Category: news
Categories
Istanbul, Turkey office
Meet Dr. Marjan Kasra, Esq. and Dr. Babak Hojjat J.D. in Istanbul office from Sept 23rd to Nov 7th 2021. Turkey office page
Address:
Buyukdere cad. No:185 Kanyon Ofis Binasi Kat: 6 Bina Ic kapi no: 271 ResCo-work05 Levent-Sisli/Istanbul
Direction
Expert recommended Top 3 Immigration Lawyers in Stamford, Connecticut. All of our immigration lawyers actually face a rigorous 50-Point Inspection, which includes customer reviews, history, complaints, ratings, satisfaction, trust, cost and general excellence. You deserve only the best!
https://threebestrated.com/immigration-lawyers-in-stamford-ct
The so-called “Muslim ban,” first went into effect in January, 2017 and became one of Trump’s signature immigration policies. This Ban went through multiple iterations before it was finally upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018.
The original ban affected people from Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen, Venezuela, and North Korea.
The ban was amended several times in the face of numerous court challenges. The list of countries changed over the court battle.
The ex-president Trump expanded the ban last February to include additional restrictions on citizens of six more countries: Myanmar, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Nigeria, Sudan, and Tanzania. The ban has slowed or altogether halted legal immigration from certain countries.
Recently, on January 20, 2020 the new President issued an executive order to end travel ban on non-citizens from mostly Muslim countries. From now, travelers from several predominantly Muslim countries will be allowed entry to the United States. This has brought considerable hope to nationals of those countries and their families.
Moreover, the next step is to devote resources and develop a process to address the status of thousands of people, who are held up in backlogs caused by the additional checks needed to obtain waivers from the above-mentioned ban.
In addition to this, Department of State need to provide a remedy, so that people whose visas were denied because of these bans do not have to start their applications from the scratch.
People, who already applied for a visa had already been an exhausting application process, including traveling for the interviews, going for medical screenings, and filing tons of paperwork and now the Department of State has to find the way for people not to do that all over again.
Biden has ordered the State Department to develop a plan within 45 days to address these issues. The DOS should ensure that people affected get relief quickly.
References:
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/muslim-ban-gone-now-what
Categories
Best Immigration Lawyers in Stamford
After a 5-year dispute between USCIS and EB-5 Investors, a three-judge panel in D.C. Circuit court issued a decision on 10/27/2020, which allows use of unsecured loans to fund EB-5 investments.
In the last five-years, USCIS had disputed validity of source of funds where all or part the investment included an unsecured loan, resulting in denial of those Investors’ EB-5 Petitions.
However, today’s statement by Judge Gregory G. Katsas rings in a new era for EB-5 Investors:
“The buyer’s source of cash — whether paycheck, gift, or loan — makes no legal or practical difference.”
Therefore loan proceeds now qualify as cash rather than debt.
Since 2015, USCIS has been steadfast in its position, which misinterpreted unsecured loans as indebtedness, rather than cash, forming its basis for denying numerous EB-5 Petitions. However, a Chinese and a Japanese Investor (Huashan Zhang & Masayuki Hagiwara) sued USCIS in 2015, after receiving denials based on use of unsecured loans.
In 2018 a D.C. Federal decision ruled in favor of Investors and granted them a Class-Certification. Said favorable ruling was again challenged by USCIS, and today’s historic decision solidified the 2018 D.C. Federal Court Decision in favor of Investors.
USCIS had argued that use of unsecured loans is akin to a third-party “buying” a Green Card for another Investor. The judges today rejected USCIS’ arguments and most remarkable was Judge Katsas’ remarks, stating that:
“As far as the enterprise is concerned, whether or how the investor’s loan was secured makes no difference; it can deploy the cash either way, and it faces no exposure if the investor defaults on any obligation to a third-party lender.”
In other words, a loan, secured or not, is cash, which can be used by the EB-5 Project, regardless of how it was procured. See Huashan Zhang v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, No. 19-5021 (D.C. Cir. 2020)
Conclusion
Today’s Decision prevents USCIS from denying EB-5 Petitions on the basis of how the loan was obtained (secured or not). Up until now, USCIS had only allowed use of loans secured by Investor’s own assets (such as a mortgage on a property owned personally by the Investor)
But today’s Decision opens the door to many other avenues of funding for potential Investors as now they have the ability to use unsecured loans as their source of funds.
Moreover, this Decision is a welcome-news to the United States, and EB-5 Regional Centers which should expect an increase in the number of applicants given today’s Decision.
It is important to note that Investors are still not allowed to secure a loan on the assets being used for their EB-5 project, and today’s decision has not changed that.
Given the complexity of this area of law we highly recommend consulting a qualified EB-5 Attorney prior to making any decisions.
Disclaimer: The content in this newsletter should not be construed as legal advice. We encourage you to contact an Immigration Attorney for any immigration law questions you may have. Furthermore, the content herein is the work product of LAWMAKS and should not be copied or redistributed in any form or fashion by any individual or entity.
On August 3, 2020 USCIS published a final rule “U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Fee Schedule and Changes to Certain Other Immigration Benefit Request Requirements” implementing the changes to the fee schedule for certain immigration benefits, as well as new editions for certain immigration forms.
Additionally, the rule removes certain fee exemptions, changes fee waiver requirements and alters premium processing limits. According to the USCIS, the fees are being adjusted for an average increase of 20 percent.
As such, the rule contains substantial increase of the fee changes for certain immigration forms, such as I-129 Petition for a Non-immigrant worker, I-130 Petition for Alien Relative, I-526 Immigrant Petition by Alien Investor and I-539 Application to Extend/Change Non-immigrant Status and more.
On the other hand, the fees for few other popular USCIS forms are planned to be decreased, for example the fee for I-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker is now $700, however according to the Final Rule is planned to be changed to $555.
Additionally, USCIS was planning to release new editions of the USCIS forms, including I-129, I-764, I-912 and N-600/N-600A. Moreover, USCIS has separated the form I- 129 by the categories of the benefit granted (ex. L, E, H1, O, etc.).
The final rule was scheduled to take effect on October 2, 2020. However, on September 29, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Immigration Legal Resource Center et al., v. Wolf, et al., 20-cv-05883-JWS preliminarily enjoined USCIS from implementing or enforcing any part of USCIS Fee Schedule and Changes to Certain Other Immigration Benefit Request Requirements rule.
For now (until the injunction is in force) the USCIS will continue to accept the current editions and current fees.
As such, if you are planning to apply for your relative abroad or want to obtain L-1 or E-2 non-immigrant visa, but do not wish to pay more or be involved in more complicated procedures, call Lawmaks at 212-500-0905 to schedule personalized consultation for your case.
Disclaimer: The content in this newsletter should not be construed as legal advice. We encourage you to contact an Immigration Attorney for any immigration law questions you may have. Furthermore, the content herein is the work product of LAWMAKS and should not be copied or redistributed in any form or fashion by any individual or entity.
