GAY MARRIAGE AND IMMIGRATION

GAY MARRIAGE AND IMMIGRATION

With the New U.S. Congress likely review the District of Columbia's recent action to recognize Gay Marriages, it is clear that we may see sooner than later a re-examination of the federally mandated Defense of Marriage Act - which forbids the Federal government from recognizing Gay Marriage.

Up to now, if a U.S. citizen 'partner' wanted to legalize the immigration status of their loved one, or give them 'dependent' status, they could not (as the USCIS did not recognize the relationship for immigration purposes).

Of course, eventually, the issue must come before the Supreme Court since one State generally cannot 'void' another State's laws under the U.S. Constitution. But until that happens nothing is likely to change.

Now this. The Congress will be forced, hopefully, to review the District of Columbia's decision and confront the issue frontally. If so, this may finally open the door to a re-definition of marriage for immigration purposes.

Let's see what happens.

An Obama Win: The Immigration Factor

Dear Readers,

Let's talk about what's next, after the Presidential Election.

It's likely that Obama will win, for sure, but how will he approach immigration - and what's likely to happen?

Obama has stated that he is for 'Comprehensive Immigration Reform". This is a political statement, which has no bearing on reality.

McCain, for example, is also for CIR, but he wants to shut the borders down first. Again, a purely political pronouncement, directed to his 'right wing' (as was his VP choice).

Now let's get down to the truth: In difficult economic times, 'Joe' public usually falls for anti-immigration rhetoric and demagoguery.

Politicians almost always vote their constituency, meaning that they vote in a way to assure their continued reelection. Immigrants, by their nature, and status, do not vote as they are not U.S. citizens. Period.

You'd hope though, given that Obama is smart, thinks in terms of foresight, future generations and the like, that he'd consider as President elect (once elected, mind you), a sensible immigration policy.

I think he will. And although I don't expect a push for Comprehensive Reform, I do see some interest in eliminating crazy backlogs, enticing "the best and the brightest" to stay in this country, and if not here, to come here, .... to allow entrepreneurs, employers, and startups to seek the talented pool of foreign nationals that will help us build the "new economy".

I even see the promise of Obama at some point in his administration's first term leading the way towards 'documenting, the undocumented' in a fair and humane way and without a so-called 'amnesty', which would finally allow millions of otherwise law abiding residents to come out of the shadows - without shame or fear.

But true 'Comprehensive Immigration Reform', as proposed? Forget about it. A pipedream. Not in the cards for a variety of reasons.

Congress won't have time to tackle the issue, and I don't believe even look at it seriously, for years to come. Our representatives will no doubt be struggling with putting policies in place that will help to revive this country and get it working again.

Many of Obama's other issues will have to fall by the wayside as well.

Will increased immigration help this country - you bet! Will there be useful legislation on the immigration front? Let’s wait and see, but I’d bet yes.

Immigrants are just too important. Let's cross our fingers and hope that our leaders, and our President, see it the same way.

Thank you.

AC21 Portability and You: Moving Around after 180 Days

To My Readers:

The below USCIS Memo is still the ultimate in understanding how the Immigration Service looks at 'porting' under AC21, that is, leaving ones job and sponsor - who filed a visa petition on one's behalf, to take another job (but before the individual has obtained PR status).

The Service and Congress decided that if one was in the last stages of obtaining permanent resident status (plus 180 days), one could leave one's petitioning employer to go to a job in the "same or a similar" job category with another employer - and not lose one's right to obtain his/her 'green card'.

It was clear that Congress decided that at some point these individuals must have 'free reign'.

In my opinion, this was Congress' way of helping to 'fix' a broken immigration system, but that is another blog (and I've been there, done that). Reforming or immigration system that is so out of step with reality, the global nature of things today - and competing in such a world, our broken educational system... is not really possible. A total recall is in order.

Back to the issue of porting and helping readers understand what is written below. The most important thing is that porting is possible and no one should feel forced to stay with a petitioning employer after 180 days after the I-485 is filed.

On my own cases, where I know the file was put together properly, that the merits are all in order, in my mind 180 days mean 180 days. If USCIS could artificially delay the porting somehow - thus changing the timeframe mandated by Congress then it would have no meaning.

The memo, however, suggests just that - and most practitioners still advise clients, I believe erroneously, that they must "wait" until the underlying employment-based visa petition (submitted on form I-140) is approved.

Is it prudent to wait? In situations where a meritorious RFE (Request for Evidence) may ensure, yes. Does the Memo lead one to believe that one should fear one's employer (after leaving them to 'port') can refuse or fail to respond to an RFE issued by the Service - and thus sabotage one's future immigration? I think the memo suggests that the Service has no alternative and I understand this. But if one's I-140 petition has merit and was properly prepared by qualified and experienced immigration counsel, I don't think there should be a problem (and them Memo overreaches). That is just my opinion.

Most non-citizens fear the Immigration Service as they should naturally fear any authority; however, truth has strength too - and can be a very, very powerful weapon itself. Everyone should remember that.

The Memo:


____


To: REGIONAL DIRECTORS

SERVICE CENTER DIRECTORS

From: Michael Aytes

Acting Director of Domestic Operations

Date: December 27, 2005

Re: Interim guidance for processing I-140 employment-based immigrant petitions and I-485 and H-1B petitions affected by the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) (Public Law 106-313)

This memorandum serves to reissue the prior guidance of May 12, 2005 without change except to clarify the answer to question 1 in Section I. The entire reissued memorandum, with the clarification, follows:

Purpose

The purpose of this memorandum is to provide field offices with interim guidance on:
(1) Processing Form I-140 petitions and Form I-485 applications in connection with the I-140 portability provision of §106(c) of AC21;

(2) Adjudication of H-1B petitions in connection with the 7th year extension provisions of §106(a) of AC21;

(3) Adjudication of H-1B petitions in connection with the 7th year extension provisions of 104(c) for aliens subject to per country visa limitations; and

(4) Adjudication of H-1B petitions in connection with the H-1B portability provisions of §105 of AC21;

This interim guidance will only be in effect until regulations that are currently in progress are published as a final rule. The proposed rule may take a more restrictive position than this memorandum. Please note that the Adjudicator’s Field Manual (AFM) will not be updated at this time.

Prior AC21 Guidance

􀂃 On January 29, 2001, the Office of Field Operations issued a memorandum entitled "Interim Guidance for Processing H-1B Applications for Admission as Affected by the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2002, Public Law 106-313."

􀂃 On June 19, 2001, the Office of Programs issued a follow-up memorandum entitled "Initial Guidance for Processing H-1B Petitions as Affected by the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (Public Law 106-313) and Related Legislation (Public Law 106-311) and (Public Law 106-396)."

􀂃 On February 28, 2003, the Immigration Service Division issued a memorandum entitled “Procedures for concurrently filed family-based or employment-based Form I-485 when the underlying visa petition is denied.”

HQPRD 70/6.2.8-P20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20529

Interim guidance for processing I-140 employment-based immigrant petitions and I-485 and H-1B petitions affected by the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) (Public Law 106-313)

Page 2

􀂃 On April 24, 2003, the Office of Operations issued a memorandum entitled “Guidance for Processing H-1B Petitions as Affected by the Twenty-First Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act (Public Law 107-273).”

