Tag Archive for: The Tyranny of Priority Dates

Cyrus Mehta

Musings on the October 2019 State Department Visa Bulletin in Light of the Fairness for High Skilled Immigrants Act

/1 Comment/in /by

The State Department Visa Bulletin for October 2019 reflects forward movement as anticipated with the beginning of the federal fiscal year, except for the employment-based first preference (EB-1). It also does not look promising for many EB categories involving India.  According to Charlie Oppenheim, there is normally full recovery or almost full recovery of the Final Action Dates from the previous year. Low level of demand would allow for thousands of unused numbers from the EB-4 and EB-5 of the previous year to become available for use in the EB-1.  Those numbers unfortunately have not been available in recent years, and the high demand for numbers has required the application of Final Action Dates for all countries, and the dates for China and India have actually retrogressed during the past year in EB-1. Mr. Oppenheim forecasts for the upcoming fiscal year that there is no expectation that there will be any extra unused numbers available to EB-1 India and EB-1 China in the foreseeable future, and he further anticipates that both EB-1 India and EB-1 China will be subject to their minimum statutory limits of (approximately) 2,803 visa numbers for at least the first half of fiscal year (FY) 2020.

Mr. Oppenheim also reminds AILA members that for planning purposes they should not expect any of the EB-1 categories to become current at any time in the foreseeable future. He further predicts that there will not be any movement for EB-1 India until January 2020 at the earliest. There has been little movement in the EB-2 and EB-3 for India as well as the EB-5. On the other hand, the EB-2 and EB-3 for the rest of the world have become current. The Family 2A continues to remain a bright spot and is current for all countries.

In another interesting development, USCIS has designated the filing charts for both family-sponsored and employment-based preference cases for October 2019. For the F2A category, there is a cutoff date listed on the Dates for Filing chart. However, the category is “current” on the Final Action Dates chart. USCIS has indicated that applicants in the F2A category may file using the Final Action Dates chart for October 2019. T

This is development is most welcome. One who is caught in the India EB-5 retrogression can nevertheless file an I-485 adjustment of status application under the EB-5 Filing Dates, which is current for India. By filing an I-485 application, the applicant can obtain employment authorization and travel permission while waiting for permanent residence in the United States. Despite the broader use of Filing Dates from October 2019, it is odd that the USCIS does not allow the freezing of the age of the child under the Child Status Protection Act based on the Filing Date being current rather than the Final Action Date. As explained in a prior blog, if the Filing Date cannot be used under the CSPA, a child would still be able to file an I-485 application under the Filing Date, but if the child ages out before the Final Action Date become current, the I-485  application of the child will get denied and this will put the child in serious jeopardy.

It is really disappointing that the EB-1, which was designed to attract persons of extraordinary ability, outstanding professors and researchers and high level multinational executives and managers has gotten jammed. EB-1 for India will now likely suffer the same fate as EB-2 and EB-3 for India. However, since I-485 applications can be filed based on the Filing Dates, an EB-1 with a priority date up to March 15, 2017 can file an I-485 application although the EB-1 India Final Action Date is an abysmal January 1, 2015. This is why HR 1044 , Fairness for High Skilled Immigrants Act, is awaited with so much anticipation by India and China born beneficiaries. The bill will eliminate the country caps.  After it passed the House with an overwhelming majority on February 7, 2019, a similar version, S. 386, did not go through the Senate on September 19, 2019 through unanimous consent. Senator Perdue objected, and the bill’s sponsor Senator Lee has indicated that he is trying to work with Perdue to address his concerns. On the other hand, those not born in India and China were pleased that the bill has not pass. While it will shorten the backlogs for those from India and China, people from the rest of the world claim that they will all of a sudden be subject to backlogs in the EB-2, EB-3 and EB-5.

As a result of the existence of the per country limits, those born in India and China have been drastically affected by backlogs. Each country is only entitled to 7 percent of the total allocation of visas under each preference. Thus, a country like Iceland with only about 330,000 people has the same allocation as India or China with populations of more than a billion people. For instance, in the EB-2, those born in India have to wait for decades, and one study estimates the wait time to be 150 years!

HR 1044/S. 386 has unfortunately led to divisiveness in immigrant communities and even among immigration attorneys. If enacted, this bill would eliminate the per-country numerical limitation for all employment-based immigrants, and increase the per-country limitation for all family-sponsored immigrants from seven percent to 15 percent. One significant feature of this bill that distinguishes it from prior versions of this legislation is a “do no harm” provision. This provision states that no one who is the beneficiary of an employment-based immigrant visa petition approved before the bill’s enactment shall receive a visa later than if the bill had never been enacted. Notably, the “do no harm” provision only applies to employment-based immigrants and does not apply to family-sponsored immigrants.  The Senate version also includes a set-aside provision for no fewer than 5,000 visas for shortage occupations, as defined in 20 C.F.R. 656.5(a), which would include nurses and physical therapists, for Fiscal Years 2020-2028. It also retains the H-1B internet posting requirement proposed in the Grassley Amendment to S. 386, with some change. Specifically, the H-1B internet posting requirements will not apply to an H-1B nonimmigrant who has been counted against the H-1B cap and is not eligible for a full 6-year period or an H-1B nonimmigrant authorized for portability under INA 214(n). It also retains the “do no harm” provision for all EB petitions approved on the date of enactment and the three-year transition period for EB-2 and EB-3 immigrants, but does not include EB-5 immigrants in the transition period.

Notwithstanding the “do no harm” provision, there are fears that people born in all countries who apply after enactment will be subject to wait times, especially in the EB-2 and EB-3, which are now current for the rest of the world. While there is no way to accurately estimate the long term effect on wait  times, a Wall Street Journal article cites a forthcoming analysis from the Migration Policy Institute indicating that “depending on the type of green card, the delay could be between 2.9 and 13.5 years.” This estimate, which has not been published,  does not take into consideration the recently introduced “do no harm” provisions or the carve outs for nurses.  AILA is not aware of a comprehensive, independent, and publicly available analysis regarding how the House and Senate versions of the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act of 2019 would impact both the current employment-based and family-sponsored immigrant visa queues as well as future immigration flows.

The 1965 Immigration Act, which eliminated the national origin quotas of the 1924 Act, is justly celebrated as a civil rights measure that opened up the United States to global migration for the first time. The intention was to set the same percentages of caps for all countries.  As a result of the limited supply of visas each year, and the increased demand from India and China, it has again indirectly created a national origins quota, where people from certain countries do not have the same opportunities as others to immigrate to the US. If you are from Mexico or the Philippines, the family-based quotas delay permanent migration to the United States to such an extent that it is virtually blocked. The categories might just as well not exist for most people. If you are from China or India with an advanced degree, the implosion of the EB-2 and EB-3 categories does not regulate your coming permanently to the United States; it makes it functionally impossible. Why should a country like India with a population of over a billion that sends many more skilled people to the US and are also in demand by US employers for those skills be subject to the same 7% per country limitation as Iceland that has 320,000 people?  India, for example, is indeed a continent like Europe or Africa, with great diversity in religions. In addition to Hindus, there are millions of Muslims and Christians along with Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Jews and Zoroastrians. Besides Hindi and English as official languages, there are 22 regional languages. Still, each country within Europe gets 7% of the visas while India gets only 7%. So the contention that US will lose diversity if country caps are lifted can also be rebutted, though what is the most important consideration is whether demand for skills disproportionately from India are being fairly allocated under the per country limitations. They are not. The purpose of the 1965 Immigration Act was undoubtedly noble, but due to ossified per country limits over the years has led to invidious discrimination against Indians and Chinese, which essentially amounts to national origin discrimination that the 1965 Immigration Act sought to abolish.

The immigration system as it exists today is a mess and the status quo is unacceptable. The bill is not at all perfect, but it at least aims to eliminate the invidious discrimination that has befallen Indians and Chinese in the EB categories. The easy passage of H.R. 1044 in the House in an otherwise political polarized environment, just like its predecessor HR 3012 in 2011,   shows that there is concern about the unfairness and imbalance in the system towards certain countries. Things may work out better than expected if H.R. 1044 became law, though, and the fears of the critics may be exaggerated and overwrought. No published analysis has taken into consideration the “do no harm” and carve out provisions.   We have lived without per country limits in recent times. Prior to Jan 1, 2005, the EB numbers were always current because the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, enacted in 2000, recaptured 130,000 numbers from 1998 and 1999, and the per country limits were postponed under a formula until the demand  outstripped the supply. The lack of per country limits helped, but we also had the additional unused numbers. However, at that time, we also had a surge under the 245(i) program, which we do not have today.  The restrictionist organizations like CIS and FAIR know this, which is why they are opposing the passage of the bill. It is paradoxical that immigration attorneys who oppose this bill are on the same bandwagon as CIS and FAIR without fully well knowing the impact of the bills.

Even if H.R. 1044 imposes waiting times on others who were hitherto not affected in an unfair system while decreasing the wait times for Indians and Chinese, it is consistent with principles of fairness. As noted, there is no credible data as yet that opponents of the bill have cited to support the waiting times that will ensue for others under the bill. Still, we are aware of the atrociously long existing waiting times that the current system imposes on Indians.  It is cruel to let someone languish for 70 years in the backlogs and then for their child to also languish for another 70 years.  Under the current system, all EB-1s are already in waiting lines. Chinese, Vietnamese and Indians are also in waiting lines under EB-5. The EB-4 is currently unavailable for the whole world. The question is whether to kill H.R. 1044, and let Indians continue to languish for the rest of their lives and their children also continue to languish for their lives  too (as it takes 150 years), or let is pass in order to provide relief to while continuing to reform the system with better solutions.  While clearly not perfect, H.R. 1044 ought to be viewed as a down payment for further improvements in the system. H.R. 1044 would have at least gotten rid of the country limits, which over time, inadvertently result in national origin discrimination. There is no moral justification in preserving country per limits as it hinders the ability of employers to hire people with the best skills, regardless of the country they come from.   In the event that  immigrants are made to wait under the new system, who may not only be Indians or Chinese, Congress will realize that the ultimate solution is to increase the overall visa numbers, rather than to maintain fossilized quotas that never change and are oblivious to economic and global realities.

The best solution is to do away with overall visa caps and country caps altogether. Let the market and employers determine who comes to the US based on their skills. The law already sets baseline standards such as a test of the labor market at the prevailing wage, or whether the person can seek an exemption by virtue of being extraordinary or working in the national interest. Quotas are thus superfluous and unnecessary.  Removing all visa caps, on the other hand,  is admittedly politically unrealistic. Then how about increasing the overall visa limits under each EB category, and also have a safety valve where the cap can increase if there is even more demand? If there is no consensus for an overall increase in the 140,000 visas that are allocated each year to employment-based immigrants, Congress may wish to exempt certain people from the numbers such as graduates with STEM degrees and some who qualify under EB-1 or the National Interest Waiver under EB-2, or better still, to not count dependent members separately. Another idea is to allow the filing of I-485 adjustment of status applications even if the priority date is not current. Yet another idea is to grant deferred action and employment authorization to deserving beneficiaries affected by the imbalance in the immigration system.   All of these ideas have been explored in The Tyranny of Priority Dates that was published in 2011 and followed by How President Obama Can Erase Immigrant Visa Backlogs with a Stroke of a Pen in 2012, which provided for ways the administration could bring about reform without going through Congress. Since the publication of these articles, some ideas whether through uncanny coincidence or by accident came into fruition under the prior Obama administration such as the dual chart visa bulletin (that provides for a modest early adjustment filing), employment authorization under compelling circumstances and granting deferred action for certain non-citizens under DACA. In an ideal world, the same sort of deferred action could be given to children of backlogged beneficiaries who may age out.   There is only so much that can be attained through administrative measures, and they are also vulnerable to court challenges as we have seen with DACA and STEM OPT. If Congress steps in to specifically eliminate the counting of depravities and the filing of early I-485 applications, they can result in dramatic relief for those caught in the backlogs.  All this will be preferable to HR 1044, but it has not materialized despite failed attempts over several years. S. 744 and the I Square Act provided for more comprehensive fixes, but they have fallen by the wayside.  So can HR 1044 move ahead for now while there is a chance, while we all relentlessly continue to fight for further fixes please?

 

 

Cyrus Mehta

When is a Visa “Immediately Available” for Filing an Adjustment of Status Application?

/14 Comments/in /by

Central in the Mehta v. DOS lawsuit is whether the administration is authorized to establish a dual date system in the Department of State’s (DOS) Visa Bulletin, which it did for the first time in October 2015. When the DOS first issued the October 2015 Visa Bulletin on September 9, 2015, it established a filing date, which allowed applicants to file for adjustment of status much earlier than the final action date. On September 25, 2015, in a revised October 2015 Visa Bulletin, the administration abruptly moved back some of the filing dates by at least two years, thus depriving thousands from filing I-485 adjustment of status applications on October 1, 2015. A lawsuit was filed challenging this revision in the filing dates, including a motion for a temporary restraining order. The government has filed pleadings in opposition to the TRO, which includes a declaration from Charlie Oppenheim.

INA 245(a)(3) allows for the filing of an I-485 application for adjustment of status when the visa is “immediately available” to the applicant. 8 C.F.R. 245.1(g)(1) links visa availability to the Department of State’s (DOS)  monthly Visa Bulletin. Pursuant to this regulation, an I-485 application can only be submitted “if the preference category applicant has a priority date on the waiting list which is earlier than the date shown in the Bulletin (or the Bulletin shows that numbers for visa applicants in his or her category are current).” The term “immediately available” in INA 245(a)(3) has never been defined, except as in 8 C.F.R. 245.1(g)(1) by “a priority date on the waiting list which is earlier than the date shown in Bulletin” or if the date in the Bulletin is current for that category.

DOS has historically never advanced priority dates based on certitude that a visa would actually be available. There have been many instances when applicants have filed an I-485 application in a particular month, only to later find that the dates have retrogressed. A good example is the April 2012 Visa Bulletin, when the EB-2 cut-off dates for India and China were May 1, 2010. In the very next May 2012 Visa Bulletin  a month later, the EB-2 cut-off dates for India and China retrogressed to August 15, 2007. If the DOS was absolutely certain that applicants born in India and China who filed in April 2012  would receive their green cards, it would not have needed to retrogress dates back to August 15, 2007.  Indeed, those EB-2 applicants who filed their I-485 applications in April 2012 are still waiting and have yet to receive their green cards even as of today! Another example is when the DOS announced that the July 2007 Visa Bulletin for EB-2 and EB-3 would become current. Hundreds of thousands filed during that period (which actually was the extended period from July 17, 2007 to August 17, 2007)  . It was obvious that these applicants would not receive their green cards during that time frame. The DOS  then retrogressed the EB dates substantially the following month, and those who filed under the India EB-3 in July-August 2007 are still waiting today.

These two examples, among many, go to show that “immediately available” in INA 245(a)(3), according to the DOS, have never meant that visas were actually available to be issued to applicants as soon as they filed. Rather, it has always been based on a notion of visa availability at some point of time in the future. The following extract from The Tyranny of Priority Dates, where Gary Endelman (who is now an Immigration Judge and is not participating in this blog)  and I in 2010 proposed the concept of a provisional date for filing I-485 applications  is worth noting:

It can be further argued that 245(a)(3), which requires that the alien have an available visa “at the time his application is filed,” cannot be read literally to preclude the initial filing of an adjustment application when its conditions are not met, as opposed to merely precluding the approval of such application. Otherwise ordinary concurrent filing (such as an I-140 and I-485) even as it exists today would be impermissible, because, as immigration judges periodically point out in the course of denying motions for continuance, someone who does not have an approved visa petition necessarily does not have an available visa number.

As David Isaacson has observed, there are other contexts under existing law in which one cannot simply assume that the date of “application” or date of “filing” referred to in statute or regulation means the date the application papers are filed in the ordinary sense of the word. Rather, such terms sometimes mean something closer to the date of final adjudication. So in In re Ortega-Cabrera, the examination of good moral character for the ten years “immediately preceding the date of the application” under INA § 240A(b)(1)(A) was held to entail examination of good moral character during the ten years immediately preceding the final decision in the case, not the ten years immediately preceding the date the application papers were initially filed as a physical matter. 23 I&N Dec. 793 (BIA 2005). Similarly, in In re Garcia, the Board of Immigration Appeals interpreted a regulation allowing special-rule cancellation for an alien who “has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of [seven] years immediately preceding the date the application was filed,” 8 C.F.R. § 1240.66(b)(2), to be satisfied where “the respondent accrued [seven] years of continuous physical presence prior to the issuance of a final administrative decision for purposes of establishing eligibility for relief.” 24 I&N Dec. 179, 183 (BIA 2007). 

One could thus analogize and alternatively argue that the requirement of INA § 245(a)(3) that the alien have an available visa “at the time his application is filed” actually means that there must be an available visa at the time the application is finally adjudicated. In effect, what we are ultimately saying in both cases is that the official time of “filing” for statutory purposes does not have to correspond to the date when the application papers are physically submitted and ancillary benefits are granted. Although Section 6 of the 1976 Act to Amend the INA, Pub. L. No. 94-571 § 6, 90 Stat. 2703 (1976),substituted the word “filed” for the word “approved” in INA § 245(a)(3), it should not cripple our argument that the statutory moment of “filing” is not necessarily the same thing as the moment the papers are submitted or the moment that ancillary benefits are granted.

The October 2015 Visa Bulletin announced on September 9, 2015 replaced the single priority date with a filing date and a final action date. The final action date is when the beneficiary will be eligible to receive his/her green card, but the new filing date is when the beneficiary will be eligible to file an I-485 application consistent with 8 C.F.R.  245.1(g)(1), and if the beneficiary files an I-485 application, he or she will get the benefits thereof such as an Employment Authorization Document (EAD), advance parole and protection of the beneficiary’s child from aging out under the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA).

Although this appears to be novel, the dual filing dates in the October 2015 Visa Bulletin essentially formalize DOS’ historical practice. Under the filing date, it is now formally acknowledged that visa availability is not defined by when visas can actually be issued to the beneficiary. The October 2015 Visa Bulletin views visa availability more broadly, as has been the DOS’ historic practice,  as “dates for filing visa applications within a time frame justifying immediate action in the application process.” The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announcement relating to the October 2015 Visa Bulletin, available at http://www.uscis.gov/news/uscis-announces-revised-procedures-determining-visa-availability-applicants-waiting-file-adjustment-status, also expansively interprets visa availability as “eligible applicants” who “are able to take one of the final steps in the process of becoming U.S. permanent residents.”  These DOS and USCIS announcements provide more flexibility for the DOS to move the filing dates forward, and possibly make them even current. Although both versions of the October 2015 Visa Bulletin indicate that DOS will consult with the USCIS, this is consistent with  22 C.F.R 42.51(b), which assigns primary responsibility to the DOS in controlling visas, but considering applicants for adjustment of status as reported by officers of the DHS.

Taking this to its logical extreme, visa availability for establishing the filing date may be based on just one visa being saved in the backlogged preference category, such as the India employment-based third preference (EB-3), like the proverbial Thanksgiving turkey. Just like one turkey every Thanksgiving Day is pardoned by the President and not consumed, similarly one visa can also be left intact rather than used by the foreign national beneficiary.   So long as there is one visa kept available, it would provide the legal basis for an I-485 filing through the earlier filing date, and this would be consistent with INA section 245(a)(3) as well as 8 C.F.R  245.1(g)(1). Filing dates could potentially advance and become current. Therefore, there was no legal basis to retrogress the priority dates in the revised October 2015 Visa Bulletin. Rather the government could have advanced them. My declaration in support of plaintiff’s TRO in Mehta v. DOL further elaborates on the Thanksgiving turkey concept to provide a legal basis for the filing dates to move forward rather than backward.  My declaration concludes, as follows:

Even if the government claims that it miscalculated the number of visas actually available regarding the filing date so as to justify moving the filing dates backwards, a filing date under the October 2015 Visa Bulletin can be established without regard to whether visas can actually be issued to an applicant. All that is needed is that a single visa should be potentially available for purposes of establishing the filing date.  Accordingly, the DOS and the USCIS ought to have left intact the filing dates that were announced in the first version of the October 2015 Visa Bulletin.

Accordingly, the new filing date system established in the October 2015 Visa Bulletin allows for the filing of an I-485 application without regard to whether visas can actually be issued. On October 1, 2015, which is the start of the new fiscal year, visas will be made available in each of the preferences as statutorily prescribed, as well as to the countries within each of the preferences. It is acknowledged that there will be more foreign national applicants needing the visas than the visas that will be made available for the fiscal year. However, the filing date ought to be established based on the fact that there is a visa available in the preference category.  Even if the government claims that it miscalculated the number of visas actually available regarding the filing date so as to justify moving the filing dates backwards, a filing date under the October 2015 Visa Bulletin can be established without regard to whether visas can actually be issued to an applicant. All that is needed is that a visa should be potentially available for purposes of establishing the filing date.

If the administration wishes to restore the filing dates in the October 2015 Visa Bulletin that were initially announced on September 9, 2015, and they should, there is a clear legal basis for doing so and it will be consistent with the DOS’s historic interpretation of  “immediately available” under INA 245(a)(3) and 8 C.F.R. 245.1(g)(1). Moreover, since “immediately available” has not been precisely defined and is ambiguous, under Chevron USA Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984), such a view of visa availability would  constitute a permissible interpretation of the statute by the DOS, which is the federal agency that has been charged to primarily administer the control of visa numbers.In its opposition to the lawsuit,  the government has not disavowed the elastic concept of visa availability through the dual date system.   It justifies the revisions in the second October 2015 Visa Bulletin so as to bring the filing date within 8-12 months of the final action date, but does not provide any mathematical calculations, other than the fact that there has been a retrogression in the priority dates between the September and October visa bulletins. However, the notion of visa availability, as viewed by the government, under INA 245(a)(3) is still elastic, whether the applicant is 8-12 months away or 5 years away or 10 years away. It would be one thing if the government argued that its acceptance of I-485s would lead to their immediate approval and grants of green cards, but they instead assert that the revised filing dates move the applicant to within 8-12 months of the final action date. It would be significant if the INA or even a regulation said that visa availability is determined either by the fact that green cards should be immediately issued or should not be more than 8-12 months from being issued, but there is none of that sort of precision in the INA or the 8 CFR.   Accordingly, it is not outside the government’s statutory authority to restore the September 9, 2015 dates or to even bring them to current under the elastic notion of visa availability, which is consistent with “immediately available” under INA 245(a)(3).

The October 2015 Visa Bulletin, according to the Oppenheim Declaration,  imported the concept of qualifying dates for visa processing at consulates into filing dates, which would apply to both consular processing and adjustment of status applications. Prior to the October 2015 Visa Bulletin, qualifying dates for consular processing purposes apart from allowing the applicant to take the necessary steps for becoming documentarily qualified, did not have any legal significance in the sense that the child’s age did not lock in under the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) based on a qualifying date. Moreover, INA 245(a)(3) was only applicable to filing adjustment of status applications within the US, and this provision did not apply to qualifying dates. The October 2015 Visa Bulletin acknowledged the administration’s broader understanding of viewing visa availability so as to allow applicants to file under  INA 245(a)(3), and seek ancillary benefits such as 204(j) portability and also protecting the age of the childunder the CSPA. In effect, the qualifying date was elevated to have the same legal significance as the old priority date. Obviously, the government has not acknowledged this in its papers, but what the October 2015 Visa Bulletin did was legally significant, and the abrupt departure from the initially announced October 2015 Visa Bulletin was arbitrary and capricious causing hardship to thousands of applicants who were set to file I-485 applications,   thus warranting a lawsuit under the Administrative Procedure Act and other grounds.

The whole idea of priority dates is not to prevent immigration but to regulate it. That is not what is happening today. If you are from Mexico or the Philippines, the family-based quotas delay permanent migration to the United States to such an extent that it is virtually blocked. The categories might just as well not exist for most people. If you are from China or India with an advanced degree, the implosion of the employment-based second preference (EB-2) and third Preference (EB-3) categories does not regulate your coming permanently to the United States; it makes it functionally impossible. While the bonds that unite family members can be expected to survive many years of waiting, and even this is painfully excruciating, how many employers will wait a decade for an engineer or geophysicist? Will the business need still exist by the time the priority date becomes current? Will the business itself? In a labor certification case, what relevancy will a determination of unavailability concerning qualified American workers retain after such a long wait? Is it fair to keep the worker tied to a single employer for so long?

In conclusion, the elastic notion of visa availability that has always been practiced, and which has been formalized in the October 2015 Visa Bulletin, is consistent with Congressional intent to not prevent immigration. A broader interpretation of visa availability better serves the purposes of the INA, and it must prevail.

Cyrus Mehta

Godot Has Arrived: Early Adjustment of Status Applications Possible Under the October 2015 Visa Bulletin

/0 Comments/in /by

Gary Endelman and I have advocated for administrative fixes to improve the immigration system since March 2010. In The Tyranny of Priority Dates we proposed that foreign nationals caught in the crushing employment-based (EB) or family-based (FB) backlogs could file an adjustment of status application, Form I-485, based on a broader definition of visa availability. We wrote a follow up blog in August 2014 entitled DO WE REALLY HAVE TO WAIT FOR GODOT?: A LEGAL BASIS FOR EARLY FILING OF AN ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS APPLICATION little realizing that President Obama would announce major executive actions in November 2014. We also forcefully advocated this position in our response to the Visa Modernization proposals in January 2015.

As a background, INA § 245(a)(3) only allows for  the filing of an I-485 adjustment of status application when the visa is “immediately available” to the applicant. It has always been linked to the monthly State Department Visa Bulletin, which announces dates based on actual visa availability. This has resulted in decade long backlogs in some preference categories. Systemic visa retrogress retards economic growth, prevents family unity and frustrates individual ambition all for no obvious national purpose.   We advocated that there may be a different way of determining visa availability that would not be determined by when visas can actually be given, but when there is a possibility of visas becoming available in the near future, or when there is at least one unused visa remaining in the preference category. Under this new interpretation of visa availability, we proposed that there could be two filing dates: the first would be based on unused visas, and the second is when there are actual visas, which would result in a green card for the applicant.

Godot has finally arrived!

The U.S. Department of State, starting in October 2015, has issued a visa bulletin with two “application dates” for beneficiaries of family-based and employment based immigrant petitions.  There is an application final action date when the beneficiary will be eligible to receive his/her green card, but there is also a date for filing visa or adjustment  applications which is when the beneficiary will be eligible to file, and if the beneficiary files an adjustment of status application, he or she will  get the benefits thereof such as an Employment Authorization Document (EAD), advance parole and protection under the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA).

As an example, Indian born applicants with approved I-140 petitions in the EB-2 category whose priority dates are July 1, 2011 or earlier can begin submitting adjustment applications in October 2015 even though they would not get the actual green card until their priority dates are current under the application final action date table, which could be many years yet.  In the meantime they could avail themselves of the benefits of an adjustment application, such as an EAD,  advance parole and protecting the child from aging out under the CSPA.  It bears repeating that only beneficiaries with priority dates of May 1, 2005 in the EB-2 category can actually receive their green card next month.  This new version of the visa bulletin will greatly impact many who have been caught in the crushing backlogs.

Visa availability will no longer be defined by when visas are actually available. The October Visa Bulletin now views it more broadly as “dates for filing visa applications within a time frame justifying immediate action in the application process.” The USCIS similarly views visa availability opaquely as “eligible applicants” who “are able to take one of the final steps in the process of becoming U.S. permanent residents.”  These new interpretations provide more flexibility for the State Department to move the filing date even further, and make it closer to current. The new way of interpreting visa availability makes it possible to file an adjustment of status application, along with all the accompanying benefits,  and to even lock in the age of a child under the CSPA, whether the applicant is in the United States or processing at a US consulate. While I strongly advocate that the same interpretation concerning visa availability that applies to eligibility for adjustment of status should also apply to the CSPA, we need to await further confirmation from the government on CSPA eligibility.

Here are some preliminary observations after brainstorming with some of my esteemed colleagues at the Alliance of Business Immigration Lawyers, www.abil.com, although these are my own views. We must await further guidance from the DOS and USCIS to be sure, but must strongly advocate for these positions:

  • I-485 adjustment applications filed under the new filing priority date will result in the same benefits, which is EAD, Advance Parole, 204(j) portability and CSPA protection.
  • With respect to an “after acquired” spouse, where the principal already has a pending I-485, the spouse can file under the new filing priority date. Ultimately, both the principal and spouse’s I-485 application will get adjudicated when the priority date of the principal become current under the final action priority date.
  • There is no prohibition to filing a concurrent I-140/485 or I-130/485 under the filing priority date.
  • With respect to a priority date that has been captured from an old EB petition, the same rules apply – you have to see whether the captured priority date coincides with the filing priority date or the final action priority date.
  • There may be no need to submit a medical with an I-485 filed under the filing priority date, especially when there is a long interval (years) between the filing and the final action priority date.
  • The new policy applies to both Family I-130 and Employment I-140 petitions.
  • With respect to consular processing of cases, the filing priority date would be equally applicable, especially to lock in the age of a child under CSPA.
  • Do we have to rush to file all our I-485s in October 2015 itself? The jury is not yet out whether the dual priority dates system would cause more backlogs and retrogression; although probably not, since the filing priority date, unlike the 2007 July Visa Bulletin, does not signify that visas are immediately available. We have enough time (around the 10th of the month) to wait and watch as to how the dates will progress in November and after that.

When Gary Endelman (who has since been appointed as an Immigration Judge) and I commented on the Visa Modernization proposals, we questioned whether the government was truly serious about ameliorating some of the problems in the immigration system through administrative reform. The DOS and DHS have lived up to expectations. At the end of the day, immigration policy is both about fairness, as well as how the United States can attract and retain the best and the brightest regardless of nationality who wish to join us in writing the next chapter of our ongoing national story. There are two ways to achieve progress. Congress can change the law, which it persists in refusing to do, or the President can interpret the existing law in new ways, which he has done. Obviously, the innovations in the visa bulletin are still a band-aid. It would be desirable if applicants get their green cards rather than remain perpetual adjustment of status applicants.  For that to change, for sweeping Comprehensive Immigration Reform to become reality, all of us must realize that immigration is not a problem to be controlled but an asset to be maximized.