Posts Tagged ‘immigration law’

« Older Entries

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

International Touring: More Tales From The Front Lines

Thursday, December 10th, 2015

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

I realize there are other equally important issues out there than visas and international touring. However, in the wake of the recent terrorist attack in California, and as U.S. politicians and political candidates roll out a “Keep the Hate Alive” campaign, we are constantly receiving alarming updates from clients as well as from the American Immigration Lawyers Association of artists encountering new obstacles and challenges. Here are the latest changes and challenges you need to be aware of:

1.  A Visa Cannot Be Valid Beyond The Dates In The Approved Visa Petition

When a visa petition is approved by USCIS, it is approved for a specific classification period. When an artist then goes to a U.S. Consulate to apply for her or her visa, the visa issued is supposed to reflect the classification period of the approved petition. For example, if a violinist is approved for an O-1 classification period of August 1, 2015 to July 31, 2016, then the O-1 visa stamped into her passport should reflect an expiration date of July 31, 2016. If you examine an O or P visa, you will most often see the letters “PED” followed by a date. “PED” refers to the “Petition Expiration Date.” The PED date “should” coincide with the expiration date of the visa itself.

Unfortunately, some U.S. Consulates have erroneously been issuing O-1 visas that expire beyond the classification period of the approved petition—in some cases, O-1 visas have been issued for with a validity period of up to five years in the future! If this happens, your artist has not won the immigration jackpot! Under U.S. law, the maximum validity period of an O-1 visa for an artist cannot exceed three years. Moreover, it cannot exceed the classification period of the approved petition.

Recently, a prominent artist was turned away because she attempted to enter the U.S. under just such circumstances. A visa petition had been filed for her in 2014 and the petition was approved for an O-1 classification period of 8 months. However, the U.S. Consulate issued her an O-1 visa that did not expire until 2019. She and her management reasonably presumed that this meant she was free to use her O-1 visa until 2019 and no further visa petitions were required. Indeed, until recently, she had been entering the U.S. on the visa ever since 2014 without any trouble. Her past entries were the result of luck and inadvertence on the part of U.S. Immigration Officers at the port of entry. This will no longer be the case. All U.S. Immigration Officers will be scrutinizing all visas far more closely.

When USCIS approves a visa petition, it issues an I-797 Approval Notice with the specific dates of the approved visa classification period. If you or your artist ever receives a visa from a U.S. Consulate that expires beyond the dates of the classification period or beyond the PED date on the visa, ignore all dates beyond the PED date! Assume the visa expires on the PED date and do not use it for any work or travel beyond that date.

(For those of you who are actually interested in legal minutiae, there ARE, in fact, legitimate categories of 5 year O and P visas—they just don’t apply to artist categories. This is why the consulates can get easily confused.)

2.  All Artists Should Travel With A Copy of Their I-797 Petition Approval Notice

Another artist was recently detained at a U.S. airport for attempting to enter the U.S. on an erroneous “5-year O-1 visa.” Ultimately, he was permitted to enter only because he happened to have a copy of his I-797 O-1 Petition Approval Notice indicating that his upcoming U.S. engagement was within the approved classification period. However, he was reminded not to travel on his O-1 visa after the expiration date of the classification period.

Earlier this week, an artist was actually refused entry on his P visa because a U.S. Immigration Officer claimed that he needed to have a copy of his I-797 approval notice. The U.S. Immigration Officer was wrong. The artist had to fly home and be booked on a return flight to the U.S. the next day. Aggravatingly, but not surprisingly, when the artist flew back to the U.S. the next day with a copy of his approval notice, the U.S. Immigration Officer on that occasion didn’t even ask for a copy of the approval notice and the artist was admitted without any questions.

Also this week, a Canadian artist arrived in the U.S. with a copy of her I-797 approval notice (which is all that is required for Canadians) and was refused entry because the U.S. Immigration Officer claimed that she needed to have the original I-797 approval notice. The U.S. Immigration Officer was wrong on this occasion as well. Fortunately, a supervising officer was able to step in and resolve the matter so that the artist was ultimately able to enter.

Except for Canadians, artists and others are not required to travel with a copy of their I-797 petition approval notices—much less the original I-797 approval notice itself. Nonetheless, given that U.S. Immigration Officers have been placed on high alert (without always knowing exactly what they are looking for), we are recommending that all artists travel with a copy of their I-797 approval notice. Should any artist be asked for an “original” approval notice, he or she should calmly and politely ask to speak with a supervising immigration officer. More often than not, the supervising officers are better trained than the officers assigned to the inspection desks.

3.  Changes To The ESTA/Visa Waiver Program

Congress is in the process of adding additional restrictions to the Visa Waiver Program—the program which permits citizens of 38 countries to travel to the United States for business or tourism for stays of up to 90 days without a visa. This is often erroneously referred to as an “ESTA visa.” The term “ESTA” stands for “Electronic System For Travel Authorization” and is merely the registration process through which an individual indicates their intent to enter the U.S. without a visa. It is not a visa. This is important because artists are required to have a visa whenever they enter the U.S. to perform—even if they perform for free; even if no tickets are sold; even if they are performing for a non-profit; even if they are performing for a festival; or even if they are performing for a college or university. In short, performers can never enter the U.S. to “perform” under the Visa Waiver Program.

While most of the propose changes to the Visa Waiver Program should not have any impact on artists (unless the artist is from or has ever travelled to certain counties in the past 5 years), United States Customs and Border Patrol has already begun significantly seeking out artists who may be registering for ESTA and attempting to enter the U.S. on the visa waiver program with the intention of performing. We are getting almost daily reports of artists being stopped, refused entry, and having their ESTA/Visa Waiver privileges revoked for life!

I cannot emphasize this enough: any artist who attempts to enter the U.S. under the Visa Waiver Program for any purposes that involves actually performing does so at his or her own peril!

The only limited exceptions—and they are very narrowly construed—are competitions, auditions (including non-public showcases at arts conferences) and speaking (but not performing) at a college or university.

4.  There Continue To Be Significant Delays In Processing Visa Petitions  

USCIS is presently taking a minimum of 8 – 10 weeks to process visa petitions at both the Vermont and California Service Centers and there appears to be no end in sight to these delays. This means that, as of today, if you need to have an artist enter the U.S. any earlier than March 2016, you need to pay the additional $1225 for premium processing. (The official visa processing times that USCIS posts on its website have always been purely propaganda and should always be disregarded as such.)

On the bright side, dealing with international touring at the moment makes all those other topics we write about–cancellations, copyright infringement, taxes, commission disputes–a little less daunting.

__________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and otherGG_logo_for-facebook 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. 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

Paying By the Numbers

Thursday, October 15th, 2015

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder:

A presenter is refusing to pay one of our artists who has an O-1 visa, but does not have a Social Security Number. Does a foreign artist who is performing in the U.S. under an O-1 also have to get a Social Security number in order to get paid?

Many presenters and venues—particularly those affiliated with university or other academic institutions—have an affinity for imposing arbitrary policies and procedures and insisting that they are legal requirements. To be fair, many of those presenters and venues are merely passing along edicts that have been dictated to them by other departments and offices within their labyrinthine institutions who are more familiar with hiring snow plow services than with engaging non-U.S. artists.

Non-U.S. artists are not required to obtain anything other than an appropriate artist visa (usually, but not always, either an O or a P visa) in order to be authorized to perform legally in the U.S. Whilst it is not uncommon for presenters and venues to insist that a non-U.S. artist have either a Social Security Number (“SSN”) or the SSN’s evil twin, an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (“ITIN”), as an additional condition for an artist to be paid, that is not a legal requirement. More often than not, it is merely a requirement of the presenter or venue’s finance department or booking software which cannot physically write a check without having either a SSN or ITIN. Provided the artist has an appropriate artist visa, he or she is legally permitted to be paid and, unless there is an express contractual provision to the contrary, the presenter is legally required to honor an engagement contract and to pay the artist for services performed.

SSNs and ITINs have absolutely nothing to do with work authorization or immigration law. Rather, they are creatures affiliated with U.S. tax obligations and tax returns. An artist will need either an SSN or an ITIN to file a U.S. tax return, which artists are required to do—especially if they want a refund of any engagement fees that might have been subject to 30% withholding. However, if the artist elects not to file a U.S. return and just let the IRS keep their money, that’s entirely at the discretion of the artist. The failure or an artist to have a SSN or ITIN cannot be used as an excuse by a presenter or venue to pay the artist or otherwise honor a valid engagement contract.

_________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and other legal, project management, and GG_logo_for-facebookbusiness 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. 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 Agents, Artist Management, Contracts, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Presenters, Taxes, Touring, Visas | Comments Closed

When It Comes To Visas: Plan For The Worst And Hope For The Best

Thursday, August 27th, 2015

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder:

We got our P visa for a group returned because it included the tour manager. USCIS is saying we need to file a separate petition and get a separate union letter for him. But USCIS has approved prior P petitions with everyone on the same petition. Is this something new? This would mean another petition and another union fee. Also, we have heard that USCIS is taking 8 weeks to review petitions. Is this true? The group cannot afford to premium processing fees for two petitions.

It’s almost impossible to choose amongst the many frustrating aspects of the U.S. immigration laws pertaining to visas for artists and performers. The high fees for poor service? Having to provide documentation that The New York Times is a “major publication”? Trying to explain to a USCIS examiner that an orchestral conductor is, in fact, a “lead role”? The regulatory presumption that the U.S. Government (which has never significantly supported any artistic endeavor ever since Abraham Lincoln died in a theater) is in a better position that an artistic director to determine who is and who is not a “distinguished artist”?  However, it’s the unpredictability of the entire process that most people fail to appreciate with sufficient magnitude.

It has always been the rule that a petition for a P-1 visa can only include the actual performers in the group. Any support staff—tour managers, general directors, production managers, stage crew, administrative personnel, and even artistic directors and choreographers (unless they will also be performing)—must be listed on a separate petition for a P-1S visa. Unless someone is actually performing in front of the audience, do not list them as part of a P-1 petition.

The frustration in your case is that the USCIS apparently approved your prior P-1 visa petitions where you included the group’s tour manager on the same petition as the performers. While this saved you both time and money in the past, it was also a mistake on the part of the USCIS. It’s not uncommon for USCIS to treat similar petitions or even prior petitions from the same artist or group inconsistently, approving some and rejecting others. The problem, in addition to poorly trained, underpaid, and overworked USCIS examiners, is that unlike other legal proceedings—and, yes, filing a visa petition constitutes a legal proceeding just like filing a lawsuit—USCIS is not bound by the precedence of its own prior decisions, actions, or mistakes. In other words, just because USCIS overlooked an evidentiary requirement or interpreted an immigration regulation a certain way in the past does not mean they are under any obligation to do so in the future. Even if they approved a visa for an artist or group in the past does not mean they have to do so again. Under U.S. immigration law, USCIS is always free to apply the rules as strictly as they wish, ask for additional documentation, or even determine that a prior visa petition should not have been approved.

The “take away” from this is that you should never assume that simply doing everything you did last time will result in the same outcome. Always prepare every visa petition for every artist and every group as if it was the artist or group’s first petition, paying particular attention to understanding and satisfying all of the regulations and evidentiary requirements regardless of how absurd or inconvenient. Take no shortcuts. Overkill. Overkill. Overkill. This includes making sure that the immigration rules and procedures have not changed since you last prepared and filed a visa petition. USCIS frequently changes filing fees and updates its forms with little notice unless you go looking for it.

For example, earlier this year, USCIS updated the Form I-129 that is required for an O or P visa petition. Guess what? THEY JUST UPDATED IT AGAIN!!!  That’s right, effective August 13, 2015, there is an even newer new I-129 form. At some yet to be announced date, any petitions using any version prior to August 13, 2015 will be rejected. So you might as well start using the new form now. If you prepared a visa petition last year and tried to use the same form, it would be returned.

Always begin a visa petition by getting the newest version of the USCIS forms directly from the USCIS website: www.USCIS.gov  DO NOT USE FORMS FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE AS THEY MAY BE OUTDATED. www.USCIS.gov will also be your best source for any new filing fees or other updates.

For instance, were you aware that effective August 30, 2015, you will no longer be able to upgrade pending petitions to premium processing on-line? Now you are. After August 30, 2015, all premium processing forms will require physical paper I-907 forms to be sent physically to USCIS.

As for the processing times: Yes, USCIS (particularly the Vermont Service Center) is experiencing a significant backlog of 8 weeks or more for standard processing. This could change again over the next few months, but right now it is taking an outrageous amount of time. Unlike forms, never rely on the processing times posted by the USCIS Service Center themselves. They are notoriously inaccurate and misleading. Always assume that unless you have paid the additional USCIS Premium Processing Fee, a petition will take a minimum of 4 – 6 weeks and plan accordingly.

In addition to www.USCIS.gov, your best source of current updates and information should be www.artistsfromabroad.org and other official sources of vetted information. An artist’s or group’s performance should be too important to trust to gossip or anecdotal surveys.

In your situation, there’s no way to avoid having to file a separate P-1S petition for the group’s Tour Manager. That’s the law and always has been. However, if your group cannot afford premium processing and they will be performing for a non-profit or educational institution, then contacting a U.S. Senator or member of Congress can “sometimes” be helpful under the right conditions, including the particular political leanings of the Senator or member of Congress. If the stars and moons align, the Senator or member of Congress can contact USCIS and request an emergency expedite on your behalf.

________________________________________________________________

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

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

All questions on any topic related to legal, management, and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. 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

New O and P Visa Petition Form Effective May 1, 2015

Thursday, April 30th, 2015

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

Someone recently told me that there was a new form for U.S. visa petitions for artists. Is this true? If so, when do I have to start using it?

Late last year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) released a revised version of Form I-129—the form which is used to petition for O and P visas. While most attorneys have been using the new version of the form (edition date: 10/23/14) for several months, USCIS has been accepting both the old and new forms. That is, until now. USCIS recently announced that, effective May 1, 2015, USCIS will no longer accept the old version of Form I-129. Any visa petition submitted on or after May 1, 2015 must use the newest version of Form I-129 (edition date: 10/23/14) or USCIS will reject the petition. You can verify that you are using the correct version of Form I-129 by checking the edition date of the form at the bottom of each page of the I-129. As USCIS frequently revises forms and changes filing fees, often with little notice, you always want to download your forms directly from the USCIS website. NEVER assume a form you used before, much less a form provided by someone else, is correct.

Almost all of the information requested in the new version of Form I-129 (edition date: 10/23/14) is the same as the old form, just re-arranged in an inexplicably more confusing and complicated manner. As a result, the old I-129 form, which used to be 7 pages, is now 8 pages. The old I-129 O/P Supplement, which used to be 2 pages, is now 3 pages. You will need to read each question carefully as boxes and blanks have been moved around. There are also other hidden gems such as certain answers which must be filled in by hand where the revised form currently available on the USCIS website does not allow typed characters. (While I presume these changes and revisions make sense to USCIS, for the rest of us, it would take a herd of rabid squirrels to devise something more inane.)

The maddening inconvenience notwithstanding, there are really only two changes of any consequence worth noting, both of which are in response to what USCIS claims are increased instances of fraudulent O and P petitions:

1) The new I-129 form now requires both petitioners and anyone who prepares petitions for others to affirm that they have personally reviewed all of the information, evidence, documents, statements, and assertions in the petition and assert that everything is true and accurate. While such standards and practices have always been de rigueur for most attorneys, the new I-129 now officially places a heightened level of responsibility and liability on anyone who prepares a visa petition on behalf of someone else to assure that the petition and all evidence is accurate.

2) The new I-129 O/P Supplement now asks whether or not an artist or beneficiary has any ownership interest in the petitioning organization. This is to prevent artists and others from “self-petitioning.” While O and P beneficiaries have never been permitted to serve as their own petitioners, the previous versions of the I-129 never specifically asked this question. Now, petitioners will need to disclose whether or not any beneficiary of the petition is also an owner of the petitioner.

Whether or not there has, in fact, been increased instances of fraudulent O and P petitions remains to be seen. USCIS states that the Preparer’s Declaration has been modified to “protect the form against fraud and misuse,” noting that “visa fraud and misrepresentation, especially for employment-based petitions like Form I-129, have been the subject of a significant number of criminal prosecutions.” USCIS states that revisions to the attestation and signature sections were made at the request of the Department of Justice “to make it clear that applicants, preparers, interpreters, and representatives all have legal responsibilities with respect to the proper and truthful filing of benefit requests.” However, according to information obtained by the American Immigration Lawyers Association in fiscal years 2012 and 2013, the USCIS Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate “found fraud in 1,499 and 723 cases respectively in Form I-129 filings, which means that approximately 0.33 percent of Forms I-129 resulted in a finding of fraud.” That’s less than 1/3 of one percent. Nonetheless, it is well known that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which controls USCIS, has always been driven more by paranoia than reality and favours draconian measures. This perception of fraud has been responsible for the increased scrutiny of I-129 supporting evidence, along with demands for more evidence, which began in 2014 and which continues to this day. As a result, the average O and P petition prepared by our office weighs about 2 – 3 pounds! At this rate, perhaps the only ones with a legitimate right to be paranoid are trees.

_________________________________________________________________

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

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

All questions on any topic related to legal, management, and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. 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, Arts Management, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Touring, Visas | Comments Closed

The Recipe For Confusion

Thursday, September 11th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder:

We obtained a three year O-1 visa for one of our artists. We are the artist’s agent and served as his petitioner. A large venue wants to book the artist, but they are insisting that, according to their finance department, they cannot pay us as the artist’s agent and that they must pay the artist directly as an employee of the venue. While we are willing to agree to this, the venue is also insisting that, because they must pay the artist directly, we either must file an amended petition specifically naming the venue as an employer or file a separate petition just for the venue.

Whether its dealing with visas, taxes, or employment issues, we here at GG Arts Law often find ourselves in loggerheads with CFOs, finance departments, HR directors, and others, especially at large venues and organizations, who seem to use the same recipe when developing policies and directives: Take one very broad workshop which they attended several years ago and is now outdated, add an opinion from a board or volunteer attorney who doesn’t actually specialize in the topic at issue, stir in some research done by an intern, mix well with incorrect anecdotes from peers and colleagues, add a dash of ego, bake well, and insist this is the law.

In your particular situation, the venue appears to be confusing several key concepts: (1) the nature of itinerary based visas for artists; (2) the ability to add additional engagements when an artist is on an itinerary based visa; and (3) the relationship (or lack thereof) between employment law and immigration law.

Itinerary Based Visas:

Most immigration scenarios contemplate a single employer submitting a petition on behalf of a non-US individual whom they wish to hire. In those instances, the employer submits an I-129 petition to USCIS and, once approved, the name of the employer will appear on the I-797 approval notice authorizing the individual to work for the employer. If the individual wants to work for more than one employer, then each employer needs to submit its own I-129 petition.

However, there is an exception for artists: The applicable immigration regulations recognize that O-1 artists of “extraordinary ability” typically come to the US to perform “on tour” and, thus, will have multiple employers who hire them to perform. In such cases, a single petition may be filed with USCIS covering all of the artist’s engagements with multiple employers in the US. These are known as “itinerary-based” O-1 visas because, as opposed to covering a single performance, the petition includes an “itinerary” of performances and engagements with multiple employers.

So, for example, let’s say that an opera singer is hired to perform at the Metropolitan Opera, San Francisco Opera, and Seattle Opera. While each venue could certainly file its own, separate I-129 petition, the Metropolitan Opera could be designated as the singers “agent” and submit a single petition on which it also lists the singer’s engagements at San Francisco Opera and Seattle Opera. As the petitioner, only the Metropolitan Opera’s name would appear on the I-797 approval notice. However, because all three venues were listed on the singer’s “itinerary” the singer would be authorized to perform for all three. Alternatively, if the singer had an actual US agent or manager, the singer’s agent could serve as the petitioner and serve as the petitioner and submit a single I-129 petition to cover all three engagements. Again, as the petitioner, only the agent’s name would appear on the I-797 approval notice. However, because all three venues were listed on the singer’s “itinerary”, the artist would be authorized to perform for all three.

