VISA BULLETIN FOR JUNE 2012

The following information is provided by the Visa Office regarding the cut-off dates for the month of June 2012.

FAMILY PREFERENCES

F1-Family first preference: Unmarried sons and daughters over the age of 21 years of U.S. Citizens. The cut-off date has moved forward by seven (7) weeks for most of the countries including India to June 22, 2005.

F2A - Family second preference: Spouses and minor children, and unmarried sons and daughters of permanent residents. The cut-off date has moved forward by six (6) weeks for most of the countries including India to January 1, 2010.

F2B- Family second preference: Unmarried sons and daughters over 21 of permanent residents. The cut-off date has moved forward by seven (7) weeks for most of the countries including India to April 15, 2004.

F3-Family third preference: Married sons and daughters of U.S. Citizens and their spouses and children. The cut-off date has moved forward by three (3) weeks for most of the countries including India to April 1, 2002.

F4-Family fourth preference: Brothers and sisters of U.S. Citizens. The cut-off date has moved forward by five (5) weeks for most of the countries including India to January 8, 2001.

EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCES

EB1 – Priority Workers: The cut-off date for this category for all countries including India is CURRENT.

EB2 – Advanced Degree holders: The cut-off date for this category for most countries is CURRENT and for India, it is currently unavailable.

EB3 – Professional Skilled Workers: The cut-off date for this category has moved forward by five (5) weeks to June 8, 2006 for most of the countries and for India it has moved forward by one (1) week to September 15, 2002.

EB3 – Other Workers: The cut-off date for this category has moved forward by five (5) weeks to June 8, 2006 for most of the countries and for India it has moved forward by one (1) week to September 15, 2002.

EB4 (Certain Special Immigrants), EB4 (Certain Religious Workers), EB5 (Targeted Employment Areas) & EB5 (Pilot Programs) are CURRENT for all countries including INDIA.

  

CHINA-MAINLAND AND INDIA EMPLOYMENT

SECOND PREFERENCE CATEGORY IS UNAVAILABLE

Despite the retrogression of the China and India Employment Second preference cut-off date to August 15, 2007, demand for numbers by applicants with priority dates earlier than that date remained excessive. Such demand is primarily based on cases which had originally been filed with the U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) for adjustment of status in the Employment Third preference category, and are now eligible to be upgraded to Employment Second preference status. The potential amount of such “upgrade” demand is not currently being reported, but it was evident that the continued availability of Employment Second preference numbers for countries other than China and India was being jeopardized. Therefore, it was necessary to make the China and India Employment Second preference category “unavailable” in early April, and it will remain so for the remainder of FY-2012.

Numbers will once again be available for China and India Employment Second preference cases beginning October 1, 2012 under the FY-2013 annual numerical limitations. Every effort will be made to return the China and India Employment Second preference cut-off date to the May 1, 2010 date which had been reached in April 2012. Readers should be advised that it is impossible to accurately estimate how long that may take, but current indications are that it would definitely not occur before spring 2013.

USCIS has indicated that it will continue accepting China and India Employment Second preference I-485 filings during May, based on the originally announced May cut-off date.

EMPLOYMENT FIRST AND SECOND PREFERENCE VISA AVAILABILITY

Item F of the May Visa Bulletin (number 44) provided projections regarding visa availability in the coming months. Information received from the USCIS after the publication of that item requires an update in the projections for the Employment First and Second preference categories.

Employment First: Based on the current rate of demand, it may be necessary to establish a cut-off date at the end of the fiscal year in an effort to limit number use within the annual numerical limit.

Employment Second: Based on the current rate of demand, it may be necessary to establish a cut-off date for this category for all countries other than China and India. Such action may be required at any time during the next few months.

Please be advised that the above are only estimates for what could happen during the next few months based on applicant demand patterns experienced in recent months.

DIVERSITY VISA LOTTERY 2013 (DV-2013) RESULTS

The Kentucky Consular Center in Williamsburg, Kentucky has registered and notified the winners of the DV-2013 diversity lottery. The diversity lottery was conducted under the terms of section 203(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and makes available 50,000 permanent resident visas annually to persons from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States. Approximately, 105,628 applicants have been registered and notified and may now make an application for an immigrant visa. Since it is likely that some of the first 50,000 persons registered will not pursue their cases to visa issuance, this larger figure should insure that all DV-2013 numbers will be used during fiscal year 2013 (October 1, 2012 until September 30, 2013).

Legislation vs. Administrative Reliefs, Part II - By: Michael Phulwani, Esq. and David H. Nachman, Esq.

This is the continuation of a series of articles on Legislation vs. Administrative Reliefs and the Memo of March 2, 2011 issued by John Morton, Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), to all concerned officials with regards to Civil Immigration Enforcement – priorities for the apprehension, detention, and removal of aliens.

2.      Memo of June 17, 2011 from John Morton, Director of ICE to all concerned officials with regards to Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion Consistent with the Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities of the Agency for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Aliens.

Background

One of ICE's central responsibilities is to enforce the nation's civil immigration laws in coordination with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). ICE, however, has limited resources to remove those illegally in the United States. ICE must prioritize the use of its enforcement personnel, detention space, and removal assets to ensure that the aliens it removes represent, as much as reasonably possible, the agency's enforcement priorities, namely the promotion of national security, border security, public safety, and the integrity of the immigration system. These priorities are outlined in the ICE Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities memorandum of March 2, 2011, which this memorandum is intended to support.

Because the agency is confronted with more administrative violations than its resources can address, the agency must regularly exercise "prosecutorial discretion" if it is to prioritize its efforts. In basic terms, prosecutorial discretion is the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the law against a particular individual. ICE, like any other law enforcement agency, has prosecutorial discretion and may exercise it in the ordinary course of enforcement1.When ICE favorably exercises prosecutorial discretion, it essentially decides not to assert the full scope of the enforcement authority available to the agency in a given case.

In the civil immigration enforcement context, the term "prosecutorial discretion" applies to a broad range of discretionary enforcement decisions, including but not limited to the following:

·        deciding to issue or cancel a notice of detainer;

·        deciding to issue, reissue, serve, file, or cancel a Notice to Appear (NTA);

·        focusing enforcement resources on particular administrative violations or conduct;

·        deciding whom to stop, question, or arrest for an administrative violation;

·        deciding whom to detain or to release on bond, supervision, personal recognizance, or         other condition;

·        seeking expedited removal or other forms of removal by means other than a formal removal proceeding in immigration court;

·        settling or dismissing a proceeding;

·        granting deferred action, granting parole, or staying a final order of removal;

·        agreeing to voluntary departure, the withdrawal of an application for admission, or   other action in lieu of obtaining a formal order of removal;

·        pursuing an appeal;

·        executing a removal order; and

·     responding to or joining in a motion to reopen removal proceedings and to consider             joining in a motion to grant relief or a benefit.

Authorized ICE Personnel

Prosecutorial discretion in civil immigration enforcement matters is held by the Director and may be exercised, with appropriate supervisory oversight, by the following ICE employees according to their specific responsibilities and authorities:

·        officers, agents, and their respective supervisors within Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) who have authority to institute immigration removal proceedings or to otherwise engage in civil immigration enforcement;

·        officers, special agents, and their respective supervisors within Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) who have authority to institute immigration removal proceedings or to otherwise engage in civil immigration enforcement;

·    attorneys and their respective supervisors within the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA) who have authority to represent ICE in immigration removal proceedings before the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR); and

·        the Director, the Deputy Director, and their senior staff.

