Posts Tagged ‘petitioner’

New O and P Visa Petition Form Effective May 1, 2015

Thursday, April 30th, 2015

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

Someone recently told me that there was a new form for U.S. visa petitions for artists. Is this true? If so, when do I have to start using it?

Late last year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) released a revised version of Form I-129—the form which is used to petition for O and P visas. While most attorneys have been using the new version of the form (edition date: 10/23/14) for several months, USCIS has been accepting both the old and new forms. That is, until now. USCIS recently announced that, effective May 1, 2015, USCIS will no longer accept the old version of Form I-129. Any visa petition submitted on or after May 1, 2015 must use the newest version of Form I-129 (edition date: 10/23/14) or USCIS will reject the petition. You can verify that you are using the correct version of Form I-129 by checking the edition date of the form at the bottom of each page of the I-129. As USCIS frequently revises forms and changes filing fees, often with little notice, you always want to download your forms directly from the USCIS website. NEVER assume a form you used before, much less a form provided by someone else, is correct.

Almost all of the information requested in the new version of Form I-129 (edition date: 10/23/14) is the same as the old form, just re-arranged in an inexplicably more confusing and complicated manner. As a result, the old I-129 form, which used to be 7 pages, is now 8 pages. The old I-129 O/P Supplement, which used to be 2 pages, is now 3 pages. You will need to read each question carefully as boxes and blanks have been moved around. There are also other hidden gems such as certain answers which must be filled in by hand where the revised form currently available on the USCIS website does not allow typed characters. (While I presume these changes and revisions make sense to USCIS, for the rest of us, it would take a herd of rabid squirrels to devise something more inane.)

The maddening inconvenience notwithstanding, there are really only two changes of any consequence worth noting, both of which are in response to what USCIS claims are increased instances of fraudulent O and P petitions:

1) The new I-129 form now requires both petitioners and anyone who prepares petitions for others to affirm that they have personally reviewed all of the information, evidence, documents, statements, and assertions in the petition and assert that everything is true and accurate. While such standards and practices have always been de rigueur for most attorneys, the new I-129 now officially places a heightened level of responsibility and liability on anyone who prepares a visa petition on behalf of someone else to assure that the petition and all evidence is accurate.

2) The new I-129 O/P Supplement now asks whether or not an artist or beneficiary has any ownership interest in the petitioning organization. This is to prevent artists and others from “self-petitioning.” While O and P beneficiaries have never been permitted to serve as their own petitioners, the previous versions of the I-129 never specifically asked this question. Now, petitioners will need to disclose whether or not any beneficiary of the petition is also an owner of the petitioner.

Whether or not there has, in fact, been increased instances of fraudulent O and P petitions remains to be seen. USCIS states that the Preparer’s Declaration has been modified to “protect the form against fraud and misuse,” noting that “visa fraud and misrepresentation, especially for employment-based petitions like Form I-129, have been the subject of a significant number of criminal prosecutions.” USCIS states that revisions to the attestation and signature sections were made at the request of the Department of Justice “to make it clear that applicants, preparers, interpreters, and representatives all have legal responsibilities with respect to the proper and truthful filing of benefit requests.” However, according to information obtained by the American Immigration Lawyers Association in fiscal years 2012 and 2013, the USCIS Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate “found fraud in 1,499 and 723 cases respectively in Form I-129 filings, which means that approximately 0.33 percent of Forms I-129 resulted in a finding of fraud.” That’s less than 1/3 of one percent. Nonetheless, it is well known that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which controls USCIS, has always been driven more by paranoia than reality and favours draconian measures. This perception of fraud has been responsible for the increased scrutiny of I-129 supporting evidence, along with demands for more evidence, which began in 2014 and which continues to this day. As a result, the average O and P petition prepared by our office weighs about 2 – 3 pounds! At this rate, perhaps the only ones with a legitimate right to be paranoid are trees.

_________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and other GG_logo_for-facebooklegal, project management, and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com

To ask your own question, write to lawanddisorder@musicalamerica.org.

All questions on any topic related to legal, management, and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. GG Arts Law reserves the right to alter, edit or, amend questions to focus on specific issues or to avoid names, circumstances, or any information that could be used to identify or embarrass a specific individual or organization. All questions will be posted anonymously and/or posthumously.

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a nasty email, filing a lawsuit, or doing anything rash!

 

 

 

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

Is It Still Illegal If I Don’t Get Caught?

