Advanced search    Help

Clear all search criteria

Only 2/3! You are seeing results from the Public Collection, not the complete Full Collection. Sign in to search everything (see eligibility).

• Report on H-IB Petitions: Fiscal Year 2007, Annual Report, October 1, 2006 - September 30, 2007

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act (ACWIA), Public Law 105-277, Division C, imposes quarterly reporting requirements on u.s. Citizenship and Immigrations Services (USCIS) concerning the H-IB fee and fee exemption. To fulfill this requirement, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services submits the following report to cover the four quarters of Fiscal Year 2007, October 1,2006 - September 30, 2007. The report provides information on: the number of aliens granted H -1 B status; on the number of employers requiring an additional ACWIA petition fee as reinstituted by the H-IB Visa Reform Act and those exempt from the nonimmigrant H -I B ACWIA petition fee; and on the number of employers required to submit the Fraud Prevention and Detection Fee. In all parts of this report, quarterly and annual data for Fiscal Year 2007 are presented. The data contained in this report is accurate as of July 2008."

  United States. Department of Homeland Security; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

  2009-05-01
• Report on H-1B Petitions Fiscal Year 2008, Annual Report October 1, 2007 - September 30, 2008

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act (ACWIA), Public Law 105-277, Division C, imposes quarterly reporting requirements on the U.S. Citizenship and Immigrations Services (USCIS) concerning the H-IB fee and fee exemption. To fulfill this requirement, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services submits the following report to cover the four quarters of Fiscal Year 2008, October 1, 2007 - September 30, 2008. The report provides information on: the number of aliens granted H-IB status; on the number of employers requiring an additional ACWIA petition fee as reinstituted by the H-IB Visa Reform Act and those exempt from the nonimmigrant H-IB ACWIA petition fee; and on the number of employers required to submit the Fraud Prevention and Detection Fee. In all parts of this report, quarterly and annual data for Fiscal Year 2008 are presented. The data contained in this report is accurate as of October 2008."

  United States. Department of Homeland Security; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

  2009-04-08
• Report on H-1B Petitions: Fiscal Year 2005, Annual Report, October 1, 2004 - September 30, 2005

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The Immigration Act of 1990 established numerical limitations on the H-1B nonimmigrant classification to provide U.S. employers facilitated access to foreign skilled workers while ensuring worker protections. The cap of [then] 65,000 was reached for the first time in Fiscal Year 1997 and again in Fiscal Year 1998 as demand increased significantly in the burgeoning technology sector. […].This report is presented in three parts: Part I provides information on the number of aliens granted H-1B status, Part II provides information on the number of employers requiring the additional ACWIA [American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act] petition fee as reinstituted by the H-1B Visa Reform Act and those exempt from the nonimmigrant H-1B ACIWIA petition fee, while Part III provides information on the number of employers required to submit the Fraud Prevention and Detection Fee. In all parts of this report, quarterly and annual data for Fiscal Year 2005 are presented."

  United States. Department of Homeland Security; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

  2006-04
• Report on H-1B Petitions: Fiscal Year 2004, Annual Report, October 1, 2003 - September 30, 2004

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The Immigration Act of 1990 established numerical limitations on the H-1B nonimmigrant classification to provide U.S. employers facilitated access to foreign skilled workers while ensuring worker protections. The cap of [then] 65,000 was reached for the first time in Fiscal Year 1997 and again in Fiscal Year 1998 as demand increased significantly in the burgeoning technology sector. […].This report is presented in two parts: Part I provides information on the number of aliens granted H-1B status while Part II provides information on the number of employers who would have been exempt from the nonimmigrant H-1B petition fee required under ACIWA if the fee had not sunset on October 1, 2003. In both parts of this report, quarterly and annual data for Fiscal Year 2004 are presented."

