US Work Visas and Immigration Blog

#1: Your Employer is NOT H-1B quota exempt, BUT, your Employment is "AT" an H-1B Exempt Institution (a “third party petitioner")

RSA — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 22:14:53 -0400

The USCIS has interpreted the regulations to deem an H-1B nonimmigrant "quota exempt" who works "at" a quota exempt institution, even if he or she works for a non-exempt employer, under certain circumstances, as discussed in this article. Normally, in order to be deemed quota exempt, an H-1B nonimmigrant would have to actually work for an exempt employer, such as "Institution of Higher Education", e.g., a College or University, or a company which is affiliated or related to an "Institution of Higher Education", or a Nonprofit Research Organization or Government Research Organization.

However, under this interpretation, the USCIS has decided to deem even H-1B workers who are employed by non-exempt employers, such as for-profit companies, to be exempt, provided that they work "at" an exempt institution, and meet other conditions. It is important to note that these are complex cases, and experienced legal counsel should be retained to prepare these cases. However, this article will review some of the key concepts.

This USCIS policy is set forth in a Memorandum (Guidance Regarding Eligibility for Exemption from the H-1B Cap Based on §103 of the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000, by Michael Aytes, Associate Director for Domestic Operations, USCIS), as follows:

Commonly, qualifying institutions petition on behalf of current or prospective H-1B employees and claim this exemption. In certain instances, petitioners that are not themselves a qualifying institution also claim this exemption because the alien beneficiary will perform all or a portion of the job duties “at” a qualifying institution. For purposes of this memorandum, such petitioners are referred to as “third party petitioners.” A third party petitioner is one who petitions on behalf of an H-1B worker who will work “at” a qualifying institution, but where the alien is or will be employed by the third party petitioner, not the qualifying institution. These types of cases should be adjudicated based on the guidance provided below.

Congress deemed certain institutions worthy of an H-1B cap exemption because of the direct benefits they provide to the United States. Congressional intent was to exempt from the H-1B cap certain alien workers who could provide direct contributions to the United States through their work on behalf of institutions of higher education and related nonprofit entities, or nonprofit research organizations, or governmental research organizations. In effect, this statutory measure ensures that qualifying institutions have access to a continuous supply of H-1B workers without numerical limitation.

USCIS recognizes that Congress chose to exempt from the numerical limitations in section 214(g)(1) aliens who are employed “at” a qualifying institution, which is a broader category than aliens employed “by” a qualifying institution. This broader category may allow certain aliens who are not employed directly by a qualifying institution to be treated as cap exempt when needed to further the essential purposes of the qualifying institution.

USCIS will, therefore, allow third party petitioners to claim exemption on behalf of a beneficiary under either section 214(g)(5)(A) or (B), if the alien beneficiary will perform job duties at a qualifying institution that directly and predominately further the normal, primary, or essential purpose, mission, objectives or function of the qualifying institution, namely, higher education or nonprofit or governmental research. Thus, if a petitioner is not itself a qualifying institution, the burden is on the petitioner to establish that there is a logical nexus between the work performed predominately by the beneficiary and the normal, primary, or essential work performed by the qualifying institution.
In many instances, third-party petitioners seeking exemptions from the H-1B cap are companies that have contracts with qualifying federal agencies (or other qualifying institutions) which require the placement of professionals on-site at the particular agency. The H-1B employees generally perform work directly related to the purposes of the particular qualifying federal agency or entity and thus may qualify for an exemption to the H-1B cap. However, qualifying third-party employment can occur in a variety of other ways. USCIS therefore is providing a non-exhaustive list of examples in the AFM to assist adjudicators in determining cap exemption eligibility.

****

Thus, if a petitioner is not itself a qualifying institution, the burden is on the petitioner to establish that that there is a logical nexus between the work predominately performed by the beneficiary and the normal mission of the qualifying entity. Petitioners must therefore demonstrate how the beneficiary’s duties are directly and predominately related to, and in furtherance of, the normal, primary or essential purpose, mission, objectives or function of the qualifying institution, namely, higher education or nonprofit or governmental research.

