Year: 2022

As published in the Immigration Daily on May 18, 2022

1. Doyle memorandum gives hope to those in removal proceedings.

The memorandum by Principal Legal Advisor Kerry E. Doyle on April 4, 2022, changes the landscape of prosecutorial discretion (PD) used by the government in immigration cases. It is estimated that aggressive use of the PD guidelines will knock approximately 700,000 cases from the 1.7 million backlog of the immigration courts. ICE attorneys are to prioritize three groups of cases – threats to national security, threats to public safety, and threats to border security – and they are to use prosecutorial discretion for other cases in deciding actions such as “filing an NTA; moving to dismiss, administratively close, or continue proceedings; stipulating to the issues, relief, or bond; or pursuing an appeal.” In defining threats to border security, DHS included those who engage in serious immigration benefit fraud that threatens the integrity of the immigration system giving examples as fraud that has been criminally prosecuted including knowingly entering into a marriage for purposes of evading any immigration law or knowingly forging, counterfeiting, altering or falsely making certain immigration documents or their use, possession, or receipt; fraud that has resulted in or is significantly likely to result in a frivolous asylum bar finding; serious types of fraud that cannot be waived as a matter of law like certain false claims to US citizenship; and fraud that reflects an attempt to circumvent the immigration laws by multiple persons like document mill forgers.

The memorandum also gives some hope to cases that have already been closed and final orders of removal issued whereas previously there was no or little chance of reopening. The memorandum makes clear that the concentration for PD will be on active cases and not inactive ones. These requests are to be treated with lower priority as per a just-released instruction sheet by the New York City Office of the Principal Legal Advisor. Yet there is some hope in the memorandum language that government attorneys can join a motion to reopen to allow a nonpriority case to proceed on an application for permanent or temporary relief outside of immigration court as well as relief before the immigration court if such relief was not previously considered. It further adds that cases that can be reopened and dismissed for the consideration of new relief before USCIS will be viewed most favorably for joint motions to reopen.

It remains to be seen how the Doyle memorandum will play out in practice in the joint reopening of cases, but we note that the better chance for reopening will likely be the simpler cases without major impediments.

2. June visa chart big effects.

Notes on the visa chart for June 2022 – FB (family-based) dates of filing are the same as in the chart for May 2022; FB final action dates are all the same except for Mexico F-1 (sons and daughters of US citizens over the age of 21 and single) advancing one month to 2/1/00, F-2B (sons and daughters of LPR’s over the age of 21 and single) one month to 2/1/01, and F-4 (brothers and sisters of US citizens) two months to 3/1/00; EB (employment based) final action dates have the big change of India moving one year to 9/1/14 under EB-2 (professionals holding advanced degrees or persons of exceptional ability) and EB-W (unskilled workers requiring less than two years of work experience) worldwide moving from current except for a few countries in May to having a backlog date of 5/8/19– on EB-5 (immigrant investors), all China cases including direct investment have a backlog date of 11/22/15 (last month, only regional cases had a backup date) and all the visa set-asides for rural, high unemployment, and infrastructure investments are current as it has not yet been made known how they will be implemented (new and old or only new cases) and new cases have not yet been accepted; EB dates of filing remain the same except for the EB-5 backup date of 12/15/15 also applying to direct investments (last month current), and it should be noted that the Department of State does not appear to want the gates completely thrown open as it left India EB-2 at 12/1/14 (opening Indian dates of filing past the October 2020 India EB-3 date of 1/1/15 would invite a huge wave of adjustment of status applications). Diversity visa numbers became current for all regions for June and July with the exception of the Bahamas, Egypt and Nepal to maximize number use; and the State Department is warning that F-2A worldwide may have a final action backlog date as early as August.

