Philadelphia Immigration Lawyer Blog

On December 23, 2008, the USCIS announced that it is revising the Direct Mail Program for the N-400 Application for Naturalization.

Effective January 22, 2009, all non-military N-400s must be filed with the appropriate Lockbox facilities—although there will be a 30-day transition period during which USCIS Service Centers will continue to forward N-400 applications received at their facilities to the appropriate Lockbox location.

Applicants should continue to file military N-400 cases with the Nebraska Service Center (NSC). In order to assist military spouses, NSC will also accept and process N-400s filed by spouses of military members.

As of January 22, 2009, applicants must submit Form N-400 and related supplements to one of two new USCIS Lockbox facilities for initial processing, depending on where the applicant lives.

If You Live In: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Territory of Guam, or Northern Mariana Islands, file your N-400 with:

USCIS, Attn: N-400
P.O. Box 21251
1820 E. Skyharbor Circle S. Floor 1
Phoenix, AZ 85036 Phoenix, AZ 85036

If You Live In: Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, or U.S. Virgin Islands, file your N-400 with:

USCIS Lockbox Facility Courier and Express Mail Deliveries
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services USCIS, Attn: N-400
P.O. Box 299026 2501 S. State Hwy 121, Bldg. 4
Lewisville, TX 75029 Lewisville, TX 75067

Posted by James M. Tyler | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Citizenship and Naturalization

Bookmark:

Frequently, holders of B-1 and B-2 visitor visas ask my assistance in requesting extensions of their visas, usually for an extra six months. Often, however, it takes the USCIS at least that long to make a decision on the application (the I-539), leaving the applicant wondering whether he or she must depart the U.S. so as not to incur any period of unlawful presence.

The Vermont Service Center has now issued some guidance on this very issue. It has stated that it will adjudicate an approvable extension application to the date of approval, plus one day, where the adjudication takes place after the requested extension date has been reached – but only if the requested date was for a period of no more than 6 months.

Unfortunately, even this assurance still exposes an applicant to being unlawfully present.

To be absolutely safe, a B-1 B-2 extension applicant should depart the United States prior to adjudication on the extension application. Alternatively, the applicant should file a second I-539 and include a copy of the receipt notice of the first, still-pending extension application. If the applicant files for this 2nd extension, he or she should also provide a good explanation as to why they will not be able to depart within the original time requested and they should provide written documentation to support their claim.

Posted by James M. Tyler | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: News , Passports, Travel Documents

Bookmark:

On December 1, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida issued an interesting and proper decision on the issue of whether a lawful permanent resident whose naturalization application had been pending for over two years was a prevailing party for an EAJA award of attorneys fees when the Court remanded her case back to the USCIS with instructions to adjudicate her N-400 within 120 days. The case is Cohen v. Swacina.

The Court did not decide the N-400 in the Plaintiff's favor. It simply sent her case back to the USCIS but it gave the USCIS a specific deadline—so did this remand mean that the Plaintiff prevailed and therefore was entitled to attorneys fees under the EAJA?

The District Court said yes. The Court ruled that its remand Order “altered the relationship” between the Plaintiff and the USCIS in a way that resulted in the Plaintiff obtaining relief—she achieved an end to the unlimited delay in her N-400 and therefore she obtained a favorable result and was entitled to an award of attorneys fees.

It’s true that the Court did not give the Plaintiff what she really wanted—a favorable ruling by the Court itself on her N-400 and this is something that the Court had the authority to do. But the Court still gave the Plaintiff relief by ordering an end to the excessive delay in her naturalization application.

This is clearly a well-reasoned decision and should be useful to others who succeed in federal court when faced with USCIS delays – even if that success is only to get a remand back to the USCIS imposing a court ordered deadline to finally act on the application.

Posted by James M. Tyler | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In:

Bookmark: