He does not remember his hometown of Ciudad Acuña, in the northern state of Coahuila. His family is in Texas.

“They just kept [asking] me if I had any other documents, that they were just trying to help me so that I can get on the plane,’’ he said, recalling his conversation with immigration officials. “But at that point I realized there was nothing that I could do, that anybody could do.’’

Read Full Post »

Number 22
Volume IX
Washington, D.C.

A. STATUTORY NUMBERS

1.  This bulletin summarizes the availability of immigrant numbers during July. Consular officers are required to report to the Department of State documentarily qualified applicants for numerically limited visas; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in the Department of Homeland Security reports applicants for adjustment of status.  Allocations were made, to the extent possible under the numerical limitations, for the demand received by June 9th in the chronological order of the reported priority dates. If the demand could not be satisfied within the statutory or regulatory limits, the category or foreign state in which demand was excessive was deemed oversubscribed.  The cut-off date for an oversubscribed category is the priority date of the first applicant who could not be reached within the numerical limits.  Only applicants who have a priority date earlier than the cut-off date may be allotted a number.  Immediately that it becomes necessary during the monthly allocation process to retrogress a cut-off date, supplemental requests for numbers will be honored only if the priority date falls within the new cut-off date which has been announced in this bulletin.

2.  Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000.  The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000.  Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620.  The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320.

3.  Section 203 of the INA prescribes preference classes for allotment of immigrant visas as follows:

FAMILY-SPONSORED PREFERENCES

First:  Unmarried Sons and Daughters of Citizens:  23,400 plus any numbers not required for fourth preference.

Second:  Spouses and Children, and Unmarried Sons and Daughters of Permanent Residents:  114,200, plus the number (if any) by which the worldwide family preference level exceeds 226,000, and any unused first preference numbers:

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

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

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

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

EMPLOYMENT-BASED PREFERENCES

First:    Priority Workers:  28.6% of the worldwide employment-based preference level, plus any numbers not required for fourth and fifth preferences.

Second:  Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or Persons of Exceptional Ability:  28.6% of the worldwide employment-based preference level, plus any numbers not required by first preference.

Third:  Skilled Workers, Professionals, and Other Workers:  28.6% of the worldwide level, plus any numbers not required by first and second preferences, not more than 10,000 of which to “Other Workers”.  

Fourth:  Certain Special Immigrants:  7.1% of the worldwide level.

Fifth:  Employment Creation:  7.1% of the worldwide level, not less than 3,000 of which reserved for investors in a targeted rural or high-unemployment area, and 3,000 set aside for investors in regional centers by Sec. 610 of P.L. 102-395.

4.  INA Section 203(e) provides that family-sponsored and employment-based preference visas be issued to eligible immigrants in the order in which a petition in behalf of each has been filed.  Section 203(d) provides that spouses and children of preference immigrants are entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration, if accompanying or following to join the principal.  The visa prorating provisions of Section 202(e) apply to allocations for a foreign state or dependent area when visa demand exceeds the per-country limit.  These provisions apply at present to the following oversubscribed chargeability areas:  CHINA-mainland born, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, INDIA, MEXICO, and PHILIPPINES.

5.  On the chart below, the listing of a date for any class indicates that the class is oversubscribed (see paragraph 1); “C” means current, i.e., numbers are available for all qualified applicants; and “U” means unavailable, i.e., no numbers are available.  (NOTE:  Numbers are available only for applicants whose priority date is earlier than the cut-off date listed below.)

