SHUSTERMAN'S IMMIGRATION UPDATE
(November 2009)

Not only does the new law eliminate the infamous "widow penalty", it does so much more.

When either the petitioner or the principal beneficiary dies in a wide variety of instances, the law acts to protect the following surviving family members:

1. Parents, spouses and children of a U.S. citizen with pending or approved petitions;
2. Beneficiaries, principal or derivative, of pending or approved family-based petitions;
3. Beneficiaries, principals or derivative, of pending or approved employment-based petitions;
4. Beneficiaries, principal or derivative, of pending or approved asylees/refugee relative petitions;
5. Nonimmigrants entitled to "T" (trafficking victims) or "U" (crime victims) status.

Since the waiting times for family-based and employment-based preference categories can range up to 22 years, it is not uncommon for petitioners and/or principal beneficiaries to die before all the beneficiaries of the petition can obtain permanent residence.

How the new law will operate? Consider the following examples:

Ms. Santos was born in the Philippines. Her sister, a citizen of the U.S., petitioned for her over 20 years ago. At that time, her children were four, two and one year of age. Ms. Santos and her husband work as in the U.S. and live together with their children. By the time their priority date became current, her children were 24, 22 and 21. The INS took two years to approve the visa petition. Since the length of time that the visa petition was pending can be subtracted from the age of the children under the Child Status Protection Act, the "immigration ages" of the children are 22, 20 and 19. Therefore, the youngest two are still considered to be children for purposes of adjustment of status while the older child must wait for a final resolution of the proper interpretation of CSPA's "automatic conversion" clause. (See Topic #4 below.)

Ms. Santos, her husband and their two youngest children all applied for adjustment of status under section 245(i). However, shortly before their interview took place, her U.S. citizen sister died. Under prior law, Ms. Santos' only remedy would have been to apply for "humanitarian" reinstatement of her petition from the USCIS, a very "iffy" proposition. Under the new law, she and her family (except possibly her oldest child) would be protected as "survivors" and would be allowed to continue with their applications for adjustment of status despite the death of her sister.

Assuming that Ms. Santos and her family members are otherwise eligible for adjustment of status, the only way their applications can be denied is if the USCIS denies the visa petition by determining that its approval "is not in the public interest".

Also, since Ms. Santos' sister has died, another sponsor for an affidavit of support is needed.

If Ms. Santos and her family are abroad on the day that her sister dies, the petition will be revoked by the USCIS. The family's only recourse is to request a reinstatement of the visa petition on "humanitarian" grounds.

If Ms. Santos dies before she and her family are able to adjust status, the new law provides that the petition remains approved unless the USCIS determines that this "is not in the public interest". Her husband and the youngest two children can adjust their status to permanent residents. This represents a clear departure from previous laws which would have resulted in the denial of adjustment of status applications for her husband and children, and placing them in removal proceedings.

Is there any remedy for the family under this scenario if Ms. Santos' family had remained abroad? Unfortunately, the answer to this question is "no".

Dr. Kumar is a physician born in India. His wife and daughter reside with him in the U.S. He is in H-1B status and his wife and daughter are in H-4 status. Dr. Kumar completed his medical residency in the U.S. on a J-1 visa. Then, for three years, he worked in a medically-underserved area in H-1B status. In 2006, his employer submitted a PERM application on his behalf. It was approved in the spring of 2007. In July 2007, when all the employment-based numbers became current, Dr. Kumar's employer submitted an EB-2 visa petition on his behalf. Simultaneously, Dr. Kumar, his wife and daughter all applied for adjustment of status. Then his priority date retrogressed. In 2009, Dr. Kumar was killed by a drunk driver. Under prior law, the visa petition would have been revoked. Under the new law, Dr. Kumar's wife and daughter are permitted to continue with their applications to adjust status. The visa petition can only be revoked if the USCIS determines that its continued approval would not be "in the public interest".

The new law also eliminates the "widow penalty", but here the law and procedures are different from the treatment accorded to other surviving relatives.

