CBP Fact Sheet on Expired Visa

The nonimmigrant visas for some of these nonimmigrants might have expired. These nonimmigrants usually know that they can travel and return with expired visa inasmuch as they have a valid I-94 and return within 30 days.

However, there are a lot of catch to the automatic visa revalidation rule, including but not limited to (1) unavailability of such privilege for people from certain designated countries of terrorism, (2) unavailability of such automatic revalidation if a visa was applied in the contiguous countries during the trip, (3) unavailability of such automatic revalidation if change of visa was obtained within the U.S., (3) unavailability of such automatic revalidation for a trip to adjacent islands (Caribbean islands) unless you have a right type nonimmigrant visas (F and J) and with some additional conditions, M visa holders with a proof of nonimmigant status within the United States. Accordingly, those who consider such vacation trips should check with the CBP not to be trapped outside of the U.S.

AUTOMATIC REVALIDATION

FACT SHEET

May 7, 2009

Pursuant to 22 CFR 4 1.1 12 and 8 CFR 214.1 automatic revalidation applies to expired nonimmigrant visas of aliens who have been out of the U.S. for thirty days or less in contiguous territory (Canada and Mexico).

In the case of F-1 and J-1 students, automatic revalidation applies to contiguous territory and adjacent islands other than Cuba. An M-1 student can only apply for automatic revalidation readmission after an absence of less than 30 days solely from contiguous territory.

Nonimmigrants who are eligible to re-enter the U.S. pursuant to the authority of automatic revalidation are not able to benefit from the automatic revalidation process if the non-immigrant's passport reflects evidence that while in contiguous territory or on an adjacent island the nonimmigrant applied for a new visa and is pending a decision or has been denied a new visa application.

Nationals of Iran, Syria, Sudan, and Cuba are not eligible for automatic revalidation of an expired visa. Thus, for example, if a citizen of Iran travels to contiguous territory for a day and has an expired visa, but a valid extension approval notice of status; he will need to obtain a visa to return to the U.S.
Automatic revalidation does not apply to the Visa Waiver Program. Readmission to the U.S. after departure to contiguous territory or adjacent islands for Visa Waiver Program applicants is covered under 8 CFR 217. 3(b).

http://www.greencardapply.com/news/news11/news11_0207.htm

www.greencardapply.com
www.greencardfamily.com

USCIS Implements "Single Document" for EAD

USCIS instructs adjudicators issuance of an Employment Authorization Document (EAD), Form I-766, with an advance parole endorsement for the I-485 applicants who file EAD and AP applications concurrently on or after December 21, 2010. The new policy for the single EAD/AP is that whenever possible, USCIS adjudicators will simultaneously adjudicate "concurrently filed" applications for employment authorization and applications for advance parole authorization filed by applicants for adjustment of status under 8 CFR 245 or to register status under 8 CFR 249.

If USCIS approves both applications, it will issue a single document, Form I-766, Advance Parole EAD, as provided in this Policy Memorandum. USCIS is also reviewing whether it is feasible to expand eligibility for an EAD with advance parole endorsement to other EAD recipients who are eligible for advance parole. See USCIS Announcement of 02/11/2011 below.

USCIS to Issue Employment Authorization and Advance Parole Card for Adjustment of Status Applicants

Feb. 11, 2011

WASHINGTON—U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today announced that it is now issuing employment and travel authorization on a single card for certain applicants filing an Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, Form I-485. This new card represents a significant improvement from the current practice of issuing paper Advance Parole documents.

The card looks similar to the current Employment Authorization Document (EAD) but will include text that reads, “Serves as I-512 Advance Parole.” A card with this text will serve as both an employment authorization and Advance Parole document. The new card is also more secure and more durable than the current paper Advance Parole document.

An applicant may receive this card when he or she files an Application for Employment Authorization, Form I-765, and an Application for Travel Document, Form I-131, concurrently with or after filing Form I-485. USCIS will continue to issue separate EAD and Advance Parole documents as warranted. Employers may accept the new card as a List A document when completing the Employment Eligibility Verification, Form I-9.

As with the current Advance Parole document, obtaining a combined Advance Parole and employment authorization card allows an applicant for adjustment of status to travel abroad and return to the U.S. without abandoning the pending adjustment application. Upon returning to the U.S., the individual who travels with the card must present the card to request parole through the port-of-entry. The decision to parole the individual is made at the port-of-entry. Individuals who have been unlawfully present in the U.S. and subsequently depart and seek re-entry through a grant of parole may be inadmissible and ineligible to adjust their status.

