Volume Five, Number Three

SHUSTERMAN’S IMMIGRATION UPDATE is the Web’s most popular e-mail newsletter regarding U.S. immigration laws and procedures with over 40,000 subscribers located in more than 150 countries. It is written by a former INS Trial Attorney (1976-82) with over 30 years of experience practicing immigration law.

Published by the Law Offices of Carl Shusterman, 600 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1550, Los Angeles, California, 90017. Phone: (213) 623-4592 x0.

Subscribe to our E-Mail Newsletter, join the conversation on our Immigration Facebook Page, follow our Blog Posts and subscribe to our “How-To” Immigration Videos.

Subscribers to SHUSTERMAN’S IMMIGRATION UPDATE: 30,957

Guest Contributor: This month, Topic #8 was written by Maurice Belanger, Senior Policy Analyst for the National Immigration Forum. Based in Washington, D.C., and established in 1982, the Forum has distinguished itself as one of the nation’s foremost authorities on immigration. The Forum defends legal immigration, fights anti-immigrant prejudice and preserves the American tradition of diversity. For more information about the National Immigration Forum, see

http://immigrationforum.org

Client Reviews

Newsletter US Immigration Update March 2000

This month’s issue contains the following topics:

Table of Contents

• March 2000 State Department Visa Bulletin: EB Numbers Regress
• Immigration Government Processing Times
• H-1B Update: The Good, The Bad and The Just Plain Devious
• Amnesty 2000: AFL-CIO Labor Federation Backs New Amnesty
• Derivative Citizenship: Using The Law To Perform “Miracles”
• Immigration Trivia Quiz: Immigrant Achievement Awards
• Chat Schedule and Online Transcripts
• Budget: Administration Proposes Building on Past Initiatives
• Web Site: Executive Office For Immigration Review (EOIR)
• Answers to the Trivia Quiz: “Lennon Read A Book Of Marx”

NEWS FLASHES:

• Congressional Hearing into INS Delays – See http://www.shusterman.com/lofgren-pr.html (Link no longer operational.)

• Family Unity – Attorneys and their clients who are experiencing long delays in having I-817 Family Unity case processed can now take action. See  http://www.shusterman.com/817.html (Link no longer operational.)

• Haitians – The last day that the INS must RECEIVE form I-485 under the Haitian Refugee Immigrant Fairness Act (HRIFA) is March 31, 2000. Remember that I-485’s under HRIFA must be filed at the Nebraska Service Center. For more information, see http://www.shusterman.com/asylumusimmigration/and scroll down to “INS Issues Reminder to Haitians Eligible for HRIFA Benefits”.

• INS’s National Customer Service Center (NCSC) – Have a question about INS services and procedures? INS now offers the following 24 hours a day, 7 days a week toll free telephone number: 1(800) 375-5283. If you want to talk to a live person, be sure you call during regular business hours. INS advises that the best times to call are Tuesday through Friday. The agency cautions that “at this time, NSCS is unable to answer questions about the status of a specific case.”

• Involuntary Servitude – Many of us have read stories about immigrants who are lured to the United States by false promises and end up as virtual slave laborers. If you know of a case of forced labor or exploitation, please report it to the Justice Department by using their new toll-free hotline: 1(888)428-7581.

• NACARA – Remember that the last day that the INS must RECEIVE your form I-485 under section 202 of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) is March 31, 2000. Remember that I-485’s under NACARA must be filed at the Texas Service Center.

• Secret Evidence – How would you feel if the government charged you with being deportable, but informed you that for national security reasons, the evidence against you would be kept secret? Read Georgetown Law Professor David Cole’s testimony before the House Immigration Subcommittee regarding secret evidence and H.R. 2121, a bill which would bar the use of secret evidence in immigration proceedings at http://www.shusterman.com/legislationusimmigration.htmlunder the “‘Fix the ’96’ Law Campaign”.

