Blog

The U.S. election stunned the world. Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, I don’t think anybody expected Trump to win as resoundingly as he did. I’ve already gotten dozens of emails from former, current and prospective clients asking, “how does this affect my immigration options to the United States?” The short-term answer is “it won’t” and the long-term answer is “it depends.” U.S. immigration law is federal – many of the visa and green card categories were implemented with the cooperation of the executive, legislative and judicial branches. Other categories, like DACA, were implemented through executive action by President Obama and could be repealed by a future President. TN visas (for Canadians and Mexicans) are a product of NAFTA – a trade agreement that Trump bemoaned throughout the entire campaign. So long term, there could be changes to some categories. DACA could be rescinded. TN visas could cease to exist if Trump pulls the United States out of NAFTA. However, my feeling is that you won’t see changes to many of the visa and green card applications that we currently process.

Will there be a wall? Will there be “mass deportation”? Will there be “extreme vetting” of new immigrants to the United States? These are broader questions that will undoubtedly be answered over the next four years. Obviously, the electoral majority embraced these proposals – as evidenced by the vote. But how realistic will it be to build a wall to keep out all Mexicans at the border? Or to deport 11 million undocumented aliens in the 1st month of office? Or to vet every immigrant application for “Western values” based on a test? Thankfully, it won’t be easy.

We’ll see what the future brings but to the thousands of clients I have gotten visas, green cards and citizenship for, you will not suddenly be told to leave the United States. To prospective clients reconsidering immigrating to the United States, America was and will continue to be the Land of Opportunity. The U.S. Government has a system of checks and balances – no one branch of government has authority over another.

So go ahead and marry your American fiancé. Go ahead and take that job offer in California. Go ahead and chase your dream of starting your own business here. We’ll be here if you need us.

Effective December 23, 2016, USCIS will increase many of its filing fees. Any applications received on or after this date will be subject to the new fees:

G-1041 Genealogy Index Search Request — $65 ($20)
G-1041A Genealogy Records Request (Copy from Microfilm) — $65 ($20)
G-1041A Genealogy Records Request (Copy from Textual Record) — $65 ($20)
I-90 Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card — $455 ($365)
I-102 Application for Replacement/Initial Nonimmigrant Arrival-Departure Document — $445 ($330)
I-129/129CW Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker — $460 ($325)
I-129F Petition for Alien Fiancé(e) — $535 ($340)
I-130 Petition for Alien Relative — $535 ($420)
I-131/I-131A Application for Travel Document — $575 ($360)
I-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker — $700 ($580)
I-191 Application for Relief Under Former Section 212(c) of the INA — $930 ($585)
I-192 Application for Advance permission to Enter as Nonimmigrant — $585/930 ($585)
I-193 Application for Waiver of Passport and/or Visa — $585 ($585)
I-212 Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission into the U.S. After Deportation or Removal — $930 ($585)
I-290B Notice of Appeal or Motion — $675 ($630)
I-360 Petition for Amerasian Widow(er) or Special Immigrant — $435 ($405)
I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status — $1,140 ($985)
I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (certan applicants under the age of 14 years) — $750 ($635)
I-526 Immigrant Petition by Alien Entrepreneur — $3,675 ($1,500)
I-539 Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status — $370 ($290)
I-600/600A Petition to Classify Orphan as an Immediate Relative/Application for Advance Petition Processing of Orphan Petition — $775 ($720)
I-601 Application for Waiver of Ground of Excludability — $930 ($585)
I-601A Application for Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver — $630 ($585)
I-612 Application for Waiver of the Foreign Residence Requirement (Under Section 212(e) of the INA, as Amended) — $930 ($585)
I-687 Application for Status as a Temporary Resident under Section 245A of the Immigration and Nationality Act — $1,130 ($1,130)
I-690 Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility — $715 ($200)
I-694 Notice of Appeal of Decision — $890 ($755)
I-698 Application to Adjust Status from Temporary to Permanent Resident (under Section 245A of the INA) — $1,670 ($1,020)
I-751 Petition to Remove Conditions on Residence — $595 ($505)
I-765 Application for Employment Authorization — $410 ($380)
I-800/800A Petition to Classify Convention Adoptee as an Immediate Relative/Application for Determination of Suitability to Adopt a Child from a Convention Country — $775 ($720)
I-800A Supp. 3 Request for Action on Approved Form I-800A — $385 ($360)
I-817 Application for Family Unity Benefits — $600 ($435)
I-824 Application for Action on an Approved Application or Petition — $465 ($405)
I-829 Petition by Entrepreneur to Remove Conditions — $3,750 ($3,750)
I-910 Application for Civil Surgeon Designation — $785 ($615)
I-924 Application for Regional Center Designation Under the Immigrant Investor Program — $17,795 ($6,230)
I-924A Annual Certification of Regional Center — $3,035 ($0)
I-929 Petition for Qualifying Family Member of a U-1 Immigrant — $230 ($215)
N-300 Application to File Declaration of Intention — $270 ($250)
N-336 Request for Hearing on a Decision in Naturalization Proceedings — $700 ($650)
N-400 Application for Naturalization — $640 ($595)
N-470 Application to Preserve Residence for Naturalization Purposes — $355 ($330)
N-565 Application for Replacement Naturalization/Citizenship Document — $555 ($345)
N-600/N-600K application for Certificate of Citizenship — $1,170 ($600/550)
USCIS Immigrant Fee — $220 ($165)

