Posts Tagged ‘visas’

« Older Entries

• A National Ban on Performance Exclusivity Clauses   • Posting Recordings on Websites • Artist Visa News, Nausea & Updates  • Your Contract Playlist    

Monday, June 24th, 2024

LAW & DISORDER

Performing Arts Division

June 25, 2024  

INSIDE THIS ISSUE:

• A National Ban on Performance Exclusivity Clauses  

• Posting Recordings on Websites

• Artist Visa News, Nausea & Updates 

• Your Contract Playlist    

 

Legal Issue of the Month:

Will a New National Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Also Apply to Performance Exclusivity Clauses? 

 

 

You may recall (or not, that’s ok, too) that in our last newsletter we discussed that on April 23, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a nation-wide ruling banning non-compete clauses in all employment contracts, regardless whether an individual is hired as an actual “employee” or as an independent contractor, paid or unpaid, an intern, or a sub-contractor hired to provide service to another party’s client or customer. You can read the announcement HERE.

Further review and analysis have shown that this new ruling, should it go into effect, will also prohibit venues and presenters from including any language in their engagement agreements restricting or prohibiting where an artist can perform before or after an artist’s performance. In other words, should the Grunion Run Performing Arts Center engage the Willy Tugger Jazz Band, they could not prohibit the band from performing two days later at the Annual Grunion Run Mayonnaise Festival where admission is free. Of course, regardless of the future contractual enforceability of a performance exclusivity clause, any artist who actually did this would be hammering a nail deep into the coffin of their touring career. 

Whilst the official effective date has yet to be announced, unless the new regulation is pre-empted by a lawsuit or other judicial action, then the ruling will likely go into effect sometime in Fall 2024.

 

 

 

Dear Law and Disorder:

Actual questions we get asked and the answers people actually don’t want

“With thanks, your friendly, neighbourhood car thief”

Dear Law & Disorder:

I want to post a video on my website that I found on the internet that would be perfect for my new project. I will give full credit to the musician, including the musician’s original link, would this be legal? And can you please specify on what full credit means.

A “copyright” is literally the right to make copies. A copyright “infringement” is when you make a copy of something without the owner’s permission. Almost everything you can find on the internet (photos, images, videos, text, etc.) is someone else’s property. Part of the challenge of understanding digital rights is that the ease with which we can download and copy materials on the internet tends to make us forget that copying any materials without permission is still copyright infringement. Without question, many people post pictures, videos, and other materials and are more than happy to have others repost and share them; but that decision is entirely up to the person who owns the materials. In other words, just because a car is parked on the street, doesn’t mean it’s free for the taking. As for giving “full credit,” that’s like stealing a car, but leaving a thank you note on the owner’s door. It doesn’t make it any less a crime.

If you want to get actual permission to post a video, photograph, or any other copyrighted material on your website, then you need to get permission (aka “a license”) from the owner—which may or may not be the artist. The better option would be for you to post a link to the video rather than post the video itself. In other words, you would be inviting your readers to go to YouTube or the artist’s own website to view the video. This way, the owner can control whether or not they want the video to be shared.

And now, the part you’ve all been waiting for……

Artist Visa News, Nausea

& Updates

 

Most of you know by now that between December 2023 and April 2024, USCIS implemented a number of new filing fees and policies purportedly designed to “maintain adequate service.” Please Note: I did not make that part up. This is direct quote from the preamble to the Final Rule issued by USCIS on January 31, 2024 in which it sets out the goals of its new rules and policies: Not to “improve service” or even “increase processing times,” but to aspire to the lofty and inspired goal of “maintain adequate service.” You can read it for yourself HERE. That’s only slightly less disingenuous than a mobile service touting a 6G upgrade of two tin cans and piece of string.

USCIS, far from its delusions of adequacy, instead has taken an already broken system, smashed it into more pieces, glued it back together with spit and crushed graham crackers, and tossed it into a soggy carboard box of berserk cane toads. After two months in the toad box, here’s where we are:

 

1. Standard Processing Times Are Getting Slower 

Processing times are getting longer, slower, and more intense, which is good news only for those of you who fantasize about USCIS visa examiners. Though we have seen a few instances of standard processed petitions taking 4 months or longer, most seem to be taking 2 – 4 months from the date of filing. Whilst the Vermont Service Center appears to be processing more quickly than the California Service, as USCIS is no longer assigning petitions to service centers based on jurisdiction, there is no way to know where your petition will wind up or exactly how long it will take to be processed.

Premium Processing appears to be taking 7 – 15 business days, with, again, Vermont processing more quickly than California.

2. USCIS Is Losing P Petitions

For those of you unfortunately forced to file multiple P petition to cover large groups, such as four P-1 Petitions to cover an orchestra of 80 musicians, USCIS is splitting them up and sending them to different service centers who adjudicate them at different times. Even when a single P-1 Petition is filed concurrently with a single P-1S Petition or an O-1 Petition is filed with an O-2 Petition, USCIS is splitting them up and sending them to different examiners at different service centers. In the interest of further proving that they aren’t even competent enough to trust with scissors, USCIS is also losing a few along the way. In one particular case, three P-1 Petitions for a large group were filed concurrently with premium processing. USCIS approved 2 and lost 1. Eventually, they found it 30 days after it had been filed, emailed the receipt notice with a thoughtful note saying, “thanks for your patience,” and approved it 2 days later. (Yes, USCIS has to refund the premium processing fee for that one.) So, allow even more time when filing petitions for large groups.

TIP: If you do not receive an I-979 Receipt Notice for a filed petition, then go to your bank and see if USCIS cashed the filing fee check. If so, on the back of the cancelled check will be the receipt number for the petition. You can then use this to deride them when they try to claim it was never filed. 

3. USCIS Is Improperly Rejecting Petitions

There have been numerous instances reported of USCIS rejecting petitions for incorrect filing fees even where the filing fees were correct. This appears to be due to the fact the separating the total filing fee of a petition into multiple different fees based on the business status of the petitioner has not worked as seamlessly as they had hoped. USCIS reports that this is a “training issue,” which presumably means this will improve with rolled newspaper and better treats.

TIP: If you are a non-profit of an employer of 1 – 25 employees, then be sure to address this in your cover letter and explain why you qualify for a reduced fee. Also remember to provide the appropriate documentation of your status.

REMINDER: To qualify as a “small employer” you must have at least 1 full-time employee on a payroll and from whose pay checks taxes are withheld. Otherwise, you are a “small business” or “self-employed” and must pay the maximum filing fees.

4. USCIS Is Issuing Barmier RFEs

USCIS has always been renowned for issuing tragically comical Requests for Evidence (RFEs) when it comes to displays of their obliviousness of anything that occurs on a stage—which, of course, always raises the question of whose idea it was to give them the final say on the casting and booking decisions of major opera companies, theatres, and presenters in the first place. Nonetheless, unattended USCIS Examiners have recently been burrowing into new depths of obtusity in their soiled sand box and issuing more preposterous RFEs. In particular, we have seen a disturbing increase in RFEs for P-1S (Essential Support Staff) Petitions in which they are asking for individual employment contracts for each person with specific employment terms and conditions, more information on why the services provided are necessary for a performance, and why the group can’t just hire US workers to do the same thing. To pluck just a few pearls:

  • What do stage managers do and why are they necessary for a performance?
  • Why can’t an orchestra engage a US-based Orchestra Manager to manage their orchestra when they perform in the US?
  • If the group is performing in New York City, will the group’s lighting designer and stage technicians be providing their services at the same venue at the same time?

Other notable RFE’s we have seen over the last few months include USCIS contending that:

  • An “audience prize” given to an artist at a competition does not count as an “award” because he was selected by the audience and not by experts, critics, or judges in his field.
  • Competitions for “Young Artists” do not count as significant awards or competitions because young artists are only competing against other young artists. For such an award to be “significant”, the competition must include older artists.
  • An opera conductor is not in the same field as an orchestral conductor because one conducts orchestras and one conducts operas, thereby requiring two union consultation letters.
  • An artist performing at a festival cannot be a “lead and starring artist” if there are other artists also performing at the same festival. To be a “lead and starring artist,” the artist must be the only artist performing at the festival.

And my personal favourite: a request for “independent, third-party proof” of the formal name and full street address of Carnegie Hall, as well as proof that, just because the artist has been engaged to perform at Carnegie Hall they will physically be performing on-site.

Fortunately, all of these petitions were ultimately approved, but not without extra expense, lost time, and digging ever deeper into the repository of linguistic condescension in responding to the RFEs—including printing out Google Maps driving directions from the address of the California Service Center to the front door of Carnegie Hall.

TIP: Trying to explain or induce USCIS to appreciate the impact of their ineptness on the Performing Arts will produce only slightly less meaningful results than a zip log bag of toenail clippings. Rather, work around them. Know that they are extraordinarily paranoid, as well as painfully literal. Never explain or make them think. Give them what they want to know, regardless of how stupid or rudimentary it may seem, and in the simplest of terms possible. If what they want doesn’t exist, draft simple, specific documents just for USCIS that addresses the specific things they want to know.

