By Marcela García
BOSTON GLOBE – December 01, 2013

Immigration reform is dead — or maybe not, depending on whom you talk to.

Yet, in a refreshing response to Washington political sclerosis, some Massachusetts lawmakers are following the lead of a handful of states that have recently implemented measures to fill the void left by the ghost of immigration reform.

Two very different bills are in play at the State House, but both draw on the fundamental, yet controversial, premise that undocumented immigrants are a fact of life and require sensible policies, rather than purely exclusionary or hostile treatment. This is the same notion that animated the recent nationwide immigration debate — the growing awareness that longstanding denial about undocumented immigrants is getting the country nowhere.

One widely supported Massachusetts reform is a rebuttal to the Secure Communities program, which has the unintended consequence of making many communities less secure. Secure Communities gives federal immigration officials the authority to insinuate themselves into local police enforcement. This is the program mostly responsible for the highest rate of deportations ever in the country — 400,000 a year. Since Massachusetts officially implemented it last May, and immigrant communities became aware that the local police at times have become an extension of federal enforcement, Secure Communities has cast a pall in community policing.

Immigrants’ fear of the police breeds less cooperation and less public safety. A recent national report confirms Latino immigrants are less likely to contact police because of their involvement in immigration enforcement: More than 4 in 10 Latinos are less likely to report a crime.

At its worst, local and state law enforcement officers’ assistance with federal immigration enforcement has resulted in the unlawful seizure and detention of Massachusetts residents without charges or probable cause to detain them.

State Senator Jamie Eldridge and Representative Carl Sciortino have proposed the Massachusetts Trust Act. It would release local law enforcement from routinely detaining and reporting to federal officials the many undocumented residents whom they stumble upon, such as a Mexican woman named Guadalupe who was shopping on Black Friday at the Holyoke Mall last year. She tried to pay for her merchandise with a debit card. When she could not produce an ID, security was called, and she was charged with shoplifting. The charges were quickly dropped by the judge, but police refused to release her to comply with Immigration and Customs Enforcement rules. She was deported four weeks later, leaving her daughter and her life behind.

In essence, the bill would liberate local police from being an arm of ICE and follows similar legislation in several states, including California and Connecticut. It has the support of Boston Mayor-elect Marty Walsh, Governor Patrick, and an assortment of other mayors. Walsh even said he wants Boston to pull out of the Secure Communities program, if he can get around it.

Safety is the goal of another bill aimed to address a hazardous situation: undocumented immigrants without drivers licenses and thus without insurance. When an accident occurs with an undocumented immigrant, the other driver must pick up the pieces.

No one knows this better than Carly McClain, a community organizer at the New Lynn Coalition. On her way to visit the Science Museum with her husband and son, a driver ran a stop sign and rammed into her car. When police arrived, says McClain, “the officer was asking for license and registration and he didn’t have that, he [the officer] was trying to tell him, ‘you should go to the hospital,’ and the guy didn’t understand him. He was really terrified.”

After the officer wrote him a ticket, the driver fled on foot. It took much aggravation and three months for McClain to work things out with her insurance company.

The Safe Driving Bill would remove immigration status as a barrier for a license or learner’s permit, and generate a special type of driver’s license and, along with it, the requirement to have insurance. The bill, sponsored by state Senator Patricia Jehlen and Representative Tricia Farley-Bouvier, is awaiting a hearing in the joint Transportation Committee.

McClain sees no reason why Massachusetts shouldn’t join the 12 states that require all drivers, including the undocumented, to be properly trained, licensed, and insured. “Maybe if this man had been able to go to the RMV and take a permit test so that he knew the rules of the road . . . he might not have hit me, and he might not have been hurt,” she says. “And all of this might not have happened.”

Marcela García is a special correspondent at Telemundo Boston and a contributor to the Boston Business Journal.

Published: November 20, 2013

Glendy Martínez is waiting anxiously to see if Congress will ever pass legislation to allow immigrants like her, without papers, to stay in the country legally. But frankly, she says, she does not care if it will include any promise of citizenship.

With the earnings from her job in a Houston hair salon, Ms. Martínez, 30, is supporting one child born in Texas and three others she left behind in her home country, Nicaragua.