The following are key examples provided by the USCIS in its Memo:

Example 1: Company A, a for-profit consultant firm that would not otherwise be a qualifying institution, files an H-1B petition on behalf of an employee working directly for the firm. The H- 1B petition describes the alien beneficiary’s job duties, which will be performed on-site at a qualifying governmental research organization pursuant to a joint-agreement between the two entities. Company A submits evidence in support of its H-1B petition demonstrating that the alien beneficiary will be working on a research project performing duties similar to those performed by actual employees of the governmental research organization in furtherance of the qualifying entity’s mission. If the alien beneficiary was sponsored directly by the government research organization, he or she would clearly qualify for the H-1B cap exemption.

Q: Would the alien beneficiary qualify for the H-1B exemption?

A: Yes. In this case, the alien beneficiary would be exempt from the H-1B cap because the alien beneficiary will perform research duties that would or could otherwise be performed by employees of the qualifying institution, in furtherance of the qualifying institution’s primary mission.

Example 2: Company B, a for-profit hospital and research center that would not otherwise be a qualifying institution, files an H-1B petition on behalf of a renowned Oncologist who will be a direct employee of the hospital and whose duties will consist of clinical treatment of cancer patients and laboratory research on a new medication to treat liver cancer. Company B maintains a relationship with a qualifying non-profit research organization dedicated to finding a cure for liver cancer, whereby Company B occasionally provides resources and data in exchange for access to the non-profit’s national database on protocols for treating liver cancer. Company B’s new Oncologist will spend 55% (i.e., a majority) of her time working on-site at the non-profit research organization conducting research and laboratory experiments on the new medication to treat liver cancer and accessing the national database. The Oncologist will be performing sophisticated research and laboratory experiments that are not normally conducted by employees of the non-profit research organization but that nonetheless directly and predominantly further the normal, primary, or essential purpose, mission, objectives or function of the non-profit organization. Company B and the non-profit entity will collaborate on a joint paper publishing the research.

Q: Would the Oncologist qualify for an H-1B cap exemption based on this employment?

A: Yes. In this case, the Oncologist’s work clearly furthers the overall mission of the qualifying non-profit research organization and benefits the United States The fact that Company B and the qualifying non-profit entity share a cooperative relationship helps establish a sufficient nexus between the Oncologist’s work and the normal, primary, or essential purpose, mission, objectives or function of the non-profit organization. Further, the Oncologist will spend more than half of her time working physically on-site “at” the qualifying entity.

Example 3: A medical fellow in pediatrics has been employed at a qualifying non-profit university medical center for two years in H-1B status. At the end of the fellowship, the doctor will become a member of Company C, a private pediatrics practice group which has its primary offices within the university medical center and predominantly trains medical students and treats patients in the medical center. The doctor will be doing exactly the same work that he did during his fellowship, including remaining on the university medical center’s faculty, but for reasons related to hospital billing practices and medial malpractice insurance requirements, his technical, and therefore petitioning, employer will be the private pediatrics practice group.

Q: Would the doctor qualify for an H-1B cap exemption based on this employment?

A: Yes. In this case, the doctor would be exempt from the H-1B cap because the conditions of employment demonstrate that the doctor will be performing the same work that he performed while employed directly by the qualifying university medical center. Thus, the H-1B employment directly furthers the primary mission of the hospital because the doctor will remain on the university medical center’s faculty, and will continue to educate and train its medical students and treat patients at the medical center.

Example 4: Company D, a for-profit market research firm that would not otherwise be a qualifying institution, files an H-1B petition on behalf of a direct employee. The H-1B petition states that the alien beneficiary will be conducting a specific kind of market research on-site at a qualifying University. In addition, the petition states that the University has a specialized research tool that can only be accessed from its facilities and that the alien beneficiary’s research will be conducted for the benefit of the petitioner’s clients and business, and not for the University.

