1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar

UK Queen’s speech: What might immigration look like after Brexit?

It may not have been accompanied by the usual pomp and circumstance, but the Queen’s speech on Wednesday, June 21 did provide some further clues as to what the government has planned for EU nationals post-Brexit. In the speech, the Queen confirmed that there are plans for an immigration bill that, if passed, will enable the government to end the free movement of EU nationals into the UK, but still allow the country to attract “the brightest and the best.” The bill would require EU nationals and their families to be “subject to relevant UK law,” she said.

This seems to suggest that we can expect to see a skills-based immigration system for EU workers following Brexit. Reading in between the lines, it also seems we can expect that EU nationals already working in the UK who choose to remain will be allowed to do so. However, those who do choose to remain will be subject exclusively to UK law, and will no longer enjoy the protections afforded by the European Court of Justice. Presumably this would work along the lines of Norway’s membership in the single market.

Currently EU nationals in the UK are advised to apply for permanent residency if they meet the qualifying criteria. The thinking being this may be sufficient to secure their stay in the UK after Brexit. Theresa May is in Brussels for Brexit talks today, where she is set to address EU leaders on her plans for the 3 million EU nationals currently residing in the UK, and the 1 million UK citizens currently residing in mainland Europe. We understand that full details of her plans will be published on Monday, ending the uncertainty that currently hangs over those who have exercised their right to freedom of movement, and over their employers.

, , ,

UK Queen’s speech: What might immigration look like after Brexit?

Adult dependent relatives—judicial review challenge

The Immigration Rules pertaining to visa applications ‎made by adult dependent relatives of UK citizens were changed in July 2012. According to the Rules, an “adult dependent relative” must be a close family member of the UK sponsor, i.e., a parent, grandparent. The Rules also require that:

  • The applicant must—because of age, illness or disability—require long-term personal care to perform everyday tasks.
  • The applicant must be unable—even with the practical and financial help of the UK relative—to get the required care in the country where he or she is living, either because it is not available and there is no person in that country who can reasonably provide it, or because it is not affordable.

There was concern at the time of the Rules change that the Home Office (the government department responsible for immigration, passports, counter-terrorism and crime policy), had tightened the Rules too much.

Home Office statistics have borne out the validity of that concern. Since the Home Office changed the Rules, the average number of successful applications each year decreased by at least 93 per cent!

BritCits, an advocacy group, challenged the current requirements. The organization, which campaigns for fair family immigration rules that don’t divide families or force British citizens into exile, brought a judicial review application in the High Court of Justice (BritCits vs. SSHD) challenging the legality of the Rules. It argued that the Rules defeated the purpose of the law under which they were made; that the Rules raised expectations without any real possibility of those expectations being met; and that the Rules interfered with family life.

The High Court issued a judgment dismissing the judicial review application. BritCits requested and was granted permission to appeal. This was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.

Applicants applying in this category will have to make applications with the knowledge that their chance of success is exceptionally low and that despite a recent challenge to the Immigration Rules, they will remain as promulgated. Applicants will continue to have to pull together as much evidence as they can to show that they meet the requirements. Although the Rules require scrutiny of the available care in the adult dependent relative’s home country, the Home Office will consider whether the care is “reasonable” for the applicant and “of the required level” for the applicant. This can include the psychological and emotional needs of elderly parents, for example. Taking such an approach could mean the difference between an application for an adult dependent relative being accepted or rejected.

If BritCits pursues its challenge to the Supreme Court we will of course keep you informed.

, , ,

Adult dependent relatives—judicial review challenge

Show Me the Money: What the Trump administration’s budget and spending priorities reveal to employers

May 25, 2017
1:00 PM – 2:00 PM EDT
Webinar

Our Employment and Labor team marked the passage of President Trump’s first 100 days with a webinar on May 25, 2017 that looked at whether the president’s budget proposal backed up his prior public statements about wanted changes to employment, benefits and immigration regulations, as well as the impact on employers of the spending bill passed by Congress to prevent a government shutdown. By “following the money,” you can better prepare for future compliance demands and enforcement risks. For your convenience, the program can be viewed in it’s entirety and to register to the webinar by visiting the event page.

We hope you are able to join the program.