ICE attorneys may exercise prosecutorial discretion in any immigration removal proceeding before EOIR, on referral of the case from EOIR to the Attorney General, or during the pendency of an appeal to the federal courts, including a proceeding proposed or initiated by CBP or USCIS. If an ICE attorney decides to exercise prosecutorial discretion to dismiss, suspend, or close a particular case or matter, the attorney should notify the relevant ERO, HSI, CBP, or USCIS charging official about the decision. In the event there is a dispute between the charging official and the ICE attorney regarding the attorney's decision to exercise prosecutorial discretion, the ICE Chief Counsel should attempt to resolve the dispute with the local supervisors of the charging official. If local resolution is not possible, the matter should be elevated to the Deputy Director of ICE for resolution.

Factors to Consider When Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion

When weighing whether an exercise of prosecutorial discretion may be warranted for a given alien, ICE officers, agents, and attorneys should consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to –

·        the agency's civil immigration enforcement priorities;

·        the person's length of presence in the United States, with particular consideration given to presence while in lawful status;

·        the circumstances of the person's arrival in the United States and the manner of his or her entry, particularly if the alien came to the United States as a young child;

·        the person's pursuit of education in the United States, with particular consideration given to those who have graduated from a U.S. high school or have successfully pursued or are pursuing a college or advanced degrees at a legitimate institution of higher education in the United States;

·        whether the person, or the person's immediate relative, has served in the U.S. military, reserves, or national guard, with particular consideration given to those who served in combat;

·        the person's criminal history, including arrests, prior convictions, or outstanding arrest warrants;

·        the person's immigration history, including any prior removal, outstanding order of removal, prior denial of status, or evidence of fraud;

·        whether the person poses a national security or public safety concern;

·        the person's ties and contributions to the community, including family relationships;

·        the person's ties to the home country and conditions in the country;

·        the person's age, with particular consideration given to minors and the elderly;

·        whether the person has a U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse, child, or parent;

·        whether the person is the primary caretaker of a person with a mental or physical disability, minor, or seriously ill relative;

·        whether the person or the person's spouse is pregnant or nursing;

·        whether the person or the person's spouse suffers from severe mental or physical illness;

·        whether the person's nationality renders removal unlikely;

·        whether the person is likely to be granted temporary or permanent status or other relief from removal, including as a relative of a U.S. citizen or permanent resident;

·        whether the person is likely to be granted temporary or permanent status or other relief from removal, including as an asylum seeker, or a victim of domestic violence, human trafficking, or other crime; and

·        whether the person is currently cooperating or has cooperated with federal, state or local law enforcement authorities, such as ICE, the U.S Attorneys or Department of Justice, the Department of Labor, or National Labor Relations Board, among others.

This list is not exhaustive and no one factor is determinative. ICE officers, agents, and attorneys should always consider prosecutorial discretion on a case-by-case basis. The decisions should be based on the totality of the circumstances, with the goal of conforming to ICE's enforcement priorities.

                                                                                                            To Be Continued…

Legislation vs. Administrative Reliefs, Part I - By: Michael Phulwani, Esq. and David H. Nachman, Esq.

Amnesty Law was passed by the Congress during President Reagan’s time in 1986. Under the Immigration Reform Act 1986, persons who entered the U.S. on or before January 1, 1982 or performed agricultural work for 90 days during May 1985 to 1986 were granted amnesty and legalized their status as a permanent resident.

Since 1986, there have been several bills passed by the Congress, under which amendments were made to make changes in the law to grant some benefits and also enforcement to deter entry of illegal aliens apprehension and deportation of persons in unlawful status. However, no amnesty bill has been passed by the Congress until this date.

Most of the Presidents, including Bill Clinton, George Bush, and presently, Barack Obama, have supported the legislation to provide legal status to undocumented aliens. However, due to strong oppositions from the Congressional Republicans, no such bill has been passed by the Congress and more than 11 million undocumented aliens are presently in the U.S., many of them do not have social security numbers and driving license, their children cannot pursue studies in colleges, and aliens apprehended even for small violations are deported from the U.S. Attempts were made to get the Dream Act passed by the Congress to give legal status to undocumented students who entered the U.S. under the age of 16 years, so that they can come out of the shadow and live, study, or work in the U.S. without any fear. All efforts to get the Dream Act passed by the Congress have failed.

President Barack Obama made a campaign promise to get some sort of earned legalization bill and legislation, such as the Dream Act, passed by the Congress, but has failed in accomplishing this objective.

Having been frustrated by the failure on the part of the Congress to get any meaningful legislation passed by the Congress, Obama Administration has made several efforts to make changes in the manner of how existing laws are implemented, which will provide some relief to undocumented aliens. The Administration has issued several memos to concerned officials of U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Government lawyers, and Immigration Judges, to follow the policy laid down by the Administration in providing reliefs as well as enforcement of the existing law.

In this series of articles, we will provide the text of these memos mentioned herewith, so that our readers can benefit from the Administrative Guidelines:

1.      Memo of March 2, 2011 issued by John Morton, Director of ICE, to all concerned officials with regards to Civil Immigration Enforcement: Priorities for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Aliens.

Purpose

This memorandum outlines the civil immigration enforcement priorities of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as they relate to the apprehension, detention, and removal of aliens. These priorities shall apply across all ICE programs and shall inform enforcement activity, detention decisions, budget requests and execution, and strategic planning.

A. Priorities for the apprehension, detention, and removal of aliens.

In addition to our important criminal investigative responsibilities, ICE is charged with enforcing the nation's civil immigration laws. This is a critical mission and one with direct significance for our national security, public safety, and the integrity of our border and immigration controls. ICE, however, only has resources to remove approximately 400,000 aliens per year, less than 4 percent of the estimated illegal alien population in the United States. In light of the large number of administrative violations the agency is charged with addressing and the limited enforcement resources the agency has available, ICE must prioritize the use of its enforcement personnel, detention space, and removal resources to ensure that the removals the agency does conduct promote the agency's highest enforcement priorities, namely national security, public safety, and border security.

To that end, the following shall constitute ICE's civil enforcement priorities, with the first being the highest priority and the second and third constituting equal, but lower, priorities.

            Priority 1. Aliens who pose a danger to national security or a risk to public safety

The removal of aliens who pose a danger to national security or a risk to public safety shall be ICE's highest immigration enforcement priority. These aliens include, but are not limited to:

·        aliens engaged in or suspected of terrorism or espionage, or who otherwise pose a danger to national security;

·        aliens convicted of crimes, with a particular emphasis on violent criminals, felons, and repeat offenders;

·        aliens not younger than 16 years of age who participated in organized criminal gangs;

·        aliens subject to outstanding criminal warrants; and

·        aliens who otherwise pose a serious risk to public safety.

For purposes of prioritizing the removal of aliens convicted of crimes, ICE personnel should refer to the following new offense levels defined by the Secure Communities Program, with Level l and Level 2 offenders receiving principal attention. These new Secure Communities levels are given in rank order and shall replace the existing Secure Communities levels of offenses.

·        Level 1 offenders: aliens convicted of "aggravated felonies," as defined in Section 101(a)(43) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, or two or more crimes each punishable by more than one year, commonly referred to as "felonies";

·        Level 2 offenders: aliens convicted of any felony or three or more crimes each punishable by less than one year, commonly referred to as "misdemeanors"; and

·        Level 3 offenders: aliens convicted of crimes punishable by less than one year.

            Priority 2. Recent illegal entrants

In order to maintain control at the border and at ports of entry, and to avoid a return to the prior practice commonly and historically referred to as "catch and release," the removal of aliens who have recently violated immigration controls at the border, at ports of entry, or through the knowing abuse of the visa and visa waiver programs shall be a priority.

            Priority 3. Aliens who are fugitives or otherwise obstruct immigration controls

In order to ensure the integrity of the removal and immigration adjudication processes, the removal of aliens who are subject to a final order of removal and abscond, fail to depart, or intentionally obstruct immigration controls, shall be a priority. These aliens include:

·        fugitive aliens, in descending priority as follows:

      o     fugitive aliens who pose a danger to national security;

      o     fugitives aliens convicted of violent crimes or who otherwise pose a threat to                                   the community;

      o     fugitive aliens with criminal convictions other than a violent crime;

      o     fugitive aliens who have not been convicted of a crime;

·        aliens who reenter the country illegally after removal, in descending priority as follows:

      o     previously removed aliens who pose a danger to national security;

      o     previously removed aliens convicted of violent crimes or who otherwise pose

                  a threat to the community;

      o     previously removed aliens with criminal convictions other than a violent

                  crime;

      o     previously removed aliens who have not been convicted of a crime; and

·        aliens who obtain admission or status by visa, identification, or immigration benefit fraud.

The guidance to the National Fugitive Operations Program: Priorities, Goals and Expectations, issued on December 8, 2009, remains in effect and shall continue to apply for all purposes, including how Fugitive Operation Teams allocate resources among fugitive aliens, previously removed aliens, and criminal aliens.

B. Apprehension, detention, and removal of other aliens unlawfully in the United States

Nothing in this memorandum should be construed to prohibit or discourage the apprehension, detention, or removal of other aliens unlawfully in the United States. ICE special agents, officers, and attorneys may pursue the removal of any alien unlawfully in the United States, although attention to these aliens should not displace or disrupt the resources needed to remove aliens who are a higher priority. Resources should be committed primarily to advancing the priorities set forth above in order to best protect national security and public safety and to secure the border.

C. Detention

As a general rule, ICE detention resources should be used to support the enforcement priorities noted above or for aliens subject to mandatory detention by law. Absent extraordinary circumstances or the requirements of mandatory detention, field office directors should not expend detention resources on aliens who are known to be suffering from serious physical or mental illness, or who are disabled, elderly, pregnant, or nursing, or demonstrate that they are primary caretakers of children or an infirm person, or whose detention is otherwise not in the public interest. To detain aliens in those categories who are not subject to mandatory detention, ICE officers or special agents must obtain approval from the field office director. If an alien falls within the above categories and is subject to mandatory detention, field office directors are encouraged to contact their local Office of Chief Counsel for guidance.

D. Prosecutorial discretion

The rapidly increasing number of criminal aliens who may come to ICE's attention heightens the need for ICE employees to exercise sound judgment and discretion consistent with these priorities when conducting enforcement operations, making detention decisions, making decisions about release on supervision pursuant to the Alternatives to Detention Program, and litigating cases. Particular care should be given when dealing with lawful permanent residents, juveniles, and the immediate family members of U.S. citizens. Additional guidance on prosecutorial discretion is forthcoming. In the meantime, ICE officers and attorneys should continue to be guided by the November 17, 2000 prosecutorial discretion memorandum from then-INS Commissioner Doris Meissner; the October 24, 2005 Memorandum from Principal Legal Advisor William Howard; and the November 7, 2007 Memorandum from then Assistant Secretary Julie Myers.

                                                                                                            To Be Continued…

MOM E-Zine May 2012

http://myemail.constantcontact.com/News-from-Nachman--Phulwani--Zimovcak-Law-Group--P-C-.html?soid=1011188341227&aid=9SMLxujqrmY

Denials and RFEs of H1-B and L-1 Visas

Analysis of new data obtained from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) reveals the agency has dramatically increased denials of L-1 and H-1B petitions over the past four years, harming the competitiveness of U.S. employers and encouraging companies to keep more jobs and resources outside the United States. Data indicate much of the increase in denials involves Indian-born professionals and researchers. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services adjudicators have demonstrated a capacity to keep skilled foreign nationals out of the United States by significantly increasing denials, along with often time-consuming Requests for Evidence (RFE), despite no change in the law or relevant regulations between 2008 and 2011.

The evidence indicates adjudicators or others at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services changed the standard for approving L-1B and other petitions in recent years, beginning in FY 2008 and FY 2009. If one considers that in FY 2011 63 percent of all L-1B petitions received a Request for Evidence and 27 percent were issued a denial that means U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services adjudicators denied or delayed between 63 percent to 90 percent of all L-1B petitions in 2011.

The dramatic increase in denial rates and Requests for Evidence for employment petitions without any change in the law or regulations raises questions about the training, supervision and procedures of the career bureaucracy that adjudicates petitions and the U.S. government's commitment to maintaining a stable business climate for companies competing in the global economy.

The high denial rates belie the notion adjudications have become more lenient. Employers report the time lost due to the increase in denials and Requests for Evidence are costing them millions of dollars in project delays and contract penalties, while aiding competitors that operate exclusively outside the United States - beyond the reach of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services adjudicators and U.S. consular officers. (The data in this report include only petitions at USCIS, not decisions made at consular posts.) Given the resources involved, employers are selective about who they sponsor. The high rate of denials (and Requests for Evidence) is from a pool of applicants selected by employers because they believe the foreign nationals meet the standard for approval, making the increase in denials difficult to defend. Denying employers the ability to transfer in key personnel or gain entry for a skilled professional or researcher harms innovation and job creation in the United States, encouraging employers to keep more resources outside the country to ensure predictability.

Among the findings contained in this NFAP analysis of official U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services data:

• Denial rates for L-1B petitions filed with USCIS, which are used to transfer employees with "specialized knowledge" into the United States, rose from 7 percent in FY 2007 to 22 percent in FY 2008, despite no change in the law or relevant regulation. The denial rates stayed high for L-1B petitions at 26 percent in FY 2009, 22 percent in FY 2010 and 27 percent in FY 2011.1 In addition, 63 percent of L-1B petitions in FY 2011 were at least temporarily denied or delayed due to a Request for Evidence.

• Denial rates for H-1B petitions increased from 11 percent in FY 2007 to 29 percent in FY 2009, and remained higher than in the past for H-1Bs at 21 percent in FY 2010 and 17 percent in FY 2011.

• Denial rates for L-1A petitions increased from 8 percent in FY 2007 to 14 percent in FY 2011. L-1A visas are used to transfer executives and managers into the United States.

• The denial rates also increased for O-1A petitions, which are used for "individuals with an extraordinary ability in the sciences, education, business, or athletics." Denials for O-1A petitions rose from 4 percent in FY 2008, to 10 percent just one year later in FY 2009, increased again to 11 percent in FY 2010, and stood at 8 percent in FY 2011.

• Along with increased denials have come skyrocketing rates of "Requests for Evidence" or RFEs, which are used by USCIS adjudicators to obtain more information in lieu of making an immediate decision on a petition. Employers note that simply the act of an RFE can result in months of delays, affecting costs and potentially delaying projects and contract performance.

• The Request for Evidence rate for L-1B petitions (to transfer employees with specialized knowledge) rose from 17 percent in FY 2007 to 49 percent in FY 2008, and, as noted, reached an astonishing level of 63 percent rate in FY 2011. As recently as FY 2004, USCIS adjudicators requested additional evidence for L-1B petitions in only 2 percent of the cases. There appears to be no reasonable explanation for the rate of Request for Evidence for L-1B petitions to rise from 2 percent to 63 percent in just 7 years.

• The Request for Evidence rate for L-1A petitions (to transfer managers and executives) increased from 4 percent in FY 2004, to 24 percent in FY 2007, up to 51 percent in FY 2011.

• For H-1B petitions, the Request for Evidence rate rose from 4 percent in FY 2004, to 18 percent by FY 2007, to a high of 35 percent in FY 2009. In FY 2011, the rate for H-1Bs was 26 percent.

• For O-1A petitions, the Request for Evidence rate increased from 1 percentin FY 2004, to 13 percent in FY 2007, and then more than doubled to 28 percent in FY 2009, 30 percent in FY 2010, and 27 percent in FY 2011.

• Country specific data on new (initial) L-1B petitions indicate U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is more likely to deny a petition from an Indian-born professional than nationals of other countries. The denial rate for Indian-born applicants for new L-1B petitions rose from 2.8 percent in Fiscal Year 2008 to 22.5 percent in FY 2009, a substantial increase that resulted in many employers being unable to transfer their employees into the United States to work on research projects or serve customers. In comparison, the denial rate for new L-1B petitions for Canadians rose from 2.0 percent in FY 2008 to only 2.9 percent in FY 2009. Illustrating the abrupt change, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services denied more L-1B petitions for new petitions for Indians in FY 2009 (1,640) than in the previous 9 fiscal years combined (1,341 denials between FY 2000 and FY 2008).

Increased Ease of Travel to the United States Helps Bolster Jobs for the U.S. Economy NPZ LAW GROUP, P.C. Attorneys Ridgewood New Jersey

President Obama continues to implement new initiatives to significantly increase travel and tourism in the United States. The U.S. tourism and travel industry is a substantial component of U.S. GDP and employment, representing 2.7% of GDP and 7.5 million jobs in 2010 - with international travel to the United States supporting 1.2 million jobs alone.

According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, international travel resulted in $134 billion in U.S. exports in 2010 and is the nation's largest service export industry, with 7% of total exports and 24% of service exports. The Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates that every additional 65 international visitors to the United States can generate enough exports to support an additional travel and tourism-related job. According to the travel industry and Bureau of Economic Analysis, international travel is particularly important as overseas or "longhaul" travelers spend on average $4,000 on each visit. President Obama has stated: "Every year, tens of millions of tourists from all over the world come and visit America. And the more folks who visit America, the more Americans we get back to work. We need to help businesses all across the country grow and create jobs; compete and win. That's how we're going to rebuild an economy where hard work pays off, where responsibility is rewarded, and where anyone can make it if they try."

Travel and tourism is responsible for more than 1 million American jobs and it is clearly the case that more could be created over the next decade if the U.S. increases its share of the international travel market. Recent steps to liberalize the restrictions on travel to the U.S. offer important steps to bolster job creation by better promoting the U.S. as a tourism destination and improve secure visa processing. There have been and continue to be a series of recent initiatives by the Obama Administration to put Americans back to work and strengthen the U.S. economy.

The President seems to be focused on a national strategy to make the U.S. the world's top travel and tourism destination. This comes as part of a comprehensive effort to spur job creation. The number of travelers from emerging economies with growing middle classes - such as India, China, and Brazil - is projected to grow by 135%, 274%, and 50% by 2016. Nationals from these three (3) countries contributed approximately $15 billion dollars and thousands of jobs to the U.S. economy in 2010. In addition, Chinese, Indian and Brazilian tourists spend about $6,000 each trip, according to the Department of Commerce. The Department of State (DOS) has made progress in processing nonimmigrant visas from these key markets, allowing them to issue more than 7.5 million visas in the last fiscal year. This represents a 17% increase from the previous fiscal year. Improving visa processing capacity for India, China and Brazil is particularly important to spurn this growth.

One of the recent and key initiatives to increase tourism to the U.S., the DOS announced a new pilot program to waive the nonimmigrant visa interview requirement for certain visa renewals. Under the program, slated to run for two years, certain visa renewals that are more than 12 months but less than 48 months post-expiration will be eligible for renewal without a consular interview for the same visa category. The visa interview waiver is available to foreign nationals who have previously had their 10-print fingerprint scan collected; it will not be available to applicants who were previously denied a visa or who are listed in the Consular Lookout and Support System (CLASS) or require a Security Advisory Opinion. Nor will the interview waiver be available to applicants who may have failed to comply with U.S. immigration laws or who are applying in a "high-threat" or "highfraud" location. Only certain types of visas are eligible for this benefit.

