Final Rule Schedule of Fees

Final Rule: Schedule of Fees
The following schedule lists the adjusted fees that will take effect on November 23, 2010, alongside the existing fees in effect until that date:

Final Rule-1

SPECIAL 2010 ELECTION UPDATE

As of Wednesday afternoon, less than 24 hours after polls closed, Republicans had gained 60 seats in the House and 7 seats in Senate. The most significant story is the changeover in control of the House of Representatives from Democrat to Republican. Republican control of the House means a change in leadership of the key committees relevant to immigration-Lamar Smith will likely become chair of the Judiciary Committee and Steve King will chair the Immigration Subcommittee. Both have called for extremely tough enforcement measures and have been fierce critics of legalization proposals calling them “amnesty”.

Watch a video update from Greg Chen

Lamar Smith was the architect of the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996, arguably the most punitive enforcement law to pass Congress. IIRIRA came only two years after Republicans swept the 1994 elections under circumstances that have already been compared to the current political environment in which a Democratic president faced an emboldened Republican party flush from recent victory. IIRIRA severely curtailed due process and judicial review, greatly expanded the aggravated felony definition, and created the mandatory detention provision INA 236(c). A decade later, the House passed H.R. 4437 which brought waves of protests nationwide that hardworking individuals should not be labeled as criminals. H.R. 4437 went so far as to criminalize the work of churches and social service organizations who provide humanitarian assistance to those without legal status.

In the new 112th Congress, we should expect proposals of a similar tone as IIRIRA and H.R. 4437. These proposals will likely place further limits on judicial review, criminalize unlawful presence, and increase penalties for illegal entry or reentry. Expansion of expedited removal, which has gradually crept further into the interior and now covers anyone found within 100 miles of a border region, could also be among the new proposals. Many of the proposals will not gain enough support but will nonetheless further polarize public attitudes about immigration.

Under a Republican controlled House, there likely will be more funding appropriated for border and interior enforcement, notwithstanding the $600 million Congress appropriated in August for these purposes. Finally, with the power of the gavel in hand, Smith and King will likely conduct oversight hearings demanding that the Obama Administration prosecute immigration laws even more aggressively. Of course, this administration with its record breaking deportation figures and spending on border security has done more on enforcement than any previous administration.

Mandatory employment verification bills will surely be introduced in the new year. In 2007, the Secure America with Verification and Enforcement Act (SAVE) was introduced by Heath Shuler (D-NC), Brian Bilbray (R-CA), and Tom Tancredo (R-CO). The SAVE Act would have expanded the existing Basic Pilot employment verification system (now known as E-Verify) to cover all employers and all workers in just four years, without addressing the well-documented flaws of the current system.

Additional Resources

Enforcement Proposals Likely To Be Offered During the 112th Congress

Legislative Profile: Representative Steve King

Legislative Profile: Representative Lamar Smith

The Role of Immigration in Key Elections

AILA Fears Immigration Overhaul Likely to Remain Stalled in 2011

Take Action

*Stay tuned to The Pulse next week for a post-election podcast*

While not quite as dramatic as the change in House majority, Senator Harry Reid’s re-election victory in Nevada is also major news, especially for those concerned about immigration. As Senate majority leader, Reid has the final word on what that chamber’s agenda is going to be. Sharron Angle, Reid’s challenger, repeatedly attacked his stance on immigration reform calling him “the best friend” to illegal immigrants. Reid’s response was to lean in to the immigration issue by promising to bring up the DREAM Act during the lame duck session. At the end of the day, though Reid was trailing Angle in the pre-election polls by 3 or 4 points, he was able to pull off a convincing victory. Given the slim Democratic majority in the Senate, it remains to be seen whether Reid can bring DREAM to the floor.

Finally, Reid’s victory sends a strong signal that campaigns fueled by anti-immigrant messaging do not guarantee results at the polls. For more on how immigration played out in key elections see AILA’s report.

A Reid loss would have shaken up the Senate Democratic leadership structure, but now the Senate will likely retain the same people in the leadership positions that affect immigration matters, specifically Reid himself and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) who is expected to remain as chair of the Immigration Subcommittee. The divided Congress and highly polarized environment will make the path toward immigration reform tougher than ever. With the Senate leadership more supportive of broader immigration reform and the House focused on border security and enforcement, gridlock will prevail. Only if major compromises are made on both sides will there be a chance for a major immigration bill to pass. Pro-business Republicans might be in favor of improvements for business visas but that will take a back seat to enforcement measures, including provisions generally opposed by business that make it harder to gain access to needed foreign workers. All these concerns will be overshadowed by the lagging economy and the high unemployment rate.

What Now?…Take Action!

No doubt the 112th Congress will hold many new and challenging political battles for AILA. Moving forward, we will need to work together to protect and promote fair and meaningful immigration policy. AILA national is beginning the process of renewing our advocacy strategy – can you help us? Please share your ideas and suggestions for working with the new congress by emailing us at advocacy@aila.org.

AILA Logo
American Immigration Lawyers Association
Suite 300
1331 G Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 507-7600 Fax: (202) 783-7853
E-mail: advocacy@aila.org
www.aila.org

Good news for DREAM Act supporters

Good news for DREAM Act supporters: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced today the act will be added as an amendment to the defense authorization bill. The bill would provide paths to citizenship for some undocumented students who came to the U.S. as children.

Click Here to read the full story from The Washington Independent

U.S. Travel Visa Process Hurts Attendance at Meetings and Conventions

Agricultural equipment makers and customers worldwide gathered in Orlando in January to meet, greet, sell and buy at the trade show AG Connect Expo. About 1,460 international attendees registered for the show, organized by the Association of Equipment Manufacturers. Nearly 500 of them never made it. The reason for the absentees: They couldn’t obtain a U.S. entry visa in time to attend, most of them told the association afterward. U.S. companies say a growing number of foreign business travelers — particularly from robust emerging markets such as China, India and Brazil — are avoiding coming to the U.S. because they don’t want to deal with the cumbersome, time-consuming process. The Center for Exhibition Industry Research, which studies events and attendance, says its data show that the U.S. economy lost $290 million in domestic travel spending from the 10 largest trade shows and conferences in the last 12 months because registrants couldn’t get visas. USA Today

USCIS Implements H-1B and L-1 Fee Increase According to Public Law 111-230

WASHINGTON—On Aug. 13, 2010, President Obama signed into law Public Law 111-230, which contains provisions to increase certain H-1B and L-1 petition fees. Effective immediately, Public Law 111-230 requires the submission of an additional fee of $2,000 for certain H-1B petitions and $2,250 for certain L-1A and L-1B petitions postmarked on or after Aug. 14, 2010, and will remain in effect through
Sept. 30, 2014.

These additional fees apply to petitioners who employ 50 or more employees in the United States with more than 50 percent of its employees in the United States in H-1B or L (including L-1A, L-1B and L-2) non-immigrant status. Petitioners meeting these criteria must submit the fee with an H-1B or L-1 petition filed:

• Initially to grant an alien non-immigrant status described in sub-paragraph (H)(i)(b) or (L) of section 101(a)(15), or
• To obtain authorization for an alien having such status to change employers.

USCIS is in the process of revising the Petition for a Non-immigrant Worker (Form I-129), and instructions to comply with Public Law 111-230. To facilitate implementation of Public Law 111-230, USCIS recommends that all H-1B, L-1A and L-1B petitioners, as part of the filing packet, include the new fee or a statement of other evidence outlining why this new fee does not apply. USCIS requests that petitioners include a notation of whether the fee is required in bold capital letters at the top of the cover letter. Where USCIS does not receive such explanation and/or documentation with the initial filing, it may issue a Request for Evidence (RFE) to determine whether the petition is covered by the public law. An RFE may be required even if such evidence is submitted, if questions remain.

The additional fee, if applicable, is in addition to the base processing fee, the existing Fraud Prevention and Detection Fee, and any applicable American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998 (ACWIA) fee, needed to file a petition for a Non-immigrant Worker (Form I-129), as well as any premium processing fees, if applicable.

USCIS will work with its stakeholders to effect a smooth transition given this legislation’s new requirements. For more information on USCIS and its programs, please visit www.uscis.gov.

This Is the Part of Illegal That I Don’t Understand

Written by: Crystal Williams

Yesterday, I looked down at my speedometer to see that I was driving at 55 mph in a 40 mph zone. I clearly was in violation of traffic laws.

I came home to notice my neighbor firing up a barbeque grill on his balcony–a definite violation of the city fire code.

I then read about how a list of supposed “illegal immigrants” was assembled and circulated in Utah, a probable violation of a host of laws, particularly if, as accused, it was state government employees behind the list.

Yet no one calls me or the millions like me an illegal driver. No one would think to call my neighbor an illegal griller. And has anyone called the Utah culprits illegal list-makers? Not to mention, would anyone dream of converting the adjective into a noun and calling us all “illegals”? Yet, we are all just as “illegal” as the people who are in the U.S. in violation of the immigration laws. (And, yes, the grilling and, in the jurisdiction it happened, the speeding are civil, not criminal, violations. But so is being unlawfully present in the U.S.)

Every time I speak publicly about immigration, I get the predictable crop of sloganeering and hate emails, with the former usually saying “what part of illegal don’t you understand?”

So, let me answer. People who have come to the U.S. to pick our crops, clean our tables, maintain our yards and take care of our children or grandparents are referred to as “illegals,” as though they are somehow heinous people, and yet those of us who put ourselves and others at risk of potentially fatal car wrecks or fires, or those who have put others at risk of identity theft, vengeful violence, and sheer privacy invasion, are not heatedly condemned.

That is the part of illegal that I don’t understand.

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights: U.S. deportation policy violates fundamental human rights

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights made public on August 02, 2010 its groundbreaking decision in the case Wayne Smith and Hugo Armendariz et al, v. United States. The Commission found that U.S. deportation policy violates fundamental human rights because it fails to consider evidence concerning the adverse impact of the destruction of families, the best interest of the children of deportees, and other humanitarian concerns.
Download Final Report Here.final-report_cidh_wayne_smith1

Defending the Fourteenth Amendment

Restrictionist groups and legislators have persisted in their attempts to restrict or repeal birthright citizenship in State Houses and the U.S. Congress. Over the years, several bills have been introduced that would deny U.S. citizenship to children whose parents are in the U.S. illegally or on temporary visas. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution—the cornerstone of American civil rights—affirms that, with very few exceptions, all persons born in the U.S. are U.S. citizens, regardless of their parents’ citizenship. Following the Civil War and the emancipation of the slaves, the Fourteenth Amendment restated the longstanding principle of birthright citizenship, which had been temporarily erased by the Supreme Court’s “Dred Scott” decision which denied birthright citizenship to the U.S.-born children of slaves. The Supreme Court has consistently upheld birthright citizenship over the years. The following IPC resources present a strong case for maintaining and celebrating our tradition of birthright citizenship—a tradition which is intimately tied to our heritage of civil rights.

To see the rest of this article click here.

The DREAM Act: Creating Opportunities for Immigrant Students and Supporting the U.S. Economy

July 13, 2010

Washington D.C. – Today, the Immigration Policy Center releases a Fact Check on the DREAM Act. Each year, approximately 65,000 undocumented students graduate from high school, many at the top of their classes, but cannot go to college, join the military, work, or otherwise pursue their dreams. They belong to the 1.5 generation – any (first generation) children brought to the United States at a young age by their parents who were largely raised in this country and therefore share much in common with American born-children. These students are culturally American, growing up here and often having little attachment to their country of birth. They tend to be bicultural and fluent in English. Many don’t even know that they are undocumented immigrants until they apply for a driver’s license or college, and then learn they lack Social Security numbers and other necessary legal documents.

The plight of the DREAM Act students encapsulates many facets of today’s immigration crisis. Caught in a system where there is little, if any, means for legalizing their status, smart, hard-working kids face an uncertain future because of their inability to continue their education, work, or join the military. The loss of potential, productivity, and hope for these individuals is also a loss for this country. The United States is missing out on talented workers and entrepreneurs, and is losing vital tax revenues and other economic contributions. While fixing this particular problem will hardly resolve the need for comprehensive immigration reform, it will unlock the door to the American dream for thousands of young people each year.

To view the fact sheet it its entirety see:
* The DREAM Act: Creating Opportunities for Immigrant Students and Supporting the U.S. Economy (IPC Fact Check, July 13, 2010)

Reforming America’s Immigration Laws: A Woman’s Struggle

While immigrant communities across the nation endure the long wait for immigration reform, there are roughly 19 million immigrant women and girls currently in the U.S. Immigrant women, particularly the undocumented, are often more vulnerable than their male counterparts, lack the same economic opportunities, and experience exploitation while crossing the border, while working and even in their own homes. In short, immigrant women have become the silent victims of a broken immigration system.

DOWNLOAD THE FULL STORY HERE

Topics Discussed in this story:

Legal Barriers to Equality in Current Immigration Law
Immigrant Women Experience Danger Entering the U.S.—and Poor Conditions in the U.S.
Immigrant Women and Domestic Violence
Women are Distinctly Harmed by Heightened Enforcement of Immigration Laws
The Harmful Impact of Immigration Detention on Immigrant Women and their Families
Conclusion