Beach-Oswald Immigration Law Associates
Beach-Oswald Immigration Law
News Update
In This Issue . . .

1. Recent Grants & Successes

2. Opening a Window for Asylum Claims Based on Family Ties

3. Children Facing Imminent Danger Will Likely Remain in the United States

4. Two Years Later: The Impact of DACA

5. Leon Rodriguez to Become New Head of USCIS

6. Countries of Particular Concern

7. Immigration Court Backlogs Reach All-Time High

8. New Maryland Law Raises the SIJS Age Cut Off to 21

9. August 2014 Visa Bulletin

Quick Links
Join Our List

Join Our Mailing List

AILA 2013

 Like us on Facebook

Follow us on Twitter

View our profile on LinkedIn

View our videos on YouTube

Visit our blog


clients choice award

 

Issue: #4July 2014

Beach-Oswald Immigration Law Associates, PC are Washington, DC immigration attorneys. Our law firm is devoted exclusively to immigration law. We have an AV rating (highest possible rating for lawyers for legal acumen and ethical standards). Practicing law since 1981.

 

Thank you all for your confidence and support as we have been listed again for Washington DC Super Lawyers 2011-2014, representing the top 5% of lawyers in the area as listed by the Washington Post 2014!

 

Please complete a Client Data Form prior to your consultation. We have forms in English, French, Spanish, Korean, Arabic and Russian. If you require a form in another language, please call us at (202) 331-3074.

 

 Read on!

Cartoon from Tom Toles, The Washington Post
 
Recent Grants & Successes by BOILA
success
Grants by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 
 
BOILA is pleased to announce that Mr. S, a native and citizen of Malaysia who is in a same-sex marriage with a US citizen, was granted approval of his adjustment of status application and obtained his green card based on approval of the I-130 Petition for Alien Relative filed by his husband
 

Ms. K, a native and citizen of Cameroon, was granted approval of her adjustment of status application based on approval of her I-360 abused spouse petition.  BOILA was successful in showing that Ms. K was the victim of physical and emotional abuse by her US citizen spouse.

 

Mr. A, a native and citizen of Ghana, was granted approval of his adjustment of status application and obtained his green card through his marriage to a US citizen and approval of the I-130 Petition for Alien Relative filed by his wife.  

 

Mr. M, a native and citizen of Sweden, was granted approval of his I-601 waiver of inadmissibility application.  BOILA was successful in showing that if Mr. M is refused admission to the US, his US citizen spouse would suffer extreme hardship.  USCIS previously denied Mr. M's waiver of inadmissibility application based on allegations that he failed to disclose a petty theft crime conviction and used a different name when entering the US.  As a result of BOILA's efforts, Mr. M can now join his wife in the US.

 

Ms. A, a native and citizen of Cameroon, was granted approval of her adjustment of status application based on approval of her I-360 abused spouse petition.  BOILA was successful in showing that Ms. A was the victim of physical and emotional abuse by her US citizen spouse.

 

Ms. M, a native and citizen of Tanzania, was granted approval of the I-130 Petition for Alien Relative filed by her US citizen spouse. Ms. M can now seek adjustment of status to become a permanent resident.

 

Mr. S, a native and citizen of Cameroon, was granted approval of his asylum application by the Baltimore Immigration Court following a remand of his case by the Board of Immigration Appeals.  BOILA was successful in appealing the Immigration Judge's previous denial of Mr. S's asylum application.

 

Ms. D, a native and citizen of Ghana, was granted approval of her adjustment of status application based on approval of her I-360 abused spouse petition.  BOILA was successful in showing that Ms. D was the victim of physical and emotional abuse by her US citizen spouse despite the fact that USCIS previously alleged that she had not entered into the marriage in good faith.

 

Mr. W, a native and citizen of Sierra Leone, was granted approval of the I-130 Petition for Alien Relative filed by his US citizen son.  Mr. W can now seek adjustment of status to become a permanent resident.

 

Mr. K, a native and citizen of Cameroon, was granted approval of his asylum application by the Arlington Asylum Office due to persecution he suffered as a result of his political activities with the Cameroon Democratic Union, an opposition political party, and the persecution suffered by his father and sister as a result of their political activities. 