What follows is some advice for widows and their children under the new law:

Under the new law, all surviving spouses can self-petition for themselves and their children for green cards. The new law eliminates the two-year marriage requirement for self-petitions.

If you are physically present in the U.S., file an I-360 self-petition together with an I-485 application for adjustment of status.

If you reside abroad, file an I-360 self-petition and follow the normal immigrant visa procedures.

In either case, it is incumbent upon you to submit form I-360 within two years of the law's passage, and that you demonstrate that the marriage was bona fide. Include wedding photos, proof of joint assets, etc.

If your spouse dies more than two years after the law's enactment, your I-360 must be submitted within two years of your spouse's death.

There is no affidavit of support requirement. However, you must demonstrate to the government that you are not likely to become a public charge.

If you remarry, you will lose your eligibility.

Your unmarried children may be included in your I-360 self-petition.

Remember that although the law defines "child" as someone who is unmarried and is under 21 years of age, the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) may allow your child's age to be "frozen". As a general rule, if the I-130 or the I-360 petition was submitted prior to your child's 21st birthday, they will continue to be considered a child no matter how old they are when the USCIS decides their application for a green card as long as they remain single.

For more information about CSPA, see our "Child Status Protection Act FAQ" at

The new law will provide immigration benefits to "survivors" in various types of immigration cases where either the petitioner or the principal beneficiary dies before the other family members are able to become permanent residents.

However, the law is complex, and the extent of its benefits will not be known until after the USCIS and the State Department promulgate regulations, or issue memos, explaining how they plan to implement the new law.

3. How to Select an Excellent Immigration Attorney

However, when I analyzed their case, it quickly became apparent to me that nothing could be done to help them. It was too late. The man's I-140 (EB1-3) which was submitted in April 2001 had been denied, and his former attorney had advised them not to appeal, but to have the employer file a new I-140. The new I-140 was also denied as were their I-485s. Since the man's L-1 status had long since expired, his whole family had been placed under removal proceedings.

His former lawyer had advised him to have his employer submit a 3rd I-140 on his behalf and for him and his family to file new I-485s on the basis that he was eligible for adjustment of status under section 245(i).

Suddenly, I became the bearer of bad news: "Sir, you are ineligible for benefits under section 245(i). Your initial I-140 was denied because the INS concluded that you were not an executive or manager, that the foreign and domestic companies were unrelated and that you were not being paid at the proffered wage. Furthermore, your employer did not appeal the I-140 denial. So, what is your argument that the I-140 meets the 'approvable when filed' standard for section 245(i) eligibility?"

Yet, both his previous attorneys were in agreement that he was covered under section 245(i). I told him that I disagreed, and therefore, could not take his case. He and his daughter left my office disappointed.

Every potential client that I saw on Friday had a similar story, and it was too late to repair any of their damaged cases. In my opinion, each of them will have their cases denied by an Immigration Judge. What's more, they will pay other attorneys many thousands of dollars only to lose their cases, appeal them to the BIA, and then lose again. Eventually, these unfortunate people will be ordered to either leave the United States "voluntarily" or face deportation.

COULD THESE RESULTS HAVE BEEN AVOIDED?

Absolutely!

Section 245(i) has been on the books for over 15 years. All immigration attorneys should be able to properly analyze the facts of a case, and advise a client whether his I-140 complies with the "approvable when filed" standard under section 245(i).

But how is a person supposed to know whether an immigration attorney is giving him good advice? In fact, how does a person go about selecting a good immigration attorney to represent him?

There are over 11,000 members of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). Some are excellent attorneys, others are so-so, and more than a few are absolutely terrible. All immigration attorneys are not created equal. How is an immigrant, untrained in the intricacies of the law, supposed to select a competent attorney?

I have prepared a video entitled "Ten Rules for Selecting an Immigration Attorney". Take a few minutes and watch this video at

Immigrants frequently choose attorneys just because they speak their language or are from the same country as they are. Many Chinese choose Chinese attorneys; Filipinos tend to select Filipino attorneys, etc.