You Won a Gold, Silver, or Bronze Olympic Medal.  Now it’s Time to go for the Green!

Now that the 2016 Rio Olympics have come to a close, thousands of talented athletes are returning home with Gold, Silver and Bronze medals in hand. These athletes are among the most elite in the world – the best of the best. The United States covets these types of people and it just so happens that there is a way for those athletes who won an Olympic medal to immigrate to the United States.

A green card just for Olympic medalists, you ask? Not quite, the EB–1 green card is a specific employment-based category that allows applicants who have demonstrated extraordinary ability in certain fields, including athletics, to apply for a green card without having a job offer in the United States.

Generally, to qualify for an EB-1 green card, the applicant must demonstrate at least 3 of the following 10 criteria:

• Evidence of receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence
• Evidence of your membership in associations in the field which demand outstanding achievement of their members
• Evidence of published material about you in professional or major trade publications or other major media
• Evidence that you have been asked to judge the work of others, either individually or on a panel
• Evidence of your original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance to the field
• Evidence of your authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications or other major media
• Evidence that your work has been displayed at artistic exhibitions or showcases
• Evidence of your performance of a leading or critical role in distinguished organizations
• Evidence that you command a high salary or other significantly high remuneration in relation to others in the field
• Evidence of your commercial successes in the performing arts

However, USCIS explicitly states that in lieu of the aforementioned criteria, the applicant can also “provide evidence of a one-time achievement (i.e., Pulitzer, Oscar, Olympic Medal).”

So if you won Gold, Silver or Bronze at the Olympics, maybe it’s time to go for the Green? Contact Maximilian Law Inc. to see whether you are eligible to apply for an EB-1 green card.

Penalties for violations of immigration law increased on August 1, 2016 after the Department of Justice issued an interim final rule as an inflation adjustment.

The rule increased fines for Form I-9 paperwork violations, for engaging in unfair immigration-related employment practices such as discrimination, document abuse and document fraud, and for knowingly hiring or continuing to employ an unauthorized worker. These categories of activity were originally outlawed in The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. 

Form I-9 Paperwork Violations 

What this is: Form I-9 is used to verify the identity and employment authorization of anyone hired for employment in the United States. All U.S. employers must have a complete I-9 for each individual they hire whether a citizen or noncitizen.

To complete the I-9, the employee must attest to his employment authorization and show her employer documents that prove her identity and ability to work in the United States.

What the previous fine was: $110 – $1,100 per violation

What the new fine is: $216 – $2,156 per violation

 Unfair Employment Practice: Committing or Participating in Document Fraud

What this is:

Document Fraud is the forgery, counterfeit, or alteration of any document for the purpose of complying with Immigration law regarding the employment of aliens.

What the previous fine was:

$250 – $2,000

What the new fine is:

$376 – $3,005

Unfair Employment Practice: Discrimination

What this is:

There are several types of discriminatory unfair employment practices.

Employers are not allowed to treat individuals differently based on their immigration or citizenship status. Citizens, temporary residents, refugees, and recent permanent residents are protected from citizenship status discrimination. However, citizenship status discrimination that is required to comply with laws or regulations are permissible by law (such as not hiring immigrants without appropriate proof of their employment authorization).

Employers are also not allowed to treat individuals differently because of their country of origin, place of birth, native language, accent, or ancestry. All work authorized individuals, citizens, and lawful permanent residents are protected from national origin discrimination.

