By: Karen Smith, BOILA legal intern and third-year law student at American University

Photo Credit: The Republican | Michael S. Gordon

Immigrants who wish to obtain visas for the first time, renew their visas, or change their immigration statuses often face difficulties in dealing with the United States immigration system. The Immigration Policy Center attributes the problems in part to the current structure of the system. It gives the example of employment based visas and argues that the cap on the amount of visas that may be allocated each year, as well as the inability of a temporary worker to change his or her status and obtain permanent employment visas, does not give employers the flexibility they need to hire immigrants to fill in openings in the United States labor market. The Center’s report also cited backlogs in processing and rigid bureaucratic procedure as another problem.

Baijun Li, and his wife, Xi Wang, serve as real examples of how these problems impact lawful immigrants. The Chinese couple came to the United States on temporary visas twelve years ago, and their story was recently documented in the news. They attempted to get their green cards so they could stay in the United States permanently, but their applications were denied. Bajijun Li was laid off from his job and was unable to qualify for a green card because he did not have a permanent job offer in the United States. USCIS did not believe that Xi Wang, a famous professional dancer in China, possessed the “extraordinary ability” that would qualify her for a green card under the Immigration and Nationality Act.  They have appealed the decision on Xi Wang’s application, but even if it is approved, they will have to go through a long waiting period before their green cards are issued.

Baijun Li has an advanced degree in chemistry and has used his knowledge in his work with manufacturing plants, but this was ignored when his application for a green card was under consideration. Similarly, USCIS rejected the contribution that Xi Wang could make to the arts in the United States with her dancing talents when it denied her application. The couple said that it seemed unfair that a person whom they did not even know had the authority to decide their future. They also said they disliked having to spend hours filling out paperwork and listening to automated recordings on the phone, rather than being able to work with a real person to get their applications processed.

Since their temporary visas will expire soon, Baijun Li and Xi Wang may be forced to return to China even though they have spent a considerable part of their lives in the United States and their daughter was born in the United States. If immigration policy consistently allowed transition between temporary work visas and permanent employment visas, they would be able to stay in the United States, assuming that at least one of them received a job offer. Instead, current policy prohibits most temporary worker visa holders from transitioning to permanent visas. Due to the high demand for visas and limited resources, applications are often approved or denied without any communication between applicants and the officials in charge of their applications, and applicants have to endure long waiting times while their applications are being processed, as this couple’s story illustrates.

It is the hope of the employees at Beach-Oswald that stories like Baijun Li and Xi Wang’s will make more people aware that reform of our immigration system is needed. We feel that every immigrant’s background and unique abilities should be considered when they apply for immigration relief.

By: Danielle Beach-Oswald and Karen Smith, BOILA legal intern and third year law student at American University

International Women’s Day is March 8, 2012. The holiday was first proposed by Clara Zetkin of Germany in 1910, during the Second International Conference of Working Women. The holiday was observed for the first time on March 19, 1911, in the countries of Austria, Denmark, Germany, and Switzerland. The date for the holiday was later changed to March 8, and it has been observed on this day ever since 1914. The holiday served as a platform for men and women to rally in support of women’s suffrage, the right of women to hold public office, and the right of women to be treated equally in the workforce.

Today, International Women’s Day is recognized as an official holiday in nearly thirty countries (the United States is unfortunately not included among this group). It has even captured the attention of the United Nations, which has held special International Women’s Day conferences to celebrate the holiday. In keeping with its roots, this holiday brings together people from across the globe to celebrate the achievements of women and rally for the end of discrimination against women. Events are held online and at locations in many of the countries whose citizens celebrate the holiday. These events include campaigns to raise money to support women, film screenings of documentaries about women’s rights activists, and programs that give training to aspiring female entrepreneurs.

The employees at Beach-Oswald see firsthand the progress in women’s equality, and recognize that there is still much to do to achieve full and fair participation of women in all parts of society. As immigration attorneys, we regularly work with female clients who are victims of forced marriage and female genital mutilation, and assist them with their asylum, VAWA, or U visa applications. We enjoy learning about our clients’ backgrounds and helping them obtain better lives in the United States.

Child marriage, or forced marriage, is commonly practiced in Africa and Asia. It exists in poor, rural communities because families cannot afford to care for young girls and parents choose to marry their daughters off at an early age so they will not continue to be financial burdens. Female victims of forced marriage continue the cycle of poverty, as they do not obtain educations since they are pulled out of school to be married, and they are expected to raise children and do housework rather than participate in the workforce.

The World Health Organization estimates that around 92 million girls, ages 10 and above, have been subjected to female genital mutilation, a procedure that involves the cutting, removal, and stitching back together of a young woman’s reproductive organs. The practice holds no health benefits for women and is not medically necessary, but it is a cultural practice that is observed in many parts of the world because it supposedly denotes a woman’s purity. Female genital mutilation may result in death or serious medical problems, including complications during childbirth.

Activists are working to put an end to forced marriage and female genital mutilation. The International Center for Research on Women has programs in communities in Nepal and India that educate people on the negative consequences of child marriage and find ways to delay marriage for girls. The World Health Organization works with international monitoring bodies to condemn female genital mutilation, and pushes for the enactment of laws in African countries that prohibit the practice.

We hope that this article will raise awareness of forced marriage and female genital mutilation, and motivate more people to advocate for the end of these dangerous, discriminatory practices. The more voices there are speaking out against these practices, the more pressure governments will feel to make positive change. We wish you a happy International Women’s Day!

Photo credit: justicewithpeace.org

On a typical chilly Minnesota morning, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) recently launched the Global Entry program at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport with a ribbon-cutting ceremony, interactive Global Entry kiosk demonstrations and tours of the new MSP Airport Global Entry enrollment center for invited guests and news media. Joining CBP leadership at this event, were many partners and stakeholders from local, state, and federal, congressional, transportation and travel communities who were excited to see this convenient and secure trusted traveler initiative expand to the Twin Cities area.

David Murphy, Chicago CBP Director of Field Operations, gives remarks at official Global Entry program launch at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. International passengers arriving at MSP Airport have already started to get out of line and use the fast, easy and secure Global Entry kiosk for CBP processing.

Global Entry is a voluntary expedited clearance initiative for pre-approved low risk international travelers, who are processed by biometric identification using a designated kiosk, rather than waiting in line for entry processing by a CBP officer. It is the quick and easy express pass through the U.S. international air arrivals area and reduces average waits times by more than 70 percent. Having the Global Entry program at MSP Airport will now allow CBP officers the opportunity to focus on high risk international travelers that need additional attention.

“Arriving passengers here at MSP Airport have already started to get out of line and use the fast, easy and secure Global Entry kiosk for CBP processing. So far in the very short time Global Entry has been operational here, we’ve had over 100 admissions. The expansion of Global Entry is a popular benefit for all international travelers,” said David Murphy, Chicago CBP Director of Field Operations. “Having Global Entry enrollment here in the Twin Cities, really means an added convenience for those applicants who are in Minnesota, Northern Wisconsin, North Dakota or South Dakota who before, had to travel all the way to Chicago’s O’Hare Airport for membership interviews.”

Within 24-hours of going online, the first week of MSP Airport Global Entry enrollment center appointments were reserved by applicants indicating a warm welcome from the land of 10,000 lakes. CBP has a total of six Global Entry kiosks, conveniently located at the Humphrey and Lindbergh Terminals and within the Global Entry enrollment center which will open on March 27 for applicant interviews.

Announced as a pilot program in 2008, Global Entry was established as a permanent voluntary program this year. It now operates at 24 U.S. airports including the recent added airports in Minneapolis, Charlotte, Denver and Phoenix. This expansion will make expedited clearance through the Global Entry program available at airports serving 97 percent of international travelers arriving in the United States. More than 270,000 members have enrolled in Global Entry thus far and have used the designated kiosks for more than 1.9 millions admissions. And as an added advantage, Global Entry members are eligible to participate in other programs such as the Transportation Security Administration Pre Check passenger expedited screening program and the Fast Low Risk Universal Crossing program, available in Amsterdam.
————————————————————————–

Beach-Oswald Top-Notch Immigration Attorneys
Washington, DC Immigration Law Firm

After its landslide victory during the April 2010 parliamentary elections, the coalition of Fidesz (Fiatal Demokraták Szövetsége-Magyar Polgári Szövetség,(in English, Alliance of Young Democrats-Hungarian Civic Union ) and KDNP (Kereszténydemokrata Néppárt, Christian,( in English, Christian Democratic People’s Party) won an unprecedented two-third majority in the Hungarian National Assembly. The new Parliament did not waste time, and between May 14, 2010 and March 2, 2012, lawmakers passed approximately 595 measures, including 157 new laws to restructure Hungary. Many of these new measures met with fierce domestic and international concerns that democracy was being left behind. Among these controversial laws were the Fundamental Law replacing Hungary’s Constitution and the so-called cardinal laws requiring a two-third majority of Parliament. Other controversial laws such as the new media regulation; the law on the status of judges and the powers of the Constitutional Court; the statute regulating the Hungarian Central Bank, and the new law on churches created fear of restrictions on democratic institutions in Hungary severely curbing prior freedoms.

Act C of 2011 on the Law on the Right to Freedom of Conscience and Religion, and on Churches, Religions and Religious Communities (Law on Churches) was enacted on July 12, 2011. According to a Huffington Post article, the new measure granted legal recognition to only 14 of the 358 registered churches and religious association in Hungary. Others have to reapply for legal recognition, which require a three-third majority vote Parliament, where the Fidesz-KDNP has a three-third of the seats. Under the new law, the recognition of a religious organization as a church requires at least 1,000 members and either 100 years of international presence or 20 years presence in Hungary. The 14 denomination included the Reformed, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Orthodox churches, as well as Jewish congregations. The law excluded such historic churches, in some cases with over a 100-year presence in Hungary, as Hungary’s Church of God, the Hungarian Methodist Church, the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Jehovah’s Witnesses, the local Church of England, as well as the Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, and Baha’i communities.

Proponents of the Law on Churches, including some of the larger denominations, welcome the fact that it will be more difficult to register religious organizations as churches in Hungary. The government defends the measure claiming that the previous, 1990 Act on Religion was too liberal. The Financial Times (FT), quoting a government spokesman writes that the previous law made it possible to set up so-called “business churches” and “nonsense religions” such as the “Worshippers of the Womb” to take advantage of tax breaks and other benefits. According to the government, some of these churches had nothing to do with religion. The government also argues that the law is just another effort to strengthen Hungary’s economy by preventing sham religious groups to take advantage of financial benefits available to churches. Proponents also emphasize that the new measure does not prevent the unrecognized religious groups from meeting, worshiping, and evangelizing. A politics.hu article said that the American Hungarian Federation (AHF) defended the government from recent harsh and often unfair criticism. AHF reminded that the Hungarian Constitutional Court partially annulled the original statute in December 2011 and that legal recognition would be extended to more denominations. The government and leaders of churches favored by the new law also noted that a broad consultation with religious leaders had preceded the enactment of the new law.

Opponents of the Law on Churches, according to the same FT article, including religious and civil organizations, as well as certain European bodies and the United States, charged that the new measure seriously restricted the fundamental right of freedom of religion. For example, the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union (HCLU) said that the new law discriminates against smaller and newer denominations. According to ENInews, in a petition to Parliament by HCLU and the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, signed also by Human Rights Without Frontiers and the Southern Baptist Convention among others, the law is a “serious setback for religious freedom in Hungary.” The article also quotes the US based Institute on Religion and Public Policy saying that the law “recalled “the Soviet Past” and violated “fundamental international human rights law” and should be viewed as “a danger to all Hungarian society and a terrible indication of the state of democracy in the country.” The opponents also countered the government’s argument stating that the Law on Churches constitutes a disproportionate answer to the alleged abuse by some religious groups; “business churches” and other abusers of the previous system could have been dealt with by different legal actions. Opponents also doubt that it is the National Assembly is competent to evaluate what organizations should be recognized as churches. The critics rebut the proponents’ preliminary consultation arguments complaining that the text passed by the National Assembly was utterly different from the version they received before.

Opponents, including churches and private individuals, filed petitions with the Hungarian Constitutional Court to challenge the new measure. On December 19, 2011, the Court struck down on technical grounds certain provisions of the law that was set to become effective on January 1, 2012. Punch and Politics.hu reported that despite the deep concerns of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and several US congressmen expressed in separate letters to Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, Parliament passed the bill again as Act CCVI of 2011. Secretary Clinton said in her letter that the new law “makes the recognition of churches and religions difficult or even impossible, and the fact that … the approval of two-thirds of the parliament is necessary makes the decision on fundamental human rights unduly political.” Politics.hu wrote in an article that on February 16, 2012, the plenary session of the European Parliament adopted a resolution in which the Socialist, Liberal, the Green groups, and the European Left/Nordic Green Left party expressed “serious concerns” about “the exercise of democracy, the rule of law, the respect and protection of human and social rights, the system of checks and balances, equality and non-discrimination.” The resolution expressly calls on European Commission to guarantee that the Law on Churches respect the principle of the freedom of conscience and that the requirement of the two-third majority approval of the registration of churches is annulled. Parties in the European Parliament on the other end of the political spectrum called the measure irresponsible and premature reminding that there is an ongoing dialogue between the European Commission and the Hungarian government on these issues.

The latest development in the saga of the Law on Churches is that on February 27, 2012, Parliament amended the law adding another 18 churches to the previously approved 14. According to iafrica.com, however, after the passing of the Law on Churches 66 churches were excluded out of about 100 religious organizations applying for recognition. The Adventist Network reported that these newly recognized denominations include the Hungarian Seventh-day Adventist Church, the Methodist Church, the Pentecostal Church, the Coptic Orthodox Church, and the Hungarian Islamic Council. John Graz, Public Affairs and Religious Liberty director for the Adventist world church said the following: “My hope is that the government of Hungary will continue to reassess the way it deals with religious minorities. Religious freedom is best served when a government makes no legal distinction between religions, and extends the same protections and privileges to all.”

Robert Almosd worked as an associate at Beach-Oswald Immigration Law Assoc. He is now working in Budapest, Hungary and is Of Counsel.

image source

In recent years, the increasing rate of large-scale immigration has altered local communities all around the world, disrupting many countries’ notions of national identity. In some cases, this has caused extreme anxiety and social unrest in affected communities.

In many European nations, the local populations feel that globalization is weakening their cultures, and are thus tightening their grip on their identity, culture, language, and values. As a result, they shun the immigrants whose cultures would diversify their own culture. Residency and citizenship requirements have been made more harsh, so as to make the immigrants conform to local norms and practices before being allowed to stay in their country.

Many European nationals feel that too much change is taking place too quickly. They fear that this change will have negative impacts on their communities, and that they will not be able to adapt quickly enough. The negative impacts include overburdening the education, transportation, and public safety systems. In addition, there is also concern that there will be unequal distribution of public goods and resources.

In order to ease tensions and make the immigration process smooth for both immigrants and local communities, there are ten steps that need to be taken by political leaders:

1. Political leaders must listen to their constituents and show them that they understand their concerns.
2. Political leaders must help citizens to build a sense of “ownership” in the integration process by getting them all involved in building the future generation of cultural norms. This will make them feel like they have ownership over the immigration process.
3. Political leaders must emphasize that national identity should be in the process of developing instead of remaining constant – that it needs to be more inclusive instead of exclusive.
4. Policies should allow multiple identities to coexist in the same communities instead of being separated.
5. Policy needs to be established that outlines specific and clear procedures in obtaining permanent residence and citizenship. These policies must then be implemented impartially.
6. States should offer practical, nonpunitive integration assistance to the newly incoming immigrants.
7. Policy needs to be created that focuses integration efforts in workplaces and schools, because those are the places where integration occurs most naturally.
8. Political leaders should focus their efforts on assisting all populations at risk, not just immigrants. Otherwise, disadvantaged citizens will be angered that the government is helping immigrants instead of its own citizens.
9. States should legislate cultural practices as a last resort, not a first impulse.
10. Political leaders should set an example when it comes to interacting with immigrant populations. They should do so through both political language and through their actions.