􀂃 On August 4, 2003, the Office of Operations issued a memorandum entitled “Continuing Validity of Form I-140 Petition in Accordance with Section 106(c) of the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21).”

All of these memoranda remain in effect and this memorandum supplements the existing guidance.

New AC21 Guidance

New issues and questions in connection with I-140 portability cases and H-1B cases have arisen since the previous guidance memoranda were issued. Implementation of the provisions of AC21 have been further complicated by the interim rule published on July 31, 2002, allowing, in certain circumstances, the concurrent filing of Form I-140 and Form I-485. Previous Service regulations required an alien worker to
first obtain approval of the underlying Form I-140 before applying for permanent resident status on the Form I-485.

This guidance is intended to address those questions and issues. This memorandum is divided into four separate sections, establishing guidelines and interim procedures for use by USCIS personnel:

􀂃 Section I - Processing of Form I-140 petitions and Form I-485 applications when there is a question of eligibility for I-140 portability benefits under §106(c) of AC21.

􀂃 Section II - Processing of H-1B petitions where there is a question of eligibility for an H-1B extension past the 6-year limit under §106(a) of AC21.

􀂃 Section III - Processing of H-1B petitions where there is a question of eligibility for an H-1B extension past the 6-year limit under §104(c) of AC21 (aliens subject to per country limitations).

􀂃 Section IV - Processing of H-1B petitions where there is a question of the affect of H-1B portability under §105 of AC21.

I. Q & A ON PROCESSING OF I-140 PETITIONS AND I-485 APPLICATIONS UNDER THE I-
140 PORTABILITY PROVISIONS OF §106(C) OF AC21

Question 1. How should service centers or district offices process unapproved I-140
petitions that were concurrently filed with I-485 applications that have been pending
180 days in relation to the I-140 portability provisions under §106(c) of AC21?

Answer: If it is discovered that a beneficiary has ported off of an unapproved I-140 and I-485 that has been pending for 180 days or more, the following procedures should be applied:

A. Review the pending I-140 petition to determine if the preponderance of the evidence establishes that the case is approvable or would have been approvable had it been adjudicated within 180 days. If the petition is approvable but for an ability to pay issue or any other issue relating to a time after the filing of the petition, approve the petition on it’s merits. Then adjudicate the adjustment of status application to determine if the new position is the same or similar occupational classification for I-140 portability purposes.

B. If a request for additional evidence (RFE) is necessary to resolve a material issue, other than post-filing issues such as ability to pay, an RFE can be issued to try to resolve the issue. When a response is received, and if the petition is approvable, follow the procedures in part A above.

Interim guidance for processing I-140 employment-based immigrant petitions and I-485 and H-1B petitions affected by the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) (Public Law 106-313)

Page 3

Question 2. How should service centers or district offices process unapproved I-140
petitions that were concurrently filed with I-485 applications that have been pending
180 days and a Request for Evidence (RFE) has been issued?

Answer: If a response to an RFE is received, and the response does not adequately address the issues, or the response is simply that the beneficiary no longer works for the petitioner, or a response is not received at all, and the petition still cannot be approved:

A. Deny the petition on the merits of the case; and

B. Deny the I-485 and the portability request since there was never an approved petition from which to port.

Question 3. What is “same or similar” occupational classification for purposes of I-140 portability?

Answer: When making a determination if the new employment is the “same or similar” occupational classification in comparison to the employment in the initial I-140, adjudicators should consider the following factors:

A. Description of the job duties contained in the ETA 750A or the initial I-140 and the job duties of the new employment to determine if they are the “same or similar” occupational classification.

B. The DOT code and/or SOC code assigned to the initial I-140 employment for petitions that have a certified ETA 750A or consider what DOT and/or SOC code is appropriate for the position for an initial I-140 that did not require a certified ETA 750A. Then consider the DOT code and/or SOC code, whichever is appropriate for the new position to make a determination of “same or similar” occupational classification.

C. A substantial discrepancy between the previous and the new wage. (See Question 5 of this section for further clarification).

Question 4. Should service centers or district offices use a difference in geographic location of the employment in the approved labor certification and initial I-140, and the new employment as basis for denial in I-140 portability cases?

Answer: No. The relevant inquiry is if the new position is the same or similar occupational classification to the alien’s I-140 employment when considering the alien’s new position and job duties and not the geographic location of the new employment.

Question 5. Should service centers or district officers use a difference in the wage offered on the approved labor certification and initial I-140, and the new employment as basis for denial in adjustment portability cases?

Answer: No. As noted above the relevant inquiry is if the new position is the same or similar occupational classification to the alien’s I-140 employment. A difference in the wage offered on the approved labor certification, initial I-140 and the new employment cannot be used as a basis of a denial. However, a substantial discrepancy between the previous and the new wage may be taken into consideration as a factor in determining if the new employment is “same or similar.”

Question 6. Can multinational managers or executives classifiable under 8 USC
203(b)(1)(C) avail themselves of AC21 §106(c) (8 USC §204(j)) portability benefits even where the alien changes to a new job as a manager for an unrelated company? Can
“same or similar” for multinational employees mean employment with an unrelated
company?

Answer: Yes, multinational managers or executives can avail themselves of portability benefits where the alien changes to a new job as a manager or executive even for an unrelated company. However, there may be factual circumstances where such aliens cannot benefit from porting (i.e. where the job Interim guidance for processing I-140 employment-based immigrant petitions and I-485 and H-1B petitions affected by the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) (Public Law 106-313)

Page 4

duties are vastly different, so that that the new position is not in the same or similar occupational classification as the I-140 employment).

Question 7. Should service centers or district offices request proof of “ability to pay” from successor employers in I-140 portability cases, in other words, from the new company/employer to which someone has ported?

Answer: No. The relevant inquiry is whether the new position is in the same or similar occupational classification as the alien’s I-140 employment. It may be appropriate to confirm the legitimacy of a new employer and the job offer through an RFE to the adjustment applicant for relevant information about these issues. In an adjustment setting, public charge is also a relevant inquiry.

Question 8. Can an alien port to self-employment under INA §204(j)?

Answer: Yes, as long as the requirements are met. First, the key is whether the employment is in a "same or similar" occupational classification as the job for which the original I-140 petition was filed.

Second, it may be appropriate to confirm that the new employer and the job offer are legitimate through an RFE to the adjustment applicant for relevant information about these issues. Third, as with any portability case, USCIS will focus on whether the I-140 petition represented the truly intended employment at the time of the filing of both the I-140 and the I-485. This means that, as of the time of the filing of the I-140 and at the time of filing the I-485 if not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have had the intent to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to undertake the employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate.

Question 9. Must a successor employer in an I-140 portability case provide a new labor certification?

Answer: No. There is no requirement that successor employers in adjustment portability cases obtain a new labor certification for those occupations traditionally requiring one. AC21 also provides that any underlying labor certification also remains valid if the conditions of §106(c) are satisfied. The
beneficiary of an approved labor certification may benefit from it although the alien seeks to adjust on the basis of different employment.

Question 10. Should service centers or district offices deny portability cases on the sole basis that the alien has left his or her employment with the I-140 petitioner prior to the I-485 application pending for 180 days?

Answer: No. The basis for adjustment is not actual (current) employment but prospective employment. Since there is no requirement that the alien have ever been employed by the petitioner while the I-140 and/or I-485 was pending, the fact that an alien left the I-140 petitioner before the I-485 has been pending 180 days will not necessarily render the alien ineligible to port. However, in all cases an offer of employment must have been bona fide. This means that, as of the time the I-140
was filed and at the time of filing the I-485 if not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have had the intent to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to undertake the employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate.

Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?

Answer: An I-140 is no longer valid for porting purposes when:

A. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien’s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or

B. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.

Interim guidance for processing I-140 employment-based immigrant petitions and I-485 and H-1B petitions affected by the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) (Public Law 106-313)

Page 5

Question 12. Can the 180 days that an I-485 application must be pending for I-140
portability eligibility accrue during a period when visa numbers are unavailable?

Answer: Yes. The fact that a visa number becomes unavailable after the filing of the I-485 application does not stop the number of days required for I-140 portability eligibility from accruing.

Question 13. Does the alien’s priority date change as a result of porting under §106(c) of AC21?

Answer: No. The priority date continues to be determined at the time of the initial labor certification filing with the Department of Labor or at the time the initial I-140 immigrant petition is filed with USCIS (in cases where no labor certification is required).

Question 14. Must the alien have a new offer of employment at the time the I-485 is being adjudicated under the I-140 portability provisions?

Answer: Yes. The alien cannot still be looking for “same or similar” employment at the time the I-485 is being adjudicated under the adjustment portability provisions. The alien must be able to show there is a new valid offer of employment at the time the I-485 is adjudicated.

II. Q & A ON PROCESSING OF H-1B PETITIONS UNDER THE EXTENSION PROVISION OF
§106(A) ALLOWING EXTENSION PAST THE H-1B 6 YEAR LIMIT

Question 1. When an alien would otherwise be eligible for an H-1B extension, is it necessary to first file a Form I-129 requesting an extension of time to allow the beneficiary to complete or nearly complete the initial 6 years, and then file an additional Form I-129 requesting an extension of time beyond the 6 years?
Answer: No. Section 106(a) of AC21 allows an alien to obtain an extension of H-1B status beyond the 6-year maximum period, when:

A. 365 days or more have passed since the filing of any application for labor certification, Form ETA 750, that is required or used by the alien to obtain status as an EB immigrant, or

B. 365 days or more have passed since the filing of an EB immigrant petition.
Once these requirements have been met, the alien may be granted an extension beyond the 6-year maximum on or prior to the date the alien reaches the 6-year maximum. Such extensions may only be granted in one-year increments, but may be requested on a single (combined) extension request for any remaining time left in the initial 6-year period. Requiring the filing of two extension petitions merely increases petitioner and CIS workloads, and has no basis in statute. In no case, however,
may the total period of time granted on an extension exceed a cumulative total of 3 years. 8 CFR 214.2(h)(15)(ii)(B)(1).

Question 2. How early can a request for an H-1B extension beyond the 6th year be filed?

Answer: The April 24, 2003 guidance memorandum is modified in the following manner: a petitioner must establish that the above criteria (see Question 1 outlining requirements under Section 106(a)) were or will be met either on or before the requested start date on the H-1B extension application. Thus, an alien is eligible for an extension of H-1B status beyond the 6th year as long as either the qualifying labor certification application or I-140 petition has or will have been pending for at least 365 days prior to the alien’s requested start date, regardless of whether the H-1B extension application was filed prior to the passage of such period If the alien would no longer be in H-1B status at the time that 365 days from the filing of the labor certification application or immigrant petition has run, thus leaving a gap in valid status, then the extension of stay request cannot be granted.
Interim guidance for processing I-140 employment-based immigrant petitions and I-485 and H-1B petitions affected by the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) (Public Law 106-313)

Page 6

Question 3. Are there cases where an alien, who has been granted an H-1B extension
beyond the 6th year, will nonetheless only be allowed to remain for the 6-year maximum period of stay?

Answer: Yes. As addressed in the April 24, 2003 guidance memorandum, USCIS is required to grant the extension of stay request made under section 106(a) of AC21, in one-year increments, until such time as a final decision has been made to:
A. Deny the application for labor certification, or, if the labor certification is approved, to deny the EB immigrant petition that was filed pursuant to the approved labor certification;

B. Deny the EB immigrant petition, or

C. Grant or deny the alien’s application for an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status. If at any time before or after the filing of the single (combined) extension request a final decision is made on the above-stated grounds, the beneficiary of the extension request will not be entitled to an extension beyond the time remaining on his or her 6-year maximum stay unless another basis for exceeding the maximum applies.

Question 4. In a labor substitution context, can both the original alien and the substituted alien apply for an H-1B extension beyond the 6-year limit based on §106(a) of AC21?

Answer: No. Only the “current” beneficiary (meaning the alien that was most recently substituted into the labor certification) is eligible to get an H-1B extension beyond the 6-year limit.

Question 5. Does a timely and non-frivolous I-140 appeal pending at the AAO allow an alien to request an H-1B extension beyond the 6-year limit?

Answer: Subject to regulatory modification, as long as a decision may be reversed on direct appeal or certification to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO), USCIS will not consider that decision final for this purpose.

Question 6. Should service centers or district offices deny a request for an H-1B extension beyond the 6-year limit where the labor certification was filed over 365 days ago, has been approved, but the I-140/I-485 has not yet been filed?

Answer: No. Until further guidance is published, a request for an H-1B extension beyond the 6-year limit should not be denied on the sole basis that an I-140 petition has not yet been filed.

Question 7. Should service centers or district offices deny a request for an H-1B extension beyond the 6-year limit where the labor certification or immigrant petition from an employer who is not the H-1B petitioner was filed for the beneficiary more than 365 days ago?

Answer: No. The statute does not require that the labor certification or immigrant petition must be from the same employer requesting the H-1B extension.

Question 8. Should service centers or district offices deny a request for an H-1B extension beyond the 6-year limit where the labor certification or the immigrant petition was filed over 365 days ago, but the H-1B nonimmigrant intends to consular process rather than adjust status?

Answer: No.

Question 9. Are H-4 dependents eligible for an H extension beyond the 6-year limit?
Answer: Yes. H-4 dependents are eligible for an extension of their H-4 status beyond the 6-year limit provided they meet the H-4 requirements and based on the principal (H-1B) alien’s eligibility for an H-1B extension beyond the 6-year limit. This includes cases where the dependent may have held another status prior to becoming an H-4 dependent. However, in order to qualify for an H-1B Interim guidance for processing I-140 employment-based immigrant petitions and I-485 and H-1B petitions affected by the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) (Public Law 106-313)

Page 7

extension beyond the 6 year limit year of their own H-1B status, the alien must meet all the requirements independently of their H-1B spouse’s eligibility for a 7th year extension.

Question 10. What are the guidelines for processing 7th Year Extensions with the
implementation of the new DOL PERM Program?

Answer: Guidance on this subject will be provided via separate memorandum.

III. Q & A ON PROCESSING OF H-1B PETITIONS UNDER THE “ONE-TIME PROTECTION
UNDER PER COUNTRY CEILING” PROVISION OF §104(C) ALLOWING EXTENSION PAST
THE H-1B 6-YEAR LIMIT

Question 1. Must an alien be the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition in order to qualify for extension of H-1B status beyond the 6-year limit based on §104(c) of AC21?

Answer: Yes. Consistent with prior USCIS guidance on this subject, an approved I-140 petition is required in order for an alien to qualify for an extension of H-1B status beyond the 6-year limit under § 104(c).

Question 2. If an alien qualifies for an extension past the H-1B 6-year limit under §104(c), may an extension be granted for a period of up to three years?
Answer: Yes, provided all other H-1B statutory and regulatory requirements are met (e.g., the petition must request three years, and include a Labor Condition Application covering such period).

Question 3. If an alien qualifies for an extension past the H-1B 6-year limit under §104(c), may more than one extension be granted?

Answer: Yes. USCIS recognizes that in some cases, because of per country visa limitations, it may take more than three years for the alien to be eligible to adjust. Thus, despite the reference to a “onetime protection” a qualifying alien may be granted more than one extension under this provision.

IV. Q & A ON PROCESSING OF H-1B PETITIONS UNDER THE H-1B PORTABILITY
PROVISIONS

Question 1. Can an H-1B temporary worker “port” under §105 of AC21 (INA § 214(n)) from one employer to another even after the alien’s I-94 or last approved petition has expired as long as he or she is still in a “period of stay authorized by the Attorney General”?

Answer: Yes. Under certain circumstances, an H-1B alien may still be able to port to another H-1B employer even after the alien’s I-94 or last approved petition has expired. In order to port, however, such alien must meet all the requirements of INA § 214(n), including the requirement that the new petition be filed while the alien is in a “period of stay authorized by the Attorney General.” USCIS has previously determined and issued guidance explaining what constitutes a “period of stay authorized by the Attorney General.” One example would be:

Alien is in H-1B status. Employer A timely files a non-frivolous extension of the alien’s H-1B status. Alien’s original petition, approved for Employer A, expires during the pendency of the extension. Alien is then in a “period of stay as authorized by the Attorney General” while Employer A’s extension is pending. Employer B then files new petition and alien wants to port to Employer B. Under INA § 214(n), the alien should be permitted to port because he or she is in a
“period of stay as authorized by the Attorney General.” In other words, porting under INA §214 does not require that the alien currently be in H-1B status as
long as he or she is in a “period of stay authorized by the Attorney General.”
Interim guidance for processing I-140 employment-based immigrant petitions and I-485 and H-1B petitions affected by the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) (Public Law 106-313)

Page 8

Question 2. Can there be successive H-1B portability petitions filed for an alien while the previous H-1B petitions remain pending (i.e. creating a “bridge” of H-1B petitions)?

Answer: Yes. However, to be approved every H-1B portability petition must separately meet the requirements for H-1B classification and for an extension of stay.

Question 3. If successive H-1B portability petitions can be filed, what happens if an alien’s nonimmigrant status expires while the H-1B portability petitions are pending and a petition in the “bridge” is denied?

Answer: As stated above, to be approved every H-1B portability petition must separately meet the requirements for H-1B classification and for an extension of stay. In the event the alien’s nonimmigrant status has expired while the petitions are pending, the denial of any filing in the string of extension of stay and/or change of status filings undercuts the “bridge” that “carried” any petition
filed after the expiration of any approved status which will result in the denial of the successive requests to extend or change status.

* * * * *
Questions regarding this memorandum may be directed through appropriate channels to Service Center Operations.

Now that the H1B fiasco is over.....

I asked people on LinkedIn what they thought about an upcoming Immigration Article. My LinkedIn Question asked readers about their experience or thoughts on Employee Retention. It could have been subtitled: IMMIGRATION: A BROKEN SYSTEM - Will We (THE USA) Go Down with the Ship?

______ Here is my response to one email.

Paul M. Heller, Esq. wrote:

Hi Dimitrios,

Of course what you said was very perceptive (and we are in 100% agreement); it is very sad that this country is, and has been, headed the way of the British Empire and Rome - but I do believe we are fighting an uphill battle against our own politics (too bad only US citizens vote).

Xenophobia always thrives in bad economic times (really since 1999), i.e., scapegoats and the concept of 'devil' have been around forever, and it also arises when 'McCarthyism' raises its ugly head. I coined the term "New McCarthyism" after 9/11 - but it really hasn't been picked up yet.

But I think that it isn't just "bad economic times"; it is globalization and an economic and seismic shift that we aren't prepared for (and still don't fully understand). It is easily defended against not by closing or tightening immigration but by changing our country's immigration policy to attract those that we need "to innovate" and compete in a global market for a brighter and better future.

The "best and brightest" still want to come to this country if it affords them the opportunities and freedoms often lacking in other cultures. At this point in time we have an unbelievable 'closed door' policy (that makes absolutely no sense - except to U.S. politicians who are voted in and out of office and who feel there role in this society is to keep their job!

Fear is a powerful tool of the powerful and often used by those who govern over the governed. It is a sad time that we live in. Everyone is waiting for a true Statesman (man/woman) to arrive on the scene.

Email me directly and we will then be e-Connected; thanks.

Best,

p



On 3/30/08 8:51 AM, Dimitrios Goranitis wrote:
--------------------
Hello Paul,

I would like to reply privately to this if you dont mind.

I am a european union citizen (greek), but I spent 5 years in New York where I got my MBA and then worked for Bear Stearns and UBS. Even though I understand the problem US faces with immigration I would expect a different treatment towards low risk countries and I would call them low risk in terms of low possibility to pursue permanent stay in the US. I find two basic flaws in the current situation:

- First of all, more strict laws block human capital traffic creating a non competitive HR market. The consuquence for that would be less effective firms and finally a less effective economy.
- Second, such laws restrict the choices an expat has in terms of employment (it was clear that only a big bank and not a boutique could sponsor my visa...) and also restrict negotiating power of the employee (based on sponsoring my visa, each bank could force me to comply with its terms of employment - money, ttile)

There is an urban myth that becomes more and more intense that immigrants steal jobs from citizens, and that myth has been used as a toy in the hands of politicians in several societies. Upon this myth, politicians take measures that hurt economy and restrict its growth. Simply put, if I make money in the states, I spend it in the states and I pay taxes, feeding the economy, which expands and creates more employment opportunities.

This is my view of the situation. I hope it helps.

Best,

Dimitrios

Question Details:
--------------------
Writing an Article on U.S. Immigration Law - Employee Recruitment & Retention: The Good, Bad & Ugly.

View question - Respond to Paul M. Heller, Esq.
LinkedIn Answers
• View question

• Respond to Paul M. Heller, Esq.

Great News on the Immigration Front: USCIS revises FBI Name Check Policy!

USCIS Revises Name Check Policy.

This is great news!

The USCIS previously required that the FBI name check clearance be obtained before any immigration benefits applications were approved, regardless of the length of time required for the FBI name check approval.

This has led to many frustrated clients (often brilliant scientists) that often have been waiting for years.

Now the USCIS has issued this new policy, which essentially says that they'll wait 180 days for a clearance - and if the case is approvable it will be granted! This is the USCIS' way of forcing the FBI to do its job.

As an aside, this has been a long time in coming. Let's all cross our fingers for more!

_________________


"Where the application is otherwise approvablc and the FBI name check request has been pending for more than 180 days, the adjudicator shall approve the 1-485,1-601,1-687, or 1-698 and proceed with card issuance. The FBI has committed to providing FBI name check results within this timeframe."



FEB4- 2008

HQ 70/23 & 70/28.1

Interoffice Memorandum

TO: Field Leadership

FROM: Michael Aytes

Associate Director, Domestic Operations

SUBJECT: Revised National Security Adjudication and Reporting Requirements
Background

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) conducts background checks on alt
applicants, petitioners, and beneficiaries seeking immigration benefits. This is done both to enhance national security and to ensure the integrity of the immigration process. USCIS has previously mandated that FBI name checks be completed and resolved before any positive adjudication can proceed on certain form types. This memorandum modifies existing guidance for applications where statutory immigration provisions allow for the detention and removal of an alien who is the subject of actionable information that is received from the FBI or other law
enforcement agencies after approval of the application. USCIS is issuing revised guidance in response to recommendations of the DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG-06-06) regarding the need to align the agency's background and security check policies with those of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The
Background and Security Investigations in Proceedings Before Immigration Judges and the Board ofImmigration Appeals regulations prevent immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) from granting benefits to aliens before DHS confirms that all background and security checks have been completed. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47(g); 8 C F R. § 1003.1(d)(6)(i). In the context ofremoval proceedings, ICE has determined that FBI fingerprint checks and Interagency Border Inspection Services (IBIS) checks are the required security checks for purposes of the applicable regulations. In the unlikely event that FBI name checks reveal actionable information after the immigration judge grants an alien permanent resident
K?5 ??iLmay detain and initittt0 remoya proceedings against the permanent resident. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1256 (allowing DHS to rescind an alien's adjustment of status).

WWWUUClLgOV

LINKEDIN QUESTION: NEVER EXPECTED SUCH A RESPONSE!

I am a member of the business networking site Linkedin (http://linkedin.com); I now have almost 1200 'connections' and am very gratified that so many people willingly link to me and want to be in my network.

Today I posted a Question on Linkedin about the H1b lottery coming up in April. I was astonished that almost immediately I received several comments attacking me for helping foreigners take away American's jobs.

Below is my response to one such email:

_________________________


Hi John,

I’m interested in your views. Call me. (THIS WAS MEANT TO CALM THE GUY DOWN...)

For your information, the clients and companies that I deal with – no, I do not represent the Indian type recruiting companies, cannot find the skill sets and senior people they need, and as a last resort may turn to an H-1b type employee (but I assure you it is not their first choice). No company in their right mind would do so. However, within my clients, the wages paid at least here in Silicon Valley are generally $90k - $120k for this type of talent pool of software type engineers (higher if they come from an Agency).

I have two very good friends, one from UC, an American, and a Scientist at NASA, the other his girlfriend, also American, who works at SRI, a MIT PhD and Stanford grad too, both of whom rail against the unfair competition of the evil foreigners taking jobs away from American citizens. I believe that attitude is more reflective of personal fears for their own job security in bad economic times than any reality of ‘abuse’ often alleged.

If a company is willing to pay the ‘prevailing wage’, don’t you think they should be able to hire whomever they choose (and for a variety of reasons)? Should the government force them to hire American? Do we want a government official to decide that the American offered is ‘sufficiently’ qualified, thereby forcing the U.S. employer to hire someone they choose not to? On its face, that scenario is absurd and contrary to a market based, private sector, economic system (unless I’m mistaken).

Generally, I don’t like the Government involved in my affairs (personal or otherwise). And I am not a Republican!

Best,


p


_______________________________
Paul M. Heller, Esq. (Founder/Principal)

Heller Immigration Law Group, LLP

2479 E. Bayshore Rd., Suite 709
Palo Alto (Silicon Valley), CA 94303

A Silicon Valley-based law firm specializing in family and employment-based immigration, offering corporations a fixed monthly retainer fee option.

Toll-Free: 1/800 863-4448; Int'l/Local: 1/650 424-1900; Fax: 1/415 276-9099

Email: heller@greencard1.com; http://greencard1.com

Blackberry/Cell: 1/650 799-0123

Heller Blog: http://blog.hilglaw.com

YM: paulhilg; GoogleTalk: hilglaw

H-1b Cases Need to be Filed Now: Why is our Gov't doing this to us?

Let's talk about alternatives to capped H-1b filings - and, more importantly, why we are in the mess we are in. These cases should be filed no later than April 1, 2008 (for any chance to receive one of these visas).

"Capped exempt" cases do not have to participate in the lottery coming up, because individuals previously accorded H-1b status, or who are presently working under this status, are exempt from the upcoming quota. However, new H-1b cases are capped at 65,000 per year, with an additional 20,000 for those with a U.S. "advance degree". The foreign equivalent, even with a proper credential evaluation, will not allow an applicant to utilize one of these special visas.

The situation described, each year running out of H-1b visas, and going into a lottery situation, is a disaster for this country and our technology companies especially.

Although Silicon Valley continues to function, and the entrepreneurial spirit here persists despite our country's, and really the world's, economic woes, thre is no question in my mind that our broken immigration system (yes, let's just talk about legal immigration), and the Government's total inattention to the extraordinary needs of American business to hire and/or keep what I call "the best an brightest", is inexcusable.

Whether the the pundits and so-called experts finally realize that we are now in a recession (something the 'average citizen' could have easily called), the fact remains that there are still no new H-1b visas available. These visas, often called temporary "work permits" for professionals, and the employers that use them, will not be alloted or be able to be used until the beginning of fiscal year 2009 - which begins 10/1/2008!

If one speaks to HR Directors and Engineering Managers, CEOs, Venture Capitalists, and the many other Executives and Managers who are responsible for our 'innovative' and cutting edge industries, there is a huge shortage of highly technical and skill U.S. workers, most apparent in the 'high tech' sector.

But it is not just a shortage of highly skilled scientists, academics, and PhD engineers that is killing our economy. Our companies also need to import and staff positions of lesser high technology and other workers - including skilled programmers and software engineers. This workforce too is in short supply in the United States.

Our colleges are filled with exceptional foreign students, as are our graduate schools. U.S. citizens generally do not go into the sciences, but seek MBAs ad Law degrees. Forcing these exceptional individuals home to compete against is just lousy immigration policy. Let's at least give them an option to stay here (and become part of our local economy). I'm not even mentioning the extraordiary foreign citizens who are interested in coming here to work.

To force companies to wait one year to even apply for an H-1b prospective employee, and then not even be guarantee the workforce they need (remember there is a lottery), it is no wonder more and more companies are giving up and off-shoring their talent pool.

Yes, there is a globalization aspect to the phenomenon, but it is, contrary what one might read, a situation too often forced by necessity, ignorance, or just plain "stupdity".

One must ask, why is our Government doing this to us?

Cont'd....

An Immigration Solution: Not bad for a Politician...

Watching the Sunday cable news shows I came across Rudy Guiliani, the Presidential candidate from NYC ("the country's mayor"). Of course, I do not like his silly attempts to exploit 9/11, but I do think he's a smart guy. I don't want to get into politics here, or in the blog itself (maybe later); let it just be said that I am a registered independent, socially progressive, "progressively conservative", but really I just have a strong 'independent' bent that avoids being categorized (pretty much I don't like government or anyone to tell me what I should do or think). My mother, now deceased, was a Stanford 'Limo Liberal' who pretty much listened without critique or skepticism to NPR. In her mind, I was some sort of "right winger" (nothing, of course, could be further from the truth). However, I love ideas, and concepts, and therefore, god (small 'g') forbid in her mind ... I watched Fox news! It's not interesting to listen to those one agrees with. Well, in her mind, and in Palo Alto where I was born and raised, a Republican was automatically a racist, sexist, stupid, evil... (and you would certainly never associate yourself with 'that kind'). I'm not a Republican, nor have I ever been one, but the idea of small government, markets, low taxes, no IRS (ad valorem tax), liberatarianism, "no nation building", religious freedom, all appeal to me. It's to bad that the party of Lincoln was taken over by the religious right and the neo-cons who seem to have forgotten their own party's roots. The Democrats? I personally think that there is a huge amount of hypocricy on both sides, but I'd say more from the Democrats. Show me a poor Democrat (who hasn't already made it - whatever that means). To me, let them give away their own fortune first, show me their tax returns so I can verify that they've done so, then ask others to... The phrase itself is an Oxymoron. Of course, the Republicans have their own hypocricy. How can one be for personal freedom, free markets, low taxes, capitalism, free enterprise, then be for a war that costs the national a trillion dollars? Rail against "nation building" in Yugoslavia (under Clinton), then for it in Iraq? Philosophically it is the party for less government, for less government involvement, for personal privacy, and "State's Rights", less Federalism, but then we watch them constantly propose and have a strong legislative agenda (different, mind you; different constituencies) that does its best to invade that same personal privacy, and citizen's freedoms (to be free of an over zealous government). What is that about? Of course, the Democrats do the same thing. Have their own interest groups that they fight for. Did I talk about Religion? Why are our Politicians, both on the left and the right, talking about Christianity in the Presidential race? Explain that again? OK, there's so much more to say but I'll stop here for now.

Immigration and Guiliani? The purpose of this blog? Yes, that's why it is called a blog... you can meander. Give me a few hours...

An Immigraton Solution: Continued...

Ok...back to the Sunday shows and what Rudy had to say about immigration. It is highly unlikely that I'll vote for him but the fact that someone out there in "la la land" is actually speaking somewhat intelligently and thoughfully about immigration issues gives me hope. Could the press or other candidates actually pick up on it (not likely, but who knows).

Essentially, Rudy's the only candidate that I've seen or heard that has actually thought about the issue or has advisors who have - and can actually articulate it quite well. When I hear John McCain talk about the subject (and he's actually authored and tried to push through comprehensive immigration reform!), I wonder if he has any real idea what he is talking about. The other Presidential candidates are just engaging in either demogagory or mouthing nonsense (that they were given) and have absolutely no understanding of the issue - on both sides of the isle.

RUDY'S PLAN (OR HOW HE WOULD PROCEED):

1/ Nothing happens (and I agree to a point) until the borders are secured (high tech and low tech - a fence). He understands that no matter what program is agreed upon, any immigration reform, comprehensive or otherwise, will be a magnet for a new wave of illegals to come in if this doesn't really occur.

2/ At present, and then after the border is secured, he wants to focus on and catch and deport criminal aliens (legal and undocumented) who remain; this too makes sense.

3/ That leaves those otherwise law abiding illegals, ok... undocumented. Let's get them to come forward, give them the ability to drive, pay taxes, get insurance, buy homes, educate their children/themselves, and make certain they learn English. He argues they should pay a fine, and be given time to "get in line" and become citizens, but in the back of it. And no, it would be silly to make them leave the country. This is his mind, and I agree, is not Amnesty. He says amnesty is "just giving them a green card". Oh yes, those that don't come forward probably have their reasons so they to should be deported.

4/ The basis for the above is practical; he knows that we cannot deport 12 or more million people. He argues that for government to actually do something (as opposed to talking about it), the problem must be attacked realistically and be manageable. I couldn't agree more. So why not concentrate on criminals?

But in the end none of the above will or can happen until the borders are secure and the public is convinced that is the case.

IS LEGAL IMMIGRATION BEING LEFT BEHIND?

ARE WE LOSING OUT TO OTHER COUNTRIES?

SHOULD A MODERN IMMIGRATION POLICY BE ABOUT BRAINPOWER?

ALLOWING THE "THE BEST AND THE BRIGHTEST" TO COME AND STAY?

WHAT ABOUT BRAWN? THE LOW SKILLED WORKER?

SHOULD WE CONSIDER BOTH?

MAYBE WE SHOULD PROTECT AMERICAN JOBS AND SHUT DOWN IMMIGRATION PERIOD?

Just some of the questions I'd like comments on.... more soon.

Filing a new H-1b Case: Are there alternatives?

Dear Readers,

With the 2009 H-1b lottery fast approaching, and the need to get these matters properly prepared before the end of March 2008, I advise my clients (both individuals and companies) to get their cases to me now.

I ask the HR Directors, or other human resource staff, to gather up a spreadsheet of all company employees with some sort of immigration status (especially those on F-1 OPT), and to speak with Hiring Managers about any potential employees they are now interviewing and seriously looking at - and may want to offer a position to. I'll want to see the CV/resume as well. For example, if the individual has a U.S. advanced degree, there are additional H-1b visas available for them (20,000). It is imperative that I find out the nationality/birthplace of the individuals as this too is an important consideration. Are they Australian (E3 eligible)? From Chile or Singapore (H1b1)? Canadian or Mexican professionals (TN)?

This process has other advantages for HILG's company clients as well. It allows me to get into a new or renewed dialog with HR, often with the CEO or CFO, about the consequences of ignoring immigration as a matter of "policy"; I see it differently. I see it as an issue of employee retension. And my attitude is adamant. Too often I see companies "playing games" with an employee who long ago should have had their immigration status adjusted over to permanent residence, or at least should have begun the process. This is a huge mistake. More on this next......

An Incredible Article by Intel's Craig Barrett - Repost.

Dear Readers,

Below I wanted to repost an Article written by Craig Barrett, Chairman of Intel Corp, published in the Washington Post. I couldn't have said it better.

The direct link is: http://tinyurl.com/3cammo

Read below:

Best,

p

_________________________________

By Craig Barrett
Sunday, December 23, 2007; B07



The European Union took a step recently that the U.S. Congress can't seem to muster the courage to take. By proposing a simple change in immigration policy, E.U. politicians served notice that they are serious about competing with the United States and Asia to attract the world's top talent to live, work and innovate in Europe. With Congress gridlocked on immigration, it's clear that the next Silicon Valley will not be in the United States.

European politicians face many of the same political pressures surrounding immigration as their U.S. counterparts, and they, too, are not immune to those pressures. Nationalist and anti-immigrant factions in several Western European countries have made political gains in recent elections and are widely viewed as mainstream. Despite the hot-button nature of immigration issues, though, E.U. politicians advanced the "Blue Card" proposal in late October.

