Thursday, February 11, 2010

The Case Of A Confidential Informant Gone Wrong

First of a three-part series

The  faces of Lalo through the ages -- from various drivers licenses, a  passport and a video of him.
Enlarge Courtesy Texas DMV, U.S. D.O.J. and Raul Loya

The faces of Guillermo Eduardo Ramirez Peyro through the ages, from various drivers licenses, a passport and a video of him in jail. To the U.S. government, he was officially informant No. 913, though most called him by the nickname Lalo.

The faces of Lalo through  the ages -- from various drivers licenses, a passport and a video of  him.
Courtesy Texas DMV, U.S. D.O.J. and Raul Loya

The faces of Guillermo Eduardo Ramirez Peyro through the ages, from various drivers licenses, a passport and a video of him in jail. To the U.S. government, he was officially informant No. 913, though most called him by the nickname Lalo.

text sizeAAA
February 11, 2010

Confidential informants — people who pose as criminals so they can provide information to the police or some government agency — have helped crack some major U.S. cases.

They are part of the shadowy side of law enforcement and operate in a secret and largely unregulated world.

And sometimes, things go terribly wrong.

'I Was Doing Something Good'

A decade ago, at 2 a.m., a Mexican drug runner walked over the international bridge that links El Paso, Texas, with Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, and asked to speak with a U.S. agent.

An ICE Informant Run Amok — Or Mishandled?

Raul Bencomo, then an agent with U.S. Customs, assigned code No. 913 to the runner, Guillermo Eduardo Ramirez Peyro, who went by the nickname Lalo.

Bencomo says Lalo was different from other informants. He was well dressed and always respectful — and anxious to talk about the Mexican drug lords he worked for.

"He had a lot of information, and the type of information that he started providing was at a high level," Bencomo says.

Lalo's information was on the mark. He tipped Bencomo to a corrupt U.S. immigration agent who was taking bribes from drug gangs. He also helped crack a major international cigarette smuggling ring.

"He kept us so busy — we were so behind on reports that we told him to go take a vacation just to let us catch up on reports," Bencomo says.

Lalo wasn't looking to make a deal. And he didn't need the money — he was already making plenty in Juarez's drug trade. But he had his reasons for informing on the drug gang.

"I was doing something good, something positive," Lalo said to an attorney during an interview that was videotaped four years ago.

During several phone conversations with NPR last fall, Lalo insisted on speaking only Spanish. But in either language, his story is the same.

"I believe in some kind of justice, and I think I was doing something good," he said.

On the tape, Lalo looks more like a victim than a drug thug. He's clean-cut and clearly educated.

"I really was doing something good," he said.

The ICE Target: Heriberto Santillan

The feds paid Lalo well: nearly $250,000 over four years. His handlers did well, too.

It just made me sick. I had to go to the restroom and throw up. I took the recording and I told my supervisor that I didn't wish to be part of the case.

The El Paso Customs office (Customs later became Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE) had never gotten much recognition. Now, with Lalo on board, agents set their sights on a Juarez kingpin known as the Engineer: Heriberto Santillan Tabares.

Bencomo says the agents were told that Santillan was the No. 3 man in the Juarez cartel.

But as that investigation started, ICE's prized snitch came under suspicion. At a Border Patrol checkpoint, Lalo got caught smuggling more than 100 pounds of marijuana stuffed into the wheels of his pickup. The Drug Enforcement Administration blacklisted him. ICE kept Lalo on its payroll, and even worked with a federal prosecutor to get his drug charges dropped. In hindsight, Bencomo says, the pot in the pickup should have been a warning sign.

"That was the first incident that I ever came across that he was working both sides," Bencomo says.

Drug smuggling turned out to be the least of Lalo's exploits. He was climbing the ranks of the drug cartel and was becoming a trusted ally to Juarez's third in command.

Killings Caught On Tape

In the fall of 2003, Santillan and a band of crooked Mexican police officers went on an eight-month crime spree — killing, kidnapping and torturing drug rivals in Juarez. And Lalo was with them.

Mexican law  enforcement officials load a corpse found at a Juarez drug cartel's  house in 2004.
Enlarge Guadalupe Juarez/AFP/Getty Images

Mexican law enforcement officials load a corpse found at the Juarez drug cartel's House of Death into a truck in January 2004.

Mexican law enforcement  officials load a corpse found at a Juarez drug cartel's house in 2004.
Guadalupe Juarez/AFP/Getty Images

Mexican law enforcement officials load a corpse found at the Juarez drug cartel's House of Death into a truck in January 2004.

According to documents obtained by NPR, Lalo kept his ICE handlers informed of the murders piling up in Juarez. In fact, Lalo secretly recorded the first murder — and admitted that he held the victim's legs while the man was being brutally strangled, suffocated and beaten with a shovel. Former agent Bencomo remembers listening to the tape.

"It just made me sick," he says. "I had to go to the restroom and throw up. I took the recording and I told my supervisor that I didn't wish to be part of the case."

But Bencomo stayed on, and so did Lalo. Bencomo says his supervisors told him just to make sure Lalo didn't participate in any more killings.

Today, Lalo insists he never killed anyone, though court documents show he admitted being present during several murders; he even acknowledged driving two victims to a Juarez house where he knew they'd be killed. Lalo said his actions were necessary to maintain his cover.

"When you infiltrate a cartel, everyone knows you have to go like what — like a criminal," he said. "And you have to act like a criminal."

Every Federal Rule Was Broken

But former DEA Special Agent Phil Jordan says in Lalo's case, every federal rule and regulation was broken.

"Even if the man was John Gotti in his prime, you do not allow an informant to run the investigation; you do not let the informant commit felonies, to commit murder," he says. "In my mind, he was given a license to kill."

Even if the man was John Gotti in his prime, you do not allow an informant to run the investigation; you do not let the informant commit felonies, to commit murder. In my mind, he was given a license to kill.

Jordan says on top of all that, ICE knew who was doing the killing and where the bodies were buried, but didn't share any of that information with Mexican authorities.

Jordan was an expert witness in a civil suit filed against ICE by relatives of people killed by the Mexican drug cartel. Among the victims were two U.S. residents. Attorney Raul Loya, who represented them, said the federal agents handling Lalo were a joke.

"Are you kidding me? These guys are El Paso's version of the Keystone Kops," Loya says. "They are poorly trained, they have limited education, which is fine, but they had no business being involved in a cross-border covert operation involving drugs and murder."

The killings in Juarez took place more than six years ago. Until now, ICE has always refused to talk on the record about what happened there and why Lalo was kept on the U.S. government's payroll while he was involved in torture and murder.

In an interview with NPR, Kumar Kibble, a top ICE official and a former director of criminal investigations for the agency, says, "I want to emphasize that our primary obligation is to protect life and limb." He says that the agency's guidelines for using confidential informants are sound. But in Lalo's case, he says, rogue agents didn't properly follow them.

"Had management been fully informed, we could have implemented strategies and taken a different tack that would have ultimately safeguarded more lives," he says. "This is not an appropriate case to comment on, because the procedures that we implemented weren't followed."

The House Of Death

But those familiar with the case wonder how ICE could not have known about Lalo's exploits in Mexico — the majority of which took place at a house in a middle-class neighborhood in Juarez. It has been dubbed the House of Death.

Today, no one goes to the metal gate at the house where cartel murderers brought their victims and ultimately buried them in the tiny backyard. NPR went there with veteran Juarez crime reporter Carlos Huerta. He says Lalo was the keeper of the keys.

"There were these code words that the bosses would say to Lalo," Huerta says. "He would say, 'We're going to have a barbecue.' That meant Lalo was to go and get the house ready, because someone was going to be brought there and be killed."

Members of  the Federal Agency of Investigations excavate the yard at the House of  Death.
Enlarge Guadalupe Juarez/AFP/Getty Images

Members of Mexico's Federal Agency of Investigations excavate the yard at the House of Death after two bodies were found there. Eventually, a dozen bodies were unearthed at the site.

Members of the Federal Agency of  Investigations excavate the yard at the House of Death.
Guadalupe Juarez/AFP/Getty Images

Members of Mexico's Federal Agency of Investigations excavate the yard at the House of Death after two bodies were found there. Eventually, a dozen bodies were unearthed at the site.

According to a document obtained by NPR, Lalo admitted to Mexican authorities in Dallas that on his way to the house, he stopped at a local hardware store and bought duct tape and quicklime — essential items for binding murder victims and dissolving their remains.

Eventually, U.S. officials told Mexican authorities about the bodies buried at the House of Death.

Lorenza Magana, who works with victims of violence in Juarez, sat vigil with relatives of missing family members outside the house the night that Mexican authorities began unearthing the remains.

"We stayed there all night and watched as they pulled out bodies," Magana says. "It was so horrible. With every new body, the smell would hit us — it was horrible. We came back night after night to see how many they dug up."

In all, there were 12 victims. Magana says she couldn't believe it when she found out that Lalo, the gatekeeper of the death house, was a U.S. government informant.

"It hit me like cold water in the face; it just feels terrible. Here in Mexico, there is no justice, only impunity," Magana says. "So where are we going to find any help if we can't trust the U.S.?"

But it wasn't just the people of Juarez who were outraged. When the El Paso DEA office got wind of what was happening, the agent in charge was stunned.

"I was shocked. I couldn't believe it," says the DEA's Sandalio Gonzalez. He got involved after two DEA operatives in Mexico were targeted by the Juarez drug gang that Lalo worked for. Gonzalez says when he tried to question the informant, ICE circled its wagons around Lalo.

"We have threats against the lives of DEA agents, we have dead bodies, and you don't want to let us talk to this guy?" he says. "What is wrong with this picture?"

'This Is An Isolated Incident'

Gonzalez lodged a complaint against ICE. He also tried to get Congress to investigate, but that went nowhere.

ICE's Kumar Kibble insists that his agency has already thoroughly investigated the matter.

It hit me like cold water in the face; it just feels terrible. Here in Mexico, there is no justice, only impunity. So where are we going to find any help if we can't trust the U.S.?

"We have thousands of informants that are active that we are managing on a daily basis," he says. "This is an isolated incident, where in fact the person was held accountable when they didn't follow our procedures."

ICE says the fault lies with former agent Bencomo, Lalo's handler. Specifically, ICE officials say Bencomo was terminated because he didn't tell supervisors that Lalo was still involved with murder and torture in Juarez.

Bencomo was the only one fired as a result of the Lalo fiasco. Two ICE employees were forced to take early retirement, but others received light reprimands and are still on the job.

This is the first time that Bencomo has talked publicly. He views himself as a scapegoat and says his bosses at ICE and their bosses in Washington knew all along what Lalo was doing.

"He would report a murder, and either we heard it on a phone, nobody told us to stop doing the case," Bencomo says. "We were told to continue, so for them to say that they didn't know about it, that is a total lie."

'I'm Just Fighting For My Life'

Whether or not the top brass knew about all of Lalo's exploits, there is no denying they used him to nab a Juarez drug lord and lock him away. Once the case was done, ICE was also done with Lalo. The agency began deportation proceedings with the intention of sending him back to Mexico.

Guillermo Eduardo  Ramirez Peyro, who goes by the nickname Lalo, talks about his case from  jail.
Courtesy Raul Loya

A still from a video in which Lalo talks about his case. The video was shot four years ago at Sherburne County Jail in Elk River, Minn. (See clips from the video on the timeline of Lalo's case).

Lalo has been in solitary confinement for more than five years. He's in jail not for any of the crimes he allegedly committed in Mexico, but because ICE says he no longer has a legal right to be in the U.S.