“So many people back there depend on those of us who are here,” she said. “It would be such a help if we could work in peace and go back sometimes to see our children.”

As President Obama looks for a way to salvage a broad overhaul of the immigration system, he opened the door this week to a piecemeal series of smaller bills as a way of getting past the objections of the Republican-run House, which refused to take up the comprehensive measure that the Senate passed in June.

But as far as Ms. Martínez and many other immigrants are concerned, one of House Republicans’ sharpest disagreements with the Senate and the White House, over a path to citizenship for those here illegally, should not be that hard to resolve.

“For many undocumented people, citizenship is not a priority,” said Oscar A. Chacon, executive director of the National Alliance of Latin American and Caribbean Communities, a network of immigrant organizations that includes many foreigners here without papers. “What they really care about is a solution that allows them to overcome their greatest vulnerabilities.”

The Senate bill includes a 13-year pathway for 11.7 million illegal immigrants that ends with a chance to naturalize. President Obama and other supporters of that measure insist that any alternative would create a disenfranchised underclass. Many House Republicans reject the Senate path as rewarding immigrants who broke the law. But a growing number of Republicans say they remain ready to work on immigration and could consider legalization, if it did not involve any direct route to citizenship.

For foreigners like Ms. Martínez — those who cannot get a driver’s license in most states and live with gnawing worry about being fired or deported — that would be enough. They aspire to become Americans, they said in phone interviews, but would settle for less if they could work and drive legally, and visit relatives outside the country.

Another woman in Houston, Elena Sandoval, described a painful moment when her father died in El Salvador and she could not attend his funeral knowing she would not get back into the United States. Ms. Sandoval, 48, a house cleaner, sends money home for her three children.

“I can’t tell you how hard it is to leave your family,” Ms. Sandoval said with a sigh. “If only I could have permission to move about freely,” she added. “Citizenship would just be a blessing we would pray for.”

Most groups working for immigrant rights vehemently oppose any legislation that would deny millions of people the opportunity for full equality.

“We either have a path to citizenship or a path to hell,” said María Rodriguez, executive director of the Florida Immigrant Coalition. “To codify a person who lives in this country but will never have an opportunity for citizenship creates a second class. It seems completely un-American.”

Advocates say the Senate’s path — which requires illegal immigrants to pay fines and back taxes, study English, pass criminal checks and wait in line behind foreigners who applied legally — is sufficiently long and arduous. This month there have been rallies and protests nationwide and a fast on the National Mall to pressure the House to vote on a bill with citizenship.

But among immigrants there is no consensus. In South Florida, there were anguished discussions over café con leche and empanadas among members of Dreamers’ Moms, a group of mothers of young immigrants who have joined the movement.

“Citizenship is fundamental,” insists Yaquelín López, 46, a Bolivian who has been in the United States illegally for a decade. “Otherwise we will be 11 million people left in limbo.”

Marcela Espinal agrees.

“We have been working hard for our families and paying taxes all these years and we never lived off the government,” said Ms. Espinal, 35, a Honduran employed for more than a decade in construction. “Why shouldn’t we be able to vote someday?”

Two of Ms. Espinal’s three children are already Americans, because they were born here. She wants the security of citizenship, she said, after her husband, also from Honduras, escaped deportation this year only when immigrant groups rallied to free him.

However, a mother from Argentina, Alejandra Saucedo, 43, contends that the citizenship strategy could backfire.

“I think if we stick with the message of citizenship or nothing,” Ms. Saucedo said, “we could end up with nothing.”

In the House, several dozen conservatives reject any legalization, calling it amnesty for outlaws. But Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio and other House leaders continue to urge Republicans to show they can fix an immigration system that is broken. Many Republicans say legalization, along with tough border and workplace enforcement, is the only practical way to deal with unauthorized immigrants who have settled in the country.

Mr. Boehner said the House would take up the issues next year in smaller bills framed by principles being devised by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Representative Robert W. Goodlatte of Virginia. Mr. Good-latte has said that he wants to “find the appropriate legal status for unlawful immigrants,” but that he would not grant them any special path to becoming Americans. Mr. Obama on Tuesday told The Wall Street Journal, “If they want to chop that thing up into five pies, as long as all five pieces get done, I don’t care what it looks like.”

