Here are the most recent USCIS Service Center processing times as announced on November 18, 2008:
Vermont Service Center processing times.
Nebraska Service Center processing times.
California Service Center processing times.
Texas Service Center processing times.
As many know, the maximum amount of time an individual may be in H1B status is 6 years, usually divided into an initial stay of 3 years, followed by an extension of another 3 years. (There is an exception where the H1B holder has a labor certification application or employment based immigrant petition that has been pending for more than 365 days but that’s beyond the scope of this entry).
Of course, after the H1B visa holder has been outside the United States for a year, he or she can apply for another H1B visa and potentially remain in that status for period of another 6 years.
There has been some confusion about when that one year period begins to run and when one is eligible to file a new I-129 petition for another H1b stay. Now, the Vermont Service Center has confirmed that an allocation of another 6 years in H-1B status is available only after the Beneficiary has been physically outside the U.S. for the full year.
If one files the I-129 petition before the Beneficiary has been outside the U.S. for that full one year, the petition is going to be denied. In other words, one should not file the I-129 expecting that it probably won’t be approved until they have been outside the U.S. for the one year, thinking that then they are ok. Eligibility for the new period of H1B status must be demonstrated at the time the petition is actually filed—so if you have not been outside the U.S. for the full year, you’re not eligible as of the day you filed and your petition will be denied.
So it’s important to be careful about the timing of the filing.
As of November 17, 2008 seven new countries have been added to the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) which allows eligible citizens of certain countries to travel to the United States for tourism or business for stays of 90 days or less without obtaining a visa. The 7 new countries are: the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, the Republic of Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, and Slovakia.
Citizens of countries eligible to travel to the United States under the VWP prior to November 17, 2008 are: Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brunei, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Singapore, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.
So now, there is a total of 34 countries are participating in the VWP.
As of November 17, 2008 the eligible citizens from these seven new countries must obtain approval through the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) prior to traveling to the United States under the VWP and starting January 2, 2009, eligible citizens or nationals from all VWP countries will be required to obtain approval through ESTA prior to traveling to the United States under the VWP.
Here is a fact sheet explaining the ESTA and the link provides the necessary ESTA forms.
On November 4, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan decided a Writ of Mandamus matter that was a good decision for a green card holder who waited over 7 years for the USCIS to make a decision on his N-400 application for naturalization. The case, Atmeh v. Chertoff, is another of example of why, in an appropriate case, an applicant should consider filing a Writ of Mandamus to compel the USCIS to make a decision on an application in which the delay is unreasonable and inexplicable.
In this case, the Plaintiff filed his N-400 naturalization application back on April 16, 2001. His naturalization interview took place on April 24, 2002 and at the end of the interview, he was told that he had passed the English and U.S. history and government tests and that his application was recommended for approval, subject to completion of a background check.
Then, for six years (!) he heard nothing further from the USCIS. Finally, on April 4, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a Writ of Mandamus in an effort to compel the USCIS to act on his N-400. In June of 2008, the USCIS received the results of Plaintiff's security name check and it re-interviewed him. In the Mandamus litigation, the USCIS claimed it still could not decide Plaintiff's application until it performed a "full criminal background check".
The Court began is decision by noting that under the Immigration and Nationality Act, if the USCIS fails to make a determination on a naturalization application before the end of the 120-day period after the date on which the naturalization examination is conducted, then the applicant can ask a United States federal district court to decide his or her application.
Here, the Plaintiff's interview took place in April, 2002 and the 120 day period had long ago gone by but the Court still had to decide whether to decide the N-400 itself (which is what the Plaintiff wanted) or to remand the case back to the USCIS for it to make a decision (which is what the USCIS wanted). The Court agreed with the Plaintiff.
The Court agreed that in many mandamus litigation matters, a court will remand the case back to the USCIS for the USCIS to make a decision but the court will maintain oversight over the process so that there is some assurance that the USCIS will actually act. However, those other cases didn’t involve anything close to the delay of 84 months in this case. The Court held that remanding this case would not guarantee that the USCIS would act without additional delay, even with oversight.
Therefore, the Court retained jurisdiction over the N-400 naturalization application and scheduled the case for a conference, presumably to set a full hearing date on the application.
