New Look to Green Cards & EAD Cards  

USCIS will start issuing redesigned cards with enhanced graphics to applicants.  The new cards will start being issued on May 1, 2017.

These redesigns use enhanced graphics and fraud-resistant security features to create cards that are highly secure and more tamper-resistant to prevent document tampering, counterfeiting and fraud; than the ones currently in use.

The Redesigned Cards

The new Green Cards and EADs will:

  • Display the individual’s photos on both sides;
  • Show a unique graphic image and color palette:
  • Green Cards will have an image of the Statue of Liberty and a predominately green palette;
  • EAD cards will have an image of a bald eagle and a predominately red palette;
  • Have embedded holographic images; and
  • No longer display the individual’s signature.

Also, Green Cards will no longer have an optical stripe on the back.

How To Tell If Your Card Is Valid

Some Green Cards and EADs issued after May 1, 2017, may still display the existing design format as USCIS will continue using existing card stock until current supplies are depleted. Both the existing and the new Green Cards and EADs will remain valid until the expiration date shown on the card.

Certain EADs held by individuals with Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and other designated categories have been automatically extended beyond the validity date on the card.

Employers, please note that both the older version and the new cards are acceptable for Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, E-Verify, and Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE).

Some older Green Cards do not have an expiration date.  These older Green Cards without an expiration date remain valid.

Individuals who have Green Cards without an expiration date may want to consider applying for a replacement card bearing an expiration date. Obtaining the replacement card will reduce the likelihood of fraud or tampering if the card is ever lost or stolen.

Nalini S Mahadevan, JD, MBA ▪ nsm@mlolaw.us ▪ Office: 314.932.7111 & 314.402.2024

Disclaimer:  Not meant as legal advice! For information purposes only.

 

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

USCIS wants to increase fees!

USCIS proposes increasing filing fees of a lot of commonly used applications.  Most of them are for business immigration filings and family based immigration applications.  See some of the proposed fee increases below.

You can make a comment on the fee increase until July 5, 2016. USCIS depends on the fees to pay for its services. So USCIS was one of the few agencies not affected by the government shut down last year.

Proposed fees

Form Purpose Current Fee Proposed Increase Change
I-129 For Worker $325 $460 +$135
I-130 For Family immigration $420 $535 +$115
I-140 For Work based immigration $580 $700 +$120
I-485 Work/Family GC* $1,070 $1,225 +$155
I-539 Change visas $290 $370 +$80
I-765 Work authorization $385 $410 +$30
I-90 Renew GC $365 $455 +$90
I-129F Fiancé Visa $340 $535 +$195
I-751 Get a 10 year GC* $505 $595 +$90
N-400 Naturalize $595 $640 +$45
N-600 Citizenship Certificate $600 $1170 +$570

*Green Card

Nalini S Mahadevan, Esq

P: 314.932.7111  nsm@mlolaw.us   www.mlolaw.us

Disclaimer: Please do not rely on this blog for legal advice.  Call me if you want to get advice and sign an engagement letter with my law firm.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

Students at at UNNJ lose their visa!

ICE cancels F-1 Student visas

On April 4 and 5, 2016, the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) terminated the visa of nonimmigrant students who had enrolled at the University of Northern New Jersey (UNNJ), and the visas of nonimmigrant students who had transferred from UNNJ.

Why?

The students were found to have knowingly participated in visa fraud because they enrolled at UNNJ to obtain an illegal to maintain their F-1 nonimmigrant status.

UNNJ is a school operated by Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Newark. It was created as a part of an enforcement action that targeted SEVP-certified schools and officials who sought to fraudulently utilize SEVP and the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) to commit various violations of federal law.

There are approximately 60 students who are affected and who will receive notification of cancellation of their visa.

Students who are terminated because they were currently  or  enrolled before at UNNJ and choose not to file for reinstatement or have applied to USCIS for reinstatement and whose application is denied, must depart the country immediately.

Not Eligible for Transfer

These students are not eligible for to transfer to another SEVP-certified school unless U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) approves the student for reinstatement following the student’s termination. Students who transferred to another school from UNNJ will also be terminated and their new school will be notified of the cancellation of their visa.

What to do now?