Family All Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed CHINA-mainland born DOMINICAN REPUBLIC INDIA MEXICO PHILIPPINES
1st 01APR05 01APR05 01APR05 01APR05 01NOV92 01SEP95
2A 01JUL08 01JUL08 01JUN07 01JUL08 01JUN07 01JUL08
2B 01MAY03 01MAY03 01MAY03 01MAY03 15JUN92 01MAR00
3rd 01SEP01 01SEP01 01SEP01 01SEP01 01MAR92 01MAY93
4th 01JAN01 01JAN01 01JAN01 01JAN01 01MAR95 01APR89

*NOTE:  For July, 2A numbers EXEMPT from per-country limit are available to applicants from all countries with priority dates earlier than 01JUN07.  2A numbers SUBJECT to per-country limit are available to applicants chargeable to all countries EXCEPT the DOMINICAN REPUBLIC and MEXICO with priority dates beginning 01JUN07 and earlier than 01JUL08.  (All 2A numbers provided for the DOMINICAN REPUBLIC AND MEXICO are exempt from the per-country limit; there are no 2A numbers for the DOMINICAN REPUBLIC AND MEXICO subject to per-country limit.)

Employment- Based All Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed CHINA- mainland born DOMINICAN REPUBLIC INDIA MEXICO PHILIPPINES
1st C C C C C C
2nd C 22NOV05 C 01OCT05 C C
3rd 15AUG03 15AUG03 15AUG03 22NOV01 U 15AUG03
Other Workers 01JUN01 01JUN01 01JUN01 01JUN01 U 01JUN01
4th C C C C C C
Certain Religious Workers C C C C C C
5th C C C C C C
Targeted Employ-ment Areas/ Regional Centers C C C C C C
5th Pilot Programs C C C C C C

The Department of State has available a recorded message with visa availability information which can be heard at:  (area code 202) 663-1541.  This recording will be updated in the middle of each month with information on cut-off dates for the following month.

Employment Third Preference Other Workers Category:  Section 203(e) of the NACARA, as amended by Section 1(e) of Pub. L. 105-139, provides that once the Employment Third Preference Other Worker (EW) cut-off date has reached the priority date of the latest EW petition approved prior to November 19, 1997, the 10,000 EW numbers available for a fiscal year are to be reduced by up to 5,000 annually beginning in the following fiscal year.  This reduction is to be made for as long as necessary to offset adjustments under the NACARA program.  Since the EW cut-off date reached November 19, 1997 during Fiscal Year 2001, the reduction in the EW annual limit to 5,000 began in Fiscal Year 2002.

B. DIVERSITY IMMIGRANT (DV) CATEGORY

Section 203(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides a maximum of up to 55,000 immigrant visas each fiscal year to permit immigration opportunities for persons from countries other than the principal sources of current immigration to the United States.  The Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) passed by Congress in November 1997 stipulates that beginning with DV-99, and for as long as necessary, up to 5,000 of the 55,000 annually-allocated diversity visas will be made available for use under the NACARA program.  This reduction has resulted in the DV-2010 annual limit being reduced to 50,000.  DV visas are divided among six geographic regions.  No one country can receive more than seven percent of the available diversity visas in any one year.

For July, immigrant numbers in the DV category are available to qualified DV-2010 applicants chargeable to all regions/eligible countries as follows. When an allocation cut-off number is shown, visas are available only for applicants with DV regional lottery rank numbers BELOW the specified allocation cut-off number:

Region All DV Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed Separately  
AFRICA 54,100 Except:
Egypt: 24,500
Ethiopia: 25,100
Nigeria: 18,850
ASIA 23,500  
EUROPE 32,000  
NORTH AMERICA (BAHAMAS) 5  
OCEANIA 1,300  
SOUTH AMERICA, and the CARIBBEAN 1,500  

Entitlement to immigrant status in the DV category lasts only through the end of the fiscal (visa) year for which the applicant is selected in the lottery.  The year of entitlement for all applicants registered for the DV-2010 program ends as of September 30, 2010.  DV visas may not be issued to DV-2010 applicants after that date.  Similarly, spouses and children accompanying or following to join DV-2010 principals are only entitled to derivative DV status until September 30, 2010.  DV visa availability through the very end of FY-2010 cannot be taken for granted.  Numbers could be exhausted prior to September 30.

