Records are People? Silliest. Picture. Ever.

However, in researching Federal immigration records, the genealogy program offers two steps.  Each step costs between $20-35 in fees.  The index search is the first step, where the research target’s name and biographical information (e.g. Date of Birth, country of birth, possible address information) is searched to see if they have a records number in the USCIS or the National Archives.  Once the file(s) are located, you can use the records number to request copies of INS records.  

If you are having trouble with the process, or difficulty interpreting an index or records, you may send an e-mail to genealogy.uscis@dhs.gov.  Please keep in mind that records from before 1906, the courts had jurisdiction over immigration, so you need to direct your efforts towards those records.  For active records, you will need to submit a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.  US Immigration Attorneys, like me, often help people submit FOIA requests to view active records.

Report This Post

The USA visa system is based on federal law, but there are also regulations to consider, and sometimes state law.  It is important that you speak to an immigration lawyer, I am personally offering free consultations for a limited time.  In the spirit of open communication, you may choose to consult with two or more firms if you need to be comfortable.  Immigration lawyers are professionals, which is important to distinguish from some stranger you hire online.  

The kicking off point for the public to review family or employer immigrant visa types is the State Department website.  The State Department has information on nonimmigrant visa types and immigrant visa types.  The immigrant visa process typically leads to permanent resident status, commonly referred to as a “greencard.”  In contrast, the nonimmigrant visa can lead to  the immigrant visa process.  Although less direct, some nonimmigrant visas are faster to get.  

The State Department website can be confusing to some people, in part because it links to other USA government agencies, depending on the visa type.  For example:   

http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/types/types_1310.html contains a hyperlink to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services’ website, which was re-designed within the last year or so.  

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a

In order to cover the multitude of visa types, there are several important categories I will completely ignore in this post.  Special Immigrants, which includes workers and translators who served the U.S. government in Iraq/Afghanistan, and religious workers, will not be discussed.  Also the Diversity Visa lottery, which is relevant (i.e. important) to a large chunk of the globe, will not be discussed in this post.   

USA Visa Types

The main distinction in immigrant visa types that I am focusing on is employment-based versus family-based.  Family-based immigrants for “immediate relatives” are unlimited whereas waiting lists plague the “more distant family” preference categories.  Because it is so difficult to oversimplify the finer points of the distinction between the two, this is something I recommend you contact me if you need to discuss.  There is no magical immigration flowchart to determine whether you qualify.  I would pay $10,000 if there was a system that could automate this process.  

You should also consider the employment visa types.  Many of these visa types require sponsorship by a U.S. employer.  However, this is not always the case.  It depends on your skill level, and the type of work you do.  Priority workers do not require a labor certification, whereas almost all of the other categories do.  The biggest exception may be the EB-5 investor visa, which requires investment of between U.S. $500,000 and $1,000,000.   

Even though I have not attempted to distingush between employment visa types in this post, the broad issue we confront at this point is whether your job could land you a greencard.  When I mentioned the biggest advantage to being a priority worker is that you avoid “labor certification,” you should navigtate away from the Deparment of State website to get an idea of what this means.  The U.S. Deparment of Labor link to “permanent labor certification”, is the immigrant visa type of labor cert., here’s the URL to give you the overview: http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/perm.cfm.  Again, there is no magical immigration flowchart to determine whether you qualify.  I will not bother quantifying what I would pay to automate this process, because it can’t be done.  Unless there is expansive reform of immigration law.

Report This Post

Prince William County, Virginia’s immigration policy is getting attention from state legislators in Richmond.  I would like to put politics aside, in favor of a legal comparison with Arizona’s law.  I begin with some current information regarding Arizona’s law, before comparing Prince William County, Virginia’s practices.  

Arizona’s Federal court partially enjoined Arizona’s “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act.” This is a 2010 Arizona State Law.  The U.S. government sued Arizona because Section 2(b) required police to check immigration status of everyone arrested in Arizona.  Arizona admitted it would overburden the Federal database to check everybody arrested.  Keep in mind you are legally “arrested” everytime you are stopped in traffic.  Arizona’s lawyers  tried to say arrestees the state reasonably suspected as illegal would be checked.   The federal judge scoffed at this, after looking at the law’s history.  The court held Arizona would burden Federal Resources if it required immigration checks upon arrest.

Prince William County (“PWC”), Virginia’s July 2007 resolution would have required immigration checks for arrestees if there is “probable cause” they were illegally present.  Probable cause is a higher standard than reasonable suspicion, mentioned above.  An analogy is that murder is a higher standard than manslaughter.  But PWC, Virginia weakened the resolution in April 2008, without enacting the version closer to Arizona’s law.  PWC mandates immigration checks after (1) the arestee is taken into custody, and (2) there is probable cause to question immigration status.  However, in a non-custodial arrest (e.g. traffic stop), the officer may perform an immigration check if there is probable cause to question immigration status. 

By contrast, Section 6 authorizes Arizona officers to make a warrantless arrest of a person they have probable cause to believe committed a public offense that qualifies for deportation.  Section 6 applies to aliens who committed a crime outside Arizona and then enter Arizona with a ”public offense” on their record.  This is too complex an analysis for police in the field.  Plus, the law did not require officers to contact the Department of Homeland Security before deciding whether the offense made the alien deportable. 

CHRIS R. KOPF PLC, Immigration Law Firm Offering Limited Free Consultations
9116 Center St, Suite 203 
Manassas, VA 20110, U.S.A.
www.usavisastrategy.com
800-991-0946
800-991-0967 (Fax)

Report This Post

EB-6 USA Visa: S.3029 – StartUp Visa Act of 2010

The folks at Open Congress picked up on my June 24 posting regarding the EB-6 visa.  I am a member of the OpenCongress website, because as a casual resource, it is the most user-friendly legislative interface I know of.  Open Congress’ website, inter alia, leads me to believe that investors eligible for E-1 or E-2 may wish to go forward rather than wait for EB-6.

This is a bill by Senator Kerry to establish an immigrant visa for foreign entrepreneurs who have “angel investors” or other venture captial backers within the U.S.  The foreign investor must setup and run the business within the United States.  This is an immigrant visa, which allows the successful entrepreneur to earn the right to live in the United States.  The other feature to this investment visa (as opposed to E-1 or E-2 visas), is that the EB-6 is not country restrictive.

H.R.4321 – Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America’s Security and Prosperity Act of 2009 is a related bill, also in committee, but the bipartisan support for the EB-6 may give it an edge.

CHRIS R. KOPF PLC, Immigration Law Firm Offering Limited Free Consultations
9116 Center St, Suite 203 
Manassas, VA 20110, U.S.A.
www.usavisastrategy.com
800-991-0946
800-991-0967 (Fax)

Report This Post

K-1, K-2, K-3, K-4 USA Visas

The following evidence types can been used to demonstrate that K-1, K-2, K-3, K-4 marriage was in good faith.  None of these documents is specifically required, but documents such as the below may come in handy, and should be accessible during any K visa application.

• Photographic album from marriage ceremonies;
• Evidence of cohabitation following wedding;
• Friend/relative affidavits: stating the details they have witnessed regarding the married couple’s relationship;
• Financial records (e.g. statements from bank) showing intermingled finances;
• 401K plan where the spouse was designated beneficiary;
• Car/health/life  policies of insurance wherein the spouse is designated beneficiary;
• Holiday cards, written correspondence, invitations showing the marital relationship;
• Letters and cards written to husband and wife together; 
• Receipts, boarding pass, credit card account records showing ongoing contact between the couple during any time absent from each other. 

To request a free consulatation regading the K-1, K-2, K-3, K-4 USA Visas, please visit http://www.usavisastrategy.com.

CHRIS R. KOPF PLC, Immigration Law Firm Offering Limited Free Consultations
9116 Center St, Suite 203 
Manassas, VA 20110, U.S.A.
www.usavisastrategy.com
800-991-0946
800-991-0967 (Fax)

Report This Post

E-2 and K Visa Fees Jump due to ”Enrollment and Processing” Costs 

US Department of State reports E-2 and K visa categories were more than twice as expensive to “enroll and process” than H1B, L-1, O-1, P, Q, and R visas.  Enrollment and processing fees include the FBI’s fees to the State Department for fingerprint and name background checks.  However, the FBI fees are similar in scope to the other classifications.  

The “assigned” costs that accounted for most of the variance include staff time for intake, management, biometrics collection, facial recognition review, and “preparing applicant information for review and adjudication by an officer.”  With support staff costs so high, these applications just are too tough on the intake staff. 

E-2 and K Visa Fees Raised due to ”Adjudication” Costs 

The E-2 visa also has high Adjudication Costs, but the Fraud prevention and detection is very similar to other visa types.  There are many varieties of E-2 package, and I know each consulate has a different process for the evidentiary documentation.  I understand the E-2 is being compared to petitions the consulate isn’t adjudicating, but many of these companies are pre-certified.  If the consulates are uncomfortable with E-2 petitions, why don’t they give more deference to USCIS adjudications of them?  

Of course, if you really wanted to fix the problem–why not just let cis process initial E-2′s?  I realize State doesn’t want to cede control over international investors, but why not divert the resources to investigate like I know they do for new office L’s.  We should look up some some stats on Consular treatment of new office L-1′s. 

E-2 and K Visa Fees Skyrocketed due to ”Domestic Consular Affairs Executive Directorate Staff Time” Costs 

Assigned costs are big for “Domestic Consular Affairs Executive Directorate Staff Time.”  This wraps into staff workload, and means that they are increasing staff as required to adjudicate visa applications they are not proficient with.  This includes the oversight of human resources services for consular agents. 

Anybody think the staff increases related to E-2 are based on economic projections?  Let me know if you have any thought that staffing levels are not based on historical data.  Because historical data means that E-2′s are more expensive–creating a higher investment barrier–because of E-2 popularity back when the economy was better and the H-1B cap would hit quickly. 

More on the immigrant visas fee hike to come. 

Report This Post

Effective today, the U.S. Department of State’s fees for most immigrant at U.S. Consulates and Embassies overseas increase.  There was a modest, “across-the-board” increase for most visa types from $131 to $140 last month.

E visa (e.g. E-1 visa, E-2 Visa) and K visa Changes – $390 + $350

However, E visa (e.g. E-1 visa, E-2 Visa) and K visas become alot more expensive.  The E visa more than doubled; from $131 to $390, and the K visa more than doubled; from $131 to $350.

H1B visa, L visa, O-1 visa, P, Q, and R visas have also increased in processing cost, from $131 to $150.

Employment-based Immigrant visa skyrockets from $355 to $720.  Just Wow.

I have not read the Department of State’s study, I keep meaning to, but they must seem to be allocating an extraordinary amount of cost responsibility for corporate petitions.  Even with a lower volume, and a need for more specialized officer review, company supporting documents are concrete; usually publicly available.  For corporate petitions to be so disproportionately expensive (Family-based decreased from $355 to $330), this processing is clearly brisk.  

The Embassies and Consulates must focus on processing Family-based petitions, rather than defer this responsibility to post-admission. 

By the way, Diversity Visa Lottery fees also increased by around $50.

Report This Post

USCIS Fee Hike comment period closing. E-2 Visa may be unaffected if not processed by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). The proposed rule to change fees for applications and petitions ends on July 26, 2010.

Last month, USCIS revealed a rule proposition to hike fees by another 10 percent. Some fees would be reduced, and unchanged would be the naturalization application (N-400).

USCIS says commenting should be via www.regulations.gov. The comment period ends on July 26, 2010.

Report This Post

There are thousands of profitable business opportunities in the United States.  If you are not a U.S. citizen or permanent resident, you may start with item #5, below.

Move to USA/Move within USA: Select a commercial lease/rental location.

1) Visit http://maps.google.com/, enter an address, then select streetview.  For example, the address of the building where my office is 9116 Center Street, Manassas, Virginia.  Streetview allows you to read banners and signs advertising commercial spaces.  There are at least five buildings with signs advertising commercial rental/leases on Center Street alone.  You can then use google local to see business competition in the area you are researching.

Move to USA/Move within USA: Choose your business industry.

2)  Choose an industry that matches your personality, and that you can picture yourself working in 20 years from now.

Move to USA/Move within USA: Choose your business niche.

3) Consider the industry that interests you before deciding whether to open a new business, francise an existing business.  There are also options for buying an existing business.

Move to USA/Move within USA: Do not commit to anything.

4) The U.S. Small Business Administration provides that if you select to open a franchise: ”Do not sign any contract or make any payment until you have the opportunity to investigate the franchiser’s offering thoroughly…the FTC’s Franchise Rule requires the franchiser to provide you with a disclosure document containing important information about the franchise system. Study the disclosure document. Take time to speak with current and former franchisees about their experiences. As investing in a franchise can entail a significant commitment, you should have an attorney review the disclosure document and franchise contract and have an accountant review the company’s financial disclosures.”

Move to USA/Move within USA: Choose your business/immigration attorney before you make important commitments.

5) If you are not a U.S. citizen or permanent resident, you should see the list below to see if you may qualify to live and work in the U.S. based on a business investment.  Even if your country is not listed in the chart below, to qualify as an Immigrant Investor, a foreign citizen mayinvest between U.S. $500,000 and $1,000,000, depending on the unemployment rate in the geographical area, in a commercial enterprise in the United States which creates at least 10 new full-time jobs for U.S. citizens, permanent residents, or other lawful immigrants, not including the investor and his or her family.

Depending on what country you are from, there might not be a set minimum dollar figure for the investment, but there are often informal amounts, which you should discuss with an immigration attorney.  I provide free consultations through my website at www.usavisastrategy.com.  It is also to consider whether you have any U.S. citizen relatives that may qualify you to live/work in the United States.

Footnotes can be accessed through U.S. State Department website at http://travel.state.gov/visa/fees/fees_3726.html

Report This Post

John Kerry and Richard Lugar as the EB-6 Startup Visa Act of 2010 to “Bring Opportunity, Investment, and Jobs to America.”  

USA venture capitalists who support the bill point to the fact that the EB-5 has been underutilized.  Kerry and Lugar describe young immigrant entrepreneurs with innovative ideas, but no way to establish U.S. business, as there is no other visa category they could qualify for.  

Of the $250,000 that an EB-5 applicant would need, at least $100,000 must come from a U.S. qualified venture capitalist or a qualified super angel investor.  The definitions are included below, with the senate bill.   The benefical aspects for immigrants, U.S. workers, and U.S. capitalists/investors mean this bill has widespread support.  It is never too soon for investors to consider the potential implications of EB-6, although passage of the bill is far from guaranteed.
 

Chris R. Kopf, PLC
9116 Center St, Suite 203
Manassas, VA 20110, U.S.A.
800-991-0946
www.usavisastrategy.com 

S. 3029

February 24, 2010 

Mr. Kerry (for himself and Mr. Lugar) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

To establish an employment-based immigrant visa for alien entrepreneurs who have received significant capital from investors to establish a business in the United States. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

This Act may be cited as the “StartUp Visa Act of 2010”.

(a) In general.—Section 203(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 203(b)) is amended—(1) by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (7); and(2) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following:“(6) SPONSORED ENTREPRENEURS.—“(A) IN GENERAL.—StartUp visas shall be made available, from the number of visas allocated under paragraph (5), to qualified immigrant entrepreneurs—“(i) who have proven that a qualified venture capitalist or a qualified super angel investor has invested not less than $100,000 on behalf of each such entrepreneur in an equity financing of not less than $250,000; and“(ii) whose commercial activities will, during the 2-year period beginning on the date on which the visa is issued under this subparagraph—“(I) create not fewer than 5 new full-time jobs in the United States employing people other than the immigrant’s spouse, sons, or daughters;“(II) raise not less than $1,000,000 in capital investment in furtherance of a commercial entity based in the United States; or“(III) generate not less than $1,000,000 in revenue.  

“(B) DEFINITIONS.—In this paragraph:“(i) QUALIFIED SUPER ANGEL INVESTOR.—The term qualified super angel investor means an individual who—“(I) is an accredited investor (as defined in section 230.501(a) of title 17, Code of Federal Regulations);“(II) is a United States citizen; and“(III) has made at least 2 equity investments of not less than $50,000 in each of the previous 3 years.  

“(ii) QUALIFIED VENTURE CAPITALIST.—The term ‘qualified venture capitalist’ means an entity that—“(I) is classified as a ‘venture capital operating company’ under section 2510.3–101(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations;“(II) is based in the United States;“(III) is comprised of partners, the majority of whom are United States citizens;“(IV) has capital commitments of not less than $10,000,000;“(V) has been operating for at least 2 years; and“(VI) has made at least 2 investments of not less than $500,000 during each of the most recent 2 years.”.(b) Conditional permanent resident status.—Section 216A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1186b) is amended—(1) by striking “Attorney General” each place such term appears and inserting “Secretary of Homeland Security”;(2) in subsection (a)—(A) in paragraph (1)—(i) by striking “(as defined in subsection (f)(1))” and inserting “, sponsored entrepreneur”; and(ii) by striking “(as defined in subsection (f)(2)) shall” and inserting “shall each”; and (B) in paragraph (2)(A), by inserting “sponsored entrepreneur,” after “alien entrepreneur,”;(3) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following:“(3) SPONSORED ENTREPRENEURS.—The Secretary of Homeland Security shall terminate the permanent resident status of a sponsored entrepreneur and the alien spouse and children of such entrepreneur if the Secretary determines, not later than 3 years after the date on which such permanent resident status was conferred, that—“(A) the qualified venture capitalist or qualified super angel investor who sponsored the entrepreneur failed to meet the investment requirements under section 203(b)(6)(A)(i); or“(B) the entrepreneur failed to meet the job creation, capital investment, or revenue generation requirements under section 203(b)(6)(A)(ii).”;(4) in subsection (c)—(A) in paragraph (1)—(i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting “sponsored entrepreneur,” after “alien entrepreneur,”; and(ii) by striking “alien entrepreneur must” each place such term appears and inserting “entrepreneur shall”; and(B) in paragraph (3)—(i) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by inserting “or sponsored entrepreneur” after “alien entrepreneur”; and(ii) in subparagraph (C), by inserting “sponsored entrepreneur,” after “alien entrepreneur”;(5) in subsection (d)(1)—(A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking “alien” and inserting “alien entrepreneur or sponsored entrepreneur, as applicable”;(B) in clause (i), by striking “invested, or is actively in the process of investing,” and inserting “has invested, is actively in the process of investing, or has been sponsored by a qualified super angel investor or qualified venture capitalist who has invested,”; and(C) in clause (ii), by inserting “or 203(b)(6), as applicable” before the period at the end; and(6) in subsection (f), by adding at the end the following:“(4) The term ‘sponsored entrepreneur’ means an alien who obtains the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence under section 203(b)(6).”.  

Report This Post