Call SEVP Response Center at 703-603-3400. This number is staffed from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. (ET), Monday through Friday, except holidays. The SEVP Response Center is closed every Wednesday from 12:45 to 1:30 p.m. ET for system maintenance and testing.

Provide the following information when calling:

  • First and last name
  • SEVIS ID number
  • Address
  • Telephone number where you can be reached
  • E-mail address
  • Current SEVP-certified school

Nalini Mahadevan JD, MBA

Attorney at Law

314-932-7111 office

nsm@mlolaw.us

website: Mlolaw.us

Disclaimer:  Not meant as legal advice. NOT meant to create an attorney client relationship.  Please call an attorney to obtain advice pertaining to your legal situation.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

Is Your Driver’s License valid for Flying?

Starting Jan 10, 2016, TSA will no longer accept MO DL as valid photo ID to board a commercial craft at an airport.  There are 8 other states which are in the same boat!  

  • Alaska
  • California
  • Illinois
  • Minnesota
  • Missouri
  • New Jersey
  • New Mexico
  • South Carolina
  • Washington state
  • Puerto Rico
  • Guam
  • the U.S. Virgin Islands
In response to TSA’s announcement, the Federal Courts in Missouri announced that a MO DL is still valid ID as far as they are concerned!
Many US born citizens living in MO and other states, may not have alternate Photo ID such as a US Passport, to present. US Passports are expensive for most persons to obtain. Military identification can be presented as valid ID to TSA. Immigrants in general have their passports to present as photo ID to TSA.
 
Here is what the DHS had to say:
“The Department of Homeland Security is working with state officials to ensure their compliance with REAL ID Act standards and to grant a state an extension where warranted. Missouri has not yet provided adequate justification to receive an extension on compliance with the requirements of the REAL ID Act passed by Congress in 2005. As of October 10, 2015, federal agencies may only accept driver’s licenses and identification cards issued by states that are compliant with the REAL ID Act or have an extension for accessing most federal facilities (including military bases) and entering nuclear power plants. Starting on January 10, 2016, driver’s licenses and identification cards issued by Missouri will not be accepted for these purposes. Missouri residents visiting a federal facility can provide another form of identification or follow procedures that the facility allows for persons without acceptable identification.”
 
“Missouri can request an extension at any time if there are new developments or additional relevant information regarding the steps they are taking to comply with the REAL ID Act requirements.”
 
“The Transportation Security Administration continues to accept all state-issued driver’s licenses and identification cards, including those from Missouri. DHS is in the process of scheduling plans for REAL ID enforcement at airports and will ensure that the traveling public has ample notice, at least 120 days, before any changes are made that might affect their travel. The REAL ID Act places the responsibility for action on the state to provide state-issued identification that meets the Act’s security standards.”
 
Nalini S. Mahadevan, Esq
nsm@mlolaw.us  Tel: 314.932.7111 (office) 314.374.8784 (mobile)
7730 Carondelet Ave, Suite 110, Clayton MO 63105
Disclaimer: Information contained here is not meant as legal advice nor does it create a client-attorney relationship.  A choice of a lawyer should not be based on advertising alone.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

The Good Faith Criterion: Lessons Learned From US vs. M&D Masonry and Form I-9

In 2010, ICE alleged in two counts that M&D Masonry committed 364 violations against the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The first count charged that 277 of M&D’s employees didn’t correctly complete section 1 and 2 of Form I-9; the second count charged that M&D didn’t have proper paperwork for 87 additional employees. The company refuted ICE’s allegations, and protested to 40 of the 277 violations named in Count I, and six of the 87 violations named in Count II.

For Count I, the government contests that M&D failed to ensure that:

  • 34 employees signed the attestation in section 1 of Form I-9;
  • 60 employees checked a box in section 1;
  • three employees attested to only one status in section 1; and
  • 10 employees who attested to status as lawful permanent residents entered their respected alien numbers on the adjacent line.

For Count II, M&D failed to:

  • complete section 2 of Form I-9 properly;
  • sign section 2;
  • record the issuing authority for a List B document;
  • provide the document number for List A, List B, and List C documents; and
  • review both List B and C documents.

