USCIS to Recall Incorrectly Dated Green Cards

USCIS to Recall Incorrectly Dated Green Cards

May 14, 2018 by no comments

USCIS to Recall Incorrectly Dated Green Cards

On May 14, 2018, USCIS will begin recalling approximately 8,543 Permanent Resident Cards (also known as Green Cards) due to a production error. The Green Cards were for approved Form I-751, Petition to Remove Conditions of Residence for spouses of U.S. citizens. The cards were printed with an incorrect “Resident Since” date and mailed between February and April 2018.

USCIS will send notices to individuals who received the incorrect Green Cards and to their attorneys of record, if they have one. The affected individuals should return their incorrect Green Card to USCIS in the provided pre-paid envelope within 20 days of receiving the notice. They may also return their cards to USCIS field offices. USCIS will send replacement Green Cards within 15 days of receiving the incorrect card.

The recall does not affect these Green Card holders’ status as lawful permanent residents. If affected individuals need to travel internationally or prove their lawful permanent residence while they wait for a replacement card, they may contact the USCIS Contact Center at 800-375-5283 to determine if they need additional proof.

Spouses of U.S. citizens may apply for naturalization after three years of permanent residency and must meet other requirements. The incorrect date on these cards could lead applicants to wait longer than necessary to apply to become U.S. citizens.

Last Reviewed/Updated:

Policy Memorandum – SUBJECT: DNA Evidence of Sibling Relationships

May 2, 2018 by no comments

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration ServicesOffice of the Director (MS 2000) Washington, DC 20529-2000

April 17, 2018            PM-602-0106.1
Policy Memorandum

SUBJECT: DNA Evidence of Sibling Relationships

Purpose

This policy memorandum (PM) amends U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (USCIS) policy on DNA evidence of sibling relationships and revises the Adjudicator’s Field Manual (AFM), Chapter 21.9(c).

Scope

This PM applies to and shall be used by all USCIS employees. This guidance supersedes any existing guidance concerning DNA evidence in sibling relationships.

Authorities

• Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)§§ 101(b)(1), 101(b)(2), and 203(a)(4).

• Title 8 United States Code (U.S.C.) §§ 1101(b)(1), 1101(b)(2), and 1153(a)(4).

• Title 8 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §§ 103.2(b)(2)(i), 204.2(d) and (g).

Background

USCIS adjudicates petitions filed for siblings of U.S. citizens under INA § 203(a)(4) and 8 CFR§ 204.2(g). USCIS also adjudicates certain nonimmigrant petitions and applications filed for derivative siblings.1 A sibling relationship requires that the petitioner and beneficiary are, or once were, the children of at least one common parent, as defined in INA § § 101(b)(1) and (2). Primary evidence to establish a sibling relationship may include birth and marriage certificates. When an officer determines that primary evidence is unavailable or unreliable, the officer may consider secondary evidence that demonstrates the sibling relationship. Secondary evidence that officers may consider includes, but is not limited to, medical records, school records, and religious documents issued contemporaneously with the event they document.3 Affidavits sworn to by persons who were living at the time of and who have personal knowledge of the event to which they attest may also be accepted if certain conditions are met.4page1image375105824

Primary evidence to establish a sibling relationship may include birth and ma

USCIS has the authority to require a Blood Group Antigen Test or a Human Leucocyte Antigen (HLA) test to establish a biological relationship when other forms of evidence have proven inconclusive.5 Due to technological advances, however, the Blood Group Antigen Test and HLA test are no longer routinely performed, and many petitioners opt to submit DNA test results instead. Unlike the Blood Group Antigen Test or the HLA test, regulations do not currently require DNA testing to establish the claimed familial relationship. However, USCIS has a long- standing policy of accepting parent-child DNA test results to establish parentage when certain threshold requirements are met.6 In addition to receiving parent-child DNA test results, USCIS receives direct sibling-to-sibling DNA test results from petitioners seeking to classify beneficiaries as siblings under INA § 203(a)(4).

In October 2014, based on reports from the scientific community that there was no universally accepted standard for relationship probability in sibling-to-sibling DNA testing, USCIS published guidance instructing officers not to suggest or consider direct sibling-to-sibling DNA test results. Subsequently, in March 2016, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) issued a decision in Matter of Ruzku holding that direct sibling-to-sibling DNA test results reflecting a 99.5 percent degree of certainty or higher should be considered probative evidence of the claimed relationship.7 The BIA held that it “would generally expect that other evidence of the sibling relationship would be submitted and that all the evidence, including DNA test results, would be considered in its totality.”8

Following the BIA’s ruling in Matter of Ruzku, USCIS initiated discussions with the AABB9Relationship Testing (RT) Subcommittee through the DHS Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate.10 These discussions focused on direct sibling-to-sibling DNA testing for full siblings (who share two biological parents) and half siblings (who share one biological parent). The AABB RT Subcommittee provided USCIS with data11 and revised standards12 to assist the agency in interpreting and applying full- and half-sibling test results to adjudications. These discussions have provided USCIS with guidance on how to supplement its sibling DNA policy, while remaining consistent with the ruling in Matter of Ruzku.

Policy

Effective immediately, when USCIS determines that primary evidence is unavailable or unreliable, it may suggest and accept certain DNA test results as evidence of a full- or half- sibling relationship in any petition or application for an immigration benefit in which a sibling relationship is required to establish eligibility. Direct sibling-to-sibling DNA test results may serve as probative evidence of the claimed relationship, provided that certain threshold requirements, as described in this policy memorandum, are met.

Overview of Data Provided by the AABB

Based on currently available scientific data, USCIS has set the standard for the probative value of full- and half-sibling DNA test results at 90 percent probability. Data indicates that setting the standard at 90 percent will capture most valid full- and half-sibling relationships, while minimizing or eliminating the potential of including any non-valid relationships. Setting the standard above 90 percent, on the other hand, would exclude many valid full- and half-sibling relationships.

A test result lower than 90 percent does not necessarily indicate the absence of the claimed sibling relationship. In fact, the scientific data suggests that a small percentage of results for full siblings may fall below a 90 percent probability of certainty, resulting in an inconclusive result, even where a valid biological relationship exists.

Data indicates that, when 20 loci13 are tested, a test result below 9 percent probability conclusively excludes a valid full-sibling relationship between the parties tested. Conversely, half siblings have less DNA in common than full siblings. Setting the same standards for full and half siblings could result in false exclusions of half siblings, despite a valid biological relationship. Therefore, the agency will not consider test results for half siblings below 9 percent to exclude the claimed relationship.

Full- and Half-Sibling Relationship Results At or Above 90 Percent Probability

USCIS will consider results of DNA testing conducted by an AABB-accredited lab that reflect a 90 percent probability or higher that a full- or half-sibling relationship exists as probative evidence of the claimed relationship. When an officer determines that primary evidence is unavailable or unreliable, a full- or half-sibling relationship may be considered to be independently established where a test result is 90 percent or higher, though, generally, USCIS would expect other secondary evidence or affidavit(s) to be submitted along with DNA test results.14 DNA test results at or above 90 percent should always be considered with the totality of the evidence in the case record. USCIS will continue to evaluate a sibling petition under the preponderance of the evidence standard, and the agency will require the petitioner to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the claimed sibling relationship exists.

Full-Sibling Relationship Results Between 9 and 89 Percent Probability

USCIS will consider a full-sibling test result to be inconclusive if it falls below 90 percent probability, but it is greater than or equal to 9 percent probability. Due to the considerable variations across inconclusive DNA test results, which can range between 9 and 89 percent, officers should not afford any evidentiary value to inconclusive results for full siblings, unless the results include an independent clarification from the AABB-accredited lab, and they demonstrate to the officer that the claimed relationship is more likely than not to exist. For example, comparisons of the test results of the petitioner and beneficiary against the test results of other relatives may lead the lab to indicate that the claimed relationship exists, even if the test results of the petitioner and beneficiary do not reach 90 percent.15 Where a result is inconclusive, an officer must continue to evaluate the remaining evidence in the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the claimed relationship is more likely than not to exist.

Full-Sibling Relationship Results Below 9 Percent Probability

A full-sibling test result of less than 9 percent probability is considered evidence that the claimed relationship does not exist. Where DNA test results do not support the existence of a full-sibling relationship, the officer must continue to review other evidence of the claimed relationship. In some rare cases, the remaining evidence may be sufficient to establish a half- or step-sibling relationship.

Half-Sibling Relationship Results Below 90 Percent Probability

Based on the information provided by the AABB RT Subcommittee, USCIS has set a different standard for half siblings than for full siblings when test results fall below 9 percent. This distinction is intended to ensure that USCIS does not automatically exclude valid half-sibling relationships. Due to the variations within half-sibling relationship test results, any result for a half sibling below 90 percent will be deemed inconclusive. Officers should not afford any evidentiary value to an inconclusive result for a half sibling, unless the results include independent clarification from the AABB-accredited lab, and they demonstrate to the officer that the claimed relationship is more likely than not to exist.16 Where a result is inconclusive, an officer must continue to evaluate the remaining evidence in the totality of the circumstances.

Unlike full-sibling test results, a half-sibling test result below 9 percent does not rule out the possibility that a half-sibling relationship exists.

Testing Against Additional Relatives

To the extent possible, DNA testing against the common parent(s) is encouraged, because it produces more reliable results than tests that do not include a common parent. Similarly, test results that include additional first-degree relatives, such as another sibling, will yield more conclusive results. Including additional blood relatives, such as aunts, uncles, and cousins, also produces more reliable results, particularly where a result is otherwise inconclusive. The AABB standards encourage accredited labs to recommend additional testing of relatives, where appropriate.

Significance of Type of Relationship Test Conducted

The type of test conducted by the lab may also impact the ultimate result. For example, when half siblings explicitly request a half-sibling test rather than a full-sibling test, they will receive a stronger test result. Conversely, when half siblings incorrectly request a full-sibling test, they will receive skewed results. The lab may guide a customer as to which test may be appropriate after reviewing initial results. The AABB-accredited lab has sole discretion to set the parameters of the test conducted.

Testing Additional Locations on the DNA Strand

USCIS guidance for test results that fall below 90 percent is based upon testing 20 loci. A locus (or loci, in plural) is a genetic marker which indicates a specific location on the DNA strand. The data provided by the AABB RT Subcommittee demonstrates that results that fall below 90 percent probability will have the strongest conclusions if they are tested to 20 loci.

Each lab report will list which loci were tested. This list can be used to obtain the number of loci tested.

In general, the officer must advise the petitioner, in writing, of the option to have the AABB- accredited lab test more loci and/or additional relatives to achieve a more accurate result when:

• The result falls below 90 percent probability and fewer than 20 loci were tested;
• The claimed relationship has not otherwise been established by a preponderance of the evidence; and
• The petitioner has not previously been advised that results will have the strongest probability if tested to 20 loci.

As USCIS does not currently have regulatory authority to require DNA testing, this notification may only suggest the option of additional testing to the petitioner. The applicant or petitioner bears the burden, however, to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. INA § 291, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013).

The AABB RT Subcommittee has revised its standards to require accredited labs to test at least 20 loci for full- and half-sibling relationships when results appear lower than 90 percent (inconclusive or exclusionary). Results that measure at or above 90 percent will not be subject to a minimum loci requirement. USCIS has not provided a minimum loci requirement for results that conclusively establish the existence of the claimed relationship at 90 percent or above.

Parent-Child Test Results

USCIS policy on parentage testing remains unchanged. Parent-child DNA test results between one or both claimed siblings and the claimed common parent will be considered according to current policy relating to DNA testing for parent-child relationships.17

Step-Sibling Relationships

Where DNA test results do not establish the validity of the claimed biological relationship, but other submitted evidence appears to support the validity of a step-sibling relationship, the officer may continue to review the relationship as a step-sibling relationship, if appropriate.