• State Department Country Reports – The State Department has issued the 1999 edition of its Country Reports. This report is extremely valuable in the preparation of Requests for Asylum. The report is now online. See http://www.shusterman.com/asylumusimmigration/ and scroll down to “1999 State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices (2-25-00)” under “U.S. State Department”. While you are in the vicinity, check out some of our recently-updated “Asylum and Human Rights Links”.

1. March 2000 State Department Visa Bulletin: EB Numbers Regress

On March 10, 2000, we posted the April 2000 Visa Bulletin, before the State Department posted the dates on their web site.

Mad’s copy was not completely legible because of damage caused by raw eggs which were thrown at her during her recent European trip, but here’s what we know now…

For the Family categories, the priority dates continue to creep forward at a snail’s pace. Worldwide numbers move forward from one to five weeks. India 4th advances one week while the Philippine 4th (brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens) is still lingering back in 1979, a wait of over 20 years!

The Employment categories have all been Current (with the exception of the unskilled worker category which advances three months to June 1, 1994) since August 1, 1999 due to the INS’s failure to approve applications for adjustment of status in significant numbers.

However, starting April 1, 2000, the EB2 and EB3 categories for persons born in India will backlog to January 1, 1999 and January 1, 1997, respectively. Though we won’t obtain the numbers for mainland China until Monday at the earliest, expect the EB numbers for China to regress significantly. According to the State Department’s Charles Oppenheim, the regressions came about because the INS started approving I-485’s in mass quantities during the past few weeks.

The April Visa Numbers (partial listing) can be found at

http://www.shusterman.com/statedepartmentvisabulletin/

For an explanation of what the categories, dates and symbols listed below mean, see

http://www.shusterman.com/greencardsthroughrelatives.html

and

http://www.shusterman.com/greencardsthroughemployment/

For the State Department’s official version, complete with information about the movement of family, employment and lottery numbers, wait a couple of days and then see http://travel.state.gov/visa_bulletin.html (Link is no longer operational.)

2. Immigration Government Processing Times

We link to the most recent immigration waiting times for each of the four USCIS Service Centers, the National Benefits Center and the Administrative Appeals Office. We also link to the processing times of all of the 83 USCIS District Offices and Sub-offices. We link to the Labor Department’s page entitled “Processing dates for labor certification applications”. Finally, we link to the State Department’s “Visa Wait Times” page.

Read more…

3. H-1B Update: The Good, The Bad and The Just Plain Devious

During the past month, so many events relating to H-1Bs occurred that we could literally fill our entire newsletter discussing them.

The events can be roughly divided into the following three categories –

The Good: On March 9, the Senate Judiciary Committee okayed S.2045 by a vote of 16-2. This bill would raise the H-1B cap to 195,000 annually for the next three years, eliminate discriminatory per country quotas, allow certain persons in H-1B status to extend their stay beyond the usual six years, etc.

The complete text of S.2045 (prior to the March 9th mark-up is available at

http://www.shusterman.com/s2045.html (Link is no longer operational.)

A summary of the amendments to S.2045 which were introduced at the mark-up may be found at

http://www.shusterman.com/s2045mu.html (Link is no longer operational.)

For a FAQ concerning S.2045, see

http://www.shusterman.com/ac21frequentlyaskedquestions.html

Since H-1B numbers will not last longer than another week or two, it is necessary for supporters of S.2045 to e-mail their senators and representatives during the Senate recess (now until March 20). Otherwise, there will be no new H-1Bs approved until October 1, 2000, dealing a crippling blow to our economy.

Sample letters and lists of e-mail addresses of Members of Congress may be found at

http://www.shusterman.com/s2045ltr.html (Link is no longer operational.)

and

http://www.shusterman.com/hr2698ltr.html (Link is no longer operational.)

If you support raising the H-1B cap, you are in good company. Both Vice-President Gore and Governor Bush have endorsed raising the cap. Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan says that it is necessary to raise the H-1B cap to insure continued economic growth

White House spokesman Jake Siewert also expressed support for the concept of raising the cap: “We are ready to support a reasonable increase in the number of H-1B visas as long as it reflects a balanced approach that protects and prepares the U.S. work force.” However, what the White House considers “reasonable” and “balanced” remains to be seen. Mr. Siewert’s choice of words seem to mirror those of Rep. Lamar Smith (See “The Oh-So-Ugly” below).