If these steps are taken, it is very probable that tensions over immigration will be eased and that local communities will be more and understanding of and welcoming of immigrants.

Article Source
Photo Source

Finally, the day has come where some common sense has been injected into 287(g)
Secure communities program that should never have been implemented to start with and
was doomed to failure from its inception. This program trained local officers to act as
immigration officers without the training or knowledge needed.

Close to 70 agencies had signed contracts with ICE and though the program began as a
voluntary one, it became increasingly clear that opting-out was just not an option. Those
counties or cities that refused to participate were put under pressure and criticized as
sanctuaries for the illegal immigrants. Clearly the program became under increasing
financial constraints under President Obama as it grew bigger and bigger and more and
more mistakes and problems were discovered.

This program had many enemies aside from the victims. Victims included those who
had petty offenses such as traffic lights, tags, speeding but also those who had witnessed
a crime but were too afraid of arrest to then report it or who were victims themselves of
abuse by citizens. A report by Migration Policy, stated that immigrants had “ fear and
mistrust” of authorities as their police who was supposed to protect them became ICE
agents. Often police officers who felt that this was just not their job and that they were
at the risk of losing the confidence of their communities as well as of being at risk of
being sued for errors that they might make. Legislators also often opposed the program
as the cost burden became increasingly evident. Even the Homeland Security Inspector
General criticized the program in reports stating that it was leading to “racial profiling” as
well as mistakes due to lack of training.

Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum stated the “secure
communities program is surrounded by grave concerns about the impact to public safety,
community policing and civil right abuses.”

Now Department of Homeland Security has stated that it will not sign new contracts
for 287 (g) officers working in the field and that it will terminate some of the “least
productive” agreements. Just this step alone is estimated to save our nation over $17
million.

In reality, though the Secure Communities program will be expanded and just the 287
(g) program will be phased out. This means that the fingerprints of all people booked
into local jails will be checked against federal immigration databases and ICE agents will
then lodge a detainer on them before they are released. So the only difference will be to
those who have not had their fingerprints taken in a federal database as they may be more difficult to identify.

This is unlikely to mollify either side of the debate. For immigration advocates want both programs to end rather to be curtailed.

photo source

Press Statement

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Washington, DC

67th United States Secretary of State

February 6, 2012

Today, we mark the ninth annual International Day of Zero Tolerance to Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C). It is estimated that 100 to 140 million women around the world have undergone this brutal procedure and three million girls are at risk every year. We must continue to act to end this affront to women’s equality and the rights and dignity of women and girls.

No religion mandates this procedure, though it occurs across cultures, religions, and continents. It is performed on girls in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. Even in the United States we are fighting this practice. FGM/C became a federal crime in the United States in 1997, but the procedure persists in some communities. The U.S. Government is working with practitioners in the health and legal community to educate groups about the negative consequences of FGM/C.

Over the years, community advocates have found that when men come to understand the physical and psychological trauma FGM/C causes, they often become effective activists for eradication, including fathers who refuse to allow their daughters to be subject to the procedure. Communities must act collectively to abandon the practice, so that girls and their families who opt out do not become social outcasts. This approach has led around 6,000 communities across Africa to abandon the practice, usually through a public declaration. Communities working together can ensure stronger, healthier futures for girls and young women.

Every government has an obligation to protect its citizens from such abuse. As we commemorate International Day of Zero Tolerance and remember those who have been harmed, we reaffirm our commitment to overturning deeply entrenched social norms and abolishing this practice. All women and girls, no matter where they are born or what culture they are raised in, deserve the opportunity to realize their potential.