USCIS Guidance for Evaluating Sibling DNA Testing

Effective immediately, when USCIS determines that primary evidence is unavailable or unreliable, it may suggest DNA testing and accept DNA test results as evidence of a full- or half- sibling relationship, provided that certain threshold requirements are met. Test results will be evaluated for probative value according to the guidance contained in the following chart.

DNA Test Result

Full-Sibling Interpretation

page7image260001648 page7image259994832

Half-Sibling Interpretation

90% or higher18

Relationship Supported – Probative evidence that the claimed relationship exists.

page7image259882976

Relationship Supported – Probative evidence that the claimed relationship exists.

9% to 89%19

Inconclusive Result – By itself, the test result is not sufficient to establish the claimed relationship without additional affirmation from an AABB-accredited lab.20

page7image259853328

Inconclusive Result – By itself, the test result is not sufficient to establish the claimed relationship without additional affirmation from an AABB-accredited lab.21

Below 9%22

Relationship Not Supported

– Probative evidence that the claimed relationship does not exist.

page7image259812784

Inconclusive Result – By itself, the test result is not sufficient to establish the claimed relationship without additional affirmation from an AABB-accredited lab.23

In contrast to full-sibling results, this result for half siblings does not necessarily mean the claimed relationship does not exist.

Implementation

 1. Chapter 21.9(c) of the AFM is revised as follows:****
(1) Evidence.

(A) The documentation required to establish a sibling relationship varies and depends entirely on the common parent(s) through whom the relationship occurs. Therefore, officers should carefully review the supporting documents to ensure that both the petitioner and beneficiary have a parent-child relationship with the claimed common parent(s), as defined at INA § §101(b)(1-2). The following sections of the regulations discuss the primary or secondary evidence necessary to support a petition for a sibling, depending on the nature of the sibling relationship:

  • 8 CFR 204.2(g)(2)(i) – primary evidence, if the siblings share a common mother or are the legitimate children of a common father;
  • 8 CFR 204.2(g)(2)(ii) – primary evidence, if either or both siblings are legitimated;
  • 8 CFR 204.2(g)(2)(iii) – primary evidence, if either sibling is illegitimate;
  • 8 CFR 204.2(g)(2)(iv) – primary evidence for step-siblings; and
  • 8 CFR 204.2(d)(2)(v) and (vi) – secondary evidence of parent-child relationships.(B) DNA Evidence. When USCIS determines that primary evidence is unavailable or unreliable, it may suggest and accept DNA test results as evidence of a full-sibling relationship (where siblings share two biological parents) or a half-sibling relationship (where siblings share one biological parent). Test results should be evaluated for probative value according to the guidance contained in the chart below. Please note that there are currently no regulations requiring a petitioner or beneficiary to submit DNA test results.Overview of Guidance for Sibling DNA Test Results

page8image259385456page8image259385664page8image259385936page8image259386272page8image259386544page8image259386816

DNA Test Result

page8image259388544page8image259390192

Full-Sibling Interpretation

Half-Sibling Interpretation

page8image259371744page8image259372816

90% or higher24

Relationship Supported – Probative evidence that the claimed relationship exists.

page8image259360352

Relationship
Supported – Probative evidence that the claimed relationship exists.

9% to 89%25

Inconclusive Result – By itself, the test result is not sufficient to establish the claimed relationship without additional affirmation from an AABB-accredited lab.26

Inconclusive Result – By itself, the test result is not sufficient to establish the claimed relationship without additional affirmation from an AABB-accredited lab.27

Below 9%28

page8image259335776page8image259292528

Relationship Not Supported – Probative evidence that the claimed relationship does not exist.

Inconclusive result – By itself, the test result is not sufficient to establish the claimed relationship without

page8image259308608

 

page9image300859200page9image300860016

additional affirmation from an AABB-accredited lab. 29

In contrast to full- sibling results, this result for half siblings does not necessarily mean the claimed relationship does not exist.

Full- and Half-Sibling Test Results Demonstrating 90 Percent Probability or Higher are Probative Evidence of the Claimed Relationship

Adjudicators must consider DNA test results reflecting 90 percent probability or higher to be probative evidence of a full- or half-sibling relationship. When an officer determines that primary evidence is unavailable or unreliable, the officer may consider DNA test results reflecting 90 percent probability or higher as sufficient to establish the claimed relationship and forego securing additional evidence. However, petitioners are generally expected to submit other available evidence of the claimed sibling relationship (such as primary evidence, secondary evidence, affidavits, or an explanation as to why it is not possible to submit additional evidence) and evidence of legitimation or a bona fide father-child relationship, if necessary. Generally, a Request for Evidence (RFE) or Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) will not be required for additional explanation or evidence of the relationship when the record contains a probative DNA test result. Where evidence is submitted in addition to DNA test results, adjudicators must consider all evidence in the totality of the circumstances. While a DNA test result may indicate that a relationship is supported, any other evidence to the contrary must also be considered.

Full-Sibling Test Results Between 9 and 89 Percent Probability are Inconclusive Evidence of the Claimed Relationship

USCIS considers DNA results reflecting less than 90 percent, but greater than or equal to 9 percent probability, to be inconclusive evidence of a full-sibling relationship. A valid full-sibling relationship may exist, even when a DNA test result reflects less than 90 percent probability. However, due to the significant variation between inconclusive results, officers should not consider inconclusive results to either support or weaken the case for the existence of the claimed relationship, unless the results include independent clarification from the AABB-accredited lab that demonstrates to the officer that the claimed relationship is more likely than not to exist. For example, comparisons of the test results of the petitioner and beneficiary against the test results of other relatives may lead the lab to indicate that the claimed relationship exists, even if the test results of the petitioner and beneficiary do not reach 90 percent.30 Where a result is inconclusive, an officer must continue to evaluate the remaining evidence in the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the claimed relationship is more likely than not to exist.

Full-Sibling Test Results Below 9 Percent Probability Demonstrate that the Claimed Relationship Does Not Exist

USCIS considers DNA results for full siblings reflecting less than 9 percent probability to be exclusionary, or as evidence that the claimed full-sibling relationship does not exist. Where DNA test results do not support the existence of a full-sibling relationship, the officer must continue to review other evidence of the claimed relationship. In some rare cases, the remaining evidence may be sufficient to establish a half-sibling or step- sibling relationship.

Half-Sibling Test Results Below 90 Percent Probability are Inconclusive Evidence of the Claimed Relationship

Due to the considerable variations in DNA test results for valid half-sibling relationships, USCIS considers half-sibling test results reflecting less than 90 percent probability to be inconclusive for immigration purposes. While an inconclusive result does not necessarily indicate that the claimed relationship does not exist, officers should not consider inconclusive results for half siblings to either support or weaken the case for the existence of the claimed relationship, unless the results include independent clarification from the AABB-accredited lab, and they demonstrate to the officer that the claimed relationship is more likely than not to exist.31 Where a result is inconclusive, an officer must continue to evaluate the remaining evidence in the totality of the circumstances. Unlike full-sibling test results, a half-sibling test result below 9 percent does not rule out the possibility that the claimed half-sibling relationship exists.

Encouraging Testing Against Additional Family Members

Direct sibling-to-sibling testing is normally performed when it is not possible to test against the common parent(s). Some labs have reported that, when a DNA test is conducted for immigration purposes, the lab may incorrectly believe that it can only test the individuals named on the petition. However, where the claimed sibling relationship is valid, testing against additional family members improves the likelihood of test results, and thereby reduces the need to issue additional RFEs, NOIDs, or denials. The AABB standards encourage accredited labs to recommend testing against additional relatives, as appropriate.

Including additional family members, particularly first-degree relatives, such as parents and other siblings, or second-degree relatives, such as aunts, uncles, and cousins, in the testing may produce more conclusive results. Therefore, when an RFE or NOID includes a suggestion to undergo voluntary DNA testing, officers should suggest that the petitioner include additional relatives, particularly the shared parent(s), if possible.

Significance of Type of Relationship Test Conducted

The type of test conducted by the lab may also impact the ultimate result. For example, when half siblings explicitly request a half-sibling test rather than a full-sibling test, they will receive a stronger test result. Conversely, when half siblings incorrectly request a full-sibling test, they will receive skewed results. The lab may guide a customer as to which test may be appropriate after reviewing initial results. The AABB-accredited lab has sole discretion to set the parameters of the test that will be conducted.

Loci Tested in Sibling Relationships

USCIS guidance for test results that fall below 90 percent is based upon testing at 20 loci. A locus (or loci, in plural) is a genetic marker which indicates a specific location on the DNA strand. Test results that fall below 90 percent probability have the strongest conclusions if they show 20 loci were tested. Each lab report indicates by name which loci have been tested and, thereby, displays the number of loci tested.

In January 2018, the AABB Relationship Testing Subcommittee revised its standards to require accredited labs to test at least 20 loci for full- and half-sibling relationships where results appear lower than 90 percent (inconclusive or exclusionary). Results that measure at or above 90 percent will not be subject to a minimal loci requirement.

Where DNA testing was conducted after January 1, 2018, (the effective date of the 13thedition of the AABB standards) officers will not need to verify the number of loci tested. However, when evaluating a result that was conducted before January 1, 2018, officers will need to verify the number of loci tested, if a result falls below 90 percent probability. In general, the officer must advise the petitioner, in writing, of the option to request that the AABB-accredited lab test to 20 loci and/or test against additional relatives to improve the accuracy of results when:

• The result falls below 90% probability and fewer than 20 loci were tested;
• The claimed relationship has not otherwise been established by a preponderance of the evidence; and
• The petitioner was not previously advised that results will have the strongest probability if tested to 20 loci.

Parent-Child Test Results

USCIS policy on parentage testing remains unchanged. Parent-child DNA test results between one or both claimed siblings and the claimed common parent will be considered according to current policy relating to DNA testing for parent-child relationships.32

Step-Sibling Relationships

When DNA test results do not establish the validity of the claimed relationship, but other evidence appears to support a step-sibling relationship, the officer may continue to review the relationship as a step-sibling relationship, if appropriate. For example, if a petitioner submits DNA test results that exclude the possibility of a biological relationship, but the file contains evidence, such as marriage certificates or birth certificates, that indicate the existence of a step-sibling relationship, the adjudicator may evaluate the relationship as a step-sibling relationship.

 2. The AFM Transmittal Memoranda button is revised by adding a new entry, in numerical order, to read:

Use

This PM is intended solely for the guidance of USCIS personnel in the performance of their official duties. It is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or by any individual or other party in removal proceedings, in litigation with the United States, or in any other form or manner.

Contact Information

Questions or suggestions regarding this PM should be addressed through appropriate channels to the Office of Policy and Strategy.

PM-602- 0106.1 [April 17, 2018]

Chapter 21.9(c)

Articulates USCIS policy on acceptance of DNA evidence in support of sibling relationships.

page12image254069584

1 Siblings may qualify as family members outside of the Form I-130 petition. This PM applies to all immigration benefits that require a biological sibling relationship.
2 See 8 CFR 204.2(g)(2).
3 See 8 CFR 204.2(d)(2)(v).
4 See id.
5 See 8 CFR 204.2(d)(2)(vi).
6 Specifically, a 2008 USCIS policy memorandum provides that, “in situations where credible evidence is insufficient to prove the claimed biological relationship, officers may suggest and consider DNA testing results.”See Aytes, Michael, PM, Genetic Relationship Testing; Suggesting DNA Tests, Revisions to the Adjudicators Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 21 (AFM Update AD07-25), March 19, 2008 (http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/genetic testing.pdf). In such cases, a 99.5 percent statistical probability is required to establish parentage. See Cronin, Michael, Immigration and Naturalization Service PM, Guidance on Parentage Testing for Family-Based Immigrant Visa Petitions, July 14, 2000. (http://connect.uscis.dhs.gov/workingresources/immigrationpolicy/Documents/Attach OEFmemPlus 71400.pdf).
7 See Matter of Ruzku, 26 I&N Dec. 731 (BIA 2016).
8 Id.
9 The AABB was formerly the American Association of Blood Banks, but it is now known solely by its acronym.
10 The AABB Relationship Testing Subcommittee includes representatives of labs accredited by the AABB.
11 The AABB RT Subcommittee provided the results of a study comparing 100 groups of siblings and half siblings across relationships and loci (genetic markers indicating a specific location on the DNA strand). LabCorp, Maha et. al. 2017 unpublished. The 13th Edition of the AABB Relationship Testing Standard was supported by this study. The sibling standard is also supported by: Chang En Pu & Adrian Linacre. Increasing the confidence in half-sibship determination based upon 15 STR loci. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine 15 (2008) 373–377; and Chang En Pu & Adrian Linacre. Systematic evaluation of sensitivity and specificity of sibship determination by using 15 STR loci. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine 15 (2008) 329–334.
12 A proposed version of the AABB Relationship Testing Standards published for public comment on March 17, 2017. The 13th edition of the AABB Relationship Testing Standards became effective on January 1, 2018.
13 A locus (or loci, in plural) is a genetic marker which indicates a specific location on the DNA strand.
14 In some circumstances, this may include a requirement to demonstrate evidence of legitimation.
15 In one case, a lab was able to test the petitioner against the beneficiary and also test the petitioner and beneficiary separately against a third sibling. The test results indicated a 44.99 percent probability between the petitioner tested against the beneficiary, a 99.99 percent probability between the petitioner tested against the third sibling, and a 99.96 percent probability between the beneficiary tested against the third sibling. In evaluating these results, the lab director concluded the following: “Results such as those obtained when testing (the petitioner) against (the beneficiary) can occur even if they are truly full siblings because there is no obligate sharing of alleles in siblings like there is in a parent/child relationship…Using the basic rules of logic, there is a very strong indication that all three are full siblings. Additionally, there are no genetic loci at which four alleles would occur. If it were true that some loci displayed five or six alleles, there would have to be more than two total parents for the three tested alleged siblings. Since this is not true and the indicated Siblingship Indexes were obtained, I feel that the data indicate strongly that all three individuals share the same parents.”
16 For further discussion of the additional affirmation from an AABB-accredited lab, see Full-Sibling Relationship Results Between 9 and 89 Percent Probability and footnote 15, above.
17 The relationship between each sibling and the claimed common parent must be individually established. When one sibling’s relationship to the common parent is established through primary and/or secondary evidence already contained in the record, the petitioner may only need to submit additional evidence of the claimed relationship between the other sibling and the common parent. See Aytes, Michael, PM, Genetic Relationship Testing; Suggesting DNA Tests, Revisions to the Adjudicators Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 21 (AFM Update AD07-25), March 19, 2008 (http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/genetic testing.pdf) for additional information on the use of DNA testing to establish a parent-child relationship.
18 This does not require testing to 20 loci.
19 This assumes testing to 20 loci; this row includes results between 89 and 89.99 percent.
20 For further discussion of the additional affirmation from an AABB-accredited lab, see Full-Sibling Relationship Results Between 9 and 89 Percent Probability and footnote 15, which was detailed on page 4.
21 For further discussion of the additional affirmation from an AABB-accredited lab, see Half-Sibling Relationship Results Below 90 Percent Probability and footnote 15, which was detailed on page 4.
22 This assumes testing to 20 loci.
23 For further discussion of the additional affirmation from an AABB-accredited lab, see Half-Sibling Relationship Results Below 90 Percent Probability and footnote 15, which was detailed on page 4.
24 This does not require testing to 20 loci.
25 This assumes testing to 20 loci. This row includes results between 89 and 89.99 percent.
26 For further discussion of the additional affirmation from an AABB-accredited lab, see Full-Sibling Test Results Between 9 and 89 Percent Probability are Inconclusive Evidence of the Claimed Relationship, as detailed below.27 For further discussion of the additional affirmation from an AABB-accredited lab, see Half-Sibling Test Results Below 90 Percent Probability are Inconclusive Evidence of the Claimed Relationship, as detailed below.
28 This assumes testing to 20 loci.
27 For further discussion of the additional affirmation from an AABB-accredited lab, see Half-Sibling Test Results Below 90 Percent Probability are Inconclusive Evidence of the Claimed Relationship, as detailed below.
29 For further discussion of the additional affirmation from an AABB-accredited lab, see Half-Sibling Test Results Below 90 Percent Probability are Inconclusive Evidence of the Claimed Relationship, as detailed below.
30 In one case, a lab was able to test the petitioner against the beneficiary and also test the petitioner and beneficiary separately against a third sibling. The test results indicated a 44.99 percent probability between the petitioner tested against the beneficiary, a 99.99 percent probability between the petitioner tested against the third sibling, and a 99.96 percent probability between the beneficiary tested against the third sibling. In evaluating these results, the lab director concluded the following: “Results such as those obtained when testing (the petitioner) against (the beneficiary) can occur even if they are truly full siblings because there is no obligate sharing of alleles in siblings like there is in a parent/child relationship…Using the basic rules of logic, there is a very strong indication that all three are full siblings. Additionally, there are no genetic loci at which four alleles would occur. If it were true that some loci displayed five or six alleles, there would have to be more than two total parents for the three tested alleged siblings. Since this is not true and the indicated Siblingship Indexes were obtained, I feel that the data indicate strongly that all three individuals share the same parents.”
31 For further discussion of the additional affirmation from an AABB-accredited lab, see Full-Sibling Test Results Between 9 and 89 Percent Probability are Inconclusive Evidence of the Claimed Relationship, as detailed above.
32 The relationship between each sibling and the claimed common parent must be individually established. When one sibling’s relationship to the common parent is established through primary and/or secondary evidence already contained in the record, the petitioner may only need to submit additional evidence of the claimed relationship between the other sibling and the common parent. See Aytes, Michael, PM, Genetic Relationship Testing; Suggesting DNA Tests, Revisions to the Officers Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 21 (AFM Update AD07-25), March 19, 2008 (http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/genetic testing.pdf) for additional information on the use of DNA testing to establish a parent-child relationship.

USCIS to Begin Using More Secure Mail Delivery Service

April 30, 2018 by no comments

USCIS to Begin Using More Secure Mail Delivery Service

WASHINGTON – U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced today that the agency will begin phasing in use of the U.S. Postal Service’s (USPS) Signature Confirmation Restricted Delivery service to mail Green Cards and other secure documents beginning April 30, 2018.

The first phase will affect documents that need to be re-mailed because they have been returned as non-deliverable. These documents include Permanent Resident Cards (also called Green Cards), Employment Authorization Cards, and Travel Booklets. Applicants who have changed mailing addresses during the course of the application process are more likely to have their secure documents sent with the new delivery method, which USCIS will expand to all secure documents in the future.

As part of the new delivery method, applicants must present identification to sign for their documents upon delivery. They also have the option to designate an agent to sign on their behalf by completing the Postal Service’s PS Form 3801, Standing Delivery Order (PDF) or PS Form 3801-A, Agreement by a Hotel, Apartment House, or the Like (PDF). Applicants can sign up for USPS Informed Delivery to receive delivery status notifications. Applicants will also have the option to arrange for pickup at a post office at a convenient date and time by going to the USPS website and selecting “hold for pickup.”

Signature Confirmation Restricted Delivery increases the security, integrity, and efficiency of document delivery. The Signature Confirmation Restricted Delivery process provides better tracking and accuracy of delivery information, improving service to applicants.

Information on how to track delivery of secure documents is available on the USCIS website.

For more information on USCIS and its programs, please visit uscis.gov or follow us on Twitter (@uscis), YouTube (/uscis), Facebook (/uscis), and Instagram (@USCIS).

Last Reviewed/Updated:

Former Mexican state governor extradited to South Texas from Italy

April 24, 2018 by no comments

Former Mexican state governor extradited to South Texas from Italy

Defendant wanted for allegations of racketeering, drug smuggling, money laundering and bank fraud

BROWNSVILLE, Texas — The former governor of the Mexican State of Tamaulipas, and former candidate for the office of President of Mexico, was extradited to the United States from Italy on Friday and charged with racketeering, drug smuggling, money laundering and bank fraud.

The extradition and indictments resulted from an investigation by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the IRS’s Criminal Investigations Division (IRS-CID), and the FBI.

This extradition was announced by U.S. Attorneys Ryan K. Patrick, Southern District of Texas and John Bash, Western District of Texas.

Tomas Yarrington Ruvalcaba, 61, from Mexico arrived in the Brownsville April 20 to face the charges, and is expected to make his initial appearance Monday, April 23 at 1:30 p.m. before U.S. Magistrate Ronald Morgan.

“HSI aggressively pursues transnational criminal organizations that pose a threat to the U.S. national security, to include corrupt public officials who use their position and influence to further the illicit activity,” said Special Agent in Charge Shane Folden, of HSI San Antonio. “HSI is committed to upholding the rule of law and investigating those involved in criminal activity and bringing the illicit gains of these crimes to the U.S.”

According to court documents, in April 2017, Yarrington was captured in Italy while traveling under an assumed name, using a false passport and other identification documents. He was taken into custody on a provisional arrest warrant based on an indictment returned in May 2013. Yarrington contested the extradition, but an Italian court recently approved his extradition to the United States.

He was charged following an investigation that spanned several years. The indictment alleges Yarrington and Fernando Alejandro Cano Martinez, 62, and the owner of a Mexican construction firm, conspired to violate the provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) statute. The two men are also charged with conspiracy to launder money, conspiracy to defraud and conspiracy to make false statements to federally insured U.S. banks.

“This case highlights the impact multiple agencies can have when they join forces. DEA, HSI, IRS-CI and FBI along with our state, local and international law enforcement partners will continue to work together and pursue those who threaten our country through the smuggling and distribution of illegal and dangerous drugs such as cocaine,” said Glaspy. “This extradition sends a global message that those accused of leveraging their political positions to conduct drug trafficking and other criminal activity will be brought to justice.”

“This investigation took law enforcement above and beyond its traditional role in financial crimes,” said Tsui. “The apprehension of Tomas Yarrington Ruvalcaba underscores IRS-CI’s commitment to assist our law enforcement partners, both foreign and domestic, and follow the money trail across the globe to unravel this and other complex financial investigations.”

Yarrington is also separately charged with a conspiracy to violate the provisions of the Controlled Substances Act, two bank fraud counts, and conspiracy to structure currency transactions at a domestic financial institution. While Cano is separately charged with three counts of bank fraud.

Yarrington served as governor of Tamaulipas from 1999 to 2004. Tamaulipas lies along the southern border between the United States and Mexico directly across from Brownsville and Laredo.

According to the indictment, beginning in approximately 1998, Yarrington allegedly received large bribes from major drug traffickers operating in Tamaulipas, including the Gulf Cartel. In return, Yarrington is alleged to have allowed them to operate their large scale, multi-ton drug enterprise freely, which included the smuggling of large quantities of drugs to the United States for distribution. From 2007 to 2009, Yarrington allegedly became involved in the smuggling of large amounts of cocaine through the Port of Veracruz into the United States.

It is further alleged that Yarrington also collected bribes from commercial operations in Mexico. Cano operated Materiales y Construcciones Villa de Aguayo, S.A. de C.V., a construction firm in Tamaulipas that received significant public works contracts during Yarrington’s term as governor. The indictment alleges Cano, in turn, paid bribes to Yarrington to include the acquisition of real estate in front names for him.

The indictment further alleges Yarrington also received control over stolen public funds in the latter part of 2004. Portions of those funds were allegedly used to buy a Sabreliner 60 airplane in January 2005. As part of that purchase, $300,000 was transferred to a bank account in the United States. Another portion of the allegedly stolen funds, $5 million Mexican pesos, was transferred to Cano in the spring of 2005.

Court records also allege that starting in approximately 1998, Yarrington, and later Cano, became involved in the acquisition of valuable assets in the United States, using front names and business entities established starting in 2005 to disguise the true ownership of the assets. The assets included bank accounts, residences, airplanes, vehicles and real estate in Bexar, Cameron, Hidalgo and Hays Counties, many of which were acquired via fraudulent loans from banks in Texas. Further, that bank accounts established in front names at Texas banks were also used to receive and disburse money to carry the ongoing costs of the assets, such as loan costs and condo fees.

The indictment identifies numerous specific front entities involved in the scheme, each of which allegedly applied for multi-million-dollar fraudulent loans at Texas banks, which Cano personally guaranteed. The indictment details a total of more than $7 million in transfers into the U.S. accounts of the front entities.

Additional entities were created and used to apply for other loans to fund the purchase of still other assets, according to the indictment. Numerous currency transactions were conducted at First National Bank, headquartered in Edinburg, Texas, in a structured manner in amounts at or below $10,000 to evade the filing of Currency Transaction Reports by the bank.

Cano is not in the custody of the United States and a warrant remains outstanding for his arrest. Anyone with information about his whereabouts is asked to contact Homeland Security Investigations at 956-542-5811. Persons calling from Mexico should call 001-800-010-5237.

The RICO and money laundering charges each carry sentences of up to 20 years in prison, while conspiracy to commit bank fraud carries as possible punishment up to 30 years. The drug conspiracy charges carry a term of imprisonment of at least 10 years. The currency structuring charges carry a possible five-year-term of imprisonment.

The indictment also includes a notice of forfeiture. Some of the assets identified in the indictment already have been seized and forfeited to the United States in civil forfeiture actions over the course of the investigation, to include approximately 46 acres in Bexar County, a condo on South Padre Island, a 2005 Pilatus airplane and residences in Hidalgo and Hays counties.

The investigation leading to the indictment has been conducted by the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force in Brownsville, San Antonio, Houston, Corpus Christi and New York and has included agents and officers with HSI, DEA, IRS-CI, FBI and the Texas Attorney General’s Office. The United States government also acknowledges with gratitude the significant assistance received from the government of Mexico in the course of this investigation, including through sharing evidence and expertise. Additionally, the United States acknowledges the assistance of the U.S. Marshals Service, HSI-Rome, Italian law enforcement and the Italian government in their assistance in Yarrington’s extradition.

Assistant U.S. Attorneys Julie K. Hampton, Jody Young, Karen Betancourt and Jon Muschenheim, Southern District of Texas, are prosecuting the case.


An indictment is a formal accusation of criminal conduct, not evidence.
A defendant is presumed innocent unless and until convicted through due process of law.

Last Reviewed/Updated: 04/23/2018
Source:

Substantial Support from USCIS Fraud Detection Unit Leads to Convictions in Two Separate Immigration Fraud Cases

April 21, 2018 by no comments

Substantial Support from USCIS Fraud Detection Unit Leads to Convictions in Two Separate Immigration Fraud Cases

LOS ANGELES – This week, two immigration fraud perpetrators were sentenced to prison due to the considerable efforts of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Los Angeles Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS) unit. Los Angeles FDNS immigration officers worked closely with law enforcement and intelligence community partners to resolve potential fraud, national security and public safety concerns, and to ensure exchange of current and comprehensive information.

“Convictions in both cases send a powerful message to anyone trying to take advantage of our community or defraud the government,” said USCIS Los Angeles District Director Donna Campagnolo. “Fighting fraud and ensuring the integrity of our immigration system are top priorities for USCIS. We remain committed and vigilant in weeding out bad actors.”

On Wednesday, Jessica Godoy Ramos, 37, of Lynwood, California, was sentenced for stealing the identity of a New York attorney and filing immigration petitions on behalf of foreign nationals who believed she was a legitimate lawyer. Ramos was sentenced to 15 months in federal prison, and upon completion of the 15-month prison term, Ramos will spend six months in home detention. Calling the crimes “despicable,” presiding U.S. District Judge Dolly M. Gee also ordered Ramos to pay $29,693 in restitution to 16 identified victims.

Ramos accepted tens of thousands of dollars from dozens of aliens who sought her services in an attempt to obtain legal status in the United States. Using the name of the genuine attorney, Ramos filed immigration petitions on the behalf of some aliens, but in other cases, she never performed any services for her clients. Ramos also created counterfeit immigration parole documents to make it appear that she had successfully represented the aliens.

According to court documents, Ramos’ clients initially believed she was a legitimate immigration attorney, but several became suspicious when Ramos directed them to appear at USCIS offices for interviews – but they did not have any scheduled appointments.

The second sentencing, which took place yesterday, involved the owner of four schools. The owner enrolled hundreds of foreign nationals to fraudulently obtain immigration documents, which allowed them to remain in the United States as “students” – even though they rarely, if ever, attended classes. Hee Sun Shim , 54, of Hancock Park, Calif. was sentenced to 15 months in federal prison and ordered to forfeit more than $450,000.

Shim, along with two co-defendants, ran a “pay-to-stay” scheme through three schools in Koreatown: Prodee University/Neo-America Language School; Walter Jay M.D. Institute, an Educational Center; and the American College of Forensic Studies. A fourth school in Alhambra – Likie Fashion and Technology College – was also involved in the scheme, which ran for at least five years.

USCIS continually takes measures to detect and deter immigration benefit fraud and aggressively pursues benefit fraud cases in collaboration with federal law enforcement agencies. FDNS will continue playing a key role in USCIS efforts to safeguard the integrity of our immigration laws, protect American workers, and safeguard the homeland.

USCIS also encourages the public to make sure the person helping with an immigration case is authorized to give legal advice. Only an attorney or an accredited representative working for a Department of Justice (DOJ) recognized organization can give legal advice. For more information about avoiding immigration scams, visit our Avoid Scams webpage on uscis.gov.