 

Want To Listen To More About Contracts?

 

My friend and longtime client, Laura Colby, a performing arts manager based in New York City, hosts a podcast entitled The Middle Woman. In The Middle Woman, Laura discusses best practices for managing, touring, and presenting the performing arts from the lens of a working artist and shares her collected learnings with the new generation of performing arts professionals.

She recently invited me to join her in a discussion about contracts in the performing arts.

Here are the links to access the episode on Spotify, Amazon Music, Audible, and Apple Podcast.

Whilst it may or may not be the best thing to listen to before going to bed, it was a great discussion.

 

 

 

Deep Thoughts

 

“Remember, when you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It is only painful for others. The same applies when you are stupid.”

― Ricky Gervais

 

Send Us Your Questions! 

Let us know what you’d like to hear more about.
Send us an email, post on Facebook, mail us a letter, dispatch a messenger, raise a smoke signal, reach out telepathically, or use whatever method works for you.

OFFICIAL LEGALESE:

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 threatening email, filing a lawsuit, or basically doing anything that may in any way rely upon an assumption that we know what we are talking about or one size fits all!

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Artist Management, Arts Management, Contracts, Copyrights, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Licensing, Presenters, Uncategorized, Visas | Comments Closed

Contractual Effrontery; Not Paying Artists is a Crime!; How a Government Shutdown Will Impact US Artist Visas

Tuesday, September 26th, 2023

LAW & DISORDER

Performing Arts Division

September 27, 2023 

INSIDE THIS ISSUE:

• Contractual Effrontery  

• Not Paying Artists Is A Crime!

• How A Government Shutdown

Will Impact US Artist Visas 

 

Legal Issue of the Month:

Contractual Effrontery  

Recently, I was contacted by an agent regarding a new artist that was joining his roster. In response to receiving a copy of the agent’s managerial contract, the artist responded with a terse missive that they found the contract to be “unfriendly.” The artist complained that they were expecting a simple, written confirmation that the parties would be working in a mutual spirit of collaboration and partnership and not, as the artist opined, a “harshly written” and “aggressive” formal document with requirements, restrictions, terms, and conditions. The agent asked me to take a look at the contract.

I took a look. Whilst not a model of light-hearted whimsy, the contract contained the typically dry and prosy terms one would expect to find in an Artist/Agent contract: how commissions are calculated and paid; the agent’s booking territory and exclusivity rights; termination provisions; etc. Was it peppered with frippery and bagatelles? No. But neither did it hurl insults at the artist nor identify the contractual parties as “Manager (hereinafter referred to “He Who Must Be Obeyed”) and Artist (hereinafter referred to as “Scum”).” In short, there was nothing to find “unfriendly” or aggressive.

Make no mistake, I find it commendable that the artist actually read the contract. Indeed, given the fact that most in our industry avoid words and contracts as if reading anything that cannot fit on a post-it note will send their eyeballs exploding out their elbows, I was delighted. What is discouraging is that the artist took the contract as a personal affront rather than what it was: the agent’s proposal of the terms, definitions, and conditions that would define the “collaboration and partnership” between them. It was nothing more than an invitation for the artist to review the contract and respond with their own questions, clarifications, and proposals for alternative terms and conditions—though, in this case, the problem seems to have stemmed from the fact that the artist was anticipating no terms or conditions of any kind, presenter a deeper existential issue.  

The very core of any successful collaboration or partnership is making sure that all the parties are, in fact, working with the same playbook. And that’s the whole, entire, and sole point of a contract: that before any work is done, engagements booked, or music composed, the parties have exhausted every effort to root out unexpressed concerns and fears, unclog misconstrued conversations, and extract hidden expectations from the crevices of unspoken assumptions.

Whenever I am asked to review a contract, the first thing I do is ask my client to express their own understanding of what has already been discussed, outlined, or orally agreed upon. Then, I can draw back the covers to see how close or far apart the parties actually are. Discovering that the other party has expectations and assumptions that are contrary to your own makes them neither nefarious nor contemptible. It just means that you and they are not yet on the same page (both literally and figuratively) and that further conversations, clarifications, and discussions will be needed to assess whether or not to proceed with the relationship. However, if at the outset any reasonable proposal or question results in the other party clutching their pearls and gasping at such brazen impertinence, that is a good indication that any collaboration or partnership is not going to go well without an intervening therapist. 

Dear Law and Disorder:

Actual questions we get asked and the answers people actually don’t want

“Not Paying an Artist is a Crime!” 

Dear Law & Disorder:
Our company got a bad check from a non-profit venue for a performance we did. We called them and they sent us a new check, but that bounced, too. Now they won’t return our phone calls. Is there anything we can do?

I once had an artistic director of a dysfunctional non-profit tell me that, although they were unable to pay the money owed to an artist, the artist should be satisfied having already been paid ten-fold in the goodwill and joy they brought to the audience. Sadly, I have yet to find landlords and grocery stories willing to accept payment in goodwill and joy. 

Almost every state has a statute that allows a person who receives a bad check to sue the issuer of the check and not only receive two to three times the value of the check, but recover attorneys’ fees and court costs as well. In addition to suing the non-profit itself, most states will also allow you to sue the individual who signed the check even if they were acting as an officer, employee, board member, or volunteer of the non-profit. While it’s true that suing an organization that has no money is often a waste of your own time and money, it’s also a crime in most states to write a bad check. You will want to do some research on the laws in your particular state.

Regardless, your first step should never be to file a lawsuit or run to the police. Besides, both civil and criminal laws require some form of “intent” on the part of the issuer of the check. There is no liability for inadvertently writing a bad check or in situations where the check merely crossed with the available funds. If the mismanagement of a non-profit were a crime, most of the 2023/2024 season would be presented at the Rikers Island Centre for the Arts. If the non-profit is not returning your calls, try other forms of communication such as emails or even formal letters. If necessary, send letters to the Chairman of the Board or to individual board members reminding them of their potential exposure to personal as well as criminal liability. If they continue to ignore you or fail to make payment, then at least you will have written proof of their intent not to honour the check and then you can consider whether to contact a local attorney, file a claim in small claims court, or contact the local prosecutor’s office in the city or town where the venue is located. Regardless, do not, under any circumstances, post anything on social media in an effort to shame them into paying you. Whilst public shaming worked for the Puritans, it will backfire on you for a number of reasons.

 

Artist Visa News & Nausea 

• How A Government Shutdown Will Impact Artist Visas

In the fantastically remote and implausible event that the US Congress cannot cast aside the ponderous chains of party and ideological differences, sipping from the communal grail of public service thereby discarding their own personal goals and aspirations to rapturously ascend the alchemical mountain into the prima materia of the common good, and in so doing pass the spending bills necessary to keep the government open beyond midnight on October 1, 2023, then certain US government agencies will cease operations.

As USCIS is mostly funded by petition filing fees, they will continue to review visa petitions—albeit processing may slow due to outside contractors not being paid. However, depending on how long the shutdown lasts, certain US Consulates around the world could experience delays in being able to process visa applications or cease all but emergency operations. Even when the government re-opens, the resulting backlogs could see delays continue for a while. So, again, whilst an unlikely scenario in a highly functioning democracy that owes no apologies to King George III, one may want to plan for contingencies, nonetheless.

• New Edition of the I-129 Form

Starting November 1, 2023, USCIS will only accept the new 05/31/23 edition of the I-129 Form. They have made no changes to the form itself. They merely changed the date of the form. Whilst some may consider this pointless, I have found myself enjoying new depths of restful slumber cradled in the knowledge that the Department of Homeland Security is tireless in its efforts to ensure malicious hordes of foreign orchestras do not employ date compromised forms to breach our borders. Until November 1, 2023, you can continue to submit the old 11/02/22 edition, but you might as well start using the new edition now. You can find the edition date at the bottom of the page on the form and instructions. As a general rule, if you make a habit of always downloading the I-129 form directly from the USCIS website whenever you prepare a petition, you will always have the most current edition.

• Using Consultation Letters from Peer Groups instead of Unions

We have recently seen an uptick in USCIS issuing a Request for Evidence (RFE) in response to petitions in which the Petitioner has provided a consultation letter from an artist peer group (such as Opera America, Fractured Atlas, or the League of American Orchestras) as opposed to the applicable performing arts labour union (such as AFM, AGMA, or AGVA). Whilst the applicable USCIS regulations allow for consultation letters to come from unions OR peer groups, not all Examiners are able to find this on their Fisher Price Lil’ Examiner Regulation Spin-a-Wheel pull toy. As a result, the petition will be put on hold until you can either present the Examiner with the citation to the regulation or get a union consultation letter. Depending upon whether you paid for standard or premium processing, this could cause a delay of 15 days to 3 months. As, in my experience, the most inane RFEs are only ever issued in response to petitions that are also the most time sensitive, in instances where you are on a short time you’re better off spending the extra money to get the union letter at the outset. The $300 consultation fee you try to save today could cost the cancellation you face without a visa being approved in time.