 

Ms. A and Mr. A, natives and citizens of Syria, obtained their green cards based on their approved asylum applications.  BOILA was previously successful in obtaining approval of Ms. A's and Mr. A's applications for political asylum by the Arlington Asylum Office.

 

Mr. A, a native and citizen of Cameroon, a native and citizen of Cameroon, was granted approval of his asylum application by the Arlington Asylum Office due to persecution he suffered as a result of his political activities with the Southern Cameroon's National Council (SCNC).  BOILA looks forward to filing petitions for Mr. A's spouse and children in Cameroon so that they may join him in the United States.

 

Mr. T, a native and citizen of Sri Lanka, was granted asylum by the Arlington Immigration Court based on his Tamil ethnicity and the persecution he suffered as a result of his membership in this minority ethnic group.  With BOILA's assistance, Mr. T's asylum and withholding of removal applications were granted despite the fact that Mr. T lived in the US for some time prior to returning to Sri Lanka when he was persecuted.

 

Ms. G, a native and citizen of Cameroon, was granted approval of her adjustment of status application and obtained her green card through her marriage to a US citizen and approval of the I-130 Petition for Alien Relative filed by her husband.  

 

Ms. A, a native and citizen of Cameroon, who was in removal proceedings was granted approval of her adjustment of status application by the Baltimore Immigration Court.  BOILA was successful in assisting Ms. A in obtaining her green card through her marriage to a US citizen and approval of the I-130 Petition for Alien Relative filed by her husband despite the fact that she had been previously denied by the Immigration Court. 

Opening a Window for Asylum Claims Based on Family Ties 
In Aldana-Ramos v. Holder, just issued on June 27, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that family alone can constitute a particular social group, and thus an asylee who has been persecuted on account of his or her family membership can qualify for asylum. 
 

In Aldana-Ramos v. Holder, the wealthy father of two brothers had been kidnapped and held for ransom by members of the "Z" gang in Guatemala. After the brothers exhausted their financial resources to pay their father's ransom, he was murdered. The notorious Z gang in Guatemala was suspected of being behind the father's kidnapping and murder. After the father was killed, the brothers noticed that they were being followed by unmarked cars. Afraid for their lives, the brothers eventually fled to the United States and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) on the grounds that they had been persecuted on account of their membership in a particular social group: their immediate family.

 

Although the Immigration Judge (IJ) found the brothers to be credible, the IJ and the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) rejected the brothers' particular social group.  They found that the brother's particular social group, "immediate family," did not meet the requirements of particular social visibility and that the kidnapping and murder of the father had been motivated by the father's wealth rather than on account of a protected characteristic of the father or his family. 

 

The case went up to the First Circuit on appeal. The First Circuit rejected the IJ and Board's reasoning and found that family can be a particular social group.  Thus, even though the father may have been kidnapped and killed because of his wealth, which is not a protected characteristic, the brothers could prevail on their asylum claim because they, unlike their father, had not been targeted for persecution based on their wealth (or at least not exclusively for their wealth), but rather based on their family relationship with their father.

 

Interestingly, had the father survived, his asylum case would not have been a strong one.  Although the father was certainly persecuted, as he was kidnapped and subsequently murdered by the Z gang, he was persecuted on account of his wealth, not on account of one of the five protected grounds. "Wealthy Guatemalans" has been rejected as a social group because wealth is considered too subjective, is not an immutable characteristic, and is not readily identifiable or particular enough to constitute a particular social group. See In Re A-M-E- & J-G-U-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 69 (BIA 2007). The father's sons, however, have a stronger asylum case because they were persecuted on account of their family relationship with their father.  It all boils down to the idea that family is a protected characteristic, whereas wealth is not.

 

Aldana-Ramos v. Holder opens a window for those who have been persecuted based on their family ties, but whose asylum claims do not fall neatly in one of the protected categories: race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or social group.  In this case, the First Circuit held that family by itself can qualify as a particular social group. Thus, if the brothers were persecuted because of their family relationship with their father, they were persecuted on account of a protected characteristic: membership in a particular social group.

 

Read the First Circuit Case Here... 

Children Facing Imminent Danger Will Likely Remain in the United States

Amid the growing debate over immigration reform, specifically concerning the increasing number of unaccompanied children migrants crossing into the Untied Stats, the White House announced that immigrant children who face imminent and mortal danger in their home countries will likely be allowed to remain in the United States.  

 

White House Secretary Josh Earnest stated that these children are entitled to due process and will go through the immigration process thereby allowing immigration judges and asylum officials to make the final determination of whether they face a credible threat of death upon return to their home countries.  If immigration officials do in fact determine that a child faces a clear and credible threat of harm upon return to their home country the judge may ultimately find that the child be granted asylum permitting that child to legally remain in the United States.  

 

Secretary Earnest did mention that the White House is looking for greater authority to more efficiently enforce the current immigration law and expressed the White House's interest in changing the current immigration laws, but few specifics have been offered concerning details of these changes.

 

Two Years Later:  The Impact of DACA

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Program is an Obama Administration initiative implemented to extend rights and benefits to the growing number of undocumented youths and young adults living in the United States. The program allows youths and young adults meeting certain requirements to temporarily defer deportation and receive both eligibility for renewable two-year work permits and temporary Social Security numbers that allow them access to health care and higher education. The program does not provide a path to legalization for these youths, but rather it simply offers them a means to participate constructively in the mainstream American economy, breaking down the barriers to higher education and employment faced by undocumented youths. As of March 2014, 553,197 young people have been approved for the program, although hundreds of thousands of others have not yet chosen to apply. The Washington-based Migration Policy Institute estimates a total of 1.1 million people are eligible for DACA.

               

To be eligible for DACA, a young person must have arrived in the United States prior to age 16; have resided continuously in the United States without legal status since June 15, 2007; be less than age 31 as of June 15, 2012; and at least age 15 at the time of the application submission (unauthorized immigrants under 15 but in removal proceedings are also eligible to apply). Additionally, eligible applicants must currently be enrolled in school; have graduated high school or obtained a general development certificate (GED); or be an honorably discharged veteran. Finally, applicants are inadmissible who have been convicted of a felony, have multiple or serious misdemeanors, or who pose a threat to national security or public safety.

               

Prior to DACA, these young people had no alternative but to work illegally in low paying positions with little or no chance for advancement, creating a waste of talent and skill that could be used to improve both their lives and the United States economy. Most live in low-income households with family members, many of whom are undocumented themselves. As with adult immigration trends in recent years, most applicants have relocated from violence and gang-torn regions of Latin America, and they come to the United States in search of safety, and, hopefully, the chance to earn a steady wage.

 

Since the implementation of DACA on June 15, 2012, almost 700,000 youths have applied to the program, and approximately 72% of them have been approved.  Nearly three-fourths of these come from low-income households, and they have a median age of 22.7 years.  The vast majority of applicants (74.9%) originally hail from Mexico - there are over twenty times as many applicants from Mexico as there are from El Salvador, the second leading nation of origin. Rounding out the leading nations of origin are numerous Latin American nations and a sprinkling of applicants from other parts of the world.

 

Despite its successes, the program still faces considerable challenges from interest groups within the government, from misinformation about the program, and even from inconsistency in application of the program by officials. Older applicants, especially those living independently from parents, and those not enrolled in school, may have a harder time documenting that they have been living in the United States continuously since 2007. In addition, the more time that has elapsed since their entry, the longer time period they must document residence in the United States. Other potential applicants are discouraged by issues such as whether they qualify under the criteria, lack of funds for the $465 application fee, or lack of educational enrollment. Some potentially eligible individuals may not be aware of their undocumented status, especially younger people. Still others lack correct information about the program. Despite outreach by nonprofits, many lack access to support in filing applications. Further complicating the matter, US Customs and Immigration Services (USCIS) persistently encourages eligible youths to come forward, but Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) continues to deport the friends and family of eligible youths - in some cases, it even continues to deport youths who turn out not to be eligible.

 

For those who do qualify, the outcome of involvement with DACA seems to be mostly positive. Almost 60% of DACA beneficiaries have obtained new jobs since approval, and have been able to increase their income.  Because the new earnings translate into a greater tax base, beneficiaries provide an important boost to the recovering economy.  Intriguingly, 21% of DACA beneficiaries have accepted internships, highlighting the valuable career training that DACA provides to youths.  57% of these youths have obtained drivers licenses, increasingly their mobility while decreasing the number of unlicensed drivers - thus creating safer roads for everyone. 49% have opened their first bank account, and 33% have obtained their first credit card. Also importantly for our crippled health care system, 21% have obtained health insurance at the state level (DACA beneficiaries remain ineligible for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act at the national level). The greatest benefits of DACA seem to be for those who have already received a bachelor's degree from a four-year college.  These respondents are far more likely than non-DACA peers to obtain jobs following their approval. 

 

In whole, DACA has been a marked success, enriching not only beneficiaries, but also their families, friends, and communities. Community-based organizations, non-profits, legal clinics, religious organizations, and schools have diligently reached out to provide information and assistance to young persons wishing to file DACA applications.  The program provides beneficiaries with not only economic opportunities, but also social and civil opportunities previously beyond their reach.  Despite this, the program remains a partial solution because it offers no path to citizenship for even the most exemplary candidates.  With 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the country, providing an efficient and equitable solution to immigration reform remains a crucial challenge.


Leon Rodriguez to Become New Head of USCIS

The US Senate, on Tuesday, June 24, confirmed Leon Rodriguez as the next Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). The director is responsible for administering and processing asylum and refugee applications, immigration benefits, and naturalization and visa petitions.

Mr. Rodriguez previously served as the Director of the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services from 2011 to the present. Much of his work there involved bringing cases against medical and insurance organizations for violations of HIPAA, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act for breaches of patient information.

 

In 2011, President Obama nominated Rodriguez to lead the Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division. However, his nomination was withdrawn because of Republican opposition to his work in the Civil Rights Division. From 2010 to 2011, Mr. Rodriguez served as Chief of Staff and Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the Department of Justice (DOJ), overseeing the division's administrative operations and cases involving discrimination based on national origin and immigration status. Mr. Rodriguez also served as County Attorney for Montgomery County, Maryland from 2007 to 2010. During that time, he also worked for President Obama's Justice Department transition team in 2008 and 2009.

 

From 2001 to 2007 Mr. Rodriguez was a partner at Ober, Kaler, Grimes, and Shriver in Washington, D.C., again focusing on health care law. He served in the United States Attorney's Office for the Western District of Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh) from 1997 to 2001, first as Chief of the White Collar Crimes Section from 1998 to 1999 and then as First Assistant U.S. Attorney until his departure. During his tenure at the U.S. Attorney's office in Pittsburgh, Mr. Rodriguez focused primarily on health care fraud. Prior to joining the U.S. Attorney's Office, Mr. Rodriguez was a trial attorney in the Civil Rights Division at DOJ from 1994 to 1997 and a Senior Assistant District Attorney at the Kings County District Attorney's Office in New York from 1988 to 1994, where he prosecuted cases including some against members of the Colombo and Genovese crime families.

 

Rodriguez is married to a physician, Dr. Jill Schwartz. They have two children, Talia and Elias. Rodriguez speaks several foreign languages, including Spanish, French, Hebrew and Italian. The son of small business-owning Cuban immigrants who sought refuge from the Castro regime in the U.S., Rodriguez was born in Brooklyn, NY in 1962, where he lived until moving to Miami at the age of 4 with his parents. Rodriguez received a B.A. from Brown University and a J.D. from Boston College Law School. His grandparents moved from Poland and Turkey to Cuba in the late teens and early 20's to escape anti-Semitism, giving Mr. Rodriguez a multi-generational personal experience with immigration that will serve him well as the new Director of USCIS.

 

Mr. Rodriguez has offered tantalizing insights into how, if approved by the Senate, he might tackle the daunting job of USCIS Director, especially in reply to Sen. Grassley's queries. In written responses to Senator's queries, he reaffirms his belief in the proper use of prosecutorial discretion and the need to protect internal agency whistleblowers from retaliation, agreeing to meet with union representatives of USICS employees and expressing support for recent USCIS reforms of the EB-5 program. He also stated that in limited situations it is incumbent upon the USICS Director to intervene in a pending case when the "outcome of adjudication is wrong, or when adjudication may present a legal, factual, or policy issue of broad application. Regarding the appointment, Jeh Johnson, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), said: "We are filling vacancies in senior-level positions in this department and injecting a new energy within its leadership."

Countries of Particular Concern 

In its 15th annual report, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends that the Countries of Particular Concern (CPC) list, which tracks and monitors countries with severe violations of religious freedoms, be doubled in size, expanding to include Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Vietnam, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Nigeria, and Tajikistan. The USCIRF is an independent, bipartisan watchdog panel created by Congress to review conditions of religious freedoms internationally by analyzing the facts and circumstances of violations of religious freedom and to make policy recommendations "[g]rounded in and informed by the American experience."

 

Since 2006, eight countries have been designated on the United States State Department list of "Countries of Particular Concern" (CPCs). The list documents those countries worldwide that engage in clear violations of religious freedoms, and it's unchanged roster for the past eight years has named Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Uzbekistan. Each of these countries undoubtedly engages in systemic and extreme suppression of religious freedoms, but they are far from the only places to display such a record. 

 

A number of factors influence the appointment of new nations to the CPC list, which defines "severe violations of religious freedom to mean systematic, ongoing, egregious violations of religious freedom, including violations such as:

a) Torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment;

b) Prolonged detention without charges;

c) Causing the disappearance of persons by the abduction or clandestine detention of those persons; or

d) Other flagrant denials of the right to life, liberty, or the security of persons.

 

Nations designated as CPC may be subject to further actions, including economic sanctions, by the United States. For this reason, the recommendations made by the USCIRF are delivered to the President and the Secretary of State, who have ultimate jurisdiction controlling whether new states are added to the list.

 

Over the last 10 years, numerous nations have seen a worsening of their religious freedom climate. Pakistan, according to the USCIRF, "represents the worst situation in the world for religious freedom for countries not currently designated by the U.S. government as "countries of particular concern."  In the past year, conditions hit an all-time low due to chronic sectarian violence targeting mostly Shi'a Muslims but also Christians, Ahmadis, and Hindus. 

 

In Turkmenistan, religious freedom violations persist despite a few limited reforms in 2007. Police raids and harassment of reg­istered and unregistered religious groups continue. The repressive 2003 religion law remains in force, causing major difficulties for all religious groups.

 

Although USCIRF recommended Vietnam for CPC designation in 2004 and 2005, it withdrew the recommendation in 2006 because of progress toward fulfilling a bilateral agreement to release prison­ers, banning forced renunciations of faith, and expanding legal protections for religious groups. However, Vietnam continues to imprison individuals for religious activity or religious freedom advocacy, and it uses a specialized religious police force and vague national security laws to suppress independent Buddhist, Protestant, Hoa Hao, and Cao Dai activities and to stop the growth of ethnic minority Protes­tantism and Catholicism via discrimination, violence, and forced renunciations of their faith.

 

Egypt showed some progress during a turbulent political transition, but the Morsi-era government and the interim government failed to protect religious minorities, particularly Coptic Orthodox Christians, from violence. Discriminatory and repressive laws and policies that restrict freedom of thought, conscience, and religion or belief remain in place under the new constitution. For example, Egyptian courts continue to prosecute, convict and imprison Egyptian citizens for blasphemy.

 

In the past year, the government of Iraq failed to stem egregious violence by non-state actors against Iraqi civilians, including attacks targeting religious pilgrims and worshippers, religious sites, and leaders, as well as individuals for their actual or assumed religious identity. The Iraqi government took actions that increased, rather than reduced, Sunni-Shi'a tensions stemming from the Syrian crisis, threaten­ing the country's already fragile stability and further exacerbating the poor religious freedom environment. Especially concerning is the draft personal status law that would separately apply to Shi'a Iraqis, which risks further hardening the sectarian divide.

 

Religious freedom in Syria has been deteriorating dramatically throughout the ongoing conflict between Assad's regime and anti-government elements seeking his overthrow, subjecting the Syrian people to egregious violations of human rights, including freedom of religion or belief. Government forces and affiliated militias have perpetrated religiously-motivated attacks against Sunni Muslim civilians and members of religious minority communities, and have increased sectarian divides through rhetoric and religiously-motivated violence.

 

Recurring sectarian violence, attacks and threats against Christians by Boko-Haram continue to test Nigeria's democracy, and the misuse of religion by politicians, religious leaders, and others. Religion and religious identity intertwine with ethnic, politi­cal, economic, and social controversies to strain already tense Christian-Muslim relations. While the Nigerian government does not engage in religious persecution, it tolerates severe violations through its fail­ure to bring to justice those responsible for systematic, ongoing, and egregious religious freedom violations, or to prevent or contain sectarian violence.

 

Systematic, ongoing, egregious violations of religious freedom continue in Tajikistan. The government sup­presses and punishes all religious activity independent of state control, particularly the activities of Muslims, Protestants, and Jehovah's Witnesses. The government also imprisons individuals on unproven criminal alle­gations linked to Islamic religious activity and affilia­tion. Jehovah's Witnesses have been banned since 2007. There are no legal provisions on conscientious objection to military service.

 

All of these nations have been recommended for inclusion in previous years, and the State Department, without comment, continually fails to add them to the official CPC list.  Explanations of this course of action include political tensions and the vacancy (since last October) of the office of Ambassador-at-large for religious freedoms. In addition to these countries, USCIRF also recommended the inclusion of 10 "Tier 2" countries, in which religious freedom violations are serious but do not rise to the level of the CPC standard. These countries are Afghanistan, Azerbijan, Cuba, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Laos, Malaysia, Russia, and Turkey.

 

Read the Full Report Here... 

 

Immigration Court Backlogs Reach All-Time High

Due to the recent surge of unaccompanied children migrants the backlog in Immigration Courts has reached an all-time high.  At the end of June the backlog totaled 375,503 cases, which is an increase of more than 50,000 since the start of the 2013 fiscal year. Specifically the number of juvenile cases has increased to 41,600 and more are anticipated every day. Along with an increase in the backlog, the average wait-time for pending cases has also increased to an average of 587 days.

 

To view annual backlog trends and the states with the largest backlog per the end of June 2014, see the latest Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) REPORT.

 

New Maryland Law Raises the SIJS Age Cut Off to 21
 
A new Maryland law, HB 315, that will come into effect on October 1, 2014 allows for unmarried children under the age of 21 who may not be reunified with one or both parents because of abuse, neglect or abandonment to obtain Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS).  

Under previous Maryland law the juvenile courts could only exercise jurisdiction over and thereby provide SIJS status to children who were 18 years old or younger.  The new law now replicates federal law by permitting children who are unmarried and under the age of 21 to obtain SIJS.

Visa Bulletin for August 2014

FAMILY SPONSORED PREFERENCES:

Family Sponsored
All Areas Except Those Listed
China - Mainland Born
India
Mexico
Philippines
F122 APR 0722 APR 0722 APR 0708 APR 9401 JAN 04
F2A01 MAY 1201 MAY 1201 MAY 1215 MAR 1101 MAY 12
F2B01 JUL 0701 JUL 0701 JUL 0701 APR 9408 Oct 03
F315 NOV 0315 NOV 0315 NOV 0315 SEP 9315 APR 93
F401 JAN 0201 JAN 0201 JAN 0201 JAN 9722 JAN 91

EMPLOYMENT-BASED PREFERENCES: 

Employment Based
All Areas Except Those Listed
China-Mainland Born
India
Mexico
Philippines
1stCurrentCurrentCurrentCurrentCurrent
2ndCurrent08 OCT 0922 JAN 09CurrentCurrent
3rd01 APR 1101 NOV 0808 NOV 0301 APR 1101 JAN 10
Other Workers 01 APR 1122 JUL 0508 NOV 0301 APR 1101 JAN 10

4thCurrentCurrentCurrentCurrentCurrent
Certain Religious WorkersCurrentCurrentCurrentCurrentCurrent
5th Targeted Employment Areas/Regional Centers and Pilot ProgramsCurrentCurrentCurrentCurrentCurrent

DIVERSITY IMMIGRANT (DV) CATEGORY FOR THE MONTH OF JULY:

RegionAll DV Areas Except Those Listed 
Africa69,300Except:
Egypt:  32,250
Nigeria:  25,000
Asia12,700 
Europe40,150 
North America (Bahamas)Current 
Oceania1,450 
South America, and the Caribbean1,750 

Please let us know if we can help you in any way for all your immigration needs. Have a wonderful summer!
 
Sincerely,
 

Danielle Beach-Oswald
Beach-Oswald Immigration Lawyers
FREE
Consult
Beach-Oswald Immigration Law Associates will be happy to answer all of your immigration related questions during a scheduled in-office or telephonic consultation. During your consultation, one of the partners of the firm will review your problem at length, and will explain in detail what resolutions are available to you. Click here now.

Disclaimer: This newsletter is not intended to establish an attorney-client relationship. All information contained in this newsletter is generalized. Any reliance on information contained herein is taken at your own risk.