As we announced previously, USCIS confirmed by memo on August 28, 2017 that all employment-based AOS applicants will now be subject to an in-person interview. This policy has been on the books for decades, but was waived more than 99% of the time for employment-based adjustment applicants, until now. This announcement came with very little detail as to who would be affected, what the process will look like, and what the interviews will entail. However, now that employment-based AOS interviews have officially started taking place, some of these details are starting to emerge. Below is a summary of what we know thus far.
Who will require an interview:
What the process will look like:
What to expect at the interview:
We do expect the employment-based AOS process to now take longer as a result of the new interview requirement, and USCIS has identified roughly 10 major metro areas where they anticipate delays will occur given the volume of interviews expected. We will continue to pay attention to how this process unfolds and update clients as we know more.
The November 2017 visa bulletin projections continue to show all EB-1 counties as current. In the EB-2 category, China progressed to June 15, 2013, while India proceeded to October 8, 2008. All other countries in the EB-2 category are current. As for the EB-3 category, China, India and the Philippines continue to be backlogged. For Chinese nationals, if your priority date is prior to February 1, 2014, you are now current. EB-3 India saw no movement, remaining at October 15, 2006, while the Philippines advanced to January 15, 2016.
YEAR IN REVIEW: IMMIGRATION CHANGES IN 2017
Feeling immigration whiplash? 2017 has been quite the year for change in immigration guidance and procedure – we’ll now take a pause and assess how these changes have unfolded, and discuss their impact. Managing Partner David Brown will also cover what we expect to see in 2018 and discuss how we plan for it.
11/16/17 @ 2pm EST / 1pm CST / 11am PST
** This newsletter/memo is provided for informational and discussion purposes only. It does not act as a substitute for direct legal contact on an individual basis **