Q: Would the alien beneficiary qualify for the H-1B exemption based on this employment?

A: No. In this case, the alien would not qualify for a cap exemption as he or she is only physically located “at” the qualifying institution and no nexus has been demonstrated between the work performed by the beneficiary and the normal purpose of the qualifying entity. The alien beneficiary will not perform work for the benefit of the qualifying institution, but rather for the for-profit firm.

10 Ways to Beat H-1B Quota to Start Work NOW!

RSA — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 16:42:59 -0400

This year the H-1B quota ran out on the very first day! In fact, there was such a deluge of H-1B applications that the USCIS was forced to run a lottery to decide who among the applicants would receive a coveted H-1B visa. As a result, many applicants who applied on the very first day were unable to get an H-1B visa. Therefore, if you want to have a chance of obtaining an H-1B visa, your best bet is to qualify under one of the quota exemptions listed below. Best of all, if you qualify for an H-1B exemption, you can proceed with your H-1B petition immediately, to start work now (either immediately upon approval of the H-1B petition or upon receipt of the petition if you qualify for portability), without having to wait for the next fiscal year!

Specifically, for the current fiscal year (October 1, 2007 to September 30, 2008), the H-1B quota ran out on April 2, 2007, the first day the USCIS accepted H-1B petitions for employment starting on October 1, 2007. On April 3, 2007, USCIS announced: "As of late Monday afternoon (April 2), USCIS had received approximately 150,000 cap-subject H-1B petitions."

There are only 65,000 H-1B visas allocated each year (minus certain special set-asides) under current law. As a result, as the following chart shows, the H-1B quota has run out earlier and earlier, so that this year the H-1B ran out on the very first day.

Fiscal Year	Earliest Employment Start Date	Earliest H-1B Filing Date	Date H-1B Quota Cap Reached	# of Days H-1B Filing Window Open (incl. Sat. Sun, and holidays)	# of Days less than prior fiscal year
2005	October 1, 2004	April 1, 2004	October 1, 2004	183
2006	October 1, 2005	April 1, 2005	August 10, 2005	131	52
2007	October 1, 2006	April 1, 2006	May 26, 2006	55	76
2008	October 1, 2007	April 1, 2007	April 2, 2007	1	54

The next fiscal year is federal fiscal year 2009, which begins on October 1, 2008. H-1B applications for that fiscal year will only be accepted from April 1, 2008. However, given the experience of past years, the H-1B quota will likely, again, run out on the first day, and the USCIS will likely have to administer another lottery.

What is the bottom line to this state of affairs? The bottom line is that if you would like to be employed under an H-1B, your best bet is to focus on "beating" the H-1B quota by qualifying under one of the H-1B quota exemptions.

If you qualify for an exemption: you don't even need to wait for April 1, and you don't need to wait for the next fiscal year to begin. You can proceed with your H-1B petition immediately.

Therefore, you should carefully read each of the following exemptions from the H-1B quota, and figure out whether to try for one of these exemptions. Good Luck!

10 exemptions from the H-1B quota:

USCIS Memo on H/Ls Traveling on Advance Parole

RSA — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 22:23:31 -0400

The INS, the predecessor to the USCIS, published a Memo which discusses important issues regarding the travel of H-1B and L nonimmigrants who have been granted Advance Parole.

Amended INS Memo on H/Ls Traveling on Advance Parole

U.S. Department of Justice
Immigration and Naturalization Service
425 I Street NW
Washington, DC 20536

AMENDED VERSION

MEMORANDUM FOR

REGIONAL DIRECTORS
SERVICE CENTER DIRECTORS
DISTRICT DIRECTORS
OFFICERS IN CHARGE
ASYLUM DIRECTORS
PORT DIRECTORS

FROM:

MICHAEL D. CRONIN
ACTING ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF PROGRAMS

SUBJECT: AFM Update: Revision of March 14, 2000 Dual Intent Memorandum

This memorandum supersedes and amends the March 14, 2000 memorandum on dual intent for H-1 and L-1 nonimmigrants with pending applications foradjustment of status, which changes the Adjudicator's Field Manual, Chapter 23.

Please note that the Service intends to address these issues definitively when the Service finalizes the interim rule published on June 1, 1999, at 64 Fed. Reg. 29,208 (1999). When the final rule enters into force, the final rule, not this memorandum, will be controlling.

1. In Chapter 23 of the Adjudicator's Field Manual, the questions and answers added at APPENDIX 23-4, entitled FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT TRAVEL OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES BY AN H-I OR L-1 NONIMMIGRANT WHO HAS APPLIED FOR ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS: by the March 14, 2000 memorandum, are removed and replaced with the questions and answers below:

1. If an H-1 or L-1 nonimmigrant has filed for adjustment of status under an employment-based preference category that requires an offer of employment in the United States, does the interim rule affect the applicant's responsibility to establish his/her intent to work for the petitioning entity?

No. If an H-1 or L-1 has filed for adjustment of status under an employment-based preference category that requires an offer of employment in the United States, the applicant still has the responsibility of establishing his/her intent to work for the petitioning entity after becoming a permanent resident. Neither the rule nor the guidance has modified this requirement or the corresponding requirement that the employer establish his/her intent to employ the applicant.

In the interim rule and initial guidance, the term "open-market employment" was used to mean unrestricted access to employment. Applicants with pending applications for adjustment of status are eligible to apply for an employment authorization document (EAD). With an EAD, an alien has access to unrestricted employment, the "openmarket". However, if the applicant is adjusting status under an employment-based preference category that requires an offer of employment in the United States, the fact that an applicant is able to work in the open-market does not alter the applicant's . responsibility to demonstrate an intent to work for the petitioning employer.

2. If an H-1 or L-1 nonimmigrant or H-4 or L-2 dependent family member obtains an EAD based on their application for adjustment of status but does not use it to obtain employment, is the alien still maintaining his/her nonimmigrant status?

Yes. The fact that an H or L nonimmigrant is granted an EAD does not cause the alien to violate his/her nonimmigrant status. There may be legitimate reasons for an H or L nonimmigrant to apply for an EAD on the basis of a pending application for adjustment of status. However, an H-I or L-1 nonimmigrant will violate his/her nonimmigrant status if s/he uses the EAD to leave the employer listed on the approved 1-129 petition and engage in employment for a separate employer.

3. If an H-1 or L-1 nonimmigrant has traveled abroad and was paroled into the United States via advance parole, the alien is accordingly in parole status. Does this interim rule allow him or her to now apply for an extension of nonimmigrant status?

Until the final rule is published, an alien who was an H-1 or L-1 nonimmigrant, but who was paroled pursuant to a grant of advance parole, may apply for an extension of H-1 or L-1 status, if there is a valid and approved petition. If the Service approves the alien's application for an extension of nonimmigrant status, the decision granting such an extension will have the effect of terminating the grant of parole and admitting the alien in the relevant nonimmigrant classification.

4. If an H-1 or L-1 nonimmigrant has traveled abroad and reentered the United States via advance parole, the alien is accordingly in parole status. How does the interim rule affect that alien's employment authorization?

A Service memorandum dated August 5, 1997, stated that an "adjustment applicant's otherwise valid and unexpired nonimmigrant employment authorization... is not terminated by his or her temporary departure from the United States, if prior to such departure the applicant obtained advance parole in accordance with 8 CFR 245.2(a)(4)(ii)." The Service intends to clarify this issue in the final rule. Until then, if the alien's H-1 or L-1 employment authorization would not have expired, had the alien not left and returned under advance parole, the Service will not consider a paroled adjustment applicant's failure to obtain a separate employment authorization document to mean that the paroled adjustment applicant engaged in unauthorized employment by working for the H- I or L-1 employer between the date of his or her parole and the date to be specified in the final rule.

5. Should an alien returning to the United States from travel abroad who has a valid 1-512 and a valid H-1 or L-1 nonimmigrant visa be paroled in or readmitted in H-1 or L-1 status?

If an alien has a valid H-1or L-1 nonimmigrant visa and is eligible for H-1 or L- 1 nonimmigrant status and also has a valid Form I-512, he or she may be readmitted into H-1 or L-1 status or be paroled into the United States. It is the alien's prerogative to present either document at inspection. However, if an alien presents both a valid H-1 or L-1 nonimmigrant visa and a valid Form I-512, and the alien is eligible for the H-1 or L-1 nonimmigrant classification, the Service should inform the alien that H-1 and L-1 nonimmigrants no longer need to use advance parole to preserve pending applications for adjustment of status and should admit the alien in H-1 or L-1 nonimmigrant status. The fact that an alien has applied for advance parole and received Form I-512 does not compel him or her to use the advance parole.

If the alien is not admissible as an H- I or L-I nonimmigrant, then he or she cannot be readmitted as an H- I or L-I nonimmigrant. Instead, such an alien may be paroled into the United States.

6. Is an alien who has a multiple entry I-512 and who has previously been paroled into the United States now eligible for admission as an H-1 or L-1 if he or she is still in possession of a valid H-1 or L-1 visa?

Yes, the alien may be admitted as an H-1 or L-1. However, aliens returning from abroad may only be admitted as an H-1 or L-1 when they have a valid H-1 or L-1 visa (unless visa exempt), remain eligible for H-1 or L-1 classification, and, where there has been a recent change of employer or extension of stay, have evidence of an approved I-129 petition in the form of a Notice of Action, Form I-797, indicating approval or a notation on the nonimmigrant visa indicating the petition number and the employer's name. If they do not meet these criteria, then they use their I-512.

In Chapter 15.4 of the Inspector's Field Manual, the Special Note A for nonimmigrant classification H-1 B should be revised to read as follows:

(A) Foreign residence requirement. H-1 B does not have to establish he or she has a foreign residence. For information pertaining to dual intent, see AFM Appendix, 23-4.

In Chapter 15.4 of the Inspector's Field Manual, add Special Note E for nonimmigrant classification L-1 to read as follows:

(B) Dual intent. For discussion of applicability of dual intent, see AFM Appendix 23-4.

Field Inquiries

All operational regional program units should familiarize themselves with this memorandum and related procedures in order to be responsive to any inquiry from the field. Questions regarding this memorandum may be directed, through appropriate supervisory channels to HQADN. For issues concerning H or L status, contact John Brown or Irene Hoffman, respectively, at 202-353-8177. For issues concerning advance parole, contact Michael Valverde at 202-514-4754.

Presidential Determination on FY 2008 Refugee Admissions Numbers

RSA — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 21:45:16 -0400

The following is the Notice regarding the Presidential Determination on FY 2008 Refugee Admissions Numbers

[Federal Register: October 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 201)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 58991-58992]

Presidential Documents

---------------------------------------

Title 3--

The President

[[Page 58991]]

Presidential Determination No. 2008-1 of October 2,
2007

Presidential Determination on FY 2008 Refugee
Admissions Numbers and Authorizations of In-Country
Refugee Status Pursuant to Sections 207 and 101(a)(42),
Respectively, of the Immigration and Nationality Act,
and Determination Pursuant to Section 2(b)(2) of the
Migration and Refugee Assistance Act, as Amended

Memorandum for the Secretary of State

In accordance with section 207 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (the ``Act'')(8 U.S.C. 1157), as
amended, and after appropriate consultations with the
Congress, I hereby make the following determinations
and authorize the following actions:

The admission of up to 80,000 refugees to the United
States during FY 2008 is justified by humanitarian
concerns or is otherwise in the national interest;
provided, however, that this number shall be understood
as including persons admitted to the United States
during FY 2008 with Federal refugee resettlement
assistance under the Amerasian immigrant admissions
program, as provided below. The ceiling shall be
construed as a maximum not to be exceeded and not a
minimum to be achieved.

