Effective June 4, 2010, the US Department of State is increasing its non-immigrant (temporary) visa processing fees at all US embassies and consular posts and moving to a tiered schedule of fees. Previously, non-immigrant visa fees were set at a uniform $131. The new schedule is as follows:
Nonimmigrant visa and border crossing card application processing fees (per person):
(a) Non-petition-based non-immigrant visa (except E category): $140
These include include B1/B2 tourist and business visitor visas and all student and exchange visitor (F, M and J) visas
(b) H, L, O, P, Q and R category non-immigrant visa: $150
- H visa - temporary workers and trainees
· L visa - intracompany transferees
· O visa - aliens with extraordinary ability
· P visa - athletes, artists and entertainers
· Q visa - international cultural exchange visitors
· R visa - religious occupations
(c) E category nonimmigrant visa: $390
E covers Treaty Traders and Treaty Investors.
(d) K category nonimmigrant visa: $350
The K category includes fiance visas and those for foreign nationals married to US citizens who are waiting for approval of a Form I-130.
(e) Border crossing card--age 15 and over (valid 10 years) :$140
(f) Border crossing card--under age 15 (for Mexican citizens if parent or guardian has or is applying for a border crossing card (valid 10 years or until the applicant reaches age 15, whichever is sooner): $14
By law, the fees may only be set at cost. The Department of State therefore commissioned an independent study conducted from August 2007 through June 2009 to determine their actual processing costs. Average cost numbers were then rounded up to the nearest ten for easy of foreign currency conversion. The additional revenue resulting from this rounding will be used for GSS services.
The implementing legislation's list of reasons why some “petition based” visa types are more expensive (H, L, O, P, Q, and R) gives a brief insight into the processing activities conducted at the consulates for them:
review of extensive documentation
a more in-depth interview of the applicant
receiving petition information from DHS,
conducting reviews of government and commercial databases to confirm the existence of the petitioning business, and
entering that data into the Petition Information Management Service (PIMS) database.
Visa reciprocity fees vary from country to country and still apply, so consult with your local post, consulate or embassy to find the exact visa application fees applicable in your case.
Fee changes are only in effect for non-immigrant visas applied for at consular posts (consulates and embassies). Fee changes are under review for other consular services like US passports, immigrant visas. Department of State, May 24, 2010 press release, Nonimmigrant Visa Application Fees to Increase June 4, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/05/142155.htm.
These new fees were set forth in the Federal Register: May 20, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 97),Rules and Regulations, pages 28188-28194. From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov][DOCID:fr20my10-3] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 22 CFR Part 22, Public Notice: 7018, RIN 1400-AC57. Title: Schedule of Fees for Consular Services, Department of State and Overseas Embassies and Consulates.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Thursday, February 18, 2010
USCIS Collaboration Session, February 18, 2010 – Determining Employer-Employee Relationships for Adjudication of H-1B Petitions
I’ve attended two Collaboration sessions sponsored by the new U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services - Office of Public Engagement (OPE) via telephone. The creation of OPE was announced by USCIS head Alejandro Mayorkas’ on September 14, 2009. Although USCIS officials attend them, they seem to be mostly listening sessions, not heavy on content outflow from the USCIS. The agendas for the sessions are very general. They do not list the featured attendees from the USCIS.
Symbolically, the introduction by the main USCIS spokesperson on the substantive topic, Barbara (last name inaudible), was inaudible because of technical difficulties. She seemed to be too far from the microphone for most of her opening remarks.
The Collaboration Session today, February 18, 2010 – Determining Employer-Employee Relationships for Adjudication of H-1B Petitions – yielded few tidbits from the USCIS on the topic of discussion, the January 8, 2010 “Neufeld” Memo “Determining Employer-Employee Relationships for Adjudication of H-1B Petitions, Including Third-Party Site Placements.” The main ones were:
1. The Memo was developed internally over the past year.
2. Its purpose from the USCIS’s point of view was to get more consistency in the requests for evidence (RFEs) issued to petitioners. The USCIS stated that they wanted to “level the playing field” for those seeking H-1B benefits. They sought to strengthen the integrity of the program by making adjudications consistent.
3. The USCIS’s goal with the Memo was also to have more “strategic RFEs,” rather than reckless template RFEs, that ask for all but the kitchen sink. They would like adjudicators to ask only for information that will “impact the overall eligibility.”
4. It is not the USCIS’s intent to extend the Neufeld Memo to L visa petitions. Practitioners voiced concern that the Memo would bleed into the adjudication of other visas, like L visas, that it would cause problems for those who are starting branches of their businesses in the US and wanted to hire themselves under the intra-company transferee program.
5. The USCIS is considering adding “trusted employer concept” to the H-1B program to reduce the stress of H-1B petitioning for some employers who use the program frequently. I assume this might be like the “blanket L” visa program
There were several stakeholders, interested parties, who spoke for and against the H-1B program in general, and many brought up what has already been discussed in the blogosphere:
1. Many suggested that the Memo was rulemaking and should it have gone through the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
- There were several calls to withdraw the memo in its entirety, and to go through the APA procedures, calling for comments to draft regulations etc.
- A caller from Immigration Voice found the Memo’s issuance to be contrary to the goal of transparency that the USCIS and its Office of Public Engagement espouse and a “huge shift” in attitude toward third party worksite consultants.