For more information on USCIS and its programs, please visit uscis.gov or follow us on Twitter (@uscis), YouTube (/uscis), and Facebook (/uscis).

– USCIS –

Last Reviewed/Updated:
Source: https://www.uscis.gov/news/news-releases/substantial-support-uscis-fraud-detection-unit-leads-convictions-two-separate-immigration-fraud-cases

USCIS Completes the H-1B Cap Random Selection Process for FY 2019

April 13, 2018 by no comments

USCIS Completes the H-1B Cap Random Selection Process for FY 2019

On April 11, USCIS used a computer-generated random selection process to select enough H-1B petitions to meet the congressionally-mandated cap and the U.S. advanced degree exemption, known as the master’s cap, for fiscal year (FY) 2019.

USCIS received 190,098 H-1B petitions during the filing period, which began April 2, including petitions filed for the advanced degree exemption. USCIS announced on April 6, that it had received enough H-1B petitions to reach the statutory cap of 65,000 and the master’s cap of 20,000. USCIS will reject and return all unselected petitions with their filing fees unless the petition is a prohibited multiple filing (PDF, 119 KB).

USCIS conducted the selection process for the master’s cap first. All unselected master’s cap petitions then became part of the random selection process for the 65,000 cap.

USCIS will continue to accept and process petitions that are otherwise exempt from the cap. Petitions filed for current H-1B workers who have been counted previously against the cap, and who still retain their cap number, will also not be counted towards the FY 2019 H-1B cap. USCIS will continue to accept and process petitions filed to:

  • Extend the amount of time a current H-1B worker may remain in the United States;
  • Change the terms of employment for current H-1B workers;
  • Allow current H-1B workers to change employers; and
  • Allow current H-1B workers to work concurrently in a second H-1B position.
Last Reviewed/Updated: 

USCIS Reaches FY 2019 H-1B Cap

April 6, 2018 by no comments

USCIS Reaches FY 2019 H-1B Cap

USCIS has reached the congressionally-mandated 65,000 H-1B visa cap for fiscal year 2019. USCIS has also received a sufficient number of H-1B petitions to meet the 20,000 visa U.S. advanced degree exemption, known as the master’s cap.

The agency will reject and return filing fees for all unselected cap-subject petitions that are not prohibited multiple filings (PDF, 119 KB).

USCIS will continue to accept and process petitions that are otherwise exempt from the cap.  Petitions filed for current H-1B workers who have been counted previously against the cap, and who still retain their cap number, will also not be counted toward the FY 2019 H-1B cap. USCIS will continue to accept and process petitions filed to:

  • Extend the amount of time a current H-1B worker may remain in the United States;
  • Change the terms of employment for current H-1B workers;
  • Allow current H-1B workers to change employers; and
  • Allow current H-1B workers to work concurrently in a second H-1B position.

U.S. businesses use the H-1B program to employ foreign workers in occupations that require specialized knowledge.

We encourage H-1B applicants to subscribe to the H-1B Cap Season email updates located on the H-1B Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 Cap Season page.

Last Reviewed/Updated:

Scoring Guidelines For The U.S. Naturalization Test

March 17, 2018 by no comments

Section 312 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides that most applicants for naturalization demonstrate an understanding of the English language, including an ability to read, write, and speak words in ordinary usage in the English language, as well as a knowledge of U.S. government and history (civics)1. This document provides a general description of how the U.S. Naturalization Test is evaluated and scored by Of cers of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

Immigration Attorney Sentenced to More Than Six Years in Prison for Fraud Scheme and Identity Theft in Relation to Visa Applications

March 9, 2018 by no comments

Department of Justice  Office of Public Affairs

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, March 9, 2018

Immigration Attorney Sentenced to More Than Six Years in Prison for Fraud Scheme and Identity Theft in Relation to Visa Applications

An Indianapolis, Indiana immigration attorney was sentenced today to 75 months in prison for defrauding the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and more than 250 of his clients by filing fraudulent visa applications and reaping approximately $750,000 in illegitimate fees.  Acting Assistant Attorney General John P. Cronan of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and Special Agent in Charge James M. Gibbons of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations (ICE-HSI) in Chicago made the announcement.

Joel Paul, 45, of Fishers, Indiana, was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Jane E. Magnus-Stinson of the Southern District of Indiana.  In addition to the prison sentence, Judge Magnus-Stinson sentenced Paul to serve three years of supervised release, and ordered that he pay up to $750,000 in restitution to his victims.  In November 2017, Paul pleaded guilty to one count each of mail fraud, immigration document fraud, and aggravated identity theft in connection with a scheme to submit fraudulent U-visa applications.

“Immigration fraud undermines not only the public’s faith in our institutions and the legal profession, it also jeopardizes public safety and compromises national security,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Cronan.  “Attorneys who commit such egregious fraud on our legal system and their own clients will be held accountable.”

“Immigration fraud presents a serious threat to the national security of our country,” said Special Agent in Charge Gibbons. “Illegal schemes like this not only undermine the integrity of our nation’s legal immigration system, but they create potential security vulnerabilities while also cheating deserving immigrants of benefits they rightfully deserve.”

As part of his plea agreement, Paul admitted that from 2013 to 2017, he submitted more than 250 false Applications for Advance Permission to Enter as a Nonimmigrant on behalf of his clients and without their knowledge.  Those applications falsely asserted that Paul’s clients had been victims of a crime and had provided substantial assistance to law enforcement in investigating the crime.  With approximately 200 of the false applications, Paul submitted unauthorized copies of a certification he had obtained from the U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAO) for the Southern District of Indiana in 2013, using the certification without the USAO’s knowledge to falsely claim that the applicant had provided substantial assistance in a criminal prosecution.  In total, Paul charged his clients approximately $3,000 per application.

HSI investigated the case with the assistance of USCIS Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate.  Trial Attorneys Molly Gaston, Peter M. Nothstein and Amanda Vaughn of the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section prosecuted the case.

Topic(s): Immigration
Component(s): Criminal Division
Press Release Number: 18-289
Updated March 9, 2018