What the previous fine was: $375 – $3,200 for first order violations

What the new fine is: $445 – $3,563 for first order violations

 Unfair Employment Practice: Committing document abuse

What this is:

Employers must verify the identity and employment eligibility of their workers to comply with the Immigration Reform and Control Act. However, if the employer does not allow an employee to use any documents which are legally acceptable but instead, requires specific documents or requires more documents than are legally required by I-9.

What the previous fine was:

$110 – $1,100 per violation

What the new fine is:

$178 – $1,782

Employing an unauthorized worker:

What this is:

Employers must ensure that their employees are authorized to work in the U.S. by checking that the employee’s I-9 documents appear reasonably genuine and related to the employee. If you employ a worker who is not authorized to work and it cannot be shown that you followed I-9 procedures and acted in good faith, you may be fined.

What the previous fine was:

$375 – $3,200 for a first offense

What the new fine is:

$539 – $4,313 for a first offense

To learn more about fines for immigration law violations, contact an experienced immigration law at Maximilian Law Inc.

On Monday, July 18, Attorneys for the Department of Justice filed a petition with the Supreme Court requesting that the Court re-hear U.S. v. Texas once a ninth justice has been appointed to the court.

Because of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February, the justices deadlocked 4-4 in their opinion on the case last month. As a result, the 5^th circuit court’s preliminary injunction restraining the executive branch from proceeding with DAPA and the expansion of DACA was left standing.

The Supreme Court deadlocked in four cases this last term, including this immigration case. Petitions for rehearing were filed by the losing side in two of those cases – Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (which challenged fees charged to public employees who do not join the union that represents them) and Hawkins v. Community Bank (which interpreted a federal law banning discrimination in credit transactions) of Raymore. The Court denied both requests for rehearing before leaving for their summer recess.

The DOJ attorneys claimed in their petition that it is more important for U.S. v. Texas to be re-heard before a full court than either the Friedrichs or the Hawkins case, because the question of the validity of Obama’s guidance on immigration is “unlikely to arise in any future case.”

“Ordinarily, it is exceedingly rare for this Court to grant rehearing,” The DOJ attorneys stated in their petition. “But when this Court has conducted plenary review and then affirmed by vote of an equally divided court because of a vacancy rather than a disqualification, the Court has not infrequently granted rehearing before a full Bench.”

The petition is right; the Court really has granted rehearing before a full Bench after a deadlock due to a vacancy before several times. After the death of Justice Benjamin Cardozo, the Supreme Court granted rehearing of the 1938 case of US v. One 1936 Model Ford V-8 De Luxe Coach. Two cases were granted re-hearing after Justice Robert Jackson’s death caused a vacancy in 1954.  In other vacancy cases, four cases were granted re-hearing in 1941 due to Justice Clark McReynolds’ retirement, two cases were granted re-hearing in 1945 after Justice Robert Jackson took a leave of absence, and one case was granted re-hearing due to a justice’s absence due to illness in 1895.

However, all the cases cited in the petition took place over 60 years ago. This may be because it’s much more common these days for justices to retire before their deaths. As the Washington Post noted back in February, Justice Scalia was only the third Supreme Court Justice to die while “on the bench” in the last 63 years. Chief Justice William Rehnquist died on the bench in 2005, but prior to that, the last justice to die while on the bench was Chief Justice Fred Vinson, who died in 1953. As a result, the executive and legislative branches of the federal government usually anticipate a Supreme Court vacancy before it happens and have time to decide what to do about it. Justice Scalia’s death took everyone by surprise.

“Unless the Court resolves this court in a precedential manner, a matter of ‘great national importance’ involving an ‘unprecedented and momentous’ injunction barring implementation of the Guidance will have been effectively resolved for the country as a whole by a court of appeals that has divided twice, with two judges voting for petitioners and two for respondent States. As this Court recognized in granting certiorari, this Court instead should be the final arbiter of these matters through a definitive ruling.”

All eight Justices will discuss the government’s filing and determine what to do about it. The Court could deny the request outright, as was done in the previous two deadlocked cases requesting re-hearing this term, or the Court could ask Texas and the other states who joined the challenge to the guidance to weigh in on the re-hearing petition. However, the Court’s previous denial of the other two petitions for re-hearing this term on a deadlocked case strongly forecast that this petition is unlikely to succeed. If the Senate continues to block hearings of the President’s Supreme Court nominee, there may be many, many months to go before a ninth Justice joins the Court.

To find out how any recent controversies in immigration law may affect you and your immigration process, contact a trusted immigration lawyer at Maximilian Law Inc.