3. USCIS gives 540 day extensions for many EAD renewals.

 With the temporary final rule, “Temporary Increase of the Automatic Extension Period of Employment Authorization and Documentation for Certain Renewal Applicants,” FR 87 FR 26614 (May 4, 2022), USCIS is now giving a 540 day extension for persons with pending or new EAD renewal requests that qualify for 180 day extensions. This is certainly a much needed rule given the inability of the agency to adjudicate many employment renewal requests within a reasonable period of time because of various reasons. Such delay has spawned lawsuits and much hardship of individuals and families losing livelihoods for lack of renewal of the employment card. Certainly not helpful was the agency’s extremely stringent expedited rules making it unlikely that a request for expedite would be honored. USCIS will not be giving out new I-797C receipts, but says that receipts referring to a 180 day extension along with the expiring EADs will still receive the up to 540 day extension under the rule. This should be good enough for employers filling out I-9’s as an E-Verify notice on May 4 requires them to update section 2 of the employee’s I-9 to reflect the extension increase provided by the temporary final rule. The major eligibility requirements for automatic extension are that renewal applicants timely filed an application to renew prior to expiration based upon the same employment authorization category on the front of the expiring EAD and that their EAD applications fit within certain classes of which the most common are refugees A3, asylees A5, those granted withholding of deportation or removal A10, those granted TPS A12 or C19, spouses of E-1/E-2/E-3 A17 and L-1 A18 non-immigrants, those pending asylum or withholding of deportation or removal C8, applicants for adjustment of status C9, applicants for suspension of deportation or cancellation of removal C-10, and H-4 spouses of qualifying H-1B non-immigrants C-26.

4. More stats on H-1B season.

My partner, Arthur Lee’s article, “Recommendations to Improve H-1B Lottery System”, Immigration Daily 4/14/22, pointed out the astonishing rise of 53.5% in the number of H-1B registrants in FY 2022, 308,613, as opposed to the 201,011 H-1B petitions selected in FY 2020, the year before USCIS switched to the lottery registration system, and attributed it to the low barrier of $10 that it costs an organization to put up a registration and the lack of sufficient penalties on employers not following through with H-1B petitions. He advocated a higher fee for registration. USCIS recently released figures for FY 2023 that it received 483,927 registrations, a whopping 175,314 registration increase representing a 57% increase over the previous year. This writer worries that something is clearly not working here, especially given the number of selected registrants from last year who did not have petitions filed for them, thus forcing USCIS to conduct second and third rounds of selection in July and November. Will that happen this year? USCIS selected a larger number of registrants this March, 127,600, than last year’s initial total of 87,500, undoubtedly in the hopes that it would not have to conduct additional rounds of recruitment. However, if the same scenario unfolds with USCIS having to run additional registrations to satisfy the 85,000 H-1B cap quota number, then it might seriously consider erecting a better “moat” than $10 to better separate serious organizations and their candidates from the semi-serious. Such could improve the anemic 26.4% success rate in registration selection.

5. Improvement on USCIS published case processing times?

USCIS is implementing a new online case processing time system which is cosmetically more appealing and less confusing than the previous published processing time although one might ask USCIS whether it can do more. With the prior iteration, a seeker of information clicked onto the type of form and then scrolled down on which benefit application he or she wanted to check relating to the form, e.g. I-129 H-1B, H-2B, H-3, L-1, etc. After such clicking, more clicking was required to identify the service center or local immigration office holding the case. Then another click to get the processing time. In the new iteration, the seeker is asked to identify the form, click again for the form benefit, then click for the USCIS office holding the case, before clicking again for the processing time. One of the big differences as stated by USCIS is that you now only get one figure for processing time, which represents the 80^th percentile processing of cases in a particular category, e.g. two weeks ago, the case processing time for the California Service Center for an F-4 case was 136.5-177.5 months – this week, it is 138.5 months. Another feature touted as improved is the day to inquire if the application or petition is overdue. For the F-4 case two weeks ago, the time to inquire was if the F-4 petition was filed before 7/28/07 – this week, you put in your receipt date, and if you put in one like in one of our cases, 10/19/11, and click the button, the response is that “Your case is processing normally”, and the earliest you can submit questions is October 15, 2026. It also includes the admonition “Please do not contact us before this date”.