C. ADVANCE NOTIFICATION OF THE DIVERSITY (DV) IMMIGRANT CATEGORY RANK CUT-OFFS WHICH WILL APPLY IN AUGUST

For August, immigrant numbers in the DV category are available to qualified DV-2010 applicants chargeable to all regions/eligible countries as follows. When an allocation cut-off number is shown, visas are available only for applicants with DV regional lottery rank numbers BELOW the specified allocation cut-off number:

Region All DV Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed Separately  
AFRICA 64,300 Except:
Egypt: 26,000
Ethiopia: 25,625
Nigeria: 22,000
ASIA 28,700  
EUROPE CURRENT  
NORTH AMERICA (BAHAMAS) 5  
OCEANIA CURRENT  
SOUTH AMERICA, and the CARIBBEAN CURRENT  

D. VISA AVAILABILITY IN THE FAMILY-SPONSORED CATEGORIES

There continues to be extremely rapid forward movement of most Family preference cut-off dates.  This is a direct result of the lack of demand by potential applicants who have chosen not to pursue final action on their cases, or who may no longer be eligible for status.  The rapid movement provides the best opportunity to maximize number use under the FY-2010 annual numerical limitations.  Should applicants eventually decide to pursue action on their cases it will have a significant impact on the cut-off dates.  

E. RETROGRESSION OF THE MEXICO FAMILY THIRD AND FOURTH PREFERENCE CUT-OFF DATES

As the end of the fiscal year approaches, it has been necessary to retrogress the Mexico Family Third and Fourth preference cut-off dates to keep visa issuances within the annual numerical limitations set by law.  It is anticipated that for October, the first month of the new fiscal year, these preferences will return to the latest cut-off dates reached during FY-2010.

F. VISA AVAILABILITY IN THE EMPLOYMENT-BASED CATEGORIES

Based on current indications of demand, the best case scenarios for cut-off dates which will be reached by the end of FY-2010 are as follows:

Employment First:  Current

Employment Second:

China and India:  March or April 2006

Employment Third:

Worldwide:    June through September 2004
China:        October through December 2003
India:        February 2002
Mexico:       Unavailable
Philippines:  June through September 2004

Employment Fourth

Worldwide:  It may be necessary to establish a cut-off date for September.

Employment Fifth:  Current

Please be advised that the above date ranges are only estimates which are subject to fluctuations in demand.  Continued heavy demand during recent months has reduced the estimated forward movements projected earlier in the year.  It is possible that some annual limits could be reached or that some preferences could retrogress prior to the end of the fiscal year.   Those categories with a “Current” projection will remain so for the foreseeable future.

Read Full Post »

Associated Press

By JENNIFER KAY (AP)

MIAMI — With their homeland ravaged by an earthquake, more than 50,000 Haitians have applied to legally stay and work in the U.S. and immigration advocates are urging others not to miss their chance.

The deadline to apply for temporary protected status is July 20. Only Haitians who were already living in the U.S. illegally when the earthquake struck Jan. 12 are eligible.

Temporary protected status, or TPS, allows immigrants from countries experiencing armed conflict or environmental disasters to stay and work in the U.S. for 18 months.

As of June 4, 51,881 applications have been processed, more than half of them in Florida, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. About 11 percent have been rejected for being incomplete or lacking the proper fee.

Federal officials initially said they expected about 100,000 to 200,000 Haitians to apply for temporary protected status. The government now says that’s actually the number of applications they can handle. They expect about 70,000 applications by mid-July.

Immigration advocates say some Haitians who are eligible won’t apply because they don’t have $470 for application fees, or because they fear stepping forward will only lead to trouble and deportation to Haiti.

“We understand this community is going through incredible hardship,” CIS spokeswoman Ana Santiago said. “We’re urging people to please register, because this is something that will help you deal with the situation.”

The Haitian community center Sant La in Miami offers small loans to some applicants. Others have been trying to save up the money before the deadline, instead of asking immigration officials for a fee waiver.

Executive Director Gepsie Metellus said some Haitians regard the offer of temporary protected status warily, believing the documentation just makes it easier to deport them later. They don’t see it leading to better paying jobs that can support their families in the U.S. and in Haiti.