"Right now, I'm just fighting for my life," Lalo said.

For now, he said, jail is better than the fate he faces in Mexico.

"I don't know if they are going to keep me here for the rest of my life," he said. "Right now, I'm just trying to say, 'Don't put me in the hands of the people who are going to try and kill me.' That's all I'm doing right now."

ICE says it learned some lessons dealing with Lalo. NPR obtained an internal agency memo written in May 2004 that clearly prohibits using informants who commit crimes. The memo stated that those rules would be part of a new policy handbook. But during our interview, ICE said that handbook still isn't finished.

Monday, February 8, 2010

Le Service de l'Immigration et de la Naturalisation met en garde contre les escroqueries visant les Haïtiens demandeurs du Statut de Protection Tempor

Bureau de l’Engagement Social
DEPARTEMENT DE LA SECURITE INTERNE
Service de l’Immigration et de la Naturalisation des Etats-Unis

Bulletin d’Information 25 Janvier 2010

Le Service de l’Immigration et de la Naturalisation met en garde contre les escroqueries visant les Haïtiens demandeurs du Statut de Protection Temporaire (Temporary Protected Status)

Le Service de l’Immigration et de la Naturalisation (USCIS) met en garde les Haïtiens demandeurs du Statut de Protection Temporaire (TPS) contre les escroqueries sur l’immigration. Le USCIS a mis en place un site internet dédié à donner des informations sur sa réaction envers Haïti au www.uscis.gov/haitianearthquake.

La représentation
Vous n’avez pas besoin d’un avocat ou d’un représentant pour demander le Statut de Protection Temporaire (TPS). Si vous désirez avoir un représentant lors du dépôt d’une demande ou d’une pétition auprès de l’USCIS, vous pourriez vous faire représenter par un avocat ou un représentant accrédité d’une organisation reconnue. Votre représentant devra déposer avec votre demande de TPS, le formulaire “Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Representative” (Form G-28). Veuillez consulter la page “Finding Legal Advice” (Comment trouver un avocat) sur le site internet de USCIS pour de plus amples informations sur ce sujet.

Une liste de prestataires de services juridiques à prix modique ou gratuit et celle des représentants attitrés par le BIA sont disponibles sur notre site internet au lien ci-dessus.

Formulaires de USCIS & Frais
Tous les formulaires de USCIS sont disponibles gratuitement sur le site www.uscis.gov/forms ou en appelant le numéro gratuit des Formulaires USCIS au (800) 870-3676. Les demandes du Statut de Protection Temporaire ne peuvent pas être soumises en ligne. Les frais de dépôt du Formulaire I-821, Application for Temporary Protected Status (Demande du Statut de Protection Temporaire) sont de $50. Il est aussi requis des frais biométriques de $80. Les frais de dêpot du Formulaire I-765, Application for Employment Authorization (Demande d’Autorisation d’Emploi), sont de $340. Si vous n’avez pas les moyens de payer les frais, une dérogation au paiement des frais peut être disponible.

Conseils utiles
Les conseils suivants vous aideront à éviter de devenir victime d’une escroquerie sur l’immigration:

  • NE SIGNEZ AUCUN papier ou document en blanc que vous ne comprenez pas
  • NE SIGNEZ AUCUN document contenant des informations fausses ou erronées
  • NE LAISSEZ personne garder vos documents originaux
  • NE PAYEZ PAS au delà d’une somme symbolique à quelqu’un qui n’est pas un avocat et n’effectuez pas de paiements sur internet.
  • FAITES des photocopies de tous les documents remplis ou déposés à votre nom
  • DEMANDEZ un reçu à chaque fois que vous payez quelqu’un pour qu’il vous assiste à remplir ou à déposer des formulaires
  • VERIFIEZ que votre avocat est agrée ou que votre représentant est attitré par le BIA.
Pour toutes informations complémentaires concernant comment éviter de devenir une victime d’une escroquerie sur l’immigration ou comment vérifier si un avocat est agrée ou un représentant est attitré par le BIA, veuillez consulter les liens “Don’t Be a Victim of Immigration Fraud” (Ne devenez pas une victime de la fraude sur l’immigration) et “Finding Legal Advice” (Comment trouver un avocat) au site www.uscis.gov/haitianearthquake.

USCIS to Issue Revised Approval Notices for Certain Forms I-129 and I-539

WASHINGTON—U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is alerting customers of certain Notices of Approval (Forms I-797) issued between Jan. 20 and Jan. 27, 2010, with incorrect or missing information. The form types impacted are Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (Form I-129) and Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status (Form I-539).

USCIS has started mailing new approval notices with corrected information to affected I-129 petitioners and I-539 applicants. Petitioners and applicants who received incomplete or incorrect approval notices should not attempt to use them. USCIS estimates that approximately 500 incorrect Notices of Approval (Forms I-797) were issued.

These are examples of errors on the approval notices of affected petitioners and applicants:

  • For Form I-129, petitioners who requested multiple unnamed beneficiaries were issued an approval notice that lists only one unnamed beneficiary.
  • For Form I-539, some applicants were issued an approval notice with no validity dates listed.

If you know or believe that your Notice of Approval was issued with incorrect or missing information, and you do not receive a revised Notice of Approval by Monday, Feb. 8, please contact USCIS at:

Service Center

Type of Processing

Email Address

California Service Center

Regular

csc-ncsc-followup@dhs.gov

Premium

csc-premium.processing@dhs.gov

Vermont Service Center

Regular

vsc.ncscfollowup@dhs.gov

Premium

vsc-premium.processing@dhs.gov

USCIS Revises Medical Certificiation for Disability Exceptions

WASHINGTON— U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today announced the availability of a revised Medical Certification for Disability Exceptions, Form N-648, for public comment.

USCIS published a Federal Register notice announcing changes to the form and that the revised form will be available for review and comment for 60-days, starting Feb. 1, 2010, and ending April 2, 2010. The revisions further clarify the requirements for the exception and the basis for preparing a medical certification for applicants and medical professionals.
In general, the law requires applicants for naturalization to demonstrate that they can communicate in basic English and that they understand United States history and government. However, an applicant who is unable to comply with one or both of those requirements because of a medically determinable physical or developmental disability or mental impairment may request an exception from either or both of the requirements. Applicants who claim this exception must submit a Form N-648 certification, completed by a medical professional, with their naturalization application to USCIS.
To view the revised Form N-648 and table of changes, please go to www.regulations.gov, select “Notices” as the document type, and enter “Form N-648” as the keyword and then click on “Search.” Once you retrieve the February 1, 2010 document, click on the docket ID link. That page will provide you with the revised form and table of changes.

USCIS Issues Additional Information Regarding the Employ American Workers Act (EAWA) to Employers Filing H-1B Petitions

WASHINGTON—U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today provides additional guidance regarding the Employ American Workers Act (EAWA) to employers seeking to file H-1B petitions.

The EAWA was enacted to ensure that companies that receive funding under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) or section 13 of the Federal Reserve Act do not displace U.S. workers. Under this legislation, any company that has received covered funding and seeks to hire new H-1B workers is considered an “H-1B dependent employer.” An H-1B dependent employer must make additional statements to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) regarding the recruitment and non-displacement of U.S. workers when filing a Labor Condition Application (LCA). Please refer to the DOL’s Web site for guidance regarding the LCA filing requirements.

Subsequent to the enactment of EAWA, USCIS revised its Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker, to include a question asking whether the employer received covered funding (Question A.1.d). See the first page of the H-1B Data Collection and Filing Fee Exemption Supplement. Question A.1.d. is meant to identify petitioners who received funding under TARP or section 13 of the Federal Reserve Act when the petition is filed.

USCIS understands that some businesses who received covered funding may have subsequently repaid their obligations and may not know how to respond to Question A.1.d. (For information on whether covered funding obligations have been repaid, recipients of TARP funding should seek guidance from the Department of Treasury, or the Federal Reserve, respectively.) If you have repaid your obligations, then answer “No” to Question A.1.d. If you wish to provide further information with the petition to assist USCIS in determining that your status for purposes of EAWA is correct, you may do so.

USCIS reminds you that a valid LCA must be on file with DOL when the H-1B petition (with a copy of the LCA) is filed with USCIS. Processing delays or a denial of the H-1B petition may result if the LCA does not correspond with Question A.1.d of the H-1B petition, unless any inconsistency is explained to the satisfaction of USCIS. For example, if the LCA includes the additional statements, but Question A.1.d is answered “no,” you can explain that you had received covered funding at the time of filing the LCA but repaid the obligation before filing the Form I-129. However, please note that if you indicate on the petition that you are subject to the EAWA, but the LCA does not contain the proper declarations relating to H-1B dependent employers, USCIS will deny the H-1B petition.

USCIS additionally reminds employers that EAWA applies only to new hires and not to H-1B petitions seeking to change the status of a beneficiary working for the petitioning employer in another work-authorized category. It also does not apply to H-1B petitions seeking an extension of H-1B status for a current employee to continue working for the same employer.

USCIS Provides Details on H-1B and H-2B Cap Exemptions for Work Performed in the CNMI and Guam Questions and Answers

Introduction

Workers in H-1B and H-2B classifications who are admitted to perform labor and services in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and Guam are exempt from the H-1B cap and H-2B cap from November 28, 2009 to December 31, 2014. The Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA), Public Law 110-229, provides a special exemption to the statutory numerical limitations (or “caps”) for temporary workers in H nonimmigrant classifications mentioned in Section 214(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

Questions and Answers

Q. Who may qualify for this CNMI and Guam H cap exemption?
A. Nonimmigrants admitted as H-1B and H-2B workers for labor or services in the CNMI and/or Guam. To qualify for this exemption in H-1B classification, the prospective employer’s petition must include a Labor Condition Application (LCA) listing employment or services in the CNMI and/or Guam only. To qualify for this exemption in H-2B classification, the petition must include a temporary labor certification (TLC) listing labor or services in the CNMI and/or Guam only.

Q. What fees are required if I am filing a petition for this CNMI and Guam H cap exemption?
A. The fees required are the same as those required for a petition filed from any other U.S. location. Please see the Instructions to the Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker, (Form I-129) for more information.

Q. Can a worker in H classification who will work or perform services in the CNMI or Guam and an additional U.S. state or territory qualify for this H cap exemption?
A. No. This H cap exemption does not apply to any employment to be performed outside of Guam or the CNMI. As such, a petition for H-1B or H-2B classification that is requesting employment outside of the CNMI or Guam, even for partial employment outside of the CNMI or Guam, cannot qualify for this exemption.

For example, an H-1B petition filed by a petitioner requesting employment for a worker who will work partially at the employer’s CNMI office and partially at the employer’s office in Hawaii cannot qualify for this H cap exemption.

Additionally, please note that all work locations must be listed on the LCA or TLC submitted to USCIS with the petition for H-1B or H-2B classification. Failure to do so is a violation of the terms and conditions of employment listed on the LCA or TLC.
Q. Can a worker granted H classification under this cap exemption travel to another U.S. location outside of Guam and the CNMI?
A. Yes. A worker in H classification for employment in the CNMI and/or Guam may freely travel to any U.S. state or territory. However, like any other worker in H classification, his/her employment authorization is limited to the locations authorized by the U.S. Department of Labor on the LCA or TLC.

The only exception is for H-2B workers performing services solely in Guam, who are limited to the locations of employment authorized by the Guam Department of Labor on their TLC.

Q. If a worker is granted H classification under this cap exemption and his/her employer would like him/her to work at another U.S. location outside of the CNMI and Guam, does the employer need to file another petition with USCIS?
A. Yes. Since employment performed in a U.S. location outside of the CNMI and Guam is not included in this cap exemption, the employer must file a new petition with USCIS to be counted against either the H-1B or H-2B cap before the worker may perform labor or services at that additional location. No employment location outside Guam or the CNMI is authorized under a cap-exempt petition approval for those jurisdictions, and such employment will always be considered a material change requiring a new cap-subject petition.

Q. If a worker is granted H classification under this cap exemption and is assigned different duties in the CNMI or Guam, does the employer need to file another petition with USCIS?
A. Yes in certain circumstances. Under the rules and procedures applicable to all H employment, a new petition is required if the H nonimmigrant seeks to change employers, or if there are any material changes in the terms and conditions of employment with the original petitioner, including (but not limited to) any change of work location to a location not previously authorized by the U.S. Department of Labor on the LCA or TLC. The Guam and CNMI H cap exemption applies to the cap only. All other provisions of the H program are unchanged. Therefore, if an employer elsewhere in the United States would normally be required to file a new petition to obtain approval of a material change in the beneficiary’s employment, an employer in Guam or the CNMI would also be required to file a new petition. As discussed above, any employment outside Guam or the CNMI will require a new petition; a change of location or duties within Guam or the CNMI (including a change from Guam to the CNMI or vice-versa) may or may not require a new petition, depending on whether the change is a material change to the terms and conditions of employment previously approved. If a new petition is required for approval of a material change of employment, but the new employment is still limited to Guam and the CNMI, then the new petition will also be cap-exempt during the transition period.

Q. Can the spouse and children of an H worker under this cap exemption qualify for H-4 “dependant of an H worker” classification?
A. Yes. The spouse and qualifying children of an H worker may apply for H-4 “dependant of an H worker” classification. There is no cap for H-4 classification. Family members seeking H-4 classification may apply directly at the U.S. Embassy or Consulate for a visa. Subsequent requests for an extension of stay must be filed with USCIS on an I-539, Application to Change or Extend Nonimmigrant Status.

Q. Can the spouse and children of an H worker under this cap exemption that have qualified for H-4 “dependant of an H worker” accept employment?
A. No. Nonimmigrants in H-4 classification do not have employment authorization and cannot work in the United States. The spouse or child of an H worker may only work in the United States if he or she enters the United States in a nonimmigrant classification that provides for employment authorization.

For more information on USCIS and its programs, visit the links to the right or call our National Customer Service Center at (800) 375-5283.



Last updated:02/05/2010

Thursday, February 4, 2010

USCIS Revises Medical Certificiation for Disability Exceptions

WASHINGTON— U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today announced the availability of a revised Medical Certification for Disability Exceptions, Form N-648, for public comment.

USCIS published a Federal Register notice announcing changes to the form and that the revised form will be available for review and comment for 60-days, starting Feb. 1, 2010, and ending April 2, 2010. The revisions further clarify the requirements for the exception and the basis for preparing a medical certification for applicants and medical professionals.
In general, the law requires applicants for naturalization to demonstrate that they can communicate in basic English and that they understand United States history and government. However, an applicant who is unable to comply with one or both of those requirements because of a medically determinable physical or developmental disability or mental impairment may request an exception from either or both of the requirements. Applicants who claim this exception must submit a Form N-648 certification, completed by a medical professional, with their naturalization application to USCIS.
To view the revised Form N-648 and table of changes, please go to www.regulations.gov, select “Notices” as the document type, and enter “Form N-648” as the keyword and then click on “Search.” Once you retrieve the February 1, 2010 document, click on the docket ID link. That page will provide you with the revised form and table of changes.

For more information on USCIS programs or to download a copy of the current version of a USCIS Form, visit www.uscis.gov or call the National Customer Service Center at 1-800-375-5283.