Tag Archive for: EB-2

Cyrus Mehta

The Much Neglected Schedule A, Group II Green Card Option Gets a Boost After USCIS Broadens the “Sciences or Arts” Definition

/0 Comments/in /by

By Cyrus D. Mehta and Kaitlyn Box*

On April 10, 2024, USCIS issued a policy alert clarifying the term “sciences or arts” for Schedule A, Group II occupations. Schedule A occupations are those for which the Department of Labor (DOL) has recognized that a shortage of U.S. workers exists. Group I occupations consist of physical therapists and professional nurses, while Group II occupations include “immigrants of exceptional ability in the sciences or arts, including college and university teachers, and immigrants of exceptional ability in the performing arts”. Schedule A occupations are “pre-certified” by the DOL, so employers are not required to conduct a lengthy and onerous test of the labor market or file an ETA-9089 with the DOL.

In its recent policy update, USCIS stated that “DOL, when designating Schedule A, Group II, defines science or art as any field of knowledge or skill with respect to which colleges and universities commonly offer specialized courses leading to a degree in the knowledge or skill.” Previously, these terms were not defined in the USCIS Policy Manual. This update could open up the Schedule A, Group II to encompass any field for which U.S. colleges and universities commonly offer a degree program. Noncitizens whose professions were not clearly a “science” or “art”, such as lawyers, businesspeople, and teachers, may now be able to avail of the Schedule A, Group II program. This broadening of the definitions of “science” and “art” follows the Biden Administration’s Executive Order on Artificial Intelligence to expand the availability of highly-skilled foreign nationals in the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) and AI fields, as well as additional occupations across the economy, for which there is an insufficient number of ready, willing, able, and qualified United States workers.

However, the significance of this change should not be overstated as all the existing requirements for Schedule A, Group II designation still apply. For noncitizens in the sciences or arts, even under the expanded definition, this means that they must demonstrate exceptional ability in their field. Employers must provide a full-time offer of employment, and offer the beneficiary at least the prevailing wage. The employer must also provide notice of the position to a bargaining representative, or its employees. The specific requirements that USCIS outlines for each Schedule A occupation must also be met. In order to demonstrate “exceptional ability in the sciences or arts”, a beneficiary’s prospective employer must “submit documentary evidence showing the widespread acclaim and international recognition accorded to the beneficiary by recognized experts in the beneficiary’s field”. The beneficiary’s employment during the past year, as well as the position offered in the U.S., must also require exceptional ability.

Additionally, the beneficiary must meet at least two of the following seven criteria laid out in 20 CFR 656.15(d)(1):

  • Documentation of the beneficiary’s receipt of internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field;
  • Documentation of the beneficiary’s membership in international associations, in the field, which require outstanding achievement of their members, as judged by recognized international experts in their disciplines or fields;
  • Published material in professional publications about the beneficiary, about the beneficiary’s work in the field, which must include the title, date, and author of such published material;
  • Evidence of the beneficiary’s participation on a panel, or individually, as a judge of the work of others in the same or in an allied field of specialization;
  • Evidence of the beneficiary’s original scientific or scholarly research contributions of major significance in the field;
  • Evidence of the beneficiary’s authorship of published scientific or scholarly articles in the field, in international professional journals or professional journals with an international circulation; and
  • Evidence of the display of the beneficiary’s work, in the field, at artistic exhibitions in more than one country.

It is also important ensure that the “exceptional ability” criteria for Schedule A, Group II are not conflated with the criteria for an employment-based, second preference visa based on exceptional ability. In order to qualify for Employment-Based Second Preference (EB-2) classification, a noncitizen must hold an advanced degree or equivalent, or “be able to show exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business”. Exceptional ability for EB-2 purposes is defined as “degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business”. Beneficiaries must also demonstrate that they meet at least three of the six criteria outlined in 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii):

  • Official academic record showing that you have a degree, diploma, certificate, or similar award from a college, university, school, or other institution of learning relating to your area of exceptional ability
  • Letters from current or former employers documenting at least 10 years of full-time experience in your occupation
  • A license to practice your profession or certification for your profession or occupation
  • Evidence that you have commanded a salary or other remuneration for services that demonstrates your exceptional ability
  • Membership in a professional association(s)
  • Recognition for your achievements and significant contributions to your industry or field by your peers, government entities, professional or business organizations

Other comparable evidence of eligibility is also acceptable.

Schedule A, Group II, provides an alternative basis for an employer to sponsor a noncitizen employee for permanent residence without going through the lengthy labor certification process in addition to the person extraordinary ability under the Employment-Based First Preference (EB-1) or the National Interest Waiver under EB-2.

*Kaitlyn Box is a Senior Associate at Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners PLLC.

[This blog is only for informational purposes and should not be relied upon as a substitute for legal advice].

 

 

Cyrus Mehta

Will the Immigration Provisions in the AI Executive Order Bring Meaningful Change Or Be Mere Window Dressing?

/0 Comments/in /by

By Cyrus D. Mehta and Kaitlyn Box*

On October 30, 2023, President Biden issued an Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI). The stated purpose of the order is to ensure that the “development and use of AI” is governed “safely and responsibly”. The executive order further lays out eight “guiding principles and priorities” for the development and use of AI: “a.) Artificial Intelligence must be safe and secure, b.) Promoting responsible innovation, competition, and collaboration will allow the United States to lead in AI and unlock the technology’s potential to solve some of society’s most difficult challenges, c.) The responsible development and use of AI require a commitment to supporting American workers, d.) Artificial Intelligence policies must be consistent with [the] Administration’s dedication to advancing equity and civil rights, e.) The interests of Americans who increasingly use, interact with, or purchase AI and AI-enabled products in their daily lives must be protected, f.) Americans’ privacy and civil liberties must be protected as AI continues advancing, g.) It is important to manage the risks from the Federal Government’s own use of AI and increase its internal capacity to regulate, govern, and support responsible use of AI to deliver better results for Americans, and h.) The Federal Government should lead the way to global societal, economic, and technological progress, as the United States has in previous eras of disruptive innovation and change”. Although the executive order sets out numerous broad guidelines aimed at ensuring that AI is developed and used responsibly, it also includes several provisions that lay the groundwork for immigration policy innovations for AI experts.

Section 5 of the Executive Order first directs the DHS Secretary to “review and initiate any policy changes the Secretary determines necessary and appropriate to clarify and modernize immigration pathways for experts in AI and other critical and emerging technologies, including O-1A and EB-1 noncitizens of extraordinary ability; EB-2 advanced-degree holders and noncitizens of exceptional ability…” Although the executive order does not further specify what measures the DHS Secretary should take to achieve these goals, it is hoped that the criteria for O-1As and EB-1 and EB-2 I-140s could be expanded to make it easier for AI experts to qualify. In an emerging field such as AI, it could be difficult for a prospective O-1A candidate to demonstrate, for example, authorship of scholarly articles in the field or receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field, as such scholarly publications and awards may not exist yet. O-1 and EB-1 candidates may already submit “comparable evidence” to establish eligibility if the listed criteria are not readily applicable to their occupation. This policy could allow prospective O-1 and EB-1 candidates to establish extraordinary ability by highlighting other evidence more relevant to the field of AI, to which the traditional criteria may not readily apply.  Interestingly, the executive order further states: “for purposes of considering updates to the “Schedule A” list of occupations, 20 C.F.R. 656.5, the Secretary of Labor shall publish a request for information (RFI) to solicit public input, including from industry and worker-advocate communities, identifying AI and other STEM-related occupations, as well as additional occupations across the economy, for which there is an insufficient number of ready, willing, able, and qualified United States workers”. “Schedule A” occupations are those for which the Department of Labor has “predetermined there are not sufficient U.S. workers who are able, willing, qualified, and available pursuant to regulation”, so employers may file an I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers for a beneficiary in these occupations without a labor certification. For years the only Schedule A occupations have been nurses and physical therapists, and immigrants of exceptional ability in the sciences or arts, including college and university teachers, and immigrants of exceptional ability in the performing arts. Although a rulemaking would be required to add occupations to the Schedule A list, this change, if it were to go into effect, would be a significant change that would allow U.S. employers to sponsor noncitizen AI professionals for permanent residence without going through the burdensome labor certification process. The list of Schedule A occupations has not changed for decades, so it is high time that the list be expanded even beyond AI occupations to include others for which there are a shortage of U.S. workers, such as other computer occupations.

The executive order also states that the DHS Secretary should “continue its rulemaking process to modernize the H-1B program and enhance its integrity and usage, including by experts in AI and other critical and emerging technologies, and consider initiating a rulemaking to enhance the process for noncitizens, including experts in AI and other critical and emerging technologies and their spouses, dependents, and children, to adjust their status to lawful permanent resident”. On October 23, 2023, DHS promulgated a proposed rule amending its H-1B regulations. Cyrus Mehta’s previous blog discusses significant features of the proposed rule in depth. One of the points of concern in new the rule is its redefinition of “specialty occupation” to require studies in a field that is “directly related” to the H-1B position. The proposed rule further states, “A position is not a specialty occupation if attainment of a general degree, such as business administration or liberal arts, without further specialization, is sufficient to qualify for the position. A position may allow a range of degrees or apply multiple bodies of highly specialized knowledge, provided that each of those qualifying degree fields or each body of highly specialized knowledge is directly related to the position.” As AI is an emerging field, there are likely few degree programs that are specifically AI-focused as yet, so the definition of specialty occupation should not be narrowed such that it thwarts the ability of an AI specialist to obtain an H-1B visa. Given that AI is beginning to be used in fields ranging from finance to graphic design, introducing flexibility into the O-1A, EB-1/EB-2, and H-1B criteria could benefit numerous noncitizens who work with AI in some capacity.

The executive order also includes provisions that may benefit noncitizen students studying AI. It instructs the Secretary of State to “consider initiating a rulemaking to expand the categories of nonimmigrants who qualify for the domestic visa renewal program covered under 22 C.F.R. 41.111(b) to include academic J-1 research scholars and F-1 students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)” and “establish, to the extent permitted by law and available appropriations, a program to identify and attract top talent in AI and other critical and emerging technologies at universities, research institutions, and the private sector overseas, and to establish and increase connections with that talent to educate them on opportunities and resources for research and employment in the United States, including overseas educational components to inform top STEM talent of nonimmigrant and immigrant visa options and potential expedited adjudication of their visa petitions and applications”. The State Department recently announced that it will soon launch a pilot stateside visa renewal program for certain H-1B and L-1 visa holders. Stateside visa processing was available for some nonimmigrants in the past, but has been suspended since 2004. Adding J-1 research scholars and F-1 STEM students to the list of nonimmigrants who can renew their visas in the U.S. would be a significant expansion of the reintroduced program, but would require a rulemaking to actually take effect.

Not all of the executive order’s provisions concerning J-1s will be beneficial for noncitizen research scholars, however. The executive order directs the Secretary of State to “consider initiating a rulemaking to establish new criteria to designate countries and skills on the Department of State’s Exchange Visitor Skills List as it relates to the 2-year foreign residence requirement for certain J-1 nonimmigrants, including those skills that are critical to the United States”. This requirement prevents certain J-1s from changing to H or L status in the U.S., adjusting status, or receiving an immigrant visa or H, L, or K visa until they have first spent two cumulative years in their home country. Waivers of this requirement are only available to J-1 who can meet certain very narrow criteria, such as establishing that their departure from the U.S. would result in exceptional hardship to their U.S. citizen or LPR spouse or child, or that they would face persecution if they returned to their home country. Expanding the skills list could result in more J-1 scholars being required to return to their home countries for two years after completing their programs, rather than being able to remain in the U.S. to take up employment and contribute to developments in the AI field.

Many of the immigration policy changes suggested in the executive order could greatly benefit noncitizen AI experts. However, the executive order itself in many instances merely directs the relevant agencies to “consider initiating a rulemaking” to implement the changes. So, while the policies laid out in the executive order may come as largely welcome news to noncitizen students, scholars, and professionals in the AI field, some changes remain aspirational for now until put into effect through a regulation. However, USCIS directly implemented changes to its Policy Manual regarding O-1s and EB-1s in STEM fields, so it is hoped that the agency will take similar action to assist AI experts. .

While the executive order intends to bring about positive changes that would enable AI experts to work in the US, only Congress can bring about meaningful change. While the executive order can provide guidance to USCIS officers to consider O-1, EB-1 and EB-2 petitions in favor of the AI specialist, the potential changes may not be so attractive to the AI specialist who may be considering other countries like Canada and the UK if the backlogs in the employment-based categories continue to persist especially for those born in India.  Moreover, if the H-1B cap continues to remain at 85,000 subjecting applicants to a randomized lottery, the best and the brightest in the AI field will choose to go somewhere else as America is not the only game in town. Unless Congress acts fast to infuse more visas in the legal immigration system, the changes in the executive order may prove to be only window dressing.

*Kaitlyn Box is a Senior Associate at Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners PLLC.

Cyrus Mehta

Huh? Why Should Requesting a Transfer of Underlying Basis with an I-485 Supplement J Restart the 180-Day Portability Clock?

/0 Comments/in /by

*By Cyrus D. Mehta and Kaitlyn Box*

We follow up on our blog series on requesting a transfer of underlying basis. Previous blogs on this topic can be found here and here.  Due to the exceptionally high number of EB-1 and EB-2 visas available this fiscal year, USCIS is urging applicants to consider switching to these preference categories, which will no doubt encourage more applicants to file a transfer of underlying basis request. As a background, many India born beneficiaries are the subject of two I-140 petitions in both the EB-2 and EB-2 preferences. These beneficiaries had employers file I-140s under EB-3 along with concurrent I-485 applications when the Dates for Filing in the October 2020 Bulletin advanced further than the EB-2 to January 1, 2015, and this trend continued under the November 2020 and December 2020 Visa Bulletins.   There has been a switcheroo since then, and sadly many who could have gotten their green cards when the EB-3 Final Action Date was January 1, 2014 lost out when USCIS could not adjust these applicants by September 30, 2021. The India EB-2 has advanced much further than the India EB-3, which is why many wish to request that the I-485 application filed with the EB-3 I-140 in October 2020 be transferred to the previously approved I-140 under EB-2. Under the State Department March 2022 Visa Bulletin, the India EB-2 Final Action Date is May 1, 2013 while the India EB-3 Final Action Date has retrogressed to January 15, 2012.  The EB-3 Dates for Filing has retrogressed to January 22, 2012.

AILA’s Case Assistance Committee recently posted a practice pointer on February 9, 2022, which we further analyze for the benefit of our readers. See AILA Doc. No. 22012600. The practice pointer discusses USCIS’ guidance on requesting a transfer of underlying basis, which requires a written request along with an I-485 Supplement J to the following address:

Attn: I-485 Supp J
U. S. Department of Homeland Security
USCIS Western Forms Center
10 Application Way
Montclair, CA 91763-1350

The USCIS guidance further states that “if a request to transfer the underlying basis has previously been submitted to a USCIS office prior to the issuance of this new guidance, USCIS indicates on its website that a new request should not be submitted again to the above address”. However, anecdotal evidence indicates that many are resubmitting their request for a transfer of underlying basis following this new procedure, even though they may have previously sent a letter previously requesting a transfer of underlying basis. The submission of an I-485J at least results in the generation of a receipt and an approval. This evidence may allow the applicant to further follow up on the request to transfer underlying basis.

Most significantly, AILA’s practice pointer also states that USCIS has indicated that filing a transfer of underlying basis request with an I-485, Supplement J restarts the 180-day clock for adjustment applicants who wish to port to new employment. USCIS states that “for purposes of portability, you would restart the portability clock on the day we receive the transfer request”. We are perplexed by USCIS’ response, and analyze it further herein.

INA § 204(j) states that “for an individual whose application for adjustment of status…has been filed and remained unadjudicated for 180 days or more shall remain valid with respect to a new job if the individual changes jobs or employers if the new job is in the same or a similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed”. Thus, if an applicant’s I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days, it makes little sense that the portability clock should restart upon submission of an I-485J when the applicant is also requesting a transfer of underlying basis from EB-3 to EB-2. It should also be noted that many applicants are filing an I-485J for the first time when requesting a transfer of basis as the I-485J was not required at the time the I-140 under EB-3 was filed concurrently with the I-485 under the October 2020, November 2020 and December 2020 Bulletins.

The purpose of the I-485J is two- fold: Part 1.a. requires the applicant to confirm that the employer is offering a bona fide job that the noncitizen intends to accept upon receiving permanent residence, while part 1.b. can instead be checked to indicate that the noncitizen is porting to a new position that they intend to accept when the I-485 is approved. Hence, I-485J is required to confirm the existence of the job offer that is the subject of the labor certification and the I-140, or, alternatively, it is required to request portability under INA § 204(j). If the applicant checks the first box, confirming the validity of the existing I-140 job offer, the 180 -day portability clock should not start.

Many adjustment applicants may find that their job duties have changed slightly since their I-140s were filed, such that they now involve, for example, the use of updated technologies. One can take the position that the job remains the same and the applicant is not porting, so the 180-day clock should not restart if Part 1.a. in the I-485J is checked. What happens, though, if an applicant checks Part 1.b. when the job duties have changed slightly, even though the essence of the job remains similar and s/he is with the same employer. It makes little sense for the portability clock to restart in this situation. Surely USCIS would not expect an applicant to go back to the old job with the current employer if it were to approve the I-485 application in less than 180 days from the time thee request to transfer the underlying basis was made.

Other applicants who are requesting a transfer of underlying basis may want to move to a new job at an entirely different employer. When one is changing jobs and files the I-485J, and the underlying basis is not being changed, there should not be an issue. The portability clock should not start again. The I-485 has been pending for 180 days already and INA § 204(j) should trigger.

The situation becomes somewhat more nuanced, however, when the applicant also wants to port to a new job and transfer the underlying basis from EB-3 to EB-2. USCIS seems to suggest that the portability clock would restart in this situation, but the results would be perverse. Imagine the absurd scenario where USCIS approves the I-485 within 180 days, and an applicant would have to go back to the old job as the 180-day clock did not complete when requesting the transfer of underlying basis. The safest course of action for applicants in this scenario is to refrain from requesting a transfer of underlying basis. Thus, if the I-485 is associated with the EB-3 I-140, then it is best to port and stay in EB-3 rather than requesting a transfer of underlying basis to be on the safe side.

Relevant case law also illustrates the absurdity of USCIS’ position. In Matter of VSG, Adopted Decision 2017-06 (AAO Nov. 11, 2017), the AAO recognized that a beneficiary who has ported under INA §204(j) is an affected party for purposes of revocation of an I-140 petition, and such a beneficiary must be afforded an opportunity to participate in such revocation proceeding.  If the 180 day porting clock were to start again upon an interfiling request, that could de-recognize the ability of a beneficiary to participate in revocation proceedings in contradiction of a growing number of court decisions, see e.g. Khedkar v USCIS, Mantena v. Johnson and Kurupati v USCIS,  that have recognized that the beneficiary of the I-140 petition is within the zone of interests that the statute or regulation seeks to protect. Such a result would be nonsensical.

All of these scenarios make little sense. There should be no restarting of the 180-day portability clock, as INA § 204(j) requires only that the I-485 be pending for 180 days. Even if requesting a transfer of underlying basis latches the I-485 to the EB-2 I-140, that should not restart the portability clock. The transfer of basis should not be intertwined with I-485 portability.

(This  blog is for informational purposes only and should not be viewed as a substitute for legal advice)

∗ Kaitlyn Box graduated with a JD from Penn State Law in 2020, and is an Associate at Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners PLLC.

 

Cyrus Mehta

Frequently Asked Questions on Transferring the Underlying Basis of an I-485 application from an I-140 petition under India EB-3 to an I-140 under India EB-2

/0 Comments/in /by

Update – January 21, 2022

On January 21, 2022, USCIS released new guidance on requests to transfer the underlying basis of an I-485 to a different employment-based immigrant category based on another Form I-140. The guidance states that USCIS may, in its discretion grant a transfer of underlying basis if the following criteria are met:

Read more
Cyrus Mehta

Requesting Premium Processing on a Downgraded I-140 Petition  

/0 Comments/in /by

By Cyrus D. Mehta and Kaitlyn Box*

In October 2020, USCIS’ decision to apply the Filing Dates, rather than the Final Action Dates, to employment-based I-485 adjustment of status applications, together with advancement in the Filing Dates in the State Department Visa Bulletin allowed many noncitizen workers who had been trapped in the green card backlogs for years to file I-485 adjustment of status applications. Since the EB-3 Filing Date for India significantly overtook the EB-2 Filing Date, some beneficiaries approved EB-2 petition opted to “downgrade” by filing a new I-140 under EB-3. Generally, beneficiaries may still rely on the original Labor Certification when filing a downgraded I-140 and retain the priority date of the EB-2 petition, unless the job has drastically changed.

In previous blogs, we have discussed the nuances of filing a downgrade petition, and addressed some common questions that arise in this situation. One frequent source of questions is whether Premium Processing is available for downgrade petitions given that these I-140 petitions filed since October 2020 are still pending and have yet to be approved. Generally, USCIS will  not accept a case for Premium Processing unless it is filed with an original Labor Certification. Thus, beneficiaries whose Labor Certifications were filed with the original EB-2 petition likely cannot file a downgrade I-140 together with a Premium Processing request. Although USCIS might, in rare instances, accept a Premium Processing request made with an I-140 downgrade petition, it is more likely that the Premium request, or even the entire petition, will be rejected.

A strategy more likely to meet with success is filing the downgrade I-140 via regular processing, waiting USCIS to issue a receipt notice, and then request Premium Processing of the pending I-140. USCIS may still reject the Premium Processing request if it cannot match the pending I-140 to the previous file or retrieve the original Labor Certification. Even in the case of a rejection, however, the pending I-140 will be safe and subsequent Premium Processing requests can be filed, if desired. There are an increased number of Premium Processing requests from beneficiaries of downgraded I-140 petitions given that the EB-3 India Final Action Date has rapidly advanced. Under the July 2021 State Department Visa Bulletin, the EB-3 India Final Action Date is January 1, 2013. If the I-140 petition is approved when the Final Action Date is current for the I-140 petition, the beneficiary and family members can hope to have their I-485 applications approved although the USCIS has been approving them at a snail’s pace and may alarmingly not be able to use up all EB visas for this fiscal year. It should also be noted that the swifter approval of the I-140 petition does not speed up the processing of the applications for employment authorization or advance parole when the I-485 application remains pending.

Recently, however, we have seen some requests to upgrade I-140s to Premium Processing being repeatedly rejected on the ground that an original Labor Certification was no provided, despite other, similar Premium Processing requests being accepted. In an email inquiry placed to the USCIS Premium Processing address in response to one such case, our firm received a helpful response. An Immigration Services Officer  advised that Petitioners resubmit rejected Premium Processing requests and indicate on a brightly colored sheet of paper that USCIS has the original labor certification.  A more guaranteed method, according to the USCIS response, is to submit a copy of the original Labor Certification. Submissions lacking at least one of these documents are vulnerable to immediate rejection since the reviewing officer will not see a Labor Certification included. Although this was not part of the guidance we received, it would also be advisable to indicate the receipt number of the prior approved EB-2 petition which contains the original Labor Certification, and direct the USCIS to look for it in that petition.

Even if the Premium Processing request is accepted, there is always a risk that the USCIS might issue a Request for Evidence (RFE) even if the prior I-140 under EB-2 was approved. Note, though, that such an RFE could also be issued even if there is no request for Premium Processing, although there might be an incentive to issue the RFE if the officer cannot complete the processing within the mandated 15 days. Although RFEs have been seldom, the most common reason for an RFE is to request submission of evidence that the employer still has the ability to pay the proffered wage from the establishment of the priority date until the present, and up to the point of time that the beneficiary receives permanent residency.  If the employer’s current tax returns show losses and the beneficiary is not being paid the proffered wage,  Premium Processing should not be considered, and the I-140 can continue to remain pending,  until the employer is able to potentially overcome such an RFE.  Another reason for an RFE is that the prior SOC code that was designated at the time of the granting of the Labor Certification does not match with the SOC code that was indicated in the downgrade I-140 petition. This is not a valid basis for the USCIS to issue an RFE as the SOC code available for the occupation at that time has become obsolete. For instance, SOC Code 15-1031 for Computer Software Engineers, Applications is no longer in existence. It has now changed to SOC Code 15-1132 for Software Developers, which has again most recently changed to SOC Code 15-1252. This sort of RFE can be more easily overcome.

All of these issues should be carefully considered when requesting Premium Processing of a downgrade I-140 petition. Despite the issues that can arise when making a Premium Processing request of this kind, petitioners can help prevent rejections by following USCIS’ guidance and including a highly visible reference to the original Labor Certification, or a copy of the Labor Certification itself with the request. Submitting timely and thorough responses to any RFEs too helps to ensure that the petition will ultimately be successful.

(This blog is for informational purposes and should not be considered as a substitute for legal advice).

*Kaitlyn Box graduated with a JD from Penn State Law in 2020, and works as a law clerk at Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners PLLC.