Republicans point to low rates of naturalization among some legal immigrants — 36 percent among Mexicans who are eligible, according to the Pew Research Center — to say that citizenship is not vital. Some Republicans also worry that by offering citizenship, they could create millions of future Democratic voters.

Some Republicans are trying to devise proposals their caucus could accept. Mr. Goodlatte and the majority leader, Representative Eric Cantor, also of Virginia, are working on a bill with a path to citizenship limited to young immigrants here illegally.

Representative Darrell Issa of California, the powerful chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said he had been writing a hybrid bill that would give illegal immigrants a six-year provisional status, allowing those with family ties here to naturalize eventually through regular channels, and creating a long-term guest worker program for others.

Representative Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida is proposing earned citizenship for a broader group. And three Republicans have signed on to a bill by House Democrats with a pathway mirroring the Senate’s.

Speaking on Tuesday to Hispanic evangelicals in Washington, Representative Luis V. Gutierrez, a Democrat from Illinois who is an ardent defender of a broad overhaul, urged supporters to be ready to compromise and accept legalization only for some immigrants to protect them from deportation.

Among Latinos, a growing electorate that both parties want to court, sentiment for a path to citizenship is strong. In a recent national survey by the Public Religion Research Institute, 67 percent of Latinos said immigrants here illegally should be allowed to become citizens if they met certain requirements, while 17 percent said they should only become legal residents.

In Florida, Ms. Saucedo says she fears a wave of deportations if Congress passes no bill at all. She knows what relief feels like, because after living illegally in Florida for many years, she became a legal resident through marriage to an American.

“Let them approve legalization,” Ms. Saucedo said. “After that, we will keep fighting until we reach our dream of being Americans with a vote.”

Published: Monday | November 18, 2013 – Jamaica Gleaner


The United States has offered a reprieve to illegal Caribbean and other immigrants who are close relatives of active military troops and veterans by allowing them to stay in the country and move towards becoming permanent residents.

After deliberating for over three years, the US Department of Homeland Security said in a memorandum that the new policy seeks to appease troops who are concerned that their immigrant family members could be deported while they were deployed.

“In order to reduce the uncertainty our active-duty and retired military personnel face because of the immigration status of their family members, we have decided to clarify existing policies,” Peter Boogaard, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security, told reporters here.

He said the new rules are based on existing statutes and not the creation of any new legal status that would require US congressional action.


The Homeland Security Depart-ment said the new rules apply to all active-duty members of the armed forces, to reservists, including the National Guard, and to all veterans.

Officials also said the spouses, children and parents of troops will be eligible for a “parole in place”, meaning that they will be allowed to remain in the US while applying for legal residency.

The shift in US policy comes as legislation to grant legal status to millions of undocumented Caribbean and other immigrants stalls in the US Congress.

Last week, Republicans in the House of Representatives vowed not to hold any votes on immigration this year or enter into any negotiations over a broad bill that the US Senate passed in June.

But while many immigrant groups welcome the new immigration policy, they also urged that it be extended to more illegal immigrants, according to The New York Times.

“The administration’s action clearly shows that the president can use his power to stop the pain in our communities and grant relief to our families,” Cristina Jimenez, managing director of United We Dream, a youth organisation, told the paper.

October 30, 2013 

By Sharon Bernstein

SACRAMENTO, California (Reuters) – Undocumented immigrants admitted to the University of California will be eligible for $5 million in services under a program announced on Wednesday, the latest in a series of moves to expand immigrant rights in the country’s most populous state.

Former U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, now president of the 10-campus U.C. system, set aside the funding as one of her first acts in her new job, calling it a down payment on the state’s commitment to all of its residents.

“U.C. will continue to be a vehicle for social mobility,” Napolitano told the San Francisco Commonwealth Club in her first major address since taking the helm of the university last month.

The money for the new programs would come from discretionary funds that are not provided by the state and would be used to pay for advisers, student services centers and financial aid, Napolitano said.

The funding is part of a broader effort to expand immigrant rights in strongly Democratic California, where 2.6 million people – most of them Latino – lack legal status, according to a recent study by the University of Southern California.