The Bad: The INS broke its long silence and announced that by February 15, 67,000 H-1B petitions subject to the cap had been approved, and that 44,000 H-1B petitions were pending. However, the agency has no idea how many of the 44,000 unadjudicated petitions are subject to the cap.

Meanwhile, the KPMG audit of the alleged undercount of H-1B’s from the last fiscal year has yet to be completed. Senator Abraham (R-MI) wrote a letter to the INS Commissioner about the audit on February 25. He detailed how the entire counting methodology is seriously flawed. His letter demonstrates how the INS is actually overcounting the number of H-1Bs subject to the cap. see

http://www.shusterman.com/abraham300.html (Link no longer operational.)

Also, the INS (but not DOL) issued H-1B regulations on February 29. See

http://www.shusterman.com/h1breg00.html (Link no longer operational.)

As of March 30, a newly-revised form I-129W must be submitted with every new H-1B petition. You may download and print the new I-129W form (assuming that the INS web site is operational) at

http://www.shusterman.com/formsusimmigration/

The Just Plain Devious: Trust Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) to craft a bill to raise the H-1B cap that is so devious and anti-immigrant that it is acceptable only to a few outside the Beltway except the anti-immigrant fringe groups which adore Rep. Smith.

When the S.2045 was first introduced by Senators Hatch (R-UT) and Abraham (R-MI) and a bipartisan group of 20 senators, Rep. Smith actually seemed ready to cooperate when he stated, “We are ready to support a reasonable increase in the number of H-1B visas as long as it reflects a balanced approach that protects and prepares the U.S. work force.”

Then, on March 1, Rep. Smith and a few of his colleagues introduced the so-called “Technology Worker Temporary Relief Act” (H.R.3814), a bill that is anything but “reasonable” and “balanced”. The bill would raise the H-1B cap by 45,000, but only for this year, and only if and when the Labor Department issues regulations to implement the 1998 H-1B law, and only for large employers, and only if these employers take certain steps required by Rep. Smith…

Under the Smith bill, the H-1B cap would fall starting on October 1, 2000, the discriminatory per country quotas would remain, as would the six-year maximum duration, etc., etc.

To us, the bill is a wolf-in-sheep’s clothing, but please judge for yourself. Read the complete text of H.R. 3814 at

http://www.shusterman.com/hr3814.html (Link is no longer operational.)

and the section-by-section summary, with comments, at

http://www.shusterman.com/hr3814sum.html (Link is no longer operational.)

and Rep. Smith’s press release concerning H.R.3814 at

http://www.shusterman.com/smith-pr.html (Link is no longer operational.)

Also, consider the reasoning of the American Immigration Lawyers Association supporting S.2045 and opposing H.R.3814 at

http://www.shusterman.com/s2045act.html (Link no longer operational.)

Will the bill that reaches the President’s desk in April(?) look more like S.2045 or H.R.3814? It may depend on you! E-mail your Members of Congress now. Read our news ticker for regular updates.

4. Amnesty 2000: AFL-CIO Labor Federation Backs New Amnesty

On February 16, 2000, the AFL-CIO, the giant labor federation called for an amnesty for undocumented workers, an end to employer sanctions and a restoration of benefits that were taken away by the 1996 anti-immigrant law. The AFL-CIO’s action did not come as a complete surprise. As far back as the October issue of SHUSTERMAN’S IMMIGRATION UPDATE, we reported as follows:

“Si, Se Puede!: The AFL-CIO may do an about-face on immigration. On October 11 in Los Angeles, some of the labor federation’s fastest growing and most aggressive unions argued for an end to employer sanctions and for an amnesty for undocumented workers. Dolores Huerta of the United Farm Workers stated that ‘our position is that we should give undocumented workers amnesty…'” Still, I had to pinch myself when I picked up the Los Angeles Times the other day and read about the unanimous approval that the AFL-CIO gave to a resolution calling for a new amnesty for undocumented workers. For too many years, many labor unions looked upon immigrants as little more that “cheap foreign labor”, direct competition with union labor. Rather than try to organize foreign-born workers, they demanded their exclusion. As far back as the 1880’s, union opposition to Chinese laborers working for pennies an hour to build our railroads led to the infamous “Chinese Exclusion Act”. Organized labor supported “Operation Wetback”, the giant round-up and deportation of thousands of Latinos, immigrants and U.S. citizens alike, in the 1950’s. Labor union support for sanctions against employers who hired undocumented workers helped pass the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.

Seen in this context, the ALF-CIO’s call for a new amnesty and an end to employer sanctions represents a 180-degree turnabout for organized labor. The labor federation has learned the hard way that it is only possible to organize workers who are legally present in the U.S. This is because there are some unscrupulous employers who are all too eager to exploit illegal aliens. When a union tries to organize them, the employer “suddenly discovers” that it needs to fire these workers on the ground that they would be violating the I-9 laws by keeping them on the payroll.

How likely is it that the AFL-CIO’s resolution will result in legislation during the current legislative session? Not likely at all considering the present makeup of the Congress. Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX), the Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Immigration, issued a terse press release in response to the AFL-CIO’s resolution entitled “Union Bosses Sell Out Workers”.

Other Congressional leaders were adamant that the AFL-CIO’s proposals would not see the light of day. Even the Clinton Administration declined to comment on the proposal.

However, Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA), the Chairwoman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, said the caucus members would “look forward to working with the AFL-CIO and the business community to reform our immigration policy…we believe that these immigrants have made impressive contributions to our work force and to our nation.”

The AFL-CIO’s press release, the text of their resolution, Rep. Smith’s response and much more may be found at

http://www.shusterman.com/amnestyusimmigration.html

5. Derivative Citizenship: Using The Law To Perform “Miracles”

Back in the late 1970’s, as an INS Citizenship Attorney, I used to interview persons born abroad who claimed U.S. citizenship through their parents.

Although the laws pertaining to this area of law were (and are) sufficiently complex and obscure to make the whole exercise somewhat interesting, I always had the feeling that my mastery of these laws, like my knowledge of high school algebra, would be almost totally useless as a private attorney.

Well, it ain’t necessarily so!

Example #1: After a half dozen other attorneys had turned them away, the parents of a young man incarcerated for a criminal conviction in Nevada, retained me to represent their son. I explained to them that because their son had become a permanent resident of the U.S. as a child, and since both parents had naturalized prior to his 18th birthday, their son had become a U.S. citizen “by operation of law”. I’ll never forget the Immigration Judge words, spoken during the telephonic “removal” hearing, “Well Mr. Shusterman, it seems that you have no defense and that your client is subject to deportation.” I answered that unless the INS had been given the authority to deport U.S. citizens, I thought that my client had a perfect defense. Two weeks later, the judge terminated the removal proceedings on the ground that my client was a citizen of the U.S.

Example #2: A woman seeking to come to the U.S. called me from the Cayman Islands. After inquiring about her U.S. citizen father, I determined that despite being born abroad, she was a citizen of the U.S. She now holds a U.S. passport.

Example #3: Of all the recent derivative citizenship cases that I have handled recently, the one I’m proudest of involves a man born in Canada named Brian Olsen. Brian’s wife was born in one of the former Soviet Republics, and he needed to prove that he was a U.S. citizen in order to obtain a green card for her so that they could both move to the U.S.

Like the young man in Nevada and the woman in the Cayman Islands, I was able to prove that Brian was a U.S. citizen without ever meeting him in person. Brian had tried on his own to obtain a Certificate of Citizenship from the INS in Montana. He was told that he was not a citizen, and that it was a waste of his time to even apply! The problem was that neither Brian, his parents, nor his grandparents were born in the U.S.

However, Brian is not the kind of person who takes “no” for an answer, especially when he thinks he’s right. I went back five generations to before the Civil War to prove Brian was a U.S. citizen before obtaining a U.S. Passport for him. Explore the laws of derivative citizenship by reading Brian’s story at

http://www.shusterman.com/citizenshipthroughparents.html

By the way, I have completely changed my opinion about the value of my knowledge of the obscure laws of derivation and acquisition. (However, I still don’t know what the value of algebra is ;-)

6. Immigration Trivia Quiz: Immigrant Achievement Awards

Quiz Removed

7. Chat Schedule and Online Transcripts: Amnesty Chat

We now have over a dozen chat transcripts online. Among the topics covered are how to obtain a temporary working visa, permanent residence and U.S. citizenship, new laws pertaining to nurses and physicians, how to complete immigration forms, special problems encountered by computer professionals and by persons born in India and China, the outlook for the Visa Bulletin, and an I-9 primer for HR managers and employees.

This coming Monday, on March 13th at 6pm PST (9pm EST), we will have a chat entitled “H-1B’s: What Happens When The Cap Is Reached?” Our most recent chats were:

• New Amnesty? Reaction to Labor’s Proposal (March 6)
• Nurses: H-1C’s, TN’s and Permanent Residence (February 21)
• Raising the H-1B Cap (February 14)

If you have an idea for a chat topic, please send me an e-mail message at

carl@shusterman.com

and we (My chat sponsors at About.com and CareerPath.com and I will take it under consideration).

For a list of upcoming chats and transcripts of past chats, see

Link to chat no longer available

8. Budget: Administration Proposes Building on Past Initiatives

by Maurice Belanger, National Immigration Forum

In the President’s budget, submitted in February, are several immigration-related initiatives that build on those begun in recent years. Some were proposed last year, but were rejected.

English and Civics. $75 million is proposed to fund programs that provide English language instruction linked to civics and life skills. (A knowledge of English and an understanding of the history and government of the U.S. are prerequisites for naturalization, for the most part.) Last year, Congress allocated approximately $25 million for this program. Non-profit community organizations have been eligible for grants under this program, as well as state educational agencies, institutions of higher learning, and local educational agencies.

Improving INS Services. First the good news. The Administration proposes $127.3 million for an Immigration Services Capital Investment Account(ISCIA). The INS will use this money to fund infrastructure improvements, system upgrades, and to reduce the various backlogs in immigration services. This new dedicated account is separate from the Examinations Fee Account(EFA)–the account that is funded by fees collected from immigrants applying for benefits. Up to now, new infrastructure and system upgrades have been paid for out of the EFA, which has been unable to pay for both the upgrades and the adjudications of ever-increasing applications for immigration benefits.

The bad news? A lot of dominoes have to fall before this funding comes through. $34.8 million of the proposed ISCIA comes from direct appropriations. The remainder, $92.5 million, assumes two things: that there is a restoration of 245(I), and that there is a new “Premium Service Fee” of $1,000 for business-related applications which will guarantee a 15-day turnaround time. All proposals require separate legislation.

245(I), to refresh your memory, is a section of the immigration law which allowed the adjustment of status of persons otherwise eligible for an immigrant visa but here illegally, after payment of a $1,000 penalty fee. It is this penalty fee that the administration is counting on for the ISCIA. After a hard-fought battle, Congress eliminated Section 245(I) three years ago, for all but those who had petitions pending as of January 14, 1998, and it is unclear that it is ready to fight the battle again. Any attempt to restore 245(I) would likely be fought to the death by House Immigration Subcommittee Chair Lamar Smith (R-TX), who saw the provision as a loophole for other enforcement provisions in the law. On the other hand, new voices are entering the immigration debate, including businesses that are very interested in stabilizing their workforce. Section 245(I) has also been attractive to appropriators in Congress, who see the $1,000 penalty fee as an important revenue generator.

The $1,000 premium fee for business applications is contemplated to be used in part for the special processing of these applications. Leftover funds would be used to fund the ISCIA. The premium for business applications does not exactly have immigrant advocates jumping up and down. There is some skepticism that the fee would actually go to reducing family immigration and naturalization backlogs. In a meeting with advocates in February, the INS could not say how funds collected from this fee would translate into reducing other backlogs.

Restoration of Benefits. The Administration again proposes to restore public safety net benefits eliminated by the 1996 welfare reform law. The benefits restoration would amount to $2.5 billion over the next five years, and include the following:

• SSI and Medicaid eligibility would be restored to legal immigrants who entered the U.S. after the enactment of the welfare law (8/22/96), who have been in the U.S. for five years, and who become disabled after entry ($1.2 billion).
• Food Stamp eligibility would be restored to legal immigrants who were in the country on or before 8/22/96 and subsequently reach age 65 ($135 million). Adult legal immigrants who entered the U.S. on or before 8/22/96, and who are living in households with Food Stamp-eligible children, would also have eligibility restored ($430 million).
• States would be given the option of providing Medicaid or the State Child Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) for legal immigrant children and pregnant women regardless of their date of entry ($687 million). Adult legal immigrant parents of children covered by SCHIP or Medicaid would also be covered in a proposed family coverage program ($513 million).

Congress has had hearings on many aspects of the budget, but it is too early to guess the fate of any of these proposals. The final decisions on budget matters generally aren’t made until just before Congress adjourns (if not before the end of the Fiscal Year at the end of September). This year, Congress anticipates adjourning in early October.

9. Web Site: Executive Office For Immigration Review (EOIR)

The EOIR is a Justice Department agency which includes the Immigration Courts, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) and various other subagencies.

We link to the EOIR homepage at

http://www.shusterman.com/deportationdefense.html#5

Recently, we have noticed that the EOIR website has been updated to include the following new sections:

• Special Report – Evaluation of the EOIR-Funded Rights Presentation Pilot Project
• Q & As on the New Streamlining Procedures at the BIA
• BIA: Practice Manual and Questions and Answers

Of the three new additions, the “BIA Practice Manual and Questions and Answers” is far and away the most helpful to immigrants in removal, deportation and exclusion proceedings and their representatives. It consists of the following three sections:

(A) Practice Manual: Guides attorneys and representatives on practice before the BIA.

The Practice Manual is a 148-page document which contains 13 chapters on the following subjects: (1) The BIA; (2) Appearances before the BIA; (3) Filing with the BIA; (4) Appeals of Immigration Judge Decisions; (5) Motions before the BIA; (6) Stays and Expedite Requests; (7) Bond; (8) Oral Argument; (9) Visa Petitions; (10) Fines; (11) Forms; (12) Freedom of Information Act; and (13) Other Information. The Practice Manual also contains the following eight appendices: (A) Mailing Addresses; (B) Directory; (C) Organizational Chart; (D) Deadlines;(F) Forms; (G) Sample Proof of Service and (H) Sample Certificate of Translation.

(B) Q & A’s On Proceedings: Answers questions often asked by people with cases before the BIA.

The Questions and Answers on Proceedings Before the Board is a 57-page document which contains the following five chapters: (1) General Questions; (2) Appeals Procedures; (3) Motions Procedures; (4) After An Appeal or Motion Is Filed; and (5) Helpful Information including a Glossary, Sample Cover Page and Directory of Important Phone Numbers.

(C) Q & A’s On Oral Argument: Guides attorney and representatives through the oral argument process.

The Questions and Answers on Oral Argument is a 10-page document containing 31 questions and answers.

All three of the above documents are in PDF format, were scanned into the website, and were last updated on November 1, 1999.

Although these documents are extremely useful to attorneys and to the general public, the BIA-Immigration Courts section of the EOIR website leaves much to be desired. Here are a few ideas for what needs to be done:

• Forms: The EOIR website does not allow persons to download BIA forms. To do so, one must visit a private website. See

  http://www.shusterman.com/courtformsusimmigration.html

  When the INS placed their forms online last year, over one million forms were downloaded within the first two months. This is clearly a service which the public desires.