A number of problems exist because of delayed USCIS processing times, especially for immigrant visas, on which USCIS should do more to better the lives of people. First and foremost is that petitioners in the US many times die and for those relatives overseas who hoped to join them and now still hope to join other members of the family in the US, there is generally no hope as even a device like humanitarian reinstatement is only afforded those with approved petitions. DHS should work with Congress to promote some form of legislation to allow humanitarian reinstatement applications to be filed where USCIS adjudications take an inordinate period of time like F-4 which at 138.5 months is 11 ½ years. Petitioners move and miss USCIS correspondence which many times means the demise of the case. USCIS should have a more forgiving attitude to reopen cases even where the petitioner never informed the agency of the move. Petitioners many times simply do not receive the correspondence and USCIS should again exhibit a more forgiving attitude. These are just some examples. And while it is nice to have an exact date on which individuals can submit a question on the case (see above October 15, 2026), what does the petitioner do if the case was approved long before the date, was forwarded to the National Visa Center, which subsequently attempted contact and after unsuccessful attempts, terminated the case? The admonition to not contact before a certain date is not helpful. Finally, there is no real assurance that a petition or application is “processing normally” as this information system does not take account of the individual case number and the statement is only based upon a general overview of the cases.

As published in the Immigration Daily on March 31, 2022

1. Cap H-1B selection process announced complete – start the petitions!

USCIS announced on 3/29/22 that the H-1B selection process was completed and that online accounts would either show submitted, selected, denied, or invalidated failed payment. Petitions can be submitted beginning April 1 and petitioners will have at least 90 days to submit petitions; a petition must be properly filed with the correct service center and within the filing period indicated on the registration selection notice; and that petitioners must include a printed copy of the selection notice with the petition. Other parts of the announcement were that USCIS will not be using any prepaid mailers, [e.g. FedEx labels], to send out communications or approvals. Also, that issuance of I-797 receipts may be delayed – that if more than 30 days pass since confirmation of delivery and no receipt, petitioners should contact the USCIS Contact Center for assistance.

2. EB-5 regional center reauthorization/reform law to begin in May.

A happy development has been the reauthorization of EB-5 regional centers for five years until September 30, 2027 in the “EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022”. The legislation goes into effect on 5/14/22, 60 days from the President’s signing on 3/15/22. There will likely be a number of changes in the May or June visa charts. Among the expected developments are backlogging of the China EB-5 direct investment category and a long date for China regional center cases. Some of the important features are carveouts for visa numbers – 20% for rural cases, 2% infrastructure cases in which federal, state, or local governments contract for EB-5 financing for the maintenance, building, and improvement of infrastructure, eg. private municipal bond deal, and 10% for areas of high unemployment. If these categories are more favorable than others for natives of China, they may feel inclined to invest in these types of projects. TEA (Targeted Employment Area) investment for rural and high unemployment areas will go up to $800,000 and the same amount will apply for an infrastructure project (which does not have to be in a TEA), and all others $1,050,000. Every five years beginning in 2027, the investment amounts will rise based on the change in the CPI (consumer price index). Federal and not the state will now determine whether the proposed area is in a high unemployment area or infrastructure project. A high unemployment area with 150% of the national rate of unemployment will be the census tract in which the NCE (new commercial enterprise) is principally doing business, and any adjacent census tract – the so-called “doughnut” approach. All present pending and filed cases will be grandfathered to the point that any future lapse in extending the regional center program will not affect adjudication and visa allocation. For investors in the US from countries with open quotas, they will be eligible to file concurrent I-526/I-485 applications. The dangling petition situation in which legislative nonrenewal of I-526 petitions filed up to June 30, 2021, left them hanging in uncertainty as to whether the cases could continue has been mostly alleviated by a provision that government agencies must continue adjudicating petitions and allocating visas to regional center investors who filed I-526 petitions up to September 30, 2026.