The 80,000 admissions numbers shall be allocated among
refugees of special humanitarian concern to the United
States in accordance with the following regional
allocations; provided, however, that the number of
admissions allocated to the East Asia region shall
include persons admitted to the United States during FY
2008 with Federal refugee resettlement assistance under
section 584 of the Foreign Operations, Export
Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act of
1988, as contained in section 101(e) of Public Law 100-
202 (Amerasian immigrants and their family members):

Africa............................................ 16,000
East Asia......................................... 20,000
Europe and Central Asia........................... 3,000
Latin America/Caribbean........................... 3,000
Near East/South Asia.............................. 28,000
Unallocated Reserve............................... 10,000

The 10,000 unallocated refugee numbers shall be
allocated to regional ceilings as needed. Upon
providing notification to the Judiciary Committees of
the Congress, you are hereby authorized to use
unallocated admissions in regions where the need for
additional admissions arises.

Additionally, upon notification to the Judiciary
Committees of the Congress, you are further authorized
to transfer unused admissions allocated to a particular
region to one or more other regions, if there is a need
for greater admissions for the region or regions to
which the admissions are being transferred. Consistent
with section 2(b)(2) of the Migration and Refugee
Assistance Act of 1962, as amended, I hereby determine
that assistance to or on behalf of persons applying for
admission to the United States as part of the overseas
refugee admissions program will contribute to the
foreign policy interests of the United States and
designate such persons for this purpose.

[[Page 58992]]

Consistent with section 101(a)(42) of the Act (8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(42)), and after appropriate consultation with
the Congress, I also specify that, for FY 2008, the
following persons may, if otherwise qualified, be
considered refugees for the purpose of admission to the
United States within their countries of nationality or
habitual residence:

a. Persons in Vietnam

b. Persons in Cuba

c. Persons in the former Soviet Union

d. In exceptional circumstances, persons identified by a United States
Embassy in any location

You are authorized and directed to report this
determination to the Congress immediately and to
publish it in the Federal Register.

(Presidential Sig.)

THE WHITE HOUSE,

Washington, October 2, 2007.

[FR Doc. 07-5171 Filed 10-17-07; 8:45 am]

Billing code 4710-10-P

California Service Center confirms H-1 and H-4 who enter in Advance Parole can apply for extensions

RSA — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 21:38:15 -0400

The California Service Center has confirmed that H-1 and H-4 nonimmigrant who were granted Advance Parole, left the U.S., and re-entered pursuant to a grant of Advance Parole may apply for an extension of the H-1 or H-4 status (provided there is an approved petition).

AAO Processing Times as of October 24, 2007

RSA — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 21:27:08 -0400

The following is a list of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO), Processing Times as of October 24, 2007

Case Type Time
I – 140 EB1(A) Alien with Extraordinary Ability Current
I – 140 EB1(B) Outstanding Professor or Researcher Current
I – 140 EB1(C) Multinational Manager or Executive Current
I – 140 EB2 (D) – National Interest Waiver 12 Months
I – 140 EB3 (E), (G) – Skilled, Professional, or Other Worker 12 Months
I – 687, 698, 700 Legalization Applicant; Special Agricultural Worker 13 Months
I – 526 EB5 Alien Entrepreneur Current
I – 129 L Nonimmigrant Intracompany Transferee Current
I – 129 H1B Nonimmigrant Specialty Occupation Worker 9 Months
I – 129 H2, H3 Temporary Nonimmigrant Worker Current
I – 129 O Nonimmigrant Extraordinary Ability Worker 8 Months
I – 129 F Petition for Fiancée Current
I – 129 P1, P2, P3 Athletes, Artists and Entertainers 12 Months
I – 129 Q Cultural Exchange Visitor Current
I – 360 RW Petition for Religious Worker Current
I – 360 VAWA Violence Against Women Act Petition 8 Months
I – 360 J Special Immigrant Juvenile Current
N – 470 Application to Preserve Residence Current
N – 565 Replacement Naturalization/ Citizenship Document Current
N – 600 Certificate of Citizenship Current
N – 643 Certificate of Citizenship for Adopted Child Current
I – 600 Petition for Orphan Current
I – 485 Cuban Adjustment Certification Current
I – 612 Application for Waiver Current
I – 821 Temporary Protected Status 15 Months
I – 212 Application to Reapply for Admission 15 Months
I – 601 Application for Waiver of Inadmissibility 20 Months
I – 131 Application for Travel Document Current
I – 485 LIFE Act Adjustment Application 20 Months
I – 905 Application to Issue Cert for Health Care Workers Current
I – 914 Application for T Nonimmigrant Status Current

Sadly, DREAM ACT fails key SENATE vote

RSA — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 20:07:05 -0400

Today, October 24, 2007, the DREAM Act failed to garner enough votes in the U.S. Senate to permit it to move to the next step, i.e., debate. The vote was 52 in favor, 44 opposed and 4 not voting. Click here to see how senators voted. The American Immigration Lawyers Association expressed its dismay, thus:

WASHINGTON, DC - In a stunning display of heartlessness and gutlessness, the Senate voted today to quash the dreams and aspirations of hundreds of thousands of American students. The 52-44 vote in favor of proceeding to debate on the DREAM Act (S. 2205) fell eight votes short of the necessary 60 vote threshold. That eight-vote shortfall means a generation of American kids will remain stranded at the schoolhouse door. And while the vote is a nightmare for children, families, educators, and military recruiters throughout the country, it will also haunt the long-term political fortunes of those Senators standing on the wrong side of justice.

Make no mistake about it, the vote on this bill was about much more than immigration policy, it was a vote about who we are as a country. These young people were brought to the United States by their parents at an age where they had no say in the decision. Many have spent the majority of their lives in the United States and consider themselves to be Americans. Like their U.S.-born peers, they dream of pursuing a higher education or serving their country, but they are prevented from doing because they lack legal status.

Obviously, our failed immigration policies put these kids in an untenable predicament and this bill sought to provide an avenue for them to secure legal immigration status. That, however, was simply a means to the bill's end of providing these faultless kids with an opportunity to fulfill their dreams, maximize their potential, and contribute to this nation. Today's vote to deny them that opportunity is a sad commentary on the state of American politics.

Our purported policy makers have shown a keen knack for sidestepping critical public policy issues and immigration policy is Exhibit A. So we commend and thank Senators Reid (D-NV), Durbin (D-IL), Lugar (R-IN), and Hagel (R-NE) for their courage and commitment in forcing the Senate to face its responsibilities and take an up or down vote on this important issue. Sadly, too many of their colleagues succumbed to the political fears generated by a vocal cabal of xenophobic extremists.

There will be a number of additional opportunities over the next few months to pursue narrow, targeted immigration policy reforms. AILA, along with the rest of the country, will be watching closely to see if the immigration restrictionists in Congress continue their slow march to political suicide or do what they were elected to do: make smart policy choices that will advance America's interests and solve America's problems.

AILA Statement released on 10/24/07, regarding the Senate vote on the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act of 2007 or DREAM Act (S. 2205).

List of "Active" EB-5 Regional Centers

RSA — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 23:40:34 -0400

For EB5 Investors, investing in "Regional Centers" provides key advantages. We have compiled a list of "Active" EB5 Regional Centers.

The following are active Regional Centers as of March 30, 2007.