- The USCIS representatives, including Donald Neufeld, Associate Director, Service Center Operations, himself, did not respond to the accusations of non-transparency and improper rulemaking, except to say that the intent of the memo was to offer guidance to adjudicators and stakeholders.
2. Practitioners voiced their opinion that the Memo was causing adjudicators to focus only on the “control” element of the four or five elements of determining an employer-employee relationship.
3. Bruce Martin, immigration attorney Greg Siskind and a practitioner from New Haven emphasized the problems with hospital staffing that the memo is causing. Hospitals in some states cannot be the employer of foreign national physicians because of insurance liability. Staffing companies have long been used to structure the temporary work of foreign physicians in US hospitals.
Of the economic based attacks on the Neufeld Memo, the two themes were that (1) it will encourage companies to move jobs offshore because of an inability to hire the skilled labor that they want here in the US – where at least the H-1B employees are paying taxes, renting apartments and helping to create jobs for US workers with their flexible hire contributions; and (2) it discourages entrepreneurship, the engine of growth for the US economy.
Symbolically, the introduction by the main USCIS spokesperson on the substantive topic, Barbara (last name inaudible), was inaudible because of technical difficulties. She seemed to be too far from the microphone for most of her opening remarks.
The Collaboration Session today, February 18, 2010 – Determining Employer-Employee Relationships for Adjudication of H-1B Petitions – yielded few tidbits from the USCIS on the topic of discussion, the January 8, 2010 “Neufeld” Memo “Determining Employer-Employee Relationships for Adjudication of H-1B Petitions, Including Third-Party Site Placements.” The main ones were:
1. The Memo was developed internally over the past year.
2. Its purpose from the USCIS’s point of view was to get more consistency in the requests for evidence (RFEs) issued to petitioners. The USCIS stated that they wanted to “level the playing field” for those seeking H-1B benefits. They sought to strengthen the integrity of the program by making adjudications consistent.
3. The USCIS’s goal with the Memo was also to have more “strategic RFEs,” rather than reckless template RFEs, that ask for all but the kitchen sink. They would like adjudicators to ask only for information that will “impact the overall eligibility.”
4. It is not the USCIS’s intent to extend the Neufeld Memo to L visa petitions. Practitioners voiced concern that the Memo would bleed into the adjudication of other visas, like L visas, that it would cause problems for those who are starting branches of their businesses in the US and wanted to hire themselves under the intra-company transferee program.
5. The USCIS is considering adding “trusted employer concept” to the H-1B program to reduce the stress of H-1B petitioning for some employers who use the program frequently. I assume this might be like the “blanket L” visa program
There were several stakeholders, interested parties, who spoke for and against the H-1B program in general, and many brought up what has already been discussed in the blogosphere:
1. Many suggested that the Memo was rulemaking and should it have gone through the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
- There were several calls to withdraw the memo in its entirety, and to go through the APA procedures, calling for comments to draft regulations etc.
- A caller from Immigration Voice found the Memo’s issuance to be contrary to the goal of transparency that the USCIS and its Office of Public Engagement espouse and a “huge shift” in attitude toward third party worksite consultants.
- The USCIS representatives, including Donald Neufeld, Associate Director, Service Center Operations, himself, did not respond to the accusations of non-transparency and improper rulemaking, except to say that the intent of the memo was to offer guidance to adjudicators and stakeholders.
2. Practitioners voiced their opinion that the Memo was causing adjudicators to focus only on the “control” element of the four or five elements of determining an employer-employee relationship.
3. Bruce Martin, immigration attorney Greg Siskind and a practitioner from New Haven emphasized the problems with hospital staffing that the memo is causing. Hospitals in some states cannot be the employer of foreign national physicians because of insurance liability. Staffing companies have long been used to structure the temporary work of foreign physicians in US hospitals.
Of the economic based attacks on the Neufeld Memo, the two themes were that (1) it will encourage companies to move jobs offshore because of an inability to hire the skilled labor that they want here in the US – where at least the H-1B employees are paying taxes, renting apartments and helping to create jobs for US workers with their flexible hire contributions; and (2) it discourages entrepreneurship, the engine of growth for the US economy.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Fragility of Immigration Law Practice
Always over our heads is the threat of detention for our clients. "Immigrant Jail Tests US View of Legal Access," NYT, p A1, Nov 2, 2009. In Greenwich Village immigrants detained while their cases are resolved live in conditions worse than US prisons. They are given less than they need to eat, and forced to clean to earn $1 a day which they can use to buy commissary meals. Legal counsel is not a right. They can be moved arbitrarily across the country to other detention centers, even after they find local counsel. Counsel often will not follow them across the country. Matthew Chandler DHS spokesperson admits that the detention system the Obama administration inherited is "inadequate." DHS wants to overhaul the system with better legal access, and a less penal system.
On Twitter
Birmingham chap sets off Twitstorm merely by calling actor Stephen Fry's twits "boring." "A Twit Read Across Britain Unleashes a Cascade of Vitriol on a User," NYT, p A8, Nov 2, 2009. NYT's Sarah Lyall writes that it was an example of high school like behavior on Twitter, "passing rude notes, spreading exaggerated rumors and obsessing endlessly- and pointlessly- about who said what mean thing about whom." Is the anonymity of Twitter a problem? Do we behave as we do in our cars - gesturing rudely, protected in our bubble?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
