Green Card & Visa News » Green Card

June 2012 Visa Bulletin: China and India EB-2 Become Unavailable

Tushar Mathur — Mon, 14 May 2012 14:43:00 +0000

For June, the
status of China
and India Employment Second preference (EB-2) categories has become “unavailable.”
The recent increases in the volume of filings for these visa categories have resulted
in major retrogression in the May visa bulletin to August 2007, and
unavailability of visa number in June’s bulletin. The State Department explained that the
upgrading of cases from the EB-3 category to the EB-2 category is also a major
reason for the exhaustion of visa numbers.
In order to avoid jeopardizing the availability of visa numbers for
“other countries”, the State Department decided to make EB-2 unavailable for China and India till the end of this fiscal
year. However, the State Department also
states that they will try their best to return the China and India Employment EB-2
cut-off date to May 1, 2010 (reached in April 2012) as soon as possible,
although it will not likely to happen before Spring 2013. Other predictions in
June’s bulletin include possible establishment of a cut-off date for EB-1 visa
categories and EB-2 “other countries” in the coming few months.

On the family
immigration side, the Family Based First Preference (FB-1) advances nicely
again for China, India and
“other countries”; they all move forward by seven weeks to June 22, 2005. Family Based 2A moves forward by six weeks
to January 1, 2010 for China,
India, Philippines,
and “other countries”. Family Based 2B China,

India

and “other countries” also move forward by seven weeks. Please see below for details.

FAMILY	Other Countries	China	India	Mexico	Philippines
F-1	22JUN05	22JUN05	22JUN05	15MAY93	01JUL97
F-2A	01JAN10	01JAN10	01JAN10	08DEC09	01JAN10
F-2B	15APR04	15APR04	15APR04	01JAN92	08DEC01
F-3	01APR02	01APR02	01APR02	15JAN93	22JUL92
F-4	08JAN01	12DEC00	08JAN01	01JUN96	22JAN89

1st: Unmarried Sons and Daughters of Citizens (about 23,000 per year).

2A:
The 2 “A” preference is for Spouses and Children (under 21 & unmarried)
of LPR’s.

2B:
The 2 “B” Preference is for Unmarried Sons and Daughters (21 or
older) of LPR’s.

3rd: Married Sons and Daughters of Citizens.(about 23,000
per year)

4th: Brothers and Sisters of Adult Citizens.(about 65,000 per year)

EMPLOYMENT	Other Countries	China	India	Mexico	Philippines
EB-1	C	C	C	C	C
EB-2	C	U	U	C	C
EB-3	08JUN06	08AUG05	15SEP02	08JUN06	22MAY06
Other Workers	08JUN06	22APR03	15SEP02	08JUN06	22MAY06
EB-4	C	C	C	C	C
Religious	C	C	C	C	C
EB-5	C	C	C	C	C

1st: Priority Workers (Extraordinary ability aliens, multinational companies
executives/managers, outstanding prof./researchers)

2nd: Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or Persons of
Exceptional Ability.

3rd: Skilled Workers, Professionals, and Other Workers (Unskilled.)

4th: “Special Immigrants” (Religious & others)

5th: Employment Creation (Investors)

Recent Decision on National Interest Waiver

Tushar Mathur — Thu, 10 May 2012 15:09:00 +0000

Foreign professionals and researchers applying for employment-based permanent residence status may consider obtaining an
national interest waiver (NIW).
Normally, a foreign worker who wishes to apply for a green card by
filling a U.S.
job opening must obtain a Certified Permanent Labor Application (“Labor Certification”).
The Labor Certification is to show that the employer cannot find a U.S. worker who
is qualified, willing and ready to do the job.
Applicants who apply for a national interest waiver are requesting that
the Labor Certification be waived because it is in the interest of the United States.

Unfortunately, the jobs that qualify for a national
interest waiver are not defined by statute. National interest waivers are
usually granted to those who have exceptional ability and whose employment in
the United States
would greatly benefit the national interest. Applicants seeking a national interest waiver may self-petition (they do not
need an employer to sponsor them) and may file their green card application directly
with USCIS.

The legal standard for adjudicating an NIW petition was clarified by an Administrative
Appeals Office (AAO) decision, Matter of New York Dept. of
Transportation in 1998. In NYDOT, the
Beneficiary possessed a master’s degree in civil engineering and was being
petitioned to provide professional engineering services for the rehabilitation,
replacement, maintenance and inspection of bridges. The AAO cited three factors
that must be considered when evaluating a request for a national interest
waiver.