3. Title 42 news including Ukrainians.

Title 42 has been big in the news this month with the Administration giving case-by-case exceptions to Ukrainians and with two court cases, one with the Court of Appeals in Washington DC and the other with a District Court in North Texas. CBP came out with a memorandum on 3/11/22 announcing exceptions under Title 42 for Ukrainians – that the public safety pandemic concern that has been used to turn back migrants without allowing them a chance to apply for asylum, will basically not apply to Ukrainians at land border ports of entry – “that CBP is authorized, consistent with the Title 42 Order, on a case-by-case basis based on the totality of the circumstances, including considerations of humanitarian interests, to except Ukrainian nationals at land border ports of entry from Title 42.” Who is eligible? “Those “who are in possession of a valid Ukrainian passport or other valid Ukrainian identity documents, and absent risk factors associated with national security or public safety, may be considered for exception from Title 42 under this guidance.” Those granted an exception can be processed for any disposition “including urgent port of entry humanitarian parole on a case-by-case basis.” This may precipitate a rush of the southwestern border by Ukrainians. In the DC case, Huisha-Huisha v. Mayorkas, the DC court made the ruling that although the executive is allowed to use Title 42 to expel persons attempting to enter the US without an asylum hearing because of pandemic concerns, he is not allowed to send them back to countries where they face persecution. The Administration had been sending many back to countries of persecution. In the Texas case, Texas v. Biden, the judge said that the Administration could not continue exempting children from Title 42. The Title 42 ban is set to expire in early April and the question is whether the Administration should continue extending it. One writer said that stopping it would solve both problems. The Biden Administration appears to be leaning in that direction even though such action would promote a run on the border and perhaps cause problems in giving a midterm election line of attack for Republicans. News reports today indicate that the Biden Administration is willing to take the risk and lift Title 42 restrictions in May.

4. No more paper I-94’s at the border.

On another border issue, CBP gave notice on 3/18/22 that it will no longer be issuing paper I-94’s for land crossings, but only electronic I-94’s. So we should not be surprised from now on that persons crossing the border on TN and other statuses will no longer have paper I-94’s.

5. The departure of expanded expedited removal.

The Federal Register notice which expanded expedited removal, 84 FR 35409 (7/23/19) was rescinded on 3/21/22 by another notice in the Federal Register, 87 FR 16022 (3/21/22). Now we are back to the future. Under expanded expedited removal, the previous boundaries of only using it when undocumented immigrants were discovered within 100 miles of the Mexico/Canada borders and being here less than two weeks were expanded by Mr. Trump so that it could be used against undocumented immigrants discovered in any location in the country and they would have to prove that they were here for at least two years two years before being exempted from expanded expedited removal. Although not used much, the threat of it caused panic to many members of the immigrant communities.

As published in the Immigration Daily on February 14, 2022

1. Will K-3s come back into vogue?

The K-3 visa was instituted in 2000 when legacy INS took years to approve immediate relative spouse cases. It allows a US citizen petitioner to file not only the traditional I-130 petition for alien relative, but also a nonimmigrant I-129F K-3 petition for the married spouse. As the agency improved on backlog processing, use of the K-3 option decreased drastically, especially as the petition was nullified if both I-130 and I-129F met each other at the next waystation of the process after approval, the National Visa Center (NVC). Although USCIS processing times are known to be many times unrealistic, the published times give one pause to consider the possibility of K-3 petitions to all service centers except Nebraska. The following are the published processing times as of February 12, 2022, for immediate relative and K-3 petitions:

Service Center             I-130 processing times               K-3 processing times

California                         29.5-38.5 months                        9-12 months

Nebraska                             4.5-7 months                              5-7 months

Potomac                            12.5-16 months                            3.5-7 months

Texas                                  10.5-14 months                            3.5-7 months

Vermont                            11.5-15 months                             7-9 months

K-3 processing times at the consulates and embassies track the time for immigrant visas according to State Department information, so it would appear that there may be some merit to considering K-3 petitions at this time. If USCIS reduces the I-130 backlog times or processes cases out of chronological order (as we have seen in some of our cases), the attraction of the K-3 visa becomes less.

2. Why base PERM prevailing wage determinations on alternative requirements now?

For those attorneys whose practices include PERM labor certifications for permanent residence, the Department of Labor announcement through FAQs on July 16, 2021, relating to implementation of its revised prevailing wage determination form, ETA 9141, was a disappointing surprise in demanding that employers use the higher wage of either its principal or alternative requirements as the prevailing wage. The labor certification process is the method by which employers must test the American job market for able, qualified, available and willing US workers before a non-US worker can obtain residence status through nonavailability of US workers for the position. The sponsoring employer in the first step applies to the Department for a weighted-average wage in the job locality by informing the Labor Department of the job title, duties, and requirements and upon receiving a prevailing wage determination, then offers that wage to US workers in the recruitment process. Many employers not only have a principal set of requirements, e.g. Masters degree +3 years of experience, but also an alternate set of requirements, e.g. Bachelors degree +5 years of experience, that they will accept to attract a higher number of candidates and also sometimes because the non-US worker being sponsored might only qualify under the alternative requirements. Over the years, the Department policy had been to only consider the employer’s principal requirements for purposes of setting the wage to be assigned in understanding that principal and not alternative requirements should govern the wage level. Yet in one fell swoop, the Department reversed historical policy through the July 2021 round of FAQs. Such penalizes an employer that has a primary set of requirements for which it is willing to pay a prevailing wage by forcing it to now recruit such workers at a higher rate of pay if the Labor Department determines that the alternative requirements command a higher wage. Such makes little sense historically and logically. In addition, the upward forcing of wages does not serve the country’s best interests in the battle against inflation as it becomes part of an everlasting cycle of raised wages and raised product prices in response which largely contributes to the current rise of inflation in the US (7% from January 2021-January 2022). The author would be interested to know whether there is any attorney, firm, or organization with pending or impending litigation over the new policy.

3. Why 10-year LPR instead of 2-year CPR cards for those married less than two years?

Section 216 of the INA states that an alien spouse is considered a conditional resident who obtains status by virtue of a marriage entered into less than 24 months and that this applies to both spouses of US citizens and permanent residents. (Please note that this does not include spouses immigrating with their spouses – only those who are petitioned on form I-130). We have anecdotally seen cases in which such spouses of permanent residents recently approved for adjustment of status were given 10 year green cards instead of 2 year conditional residence cards. It may be that the current open availability of the F-2A visa category (for spouses and children of permanent residents) versus the past backlog in the category may be causing some confusion among USCIS adjudicators since F-2A cases used to take well over two years, but such errors have capacity for damaging future effects, and we encourage officers to be more careful in noting the marriage date. It is academic that an I-751 petition to remove the conditional basis of residence status must be filed within the 90 days preceding the second anniversary of the issuance of conditional permanent residence. A conditional resident who fails to file is not considered to be lawfully in the country. In addition, such an applicant who later files for naturalization would be denied, and informed that he or she would still have to file the I-751 petition. Mayhaps USCIS will apologetically recognize its error and offer the individual an opportunity to file the I-751 out of time, but such a result would nevertheless cause the applicant much stress not to mention the loss of time, energy, and money in filing and paying for an unsuccessful citizenship application.

4. Photos needed at naturalization oath ceremonies?

What do you ask your client to bring to USCIS for a naturalization interview? For convenience’s sake, we encourage them to take everything with them even though officers may only be interested in a few items. We also suggest bringing new passport size photos- if they wish- on the off-chance that an officer may ask. But we never thought that photographs would be requested at the swearing-in ceremony. Lo and behold, a client recently reported to us that at the oath ceremony for herself and husband, she was requested to provide passport photos while her husband was not. Such necessitated her having to exit the building, find a place that took photos (usually a few around federal buildings), and hustle back to the building in time for the ceremony. And she further informed us that the officer told her that “This happens all the time.” The moral appears to be that, if an applicant is willing to take new passport photos, it may be prudent to take the photos not only to the interview, but to the oath ceremony as well.

5. New forms for April and new USCIS lockbox in Elgin, Illinois.

The penalty for filing old or noncurrent forms with USCIS is rejection of petition or application, which can be both embarrassing and damaging if there is a time deadline. The watchword is to always look at the form edition and compare it with the current form in use before filing. A list of recent changed forms that will come into play in April are:

• I-864 and all its variations (A, EZ, W) – 12/8/21 editions as of 4/7/22 only.
• I-829 – 12/8/21 edition as of 4/7/22 only.
• I-824 – 12/2/21 edition beginning 4/7/22 only.
• I-102 – 12/2/21 edition as of 4/7/22 only.

USCIS also announced the opening of a new lockbox in Elgin, Illinois, for which I-751s must now be filed for those residing in New York, New Jersey, and most of the East Coast. The address of the lockbox is:

(USPS)

USCIS
Attention: I-751
PO Box 4072
Carol Stream, IL 60197-4072

(FedEx and other couriers)

USCIS
Attention-I 751 (Box 4072)
2500 Westfield Dr.
Elgin, IL 60124-7836

In addition to taking I-751s, the lockbox in Elgin will also begin accepting additional workloads including N-400s and I-130s  in the coming weeks and USCIS expects the transition to Elgin to be completed by late summer 2022. Additionally, it expects to move the lockbox facility in Arizona from Phoenix to Tempe in Fall 2022. So keep your eyes open!

As published in the Immigration Daily on January 18, 2022

1. New H-1B Cap Season ramping up.

About 1 ½ months from now, USCIS will begin the employer registration process for new H-1B candidates who will be able to begin work in October 2022 or later if they are selected and their subsequently filed H-1B petitions approved. (Please note that this notice does not affect current H-1B holders except possibly H-1B cap exempts attempting to move to H-1B cap organizations). All employers who have not already done so should begin to put together a list of those candidates (many of whom may be on practical training) that they are interested in sponsoring.

There are encouraging signs that this H-1B season will go more smoothly than those in the recent past. Three regulations that could have adversely affected H-1B processing have been abandoned by the Biden administration – one by the Department of Labor which would have significantly raised the wages to be paid H-1B workers, and two by DHS that would have 1.) made it more difficult for candidates to qualify for H-1B status and 2.) changed the selection process from random selection to highest wages paid.

Unfortunately, the number of new H-1B visas to be awarded still remains 85,000, far short of the number of eligible candidates. For many, however, this may be the most viable means for companies and other organizations to acquire new talent and for candidates to establish a foothold in this country. H-1B holders are allowed to remain in the country for up to six years and even longer if the company takes timely steps to sponsor them for permanent residence. Many employers have been happy with the ability to retain bright, hard-working staff members for a number of years.

2. Dropbox use expanded for US visas overseas.

The Department of State announced a change of policy on December 23, 2021, allowing waivers for even first time applicants for many employment-based visas, including H-1B and L intracompany transferees. This discretionary waiver of in-person interview applies to those who have had a petition approved by USCIS, are applying for a visa in their country of nationality or residence, who were previously issued any type of visa, and have never been refused a visa unless the visa refusal was overcome or waived, and who have no apparent ineligibility or potential ineligibility.

Although this is good news, persons thinking of taking advantage of this development should be aware that a waiver of the interview is discretionary and up to the consulate or embassy; and that the schedule of interviews or waivers of such is dictated by consul or embassy. In addition, a further risk for those who are interviewed and refused is being stuck in administrative processing, which may take time to resolve assuming that resolution is possible.

With such said, this is indeed good news as it will reduce the risk of consular processing for many nonimmigrant work visa seekers. Applicants should also be aware of the effect of Covid on the process in the country or region of which the following three are described in which they will ultimately be dropping passports and other documents:

• China – Fully vaccinated with inactivated vaccine – take PCR test at U.S. departure city of flight seven days before boarding at either Avass Bioscience or Real-time Laboratories; monitor your health for seven days at the departure city; take second PCR test within 48 hours before departure. If fully vaccinated with non-inactivated vaccines, do all of the above plus take S protein IgM antibody and an N protein IgM antibody tests within 48 hours before departure at one of the two companies. If not fully vaccinated or unvaccinated, do the same.
  
  Persons with a history of infection have more to do including lung CT or x-ray and 14 day quarantine.
  
  Once in China, there are further restrictions including a quarantine period.

• Hong Kong – Suspension of flights from the United States, Australia, Britain, Canada, France, India, Pakistan and the Philippines for two weeks beginning on 1/8/22.
  
  
• India – India is usually on the backend of infections after Europe and the Omicron variant is fast spreading in India since late December. The government has introduced night curfews, shut down movie theaters, and slashed restaurant and public transport to half capacity. It is known that the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine which has been used for about 90% of India vaccinations does not protect against omicron infections, although it appears to help reduce the severity of the illness. Persons interested in making an appointment by dropbox have been frustrated by the lack of appointments, and the Department of State has promised to release another 20,000 dropbox appointments in the spring. One wonders, however, whether Covid will begin to disrupt the schedule of appointments.

3. F-1, M-1, and J-1 visa applications made easier.

 Good news for student visa applicants applying for the first time or for renewals with the Department of State reverting to pre-Trump policy in an update to the Foreign Affairs Manual making the question of nonimmigrant intent easier to meet. Establishing that a person has nonimmigrant instead of immigrant intent is essential to gaining approval of student visas. The FAM guidance makes clear to consular officers that such applications are to be given latitude on the question of nonimmigrant intent:

The context of the residence abroad requirement for student visas inherently differs from the context for B visitor visas or other term visas. The statute clearly presupposes that the natural circumstances and conditions of being a student do not disqualify the applicant from obtaining a student visa. It is natural that the student does not possess ties of property, employment, and continuity of life typical of B visa applicants. These ties are typically weakly held by student applicants, as the student is often single, unemployed, without property, and is at the stage in life of deciding and developing their plans for the future… In the circumstances, it is important to keep in mind that the applicant’s intent is to be adjudicated based on present intent – not on contingencies of what might happen in the future, after a lengthy period of study in the United States. Therefore, the residence abroad requirement for student applicants is to be considered in the context of the usual limited ties that a student would have, and their immediate intent.

With this revision, the US under the Biden administration is showing a more open and welcoming America.

4. MFL termination letters and NVC need for quality control.

One wonders whether the National Visa Center requires more quality control in its issuance of MFL-1 termination letters as we recently received three which were clearly unwarranted. Under NVC policy, communication with the agency within a one-year period of time stops the case from going into deregistration. Yet on two of these cases, we had clearly sent in communications on time. It may have been that NVC receipt of communications and acknowledgment of such have been impacted by Covid, but if so, there should also be appropriate lag time for NVC to coordinate the communications before sending out MFL letters. Under NVC policy also, an applicant’s filing an I-601A Application for Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver stops the case from going into the deregistration process, and yet we also had to fend off the third MFL letter when we had filed the I-601A application in January 2021.

5. Flexibility extended for time to respond to USCIS actions.

USCIS is again extending flexibilities because of the pandemic for responding to certain actions of the agency between March 1, 2020 and March 26, 2022 inclusive. Such allows another 60 calendar days past the due date for requests for evidence (RFE’s), continuations to request evidence (N-14), notices of intention to deny (NOID’s), notices of intention to revoke (NOIR), notices of intent to rescind, notices of intent to terminate regional centers, and motions to reopen N-400 naturalization applications after receipt of derogatory information after a grant. In addition, flexibilities are further extended to I-290B notices of appeal or motions and N-336 requests for hearings on a decision in naturalization proceedings if the form is filed up to 90 days from the issuance of the decision, and USCIS made the decision between 11/1/21 – 3/26/22.

6. Visa problems where applicants leave US before decisions on extension/change of status requests.

During the time of Covid, it has oftentimes been difficult for visitors to the US to leave the country on time as international flights are canceled with little or no notice, or countries have multiple restrictions on reentry that cannot be met within a short period of time. So, many visitors have been forced to file for extensions or changes of status to remain in a quasi-legal status while making arrangements to leave, and then leave the US before decisions are rendered on their requests. The questions are what is the status of their visas since there is an automatic visa cancellation provision in the law where individuals overstay their visas, and whether the US consulates and CBP are on the same page.

The Foreign Affairs Manual states that a person departing after the date on the I-94 passes but before an application for extension or changes status has been decided by USCIS has a blanket exemption from visa cancellation, if the application was filed in a timely manner and was nonfrivolous in nature. It is not clear that CBP is entirely onboard in light of its response from the American Immigration Lawyers Association New York Chapter/CBP meeting on December 2, 2021, in which CBP reportedly said, “Application of INA 222 (G) is quite case specific. Detailed reference as to the application of INA 222 (G) can be found in 9 FAM 302.1-9 which has specific helpful scenarios (which CBP may refer to but is not bound by). Recommend carrying the receipt notice if an extension application was timely filed even if later abandoned.”

To have CBP be on the same page insofar as visa cancellations are concerned would promote certainty in travel and prevent a situation of which we heard a few weeks ago in which the parent of an LPR traveled back to the US on the same visa five months after departing only to have a CBP officer cancel the visa on ground that the extension application was abandoned as the applicant had not shown up for her biometrics appointment.