Skilled workers uncertain about status
On Oct. 1 and 2, thousands of immigrants across the nation sent flower bouquets to the headquarters of the federal Department of Homeland Security in Washington, D.C. It wasn’t a gesture of thanks or admiration; it was a form of polite protest.
The perceived transgression was giving certain highly skilled immigrants from China and India false hope of moving closer to citizenship, only to revoke that hope after many people had already spent thousands of dollars in preparation. The incident, which affects legal immigrants in central Illinois, highlights the nation’s complex and backlogged immigration system.
The case revolves around work visas, which allow immigrants with certain skills like engineering to work legally. A work visa is typically the first step for immigrants seeking to live and work in the U.S. permanently. Work visas must be renewed regularly, and many of the different types require “sponsorship” by U.S.-based employers or a family member who is already a citizen. Immigrants who come to the U.S. on a work visa often seek a green card, which denotes permanent residence and work authorization. An immigrant can apply to become a naturalized U.S. citizen five years after obtaining a green card, or after three years if the immigrant is married to a U.S. citizen.
On Sept. 9, the Department of Homeland Security’s division of Citizenship and Immigration Services, known as USCIS, released a bulletin saying that immigrants who applied for a green card before a certain date could apply starting Oct. 1 for an “employment authorization document,” which allows such immigrants flexibility to take promotions or new jobs and travel abroad more easily. The cutoff date varies based on an immigrant’s country of origin and classification. The announcement essentially moved many immigrants much closer to receiving a green card, a process which typically takes longer than a decade and costs thousands of dollars.
However, USCIS issued a follow-up bulletin on Sept. 25, moving forward the date by which immigrants had to have applied for a green card. It effectively cut thousands of immigrants out of the running, but only after many had invested thousands of dollars in preparation. The reversal happened because USCIS officials belatedly realized there weren’t enough green card slots available for all of the people who would apply for the accelerated process.
A call seeking comment from USCIS was not returned by publication. An exact number of immigrants affected by the revision is not available, but the national advocacy group Immigration Voice estimates the number in the thousands or even hundreds of thousands.
Several immigrants affected by the snafu filed a class-action lawsuit against USCIS on Sept. 28 at a federal court in Seattle, alleging that the agency “abruptly, inexplicably, and arbitrarily reneged on its promise.” Many immigrants committed to major life decisions which can’t be reversed now, according to the complaint. One plaintiff had to reject a job offer which would have meant a $25,000 raise. Another must delay conceiving a planned second child for three months due to a vaccine she was required to get in order to qualify for an employment authorization. All of the plaintiffs spent hundreds or even thousands of dollars preparing to apply for the accelerated process. Many of them have advanced degrees and hold high-level positions at businesses, universities and research facilities.
Lawyers for USCIS filed a response to the lawsuit on Oct. 2, saying the visa bulletins don’t confer any legal rights on affected immigrants. The bulletins are merely estimates that the agency provides for planning purposes, the complaint said, and the agency can’t create new green card slots because the number is set by law.
Brian Pier, senior manager for Levi, Ray & Shoup, Inc., an information technology company based in Springfield, said the company has one employee on a work visa who could have been but was not affected by the bulletin revision. However, Pier says the “employment authorization document” is preferable to other work visas for both employees and employers because it is simpler and less costly to acquire.
Spokespeople for SIU School of Medicine and Memorial Medical Center in Springfield said none of their employees were affected by the change. A similar inquiry made to St. John’s Hospital in Springfield was not answered by publication.
A similar flap occurred in 2007, when USCIS issued a visa bulletin and later revised it, restricting who could apply for a change of status. In response, Immigration Voice, the national advocacy organization, began a flower delivery campaign like the one waged earlier this month. The agency ultimately withdrew the 2007 revision, citing public outcry.
Contact Patrick Yeagle at [email protected].
