3. What are CA's primary funding challenges for this fiscal year?

A. CA's primary funding challenge is to maintain MRV fee retention with no cap. Fees cover over 90% of operating costs, computer system development, and personnel costs.

4. What are the primary issues that CA and the INS are trying to resolve from a processing perspective?

A. The Department of State has ongoing cooperation with INS on a broad range of issues. Improving and expanding data sharing is one of the primary long-term issues. One of the main current issues is implementation of the LIFE Act.

Communications

First, we wanted to express our appreciation for the efforts of Ms. Rosen and her staff regarding Legalnet inquiries. We have received many compliments from members as to the responses they have obtained from Legalnet.

1. Could you please update us on any change in Legalnet procedures?

A. Legalnet is an email box designated for legal community use only. The address is LEGALNET@state.gov. Attorneys can send inquiries to the email box for general information regarding visa policies, regulations or procedures. For questions about specific visa cases or J-1 waiver applications, it is helpful if you fax your inquiries to (202) 662-3899. Depending on the nature of the inquiry, the officer handling the "Legalnet" request may have to contact CA/VO/L/A- Advisory Opinions, CA/VO/L/W-Waiver Review and/or a Post abroad before responding to you. Posts are asked to respond to the Visa Office within 30 days; other Divisions are expected to respond within 10-15 business days. If we do not receive a response, our office sends a follow-up request. All "Legalnet" inquiries are sent an automatic acknowledgment email stating that the inquiry has been received and will be responded to as quickly as possible. If you do not receive a substantive response within the indicated time frame, please send a second/follow up message to Legalnet. If the automatic email acknowledgment is not received, the attorney should verify the mailing address or send the inquiry via FAX to (202) 663-3899. AILA's Web site provides a general form for assistance in organizing information in a manner that should make processing these inquiries more efficient.

2. How many inquiries does Legalnet typically receive on a monthly basis? What percentage of these inquiries are resolved and in what time frames on average?

A. Last year, CA/VO/P/I -"Legalnet" received an average of 186 email inquiries per month. Resolution does not always equal issuance of a visa, but we do attempt to follow through on all inquiries until the issues are resolved/clarified. Since cases vary so significantly it is difficult to determine an average response time. If an inquiry requires input from another office we have little control over delays. In general, you should receive at least an interim response within 15 working days.

3. How long does Legalnet typically have to wait for responses from posts? What methods does Legalnet have to use to obtain responses?

A. Legalnet relies on the cooperation of overseas posts. We attempt to establish and maintain positive and cooperative relationships with the various offices and officers. E-mail is often the most efficient form of contact, but if we do not receive a response after a reasonable amount of time and several attempts, we follow up with faxes and phone calls. With technological advances, information is becoming more accessible and we are optimistic that we will be able to respond more quickly in more cases and ease the burden of overworked posts. Currently, we find that it may take some posts more than 30 days to respond.

4. How many posts do not have web sites? Any idea when these posts may have web sites developed? Are posts allocated funds for web site development and updates? How are the contents of the web sites coordinated (are they)? The reason for this question is to determine if posts are given guidance on the type of basic information that all web sites should contain. Perhaps, AILA and CA could work on a standardized set of points for web site inclusion to try to avoid repetitive inquiries.

A. There are 211 Foreign Service posts that provide nonimmigrant visa services, and 131 that also provide immigrant visa services. The Consular Affairs Internet Web site, http://travel.state.gov, provides a link to U.S. embassies and consulates online, and lists 150 posts that have sites. Other posts have sites that are not on the main list. (We have provided a list of our own to AILA.) The decision to create a Web site at all resides with the individual embassy or consulate. The Department provides general guidance to consular sections on Web site creation and management and has sent several Best Practices cables related to the Web, but leaves decisions about post-specific content to the posts themselves. If AILA wishes to suggest to CA what type of information they would find most helpful that is now missing from most sites, we could share that information with posts.

5. In our last meeting, we were advised that whether posts establish e-mail addresses for different types of inquiries is based on their ability to reply tied to staffing issues. We find that communication difficulties are the primary source of public confusion and frustration with posts. Do you have any information on progress being made by posts to utilize e-mail communications to respond to the public? Do posts submit reports as to the number of public inquiries received and how many are resolved? Would CA provide this information, if available, to AILA? If not, why are these inquiries not monitored? How does CA assist posts in dealing with public inquiries when post resources do not allow for timely responses?

A. The use of e-mail to respond to inquiries is increasing. Initially some Posts found themselves flooded with more than could be handled, but as systems have been developed to cope with the new workload, many have found it to be an efficient means of communication. We continuously receive information from Posts concerning establishment of new e-mail box addresses. The Visa Office recently implemented use of e-mail auto response with positive results. A greater number of questions can be answered more quickly, leaving more time available to dedicate to the inquiries which cannot be handled with auto responses. Posts report annually on the time spent handling all public inquiries and Congressional inquiries. This input is taken into consideration, along with other reports and requests when determining the allocation of resources. CA tries to support posts in coping with workloads, and will try to provide temporary assistance or support long term shifts in personnel depending on post needs.

6. Does CA have a current contact list for personnel at posts that might be made available to the public? The Key Officer information on the Department of State web site is not current.

A. There is no current contact list available for public distribution of key personnel at posts abroad aside from The Key Officer guide itself, which CA does not maintain.

7. Is the Call Center for Affidavit of Support questions operative? If so, could you please advise of the contact information? If not, when do you expect it to be implemented?

A. The Department is about to release a Request for Proposal to outsource this service. We will then evaluate proposals. We cannot determine when the service will be in operation.

8. Will DOS implement a standardized post inquiry form? If so, any idea when the format of the form will be determined?

A. There are no plans at this time to implement a standardized post inquiry form.

American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act of 2000 ("AC21")

1. § 105 of AC21 provides that a person who was previously issued a visa or otherwise provided H-1b status may accept new employment upon the filing of a new petition by a new employer, subject to the final approval of the petition. The January 29, 2001 memorandum from Michael Pearson, INS Executive Associate Commissioner, regarding this issue of portability instructs the INS ports of entry as to the conditions under which individuals affected by this section are to be readmitted. On July 8, 1997, Michael Aytes, Acting INS Assistant Commissioner, noted that the INS and the DOS had agreed that when an alien began employment with a new employer after approval of the H-1b petition, that the alien could reenter the U.S. on the old H-1b visa during its validity period assuming that the alien was otherwise admissible. This policy applied to the H, L, O, and P nonimmigrant classifications. AILA would urge the DOS to adopt a business facilitation approach to the implementation of section 105, since even if the new H-1b petition is not approved, the employee could return to the employment of the former employer and concurrent employment is allowed by the H-1b regulations.

A. In our guidance of 2/14/01, State 27960, we stated as follows: "An H-1(b) alien traveling abroad will need a new visa only if the original visa has expired. This should be fairly rare as the visa and petition have the same expiry date, unless the reciprocity schedule caused otherwise. If both the prior visa and prior petition have expired, the applicant would not be eligible for a new H-1(b) visa until the new petition has been approved. Consular officers issuing visas to such applicants must require the same evidence the Service needs for admission, i.e., a valid passport, evidence that the old petition is still valid, and evidence that the new petition was timely filed."

a. In some cases, an individual may be in the U.S. in valid H-1b status based on a change of status application. The applicant may be validly working for a different H-1b employer based on the filing of the H-1b petition under section 105 of AC21. Would the DOS issue an H-1b visa to the applicant in this situation with an annotation as to the name of the new employer for the period remaining on the original H-1b approval notice? The importance of this issue is tied to delays at the Department of Labor and the INS in adjudicating the labor condition applications and petitions, respectively, and the demands of international travel for multinational corporations.

A. Based on the above guidance, the alien will be eligible for an H-1b visa if the alien can present evidence that the old petition was approved and is still valid, and that the alien had been approved or made a timely application for a change to H-1b status and the new H-1b petition was timely filed.

b. Another fact pattern involving the same basic issues are H-1b nonimmigrants validly working in the U.S. for whom a visa may have expired, but for whom an extension of H-1b has been approved by the INS. These applicants may no longer be working for the original H-1b employer, but another employer has validly started employing them based on the filing of a new H-1b petition. Would DOS issue an H-1b visa to the applicant in the name of the new employer for the period remaining on the original H-1b approval notice?

A. The visa can be approved based on evidence the old petition is still valid and the new petition was timely filed.

c. Another situation involves individuals who have held H-1b status, but whose H-1b visa has expired as well as the original employer's I-797 approval notice. In the U.S., this person could commence employment under AC21 by the filing of an H-1b petition. Would DOS issue a limited term and entry visa to allow for international travel in this circumstance?

A. Based on our above guidance, if the validity of the old petition has expired, and the old visa is no longer valid, the applicant is not eligible for H-1b status until the new petition is approved. Nothing in the new law allowed for issuance of a visa without a valid petition.

d. Yet another alternative concerns applicants who have not previously held H-1b status, but who were H-4 dependents. Under § 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), the INS has held that the six-year limitation of stay applies to H-4 dependents, even though the section does not address the issue. If H-4s are treated as H-1bs as to benefits and prohibitions under the H-1b regulations, it would appear that there is an argument for H-4 dependents to benefit under the provisions of § 105 of AC 21. Does DOS have any position on this issue at this time?

A. INA 101(a)(15)(h)(iv) allows for the issuance of a visa to the spouse or child of an alien in H-1b status. Therefore, if the principal alien can demonstrate that he or she is in the U.S. in valid H-1b status pursuant to the provisions of section 105, the derivatives would be entitled to receive H-4 visas.

2. § 104(c) provides that certain H-1b nonimmigrants (beneficiaries of EB-1, EB2, and EB3 I-140 petitions subject to per country limit delays in visa availability) reaching the 6 year limit may receive extensions of H-1b status until a decision is rendered on the application for adjustment. Does DOS interpret this provision to include those applying for immigrant visa processing at a consular post? In such cases, for what period of validity would the H-1b visa be issued by posts abroad? Please note that AILA encourages the INS to grant the extensions for duration of status to avoid processing delays and to implement the intent of Congress.

A. While 104(c) allows for the extension of stay of an alien beyond the 6-year limit, it does not apply for the extension of validity of the petition. If the petition has ceased to be valid, the Act does not authorize a consular officer to issue an H-1b visa.

3. § 106 of AC21 authorizes H-1b extensions beyond six years if a labor certification application or immigrant petition was filed 365 days ago. Does DOS interpret this provision to apply to applicants for immigrant visas at U.S. Consulates abroad? How will DOS instruct posts to implement ' 106(c) as to long delayed applications? For example, if an adjustment application is pending over 180 days and the applicant requests consular processing, posts should be able to adjudicate the immigrant visa application without requiring a new I-140 to be approved if the new job is in the same or similar occupational classification.

A. The provisions of 106(b) relating to extensions of stay in H-1b status would not allow for the issuance of a new H-1b visa for the reason stated in question 2: it does not extend the validity of the petition. If the petition has ceased to be valid, the act does not authorize a consular officer to issue an H-1b visa. In regard to the second part of this question, section 106 does state that an I-140 continues to be valid in respect to a new job if the job is in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed and an adjustment of status application had been filed and remained unadjudicated for 180 days or more. Therefore, posts could adjudicate the immigrant visa application without requiring a new I-140 to be approved, if the new job is in the same or similar occupational classification and the applicant filed an adjustment of status application which remained unadjudicated for at least 180 days prior to the application for a visa.

4. Under § 104 of AC21, it removes the per-country limit when the overall applications for employment based visas are less than the numbers available without regard to those limits. VO/F/I must compare the overall demand to the available numbers on a quarterly basis, and if the total number of available employment based visas is greater than the number of qualified applicants who may otherwise be issued such visas (during the same period), the per-country limitations on employment-based immigrant visa processing must be lifted for the remainder of the quarter. How has this provision affected the movement of employment based categories to date? What is the anticipated impact for the remainder of the year? Will India and China employment based backlogs be eliminated this year?

A. Although the legislative changes under 104 of AC21 removed the Employment per-country limitations, it did not remove the quarterly limits on the amount of numbers that could be allocated. In addition, INS offices continue to process significant numbers of Employment cases for applicants with priority dates well before the established cut-off dates. Therefore, cut-off date movement during the first quarter of fiscal year 2001 was somewhat slower than some might have anticipated. This was necessary as we tried to determine how the rapid advance in cut-off dates at the end of FY-2000 and in early FY-2001 would impact number use. Our estimates of number use for the first quarter proved to be very accurate. This has allowed us to begin advancing the China and India cut-off dates at an accelerated rate. We anticipate that the China and India Employment Second preference categories will become "Current" in either May or June. It is likely that the Employment Third preference cut-off dates will advance several months per month for the foreseeable future. We are unable to comment on whether the China and India employment backlogs will be eliminated this year because we do not know the extent of the INS demand. It should be noted that even with what some may view as limited cut-off date movement, we used more than 22,000 China and India Employment-based numbers during the first five months of FY-2001.

5. When does DOS expect to issue further guidance on the implementation of AC21?

A. There is no guidance being drafted at this time, but additional guidance cables will be considered if needed.

The Legal Immigration and Family Equity Act and the Life Act Amendments ("Life Act")

We are aware of two state cables on the Life Act at this time. One is state cable 242292 on "Projected ' V' Visa Workloads" and the other is same state cable number referred to as "Processing V and K3 Visas: The View So Far."

1. What is the anticipated impact upon immigrant visa processing loads of consulates by the extension of § 245(i) by the Life Act?

A. It is unclear what effect this provision will have on consulates since it is believed that many, if not most, of those who will seek to take advantage of this provision are already in the US and would have found the 9(b) provision sufficient reason not to have processed at a consular section in any event.

2. When does DOS expect to issue regulations or further guidance regarding the implementation of the Life Act?

A. See Regulations section below.

3. How does DOS plan to implement the processing and issuance of V visas at this time? (any changes or developments since the above-noted cable)

A. The Visa Office is hosting a conference at the National Visa Center from March 19 through 21 at which we expect to develop strategies to address this issue. In addition, we would refer AILA to the new Web site we are creating for this class of visa: http://travel.state.gov/v-visa.html.

4. How does DOS plan to implement the processing and issuance of K3 visas at this time? (any changes or developments since the above-noted cable)

A. The Visa Office is hosting a conference at the National Visa Center from March 19 through 21 at which we expect to develop strategies to address this issue. In addition, we would refer AILA to the new Web site we are creating for this class of visa: http://travel.state.gov/v-visa.html. We are also waiting for INS to determine what documents will constitute the K3 petition.

5. Does DOS have more current information on F2A case totals? In the cable referenced, DOS indicated that it did not have reliable estimates on the number of cases pending on December 21, 2000, which had yet to be adjudicated by the INS.

A. NVC has sent a report listing the amount of applicants on file as of December 2000. The F2A grand total was 391,661, but does not include applicants whose cases are already at posts. It should be noted that the number of applicants which NVC has received for 1999 (11,436) and 2000 (1,238) is extremely low. These low figures are indicative of the INS processing backlog, and INS has not provided any type of breakdown regarding preference category, etc. INS/HQ has sent us some information indicating that they had an I-130 backlog of 835,000 applicants as of the end of October.

6. What is the intended turn around time for adjudication by DOS of the V? The cable indicates that an I-134 affidavit of support "may" be required when deemed "useful" by the consular officer. Has DOS defined any parameters about when such an affidavit should be deemed "useful?"

A. Turnaround time for adjudication of the V depends on the particular case. If, at the time of the interview, the applicant has provided all the required documents and there are no ineligibilities, then the visa will be approved and issued. If AILA's question concerns how long will it take to make an appointment, then it is up to the post to determine what workload it can absorb.
DOS has not issued guidelines on when the consular officer might require an I-134, but instead has left this decision to the discretion of the officer. An I-134 would normally be required, however, only in cases where there are significant public charge concerns which could lead to a 212(a)(4) refusal absent additional evidence of the applicant's ability to be supported in the United States without reliance on public support.

7. We understand that posts will determine specific V scheduling and processing procedures. Is DOS going to suggest standard goals for adjudication time frames for these cases? What staffing needs does DOS anticipate that it must address to adjudicate these cases timely?

A. With over 150 countries involved and huge disparities in infrastructures in these countries, it is not realistic to seek standard adjudication time-frame goals. Nevertheless, having surveyed our posts and, based upon our analysis of the expected number of V cases, the only significant concentration of cases and therefore the greatest impact on processing time will be at Ciudad Juarez. These cases will involve Mexican citizens by and large who would normally process their immigrant visas in CDJ. Most posts will handle the V visas within their normal time frames for other nonimmigrant visas of similar complexity. The normal time frame for a K (fiancé) visa for a particular post will probably be the best way of judging the anticipated time frame for the new V and K visas.

8. Why prohibit Third Country National ("TCN") applicants from applying for V visas if a post's caseload permits? We recognize the volume of cases expected at Cd. Juarez, but Montreal's caseload does not appear excessive. In addition, the temporary extension of § 245(i) may reduce immigrant caseloads. Would DOS reconsider giving posts the option to entertain TCN V cases based on Congressional intent to facilitate entry of these family members?

A. Montreal's visa staffing level is established based on the number of visa applications it can expect will be made by the residents of its consular district. It is not staffed, nor does the Department intend to staff it, to provide services to nonresidents. TCNs who find it difficult to travel from the U.S. to their countries of last residence may generally change status in the U.S.

9. As to K3 visas, will the approval of another nonimmigrant petition be required before the K-3 may be processed? If so, might INS delegate the responsibility to DOS so that the K-3 could also be treated as a B or E application? Would the I-130 possibly count as the qualifying petition to avoid further delays?

A. The statute requires a second petition from INS so that INS can confirm that they have the appropriate I-130 on file. DOS could not confirm the existence of an I-130 to approve such a petition request overseas.

10. Does DOS have any opinion at this time as to the impact of the Life Act upon TCN nonimmigrant case processing at posts in Canada and Mexico? Is the question only relevant as to Montreal and Cd. Juarez?

A. CDJ, the only post that will be directly impacted in its processing of TCN NIV cases, believes that TCN processing at CDJ may have to be suspended during the first few months of the V and K processing until it becomes clear what impact this new workload will have on all NIVs.

National Visa Center ("NVC") and Immigrant Visa Processing

We are aware of the DOS telegram dated December 19, 2000 describing the first steps of immigrant visa processing reform at this time.

1. We understand the dichotomy of procedures between alpha and beta post will eventually end and all posts will follow alpha post procedures. Any idea when this change will be implemented?

A. As soon as the CA Domestic Call Center becomes active and the NVC build-out is complete and new employees trained, all posts will be put on the alpha track. At present, it does not appear that either of these events will take place before the next fiscal year. Nevertheless, we hope to bring the rest of the world into this process in the first half of FY 2002.

2. What is the current web site address for the I-864 web site established by DOS?

A. http://travel.state.gov/aos.html

3. We understand that the decision to charge $50 for the review of the affidavit of support ("AOS") form as to alpha posts may be based on the provision of the service to petitioners of how to improve their AOS submission. It still seems fundamentally problematic to charge this fee when beta posts do the same upon application without the $50 fee. What service is provided for $50 as to the review of the alpha post AOS applications that is not provided by beta posts?

A. For the Alpha posts, where the AOS review is done in advance, the case file arrives at post with many problems already ironed out. The OF-230 is already properly completed, and I-864 and back-up documents have been reviewed for completeness and accuracy. There has already been a dialogue with the petitioner, including the sending of up to two checklist letters. The dialogue between NVC and petitioner about what is needed is clearer and more precise, and the distance the documents must travel is shorter. NVC phone operators are also available to all those cases from Alpha posts that require an I-864.

Beta posts do not provide the same service. Beta posts do not review the AOS; it is submitted as part of the necessary documentation at the time of the interview. The failure to meet the I-864 requirements at the time of the interview results in a refusal of the immigrant visa, resulting in added expense to the applicant(s), who must often travel long distances to attend new interviews with new I-864 paperwork. We have no figures (other than anecdotal) on the costs of in-country travel to many of our posts, but feel confident that the total expended in transportation, lodging, and lost opportunity costs relating to I-864-based visa refusals is significantly more than the $50 review fee.

The NVC review process is with the petitioner (the sponsor who is providing the I-864) and not with the applicant for the visa who may have no real understanding of the statements made on the I-864. Trying at post to filter requests for added information through the applicant to the petitioner is imperfect at best, as the applicant may not have an understanding of the issues. Applicants found this much more time consuming. Where there are no difficulties at NVC with the I-864, the petition is moved quickly to post. Where there are difficulties with the I-864, the petition is held until those issues can be sorted out or until, after two attempts to help, it becomes clear that the petitioner is not availing himself or herself of our assistance.

4. What is the current turn around time for cases sent to St. Louis in accordance with the telegram to be received at the NVC?

A. St. Louis is presently sending daily shipments via FedEx Overnight to NVC. NVC is not aware of the processing time at the bank, but believes it to be short. Indications from the bank at this point are that it can keep up with the daily mail.

5. We understand that a DS 3032, Choice of Address and Agent, form is not required in cases for which a G-28 has been submitted. We are concerned that this form will violate certain states' laws regarding the unauthorized practice of law. For example, the Texas Supreme Court determined in the case of the Unauthorized Practice of Law of Law Committee v. Cortez, 692 S.W.2d 47 (Tex. 1985), that the selection of immigration forms constituted the unauthorized practice of law. The DS 3032 allows the "agent" to receive documentation upon which legal decisions must be rendered, and which will be accepted by the DOS. Paragraph 12 of the December 19, 2000 telegram indicates that, "It is anticipated that an agent will be directly and actively involved in the case from the start." How will DOS address the concern that it not promote violations of state laws by the utilization of this form? Right now, the INS is trying to prevent the public from being victimized by unauthorized practitioners selling a service as to a perceived new amnesty. The reason for this comment is that the issue is a serious one, and we do not believe that the DOS intends to contribute to this ongoing problem. Also, with the submission of the document to the NVC, the issue is not the same as foreign practitioners trying to present cases applying U.S. law to a consular official abroad.

A. The DS-3032 makes clear that the applicant is appointing an agent only "to receive mail about [the alien's visa] application." The form does not authorize the named individual to perform any other services for the visa applicant. The mere receiving of mail on an individual's behalf does not constitute practicing law, and VO therefore does not see how the use of such a form could violate any state laws on that subject.

While some aliens might ask the person they named on the DS-3032 to perform other tasks, such as assisting in paying fees, obtaining documents, or filling out forms, that would be a private matter solely between the alien and the individual named on the DS-3032. It would be up to the alien and the other person to make sure that the performance of any of these other tasks that may occur outside the scope of the DS-3032 agency did not violate any applicable state laws, including those that may concern the unauthorized practice of law. The Visa Office created form DS-3032 in large part to overcome the lack of reliable mail service in many developing countries. We are monitoring actual experience with the form to verify that it facilitates communication.

6. Please advise under what authority the NVC is authorized to administratively close cases under paragraph 19 of the December 19, 2000 telegram? Doesn't this responsibility reside with the post abroad since the NVC may not deal with adjudicative issues? If a case is closed, such closure does involve the termination of adjudicative alternatives normally determined by posts.

A. NVC notifies posts with the cases that meet the criteria for final termination under the law. Post provides NVC with the authorization to destroy the petitions. NVC makes no determination as to whether the case should or should not be terminated. NVC performs the physical function of destroying the cases but only after posts have authorized destruction of the cases.

7. To reduce administrative delays for alpha post cases, is it best to send the I-864, when applicable, and the completed Packet 3 forms at the same time to St. Louis rather than submit them separately? Also, can the applicant go ahead and submit the DS 3032 before the request from the NVC to speed up the process?

A. The answer to the first question is yes. For the second part, NVC does not advise the applicant to send in the DS 3032 before it is requested. NVC's database and supporting software can only be updated when certain preceding steps are taken (i.e., having the case information in the database, sending the request for the DS 3032). NVC cannot store paper documents for case information that is not in the database.

8. What is the current turn around time for the reply from the Internal Revenue Service as to the confirmation of earnings based on the waiver signed by the applicant? Has this procedure really addressed the income representation concerns as to the AOS?

A. The IRS tax check program is not causing any delays in case processing. IRS and State Department are working together to further enhance this program. The end result should be that consular officers overseas can have full confidence in financial evidence presented and not cause delays in case processing while further verification from the IRS is requested.

9. Has the percentage of initial rejections of AOS forms improved? If so, what level of improvement has been experienced by the NVC?

A. We have not noticed any deviation from the common reasons for rejections since our previous correspondence last fall.

10. What are the common reasons for rejection of the AOS? Are they still the same as indicated in our October 2000 AILA/VO liaison minutes?

A. Failure to attach copies of W-2s is still the most frequent problem with the I-864, and accounts for 30 percent of the rejections.

11. It seems that certain consulates are sending out appointment notices for immigrant visa interviews with less than ten days to prepare for the interview. Thus, the applicant is forced to pay higher airfares. Would DOS request posts to give the applicant at least a thirty day window of notice or the ability to apply within thirty days of the date set forth on the interview notice?

A. Congress has set a statutory goal of processing I-130 petitions within 30 to 60 days depending on the category. In most cases, applicants are given notice far in advance that their visa number might become available during the coming six to nine months, and most posts attempt to schedule individuals who list their residences as in the consular district in the earliest part of the month when a number will be available. Notifications are sent the previous month for appointments in the next month.

12. Even with a G-28 on file, NVC appears to require that the applicant sign the Packet 3. Of course, sending the forms back to the home country for signature delay the processing of the application. Under title 19 to the code of federal regulations, a designated customs broker can execute documentation for the importer of record. Why not allow a similar approach by the submission of the G-28 or the DS 3032 to avoid this processing delay?

A. Like AILA, the Department of State has been considering this same issue. We believe that we could accept the attorney completing the forms in question. In the instance of the 230, Part I, the applicant could add their signature at the time of the interview, in conjunction with signing the 230 Part II. NVC no longer requires a signature on the OF-230 prior to forwarding the case to post.

13. When should posts require updated support documentation for the adjudication of the AOS? Thus, for how long should the financial documentation submitted be considered as current?

A. The initial validity of the Form I-864 is generally one year, i.e., the sponsors and contributing household members must have signed the Forms I-864 and I-864A within one year prior to the initial interview. Once submitted, the affidavit itself will remain valid indefinitely. However, since the affidavit of support is based on the Federal Poverty Guidelines in effect at the time of the visa issuance, it may have to be updated (e.g. with a new income tax statement). Moreover, the consular officer must be satisfied that the information provided in the affidavit remains current or that any changes which may have occurred do not affect the sufficiency of the affidavit. (Examples of changes that would not affect the sufficiency of the affidavit might include an increase in the sponsor's income or a change in the household size where the income nevertheless remains sufficient.) In cases in which the consular officer believes that major changes affecting the sufficiency of the affidavit have occurred, the applicant must submit a new I-864.

14. Has there been a follow-up procedure established with the INS regarding recommendations from DOS that an underlying immigrant petition be revoked? If so, what are these procedures? Would DOS consider outlining procedures allowing the applicant to first submit additional information, if needed, before making this recommendation? Basically, experience shows that the INS does not have a method in place to allow inquiry on these types of situations.

A. Most, if not all, consular officers already refuse questionable immigrant visa cases at the time of initial interview under INA § 221(g), pending the provision of further clarification of specific details of the case. It is a rare case that is clear enough from the start to merit return to INS at the very first interview.

However, the Visa Office is examining overseas posts' experiences with what INS calls "Consular Returns." Additionally, we have begun to work with INS Service Centers to consider better methods of supporting these returns as well as better means of discovering the final disposition of such returns. We are under much more pressure to move the question back to INS quickly for their consideration so that ultimately the case can be resolved. We understand that review of consular returns has not been accorded the highest of priorities by INS, but we believe if we can make the process work better and provide better decisions to INS, the number of referrals may decline and the effort to re-decide the question by INS will be reduced as well.

15. Allegedly, since the first of this year, the NVC has been forwarding I-140 petitions to consulates even if the priority date is not current. The Vermont Service Center for the INS has indicated that if the applicant places a foreign address and consulate on the I-140 and then decides to file for adjustment, that the petition could be quickly shipped from the NVC to the service center. This procedure compares to the months of adjudication necessary for an I-824 to send the case from the INS for adjustment to the NVC for consular processing. Is the NVC sending these I-140 cases out early? If so, why, and if not, what is the current procedure in place?

A. NVC forwards all immigrant visa petitions that are in the numerically limited categories to post prior to the cut-off dates. This allows the applicant time to gather their information and return the documentation to post to set up an interview. VO sets the time in which the file is forwarded to post by determining the anticipated visas needed for each category as they related to the priority date given in the cutoff announcements. NVC is not aware of the scenario outlined in this question. If AILA wishes to provide NVC with the specifics of this case, we would be happy to look into it further.

16. An AILA member has indicated that when the NVC requests additional evidence that the information goes back to the same NVC address. The member suggests that the time frame for the processing of responses to requests for documentation might be reduced if a separate post office box address were used. Would the NVC please consider implementing this alternative?

A. NVC understands AILA's request, but we do have concerns over possible unintended consequences. By setting up a separate Post Office box for cases making their second try, we do not wish to inadvertently disadvantage those parties who filled out their forms and supporting documents properly the first time. They should not have to wait while we give precedence to those coming back for a second try. NVC believes the fairest approach is to handle the mail in the order in which it is received. The NVC mailroom has no processing delays.

17. When does DOS plan to issue instructions to posts on the implementation of the new healthcare worker regulations, which are to become effective as of March 19, 2001 (66 FR 3440)?

A. The Visa Office is preparing an ALDAC telegram on this issue. We will provide AILA a copy at the meeting, if it has been cleared.

Child Citizenship Act of 2000 ("Citizenship Act")

Would VO please provide AILA with information on how DOS will implement the Citizenship Act? To our knowledge, we have not seen a DOS cable on the Act's implementation.

A. CA/OCS/PRI has responsibility for the implementation of this act since it deals with citizenship. We would direct you to their office for further information.

Revalidation

1. What is the current processing time for revalidation cases by CA/VO/P/D?

A. The current processing time in P/D is approximately three weeks upon receipt. Please be advised that this timeline is always subject to change due to unexpected increases in the volume of applications and changes in staffing patterns. P/D periodically updates the information on the State Department's Web site to inform the public of our current processing times. AILA is reminded to refrain from contacting the Visa Office for updates on cases as this only slows the process. Should a client have an urgent need to travel while his application is pending, please follow the instructions on our web site on how to withdraw an application.

2. Please update AILA on the number of revalidation cases processed by category in FY2001.

A. As of March 8, P/D has processed 27,769 non-immigrant visas. The total includes issuances and refusals.

The breakdown is as follows:

A1	1,265
A2	1,712
A3	468
E1	398
E2	656
G1	78
G2	3
G3	5
G4	2,089
G5	329
H1A	2
H-1B	11,407
H2B	29
H3	11
H4	5,927
I	146
L1	1,148
L2	1,631
NATO2	233
NATO4	3
NATO5	13
NATO6	7
O1	80
O2	5
O3	40
P1	36
P2	1
P3	20
P4	18