  United States. Department of Homeland Security; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

  2006-04
• Federal Aviation Administration's Budget Request and Funding Needs, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Aviation of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives, One Hundred Sixth Congress, Second Session, March 1, 2000

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the opening statement of Jane F. Garvey: "Thank you once again for the opportunity to appear before you this morning to discuss the President's budget request for Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] for 2001. First of all, just the put it in a little bit of context, the FAA is a 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week service delivery organization. We safely manage approximately 200,000 take-offs and landings every day in a system that moves over 600 million airline passengers per year, and we expect that number to reach one billion within a decade. We anticipate 30 billion cargo ton miles of high priority shipped cargo this year, which represents an 88 percent increase since 1990. In the context of that dramatic growth in the industry, the President's budget provides the resources for us to continue the modernization of the national airspace system, or the NAS. Modernization of the NAS is a two-pronged effort. First of all, it is sustaining the infrastructure, those thousands of pieces of equipment that are out there, and, secondly, deploying the new technologies to improve the safety, to improve the efficiency of the airspace. But, again, we need to do this within the context of a 24- hour-a-day operation. The FAA has over 14,500 facilities and buildings. Many of our buildings are beyond their economic service life of 30 to 40 years, and these facilities are critical to support the technological advances we are bringing online. Just by way of example, the average age of an airport air traffic control tower is 26 years. Specifically at some of our Nation's busiest airports: the control tower at New York LaGuardia's Airport, for example, was commissioned in 1964; Washington's Dulles, commissioned in 1962; and Newark International Airport, commissioned in 1960. Clearly, there is a need for resources if the FAA is going to be able to meet the challenges of the 21st century, but the issue is not simply a matter of more money. It is also whether the FAA will have a steady and reliable source of funding for the investments required to ensure that the traveling public has a safe and reliable air transportation system." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Donald J. Carty, Joe Del Balzo, Jeffrey P. Fegan, Jane F. Garvey, Duane Woerth, Jerry F. Costello, John E. Sweeney and James E. Goodwin.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2000-03-01
• Serial No. 111-73: NextGen: A Review of the RTCA Mid-Term Implementation Task Force Report, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Aviation of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, First Session, October 28, 2009

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the opening statement of Jerry F. Costello: "Over the last two years, and as a result of many meetings, roundtable discussions, and hearings, it became very clear, I think, to Mr. Petri and I and others that, one, the stakeholders, users of NextGen [Next Generation] were left out of both their input and the implementation or design of NextGen, and frankly the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] had a very difficult time defining and describing what NextGen really looked like or what they intended to accomplish with NextGen. So it became clear to us that the FAA had to change course, and that they had to look both at short-term steps without losing sight of the long-term goals. And they have done exactly that. They have brought the stakeholders in, the users, and to listen to them and involve them in the process. And as a result of the persistence on the part of many people, some in this room today and others, as well as the persistence and the aggressive oversight of this Subcommittee, that is exactly what has happened. The RTCA [Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics] was created, and we are, of course, examining their mid-term report today." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Ed Bolen, Gerald Dillingham, Margaret Gilligan, Jens C. Hennig, Margaret T. Jenny, Hank Krakowski, James C. May, Neil Planzer, Calvin L. Scovel III, Agam N. Sinha, Dale Wright, Russ Carnahan, Steve Cohen, Jerry F. Costello, Harry E. Mitchell, James L. Oberstar, Laura Richardson, John Boccieri, Lorraine Howerton.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2009
• Comprehensive Review of FAA's NextGen Program: Costs, Benefits, Progress, and Management, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Aviation of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives, One Hundred and Twelfth Congress, First Session, October 5, 2011

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the opening statement of Thomas Petri: "Today's hearing is an opportunity for the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] to present a proper accounting of NextGen benefits, including when such benefits will be realized in the near, mid and long terms. It is also an opportunity to build confidence among users who will need to invest substantial sums of money to realize the NextGen benefits promised by this new system and among Members of Congress who oversee and provide Federal money." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Thomas Petri, Edward M. Bolen, Tom Captain, Michael P. Huerta, Lee Moak, Gerald L. Dillingham, Thomas L. Hendricks, Calvin L. Scovel, III, Jerry F. Costello, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Mazie K. Hirono, and Daniel Lipinski.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2012
• Review of Aviation Safety in the United States, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Aviation of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, Second Session, April 25, 2012

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the opening statement of Thomas Petri: "Although the United States aviation system is very safe, when it comes to aviation safety there is always room for improvement. The top priority for our subcommittee is safety, and I know that the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration], aviation operators industry, and passenger advocate groups share that priority. With this in mind, today we will review the FAA's safety oversight activities, covering a broad range of issues. As we have noted many times in the past, the United States aviation system is the safest in the world. On any given day the FAA's air traffic controllers will handle over 28,500 commercial flights. In 2011, there were no commercial passenger airline fatalities. Over the past 5 years, roughly 52 million passenger flights were operated safely. This high level of safety is the result of collaborative efforts by the FAA, Congress, industry and by other stakeholders. But we must not forget the one tragic fatal commercial accident during those 5 years. We have taken steps with the passage of the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Act of 2010 to address the identified weaknesses that contributed to that tragedy, and we are accepting a statement for the record from the relatives of some of the victims of that airline disaster." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Thomas Petri, Margaret Gilligan, David Grizzle, Jeffrey B. Guzzetti, Gerald L. Dillingham, Thomas L. Hendricks, Scott Foose, Sean Cassidy, Gary M. Fortner, Eddie Bernice Johnson, and the families of Continental Flight 3407.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2012
• What Will it Cost? Protecting the Taxpayer From an Unachievable Coast Guard Acquisition Program, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, First Session, October 4, 2011

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the opening statement Frank LoBiondo: "The subcommittee is meeting this morning to examine the status of the Coast Guard's major acquisition program, and hear from the commandant on what his plans are to restore public faith in the program. Though the subcommittee previously held an acquisition hearing in April, we promised to revisit the issue often to ensure that the Coast Guard's major acquisition programs continue to improve by addressing valid concerns over rising costs, schedule delays, and capability shortfalls. As part of our oversight effort, the committee asked the Government Accountability Office to review the current program to determine whether it is still on track, and to make recommendations to ensure its success. The GAO [Government Accountability Office] is here today to present those findings and recommendations. In 2002 the Coast Guard signed the contract to begin the acquisition program formally known as Integrated Deepwater System. Deepwater was supposed to provide a complete recapitalization and modernization of the Service's larger aging assets, as well as its outdated communications and information systems over a 20-year period. Now nearly a decade later, the subcommittee is concerned that the Service has less to show for the investment of over $7 billion in taxpayer money than it should." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: John P. Hutton and Robert J. Papp Jr.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2012
• Policy Memorandum: Guidance for Determining if an Adoption is Valid for Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) Purposes; Updates to Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapters 21.4, 21.5, 21.6, 21.10 and 71.1; AFM Update AD12-10

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "This policy memorandum (PM) amends the AFM [Adjudicator's Field Manual] to provide guidance on whether an 'adoption' is valid for immigration purposes."

  U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

  2012-07-09
• Policy Memorandum: Implementation of New Discretionary Exemption Under Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) Section 212(d)(3)(B)(i) for Activities and Associations Relating to the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA)

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "On June 4, 2012, following consultation with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security (the Secretary) exercised her discretionary authority not to apply the following terrorism-related inadmissibility grounds to certain aliens for voluntary activities or associations relating to the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA): 1) Soliciting funds or other things of value for; 2) Soliciting any individuals for membership in; 3) Providing material support to; or 4) Receiving military-type training from or on behalf of the KLA."

  U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

  2012-07-05
• Policy Memorandum: Addressing Upcoming Expiration of Status for Certain Chinese and Guatemalan 'Grandfathered' Orphan Adoption Cases

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "This Policy Memorandum (PM) updates U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy with respect to certain 'grandfathered' adoption cases from China or Guatemala initiated before April 1, 2008. The term 'grandfathered' is commonly applied to an intercountry adoption case that can continue to completion as an 'orphan' case under section 101(b)(1)(F) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). 'Grandfathering' is available only if the case was already pending when the Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption ('Hague Adoption Convention') entered into effect for the United States on April 1, 2008."

  U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

  2012-07-09
• Interoffice Memorandum: Consolidation of Guidance Concerning Unlawful Presence for Purposes of Sections 212(a)(9)(B)(i) and 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) of the Act

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Chapter 30.1 (d) of the Adjudicator's Field Manual [AFM] consolidates USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] guidance to adjudicators for determirIing when an alien accrues unlawful presence, for purposes of inadmissibility under section 212(a)(9)(B) or (C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. This memorandum redesignates Chapter 30.1(d) of the AFM as chapter 40.9 of the AFM. This memorandum also revises newly re-designated Chapter 40.9 to clarify the available guidance, and to incorporate into Chapter 40.9 prior guidance that was issued after adoption of former Chapter 30.1 (d) but not incorporated into former Chapter 30.1 (d). useIS intends AFM Chapter 40.9 to provide comprehensive guidance to adjudicators concerning the accrual of unlawful presence and the resulting inadmissibility."

  U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

  Neufeld, Donald; Scialabba, Lori; Chang, Pearl

  2009-05-06
• Response to the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman's 2006 Report

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The Homeland Security Act of 2002 established an independent Ombudsman separate from United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), reporting directly to the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman's office (CISO) was established in response to criticisms of the past performance of the legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). […]. The CISO has offered many recommendations and suggestions to assist USCIS as it works to improve and modernize its business operations. Each recommendation has been thoroughly evaluated. Although USCIS has determined that it is not feasible to implement all of the recommendations, many had been implemented or were in the process of being implemented when the Ombudsman made his recommendations. USCIS has responded fully to each of the CISO's 27 recommendations since 2004. In the 2006 report, the CISO included each of their previous recommendations plus fourteen new ones. USCIS will respond to the additional questions raised regarding previously answered recommendations and will also respond to the new ones. In order to ensure that USCIS fully answers every question posed by the CISO and to ensure the ease with which the reader can follow the CISO's report and the USCIS response, the format used by the CISO is followed in this document. USCIS thanks the Ombudsman for his in-depth analysis of its many processes and procedures. USCIS looks forward to working together to find additional ways to improve service while continuing to ensure the security of this nation is not compromised."

  U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

  2007
• USCIS Response to 2005 Ombudsman Report

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The Ombudsman delivered twelve formal recommendations to the USCIS Director from June 2004 to May 2005. Some of the recommendations were already being addressed through USCIS' planning, others reflected ideas of USCIS employees amplified through the Ombudsman, and others originated with the Ombudsman's office. USCIS efforts to implement many of the ideas reflected in the Ombudsman's recommendations are in various stages of planning and/or implementation. USCIS and the Ombudsman share a vision for a transformed business process, facilitated by new technology that provides rapid processing by qualified adjudicators who have all of the information necessary to make a decision. USCIS is working with the Department to implement this vision for better business processes that embrace goals of national security, customer service, and efficiency. Below are summaries of USCIS' responses to the twelve formal recommendations in the Ombudsman's 2005 Annual Report. Additionally, this report provides details on steps already taken and activities underway, as well as future planned actions in these areas."

  U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

  2005
• Response to the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman's 2007 Annual Report: January 2008

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Since its establishment in March 2003, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has made tremendous strides in improving the level and quality of services to its customers, while ensuring strict and continuous adherence to security measures and to the letter and spirit of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The 2007 Annual Report of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman (CISO) discusses certain areas that have been the focus of improvement for USCIS since its inception. Specifically, USCIS has strived to improve upon technology, transformation and modernization, customer service, adjudicative processes, backlog elimination, and training and development of its workforce. USCIS has been resolute in its efforts to seek new and innovative solutions to issues that hindered its predecessor agency, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). In response to CISO's 2007 Annual Report, USCIS provides this update to its efforts over the past year to improve services and processes geared toward fulfilling the agency's goal to 'Secure America's Promise as a Nation of Immigrants.'"

  U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

  2008-01
• I-601 Waivers - CIS Ombudsman Teleconference, August 26, 2009

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This document features the response from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [USCIS] to 21 questions, including: "1. Why do some I-601 waivers of inadmissibility take so long to adjudicate? 2. Why are processing times for I-601 waivers of inadmissibility not posted on the USCIS website? 3. What are the current processing times? 4. How can a customer find out where his/her case is being adjudicated? 5. Where should additional evidence be sent? 6. How can a customer find the status of his/her case? 7. Once a case is denied, what are a customer's options? 8. Once an Appeal or Motion to Reopen or Reconsider is filed, is there anything else a customer can do to have his/her case resolved? 9. What is USCIS protocol if an I-601 waiver of inadmissibility is denied, the case is appealed, and it is determined that the USCIS adjudicator did not follow proper procedures? 10. After the USCIS office in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico reopened following their H1N1-related closing, it seemed that a high volume of cases were denied or referred. Is this accurate, and if so, is there reasoning behind this?"

  U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

  2009-08-26
• CIS Ombudsman Teleconference: USCIS Website Redesign, January 27, 2010

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This document features the response from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [USCIS] to 15 questions, including: " 1. Please tell us about new features, functions or information that you made available on the new website for the first time? 2. Are there any additional features that you plan to add over the next year? 3.Are there currently any website pages that you are actively revising? 4. If a user finds a website link that does not work, how should they report these problems toUSCIS? Should users direct suggestions for the possible addition of new content to this same contact point, or to someone else? 5. Customers inform the Ombudsman that despite the addition of national processing volume and trend information on the new website, that they still have great difficulty determining how long it will take for their particular case to be completed. We note that customers may enter their receipt numbers on the page 'Check My Case Status,' and in response are advised about which of seven possible processing stages their case is at -- but is there any way that USCIS can, through its website, provide customers a typical estimated processing time to completion for cases that are the indicated stage?"

  U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

  2010-01-27
• CIS Ombudsman Teleconference: Adoptions

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This document features the response from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [USCIS] to the following questions: "What are the differences between Hague Adoptions and Orphan Adoptions? May all U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents use these two methods of intercountry adoption? When a child arrives in the United States, what status does s/he hold and why? Under what circumstances might prospective adoptive parents choose to adopt and reside abroad for two years and file the I-130, Petition for Immediate Relative? We have heard the term 'grandfathered cases' in conjunction with Hague cases. Can you please explain what this means? Why are Hague cases centrally processed at the National Benefits Center, while Orphan cases are processed at USCIS field offices around the country? The NBC's Hague Unit receives inquiries both via a toll-free telephone and a dedicated email and inquirers receive responses from the adjudicating officer handling the case. Is there a comparable means for people to communicate with the officer handling an Orphan case? What is the current status of adoptions with Vietnam and Guatemala? What is happening with adoptions filed before the United States either suspended or failed to renew treaties governing these cases? What are the present options regarding adopting a child from these countries for immigration to the United States? If the Russian Federation has signed the Hague Convention, why are Russian adoptions still being processed as Orphan cases?"

  U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

  2009-11-17
• CIS Ombudsman Teleconfernce: Fee Waivers: How are they working for you? September 30, 2009

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This document features U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [USCIS] responses to 10 questions questions, including: " 1. Computer Generated Evidence - A caller noted that the fee waiver process is very opaque. The fact that USCIS does not accept computer generated evidence is not shared publicly and is not provided in fee waiver guidance or in the denial letter. 2. Wait Times - Callers noted that there are long wait times for adjudication of fee waiver requests and there is no way to track fee waivers once submitted to USCIS. 3. Kaplan Class Action Cases - One caller noted that Kaplan class action fee waiver requests are repeatedly rejected at the Phoenix lockbox whereas they were more readily accepted at the Nebraska Service Center. 4. N-648s Filed with N-400 Fee Waivers - Callers noted that many Form N-648s (Medical Certification for Disability Exceptions) expire when filed with N-400 fee waivers due to processing delays. It is time consuming for applicants, attorneys, and doctors since the N-648 has to be re-certified. 5. Forms Eligible for Fee Waivers - Another caller commented that forms eligible for fee waivers do not say that a fee waiver is available. Instead, the form it says you must submit an application fee."

  U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

  2009-09-30
• Annual Report 2004

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The Homeland Security Act of 2002 requires the Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to respond to any recommendations submitted in the USCIS Ombudsman's annual report to Congress within three months after its submission to Congress. 'The Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report 2004' was submitted to Congress in June of 2004 and reported on three improvement recommendations: 1) Streamlining Family-based Immigrant Processing, 2) Reengineering 'Green Card' Replacement Processing, and 3) Streamlining Employment-based Immigrant Processing. USCIS Director Eduardo Aguirre has worked cooperatively with the Office of the Ombudsman to turn these recommendations into pilot projects in four USCIS locations. The purpose of the Pilot Projects is to test certain concepts presented by the Ombudsman to determine viability in terms of operational impact, customer service, cost savings, and scalability. USCIS selected four pilot sites and began implementing the pilot projects in March of 2004. The pilots will run through September 30, 2004, and will be evaluated throughout the pilot period. Based on statistical evaluations of the pilot projects, decisions will be made to expand, modify or terminate one or more of the projects."

  U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

  2004-09
• CIS Ombudsman Teleconference: Refugee Processing

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This document features U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [USCIS] responses to questions regarding: "1. Form I-730 Evidentiary Standards 2. Processing Times 3. Medical Exams and 4. Parole."

  U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

  2010-01-13
• E-Verify: User Manual for Designated Agents

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Welcome to the E-Verify User Manual for Designated Agents (DAs)! This manual provides guidance on E-Verify processes and outlines the rules and responsibilities for Designated Agents (DAs) enrolled in E-Verify. All users must follow the guidelines set forth in the Designated Agent E-Verify Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and the rules and responsibilities outlined in this User Manual. For the purpose of this manual, the term 'Designated Agent' means any U.S. company, corporation or business entity that is providing the service of verifying employees as a third party to 'Client Companies' (employers) through the use of E- Verify. Client Companies are required to complete the Employment Eligibility Verification, Form I-9 (referred to hereafter as Form I-9) for all new employees and must follow the guidelines set forth in the Designated Agent Client Company E-Verify Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). This section introduces the background and overview, basic website navigation, participation, user roles and password creation, rules and responsibilities, and the privacy guidelines of E-Verify."

  U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

  2008-09-18
• E-Verify User Manual for Employers [December 2009]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "This manual provides guidance on E-Verify processes and outlines the rules and responsibilities for employers enrolled in E-Verify. All users must follow the guidelines set forth in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and rules and responsibilities outlined in this User Manual. For the purpose of this manual, the term 'employer' means any U.S. company, corporation or business entity that is required to complete the Employment Eligibility Verification Form I-9 (referred to hereafter as Form I-9) including any company employees with an E-Verify user account. This section introduces the background and overview, basic website navigation, participation, user roles, rules and responsibilities, and the privacy guidelines of E- Verify."

  U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

  2009-12-07
• Memorandum: Acceptance of DD Form 214 as Certification of Military or Naval Service for Veterans of the U.S. Armed Forces Revisions to Adjudicator's Field Manual, Chapter 72 (AFM Update AD09-24)

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "This memorandum provides field guidance and the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) update on the acceptance of DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty,1 and Form N-426, Certificate of Military or Naval Service, to certify service in the Armed Forces for purposes of naturalization under section 328 or 329 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)."

  U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

  Neufeld, Donald

  2009-04-29
• Interoffice Memorandum: Organizations Ineligible for Approval of Immigrant and Nonimmigrant Petitions under Section 212(n)(2)(C)(i) and (ii) of the Act.

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The U.S. Department of Labor, in accordance with 20 CFR 655.855, has informed the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) that it has found the organizations named below to have engaged in certain actions rendering them subject to mandatory debarment under section 212(n)(2)(C)(i) and (ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended. Accordingly, no immigrant visa petitions and no H (excluding H-1B1), L, O or P-1 nonimmigrant visa petitions filed with respect to the named employer(s) indicated below shall be approved by USCIS for the period indicated below. For the period indicated, a petition may not be approved where the listed organization is the petitioner or employer. This ban does not affect petitions that were previously approved. The table below summarizes all organizations currently subject to this ban, and the period for which the ban is in place with respect to that organization. There are thirty two organizations listed in this update of the table."

  U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

  Velarde, Barbara Q.

  2009-05-11
• Memorandum: Revised Guidance on the Adjudication of Cases Involving Terrorist-Related Inadmissibility Grounds and Amendment to the Hold Policy for Such Cases

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "This memorandum provides instruction to all field offices to consider and adjudicate cases where an alien provided material support to a terrorist organization described in sections 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(I) or (II) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). This memo also removes this category of cases from the hold directive established in the March 26, 2008 memo1 and modifies the hold guidance to allow for certain cases to be elevated for a determination as to whether the hold should be lifted."

  U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

  Aytes, Michael

  2009-02-13
• Interoffice Memorandum: Amended Guidance Regarding Processing of Initial Parole or Renewal Parole Requests Presented by Natives or Citizens of Cuba to USCIS Field Offices

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "On March 4, 2008, HQ Office of Field Operations issued memorandum titled, Processing of Initial Parole or Renewal Parole requests presented by Natives or Citizens of Cuba to USCIS Field Offices. This memorandum amends, in part, the guidance issued March 4, 2008, in regards to the following: 1. The requirement to obtain the A-File prior to the adjudication of the parole (initial and/or renewal) request. 2. The validity period of approved parole (initial and/or renewal) requests is being changed from a one (1) year period to two (2) years. 3. The validity period of approved Employment Authorization Documents (EAD) filed pursuant to Title 8, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), § 274.a.12(c)(11) is being changed from a one (1) year period to a maximum period of two (2) years, not to exceed the expiration date of the approved parole request ."

  U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

  Bulger, John M.

  2009-02-03
• Interoffice Memorandum: Guidance Regarding Petitioners for U Nonimmigrant Status with More than 3 Years in U Interim Relief Status

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "On December 23, 2008, the President signed the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of2008 (TVPRA 2008), Pub. L. 110-457. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide guidance regarding extension of status for U Nonimmigrants, as legislated by the TVPRA 2008. The TVPRA 2008 is effective immediately and applies to applications for immigration benefits filed on or after such date."

  U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

  Neufeld, Donald; Iturregui, Carlos

  2009-01-15
• Memorandum: National Security Adjudication and Reporting Requirements-Update

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) conducts background checks on all applicants, petitioners and beneficiaries seeking immigration benefits. On February 4,2008, USCIS issued a memorandum advising USCIS officers that if the following types of applications were otherwise approvable, and the name check request was still pending with the FBI for more than 180 days, the application shall be approved. […]. USCIS issued this guidance in response to a DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG-06-06) recommendation that the agency conform its background and security check policies with those of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)."

  U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

  Neufeld, Donald

  2009-02-09