• Current USCIS Service Centre Processing Times:

There have been signs of slower processing times at the Vermont Service Center, though they are still faster than the oozing pace maintained at The California Service Center.

Vermont Service Centre:

Standard processing: 8 – 10 weeks

Premium processing: 9 – 10 days

California Service Centre:

Standard Processing 3 – 4 months

Premium Processing 13 – 14 days

 

Deep Thoughts

“If the wise elders of the village don’t teach the children, the village idiots will certainly do so.”

African Proverb 

 

 

 

Send Us Your Questions! 

Let us know what you’d like to hear more about.
Send us an email, post on Facebook, mail us a letter, dispatch a messenger, raise a smoke signal, reach out telepathically, or use whatever method works for you.

GG Arts Law provides a comprehensive range of legal services and strategic support for the performing arts, including: Artist Visas, Taxes, and Touring; Rights & Licensing; Negotiations & Representation; Contracts; Business & Non-Profit Organization & Management; Project Management; and Strategic Consulting & Planning.

 

OFFICIAL LEGALESE:

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 threatening email, filing a lawsuit, or basically doing anything that may in any way rely upon an assumption that we know what we are talking about or one size fits all!

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

Artist Visa Updates, Non-Compete Agreements, Manager/Agent Trust Accounts, 1st Amendment Poop Jokes

Wednesday, April 5th, 2023

LAW & DISORDER

Performing Arts Division

April 6, 2023 

INSIDE THIS ISSUE:

• Artist Visa Updates

• Non-Compete Agreements

• Manager/Agent Trust Accounts

• Is There A Constitutional Right

To Poop Jokes?

 

Artist Visa News & Nausea 

• The Status of Proposed Petition Fee Increases

Thanks to all of you who took the time to write USCIS and the denizens of Congress to object to USCIS’s loathsome proposal to raise petition fees by 300%. A lot of people have since been asking what happens next and what to expect. It’s hard to say. Typically, when USCIS imposes new rules and policies they give 60 – 90 days advance notice. In this case, should USCIS decide to implement the fee increases, my belief is that various lawsuits will be filed to enjoin them from going into effect while they are challenged in court.

So, while you can expect nothing to change within the immediate future, beyond that is anyone’s guess. I know that the lack of certainly is going to make it hard when budgeting for 2023/2024 tours, but nothing about getting visas for artists to perform in the US has ever been a bedrock of dependability or predictability.

• DOS Increases Visa Stamp Application Fees

Speaking of fee increases, not to be upstaged by its nefarious cousins at USCIS, the US Department of State announced on March 28, 2023 that US Consulates will be raising the minimum fee for visa stamp applications from $190 to $205 effective 5/30/23. I’d like to say that this will allow them to hire additional staff to address the significant backlogs and delays that continue to plague US Consulates around the world, but I would be lying if I said that. Instead, except in rare, dire, and unusual circumstances, no one should expect to submit a visa stamp application at most US Consulates and get the visa stamp back in less than 2 – 3 weeks, or longer. In other words, whilst I do not in the least disagree with the indignant music director who sent me an email complaining about the “iniquitous absurdity” of a US Consulate refusing to accommodate his tight international performance schedule, he nonetheless still had to wrench up his big boy pants and accept the cruel slap of indifferent reality.

• Current USCIS Service Centre Processing Times:

Vermont Service Centre: Standard processing: 6 – 8 weeks

Premium processing: 9 – 10 days

California Service Centre: Standard Processing: 3 – 4 months!

Premium Processing: 13 – 14 days

If some of you have filed petitions at the California Service Centre and receive a notice that your petition is being transferred to another service centre DO NOT PANIC. To deal with backlogs, USCIS is randomly transferring petitions to other service centres.

• Request for Evidence (RFE) Alert:

In circumstances where managers/agents have filed visa petitions in which they have also signed the US engagement contracts on behalf of their artists, we have recently been seeing USCIS issuing RFEs asking for (i) proof that the artist has authorized the manager/agent to sign on their behalf and (ii) proof the both the artist and each presenter have authorized the manager/agent to be the petitioner. While you “could” just provide USCIS with copies of management/agent agreements and include petitioner appointment language in all engagement contracts, that would presume a USCIS examiner will read them much less comprehend multisyllabic words. Its simpler just to have everyone—the artist and each presenter/venue—sign a piece of paper saying “I appoint X to be the Petitioner.”

Legal Issue of the Month:

Are non-compete/non-solicitation agreements a thing of the past?

Whether it’s a management company hiring an associate or a non-profit organization hiring a development director, its not uncommon in the arts and entertainment industry for employment contracts to include non-compete provisions which generally serve to prevent employees from taking jobs with an ex-employer’s competitors or clients for a certain period of time after they leave.

On Jan. 5, 2023, the Federal Trade Commission released a proposed rule that would bar employers from making workers agree to non-competes. The proposed rule is based on a preliminary finding that non-competes constitute a form of unfair competition in the labour market, lowering wages, and stifling innovation, among other issues, and therefore violate Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The proposed rule, as written, would apply to independent contractors and unpaid interns as well as employees, and it would make companies retroactively rescind non-competes they’ve already secured.

Non-solicitation agreements, whereby employees are forbidden from soliciting existing clients, customers, or employees of their employers, as well as agreements that prevent ex-employees from using or disclosing the proprietary, non-public information of their ex-employers (such as engagement contracts, books and records, tour budgets, etc.) would continue to be valid provided they are narrow, targeted, and not silly. For example, presenter and venue contact information, or anything that could be found on its own just by asking someone else or through a google search is neither proprietary nor confidential.

As most courts will not enforce broad non-competes and non-solicitation agreements anyway, this new rule would prevent employers from bullying or threatening their employees with frivolous lawsuits by not allowing such provisions to be in a contract in the first place.

Dear Law and Disorder:

Actual questions we get asked and the answers people actually don’t want

“Manager/Agent Trust Accounts”

Dear Law and Disorder:

I am considering working with an agent, but almost every agent I speak with wants to collect my engagement fees on my behalf. Why can’t I collect my fees and just pay the agent? If an agent collects my fees, should I ask for a separate bank account? What about statements? Is it reasonable to ask for monthly accountings? When do I get paid? What’s standard?

First, and foremost, nothing in this business is “standard.” Yes, there are penchants and preferences, but if you took a poll of 50 people in our business and ask what is “standard”, you’d get 50 difference answers—with all 50 basing their definition upon their own self-interest. So, if anyone tries to force you into an arrangement you don’t want by claiming its “standard” or “this is what everyone does”, run away! If parties truly want to work together, everything is negotiable.

All that being said, it’s not uncommon for an agent or manager to prefer to accept fees on behalf of an artist. Among the very legitimate reasons for this, it allows artists to focus on performing and not bookkeeping, especially when on tour, and allows the agent to follow up on contracts, payments, and other logistical issues on an artist’s behalf. It’s also easier for an agent to collect fees, deduct commissions, and send the balance to the artist rather the agent having to issue an invoice or chase down an artist who, again, may be on tour or simply abstains from reading any emails that contain the subject line “balance due.”

Both licensed and un-licensed agents are legally required to keep all collected money in a separate account and issue statements accounting for all money collected and held on behalf of an artist. Keeping money in a separate account not only makes booking and accountings easier, but also helps to ensure than an artist’s money doesn’t accidentally get co-mingled with the agent’s own money. Also, in the event an engagement is cancelled, a deposit may need to be returned. Having the money held in a separate account ensures that the funds are not prematurely dispensed, or used for unrelated purposes, for which both the artist and agent could be liable.

Is There a Constitutional

 

Right To Poop Jokes?

The US Supreme Court is poised to address one of the most epochal issues on everyone’s mind: is there a 1st Amendment right to tell poop jokes?

Currently before the Supreme Court is Jack Daniel’s v. VIP Products wherein VIP Products, the nation’s second-largest maker of dog toys, is accused of infringing upon the whiskey maker’s trademarked bottle shape and label by manufacturing and selling squishy dog toys that resemble a bottle of Jack Daniel’s with the label showing a dog and the by-line “dropping the old No. 2 on your Tennessee carpet.” While traditional parody exceptions already in place would normally support VIP, Jack Daniel’s contends that the value of its trademark will be diminished if people begin to think its product makes dogs poop. So, VIP has responded by arguing that the 1st Amendment supersedes Trademark Law and allows parody to cross any lines or restrictions, regardless of how offensive or objectionable to the party being parodied—which would be a superfluous argument in most cases had not several lower federal courts agreed.

Notwithstanding the fact that so many of its customers apparently serve whiskey to their dogs that Jack Daniel’s is concerned with lost sales, should VIP prevail it would essentially eliminate trademark law when it comes to parody. It’s a classical example of an inane case brought purely because litigators are willing to litigate anything if you pay them enough, the outcome of which could have larger consequences: Does a 1st Amendment claim of parody automatically allow anyone to use another’s name, song title, or logos without restriction and under any circumstances, whether its by association with poop, porn, or politicians, regardless of the owner’s objections or concerns?

For those of you who feel so moved, you can read more about this here:

www.vox.com/politics/23650136/supreme-court-poop-jokes-jack-daniels-vip-dog-toy-trademark-lanham-act

Deep Thoughts

“With enough spizzerinctum, there’s almost nothing you can’t accomplish.”

Cynthia Bowes-Palmer

 

 

 

Send Us Your Questions! 

Let us know what you’d like to hear more about.
Send us an email, post on Facebook, mail us a letter, dispatch a messenger, raise a smoke signal, reach out telepathically, or use whatever method works for you.

GG Arts Law provides a comprehensive range of legal services and strategic support for the performing arts, including: Artist Visas, Taxes, and Touring; Rights & Licensing; Negotiations & Representation; Contracts; Business & Non-Profit Organization & Management; Project Management; and Strategic Consulting & Planning.

 

OFFICIAL LEGALESE:

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 threatening email, filing a lawsuit, or basically doing anything that may in any way rely upon an assumption that we know what we are talking about or one size fits all!

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

USCIS PROPOSES DRACONIAN FEE INCREASES FOR ARTIST VISAS! 

Wednesday, January 25th, 2023

LAW & DISORDER

Performing Arts Division

January 25, 2023

USCIS PROPOSES DRACONIAN FEE INCREASES FOR ARTIST VISAS! 

Despite my efforts to have our blogs and updates covering a wide range of topics, and not just artist visas, I am now frustratingly forced to focus entirely on a significant issue that has arisen in the world of obtaining visas for artists to perform in the US.

United Statues Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), by and through the auspices of their reptilian overlords, the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS), has proposed the following:

  1.  The standard processing fee for O-1 and O-2 petitions would increase for $460 to $1655 per petition.
  2.  The standard processing fee for P petitions would increase from $460 to $1615 per petition.
  3.  O-2, P-1, and P-1S petitions would be limited to 25 people per petition.
  4.  The Premium Processing Fee would remain at $2500 per petition, but the petition would be processed in 15 business days as   opposed to the current policy of 15 calendar days.

So, for example:

  • If a major orchestra or ensemble with 80 members wanted to tour the U.S., it would need to file 4 petitions at a total cost of $6460 in USCIS filing fees (4 petitions x $1615). If they needed support staff (managers, stage crew, etc.) that would require an additional petition at a cost of an additional $1615. If premium processing were required, that would cost an additional $12,500 (5 petitions x $2500).
  • If a single artist wanted to enter with an accompanist, band, company members, or crew, that would require O-1 and O-2 petitions at a cost of $3310 (2 petitions x $1655).

USCIS argues that it is facing considerable backlogs and staffing shortages and that, as it must rely almost entirely on petition fees to fund its operations, it needs to raise its fees to meet demand and improve service. It also argues that, as a result of COVID, fewer petitions were filed, resulting in a significant loss of income.

To be fair, unlike most other government agencies, USCIS does, indeed, rely almost entirely on fees and not federal funding. Also, whereas Congress allocated specific funds to USCIS in fiscal year 2022 to be used to address backlogs, all that got taken away for fiscal year 2023. However, USCIS was infamous long before COVID for operating with the competency and efficiency of a Great Dane cooking a soufflé with an oven mitt on its head. Moreover, $600 of the proposed fee increases include an “Asylum Program Fee” whereby everyone who files a petition or application of any kind with USCIS will be assessed an extra fee to cover the costs of USCIS having to process an increased number of applications for asylum seekers and refugees. In other words, the proposed $1655 filing fee for an O petition actually consists of a $1055 filing fee plus an additional $600 “build the wall” fee.

Because these are “proposals” and not a final ruling, USCIS is required, however disingenuously, to provide a “comment period” for the general public and interested parties to provide comments, objections, and concerns. The comment period is open until March 6, 2023, after which USCIS will take several months to review public feedback, disregard any feedback it doesn’t agree with, and implement the new proposals anyway.

Many will recall that USCIS proposed significant fee increases and policy changes in 2019 and disregarded all of the public comments and objections at that time. Ultimately, it was only due to a lawsuit and a subsequent court injunction that thwarted USCIS’s plans. Having since had a chance to study its enemy and reassemble its forces, USCIS is proposing even more drastic proposals than it did in 2019. 

Should you be in need of extraordinary abrasive toilet tissue, you can download, read, wince, and flush the full 500 pages of the Proposal HERE. Among its many slings and arrows, you will note that USICS specifically addresses, and summarily dismisses, any significant impact these proposals would have on “arts” and “culture.” At pages 99 – 100 of the Proposal USCIS writes:

“DHS is committed to reducing barriers and promoting accessibility to immigration benefits, and knows that the beneficiaries of Forms I-129 and I-140 fuel our economy, contribute to our arts, culture, and government…DHS is also aware that Forms I-129 and I-140 are submitted by non-profit entities [and] appreciates that non-profit or small entities may not have the same level of financial resources as many large, for-profit corporations that also submit petitions for foreign workers.

USCIS purports that it engaged in a study of the impact that petition fees have on non-profits and small entities and concluded: “…approximately 90 percent of the small entities in the sample experienced an economic impact of less than 1 percent of their reported revenue… USCIS acknowledges that those small entities with greater than 1 percent impact may file fewer petitions as a result of this proposed rule.” In short, USCIS ran all this by Disney, Netflix, and the NBA, who also file O and P petitions, and they expressed no objections to the additional fees. However, for those of you not supported by a national sports league, USCIS helpfully suggests on page 269 of the Proposal: “DHS acknowledges that applicants and petitioners may face additional difficulties in paying the fees, and may be required to…save money longer to afford the fees, or resort to credit cards or borrowing…”

Although artist visa petitions represent a small fraction of the work USCIS is asked to do, USCIS concedes at page 210 of the Proposal that it does not, in fact, have the capacity or data to determine whether or not O and P petitions for artists in particular are adding to its backlog at all. It specifically admits: “DHS lacks the information to propose separate fees for each of these classifications.” So, the teacher has merely decided to punish the entire class rather than attempt to discover exactly who put 12 tablets of Dulcolax in her tea.

In other words, USCIS continues to display less that a fart from a flea on the freckle on a demented rat’s ass about the arts and entertainment sector.

I strongly suspect that, as in 2019, fighting this new advance will require yet another lawsuit, except this time with all major arts organizations, service organizations, venues, and presenters all joining in as part of major class action. For now, we need to take advantage of the comment process and raise as much noise as we can.

A CALL TO ARMS!

The tireless warriors at the League of American Orchestras are working with national organizations throughout the arts and entertainment industry to prepare joint comments. However, it is essential that each of you—your artists, board members, audience members, supporters, friends, families, and even opposible toed pets—take the time to comment on the significant artistic and economic impact these proposals will have on the ability for international artists to perform in the US. ALL artists, from ALL sectors: jazz to opera, folk to theatre, rock to ballet, playwrights, composers, orchestras, bands, and everyone one all sides and in-between. We need to be in this together.

The League of American Orchestras has compiled suggestions for comments, including:

  • International artists are engaged throughout the arts and entertainment industry, which is still itself recovering from the effects of COVID-19. Most of these entities do not, in fact, have the ability to pay these proposed fees. 
  • Drastic fee increases will stifle international cultural activity, put U.S.-based jobs at risk, and have a negative economic ripple effect on communities supported by arts events.
  • Delays in processing are already forcing some petitioners to pay the already unaffordible Premium Processing Fee or forgo engaging international artists.
  • To date, USCIS has ignores all proposals that have repeatedly been made to them through all available channels to suggest ways it could change its own policies and procedures with regard to reducing any backlog specifically related to O and P artist petitions, including (i) recognizing prior O and P approvals; (ii) requiring only updated materials as opposed entirely new petitions for artists that have recently performed in the U.S.; or (iii) deferring to experts and established arts organizations to know who is and is not a “distinguished” artist or group and not assume that every bassoonist or flower mime is being engaged purely to make America “less great.” (Ok, I added the “less great” bit on my own. Don’t include that.)

It is also essential to provide SPECIFIC examples of the financial impact these new fees will have on you or your organization in particular, such as cancelling performances, losing the ability to engage guest artists, etc.

Comments can be filed online through the Federal Register Portal by the deadline of March 6, 2023. 

To make your comment, click HERE.

Please remember that any comments submitted through the Federal Register portal will be viewable by the public. So, avoid threats and keep swearing to a minimum.

In addition to issuing a formal comment in response to the Proposal, everyone is strongly encouraged to forward a copy of your comments to your U.S. Senators and members of the U.S. House of Representatives, as well as engage the your audiences, speak up and out, create performance art advocacy, and whatever else it takes for our situation to be taken seriously.  

You can find a deeper analysis, along with further advocacy opportunities on the League’s website as well as on its recently released ADVOCACY ALERT.

Deep Thoughts 

 

“Arise, arise, Riders of Théoden!

Fell deeds awake, fire and slaughter! spear shall be shaken, shield be splintered, a sword-day, a red day, ere the sun rises!

Ride now, ride now! Ride to Gondor!”

— J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King

 

Send Us Your Questions! 

Let us know what you’d like to hear more about.
Send us an email, post on Facebook, mail us a letter, dispatch a messenger, raise a smoke signal, reach out telepathically, or use whatever method works for you.

 

GG Arts Law provides a comprehensive range of legal services and strategic support for the performing arts, including: Artist Visas, Taxes, and Touring; Rights & Licensing; Negotiations & Representation; Contracts; Business & Non-Profit Organization & Management; Project Management; and Strategic Consulting & Planning.

OFFICIAL LEGALESE:

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 threatening email, filing a lawsuit, or basically doing anything that may in any way rely upon an assumption that we know what we are talking about or one size fits all!

 

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

IN-PERSON APPOINTMENT WAIVERS NOW AVAILABLE FOR O AND P VISAS

Tuesday, January 4th, 2022

By Brian Taylor Goldstein

Happy New Year! Let’s hope the 2021 we wanted finally comes in 2022,

Perhaps you were as surprised as I to wake up Christmas morning to discover that the U.S. Department of State had left an actual gift in our stockings. Not too much, and not too expensive, but it’s the thought that counts.

In order to address the ongoing delays and backlogs in obtaining visa application appointments at U.S. Consulates, the Department of State announced on December 23, 2021 that it was expanding its policy of permitting U.S. Consulates to waive in-person appointments/interviews for visa applications and allowing applicants to apply for visas merely by mailing in the passport and with no in-person appointment/interview required. A such, effective immediately:

  • Anyone needing to apply for an O or P visa who has ever been issued a U.S. visa in any visa category (B, F, O, P, J, etc) at any time in the past is now eligible for an in-person appointment/interview waiver.

 

  • Anyone needing to apply for an O or P visa who has never been approved for a U.S. visa before is also now eligible for an in-person appointment/interview waiver provided:

(1) They are a citizen of a country that participates in the US. Visa Waiver Programme (VWP); and

(2) They have previously traveled to the U.S. at least once before under ESTA (Electronic System for Travel Authorization).

  • Anyone needing to apply for an O or P visa who has previously been issued an O or P visa within the last 48 months of the prior visa’s expiration date is also eligible for an in-person appointment/interview waiver.

There are two important additional requirements:

(1) The visa applicant’s O or P petition must be approved by USCIS by the time they submit their passport to the consulate; and

(2) The visa application must be submitted at the U.S. Consulate located in the country of which they are a citizen or permanent resident. It is still possible to apply for a visa any ANY U.S. Consulate in the world. However, you will not be eligible for an in-person appointment/interview waiver unless you apply at the U.S. Consulate located in the country where you are a citizen or permanent resident.

As always, U.S. Consulates set their own procedures and policies with regard to how they implement directives from the Department of State. So, the process for requesting an in-person appointment/interview waiver will vary from consulate to consulate, even with regard to consulates within the same country. However, in general, to apply for a visa and request an in-person appointment/interview waiver, the applicant should:

(1) Go to the website of the U.S. Consulate located in the country of which they are a citizen or permanent resident to check for updates and specific policies.

(2) Complete a DS-160 and pay the application fee.

(3) Follow the instructions for requesting an in-person appointment/interview waiver.

Whether or not an in-person appointment/interview waiver will be granted will continue to remain at the discretion of the U.S. Consulate. In general, any applicant who has ever been refused a visa in the past will not qualify, unless that refusal was overcome or waived, and there can be no apparent or potential ineligibilities. Also, due to ongoing staff shortages U.S. Consulates around the world as a result of COVID and the insidiously prolific variations of its mephistophelian offspring, some U.S. Consulates may limit the visa categories eligible for in-person appointment/ interview waivers as well as limit the number of total waivers they are able to process in all categories any given time

For those interested in reading the actual U.S. State Department announcement, click here on the helpful government information specialist:

GG Arts Law provides a comprehensive range of legal services and strategic support for the performing arts, including: Artist Visas, Taxes, and Touring; Rights & Licensing; Negotiations & Representation; Contracts; Business & Non-Profit Organization & Management; Project Management; and Strategic Consulting & Planning.

VISIT OUR NEW WEBSITE: ggartslaw.com‘

 

THE OFFICIAL LEGALESE:

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 or threatening email to someone, filing a lawsuit, or basically doing anything that may in any way rely upon an assumption that we know what we are talking about.

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

CLOUDY WITH CONTINUED EXCEPTIONS

Sunday, July 11th, 2021

Every time I sit down to write a blog about a more compelling subject, such as tales of successful artist entrepreneurship or navigating exciting new commissions and projects, a visa crisis drags me back into the bowels of despair. On this occasion, it’s the ongoing impact of the U.S. COVID Travel Ban on international artists coming to the U.S. compounded by the significant backlogs and delays at most U.S. consulates.

For those of you who don’t know what I am talking about, you either don’t work with non-U.S. artists or you have been blissfully unconscious for the past 15 months. Whichever the case may be: “Where ignorance is bliss, tis folly to be wise.” (Thomas Gray). For everyone else, here’s a quick recap:

Under the U.S. COVID Travel Ban, anyone traveling to the U.S. from the European Schengen Area (Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Monaco, San Marino, and Vatican City), the United Kingdom, Ireland, Brazil, South Africa, or India cannot enter the U.S. without EITHER traveling to a country not on the list and quarantining there for 14 days before entering the U.S. OR qualifying for an exception to the ban. There are various exceptions for immediate family members of U.S. Citizens spouses, medical professionals, and people coming to help fix roads and bridges, but no automatic exceptions for artists. For artists to get a waiver from the ban, they must qualify for the “catch-all” exception of showing that it is in the “national interest” for them to be granted an exemption from the ban. This is called a “National Interest Exception” or NIE…or, more aptly: “Naturally It’s Execrable.”

To make matters worse, for artists who have been approved for O or P visas, but need to apply for them at a U.S. Consulate, as a result of COVID lockdowns and closures over the last 15 months most U.S. consulates—particularly in Europe and the U.K. (which isn’t really part of Europe anymore ever since it unmoored itself and drifted off in the Ocean of Belegaer towards the Undying Lands) are either not accepting visa application appointments or have none available until February 2022 or later.

For more info, stop and first read our May 20, 2021 blog entitled “Is It Time For Artists To Return To The US?” which you can find either here on Musical America  or on our website www.ggartslaw.com, then come back and read on.

As the COVID Travel Ban is negatively impacting almost all sectors of the U.S. economy—from hospitality and tourism to manufacturing and global trade—on Thursday, July 8, the American Immigration Lawyers Association hosted a nationwide zoom call to discuss the crisis and the latest developments, as well as potential strategies and solutions. The call included liaisons with both the U.S. Department of State (DOS) and U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP). (What, you say? What about USCIS? For once, the scourge of USCIS is not responsible for our current tortures.) Not surprisingly, I was among the few on the call who worked with artists, but I was able to learn a significant amount of relevant information to us nonetheless.

So, pour a drink and brace yourselves….

The COVID Ban is not likely to be lifted any time soon.

Whilst there is broad-based pressure and lobbying taking place from all sectors and multiple industries to have the ban either lifted or amended, the White House at the moment is NOT being responsive to lifting the Presidential Order that implements the ban. Apparently, as the U.S. economy begins to return to pre-COVID levels and most parts of the country have seen COVID cases drop, they have no interest in risking those achievements—especially as new COVID variants continue to emerge. Additionally, there are large swathes of the U.S. still living in 1865 and whose denizens cower from the threat of reptilian aliens disguised as Italian waiters bearing vaccines laced with an implant designed by the Chinese to turn everyone in to gay socialists when activated by a space satellite owned by Iceland. At the moment, they are relying completely on the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to set COVID policy with regard to international travel. In the meantime, there are various lawsuits challenging the legality of the ban, but it will take a while for those to work through.

As opposed to becoming more streamlined (as we all had hoped), the process for obtaining an NIE is taking longer and has become more complex.

Though U.S. Consulates are titularly controlled by DOS, each U.S. consulate operates as an autonomous fiefdom in setting its own NIE policies, procedures, and requirements. As a result, inconsistencies are rampant and the situation is going to continue to be unpredictable, fraught with uncertainty, and with no clear paths or directives forthcoming.

For now, it continues to be the case that artists can only apply for an NIE at a U.S. Consulate in a country where they are either a citizen or permanent resident. However, whereas some consulates require the NIE request to be submitted via email with the ability to attach evidence and supporting materials, others will only allow you to request the NIE through the consulate’s website and give you a limit of 500 characters or less within which to do so.

For artists who need both an NIE and to apply for their visas, some consulates will first require you to schedule an appointment—even if it is not until 2022—and then submit the NIE request. Others will not even allow you to schedule an appointment without first being approved for an NIE. Still others may grant an emergency appointment, but then deny the NIE request at the time of the interview. Or, in an experience I had, approve the NIE request, schedule an interview, tell the artist at the interview that everything “looked fine,” and then took so long to issue the visa and return the passport that the artist missed the concert anyway!

It has also become the case that there are simply too many NIE requests being filed in too many circumstances on behalf of anyone and everyone who has a need to enter the U.S., regardless of whether or not they qualify for an NIE. This includes situations where the need for an artist to enter the U.S. is less in the “national interest” than in the “personal interest” of an artistic director who simply doesn’t want to book a different artist because he wants who he wants or in the personal interest of a performer who really needs the engagement fee (ie: which would be all of them right now.)

The U.S. consulate in London, for instance, claims they are getting as many NIE requests in 1 month than they would normally get visa applications. I can attest that whereas only a few months ago London would respond to my NIE request within 48 hours, it is now taking over 60 days. Some consulates, such as Paris, take even longer or never respond at all unless the NIE request has been approved. In addition, as there is no specific definition of “national interest”, all NIE requests for artists must now be submitted from a U.S. Consulate for DOS to make the determination and then inform the consulate which must, in turn, inform the applicant.

So, let’s quickly review what it takes for an artist to qualify for an NIE waiver:

Whilst the term “national interest” is undefined, it most certainly does NOT mean “cultural interest” or “talent” or that “the artist is very big deal.” It must truly be a situation where (i) a specific artist cannot be substituted with anyone in the U.S.; (ii) the entire event will be cancelled without that artist and cannot be rescheduled; and (iii) the cancellation will cause significant economic harm to a U.S. organization to a level that will make angels weep…or, at least, a consulate officer.

In the case of festivals, you must be able to show that the entire event will be cancelled without the artist and not just a single concert that is part of a larger event.

In the case of artistic directors or non-performers, you will need to address why their physical presence is mandatory and why they can’t simply have planning meetings by zoom…and needing to meet with donors face-to-face doesn’t count. The elderly can zoom as well if their grandkids show them how.

In the case of groups or ensembles, you will need to submit an NIE request on behalf of each individual artist and show that each and every member is required, cannot be substituted with anyone else, and losing even one member would cause the entire performance to be cancelled. Regardless, if you apply for 10, expect only 5 to be approved.

Also, if an artist was already in the U.S., left, and now needs to re-enter, they must have had a very good reason for why they left in the first place. As one consular officer explained: “now is not the time for vacations.”

However, there are a few smudges of positive news…

In a further effort to reduce caseloads, DOS announced just last week that if an NIE is approved it will be approved for 12 months and permit multiple entries to cover multiple engagements during that time. This is good news for artist and conductors who, assuming they are approved for an NIE, will no longer need to request an NIE each time they want to enter the U.S. Also, for those artists who have already received NIE approvals, this new policy will apply retroactively to them. [cite]

London and several other consulates (you’ll have to research which ones) have now lifted their prior requirement that an NIE request can only be submitted within 30 days prior to travel and will now permit an NIE request to be submitted up to 60 days in advance of travel.

Also, most U.S. consulates are no longer requiring that airline tickets be booked in advance prior to submitting an NIE request.

On the other hand, as for the significant backlogs and the inability of many U.S. Consulates to schedule visa appointments until 2022 (if at all), that situation is not likely to improve any time soon either.

First, as a result of COVID lockdowns and closures, most U.S. Consulates have a backlog of tens of thousands of applicants for everything from green cards to student visas to employment visas and who have been waiting for appointments for over 15 months. Second, President Mar-a-Lardo successfully gutted the budget of the DOS and over 400 officers were laid off. DOS has made requests for appropriations and more staff for consulates, but that would require Congress’s approval, half of which are, instead, focused on forming militias to fight the aforementioned vaccine threat and are ill-inclined to assist aliens—by them reptilian or European.

For the immediate future, DOS has given U.S. consulates unfettered discretion in determining how to prioritize their workloads with regard to scheduling visa appointments and granting emergency or expedite appointments. For the most part, U.S. consulates will prioritize applications for green cards, family unification, humanitarian cases, and those who have been waiting longer. Applications for new employment-based visas—such as O and P visas—will come last. In fact, many consulates claim that they can either process visa applications or NIE requests, but not both at the same time.

In a pathetically miniscule gesture of addressing the issue, DOS has expanded the ability of consulates to waive the in-person interview for individuals applying for a visa in the same classification they have held before. Previously, only those whose prior visa expired within 24 months were eligible for an interview waiver. This has now been expended to 48 months. So, for example, if an artist had an O-1 visa in 2019 and has now been approved for a new O-1 for 2022, she may be eligible to request a visa interview waiver and just mail in her passport without being required even to go to the consulate. But, of course, “eligible” does not mean “entitled” and waivers remain discretionary and inconsistent, so never assume.

For artists who may not easily qualify for an NIE, how does a Caribbean vacation sound?

If an artist holds a valid O or P visa covering the time they need to be in the U.S., then it is far easier just to travel to a third country not on the banned list, wait there for 14 days, and then enter the U.S. There has been far more success with this approach, than with obtaining an NIE. In fact, several artists I work with have successfully travelled from Europe to the Caribbean prior to entering the U.S. However, each country has its own COVID regulations as to who can enter, so those will need to be researched in advance to travel.

If an artist has an approved O or P petition, but needs to apply for a visa and cannot get an appointment at a U.S. consulate and/or does not qualify for an NIE, the artist can try and apply at a U.S. consulate in a third country that is not on the banned list. However, not all U.S. Consulates will accept visa applications from non-citizens of the country in which the consulate is located.

For example, The Bahamas are happy to let you enter and enjoy their turquoise shark-infested waters for 14 days, but the U.S. Consulate will not let you apply for a visa there unless you are a Bahamian citizen. On the other hand, Barbados will allow you to relax in the sunshine of their smiling island (look at in on a map!) and the U.S. Consulate will also allow you to apply for a visa. Similarly, Mexico will allow you to enter and enjoy an unlimited margarita bar for 14 days and you can then fly into the U.S. (the land border is closed.) However, non-Mexican citizens cannot apply for visas at the U.S. Consulate unless it is a significant emergency. On the other hand, Canada’s poutine palaces are closed to you if your only reason to be in Canada is to enter the U.S. after 14 days or if you are entering solely to apply for a U.S. visa.

Remember airports?

A few of you lovely readers may recall that for a brief period of time in 2020, NIE requests could be submitted in advance to a CBP office at certain airports where an artist planned to arrive in the U.S. Then, in early 2021, that policy was changed and all NIE requests had to be submitted to a consulate. Now, CBP is back—but with restrictions.

You can once again submit an NIE request to a CBP office a major airport, but ONLY if the NIE request was first submitted to a consulate and the consulate never responded or denied the NIE. However, CBP and DOS are two separate agencies and do not confer with one another on policies and procedures. So how long you need to wait for a consulate to respond before being able to send an NIE request to CBP varies from airport to airport…and each one has a different process. So, like with NIE requests at consulates, you will need to research those on a case-by-case basis as well.

So, where do we go from here?

If you are a non-US artist currently in the U.S. in O or P classification and you need to travel to a country subject to the COVID Travel Ban—don’t! I have had many artists not listen to me on this and get stuck.

If an artist must travel or is traveling from a country subject to the COVID Travel Ban, it is strongly recommended that they plan to travel to a third country for 14 days before trying to enter the U.S. The expense and time notwithstanding, it’s easier and, so far, has been more dependable than obtaining an NIE. However, never travel to a third country without first research that own country’s COVID requirements and, if applicable, whether you can, in fact, get an appointment at the U.S. Consulate there.

If you plan to seek an NIE and/or need to apply for a visa on behalf of an artist, you must do research and have a plan. As always, whilst anecdotal evidence can be a great way to start, all cases are different and experience is subject to change.

When applying for an NIE, make sure the artist actually qualifies. Please be genuinely self-reflective and do not submit an NIE for every artist or ensemble just because you want to “give it a shot.” You are only making it worse for everyone else by bogging down the process. Regardless, if you do apply, rarely will you be able simply to simply submit a letter from a manager explaining how important the performance or the artist is. For consulates which permit you to submit evidence, submit actual evidence, including letters from the venues and presenters.

At this stage, do NOT plan for most if any, non-U.S. artists to be able to enter the U.S. to perform in late summer or early fall. Or, at least, have contingency plans.

As we experience COVID variants such as delta, delta plus, and delta business with a free booster shot, continue to expect delay and postponements, possibly into 2022.

As, for the moment, USCIS is processing petitions fairly rapidly—in 6 – 8 weeks for standard processing—get petitions in early and get that over with.

Research, plan, and plan some more. Do not, as one presenter bewailed to me after an artist was refused entry, say: “I just never thought this would be a problem.”

Perhaps it was a bit presumptuous to believe that emerging from the darkness of the last 15 months would involve a light immediately being switched on with regard to international artist travel and proceeding with planned international engagements and performances. Rather, this is going to be more like a slow sunrise with intermittent bursts of COVID surges and clouds of government incompetence.

Perhaps most importantly, the time you waste writing yet another letter to yet another politician complaining about how broken the U.S. immigration system is (and it is!), explaining why it puts artists and the arts in a distinct disadvantage (and it does!), and arguing why international artists are critical to the cultural, intellectual, educational, and economic interests of the U.S. (and they are!) could be far better spent on planning, researching and strategizing—on this, as well as many other issues that I shall leave for another day. Our industry has never been an easy one and there is no rest for the weary, but we have martinis, medication, therapy, and working with wonderful colleagues to get us through.

GG Arts Law provides a comprehensive range of legal services and strategic support for the performing arts, including: Artist Visas, Taxes, and Touring; Rights & Licensing; Negotiations & Representation; Contracts; Business & Non-Profit Organization & Management; Project Management; and Strategic Consulting & Planning.

VISIT OUR NEW WEBSITE: ggartslaw.com

___________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL LEGALESE:

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 or threatening email to someone, filing a lawsuit, or basically doing anything that may in any way rely upon an assumption that we know what we are talking about.

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

USCIS Has Officially Raised Premium Processing to $2500 EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 19, 2020… and an update on National Interest Waivers while we’re at it.

Friday, October 16th, 2020

The Screaming Demon Pumpkin and his festering goblins of anal carbuncles JUST announced TODAY that it was raising the premium processing fee from $1440 to $2500 effective this Monday, October 19, 2020.

Any petitions postmarked after October 19, 2020 will be returned if they do not have the higher fee. Whilst I expect this to be challenged in court, we are stuck with it until a court issues an injunction.

An injunction still remains in place on the new I-129 fees and forms for O and P petitions.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENT

National Interest Waiver Exceptions to the Covid Travel Ban

Many of you continue to as about requesting a National Interest Waiver NIW) so that artists can fly to the U.S. from certain countries without first having to quarantine in a third country (such as Canada) before entering. While that possibility still exists, please be aware that everything is in significant flux these days. As Covid cases to continue to rise in both the U.S. and around the world, the National Interest Waiver may be discontinued at ANY time. This means that, for example, if an artist applies for a waiver and receives one for to travel to the U.S. in November, the waiver could be revoked between now and then. Worse, if the artist travels to Europe and the waiver is revoked after arrival, and the artist actually resides in the U.S. and is not either a green card holder or is not married to a U.S. citizen, they will be trapped outside of the U.S.

For as long as the option remains, NIW requests can be made either through a U.S. Consulate or at a United States Customs and Border Patrol (USCBP) office at the U.S. airport where the artist intends to arrive. Due to the Covid travel ban, many U.S. Consulates in Europe are either not taking appointments or only scheduling appointments for 6 months in the future. If an artist has been approved for a visa, but needs to get a visa stamp, they will need to make an appointment at U.S. Consulate and then request an emergency appointment and submit a NIW request. If an artist already has a valid visa, then they can request a NIW through the USCBP office at whatever U.S. airport where they intend to arrive.  

1.         Apply for a National Interest Waiver at a U.S. Consulate

Every consulate has its own rules and procedures for how to do this, but, generally:

            >>>Contact the U.S. Consulate in whichever country you are physically located    no earlier than 30 days prior to the date of travel

            >>>Explain that you have an immediate need to travel to the U.S. within 30 days and cannot quarantine in a third country

            >>>Provide a letter from your venue, presenter, employer, etc. explaining why it    is critical that you be physically present in the U.S, that your work or performance is essential to them, and that it cannot be done remotely or via       “streaming” outside of the U.S.

            >>>Agree to quarantine for 14 days after your arrival in the U.S.

You will then need remain while this is pending. If the waiver is granted, you will be sent a letter to present to an immigration officer when entering the U.S.

You will need to check the website of the specific U.S. Consulate where you intend to apply for specific instructions.

2.         Apply for a National Interest Waiver from USCBP

Contact the USCBP office at whatever U.S. airport where they intend to arrive. This needs to be done before travel and the requirements are generally, more or less, somewhat, similar as those listed above for consulates. However, of course, each airport has a different procedure and there is no oversight, so you will need to visa the USCBP website for the specific airport where you intend to apply for specific instructions.

GG Arts Law provides a comprehensive range of legal services and strategic support for the performing arts, including: Artist Visas, Taxes, and Touring; Rights & Licensing; Negotiations & Representation; Contracts; Business & Non-Profit Organization & Management; Project Management; and Strategic Consulting & Planning.

VISIT OUR NEW WEBSITE: ggartslaw.com

THE OFFICIAL LEGALESE:

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 or threatening email to someone, filing a lawsuit, or basically doing anything that may in any way rely upon an assumption that we know what we are talking about.

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

USCIS Furlough-Nado UPDATE!

Wednesday, August 26th, 2020

GOOD NEWS: USCIS has agreed to call off its planned furlough of 13,500 employees which had been scheduled for this weekend.

BAD NEWS: In exchange for this, the U.S. House of Representatives has unanimously agreed to let USCIS raise the premium processing fee from $1440 to $2500 for O and P petitions and cancel the outside contractors who help process and intake petitions, thereby slowing down standard processing.

There has, as yet, been no announcement of when the higher premium processing fee will go into effect. As with the other recent fee increases, USCIS will be required to go through a regulatory processes whereby they will ask for public comment, ignore that, and then raise the fee anyway.

So, just in case you’re not following along:

  • USCIS got into this financial mess was because its policies resulted in fewer people filing petitions and, therefore, less revenue.
  • It stamped its foot and threated furloughs and slowdowns unless it got $1.3 billion dollars by August 30.
  • They knew that they were never likely to get $1.3 billion from an administration that would prefer them just to shut down completely.  
  • So, USCIS has agreed to cancel the furloughs in exchange for being allowed to slow everything down anyway with the expectation that this will force people to pay for premium processing, and then raise the premium processing fee so that fewer people can afford it, thereby resulting in even fewer people filing petitions.  

On a related note, historians have recently unearthed a photo of the skeletal remains of Ken Cuccinelli, the Acting (“illegally”) Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services taken just prior to when Trump poured rabid squirrel blood into his tomb.

GG Arts Law provides a comprehensive range of legal services and strategic support for the performing arts, including: Artist Visas, Taxes, and Touring; Rights & Licensing; Negotiations & Representation; Contracts; Business & Non-Profit Organization & Management; Project Management; and Strategic Consulting & Planning.

VISIT OUR NEW WEBSITE

THE OFFICIAL LEGALESE:

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 or threatening email to someone, filing a lawsuit, or basically doing anything that may in any way rely upon an assumption that we know what we are talking about.

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

…And They’re Not Done Yet! USCIS Has Just Imposed New Filing Fees and Forms!

Saturday, August 1st, 2020

On July 31, 2020, DHS (The Department of Homeland (In)Security) issued a “Final Rule” confirming that USCIS (Unconscionable, Shameful, Callous, Immoral, and Sinister) will be imposing steep fee increases for visa petitions as well as creating new forms. Assuming that the many lawsuits and injunctions that are already in the works don’t stop this, then on October 2, 2020 the following changes will go into effect:

  • There will now be two different petition forms to file for O and P visas.
    • To file for O and O-2 visas, you will use an I-129O
    • To file for all P visas (P-1, P-1S, P-2, P-3, and P-3S), you will use an I-129MISC
  • The new fee for filing for an I-129O will be $705.
  • The new fee for filing an I-129MISC will be $695.
  • There will be a cap of 25 beneficiaries per petition.
    • This means that an orchestra or performance troupe with 60 performers and 10 staff and crew will now need to file four—yes 4! – I-129MISC petitions (3 for the performers and 1 for the staff and crew) at a cost of $2780 for standard processing. If they want premium processing, then that will be an additional cost of $5760.
    • This also means that if any one of the 4 petitions gets an RFE, they will all get an RFE.
  • And speaking of premium processing, the current premium processing fee of $1440 will remain. HOWEVER, premium processing will now be 15 business days as opposed to 15 calendar days—effectively making it 19 days.

As part of the Final Rule, DHS provides written responses to the thousands of comments it received in opposition of these changes, including specific concerns and objections raised from throughout the arts industry. To those of you interested in mucking through the Final Rule’s 500 pages of flaming simian excrementum just click on the actual picture of flaming simian excrementum, below:

However, in response to detailed comments submitted by hundreds of arts organizations objecting to these proposed changes, several DHS pearls caught my eye:

  • In response to the concerns that these changes will have a particularly burdensome impact on the already struggling performing arts industry, DHS contends that this will have no economic impact on those who file O and P petitions and writes:  
    • “DHS does not intend to deter or unduly burden petitioners requesting workers in the arts, but any preferential treatment provided to petitioners for performers and musicians is borne by other petitioners, applicants, and requestors. DHS declines to require other applicants and petitioners subsidize the cost of petitioning for workers in the arts.”
    • TRANSLATION: “I once took my kid to the Monster Truck Dixie Rebel Stampede and Dinner Show and they charged me $17.50 for a Double Energy Mountain Dew! So, you people who work in the arts make more than enough money.”   

