Priority Dates and Revised Procedures
What Is A Priority Date?
A priority date is the date an application is initially filed in the green card process. For a person filing under an employment based green card, this is the date the PERM Labor Certification is filed with the Department of Labor (DOL). For persons filing an employment based green card under a category exempt from Labor Certification, this date is established when the I-140 petition is filed. For family based cases, this is the date the I-130 is filed. The US Department of State (DOS) issues a monthly Visa Bulletin which lists the priority dates for each category.
For employment based cases, a foreign national's application is classified into one of five categories. These categories are described in more detail on the Clark Hill website, and include:
- EB-1 Extraordinary Ability, Outstanding Researchers and Professors, and Intracompany Managers and Executives.
- EB-2 National Interest Petitions; PERM Labor Certifications where the position requires a Master Degree or a Bachelor Degree and 5 years of experience (not just that the applicant has the qualifications); and persons of Exceptional Ability.
- EB-3 All other PERM Labor Certification cases.
- EB-4 Religious workers;
- EB-5 Persons who own a business, have invested the required capital, and create US jobs.
Why Does A Priority Date Matter?
All green card applications (excluding applications for spouses, children and parents of US citizens) are numerically limited. In the family based category for example, priority dates matter when a US green card holder marries a foreign national and applies for a green card for him/her (this scenario does not apply to persons who are married before they receive a green card). Waiting times for that classification, called family based 2A (FB-2A), can be over 3 years.
In all green card applications, a priority date must be “current” or available in order to file for the final stage of the green card process, usually through a process called Adjustment of Status (AOS). The process for whether a priority date is current for the purposes of filing for AOS has recently changed, as described below. An application for AOS allows interim US work and international travel authorization, and accordingly, the timing and ability to file for this final step are important. If an AOS application had been filed while the priority date is current, then the case can remain pending, and work and travel authorization extensions can be filed. An alternate method is through an interview at a US Consulate outside the US. However, in either process, the green card cannot be approved until the priority date is current.
With the exception of EB-4 and EB-5 cases, the higher a person is in the employment based category, the more likely there will be a visa available. Accordingly, EB-1 cases receive the most visas and any unused numbers are then available for EB-2 cases. EB-2 cases have fewer numbers, with unused numbers available for EB-3 cases. In short, imagine a long waiting line – the closer you are to the front of the line (EB-1), the less likely you will experience delays in securing a green card. However, if there are visas available, EB-1, EB-2 and EB-3 cases are generally processed at the same speed by the government agencies.
How Do I Know If My Priority Date Is Current Under the New Procedures?
The DOS and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) have announced revised procedures for individuals waiting to file for AOS. Beginning in October 2015, two charts per visa preference category will be posted in the monthly DOS Visa Bulletin:
- Application Final Action Dates (dates when visas may finally be issued); and
- Dates for Filing Applications (earliest dates when applicants may be able to apply).
The dates for filing applications should allow for individuals to file AOS applications sooner, and those individuals’ AOS applications will remain pending until their priority date becomes current on the Application Final Action Date chart, at which point processing will continue and green cards should be issued.
Where Do I Fall on the Priority Charts?
Most foreign nationals fall under the worldwide limit. A few countries (India, Peoples Republic of China, Mexico and the Philippines) are listed separately and are not part of the worldwide limit due to each country's higher than normal applications for US green cards. The date shown on the Visa Bulletin charts must be: (A) current (as indicated by a "C" in the box) for the EB category, or (B) show a date that is the same or older than the foreign national's priority date, before the final stage of green card process can begin.
For example: if a Canadian citizen's EB-3 Labor Certification was filed April 1, 2014, and the priority date is now March 1, 2014 on the Dates for Filing Applications Chart, then he/she cannot file for AOS at this time; a citizen of India, with an EB-2 priority date of May 1, 2011, can apply for AOS now that the Date for Filing Applications Chart lists a date of July 1, 2011. However, if Application Final Action Dates Chart lists a priority date of April 1, 1995, the individual’s AOS application will remain pending until their priority date is current for the Application Final Action Chart. These are just examples, as these dates fluctuate often.
Which Country Do I Watch?
Priority dates depend not only on the preference category, but the country in which the foreign national was born. Due to the large usage of green card numbers, the priority dates applicants from listed countries are behind those for the rest of the world. Green card applicants are "charged" to the country of their birth when a visa is used - not the country of citizenship. However, it is possible to "cross-charge" to a spouse's country of birth. For example, a person born in India who is married to a person born in Canada can cross-charge to Canada for the priority date, rather than India. This can save time, when available.
This is defined as "the act or process of deteriorating or declining." We have seen a significant retrogression, or decline, in visa availability at various times.
Why Does Retrogression Occur?
There are more green cards desired than the US has available. This shortage of numbers, along with several outside factors, can produce longer processing times. The only solution is for Congress to pass legislation that would provide additional immigrant visas.
How Does This Impact Me?
For Human Resources professionals this may mean further delays in green card processing for foreign national employees when a priority date is not current. This can also lead to increased costs for immigration processing, and in the worst case scenario, may mean that a foreign national is not eligible to continue working in the US. For foreign nationals going through the process, delays are never good. Delays may hold up the ability of a spouse to work in the US, delay international trips, lead to a loss of US status, and/or only add to anxiety.
Retrogression And H-1B Extensions
H-1B visas are generally renewable for up to six years. In light of the delays in the immigrant visa process, there are two avenues to extend H-1B status past the sixth year. The H-1B may be extended for one year at a time, indefinitely, if the PERM Labor Certification or alien worker petition (I-140) has been pending for 365 days or more. H-1Bs can be extended three years at a time, beyond the six year limit, if the second stage (I-140 Immigrant Worker Petition) of the green card process has been approved, but the priority date is not current. These same status extension options do not apply to L-1 or other visa holders. For more on these temporary visa categories, see the Clark Hill website.
In 2000, N.M. and her family, permanent residents of the United States, were victims of a terrifying human trafficking scheme in India, in which N.M.’s children were held hostage at gunpoint for three days while N.M. and her husband were forced to bring three teenagers to the U.S. and to pass them off as their own children. Many years later, through a combination of poor counsel and miscommunication with U.S. immigration authorities, N.M. was forced to surrender her permanent residence, and was subject to a 20-year bar from returning to the United States.
Today, N.M.’s son is a physician and a U.S. citizen. N.M. requires a lung transplant that she cannot obtain in India. Jennifer Cook, Lindsey Medina, and Thomas Ragland successfully argued that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security should approve N.M.’s application for Humanitarian Parole, which permits otherwise “inadmissible” foreign nationals to enter the U.S. for compelling humanitarian reasons. Last week, shortly after obtaining this very difficult to receive approval, N.M. flew to the U.S. and is currently preparing for her lung transplant surgery and recovery under the care of her son and extended family.
Following a denial of a request for an H-2A farm labor visa application, and denial of an administrative appeal, Maria Dwyer, Thomas Ragland and Patrick Taurel initiated a federal lawsuit seeking to enjoin the Department of Labor (DOL) from refusing to acknowledge the different farming operations of two large farming client companies. The two companies have nearly 100 acres of greenhouse crops which faced devastation without the benefit of the foreign farm labor program. The DOL took the position that because the two companies shared one parent, they were not separate companies (even though the companies submitted evidence supporting their distinct operations) and their combined hot house growing operations disqualified them from the program because they were not “seasonal.” After several months of litigation, the DOL agreed to a settlement which includes separate H-2A certifications for each company, time to align the growing seasons, allows for a 10 month growing season for each entity, and more workers than originally requested. Most importantly, the DOL will hand-hold the clients’ filings through 2018 to ensure compliance with the agreement.
Represented employers before Homeland Security Investigations and the Department of Justice Office of Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) on employment eligibility and verification (Form I-9) compliance matters, including complaints and administrative hearings before OCAHO.
Represented individuals and employers before USCIS in employment-based and immigrant investor petitions, including H, L, O, TN, E2, EB1, EB2, PERM, Schedule A I-140 Petitions, and J1 Waivers before the U.S. Department of State, and in related responses to requests for evidence, notices of intent to deny or revoke petitions, and Department of Labor audits.
Represented individuals in immigration proceedings before USCIS and in immigration courts, including family-based petitions, 601A provisional waiver applications, naturalization, affirmative and defensive asylum, VAWA protection, U visas, T visas, cancellation of removal, and in related responses to requests for evidence, and notices of intent to deny or revoke petitions.
Represented individuals and employers in federal courts (including U.S. District Court, U.S. Courts of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court) on appeal, and in Mandamus and Administrative Procedure Act Complaints regarding agency denials and delays of applications and petitions, including adjustment of status, naturalization, and employment-based visa petitions.
Last October, Thomas Ragland and Patrick Taurel filed a mandamus complaint in US District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of a client, asking the court to compel U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to adjudicate the client’s Form I-526 EB-5 immigrant investor petition without further delay. The petition had been pending for over 25 months at that point, without explanation. In response to the lawsuit, the client received a surprise site visit by officers from the USCIS Beijing office, who requested that he produce extensive financial and other documentation within 3 days’ time. Thomas and Patrick worked out an agreement with the Assistant U.S. Attorney who was assigned to the case for additional time to respond to the Request for Evidence (RFE) in exchange for consent to an extension of the government’s response deadline. The client timely filed an extensive response to the RFE. In response, USCIS issued a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) and gave the client 33 days to respond. The client filed a timely NOID response, and the AUSA then requested another 60 days for the agency to make a decision. Thomas and Patrick objected, and the court agreed and granted only a 30-day extension. Finally, two days before the government’s deadline to respond to the mandamus complaint, the AUSA contacted Thomas and Patrick with the happy news that USCIS has approved the client’s I-526 petition. A successful outcome to the litigation and a very happy client.
Independent Hospitalist Physicians PLLC v. Rodriguez, No. 14-cv-1978 (D.D.C. Dec. 7, 2014) – APA complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction challenging denial of H-1B visa for foreign physician who was granted a 212(e) waiver to work in medically underserved area. Two weeks after filing lawsuit, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) reopened case, reversed its prior decision, and granted H-1B visa.
Malilia v. Holder, 632 F.3d 598 (9th Cir. 2011) – Held: Immigration Judge abused his discretion by denying noncitizen’s request for a continuance based on pending I-130 visa petition filed by his U.S. citizen wife. Remanded to Immigration Court to allow client to apply for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident, based on approved I-130 petition and despite federal firearms conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(e).
Shrestha v. Holder, No. 10-73627 (9th Cir. Oct. 21, 2011) (with Maxine Bayley) – Court ordered case remanded to Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to provide client an opportunity to challenge prior asylum denial on the merits and for entry of a new decision. BIA had erroneously dismissed client’s appeal as untimely, incorrectly holding that it lacked jurisdiction to review late-filed appeal. Successful challenge to Matter of Liadov, 23 I&N Dec. 990 (BIA 2006).
Waheed v. Holder, No. 11-1095 (4th Cir.) (argued Sept. 21, 2011) – Whether noncitizen’s Maryland conviction for simple misdemeanor assault qualifies as a “crime involving moral turpitude” under Step Three of Matter of Silva-Trevino, 24 I&N Dec. 687 (A.G. 2008). Companion case to Prudencio v. Holder, 669F.3d 472 (4th Cir. 2012) (rejecting Silva-Trevino as not entitled to Chevron deference because statutory language “convicted of crime involving moral turpitude” is plain and unambiguous). Succeeded in obtaining client’s release from ICE custody, vacating removal order, and reinstating client’s lawful permanent resident status.
Akinsade v. Holder, 678F.3d138 (2nd Cir. 2012) – Held: Noncitizen’s conviction for embezzlement by bank employee in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 656 does not qualify as an aggravated felony “offense involving fraud or deceit” under INA § 101(a)(43)(M)(i). Order of removal vacated, removal proceedings terminated.
United States v. Akinsade, No. 686 F.3d 248 (4th Cir. 2012) – Held: District Court denial of writ of error coram nobis reversed, Appellant granted coram nobis relief and conviction vacated. Successfully challenged district court’s ruling that a trail court’s general warning during Rule 11 plea hearing concerning potential immigration consequences was sufficient to cure the prejudice caused by attorney’s affirmative misadvice under “prong two” of the test articulated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 688 (1984).
Udugampola v. Jacobs, No. 14-5286 (D.C. Cir. filed Dec. 22, 2014; dismissed Aug.18, 2015) – Appeal of district court decision dismissing complaint under doctrine of consular nonreviewability. Underlying challenge to denial of immigrant visa petition by U.S. Consulate under INA §212(a)(3)(E)(iii)(II) for alleged participation in extrajudicial killings. Dismissed following Supreme Court opinion in Kerry v. Din, 135 S. Ct. 2128 (2015).
Sanchez v. Holder, No. 15-1140 (4th Cir. filed Feb. 10, 2015) – Petition for review of Board of Immigration Appeals decision denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture to Honduran national who alleges persecution on account of membership in a particular social group.
Matter of T-B- (Arlington, VA Imm. Ct. 2008) – adjustment of status granted, removal proceedings terminated; successfully argued that client failed to maintain lawful R-1 nonimmigrant status through “no fault of his own” under INA § 245(k).
Matter of A-B- (Chicago, IL Imm. Ct. 2009) – removal proceedings terminated; successfully argued that client not subject to reinstatement of removal for unlawful reentry following entry of expedited removal order under INA § 235.
Matter of I-S- (Arlington, VA Imm. Ct. 2009) – employment-based adjustment of status granted under portability provision of INA § 204(j) for self-employed Russian entrepreneur in “same or similar” occupational classification.
Matter of M-S- (Baltimore, MD Imm. Ct. 2007) – deferral of removal under Convention Against Torture granted to Iranian student convicted of controlled substance offense.
Matter of K-P- (New York NY Imm. Ct. 2010) – asylum granted to Nepali teacher based on well-founded fear of persecution by Maoist rebels.
Matter of R-G- (Arlington, VA Imm. Ct. 2012) – removal proceedings terminated; successfully argued that client’s Virginia conviction for assault and battery neither a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) nor a domestic violence offense.
Matter of D-P- (Arlington, VA Imm. Ct. 2012) – cancellation of removal under INA §240A(a) granted, removal proceedings terminated. Client granted relief despite series of criminal offenses over 3-year period.
Matter of Y-K- (Arlington, VA Imm. Ct. 2012) – cancellation of removal under INA §240A(a) granted, removal proceedings terminated. Prior to merits hearing, convinced court to conduct bond hearing and release client from mandatory detention under INA §236(c), successfully arguing that 58 days was overly lengthy period of pre-hearing custody.
Matter of A-K- (Arlington, VA Imm. Ct. 2007) (with Michael Maggio) – asylum granted to Russian businessman based on well-founded fear of persecution on account of political opinion and membership in particular social group.
Matter of A-D- (Arlington, VA Imm. Ct. 2006) (with Thomas Elliot) – waiver under INA § 209(c) and readjustment of status granted to Pakistani student convicted of aggravated felony offense.
Matter of L-M- & S-S- (Arlington, VA Imm. Ct. 2012) – removal proceedings terminated. Overcame DHS charge of fraudulent asylum claim, and thus invalid lawful permanent resident status, because government failed to prove deportability by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence.
Matter of P-M- (Arlington, VA Imm. Ct. 2012) – removal proceedings terminated; successfully argued that client’s Virginia conviction for attempted sexual battery not a crime involving moral turpitude.
Matter of P-M- (BIA 2011) – DHS appeal dismissed; successfully argued that client’s Virginia conviction for attempted sexual battery not an aggravated felony under categorical approach.
United States v. Mott Thoroughbred Stables, Inc., OCAHO Case No. 14A00004 (OCAHO Sept. 26, 2014) – successfully challenged ICE employer sanction complaint and imposition of fine for I-9 violations; OCAHO judge reduced fine by over 50%.
Matter of Abdul Hamid (BIA 2014; Atlanta, GA Imm. Ct. 2014) – successfully challenged IJ finding that respondent barred from adjustment of status under INA §212(a)(3)(B) owing to material support for terrorist activities. Client granted permanent resident status, removal proceedings terminated.
Trinity Health-Michigan v. Chertoff, et al., No. 07-cv-2020-PLF (D.D.C. Dec. 26, 2007) – Mandamus complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction to compel USCIS to adjudicate delayed H-1B application for nonimmigrant worker under Premium Processing Program. H-1B visa issued to client, a prominent orthopedic surgeon, 13 days after filing of lawsuit.
Poliakova v. Gonzales, et al., No. 08-cv-20143 (S.D. Fla. May 5, 2008), appeal filed, No. 08-13313 (11th Cir.) – Mandamus action challenging unreasonable delay in adjudicating I-485 application for adjustment of status. Case successfully resolved for client while pending before U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit when USCIS granted long-delayed I-485 and issued green card.
Graitson v. Caterisano, et al., No. 09-cv-850 (D. Md. July 7, 2009) – Petition for Review of Application for Naturalization under 8 U.S.C. 1447(b). Case succeeded in forcing USCIS to adjudicate long-delayed N-400 naturalization application. N-400 approved, client sworn in as U.S. citizen.
Mohammad v. Napolitano, et al., No. 09-cv-1783-EGS (D.D.C. May 17, 2010)– APA complaint challenging revocation of EB-1 Outstanding Professor/Researcher immigrant visa. Subsequent to litigation, client’s EB-1 immigrant visa (green card) successfully reinstated.
Adam v. Mayorkas, et al., No. 10-cv-1691 (D.D.C. Mar. 5, 2011) – mandamus action challenging unreasonable delay in adjudicating application for asylee adjustment of status, due to case being placed on hold under INA § 212(a)(3)(B) due to alleged “material support for terrorism.” Case succeeded in forcing USCIS to remove hold, grant I-485, and issue green card to client.
Escalona Amador, et al. v. Meeker, et al., No. 11-cv-1977-JDW-AEP (M.D. Fla. Sept. 28, 2011) – APA complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction challenging denial of adjustment of status under Diversity Visa program. Convinced district court to assume jurisdiction over case despite jurisdiction-stripping provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B).
Udugampola et al. v. Jacobs, et al., No. 09-cv-01321-BAH (D.D.C. July 8, 2011), appeal filed, No. 11-5215 (D.C. Cir.) – Mandamus action and APA complaint challenging consular immigrant visa denial. Case successfully settled on behalf of clients, appeal before U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit voluntarily dismissed.
Cherepanov v. U.S. Department of State, No. 11-cv-1394-CKK (D.D.C. Sept. 4, 2011) – Complaint under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to obtain documents unreasonably withheld by the Department of State. Case successfully settled on behalf of client.
Kiaran McLaughlin Racing Stable, Inc., et al. v. Napolitano, No. 11-cv-4892 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 1, 2011) – APA complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction challenging denial of H-2B temporary worker petitions for thoroughbred horse racing stable attendants. Case successfully settled on behalf of clients.
Darnbrough v. U.S. Department of State, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22872 (D.D.C. Feb. 20, 2013) – Complaint under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to obtain documents unreasonably withheld by the Department of State, challenging government’s assertion of exemption under INA §222(f). Held: FOIA exemption cited by Department of State does not cover all documents contained in consular database, government ordered to produce requested documents to Plaintiff. As a prevailing party, Plaintiff recovered attorney fees for cost of litigation.
Abusamhadaneh v. Taylor, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78195 (E.D. Va. June 5, 2012) (with Denyse Sabagh) – Held: On Petition for Review of Denial of Naturalization Application under 8 U.S.C. §1421(c), District Court ruled that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) erred in denying applicant’s N-400 Application for Naturalization. In 90-page opinion, District Court reversed the agency and granted naturalization, holding that witnesses, and unsustainable because agency officials lacked credibility and failed to follow agency’s own guidance. District Court administered oath ceremony to swear in client as a naturalized U.S. citizen.
Iduma v. United States, No. 13-cv-2995 (D. Md. filed Oct. 10, 2013) – Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis seeking to reopen criminal proceedings and vacate past conviction owing to ineffective assistance of counsel and fundamental errors that rendered defendant’s guilty plea not knowing, intentional, and voluntary.
Morones Munoz v. USCIS, No. 14-cv-1838 (M.D. Fla. Filed Nov. 12, 2014) – Petition for Review of Denial of Naturalization Application under INA §1421(c), challenging as legally erroneous USCIS decision denying naturalization based on alleged lack of good moral character. In response to lawsuit, USCIS reopened proceedings and granted naturalization. Client sworn in as U.S. citizen.
Mott Thoroughbred Stables v. Rodriguez (D.D.C. filed Mar. 6, 2015; dismissed June 22, 2015) – APA complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction challenging USCIS denial of O-1B extraordinary ability visa to acclaimed thoroughbred horse trainer.
Sidik v. Rodriguez, No. 15-cv-432 (D.D.C. filed Mar. 25, 2015) – mandamus action challenging unreasonable delay in adjudicating application for asylee adjustment of status. Case succeeded in compelling USCIS to schedule new interview, approve I-485 application, and grant client lawful permanent residence.
Pearson v. Rodriguez, No. 15-cv-617 (D.D.C. filed Apr. 23, 2015) – APA complaint challenging denial by USCIS under the Adam Walsh Act of U.S. citizen’s I-130 petition for alien relative filed on behalf of his foreign national spouse.
United States v. Lopez-Collazo, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61613 (May 11, 2015)(counsel for defendant: Deborah Boardman, Office of Federal Public Defender) – appeared and testified as expert witness on immigration matters in illegal reentry prosecution under 8 U.S.C. 1326. U.S. District Judge agreed that defendant was prejudiced by government errors in underlying expedited removal proceedings and dismissed illegal reentry charge.
Soliman v. Gonzales, 419 F.3d 296 (4th Cir. 2005) (with Thomas A. Elliot) – Held: Noncitizen’s Virginia conviction for credit card fraud did not qualify as aggravated felony “theft offense” under INA § 101(a)(43)(G). Succeeded in obtaining client’s release from ICE custody, vacating removal order, and reinstating client’s lawful permanent resident status.
Salama v. Holder, No. 10-1460 (4th Cir. Dec. 15, 2010) (with Anjum Gupta) – Applicants sought asylum from Egypt after being targeted for their religious beliefs. Following briefing in Court of Appeals, the Department of Justice moved to remand case because neither BIA nor Immigration Judge considered lead applicant’s religious conversion claim. BIA remanded to Immigration Court for further proceedings and Immigration Judge ultimately granted asylum to entire family.
Morris v. Virginia, No. 10-1498 (filed June 10, 2011), cert. denied, Oct 2, 2011.
Issues presented: Whether Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010), is retroactively applicable to ineffective assistance of counsel claims raised in collateral review.
Whether Virginia fails to provide the constitutionally required adequate post-conviction remedy where, through a combination of strict time limits on collateral review and in-custody requirements, Petitioner and others similarly situated are precluded from vindicating violations of the right to effective assistance of counsel under Padilla.
Selected by SCOTUSblog as “Petition of the Day” and as a “Petition We’re Watching.”
Bazuaye v. United States, No. 12-425 (filed Oct. 4, 2012), cert denied, Apr. 1, 2013.
Issues presented: Whether pursuant to the procedures followed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, it may dismiss an appeal as without merit, sua sponte and without any briefing or input from the appellant, which violates the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Due Process of Law guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, and is contrary to the procedures followed by other Courts of Appeals, which hold that such a procedure can only be followed in a case where an appellant seeks to perfect the appeal in forma pauperis.
Whether the Second Circuit’s procedure in this regard, set forth in its opinion inPillay v. INS, 45 F.3d 14, 17 (2d Cir. 1995), conflicts with the procedures outlined in decisions in other Circuits, collected in Stafford v. United States, 208 F.3d 1177, 1179 n.4 (10th Cir. 2000), holding that sua sponte dismissal is inappropriate where the Appellant is represented by private counsel.
Whether the claim that prior appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a 17 day exclusion from speedy trial time claim on direct appeal, which would have resulted in a reversal, is not frivolous.
Whether a motion for rehearing may be referred to an entirely different panel.
Leads the performance of immigration-related due diligence for merger and acquisition projects counseling clients in varying industries and types of deals. Recent engagements range from preliminary to deep due diligence
Leads targeted corporate compliance audits of I-9 processes and procedures as well as visa-specific retention policies for corporate clients throughout the United States including: pre and post audit compliance training; new or revised policy implementation; and on-going compliance counseling
Lead immigration counsel for a nationwide Fortune 500 hospital management company with more than 300 facilities
Represents corporate clients in all types of nonimmigrant and immigrant visa applications and petitions, providing extensive planning and guidance throughout the immigration process
Represents foreign nationals with demonstrated national or international acclaim for designation as persons of extraordinary ability for both nonimmigrant status and permanent residence in the United States including actors, models, music groups and musicians, artists, entertainers and corporate leaders.