About 38 percent of California’s population of 38 million is of Hispanic descent, state figures show, representing a potentially enormous number of voters with an interest in immigrant issues.

In recent months, the state has passed laws allowing immigrants living illegally in the country to apply for driver’s licenses and practice law, and made it illegal for employers to retaliate against workers by threatening to report them to immigration authorities. California has also made significant overtures to undocumented students, allowing many to pay in-state tuition and offering other services.

The moves by California stand in stark contrast to policy in states like neighboring Arizona, long at odds with Washington over immigration reform. Earlier this month, Arizona widened its ban on drivers’ licenses for those living in the country illegally, including those granted temporary relief from deportation.

The new funding at the University of California is meant to help offset the impact of the ban on federal assistance for undocumented immigrants, said spokeswoman Dianne Klein.

“With the passage of the California dream act, undocumented students are now eligible for state and UC financial aid,” Klein said in an email. “What they are still excluded from is federal loans. This puts them at a distinct disadvantage.”

She said the new program “will help bridge that gap.”

The money will go a long way, Klein said, because there are only about 900 undocumented students in the system. Altogether, the U.C. system has 240,000 students, Klein said.

By Aaron Smith

The Indian company Infosys has reached a record $34 million settlement with federal prosecutors in Texas, to settle “allegations of systemic visa fraud and abuse of immigration processes.”

The U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Eastern District in Texas said that this is the largest payment ever levied in an immigration case.

The government accused software developer Infosys (INFY) of using workers with B-1 visas, which only allow temporary entry into the U.S. for business purposes, to perform skilled labor jobs.

The U.S. said these jobs should only be performed by workers with H-1B visas, which allow foreign nationals to enter the U.S. to perform a specialty occupation.

The government accused Infosys (INFY), a software developer, of using B-1 visa holders to perform skilled labor jobs that were supposed to be done by “legitimate” holders of H-1B visas.

The settlement says Infosys submitted letters to U.S. Consular Officials that “contained false statements regarding the true purpose of a B-1 visa holder’s travel in order to deceive U.S. Consular Officials and secure entry of the visa holder into the United States.”

It also says that Infosys issued a “dos” and “don’ts” memorandum directing B-1 visa holders “to deceive U.S. Consular Officials, including specific instructions to avoid certain terminology, to secure entry of the visa holder in the United States.” The memo allegedly included instructions to avoid using words like “work” and “contract” in certain communications with U.S. officials.

Infosys said it agreed to a civil settlement “relating to I-9 paperwork errors and visa matters that were the subject of the investigation. There were no criminal charges or court rulings against the company.” To top of page

By Andrea Saenz

This week, for the first time in the United States, detained immigrants who cannot afford attorneys will be provided with counsel through the New York Family Unity Project (NYIFUP). The program is a one-year pilot, funded through a grant from the forward-leaning New York City Council, which will provide representation for nearly 200 detainees at the Varick Street Immigration Court in New York City.

The program grew out of research by the New York Immigrant Representation Study, under the leadership of now-Chief Judge Robert A. Katzmann of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, demonstrating clearly that detainees without representation have virtually no chance of success in their removal cases. The NYIFUP is the result of advocacy by a coalition of organizations, led by the Center for Popular Democracy, the Northern Manhattan Coalition for Immigrant Rights, Make the Road New York, the Vera Institute of Justice, and the Immigration Justice Clinic at Cardozo School of Law.

As part of the NYIFUP advocacy team at Cardozo, seeing the pilot launch at Varick Street is incredibly exciting, and we hope to be a model across the country. There is a real opportunity for our new mayor and City Council to expand this project and keep New York the most immigrant-friendly city in America, and we hope to go statewide in the future.

