USCIS Will Issue Redesigned Green Cards and Employment Authorization Documents

USCIS Will Issue Redesigned Green Cards and Employment Authorization Documents

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services today announced a redesign to the Permanent Resident Card (also known as a Green Card) and the Employment Authorization Document (EAD) as part of the Next Generation Secure Identification Document Project. USCIS will begin issuing the new cards on May 1, 2017.

These redesigns use enhanced graphics and fraud-resistant security features to create cards that are highly secure and more tamper-resistant than the ones currently in use.

The new card designs demonstrate USCIS’ commitment to continue taking a proactive approach against the threat of document tampering and fraud. They are also part of an ongoing effort between USCIS, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to enhance document security and deter counterfeiting and fraud.

The Redesigned Cards

The new Green Cards and EADs will:

·         Display the individual’s photos on both sides;

·         Show a unique graphic image and color palette:

o    Green Cards will have an image of the Statue of Liberty and a predominately green palette;

o    EAD cards will have an image of a bald eagle and a predominately red palette;

·         Have embedded holographic images; and

·         No longer display the individual’s signature.

Also, Green Cards will no longer have an optical stripe on the back.

How To Tell If Your Card Is Valid

Some Green Cards and EADs issued after May 1, 2017, may still display the existing design format as USCIS will continue using existing card stock until current supplies are depleted. Both the existing and the new Green Cards and EADs will remain valid until the expiration date shown on the card.

US sues Google for allegedly paying female employees less than males

The US Department of Labor is suing Google over findings that the company routinely pays female employees less than their male counterparts.

The government agency noted at a hearing before a federal judge in San Francisco last Friday that it “found systemic compensation disparities against women pretty much across the entire workforce” at the company. It pointed to pay disparities in salaries from 2015 and has demanded that the company the company disclose additional records to aid in the investigation.

Speaking to The Guardian, DoL regional solicitor Janet Herold said that the probe is still underway, and that the agency has “received compelling evidence of very significant discrimination against women in the most common positions at Google headquarters.”

She added: “The government’s analysis at this point indicates that discrimination against women in Google is quite extreme, even in this industry.”

However, Google disagreed with the claim and said that the agency hadn’t shared any data or disclosed what methodology it used to come to this conclusion.

As a federal contractor, Google is required to allow the DoL to check its records for compliance with equal opportunity laws. The agency has locked horns with the company over a request for such data from last year, with Google claiming that it had already handed over plenty of data but refused to hand over more information that’s necessary to proceed with the investigation.

Last week, Google announced in a tweet that it had closed the pay gap for all roles within its organization’s operations across the globe. Given that and the fact that all eyes are on the tech industry to learn which firms are engaging in unlawful and discriminatory practices, it’d be surprising to learn that the company would be obtuse enough to allow managers to award women with lower salaries than men in 2017.

United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth District granted a petition for review of the denial of a motion to reconsider determination in reinstatement removal proceedings

The panel granted a petition for review of the denial of a motion to reconsider or reopen a negative reasonable fear determination in reinstatement removal proceedings. An immigration judge affirmed an asylum officer’s determination that petitioner failed to establish a reasonable fear of persecution in reinstatement removal proceedings. Petitioner filed a motion to reconsider or reopen, which the IJ denied. Rather than directly petitioning this court for review, petitioner filed an appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals, and the Board dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner then filed the present petition for review within 30 days of the Board’s decision. The panel first held that this court has jurisdiction over petitions for review from negative reasonable fear determinations in the context of the reinstatement of an expedited removal order. The panel next held that under all the circumstances of this case, including the fact that the IJ’s decision on the motion advised petitioner of a right to appeal to the Board, even though no such right exists, the Board’s decision constituted the final order of removal, and the petition is therefore timely.

Turning to the merits, the panel held that the IJ abused his discretion in denying the motion to reconsider or reopen. The panel held that the IJ erred in concluding that extortion could not constitute persecution because extortion, plus the threat of violence, on the basis of a protected characteristic, can constitute persecution. Noting that petitioner sought only withholding of removal and not asylum, and therefore needed to establish only that a protected characteristic was “a reason” motivating the extortionate acts, the panel remanded to the IJ to determine whether petitioner established an “extortion plus” claim of persecution, based on her claimed extortion due to her family ties.