“All we can do is debunk the myths that are out there,” Metellus said. “We encourage people to apply and point out that the government knows where you are now, and they’ve got bigger fish to fry.”

Manouse Jean of Miami said temporary protected status will be a relief from years of frequent relocations to elude immigration authorities after her appeal for asylum was denied. She fled Haiti’s political instability in 1999.

“I used to be afraid to work, to go walking in the streets. To catch the bus, my heart would be beating so fast,” the 33-year-old said Thursday after dropping off documents for her TPS application at the Archdiocese of Miami’s Catholic Legal Services.

She joined hundreds of people who packed a Haitian neighborhood church in January for information about temporary protected status. She hopes TPS also will allow her to pursue training for licensed practical nurses so she can find work caring for earthquake survivors if she eventually is deported to Haiti.

“If I can be an LPN, and if immigration sends me back, I will have something to survive with,” Jean said. “With TPS, I am happy. I’m not scared anymore.”

Haitians who miss the July deadline will not be able to apply again if the U.S. renews temporary protected status for Haiti, as it has for more than a decade for Central American countries that had to rebuild after a 1998 hurricane.

“If they don’t get in this time, they’re going to be sorry because the doors to this TPS will be closed to them forever,” Metellus said.

Haiti’s government and Haitian advocates in the U.S. for years pleaded for TPS after hurricanes, massive floods, food riots and political turmoil in the Caribbean country. Their pleas were denied, until the catastrophic earthquake five months ago.

Since then, the U.S. also temporarily stopped deporting Haitians, even those in detention. About 31,000 Haitians have orders to leave, according to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Haitian migrants interdicted at sea by the U.S. Coast Guard continue to be returned to their homeland; nearly 600 since October.

Read Full Post »

June 10, 2010    U.S. Department of Justice

PRESS RELEASE

PHILADELPHIA—David Lynn, 35, of Holland, PA, was sentenced today to 40 months in prison for leading an asylum fraud scheme that netted him and five co-defendants millions of dollars in illegal profits, announced United States Attorney Zane David Memeger. Lynn pleaded guilty, In October 2008, to one count of conspiracy, one count of visa/asylum fraud, one count of money laundering, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Lynn, who was charged with five co-defendants, ran a business that filed at least 380 bogus asylum applications for clients, between January 2003 and March 2007, charging an average of $8,000 for an application.

In addition to the prison term, U.S. District Court Judge R. Barclay Surrick ordered forfeiture in the amount of $1.7 million in cash and assets.

The case was investigated by the Department of Homeland Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the United States Department of Labor Office of Inspector General’s Office of Labor Racketeering and Fraud, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Office of Inspector General for Housing and Urban Development; with support from the Citizenship and Immigration Services Office of Fraud Detection and National Security, Department of State Diplomatic Security Services, the Northampton Township Police Department, and the Upper Southampton Township police.

It was prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Terri A. Marinari.

Read Full Post »

WASHINGTON—In light of Tropical Storm Agatha, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) reminds Guatemalans of U.S. immigration benefits available to eligible Guatemalan nationals upon request.

USCIS understands that a natural disaster can affect an individual’s ability to establish or maintain lawful immigration status. Temporary relief measures available to eligible nationals of Guatemala may include:

  • The grant of an application for change or extension of nonimmigrant status on behalf of a Guatemalan national who is currently in the United States, even in cases where the request is submitted after the individual’s authorized period of admission has expired;
  • Re-parole of individuals granted parole by USCIS;
  • Extension of certain grants of advance parole, expedited processing of advance parole requests;
  • Expedited adjudication and approval, where possible, of requests for off-campus employment authorization due to severe economic hardship for F-1 students;
  • Expedited processing of immigrant petitions for immediate relative(s) of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents (LPRs);
  • Expedited issuance of employment authorization where appropriate; and
  • Assistance to LPRs stranded overseas without documents in coordination with the Department of State.

For more information on USCIS humanitarian programs, visit www.uscis.gov or call the National Customer Service Center at 1-800-375-5283.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.