Thursday, April 9th, 2015

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder:

Our organization has engaged a foreign musician whose European agent is balking at the artist having to obtain an O-1 visa that we know he needs. We want to do this right, so I’m getting my ducks in line to tell him no and part of making that case is knowing what potential penalties the organization might face for allowing him to work without the proper visa. I hope there is an easy answer that you can give me off the top of your head—or maybe there is something you can refer me to that would provide the answer.

A lot of artists and their managers balk at the U.S. visa process for artists. I understand. It’s illogical, inane, impractical, unpredictable, arbitrary, and expensive…and those are just the high points. Nonetheless, it’s the one we’re stuck with.

The “easy answer” is simply that “it’s illegal.” Artists are not permitted to perform in the U.S. without an artist visa (most often, either an O or P), regardless of whether or not tickets are sold, regardless of whether or not the artist is paid or who pays the artist, regardless of whether or not the performance is for a 501(c)(3), regardless of whether or not the performance constitutes “training” or is “educational”, and regardless of just about any scenario you can conceive of. What you are really asking is: what are the consequences for breaking the law and what are the odds of getting caught?

Both United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and United States Customs and Border Patrol (USCBP) have been increasingly scrutinizing artists over the last year or so. As a result, artists who have previously managed to perform illegally in the U.S. in the past without the proper artist visa are now being caught with ever greater regularity—resulting in significant consequences for both the artists as well as the presenters and venues who allowed them to perform. Last year, a violinist who had been performing in the U.S. for the past five years without a visa was caught and is now banned from the U.S. for three years. I am aware of a conductor who was turned away at the border when the immigration official discovered that he was coming to perform by “googling” his name. Another artist was advised by his management to enter the U.S. on a visitor visa to perform a promotional tour for a new album, was detained at the airport for 5 hours, and then refused entry. His ESTA/Visa Waiver privileges have been revoked and he must now visit a U.S. Consulate any time he wants to enter the US—even as a visitor. Even more significantly, a management company was caught submitting a fraudulent visa petition to USCIS and is no longer allowed to serve as a petitioner for its own artist’s visas. Large presenters, venues, and festivals are being audited with increasing regularity to determine whether or not all artists have proper artist visas.

The consequences for employing an artist illegally are the same as for any employer who employs an illegal alien. Theoretically, this can include anything from fines and economic penalties to criminal prosecution. However, from a practical perspective, the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice lack the resources to prosecute and investigate every venue or presenter who facilitates an illegal performance. This is why most enforcement tends to be focused on the artist at the time of entry. After the artist has entered the U.S., it’s much less likely that DHS would discover the performance unless there is an audit or the performance is reported to them. Audits are much more likely to occur either in the case of larger institutions or employers who already employ foreign workers in other capacities or in the case of prominent or significant venues or performances which are more likely to garner media attention.

In short, whenever a venue contemplates employing an artist without a proper visa or an artist contemplates performing with a proper visa, it’s akin to running a red light. It’s illegal under any circumstances. Whether or not you get caught depends on whether or not there is a camera or cop at the intersection. Whether or not it’s advisable depends on the circumstances and how lucky you feel.

If cost and inconvenience is a factor, and the artist has other U.S. engagements, a potential solution might be an itinerary-based visa covering multiple engagements. I am increasingly and puzzlingly seeing artists obtaining multiple visas rather than coordinating them amongst all of the artist’s presenters. There is no reason for this other than the visa process being all too often delegated to the “new kid” in the office.

__________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and otherGG_logo_for-facebook legal, project management, and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com

To ask your own question, write to lawanddisorder@musicalamerica.org.

All questions on any topic related to legal, management, and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. GG Arts Law reserves the right to alter, edit or, amend questions to focus on specific issues or to avoid names, circumstances, or any information that could be used to identify or embarrass a specific individual or organization. All questions will be posted anonymously and/or posthumously.

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a nasty email, filing a lawsuit, or doing anything rash!

 

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

Avoiding A Visa Interview…Sometimes…Maybe…

Thursday, November 6th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

I had a really interesting conversation with a consular officer at a U.S. consulate where we were having one of our groups apply for P visas. Our group has toured the U.S. many times and the officer mentioned that P class petitioners do not need to come back in for interviews if they renew their visas within 48 months of their last visa. They can just mail them in through a courier service associated with a local bank. She said that this was true in other countries as well, though the specifics are slightly different in other countries. Are you familiar with this?

Yes, I am familiar with this. What the officer is talking about is a discretionary policy whereby certain individuals under certain circumstances may not be required to have a visa interview at the U.S. consulate if they are applying for a visa in the same category as a visa previously issued to such person. However, before you get too excited, remember that nothing in the tortured realm of U.S. immigration policies and procedures is ever as simple or as straightforward as it may first seem. There are several pitfalls to be aware of.