• Court Listings: The EOIR publishes a nationwide list of Immigration Courts, Court Administrators, Judges, Addresses and Phone Numbers. Although it never seems to be current, it is still useful. We post it at

  http://www.shusterman.com/deportationdefense.html#8

  Why doesn’t EOIR?

• Local Operating Procedures: A number of local immigration courts have published their own operating procedures. They often include such important items as filing procedures, motions to change venue, withdrawal or substitution of representation and continuances. We post local operating procedures at 15 locations around the U.S., from Arlington, Virginia to San Francisco, California at

  http://www.shusterman.com/deportationdefense.html#8

  We understand that the Immigration Court in Seattle, Washington has recently proposed new operating procedures.

  Shouldn’t all existing and proposed operating procedures be listed on EOIR’s website? Actually, the existing operating procedures are listed on the EOIR web site, but are buried so deeply that it is easier to find the Lost Continent of Atlantis than the local operating rules.

• Precedent Decisions: During the last half of the 20th Century, the BIA, the Attorney General and the INS have published over 3,400 precedent decisions. These decisions are vitally important in determining the rights of aliens under U.S. immigration laws. The EOIR website has done a good job in posting new decisions since October 1996. However, what about pre-October 1996 decisions? The INS website posts many, but not all, precedent decisions rendered between 1953 and 1998. See

  http://www.shusterman.com/deportationdefense.html#6

  We hope that the EOIR will soon post a complete database of precedent decisions, and indicate which have been reversed, and which are still in force.

10. Answers to the Trivia Quiz: “Lennon Read A Book Of Marx”

Quiz Removed

Who is the winner of this month’s trivia quiz? The envelope, please…The winner is Hari Naidu!

Here is his winning entry:

“The answers to this months quiz as best as I can tell are:

A. John Lennon

B. 9 October 1940, Liverpool, England

C. Julia, John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band

D. Please click on the link below for the answer to D

http://uscis.gov/cgi-bin/folioisa.dll/interim.nfo/query=lennon/doc/{@5099}/words=4? (Link is no longer operational.)

or alternatively the path from your website is:

Click on BIA on the Alphabetical site index on the left.

Click on Decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals under the heading “Board of Immigration Appeals”

Click on Query

Search “Lennon”

Clicking on the hotlink above is easier!!

warmest regards, hari”

When asked for further information, Hari replied:
“Thanx and it sure is nice to win something for a change!

Since I am a fan of the Beatles and loved ‘American Pie’, I knew instantly that the person you were referring to had to be John Lennon. The answers to B and C were relatively easy too since there are a multitude of sites devoted to the Beatles. In this instance, the rollingstone.tunes.com website had a pretty good biography of Lennon. The tough part as you know was the answer to D. I had to spend a good deal of time trying to get to the exact decision of the BIA. Finally after some creative searches, I got to a decision that mentioned the Lennon decision and since my wife was hollering at me to go to bed, I decided that this would be my best effort answer and sent off the e-mail.

About myself, I am a native of Malaysia and got my engineering degree at the National University of Singapore. Came to the Bay Area three years ago after being posted here by the Tokyo based company I work for. I am an engineer in the optical networking field and am currently on an L1 temporary work visa.

Your website/newsletter is a tremendously useful resource which I use to educate myself on immigration issues.

I have already filled in the consultation questionnaire on the website and scheduled the appointment. Look forward to talking to you on Friday.

Warmest regards,

Hari”

Carl  (How Come No One Said the ‘White Album’?) Shusterman
Certified Specialist in Immigration Law, State Bar of California
Former U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service 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

March 11, 2000

P.S. – Next month, SHUSTERMAN’S IMMIGRATION UPDATE, in a desperate move to attract new subscribers will premier its first annual swimsuit issue!

Newsletter US Immigration Update March 2000 – Quick Links

About Us
Back Issues of Our Newsletter
Citizenship
Client Testimonials
Forms Download
Green Cards
Job Search
PERM
Processing Times
Schedule a Legal Consultation
Subscribe to Our Newsletter
Success Stories
Temporary Visas
Visa Bulletin