, , , , , , , ,

Show Me the Money: What the Trump administration’s budget and spending priorities reveal to employers

Q. Do US border inspectors demand passwords and inspect phones and laptops?

US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) searched 14,993 electronic devices during the six-month period between October 1, 2016 and March 31, 2017, according to an ‘agency press release issued on April 11, 2017. The press release did not reveal how many of those devices, if any, were seized as evidence.

The CBP’s numbers constitute a dramatic increase compared to the 19,033 searches of electronic devices conducted during the 12-month period commencing on October 1, 2015, and ending on September 30, 2016 (up from 8,502 searches during the prior 12 months).

The CBP’s border search authority is considered by the agency to require no warrant, a position that has been upheld in federal appellate courts. The CBP has stated that it adjusts the level of search activity to align with current threat information regarding terrorist activity, child pornography, violations of export controls and intellectual property rights and visa fraud.

“These searches, which affect fewer than one-hundredth of one percent of international travelers, have contributed to national security investigations, arrests for child pornography and evidence of human trafficking,” stated John Wagner, Deputy Executive Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations. “CBP officers are well trained to judiciously conduct electronic device searches and to protect sensitive information that may be encountered.”

The CBP has an information sheet, titled “Inspection of Electronic Devices,” which agents provide to travelers whose property is being searched detailing the various reasons individuals are selected for a search, including:

  • Travel documents incomplete
  • Does not have proper documents or visa
  • Previously violated one of the laws the CBP is charged with enforcing
  • Name matches that of a person of interest in one of the government’s enforcement databases
  • Randomly selected

The CBP advises that the agent retain a device, along with copies of any documents or information in the possession of the person who was searched relating to immigration, customs or other enforcement matters, only if such retention is consistent with the privacy and data protection standards of the system in which such information is retained. Otherwise, if after reviewing the information, there exists no probable cause to seize it, the CBP states that the agency return the device and not retain copies of any documents seized.

The information sheet explains:

“If CBP determines that the device is subject to seizure under law—for example, if the device contains evidence of a crime, contraband or other prohibited or restricted items or information—then you will be notified of the seizure as well as your options to contest it through the local CBP Fines, Penalties and Forfeitures Office.”

The information sheet also addresses privacy and civil liberties protections during the conduct of border searches.

The full text of the April 11 press release is available at the US CBP website and the published agency’s information sheet can be found here.

, , ,

Q. Do US border inspectors demand passwords and inspect phones and laptops?

Strategies for complying with anti-corruption rules in Saudi Arabia


1. Introduction

Government contracting can be highly rewarding in Saudi Arabia, given the wide-ranging opportunities in defense, education and healthcare. At the same time, however, companies doing business there need to be mindful of the anti-corruption rules and practices of not only their home jurisdictions, but also the Saudi legal framework. Moreover, investors must be conscious of the particularities of Saudi culture and politics, where the head of a company with whom they are negotiating may be a member of the Royal Family, or where an intermediary in a government contract may be one of ‘the monarchy’s thousands of princes. Investors doing business in Saudi Arabia must understand this local context in order to avoid the unwitting payment to a “government official.”

2. Recent steps towards eliminating corruption

The need to understand Saudi Arabia’s anti-corruption laws has become especially important in recent years, as that nation has pressed ahead with a campaign aimed at eliminating and punishing corruption and bribery at all government levels. Among the measures taken to realize this goal were the formation of the Violations Review Committee of the Government Tenders and Procurement http://www.achaten-suisse.com/ Law, establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Commission and passage of the Combating Bribery Law.

2.1 Combating Bribery Law

The Combating Bribery Law (CBL) seeks to counter both the offering, soliciting and receiving of bribes among Saudi public officials in Saudi Arabia. Under the CBL, a public official is deemed to have received a bribe if the official has solicited, accepted or received, for himself or a third party, a promise or gift in exchange for:

  • The performance of any of his duties;
  • Abstaining from carrying out his duties;
  • Violating the functions of his duties;
  • Performing or abstaining from his duties as a result of a request, recommendation or mediation;
  • Exercising real or alleged influence to obtain from any public authority any act, decision, contract, license, job, service or other benefit or advantage; or
  • Lobbying a governmental authority on the basis of his position.

A “public official” is broadly defined as any of the following:

  • A person employed by the State or any of the public administrative authorities, regardless of whether the employment is permanent or temporary;
  • An arbitrator or expert appointed by the Government or any entity having judicial specialization;
  • A person assigned by a governmental authority or any other administrative authority to perform a specific assignment;
  • A person employed by a joint stock company or company in which the State has a holding; and
  • Chairmen and directors of companies provided for in the preceding paragraph (Art. 8.5 CBL).