For more information about the EAD and Advance Parole card, see the related Questions and Answers. For more information on USCIS and its programs, visit www.uscis.gov.
http://www.greencardapply.com/news/news11/news11_0214.htm

www.greencardapply.com
www.greencardfamily.com

ICE Raids Tri-Valley University

1. ICE Raids Tri-Valley University on January 19, 2011

Dozens of agents from Homeland Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement swarmed Tri-Valley University in Pleasanton, Calif., Wednesday, searching administrator offices and the home of University president Susan Su. Tri-Valley bills itself as a Christian University offering degree and non-degree programs.

Of course, with an ongoing federal investigation, mum's the word. One can presume given the identity of the players that immigration law violations are suspected. But it's not like ICE is going to flat out announce the object of their investigation at Tri-Valley.

What I am wondering as I read about Tri-Valley, is why aren't the grammar police raiding this place? Tri-Valley poses as an institution of higher education, a university... but even a cursory look at its website suggests that a startling lack of functional literacy pervades it.

Tri-Valley University's supposed mission of providing "rigorous and excellent quality academic programs" is undercut by its own website. In website sections like this one, it looks suspiciously as if Tri-Valley acquired a list of buzz words and applied them indiscriminately: "Our Institution Objective is to equip individual with academic excellence, practical skillfulness and spiritual maturity."

Suspicion that Tri-Valley is more concerned about buzz words than substance is exacerbated by the list of programs. "Tri-Valley University offers Bachelor of Science (B. S.) degree in Electrical Engineering (BSEE), Computer Science (BSCS), Mechanical Engineering (BSME), Business Administration (BSBA) and Nurse (BSNS)." A degree in Nurse?

Tri-Valley can't even explain its location in a comprehensible manner. Its website says, "Tri-Valley University locates minutes of taxi (emphasis added) from the Pleasanton/Dublin BART station."

One section of the Tri-Valley website describes "On-Compus" Employment." Another asserts: "At Tri-Valley University, on-site classroom is complimented with virtual live synchronous and asynchronous on-line access." Whoever wrote that sentence apparently can't distinguish "complimented" from "complemented." The author presumably wasn't one of the faculty members because, "Faculty members and speakers at Tri-Valley University are renown professionals in the field..."

A lot of website space is devoted to Tri-Valley's procedure for admitting the international applicant, discussed in the singular: " international applicant need to submit the following required document for admission application..." The plurality of international students and the university's compliance with federal law in admitting them may well be why ICE paid Tri-Valley an unwelcome visit this week.

But back to reasons why it's really the grammar police who need to pay this institution of higher education a visit...

The students at Tri-Valley apparently take their grammatical cues from their school. On a brag page highlighting Tri-Valley's best and brightest, one student is quoted as saying, '"After attend the college for an AA degree, I went straightly to work."

A graduate who started his own company in China reports back, "After 3 years of operation, the company can now run by itself very well..." This smacks of viral emails describing student essays that say things like, "He woke up dead this morning." Perhaps the secret mission of this school to produce spam writers?

As for famous alumni, Tri-Valley is apparently in a holding pattern, waiting to see if any surface: "Now you graduate, we would like to hear from you, about life and how the study at TVU and the degree do to your career, not just your million dollor donation!"

2. US immigration authorities has asked the 1,555 students of California-based Tri Valley University (TVU) contact them directly

US immigration authorities has asked the 1,555 students of California-based Tri Valley University (TVU), which has been shut down on charges of visa fraud affecting hundreds of Indians, to contact them directly to find out the options they have to pursue their studies in this country.

"Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has taken further steps to ensure (Student and Exchange Visitor Programme) SEVP-certified schools and former Tri-Valley students have the information that they need to make informed decisions in light of the ongoing investigation," its spokeswoman, Lori K Haley said.

ICE has posted an advisory on the SEVP link on ICE's website -- http://www.ice.gov/sevis/tri-valley-110118.htm -- to direct students how to contact an SEVP representative to obtain information about their options.

"When you call, SEVP will provide you with your options including the option to depart from the United States without an otherwise possibly applicable bar to re-admission in the future," says the advisory issued to the TVU students.

Lori said due to the ongoing investigation, ICE is not discussing the details related to the Tri Valley case. SEVP terminated the records of all F-1 students enrolled at TVU as of January 18, after ICE shut down TVU following an investigation.

According to a federal complaint filed in a California court in January, the University helped foreign nationals illegally acquire immigration status. The university is said to have 1,555 students. As many as 95 per cent of these students are Indian nationals, the complaint said.

Investigations by ICE found that while students were admitted to various residential and on-line courses of the university and on paper lived in California, but in reality they "illegally" worked in various parts of the country as far as Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Texas. ICE has called it as a "Sham University", a charge denied by the University.

The ICE investigations found that more than half of these students were reported to be residing in a single apartment located in Sunnyvale California. During the course of the investigation, ICE found that the university gave the residential address of its students in order to conceal that they did not live in California, said the court papers.

For a student to maintain an active immigration status, they must show proof that they are making reasonable process toward completing coursework and physically attend classes. According to available reports, so far 18 Tri Valley students have been radio-ankled; and at least a dozen detained in various parts of the country; while all of them have lost their student visa status.

Strongly objecting to the manner in which Indian students are being treated, Indian Embassy officials here have argued that these students need to be treated in a humane manner and should not be made a victim of the federal investigation against the Tri Valley University founder and President, Susan Su.

Earlier, John Morton, Director, US ICE, had assured the Indian Ambassador to the US, Meera Shankar, that the federal law enforcement agency would use "good judgment" and "common sense" while handling the case of hundreds of Indian students who have been affected by the closer of the California-based Tri Valley University on charges of alleged immigration scam.

Morton had called Shankar after the Indian Embassy here lodged strong protest against before it and other US agencies against the manner in which Indian students are being treated by ICE including forcing them to wear radio tags, and suspension of Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), thus preventing them from taking admissions in other colleges and universities.

http://www.greencardapply.com/news/news11/news11_0215.htm

www.greencardapply.com
www.greencardfamily.com

"Specialized Knowledge" Interpretation in L1

U.S. State Department recognizing that agencies involving immigration laws such as DHS, USCIS, AAO, and Courts are not definite in the definition of this key term for the L-1B visa eligibility, it still found a need for its internal guidance for visa posts to make "consistent" decisions on the definition of this terms by consular officers throughout the world and has just issued this guidance cable to the visa posts. The following is the guidance:

Despite the lack of simple, bright-line, legal criteria, there are factors which have been cited by INS/DHS sources as valid for making specialized knowledge determinations. Post can use the following criteria to assist in making this adjudication:

The proprietary nature of the knowledge: While it is not strictly required that specialized knowledge involve knowledge of procedures or techniques proprietary to the petitioning company, the possession of significant proprietary knowledge can in itself meet the specialized knowledge requirement. This is expressly stated in INA 214(c)(2), which makes reference to "special knowledge of the company product and its application in international markets" or "advanced level of knowledge of processes and procedures of the company."

Legacy INS has in the past indicated that proprietary knowledge will meet the L requirement when it "would be difficult to impart to another without significant economic inconvenience." This knowledge can be acquired through on-the-job training.

If everyone is specialized, then no one is: The legislative history indicates that the specialized knowledge requirement was intended for "key" personnel. While it could be true in a small company that all experienced employees are "key," for a larger company there should be a distinction between "key" and normal personnel. This could be made based on length of experience, level of knowledge, or level of responsibility - e.g., the person has been made responsible for more complicated and/or sensitive projects. I

f a company is claiming that all the employees working on technical issues should be considered to have specialized knowledge, the company is probably employing too low a standard. On the other hand, there is no legal basis to require any specific limit on the number of employees that can be considered key. As indicated, for a small company, all employees with responsible positions may be key. A large company can have a large number of key employees who would meet the specialized knowledge criteria, but there should be a distinction between those employees and ordinary skilled workers.
http://www.greencardapply.com/news/news11/news11_0223.htm

www.greencardapply.com
www.greencardfamily.com

New I-129 Form Imposes Export Controls

Effective February 20, 2011, U.S. employers will be required to use a new version of the Form I-129, “Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker,” which is the form that employers complete when hiring employees under H-1B or L-1 visas, among others, or when seeking extensions for employees who already have those visas.

The new I-129 form contains a certification relating to the release of export controlled information to foreign employees. We anticipate that the new I-129 will present a challenge to Human Resources managers, who are generally responsible for completing these forms, since they may be unfamiliar with export control requirements. The certification requires the employer to identify whether or not an export license is required to release export controlled information to the foreign employee and, if so, to certify that access to such information will not be provided until the requisite license is obtained.

As a practical matter, a certification requires that employers:

1) understand the export controls that apply to their equipment and technology;

2) determine a foreign national employee’s level of access to export controlled information; and

3) implement a sufficiently robust compliance program to prevent export violations due to unauthorized disclosures of export controlled information.

