admin

Dear valued Alpha Global clients: As you are all aware, President Donald Trump signed an executive order last week Wednesday limiting the issuance of immigration visas by U.S. Consulates and Embassies overseas for 60 days. The President states the order is needed to protect American jobs due to the coronavirus pandemic. Given that all U.S. Embassies and U.S. Consulates overseas are currently closed for all services at this time, the order has minimal effect. As a Alpha Global client, it’s important that you know that the order does not stop United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) or the Department of Labor (DOL) from processing their respective cases nor does it have any effect on nonimmigrant visas such as H1B, F-1, or B1/B2. Further, it has no effect on the filing or approval of labor certifications or I-140 applications either. Alpha Global is carefully monitoring the situation and leveraging our contacts to get the best information possible. As always, we will keep you updated. Regards, Chris Richardson COO and General Counsel at Alpha Global Biz. ‍

As of May 31, a new rule requires everyone who is applying for a visa to travel to the United States to submit their social media information as part of their application. Because this change could affect an estimated 14 million visitors, and because it raises the specter of Big Brother-like surveillance, the requirement has sparked a strong condemnation of what critics deem its chilling effect on immigration. But what American Civil Liberties Union National Security Project Director Hina Shamsi calls “a dangerous and problematic proposal” is not new. In my previous life as a visa officer, we were permitted to screen social media postings for visa applicants beginning in 2014. I often did so when investigating fraud or looking to determine whether the marriage of an immigrant applying for a visa was real. The truth is that this policy, like many of the policies that anger us today — the Trump administration’s travel ban, the militarized border or even the wall — were rooted in policies instituted by President Barack Obama and the presidents who preceded him. Trump didn’t invent these cruelties: He just weaponized them. Looking back, I regret the ease with which I used this policy to search individuals’ social media accounts. But my authority to do so was never a secret. In fact, many members of Congress wanted even more invasive social media checks in the wake of the 2015 San Bernardino, Calif., shootings. But when the Obama administration implemented policies calling for additional social media checks and imposing further administrative obstacles on visa applicants, the public reaction was not nearly so extreme. The same is true of the odious travel ban. Thousands rushed to airports to protest the policy, and many State Department officials signed a memo of dissent. Yet, the truth is that potential visitors from Syria and Iran faced considerable administrative hurdles and needless security checks long before the current administration began making policy. I know because I enforced these rules on several occasions. It was Obama’s Department of Homeland Security — not the Trump White House — that initially identified the countries affected by President Trump’s executive order as “countries of concern.” While the Obama administration merely forced individuals from these countries to obtain visas instead of traveling visa-free, this decision sowed the seeds for policies that were more obviously discriminatory. We ignored the civil rights implications of these actions and Obama’s executive orders on immigration because we believed that we could trust him. Apparently, we never considered that he would not be president forever. Nor did we understand the precedents Obama set and how they would later be used against the immigrant communities we now desperately seek to protect. We ignored that many of these policies, while seemingly neutral, were indeed cruel in and of themselves. Even the processing facilities and fenced enclosures — the so-called cages — that provoke such disgust under Trump’s administration were, in fact, constructed under Obama. Sometimes, what we consider the “new” Trump administration outrages are even older policies. Last September, The Post reported that the Trump administration had suddenly started denying U.S. passports to those born through midwives on the Mexican border. Yet this had been a long-standing, court-mandated State Department policy, originating from an Immigration and Naturalization Service investigation of midwives from the region who were charged with selling falsified birth certificates that suggested babies were born in Texas, rather than Mexico. In fact, the number of people denied passports under this policy dropped under Trump. More recently, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and several 2020 Democratic presidential candidates slammed Trump’s “new” policy of restricting passports of children born to gay U.S. citizen parents abroad. But that policy is not new, either. It, too, was designed under the Obama administration. And yet when both policies were initially adopted, neither prompted major protests nor bold-type headlines. If Hillary Clinton were president, would we be rallying against these policies today? Would such demonstrations garner media attention at all? Though these policies preceded Trump, that certainly does not absolve the president. But that such policies came before Trump adds a broader context to our immigration debate. The roots of these policies in many ways are far more important than the policies themselves. We all protest now when a “new” immigration proposal comes to our attention. But such proposals, which are often creative in their cruelty, have precedent. Just because the earlier proposals were subtler or presented in more polite terms doesn’t mean their effects were benign. We must never ignore or forget the abuses committed in our names simply because we like the president who implemented them. It’s easy to blame President Trump; he makes himself a convenient target. It’s harder but much more important for us to understand that our belated interest in immigration issues, and the kind of bureaucratic inertia I personally participated in, ultimately made those abuses possible. ‍

The Trump administration announced a vast expansion of an immigration inadmissibility this week known as the “public charge.” The new rule, more than 800 pages long, creates stricter standards for applicants seeking legal permanent residency who use public benefits such as Medicaid, food stamps or housing assistance. In other words, immigration officials will look more thoroughly at the credit scores, wealth, age and educational background of immigration applicants to determine whether they are worthy of being here. Such a policy may sound shocking to some, but in fact, the public-charge provision has long been a weapon of racism and classism in the United States. Far from its expansion, the rule should be abolished as a relic of the bygone era from which it came. Based on the Immigration and Nationality Act, the notion of a public charge — which originally referred to a person who is dependent on the government for subsistence — is arguably the oldest aspect of U.S. immigration law today. It comes from the 1840s and 1850s when the nativist “Know Nothing Party” used provisions in anti-Catholic states such as New York and Massachusetts to deport poor Irish Catholics because they were “likely at any time to become a public charge.” By the 1880s, as immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe started entering the country, these same nativists urged Congress to act in a more forceful fashion. The public-charge rule was thus included in the Immigration Act of 1882, the first comprehensive immigration reform bill in U.S. history. The law, adopted by the same Congress that enacted the Chinese Exclusion Act, required barring entry for “any convict, lunatic, idiot, or any person unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge.” Nowhere did Congress define the term “public charge,” so it was quickly abused by anti-immigrant administrations. Books such as Hidetaka Hirota’s “Expelling the Poor” and Erik Larson’s “In the Garden of Beasts” describe in sad detail how State Department consular officers at U.S. embassies and consulates abroad used public-charge provisions to keep out “undesirables” from non-Western European countries. Even wealthy applicants from Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe were refused entry by consular officers who believed they could become public charges or take jobs from U.S. citizens. Most notoriously, hundreds of thousands of people were denied entry during the 1930s. Despite the rise of Hitler and anti-Jewish sentiment in Europe, State Department leaders directed consular officers to use the public-charge provision to bar Jewish refugees. Even after the State Department belatedly abandoned using the law to target Jewish refugees, they continued using it decades after to bar gay men, lesbians and the disabled from getting visas. By the 1990s, the provision blocked close to 20 percent of immigrant visa applicants. Such a practice fell out of favor in the 2000s, but it has made a resurgence with the rise of President Trump, even before this new regulation was announced. U.S. embassies and consulates in Mexico, for example, saw visa denials on public-charge grounds skyrocket. We also cannot avoid the fact that a mostly white Foreign Service — which is only 5.4 percent African American and 5.6 percent Hispanic — is being tasked with making such value judgments on a mostly brown and black immigrant population. In fact, one of the designers of the new regulations, former Homeland Security analyst Ian Smith, was forced to resign because of his ties to white-nationalist groups. The response to the Trump administration’s regulation should not be to merely roll it back. The regulation needs to be abolished. Immigrants already go through a rigorous screening process that checks their criminal, security and medical backgrounds. The government has at its disposal law enforcement databases, biometric screenings, and complex, risk-based algorithms to investigate the lives of these immigrant applicants. These applicants spend thousands of dollars in attorney and filing fees. They must embarrass themselves by answering a range of questions about their sex lives, their family past and social media use in front of immigration officers. The process of obtaining a green card can take years even without the public-charge rule as a factor. For far too long, we have allowed public-charge provisions to be used as a tool for discrimination, which Trump’s new regulations will certainly continue. Just as we, as a country, rejected bans on immigrant applicants on the grounds of their HIV/AIDS status or their inability to pass literacy tests, so, too, should this modern-day poverty test be retired.

Most people woke up this morning to learn that the United States government has shutdown do to a failure of Congress to pass a continuing resolution to fund the government. What does this mean? Certainly, the US government is not “shutdown” completely? It must have some money available to it to provide critical or essential services? This is actually true. First, there is never a complete government “shutdown.” The term “shutdown” is used to described generally the loss of non-essential government services as a result of a failure of Congress to pass a budget or a continuing budget resolution. A government “shutdown” is more of a political tool than it is an actual shutdown. Although many employees of the government are affected and forced out of work during the “shutdown,” the government actually never shuts down completely. For immigrants interested in filing a visa petition, you are in luck, because the government entities that process your visa applications never shut down. In a government “shutdown”, there are two types of government services that continue to operate no matter what. One, those services that are deemed critical to national security, which in the context of immigration, includes the Department of State and its consular services. If you have an immigration petition for a visa that is in consular processing, your petition will proceed forward despite the government “shutdown.” The US State Department is considered to provide critical service that continue to be funded regardless of the Congress’s actions on the continuing budget resolution. Your consular processing will continue for the second reason as well: it is self-funding, meaning that visa processing fees cover the cost of visa processing. This is also why your application with USCIS will continue to be processed in a government “shutdown.” According to a statement by USCIS, “fee-for-service activities performed by USCIS are not affected by a lapse in annual appropriated funding.” Almost all of the applications filed with USCIS are self-funding, meaning that the fees you pay to USVIS when you file your application are sufficient to cover the budget of USCIS, which is one of the few government organizations that is entirely self-funded by processing fees. So, if you are thinking about filing a visa application/petition with USCIS, you should not hesitate due to the government “shutdown.” Your application will process normally even though the government is “shutdown.” USCIA and the State Department continue doing business as usual during a budget crisis like the current government shutdown.

COVID19 has taken the lives of over 540,000 Americans and over 27 million Americans suffered from COVID19. In April 2020, over 14 percent of the United States population was unemployed. It was the greatest surge in jobless in over 80 years. Even now nearly a year after the pandemic began, unemployment in the United States still remains at historical highs. Yet despite all this, US employers in service industries such as restaurants and manufacturing are still struggling to fill vacancies. Manufacturers are struggling to staff unskilled, entry level positions vital to their production operations. However, finding people motivated to commit to “starting at the bottom” and work up is proving to be difficult. While in past downturns these sectors were a critical lifeline for the newly unemployed, COVID19 and unemployment benefits are encouraging potential US workers to stay home or look for work elsewhere. Key demographics that fill these voids – US teenagers and the elderly – are staying away for both health and safety reasons and because emergency-enhanced unemployment checks can pay was much or even more than a check as a waitress or waiter. While traditional restaurants struggled, fast-food chains and delivery-focused companies such as Papa Johns and Domino’s Pizza all thrived due to increased social distancing and the food for delivery. Indeed, McDonalds this summer in the midst of the pandemic announced plans to hire up to 260,000 but was not able to fill all those vacancies. Subway, Taco Bell, Dunkin Donuts, and others also announced similar hire surges to meet growing demand due to COVID19 related restrictions which limited in-door dining, theatres, sports, and other options. In August, Michael Lippert, president of GPS Hospitality, which operates almost 500 Burger Kings, Popeyes, and Pizza Hut locations lamented the tough labor market and in August they held a virtual job fair hoping to hire 3000 workers. Michelle Kaufman owns the Paddle Trap, a burgers and comfort food-type restaurant near Bismarck, North Dakota. She spends a part of her day, every day, posting jobs on Indeed. For every dozen interviews, she nets about one hire, and they’ll often last just a few shifts. When she asks why, they’ll say, “you know, I didn’t realize how many people I would be around every day, and I don’t want to take this home to my family,” Kaufman said. The virus is hurting her bottom line. The staffing shortage is annoying potential customers who are eager to eat out. As America’s population continues growing older, the U.S. economy will actually need even more workers for the service and manufacturing sectors of the economy. That’s why programs such as the EB-3 Unskilled Visa Program will be critical for the continued economic success of the United States. The EB-3 program workers are eager, motivated and committed to work! In the long run, the winners will be companies who recognize the benefit this program brings them. After all, isn’t it a competitive advantage to have a full strength workforce?

In his first week in office, President Joe Biden proposed a Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill. Such a bill, in order to be enacted, would need to pass through Congress to become law. Unfortunately, due to the situation at the border, Congress is not taking up the bill as its become far too controversial. Instead, Congress appears to be focusing on passing more popular parts of the bill that may be able to garner support from both political parties. The House of Representatives, for example, just passe two immigration bills, the Dream and Promise Act and the Farm Workforce Modernization Act. Both bills offer a path to legalization for certain groups of immigrants by creating new categories and reforming old ones. The Dream and Promise Act of 2021 seeks to provide those brought to the United States illegally as children (known as Dreamers), Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders, and Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) individuals with protection from deportation and a path to eventual citizenship if they meet certain requirements. If the Act were to pass, it would mean 2.3 million Dreamers, a combined 400,000 TPS holders and individuals with DED, and 170,000 “Legal Dreamers,” or those whose have aged out of their parents’ visas, would have a pathway to citizenship in the United States. The Act has a major focus on the Dreamers, creating a new status called “conditional permanent residency” that would protect them from deportation, allow them to work legally in the United States, and permit them to travel outside of the country for up to 10 years. During these 10 years, Dreamers could apply for legal status or “lawful permanent residency” once certain requirements are met. The Act also includes additional provisions that impact Dreamers such as streamlined procedures, the waiver of certain inadmissibility bars, and access to federal financial aid. After the Dreamers, the Act addresses TPS holders and individuals with DED. The Act protects these immigrants from deportation and would allow them to adjust their status to “lawful permanent residency” once certain requirements are met. The Farm Workforce Modernization Act of 2021 focuses on reforming the process by which immigrants can migrate to the United States to work in agriculture. The Act has three major provisions: creating a pathway to legalization for current undocumented immigrants working in agricultural jobs with an eventual option to become permanent citizens; reforming the existing H-2A visa program; and requiring all agriculture employers to implement a reformed E-Verify program to make sure all workers are accounted for. Congress will attempt to pass these bills first and then may move on to increasing or reforming the employment-based immigration system once the border situation is under control.

Chris Richardson, Alpha Global Solution’s COO & General Counsel, has recently contributed to an Op-Ed published by The Hill titled, “Labor shortfall will become a labor crisis unless Biden acts on immigration”. Richardson discusses the impending labor crisis in the U.S. and highlights the importance of immigration in relieving this national problem. “As the pandemic subsides, too few workers are returning to jobs. The Bureau of Labor Statistics announced last week that in April U.S. employers reached the highest number of open jobs on record, nearly 9.3 million. This shattered the previous record of 8.3 million set one month earlier. April saw the largest ever recorded one-month increase in job openings, which have increased by 2.5 million since December. While lawmakers debate the causes and the solutions, the problem has only grown worse. Every month that these jobs remain unfilled costs the country tens of billions of dollars in economic growth. Many businesses are unable to serve customers, reducing hours or even shutting down. The ones that can open are passing along the higher costs of operating to patrons. While President Biden’s team is looking at many options to draw workers back, immigration may well be the only way to get these jobs filled before this labor shortfall becomes a full-blown labor crisis. Immigrants can quickly enter, fill available positions, boost economic growth and lead to more jobs in other sectors — sectors that may be more attractive to U.S. workers on the sidelines.” You can read the full article here.

Summary: Starting October 1, 2021, all applicants for green cards such as EB-3 unskilled will be required to obtain the full COVID-19 vaccination in order to get approval for their medical exam and obtain permanent residence, according to a new order from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The requirement applies to both adjustment of status applicants in the United States and immigrant visa applicants applying for green cards abroad at US embassies and consulates. Only applicants who are age-eligible and deemed medically appropriate to receive the COVID-19 vaccine will be held to the requirement. A Closer Look: Starting October 1, 2021, green card applicants will be required to establish that they have received a complete COVID-19 vaccine series to be deemed eligible for permanent residence. On August 17, 2021 the CDC announced in guidance for civil surgeons that the new requirement will apply to persons who are seeking to adjust their immigration status within the United States as well as those applying for an immigrant visa at U.S. consulates abroad. The CDC is responsible for ensuring that noncitizens entering the United States do not have health conditions that would pose a threat to the public health of this country. As such, a medical examination is required by CDC regulations as a means of evaluating the health of persons applying for adjustment of status as permanent residents in the United States. According to the CDC, “COVID-19 meets the definition of a quarantinable communicable disease,” and “[s]pecifically … meets the definition of severe acute respiratory syndromes …, thus making it a Class A Inadmissible Condition.” The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy manual defines Class A conditions as “medical conditions that render a person inadmissible and ineligible for a visa or adjustment of status.” At the time of the medical examination, the CDC guidance states that green card applicants must present evidence of completing the entire vaccine series (one or two doses depending on the vaccine formulation). To demonstrate they have completed the vaccination series, applicants may present their official vaccination record or a copy of their medical chart showing they have been vaccinated against COVID-19. The United States will not accept “self-reported vaccine doses without written documentation” from a doctor or medical professional. The acceptable versions of the vaccine include those manufactured by Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Janssen (Johnson & Johnson). Immigration medical exams are conducted in connection with the health-related ground of inadmissibility found in Section 212(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. What Happens If I’m not Fully Vaccinated? When the new requirement takes effect on October 1st, 2021, green card applicants attending their medical examination will be required to show proof of full COVID-19 vaccination with a vaccine authorized for use in the United States or listed for emergency use by the World Health Organization. If an applicant is not yet fully vaccinated and the COVID-19 vaccine is available to the U.S. civil surgeon or panel physician performing the medical exam, the doctor is permitted to vaccinate the applicant. However, the applicant must receive the full COVID-19 vaccine series before the medical exam can be completed, so case processing may be delayed if the applicant attends an exam unvaccinated. Can I Obtain A Waiver? Possibly, but it will delay your case. The new CDC policy includes guidance regarding waivers and testing for adjustment of status and immigrant visa applicants as follows: Blanket waivers: Blanket waivers of the COVID-19 vaccine requirement will apply to applicants who are younger than the lowest age limit for available vaccines in their jurisdiction, as well as for those who can document a medical contraindication. Also, in certain circumstances, if the COVID-19 vaccine is not routinely available in the jurisdiction of the U.S. civil surgeon or panel physician performing the medical exam, the applicant may be permitted a blanket waiver. Waiver based on religious or moral convictions: If an applicant objects to COVID-19 vaccination on religious or moral grounds, the applicant must submit a waiver request to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). USCIS will determine if the waiver is granted. Neither the examining physician nor the CDC can make this determination. Tests for immunity: The CDC advises that lab tests for COVID-19 immunity are not to be conducted as part of the green card medical exam. Applicants must receive the vaccine regardless of evidence of immunity or prior COVID-19 infection. The CDC notes that this is because the duration of immunity due to natural infection is still being investigated and may not protect the applicant throughout the immigration process. Does This Apply to Consular Processing Cases? Yes, the new rules do apply to consular cases. In addition, US Embassies and Consulates are implementing some additional protocols for foreign nationals applying for immigrant visas abroad. Testing for COVID-19 infection: IV applicants must be tested for infection if they report symptoms of COVID-19 at the time of scheduling or attending their medical exam. The exam will be postponed until they have met the recovery criteria to end isolation. Further, testing of asymptomatic applicants ages two years and older may be required at the discretion of the panel physician, in order to support the public health safety of their clinics. Close contacts of persons with COVID-19 infection: Immigrant visa applicants in close contact with someone with COVID-19 will be unable to clear their medical exam until they complete 14 days of quarantine. Are non-citizens permitted to get the COVID-19 vaccine while in the United States? You don’t have to be a U.S. citizen to get the vaccine. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) pledged that all immigrants – documented or undocumented – will have equal access to COVID-19 vaccines and vaccine distribution sites. Further, receiving the COVID-19 vaccine does not count as a public charge. The DHS has stated that COVID-19 treatments or preventative services will not be considered a public charge that would prevent you from becoming a permanent resident. You don’t need health insurance to receive the vaccine. Uninsured people are able to receive the vaccine as

On Tuesday, March 29th, the Biden Administration announced new efforts USCIS is taking aimed at addressing processing times and backlogs. As of February 2022, USCIS has a backlog of 9.5 million cases. EAD premium processing Premium processing, a paid service that speeds up the review and decision made on certain aspects of the application, notably the I-140, will be expanded to include the EAD (I-765), among other forms. The fee will be $1500 and it will be rolled out over a number of months. Processing backlogs Internally, USCIS is implementing cycle time goals in order to systematically speed up processing times. In order to achieve these goals and reduce processing times, USCIS plans to hire more staff and improve their technology. EAD validity period USCIS is continuing to improve the process of renewing the validity of work permits. The goal of this effort is to give individuals, who are waiting for their case to be adjudicated, a greater ability to work throughout the duration of their immigrant visa petition. FAQ about this new information: When will EAD premium processing for the EB-3 Unskilled Visa start? It has yet to be announced or confirmed by USCIS when it will become available for EB3 Unskilled visa applicants. What does “cycle time goals” mean? There is no specific time frame stated at this time. The timing of this process consistently fluctuates, and it will likely continue to fluctuate. When will this start? Within 60 days, further information will be announced by USCIS. If you are currently in the process, can I add on this premium processing for the EAD once it’s available? That is probable, but no official decision has been made. How do these USCIS announcements affect Consular Processing applicants? This does not impact the timing or processing for Consular Processing applicants. At Alpha Global Biz, we are excited to see improved processing times and new efforts by USCIS to tackle the immigrant visa case backlog.

