CLOSE X
RSS Feed LinkedIn Instagram Twitter Facebook
Search:
FMG Law Blog Line

Archive for the ‘Immigration & I-9 Services’ Category

EB1 Success Story

Posted on: December 20th, 2018

By: Kenneth Levine

The FMG Immigration Group was retained in June 2018 to prepare an EB1 “Alien of Extraordinary Ability” petition on behalf of Woman International Chess Master Mariam Danelia. Mariam, who hails from the country of Georgia, was residing in the U.S. pursuant to F-1 Optional Practical Training after having earned a Master of Science degree in Accounting from the University of Texas at Dallas.

Mariam happens to be one of the finest female chess players ever produced by the country of Georgia. She is currently the 20th ranked female chess player in Georgia and is overall ranked in the 99th percentile of female chess players worldwide. While attending UT at Dallas, Mariam was a key member of the school’s powerhouse chess team. The UT at Dallas chess team is a perennial favorite to qualify for the “final four” tournament of collegiate chess, known as the “President’s Cup.”

The attached article discusses Mariam’s remarkable chess talents and recounts her appearance at the Denver Chess Club, where she competed against 25 other chess players simultaneously:

Although Mariam’s petition included substantial evidence of her eligibility for the EB1 category, USCIS nonetheless issued a rather lengthy and detailed Request for Evidence. Our office refined the evidence to address the issues raised by USCIS and submitted the response. An approval notice soon followed.

Mariam was positively thrilled to learn that she will be receiving her green card under our country’s most elite and prestigious immigration category. Indeed, U.S. media typically refers to the EB1 category as the ‘Einstein” green card. Congratulations Mariam!

Mariam emailed us the below comments and has authorized us to print them here:

“I had a great experience working with Kenneth Levine. He took my EB1 case and managed to get it approved, when no other immigration lawyer believed the case was approvable. During our first conversation, Kenneth told me that my case would require a lot of work and we would receive a RFE from the USCIS, but he was confident that the case would ultimately be approved. This is exactly what happened. We received a RFE and after he submitted the response, the case was approved. The approval of the case speaks for itself and shows that Kenneth is an outstanding attorney, but I want to emphasize that he does an amazing job at making the whole process smooth for his clients. He promptly responds to emails and patiently answers questions. He truly cares about his clients and does his best to assist them. I would not be able to stay in the United States without his help. I highly recommend him to everyone who requires immigration legal assistance.”

For additional information related to this topic and for advice regarding how to navigate U.S. immigration laws you may contact Kenneth Levine of the law firm of Freeman, Mathis & Gary, LLP at (770-551-2700) or [email protected].

Is “Birthright Citizenship” Subject To Revocation By A Presidential Executive Order?

Posted on: October 30th, 2018

By: Ken Levine

citizenship

During an interview by Axios on October 29, 2018, President Trump declared that he was about to sign an executive order to abolish birthright citizenship in the United States. While the President insisted that birthright citizenship, a concept enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, could be revoked via executive order, it is an understatement to say that the constitutionality of such an order would be dubious.

The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, in part, that all individuals born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of this country, are automatically U.S. citizens. Any amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires a 2/3rd majority in both houses of Congress or a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.

Furthermore, the issue of birthright citizenship has already been comprehensively addressed in the 1898 U.S. Supreme Court case of U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649. The issue at hand in the case was whether a child born in the United States to Chinese citizens, who were temporarily residing in the U.S., was automatically a U.S. citizen by operation of law. In a 6 to 2 decision the Supreme Court determined that the 14th amendment, which was passed after the U.S. Civil War, guaranteed U.S. citizenship to all individuals born in the United States, no matter the citizenry of the child’s parents. The decision reiterated that the 14th amendment does however exclude birthright citizenship for the children of foreign diplomatic officers, which is the sole exception.

Eminent constitutional scholars around the U.S. have already weighed in on this issue and have spiritedly validated that the U.S. Constitution not only guarantees birthright citizenship, but that a unilateral Presidential Executive Order cannot amend the constitution. It is unclear at this time whether President Trump will actually move forward with this executive order.

For additional information related to this topic and for advice regarding how to navigate U.S. immigration laws you may contact Ken Levine of the law firm of Freeman, Mathis & Gary, LLP at (770-551-2700) or [email protected]

USCIS Reverses Course – STEM OPT Students May Now Work At 3rd Party Client Sites

Posted on: September 18th, 2018

By: Ken Levine

On August 17th U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) posted an announcement on their website to publicize the agency’s decision to once again allow STEM OPT F-1 students to engage in training programs at a third-party client worksite.  This update supersedes the Agency’s policy change in April 2018 which disallowed STEM OPT students from being placed at 3rd party client sites.

This new guidance essentially restored an employer’s ability to place OPT students in a science, technology, mathematics or engineering (STEM) field at a 3rd party client site, so long as all applicable training obligations are met, and a bona fide employer/employee relationship is maintained for the full duration of the assignment.

This USCIS policy reversal was welcome news for the many U.S. employers who had historically trained their OPT personnel by placing them at 3rd party work sites.  However, it is extremely important that employers be vigilant in ensuring that the training is in full compliance with the I-983 training program. Companies that sponsor their OPT employees for an H-1B visa should expect that USCIS will closely scrutinize the OPT training program details.

For additional information related to this topic and for advice regarding how to navigate U.S. immigration laws you may contact Ken Levine of the law firm of Freeman, Mathis & Gary, LLP at (770-551-2700) or [email protected].

Another Day, Another Dollar: Private Detention Center Sued By Detainees for Violations of the Washington Minimum Wage Act

Posted on: August 9th, 2018

By: Layli Eskandari Deal

A lawsuit filed by thousands of detained immigrants held at the Northwest Detention Center (NWDC) in Tacoma, Washington alleges systematic wage theft by GEO Group, Inc.  The Plaintiffs seek to recover wages under the Washington Minimum Wage Act, as well as other damages allowable under State law.

GEO Group, Inc. has owned and operated the NWDC, which has 1,500 beds for immigrants, since 2005.  The lawsuit alleges that rather than hire from local workforce, GEO relies upon “captive detainee workers to clean, maintain, and operate NWDC.”  It further states that “GEO’s NWDC Detainee Handbook describes detainee work assignments as including kitchen and laundry work, as well as recreation/library/barber and janitorial services.  The Handbook refers to these various tasks as ‘work’ and a ‘job,’ and references ‘wages earned’ by detainee ‘workers.’”

The Plaintiffs asked the Federal District Court for class certification.  Judge Robert Bryan of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington determined that the detained immigrants have an “employment relationship with GEO.”  The Judge determined that the group of detained immigrants all participate in a volunteer program at NWDC and allege the same “injury,” which is that they are only paid a $1 per day for work, “an amount not commensurate” with the law.  The Judge granted certification for the Plaintiffs to proceed as a class.

In addition to the Federal lawsuit, the State of Washington has also brought a lawsuit against GEO Group, Inc. in the State Superior Court that alleges GEO is violating the State’s minimum wage laws.  The Attorney General for the State of Washington, Bob Ferguson, stated, “A multi-billion dollar corporation is trying to get away with paying its workers $1 per day. That shouldn’t happen in America, and I will not tolerate it happening in Washington. For-profit companies cannot exploit Washington workers.”

Multiple lawsuits have been filed against private prisons, including GEO and others, over detainee pay and other issues. The lawsuits allege that the private prison giants use voluntary work programs to violate state minimum wage laws, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, unjust enrichment and other labor statutes.  The outcome of these cases will have significant effect on the way prison systems treat and compensate detained workers.

For additional information related to this topic and for advice regarding how to navigate U.S. immigration laws you may contact Layli Eskandari Deal of the law firm of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP at (770-551-2700) or [email protected].

USCIS Creates Another Roadblock for Legal Immigrants

Posted on: August 8th, 2018

By: Kenneth Levine

A proposed Trump administration change to the “public charge” regulations, expected to be issued within the next few months, will dramatically alter the process for how Immigration Officers determine eligibility for citizenship or permanent residency.  USCIS designates an applicant as a “public charge” if they are likely to become predominantly dependent on government benefits for long term survival.  Currently, USCIS Officers focus on the petitioning sponsor’s income (or a cosponsor’s income if the petitioner’s income falls below the required amount) in assessing eligibility.  Section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act currently allows USCIS to deem a permanent residency applicant ineligible if they are likely at any time to become a “public charge.” Although the current regulation appears to afford an Immigration Officer considerable discretion in assessing an Applicant’s public charge prospects, in practice there is virtually no discretion.  In other words, if the petitioner or the co-sponsor’s current income satisfies the affidavit of support, then USCIS will typically have no justifiable basis to deny an application on public charge grounds.

The new regulations would substantially redefine “public charge” criteria by creating new grounds of ineligibility if the foreign national (or immediate family members) ever obtained health insurance through the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or signed up for supplemental assistance programs for financial and/or nutritional assistance for their U.S. citizen children.  Moving forward, USCIS Officers will be allowed to analyze a foreign national applicant’s income, employment history, job skills, health status, assets, and any family history of having received public health benefits (no matter if they were legally entitled to receive such benefits).  This new approach will dramatically expand USCIS authority to deny a case based on the arbitrary whims of an Officer who looks unfavorably on an applicant’s job history or the amount of money they have saved in the bank.

At this point it is unknown whether there will be different public charge standards for permanent residency or citizenship applicants.  Regardless, FMG Immigration Attorneys fully expect that federal litigation will ensue once USCIS attempts to implement the new public charge regulations.

For additional information related to this topic and for advice regarding how to navigate U.S. immigration laws you may contact Kenneth Levine of the law firm of Freeman, Mathis & Gary, LLP at (770-551-2700) or [email protected].