At the same time, the coalition released a white paper entitled The New York Immigrant Family Unity Project: Good for Families, Good for Employers, and Good for All New Yorkers. The report shows how the lack of counsel for detained immigrants leads to unnecessary deportations that devastate families, undermine our commitment to due process, and impose huge costs on local governments and employers. The study’s findings include:

– State agencies and employers face some $13.4 million in costs relating to detention and deportation.
– New York State employers pay out an estimated $9.1 million in turnover-related costs a year when they are required to replace detained or deported workers
– Detention or deportation of a parent is linked to school dropout rates among children, limiting long-term earning
potential, decreasing tax revenues, and increasing reliance on public health insurance. This translates into $3.1 million in costs a year.
– Detentions and deportations of parents also cause significant costs to the NY State Children’s Health Insurance Program when bread-winning parents are deported.
– Finally, the state pays over half a million dollars a year to provide foster care to the children of detained or deported New Yorkers.

The report concludes that if NYFIFUP was expanded statewide, it would save $5.9 million of these costs, making it both a smart economic investment for the state and business, and a strong commitment to due process, family unity and our history as a nation of immigrants.

Number 62
Volume IX
Washington, D.C.


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 9th. 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:         



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.)

All Charge -ability Areas Except Those Listed CHINA- mainland born INDIA MEXICO PHILIPPINES
F1 22OCT06 22OCT06 22OCT06 22SEP93 01JUL01
F2B 22MAR06 22MAR06 22MAR06 01APR94 01MAR03
F3 08FEB03 08FEB03 08FEB03 01JUN93 08JAN93
F4 22AUG01 22AUG01 22AUG01 22OCT96 22APR90

*NOTE:  For November, F2A numbers EXEMPT from per-country limit are available to applicants from all countries with priority dates earlier than 01SEP13.  F2A numbers SUBJECT to per-country limit are available to applicants chargeable to all countries EXCEPT MEXICO with priority dates beginning 01SEP13 and earlier than 08SEP13.  (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:         


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
08OCT08 15JUN08
Other Workers
Certain Religious Workers
Employment Areas/
Regional Centers and Pilot Programs

*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) 485-7699.  This recording is updated on or about the tenth of each month with information on cut-off dates for the following month.


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-2014 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-2014 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    7,300
Ethiopia 7,300
Nigeria  7,500
ASIA 2,500
EUROPE 9,800

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-2014 program ends as of September 30, 2014.  DV visas may not be issued to DV-2014 applicants after that date.  Similarly, spouses and children accompanying or following to join DV-2014 principals are only entitled to derivative DV status until September 30, 2014.  DV visa availability through the very end of FY-2014 cannot be taken for granted.  Numbers could be exhausted prior to September 30.


For December, immigrant numbers in the DV category are available to qualified DV-2014 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
Except:  Egypt    9,050
Ethiopia 11,000
Nigeria  8,000




It is important to remember that the establishment of a monthly cut-off or “Current” status for a numerically controlled category (preference or Diversity) applies to those applicants who were reported prior to the allocation of visa numbers for that month.  For example, all qualified applicants who were reported to the Visa Office in time to be included in the calculation of the September cut-offs, who had a priority date or rank-order number before the relevant September cut-off, would have been allotted visa numbers for September.  There would be no expectation, however, that sufficient numbers would be available for the processing of cases which subsequently became eligible for final action during that month.  Additional numbers may be allocated outside the regular monthly cycle, but only to the extent that such numbers remain available under the applicable annual limit.  The availability of additional numbers is subject to change at any time and should never be taken for granted.  This is especially true late in the fiscal year when numerical allocations are often close to or at the annual limits.

When applicants fail to appear or overcome a refusal (even for reasons beyond their control) during the original month of scheduled interview, they risk not having their case processed later in the fiscal year.  This is because the unused numbers that had originally been allocated for their case are returned at the end of their interview month to the “pool” of numbers available for allocation in subsequent months to other applicants being reported for their “first time” interview.

EMPLOYMENT-based Third Preference:

China:  Rapid forward movement of the cut-off date, as a result of there being insufficient demand to use all available numbers, allowed the category to reach the Worldwide Third preference cut-off date in May 2013.  The continued lack of demand has allowed the “otherwise unused” numbers available under that limit to be provided for use in the China Employment Third preference Other Workers category.  The continued addition of those numbers has allowed the cut-off date for that category to reach the China Third preference date for November.  This is the same action which has been possible for the Other Worker category in other “oversubscribed” countries such as India and Mexico. A sudden increase in demand for China Employment Third preference visas could require corrective action in the China Other Worker cut-off date at any time.