First, this has nothing to do with avoiding the petition process. Regardless of how many O or P visas an artist may have previously held, all new O and P visas require a visa petition to be filed with and approved by USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.) The policy at issue here is whether or not, after approval, an artist may be able to avoid physically appearing at a U.S. Consulate in order for the visa to be issued.

Second, the “interview waiver” policy is determined on a consulate-by-consulate basis and it is by no means a uniform policy at all U.S. consulates. Some consulates may allow this for O and P visas, while others may allow this only for O visas, and still others may allow this for O-1 and P-1 visas, but not O-2 or P-1S visas. And others may not allow this at all. Even where it is available, a consulate might still require citizens of certain countries to come in for an interview anyway. The only way to determine which consulates do and do not allow for visa interviews to be waived under certain circumstances and, if available, the specific process for obtaining a visa without an interview, is to check the website of the specific consulate where the artist will be applying for the visa.

Third, unless there is enough time to deal with glitches and delays, I always encourage artists to appear personally even if they qualify for an interview waiver. Why? Read on…

A pianist who had multiple O-1 visas in the past did not, understandably, want to go to yet another interview at a U.S. Consulate. So, you can imagine her joy when, upon completing her DS-160 (visa application) form on the website of the U.S. Consulate, she learned that she qualified for an interview waiver. She ecstatically selected the interview waiver option on the DS-160, mailed in her passport using the courier service…and her passport never arrived at the consulate. It was lost. Ultimately, she had to obtain a new passport and apply in person, causing a delay of several weeks and the cancellation of several engagements on her tour.

Similarly, another artist who also met the qualifications for an interview waiver, mailed in his passport and, after three weeks of waiting, was informed that he was being required to schedule an interview anyway. Even where an artist meets the requirements for an interview waiver, a consulate always retains the discretion to require a personal interview under any circumstances. Unfortunately, there’s no particular requirement that they inform you of this in a timely fashion.

As fond as I am of sweeping generalizations, they are never applicable in all circumstances. For every tale of problems or delays, there are just as many positive experiences. Nonetheless, its always safe to assume that when dealing with any situation—immigration related or otherwise—in which the outcome you seek will ultimately depend upon a harmonic convergence of timing, competency, and karma, assume otherwise and plan accordingly.

_________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and otherGG_logo_for-facebook legal and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com

To ask your own question, write to lawanddisorder@musicalamerica.org.

All questions on any topic related to legal and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. GG Arts Law reserves the right to alter, edit or, amend questions to focus on specific issues or to avoid names, circumstances, or any information that could be used to identify or embarrass a specific individual or organization. All questions will be posted anonymously and/or posthumously.

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a nasty email, filing a lawsuit, or doing anything rash!

 

 

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

The Recipe For Confusion

Thursday, September 11th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder:

We obtained a three year O-1 visa for one of our artists. We are the artist’s agent and served as his petitioner. A large venue wants to book the artist, but they are insisting that, according to their finance department, they cannot pay us as the artist’s agent and that they must pay the artist directly as an employee of the venue. While we are willing to agree to this, the venue is also insisting that, because they must pay the artist directly, we either must file an amended petition specifically naming the venue as an employer or file a separate petition just for the venue.

Whether its dealing with visas, taxes, or employment issues, we here at GG Arts Law often find ourselves in loggerheads with CFOs, finance departments, HR directors, and others, especially at large venues and organizations, who seem to use the same recipe when developing policies and directives: Take one very broad workshop which they attended several years ago and is now outdated, add an opinion from a board or volunteer attorney who doesn’t actually specialize in the topic at issue, stir in some research done by an intern, mix well with incorrect anecdotes from peers and colleagues, add a dash of ego, bake well, and insist this is the law.

In your particular situation, the venue appears to be confusing several key concepts: (1) the nature of itinerary based visas for artists; (2) the ability to add additional engagements when an artist is on an itinerary based visa; and (3) the relationship (or lack thereof) between employment law and immigration law.

Itinerary Based Visas:

Most immigration scenarios contemplate a single employer submitting a petition on behalf of a non-US individual whom they wish to hire. In those instances, the employer submits an I-129 petition to USCIS and, once approved, the name of the employer will appear on the I-797 approval notice authorizing the individual to work for the employer. If the individual wants to work for more than one employer, then each employer needs to submit its own I-129 petition.

However, there is an exception for artists: The applicable immigration regulations recognize that O-1 artists of “extraordinary ability” typically come to the US to perform “on tour” and, thus, will have multiple employers who hire them to perform. In such cases, a single petition may be filed with USCIS covering all of the artist’s engagements with multiple employers in the US. These are known as “itinerary-based” O-1 visas because, as opposed to covering a single performance, the petition includes an “itinerary” of performances and engagements with multiple employers.

So, for example, let’s say that an opera singer is hired to perform at the Metropolitan Opera, San Francisco Opera, and Seattle Opera. While each venue could certainly file its own, separate I-129 petition, the Metropolitan Opera could be designated as the singers “agent” and submit a single petition on which it also lists the singer’s engagements at San Francisco Opera and Seattle Opera. As the petitioner, only the Metropolitan Opera’s name would appear on the I-797 approval notice. However, because all three venues were listed on the singer’s “itinerary” the singer would be authorized to perform for all three. Alternatively, if the singer had an actual US agent or manager, the singer’s agent could serve as the petitioner and serve as the petitioner and submit a single I-129 petition to cover all three engagements. Again, as the petitioner, only the agent’s name would appear on the I-797 approval notice. However, because all three venues were listed on the singer’s “itinerary”, the artist would be authorized to perform for all three.

Adding Additional Engagements:

Continuing with this example, let’s suppose that after the singer arrived in the US, the singer was contacted by Washington Opera and asked to replace another singer who fell into the orchestra pit and can no longer perform the role. This last minute engagement would take place between the singer’s engagement with San Francisco Opera and Seattle Opera. Does Washington Opera have to file its own separate I-129 petition? No. Does the petitioner of the singer’s original I-129 petition have to file an amended petition “adding” this new engagement? No. Provided that additional engagements occur within an artist’s approved or existing O-1 classification period, and provided that the engagements or services are consistent with the artist’s O-1 qualifications (ie: performing, teaching, master classes, residencies, etc.), the artist is legally permitted to add and perform such additional engagements without the necessity of anyone filing an amended petition or otherwise notifying USCIS of the additional employers. The triggering factor is whether or not an artist was on an itinerary based visa with multiple employers to begin with. (By contrast, if an artist wants to add an engagement or performance that would take place after the period of the artist’s approved or existing O-1 classification period, that would require a new or amended O-1 petition to be filed.)

The Immigration Implications of the Employment Relationship:

Many people see the word “employer” used throughout US Immigration Law and its applicable regulations and presume that it has the same connotations as when used in the context of a traditional “employer-employee” relationship. It does not—particularly in the context of O and P artist visas. US Immigration Law uses the term “employer”, at least in the context of O and P artist visas, to refer to anyone who hires or engages the services of an artist in any capacity regardless of how the employment relationship is structured. A petitioner is neither presumed nor required to be the artist’s actual employer under any circumstances. Moreover, it doesn’t matter who pays whom or whether the artist is paid as an independent contractor or an employee, or even whether the artist is paid at all. This is because US immigration law does not use payment, or lack thereof, as a determinative factor in whether or not an artist requires an O or P visa. If an artist performs in front of an audience or otherwise provides professional artistic services in the US, such artist is required to have either an O or P visa regardless of whether or not the artist is paid, tickets are sold, or the artist receives any compensation from any source directly or indirectly. Thus, while the petitioner of an itinerary based I-129 O-1 petition can also serve in the dual role of one the artist’s employers, there is no requirement under any aspect of applicable immigration law that the petitioner actually serve as one of the artist’s employers, much less that all employment and payments go through the petitioner, or anyone else for that matter.

In short, so long as the artist is on a valid, itinerary-based O-1 visa, anyone can hire and pay the artist, directly or indirectly. Who pays the artist and how are all contractual issues to be negotiated between the parties and not immigration issues.

__________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and otherGG_logo_for-facebook legal and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com

To ask your own question, write to lawanddisorder@musicalamerica.org.

All questions on any topic related to legal and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. GG Arts Law reserves the right to alter, edit or, amend questions to focus on specific issues or to avoid names, circumstances, or any information that could be used to identify or embarrass a specific individual or organization. All questions will be posted anonymously and/or posthumously.

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a nasty email, filing a lawsuit, or doing anything rash!

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Agents, Artist Management, Arts Management, Employees, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Presenters, Taxes, Touring, Venues, Visas | Comments Closed

Welcome To The New Visa Reality!

Thursday, July 24th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and other GG_logo_for-facebooklegal and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com

To ask your own question, write to lawanddisorder@musicalamerica.org.

All questions on any topic related to legal and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. GG Arts Law reserves the right to alter, edit or, amend questions to focus on specific issues or to avoid names, circumstances, or any information that could be used to identify or embarrass a specific individual or organization. All questions will be posted anonymously and/or posthumously.

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a nasty email, filing a lawsuit, or doing anything rash!

 

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

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

Thursday, May 8th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and otherGG_logo_for-facebook legal and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com

To ask your own question, write to lawanddisorder@musicalamerica.org.

All questions on any topic related to legal and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. GG Arts Law reserves the right to alter, edit or, amend questions to focus on specific issues or to avoid names, circumstances, or any information that could be used to identify or embarrass a specific individual or organization. All questions will be posted anonymously and/or posthumously.

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a nasty email, filing a lawsuit, or doing anything rash!

 

 

 

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

Visas for Recording Artists

Wednesday, September 25th, 2013

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

If a foreign singer (who is not a citizen of a country that is eligible for the visa waiver program) gets a record deal in the USA, what kind of visa would they need to apply for? And if the singer is currently living in a different country with a residency permit, can they apply in that country where he or she is living, or would they need to return to their own country to apply for the visa? Thanks.

Thanks. This is an easy one.

To work in the US, which includes entering the US for the purposes of recording an album (regardless of whether or not the singer is paid), the singer would need to apply for an O-1B visa. An O-1B visa is for individual artists of “extraordinary ability.” To obtain the visa, a US-based petitioner (which could be the record label or an appointed agent) would need to prepare and file a visa petition with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). (Naturally, there are fees and costs to file the petition.)

Once the visa petition is approved, USCIS will issue an “approval notice.” The singer will need that to make an appointment at a US Consulate and schedule a visa interview. He or she will need to complete an on-line application form and pay a visa application fee. However, the singer can go to any US Consulate in the world that is convenient for him or her. He or she does not have to return to their home country or even use the consulate in the country where they are a living. Any consulate in any country with a US flag outside will work. (Just make sure it’s a consulate that issues visas—not all do.) Assuming there are no problems with the background check, and assuming the singer is not from a country the US doesn’t like (which, sadly, is a larger list than you may think), the visa should be issued in 3 or 4 days.

There is a rare exception you should be aware of which may or may not be applicable. An artist is not required to have an artist visa to enter the US for the sole purpose of using a recording studio to record an album that will not be sold or distributed in the US, and provided there will be no public performances or concerts. If this applies, an artist only needs to have a visitor visa (unless they are citizen of a visa waiver country, in which case, they will only need their passport to enter as a visitor for up to 90-days.)

Remember, everything you could possibly want to know about visa and tax issues for foreign artists wishing to perform in the US, including things you didn’t even know you needed to know, can be found on: www.artistsfromabroad.org

__________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and other legal and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com

To ask your own question, write to lawanddisorder@musicalamerica.org.

All questions on any topic related to legal and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. GG Arts Law reserves the right to alter, edit or, amend questions to focus on specific issues or to avoid names, circumstances, or any information that could be used to identify or embarrass a specific individual or organization. All questions will be posted anonymously.

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a nasty email, filing a lawsuit, or doing anything rash!

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

Can I Re-Use an Old Union Consult Letter for a Visa Petition?

Wednesday, December 12th, 2012

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

Last year I filed a P-1 petition for a group. I obtained a consult letter from AFM. When I filed a petition for their 2013 tour, the USCIS said I needed to get a new consult letter. I thought that union opinion letters are good for 3 years? Did that rule change?

No, nothing’s changed. There’s just a bit of confusion, that’s all. Union consultations for O-1B petitions are good for 2 years provided the artist is performing within 2 years of the date of the original union consultation letter. If that’s the case, then you don’t need to get a new one. However, this has never been the rule with P-1 petitions or any other category: O-2, P-1S, etc.

So, if you obtained an O-1B for an opera singer and you have an AGMA consult letter dated October 1, 2012, then that same consult letter can be used for subsequent O-1B petitions for the singer’s subsequent engagements through October 1, 2014. You just need to be able to provide a copy of the prior consultation letter. Even if the original consult letter was written for a different petitioner, you can still use it. It’s the identity of the artist that counts. However, if you obtained a P-1 for a group and you have an AFM consult letter dated October 1, 2012, then any and all new petitions will require new consult letters.

In your case, I assume you received a Request for Evidence (RFE) from USCIS. You just need to get a new consultation letter from AFM and attach it to your RFE response. That should do the trick.

________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and other legal and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com

To ask your own question, write to lawanddisorder@musicalamerica.org.

All questions on any topic related to legal and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. GG Arts Law reserves the right to alter, edit or, amend questions to focus on specific issues or to avoid names, circumstances, or any information that could be used to identify or embarrass a specific individual or organization. All questions will be posted anonymously.

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a nasty email, filing a lawsuit, or doing anything rash!

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