DHS is proposing to increase USCIS filing fees by a weighted average of 21%. USCIS receives congressionally appropriated funds, but they are insufficient to cover the costs of its operations. Most applications that you file with USCIS require a filing fee that must be paid in whole. For example, if you are filing an employment-based petition for an employee, you are subject to a $325 filing fee. An application for citizenship bears a $680 filing fee currently. Premium processing, which is available for select employment-based petitions, is currently $1,225.

DHS is publishing a proposed a rule and is soliciting comments about the proposed adjusted fees. If you are going to be affected by these price increases, you can follow the links to explain why or why not you agree with the proposed changes. As per the rules, DHS is required to consider each comment before it publishes its final rule.

Here are some reasons pulled out of the proposed rule for why DHS needs this increase in filing fees:

USCIS completed a biennial fee review for FY 2016/2017 in 2015. The results indicate that current fee levels are insufficient to recover the full cost of activities funded by the IEFA. USCIS calculates its fees to recover the full cost of USCIS operations, which do not include the limited appropriated funds provided by Congress. USCIS anticipates if it continues to operate at current fee levels, it will experience an average annual shortfall of $560 million between IEFA revenues and costs. This projected shortfall poses a risk of degrading USCIS operations funded by IEFA revenue. The proposed rule would eliminate this risk by ensuring full cost recovery. DHS proposes to adjust fees by a weighted average increase of 21 percent. The weighted average increase is the percentage difference between the current and proposed fees by immigration benefit type.

In addition to ensuring that fees for each specific benefit type are adequate to cover the USCIS costs associated with administering the benefit, the weighted average increase of 21 percent also accounts for USCIS costs for services that are not directly fee funded. For instance, DHS proposes certain changes to how USCIS funds the costs for fee-exempt benefit types through IEFA fee collections received from other fee-paying individuals seeking immigration benefits.6 DHS also proposes to fund the costs of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program (to the extent not recovered from users),7 and the Office of Citizenship8 through the use of fees. The proposed fee schedule also accounts for increased costs to administer refugee processing. Revenues under the proposed rule would accommodate an anticipated increase in the refugee admissions ceiling to 100,000 for FY 2017. This is an increase of 30,000, or 43 percent, over the FY 2015 refugee admissions ceiling.

The post USCIS to Increase Filing Fees appeared first on Wood Immigration Law.

Friday April 7 is the National Day of Action for immigration. Immigration lawyers, activists, advocates, and immigrants descend upon Washington DC and Capitol Hill to vocalize their concerns with the immigration system. Last year’s Day of Action occurred on May 19, which was the day that President Obama’s Executive Actions – DAPA and new DACA – were supposed to begin. They have not yet taken effect. A federal judge in Texas struck them down for abrogating the Administrative Procedures Act and the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld that decision. The Supreme Court is expected to make its decision in June of this year.

The National Day of Action is not limited to one piece of the immigration system. Advocates will be championing other aspects of immigration reform, such as changing the H-1B cap, increasing entrepreneurial opportunities, and giving migrants fleeing persecution access to counsel and a chance to have their cases heard.

The main motivation of the National Day of Action is to exhort members of Congress to understand facts about immigration, how it benefits the United States, and demonstrate that immigration reform is desired by the country at large. A booklet distributed by the American Immigration Lawyers Association highlights important facts about immigration in the United States.

Immigrants have created businesses and generated business income in their states. California, Texas, Florida, and Ohio are four states in which a combined 1.3 million immigrants started businesses and generated over 58 million dollars in business income. Immigrant-owned small businesses employ 4.7 million people. Legalization of undocumented immigrants would have a significant impact on the tax revenue, to which undocumented migrants contribute to (state and local taxes) already.

The National Day of Action urges reform in all aspects of immigration: humanitarian, family, and business. Immigration reform has been oft-discussed but not enacted. AILA is touting the election year as an impetus to change.

The post National Day of Action appeared first on Wood Immigration Law.

Many applications that we are filing have a receipt number that begins with the letter string – YSC. Whenever you file an application with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, you are issued a Receipt Notice with a case-specific receipt number.

If you are trying to track your case number if it begins with YSC, you will encounter an error. Just like with asylum applications, YSC is not available for case status tracking. YSC represents the Potomac Service Center, located in Arlington, Virginia. It was actually opened to process the expected avalanche of DACA and DAPA applications from the president’s executive orders, but as those are tied up in legal battles, the Service Center has been handling some family-based applications. There is no case status tracking feature available and no processing times available.

The post What Is YSC? appeared first on Wood Immigration Law.

Check this link for USCIS processing times of applications as of December 31, 2015

Check your receipt letters. The first three letters dictate where your application is. LIN = Nebraska. SRC = Texas. NBC = National Benefits Center. WAC = California. EAC = Vermont.

Of Note

O and P visas at Vermont are taking 2 months instead of 2 weeks. They are taking 2 weeks at California.

Asylum work authorization applications are taking 4 months at Vermont

Most work authorization applications are taking 3 months at Vermont

H-1B extensions and changes of status are taking over 6 months Vermont and California

I-140s at Nebraska are taking 4 months or more.

The post USCIS Processing Times appeared first on Wood Immigration Law.

USCIS has released its most recent processing times for all of the kinds of cases it adjudicates. The data are broken down by the specific Service Center. For example, E-2 visa applications are adjudicated by the California Service Center. The processing time listed is two months. Both the Vermont and California Service Centers adjudicate O and P visa petitions. The California Service Center is adjudicating these petitions in two weeks, which is their stated goal. Vermont Service Center is taking over two months. Of note are that the Vermont Service Center is working on U Visa applications filed in May of 2014. It seems that most Employment Authorization applications are on track to be adjudicated within the regulatory mandated 90 days.

Premium Processing is available for the following kinds of cases. Premium processing requires a $1,225 fee. In exchange, the Service Center will render a decision within 15 days and communicate by email for faster correspondence.

The post USCIS Processing Times appeared first on Wood Immigration Law.

The past week of the Visa Bulletin has been a whirlwind. Thousands of individuals waiting in line to file for their Permanent Residence thought they had finally become eligible to file through a modernized October Visa Bulletin that the State Department released on September 9. Instead on September 25, the State Department issued a revised Bulletin that undid the changes of the original Bulletin. The consequence is that thousands of individuals, especially those in the EB-2 category with Chinese and Indian chargeability, are no longer allowed to file for Green Cards this month. Thousands of individuals with approved PERM cases and Permanent Residence eligibility are in no man’s land and uncertain as to when they will be able to file.

The rolled back filing dates on the September 25 Visa Bulletin look like this:

EB-2 China – 1/1/2013 – rolled back 17 months

EB-2 India – 7/1/2009 – rolled back 2 years

EB-3 Philippines – 1/1/2010 – rolled back 5 years

FB-1 Mexico – 4/1/1995 – rolled back 3 months

FB-3 Mexico – rolled back 17 months

The modernization of the Visa Bulletin was to include filing date eligibility alongside priority dates. Previous visa bulletins only showed the priority dates. The priority and filing dates are calculated by the available allotment of Green Cards, as there are percentage restrictions for each category (for example, 28.7% of employment-based Green Cards come from EB-1). In November 2014, President Obama announced that he and his administration were taking executive action to modernize the visa system. The Visa Bulletin released on September 9 was supposed to represent the modernized visa system.

Private attorneys have filed a class action lawsuit (Mehta v. DOS) in the Western District of Washington to prevent the filing dates from the revised Bulletin from superseding the original Bulletin’s dates. It essentially seeks to reinstate the filing dates from the original October Visa Bulletin. They have filed the complaint and appeared in court to request a Temporary Restraining Order on the revised Bulletin. A decision is expected today. Representatives Zoe Lofgren and Mike Honda represent the San Jose and Silicon Valley districts and have released press statements against the revision, encouraging the Department of State “to provide discretionary relief to those affected.” They also applaud the efforts of the class action suit.

For now, the thousands of individuals who thought they were finally eligible to file for their Green Cards will have to continue their waiting.

The post October Visa Bulletin appeared first on Wood Immigration Law.

Immigration as an overarching broad issue has become a centerpiece of presidential candidates vying for their parties’ nominations. Different immigration plans and statements have been bandied about over the past few months. The focus on immigration seems to be well warranted, not only from a policy-based perspective, but also from a practical voter-based perspective. After all, an election is about convincing the most number of voters to vote for you, both in the primary and in the general election.

New polling information conducted by Gallup indicates that focusing on immigration is crucial for garnering votes. The polling information shows that 20% of US voters will ONLY vote for a candidate who shares their views on immigration. Another 60% of US voters have indicated that immigration as a general topic will be one of their important considerations in deciding on a candidate.

The groups of voters who consider immigration higher among their concerns are Republican registered voters, first- or second-generation immigrants, and Hispanics. Immigration as an electoral concern can mean a million different things. It can encompass H-1B visas, increasing employment immigration, ensuring more border security, integrating immigrants into the United States, etc. One manifestation of immigration this primary election cycle has been the issue of birthright citizenship. The United States is exceptional in providing birthright citizenship through the 14^th Amendment (being born in the United States confers United States citizenship, regardless of who the parents are). The elimination of birthright citizenship as a way of dealing with undocumented migrants has received more attention than usual.

These kinds of polls are a mainstay in electoral politics and similar polls will likely be released weekly in the lead up to the primaries early next year and into the general election. The nation’s pulse is on immigration in way that could affect the election. Whether that leads to actual legislative or policy changes remains to be seen. Immigration has been an important issue in the 2004, 2008, and 2012 general elections, but the DREAM Act has remained a legislative proposal and nothing more since 2001.

The post Immigration Polling appeared first on Wood Immigration Law.