  • As to why USCIS is charging more for O petitions than P petitions, DHS writes:
    • “DHS implements fees based on data that show adjudications of O nonimmigrant   petitions require more staff, and are therefore more costly, than adjudications of petitions for nonimmigrant workers that may be requested using Form I129MISC.” 
    • TRANSLATION: “It takes a lot of time to confirm whether or not the role of the Phantom of the Opera is, in fact, a lead or starring role. And because its an opera, you’ll need a no-objection letter from AGMA instead of Actor’s Equity.”

  • In response to the issue of whether or not USCIS will continue to consider traditional expedites for non-profits who have an emergency or an immediate need (such as replacing a sick U.S. artist with an available non-US artist), DHS writes:   
    • “USCIS has implemented an expedite policy for certain petitions in the past. Whether a petitioner seeks to enhance the cultural and social interest in the United States may have been considered when USCIS decided to favorably exercise its discretion when considering expedite requests…DHS may consider whether to provide expedited processing for certain petitions based on its workload in other areas and ability to meet promised deadlines. Also, depending on the immigrant or nonimmigrant classification sought, the petitioner may request premium processing service by filing Form I-907 and paying the associated fee.
    • TRANSLATION: “We need the cash, so cough up the $1440 you Godless Leftists!
  • In response to the concern that increasing the premium processing period from 15 days to 19 days could imperil last minute engagements or emergencies, DHS writes:
    • DHS believes the possibility that a petitioner requesting premium processing service may need to wait a few additional days for adjudicative action is a small cost to impose for being able to expand premium processing to more requests and reduce the likelihood for future suspensions of premium processing service.
    • TRANSLATION: “Stop whining or we’re deporting Lin-Manuel Miranda! He’s Mexican, right?”
  • In response to the concern that putting a cap of 25 beneficiaries per petition could have a devastating financial impact on large performing arts tours, such as theater productions, orchestras, and dance companies, DHS responds:
    • USCIS must conduct full background checks on named workers and does not merely check to determine how much time the worker has spent outside of the United States…Because USCIS completes a background check for each named beneficiary, petitions with more named beneficiaries require more time and resources to adjudicate than petitions with fewer named beneficiaries. This means the cost to adjudicate a petition increases with each additional named beneficiary.
    • TRANSLATION: “Do you have any idea how long it takes to determine whether any of those musicians in the brass section have ever posted anything nasty about Beloved Leader?”
  • In response to the concern that, as USCIS often loses related petitions (such as O-1 and O-2 or P-1 and P-1S) and incorrectly sends them to different examiners who review them at different times, then requiring multiple petitions for the same large group will increase the likelihood of confusion and unnecessary RFEs, DHS asserts:
    • “DHS disagrees with commenters that the separating of Form I-129 will create confusion and delays.”
    • TRANSLATION: “Sorry we cannot offer any suggestions to address or solve your problem. Have we addressed all of your customer service concerns?  Have you tried our special for premium processing service for our most valued customers?
  • Many commenters on behalf of multiple industries all raised the question of why do this now in the midst of a pandemic and a economic crisis impacting all industries, to which DHS responds:
    • DHS makes no changes in this rule in response to the pandemic. USCIS considers  all available data at the time it conducts its fee review. USCIS conducted most of  the FY 2019/2020 fee review in FY 2017, before the emergence of the pandemic. At that time, USCIS did not foresee, and could not reasonably have foreseen, the effects of such a pandemic on USCIS receipt, revenue, or cost projections during the FY 2019/2020 biennial period, and we cannot project the effects at this time. The projections in this rule were based on conventional conditions, and with no way of knowing or being able to predict the long-term effects of COVID-19 at this point, DHS must assume that filing volumes will return to near previous levels  within a reasonable period.
    • TRANSLATION: “There is nothing to see here. All is well. Beloved Leader is the best leader in the world and all other leaders are jealous of him and his very large hands. All hail Believed Leader, Infallible General, Defender of the Faith, and Protector of the Good People Who Know Who You Are!”

And, on the heels of our recent post earlier in the day on July 31 that USCIS seems to be targeting artists who have remained in the U.S. during the pandemic without performing, we have learned of yet another artist receiving an RFE wherein USCIS is challenging whether or not the artist has been violating her status by remaining in the U.S. and not performing during the pandemic. So this may be a trend.

DHS’s recent actions, fueled by its spurious and odious responses to very legitimate concerns raised by an industry already struggling for survival throughout the world, needs to further the already excessively tested resolve of all of us to keep the doors open to artists throughout the world. In short, we shall fight them by being cleverer, more creative, and smarter than they are. We shall fight them in our petitions. We shall fight them at the consulates. We shall fight them at the airport immigration halls. We shall fight them with mockery, distain, and relentless provocation. We shall fight them at the ballot box, but we shall never surrender!

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 OUR NEW WEBSITE: ggartslaw.com

THE OFFICIAL LEGALESE:

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 or threatening email to someone, filing a lawsuit, or basically doing anything that may in any way rely upon an assumption that we know what we are talking about.

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

USCIS May Be Coming After Unemployed Foreign Artists

Thursday, July 30th, 2020

We have seen two Requests for Evidence (RFE) this week for foreign artists who are currently in the U.S. with O-1 classification (both of whom have been previously approved for O-1 classification multiple times) and who filed new O-1 petitions to extend their status and remain in the U.S. In each case, neither artist has had any engagements since early this year as, like everyone, all of their engagements were cancelled due to Covid-19. In each case, the RFE has asked for proof that the artist has maintained their status by having work or other valid employment between March 2020 and now.

USCIS is taking the position that remaining in the U.S. without work violates their O-1 classification regardless of the reason. While this requirement is technically correct, in my experience (and I am quite old) this rule has never previously been applied to artists as they are not required to have full-time employment in the first place. Regardless, taking this position at this time knowing that the entire performing arts world has been shut down and that many artists cannot logistically or safely leave the U.S. is unconscionable, shameful, callous, immoral, and sinister. (Which, as it happens, spells U.S.C.I.S.) In one instance, USCIS actually took the time to go onto an artist’s website to see that all of the artist’s spring dates were cancelled!  

Whether or not two instances counts as a trend is debatable. However, when it comes to USCIS, I have always taken the position that it only takes one pig to nose its way out of the sty and soon the rest will follow. And, on this particular farm, all of the farmers are too tap-shackled in a bacchanalian orgy of hydroxychloroquine and bleach to notice what their pigs are up to.

So, when preparing O or P petitions for artists who are currently in the U.S. and wish to extend their status and remain, we recommend the following:  

  • Do not list any cancelled dates on an artist’s website.
  • Do not mention in the petition that the artist’s recent U.S. dates were cancelled and have been re-scheduled for 2021. (Yes, one of the aforementioned cases did that.)
  • A petition must provide some type of evidence that the artist has been working during the pandemic. As artists are required to have work authorization regardless of whether or not they were paid, this does not have to include paid engagements. Anything that required the artist to be physically present in the U.S. will work: on-site rehearsals, in-person teaching, or live recordings or streaming with U.S. artists which could not have taken place outside of the U.S. There should also be no gaps longer than 60 days between such engagements.
  • You can use pay-stubs, emails, letters, or anything other than from the artist or the artist’s manager as proof.
  • This will also apply with regard to an artist’s future engagements listed on the petition. As no one knows when anyone will ever get back inside a theater or concert hall, many future engagements are being booked as streamed concerts. Such concerts must require the artist to be physically in the U.S., such as on-site rehearsals, in-person teaching, or live recordings or streaming with U.S. artists which could not have taken place outside of the U.S.
  • Both RFEs have taken issue with the fact that the artist’s future engagements have gaps in excess of 60 days. While there is no formal rule on how much time is allowed between engagements, in practice we have never seen USCIS baulk at anything less than 90 days. They seem now to have defaulted to 60 days.  

While there has been no formal announcement regarding new policies, USCIS did formally clarify last month its longstanding policy that USCIS examiners have broad interpretive discretion to determine whether or not a petitioner has satisfied the requirements for a visa petition to be approved—which usually involves the examiner consulting with the gods of their reptilian forbears. As only a few weeks ago, the White Pride Piper attempted to kick out foreign students altogether for taking on-line classes, I am not surprised to see yet another effort to cull anyone they feel should not be here unemployed.

And I still don’t know when U.S. Consulates will start issuing visas again or how long the travel bans on citizens from certain countries being able to enter the U.S. will remain in place…although I cannot fathom why anyone would want to come here at the moment anyway.    

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 OUR BRAND NEW WEBSITE: ggartslaw.com

THE OFFICIAL LEGALESE:

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 or threatening email to someone, filing a lawsuit, or basically doing anything that may in any way rely upon an assumption that we know what we are talking about.

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

« Older Entries