First, it must be shown that the foreigner seeks employment in an area of
substantial intrinsic merit. Eligibility is not established solely by showing
that the beneficiary’s field of endeavor has intrinsic merit. In the NYDOT
case, substantial intrinsic merit was found. The importance of proper
maintenance of the state’s bridges was sufficient to meet this first criteria.

Secondly, the petition must prove that the proposed benefit will be national in scope. In the NYDOT
case, while the alien’s employment in NYDOT was limited to the local area, New York‘s bridges and
roads connected the state to the national transport system. Because the proper
maintenance and operations of bridges and roads served the interests of other
regions as well, the benefit was national in scope.

Finally, the petitioner
must demonstrate that the national interest would be adversely
affected if a labor certification were required for the alien. The engineer
in NYDOT failed to meet this criteria because his contributions did not stand out among his peers, and therefore, his petition did not warrant
a waiver of the Labor Certification.

A recent Administrative Appeal Office (AAO) decision from
November 2011 provided some additional guidelines on the requirements of the
NIW application. An NIW petition filed
by a post doc research scientist in the field of nanoscience and nanotechnology
was denied by the USCIS
Texas Service
Center. The AAO reversed the denial on appeal mostly
because the TSC failed to give proper evidentiary weight to the scientist’s
influential published work in his field.
Although he only had four publications, they were published in the well-known Journal of the American Chemical Society and were
cited more than 400 times by his peers.

The AAO also noted that the legislature
history suggested that the standard of adjudication for NIW applications should
be applied as flexible as possible.
According to the AAO, it does not matter that the petitioner’s articles
were published when he was still a graduate student, which is an issue for
EB-1B outstanding researcher petitions.
Finally, the AAO also noted that Congress’s intention is to grant national interest waiver on the basis
of
the merits of the individual applicant rather than the importance of a particular field of work; the nonscientist met his legal burden
of proof for a national interest waiver.

In sum, the requirements for a national interest waiver are stringent. But for those who meet the basic requirements, a waiver can substantially speed up the green card application process.

May 2012 Visa Bulletin – Retrogression in EB-2 – Predictions Added

Tushar Mathur — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 04:22:00 +0000

The State Department has recently released the May 2012 Visa Bulletin. The following are the highlights:

As predicted by the Department of State, the EB-2 India and China cutoff dates have retrogressed to August 15, 2007, as a result of large number of filings in recent months. No forward movement is expected for these two countries until the October 2012 Visa Bulletin. The USCIS will continue to accept and pre-adjudicate I-485 applications for applicants with current priority dates through the end of April.
There are slow movements for EB-3 categories.
FB-1 China, India and “All Other Countries” all move forward by one (1) month to May 1, 2005.
FB-2A China, India, Philippines and “All Other Countries” all move forward by five (5) weeks to November 15, 2009
FB-2B China, India and “All Other Countries” move forward by five (5) weeks to February 22, 2004.

For the first time, DOS also included specific predictions for the coming months as follows:

VISA AVAILABILITY IN THE COMING MONTHS
FAMILY-sponsored categories (monthly movements) Worldwide dates:
* F1: four to six weeks
* F2A: up to two and one half months
* F2B: three to six weeks
* F3: three to six weeks
* F4: three to five weeks

EMPLOYMENT-based categories (monthly)
EB-1: Current
EB-2:
* Worldwide: Potential need for cut-off date to be established
* China and India: Potentially “Unavailable”
EB-3:
* Worldwide: three to five weeks
* China: up to six weeks
* India: up to two weeks
* Mexico: three to five weeks
* Philippines: three to five weeks
EB-4: Current
EB-5: Current

Major Retrogression Predicted for Employment Second Preference (EB-2) India and China

Tushar Mathur — Sat, 24 Mar 2012 23:30:00 +0000

In a Chicago conference with the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) held on March 16, 2012, the Chief of State Department’s Visa Control and Reporting unit, Mr. Charles Oppenheim, stated that the EB-2 India and China visa category will likely retrogress in the May or June 2012 Visa Bulletin. The extent of retrogression will be quite drastic, reverting the EB-2 cutoff date back to approximately August 2007 from the April cutoff date of May 1, 2010.

Reasons for Retrogression: The recent rapid advancement in EB-2 cutoff dates was to use up all available visa numbers for the fiscal year. To that end, the State Department has generously advanced the cutoff days during the past six months from July 15, 2007 (October 2011 Visa Bulletin) to May 1, 2010 (April 2012 Visa Bulletin). As expected, the advancement has allowed thousands of adjustment applications and immigrant visa petitions to be filed during the past few months, resulting in rapid exhaustion of visa numbers for the fiscal year. Consequently, the State Department must exercise restrain now in the allocation of visa numbers through retrogression. In fact, Mr. Oppenheim has been warning about possible retrogression all along. The lack of movement in April for EB-2 should serve as harbinger of future retrogression.

Extent of Retrogression: Perhaps the surprising aspect of the announcement is not retrogression itself but the extent of it. Mr. Oppenheim predicted that EB-2 may go back to about August 2007 in May or June. It means that EB-2 India and China will lose almost all the progress they have made during the past six months. The extent of retrogression is indeed drastic and catches many applicants by surprise. Many Indian and Chinese green card applicants will be disappointed by the sudden change in direction after the recent rapid advancement.

Ways to Handle Retrogression: First of all, it is important to note that although the prediction will likely come true, retrogression has not happened yet. Mr. Oppenheim predicted that May 1 is the earliest possible date that retrogression will happen. It means that applicants with a priority date earlier than May 1, 2010 (cut off date in April) will still be able to file their I-485 applications or immigrant visa petitions until the end of April. Hence, eligible applicants must take steps to prepare and file their applications as soon as possible.

For those applicants who are fortunate enough to have already filed their I-485 applications, they should also qualify to apply for their employment authorization document (EAD) and advance parole travel document. These documents will allow them to work in the U.S. and travel internationally. Hence, the impact of retrogression should be minimal to them. In fact, some of these cases will actually be approved before visa numbers retrogress. Even if their cases have not yet been approved, if their I-485 applications have been pending for six months or longer, they will be able to port their case to another employer if they lose their job in the interim as long as the new position is in the same or similar occupational category.

Finally, for those who are not able to file their green card applications due to retrogression, they must continue to wait patiently for the next opportunity, which may not be that far fetched. Even though Mr. Oppenheim’s predictions are usually accurate, the extent of retrogression will depend on actual visa usage. Further, visa numbers will become available again in October when the new fiscal year begins. Depending on visa number usage, it is possible that we will see advancement in visa numbers again soon.

Conclusion: An immigrant visa is required by most green card applicants, and visa numbers are controlled by law. Retrogression happens when the number of visa applicants exceeds the number of available visa numbers. Applicants cannot control visa numbers but should continue to maintain their lawful status and obtain the necessary documents to prepare for the filing of their green card applications.

EB-5 Investor Visa: Sources of Capital

Tushar Mathur — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 03:04:00 +0000

The U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act sets aside 7.1% worldwide visa numbers to qualified immigrants seeking to enter the U.S. for the purpose of engaging in a new commercial enterprise. The applicant must either have invested or is in the process of actively investing capital not less than U.S. $1,000,000 in the enterprise. This is commonly known as the EB-5 investor visa. Other categories of immigrant visa are usually oversubscribed for countries such as China and India. For instances, many family-based petitions, including those filed by U.S. citizens, are currently backlogged. The EB-2 and EB-3 employment visa categories are similarly oversubscribed. The advantage of the EB-5 visa is that, so far, there has been sufficient number of visa numbers for qualified applicants. It means that once a qualified applicant has establish that he or she meets all the legal requirements, a conditional green card will be issued by the U.S. government. For those immigrants who have sufficient capital, the EB-5 visa is an attractive alternative. It is not to say that it is easy for anybody to apply for an EB-5 visa. Rather, the investor visa requirements are quite complicated and adjudication standards very high.

The EB-5 visa program requires an investment of capital of at least one million U.S. dollars (except for certain target investment areas). Cash investment is perhaps the most direct way to meet the capital requirement. However, the regulations also allow other forms of capital investment including equipment, inventory, other tangible property and cash equivalents. Further, debts secured by assets owned by the investor entrepreneur also qualifies as capital as long as the investor is personally and primarily liable and that the assets of the new commercial enterprise are not used to secure any of the debts. Such a broad definition of capital makes it easier for investors to inject capital into their businesses. For instance, a restaurant owner may have a portion of the capital invested in equipment and cooking appliances; a pharmaceutical company may partially satisfy the capital requirement by investing in laboratory equipments and facilities; and a manufacturer or distributor of goods could meet the capital equipment through the purchase of inventory and other assets. All assets are valued at fair market value in United States dollars.

Another important requirement of capital is that it must come from lawful sources. Assets obtained through unlawful or criminal means cannot be used to meet the capital investment requirement. To prove the lawfulness of sources of capital, an investor must provide documentary evidence including: (1) Foreign business registration records, (2) Corporate, partnership (or any other business entity), and personal tax returns including income, franchise, property (whether real, personal, or intangible) filed within five years in or outside the United States by or on behalf of the immigrant investor; (3) Evidence identifying any other sources of capital; or, (4) Certified copies of any judgments or evidence of all pending governmental civil or criminal actions, and any private civil actions involving monetary judgments against the immigrant investor from any court in or outside the United States within the past fifteen years. Unfortunately, many investors are able to come up with the capital for investment but are not able to provide evidence to prove that the capital comes from lawful sources.

Finally, it is important to note that although an investor must commit to invest one million U.S. dollars in the enterprise, there is no requirement that the full amount must be invested when an EB-5 visa application is filed. An investor can use documents to show that she is in the process of investing the capital, perhaps in different stages depending on the needs of the business enterprise.

U Visa – An important tool for crime victims to obtain legal status

Tushar Mathur — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 15:04:00 +0000

Many immigrants in the United States are hesitant to approach police and other law enforcement officers when they become crime victims. For people who are in the U.S. without legal status, they try to avoid contacts with police officers for fear that their illegal status may be exposed. Even legal immigrants are sometimes afraid to approach police in the U.S. because of cultural differences and language barriers. Most of them do not know that there exists a special visa designed for victims of certain crimes called the U visa. The purpose of the U visa is to provide eligible victims of crimes with temporary nonimmigrant status so that they may assist law enforcement agencies in criminal investigations and prosecutions.

Congress created the U visa in The Victims of Trafficking and Violence Prevention Act (VTVPA) of 2000 to encourage victims to report crimes and help law enforcement officials to investigate and prosecute criminal activities regardless of the victims’ immigration status. Women and children are especially vulnerable to certain crimes such as human trafficking, sexual assault and domestic violence. If a U visa petition is approved, the petitioner receives nonimmigrant status to live and work in the United States for up to four years. Subsequently, qualified recipients may apply to adjust status to become a lawful permanent resident (green card) after three years of continuous presence in the U.S. as a U visa holder. There are other eligibility requirements for a green card as well, including the ongoing duty to cooperate with law enforcement in the investigation or prosecution of the qualifying crime. Additionally, other immediate family members of U visa recipients may also be eligible to live and work in the United States as derivative U visa recipients. These family members include: Unmarried children under the age of 21 of principal U visa recipients; Spouses of principal U visa recipients; Parents of principal U visa recipients under age 21; and Unmarried siblings under 18 years old of principal U visa recipients under age 21.

To apply for a U visa, one must file the USCIS Form I-918, Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status (Form I-918), and submit it to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) with all relevant documentation, including Form I-918B, the U visa law enforcement certification. The Form I-918B is a requirement for the U visa and must be certified by a qualified law enforcement agency including a federal, state, local law enforcement agency, prosecutor, judge, or other authority that has the responsibility for the investigation or prosecution of a qualifying crime. Essentially, the law enforcement agency must certify that the petitioner was a victim of a qualifying crime, has specific knowledge and details of crime, has been, is being, or is likely to be helpful to law enforcement in the detection, investigation, or prosecution of the qualifying crime. Qualifying crimes includes qualify for the U visa including murder, robbery, abduction, rape, sexual assault, kidnaping, incest, perjury, prostitution, obstruction of justice, etc.

The U visa is an extremely important incentive for victims of crimes to come forward to testify against the perpetrators. Because of the complexity of U visa petitions, applicants should seek assistance from a legal representative or victim advocate. It is important to know that certification by a law enforcement agency does not guarantee approval of a U visa. The USCIS must determine if other requirements of the U visa are met including whether the applicant has suffered substantial physical or mental abuse as a result of the subject criminal activity. However for victims of serious crimes without legal status especially women and children, the U visa may be their only hope to fight back.

Chennai will no longer process Immigrant Visa petitions as of January 1, 2012.

Tushar Mathur — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 15:01:00 +0000

“Important Announcement: The U.S. Consulate General in Chennai will no longer process Immigrant Visa petitions as of January 1, 2012. The U.S. Consulate General in Chennai will no longer process Immigrant Visa petitions as of January 1, 2012. The U.S. Embassy in New Delhi and U.S. Consulate in Mumbai will become the only acceptance centers in India for Immigrant Visas.
The Immigrant Visa allows an individual to live and work in the United States on a permanent basis, as well as provides the immigrant the opportunity to work towards U.S. citizenship.
Examples of Immigrant Visa based petitions are those that work toward family reunification of parents, children and siblings. These petitions also include Fiancée and the unique employer category, where one’s employer can petition for the individual and their dependents to immigrate to the United States. This change affects only the locations for processing of Immigrant Visas; it does not change the law or policy for visa processing. Applicants currently in the process of petitioning for an Immigrant Visa may contact ChennaiIVU@state.gov for clarification.”

Source: The U.S. Consulate General in Chennai

Important issues about the filing of I-485 adjustment application

Tushar Mathur — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 00:16:00 +0000

The cutoff dates for employment based 2^nd preference immigrant visa for China and India have advanced significantly for the past three months. Since November 2011, the cutoff dates have leaped forwarded by more than 17 months to January 1, 2009. The rapid advancement means that many EB-2 professionals and advance degree holders are able to submit their I-485 application to adjust status to that of legal resident of the United States. Simultaneously the applicant may also apply for a general employment authorization document (EAD) and a travel document. Upon approval of the I-485 application, the applicant will receive her permanent resident card (or green card). There are some important issues related to this last step of the immigration process.

First and foremost, an applicant must ensure that she is not subject to any grounds of inadmissibility that would cause the denial of her green card. The U.S. immigration laws specify certain classes of individuals who are not allowed to immigrate to the U.S. For example, foreigners who have a communicable disease are not eligible to enter the U.S. Similarly, individuals who have serious physical or mental disorder which may pose danger to others are also excluded from admission. Persons who have been convicted for “crimes involving turpitude” are usually not allowed for admission. There are some waivers and narrow exceptions to some of these grounds of exclusions but serious criminal offenders are most certainly not eligible for these exceptions. If a person is found not eligible for a green card, she may also be placed in removal proceedings by the Department of Homeland Security. Hence it is important to evaluate one’s background before applying for permanent resident status.

Extensive documentation is required to support an I-485 adjustment application including one’s immigration background documents, employment related documents, tax and financial documents, medical health report, and all the required application forms. The fingerprints of the applicant will be taken and a thorough background check will be conducted by FBI. The sponsoring employer must also provide evidence that it will permanent employment to the applicant.

Another common issue of I-485 applicants is lapses in status in the past because of lay-offs and other reasons which resulted in their violations of nonimmigrant status. A H-1B employee might have been “benched” by an employer in tough economic times; an F-1 student could have been failed to maintain a full-time course load due to financial or health reasons; etc. Certainly applicants such as J-1 exchange visitors might also need a waiver for his foreign residence requirement. Again, careful planning and analysis is required for applicants with specific status problems.

Foreign spouses and children of I-485 applicants are also eligible to apply for permanent resident status as derivative applicants. Hence, if an applicant has plans to get married, he may want to adjust his plans in such a way that his future spouse would be able to adjust status as well. However, sufficient evidence should be presented to prove that the marriage is not one of convenience. The Department of Homeland Security will scrutinize new marriages carefully to ascertain that no elements of fraud are involved.

The medical examination required for immigration can also be an issue for some applicants. For example, many applicants from Asian countries initially test positive for TB (pulmonary tuberculosis), which is a contagious bacterial infection, although they have not been infected with the bacteria. The false positive result could have been caused by previous vaccinations that they received in Asia. Applicants must work closely with their attorney and physician to use further tests to confirm that they are not contagious. Otherwise, they would not be eligible to receive a green card.

When is a Lawful Permanent Resident considered seeking admission to the United States?

Tushar Mathur — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 05:21:00 +0000

The United States immigration laws confer certain rights and privileges to a person who has been granted Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) status by the government. These individuals, commonly known as green card holders, are authorized to work and live in the United States indefinitely. Legal residents are also allowed to return to the United States after international travel. Nonresidents, on the other hand, are considered applicants for admission and must establish that they are admissible to the United States in order to enter.

Sec. 101(a)(13)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides that a returning LPR should not be regarded as seeking an admission into the United States for purposes of the immigration laws unless the legal resident (i) has abandoned or relinquished that status, (ii) has been absent from the United States for a continuous period in excess of 180 days, (iii) has engaged in illegal activity after having departed the United States, (iv) has departed from the United States while under legal process seeking removal of the alien from the United States, including removal proceedings and extradition proceedings, (v) has committed an offense identified in section 212(a)(2), unless since such offense the alien has been granted relief under section 212(h) or 240A(a), or (vi) is attempting to enter at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers or has not been admitted to the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer.

If either one of the six conditions apply, the returning green card holder is considered an applicant for admission and will be subject to less legal protection that he or she normally enjoys as a legal resident. A LPR is like a person who is returning home with a key (his green card) while an applicant for admission is like a visitor asking for permission to enter another person’s house. A visitor seeking admission but not a legal resident is subject to all the grounds of inadmissibility contained in the immigration statutes. When a legal resident is placed in removal proceedings, the government must first prove by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that the grounds and basis for deportation are true before the person may be removed from the United States. The burden of proof is on the government to prove that the person is deportable. Similarly, to treat a returning resident as seeking admission to the United States, the Department of Homeland Security bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that a returning lawful permanent resident falls under one of the above six categories of individuals.

For example, in a recent Board of Immigration Appeal (BIA) case, Matter of Benno Rivens, decided October 19, 2011, the Board remanded the case to the Immigration Judge to analyze if the offenses committed by the respondent – a green card holder – constitute a crime involving turpitude (CIMT). (This falls under condition v above.) If the DHS meets its burden by proving by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent had committed a CIMT, then he would be treated as an applicant for admission. Further, since convictions of CIMTs are also grounds of inadmissibility, he would also not be allowed to be admitted to the United States and, consequently, he would lose his green card. On the other hand, if the government fails to meet it burden of proof, the respondent would be allowed to return to the United States as a lawful permanent resident.

Hence, before a legal resident travels outside of the United States, it is very important for him to determine whether or not he will be regarded as a returning resident or an applicant for admission upon his return. Sometimes, it may be wise for a legal resident not to depart the United States at all.

DV-2012 Diversity Visa Lottery Results

Tushar Mathur — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 19:30:00 +0000

The Kentucky Consular Center of the State Department has once again released the results of the DV-2012 diversity lottery. The winners have been registered and notified by mail. They may apply for an immigrant visa or adjustment of status (if they are in the U.S.) between the months of October 2011 and September 2012.

This year there were a total of 14,768,658 applicants (19,672,268 if dependents are counted) who entered the lottery drawing during the 30-day application window of October 5, 2010 – November 3, 2010.

Applicants should note that only the selected applicants (“winners”) were notified by mail. If you have not been notified by the State Department, it means that you have not been selected. Be warned of many scams out there who would send you false winning notifications and demand fees and payments from applicants.

The following is the statistical breakdown by foreign-state chargeability of those registered for the DV-2012 program:

AFRICA
ALGERIA 1,799 ANGOLA 42 BENIN 511 BOTSWANA 7 BURKINA FASO 226 BURUNDI 56 CAMEROON 3,374 CAPE VERDE 9 CENTRAL AFRICAN REP. 3 CHAD 33 COMOROS 9 CONGO 105 CONGO, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE 3,445 COTE D’IVOIRE 553 DJIBOUTI 38 EGYPT 4,664 EQUATORIAL GUINEA 4 ERITREA 670	ETHIOPIA 4,902 GABON 48 GAMBIA, THE 113 GHANA 5,832 GUINEA 899 GUINEA-BISSAU 3 KENYA 4,720 LESOTHO 8 LIBERIA 2,101 LIBYA 136 MADAGASCAR 17 MALAWI 16 MALI 76 MAURITANIA 29 MAURITIUS 59 MOROCCO 1,890 MOZAMBIQUE 13 NAMIBIA 10 NIGER 32	NIGERIA 6,024 RWANDA 333 SAO TOME AND PRINCIPE 0 SENEGAL 270 SEYCHELLES 6 SIERRA LEONE 3,397 SOMALIA 175 SOUTH AFRICA 833 SUDAN 757 SWAZILAND 0 TANZANIA 175 TOGO 845 TUNISIA 113 UGANDA 418 ZAMBIA 79 ZIMBABWE 123

ASIA
AFGHANISTAN 109 BAHRAIN 29 BANGLADESH 2,373 BHUTAN 5 BRUNEI 0 BURMA 370 CAMBODIA 596 HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMIN. REGION 54 INDONESIA 256 IRAN 4,453	IRAQ 153 ISRAEL 175 JAPAN 435 JORDAN 152 NORTH KOREA 0 KUWAIT 108 LAOS 1 LEBANON 274 MALAYSIA 118 MALDIVES 0 MONGOLIA 209	NEPAL 3,258 OMAN 11 QATAR 19 SAUDI ARABIA 217 SINGAPORE 45 SRI LANKA 708 SYRIA 160 TAIWAN 391 THAILAND 73 TIMOR-LESTE 9 UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 92 YEMEN 149

EUROPE
ALBANIA 1,508 ANDORRA 1 ARMENIA 998 AUSTRIA 130 AZERBAIJAN 304 BELARUS 493 BELGIUM 105 BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA 83 BULGARIA 883 CROATIA 107 CYPRUS 26 CZECH REPUBLIC 104 DENMARK 73 ESTONIA 49 FINLAND 91 FRANCE 574 French Polynesia 7 New Caledonia 1 GEORGIA 620 GERMANY 1,709 GREECE 105	HUNGARY 325 ICELAND 56 IRELAND 213 ITALY 529 KAZAKHSTAN 434 KOSOVO 137 KYRGYZSTAN 321 LATVIA 83 LIECHTENSTEIN 0 LITHUANIA 258 LUXEMBOURG 8 MACEDONIA 160 MALTA 20 MOLDOVA 1,238 MONACO 3 MONTENEGRO 18 NETHERLANDS 149 Aruba 4 Curacao 19 St. Maarten 2 NORTHERN IRELAND 59	NORWAY 84 PORTUGAL 66 Macau 19 ROMANIA 1,327 RUSSIA 2,353 SAN MARINO 1 SERBIA 298 SLOVAKIA 80 SLOVENIA 16 SPAIN 232 SWEDEN 200 SWITZERLAND 229 TAJIKISTAN 270 TURKEY 3,077 TURKMENISTAN 143 UKRAINE 5,799 UZBEKISTAN 4,800 VATICAN CITY 0

NORTH AMERICA
BAHAMAS, THE 15

OCEANIA
AUSTRALIA 900 Christmas Islands 3 Cocos Islands 1 FIJI 628 KIRIBATI 14 MARSHALL ISLANDS 4 MICRONESIA, FEDERATED STATES OF 2	NAURU 5 NEW ZEALAND 309 Cook Islands 6 Niue 14 PALAU 5 PAPUA NEW GUINEA 0 SAMOA 0 SOLOMON ISLANDS 0	TONGA 93 TUVALU 0 VANUATU 8 WESTERN SAMOA 9

SOUTH AMERICA, CENTRAL AMERICA, AND THE CARIBBEAN
ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA 9 ARGENTINA 101 BARBADOS 25 BELIZE 9 BOLIVIA 84 CHILE 43 COSTA RICA 43 CUBA 292	DOMINICA 18 GRENADA 24 GUYANA 26 HONDURAS 80 NICARAGUA 49 PANAMA 21 PARAGUAY 17 SAINT KITTS AND NEVIS 7	SAINT LUCIA 4 SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES 16 SURINAME 15 TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO 175 URUGUAY 19 VENEZUELA 925

Natives of the following countries were not eligible to participate in DV-2012: Brazil, Canada, China (mainland-born, excluding Hong Kong S.A.R. and Taiwan), Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Mexico, Pakistan, Peru, the Philippines, Poland, South Korea, United Kingdom (except Northern Ireland) and its dependent territories, and Vietnam.
(Source: U.S. State Department Visa Bulletin – September 2011)