Foreign investors attempting to ascertain whether their Saudi counterpart is deemed to be a “public official” under the CBL may encounter difficulty. For example, the chairman and directors of a company in which the State “has a holding” are deemed to be public officials, but determining whether a company is partially or wholly publicly owned is not as straightforward. It is easy to determine when contracting with large, listed companies, such as Saudi Arabia Basic Industries Corporation (SABIC), whose public records disclose the Saudi government’s 70 percent shareholding, but it is more complex when contracting with smaller, unlisted companies, particularly if the only way to get a complete picture of ownership is by piecing together several dozen formational and governing documents published over many years, or when one has to sort out a complex web of company and subsidiary company structures.

2.2  National Anti-Corruption Commission

The National Anti-Corruption Commission (Nazaha or the Commission) has jurisdiction over all governmental bodies and agents, as well as over private businesses where the Kingdom owns 25 percent or more of its capital. All governmental bodies, as well as all businesses that are 25 percent Kingdom-owned, are required to disclose the financial details of their projects, contracts and general operations to the Commission, which is charged with:

  • Receiving and analyzing the reports and statistics from entities falling under ‘its jurisdiction in order to identify areas where corruption could take place and implement preventative measures.
  • Receiving complaints of corruption from citizens and communicating “detected violations” to investigative bodies that fall within its jurisdiction, such as the Minister of Health, the Minister of Municipal and Rural Affairs, the Minister of Education and the Ministry of Water and Electricity.
  • Supervising the investigations and advising the Saudi authorities to take precautionary measures against persons guilty of engaging in corruption.

The Commission has undertaken several investigations into prominent government contracts, including a deal between the Saudi Railways Organization and a Spanish train manufacturer and a contract between a multinational construction company and a hospital in Mecca.

The Commission has published various ads calling on Saudi citizens and residents to report acts of corruption. The ads state that “keeping silent and just watching administrative and financial corruption makes you part of this corruption.”

2.3 Violations Review Committee

Article 78 of the Government Tenders and Procurement Law (the Procurement Law) directs the Minister of Finance to form a committee of advisors comprised of at least three members from relevant government authorities, including a legal advisor and a technical expert, to review compensation claims submitted by contractors and suppliers as well as reports of deceit, fraud and manipulation, in addition to decisions of withdrawal of works. This committee is charged with hearing statements of grievant contractors and suppliers and those accused of fraud or other violations, including their defenses and views of the government authorities. If a contractor or supplier prevails in his claims, the committee must issue a decision awarding compensation.

3. Recommended practices

A foreign company or investor doing business in Saudi Arabia can avoid running afoul of anti-bribery laws by implementing the following practices regarding government contracting:

  • Thoroughly review the constitutional documentation of companies and agents with which whom are doing business. If even a single share of a Saudi company is owned by the Saudi government or by a public institution, the CBL will apply and the individual with whom you are contracting may be deemed to be a public official.
  • Conduct a thorough due diligence before engaging an agent. Review the agent’s commercial registration certificate and confirm the identities of each of the agent’s owners, managers and directors to confirm that none are governmental officials. You should proceed with caution if your research discloses that the agent has family or business relationships with key governmental officials. Similarly a governmental official’s insistence on using the particular agent should, in the absence of legitimate reasons, raise a red flag.
  • Before executing agency agreements, ensure that local agents provide written confirmation that they do not employ or make payments to public officials and that their anti-bribery and corruption policies and practices are at least as rigorous as ‘your firm’s own policy and practices. Such measures will not only minimize the risk of prosecution for an offense, but will also provide the affirmative defense that you had adequate procedures in place to prevent persons associated with your company from undertaking bribery.
  • Include adequate warranties in agency contracts that impose a burden on local agents to comply with anti-corruption laws. Parties may wish to incorporate language such as the following:
    • The Agent warrants that neither it, nor any of its employers, officers, directors, agents, distributors, representatives or any other individual otherwise under the Agent’s control shall pay, offer, promise to pay (or authorize to pay or offer money or anything else of value to any foreign official (i.e., any officer or employee of a foreign government or any department, agency or instrumentality thereof) in order to wrongfully influence the official to misuse his official position in order to obtain or retain business.