Under the guidelines provided for visa interview waiver, it is required that the applicant should meet the following requirements:

1. Must have previous U.S. visa in the same class as the visa class for which he is applying for the renewal.
2. Previous visa was issued in India.
3. The applicant has no refusal for a visa in any category after his most recent visa issuance.
4. If applying for B-1/B-2 visa, his prior B-1/B-2 visa expired with the last 48 months or is still valid OR if applying for C1/D, L-2, or H-4 visa, his prior visa in the same category expired within 12 months or still valid.
5. If the applicant's visa was issued before January 1, 2008, he may be required to submit fingerprints at the consular section.

While in most cases, visa waiver of interview would be granted, there may be some cases where in the discretion of the consulate, the request is not granted and the applicant is required to appear for interview and biometrics.

In some cases, visa interview waiver may be granted, but the applicant may still be required for biometrics (fingerprinting).

This is a welcome change in the Department of State policy with regard to visa interviews since it would be helpful to many visa applicants who wish to get their visas renewed without appearing at the consulate.

It would also reduce the work load of consular officers who presently interview many visa applicants under categories abovementioned and almost every applicant is presently required to appear for biometrics.

The reduction in the number of applicants who are required to physically appear before the consulate for interview and biometrics, would provide more time to the consular officials to accommodate more visa applicants who are required to appear for visa interview and to concentrate more on immigrant and nonimmigrant visa applicants, who must appear for the visa interview.

Some additional initiatives have been announced that ease the travel to the U.S. The Obama Administration has been working to expand and make the Global Entry Program Permanent. Global Entry is a program within the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection that was created as a pilot in 2008 to facilitate expedited Clearance for pre-approved, low risk travelers upon arrival in the United States.

Through the final rule, the Obama Administration has expanded and made the Global Entry program permanent. Due in part to innovative public-private partnerships, the Global Entry program now has more than 246,000 members, more than one million trusted travelers have Global Entry benefits, and efforts are underway to expand enrollment even further.

There are currently 131 Global Entry kiosks at 20 airports and since launching, members have used Global Entry kiosks over 1.7 million times, saving CBP officers over 36,450 inspection hours-staff hours that CBP has then re-allocated to expedite regular passenger queues.

VIDEO Tips for Consular Processing AND GETTING THE VISA

Below are links to Videos with Tips for Consular Processing from the Immigration Lawyers and Attorneys at Nachman Phulwani Zimovcak Law Group . . . 


AMERICAN OFFICIALS IN INDIA, H-1B SEASON, AND BEING PREPARED FOR INTERVIEW AT U.S. CONSULATE:

1. American Officials in Chennai, Mumbai, New Delhi

Visa Interview Waivers
Bio metrics & Fingerprints
May cut-off dates (no more EB-2 visas for China and India)

2. H-1B season

CAP Exempt Cases
Non-CAP Exempt Cases H-4 applicants at India Consulates Chennai, Mumbai, New Delhi being affected by administrative processing.
H-1B employers should obey H-1B processing rules to avoid necessary scrutiny
Visa Waiver Interview
VFS (Visa Facilitation Service)

3. Being Prepared for Interview at U.S. Consulate

clients to articulate their answers at consular interviews. more specifics about the reason for your trip to U.S.
standard interview times are 3 minutes
Providing documents at the interview that we legitimate and support your explanation of travel to the U.S.

PLEASE CHECK OUT THE VIDEO LINKS BELOW . . . 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiHaCLg9m58&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KsTP4_yCow&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HG5du5NFuw&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sb-p5BcWDSc&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qD2nMRUmlEg&feature=relmfu