After February 20, companies that disclose export controlled information to their foreign employees without obtaining the proper export authorizations face potential liability for a false I-129 certification as well as liability for export violations. As a result, companies will need to ensure that they have the appropriate export compliance infrastructure in place to respond to this new requirement.

The relevant change to the Form I-129 is located in Part 6, "Certification Regarding the Release of Controlled Technology or Technical Data to Foreign Persons in the United States." This part requires that the employer complete the following certification for all H-1B, H-1B1 Chile/Singapore, L-1, and O-1A petitioners.

With respect to the technology or technical data the petitioner will release or otherwise provide access to the beneficiary, the petitioner certifies that it has reviewed the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and has determined that:

1) A license is not required from either the U.S. Department of Commerce or the U.S. Department of State to release such technology or technical data to the foreign person; or,

2) A license is required from either U.S. Department of Commerce or the U.S. Department of State to release such technology or technical data to the beneficiary and the petitioner will prevent access to the controlled technology or technical data by the beneficiary until and unless the petitioner has received the required license or other authorization to release it to the beneficiary.

As mentioned above, completion of the certification assumes that the employer will be knowledgeable about the export control requirements relating to its equipment and technology and will be able to identify the extent of access to export controlled information by the foreign employee and prevent unauthorized disclosures (through facility or network access or other means). Since employment forms, such as the I-129, typically are completed by Human Resources personnel, it will be important for companies to ensure that such personnel have the appropriate level of information to be able to make an accurate certification.

Although all companies will be required to use the new I-129 after February 20, companies that produce products and technologies that are more likely to trigger export licensing requirements should be especially sensitive to the new requirement. At a minimum, this would include (but not be limited to) items with military or intelligence applications or other products or technology that raise national security or foreign policy concerns. Additionally, under U.S. export laws, a release of controlled technology or technical data (in any form) to a foreign person located in the U.S. is considered to be a “deemed export” back to the foreign person’s home country.

As a result, companies who hire employees from countries viewed as more hostile to U.S. national security and foreign policy interests, including embargoed destinations (such as Cuba and Iran, among others) or other sensitive destinations (such as China, India, etc.), also need to carefully consider the new certification requirement. http://www.greencardapply.com/news/news11/news11_0228.htm


www.greencardapply.com
www.greencardfamily.com

Adjusting Fees for Exchange Visitor Program

U.S. State Department Final Rule Adjusting Fees for Exchange Visitor Program: This fee change will take effect on March 26, 2011. Under the adjusted fee schedules, the fee charged to foreign nationals for a request for individual program services, such as change of program category, program extensions and reinstatements, will decrease to $233. The fee charged to U.S. corporate entities for requests for program designation, redesignation and amendments to program designation will increase to $2,700 in order to recoup the full cost of such services.

The Exchange Visitor Program Office of Designation provides services to 1,226 sponsor organizations and 350,000 Exchange Visitor Program participants. Statistically, there are Some 5,573 for-profit and tax-exempt entities that conduct foreign exchange program. Of these 1,226 Department designated entities, 933 are academic institutions and 293 are for-profit or tax-exempt entities.

SUMMARY: The Department of State is amending its regulations regarding fees and charges for Exchange Visitor Program services. The fees permit the Department to recoup the cost of providing such Exchange Visitor Program services.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective 30 days from February 25, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stanley S. Colvin, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Private Sector Exchange, U.S. Department of State, SA-5, Floor 5, 2200 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20522, 202-632-2805, or e-mail at jexchanges@state.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department published a proposed rule, Public Notice 7077 at 75 FR 60674-60679, October 1, 2010, with a request for comments, amending Sec. 62.17 (``Fees and Charges'') containing all of the fees and charges for Exchange Visitor Program services. As explained in the proposed rule, the Department is increasing user fees charged for Exchange Visitor Program services in order to recoup the full cost of such services which are requested and performed for the benefit of foreign nationals or U.S. corporate entities.

These costs were calculated by an independent certified
public accounting firm in full compliance with the Office of Management and Budget directives regarding such user fee calculations as set forth in OMB Circular A-25.

The Department received three comments and is now promulgating a final rule with no changes from the proposed rule. Thus, the fee charged to foreign nationals for a request for individual program services, such as change of program category, program extensions and reinstatements, will decrease to $233. The fee charged to U.S. corporate entities for requests for program designation, redesignation and amendments to program designation will increase to $2,700 in order to recoup the full cost of such services.

http://www.greencardapply.com/news/news11/news11_0301.htm


www.greencardapply.com
www.greencardfamily.com