Before I go further with my ranting, here’s a brief background:

In August 2011, I was diagnosed with blood cancer. Since then, I’ve been in and out of the hospital for chemotherapy. My medical diagnosis is life threatening. Thus, I urgently needed a stem cell transplant before things get out of hand.

Based on a histocompatibility test, my sister has been found to be my perfect stem cell match. But there’s a problem — the transplant had to be held in abeyance because my sister can’t come to New York; the US Embassy in Manila has denied her a visa.

In December 2011, my sister applied for a visa and twice denied by a lady Consul after asking her a couple of questions. The Consul concluded that my sister didn’t qualify for a visa based on “factual determination.”

But did the Consul really make a “factual determination”? No — she didn’t. The fact that she just asked a couple of questions — one of which was “how much is your monthly salary?” — was arbitrary at best. Moreover, the Consul never read the supporting papers, particularly, the letter from my attending physician that explains my medical condition, prognosis, and the necessity and urgency of the stem cell transplant. The purpose of my sister’s travel to the United States, and its emergent reason never came to light.

True, a Consul is vested with the authority to grant or deny a visa based on his or her “factual determination.” As often said, a Consul’s decision is absolute in accordance with the so-called “doctrine of consular absolutism.”

Yes — a Consul has that absolute authority. But I think of it as an authority untempered by reason.

Soon after I received word of my sister’s visa denial, I filed a request for review of the case with the Visa Office, US Department of State in Washington, DC. But, as I’ve expected, the Visa Office denied my request saying that a visa ineligibility is a “factual determination” made by a consular officer and is not subject to review.

Now, I’m filing for my sister an application for humanitarian parole with the US Citizenship and Immigration Services. If it fails, this could be the end of the rope for me.

An H-1B is a working visa used by foreign professionals to enter the United States and work for U.S. employers.

Recently, a client asked me: “Do Pinoy professionals seek H-1B visas?” Of course, my answer was a resounding, yes. Pinoy professionals — like other professionals from many countries around the world — seek H-1B visas, too.

Then, my client asked: “Is there a huge number of Pinoy professionals who seek H-1B visas?” I replied, “Not many — compared to other nationalities.”

Indeed, “not many” Pinoy professionals seek H-1B visas. Pinoys comprise a minuscule segment in the H-1B population.

Let’s look at available statistics from the USCIS. According to the USCIS, of the 217,340 H-1B petitions received and approved for fiscal year 2003 (which figures included new and continuing H-1B visa petitions at the time) only 10,432 H-1B beneficiaries were from the Philippines. It represented a mere 4.8% — a picayune figure in the H-1B statistics.

This information comes as a surprise to many observers. Pinoy professionals, despite their competence and proficiency in the English language, lag behind other nationalities in taking advantage of the opportunity to work in the United States through the H-1B program.

Why? I surmise that one reason is the lack of information about the H-1B visa program and how to go about it.

Thus, to disseminate information about the H-1B visa program, I wrote the book “A Guide to U.S. Visas for Filipino Professionals” that was published by GIC Enterprises & Co, Inc. Copies of the book are available at Conanan Bookstore, 2019 C. M. Recto Avenue, Manila, Philippines. Tel. (02) 735-5582.

The book provides the necessary information about the H-1B visa program and other available work visa options for the Pinoy professionals desirous to work in the United States.

The book has been my own little way to help Pinoy professionals know the various legal requirements and the procedures involved in the H-1B visa sponsorship process.

But unbeknownst to some, dual citizenship presents a complicated and intertwined issue of loyalty and allegiance.

There’s no quibbling that citizenship requires allegiance — and, no doubt, dual citizenship begets dual allegiance. One who is both a Filipino citizen and a U.S. citizen needs to maintain his undivided loyalty and allegiance to the U.S. government and Philippine government — even if the latter’s constitution (Art. IV, Section 5) explicitly declares that “dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest…”

In the present political climate, loyalty and allegiance don’t pose any problem. But — unlikely it might be — what if, say, years from now, there arises a political crisis, or worse a military confrontation between the United States and the Philippines that would force dual citizens to decide where their loyalties and allegiances lie. Such a scenario — again, unlikely it might be — would put to a serious test the loyalties and allegiances of dual citizens.

