Detention: What happens to persons who are ordered deported by
the INS, but whose countries refuse to accept them back? Do they
remain locked up at taxpayers' expense forever? Hopefully not.

Hubbing: The INS, Central Region hatched the idea that detaining
removable aliens from Mexico and Central America in Texas and all
other nationalities in Chicago would be the most efficient use of
their resources. Unfortunately, maximum efficiency may sometimes
eliminate minimal fairness.

Far from their families, their witnesses and their lawyers,
persons wishing to seek relief from deportation would be forced
to fight to vindicate their rights with one arm tied behind their
backs. Representative Sheila Lee Jackson, the ranking Democrat
on the House Immigration Subcommittee, stated that "this plan
would separate the detainee from his attorney, effectively
hampering his right to petition the detention". Rep. Luis
Gutierrez (D-Ill) minced no words, proclaiming that "It's almost
like the INS has forgotten they're people and not packages."

The INS, which had scheduled the hubbing plan to start in May,
has postponed the start date indefinitely, and now seems to have
developed some reservations about "hubbing".

Labor Certifications: The Department of Labor stated in a recent
meeting with the American Immigration Lawyers Association that it
plans to reduce the backlog of pending labor certifications at
DOL offices by 50% by July 1999! This backlog reduction would
not, however, affect the processing times at State Employment
Security Agencies.

Naturalization: New INS Software now permits you to download form
N-400, an Application for Naturalization, and complete it online.

Physicians: The Michigan Conrad State 20 Program is currently
accepting applications from employers wishing to sponsor
international medical graduates (IMG's) for J waivers in fiscal
year 2000 starting October 1, 1999.

Visa Lottery: We have learned from Greg Gourley of Seattle,
Washington that the DV-2001 visa lottery will not begin on
October 1, 1999 and end on October 31, 1999, but will start
instead on the first Monday of October (October 4th) and end 31
days later on Wednesday, November 4th. This way, the visa
lottery will not end on a weekend when the offices are closed,
and less applicants will be disqualified for filing late. Of
course, the best advice is to file as early as possible after
October 4. In other lottery news, winners of the DV-2000 visa
lottery are currently being notified by mail.

CONTENTS:

1. June 1999 State Department Visa Bulletin
2. Latest Immigration Service Processing Times
3. Human Resource Managers: How to Fix the H-1B Cap Problem
4. Section 245(i): INS Adopts An "Alien-Based" Approach
5. Immigration Trivia Quiz: Literary Immigrants
6. Health Care Workers: Finally, Relief for Physical Therapists
7. Free Immigration Chat Is Huge Success; Transcript Available
8. Physician's Self-Examination: What is Your Immigration IQ?
9. EOIR Imposes Moratorium on Suspension/Cancellation Approvals
10. Answers to April's Immigration Trivia Quiz
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

1. June 1999 State Department Visa Bulletin

On May 14, 1999, we posted the June 1999 Visa Bulletin, the same
day that the State Department posted the dates on their web site.

For the Family categories, the priority dates moved forward a
little more than usual. Most of the numbers advanced between one
and seven weeks. The 2B category for persons born in Mexico
failed to move at all, but the 3rd and 4th categories for Mexico
moved faster than the Worldwide numbers.

Most of the Employment categories remain "current" (no backlogs).
The unskilled workers category advanced six weeks to November 1,
1992 while the investor (EB-5) category jumped ahead from
September 1, 1998 to "current"!

For persons born in the Peoples Republic of China, the employment
categories moved ahead faster then Dow Jones Industrial Average
this month! The first, second and third categories for China
advanced an incredible ten weeks, fifteen weeks and four weeks,
respectively. For persons born in India, the situation improved,
but only a little. Unless country quotas are eliminated, it is a
virtual certainty that many U.S. companies will lose the services
of needed professional workers. The second and third categories
for Indians each advanced six weeks.

Visa Lottery (June, July and August Numbers)

Section 203(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides
50,000 immigrant visas each fiscal year to permit immigration
opportunities for persons from countries other than the principal
sources of current immigration to the United States. DV visas are
divided among six geographic regions. Not more than 3,500 visas
(7% of the 50,000 visa limit) may be provided to immigrants from
any one country.

For June, immigrant numbers in the DV category are available to
qualified DV-99 applicants chargeable to all regions/eligible
countries as follows: AFRICA (33,500), ASIA (10,000), EUROPE
(20,460, except Albania: 16,290); NORTH AMERICA (Bahamas: 24);
OCEANIA (950); SOUTH AMERICA, CENTRAL AMERICA and the CARIBBEAN
(2,600).

For July, immigrant numbers in the DV category are available to
qualified DV-99 applicants chargeable to all regions/eligible
countries as follows: AFRICA (38,180), ASIA (11,970), EUROPE
(22,340, except Albania: 18,900); NORTH AMERICA (Bahamas: 24);
OCEANIA (1,012); SOUTH AMERICA, CENTRAL AMERICA and the CARIBBEAN
(2,850).

For August, immigrant numbers in the DV category are available to
qualified DV-99 applicants chargeable to all regions/eligible
countries as follows: AFRICA (Current), ASIA (Current), EUROPE
(25,100); NORTH AMERICA (Bahamas: 24); OCEANIA (Current); SOUTH
AMERICA, CENTRAL AMERICA and the CARIBBEAN (3,071).

FAMILY CATEGORIES

Worldwide China India Mexico Philippines

1st 01JAN98 01JAN98 01JAN98 01AUG93 01AUG87

2A 01NOV94 01NOV94 01NOV94 01OCT93 01NOV94

2B 15JUN92 15JUN92 15JUN92 22JUL91 15JUN92

3rd 22JUL95 22JUL95 22JUL95 01OCT90 08JUN87

4th 08JUL88 08JUL88 01AUG86 08MAR88 08DEC78

EMPLOYMENT CATEGORIES

Worldwide China India Mexico Philippines

1st Current 15APR98 Current Current Current

2nd Current 01FEB97 22NOV97 Current Current

3rd Current 15APR95 01APR96 Current Current

Unskilled Workers

15SEP92 15SEP92 15SEP92 15SEP92 15SEP92

4th Current Current Current Current Current

5th Current 01SEP98 Current Current Current

2. Latest Immigration Service Processing Times

Most immigration applications and petitions must be submitted to
one of the following INS Regional Service Centers: (1) Laguna
Niguel, California; (2) Lincoln, Nebraska; (3) Mesquite, Texas;
and (4) St. Albans, Vermont.

Each list contains the waiting times of each center and
enumerates each state served by the center and any foreign
offices within the center's jurisdiction.

The service centers periodically issue lists of their processing
times for various types of applications. Our web page contains
the latest list issued by each service center.

Warning: Processing times may appear faster on the official lists
than they are in reality.

3. Human Resource Managers: How to Fix the H-1B Cap Problem

The H-1B cap will, no doubt, be reached before the end of May.
Because of the huge backlogs at the INS's California Service
Center, the other three service centers have been ordered to stop
approving new H-1B petitions. Congress, having raised the H-1B
numerical cap in October 1998, is in no mood to address the issue
in the current session. What is to be done?

The following is the best idea that I have seen so far for
dealing with the H-1B cap problem. It provides needed relief
for employers without requiring Congress to raise the numerical
cap. The author is not an attorney, but her innovative approach
to this problem has taught this attorney a thing or two.

************************************************************

Dear Colleagues,

I have an idea about the H-1B cap problem: to ask Congress to
exempt from the cap employers who are institutions of higher
education or related or affiliated nonprofit entities, and
nonprofit or governmental research organizations.

This class of employers was introduced by the "American
Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998" in section
415, by adding INA section 212(p)(1)(A) and (B). See
http://www.shusterman.com/hr3736f.html for reference to ACWIA.
See also http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/law/inserts.html for
reference to the Immigration and Nationality Act; this version
does not yet include the ACWIA changes.

ACWIA accorded this class of employers three benefits. In INA
section 212(p)(1), this class of employers is permitted to use
prevailing wage levels taking into account only similar employers
(giving us a "Hathaway fix" in the INA). Second, this class is
excluded from the $500 fee imposed on H-1B employers in INA
section 214(c)(9)(A) [ACWIA section 414]. Third, this class is
granted authorization to pay academic honoraria to holders of B
status under certain circumstances, in the new INA section 212(q)
[ACWIA section 431].

In creating this class of employers, Congress recognized that the
American people benefit differently from the employment of H-1B
holders by universities and nonprofit research institutes than
they do from private sector employment. Exemption from the H-1B
cap would be a further recognition of the great benefit to the
U.S. of such employment, and also the great harm of the
prevention and disruption of employment caused by the application
of the H-1B cap.

ACWIA section 411 provided for increasing the cap by amending INA
section 214(g). To exempt 212(p)(1) employers from the H-1B cap,
INA could be changed something like this:
________

Exemption from Limitation on Numbers of Skilled Nonimmigrant
Workers.--

Paragraph (1)(A) of section 214(g) of INA is amended by adding at
the end the following:

(5) Aliens who are beneficiaries of petitions filed by
institutions or organizations described in section 212(p)(1) are
not subject to the numerical limitations of paragraph (1).
________

8 CFR could be changed something like this (additions between
asterisks **).

(See http://www.shusterman.com/h1bfees.html for the recent
interim regulations.)
________

Section 214.2 is amended by revising paragraph (h)(8)(I)(A) to
read as follows:

Sec. 214.2. Special requirements for admission, extension, and
maintenance of status.

*****
(h) * * *
(8) * * *
(I) * * *

(A) Aliens classified as H-1B nonimmigrants, excluding those
involved in Department of Defense research and development
projects or coproduction projects, *and those who are
beneficiaries of petitions filed by institutions or organizations
described in section 212(p)(1),* may not exceed:

(1) 115,000 in fiscal year 1999;
(2) 115,000 in fiscal year 2000;
(3) 107,500 in fiscal year 2001; and
(4) 65,000 in each succeeding fiscal year.
________

Recently (a colleague) wrote a piece giving reasons for advocacy
for a new visa category for researchers and professors. He
stated, "It is now clear that we will hit the cap this year --
possibly as early as May. In subsequent years, universities and
nonprofit research-institutions will lose the H-1B as an
effective visa. . . . The current cap levels were determined
through difficult political negotiation with Congress and the
levels were not based on any evaluation of expected program
usage. It is highly unlikely that Congress will revisit these
levels before FY01 -- the last year of the temporary increase in
numbers of new H-1B visas."

Creating a new visa category is an excellent idea which has been
advocated in various forms for some years. However it will
require negotiations among institutions, associations, labor
unions, and government legislators. Realistically, it cannot
provide relief this year.

ACWIA section 416 authorizes an improved count of H-1B holders,
including a report of the number of those "provided nonimmigrant
status pursuant to petitions filed by institutions or
organizations described in section 212(p)(1)." Simple numerical
counts are supposed to be submitted quarterly, beginning at the
latest on 12/1/98 (I haven't seen the first report if it was
issued.) A more elaborate report on countries of origin,
educational levels, and compensation will be required on those
who acquired H-1B status "60 days or more after the date on which
final regulations are issued on section 412", the recruitment and
no-layoff attestation provisions. As we know from past history,
final regulations can take many years, so this more elaborate
report will not be issued any time soon.

We can't wait to get some relief from our problems. It is
difficult to convey to those who don't have direct experience the
extreme difficulties faced by universities because of the H-1B
cap. Professors and researchers who play critical roles in
research programs must postpone their initial employment, or
leave their ongoing employment, for many months. In the spring
of this year, at the very time that job offers are being made to
prospective faculty members, the H-1B category is not available
to authorize their employment by the time classes start in
September. Many of our prospective H-1B holders are involved in
crucial medical research. The fact that funding for the majority
of research programs comes from government agencies such as the
National Institutes of Health clearly shows that the research
goals are in the national interest.

We in the international offices are handling scores of individual
cases affected by the cap, each one important in its own
department. At UCLA I estimate that 60 to 80 current and
prospective employees will be affected this year. A certain
number qualify for O-1 status, but this is very costly for
universities as the cases are referred to private attorneys for
preparation of the petitions. In this office we don't have the
resources to prepare O-1 petitions, and I assume that's true for
most international offices.

I don't have time to do much advocacy. I hope that others can
use these ideas, or any modification of them, to bring the relief
that we need in the universities.

Sylvia Ottemoeller, Immigration Counselor, UCLA

4. Section 245(i): INS Adopts An "Alien-Based" Approach

Section 245 of the immigration law allows certain aliens to
adjust their status in the U.S. provided that, among other
things, they have been admitted or paroled into the country and
have not engaged in unauthorized employment. "Immediate
relatives" of U.S. citizens may adjust their status despite their
having engaged in unauthorized employment.

Prior to October 1, 1994, aliens who did not meet these
requirements were generally ineligible to adjust status, and had
to apply for immigrant visas abroad. Often, they were separated
from their families and jobs for weeks or even months. Mortgage
and tuition payments were missed, and the only beneficiaries of
the system were foreign airlines and hotels.

To remedy this situation, Congress wrote section 245(i) into the
law in 1994. Section 245(i) provided that such aliens who
qualified for permanent residence in the U.S. could adjust status
upon payment of a fine to the INS. The amount of the fine was
originally $650 per individual, and was raised to $1,000 by the
1996 immigration law.

Section 245(i) was enacted for a three-year period ending on
September 30, 1997. In 1997, rather than renew section 245(i) to
prevent family separation and to continue to raise hundreds of
millions of dollars for the INS, Congress discontinued section
245(i) as of January 14, 1998. However, Congress decided that
persons who were eligible for adjustment of status under section
245(i) on or before that date would not lose their eligibility to
adjust their status in the U.S. Their section 245(i) status was
"grandfathered" because their priority date was before the cut-
off date for section 245(i).

This section of the 1997 law raised many thorny legal questions.
Chief among these was whether section 245(i) status was attached
(1)to a particular petition/application filed on or before
January 14, 1998 or (2) to the alien on whose behalf the petition
or application was submitted.

For example, if an overstayed alien's U.S. citizen brother
submitted a visa petition on his behalf in 1995 and, in 1999, he
won the diversity visa lottery, could he adjust status under
section 245(i) or does the law require him to wait until his
priority date under his brother's petition becomes "current"
years from now?

The INS, in a memorandum dated April 14, 1999, adopts an "alien-
based approach" to section 245(i). In the example cited above,
the alien himself is grandfathered under section 245(i) because
of his brother's petition submitted before 1999, and therefore,
may adjust status under the visa lottery.

The memorandum applies section 245(i) grandfathering to aliens
whose pre-January 15, 1998 applications/petitions have been
"denied, revoked or withdrawn" as long as the original
application/petition was "approvable when filed".

Of course, when an application/petition is denied, revoked or
withdrawn, there may be considerable disagreement as to whether
it was approvable when filed.

The memo instructs that where the application/petition was
denied, revoked or withdrawn because of a change of circumstances
(e.g., where an employer goes out of business, the alien's
petitioner dies, or a derivative child "ages out"), the filing is
"likely" to have been approvable when filed.

Alternately, when a petition was denied because it was submitted
without a fee, because it was fraudulent or because it had no
basis in fact, it can not be used to grandfather an alien under
section 245(i).

The memo recognizes that further guidance is necessary. It
promises that the INS will do so in the case of employment-based
petitions.

May a grandfathered alien whose priority date is not yet current
be deported by the INS? Although this is not expressly
prohibited, the following language in the memo is meant to
discourage INS enforcement personnel against pursuing such a
course of action under normal circumstances:

Once the Service encounters an alien who is
the beneficiary of a grandfathering immigrant
visa petition or application for labor
certification, the fact that the alien is
such a beneficiary is not a bar to the
commencement of removal proceedings. The
fact that the alien is the beneficiary of a
grandfathering petition which may ultimately
allow him or her to seek adjustment of status
is, however, an important factor to be
considered in determining whether Service
resources are best utilized by commencing
proceedings against that particular alien.

6. Health Care Workers: Finally, Relief for Physical Therapists

More than two years after the enactment of the 1996 immigration
law, the INS issued regulations, on October 14, 1998, detailing
how registered nurses (RN's) and occupational therapists (OT's)
could qualify for green cards. It remains uncertain whether the
government has granted permanent residence to any RN or OT under
these regulations.

More recently, on April 30, 1999, the INS issued regulations
which, as of June 29, 1999, will permit physical therapists
(PT's) to qualify for green cards.

The interim regulations designate two organizations to certify
that the education, training and licensure of foreign-born PT's
are equivalent, under section 343 of the 1996 immigration law, to
those of U.S. physical therapists.

These two organizations are:

A. CGFNS (Commission on Graduates of Foreign Nursing Schools)

The regulation grants the CGFNS authority to certify occupational
and physical therapists on a temporary basis only. The
regulations do not explain, however, when this temporary
authority expires.

and again under "Registered Nurses" on "The Commission on
Graduates of Foreign Nursing Schools (CGFNS)" or by either snail
mail, phone (Good Luck!) or e-mail at

CGFNS
3600 Market Street, Suite 400
Philadelphia, PA 19104-2651
Telephone: (215) 222-8454
E-mail: info@cgfns.org

B. FCCPT (Foreign Credentialing Commission on Physical Therapy)

The FCCPT may be contacted at

FCCPT
P.O. Box 25827
Alexandria, VA 22313-9998
Telephone: (703) 684-8406
Facsimile: (703) 684-8715

In addition to the credentials evaluation, most PT's are subject
to an English examination.

The only organization designated to test PT's for English
proficiency is the Educational Testing Service (ETS).

Passing scores for the English examinations are the same for
physical therapists as for occupational therapists: Test of
English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL): Paper-Based 560,
Computer-Based 220; Test of Written English (TWE): 4.5; Test of
Spoken English (TSE): 50.

The regulation is silent concerning the remaining four health
care occupations covered by section 343: (1) Speech language
pathologists, (2) Medical technologists; (3) Medical Technicians
and (4) Physician's Assistants. Foreign-born workers in these
fields have been laboring in the U.S. for almost three years,
sometimes more, without the opportunity to obtain green cards or
change jobs. Once their children become 21 years of age, they
are no longer able to obtain permanent residency along with their
parents. Yet these professionals continue to work, pay taxes and
wait for the INS to issue regulations. Does anyone really care
about their plight?