Adding Additional Engagements:

Continuing with this example, let’s suppose that after the singer arrived in the US, the singer was contacted by Washington Opera and asked to replace another singer who fell into the orchestra pit and can no longer perform the role. This last minute engagement would take place between the singer’s engagement with San Francisco Opera and Seattle Opera. Does Washington Opera have to file its own separate I-129 petition? No. Does the petitioner of the singer’s original I-129 petition have to file an amended petition “adding” this new engagement? No. Provided that additional engagements occur within an artist’s approved or existing O-1 classification period, and provided that the engagements or services are consistent with the artist’s O-1 qualifications (ie: performing, teaching, master classes, residencies, etc.), the artist is legally permitted to add and perform such additional engagements without the necessity of anyone filing an amended petition or otherwise notifying USCIS of the additional employers. The triggering factor is whether or not an artist was on an itinerary based visa with multiple employers to begin with. (By contrast, if an artist wants to add an engagement or performance that would take place after the period of the artist’s approved or existing O-1 classification period, that would require a new or amended O-1 petition to be filed.)

The Immigration Implications of the Employment Relationship:

Many people see the word “employer” used throughout US Immigration Law and its applicable regulations and presume that it has the same connotations as when used in the context of a traditional “employer-employee” relationship. It does not—particularly in the context of O and P artist visas. US Immigration Law uses the term “employer”, at least in the context of O and P artist visas, to refer to anyone who hires or engages the services of an artist in any capacity regardless of how the employment relationship is structured. A petitioner is neither presumed nor required to be the artist’s actual employer under any circumstances. Moreover, it doesn’t matter who pays whom or whether the artist is paid as an independent contractor or an employee, or even whether the artist is paid at all. This is because US immigration law does not use payment, or lack thereof, as a determinative factor in whether or not an artist requires an O or P visa. If an artist performs in front of an audience or otherwise provides professional artistic services in the US, such artist is required to have either an O or P visa regardless of whether or not the artist is paid, tickets are sold, or the artist receives any compensation from any source directly or indirectly. Thus, while the petitioner of an itinerary based I-129 O-1 petition can also serve in the dual role of one the artist’s employers, there is no requirement under any aspect of applicable immigration law that the petitioner actually serve as one of the artist’s employers, much less that all employment and payments go through the petitioner, or anyone else for that matter.

In short, so long as the artist is on a valid, itinerary-based O-1 visa, anyone can hire and pay the artist, directly or indirectly. Who pays the artist and how are all contractual issues to be negotiated between the parties and not immigration issues.

__________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and otherGG_logo_for-facebook legal and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com

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

All questions on any topic related to legal and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. 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 Agents, Artist Management, Arts Management, Employees, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Presenters, Taxes, Touring, Venues, Visas | Comments Closed

US VISA WARNING: Beware of the Vermont Service Center! Abandon All Hope Ye Who File There!

Thursday, March 6th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder

We filed P-1 and P-1S visa petitions at the Vermont Service Center for a group we have been touring regularly for the past 5 years. This would have been their sixth P-1 visa. Last year, we were getting petitions approved in about week. This time, after waiting 4 weeks, we got a notice asking us for a copy of our contract with the group, among other items. We’re the agent and never had to provide this before. They also wanted our contract with the group’s tour manager. We don’t have a contract with the group’s tour manager. We explained that and the P-1S petition got denied. But this same tour manager was approved last year and we supplied the same evidence this time that we did last year. What’s going on?

I wish I knew. After a period of uncharacteristic, but welcome, efficiency and competency for almost a year, the USCIS Vermont Service Center has imploded. Whether they were hit by a radioactive meteor, unearthed a demonic spirit living beneath the mail room, or were attacked by brain-eating zombies (who doubtlessly left disappointed and hungry), we may never know. What we do know is that we have been receiving multiple reports from all sectors of the performing arts reporting major problems with the Vermont Service Center, including significant processing delays, inane RFEs (Requests for Evidence), and even outright denials for O and P artists who have previously been approved for O and P visas.

The League of American Orchestras, in collaboration with the broader performing arts community, is submitting a formal complaint, as is AILA (the American Immigration Lawyers Association). In the meantime, here is a list of some of the most serious problems we have encountered and some suggestions on how to address them:

1. Processing Delays.

As many of you may recall, USCIS entered into a voluntary commitment to improve processing times for artist visas and, as recently as December 2013, regular processing times for O and P visa petitions were averaging 2 weeks or less. For the last year, our clients rarely had to pay the extra $1225 for premium processing. However, as most of you know all too well, the problem with anything “voluntary” is that you can’t force a volunteer to do anything. While the USCIS website continues to list an average timeframe of 14 days for regular processing of O and P visa petitions, the reality is that it is currently taking 30 days or longer. In some instances, VSC has taken over two weeks just to issue a receipt notice.

SOLUTION: Do not rely on the projected processing times listed on the USCIS website! File petitions as far in advance as possible or seriously consider premium processing any petition where the artist needs to arrive in less than 2 months from the date of filing.

2. RFEs Asking For What Seems Obvious.  

For example, orchestras have reported receiving RFEs on petitions filed for internationally known conductors (many of whom have been approved for prior O-1 visas) where USCIS asked for further evidence on how a conductor is critical or plays a lead role in an orchestra. USCIS has also been issuing RFEs asking for an explanation of why an Executive Director provides “essential support” to a group on tour or asking for a list of the duties of a Stage Manager or Lighting Designer.

SOLUTION: We have always recommended that, when it comes to preparing visa petitions, never assume that the USCIS examiner has any familiarity with the performing arts. This seems to be the case now more than ever. Always err on the side of over-explaining everything—What does a Concert Master do? Why is a specific award important? Covent Garden is an opera house, not a plant nursery. Etc. USCIS seems to be particularly focused on petitions for P-1S and O-2 support personal. As such, it is no longer sufficient simply to list the names and jobs of support personnel. Provide a brief biography for each person, along with a short, but specific explanation of their duties and experience working with the O-1 artist or P-1 group.

3. RFEs Asking For Employment Contracts For Support Personnel.

In yet a further attempt to thwart O-2 and P-1S petitions, USCIS has been issuing RFEs asking for evidence of who will be employing each support person. For example, if your petition includes engagement letters or contracts from presenters booking the O-1 artist or P-1 group, USCIS also wants to see the employment terms for each O-2 or P-1S support person.

SOLUTION: Provide either a statement from the O-1 artist or P-1 group explaining who will be paying the fees or salaries of each support person or provide a very basic deal memo or term sheet for each O-2 or P-1S support person outlining the fees they will be receiving and who will be paying them.

4. Unsigned Contracts

USCIS has recently been rejecting blank or unsigned contracts. USCIS wants either a signed engagement contract or written summary of the terms of an engagement.

SOLUTION: Do not send USCIS anything with a signature line on it which is not signed, especially contracts. If you have an unsigned contract, either get it signed or don’t send it. Instead, submit a copy of an email confirming the engagement terms, a written summary of the engagement terms, a letter to or from a venue confirming the engagement terms and signed by the sender, or a deal memo listing all the terms, but with no place for anyone to sign anything.

5. Truncated Classification Periods. 

In the past, USCIS has been willing to approve visa petitions to cover additional time before and after a performance to accommodate rehearsals, extra performances, and unanticipated activities. More recently, however, USCIS has been issuing approval notices only for the specific time reflected in the engagement contracts or confirmations. For example, if your petition asks for a classification period of March 1, 2014 through February 28, 2015, but the performance contracts only reflect performances between March 11, 2014 and February 20, 2015, USCIS is issuing the approval notice only for March 11, 2014 through February 20, 2015.

SOLUTION: Make sure that the contracts and written confirmations you supply in support of your classification period reflect the actual dates you need. For example, if the performance is on March 11, 2014, but the artist or group wants to enter on March 6, 2014, make sure that the contract or written confirmation reflects that the artist is required to enter the US on March 6, 2014.

While the bulk of this madness seems to be coming from the Vermont Service Center, there is every reason to believe that the California Service Center will not be far behind. Until this sorts itself out, file early, provide as much supporting documentation and details as you can, and continue to check www.artistsfromabroad.org as well as our own website for further updates.

__________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and otherGG_logo_for-facebook legal and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com

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

All questions on any topic related to legal and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. 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.

__________________________________________________________________

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 Agents, Artist Management, Arts Management, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Touring, Visas | Comments Closed

« Older Entries