The U.S. Supreme Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Douglas, in a 1952 case of Kawakita v. United States, said: “One who has dual nationality will be subject to claims from both nations, claims which may at times be competing or conflicting, and that circumstances may compel one who has a dual nationality to do acts which otherwise would not be compatible with the obligations of American citizenship.”

Similarly, in Tan Cheng v. Secretary of Labor, 79 Phil. 257, the Supreme Court of the Philippines, through Mr. Justice Padilla, said: “Dual nationality is universally described as an undesirable phenomenon. It inevitably results in questionable loyalties and leads to international conflicts. Dual nationality also makes possible the use of citizenship as a badge of convenience than of undivided loyalty. It impairs the singleness of commitment which is the hallmark of citizenship and allegiance. A person should have the right to choose his own nationality and this choice should be honored by all countries. However, he should not be entitled to claim more than one nationality.”

Some critics of dual citizenship say this issue is tied to the “marriage metaphor.” For instance, Columnist Georgie Anne Geyer has asserted that dual nationality dilutes patriotic commitments and “makes citizenship akin to bigamy.”

By far, this issue of dual citizenship vis-à-vis dual allegiance isn’t over. It remains to be seen how it will play out in the years to come as the dual citizenship trend continues in an era of growing global migration.

You might ask, why? Arizona recently passed a state law (S.B. 1070) that makes it a misdemeanor to lack proper immigration paperwork. It also requires police officers, if they form a “reasonable suspicion” that someone is an illegal alien, to determine the person’s immigration status.

For that reason, there’s likelihood that trouble awaits any person who may be stopped by an Arizona police officer on “reasonable suspicion” that he is an illegal alien.

Thus, prudence dictates that a lawful immigrant should always carry with him a Green Card, or US passport, or Naturalization Certificate. Ditto for an individual who is on a temporary lawful status in the United States. He must bring with him the valid Form I-94 or any valid immigration document, so he could present it when demanded by an Arizona police officer.

And so remember the slogan: “Don’t Leave Home Without It.”

Two significant changes in the area of family-based immigration were signed into law by President Obama last Oct. 28 — as part of the 2010 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act.

First, a new law eliminates the so-called widow penalty. It allows surviving spouses to self-petition for their Green Card even though their marriage to the deceased U.S. citizen lasted for less than two years.

Second, a new law allows surviving family members to process their permanent residence applications to completion, notwithstanding the death of their petitioners. The surviving family members can do so provided they were residing in the United States at the time of the death of the petitioners and that they continue to reside in the U.S.

The latter law provides a relief to the all-too common unfortunate situation faced by many aliens who had been petitioned by their U.S. citizen or permanent resident relatives. Those alien beneficiaries waited years for their petitions in the hope of getting their Green Card. But the untimely demise of their petitioning relatives dashed all their hopes and dreams.

To illustrate, let’s consider the following scenario:

Mang Kulas, a United States citizen parent, (as petitioner), filed an immigrant visa petition for his son, Procopio, (as beneficiary), who lives in New York. The petition was approved by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in 2000. Despite the petition’s approval, the case has remained pending for years because there is no visa number available. Meanwhile, Mang Kulas dies.

Prior to this new law, the immigration rule was, the death of the petitioning relative had the effect of revoking the immigrant petition for the beneficiary. In some cases, the revocation took place when the beneficiary, who was petitioned years ago, was just months shy of getting the visa number at the time of the petitioner’s death.

Indeed, the new law is a welcome change. It comes as a humanitarian relief to many aliens caught in that unfortunate situation. They are now allowed to process their permanent residence applications to completion, despite the death of their petitioning relatives.

They want to know what it is, how it is assigned, and why it is important.

So, what’s a priority date?

Simply put, it’s the date assigned to every approved preference immigrant petition that determines the order of  availability of visas. It provides a preferential order for aliens who are subject to the visa numerical limitations.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), employment-based preference immigrants and family-based preference immigrants are subject to the visa numerical limitations.

How’s a priority date assigned?

For employment-based immigration, a priority date is:

(1) The date the labor certification is filed; or

(2) If no labor certification is needed, then the date the petition is filed with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

On the other hand, for family-based immigration, it is the date the preference petition is filed with the USCIS.

What’s the importance of a priority date?

An immigrant visa can only be issued to an applicant when a visa number is available to his approved petition. The availability of the visa number is determined by the priority date assigned to his petition. Every month, the United States Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs publishes a Visa Bulletin that shows the priority dates of approved petitions whose visa numbers are available. Only applicants who have priority dates that are earlier than the cut-off date may be allotted a number.

Also, as I’ve mentioned in my previous posting, visa availability would come by the start of the immigration fiscal year, which begins on October 1, 2009.

The U.S. Department of State has recently released the Visa Bulletin for October 2009. The Visa Bulletin shows that EB-3 visas are available for Philippine-born applicants whose priority dates are earlier than the cut-off date of June 1, 2002. In other words — in the EB-3 category for October 2009 — only those with priority dates earlier than June 1, 2002 have available visas.

This is grim news to many EB-3 visa applicants waiting for their visa numbers. Many EB-3 applicants, especially registered nurses, have been waiting for their visa numbers for years.

No doubt, this visa situation has caused frustration and anxiety among EB-3 visa applicants. They couldn’t do anything except to wait in queue for their visa numbers. For some, it’s a waiting game that seems endless. And for many, the dream to immigrate to the United States is hamstrung by the slow pace of visa movement or visa unavailability.

EB-3 is the category for Skilled Workers, Professionals, and Other Workers. This is the immigrant preference category for our Philippine nurses and other professionals.

EB-3 has a visa allocation of 28.6% of the worldwide level, plus any numbers not required by first and second preferences, and not more than 10,000 of which goes to Other Workers.

In their emails, many blog readers have asked: “What’s going on with the EB-3 visa numbers?”

As some may have heard, the EB-3 category has no available visa numbers since May 2009 for beneficiaries from all countries around the world, including the Philippines.

As a result of this unavailability of visa, the cases of many immigrant visa applicants, including those applicants waiting to adjust their status in the United States, have been put on hold.

Before May 2009, visa numbers in the EB-3 category for all countries had retrogressed to March 1, 2003 for Skilled Workers and Professionals — and to March 1, 2001 for Other Workers.

Some have also asked whether there would be a visa movement by October 1, 2009 — the start of the immigration fiscal year. I replied that they shouldn’t put much hope for a big change by October 1. There could be a little visa movement, but not a significant one that would give a visa to every applicant.

What does this mean to our EB-3 visa applicants? Given the unpredictability of visa numbers in the EB-3 category, many EB-3 visa applicants may have to hunker down for a long wait for their visa numbers.

The current annual cap on the H1B visa category is 65,000. However, not all H1B nonimmigrants are subject to this annual cap. Those not covered by the cap are H1B nonimmigrants who are employed, or who will be employed, by institutions of higher education or a related or affiliated nonprofit entity. Also not covered are those employed, or who will be employed by a nonprofit research organization or a governmental research organization.

In addition, under the provisions of the H1B Visa Reform Act of 2004, foreign professionals with master’s or higher level degree from a U.S. academic institution are allocated 20,000 new H1B visas.

On its recent H1B update, the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) said that, as of July 3, 2009, approximately 45,000 H1B cap-subject petitions had been filed. In other words, there remains some 20,000 H1B visas — months after the USCIS started to accept H1B petitions on April 1, 2009.

As some might notice, this situation is a sharp contrast to what happened in the previous years — as in 2008 for instance — when H1B visas were scooped up within a week from the start of the filing period.

This situation only shows how the US economy has gone to pot. Recession has reared its ugly head: many businesses have closed shops and workers have been laid off from work. Consequently, some US employers have no need for foreign workers. And this obviously explains the low usage for H1B visas this year.

Many readers have emailed me asking if I’ve abandoned the blog. Certainly not. I replied to them saying that I had been inundated with a stream of immigration cases that took away much of my time from updating the blog. I assured them, however, that I’ll resume my posting soon.

Yes, with my trusty BlackBerry at hand — I should now be able to keep up with my blog posting wherever I am.