A recent report from The Commission to Study the Impact of Immigrants in Maryland found that immigrants have a positive impact on Maryland’s economy. The foreign-born population makes up nearly 14 percent of Maryland’s total population. This number is above the national average of foreign-born people in the United States, as well as the foreign-born percentages in states like Virginia and Arizona. International immigration was responsible for over half of the workforce expansion that occurred in Maryland between 2000 and 2010.
An important contribution made by immigrants was their participation in agriculture, seafood, construction, tourism, and transportation. For example, each year, Maryland’s crab industry recruits Mexican women to come to the eastern shore of Maryland and employs them in seasonal crab picking jobs. The industry is highly reliant on these immigrant women, who come to the United States on H-2B temporary worker visas, to produce the seafood that in turn brings in millions of dollars of revenue for the Maryland economy. Without contributions from workers like these women, industry growth would have stagnated and negatively impacted the state economy.
The report also focused on the connection between the economy and education. It noted that providing education to children of unauthorized immigrants may initially strain the education system, but it has produced long-term benefits. Children of immigrants who attend the public school system will likely become part of the Maryland workforce after they finish school. Therefore, children of immigrants should have the opportunity to get the best education possible so they can make skilled, informed contributions to the economy. A report from the Migration Policy Institute emphasizes this point by noting that better-educated immigrants are beneficial to the overall economy, in part because education reduces poverty and reliance on welfare.
The Commission’s report looked at the fiscal impact that immigrants have on the economy. It noted that while unauthorized immigrants receive benefits, such as medical care and education, these costs are weighed against income received from unauthorized immigrants who have taxes subtracted from their earnings and do not receive refunds for excessive withholding. The fiscal drain that would result from the loss of part of the United States labor force, especially in the lesser-skilled positions, cautions against policies that further restrict immigrant workers from entering the United States.
Two practices could help improve relations between immigrants who come to the United States seeking jobs and United States citizens. First, the government could focus more effort on locating and punishing employers who are hiring unauthorized immigrants. This would discourage employers from driving down the wage rate, which occurs when employers hire unauthorized immigrants and pay them lower wages than authorized workers. Increasing consequences and reducing incentives for hiring unauthorized immigrants would in turn slow the flow of unauthorized immigrants who enter the United States, and lessen the need for expenditures that are used to find and deport unauthorized immigrants. Second, the government could strengthen its labor laws to ensure that employers of migrant workers who are authorized to work in the United States are complying with federal working conditions and occupational safety standards. The opportunity to obtain adequate wages and job training would hopefully encourage more immigrants to make the effort to obtain temporary worker visas rather than enter the country undocumented. Assuring immigrants receive proper job training would also give them the skills they need to contribute successfully to the United States economy.

For the report from The Commission to Study the Impact of Immigrants in Maryland, click here:
For more information on the migrant female workers in the Maryland crab industry, click here.
For the report from the Migration Policy Institute, click here:

Is ICE trying to implement prosecutorial discretion which I thought had always been exercised and a prerogative or is this a “show and tell” display to meet a mandate? Specifically, ICE’s efforts have been focused on a pilot program in two cities for illegal immigrants whose cases fall under the jurisdiction of the Baltimore Immigration Court and the Denver Immigration Court. Of the 12,000 cases reviewed thus far for those courts, ICE has recommended that 12% of them be administratively closed by the Immigration Courts. The New York Times reported that as prosecutorial discretion is implemented nationwide, an estimated 39,000 cases could be administratively closed. With the long wait times in several Immigration Courts, administratively closing these cases will certainly ease the backlog. Or will it? Since cases closed may be those already ready to go with positive results and now they may just be put on a back burner until 2014.

Although this is a step in the right direction, many questions remain regarding prosecutorial discretion. Specifically, what does “administratively closed” mean? These individuals who benefit from prosecutorial discretion may remain in a status of limbo. Their unlawful presence in the United States will simply continue and their ability to work in this country will be severely impacted. ICE has already determined that these individuals are of no security threat by instituting background checks. It’s time for policy makers to determine what happens next for those that benefit from prosecutorial discretion. For the additional 3 or 4 years of waiting shouldn’t they receive the ability to support themselves while here awaiting another turn on the roundabout of delays.

Additionally, questions still remain for immigration lawyers and how they can use prosecutorial discretion. Currently, ICE prosecutors are individually reviewing the files of illegal immigrants. ICE prosecutors can then file a motion for prosecutorial discretion which the illegal alien can then agree to or reject. However, illegal aliens should be able to request prosecutorial discretion as well. With the 300,000 cases ICE has to review, it’s likely that there are thousands that qualify for prosecutorial discretion under the Morton Memo that may not have it appropriately applied. Given the large element of discretion, illegal immigrants should be able to formally request prosecutorial discretion.

Prosecutorial Discretion is a long over due decision by the Department of Homeland Security. However, for this to have a lasting impact, the ambiguities within it must be resolved. Making a case “administratively closed” doesn’t resolve the true problems that these individuals are facing.

Source: http://www.ice.gov/doclib/sevis/pdf/bm1112-05-dmv-timing.pdf

New F, M and J nonimmigrants often apply for a driver’s license or Social Security number (SSN) either too early after entering the United States or without the proper documentation. The purpose of the following information is to highlight best practices for incoming F, M and J nonimmigrants.1

One of the first things a new F, M or J nonimmigrant typically wants to do after entering the United States is get a driver’s license or, where appropriate, an SSN. Like many things, however, correct timing is everything. The Student and Exchange Visitor Program wants all F, M or J nonimmigrants eligible for a driver’s license or an SSN to have the easiest experience possible. Following these six simple tips makes the process go much smoother and saves a lot of time in the end:

1. Wait 10 days after you arrive in the United States. You may want to apply for a driver’s license or SSN right away, but be patient. The 10-day wait allows time for all the government databases to update with your arrival information.

2. Know what you are applying for and if you are eligible. While you are waiting, talk with your school’s designated school official (DSO) or sponsor’s responsible officer (RO) or alternate responsible officer (ARO) to learn more about your state’s driving rules and regulations. If you want an SSN, have your DSO or RO/ARO confirm that you are eligible before you apply.

3. Make sure your record in the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) is up-to-date and in Active status. SEVIS is the database that contains information for all F, M and J nonimmigrants in the United States. A DSO manages an F or M nonimmigrant’s SEVIS record. An RO/ARO manages an exchange visitor’s SEVIS record. The DSO or RO/ARO (whichever applies to you) must place your record in Active status when you report to the school or program. Talk with your DSO or RO/ARO before you apply for a license or SSN to make sure your record is Active in SEVIS. If your record is not Active when you apply, your application will be rejected.

4. Check your forms. Check all your forms to make sure your information is correct. This is data integrity. Data integrity is very important because if you have different
information on different forms, it will cause delays. Specifically, check your Form I-94,
“Arrival/Departure Record,” for handwritten information. If the information on your
Form I-94 is different than on your passport or Form I-20, “Certificate of Eligibility for
Nonimmigrant Student Status,” or Form DS-2019, “Certificate of Eligibility for
Exchange Visitor (J-1) Status,” please see the DMV Fact Sheet for more information.

5. Wait two days after your DSO or RO/ARO activates your record in SEVIS. After your DSO or RO/ARO activates your record in SEVIS, you should wait at least two
federal business days before you apply for a driver’s license or SSN. This gives all the
databases time to update with your new information.

6. Bring all your paperwork. When you go to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) – the common name for a state government office that issues driver’s licenses – or to the Social Security office, remember to bring all your paperwork. For most states, the
paperwork includes these documents:

•  Form I-20 or Form DS-2019
•  Form I-94, “Arrival/Departure Record”
•  Passport (with visa, if applicable)
•  Proof of legal presence or residence (ask your DSO or RO/ARO what your state
• requires)

For an SSN, you must also bring a letter of employment and an endorsed Form I-20 (for
F students). Exchange visitors should consult with their RO/ARO first to make sure the
Social Security Administration requires a letter of employment for the J category.
These six tips should help you get your driver’s license or SSN without having any major
problems. If you are interested in specific details about F-2, M-2 or J-2 dependents, please see page 8 of the DMV Fact Sheet. Always talk with your DSO or RO/ARO before you try to apply.
Your DSO or RO/ARO may have more information about your particular state. Safe travels!

Learn More
Driving in the United States

Obtaining a Social Security Number (SSN)

DMV Fact Sheet

—————————–

1 F-1 and M-1 students, J-1 exchange visitors, and accompanying F-2, M-2 or J-2 dependents