By implementing the above recommendations, investors can focus on the business in which they have developed their expertise, and reap the benefits of government contracting in Saudi Arabia, without running afoul of anti-corruption laws and regulations.

, , , ,

Strategies for complying with anti-corruption rules in Saudi Arabia

Canada streamlines work permit process for talented skilled foreign workers

Canadian immigration law allows Canadian employers to access foreign workers in certain situations where Canadian citizens and permanent residents are not available in the Canadian labor market. As a general policy, before Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) will issue a work permit to a foreign national, the foreign national’s prospective employer must obtain a Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) from Service Canada/Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) confirming the need for a temporary worker and that no Canadians are available to do the job.

Obtaining an LMIA-based work permit can be an onerous process for an employer and one that can take up to five months or longer, unless the employer is able to benefit from variations to the general LMIA recruitment requirements, or falls under an expedited stream or one of the LMIA exemption codes. To avoid unnecessary delays and costs when recruiting foreign nationals for work in Canada, it is therefore important for employers to assess whether any variations, expedited streams or exemptions are available.

With a view to helping companies attract top global talent, scale up and remain competitive at the global level, the Government of Canada recently announced that, on June 12, 2017, it will http://cialisfrance24.com launch a new, 24-month pilot program, the Global Talent Stream (GTS). Eligible employers will benefit from quicker processing times for LMIAs and certain LMIA-based work permits. It is anticipated that ESDC will process these LMIA applications within 10 business days (rather than the current timing of up to several months), and after the LMIA application is approved by ESDC, IRCC will process the work permit application within 10 business days.

Two categories of employers will be eligible for the GTS. Category A covers high-growth companies with a demonstrated need for unique talent to scale-up and grow. Category B covers companies with a demonstrated need for highly-skilled foreign nationals for occupations found on a Skills Shortage List. The details of the GTS and the requirements to qualify as a Category A or B company are still being developed.

New information will be posted as it becomes available. Please contact us with any questions you may have regarding this new program.

, , , , , , , , , ,

Canada streamlines work permit process for talented skilled foreign workers

Tier 2 immigration skills charge – another fee to pay

As part of the government plans to reduce Britain’s reliance on migrant workers, from  April 6, 2017 employers may have to pay an immigration skills charge of £1,000 per employee.

The skills charge will apply to a sponsor of a Tier 2 worker assigned a certificate of sponsorship in the “General” or “Intra-Company Transfer” route and who applies from:

  • outside the UK for a visa
  • inside the UK to switch to this visa from another
  • inside the UK to extend their existing visa

The cheap levitra medicine skills charge does not apply if you are sponsoring:

  • a non-EEA national who was sponsored in Tier 2 before April 6, 2017 and is applying from inside the UK to extend their Tier 2 stay with either the same sponsor or a different sponsor
  • a Tier 2 (Intra-Company Transfer) graduate trainee
  • a worker to do a specified PhD level occupation
  • a Tier 4 student visa holder in the UK switching to a Tier 2 (General) visa
  • Tier 2 family members (“dependants”)

As the charge applies to the sponsor and not the individual, if a sponsor has paid it in respect of an individual who then seeks to change sponsor, the new sponsor will also be required to pay the levy.

A lower rate of £364 per certificate of sponsorship applies for smaller sponsors and charities. You will usually be considered a small business if:

  • your annual turnover is £10.2 million or less
  • you have 50 employees or fewer

The charge is in addition to all other application fees. Its purpose is to cut down on the number of businesses taking on migrant workers and to incentivize employers to train British staff to fill those jobs.

, , , , ,

Tier 2 immigration skills charge – another fee to pay

Travel ban executive order – the saga continues

The US Departments of State and Homeland Security both issued statements on February 6, 2017, confirming that the government has suspended the implementation of key provisions of President Trump’s travel ban on nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries, and that visas that had been provisionally revoked are now valid for travel and may be used, once again, to come to the US, subject to the normal laws and procedures that existed prior to the President Trump’s executive order dated January 27, 2017.

This action comes as a result of a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in State of Washington and State of Minnesota v. Trump, denying a US Department of Justice request for an immediate stay of a nationwide injunction granted by a US federal district court judge in Seattle in response to Washington State’s request for a temporary restraining order immediately halting implementation and enforcement of the immigration ban.

The EO initially barred the entry to the United States of lawful permanent residents with green cards, and imposes a 90-day suspension of admission for immigrant and nonimmigrant visa holders, and refugees and passport holders from the seven countries. Soon thereafter, the Department of State issued an urgent notice suspending visa issuance to citizens of those countries. The EO also suspended the resettlement of refugees from all countries to the US for 120 days, and bans Syrian refugees indefinitely.

Previous injunctions had been issued in federal courts in Massachusetts and New York. Those orders temporarily enjoined federal agencies from removing people with approved refugee applications, valid visas and the nationals from the seven Muslim countries. The Seattle court’s decision is the broadest and has the largest impact.

Citizens from these countries are impacted

Nationals from the following countries are detrimentally impacted:

  • Iran
  • Iraq
  • Libya
  • Somalia
  • Sudan
  • Syria
  • Yemen

The EO does not apply to citizens of other countries who merely visited the listed countries. Further, the US Customs and Border Protection Agency has stated that the EO does not apply to citizens of these seven countries, if they are dual citizens and use the passport of a non-affected country to enter the US.

Travel guidance

Nationals from the seven listed countries, including dual citizens traveling with the passport of another country and US permanent residents, may wish to delay travel to the US until the details of the implementation of the EO are more clear, even if they already hold a visa to enter the United States. If in the United States already, they may wish to defer departure as they may not be allowed to return or they may find themselves going through a more lengthy than usual secondary inspection on arrival in the US. There are also reports of airline personnel being understandably confused regarding the status of the EO, with resulting inconvenience to travelers.

Background

On February 4, President Trump tweeted the following about the Hon. James L. Robart, the district court judge who issued the nationwide order. “The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!”

Criticism of the tweet and the EO was immediate and widespread. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said, “The President’s hostility toward the rule of law is not just embarrassing, it is dangerous. He seems intent on precipitating a constitutional crisis.” Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said: “We fear this executive order will become a self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism.”

Broad media coverage of the confusion caused by the uncertainty surrounding the EO’s fate continues. Dentons continues to receive emails and calls from employers who are considering cancelling all travel for employees carrying passports from the impacted countries, including dual citizens and US lawful permanent residents. Similar concerns have been voiced by citizens of many countries that are not listed in the EO but are worried that their country might be next. Due to the reciprocal nature of diplomatic relations, it is likely that US passport holders traveling to the seven countries will experience similar difficulties upon their arrival. Iran, for its part, has said, it would stop US citizens entering the country in retaliation to Washington’s visa ban.

Dentons will issue further information as it becomes available.

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Travel ban executive order – the saga continues

H-1B blast off countdown 2017

T minus 59 days. The countdown has begun.  The date is coming.  It will be here soon.

It is the biggest event of the year in United States immigration.

Hundreds of thousands will apply, but only a lucky few will be chosen.  Employers keen to recruit and employ the best and brightest talent from around the globe to meet American business needs are already gearing up.  Professionals eager to pursue their career in the United States are updating resumes and collecting diplomas and reference letters.  This program is not the best way for a country to succeed, but the United States Congress continues to lack the will and wisdom to change a law almost 25 years old.

Are you ready?

April 1, 2017, is the first day that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services agency (USCIS) will accept new H-1B specialty occupation worker nonimmigrant visa petitions by employers for foreign professionals.  It is important for global mobility and human resource managers to start work now to secure preliminary Department of Labor approvals, foreign degree evaluations, etc., to be ready to file the petition for an April 1 receipt date.

Limited supply

Only a limited number of new H-1B visas are accepted each year due to legal quota restrictions. Every year, 65,000 new H-1B visa petitions can be granted, of which 6,800 are set aside for citizens of Chile and Singapore under free trade agreements with those countries. To the extent there were unused free trade agreement H-1Bs, those are added to the quota for the next fiscal year. There is an additional allocation of 20,000 new H-1B visa petitions that can be accepted if the foreign professional in question earned a graduate degree from a university in the United States.

Not all H-1B visa petitions are subject to numerical limits. Individuals already holding H-1B visas are not counted against the quota, and petitions filed by institutions of higher education or related or affiliated nonprofit entities, nonprofit research organizations or governmental research organizations are exempt from the limits. And H-1B workers performing labor or services in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and Guam may also be exempt from the H-1B cap, provided their employers file the petition before December 31, 2019. Employers may not file a petition or an extension request for an employee more than six months before the employee’s intended start date.

Overwhelming demand

Last year, the USCIS received so many new H-1B visa petitions in the first week of April that the agency ended the application window on April 7. Approximately 236,000 new petitions were received, as compared to 233,000 in the prior year. As the regulations mandate, officers then selected—at random—which envelopes to open, and returned the rest unopened with the government filing fees. Only then did the agency begin the often long process of approving or denying the selected petitions on the merits of eligibility.

This year, the USCIS will once again receive more than it is allowed to accept. Again, the agency will randomly decide which envelopes to open and which to return unopened. The likelihood of a petition being selected in April 2017 is much lower than last year, taking into consideration the current state of the economy, the relatively low rate of American unemployment in typical H-1B specialty occupations, and the labor needs of US employers.

The countdown begins now (download dates directly into your Outlook)

T minus 59 days (February 1):  Start working with legal counsel now. Identify current and prospective employees who will need new H-1B visa petitions.

T minus 44 days (February 15):  By now, you and legal counsel should have requested the labor condition application certification from the Department of Labor.  Employers new to the process or who have not filed recently will need to create the appropriate accounts with the Department of Labor. Because the USCIS relies on Dunn & Bradstreet data (DUNS) as part of its employer background verification process, it is important for employers to create or update the company’s DUNS records to avoid inconsistencies with H-1B visa petition filings.

T minus 31 days (March 1):  Have all the required USCIS forms and supporting documents been signed and filing fee checks prepared?  There is still some time left to get last minute details completed, but this is when it gets very hectic. Government systems often become overloaded and delays at the Department of Labor for late filings are common.

T minus 1 day (March 31):  Envelopes should be properly addressed and delivered to the express service of choice with next business morning delivery instructions.

T minus 0 (April 1):  Just like at NASA ground control, this is the stage in the process where all the hard work resulted in successful delivery of the visa petition and you have to wait for the USCIS to announce whether the petition is selected or returned—usually within 3 weeks or so.

, , , , , , , , , ,

H-1B blast off countdown 2017

Entry to the United States barred for certain passport holders?!

US President Donald Trump issued an executive order delaying the entry to the United States of lawful permanent residents with green cards, immigrant and nonimmigrant visa holders, refugees and passport holders from seven countries. The order, dated January 27, 2017, became effective immediately. Soon thereafter, the US Department of State issued an urgent notice suspending visa issuance to citizens of those countries.

On January 28, 2017, injunctions were issued in federal courts in Massachusetts and New York. The orders enjoin federal agencies from removing people with approved refugee applications, valid visas and others from the seven countries.

How the government is reacting

In a January 29, 2017, press release, the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) stated that it will continue to enforce all of President Trump’s executive orders. Later that same day, the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) agency, which is part of DHS, issued a statement deeming the entry of lawful permanent residents to be in the national interest. The result is to allow lawful permanent residents to return to their homes in the US, absent significant derogatory information indicating a serious threat to public safety and welfare.

Citizens from these countries are impacted

Nationals from the following seven countries are detrimentally impacted:

  • Iran
  • Iraq
  • Libya
  • Somalia
  • Sudan
  • Syria
  • Yemen

The order does not apply to citizens of other countries who merely visited the listed countries.

Travel Guidance

Nationals from the seven listed countries, including dual citizens traveling https://www.viagrapascherfr.com/comment-se-procurer-du-viagra-en-belgique/ with the passport of another country, may wish to delay travel to the United States until the details of the implementation of the executive order is more clear even if they already hold a visa to enter the United States. If in the United States already, they may wish to defer departure.

Background

The executive order is reported to have been issued without advance consultation with the agencies charged with its implementation, including DHS and the Department of State.

President Trump stated on January 28 that the travel ban is “working out very nicely.”

That said, there is broad media coverage of the widespread confusion that resulted, not only in the general public, but also at airports, airlines, border crossings, etc. There are reports of detentions of new arrivals at airports and public protest in many American cities. I have had a number of emails and calls from client employers canceling travel for employees carrying passports from the impacted countries, including dual citizens and United States lawful permanent residents. Due to the reciprocal nature of diplomatic relations, it is likely that US passport holders traveling to these seven countries will experience similar difficulties.

The situation remains very fluid. Press Secretary Reince Priebus stated on January 29, 2017, that the executive order will no longer apply to lawful permanent residents, and the USCIS issued its confirming statement mentioned above.

Dentons will issue further information as it becomes available.

, , , , , , , , ,

Entry to the United States barred for certain passport holders?!