Great news! Alpha Global is happy to announce that the EB-3 Unskilled category is eligible for green card filings in October 2022. USCIS confirmed that they will use the “Dates of Filing” Chart in the October 2022 Visa Bulletin, with a cutoff date of September 8, 2022. This cutoff date means that, if you currently have an approved EB-3 Unskilled Labor Certification (LC), you can file the green card application in October. How will the October Visa Bulletin Impact You? Please see below to determine what the October Visa Bulletin means for you. We have mapped out seven common scenarios. DOL Stage Scenario 1: Your LC has not been filed. Impact: If your LC is not filed yet, we will continue working with your Employer to prepare the LC for filing. The October Visa Bulletin does not impact you, because you need the LC to first be approved before the green card application can be filed. The Visa Bulletin does not impact LC processing times with the Department of Labor (DOL). Scenario 2: Your LC is filed and pending with DOL. Impact: If your LC is filed and pending with DOL, the October Visa Bulletin does not impact you. The Visa Bulletin will only impact your ability to file a green card application after your LC is approved. The Visa Bulletin does not impact LC processing times with DOL. USCIS Stage (AOS clients with approved LCs) Scenario 3: Your LC is approved, but I-140 and I-485 are not yet filed. Impact: You are eligible for green card filing in October. The attorney will prepare your I-140 and I-485, including I-765 and I-131, for filing with USCIS. You should receive your green card-based EAD/AP while the I-485 is pending. Note: If your attorney reaches out to request medical exams, please promptly provide the documents to your attorney to prevent delays for your filing. If you have the questions about your green card applications, please reach out to the attorney directly. Scenario 4: Your I-140 was already filed as a standalone case, but I-485 has not been filed. Impact: You are eligible for I-485 filing in October. The attorney will prepare your I-485, including I-765 and I-131, for filing with USCIS. This filing will be linked to the standalone I-140 (this applies to both I-140s that are still pending and I-140s that have been approved). You should receive your green card-based EAD/AP while the I-185 is pending. Note: If your attorney reaches out to request medical exams, please promptly provide the documents to your attorney to prevent delays to your filing. If you have questions about your green card application, please reach out to the attorney directly. Scenario 5: Your I-485 was already filed with USCIS and pending. Impact: If your I-485 is already filed, you are not impacted by the “Dates of Filing” chart in the October Visa Bulletin. You should receive your green card-based EAD/AP while the I-485 is pending. Consular Processing Stage (Consular clients with approved LCs) Scenario 6: You are a Consular Processing client. Your LC is approved, and your I-140 is not yet filed or is pending with USCIS. Impact: The Visa Bulletin does not impact I-140 processing times with USCIS. Once your I-140 is approved, the “Final Action” chart on the Visa Bulletin will determine when you can receive the immigrant visa stamp to enter the U.S. The “Final Action” cutoff date is June 1, 2020 for the October Visa Bulletin. This means that, if your LC was filed after June 1, 2020, you will not receive your immigrant visa in October. Processing times at Consulates vary. If you have questions about your Consular process, please reach out to the attorney. Scenario 7: You are a Consular Processing client and your I-140 is approved Impact: The “Final Action” chart on the Visa Bulletin will determine when you can receive the immigrant visa stamp to enter the U.S. The “Final Action” cutoff date is June 1, 2020 for the October Visa Bulletin. This means that, if your LC was filed after June 1, 2020, you will not receive your immigrant visa in October. Processing times at Consulates vary. If you have questions about your Consular process, please reach out to the attorney. ‍ Alpha Global is thrilled that the EB-3 Unskilled will be eligible for green card filing with USCIS in October. We will continue to lobby the Department of State and USCIS, as well as our contacts through legislative channels, to encourage ongoing support for the EB-3 Unskilled program.