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's Degree or a Bachelor's Degree and five 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 three years.

In all green card applications, a priority date must be “current” or available 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 to file 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.
Except for 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 USCIS have announced revised procedures for individuals waiting to file for AOS. As of October 2015, two charts per visa preference category are posted in the monthly DOS Visa Bulletin, the 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 on the preference category and 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, it 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 our 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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).

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 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 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.

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).

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 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 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 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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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 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 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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

Newsletter Alerts
International Travelers No Longer Required to Enter at 15 Designated AirportsState Department Issues Guidance on Visa Ban ExceptionsSupreme Court Ruling Could Impact the Future of DACATrump Visa Ban Extended and ExpandedNew Asylum Regulation ProposedUSCIS Resumes Premium Processing ServiceBill Would Recapture 40,000 Green Cards for Doctors and NursesEmployers: New I-9 Handbook and FormExecutive Order Suspends Some US Immigration For 60+ DaysEmployers Challenge H-1B Denials And WinHow Will the New Public Charge Rule Affect You? (Video)New Year Brings New H-1B Registration Requirements for Employers in 2020USCIS Extends and Expands the Temporary Suspension of Premium Processing Immigration Law UpdateImmigration Law UpdatePractice Alert: President Trump Issues New Travel RestrictionsPractice Alert: President Trump Terminates DACAImmigration Law Update - August 2017Hawaii District Court Clarifies Scope of Travel BanSupreme Court Agrees to Hear Travel Ban Case, Continues Allowing Entry of Most Visa-Holders from Designated CountriesUpdate: President Trump's Revised Executive Order on Travel Ban Remains Blocked"Buy American, Hire American" Executive OrderI-9 Alert: USCIS Reveals Social Security Number Glitch in Early Days of New Form's ReleaseUpdate to March 6, 2017 Travel Ban Executive OrderThe H-1B CAP Has Been ReachedUSCIS Publishes Rule for International EntrepreneursUpdate: President Trump's Revised Executive Order on Travel is Temporarily BlockedMarch 2017 Executive Order on Immigration: Revising the Travel Suspension for Designated Countries USCIS Temporarily Suspending Premium Processing of All H-1B PetitionsSecretary of Homeland Security Issues Memos to Implement President Trump's Immigration Enforcement OrdersUpdate Regarding the January 27th Executive Order on ImmigrationUpdate Regarding the January Executive Order on ImmigrationExecutive Order Restricting Immigration From Certain CountriesPresident Trump Signs Two Executive Orders Calling for Aggressive Enforcement of U.S. Immigration Law Along the Southern Border and in the Interior of the United StatesImmigration Law Update: USCIS Publishes Final Rule, New AAO NIW StandardEmployers Must Begin Using New I-9 Form by January 22, 2017Immigration Law Update - December 2016Immigration Law Update: The New Administration, DACA, Enforcement Priorities and Employment-Based ImmigrationUSCIS Proposes a New Rule for International Entrepreneurs, October Visa Bulletin, and More...CAP H-1B Rejections Starting to Arrive, June Visa Bulletin - Heightened Demand for Employment-Based Adjustments of Status Causes Retrogression and MoreThe H-1B CAP Has Been ReachedDHS Releases Published F-1 Visa STEM OPT RegulationH-1B Cap Season, Denial of STEM OPT Rule, Amendments to Visa Waiver Program, March Visa BulletinDOJ Settles with McDonalds, Quickstuff ICE Fines, I-9 Audits Down,DHS Releases Proposed STEM OPT Rule, Canadian Government Issues New Immigration Regulations, Update on Work Authorization for H-4 Spouses, November Visa BulletinVisa Bulletin Dates Retrogress
Clark Hill Attorneys Selected for Inclusion in the 2021 Edition of Best Lawyers in AmericaClark Hill Attorneys Named to 2020 Michigan Super Lawyers & Rising Stars List Clark Hill Attorneys Named 2020 “Leaders in their Field” by Chambers USAClark Hill Attorney Carl Shusterman Quoted in ForbesClark Hill Attorney Carl Shusterman Quoted in The New York Times on the Immigration SuspensionClark Hill Attorney Carl Shusterman Quoted in AP News on Clarification of New Immigration RestrictionsClark Hill attorney Mike Nowlan quoted in ForbesClark Hill Attorney Carl Shusterman Quoted in Bloomberg on Visa Restrictions for International Healthcare Professionals Amid COVID-19 Clark Hill Combines with the Law Offices of Carl Shusterman in Los Angeles - A Leading National Immigration Law BoutiqueClark Hill Lawyers Named 2020 Leading LawyersClark Hill PLC Receives National and Regional Tier 1 Rankings in the 2020 Edition of Best Lawyers “Best Law Firms”Thomas Ragland to Speak at The Heritage Foundation PanelClark Hill Attorneys Named 2019 Michigan Super Lawyers & Rising StarsThomas K. Ragland Named to National Law Journal’s 2019 Immigration Law Trailblazers ListClark Hill Attorneys Named 2019 “Leaders in their Field” by Chambers USAClark Hill Member, Thomas K. Ragland, Panelist at American Immigration Lawyers Association’s 2019 Federal Court Litigation Conference: Removal and Business on March 12th Clark Hill Member, Thomas K. Ragland, Panelist at American Immigration Lawyers Association’s South Florida Chapter 40th Annual Immigration Law Update on March 1st Attorney Peter Thompson Joins Fox 7 News for Discussion on Helping Migrants at the BorderPatrick Taurel Interviewed on NPR Regarding Executive Order Restricting Asylum at US-Mexico BorderClark Hill PLC Adds Melissa O. Nonaka, to the Immigration Business Unit as a Senior Attorney in the Washington, D.C. OfficeClark Hill PLC Receives National and Regional Tier 1 Rankings in the 2019 Edition of Best Lawyers, “Best Law Firms” Sixty-Six Clark Hill Attorneys Named 2018 Michigan Super Lawyers & Rising Stars143 Clark Hill Attorneys Selected for Inclusion in the 2019 Edition of Best Lawyers in AmericaThe American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) Presents Patrick Taurel with the 2018 Joseph Minsky Young Lawyer AwardClark Hill Strasburger Immigration Attorney Sujata Ajmera Honored at Austin Under 40 Awards Clark Hill Attorneys Named 2018 “Leaders in their Field” by Chambers USAJennifer D. Cook and Alison P. Hitz presenting the webinar, “Everything You Need to Know About Hiring Foreign Medical Graduates” on March 22, 2018. Sixty-Seven Clark Hill Attorneys Named 2018 Leading LawyersClark Hill Attorneys Named to DBusiness Magazine's 2018 Top Lawyers ListClark Hill PLC Receives National and Regional Tier 1 Rankings in the 2018 Edition of Best Lawyers, “Best Law Firms”State Bar of Michigan NEXT Conference in Detroit, Michigan on September 28, 2017 Will Feature Immigration Topics - Clark Hill Attorneys Michael P. Nowlan and Lindsey M. Medina to Present Sixty-Six Clark Hill Attorneys Named 2017 Michigan Super Lawyers & Rising StarsSeventy-Four Clark Hill Attorneys Selected for Inclusion in the 2018 Edition of Best Lawyers in AmericaClark Hill Attorneys Named 2017 “Leaders in their Field” by Chambers USAClark Hill's Patrick Taurel Quoted in Amnesty International Australia on President’s Travel BanClark Hill Attorneys Named to Washington DC Super Lawyers & Rising Stars 2017 ListClark Hill Attorney Michael P. Nowlan to Present at the Detroit Board of Police Commissioners Community Forum on Immigration March 30, 2017Clark Hill Member Thomas K. Ragland, Assisted by Associate Patrick Taurel, Authors Chapter in Fourth Edition of Thomson Reuters treatise, Business and Commercial Litigation In Federal CourtsClark Hill's Patrick Taurel Quoted in Washington Post Article on Immigration Executive OrderClark Hill Attorney Michael P. Nowlan Published in 2016 Winter Business Edition of Best Lawyers MagazineClark Hill’s Thomas Ragland and Patrick Taurel Pursue FOIA Requests in Deportation CasesClark Hill Attorney Michael P. Nowlan to Present “Immigration Changes: New Regulations & Enforcements” Webinar on December 6, 2016Twenty-Eight Clark Hill Attorneys Named to DBusiness Magazine's 2017 Top Lawyers ListClark Hill PLC Receives National Rankings in the 2017 Edition of U.S. News-Best Lawyers, “Best Law Firms”Clark Hill’s Immigration Law Team Recognized for Talent and Client Satisfaction by Corporate LiveWire Legal Awards 2016Patrick Taurel to Moderate Session at the American Immigration Lawyers Association Washington DC Chapter Annual ConferenceSixty Clark Hill Attorneys Named 2016 Michigan Super Lawyers & Rising StarsImmigration Attorney Jennifer Cook Joins Clark HillClark Hill Immigration Practice Group Named 2016 Corporate Immigration Law Team of the Year - USA by Corporate LiveWireClark Hill Attorneys Michael P. Nowlan, Thomas K. Ragland, and Patrick Taurel to Present at Annual American Immigration Lawyers Association Conference From June 22-25, 2016 in Las Vegas, NevadaClark Hill Attorneys Named 2016 “Leaders in their Field” by Chambers USAClark Hill PLC’s Immigration Law Team Recognized for Excellence in Immigration Law in the 2016 Global Awards by Corporate LiveWireClark Hill Attorneys Thomas K. Ragland & Linda M. Watson to Present “Going, Gone Global: What In-House Attorneys Need to Know About Immigration Law” on April 20, 2016Clark Hill Attorney Thomas Ragland Speaks at AILA ConferencesInternationally Recognized Immigration Attorney Thomas Ragland Joins Clark HillClark Hill Attorney Michael P. Nowlan Co-Presents On-Demand Webcast “Handling Immigration in Employment Matters” for the Institute of Continuing Legal EducationSixty-Six Clark Hill Attorneys Selected for the 2015 Super Lawyers Business EditionTwenty-Eight Clark Hill Attorneys Named to DBusiness Magazine's 2016 Top Lawyers ListClark Hill PLC Receives National Tier 1 Ranking for Litigation – Construction in the 2016 Edition of U.S. News-Best Lawyers, “Best Law Firms”Clark Hill Attorney Michael P. Nowlan to Present the Webinar "The New Visa Bulletin: What It Means and What Employers Should Consider Going Forward"
Michael P. Nowlan Quoted in Deep Dive: For H-1B Workers Facing Turmoil, Opportunity Lies Abroad, April 2019Michael P. Nowlan Quoted in Crain’s Detroit Business: New Worries for Working Spouses of Visa Holders, September 2018Patrick Taurel Speaks to Amnesty International Australia on President's Travel BanMichael P. Nowlan Quoted in Crain's Detroit Business: Amid Tough Talk on Immigration, Fewer Companies Apply for H-1B Visas, April 2017Michael P. Nowlan Quoted in Crain's Detroit Business: Trump Rhetoric Expected to Spark Uptick in Visa Applications, April 2017Michael P. Nowlan Quoted in MLive: Detroit Police 'Never Ask Immigration Status,' That's Not Our Job, Chief Says, March 2017Patrick Taurel quoted in Washington Post "Trump’s hardline immigration rhetoric runs into obstacles — including Trump"Michael P. Nowlan Quoted in Crain's Detroit Business: Metro Detroit Companies, Universities Weigh Fallout From Immigration Order, January 2017Michael Nowlan Quoted in Law360: "5 Things Immigration Attys Shouldn't Bill Clients For"Michael P. Nowlan Featured in Macomb County Legal News: Fresh Start - Immigration Attorney Guides Clients to New Life in U.S., June 2016Paul Starkman Quoted in Business Insurance: Ruling in undocumented worker case speaks to broader EEOC power – May 3, 2016Immigration Law Client Survey ResultsHealth Care Without Borders in DBusiness, November-December 2014
WEBINAR: 2018 Everything You Need to Know About Hiring Foreign Medical Graduates Webinar: Staffing Companies and US Immigration: I-9s for Offsite Workers, H-1B Sponsorship and Other ChallengesWEBINAR: Employers, It’s Time To Do Your Homework: New STEM Extension Rules for F-1 EmployeesI-9 Employment Eligibility Verification & Employer Compliance in an Era of Heightened Worksite EnforcementWEBINAR: "Let's Talk About DACA: Updates and What's Next"WEBINAR: "Worksite Compliance and Enforcement Update"WEBINAR: Everything You Need to Know About Hiring Foreign Medical GraduatesWEBINAR: "The First 100+ Days of President Trump’s Administration - The Impact on U.S. Immigration"WEBINAR: Immigration Reform Under the Trump AdministrationWEBINAR: Going, Gone, Global: What In-House Attorneys Need to Know About Immigration LawWebinar: Moving People and Material: Understanding core US employment, immigration, and importation issues when moving foreign nationalsWebinar: Life After Training: Options for J-1 And H-1B Physicians
Michael P. Nowlan Speaks on Radio Sputnik About H1B Visas & President Trump's Executive Order to Hire American, April 2017