The plan is designed to attract highly educated workers by creating a temporary but renewable two-year visa. A streamlined application process would allow qualified prospective workers to navigate the system and start working in high-need jobs within one to three months.

This contrasts starkly with the byzantine system in place in the United States, which increasingly threatens America's long-term competitiveness.

The United States relies primarily on two programs to augment its workforce with highly educated, highly skilled foreign professionals. The H-1B visa is a three-year temporary visa that can be renewed once. The employment-based (EB) green card is the program for permanent residency. Both programs serve the needs of U.S. employers seeking to fill job vacancies in highly skilled professions. Extreme shortages of visas in both these programs are well documented.

H-1B visas, which are capped at 85,000 per year, are now gone in one day, with the "winners" determined by lottery.

The EB green card program has an annual allotment of 140,000 visas; these are allocated equally across all countries around the world, regardless of population. The inflexible country quotas mean that professionals from countries such as China and India are almost always at a disadvantage, finding themselves stuck in a system -- often for five to 10 years -- in which they cannot seek promotions and raises. Spouses and children count against the quota, which has not been raised since 1990. And even though they count against the quota of foreign workers allowed to come here, spouses are inexplicably forbidden to work, no matter their level of education and skill.

The U.S. system forces thousands of valuable foreign-born professionals -- including badly needed researchers, scientists, teachers and engineers -- into legal and professional limbo for years. Not surprisingly, many are considering opportunities in competitor nations -- even those who have lived in the United States for years and have graduated from American universities.

To be competitive in the global economy, U.S. companies depend on specialized talent coming out of U.S. graduate schools. These scientists and engineers are often foreign-born, as more than half of U.S. engineering master's students and PhD recipients are international students. Yet America shuts the door on many of these highly educated graduates, forcing them to look abroad for opportunities -- and our competitors are capitalizing on our failed policies.

E.U. leaders recognize that the top minds coming out of universities in the United States and other countries can help to reinvigorate European industry and enable it to create the next wave of businesses that drive innovation and economic growth.

While its Blue Card proposal still requires approval by member countries, Europe has sent a message. It intends to aggressively pursue the professional talent necessary to compete on the global stage. The United States, on the other hand, seems intent on driving away the very same talent the European Union is rolling out the red carpet to welcome.

The writer is chairman of Intel Corp., which employs about 2,000 employees with H-1B visas among its 86,000 workers worldwide.



© 2007 The Washington Post Company

King for a Day: An Immigration Solution

Let's say I became King. What would my immigration policy be?

First, I would not shut down the border, build a fence, nor stop issuing visas to students, tourists, investors, or others. I would likely increase technology and personnel.

More importantly, I would instantly fund, then finish or develop an employer verification and ID system.

Next, I would advise everyone in the country, legal and illegal, permanent residents - "green card holders" and non-immigrants alike, that they have 3 months to sign up for the new ID/verification system and smart card. For US citizens who do not have a new 'smart' passport, or a new smart driver's license, they too must obtain a new ID/verification card - but we might give them a longer time to do so.

Why would anyone 'sign up' and be issued one of these cards? Well, if one is a legal resident or non-immigrant, they'd have no choice - lose their status or be removed. For illegals, this would be their "last chance" to not be removed (in the next phase). Those that do come forward, would not be rewarded with a 'green card', but would be eligible for a smart driver's license, the ability to obtain employment, and have 10 years to find a way to lawfully become a permanent resident and then U.S. citizen, that is, "get in line". Of course, to be eligible for the progam, they must not have been convicted of a serious, or in my mind, any crime, and must agree to learn English. That is, they must have generally behaved themselves. In extraordinary cases where bona fide spouses might be separated, and/or there are U.S. children involved (in an intact family) waivers should be possible for minor past criminal activity. Aggravated or multiple felons, sexual predators, or violent criminals, however, should not under any circumstance be granted waivers.

The concept above is not amensty, it is about cleaning up the present mess, and even more importantly identifying those that will not or cannot sign up and those that enter after a 'sign up' period (for which there will be a huge 'outreach' to make certain everyone in the country is aware of this last opportunity). Of course, those that do not identify themselves will obviously be those that cannot.

Phase two will involve the issuing of IDs, documenting the millions who have behaved (but did indeed enter illegally for work, or did fall into an undocumented status - but otherwise have been good residents), deploying the employer verification system, and identifying and removing everyone else.

This last part of phase two, enforcement, will utilize not only the resources and reach of the Federal government, but local governments too. The computer and verification systems deployed with employers will also be tied into local police, state, city and other administrative entities (IRS, banks, SSA, Highway Patrol, etc.) as well.

I envision those entering the US as non-immigrants in the future (with the intent to depart) to check in at kiosks with their smart ID and then do so periodically so that they can continue their lawful status, that is, be a foreign student or visitor. If these temporary visitors do not 'check in', they would have their status automaticaly cancelled, and they would be subject to removal.

OK, what about those who do 'get in' (across the border, or do not check in), which is inevitable, and end up in the underground economy or just disappear here?

First, we'll also be constructing a new and better immigration system that will make sense and be realistic to the needs of our economy and business interests. To this end, we'll need a "guest worker program", which will help stem the tide of illegal entry. There is no question that cheap labor is necessary in a successful economy such as ours. For those that don't use the system, or overstay, or enter illegally, or don't go home when they should, they'll more easily be caught and removed - for example, being picked up by local police or the highway patrol. Yes, fewer people will be able to remain "under the radar".

Oh yes, our future lies in innovation, new industries and technologies, so why not make it easy for the world's "best and brightest" to come here (and stay).

Worried about 'Big brother'? It is already here if you have a credit card, buy gas, etc. Should there be oversight to prevent abuses? Of course.

Well, that's my plan. Love to hear about yours.

IMMIGRATION DEBATE: A DYSFUNCTIONAL FAMILY MEMBER..

I want to spend a few minutes writing about the state of the converstion about immigration in this country, and why, essentially, the debate is non-existent.

As most people know, immigration is a political 'hot potato'. For those that don't
understand this term, it is a child's game where no one wants to hold the "hot" potato very long or they'll get burned, and therefore does his/her best to hand it off to someone else. Few politicians, and I don't know any, want to talk about this issue - either legal or illegal immigration.

Well, what now?

Is it likely that anyone will actually take hold of the hot potato and run with it? Can it be politically clever or smart to do so? I believe it can. Let me explain.

I think it can be brought up if talked about in the right way, in a rational way.

Recently, I wrote a question and sent in a video for the CNN Youtube debate. It wasn't picked - granted I turned it in at the last second, but I thought maybe it had a chance anyway. It was clearly a difficult, pointed, and provocative question that no journalist would ever have the fireballs to ask, but this format cleverly gave cover to such aquestion.

My question was..

Why don't you, and all your fellow Republican candidates, digitally fingerprint and take photo IDs of everyone in the country, legal and illegal, who are not U.S. citizens, issue a smart card/ID to them, thus allowing us to separate and isolate the "good" from the "bad" - and the go after the bad, first? That is, if we immediately create immediately on such a program, only the good would be entired to come forward, leaving the bad naked, exposed, and more easily focused on (and deport). With our limited resources, what would be the harm in approaching this problem in an intelligent way, I asked?

If my question were chosen and asked, I dreamed, it would expose the silliness, the uselessness of the present debate, both in Republican and Democratic circles, and we could actually move on as country to a solution.

I thought 'The Question', if directly asked of them, would shock the politicians into actually thinking, and force a national debate. It would leave behind the idiotic rhetoric, the pure demogaguery that fills our airways and broadcasts now.

Since I could foresee it coming, my video asked the Republican debaters,
specifically, not to talk about Amnesty, because I wasn't speaking to that, nor do I support it.

Anyway, that question was just the tip of the immigration iceburg, so there's much more to say later.


_______________________________
Paul M. Heller, Esq. (Founder/Principal)

Heller Immigration Law Group, LLP
2479 E. Bayshore Rd., Suite 709
Palo Alto, CA 94303

A Silicon Valley-based law firm specializing in employment-based immigration, for corporations seeking fixed monthly retainer fee arrangements.

Toll-Free: 1/800 863-4448; Local: 1/650 424-1900; Int'l: 1/650 424-1900; Fax: 1/415 276-9099

Email: heller@hilglaw.com; www.hilglaw.com (formerly: greencard1.com)

Heller Blog: blog.hilglaw.com

YM: paulhilg

Barack Obama: Hillary & Bill Clinton, Oprah Winfrey....

Thinking about Barack Obama and the Clintons today, here are my thoughts. First, Hillary Clinton, as well as the former President look old, very old. I think about Communist China, and an election in the future, after democracy takes hold. A former official, a leader, runs for office, maybe several, but there are also some new people on the scene, much younger, inspirational, lighter. Who would get elected? Who would electrify the crowd, the masses? No one in the scenario questions that the new person would sweep the elections. People, whether in this future vision of China, or here now, know that we are 'tired' of the old guard, and want a change. Anyone but.... Looking at it with this perspective, even venerable and beloved Bill Clinton looks old and tired. And Hillary Clinton is no Bill Clinton! Both are desperate, trying to hold on to a past long gone - Bill, with a weight loss that is long to late, Hillary, with her desperation tactics. "So long Bill, so long Hillary, we love you!"


_______________________________
Paul M. Heller, Esq. (Founder/Principal)

Heller Immigration Law Group, LLP
2479 E. Bayshore Rd., Suite 709
Palo Alto, CA 94303

A Silicon Valley-based law firm specializing in employment-based immigration, for corporations seeking fixed monthly retainer fee arrangements.

Toll-Free: 1/800 863-4448; Local/Int'l: 1/650 424-1900; Fax: 1/415 276-9099

Email: heller@hilglaw.com; www.greencard1.com

Heller Blog: blog.hilglaw.com

YM: paulhilg

Are you LinkedIn?

Dear readers,

If you haven't heard of it already, LinkedIn is a wonderful networking site for business professionals. I've found it very useful for building business relationships and would be happy to link to you.



P

_______________________________
Paul M. Heller, Esq. (Founder/Principal)

Heller Immigration Law Group, LLP
2479 E. Bayshore Rd., Suite 709
Palo Alto, CA 94303

A Silicon Valley-based law firm specializing in employment-based immigration, for corporations seeking fixed monthly retainer fee arrangements.

Toll-Free: 1/800 863-4448; Local: 1/650 424-1900; Int'l: 1/650 424-1900; Fax: 1/415 276-9099

Email: heller@hilglaw.com; www.hilglaw.com (formerly: greencard1.com)

Heller Blog: blog.hilglaw.com

YM: paulhilg

The Best and Worst Clients: A Lawyer's Perspective

mThis article may be the most important one among all the pieces I have written so far. In this article, I’d like to tell the readers a secret - what kind of client will receive the best service from his/her lawyer and therefore most likely secure a successful outcome? Although all lawyers have different personalities and working styles, there are general guidelines to being a good client as there are rules of thumb for being a good lawyer. In a modern society, everyone is likely to require legal services at least once, if not, more. I hope this article will help the readers to become a better client and receive better service at no additional cost.

Although lawyers are engaged in providing professional services in exchange for monetary compensation, they are also human beings, and they will, as in any human relationship, work harder for people and cases they care about. I am a lawyer and have been a client of other lawyers as well. I understand both perspectives. A client, after working with his/her lawyer, may feel lucky to have found such a competent lawyer and may other times feel it was a disastrous decision to retain that lawyer and wishes to replace him/her. The same goes for the lawyer. A lawyer may find one client a pleasure to represent and another a nightmare.

Choosing the right lawyer and deciding to represent a client both take good judgment. The first thing to look for is the lawyer’s specialty. Ask for referrals and try to locate lawyers in the specialization you want, visit his/her website, look up the business listings, etc. Second, try to find a lawyer that is not only experienced but also one that is responsive and easy to work with by talking to them on the phone if you are able. Lawyers, who are not available to talk to you initially, generally will not have a lot of time for you even after you retain them. More often that not, this unavailability is more style than substance. Often times, through the first few phone conversations, even without a face-to-face consultation, one can learn if the lawyer is competent to deal with your situation, talks to you substantively, and if s/he seems trustworthy as a person. We all have the ability to perceive something about another, a second sense. Also, remember, as you are screening for a good lawyer, the lawyer may be screening you. Lawyers do not have to take all the cases, and good lawyers are even more selective about what cases they take on given their limited time.

Once you have chosen a lawyer for your case, and he/she has chosen you, keep an open and honest dialogue and keep your lawyer informed of all the changes in your situation. Discuss all your concerns as early as possible, and follow instructions promptly. Don’t give your lawyer the impression that just because you paid him/her you are entitled then to simply lay your problems at the feet of the lawyer and he/she is now responsible to solve your case without your help. Remember that your lawyer is there to guide you and help lead you to the resolution of the matter; do not assume and expect that the lawyer will create and generate required documents and evidence for you. The client is responsible for providing all the facts and materials so that his/her lawyers can have the best and most accurate picture of the circumstances and then represent the client to their best ability.

Clients that are difficult to represent and seem to complicate their situation even more include those who wait too long before seeking professional help; those who reveal facts selectively; and those who fight against the lawyer’s advice. In all these cases, the clients themselves are likely to damage their own case more than what has already happened. In doing so, they will not only cause a delay in problem resolution but also lose respect from their lawyer.

I find that good clients work with the lawyer and help resolve even the most difficult cases successfully, and relatively painlessly, and that bad clients make the most straightforward cases difficult to complete. Once a mutually respectful relationship has been established, your lawyer will try to go out of his/her way to help you. I personally lose sleep over my clients’ cases and sometimes even dream of a perfect solution. Each and every time I obtain a successful resolution of a client’s matter, I feel the greatest reward for my career. I have experienced many lawyer-client relationships evolving into very pleasant and mutually beneficial professional relationships. I hope all the readers will learn to choose a good lawyer, be a good client, and obtain a successful outcome by establishing a positive and trusting relationship with their lawyers.

The information provided throughout the Website is general in nature and may not apply to any particular set of facts or circumstances. It should not be construed as legal advice and does not constitute an engagement of Heller Immigration Law Group, LLP, or establish an attorney-client relationship.

Questions or comments, visit our site at hilglaw.com or email us at comments@hilglaw.com