 

 

Cyrus Mehta

Downgrading from EB-2 to EB-3 under the October 2020 Visa Bulletin

/0 Comments/in /by

By Cyrus D. Mehta and Kaitlyn Box*

On September 24, 2020, the Department of State released the October 2020 Visa Bulletin. Importantly, the Filing Date for an EB-3 from India has advanced to January 1, 2015 from February 1, 2010 in the September 2020 Visa Bulletin, while the Filing Date for an EB-1 from India advanced to September 1, 2020 from July 1, 2018.  By contrast the Filing Date for EB-2 India advanced to only May 15, 2011 from August 15, 2009.

Significantly, however, the USCIS issued guidance on the same day  that the Filing Date, rather than the Final Action Date, applies to employment-based I-485 adjustment of status applications. Historically, USCIS has been very reluctant to allow applicants to use the Filing Date, only doing so in very limited instances. The last time USCIS used the Filing Date for most visa categories was in March 2020. In 2019, USCIS used the Filing Date only four times – in January, October, November, and December. Otherwise, applicants must use the Final Action Date to determine when to submit their I-485. According to earlier guidance from USCIS, applicants may use the Filing Date to determine when to submit an I-485 when the USCIS determines that there are more immigrants visas available for the fiscal year than there are applicants. The Filing Date only allows the filing of an I-485 application when permitted by the USCIS. The Final Action Date determines when lawful permanent residence is issued.  USCIS’s decision to apply the Filing Date comes as a surprise under the October 2020 Visa Bulletin, albeit a pleasant one, given the agency’s previous unwillingness to allow applicants to use the Filing Date.

Since USCIS will accept I-485 filing, a new I-140 will need to be filed for an individual who, for example, wants to downgrade from EB-2 to EB-3. Since the EB-3 Filing Date has significantly overtaken the EB-2 Filing Date, a beneficiary of an approved EB-2 petition may want to re-file, or downgrade to EB-3.  If the beneficiary qualified under EB-2, the beneficiary should be able to qualify for EB-3, and the appropriate “professional”, or “skilled worker” will need to be checked on the form. The individual may still rely on an old labor certification when filing the I-140 under EB-3. The I-140 can be filed concurrently with the I-485, so the I-140 need not be approved at the time the I-485 is filed with USCIS.

There is nothing in the law or regulations precluding the existence of two I-140 petitions, one under EB-2, and the other under EB-3. Still, a beneficiary who wishes to downgrade from EB-2 to EB-3 must seek legal advice. Some may be of the view,  and they have some support in the Neufeld Memo of June 1, 2007 that the new “downgraded” I-140 under EB-3 should be checked as an amendment rather than as a separate petition. The Neufeld Memo suggests that a new I-140 petition filed after a previously approved I-140 was filed within 180 days of the grant of the labor certification should be filed as an amendment where a  new visa classification is being sought.  But doing that would nullify the earlier EB-2 petition, and this may not be so desirable in case the EB-2 dates overtake the EB-3 at some point in the future. If that were to happen, then a new amendment of the EB-3 would need to be filed for upgrading to EB-2  On the other hand, 8 CFR 204.5(e)(1), which was last amended in 2017,  contemplates the existence of multiple approved petitions on behalf of a single beneficiary even if filed by the same employer, and the beneficiary is entitled to capture the earliest priority date when a subsequently filed petition is approved. This regulation does not preclude the filing of an I-140 petition subsequent to the use of the labor certification through a previously approved labor certification  Therefore, the prevalent view is in favor of filing a standalone I-140 to downgrade to EB-3 is preferable to filing it as an amendment. See Multiple I-140s, Priority Date Retention, and the 2013 China EB-2/EB-3 Anomaly, AILA Liason (Dec. 16, 2013), available at: https://www.aila.org/infonet/uscis-multiple-i-140s-priority-date-retention. However, this is not to assume  that USCIS will not insist that the I-140 should have been checked off as an amendment and may deny the EB-3 petition.

Although an I-485 filed pursuant to a current Filing Date does not confer permanent residence, the  I-485 filing confers a number of significant benefits, such as allowing the applicant to “port” to a different job or employer in the same or similar occupational classification after 180 days pursuant to INA 204(j), obtain an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) that enables them to work in the United States, and request advance parole or travel permission. Note, however, that USCIS’ use of the Filing Date will not help those who are waiting for a visa interview abroad, although the National Visa Center (NVC) will initiate the case and obtain documents before the Final Action Date becomes current.

Other complications arise under the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA), which “freezes” the age of applicants under the age 21 who would otherwise age out before being approved for LPR status due to lengthy USCIS backlogs. USCIS has made clear that only Final Action Dates, and not Filing Dates may be used to freeze a child’s age. Thus, an applicant who files an I-485 based on a Filing Date should be aware that their child will no longer be protected if the child ages out before the Final Action Date becomes available. The child’s I-485 application will be denied, and she can even be put into removal proceedings if she has no nonimmigrant status. We discussed this predicament at greater length, and argued that there is a significant legal basis to use the Filing Date to protect the age of a child under the CSPA in an earlier blog.

Additionally, a small group of EB-2 beneficiaries from India who already have pending I-485 applications (as they filed I-485s in 2012 and then the EB-2 India dates retrogressed) may decide to “downgrade” to an EB-3 from an EB-2, given the more advanced Filing and Final Action Dates for an EB-3. Individuals who find themselves in this situation will need to file a new I-140, which may not protect a child from aging out under the CSPA. CSPA applies only the “applicable” petition, which most likely means the old EB-2 I-140 petition. Individuals who want to downgrade from EB-2 to EB-3 because of the more favorable dates should be aware that their children who were protected under the CSPA under a prior I-140 may not longer receive that protection when a new I-140 is filed if the child is now over 21 years old. Please refer to our earlier blog post for a more in-depth discussion of the CSPA.

EB-1 beneficiaries from India are also in luck, and so long as the EB-1 I-140 was filed on or before September 1, 2020, a concurrent I-485 may be filed. In this case too, legal advice should be taken since the I-485 with all its attendant benefits may not survive if the pending I-140 is denied.

While the movement in the Filing Dates will give relief to many, they are quixotic and ephemeral. The EB-3 India dates have overtaken the EB-2 dates. At one point, it was always assumed that EB-2 would be ahead of EB-3. But there might be a flipflop as more people are lured into filing under EB-3, and then both EB-2 and EB-3 will be hopelessly backlogged.  But those who managed to file I-485 applications will be permitted to apply for employment authorization and can port to new jobs in same or similar occupations. While the green card may still be far away, at least I-485 applicants will be better off than being on a 12th year H-1B extension as they will have more mobility and their spouses and children will also be able to work. Ideally, the immigration system ought to be reformed by eliminating per country limits, and better still, infusing the EB preferences with more visa numbers.  For that to happen, Congress has to aligned and in today’s polarized environment, this too seems unlikely to happen until at least after the elections.

(Kaitlyn Box graduated with a JD degree from Penn State Law School and works as a Law Clerk at Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners PLLC)

Cyrus Mehta

Reviving The National Interest Waiver For International Entrepreneurs

/0 Comments/in /by

A proposed rule would allow the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to use its existing discretionary statutory parole authority for entrepreneurs of startup entities whose stay in the United States would provide a “significant public benefit through the substantial and demonstrated potential for rapid business growth and job creation.” Under this proposed rule, DHS may parole, on a case-by-case basis, eligible entrepreneurs of startup enterprises:

  • Who have a significant ownership interest in the startup (at least 15 percent) and have an active and central role to its operations;
  • Whose startup was formed in the United States within the past three years; and
  • Whose startup has substantial and demonstrated potential for rapid business growth and job creation, as evidenced by:

– Receiving significant investment of capital (at least $345,000) from certain qualified U.S. investors with established records of successful investments;

– Receiving significant awards or grants (at least $100,000) from certain federal, state, or local government entities; or

– Partially satisfying one or both of the above criteria in addition to other reliable and compelling evidence of the startup entity’s substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation.

Under the rule, entrepreneurs may be granted an initial stay of up to two years to oversee and grow their startup entities in the United States. A subsequent request for re-parole (for up to three additional years) would be considered only if the entrepreneur and the startup entity continue to provide a significant public benefit as evidenced by substantial increases in capital investment, revenue, or job creation. What is truly lacking is the lack of a pathway to permanent residence for the entrepreneur.

Several organizations and individuals submitted comments to the rule by the deadline on October 17, 2016. The Alliance of Business Immigration Lawyers, www.abil.com, of which I am a shareholder and member, also submitted comments in order to improve the rule and point out its limitations. The thrust of the comments was to make parole more accessible to entrepreneurs by lowering the investment amounts and expanding the types of persons who could qualify as investors. I was pleased to be part of the ABIL comment team of distinguished immigration attorneys, and my focus was to comment that the rule also provides a pathway to permanent residence. If the rule does not provide a pathway to permanent residency, it will not be viable at all. It is thus imperative that the rule also provide a pathway for permanent residence through the National Interest Waiver. In fact, this is not the first time that the DHS has thought about providing a pathway for permanent residence to entrepreneurs.

When USCIS announced its policy to encourage foreign entrepreneurs to take advantage of the existing immigration system on August 2, 2011, it provided Question and Answers on the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2 Q&A) suggesting that an entrepreneur can be sponsored through a “national interest waiver”. The EB-2 (Q&A) acknowledges  Matter of New York State Department of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Comm. 1998) (NYSDOT), which set forth a three-prong test, and how it could apply to entrepreneurs seeking the NIW.

With respect to the first two criteria under NYSDOT, the petitioner must show that he or she will be employed “in an area of substantial intrinsic merit” and that the “proposed benefit will be national in scope.” It was always difficult for an entrepreneur to show that localized employment through his or her enterprise would be national in scope. This concern was addressed in the EB-2 Q&A:

For example, the entrepreneur might be able to demonstrate that the jobs his or her business enterprise will create in a discrete locality will also create (or “spin off”) related jobs in other parts of the nation. Or, as another example, the entrepreneur might be able to establish that the jobs created locally will have a positive national impact.

The third criterion in NYSDOT is extremely opaque and difficult to overcome. The petitioner must demonstrate that “the national interest would be adversely affected if a labor certification were required for the alien. The petitioner must demonstrate that it would be contrary to the national interest to potentially deprive the prospective employer of the services of the alien by making available to U.S. workers the position sought by the alien.” The AAO went on to further illuminate this criterion as follows: “Stated another way, the petitioner, whether the U.S. employer or the alien, must establish that the alien will serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available U.S. worker having the same minimum qualifications.”

Still, the EB-2 Q&A provides helpful guidance to the entrepreneur to overcome the third prong:

The entrepreneur who demonstrates that his or her business enterprise will create jobs for U.S. workers or otherwise enhance the welfare of the United States may qualify for the NIW. For example, the entrepreneur may be creating new job opportunities for U.S. workers. The creation of jobs domestically for U.S. workers may serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than the work of others in the same field.

Nevertheless, if the parole rule provides guidance on how to seek a NIW, it should do away with the NYSDOT test, especially the subjective third criterion. Indeed, when President Obama’s executive actions on immigration were announced on November 20, 2014, a memo specifically aimed to improve the system for skilled immigrants also sought to:

Clarify the standard by which a national interest waiver may be granted to foreign inventors, researchers and founders of start-up enterprises to benefit the U.S economy

ABIL therefore suggests that the final rule should contain a rebuttable presumption stating that an international entrepreneur who has maintained parole status for five years is presumed to qualify for the national-interest waiver. The five years should be extended for entrepreneurs who have already started the permanent residency process, however long it takes, given the processing delays and backlogs. Alternatively, because of prolonged visa quota backlogs, those which adversely affect persons in the EB-2 and EB-3 preferences such as beneficiaries born in India and China, ABIL suggests that entrepreneurial parolees be able to use the NYSDOT national-interest waiver standards to qualify as a person of extraordinary ability under INA § 203(b)(1)(A). Even if an entrepreneur cannot readily meet the three out of ten criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the petitioner can also qualify as a person of extraordinary ability by submitting comparable evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). Hence, the final rule should expressly provide that comparable evidence includes (but is not limited to) proof that an entrepreneur meets the NYSDOT national-interest waiver criteria, and thus may qualify as a person of extraordinary ability.

Given the lack of certainty in a national-interest waiver adjudication due to NYSDOT, ABIL further suggests that the seven factors set forth in the non-precedent decision of Matter of Mississippi Phosphate, EAC 92 091 50126 (AAU July 21, 1992) be reconsidered. The seven factors include 1) improving the U.S. economy; 2) improving wages and working conditions of U.S. workers; 3) improving education and training programs for U.S. children and underqualified workers; 4) improving health care; 5) providing more affordable housing for young and/or older, poorer U.S. residents; 6) improving the environment of the U.S. and making more productive use of natural resources; or 7) involving a request from an interested U.S. government agency. This decision provided good guidance for the national interest waiver petitioner as well as the adjudicating officer and seemed to signal an understanding of congressional intent.

The EB-2 Q&A appears to suggest that the entrepreneur can also be sponsored for a green card under the EB-2 through a labor certification. In fact, an entrepreneur who cannot qualify under EB-2, can also theoretically obtain labor certification for purposes of obtaining permanent residency under EB-3. The DOL, on the other hand, has always frowned upon an owner of an entity being sponsored for a labor certification. In order to obtain labor certification, the employer must establish that it has conducted a good faith test of the labor market and that there were no qualified US workers who were available for the position. The DOL has denied labor certification to both 100% and minority owners of companies who filed a labor certification on their behalf. See ATI Consultores, 07-INA-64 (BALCA Feb. 11, 2008); M. Safra & Co. Inc., 08-INA-74 (BALCA Oct. 27, 2008). The test for determining whether an employee closely tied to the sponsoring entity could qualify for labor certification was set forth in Modular Container Systems, Inc. 89-INA-228 (BALCA July 16, 1991) (en banc), where BALCA applied a “totality of circumstances” test to determine whether there was a bona fide job offer to US workers. Modular Container Systems considers whether the foreign national:

a) Is in a position to control or influence hiring decisions regarding the job for which LC is ought;
b) Is related to the corporate directors, officers or employees;
c) Was an incorporator or founder of the company;
d) Has an ownership interest in the company;
e) Is involved in the management of the company;
f) Is on the board of directors;
g) Is one of a small number of employees;
h) Has qualifications for the job that are identical to specialized or unusual job duties and requirements stated in the application; or
i) Is so inseparable from the sponsoring employer because of his or her pervasive presence and personal attributes that the employer would be unlikely to continue without the foreign national.

An entrepreneur who may successfully obtain parole will most likely fail under the Modular Container Systems “totality of circumstances” test. ABIL suggests that USCIS consult with the DOL before issuing this guidance so that DOL be receptive to the USCIS’s new policy of encouraging entrepreneurs and liberally interpret Modular Container Systems, which are incorporated in 20 CFR §656.17(l). For example, if an entrepreneur who qualifies for parole and owns a minority state in the enterprise should still be able to obtain labor certification if he or she did not influence the recruitment, even if the entrepreneur may have been a founder or is on its board of directors.

In conclusion, quite independent of the parole rule, the proposed broadening of the National Interest Waiver should also similarly be applicable to entrepreneurs who have used existing nonimmigrant visa categories. This is explained in the Entrepreneur Pathways portal. Indeed, the parole rule and the Entrepreneur Pathways should exist alongside each other. Neither is perfect, especially in the absence of a Congressionally mandated startup visa, but if an entrepreneur cannot qualify under the parole policy, every encouragement must be given for the entrepreneur to qualify for a visa through his or her startup under the existing visa system, such as through an H-1B visa. In order to provide viability to both the parole rule and existing policy supporting entrepreneurs, the National Interest Waiver ought to be broadened. Most importantly, entrepreneurs born in India and China should also be allowed to take advantage of the person of extraordinary ability category under EB-1. The EB-1 is current for these countries. It would be unviable for the beneficiary of an EB-2 National Interest Waiver born in India or China to wait for several years to obtain the green card. It is hoped that this administration and the next does everything in their power to attract foreign entrepreneurs.

Given the centrality of immigrant entrepreneurs to the American economy, it may come as a shock to many when they realize that, on an increasing number, immigrant entrepreneurs are going home. With the economic renaissance in India, China, Korea, Chile, Mexico and other traditional sources of immigration, while entrepreneurs continue to come to America, we are, it seems, no longer the only game in town. Faced with uncertain green card prospects and what appears as an unfriendly and intractable immigration system that questions their value rather than welcoming their talent or appreciating their contributions, immigrant entrepreneurs are having second thoughts. It is impossible to understand or appreciate the current entrepreneurial initiative without this foundation. It is therefore hoped that this administration and the next does everything in their power to attract foreign entrepreneurs to the United States.

 

Cyrus Mehta

Update on Indian Three–Year Degrees and Postgraduate Diplomas

/3 Comments/in /by

The greatest bane for green card aspirants with Indian degrees is the uncertainty that they will be recognized as single source degrees. If an Indian degree is recognized as the single source equivalent of a US four-year bachelor’s degree, it can provide the basis for an I-140 immigrant visa petition under the employment-based second preference (EB-2) for permanent residency. If an Indian degree cannot be recognized as a single source four-year degree, the potential green card candidate slides into the employment-based third preference (EB-3). While both the India EB-2 and EB-3 are moving at a snail’s pace, there is still a dramatic difference between the EB-2 and EB-3 for India. One sponsored by an employer in the India EB-2 can hope to get a green card  within 10 years, but one caught in the India EB-3 would need to wait for several decades!

A three-year Indian degree on its own will never make it into EB-2 as it is not considered the equivalent of a four-year US degree. See Matter of Shah, 17 I&N Dec. at 244 (Reg. Comm. 1977). Till recently, even a three-year degree combined with a post-graduate diploma (PGD), even if technically equivalent to a US bachelor’s degree,  was not considered a single source degree. To be classified under the EB-2  pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the position must require an advanced degree or its equivalent, which the USCIS in 8 CFR section 204.5(k)(2) defines as a foreign four-year single source bachelor’s degree equivalent to a US degree plus five years of post baccalaureate experience. Ron Wada, who is the undisputed guru of degree equivalency issues, reports that in some instances the USCIS has been recognizing that an Indian three year degree followed by a post graduate diploma may qualify as an exception to the “single-source degree rule.” See Wada, The Nth Degree: Issues and Case Studies In Degree Equivalency – 2015 Update, 20 Bender’s Immigration Bulletin 475, May 15, 2015.

Not all combinations of three-year bachelor’s degrees and post graduate diplomas will qualify under this exception and thus be found to be comparable to a US bachelor’s degree. The Electronic Database for Global Education (EDGE) created by the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO) has to confirm that the PGD should either be issued by an accredited university recognized by the University Grants Commission or should be an institution approved by the All-India Council for Technical Education (AICTE).

In most of the unpublished decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) involving non-university PGDs found through a computerized  search, such as for example Matter of X (identifying information redacted), 2013 Immigr. Rptr. LEXIS 2177, 2013 WL 5296297 (INS), the following extract is worth noting:

According to EDGE, a three-year Bachelor of Science degree from India is comparable to “two to three years of university study in the United States.” EDGE further discusses postgraduate diplomas, for which the entrance requirement is completion of a two- or three-year baccalaureate degree. EDGE states that a postgraduate diploma following a two-year bachelor’s degree represents attainment of a level of education comparable to one year of university study in the United States. EDGE also states that a postgraduate diploma following a three-year bachelor’s degree represents attainment of a level of education comparable to a bachelor’s degree in the United States. However, the “Advice to Author Notes” section states:

Postgraduate Diplomas should be issued by an accredited university or institution approved by the All-India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). Some students complete PGDs over two years on a part-time basis. When examining the Postgraduate Diploma, note the entrance requirement and be careful not to confuse the PGD awarded after the Higher Secondary Certificate with the PGD awarded after the three-year bachelor’s degree.

The evidence in the record on appeal did not establish that the beneficiary’s postgraduate diploma was issued by an accredited university or institution approved by AICTE, or that a two- or three-year bachelor’s degree was required for admission into the program of study

This AAO decision demonstrates that not only must the PGD be approved by AICTE, but the entrance requirement for a PGD must also be after the completion of a two or three year bachelor’s degree, and not after the completion of high school.

Not all PGDs will qualify and one must carefully check whether it has been recognized by AICTE. For instance, courses at the ever familiar NIITor Aptech institutes in India are not approved by AICTE. Nor are most of  the programs offered at the Center for Development of Advance Computing (CDAC), unless the CDAC courses are offered in conjunction with universities  and result in degrees.  It is very important to get the PGD assessed by an experienced credential evaluation service, which should check that the PGD has not only been recognized by AICTE but admits students after they have generally completed a three-year degree.

The USCIS has always been niggardly in recognizing Indian degrees, especially three-year degrees, so as to qualify under the EB-2. The recent recognition of some non-university PGDs, obtained after a three year degree, provides some respite to many who would otherwise be caught in the endless India EB-3 backlogs. A  recent Times of India article reveals that India Inc. invested $15 billion in the United States and created 91,000 jobs. Despite this enormous boost to the US economy, Congress has done nothing to reduce the EB-2 and EB-3 backlogs for India, and the USCIS has been slow to recognize that Indian degrees, or combinations, equate to comparable US four-year degrees. The recognition of certain PGDs  following a three-year degree program is therefore welcome, but the USCIS must still go a long way in being more generous in welcoming skilled Indian nationals to the United States.

 (The author thanks Natalie Araujo of the The Trustforte Corporation for sharing some of her insights)

Cyrus Mehta

AFTER THE OCTOBER 2012 VISA BULLETIN, A DECADE LONG WAIT UNDER THE FAMILY FOURTH PREFERENCE IS A PIECE OF CAKE

/0 Comments/in /by

I write this blog with some sarcasm. The family fourth preference (F-4), which allows US citizens to sponsor their siblings for a green card, is horrendously backlogged. It takes over 10 years for a brother or sister of a US citizen to obtain a green card. If the sibling was born in the Philippines, the wait could well be over 25 years. So, why is it a piece of cake?
After the State Department released its Visa Bulletin for October 2012,   the F-4 at least for the worldwide category appears to be more advantageous in terms of waiting time than say the employment-based third preference (EB-3) for India, which is applicable to jobs that require bachelor’s degrees or at least two years of training or experience. The EB-3 for India is so backlogged that it could take a US employer 70 years before the Indian worker it sponsors gets a green card.
What was also disappointing with the October 2012 Visa Bulletin was that the employment-based second preference (EB-2), after being unavailable all summer, emerged in October with a cutoff date of September 1, 2004. This means that employers who filed labor certifications on behalf of foreign national workers with advanced degrees on or before September 1, 2004, can apply for their green cards today.  This does not bode too well because in April 2012 the cutoff date for the India EB-2 was May 1, 2010.  It should have emerged in October at the same cut off level, not back at September 1, 2004. Perhaps, the reason for this giant leap back in time is because many in the EB-3 with priority dates going back to 2004 and earlier are upgrading into the EB-2.  Noted immigration attorney Carl Shusterman has quite correctly called the October 2012 Visa Bulletin a disaster.
But jokes aside, the F-4 is actually a good hedge against the broken legal immigration system in the United States. If you have a brother or sister with kids who are 6 or 7 today, file the I-130 petition and then forget about it. Treat it like a long term stock in a new startup that will increase in value in the years to come.  By the time the green card comes through for your sibling, his or her kids would be 17 and 18, old enough to start college in the US as green card holders rather than  on an F-1 student visa. Note that spouses and children can derivatively get their green cards with the principal beneficiary.  If these kids were born in India, think of the benefit this would give them after they graduate from college and get a coveted job in the US – and let’s hope by then that the US economy would have turned around through some breakthrough technology that would result in an abundance of jobs!  Assuming that the EB-3 was as backlogged in 2023 as it is today, because Congress continued to remain in permanent gridlock, those kids would have to wait about 70 years to get their green card under the EB-3. Instead, the F-4 that you filed with a great deal of foresight today would benefit your nephews and nieces by the time they come of age and are ready to pursue their hopes and dreams in the USA.
What if the kids are no longer children by the time your sibling gets the green card under the F-4? What if they have already turned 21 or more as a child is one who is under 21 under the Immigration and Nationality Act? These are all good and relevant concerns. Fortunately, some of these kids may be able to freeze their age under the Child Status Protection Act. If the child is 23 years old at the time the date on the I-130 petition becomes current, then under INA § 203(h)(1) it is possible to subtract from that age the time that the I-130 petition took to get approved from the time it was filed. For example, if the USCIS took two and a half years to approve the I-130 petition from the date it was filed, then you can subtract 2.5 years from the child’s age, and if the age is reduced so that it falls below 21, then the child can still immigrate with the parent. Thus, it is actually to your advantage if the I-130 petition takes a long time to get approved as that much more time can then get subtracted from the age of a child who may have turned over 21 on the date of visa availability. Fortunately, the processing time at the Vermont Service Center for an F-4 today is just short of 2 years. Processing times will be longer if the USCIS issues a request for more evidence before approving the I-130 petition.  So don’t get too anxious if the I-130 under the F-4 does not get approved so quickly. This time will prove to be precious to reduce the age of a child who is over 21 a decade or more from today, when the visa becomes available under the F-4.
If we had a better immigration system, I would not waste time extolling the so called virtues of the F-4. But when so many preference categories have gone out of whack – 70 years for the India EB-3 and the EB-2 seems to also be going the same way– then we must grasp at straws and the F-4 is certainly one until Congress is able to bring sensible reforms to our immigration system.