Some immigration attorneys have built huge followings by blanketing ethnic newspapers with ads touting their successes. Other attorneys, including Yours Truly, are known largely through their websites.

However, speaking a particular language, running big ads or having a popular website is no guarantee of quality. Expertise and experience are far more important than "self-advertised or paid" prominence.

In my video, I stress one important criterion that is nowhere mentioned in the section of the USCIS website entitled "Finding Legal Advice" or in the ads or websites of most immigration attorneys.

A number of states put attorneys through a rigorous system where they must pass a difficult examination regarding the intricacies of immigration law, require that they have a certain amount of experience in various facets of immigration law (employment-based, family-based, asylum, deportation defense, etc.) and obtain recommendations from their colleagues. A committee checks to make sure that the attorney is in good-standing with the bar association. Only then can an attorney be deemed to be a Certified Specialist in Immigration Law.

Several years ago, I had the privilege of serving on the committee which writes and grades the examination for California attorneys seeking Certified Specialist status in Immigration Law. I can state, without hesitation, that the examination is extremely difficult to pass, and that every attorney who our committee recommended to be a Certified Specialist was both experienced and a true expert in the field.

In my opinion, persons seeking legal advice from immigration attorneys could do no better than to restrict their search to pre-screened Certified Specialists in Immigration Law.

LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION?

This mantra is a good rule of thumb when you are looking to buy a house. It is less helpful when you are seeking immigration legal advice. Immigration law is federal. Therefore, an immigration lawyer in Texas or California can represent corporate and individual clients in all 50 states.

For example, during the past few weeks, attorneys in our law firm flew to New York City, Reno, Dallas and Philadelphia to represent clients. Next month, I will travel to Chicago to appear at a removal hearing. In a typical case, however, the petitions and applications are simply mailed to the USCIS, and no interview is required. The location of the attorney is irrelevant, while the skill of the attorney is paramount.

The USCIS promised to link to lists of Certified Specialists in Immigration Law as a service to the public. See

Don't despair. Below, we link to the web addresses of all Certified Specialists in Immigration Law around the United States.

HOW TO FIND A CERTIFIED SPECIALIST IN IMMIGRATION LAW

Four states currently certify attorneys as specialists in immigration law. If enough savvy consumers of legal services hire certified specialists to represent them, we predict that there will be a clamor in all states to certify legal specialists in the future.

• CALIFORNIA
  http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/ls_search.aspx

• FLORIDA
  http://www.floridabar.org/names.nsf/CERTA?openview&RestrictToCategory=IM&count=20

• NORTH CAROLINA
  http://www.nclawspecialists.org/results.asp?SpecialtyID=1108

• TEXAS
  http://www.tbls.org/Directory/Attorney.aspx

WHAT CAN A CERTIFIED SPECIALIST DO FOR YOU?

Why should you hire a Certified Specialist in Immigration Law?

A lot! Take a look at the brochure written by the California State Bar at

If you do, you can obtain top-notch legal advice and avoid the unfortunate dilemma faced by the businessman and his daughter discussed at the beginning of this article.

4. CSPA Decision to be Appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

Immigration attorneys and government officials often had to rush to get children their green cards just before they turned 21. Failing that, the children would suddenly morph into "unmarried adult sons and daughters" just as surely as Cinderella's coach would change into a pumpkin at the stroke of midnight. The children would be forced to remain single and to wait many years if they wanted to be reunited with their parents.

To remedy this situation, and to promote family unity, Congress passed and the President signed the "Child Status Protection Act of 2002" (CSPA). The act provides a mathematical formula which allows certain children to avoid "aging-out" even after they reach the age of 21.

Still another subsection of the law provides a way for children who have "aged-out" to remain together with their parents. This is subsection 203(h)(3), commonly referred to as the "automatic conversion" clause. It reads as follows:

"RETENTION OF PRIORITY DATE- If the age of an alien is determined under paragraph (1) to be 21 years of age or older for the purposes of subsections (a)(2)(A) and (d), the alien's petition shall automatically be converted to the appropriate category and the alien shall retain the original priority date issued upon receipt of the original petition."

Subsection (a)(2)(A) refers to children petitioned by their permanent resident parent(s) while subsection (d) refers to "derivative beneficiaries" of all family-based, employment-based and lottery-based immigration preference categories.

The problem with the "automatic conversion" clause was that it was never implemented by the USCIS. Perhaps this was because it was too much at odds with the way that the agency had operated for generations. Perhaps it seemed to the USCIS to be too generous to sons and daughters of immigrants.

In any case, both the INS/USCIS and the State Department issued numerous memoranda explaining in detail how various provisions of the CSPA would be applied in practice. The only subsection of the law not mentioned by the agencies in their memos was the "automatic conversion" clause.

I wrote an article for the Practicing Law Institute soon after the law was enacted in 2002 describing how this clause would operate. For example, a U.S. citizen petitioned for her sister in 1990 when the sister's son was 11 years old. Although the petition was approved in one week, the priority date was not reached until 2001 when the son was 22 years of age. Under the mathematical formula, the one week that the petition was pending can be subtracted from the son's age. Despite this, the son would have "aged-out". Therefore, the "automatic conversion" clause would apply to him since he was the derivative beneficiary of his aunt's petition for his mother. He would clearly be entitled to the priority date of the original petition: 1990. His family-based 4th preference status would automatically convert to the "appropriate category". Since his mother was now a permanent resident, this would be the 2B category ("unmarried adult sons and daughters of lawful permanent residents"). This would allow him to become a permanent resident together with his parents and younger brothers and sisters.

Several prominent immigration attorneys including Cyrus Mehta and Howard Gordon wrote articles about CSPA in which they interpreted the "automatic conversion" clause similarly. Finally, in 2006, a unanimous panel of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), in Matter of Garcia, did the same.

Still, the USCIS refused to apply the "automatic conversion" clause to insure family unity. Since Matter of Garcia was not designated as a precedent decision by the BIA, the USCIS was not obligated to follow in the BIA's footsteps.

Finally, in 2008, with the USCIS still refusing to either follow Matter of Garcia or even to propose an alternative interpretation of the law, various families who had tried to invoke their rights under the "automatic conversion" clause sued the government in Federal Court to force them to follow the law. There were numerous lawsuits, two brought by our law firm, and all were consolidated in front of a Federal Judge in Orange County, California.

How did the government respond to these lawsuits?

They went into "stall mode". They asked the Judge not to decide the Federal cases since they assured him that two CSPA cases pending before the BIA, Matter of Wang (family-based) and Matter of Patel (employment-based) would be decided imminently. The Judge postponed consideration of the Federal cases from the summer of 2008 until the spring of 2009 when he lost patience waiting for the BIA to decide these cases. In April 2009, he informed the government that he would proceed with the Federal cases.

On June 16, 2009, the BIA issued a ruling in Matter of Wang which would prevent most derivative beneficiaries from remaining together with their parents under the "automatic conversion" clause and dismissed the logic in Matter of Garcia in a sentence or two.

We were shocked by Matter of Wang's departure from the clear language of the law. We wrote an article entitled "BIA Decision Would Separate Families" and another article entitled "BIA's CSPA Decision Not Entitled to Deference". We link to both articles from our "Blog" page at

We believe that the language of the law is clear. The reference to "for purposes of subsection (a)(2)(A) and (d)" is used in both section 203(h)(1) and again in section 203(b)(3). In section 203(h)(1), the government agrees that this phrase refers to both beneficiaries of 2A visa petitions and to derivative beneficiaries of family-based, employment-based and lottery-based categories. However, in section 203(b)(3), the government interprets the exact same phrase much more narrowly to include only 2A derivative beneficiaries who have aged out. Interpreting the same phrase entirely differently in two subsections of the same law violates all rules of statutory construction.

Therefore, we believe that the Judge erred when he deferred to an erroneous decision by the BIA.

We also disagree with the rationale in Matter of Wang that the CSPA was passed strictly to protect beneficiaries from "administrative delays". Neither section two which freezes the age of "immediate relative" children, section six which allows certain family-based first preference beneficiaries to "opt-out" to the 2B category nor the "automatic conversion" clause are conditioned upon administrative delays. The overall purpose of CSPA is to promote family unity, pure and simple.

The plaintiffs in one of our lawsuits have been separated from their sons and daughters for many years in violation of the law. Unless they appeal this decision, they will be forced to endure many more years of separation. Therefore, they intend to appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit early in November.

We are confident that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will rule in favor of our clients as a matter of law. We remember being disappointed, but not discouraged, when a Federal Judge deferred to the INS and ruled against our clients who were challenging the agency's national interest waiver regulations only to be overruled by a unanimous panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Appeals Court ruled that the agency could not change the clear language of the law in their regulations. See Schneider v. Chertoff, 450 F.3d 944 (2006) at

5. Success Story: Winning an Important Case before the U.S. Court of Appeals

Well, for one thing, this seems like "déjà vu all over again" to me.

In 2002, our law firm represented a group of physicians around the country in challenging the INS' restrictive regulations implementing a new law which eases restrictions on physicians who applied for permanent residence using National Interest Waivers (NIWs).

The regulations seemed to cancel significant portions of the statute. For example, although the law provided that "all physicians" working in medically-underserved areas were eligible for NIWs, the INS regulations limited this immigration benefit to primary care physicians.

How did INS justify such a departure from the clear wording of the statute?

Somewhat disingenuously, the INS argued that in designating what was a "medically-underserved area", the Department of Health and Human Services considered the ratio of primary-care physicians to patients. Therefore, this meant that physician specialists were excluded from the definition of "all physicians" practicing in medically-underserved areas.

Got that?

I was surprised when the Assistant U.S. Attorney bought this argument hook, line and sinker. But I was completely taken aback when after about two years of reading our motions and briefs, a Federal Judge granted the Government's Motion for Summary Judgment. "Mr. Shusterman", the Judge asked me, "I guess it is your position that when Congress passes a law, the agency has no power to promulgate regulations interpreting the law?"

"Not at all, your Honor!" However, I appealed the Judge's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. At the Oral Argument, the judges seemed somewhat incredulous as to the Government's arguments. I actually felt sorry for the Assistant U.S. Attorney when the Judges started to question her.

Sure enough, the Appeals Court Judges overturned the decision of the District Judge and ruled in favor of my plaintiff physicians. Every single one of them obtained permanent residence in the U.S. See Schneider v. Chertoff, 450 F.3d 944 (9 Cir. 2006) which we link to from our "National Interest Waivers for Physicians" page at

Talk about mental gymnastics!

I firmly believe that the Judges on the Court of Appeals will not let an administrative agency unlawfully restrict who benefits from a law passed by Congress and signed by the President.

The USCIS may have forgotten the answer to the following question on their new Naturalization Test: "What stops one branch of government from becoming too powerful?" Answer: "The separation of powers." I am confident that the Appeals Court will remind them!

To read more of our Immigration Success Stories, see

6. Immigration Trivia Quiz: Immigrants in the News

7. Ask Mr. Shusterman: The Importance of Degree Equivalency

Many employees being sponsored for LPR status by their employers have already been approved for H-1B nonimmigrant status as temporary workers employed in "specialty occupations." If a worker qualified for H-1B nonimmigrant status on the basis of a combination of foreign degrees and/or experience, the degree equivalency must be evaluated at the start of the LPR process because of key differences in the way USCIS treats degree equivalency in adjudicating I-140 immigrant visa petitions and H-1B petitions.

In order to perform services in a specialty occupation, an alien must meet one of the following criteria:

(1) Hold a United States baccalaureate or higher degree as required by the specialty occupation from an accredited college or university;

(2) Possess a foreign degree determined to be equivalent to a United States baccalaureate or higher degree as required by the specialty occupation from an accredited college or university;

(3) Have any required license or other official permission to practice the occupation (for example, architect, surveyor, physical therapist) in the state in which employment is sought; or

(4) Have, as determined by the USCIS, the equivalent of the degree required by the specialty occupation acquired through a combination of education, training, and/or experience. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4) (emphasis added).

There are many H-1B nonimmigrants in the United States who completed their education outside the United States and qualified for H-1B status on the basis of an evaluation of:

Any of combination of these qualifications may suffice to demonstrate attainment of the equivalent to a 4-year U.S. bachelor's degree for H-1B purposes.

The typical employment-based green card case is one which begins when the employee is sponsored for LPR status through the PERM process with the Department of Labor. See

After the PERM application has been certified by the Department of Labor, the employer must submit an I-140 immigrant visa petition to the USCIS, seeking an employment-based preference classification for the foreign worker based on the minimum requirements for the job as described in the PERM application. The approval of a PERM application will allow an employer to seek either an EB-2 (employees with advanced degrees) or EB-3 (degreed professionals and skilled workers) classification for the worker during the I-140 petition stage in the process.

A foreign national worker may qualify for EB-2 classification if he or she is being sponsored for a job that requires either an advanced degree or a bachelor's degree (or foreign equivalent degree) plus 5 years of progressively responsible professional experience. Where a foreign equivalent degree is required on the PERM application, the beneficiary must have a "single-source" degree, i.e. a single foreign degree that has been determined to be equivalent to either:

The EB-3 preference classification includes both skilled workers and professionals. To qualify as an EB-3 "skilled worker," a foreign worker need only demonstrate completion of at least 2 years of related experience.

However, for the "professionals" sub-category of the EB-3 classification, the applicable regulations state: "If the petition is for a professional, the petition must be accompanied by evidence that the alien holds a United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree and by evidence that the alien is a member of the professions. Evidence of a baccalaureate degree shall be in the form of an official college or university record showing the date the baccalaureate degree was awarded and the area of concentration of study. To show that the alien is a member of the professions, the petitioner must submit evidence that the minimum of a baccalaureate degree is required for entry into the occupation." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(l)(3)(ii)(C) (emphasis added).

The italicized portion of the EB-2 regulations has become known as the "single source" degree rule because it describes the foreign equivalent degree as a single degree. Thus, the plain meaning of the regulatory language concerning the professional classification sets forth the requirement that a beneficiary must produce one degree that is determined to be the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in order to qualify in the "professionals" sub-category of the EB-3 classification. This "single source" rule has been interpreted to apply to the EB-2 classification as well.

The "single source" rule only presents a potential problem if it is not identified and addressed during the planning process for employment-based green card sponsorship.

Where the position described in the PERM application requires a U.S. bachelor's degree or higher, the application must clarify that the employer will accept a foreign degree, a combination of degrees, and/or work experience if this is the case. The key is that acceptable alternative degree(s) and/or experience must be clearly set out during and all throughout PERM process.

Although many individuals do not have a single-source foreign degree that has been determined to be equivalent to a U.S. degree, they may still qualify for EB-2 or EB-3 classification if: (a) the PERM application clearly indicates that the employer will accept a combination of degrees and/or experience that has been determined to be equivalent to the required U.S. degree, and (b) that same alternative combination is employed in the criteria which the employer uses in testing the job market to determine whether there are any qualified U.S. workers willing to accept the position.

Finally, it is important and interesting to note that USCIS reviews each beneficiary's educational qualifications on a "case-by-case" basis, and considers foreign credential evaluations to be purely advisory in nature. This policy makes it difficult to provide definitive guidance on how best to proceed with employment-based cases where there are degree equivalency issues. There have been a number of Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) decisions regarding this issue. However, the holdings in these cases are often dependent upon the facts of the particular case.

Do you have immigration questions of general interest to our readers? Send them to

8. Official Immigration Government Processing Times

The Immigration Service (USCIS) lists its processing times for immigration petitions and applications on their website. Most immigration applications and petitions must be submitted to one of the following USCIS Service Centers: (1) Laguna Niguel, California; (2) Lincoln, Nebraska; (3) Mesquite, Texas; and (4) St. Albans, Vermont and (5) the National Benefits Center in Missouri.

These service centers periodically issue lists of their processing times for various types of petitions and applications. We link to the latest list issued by each service center.

Warning: Processing times may appear faster on the official lists than they are in reality.

To see how fast (or slow) your service center is processing a particular type of petition or application, see our Government Processing Times Page at

The AAO's most recent published processing times (October 1, 2009) may be found at

The State Department website contains a "Visa Wait List" page which permits readers to choose a particular U.S. consular post and learn how long it takes the post to process various types of temporary, nonimmigrant visas. See

9. USCIS.gov: We Give the New USCIS Website a "B-"

The new site is definitely an improvement over the prior website.

For example, it is geared to the person who needs information about immigration. On the left side of the screen appear the words "Where to Start". This allows you to click the arrow next to the words "I am..." and provides you with 21 choices ranging from "U.S. citizen" and ending with "Educator or Volunteer". Below are the words "I want to..." Depending on which of the 21 categories you chose under "I am...", the choices under "I want to..." will vary accordingly.

If you choose "I am a visitor/nonimmigrant", you will be given seven choices in the "I want to..." category. Some of these categories allow you to learn more about becoming a permanent resident through investment, employment, the lottery or as a religious worker, but nothing about becoming a permanent resident through a family member. This is obviously an oversight which we hope will be quickly corrected.

Suppose you choose "I want to find out about becoming a permanent resident (green card holder) through employment". You must click the green button which states "Get Results". This brings you to a page entitled "Green Card Through a Job". A short article about employment-based immigration appears in the middle of the page. Over to the left, there are links to web pages on the following topics: "Green Card Through a Job Offer", "Green Card Through Investment", "Green Card Through Self-Petition" and "Green Card Through Special Categories of Jobs" as well as links to other ways to obtain a green card and green card processes and procedures.

The right side of the screen contains a column entitled "More Information" with the following subtopics: "Forms", "Tools - Before I File", "Tools - After I File", "Other Cases Services", "Other USCIS Links" and "External Links".

All in all, the new USCIS website appears to contain more information than did the old website. Further, it is arranged in a fashion which is much more user- friendly. We link to the new website from our "USCIS" page at

We link to the page which allows persons to create an account in order to check their case status and to learn the current processing times from our "USCIS" page at

"The main change to the USCIS website is the layout. The contrast in colors is pleasing to the eye and adds the illusion that the site is that much more organized. What is much more organized is the homepage. The topics that seem to be of main interest to visitors are nicely laid out. However once you click on the topic, you are connected to a page with basic information and on each side there are links that might confuse the visitor at first. After touring around this redesigned site, the visitor realizes that the same links practically exist on every page with minimal change. I don't think USCIS is providing its visitors with more information, it's just that the same information has moved!"

I don't know that my evaluation of the new website is as harsh. However, I do have some problems with the new website.

On August 15, a few weeks before the new website went online, we wrote "USCIS' Redesigned Website: Our Suggestions". See

As a trial, we typed in the words "L status" into the search engine and got ten results. However, none of the results led us to a page discussing what L status is and how to obtain it. Is there such a page on the USCIS website? Perhaps the search engine still needs some work. Until USCIS improves its website and search engine, feel free to go to our "Intracompany Transferees L-1 Status" page at

Failing to find any information about L status by clicking "Resources" near the top of the new website, we typed "Nonimmigrant Categories" in the search engine, and with a bit more effort, found the following 162-page PDF file about nonimmigrant status:

Here, we searched for the four Nationality Charts. The term "Nationality Charts" yields no results in the search engine. Similarly, opening "Citizenship & Naturalization Based Resources" on the left side of the screen fails to reveal any information regarding obtaining U.S. citizenship through one's parents, through derivation or acquisition. However, a google search revealed that the Nationality Charts are still on the USCIS website located in the Adjudicators' Field Manual. But why torture yourself? We link to all four Nationality Charts from our "Citizenship" page at

On the new website, the URL for "Information for Employers and Employees" is

Under the heading "Humanitarian Benefits Based Resources" on the left side of the screen is the listing "Finding Legal Advice". The new website, like the old, still links to the EOIR "List of Free (sic) Legal Service Providers". As we explained in our blog, this is both misleading and untrue.

Does the new website link to the list of "Certified Specialists in Immigration and Nationality Law" as USCIS promised me in 2006? See

All in all, the new USCIS website is an improvement over the old website, but much more remains to be done.

We give the new USCIS website a "B-"

Hopefully, the new website is a work-in-progress. Send your comments to

10. Winner of our September 2009 Immigration Trivia Quiz

Dear Mr. Shusterman

The answers are as follow:

1. Anne Hathaway is wearing a Leiber purse. The designer was Judith Leiber and she was born in Budapest, Hungary.

2. Sarah Jessica Parker is wearing a Salvatore Ferragamo purse. The designer was Salvatore Ferragamo and he was born in Bonita, Italy.

3. Jessica Alba is wearing an Andrea Brueckner bag. The designer was Andrea Brueckner and she was born in Canada.

4. Kim Cattrell is wearing a Sang A bag. The designer was Sang A Im-Propp and she was born in Korea.

Hello! My name is Maria. My husband, daughter and I were born in Argentina and came to the US in 2002; since then we live in Los Angeles. My husband is working as a Medical Assistant and he is a nurse in Argentina. I'm working as a Credentialing Specialist in a Medical Group and I'm a system programmer and system analyst in my country. My daughter just started her 2nd year in College. I would really appreciate your help I have a lot of questions regarding our status. I'm a subscriber since 1999. My daughter and I solved the quiz together using google as well as our encyclopedia.

Thank you very much.

Maria

Maria - Congratulations on being our quiz winners. It was a pleasure speaking with you and your daughter!

Carl Shusterman

Certified Specialist in Immigration Law, State Bar of California (1988 - present)
Former U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service Trial Attorney (1976-82)
Board of Governors, American Immigration Lawyers Association (1988-97)
Phone: (213) 623-4592 Fax: (213) 623-3720
Law Offices of Carl Shusterman, 600 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1550
Los Angeles, California 90017

"I am not blind to the hostility against immigration that has always accompanied our new arrivals. I have studied it all my professional life and I think I understand it. It is ugly. It is fear-based. It springs from incuriosity, the cerebral cortex of ignorance. It is nurtured by the greed gene that says someone new takes from your share, while in truth someone new makes the pie bigger."

Quick Links:

Back Issues: http://shusterman.com/newsletterbackissuesusimmigration.html
Chats: http://shusterman.com/chatsusimmigration.html
Citizenship: http://shusterman.com/citizenship.html
Forms Download: http://shusterman.com/formsusimmigration.html
Job Search: http://shusterman.com/jobsusimmigration.html
Marriage: http://shusterman.com/greencardsthroughmarriage.html
Newsletter: http://shusterman.com/newsletterusimmigration.html
PERM: http://shusterman.com/departmentoflaborusimmigration.html#3A
Permanent Residence: http://shusterman.com/greencards.html
Processing Times: http://shusterman.com/waitingtimesusimmigration.html
Search Our Site: http://shusterman.com/search_tips.html
Temporary Visas: http://shusterman.com/temporaryvisas.html

Advertise in Our Newsletter: pmiller@mhagroup.com
Contact Us: http://shusterman.com/e-mail.html
Firm Biography: http://shusterman.com/ourimmigrationattorneys.html
Schedule a Consultation: https://www.shusterman.com/intake-secure.html
Work for Our Law Firm: http://shusterman.com/careers.html

November 1, 2009