Additionally, M&D instead accepted unacceptable documents, and didn’t examine or authenticate many I-9 forms within three business days of the individual’s hire date.

Among the defenses, the company alleges that the proposed monetary fines are exorbitant and do not consider the M&D’s financial abilities; and that ICE’s enforcement practices are unreasonable and impulsive. On January 6, 2014, ICE revised its complaint and retracted 25 of the named persons in Count I. According to the US government, M&D supplied satisfactory evidence that demonstrated that those employees had been dismissed before ICE’s inquiry, and wasn’t within the purview of the audit.

Lesson 1

A newspaper article is actually what led ICE to inspect and fine M&D Masonry. On April 30, 2010 an article titled “Illegal hiring for airport construction?” was printed in the Atlanta Journal Constitution. The article cited a hiring foreman for M&D who said that the company was hiring people without sufficient work authorization. ICE conducted a worksite enforcement inquiry on May 7, 2010; subsequently, ICE served M&D with a Notice of Inspection (NOI) for current and past employee I-9 forms from May 7, 2007 to May 7, 2010, and for employment records, payroll data, and wage and hour reports. ICE then issued M&D with slew of other notices throughout 2010 and 2012, including a Notice of Technical and Procedural Failures (NTPF), a Notice of Suspect Documents (NSD), and a Notice of Intent to Fine (NIF).

Lesson 2 & 3

M&D was timely in their response to ICE, and filed a Request for Hearing a month after ICE issued the NIF.

After acquiring and studying M&D’s Wage Inquiry by Employer Number records—obtained from the Georgia Department of Labor—Count II of ICE’s allegations concluded that M&D failed to prepare I-9 forms for 87 employees. M&D’s violations in Count II are far more egregious than Count I because failure to properly prepare and/or present I-9 forms destroys the purpose of the INA.

Penalties

M&D believed that ICE should fine the company based on its financial means; however, the governing statute asserts that such consideration is only applicable in five certain circumstances; M&D did not fall within the scope of those circumstances. While some OCAHO cases have previously taken financial means into consideration when determining penalties in a case, such leeway is not required of the government.

ICE fined M&D $332,813.25 for 339 violations, where each violation cost $981.75. Each violation incurred a baseline penalty of $935, also taking into account the employer’s 84% error rate. ICE heightened the penalties by 5 percent for the significance of the violations—over 100 I-9 forms were purportedly verified by signature stamp, although section I of the forms reflected various dates—and 5 percent for the size of the company: M&D had been in business for over 20 years, employed over 400 workers in a three year period, had a payroll of $4.3 million, and a large amount of contracted work. ICE handled the inclusion of unauthorized workers and absence of previous violations as neutral; ICE also lessened the penalties by 5 percent due to the good faith criterion.

ICE was charitable by applying the good faith criterion in M&D’s case. The good faith criterion is gauged by a study of whether the employer tried to comply with the INA obligations before the delivery of the NOI. Since M&D’s case isn’t the most extreme example of the INA violations, the penalties were lessened to a grand total of $228,300.

Takeaway

Incorrectly preparing and/or presenting a Form I-9 is one of the grievous paperwork violations an employer can make. Good faith is only taken into account when an employer actually attempts to determine its legal duties and yield to them. When judging suitable violations of the INA, the following must be favored:

  1. size of the employer;
  2. employer’s good faith;
  3. gravity of violations;
  4. whether an individual is an unauthorized alien; and
  5. employer’s history of previous violations.
See you in my next blog.
Nalini S Mahadevan, JD, MBA
Immigration Attorney St. Louis, Missouri
nsm@mlolaw.us

logo
The information is not meant to create a client-attorney relationship. This blog is for informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for legal advice. Situations may differ based on the facts.Copyright 2014. All rights reserved.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

Employer Defense In a Complaint of Documentary Abuse

The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) has direct purview over three types of cases stemming from the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). In this case—Salim Hajiani vs. ESHA USA, Inc. and Sameer Ramjee—Hajiani, the complainant, alleged that the respondent engaged in two of the three areas of jurisdiction over which OCAHO resides: immigration-related unfair employment practices and immigration-related fraud, which are both in violation of the INA.

Hajiani registered a complaint against ESHA USA and Ramjee, accusing the respondents of document abuse, firing Hajiani due to his citizenship status, and taking revenge on him because of a religious discrimination complaint he filed against a former employer. Salim Hajiani is a lawful permanent resident of the US.

Hajiani was hired on October 10, 2011 at Sameer Ramjee’s gas station and convenience store, ESHA, which is in Philadelphia, Tennessee. Hajiani worked at the store until January 10, 2012, when he was fired. On June 26, 2012, he filed a complaint with OSC, to which OSC responded that the complaint didn’t fall under their jurisdiction. Hajiani then filed a charge with OCAHO in February 8, 2013.

Hajiani’s complaint against his employer was a detailed litany of purported incidents of document abuse and job complaints, such as long hours, no overtime pay, and double shifts. He also specified that one of the reasons he was fired was because Ramjee preferred to employ undocumented workers so that he wouldn’t have to pay them overtime or give them benefits.

Hajiani made various allegations against other employees that were not under the scope of OCAHO’s jurisdiction—complaints of undocumented workers also do not fall under the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). Such instances include cash register shortages, sexual harassment, allegations of tax fraud, selling tobacco to minors, and that he wasn’t hired for store’s first shift because only US citizens were allowed to work that shift. Hajiani also noted in his complaint that his claim was filed timely.

However, his claim of document abuse was not filed in a timely manner. Hajiani alleged that the document abuse occurred in October 2011, but didn’t file the charge with OSC until June 26, 2012. The IRCA strictly says, “no complaint may be filed respecting any unfair immigration-related practice occurring more than 180 days prior ot the filing of a charge with OSC.” Hajiani’s complaint would only have been valid for events after December 29, 2011.

None of Hajiani’s claims—his filed complaint of religious discrimination with the US Equal Employment Opportunity Committee (EEOC), nor his complaints about the terms and conditions of his job—come under the purview of OCAHO, or are protected by IRCA. OCAHO only covers hiring, recruitment, and discharge.

Moreover, Hajiani never submitted evidence that any discrimination occurred. If Sameer Ramjee had been prejudiced against Hajiani, then Ramjee would never have employed Hajiani. Hajiani provided too many explanations of why he was fired, allowing OCAHO to conclude that Hajiani did not divulge his own behaviors that caused Ramjee to fire him.

OCAHO dismissed Hajiani’s complaint against his employer.

See you in my next blog.
Nalini S Mahadevan, JD, MBA
Immigration Attorney St. Louis, Missouri
nsm@mlolaw.us

logo
The information is not meant to create a client-attorney relationship. This blog is for informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for legal advice. Situations may differ based on the facts.Copyright 2014. All rights reserved.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

Employment Practices that Could Lead to Immigration Discrimination, Pt. 2

The Office of Special Counsel (OSC)‘s job is to enforce the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which disallows employment-related anti-discrimination based on immigration and citizenship status, and nationality. I previously wrote about OSC’s responses to some employers’ questions on unfair employment practices, such as an employee presenting either invalid or fraudulent documents. OSC also answers immigration-related questions posed by law firms’, pertaining to law firm clients.

If, for example, a general contractor, is hiring out to a subcontractor, and then requires the subcontractor’s employees to again produce original documents — such as a passport or driver’s license — that were already presented during the hiring process and upon completion of a Form I-9 by the subcontractor, then a host of problems can present themselves:

  1. The original documents have expired and the employee has obtained a new version of those documents;
  2. The employee’s immigration status has changed, and thus has different documents to prove work authorization; and
  3. The original documents have been stolen or lost.

This could all amount to a claim by the employees that the general contractor was discriminating against them due to their citizenship or immigration status. Employees could also maintain that they are discriminated against in this case: An employer, who is an E-Verify user, hires a private vendor to disseminate paychecks, also giving the vendor access to Forms I-9. The vendor is authorized to examine the Forms I-9 in order to confirm the identities of employees, who the employer wants to pay.

What could easily happen is that, because the vendor didn’t see the employees’ original documents, he/she inquires about the adequacy of the documents that were initially presented to the employer for I-9 purposes. If the employer feels persuaded to ask his/her employees for further documentation, such a request might be perceived as document abuse, which violates the anti-discrimination provision of the INA. OSC found that the INA was not applicable in either circumstance.

See you in my next blog.

Nalini S Mahadevan, JD, MBA
Immigration Attorney
St. Louis, Missouri

The information is not meant to create a client-attorney relationship. This blog is for informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for legal advice. Situations may differ based on the facts.

Tara Mahadevan

Copyright 2013. All rights reserved.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

DOMA Issues After the Passage of “US v. Windsor”

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is a federal law that gives states the choice to deny recognition of same-sex marriages performed under the laws of other states. Same-sex marriage is currently legal in 10 states; the remaining states have various alternatives on the lawfulness of same-sex unions, affecting the distribution of federal benefits for same-sex couples.

Section 3 of DOMA provides a federal definition of “marriage” as the union of a man and woman. In addition, Section 3 prohibits same-sex married couples from being acknowledged as “spouses” in terms of federal laws, for acquiring federal marriage benefits.

Earlier this summer, the constitutionality of DOMA — Section 3 in particular — was addressed in United States v. Windsor in the Supreme Court, where the plaintiff argued that the federal law encroaches on the Constitution’s equal protection clauses.

The plaintiff and her spouse were New York residents, who had legally wed in Canada. As residents of New York, their same-sex marriage was accepted under state law; however, due to Section 3, their marriage was not accepted by federal law. The federal government then taxed the plaintiff’s late spouse’s estate $363,053. If the marriage had been recognized by federal law, the estate wouldn’t be subject to taxes, and would have been authorized for a marital exemption.

In 2012, the New York Court of Appeals ruled that DOMA’s definitional section — Section 3 — was unconstitutional. More recently, the Supreme Court held that DOMA strips persons of the equal liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment.

Now that Section 3 of DOMA has been struck down, several federal benefits and protections of opposite-sex couples have been extended to same-sex couples in state-recognized marriages:

  • Taxes: The Department of Justice and IRS have ruled that same-sex couples, who have been legally married in states that acknowledge those marriages, will be taxed as married couples. This is applicable to same-sex couples who live in a state that recognizes their marriage as well as to same-sex couples who live in a state that doesn’t recognize their marriage.
  • Social Security Benefits: The Social Security Administration (SSA) now acknowledges same-sex marriages for deciding Social Security benefits.
  • Medicare: Private Medicare plan beneficiaries will now receive equal coverage for care in their spouse’s nursing home.
  • US Visas for Same-Sex Spouses: Same-sex couples’ visa applications will now be processed the same as opposite-sex couples.  Both the Department of State and the USCIS will process same sex applications and apply the same standards as would be applicable to a heterosexual marriage.
  • Benefits for Uniformed Service Members: Benefits from the Department of Defense will now apply to same-sex spouses of uniformed service members and civilian employees.
  • Benefits for Federal Employees: Benefits from the Office of Personnel Management will now apply to same-sex marriages of federal employees and annuitants.

Takeaway

This is a huge step towards equal application of the law and attendant benefits to same-sex couples. Many same-sex couples are returning to the US after spending years abroad with their foreign spouse. What a wonderful ending!

Read my other post on DOMA, USCIS releases FAQ on Immigration Benefits for Same Sex Marriages.

See you in my next blog.

Nalini S Mahadevan, JD, MBA
Immigration Attorney
St. Louis, Missouri

The information is not meant to create a client-attorney relationship. This blog is for informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for legal advice. Situations may differ based on the facts.

Tara Mahadevan

Copyright 2013. All rights reserved.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

USCIS releases FAQ on Immigration Benefits for Same Sex Marriages

USCIS Makes Good on its Promise

After the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was struck down as unconstitutional, USCIS issued a two-point FAQ today on filing for same-sex spouses. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano issued the following statement:

“After last week’s decision by the Supreme Court holding that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional, President Obama directed federal departments to ensure the decision and its implication for federal benefits for same-sex legally married couples are implemented swiftly and smoothly. To that end, effective immediately, I have directed USCIS to review immigration visa petitions filed on behalf of a same-sex spouse in the same manner as those filed on behalf of an opposite-sex spouse.”

Now Same-Sex Partners can be Sponsored for Immigration Benefits

US citizens married to a same-sex spouse can now sponsor them for a family-based immigrant visa, both overseas and in the US. They can file the petition for a green card and any accompanying application. Eligibility will be determined according to applicable immigration law, and will not be automatically denied as a result of the same-sex nature of the marriage.

Jurisdictional Issues

If the marriage was celebrated in a state that recognizes same-sex marriages, but domicile in a state where recognition is not legal, some deference will be given to the ‘Full Faith & Credit Clause’ of the US Constitution. This allows the couple to file the petition. In evaluating the petition, as a general matter, USCIS looks to the law of the state where the marriage took place when determining whether it is valid for immigration law purposes. That general rule is subject to some limited exceptions under which federal immigration agencies historically have considered the law of the state of residence in addition to the law of the state of celebration of the marriage. Whether those exceptions apply may depend on individual, fact-specific circumstances. If necessary, USCIS may provide further guidance on this question in the future.

Questions Remaining

Can fiance petitions be filed for same-sex couples? Will a couples’ consular processing for these benefits be accorded the same deference by the Department of State? I suspect that issues of marriage fraud will be applied with equal vigor to these cases as well.

See you in my next blog.

Nalini S Mahadevan, JD, MBA
Immigration Attorney
Lowenbaum Partnership, LLC
St. Louis, Missouri

The information is not meant to create a client-attorney relationship. This blog is for informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for legal advice. Situations may differ based on the facts.

Tara Mahadevan

Copyright 2013. All rights reserved.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

Comprehensive Immigration Reform’s Proposed Points System

A new element of the immigration reform Senate Bill 744, “The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act” is coming into play, namely a proposed merit-based points system, similar to ones found in Canada, the UK, Australia and New Zealand. The points system — an immigration-management tool that will be used to decide who is suitable to enter the US — would allocate new immigrant visas to foreign-born people who meet certain criteria. Each year, the new system would allow between 120,000-250,000 immigrants to obtain immigrant visas through an accumulation of points based on skill, employment history and education. This points-based system is intended to replace the current Diversity Visa Lottery.

The “Desired Immigrant”

This points system shows that the US government does indeed favor a particular type of immigrant, a “desired immigrant”. The system would be more beneficial to certain immigrants over others, like those seeking employment-based immigration. Many immigrants would be at a disadvantage, including women, middle aged and older adults, and those from developing nations. The points system would be divided into characteristics that the US considers beneficial in a visa candidate, such as education, occupation, work experience, English language proficiency and age.

The Two Tiers

PointsFig1PointsFig2

During the fifth fiscal year after the immigration reform bill is passed and the points system is introduced, DHS would assign merit-based visas in two “tiers”, and would give 50% of the visas to applicants with the highest number of points in tier 1, and the other 50% to applicants with the highest number of points in tier 2. Tier 1 is for high-skilled workers and tier 2 is for lower-skilled workers.

The points system favors employment and educational categories over the others; and desires immigrants who are educated, experienced, fluent in English, and young. The system seems to be heavily influenced by economics, placing large value in immigrants’ ability to generate economic worth.

Disadvantaged Immigrants

Moreover, the system is biased against women. Women in other countries frequently have less education and work experience opportunities, allowing the points system to naturally favor men. Though Tier 2 acknowledges women by creating a separate caregiver characteristic, it only grants 10 points, which doesn’t count for much when compared to the employment background characteristic, which totals 40 points.

Family-based immigration is also minimized in the system. Similar to the caregiver characteristic, the siblings or adult sons/daughters of US citizens characteristic only receives 10 points, which, again, doesn’t account for a lot. The system also emphasizes age discrimination and nationality bias, by preferring young immigrants who come from countries with low US migration.

See you in my next blog.

Nalini S Mahadevan, JD, MBA
Immigration Attorney
Lowenbaum Partnership, LLC
St. Louis, Missouri

The information is not meant to create a client-attorney relationship. This blog is for informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for legal advice. Situations may differ based on the facts.

Tara Mahadevan

Copyright 2013. All rights reserved.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather