Archive for the ‘Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

U.S. Artist Visa Updates as of April 5, 2019

Friday, April 5th, 2019

By Brian Taylor Goldstein

Most of you are aware by now that in fall 2018 a number of significant policy and procedural changes were imposed on the already exasperating process of obtaining U.S. artist visas. No surprisingly, these changes were the work of Donald Trump, who is also known by many other names: Cheeto-In-Chief, Trumpty Dumpty, Captain Chaos, Screaming Carrot Demon, Trumplethinskin, Darth Hater, The Tangerine Tornado, Agent Orange, Putin’s Papaya, Genghis Can’t, The Angry Creamsicle, Bumbledore, The Trumpet of Doom, The Tiny Tentacled Twitter Twat, Prima Donald, The White Pride Piper, and, my personal favourite, Baron Mango Von Wankerdoodle.

Over the last six months we have now had a chance to see how these new policies are actually being implemented and imposed. (For a more extensive analysis of the changes themselves, please re-read our earlier blog posts from September 2018 and November 2018 or visit our website www.ggartgslaw.com)

I. TROUBLES FOR STUDENT O-1 PETITIONS

The rise in Requests for Evidence (RFEs) and visa denials for young artists seeking their first O-1 visa has grown considerably. This has become particularly true for artists who are already in the U.S. on student visas and, after graduation, seek an O-1 visa to remain in the U.S.

Students who have entered the U.S. to pursue a course of study and who have only pursued their academic path without having also performed outside of the U.S. or also performed in non-academic concerts, recitals, and venues appear to be in the most peril.

Remember, in the twisted world of U.S. artist visas, “achievement” and “recognition” does not refer to an artist’s degree of talent, ability, technique, mastery of repertoire, or esteemed mentors. Rather, it refers primarily to the degree of an artist’s publicity and professional (non-academic) fame or infamy. In other words, an artist who has performed on Britain’s Got Talent or who has may have received a Gramophone Award for “World’s Worst Violinist” is more likely to be approved for an O-1 than an artist whose only credits are a Master’s Degree in the baroque flute and a flurry of accolades from teachers and professors attesting to her great talents and skills.

II. USCIS IS NO LONGER GIVING “DEFERENCE” TO PRIOR VISAS

Just today, we received one of the most shocking denials I have ever seen in over 20 years of preparing artist visas: the top program director of the official arts council of a large U.S. state, who has been working in the U.S. on an O-1 visa for three years and who has considerable international recognition for his expertise in arts administration and education, was DENIED a new O-1 on the basis that (a) he failed to show that he continued to be “extraordinary” since arriving in the U.S. and (b) his initial O-1 should never have been granted in the first place.

We are also currently addressing a green card application filed by a musician who is the First Chair of one of the world’s leading orchestras, with enough credits to fill a trophy case and over a decade of O-1 visas, who has been asked by USCIS to justify why it would be in the “national interest” of the U.S. for him to live here.

Whether these are isolated situations or a worsening trend, this is insane!

III. USCIS IS ASKING FOR ORIGINAL UNION LETTERS, NOT COPIES

When unions and peer groups issue no-objection letters, they will often email a scan to the petitioner with the original to follow later in the mail. To save time, petitioners will simply print out the scan and submit that with the petition. USCIS has recently been issuing RFEs for the ORIGINAL letter, claiming that this minimizing the risk of fraud.

IV. U.S.-BASED MANAGERS/AGENTS ARE BEING ASKED FOR ADDITIONAL “PROOF” OF PETITIONER AUTHORIZATION

When U.S-based booking agents or managers file petitions for their artists to perform at multiple venues, USCIS has been requiring each presenter or venue to provide a signed letter formally authorizing the manager/agent to include the engagement on the petition, even if the manager/agent booked the date in the first place and/or issued the engagement contract. Artists and groups are also being required to sign a similar letter authorizing the manager/agent to file the petition on their behalf. Whilst these authorizations literally need only be one sentence, not all presenters or venues will agree to sign these easily. The only way around this if for the manager/agent to directly employ the artist or group directly as the U.S. producer or promoter.

V. PROCESSING TIMES

However, due to a significant backlog, USCIS standard processing is taking anywhere from 1 – 3 months. Premium processed petitions continues to be reviewed within 15 days—but, remember, the processing fee was raised to $1410 last fall.

Yes, there are those out there who will tell you that they have had their petitions returned more quickly without paying for premium processing. However, that is purely anecdotal and not the norm. Even a blind bat can find its way out of cave if it bumps its head enough times.

In addition—and perhaps more significantly—there are delays in issuing receipt and approval notices (even with premium processing) as well as updating the USCIS database to reflect approvals. This is significant because (1) a receipt notice is necessary to schedule an application interview at the consulate and (2) the consulate will not issue a visa until it can confirm through the USCIS database that a petition has, in fact, been approved.

VI. U.S. CONSULATES

U.S. Consulates continue to run amuck, operating as autonomous city states subject to little to no oversight or supervision. As a result, there is a considerable lack of consistency with regard to what to expect when an artist goes to a consulate to apply for a visa.

Some consulates are asking for original approval notices as well as copies of the visa petition, even though they are supposed to ask for neither. However, predictably, we are mostly seeing this being an issue for students approved for their first O-1.
Many consulates are taking longer to process visa applications as they conduct more thorough background checks and fraud investigations. Depending upon an artist’s ethnicity and/or or past travel history, this can cause significant delays.

Again, contrary to what you may be hearing, the U.S. Consulate in London continues to be a nightmare for O-1 visas except for all but the most famous or well-known artists. If mangers or agents are telling you that their artists have had no trouble in London, congratulate them and then ignore them.

VII. ENTRY ON ESTA/VISITOR VISAS

This continues to be a significant obstacle. Please remember, except in very limited circumstances, artists are not authorized to enter and perform in the U.S. through ESTA or with a visitor (B-1/B-2) visa REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE PAID!

A non-U.S. artist manager was recently refused entry merely for saying that he was entering the U.S. to “help” one of his artists move out of his apartment. The immigration officer presumed “help” meant “providing professional services.” Whereas the same artist manager was permitted to enter only weeks before to attend a booking conference.

The primary issue continues to be that, even in those instances when an may be legally entitled to enter the U.S. either through ESTA or with a visitor (B-1/B-2) visa, an immigration officer the complete and unfettered authority to refuse entry to anyone for any reason.

As the rules can change at any time, it is critical that you consistently check with reliable sources (ie: not chat rooms, facebook groups, or “the collective mind”) for updates and developments before booking a non-U.S. artist or group. At the very least, it’s always best to check and confirm with multiple sources that whatever information you are given is, in fact, accurate. (As a general rule, the length of time someone claims to have been doing anything in the arts industry is often disproportionate to their actual expertise in knowing how to do it!)

As always, for official and reliable visa information, we recommend:

1) www.artistsfromabroad.org
2) The USCIS website: www.uscis.gov
3) The US Department of State website: www.travel.state.gov
4) The US Customs and Border Patrol website: www.cbp.gov
5) The American Immigration Lawyers Association (www.aila.org)

You can also always find updated information on the “resource” page of our website: www.ggartslaw.com. And if there’s something in particular you want to know about, be sure to contact us!

_________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and other legal, project management, and business issues for the performing arts, as well as to sign up for our newsletters and follow us on social media visit www.ggartslaw.com or www.gginternationalllc.com 

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:
THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a nasty email, filing a lawsuit, or doing anything rash!

 

 

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Touring, Visas | Comments Closed

THE ARTIST VISA UPDATE FROM HELL as of July 17, 2018

Tuesday, July 17th, 2018

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq., Robyn Guilliams, Esq., and Christopher Dowley, Esq.

I hope everyone is having a wonderful summer…because we are just about the ruin it. So be prepared for some serious sunburn, chiggers, sand fleas, and food poisoning as we give you the latest updates:

 

 

I.    NEW USCIS POLICY ALLOWS VISA PETITIONS TO BE DENIED WITHOUT FIRST ISSUING AN RFE

Effective September 11, 2018, USCIS adjudicators will have “full discretion” to deny visa petitions without first having to issue a “Request for Evidence” (“RFE”) or a “Notice of Intent to Deny” (“NOID”).

This new policy reverses the existing USCIS policy on RFEs, dating back to 2013, whereby, except in extreme cases where a petition was clearly deniable or there was no possibility of approval (such as requesting the wrong visa category), USCIS adjudicators were instructed to issue an RFE or a NOID and provide a petitioner an opportunity to provide additional evidence or correct any deficiencies prior to denying the petition. According to the USCIS Policy Memorandum issued (ironically) on July 13, 2018, the new RFE policy “restores to the adjudicator full discretion to deny applications, petitions, and requests without first issuing an RFE or a NOID, when appropriate.” The new policy memorandum provides the following examples of situations where a petition can be denied without an RFE:

  • If, in the sole discretion of the USCIS adjudicator, the petition was submitted without sufficient evidence; or
  • Where the petition does not contain a statutorily required form or submission.

In other words, even simple oversights such as failing to provide a no-objection letter from the correct union, forgetting to submit a contract, or merely forgetting to check a box or sign a form could result in a denial of the entire petition with no opportunity to fix the problem without re-filing the entire petition! You will only know what was wrong AFTER the petition has been denied. While there will remain an opportunity to file an appeal, appeals can take months and,   given that an adjudicator has “full discretion”, there is little change of an appeal being granted anyway.

According to the USCIS July 13, 2018 Policy Memorandum:

This policy is intended to discourage frivolous or substantially incomplete filings used as “placeholder” filings and encourage applicants, petitioners, and requestors to be diligent in collecting and submitting required evidence. 

Whilst on his way to the arctic to club a baby seal, USCIS Director L. Francis Cissna further explained:

“For too long, our immigration system has been bogged down with frivolous or meritless claims that slow down processing for everyone, including legitimate petitioners. Through this long overdue policy change, USCIS is restoring full discretion to our immigration officers to deny incomplete and ineligible applications and petitions submitted for immigration benefits…Doing so will discourage frivolous filings and skeletal applications used to game the system, ensure our resources are not wasted, and ultimately improve our agency’s ability to efficiently and fairly adjudicate requests for immigration benefits in full accordance with our laws.” 

Indulge me to offer my own translation:

“For too long, our immigration system has been bogged down with people from other countries trying to obtain visas. By gaming the system so that petitioners will no longer  know in advance why their visa petitions are being denied, we can greatly improve our ability to deny petitions more efficiently and, thereby, continue to make America great.”   

 Accordingly, we are recommending the following:

  • If you can’t decide from which union to obtain a no-objection letter, get a no-objection letter from all of them.
  • Do NOT use letters from peer organizations where there are unions that might possibly be willing to issue a no-objection letter.
  • Make sure that all itineraries include the FULL names and addresses of all venues, employers, presenters, etc.
  • If engagements have been booked through an agent, provide a copy of the written agreement between the artist and the agent, as well as proof that each venue, employer, presenter, etc. has authorized the petitioner to be the petitioner.
  • As there are no longer any second changes, throw everything you can into the petition–background materials on each venue, each award, each expert, and each publication, etc. Make no assumptions. Unless your concert pianist has also been on America’s Got Talent, the USCIS adjudicator will have no frame of reference.
  • Do not assume that just because an artist has previously been approved, that you can give less evidence the next time. Approach each petition as if it’s the first one.

Given the increased risk having a petition simply denied with no notice, we are also recommending premium processing for most petitions. At the very least, you will know sooner rather than later if you will have to re-file the entire petition.

Should you actually want to read the July 13, 2018 Policy Memorandum, pour a glass of rum and go to the following link:

July 13, 2018 USCIS Policy Memorandum 

 

II.    USCIS IS BEING TASKED WITH IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT

Officially, USCIS was never meant to be tasked with immigration enforcement. Rather, the purpose of USCIS was strictly limited to the adjudication or administration of immigration benefits, such as processing applications for visas, green cards, naturalization, and humanitarian benefits. Instead, Immigration Customs and Enforcement (“ICE”) was charged with the enforcement of immigration laws and violations. As a result, whilst USCIS regularly reported cases of fraud or misrepresentation to ICE, denials of visa petitions, even in instances where a beneficiary was determined to be a “status violator” (ie: performing illegally in the U.S.) or an “overstay” (ie: remaining in the U.S. after they were supposed to leave), were not.

On June 28, 2018, USCIS issued a new Policy Memorandum whereby, effective immediately, USCIS adjudicators have been instructed to issue a notice to appear before an immigration judge (“NTA”) to all beneficiaries whose lawful status expires while a petition or request is pending before USCIS!   

This will have a major impact on artists and students in the U.S. who seek to extend their O or P status, change their employer, or seek to change their status to a different nonimmigrant classification while remaining in the United States. Current Immigration laws allow a person to file a visa petition or an extension or change of status and remain in the U.S. provided the petition is filed while the beneficiary’s underlying nonimmigrant status remains valid. For example, an artist whose O-1 visa is about to expire can file for a new O-1 and remain in the U.S. so long as the new petition is filed before the artist’s current O-1 expires. However, due to lengthy USCIS processing times, it is not uncommon for the artist’s O-1 status to have expired by the time USCIS adjudicates the petition.

Under the new policy, if the petition is approved, there is no problem. But if the petition is denied, under the terms of the new policy, the beneficiary would be issued an NTA and would be required to appear before an immigration judge and, possibly, be subject to deportation proceedings.

According to the USCIS Policy Memorandum, “USCIS is updating its NTA policy to better align with enforcement priorities.” USCIS Director L. Francis Cissna paused from munching on a dead puppy to further comment:

“For too long, USCIS officers uncovering instances of fraudulent or criminal activity have been limited in their ability to help ensure U.S. immigration laws are faithfully executed. This updated policy equips USCIS officers with clear guidance they need and deserve to support the enforcement priorities established by the president, keep our communities safe, and protect the integrity of our immigration system from those seeking to exploit it”

 Permit me once again to offer my own translation:

“For too long, USCIS officers have been uncovering instances of foreigners actually entering the U.S. This updated policy equips USCIS officers with the tools needed to support the president’s policies of keeping those people out.”

Accordingly, we are recommending the following:

  • When an artist wishes to obtain a new O or P visa, advise them to leave the U.S. at the end of the artist’s current O or P classification, wait for the new petition to be approved, obtain a new visa from a U.S. consulate, and then re-enter.
  • In situations where an artist wishes to change status or extend a current status whilst in the U.S., the petition should be filed far enough in advance so that the petition can be APPROVED before the expiration of the artist’s current status;
  • The artist should engage in no performance activities (paid or unpaid) in the U.S. after the expiration date of their current visa classification.

Should you actually want to read the June 28, 2018 USCIS Policy Memorandum, pour another glass of rum and go to the following link:

June 28, 2018 USCIS Policy Memorandum

III.    ALL VISA PETITIONS FROM CURRENT OR FORMER STUDENTS WILL BE VETTED FOR STATUS VIOLATIONS

Effective August 9, 2018, when any student in F, J, or M status who was admitted to the U.S. for “Duration of Status” (“D/S”) files a visa petition for a different visa (such as an O or P), USCIS adjudicators are being directed to investigate exhaustively whether or not such student is or ever was a “status violator” (ie: performed illegally in the U.S.) or an “overstay” (ie: remained in the U.S. after they were supposed to leave.)

USCIS has never been particularly keen to approve recently graduated students for O visas, particularly if they sought to do so whilst remaining in the U.S. Regardless, under the existing, soon to be replaced, USCIS policy, when a student sought to obtain an O or P visa the student was given “the benefit of the doubt” about how long they were admitted to the U.S. before being considered to have violated their status (ie “performed illegally”) and/or remained in the U.S. after they were supposed to leave (an “overstay.”) A student who is or was in the U.S. on an F, J, or M visa was only determined to be an “overstay” or a “status violator” if USCIS “formally” determined there to be a violation of status. Even then, the student was only determined to be in the U.S. illegally AFTER this formal finding and never retroactively, or without notice. In other words, USCIS was less concerned with whether or not the student had violated their F, J, or M visa than determining whether or not the student was eligible for the O or P visa in the first place.

No longer.

Pursuant to a USCIS Policy Memorandum issued on May 10, 2018, on or after August 9, 2018, USCIS adjudicators have been instructed to pursue what amounts to a “no stone left unturned” policy whereby they are expressly empowered to asses all the available historical and background material collected on each individual student, using all the tools in the toolbox to establish a violation or overstay and consequent accrual of unlawful presence. Specifically, a student will be presumed to be unlawfully present in the U.S., without a formal finding or notice, on the earliest of the following:

  • The student fails to continue or complete their course of study, or authorized activity (including failing to completing optional practical training plus any authorized grace period);
  • The student engages in any unauthorized activity—such as performing without work authorization (even for free!)—not permitted by their F-1 status;
  • The student fails to leave the U.S. the day AFTER the date of completion of study/authorized activity and/or the approved grace period;
  • The student fails to leave the U.S. on the specific date, if any, listed on their I-94; or
  • The student stays in the U.S. after the completion of her course of study or authorized activity (including the completion of optional practical training plus any approved grace period)

Moreover, pursuant to the June 28, 2018 USCIS Policy Memorandum discussed previously, such violations will be presumably be reported to ICE.

Traditionally, when a student on an F, J, or M visa comes to us seeking an O or P visa, we have traditionally advised that, so long as the O or P petition is “filed” prior to the student’s graduation or OPT expiration (plus any grace periods) the student will not be considered an overstay. Moreover, so long as the student does not engage in any performances (even for free!), the student will not be considered to have violated their status. However, after August 9, 2018, we will be advising all students on an F, J, or M visa who seek an O or P visa, the following:

  • Do not ask for a Change of Status from F-1 to O or P. Rather, file a petition and then leave the U.S. whilst the petition is pending.
  • If they must ask for Change of Status:
    • Make sure they have significant professional (non-academic) credits and achievements; and
    • File the petition far enough in advance so that the petition will be approved before the expiration of their current F-1 status or OPT expires.

Should you actually want to read the May 10, 2018 Policy Memorandum, add some bourbon to that glass of rum and go to the following link:

May 10, 2018 USCIS Policy Memorandum

IV.    CURRENT UCSIS VISA PROCESSING TIMES RANGE FROM 3 WEEKS TO 3 MONTHS

Visa petition adjudication times at both the Vermont Service Center and the California Service Center are currently wildly unpredictable—currently taking anywhere from 3 weeks to 4 months. We have been able to find no pattern, consistency, or predictability. Moreover, as always, the USCIS case processing times website is completely useless and inaccurate. Please plan accordingly—which, for our office, usually means premium processing and then the whole office heading out for happy hour.

Can you mix vodka with bourbon? Time to find out.

V.    THE IRS HAS MADE A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE TO CWA ELIGIBILITY

Not content to let USCIS have all the fun, the IRS has announced that beginning October 1, 2018 nonresident performers must earn $10,000 or more in gross income (within the calendar year) to qualify for a CWA.

The $10,000 threshold applies to individual performers, so if individual members of a group gross less than the threshold amount, they are not eligible for a CWA.  But – keep in mind that gross income includes per diem payments, merchandise income and potential overages (not just artist fees!)

Unfortunately, performers who don’t qualify for a CWA due to the income threshold are subject to 30% withholding.

For more details, commencing banging your head on your desk and see: https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/central-withholding-agreements.

VI.    AND LET’S NOT FORGET ABOUT THE U.S. CONSULATES

  • We were recently reminded by the U.S. State Department that approximately a year ago the Trump regime revoked the 2012 Obama Executive Order which called on all U.S. Consulates to shorten visa wait times. So, naturally, there are now longer wait times. 
  • Despite the fact that, officially, artists are not required to bring original I-797 Approval Notices with them when they apply for a visa at a U.S. Consulate, reports abound of consular officers hassling artists and insisting that they must have the original. Some officers are also insisting that the artist bring an entire copy of the visa petition with them. There are also increasing reports of similar requests by immigration officers upon an artist’s entry into the U.S. at the border or an airport. As a result, we are recommending:
    • That, where, possible, artists bring the original I-797 approval notice with them to the consulate; and
    • That artists be given copies of the relevant bits of their petition—which would include copies of the forms, itinerary, contracts, and a sample of the evidence.
  •  Any artist seeking to apply for his or her first O-1, should continue to avoid the U.S. Consulate in London at all costs.
  • Artists from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen, North Korea, and Venezuela are not going to be issued visas. Don’t bother. Artists who were born in these countries, but now have citizenship in other countries, or have parents from these countries, or have ever visited these countries, MAY or MAY NOT get visas, but its going to take much longer for them to be processed at the consulate—like 3 – 4 months. In addition, artists who have any relationships, connections, or have made visits to any other countries in the world that the Trump regime does not like, also MAY or MAY NOT get visas, but its going to take much longer for them to be processed at the consulate as well. In short, who the hell knows? We don’t. Stop asking.

 Time for TEQUILA!

VII.     NEW USCIS I-907 FORM FOR PREMIUM PROCESSING 

On June 26, 2018, USCIS revised and issued a new I-907 form to request premium processing. Other than moving things around and making the form longer, nothing really significant has changed. Regardless, starting August 28, 2018, USCIS will only accept the I-907 marked 06/26/18.

Starting to feel woozy.

VIII.     SOME FINAL THOUGHTS

For those of you who have managed to read this far, click here for a rare behind the scenes look at how USCIS policy is made:

We are living in challenging times and the rules can change at any time. As always, for official and reliable visa information, we recommend:

1) www.artistsfromabroad.org

2) The USCIS website: www.uscis.gov

3) The US Department of State website: www.travel.state.gov

4) The US Customs and Border Patrol website: www.cbp.gov

5) The American Immigration Lawyers Association (www.aila.org)  

You can also always find updated information on the “resource” page of our website: www.ggartslaw.com. And if there’s something in particular you want to know about, be sure to contact us!

_________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and other legal, project management, and business issues for the performing arts, as well as to sign up for our newsletters and follow us on social media visit ggartslaw.com

To ask your own question, write to lawanddisorder@musicalamerica.com

All questions on any topic related to legal, management, and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. Questions will be answered ONLY in future blogs. GG Arts Law reserves the right to alter, edit or, amend questions to focus on specific issues or to avoid names, circumstances, or any information that could be used to identify or embarrass a specific individual or organization. All questions will be posted anonymously and/or posthumously.

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a nasty email, filing a lawsuit, or doing anything rash!

 

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Taxes, Touring, Visas | Comments Closed

SOME CANTANKEROUS MUSINGS ON PROPOSED LEGISLATION TO SPEED UP USCIS INCOMPETENCY

Thursday, March 1st, 2018

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

For those of you who are unaware, on February 28, 2018 U.S. Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), both former chairmen of the Senate Judiciary Committee, have introduced the Arts Require Timely Service Act (ARTS Act); a bill that would require U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to provide premium processing (15-day turnaround) free of charge for any arts-related O or P visa petition that it fails to adjudicate within 14 days as required by law. You can read the official press release here:

https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/leahy-and-hatch-introduce-bipartisan-arts-act-to-speed-processing-of-visas-for-visiting-artists

Many people have already asked us to weigh in on this development.

Be careful what you ask for.

First, and foremost, I must express my sincere awe and admiration with regard to the amazing and tireless arts advocacy of many people, but particularly that of Heather Noonan of the League of American Orchestras, who have been working on this for years. Given that this is actually a bill that is being “re-introduced”, having been previously introduced and rejected, getting it back on the table for re-consideration is nothing less than heroic.

However, as to my thoughts? Let me first share two recent Requests for Evidence (RFE) issued by USCIS which were brought to our attention. One asked for further evidence as to whether or not an artist who led a group which also bore the name of the artist performed a “critical role” with the group. The requested clarification as to an artist’s actual country of nationality where the petitioner wrote the word “German” as opposed to “Germany” on the i-129 form where it asked for “Country of Citizenship.” Given such stellar cognitive abilities, you can forgive my hesitation if my heart does not sing out to the heavens in joy and tearful gratitude over the prospect of merely speeding up a broken, illogical, frustrating, and inane process as opposed to actually proposing anything substantive to fix it. Its like offering the captain of the Titanic the option of actually averting the iceberg and, instead, having him decide merely to speed up the ship and get the disaster over with more quickly.

Its also important to understand that term “adjudicate” does not mean “approve.” An “adjudication” merely means that USCIS will review the petition and either approve it or issue an RFE. When an RFE is issued, the adjudication process is put on hold until the petitioner responds to the RFE. So, if passed, the prosed bill would provide that USCIS either has to approve a petition or issue an RFE within 14 days after a petition is received, or USCIS will be required to spew out some sort of inane dribble free of charge within the next 15 days to stop the clock and buy itself some more time. In short, if you want to guarantee any adjudication in less than 30 days, a petitioner will still be required to pay an additional $1225 for Premium Processing.

Nonetheless, given the lack of any meaningful acknowledgement or support of the arts on the part of the U.S. Government, I am always grateful for any crumbs that are tossed to us, however inadvertently, from the banqueting table. Still, I’d personally rather forgo free expedited USCIS processing time if it meant that, in exchange, USCIS would implement some sort of meaningful screening process when hiring USCIS examiners, as opposed to the current system of requiring only a pulse, potty training, and a patriotic dedication to protecting the American way of life from nefarious violinists.

In the meantime, I’ll take my crumbs, crawl back into my hole, and work on visa petitions.

_________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and other legal, project management, and business issues for the performing arts, as well as to sign up for our newsletters and follow us on social media visit ggartslaw.com

To ask your own question, write to lawanddisorder@musicalamerica.com

All questions on any topic related to legal, management, and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. Questions will be answered ONLY in future blogs. GG Arts Law reserves the right to alter, edit or, amend questions to focus on specific issues or to avoid names, circumstances, or any information that could be used to identify or embarrass a specific individual or organization. All questions will be posted anonymously and/or posthumously.

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a nasty email, filing a lawsuit, or doing anything rash!

 

 

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Visas | Comments Closed

CAN A U.S. ORCHESTRA REFUSE TO PAY A NON-U.S. MUSICIAN?

Tuesday, February 27th, 2018

By Brian Taylor Goldstein

Dear Law and Disorder:

I am a musician on an O-1 visa that my agent got for me. It covers multiple engagements. Last September, I was hired to be a section musician with an orchestra. They have been paying me up until now, but now they are saying that legally they have to withhold my paycheck and can’t pay me because they just realized my visa does not name them specifically and I have to get another one just with their name on it if I want to get paid for the last two weeks. If I don’t, they say they have to fire me. They checked with their lawyer and he says its because their musician contracts require them to pay me as an employee and that my visa only covers independent contractors, not employees. He says that according the USCIS regulations [8 CFR 214.2(o)], employers must be listed on separate O-1 petitions where it says “employer” on the form. Is this true? I thought the O-1 allowed me to work for whomever I wanted because it was a multiple-employer O-1.

Sadly, we get this question a lot. To be fair, U.S. tax and immigration laws and regulations are a huge, big, stinking pile of insanity. Fortunately, most of the folks in our industry who work regularly with foreign artists make at least a valiant effort to figure out the rules as best they can, either by consulting experts or colleagues or through their own research. Unfortunately, there are others, be they forgotten in the bowels of a hugely complex institution or trapped in their own dark worlds of paranoia, anal retention, and over-simplicity, who do not. These include most, but, by no means all, of the following: (1) the international student officers and offices of most schools and universities; (2) the personnel directors of small orchestras; and (3) any non-profit with a volunteer attorney who only practices insurance law, but claims to be an expert on all subjects.

It appears that you have been dragged into the dark world of numbers (2) and, perhaps (3).

The O-1 visa category is not only available for artists, but also for the field of business, science, education, and athletics. Technically, the sodden-witted pignut at your orchestra is correct that, in most instances, an individual with an O-1 visa who works for more than one employer must file a separate petition for each employer. HOWEVER, he or she is ignoring the fact that USCIS regulations 8 CFR 214.2(o)(2)(iv)(D) provides an exception for artists (and ONLY artists) as follows:

In the case of a petition filed for an artist or entertainer, a petitioner may add additional performances or engagements during the validity period of the petition without filing an amended petition, provided the additional performances or engagements require an alien of O-1 caliber.

Moreover, for purposes of work authorization, USCIS does not make distinctions either between full-time and part-time employment or between employees and independent contractors. Why? Because as we try to remind everyone again and again and again and again and again: U.S. law requires anyone who “provides services” in the U.S. to have work authorization regardless of whether or not they are paid for such services. So, as a work visa is required even if an artist performs for free, the manner in which they are paid is irrelevant for immigration purposes.

Admittedly, what adds to the confusion is that USCIS requires the same USCIS form (i-129) to be completed not just for O-1 visa petitions, but for a whole alphabet of other visa petitions as well: E, H, P, L, M, R and Q, among others. Because of the government’s “one-size-fits-all” mentality, the i-129 form uses the broad term “employer” to cover every possible scenario in which one person can engage the services of another. In other words, USCIS does not use the term “employer” to refer exclusively to an “employer/employee” relationship.

The issue of whether or not an individual performing services for another should be paid as an “employee” or “independent contractor” is determined by various federal and state regulations, laws, and authorities, such as the Department of Labor and the IRS. USCIS is part of the Department of Homeland Security. Once it authorizes someone “to work”, it simply doesn’t care about how, or even if, they are paid. That’s not in its purview. Which means that, so long as your O-1 authorizes you to provide services to more than one entity, then you can be paid either as an employee or independent contractor. Your orchestra is not violating U.S. immigration law by paying you as an employee.

Amusingly, your orchestra is actually finds itself in even greater peril by refusing to pay you for work already performed. The same state federal and state regulations, laws, and authorities that determine whether or not someone is an employee or an independent contractor, also make it explicitly clear that it is illegal to refuse to pay someone for work already performed based on a claim that they violated immigration law. Its perfectly acceptable—nay, required—to refuse employment to or fire someone who is not legally authorized to work in the U.S. However, that does not apply retroactively. If the work has been performed, even illegally, the worker must be paid. Otherwise, unscrupulous employers would just hire foreign workers and then refuse to pay them. Work authorization and payment are to very different things!

So, there’s your answer. However, getting your orchestra to understand or accept this reality may not be easy. People in the aforementioned categories prefer simple answers to complex questions and are often loathe to accept nuance. So, here’s simple suggestion: Are you or your orchestra a member of the American Federation of Musicians? If so, stop reading this and call AFM now. Trust me, they will be more than happy to make this matter very simple for the orchestra indeed!

_________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and other legal, project management, and business issues for the performing arts, as well as to sign up for our newsletters and follow us on social media visit ggartslaw.com

To ask your own question, write to lawanddisorder@musicalamerica.com

All questions on any topic related to legal, management, and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. Questions will be answered ONLY in future blogs. GG Arts Law reserves the right to alter, edit or, amend questions to focus on specific issues or to avoid names, circumstances, or any information that could be used to identify or embarrass a specific individual or organization. All questions will be posted anonymously and/or posthumously.

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a nasty email, filing a lawsuit, or doing anything rash!

 

 

 

 

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Arts Management, Employees, Independent Contractors, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Visas | Comments Closed

The impact of Trump’s revised travel ban won’t have much impact on the arts!

Wednesday, September 27th, 2017

Just a quick update for those of you wondering about the arts implications of the revised travel ban:

Aside from adding North Korea and Venezuela (with the latter not actually be a “real” ban) to the list, everything else is pretty much the same as it was…with everyone in the world regardless of citizenship continuing to be subjected to the increased whims and heightened scrutiny of consulate officers and Immigration Border Officers as you have already been experiencing since February of 2017.

So, continue doing what you’ve been doing–including cursing, drinking, and kneeling.

 

Posted in Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Visas | Comments Closed

THE TRIALS AND TRIBULATIONS OF A TRIBUTE BAND

Wednesday, September 6th, 2017

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

We hope everyone had a great summer. Sorry we haven’t posted in a while, but we’ve been a bit “pre-occupied” with in the world of artist visas. It seems something changes every time Trump breaks wind. So, let’s take a break and go address two completely non-visa related questions that came in over the summer—both involving tribute bands.

Dear Law and Disorder:

I am wondering if I could produce a tribute concert for some singers who are no longer alive. I am not trying to copyright anything. Would I need to get approval from the heirs or estates of the respective deceased singers?

First, let’s clarify. I presume you are producing a concert which will be a tribute “to” some dead singers as opposed to being performed “by” some dead singers as that will, indeed, require the approval of the heirs before you can dig up their dead relatives. On the other hand, if you are planning some sort of Thriller tribute performed by actual zombies, go for it.

The answer to your question depends on how you perceive a “tribute” concert. If your singers will simply be performing a concert featuring all the songs of a deceased artist without pretending to imitate or impersonate the artist or without featuring the images of the artist in the concert (or in the promotion of the concert), then so long as either you (as the producer) or the venue where the concert takes place obtains the necessary performance licenses (ASCAP, BMI, etc.) then you need nothing else. Performance licenses are all you need for a singer to perform the works of another artist, dead or alive, in concert. However, doing anything beyond “stand and sing” could require additional licenses either from the deceased artist’s publisher or the artist’s estate. Depending upon the state in which the deceased artist lived, to use the images of the deceased artist to promote your concert will involve obtaining rights of publicity and endorsement of the artist. Regardless of the state in which the artist lived, you will also need to license the images themselves from the owner of the images (which may or may not be the deceased artist’s estate.) To have your singers imitate or impersonate the deceased artist could also involve obtaining trademark and/or copyright licenses depending upon how “iconic” the artists are which are being “tributed.” (I think I just made that word up.) The key issue to remember is that calling a concert a “tribute” does not alieve you of obtaining whatever rights, permissions, and licenses that may be required.

Dear Law and Disorder:

I have a tribute show and an agent hired me to perform at the venue. I have a signed contract. I did the gig and they did pay for the expenses of my band travel and hotel transportation, but the payment of the band was to be made 3 days after the show. The next day they called me and said that the show was a piece of crap that they want their money back. What is the best way to resolve this issue? I have called them and no response? What do you recommend will be the next step for me?

To paraphrase Judge Judy (who also happens to be on my wish list for the U.S. Supreme Court): “Once you eat the steak, you have to pay for it.”

I love the fact that you have a signed contract. Too many artists don’t even have that. In this case, unless your contract made payment contingent on the venue being satisfied with your performance (which I can’t imagine as that would be insane), then the venue is paying for your services, not your quality. If you provide services and a venue accepts those services, then they have to pay regardless of how crappy your performance may or may not have been. (And there are a lot of crappy performances out there!) Even if you did not have a signed contract this would still be the case. Legally, if Person A knowingly allows Person B to perform or provide services, then this creates an “implied contract” whereby Person A is legally required to pay Person B.

The problem with any contract, signed or implied, is enforcement. Just because someone is legally obligated to do something doesn’t mean they will. That’s what a breach of contract is all about. A valid, enforceable contract merely gives you the right to go before a judge, present you case, and, if you win, have the judge enforce it. Short of that, it merely give you the right to enter into a spitting contest.

You don’t indicate in your question whether “they” refers to the agent or the venue. If the agent isn’t returning your calls, call the venue. If it’s the venue, call the agent. In these situations, you also want to do more than call. Send emails. Send letters. Send letters as attachments to emails. Do whatever it takes to make a pest out of yourself. If either the agent or the venue threatens to “ruin your reputation” or other “bad publicity”, ignore them—if either one had that kind of influence they wouldn’t have stiffed you in the first place. Threatening “bad publicity” to resolve an issue is always an act of desperation by people who are actually incapable of doing so.

Whether or not it’ worth filing a lawsuit depends on how much you are owed. Some amounts are just not worth the time and cost. Some courts offer a “small claims” option with less time and cost. Regardless, while it’s not always possible, in the future always try and negotiate a deposit or, at the very least, payment immediately after the concert.

_________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and other legal, project management, and business issues for the performing arts, as well as to sign up for our newsletters aGG_logo_for-facebooknd follow us on social media visit www.ggartslaw.com

To ask your own question, write to lawanddisorder@musicalamerica.com

All questions on any topic related to legal, management, and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. Questions will be answered ONLY in future blogs. GG Arts Law reserves the right to alter, edit or, amend questions to focus on specific issues or to avoid names, circumstances, or any information that could be used to identify or embarrass a specific individual or organization. All questions will be posted anonymously and/or posthumously.
__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a nasty email, filing a lawsuit, or doing anything rash!

 

 

 

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Artist Management, Contracts, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Licensing, Music Rights | Comments Closed

WHY ARE ARTISTS BEING DENIED ENTRY INTO THE US? HOW DID IT COME TO THIS AND WHO DO WE BLAME?

Friday, March 17th, 2017

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

By now, you should all be aware that the incidents of artists and performers from a wide range of nationalities arriving in the United States as visitors (either on visitor visas (B-1/B-2) or through the visa waiver/ESTA program) and being refused entry are growing at an alarming rate. These artists are being pulled aside, subjected to hours of questioning, and, in many instances, being handcuffed and held overnight until return flights become available…all without the benefit of being able to contact anyone or seek counsel.

We should all be angry and outraged. However, the value of general cathartic explosions notwithstanding, it is important to know whom to blame and where to focus all of the outrage and anger.

First and foremost, unlike some artists and others have asserted, no laws or regulations have been changed with regard to the visa waiver/ESTA program. To the contrary, ever since the United States immigration laws were overhauled in the 1990s, it has always been the case that artists are not permitted to perform in the US either on visitor visas or through the visa waiver/ESTA program regardless of whether or not artists are paid or whether or not tickets are sold. In order to perform, artists must have an appropriate artist visa—which, in most cases, is going to be either an O visa or a P visa.

Very often, an artist, manager, or presenter will contact our office in situations where there has been a list minute engagement opportunity and there is no time for an artist to obtain an O or P visa. They will almost always ask whether the artist can perform without an O visa or P visa if the artist does not get paid—or, worse, presume that this is the case. No! Payment—or lack thereof—is not the deciding factor. The deciding factor is whether or not there is an audience.

One of the few exceptions to this counter-intuitive restriction is that an artist may enter the US either on a visitor visa or through visa waiver/ESTA provided the artist’s sole purpose is to audition or perform a showcase for the sole purpose of obtaining future work and engagements and provided ALL of the following requirements are met:

(1) The artist is not being paid;

(2) The performance is closed to the public; AND

(3) The performance is restricted to promoters, managers, presenters, bookers or other industry professionals who book or engage artists.

Merely calling a performance a “showcase” does not make it a showcase. Performing, even for free, in the hopes of obtaining future engagements is not sufficient. Rather, the narrow crack in the otherwise strict prohibition against artists performing without an O visa or P visa was created purely to allow artists to attend booking conferences (such as Arts Midwest, PAE, or APAP) or a traditional audition where the artist performs before a few gruff and aloof producers or directors. If at any time the general public is allowed to attend (even if no tickets are sold), then it is not considered an “audition” or “showcase” and the exception does not apply.  Accordingly, promotional and publicity tours do not qualify either. Similarly, if an artist is entering to perform as part of training program and the performance is open to the public, the exception also does not apply.

As to why such onerous restrictions were ever enacted in the first place, the “official” argument is that it was to protect the United States labor market. True as this may be, it reflects an offensive disregard of the fact that artists are unique and all performances, good or bad, are distinctive. Unlike non-US manufacturing labor who arguably may have similar training and experience as their US counterparts, non-US artists cannot merely be substituted or swapped for a US alternative who just happen to have similar technical abilities. If you have seen one artist, you most definitely have not seen them all. However, without in the least defending these regulations, it is worth bearing in mind that the United States has no Ministry of Culture to advocate policy on behalf of arts and artists. Rather, the arts must rely upon a loose coalition of independently funded arts advocates and institutions whose impassionate pleas are shouted from the wastelands of Whoville. While we also have a National Endowment for the Arts titularly funded by the government, it is purely a granting institution which admirably struggles to disburse crumbs and scraps to the artists crowded at the children’s table—and which, as of today, President Trump has proposed to eliminate entirely.

Nevertheless, for many years festivals, presenters, venues, schools, and others have expanded and relied upon the narrow “audition” or “showcase” exception by providing artists with a letter asserting that an artist is entering to perform an “audition” or “showcase”, is not being paid, and that the audience is restricted only to industry professionals. With only the rarest of exceptions, this usually worked. To be fair, it probably shouldn’t have worked as often as it did, but no harm no foul.

Then came President Trump.

Without having to amend or change any existing laws, the recent Executive Orders have imposed immediate “heightened scrutiny” and “extreme vetting” at all levels of the immigration process by mandating strict enforcement of laws and regulations already in place. (Sadly, these particular directives are not amongst those subject to the recent judicial restraining orders and stays.) As a result, we have entered a new era whereby all immigration officers, examiners, and other officials have now been instructed to “believe none” and “suspect all.”

For those of us in the arts and entertainment field, this means that artists who have hitherto had little trouble entering and performing either on a visitor visas or through visa waiver/ESTA—even in those instances where they were never supposed to do so—are now being stopped, questioned, and turned away. Just as bad, artists such as authors, painters, and designers who are legitimately entering the United States as visitors to attend conferences or to attend performances or exhibitions of works they created entirely outside of the US are now at a greater risk of being turned away merely by admitting that they are artists and do not have an artist visas.

As I was once taught by a senior attorney whom, in retrospect, should never really have been mentoring anyone in the first place, solving any problem first requires the assessment of blame. In this case, as frustrating as it is, it is not entirely appropriate to blame immigration or consular officers who, however aggressively, are being instructed to enforce laws that have always been there to enforce. Nor is it reasonable to presume a vast conspiracy focused on artists from specific countries. Rather, a more reasonable assessment of culpability would be as follows:

(1) The immigration laws and regulations that have always been unreasonable and unduly burdensome for decades with regard to artists, but which have gone unchallenged and mostly unnoticed because they were unenforced without any degree of consistency.

(2) The venues, record labels, managers, and others who offhandedly give artists bad advice with the air of authority, but without the burden of accuracy.

(3) The artists who are all too willing to accept without challenge the venues, record labels, and managers so long as they are being told what they want to hear.

(4) The United States government which, as opposed to targeting artists with the explicit intention of thwarting efforts to promote tolerance and understanding through artistic exchange, is oblivious that the arts exist in the first place, much less serve any purpose.

(5) The White House for boastfully implementing a new paradigm whereby all are presumed guilty until proven innocent.

Aside from continuing to shout, scream, and protest through every available platform, what’s to be done?

(1) Whether you believe an artist requires a visa or not, if it is at all possible for an artist to obtain a visa, do so.

  • Having an O or P visa does not guaranty entry as both consulate officers and immigration offers have the unrestricted authority to deny visas or deny entry at any time for any reason. However, having an actual O or P visa in an artist’s passport will go a long way towards ameliorating the immediate presumption of an immigration officer that an artist arriving as a visitor is doing purely to threaten our way of life.

(2) If an artist legitimately meets the narrow “audition” or “showcase” exception, then the artist needs to be properly briefed and prepared as to what to expect and how best to answer invasive and probing questions in an atmosphere of stress and intimidation

  • This means that, in addition to providing a letter from the festival, presenter, or venue, the artist should also be armed with documentation about the booking conference or audition itself—such as a list of attendees, information about the production or entity for whom the artist is auditioning, etc.
  • Make sure there are no press releases, announcements, or other information on either the artist’s or venue’s website (or anywhere on the internet for that matter) suggesting or announcing that that artist is “touring” or “appearing” in the United States, much less providing a schedule of US engagements—particularly since, legally, there can be no US engagements!
  • The artist should have return tickets already booked to establish that the artist will only be staying in the United States for the time necessary to arrive, audition, and leave.

(3) Review an artist’s prior travel to the United States to make sure they have not previously engaged in any un-authorized performances and, if so, be prepared to address this.

(4) Make sure an artist has at least a few materials (such as reviews or CDs) establishing that the artist is, in fact, an artist.

(5) Whether you’re dealing with immigration, royalties, contracts, or licensing, Artists need to be at the forefront of their own business. Don’t presume the people advising you are knowledgeable or even have your best interest in mind. At the end of the day, if you have to cancel a performance or, worse, get deported, the festival, venue, or manager will move on. Its YOUR career on the line!

(6) Lastly, if an artist does get stopped, pulled aside, and faces the possibility of a refused admission, the artist should voluntarily request to withdraw his or her request to enter the United States and voluntarily offer to return home. Voluntarily withdrawing a request to enter does not count as a “denied entry” and will not blemish an artist’s immigration record for future travel. On the other hand, insisting on entry and then being “denied entry” and forcibly returned can have serious implications on future travel.

We are all on a roller coaster that shows no signs of slowing down. As we continue to hold on to the bar, we also continue to recommend that everyone consistently check with reliable sources (ie: not chat rooms or random google searches) for updates and developments before making any travel decisions, applying for visas, booking foreign artists, or entering to perform on visitor visas or through the visa waiver/ESTA program. We recommend:

1) www.artistsfromabroad.org

2) The USCIS website: www.uscis.gov

3) The US Department of State website: www.travel.state.gov

4) The US Customs and Border Patrol website: www.cbp.gov

5) The American Immigration Lawyers Association (www.aila.org)  

And we will continue to update on our blogs, social media, and newsletters as changes occur.

__________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and other legal, project management, and business issues for the performing arts, as well as to sign up for our newsletters and follow us on social media, visit ggartslaw.com

To ask your own question, write to

lawanddisorder@musicalamerica.com

All questions on any topic related to legal, management, and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. Questions will be answered ONLY in future blogs. GG Arts Law reserves the right to alter, edit or, amend questions to focus on specific issues or to avoid names, circumstances, or any information that could be used to identify or embarrass a specific individual or organization. All questions will be posted anonymously and/or posthumously.

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a nasty email, filing a lawsuit, or doing anything rash!

 

 

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Artist Management, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Touring, Visas | Comments Closed

What In The World Is Going On With Artist Visas as of March 7, 2017?

Saturday, March 11th, 2017

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Here we go again…

On March 6, 2017, President Trump issued a new Executive Order regarding US immigration to replace the previous Executive Order of January 27, 2017. The new Order takes effect on March 16, 2017 and expressly revokes the January 27, 2017 Order (which had been subject to a court issued temporary restraining order anyway.) The new Order…

  • Bans immigrant and nonimmigrant entries for citizens of six designated countries – Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen – for at least 90 days beginning on March 16, 2017. The new Order no longer includes Iraqi nationals in the 90-day travel ban.
  • Exempts certain categories of people, including lawful permanent residents (US “Green Card” holders), current US visa holders, and dual nationals traveling on a passport from a country that is not one of the six designated countries.
  • Confirms that no visa issued before March 16, 2017 will be revoked as a result of the Order, and that any individual with a revoked or cancelled visa as a result of the prior, January 27, 2017 Order is entitled to a travel document for travel and entry to the US. After March 16, 2017, nationals from the list of six countries will no longer receive visas, even if they have been approved for visas by USCIS.
  • Allows for exceptions and case-by-case waivers.
  • Provides that after 90 days, the citizens of these countries can be permanently banned.
  • Provides that the Secretary of State, Attorney General or Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security can at any time recommend that additional countries be added to the list or taken off of the list.
  • Immediately suspends the Visa Interview Waiver Program (VIWP) and effectively mandates in-person interviews for all nonimmigrant visa applicants.
  • Mandates heightened vetting and screening procedures at all levels of the immigration process, particularly immigrants and non-immigrants “who seek to enter the United States on a fraudulent basis.”

While there are other portions of the new Order that impact other areas of immigration, our main focus is on how all of this applies to artists and the Performing Arts. In the case of the new Executive Order, its actually the last two provisions which will have the most widespread impact on foreign artists. Here’s what you need to know:

HEIGHTENED VETTING AND SCREENING PROCEDURES AT ALL LEVELS OF THE IMMIGRATION PROCESS:   

It means that when seeking an O or P visa, regardless of the nationality of an artist, artists  may encounter additional scrutiny and delays at each stage of the process—from  petitioning USCIS for visa approval, to consulates issuing visas, to Immigration Officer’s admitting artists at the border. This applies to artists from any country in the world.

Given that the new Order specifically requires heightened vetting and screening of those “who seek to enter the United States on a fraudulent basis”, there is going to be even  more scrutiny and less forgiveness than ever before with regard to artists attempting to enter the US on visitor visas (B-1/B-2) or through the Visa Waiver Program (“ESTA”). We are already receiving reports of artists being held and detained for hours  upon entering the US to determine whether or not they are performing. Even artists  entering as visitors for the purpose of attending a conference or “performing a showcase” are being pulled aside and, in many cases, being refused entry. Artists entering with B- 1/B-2 visas or through the Visa Waiver Program (ESTA) are being pulled aside the  moment they say that they are “entertainers”, “performers”, or “artists.”

When an individual is held and detained, they are subject to interrogation as well as  demands to inspect their cell phones, luggage, and personal items. Any refusals can be groups for a refused entry, which will then stay on an artist’s record impeding future  visas and travel.

Everyone needs to understand and accept that: Artists cannot perform on visitor visas  (B-1/B-2) or through the Visa Waiver Program (“ESTA”) regardless of whether or   not they are being paid and regarding of whether or not tickets are sold. Except in   the most narrowly defined circumstances, US immigration law has always defined  “work” as it pertains to artists, as any kind of performance. Artists denied entry on the basis of fraud, will have a denied entry on their record, impeding future visas and travel.

Some presenters and venues in the US—particularly festivals and academic institutions  continue to advise artists that O and P visas are not required if an artist is not being paid  and/or if the performance is part of a training program. This is incorrect and always has been.

In addition, while artists with O and P visas, on the average, seem to be experiencing less trouble, even O and P visa holders, as well as green card holders, are being held and  detained in instances where an Immigration Officer believes they are citizens of or traveling from ANY country in the world whom they believe could pose a threat to the  US.

In short (I know, too late), an Immigration Officer has the unfettered authority and  discretion to deny entry to any artist from any nationality for any reason. To what   extent this authority will be exercised remains to be seen.

THE SUSPENSION OF THE VISA INTERVIEW WAIVER PROGRAM (VIWP) 

While it has always been subject to the discretion of each consulate, the VIWP allowed consular officers to waive the interview requirement for applicants seeking to renew nonimmigrant O and P visas within 12 months of expiration of the initial visa in the same classification. The VIWP has been used to waive the interview requirement only for travelers who have already been vetted and determined to be a low security risk and who have a demonstrated track record of stable employment and stable travel.

By suspending the program, all artists will be required to have a personal interview in order to receive a new visa regardless of when their last O or P visa was issued or whether or not they were previously allowed to receive a visa under the VIWP.

Until additional consular staff is hired, Order will place enormous burdens on U.S. consulates and embassies – particularly high-volume consulates – by increasing already extended interview wait times and processing times, wasting limited resources, and potentially decreasing the quality of consular interviews.

HOW DOES THE NEW ORDER IMPACT ARTISTS FROM THE 6 BANNED COUNTRIES (IRAN, LIBYA, SOMALIA, SUDAN, SYRIA, AND YEMEN?  

  • If the artist is a citizen of one of those countries, but already has a US visa or Green Card, then “officially” the ban does not apply to them. However, they should still expect “heightened vetting and screening procedures.” Also, once their visas expire, they will need to leave the US and will not be eligible for new ones.
  • If an artist from one of these countries has not yet been issued a visa by March 16, 2017, they are not going to get one. This includes students.
  • If an artist who is citizen of one of these countries is also a citizen of another country not on the list (for example, a citizen of both Iran and Canada), they WILL be allowed to receive visas and travel to the US PROVIDED the visa is stamped into the passport from the non-banned country and they only travel on the passport from the non-banned country. However, they should still expect “heightened vetting and screening procedures.”
  • The Order does not apply to artists who may have been born in one of the banned countries, but who are no longer citizens. However, they should still expect “heightened vetting and screening procedures.”
  • The Order does not apply to artists who may have been merely visited or performed in one of the banned countries. However, they should still expect “heightened vetting and screening procedures.”

WHAT DO WE RECOMMEND?

  •  All artists, regardless of nationality, she travel to the US with copies of their I-797 visa approval notices and maintain such copies, along with copies of their visas, on their person at all times while in the US. In addition to US Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE), state and local police can also demand proof of valid immigration status at any time while an artist is in the US.
  • Artists from all countries should not attempt to enter the US on visitor visas (B-1/B-2) or through the Visa Waiver Program (“ESTA”) except in the most narrow of circumstances. For example, performing at a booking conference (Arts Midwest, PAE, APAP, etc.) where only registered attendees are permitted to attend or performing at a competition or non-public audition are still permitted in visitor status. However, whether or not an Immigration Officer will continue to understand and accept these exceptions remains to be seen. In such instances, make sure such an artist is properly advised ahead of time and travels with extensive supporting evidence.
  • Plan well in advance when submitted visa petitions to USCIS and allow for extra time for US consulates to issue visas.
  • Review an artist’s prior travel to the US to make sure they have not engaged in any un-authorized performances and, if so, plan accordingly.
  • Artists should bring snacks when traveling into the US in case they are held or detained as there is no food available. We recommend beef jerky. But not hummus.
  • Plan and prepare, not panic.

As our office continues to address issues and implications on the front lines, we are relying upon the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), The League of American Orchestras, the US Performing Arts Task Force, and other vital organizations who continue to monitor and report on the situation at all levels. AILA does not believe the new Order will withstand judicial scrutiny since the targeted countries are majority Muslim and the Order fails to provide evidence that nationals of the six countries pose a threat to national security.

As the rules can change at any time, it is critical that you consistently check with reliable sources (ie: not chat rooms or random google searches) for updates and developments before making any travel decisions, applying for visas, or booking foreign artists. We recommend:

1) www.artistsfromabroad.org

2) The USCIS website: www.uscis.gov

3) The US Department of State website: www.travel.state.gov

4) The US Customs and Border Patrol website: www.cbp.gov

5) The American Immigration Lawyers Association (www.aila.org)  

___________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and other legal, project management, and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com

To ask your own question, write to:

lawanddisorder@musicalamerica.com

All questions on any topic related to legal, management, and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. Questions will be answered ONLY in future blogs. GG Arts Law reserves the right to alter, edit or, amend questions to focus on specific issues or to avoid names, circumstances, or any information that could be used to identify or embarrass a specific individual or organization. All questions will be posted anonymously and/or posthumously.

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a nasty email, filing a lawsuit, or doing anything rash!

 

 

 

 

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Touring, Visas | Comments Closed

IS SXSW Being Opportunistic of Oblivious?

Friday, March 3rd, 2017

By Brian Taylor Goldstein

The following situation was recently brought to our attention and we felt obligated to comment:

http://www.avclub.com/article/sxsw-threatens-international-artists-deportation-p-251394?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=ShareTools&utm_campaign=default

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2017/mar/02/sxsw-immigration-told-slant-contract-trump-travel-ban

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/sxsw-responds-to-artist-immigration-controversy-w470167

Since this issue arose, the festival’s Managing Director has issued multiple “updates” and “clarifications” that are disingenuous or, at best, ill-informed.

First, he contends that the contract provision regarding non-work visa violations is merely “telling the acts what immigration (authorities) would do if terms of their visas are violated” and is intended “to inform foreign artists that the U.S. immigration authorities have mechanisms to create trouble for artists who ignore U.S. immigration laws.” However, if this is true, much of the legal information is misleading and inaccurate. Moreover, if SXSW is, indeed, merely trying to “inform” artists and “warn” them about potential immigration consequences, then why do SXSW organizers themselves threaten to notify U.S. immigration authorities if they discover any infractions? When did SXSW become agents of ICE (US Immigration and Customs Enforcement)?

Second, he explains that “all of the harshest penalties threatened in the contract—including notifying immigration authorities—would only be invoked if somebody did something really horrific, like disobey rules about pyrotechnics, starting a brawl, or if they killed somebody” and that this language is “intended to be, a safeguard to provide SXSW with a means to respond to an act that does something truly egregious, such as disobeying our rules about pyrotechnics on stage, starting a brawl in a club, or causing serious safety issues.” While any such actions on the part of an artist or group would most certainly warrant an immediate expulsion from SXSW, as well as untold liability issues, none of them constitute any kind of immigration violation which would warrant SXSW notifying immigration authorities—particularly when that would only result in all non-US artists at the festival coming under scrutiny of ICE.

Lastly, SXSW’s Managing Director claims that that these provisions have always been part of their agreements. Perhaps this is true. However, if that is the case, then not only were these contractual terms poorly and sloppily drafted. And given the current political madness, now was certainly the time to update and amend them.

While it’s easy to presume that SXSW is using the current immigration situation to coerce artists into not performing any unauthorized SXSW performances, it’s far more likely that they are one of many presenters, venues, and festivals who are only too eager to dispense expertise on issues they actually know nothing about. The complexities of immigration issues for non-US artists are confusing and frustrating enough without adding to the melee with misinformation, however well-intentioned, which only causes more confusion.

_________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and other legal, project management, and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com

To ask your own question, write to:

lawanddisorder@musicalamerica.com

All questions on any topic related to legal, management, and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. Questions will be answered ONLY in future blogs. GG Arts Law reserves the right to alter, edit or, amend questions to focus on specific issues or to avoid names, circumstances, or any information that could be used to identify or embarrass a specific individual or organization. All questions will be posted anonymously and/or posthumously.

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a nasty email, filing a lawsuit, or doing anything rash!

 

 

 

 

Tags:, , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Arts Management, Contracts, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Visas | Comments Closed

What In The World Is Going On As Of February 2, 2017?

Wednesday, February 1st, 2017

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

On January 30, 2017 we posted an update to clarify what was going on (at least as of Sunday, January 29, 2017) with regard to President Voldemort’s now infamous January 27, 2017 Executive Order and how it impacts the arts. As you may imagine, as the result of lawsuits and procedural confusion, the situation continues to develop…often hourly. As our office continues to address issues and implications on the front lines, we are relying upon the American Immigration Lawyers Association, The League of American Orchestras, the US Performing Arts Task Force, and other vital organizations who continue to monitor and report on the situation at all levels.

While there are still more questions than answers, the situation is starting to normalize somewhat…until they change. Nonetheless, as of today, here are the most accurate answers to the most frequently asked questions:

Does President Voldemort’s Executive Order and travel ban apply to Citizens of the 7 countries (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen) who also hold US Visas or Green Cards?

  • Yes.
  • The Department of State has indicated that it is “provisionally” (ie: temporarily) revoking all visas and green cards for nationals from the 7 countries named in the January 27 Executive Order.
  • This does not affect visa holders or green card holders who are currently in the US. They can stay.
  • If a green card holder was out of the US as of January 27, 2017 or travels out of the US after January 27, 2017 and attempts to return, then such individuals ARE subject to the travel ban. However, green card holders are eligible for national interest waivers consistent with the provisions of the Executive Order. According to the Executive Order, absent significant derogatory information indicating a serious threat to public safety and welfare, green card status will be a dispositive factor in case-by-case determinations of whether or not a green card holder may re-enter.
  • So far, only two green card holders from the list of 7 countries have been denied entry: One, who was denied based on a criminal record, and another individual chose to return to Canada and withdrew his request for entry.
  • If a visa holder was out of the US as of January 27, 2017 or travels out of the country after January 27, 2017, they will not be allowed to re-enter at this time.

Does President Voldemort’s Executive Order and travel also apply to students who are citizens of the 7 countries (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen)?  

  •  Yes.
  • F1/J1/M1 visas are currently temporarily suspended. Individuals who were in the US at the time of the signing of the executive order are not affected by the order.
  • Students who were out of the US as of January 27, 2017 or travel out of the US after January 27, 2017 and attempt to return will not be allowed to return at this time. The Department of State is evaluating whether those who are precluded from returning as a result of the Executive Order will be considered to have maintained their status as F1 or M1 students.

Does President Voldemort’s Executive Order and travel ban apply to individuals who are citizens of the 7 countries (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen) but who also are citizens of other countries (ie: dual citizens)?

  • No.
  • Travelers are being treated according to the passport they present at the time of entry into the US. For example, if they hold both Iranian and Canadian passports, then, absent significant derogatory information indicating a serious threat to public safety and welfare, they WILL be allowed to enter.
  • However, if an individual holds a visa, the visa stamp MUST be in a passport that is not from one of the 7 countries. For example, if an artist with an O-1 holds both Iranian and UK passports, the O-1 visa must be in the UK passport.

Does President Voldemort’s Executive Order and travel ban apply to individuals who may have been born in one of the 7 countries (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen), but who are no longer citizens?

  •  No.
  • However, individuals who were born in these and other countries considered to be “at risk”, or still have relatives in these countries, have always been subject to additional security processing and delays at US consulates and upon entry to the US. This will continue.

Does President Voldemort’s Executive Order and travel ban apply to individuals who may have been merely visited or performed in one of the 7 countries (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen)?

  •  No.
  • However, individuals who have visited these and other countries considered to be “at risk”, have always been subject to additional security processing and delays at US consulates and upon entry to the US. This will continue.

What is the impact of this on artists and individuals from other countries?

  • So far, none.
  • They will be subject to the same inconstant policies and tortuously interpreted regulations as always.

What is the impact of this on USCIS or the processing times at USCIS Service Centers?

  • So far, none.
  • Both USICS Service Centers continue to suffer from high staff turnover and lack of funding. This continues to result in longer processing times and an increase in Requests for Evidence (RFE).
  • While the California Service Center “tends” to process petitions more quickly than the Vermont Service Center, we continue to advice clients to anticipate standard processing to take 3 – 4 months at both service centers. Do not rely on the anecdotal information of others to the contrary!

What is going to happen next?

  •  Who the hell knows? However, according to two “leaked” provisional/proposed Executive Orders, here’s what we anticipate:
    • Further restrictions and clarifications on the limitations of B-1/B-2 (visitor/business) visas and those eligible to enter on visa waivers (Ie: ESTA) with respect to what they can and cannot do in such status. We’ve have said this 1000 times, but we keep getting questions about this: Artists cannot perform on visitor visas and/or on ESTA status. Not for free. Not for education. Not for schools. Not for training. Not if no tickets are sold. Not no way! Not no how! If any US manager, agent, presenter, venue, or academic institutions tells you otherwise—RUN AWAY!
    • Additional restrictions and oversight of students eligible for “practical training” during or after their course of study.
    • Additional countries being added to the list of banned nationalities.

Lastly, because the situation can change at any time, it is critical that you consistently check with reliable sources for updates and developments before making any travel decisions, applying for visas, or booking foreign artists. We strongly recommend:

1) www.artistsfromabroad.org

2) The USCIS website: www.uscis.gov

3) The US Department of State website: www.travel.state.gov

4) The US Customs and Border Patrol website: www.cbp.gov

5) Licensed immigration attorneys

 ________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and other legal, project management, and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com

To ask your own question, write to lawanddisorder@musicalamerica.com

All questions on any topic related to legal, management, and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. Questions will be answered ONLY in future blogs. GG Arts Law reserves the right to alter, edit or, amend questions to focus on specific issues or to avoid names, circumstances, or any information that could be used to identify or embarrass a specific individual or organization. All questions will be posted anonymously and/or posthumously.

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a nasty email, filing a lawsuit, or doing anything rash!

 

 

 

 

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Touring, Visas | Comments Closed

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »