U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced today that the Department of Homeland Security is withdrawing a 2018 notice of proposed rulemaking that proposed to remove the International Entrepreneur program from DHS regulations. The International Entrepreneur (IE) parole program, first introduced in 2017, will remain a viable program for foreign entrepreneurs to create and develop start-up entities with high growth potential in the United States. The program will help to strengthen and grow our nation’s economy through increased capital spending, innovation, and job creation. Today’s announcement is consistent with President Biden’s Executive Order 14012: “Restoring Faith in Our Legal Immigration Systems and Strengthening Integration and Inclusion Efforts for New Americans.” The executive order requires the secretary of homeland security to “identify any agency actions that fail to promote access to the legal immigration system.” “Immigrants in the United States have a long history of entrepreneurship, hard work, and creativity, and their contributions to this nation are incredibly valuable,” said Acting USCIS Director Tracy Renaud. “The International Entrepreneur parole program goes hand-in-hand with our nation’s spirit of welcoming entrepreneurship and USCIS encourages those who are eligible to take advantage of the program.” The initial IE final rule was published on Jan. 17, 2017, and was scheduled to take effect on July 17, 2017. This final rule guided DHS in the use of its parole authority to grant a period of authorized stay, on a case-by-case basis, to foreign entrepreneurs who demonstrate that their stay in the United States would provide a significant public benefit through the potential for rapid business growth and job creation. Prior to the effective date, DHS published a final rule to delay the implementation date of the IE final rule to March 14, 2018. This allowed DHS additional time to draft and seek public comments on a proposal to rescind the IE final rule. However, in December 2017, a federal court vacated the delay, requiring USCIS to begin accepting international entrepreneur parole applications consistent with the IE final rule. Since then, the program has been up and running, and USCIS continues to accept and adjudicate applications consistent with existing DHS regulations. Under the IE program, parole may be granted to up to three entrepreneurs per start-up entity, as well as their spouses and children. Entrepreneurs granted parole are eligible to work only for their start-up business. Their spouses may apply for employment authorization in the United States, but their children are not eligible for such authorization based on this parole.
Jurisdiction in Naturalization, why where you live is important.
For most people, an application for naturalization must be filed with the USCIS office or service district that has jurisdiction over their place of residence. Normally this is a simple issue, I live in Cincinnati so I need to file where USCIS says to file for Ohio (today USCIS tells us to file at their location in Chicago, IL). To file with the office that has jurisdiction over where you live, you must have lived there for at least three months before filing. This is not very complicated for most people, but because of work or school, things are a little more complicated for some people.
Before we can discuss the exceptions, we need to understand what USCIS defines “Place of Residence” as.
The applicant’s “residence” refers to the applicant’s principal, actual dwelling place in fact, without regard to intent. The duration of an applicant’s residence in a particular location is measured from the moment the applicant first establishes residence in that location.
The following are exceptions to the normal “Place of Residence” definition:
1. Military Member
Special provisions exist for applicants who are serving or have served in the U.S. armed forces but who do not qualify for naturalization on the basis of the military service for one year.
- The service member’s place of residence may be the state or service district where he or she is physically present for at least three months immediately prior to filing (or the examination if filed early);
- The service member’s place of residence may be the location of the residence of his or her spouse or minor child, or both; or
- The service member’s place of residence may be his or her home of record as declared to the U.S. armed forces at the time of enlistment and as currently reflected in the service member’s military personnel file.
2. Spouse of Military Member (Residing Abroad)
The spouse of a U.S. armed forces member may be eligible to count the time he or she is residing (or has resided) abroad with the service member as continuous residence and physical presence in any state or district of the United States. Such a spouse may consider his or her place of residence abroad as a place of residence in any state or district in the United States.
3. Students
An applicant who is attending an educational institution in a state or service district other than the applicant’s home residence may apply for naturalization where that institution is located, or in the state of the applicant’s home residence if the applicant is financially dependent upon his or her parents at the time of filing and during the naturalization process.
4. Commuter
A commuter must have taken up permanent residence (principal dwelling place) in the United States for the required statutory period and must meet the residency requirements to be eligible for naturalization.
5. Residence in Multiple States
If an applicant claims residence in more than one state, the residence for purposes of naturalization will be determined by the location from which the applicant’s annual federal income tax returns have been and are being filed.
6. Residence During Absences of Less than One Year
An applicant’s residence during any absence abroad of less than one year will continue to be the state or service district where the applicant resided before departure. If the applicant returns to the same residence, he or she will have complied with the three-month jurisdictional residence requirement when at least three months have elapsed, including any part of the absence, from when the applicant first established that residence.
If the applicant establishes residence in a different state or service district from where he or she last resided, the applicant must reside three months at that new residence before applying in order to meet the three-month jurisdictional residence requirement.
7. Noncitizen Nationals of the United States
A noncitizen national may naturalize if he or she becomes a resident of any state and is otherwise qualified. [13] Noncitizen nationals will satisfy the continuous residence and physical presence requirements while residing in an outlying possession. Such applicants must reside for three months prior to filing in a state or service district to be eligible for naturalization.
I hope this information was helpful, if you have any additional questions about naturalization you are welcome to contact my office for an appointment to discuss your questions, or if you would rather you can download our free e-book on Naturalizations.
TPS for Venezuela
| TPS Designated Through: | Sept. 9, 2022 |
| Registration Period | March 9, 2021 – Sept. 5, 2021 |
| Continuous Residence in U.S. Since: | March 8, 2021 |
| Continuous Physical Presence in U.S. Since: | March 9, 2021 |
| TPS Designation Date: | March 9, 2021 |
| Federal Register Notice Citation: | 86 FR 13574 |
When to File for TPS
If you are applying for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) under Venezuela’s designation, effective March 9, 2021, you must register during the 180-day registration period that runs from March 9, 2021, through Sept. 5, 2021. We encourage you to register as soon as possible within the 180-day registration period.
Individuals who apply for and receive TPS and who are also covered by DED do not need to apply for employment authorization under both programs. Individuals who apply for an EAD pursuant to their TPS application will receive an EAD with an expiration date of September 9, 2022, that is eligible for renewal if the Secretary extends TPS for Venezuela after September 9, 2022, after determining that Venezuela continues to meet the conditions supporting its designation for TPS. Individuals who apply for an EAD pursuant to DED will receive an EAD with an expiration date of July 20, 2022. If the President does not direct an extension of the DED authorization, DED, and associated employment authorization, will end on July 20, 2022. USCIS encourages individuals who
Start Printed Page 13575
believe they are eligible for TPS to file for the benefit during the initial registration period announced in this Notice, even if they are also covered by DED, in case they cannot qualify for TPS late initial filing under 8 CFR 244.2(f)(2) after DED has expired.
Court expected to rule on the constitutionality of DACA soon.
A federal judge in Texas is expected to rule within days – to a few weeks – on a case that will determine the fate of DACA and 640,000 immigrants brought to the country as children illegally. While the Biden administration has vowed to secure a pathway for citizenship for these people, many anticipate that DACA will be ruled unlawful, resulting in recipients being stripped of their protection from deportation and work permits. Texas and eight other states are asking the court to end DACA, arguing the program is unconstitutional. The first hearing was in December, but the judge did not issue an immediate ruling.
Broad warrantless border phone search policy approved
On Tuesday, the First Circuit found that searches of cellphones and other electronic devices at the U.S. border do not require a warrant or probable cause and can be used to search for contraband. The court ruled in favor of ICE and CBP, finding that the government’s security interests are at their peak when dealing with people crossing the border and outweigh privacy concerns. The case was initially brought by the government and ACLU of Massachusetts in November 2019, where the trial court found that a simple search of devices required reasonable suspicion. The 1st Circ. overturned that holding, saying the trial judge’s finding was too narrow.