INA § 101(a)(15)(L), 8 CFR § 214.2(l)

An Intracompany Transferee. . .

The employee must have worked abroad for the foreign company for a continuous period of ONE YEAR in the preceding THREE YEARS.

. . . between qualifying companies. . .

The foreign company for which the employee has worked for at least one year abroad must possess shared ownership with the sponsoring U.S. company in a specific manner recognized by U.S. business laws.

. . . during the entire period of stay in the U.S. . .

Both foreign and U.S. companies must be qualifying organizations that are actively engaged in business during the ENTIRE PERIOD of employee assignment to the U.S.

. . .who was employed abroad in a specialized capacity. . .  

The employee to be transferred must have been employed abroad in an EXECUTIVE or MANAGERIAL position (L-1A) or a position requiring SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE (L-1B).

Continue reading »

Tagged with:
 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appears to be caught in a partisan battle over the Secure Communities program announced by President Obama in August.  The Judiciary Subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives has issued a subpoena to DHS for information regarding illegal immigrants who have been identified but not deported.  Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), Chair of the subcommittee, said the subpoena was necessary to force the Obama Administration to act faster in complying with the original August, 2011 request for the files.  Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is cooperating with the subcommittee, but states the unusual request requires significant analysis.  Smith has said he wants the information so he can determine what crimes were committed by as many as 300,000 undocumented immigrants DHS has chosen not to detain under the Secure Communities program.  Under that program, DHS would prioritize deportations by degree of criminality, ostensibly allowing unauthorized immigrants who are otherwise law-abiding to be given a chance to apply for legal status.  Read the Immigration Subcommittee’s Press Release.

 

Posted November 3, 2011

WELKOM – BIENVENUE – 歓迎 – Добро пожаловать – Υποδοχή – Willkommen – 환영 – BENVENUTO

 

Visas and Status, Generally

Time is an elemental concept of the U.S. immigration system. For foreign visitors, the two words most often preceding an immigration question are “how long. . . ?” This is a pertinent inquiry, as a visa and one’s visa ‘status’ in the United States, although distinct in form, are alike in one important respect: both can expire at any given time based on complex rules intended to govern the foreigner’s actions within the country. Conversely, one may expire while the other remains valid. This layered permission aspect of U.S. immigration can and often does cause confusion and problems.

If you are a foreigner physically present in the United States, it is important to distinguish your status from your visa. The visa in your passport is much like a ticket, or a license, which, if granted (usually by a U.S. consulate or embassy abroad) merely allows you to apply for admission at a U.S. port-of-entry, under assumed qualifications based on your expressed intent in applying for the visa. A visa allows this application at the port-of-entry, but does not guarantee your lawful presence in the United States after entry. Your ability to maintain lawful presence in the United States under a particular visa category (B-2, J-1, H-1B, etc.) is governed after entry by rules related to your actual ‘status.’

If you are in the U.S. temporarily, such as a temporary worker, student, or visitor for business or pleasure, you possess non-immigrant status.  If you are in the U.S. with the intent of eventually obtaining permanent residence, you possess immigrant status.  Status, as such, is the initial focal point for legal analysis related to any foreigner’s current immigration circumstances and goals moving forward.

Continue reading »

Tagged with:
 

Oct. 24, 2011 – A recent legislative proposal by Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Mike Lee (R-UT) has received considerable attention for its originality, if not its audacity.  Under the “Increasing Home Ownership for Priority Visitors” program, foreigners could obtain a three-year visa to allow presence (but not employment) in the U.S. in exchange for purchasing real property valued at $500,000 or greater and residing there a minimum of six months a year.  While this proposal scores points for originality by addressing two pressing issues (immigration reform and the housing crisis), most practitioners will tell you that as-yet-revealed details of this proposal will likely underscore vast weaknesses as a workable visa category.  Would tracks of foreclosed homes become havens for wealthy Saudi or Chinese investors?  How do you verify the six-month residence requirement without adding bureacracy?  If employment authorization is not embedded, why would wealthy foreigners be satisfied at buying a six-month vacation home with a likely negligible ROI?  Could they obtain dual status to work?  Bottom line: Don’t hold your breath, Donald Trumpski.