Posts Tagged ‘petitions’

« Older Entries

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

CHRISTMAS PRESENTS FROM USCIS

Tuesday, January 3rd, 2017

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

When we woke up Christmas morning, we discovered that the Grinch at United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) had left two surprises in our stockings:

1) NEW FILING FEES

Effective as of December 24, 2016, the filing fee for all O and P petitions is now $460. All petitions postmarked or received by USCIS on December 23, 2016 or later must include the new fee or the petitions will be rejected.

2) NEW FORMS

Effective as of December 24, 2016, USCIS updated many forms, including Form I-129—the form used for O and P petitions. The new edition of Form I-129 is marked “12/31/16”. USCIS will continue to accept old forms until February 21, 2017, but all petitions postmarked or received by USCIS on February 21, 2017 or later must have the 12/23/16 edition of Form I-129 the petitions will be rejected.

  • Read the new Form I-129 carefully. When USCIS updates forms, it rarely asks for new information, but often re-numbers and moves around the old blanks and questions for no apparent reason.
  • Because USCIS can amend forms without notice, ALWAYS download a fresh form directly from the USCIS website. www.uscis.gov/forms. NEVER use an old form, a form you used the “last time”, or a form you obtain from any other source.

The first one we knew was coming, but the second was a complete surprise to everyone!

_________________________________________________________________

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 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

International Touring: A Report From The Front Lines

Thursday, November 19th, 2015

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

As the U.S. Legal Advisor to the International Artist Managers’ Association (IAMA), I’ve been asked to prepare an update on a variety of current issues involving international touring at the next membership meeting in London on November 27, 2015. Not only do I adore IAMA, but as this would provide a lovely excuse for my wife and I to avoid having to spend Thanksgiving with either of our families, I was more than happy to agree. Robyn Guilliams and prepared this report, I thought I would share it with all of you…

Visa Stercus

1.  USCIS is presently taking a minimum of 8 – 10 weeks to process visa petitions at both the Vermont and California Service Centers. 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.)

    • As a reminder, visa petitions can be filed up to one year in advance of the performance date.

2.  For those of you who have Canadian musicians eligible for P-2 visas, we are receiving reports that Canadian AFM is experiencing a backlog in preparing filing petitions. This is in addition to the current USCIS processing time of 8 – 10 weeks.

3.  I’ve said this before, but the message not getting through, so its worth repeating. ARTISTS CANNOT DO ANYTHING IN THE U.S. ON A TOURIST VISA OR ESTA (Visa waiver) STATUS!!  Please stop listening to the colleges, universities, and festivals that tell you otherwise. They have nothing to lose other than perhaps having to find a replacement artist. On the other hand, I have recently learned of two artists—one from Germany and the other from Spain—who have had their ESTA status permanently revoked because they tried to enter the U.S. in ESTA status to perform in the U.S. Both artists had entered multiple times in the past and one were merely entering to “perform” a master class.

    •  It doesn’t matter whether an artist is paid or unpaid, whether the concert is free, or whether the performance is for educational purposes. They must have an appropriate visa—most often an O or P visa. United States Immigration Officers are taking this very seriously.

4.  In preparing visa petitions, please start collecting and providing the evidence USCIS wants as opposed to giving them what you have lying around in your press package. The days of being able to supply a bio and a few press articles are long gone and we are seeing more and more visa denials and delays because of this.

    •  I recently, and with much regret and sadness, had to advise a client to re-cast a role because the artist’s European management was simply refusing to cooperate in our efforts to obtain a visa for the artist. (In case that manager is reading this…no, USCIS will not “just google the artist to find out how famous he is!”)

Tax Stercus

1.  For those of you waiting to receive a refund check from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for a non-U.S. artist who has had 30% withheld from their gross engagements fees and are due a tax refund, please be advised: the check is NOT in the mail, and won’t be for the foreseeable future. The IRS has added an extra layer of scrutiny to nonresident tax returns involving refunds. Aside from the usual 2 to 3 month processing time, there is a second review to be sure that everything on the 1042-S form is accurate and complete.  If the IRS senses ANYTHING off, the taxpayer will receive a letter asking for more info. To be fair, the IRS has announced that it will be paying interest on all overdue refund checks. To be practical, it doesn’t matter how much interest they offer to pay if, in fact, they never issue the refund.

    • Bottom Line: There is currently a very good chance that if 30% is withheld from an artist’s engagement fee, the artist will not get that money back…or, at least, not for the foreseeable future. Please plan cash flow accordingly.

2.  A Central Withholding Agreement (CWA) is still the best way of avoiding or reducing the mandatory 30% withholding required from all engagement fees for non-U.S. artists. To be eligible for a CWA, among other requirements, an artist must have filed a U.S. tax return for each prior year in which they have ever performed in the U.S.– even where no tax was owned. If an artist has not filed past U.S. tax returns, he or she will be required to file them as a prerequisite to obtaining a CWA. Unfortunately, we are seeing a sharp increase in the instances where filing such past tax returns is triggering an IRS audit in which they are requesting documents and records from the artist’s world-wide income.

    • In this one particular area, the IRS has displayed a remarkable degree of efficiency in identifying artists who have simultaneously made the least amount of money and kept the least amount of records to prove it.

3.  Obtaining Social Security Numbers (SSNs) and Individual Tax Payer Identification Numbers (ITINs) continue to be a challenge. While SSSs are not any easier for an artist to obtain, they have not become harder. ITINs, on the other hand, have become increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to get. Despite both staffing and budget cutbacks, the IRS has been requested to scrutinize ITIN requests more closely—particularly with regard to proof of identity. For most non-US residents, the most obvious and best proof of identity is a copy of their passport. However, the IRS lacks the resources and training to evaluate how to tell legitimate passports from forged ones. As a result, the IRS is now only accepting copies of passports that have been certified by the actual agency that issued the passport. However, even when this is provided, we are seeing the IRS send notices requesting that the actual, physical passport be sent to them instead. DO NOT DO THIS! You will never see that passport again!

    • There IS one option for some Europeans:  There are IRS offices located in the U.S. Consulates in Paris and London. One can go to these offices and request an ITIN in person (with an original passport, which the IRS will review and return on the spot.)  HOWEVER – one can obtain an ITIN only if one has an “immediate tax need”, such as filing a return. So, if requesting an ITIN in the Paris or London Consulates, one must also bring a completed tax return in hand, ready to file.

4.  We are seeing a large number of U.S. presenters–especially those based at colleges and universities—insisting that non-U.S. artists are legally required to have either a SSN or ITIN in order to perform or get paid in the U.S. Please be advised: There is no such law! While such numbers may make book keeping and accounting easier for the presenter, there is no law that requires an artist to have either one. Not only are SSNs and ITINs not proof of work authorization, but as we addressed above, many artists will be unable to get them in advance—if ever.

5.  Canada requires 15% withholding for gross engagement fees of non-Canadian performers performing there (similar to the 30% withholding requirement in the U,S.) Canada Revenue allows performers to file a waiver/reduction request to reduce/waive the withholding (an R-105 request). On their website, Canada Revenue indicates that the deadline for filing such a request is 30 days prior to the first payment due.  However, it’s taking them MUCH longer to process the requests. So, we are recommending that you file your request with them AT LEAST 60 days prior, or earlier, if possible.

General Travel Stercus 

1.  There is nothing new to report with regard to the ban on bringing musical instruments into the U.S. that contain ivory or other protected materials. United States Customs and Border Patrol isn’t strictly enforcing this with any degree of regularity. However, if any orchestras are touring and don’t want to take the risk, we are recommending that they contact Heather Noonan (hnoonan@americanorchestras.org) at the League of American Orchestras (http://americanorchestras.org) who is among the leading and most effective legislative arts advocates in the U.S. and is happy to talk to them about the “Instrument Passport” process.

    • The League and others are continuing to lobby for specific amendments, including exemptions to the rules for “personal effects” (which would include carry-on musical instruments).

2.  There has been some recent concern about Amtrak, the U.S.’s ersatz rail service, implementing a new policy requiring additional seats to be purchased for oversize musical instruments which cannot fit into overhead compartments. To date, this policy has been posted, but not enforced. We are recommending that artists and ensembles that intend to use Amtrak to travel to engagements within the U.S. check with an Amtrak representative in advance of the tour…and then be prepared for whatever they are told in advance to then be either incorrect or disputed by Amtrak at the actual time of travel.

Other Stercus

1.  When negotiating fees for U.S. engagements, please remember to specify the currency in which the artist is to be paid, including exactly how and when the exchange rate is to be calculated. We are seeing an increased number of misunderstandings over this point.

    • At the same time, use this as an opportunity to clarify any other costs or deductions (such as taxes, visas costs, hotel, travel, etc.) which either are or are not to be included as part of the engagement fee.

2.  Too many people are still relying on general, vague, boilerplate, or unspecific contractual language to take the place of actual negotiation. Do not rely on the misguided belief that there are standard legal terms and procedures that magically govern engagements and bookings when words fail. If you want something, or don’t want something, say something—or, preferably, write it down.

3.  When dealing with performances of new works or contemporary music, bear in mind that licensing laws differ. What’s in the public domain in Europe may not be in the United States. Even a re-arrangement or re-orchestration may not be permissible in certain countries.

__________________________________________________________________

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, Arts Management, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Licensing, Music Rights, 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

Welcome To The New Visa Reality!

Thursday, July 24th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

We filed visa petitions for O-1 and an O-2 visas. USCIS is asking for a contract between each of the O-2s and either the petitioner or the employers. This has never been an issue before and we’ve been doing this for 20 years. They are also asking for a union consult letter for one of the O-2s whose title is “Movement Coach.” We got a consult from IATSE for the others, but IATSE doesn’t cover this. USCIS is suggesting that we get a consult from AGMA. Do we have to do that? Can we use a letter from a peer organization like TCG or APAP instead?

Thanks for giving me an excuse to rant about USCIS and the new challenges of obtaining visas for artists who wish to perform and tour in the U.S. I haven’t done that for almost a month now.

Both the Vermont and California Service Centers continue to shoot back frustrating Requests for Evidence (RFEs) and to scrutinize petitions like never before. They appear to be paying special attention to O-2, P-1S, and P-3S petitions for support staff. It has now become de rigueur for USCIS to require that employment terms for each member of the support staff be specified, including who is paying them and how much they are being paid. They are also asking for resumes for each person and a specific statement of why each person is necessary and critical to the performance or concert.

You can also expect new troubles with P-3 petitions for culturally unique artists and groups. While P-3 petitions have always had their own complexities, both service centers are now reiterating that an artist or group cannot be culturally unique and also perform anything that is “contemporary” or “modern.” One RFE I saw stated that: “The contents and themes of a particular form of art may also contain elements and influences of a given culture, and yet still not meet the definition of “culturally unique.” Also, simply because a form of art may be unique, it does not necessarily follow that it meets die regulatory definition of “culturally unique.” Another USCIS examiner recently wrote:

It is not enough for the author of a testimonial letter to simply state that the beneficiaries have cultural, artistic, and/or culturally unique skills. The testimonials should be detailed and specific in describing what the beneficiaries’ skills are; how the beneficiaries obtained those skills; how and why those skills are associated with a “culturally unique” art form; and what the defining aspects of the beneficiaries’ particular art form are that make it “culturally unique” as opposed to other forms of the creative activity or endeavor. Furthermore, it is not sufficient to simply state that an artist represents his or her culture.

Speaking of testimonial letters, I am continuing to see USCIS request “independent evidence” establishing that each expert is, in fact, a “recognized expert.” Whether or not this means that the experts must now have experts, simply attaching the expert’s resume is no longer sufficient. USCIS is continuing to ask for articles and websites verifying each expert’s credentials.

In addition to targeting P-3 petitions and petitions for support staff in all categories, USCIS also appears to be focusing the all-seeing eye of Sauron on young artists, particular recent graduates who may still be in F-1 status. Any appearance of the words “young” or “rising” or “up and coming” will bring a certain RFE. You also need to focus on the “professional” work of the artist and put as much distance as you can between the artist and any school or training experience.

As for union consultations, letters from peer groups and service organizations have never been an alternative where a union covers the specific job title. However, while USCIS may have let this slip in the past, this is no longer the case. If they even smell the applicability of a union, then you must provide evidence of a union consultation (which could include a union objection. Remember, the unions do NOT have to approve any petition. They only have the right to be “consulted.”) In your case, USCIS is correct: AGMA is the appropriate union for a “Movement Coach.”

USCIS is also being remarkably inconsistent in processing times, as well. Just this week, I received an approval notice from the California Service Center three days after the petition was filed—and without premium processing! I’m not complaining, but the same service center took over three months to adjudicate a petition I filed in April. More recently, the Vermont Service Center approved a P-1 petition in two weeks, but lost the accompanying P-1S petition I had filed at the same time. This only serves to make an already unpredictable process even more unpredictable. The only thing I can say with certainty is that the “official” reported processing times that you will find posted on the USCIS webpage are about as reliable as a cheesecloth condom!

The best you can do at this point is exhaustively document your petitions, allow lots of extra time, plan for the worst, anticipate USCIS stupidity, and, with any luck and few talismans, be pleasantly surprised. In short, whatever you did in the past, all that changed after January 2014. Welcome to the new visa reality!

__________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and other GG_logo_for-facebooklegal 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 Artist Management, Arts Management, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Touring, Visas | Comments Closed

The Invasion of the Visa Examiner Body Snatchers Continues! (aka “The Day The Visa Process Stood Still”)

Thursday, May 8th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder:

I recently received an RFE for a group touring the US this summer. The group is represented by a European manager who books their dates, but our US management company has previously filed petitions for them in the past, all of which have been approved without a problem. The RFE claims that I need to prove that we are not only the agent for the artists, but for each of venues on their tour. I provided an itinerary, a letter of agreement between us and the group where we are agreeing to serve as their US representatives, as well as engagement contracts confirming all the dates, including fees. This is what I have always given them before. What do they want?

For those of you who have been lucky enough not to be following along, about four months ago, the US government agency that reviews and approves visa petitions for artists, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), was invaded by aliens…and, by that, I do not mean non-US citizens, but something non-human. It began at the USCIS Vermont Service Center where reports indicate that in early February 2014 the bodies of several unsuspecting USCIS visa examiners spontaneously exploded into a burst of tentacles, multiple glowing eyes, and gaping orifices of dripping fangs. Shortly thereafter, their seedlings were able to infiltrate deliveries of pico de gallo sent to the USCIS California Service Center where they quickly replicated themselves, consuming the bodies of helpless visa examiners there as well. Ever since, these insidious creatures have taken over the review of O and P petitions, resulting in flurry of spurious RFE’s or Requests for Evidence (ie: prove that Lincoln Center is a distinguished venue!) and re-imagined interpretations of regulatory language and requirements (ie: for a role in a production to constitute a “lead or starring role” it must also be performed by an artist whose name alone will demonstrably increase ticket sales!)

Whether these beings are the evil spawn of a far-away galaxy offended by interpretive dance or whether they come from a death star of Blue Meanies, we don’t know. What we do know is that, among other things, USCIS has been seriously scrutinizing petitions filed by agents and managers, as well as itineraries. On a recent national conference call with USCIS representatives, there was a considerable amount of talk about concerns over “speculative” employment and making sure that artists had “confirmed engagements” and were not merely asking for visas in anticipation of future work.

As a result, agents and managers are being asked with greater frequency to provide proof of the agency relationship, including proof that they are authorized to represent both the artist as well as the presenters/venues. This can be either a written (and signed) agency or management agreement with the artists or a letter or other statement signed by the artist confirming that the artist has “appointed” the agent or manager to represent them in the United States. If the agent/manager has also booked all of the engagements (ie: the agent/manager’s name appears on each of the contracts or engagement confirmations), then such a letter of appointment appears to be appeasing the visa beasts…at least for now. However, many times either the artist has booked their own engagements directly with the presenter/venue or the engagements have been booked by a non-US agency and the US agent or manager is merely serving as the petitioner for purposes of filing the visa petition. In such cases, which appears to be your situation, USCIS is asking for proof that the US petitioner has been authorized to file the petition by the artist (or the artist’s non-US agent) as well as by the artist’s non-US agent and, in some cases, by each of the presenters/venues on the artist’s itinerary.

Based on a strict regulatory analysis, I cannot say that this is inappropriate. Rather, its just a very literal reading of certain regulations which have never been strictly enforced until now. Regardless, unless you have booked each of the artist’s engagements yourself, if there are any engagements booked directly between the artist and the venue/presenter, then you also need to include an “appointment form” from those presenters/venues authorizing you to include their engagement on the petition. If the artist has a non-US agent or manager, then you will need (1) proof of the relationship between the artist and the non-US agent and (2) proof that you have been authorized by the non-US agent to file the petition for the artist and on behalf of the engagements booked by the non-US agent. If there are any engagements booked directly by the artists, you will also need proof from the presenter/venue that you are authorized to include their date on your petition. The good news, such as it is, is that such “appointment form” does not need to be anything more elaborate that: “I have engaged [Artist] to perform for me. I hereby appoint [Petitioner] to include this engagement on the visa petition.” That’s it.

We’ve actually been doing this for a while. Whenever our management division acts as petitioner, we include appointment forms from everyone—our theory being: the more paperwork we throw into a petition, the more there’s bound to be something in there a US examiner is looking far. We apply this same theory to reviews, programs, and all other evidence as well. So far, this has worked.

As I mentioned, I have participated on several recent national conference calls with USCIS officials and, on each occasion, they have declared no knowledge of any new practices, rules, requirements, or regulatory interpretations designed to frustrate or scrutinize the O and P visa process. Instead, they claim to have helpfully appointed a panel of “performing arts experts”—three, to be exact, who, near as I can tell, have little, if any, actual practical familiarity with what we do—to help come up with suggestions to solve problems they claim do not exist. In other words, to translate this into government-speak:

There is no problem, but if there is a problem, we have appointed a panel of experts unfamiliar with the problem to help come up with solutions to address the non-existent problem which doesn’t need addressing, because there is no problem, but we promise we will make it better by focusing on fixing things that were not broken in the first place…until they were broken…but not by us.  

On second thought, perhaps these invaders aren’t from another planet after all.

_________________________________________________________________

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, Contracts, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Touring, Visas | Comments Closed

Does An Artist Need An Original Visa Approval Notice?

Thursday, March 27th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder:

Does a conductor who has been approved for an O-1 visa need to bring the original approval notice to the consulate or will a color scan of the original work? We have been getting conflicting information, including a representative at the consulate telling us on the phone that he would also need the original to enter the US. We are also concerned because when we try to schedule his appointment at the consulate we keep getting locked out of the system. Is this because we need the original or a different approval number than the one we have? 

Like any large institution, the various branches and agencies of our government are populated both with dedicated, intelligent employees who do exemplary jobs under stressful and demanding circumstances as well as with lower level invertebrates who slithered in searching for food and mysteriously found themselves employed. Sadly, you appear to have been given information from a fruit fly.

The conductor’s visa petition needs to be approved by the time of his visa appointment, but he does NOT need to bring the original approval notice with him. When a petition is filed, USCIS will issue a petition receipt notice. The receipt notice will contain a receipt number—beginning with “EAC” if it was filed at the Vermont Service Center or beginning with “WAC” if it was filed with the California Service Center.” You can use that receipt number to schedule an appointment at the consulate.

Once the petition is approved, USCIS will issue an approval notice. (As I mentioned in a recent post, be prepared to wait longer for approval notices from both services centers these days. Vermont Service Center is currently taking 30 – 60 days for standard processing of O and P petitions!!!!) The approval notice will contain the same number as the receipt number. At the time of the interview, the Consular Office will use the receipt/approval number to confirm that the petition has been approved. While, in ages past, the consulates used to require the physical approval notice, that system was replaced over 5 years ago with an on-line verification system whereby the consulate can confirm an approval using the receipt/approval number and accessing the USCIS petition approval verification database. However, be forewarned that it can take up to three days between the date of the approval and the approval itself being entered into the database. Bringing a copy of the physical approval notice will not help bridge this gap. Under the new system, the consulate is not allowed to issue a visa until they have confirmed approval in the database. In other words, the physical approval notice has been rendered obsolete.

Although we continue to recommend that an artist bring a copy of the approval notice (or the original, if available) to the appointment for reference, neither the original nor a color print out of the scanned original is necessary. While, occasionally, the folks manning the switchboards and appointment lines of some consulates tell people to bring the original approval notice, the US State Department has repeatedly re-affirmed that this is not mandatory and the Consular Officers themselves are well aware of this. As for being told that the original is required in order to enter the US, that, too, is pure misinformation.

If you are experiencing an error in the on-line system, it has nothing to do with your approval notice. Rather, it is due to the fact that government contracts for software design and maintenance are too often meted out to the lowest bidder. I suspect you are the victim of a software glitch on the consulate’s website, which is not in the least uncommon. Just wait and keep trying.

_________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and other GG-logo_for-twitterlegal 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 Artist Management, Arts Management, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Touring, 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

Too Fast and Furious To Get A Visa!

Thursday, February 20th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder:

We filed a P-1 petition for an orchestra that is to perform at our venue. The petition was approved and it includes the orchestra’s conductor. However, the conductor just informed us that he does not want to go the consulate and apply for his P-1 visa (he says he just doesn’t have time for such an inconvenience.). Instead, he wants to enter as a visitor on the ESTA/Visa Waiver Program. He claims he did this when the orchestra toured the United States last year, including performing at our venue, and there was no problem, so he wants to do it again. We never realized he performed for us last year as a visitor. Are we in trouble? What if he insists on doing this again this season? What are the risks for us and for him?

Unless this is the conductor of the Hogwarts Symphony Orchestra, he seems to be laboring under the misbelief that he can waive his magic baton and dismiss anything he finds unpleasant, inconvenient, or displeasing. If only that were true.

Your situation presents several problems, the first and most immediate being that, under U.S. Immigration Law (however, inane we may all agree it is), an artist is not allowed to perform in the U.S. while on a visitor visa. Regardless of whether or not tickets are sold and regardless of whether or not the artist is paid in the U.S. or abroad (or even if the artist performs for free), no performance activities are permitted while an artist is in visitor status. Unless an artist has been admitted on an O or P visa, or has been admitted in some other applicable work authorized classification, any performances are illegal.

Technically, as the presenter/venue, you are supposed to verify the work authorization of each artist who performs for you. Had the conductor presented his visa (or lack thereof) to you last season, it would have quickly been discovered that he was not authorized to perform.  On the slim chance you were ever audited for immigration compliance, your venue could be found to have violated U.S. Immigration law by facilitating the illegal performance of a non-U.S. artist without proper work authorization. Penalties could range from fines to the greater scrutiny of future visa petitions.

I understand that, in this case, the conductor in question was able to enter the U.S on the ESTA program, perform, and leave without issue. He was lucky….and so were you. While I can see the temptation to try the same deception again, especially for a busy conductor who does not want to make a trip to a U.S. Consulate, such luck cannot continue indefinitely.

While U.S. Consular Officers and U.S. Customs and Border Protection Officers are as vigilant as possible, they cannot catch every violator on every occasion. The situation is much like running a red light, or committing any other criminal or penal violation, without getting caught. The lack of an arrest does not make the crime any less illegal. In this case, however, the penalties for an immigration violation can be more severe than a mere traffic ticket.

For an artist, presenting oneself at the border and asking for admission as a visitor, when the artist, in fact, intends to perform illegally constitutes a fraudulent misrepresentation to a federal law enforcement officer and constitutes a felony. If caught, the artist can be subject to immediate deportation as well as restrictions on future travel, visas, and work authorization. While I am familiar with many Non-U.S. artists who have managed to sneak in and out and perform as visitors on various occasions, I am also familiar with many who have been caught, even after years of being undetected.

In one case in particular, an internationally known artist who had held multiple O-1 visas over the course of his career, found himself with an approved O-1 petition, but unable to find the time to travel to a U.S. Consulate for an interview and to receive a physical O-1 visa. Instead, he entered as a visitor. Much to the dismay of him and his management, he was discovered. Because of his notoriety and international standing, he was not deported. However, because of his attempted fraudulent entry, his visitor privileges were revoked and for the next six years he was required to seek a “waiver of inadmissibility” every time he went to a U.S. Consulate to apply for a visa. Such a waiver adds an extra 2 – 3 weeks of processing time to the issuance of a visa.

I am also familiar with a management company whose future immigration petitions have been consistently flagged for extra review and processing when it was discovered that there were knowingly assisting artists in filing deception P-1 petitions.

As you can see, I would strongly advise the conductor that the immediate temptation of avoiding the time and hassle of a trip to the consulate is outweighed by the potential loss of his ability to travel and work in the U.S. Ultimately, if he decides to continue running the red light on the assumption that he won’t get caught, you and your venue should not be required to go joy riding with him.

_________________________________________________________________

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

« Older Entries