It’s no secret that a vast expanses of artists, venues, managers, presenters, and agents prefer to have engagement contracts with all the “fun stuff” (dates, fees, travel, repertoire, etc) confirmed and signed on the front and the “terms and conditions” left alone, shunned, cold, abandoned, and forsaken on the back. Such “terms and conditions” are often dismissed as “just all the legal stuff” or “the legalese” or “stuff we had a lawyer draft for us years ago and we have no idea what it means, but we can’t change it.”
First, whether it’s the time of the sound check, 4 bags of raspberry Haribo gummy bears the Artist wants in the dressing room, or the number of comp ticket, everything put in a contract becomes “legal stuff.” Second, though, indeed, boring (even for me), the “legalese” typically addresses important issues such as whether or not the venue can make an archival recording and what they can do with it, rights and licenses, cancellation terms and conditions, who’s responsible if someone gets injured, what constitutes force majeure/Acts of God (remember how everyone suddenly started reading those for the first time during COVID?), and other issues that everyone ignores until something goes horribly wrong, at which point they all start arguing over what they assumed these terms meant.
A contract in and of itself will not protect you. Contracts are not self-enforcing. There is no scenario in which a signed paper talisman with the right magic words will allow you to sleep embraced in the amble bosom of self-delusion that everyone will do what they are supposed to do, people will not act in their own self-interest and still claim the moral high-ground, and nothing can go wrong. Signatures do not guarantee that dates will not get cancelled even if the contract specifically says it is non-cancellable or even that you will get the fee everyone agreed upon.
If a date gets cancelled or you do not get paid, your signed contract merely becomes a coupon redeemable for a lawsuit to enforce it. However, are you really going to sue anyone? Is there such a significant amount of money at stake that it’s worth the cost and time, financially as well as emotionally? Are you willing to subsidize a trial lawyer’s $11,000 Japanese NEOREST toilet just for the self-satisfaction of proving a point? Do you ever want to work with that venue or artist again?
So why bother? What are contracts for?
Contracts are for managing expectations, both your own and the other party’s, by spelling out ALL of your concerns and requirements (not just the “fun stuff”) before music is composed, airline tickets are purchased, or recordings made. Contracts are for discovering and discussing unexpressed assumptions. Contracts are for planning and assessment. Contracts are for reading and discussion. Contracts are for knowing what the other party is and is not willing or able to do, and then deciding whether you can compromise or whether you are willing to proceed and accept the risks. Contracts are for starting a conversation and ending in a relationship.
If you’re just tossing unread papers back and forth through Docusign so you or your contract administrator can tick that box off the list, don’t complain when the artist trashes the dressing room and refuses to perform upon failing to find their gummy bears.
Dear Law and Disorder:
Actual questions we get asked and the answers people actually don’t want
“Non-Profit By-Laws Made Simple”
Dear Law & Disorder:
We are forming a non-profit. Can you recommend a good template for by-laws? We just want to keep it simple so we can get it set up right away and get started. We’ve already got some people willing to donate as well as serve on our board.
Aside from an outhouse erected on a popsicle stick over a tidal bore, non-profit institutions are, perhaps, the most precarious and dysfunctional of all structures ever conceived within which to conduct business. Without a strong set of by-laws, carefully and thoughtfully crafted to address your unique mission, stakeholders, goals, and challenges, your non-profit is likely to perish from such commonly fatal non-profit diseases as Foundersitis, Administrative Staff Infection, Systemic Committee Infarction, Micromanageitis, Consultant Dependency, Strategic Streptococcus, and Gangrenous Board Members.
Your by-laws are the foundation upon which your organization will be built. They determine how your non-profit is structured and managed. They will describe the roles, expectations, duties, and responsibilities of board members. It will set forth how decisions are made and conflicts resolved. At the same time, like strategic plans and business plans, by-laws are not commandments fixed in stone. They will provide a steady hand of direction within a flexible mechanism for addressing growth, challenges, and situations as they arise. In other words, whilst by-laws do not require a constitutional convention, they are also not something to be crafted with speed and indifference.
Assuming you are serious about forming a sustainable business and not merely hoping to circumvent having a viable business plan by hoping to supplement your income through a quick influx of donations and grants, you should gather as many different samples of by-laws from as many different organizations that have similar missions as yours. Analyse them to see how the successes, failures, and experiences of other organizations may apply to your own. Remember, when forming a non-profit, it is the board members who will ultimately control and run the organization, not you. So, just because someone wants to donate money does not mean they should also serve on the board. Ideally, those persons who are already willing to serve as your initial, founding board members should also be interested and committed enough to assist you in the process of crafting the by-laws.
Whether you are forming a Children’s Vuvuzela Choir or the Wilma Schiddy Centre for the Arts, simplicity kills the soul—or, in this case, a non-profit.
Breaking the News!
Are Union Strikes Force Majeure Events?
When concerts and performances started falling during COVID, it sent everyone into a delirium over whether, how, when, why, if a pandemic constituted a Force Majeure event allowing an engagement contract to be cancelled without penalty. As no one was happy with answers, everyone began re-drafting their contracts to deal with future pandemics.
Hollywood’s current Writers Guild of America strike has spotlighted yet another hidden Act of God: labour strikes. Many “standard terms and conditions” give a party the right to cancel a contract in the event of a labour strike. This means that if you are engaged to perform as a soloist with an orchestra and the orchestra goes on strike, the orchestra can terminate your engagement contract without penalty. This can apply to any situation where a union strike might impact the resources needed to fulfil a contract—such as booking an event at a university-based venue and the teacher’s union goes on strike or being booked to perform and your sets and props cannot be delivered due to a trucker’s strike. Imagine my own surprise when, as a person whose wife had to show him how to change the windshield wiper fluid in my car, I woke up one day as a member of an adjunct faculty and also found myself a member of United Auto Workers…which then went on strike!
There have been no new updates from USCIS regarding its proposed fee increases and other changes. Whilst our crystal ball remains cloudy, the runes tell us to expect “some” changes, we just don’t know when or to what degree. In the meantime, all fees remain the same and there remain no limits to the number of beneficiaries that can be listed on O-2 or P petitions.
• COVID Vaccinations Are No Longer Required To Enter The US
Effective May 12, 2023, the Biden administration lifted the requirement that non-US citizens and non-US residents have COVID vaccinations to enter the US. However, ye who enter here will continue to be required to abandon all hopes.
• No More Passport Entry Stamps
Also this month, US Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) confirmed that it will be implementing “stamp-less entries” for everyone arriving in the US. This means that when you enter the US on a visa, you will no longer receive a physical stamp and handwritten notation in your passport. Instead, your date of entry, your visa status, and the date by which you must leave will hereinafter ONLY be recorded on a digital entry/exit form called an I-94 which will ONLY be available on-line at the CBP I-94 Website .
Whilst CBP has been recording entry/exit information on digital I-94 forms for several years now, CBP officers continued to stamp passports. As it was not at all uncommon for the information on the I-94 to be incorrect, having a physical stamp meant that before you left the airport you could check and confirm that all of your information was correct. Now, for example, if you have a visa that expires on June 30, but the I-94 says May 30, you will need to leave by May 30 regardless—but you won’t know that a mistake has been made in your record unless you dash to the I-94 website as soon as you leave the immigration area and make sure your I-94 is correct. If it is not, you will need to find the CBP officer lurking betwixt the Cinnabon and Chick-Fil-A and ask them to correct it.
• There Is Nothing Graceful About US Visas
…and speaking of entries and exits, please note that there are no automatic “grace periods”—10 days or otherwise—added before or after the validity dates of a visa. There never have been. This has always been a myth—or, at least, mischaracterized. When an individual enters the US, CBP officers have the discretion to allow them up to 10 extra days to remain in the US as a tourist. However, it is the burden of the visa holder to make the request to a CBP officer upon entry to the US. The extra dates are not automatically given.
If the officer approves (and they usually do), the approved extra days MUST be reflected on the I-94. So, if you want to claim the 10 extra days: (1) You must request the extra time; (2) the CBP officer must approve the request; and (3) the additional days must be reflected on your I-94 entry/exit form. However, as discussed above, as entry/exit information will henceforth only be recorded digitally, you will need to check the I-94 website before you leave the airport to make sure the extra days are reflected on the I-94. Otherwise, even if the officer verbally approved the extra days, you will be required to leave the US by whatever date is listed on the I-94.
The better practice is that if you know you or your artist plan to hang around after your show to attend the Toadlick County Monster Truck Mash-Up and Watermelon Bake-Off, just add those extra days onto the visa petition so your visa will be valid for the full time you want to be in the US. You can always still ask for the extra days on top of that to get even more extra time.
• Current USCIS Service Centre Processing Times:
Vermont Service Centre: Standard processing: 6 – 8 weeks
Premium processing: 9 – 10 days
California Service Centre: Standard Processing 3 – 4 months
Premium Processing 13 – 14 days
Deep Thoughts
“Try not to focus too much energy on whether you can trust someone else. When a bird lands on a branch, it doesn’t trust that the branch will never break. It trusts its ability to fly away if it does.”
GG Arts Law provides a comprehensive range of legal services and strategic support for the performing arts, including: Artist Visas, Taxes, and Touring; Rights & Licensing; Negotiations & Representation; Contracts; Business & Non-Profit Organization & Management; Project Management; and Strategic Consulting & Planning.
OFFICIAL LEGALESE:
THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!
The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a threatening email, filing a lawsuit, or basically doing anything that may in any way rely upon an assumption that we know what we are talking about or one size fits all!
Sorry for our infrequent posts. We’ll try and do better. To that end, I thought I’d share an issue that just arose with one of our clients.
A booking agent filed P-1/P-1S visa petitions for a group that has previously been approved. This time, they received an RFE on a single issue: USCIS is asking for proof that the agent is, in fact, has been authorized to act as the petitioner on behalf of the group and its employers.
While some of you may or may not be aware of this issue, and I’d love to blame this on the Screaming Carrot Demon, its actual an issue that has been around for years—though Trump has certainly made it worse. The problem arises from the different ways USCIS examiners interpret the USCIS regulations pertaining to when someone other than a person’s direct employer can file a visa petition on someone else’s behalf.
As a result we have long recommended that any time a booking agent is serving as a petitioner for a group or artist, the visa petition should include two things:
1) An agent appointment authorization from the artist/group acknowledging that the agent has been appointed to serve as the petitioner. This can be on a single sheet of paper that says: I/we authorize [NAME OF PETITIONER] to act as my/our agent for the limited purpose of filing an immigration petition to enable me/us to obtain a work-related U.S. visa classification so that I/we may work/perform in the U.S. as well as to accept service of process in the U.S. on my/our behalf. [NAME OF ARTIST/GROUP][SIGNATURE]; and
2) An agent appointment authorization from EACH presenter/employer of the group acknowledging that they, too, have each appointed the agent to be the petitioner. This, too, need only be a single sheet of paper which says: I/we have engaged the services of [NAME OF ARTIST/GROUP] to perform in the U.S., and authorize [NAME OF PETITIONER] to act for and in our place as agent for the limited purpose of filing an immigration petition to obtain the necessary U.S. work-related visa classification for said artist as well as to accept service of process in the U.S. on our behalf. [NAME OF PRESENTER/VENUE][SIGNATURE]
Do NOT merely include this language within a booking contract or management agreement as, in our experience, USCIS will never find it. Always use separate paper.
Is this a pain in the ass? Yes. However, we do this for ALL of the petitions we file and rarely encounter any difficulties with getting presenters/venues to comply. They already know the system is messed up.
Wishing everyone a wonderful Christmas, Yule, Hanukkah, and all other observances or lack thereof…drink up, as there are lots of potential USCIS changes ahead for the New Year.
For additional information and resources on this and other legal, project management, and business issues for the performing arts, as well as to sign up for our newsletters and follow us on social media visit ggartslaw.com
__________________________________________________________________
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!
Most of you are aware by now that in fall 2018 a number of significant policy and procedural changes were imposed on the already exasperating process of obtaining U.S. artist visas. No surprisingly, these changes were the work of Donald Trump, who is also known by many other names: Cheeto-In-Chief, Trumpty Dumpty, Captain Chaos, Screaming Carrot Demon, Trumplethinskin, Darth Hater, The Tangerine Tornado, Agent Orange, Putin’s Papaya, Genghis Can’t, The Angry Creamsicle, Bumbledore, The Trumpet of Doom, The Tiny Tentacled Twitter Twat, Prima Donald, The White Pride Piper, and, my personal favourite, Baron Mango Von Wankerdoodle.
Over the last six months we have now had a chance to see how these new policies are actually being implemented and imposed. (For a more extensive analysis of the changes themselves, please re-read our earlier blog posts from September 2018 and November 2018 or visit our website www.ggartgslaw.com)
I. TROUBLES FOR STUDENT O-1 PETITIONS
The rise in Requests for Evidence (RFEs) and visa denials for young artists seeking their first O-1 visa has grown considerably. This has become particularly true for artists who are already in the U.S. on student visas and, after graduation, seek an O-1 visa to remain in the U.S.
Students who have entered the U.S. to pursue a course of study and who have only pursued their academic path without having also performed outside of the U.S. or also performed in non-academic concerts, recitals, and venues appear to be in the most peril.
Remember, in the twisted world of U.S. artist visas, “achievement” and “recognition” does not refer to an artist’s degree of talent, ability, technique, mastery of repertoire, or esteemed mentors. Rather, it refers primarily to the degree of an artist’s publicity and professional (non-academic) fame or infamy. In other words, an artist who has performed on Britain’s Got Talent or who has may have received a Gramophone Award for “World’s Worst Violinist” is more likely to be approved for an O-1 than an artist whose only credits are a Master’s Degree in the baroque flute and a flurry of accolades from teachers and professors attesting to her great talents and skills.
II. USCIS IS NO LONGER GIVING “DEFERENCE” TO PRIOR VISAS
Just today, we received one of the most shocking denials I have ever seen in over 20 years of preparing artist visas: the top program director of the official arts council of a large U.S. state, who has been working in the U.S. on an O-1 visa for three years and who has considerable international recognition for his expertise in arts administration and education, was DENIED a new O-1 on the basis that (a) he failed to show that he continued to be “extraordinary” since arriving in the U.S. and (b) his initial O-1 should never have been granted in the first place.
We are also currently addressing a green card application filed by a musician who is the First Chair of one of the world’s leading orchestras, with enough credits to fill a trophy case and over a decade of O-1 visas, who has been asked by USCIS to justify why it would be in the “national interest” of the U.S. for him to live here.
Whether these are isolated situations or a worsening trend, this is insane!
III. USCIS IS ASKING FOR ORIGINAL UNION LETTERS, NOT COPIES
When unions and peer groups issue no-objection letters, they will often email a scan to the petitioner with the original to follow later in the mail. To save time, petitioners will simply print out the scan and submit that with the petition. USCIS has recently been issuing RFEs for the ORIGINAL letter, claiming that this minimizing the risk of fraud.
IV. U.S.-BASED MANAGERS/AGENTS ARE BEING ASKED FOR ADDITIONAL “PROOF” OF PETITIONER AUTHORIZATION
When U.S-based booking agents or managers file petitions for their artists to perform at multiple venues, USCIS has been requiring each presenter or venue to provide a signed letter formally authorizing the manager/agent to include the engagement on the petition, even if the manager/agent booked the date in the first place and/or issued the engagement contract. Artists and groups are also being required to sign a similar letter authorizing the manager/agent to file the petition on their behalf. Whilst these authorizations literally need only be one sentence, not all presenters or venues will agree to sign these easily. The only way around this if for the manager/agent to directly employ the artist or group directly as the U.S. producer or promoter.
V. PROCESSING TIMES
However, due to a significant backlog, USCIS standard processing is taking anywhere from 1 – 3 months. Premium processed petitions continues to be reviewed within 15 days—but, remember, the processing fee was raised to $1410 last fall.
Yes, there are those out there who will tell you that they have had their petitions returned more quickly without paying for premium processing. However, that is purely anecdotal and not the norm. Even a blind bat can find its way out of cave if it bumps its head enough times.
In addition—and perhaps more significantly—there are delays in issuing receipt and approval notices (even with premium processing) as well as updating the USCIS database to reflect approvals. This is significant because (1) a receipt notice is necessary to schedule an application interview at the consulate and (2) the consulate will not issue a visa until it can confirm through the USCIS database that a petition has, in fact, been approved.
VI. U.S. CONSULATES
U.S. Consulates continue to run amuck, operating as autonomous city states subject to little to no oversight or supervision. As a result, there is a considerable lack of consistency with regard to what to expect when an artist goes to a consulate to apply for a visa.
Some consulates are asking for original approval notices as well as copies of the visa petition, even though they are supposed to ask for neither. However, predictably, we are mostly seeing this being an issue for students approved for their first O-1.
Many consulates are taking longer to process visa applications as they conduct more thorough background checks and fraud investigations. Depending upon an artist’s ethnicity and/or or past travel history, this can cause significant delays.
Again, contrary to what you may be hearing, the U.S. Consulate in London continues to be a nightmare for O-1 visas except for all but the most famous or well-known artists. If mangers or agents are telling you that their artists have had no trouble in London, congratulate them and then ignore them.
VII. ENTRY ON ESTA/VISITOR VISAS
This continues to be a significant obstacle. Please remember, except in very limited circumstances, artists are not authorized to enter and perform in the U.S. through ESTA or with a visitor (B-1/B-2) visa REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE PAID!
A non-U.S. artist manager was recently refused entry merely for saying that he was entering the U.S. to “help” one of his artists move out of his apartment. The immigration officer presumed “help” meant “providing professional services.” Whereas the same artist manager was permitted to enter only weeks before to attend a booking conference.
The primary issue continues to be that, even in those instances when an may be legally entitled to enter the U.S. either through ESTA or with a visitor (B-1/B-2) visa, an immigration officer the complete and unfettered authority to refuse entry to anyone for any reason.
As the rules can change at any time, it is critical that you consistently check with reliable sources (ie: not chat rooms, facebook groups, or “the collective mind”) for updates and developments before booking a non-U.S. artist or group. At the very least, it’s always best to check and confirm with multiple sources that whatever information you are given is, in fact, accurate. (As a general rule, the length of time someone claims to have been doing anything in the arts industry is often disproportionate to their actual expertise in knowing how to do it!)
As always, for official and reliable visa information, we recommend:
You can also always find updated information on the “resource” page of our website: www.ggartslaw.com. And if there’s something in particular you want to know about, be sure to contact us!
For additional information and resources on this and other legal, project management, and business issues for the performing arts, as well as to sign up for our newsletters and follow us on social media visit www.ggartslaw.com or www.gginternationalllc.com
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!
By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq., Robyn Guilliams, Esq., and Christopher Dowley, Esq.
I hope everyone is having a wonderful summer…because we are just about the ruin it. So be prepared for some serious sunburn, chiggers, sand fleas, and food poisoning as we give you the latest updates:
I. NEW USCIS POLICY ALLOWS VISA PETITIONS TO BE DENIED WITHOUT FIRST ISSUING AN RFE
Effective September 11, 2018, USCIS adjudicators will have “full discretion” to deny visa petitions without first having to issue a “Request for Evidence” (“RFE”) or a “Notice of Intent to Deny” (“NOID”).
This new policy reverses the existing USCIS policy on RFEs, dating back to 2013, whereby, except in extreme cases where a petition was clearly deniable or there was no possibility of approval (such as requesting the wrong visa category), USCIS adjudicators were instructed to issue an RFE or a NOID and provide a petitioner an opportunity to provide additional evidence or correct any deficiencies prior to denying the petition. According to the USCIS Policy Memorandum issued (ironically) on July 13, 2018, the new RFE policy “restores to the adjudicator full discretion to deny applications, petitions, and requests without first issuing an RFE or a NOID, when appropriate.” The new policy memorandum provides the following examples of situations where a petition can be denied without an RFE:
If, in the sole discretion of the USCIS adjudicator, the petition was submitted without sufficient evidence; or
Where the petition does not contain a statutorily required form or submission.
In other words, even simple oversights such as failing to provide a no-objection letter from the correct union, forgetting to submit a contract, or merely forgetting to check a box or sign a form could result in a denial of the entire petition with no opportunity to fix the problem without re-filing the entire petition! You will only know what was wrong AFTER the petition has been denied. While there will remain an opportunity to file an appeal, appeals can take months and, given that an adjudicator has “full discretion”, there is little change of an appeal being granted anyway.
According to the USCIS July 13, 2018 Policy Memorandum:
This policy is intended to discourage frivolous or substantially incomplete filings used as “placeholder” filings and encourage applicants, petitioners, and requestors to be diligent in collecting and submitting required evidence.
Whilst on his way to the arctic to club a baby seal, USCIS Director L. Francis Cissna further explained:
“For too long, our immigration system has been bogged down with frivolous or meritless claims that slow down processing for everyone, including legitimate petitioners. Through this long overdue policy change, USCIS is restoring full discretion to our immigration officers to deny incomplete and ineligible applications and petitions submitted for immigration benefits…Doing so will discourage frivolous filings and skeletal applications used to game the system, ensure our resources are not wasted, and ultimately improve our agency’s ability to efficiently and fairly adjudicate requests for immigration benefits in full accordance with our laws.”
Indulge me to offer my own translation:
“For too long, our immigration system has been bogged down with people from other countries trying to obtain visas. By gaming the system so that petitioners will no longer know in advance why their visa petitions are being denied, we can greatly improve our ability to deny petitions more efficiently and, thereby, continue to make America great.”
Accordingly, we are recommending the following:
If you can’t decide from which union to obtain a no-objection letter, get a no-objection letter from all of them.
Do NOT use letters from peer organizations where there are unions that might possibly be willing to issue a no-objection letter.
Make sure that all itineraries include the FULL names and addresses of all venues, employers, presenters, etc.
If engagements have been booked through an agent, provide a copy of the written agreement between the artist and the agent, as well as proof that each venue, employer, presenter, etc. has authorized the petitioner to be the petitioner.
As there are no longer any second changes, throw everything you can into the petition–background materials on each venue, each award, each expert, and each publication, etc. Make no assumptions. Unless your concert pianist has also been on America’s Got Talent, the USCIS adjudicator will have no frame of reference.
Do not assume that just because an artist has previously been approved, that you can give less evidence the next time. Approach each petition as if it’s the first one.
Given the increased risk having a petition simply denied with no notice, we are also recommending premium processing for most petitions. At the very least, you will know sooner rather than later if you will have to re-file the entire petition.
Should you actually want to read the July 13, 2018 Policy Memorandum, pour a glass of rum and go to the following link:
II. USCIS IS BEING TASKED WITH IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT
Officially, USCIS was never meant to be tasked with immigration enforcement. Rather, the purpose of USCIS was strictly limited to the adjudication or administration of immigration benefits, such as processing applications for visas, green cards, naturalization, and humanitarian benefits. Instead, Immigration Customs and Enforcement (“ICE”) was charged with the enforcement of immigration laws and violations. As a result, whilst USCIS regularly reported cases of fraud or misrepresentation to ICE, denials of visa petitions, even in instances where a beneficiary was determined to be a “status violator” (ie: performing illegally in the U.S.) or an “overstay” (ie: remaining in the U.S. after they were supposed to leave), were not.
On June 28, 2018, USCIS issued a new Policy Memorandum whereby,effective immediately, USCIS adjudicators have been instructed to issue a notice to appear before an immigration judge (“NTA”) to all beneficiaries whose lawful status expires while a petition or request is pending before USCIS!
This will have a major impact on artists and students in the U.S. who seek to extend their O or P status, change their employer, or seek to change their status to a different nonimmigrant classification while remaining in the United States. Current Immigration laws allow a person to file a visa petition or an extension or change of status and remain in the U.S. provided the petition is filed while the beneficiary’s underlying nonimmigrant status remains valid. For example, an artist whose O-1 visa is about to expire can file for a new O-1 and remain in the U.S. so long as the new petition is filed before the artist’s current O-1 expires. However, due to lengthy USCIS processing times, it is not uncommon for the artist’s O-1 status to have expired by the time USCIS adjudicates the petition.
Under the new policy, if the petition is approved, there is no problem. But if the petition is denied, under the terms of the new policy, the beneficiary would be issued an NTA and would be required to appear before an immigration judge and, possibly, be subject to deportation proceedings.
According to the USCIS Policy Memorandum, “USCIS is updating its NTA policy to better align with enforcement priorities.” USCIS Director L. Francis Cissna paused from munching on a dead puppy to further comment:
“For too long, USCIS officers uncovering instances of fraudulent or criminal activity have been limited in their ability to help ensure U.S. immigration laws are faithfully executed. This updated policy equips USCIS officers with clear guidance they need and deserve to support the enforcement priorities established by the president, keep our communities safe, and protect the integrity of our immigration system from those seeking to exploit it”
Permit me once again to offer my own translation:
“For too long, USCIS officers have been uncovering instances of foreigners actually entering the U.S. This updated policy equips USCIS officers with the tools needed to support the president’s policies of keeping those people out.”
Accordingly, we are recommending the following:
When an artist wishes to obtain a new O or P visa, advise them to leave the U.S. at the end of the artist’s current O or P classification, wait for the new petition to be approved, obtain a new visa from a U.S. consulate, and then re-enter.
In situations where an artist wishes to change status or extend a current status whilst in the U.S., the petition should be filed far enough in advance so that the petition can be APPROVED before the expiration of the artist’s current status;
The artist should engage in no performance activities (paid or unpaid) in the U.S. after the expiration date of their current visa classification.
Should you actually want to read the June 28, 2018 USCIS Policy Memorandum, pour another glass of rum and go to the following link:
III. ALL VISA PETITIONS FROM CURRENT OR FORMER STUDENTS WILL BE VETTED FOR STATUS VIOLATIONS
Effective August 9, 2018, when any student in F, J, or M status who was admitted to the U.S. for “Duration of Status” (“D/S”) files a visa petition for a different visa (such as an O or P), USCIS adjudicators are being directed to investigate exhaustively whether or not such student is or ever was a “status violator” (ie: performed illegally in the U.S.) or an “overstay” (ie: remained in the U.S. after they were supposed to leave.)
USCIS has never been particularly keen to approve recently graduated students for O visas, particularly if they sought to do so whilst remaining in the U.S. Regardless, under the existing, soon to be replaced, USCIS policy, when a student sought to obtain an O or P visa the student was given “the benefit of the doubt” about how long they were admitted to the U.S. before being considered to have violated their status (ie “performed illegally”) and/or remained in the U.S. after they were supposed to leave (an “overstay.”) A student who is or was in the U.S. on an F, J, or M visa was only determined to be an “overstay” or a “status violator” if USCIS “formally” determined there to be a violation of status. Even then, the student was only determined to be in the U.S. illegally AFTER this formal finding and never retroactively, or without notice. In other words, USCIS was less concerned with whether or not the student had violated their F, J, or M visa than determining whether or not the student was eligible for the O or P visa in the first place.
No longer.
Pursuant to a USCIS Policy Memorandum issued on May 10, 2018, on or after August 9, 2018, USCIS adjudicators have been instructed to pursue what amounts to a “no stone left unturned” policy whereby they are expressly empowered to asses all the available historical and background material collected on each individual student, using all the tools in the toolbox to establish a violation or overstay and consequent accrual of unlawful presence. Specifically, a student will be presumed to be unlawfully present in the U.S., without a formal finding or notice, on the earliest of the following:
The student fails to continue or complete their course of study, or authorized activity (including failing to completing optional practical training plus any authorized grace period);
The student engages in any unauthorized activity—such as performing without work authorization (even for free!)—not permitted by their F-1 status;
The student fails to leave the U.S. the day AFTER the date of completion of study/authorized activity and/or the approved grace period;
The student fails to leave the U.S. on the specific date, if any, listed on their I-94; or
The student stays in the U.S. after the completion of her course of study or authorized activity (including the completion of optional practical training plus any approved grace period)
Moreover, pursuant to the June 28, 2018 USCIS Policy Memorandum discussed previously, such violations will be presumably be reported to ICE.
Traditionally, when a student on an F, J, or M visa comes to us seeking an O or P visa, we have traditionally advised that, so long as the O or P petition is “filed” prior to the student’s graduation or OPT expiration (plus any grace periods) the student will not be considered an overstay. Moreover, so long as the student does not engage in any performances (even for free!), the student will not be considered to have violated their status. However, after August 9, 2018, we will be advising all students on an F, J, or M visa who seek an O or P visa, the following:
Do not ask for a Change of Status from F-1 to O or P. Rather, file a petition and then leave the U.S. whilst the petition is pending.
If they must ask for Change of Status:
Make sure they have significant professional (non-academic) credits and achievements; and
File the petition far enough in advance so that the petition will be approved before the expiration of their current F-1 status or OPT expires.
Should you actually want to read the May 10, 2018 Policy Memorandum, add some bourbon to that glass of rum and go to the following link:
IV. CURRENT UCSIS VISA PROCESSING TIMES RANGE FROM 3 WEEKS TO 3 MONTHS
Visa petition adjudication times at both the Vermont Service Center and the California Service Center are currently wildly unpredictable—currently taking anywhere from 3 weeks to 4 months. We have been able to find no pattern, consistency, or predictability. Moreover, as always, the USCIS case processing times website is completely useless and inaccurate. Please plan accordingly—which, for our office, usually means premium processing and then the whole office heading out for happy hour.
Can you mix vodka with bourbon? Time to find out.
V.THE IRS HAS MADE A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE TO CWA ELIGIBILITY
Not content to let USCIS have all the fun, the IRS has announced that beginning October 1, 2018 nonresident performers must earn $10,000 or more in gross income (within the calendar year) to qualify for a CWA.
The $10,000 threshold applies to individual performers, so if individual members of a group gross less than the threshold amount, they are not eligible for a CWA. But – keep in mind that gross income includes per diem payments, merchandise income and potential overages (not just artist fees!)
Unfortunately, performers who don’t qualify for a CWA due to the income threshold are subject to 30% withholding.
We were recently reminded by the U.S. State Department that approximately a year ago the Trump regime revoked the 2012 Obama Executive Order which called on all U.S. Consulates to shorten visa wait times. So, naturally, there are now longer wait times.
Despite the fact that, officially, artists are not required to bring original I-797 Approval Notices with them when they apply for a visa at a U.S. Consulate, reports abound of consular officers hassling artists and insisting that they must have the original. Some officers are also insisting that the artist bring an entire copy of the visa petition with them. There are also increasing reports of similar requests by immigration officers upon an artist’s entry into the U.S. at the border or an airport. As a result, we are recommending:
That, where, possible, artists bring the original I-797 approval notice with them to the consulate; and
That artists be given copies of the relevant bits of their petition—which would include copies of the forms, itinerary, contracts, and a sample of the evidence.
Any artist seeking to apply for his or her first O-1, should continue to avoid the U.S. Consulate in London at all costs.
Artists from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen, North Korea, and Venezuela are not going to be issued visas. Don’t bother. Artists who were born in these countries, but now have citizenship in other countries, or have parents from these countries, or have ever visited these countries, MAY or MAY NOT get visas, but its going to take much longer for them to be processed at the consulate—like 3 – 4 months. In addition, artists who have any relationships, connections, or have made visits to any other countries in the world that the Trump regime does not like, also MAY or MAY NOT get visas, but its going to take much longer for them to be processed at the consulate as well. In short, who the hell knows? We don’t. Stop asking.
Time for TEQUILA!
VII. NEW USCIS I-907 FORM FOR PREMIUM PROCESSING
On June 26, 2018, USCIS revised and issued a new I-907 form to request premium processing. Other than moving things around and making the form longer, nothing really significant has changed. Regardless, starting August 28, 2018, USCIS will only accept the I-907 marked 06/26/18.
Starting to feel woozy.
VIII. SOME FINAL THOUGHTS
For those of you who have managed to read this far, click here for a rare behind the scenes look at how USCIS policy is made:
We are living in challenging times and the rules can change at any time. As always, for official and reliable visa information, we recommend:
4) The US Customs and Border Patrol website: www.cbp.gov
5) The American Immigration Lawyers Association (www.aila.org)
You can also always find updated information on the “resource” page of our website: www.ggartslaw.com. And if there’s something in particular you want to know about, be sure to contact us!
For additional information and resources on this and other legal, project management, and business issues for the performing arts, as well as to sign up for our newsletters and follow us on social media visit ggartslaw.com
All questions on any topic related to legal, management, and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. Questions will be answered ONLY in future blogs. 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 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!
For those of you who are unaware, on February 28, 2018 U.S. Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), both former chairmen of the Senate Judiciary Committee, have introduced the Arts Require Timely Service Act (ARTS Act); a bill that would require U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to provide premium processing (15-day turnaround) free of charge for any arts-related O or P visa petition that it fails to adjudicate within 14 days as required by law. You can read the official press release here:
Many people have already asked us to weigh in on this development.
Be careful what you ask for.
First, and foremost, I must express my sincere awe and admiration with regard to the amazing and tireless arts advocacy of many people, but particularly that of Heather Noonan of the League of American Orchestras, who have been working on this for years. Given that this is actually a bill that is being “re-introduced”, having been previously introduced and rejected, getting it back on the table for re-consideration is nothing less than heroic.
However, as to my thoughts? Let me first share two recent Requests for Evidence (RFE) issued by USCIS which were brought to our attention. One asked for further evidence as to whether or not an artist who led a group which also bore the name of the artist performed a “critical role” with the group. The requested clarification as to an artist’s actual country of nationality where the petitioner wrote the word “German” as opposed to “Germany” on the i-129 form where it asked for “Country of Citizenship.” Given such stellar cognitive abilities, you can forgive my hesitation if my heart does not sing out to the heavens in joy and tearful gratitude over the prospect of merely speeding up a broken, illogical, frustrating, and inane process as opposed to actually proposing anything substantive to fix it. Its like offering the captain of the Titanic the option of actually averting the iceberg and, instead, having him decide merely to speed up the ship and get the disaster over with more quickly.
Its also important to understand that term “adjudicate” does not mean “approve.” An “adjudication” merely means that USCIS will review the petition and either approve it or issue an RFE. When an RFE is issued, the adjudication process is put on hold until the petitioner responds to the RFE. So, if passed, the prosed bill would provide that USCIS either has to approve a petition or issue an RFE within 14 days after a petition is received, or USCIS will be required to spew out some sort of inane dribble free of charge within the next 15 days to stop the clock and buy itself some more time. In short, if you want to guarantee any adjudication in less than 30 days, a petitioner will still be required to pay an additional $1225 for Premium Processing.
Nonetheless, given the lack of any meaningful acknowledgement or support of the arts on the part of the U.S. Government, I am always grateful for any crumbs that are tossed to us, however inadvertently, from the banqueting table. Still, I’d personally rather forgo free expedited USCIS processing time if it meant that, in exchange, USCIS would implement some sort of meaningful screening process when hiring USCIS examiners, as opposed to the current system of requiring only a pulse, potty training, and a patriotic dedication to protecting the American way of life from nefarious violinists.
In the meantime, I’ll take my crumbs, crawl back into my hole, and work on visa petitions.
For additional information and resources on this and other legal, project management, and business issues for the performing arts, as well as to sign up for our newsletters and follow us on social media visit ggartslaw.com
All questions on any topic related to legal, management, and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. Questions will be answered ONLY in future blogs. 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 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!
I am a musician on an O-1 visa that my agent got for me. It covers multiple engagements. Last September, I was hired to be a section musician with an orchestra. They have been paying me up until now, but now they are saying that legally they have to withhold my paycheck and can’t pay me because they just realized my visa does not name them specifically and I have to get another one just with their name on it if I want to get paid for the last two weeks. If I don’t, they say they have to fire me. They checked with their lawyer and he says its because their musician contracts require them to pay me as an employee and that my visa only covers independent contractors, not employees. He says that according the USCIS regulations [8 CFR 214.2(o)], employers must be listed on separate O-1 petitions where it says “employer” on the form. Is this true? I thought the O-1 allowed me to work for whomever I wanted because it was a multiple-employer O-1.
Sadly, we get this question a lot. To be fair, U.S. tax and immigration laws and regulations are a huge, big, stinking pile of insanity. Fortunately, most of the folks in our industry who work regularly with foreign artists make at least a valiant effort to figure out the rules as best they can, either by consulting experts or colleagues or through their own research. Unfortunately, there are others, be they forgotten in the bowels of a hugely complex institution or trapped in their own dark worlds of paranoia, anal retention, and over-simplicity, who do not. These include most, but, by no means all, of the following: (1) the international student officers and offices of most schools and universities; (2) the personnel directors of small orchestras; and (3) any non-profit with a volunteer attorney who only practices insurance law, but claims to be an expert on all subjects.
It appears that you have been dragged into the dark world of numbers (2) and, perhaps (3).
The O-1 visa category is not only available for artists, but also for the field of business, science, education, and athletics. Technically, the sodden-witted pignut at your orchestra is correct that, in most instances, an individual with an O-1 visa who works for more than one employer must file a separate petition for each employer. HOWEVER, he or she is ignoring the fact that USCIS regulations 8 CFR 214.2(o)(2)(iv)(D) provides an exception for artists (and ONLY artists) as follows:
In the case of a petition filed for an artist or entertainer, a petitioner may add additional performances or engagements during the validity period of the petition without filing an amended petition, provided the additional performances or engagements require an alien of O-1 caliber.
Moreover, for purposes of work authorization, USCIS does not make distinctions either between full-time and part-time employment or between employees and independent contractors. Why? Because as we try to remind everyone again and again and again and again and again: U.S. law requires anyone who “provides services” in the U.S. to have work authorization regardless of whether or not they are paid for such services. So, as a work visa is required even if an artist performs for free, the manner in which they are paid is irrelevant for immigration purposes.
Admittedly, what adds to the confusion is that USCIS requires the same USCIS form (i-129) to be completed not just for O-1 visa petitions, but for a whole alphabet of other visa petitions as well: E, H, P, L, M, R and Q, among others. Because of the government’s “one-size-fits-all” mentality, the i-129 form uses the broad term “employer” to cover every possible scenario in which one person can engage the services of another. In other words, USCIS does not use the term “employer” to refer exclusively to an “employer/employee” relationship.
The issue of whether or not an individual performing services for another should be paid as an “employee” or “independent contractor” is determined by various federal and state regulations, laws, and authorities, such as the Department of Labor and the IRS. USCIS is part of the Department of Homeland Security. Once it authorizes someone “to work”, it simply doesn’t care about how, or even if, they are paid. That’s not in its purview. Which means that, so long as your O-1 authorizes you to provide services to more than one entity, then you can be paid either as an employee or independent contractor. Your orchestra is not violating U.S. immigration law by paying you as an employee.
Amusingly, your orchestra is actually finds itself in even greater peril by refusing to pay you for work already performed. The same state federal and state regulations, laws, and authorities that determine whether or not someone is an employee or an independent contractor, also make it explicitly clear that it is illegal to refuse to pay someone for work already performed based on a claim that they violated immigration law. Its perfectly acceptable—nay, required—to refuse employment to or fire someone who is not legally authorized to work in the U.S. However, that does not apply retroactively. If the work has been performed, even illegally, the worker must be paid. Otherwise, unscrupulous employers would just hire foreign workers and then refuse to pay them. Work authorization and payment are to very different things!
So, there’s your answer. However, getting your orchestra to understand or accept this reality may not be easy. People in the aforementioned categories prefer simple answers to complex questions and are often loathe to accept nuance. So, here’s simple suggestion: Are you or your orchestra a member of the American Federation of Musicians? If so, stop reading this and call AFM now. Trust me, they will be more than happy to make this matter very simple for the orchestra indeed!
For additional information and resources on this and other legal, project management, and business issues for the performing arts, as well as to sign up for our newsletters and follow us on social media visit ggartslaw.com
All questions on any topic related to legal, management, and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. Questions will be answered ONLY in future blogs. 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 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!
On March 6, 2017, President Trump issued a new Executive Order regarding US immigration to replace the previous Executive Order of January 27, 2017. The new Order takes effect on March 16, 2017 and expressly revokes the January 27, 2017 Order (which had been subject to a court issued temporary restraining order anyway.) The new Order…
Bans immigrant and nonimmigrant entries for citizens of six designated countries – Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen – for at least 90 days beginning on March 16, 2017. The new Order no longer includes Iraqi nationals in the 90-day travel ban.
Exempts certain categories of people, including lawful permanent residents (US “Green Card” holders), current US visa holders, and dual nationals traveling on a passport from a country that is not one of the six designated countries.
Confirms that no visa issued before March 16, 2017 will be revoked as a result of the Order, and that any individual with a revoked or cancelled visa as a result of the prior, January 27, 2017 Order is entitled to a travel document for travel and entry to the US. After March 16, 2017, nationals from the list of six countries will no longer receive visas, even if they have been approved for visas by USCIS.
Allows for exceptions and case-by-case waivers.
Provides that after 90 days, the citizens of these countries can be permanently banned.
Provides that the Secretary of State, Attorney General or Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security can at any time recommend that additional countries be added to the list or taken off of the list.
Immediately suspends the Visa Interview Waiver Program (VIWP) and effectively mandates in-person interviews for all nonimmigrant visa applicants.
Mandates heightened vetting and screening procedures at all levels of the immigration process, particularly immigrants and non-immigrants “who seek to enter the United States on a fraudulent basis.”
While there are other portions of the new Order that impact other areas of immigration, our main focus is on how all of this applies to artists and the Performing Arts. In the case of the new Executive Order, its actually the last two provisions which will have the most widespread impact on foreign artists. Here’s what you need to know:
HEIGHTENED VETTING AND SCREENING PROCEDURES AT ALL LEVELS OF THE IMMIGRATION PROCESS:
It means that when seeking an O or P visa, regardless of the nationality of an artist, artists may encounter additional scrutiny and delays at each stage of the process—from petitioning USCIS for visa approval, to consulates issuing visas, to Immigration Officer’s admitting artists at the border. This applies to artists from any country in the world.
Given that the new Order specifically requires heightened vetting and screening of those “who seek to enter the United States on a fraudulent basis”, there is going to be even more scrutiny and less forgiveness than ever before with regard to artists attempting to enter the US on visitor visas (B-1/B-2) or through the Visa Waiver Program (“ESTA”). We are already receiving reports of artists being held and detained for hours upon entering the US to determine whether or not they are performing. Even artists entering as visitors for the purpose of attending a conference or “performing a showcase” are being pulled aside and, in many cases, being refused entry. Artists entering with B- 1/B-2 visas or through the Visa Waiver Program (ESTA) are being pulled aside the moment they say that they are “entertainers”, “performers”, or “artists.”
When an individual is held and detained, they are subject to interrogation as well as demands to inspect their cell phones, luggage, and personal items. Any refusals can be groups for a refused entry, which will then stay on an artist’s record impeding future visas and travel.
Everyone needs to understand and accept that: Artists cannot perform on visitor visas (B-1/B-2) or through the Visa Waiver Program (“ESTA”) regardless of whether or not they are being paid and regarding of whether or not tickets are sold. Except in the most narrowly defined circumstances, US immigration law has always defined “work” as it pertains to artists, as any kind of performance. Artists denied entry on the basis of fraud, will have a denied entry on their record, impeding future visas and travel.
Some presenters and venues in the US—particularly festivals and academic institutions continue to advise artists that O and P visas are not required if an artist is not being paid and/or if the performance is part of a training program. This is incorrect and always has been.
In addition, while artists with O and P visas, on the average, seem to be experiencing less trouble, even O and P visa holders, as well as green card holders, are being held and detained in instances where an Immigration Officer believes they are citizens of or traveling from ANY country in the world whom they believe could pose a threat to the US.
In short (I know, too late), an Immigration Officer has the unfettered authority and discretion to deny entry to any artist from any nationality for any reason. To what extent this authority will be exercised remains to be seen.
THE SUSPENSION OF THE VISA INTERVIEW WAIVER PROGRAM (VIWP)
While it has always been subject to the discretion of each consulate, the VIWP allowed consular officers to waive the interview requirement for applicants seeking to renew nonimmigrant O and P visas within 12 months of expiration of the initial visa in the same classification. The VIWP has been used to waive the interview requirement only for travelers who have already been vetted and determined to be a low security risk and who have a demonstrated track record of stable employment and stable travel.
By suspending the program, all artists will be required to have a personal interview in order to receive a new visa regardless of when their last O or P visa was issued or whether or not they were previously allowed to receive a visa under the VIWP.
Until additional consular staff is hired, Order will place enormous burdens on U.S. consulates and embassies – particularly high-volume consulates – by increasing already extended interview wait times and processing times, wasting limited resources, and potentially decreasing the quality of consular interviews.
HOW DOES THE NEW ORDER IMPACT ARTISTS FROM THE 6 BANNED COUNTRIES (IRAN, LIBYA, SOMALIA, SUDAN, SYRIA, AND YEMEN?
If the artist is a citizen of one of those countries, but already has a US visa or Green Card, then “officially” the ban does not apply to them. However, they should still expect “heightened vetting and screening procedures.” Also, once their visas expire, they will need to leave the US and will not be eligible for new ones.
If an artist from one of these countries has not yet been issued a visa by March 16, 2017, they are not going to get one. This includes students.
If an artist who is citizen of one of these countries is also a citizen of another country not on the list (for example, a citizen of both Iran and Canada), they WILL be allowed to receive visas and travel to the US PROVIDED the visa is stamped into the passport from the non-banned country and they only travel on the passport from the non-banned country. However, they should still expect “heightened vetting and screening procedures.”
The Order does not apply to artists who may have been born in one of the banned countries, but who are no longer citizens. However, they should still expect “heightened vetting and screening procedures.”
The Order does not apply to artists who may have been merely visited or performed in one of the banned countries. However, they should still expect “heightened vetting and screening procedures.”
WHAT DO WE RECOMMEND?
All artists, regardless of nationality, she travel to the US with copies of their I-797 visa approval notices and maintain such copies, along with copies of their visas, on their person at all times while in the US. In addition to US Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE), state and local police can also demand proof of valid immigration status at any time while an artist is in the US.
Artists from all countries should not attempt to enter the US on visitor visas (B-1/B-2) or through the Visa Waiver Program (“ESTA”) except in the most narrow of circumstances. For example, performing at a booking conference (Arts Midwest, PAE, APAP, etc.) where only registered attendees are permitted to attend or performing at a competition or non-public audition are still permitted in visitor status. However, whether or not an Immigration Officer will continue to understand and accept these exceptions remains to be seen. In such instances, make sure such an artist is properly advised ahead of time and travels with extensive supporting evidence.
Plan well in advance when submitted visa petitions to USCIS and allow for extra time for US consulates to issue visas.
Review an artist’s prior travel to the US to make sure they have not engaged in any un-authorized performances and, if so, plan accordingly.
Artists should bring snacks when traveling into the US in case they are held or detained as there is no food available. We recommend beef jerky. But not hummus.
Plan and prepare, not panic.
As our office continues to address issues and implications on the front lines, we are relying upon the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), The League of American Orchestras, the US Performing Arts Task Force, and other vital organizations who continue to monitor and report on the situation at all levels. AILA does not believe the new Order will withstand judicial scrutiny since the targeted countries are majority Muslim and the Order fails to provide evidence that nationals of the six countries pose a threat to national security.
As the rules can change at any time, it is critical that you consistently check with reliable sources (ie: not chat rooms or random google searches) for updates and developments before making any travel decisions, applying for visas, or booking foreign artists. We recommend:
All questions on any topic related to legal, management, and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. Questions will be answered ONLY in future blogs. 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 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!
Except for those of you who may have been exploring other dimensions for the past few days, almost everyone else on the planet has been following the flurry of recent developments in the US as our country falls into the slipstream of chaos. We felt it was important to clarify exactly what is going on (at least as of Sunday, January 29, 2017) and how it impacts the arts.
On January 27, 2017, Dictator-in-Chief Trump signed an Executive Order that, among other provisions, immediately “suspends” the immigrant (“green card”) and nonimmigrant (Os, Ps, Fs, Hs, etc.) entry of citizens from the following countries for 90 days from January 27, 2017: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. Artists from these countries will not be able to enter the US, including those artists who already possess an I-797 Approval Notice or even who have already been issued an actual visa. As of January 29, 2017, those holding green cards may, in theory, re-enter the U.S., but they, too, should expect additional scrutiny, delays, and possible refusals.
It should be noted that the travel ban will not automatically be lifted after the 90 days.
Also, this order not only applies to anyone who holds a passport from any of the 7 designated countries, but also to dual citizens who hold passports from a designated country, as well as a non-designated country. So, for example, if an artist were to hold BOTH an EU passport as well as an Iraqi passport, that artist would be subject to the bar. “Theoretically, dual nationals holding US citizenship remain able to re-enter the U.S., but they should expect additional scrutiny and delays as well.
It is unclear whether or not the travel ban applies to people who are former citizens of the 7 countries or who may have merely traveled to one of these countries. However, they should expect additional scrutiny and delays as well.
Additional changes to the visa rules, regulations, and restrictions have been threatened in the upcoming weeks. However, the expectation is that most of these will apply to H-1B visas (employees with specialized skills and academic degrees), which rarely, if ever, apply to artists and F visas (students), which will apply to artists attending school and training programs in the US. We would also not be surprised if Dictator Trump eventually slams the door again on Cubans, as well.
For now, aside from those artists impacted directly and immediately, everyone else should take a breath and keep the following in mind:
1) Do not panic!
We’re all doing that for you!
2) Stop relying on ESTA
There is going to be even more scrutiny and less forgiveness that ever before with regard to artists attempting to enter the US on visitor visas (B-1/B-2) and/or ESTA status. We’ve have said this 1000 times, but we keep getting questions about this: Artists cannot perform on visitor visas and/or on ESTA status. Not for free. Not for education. Not for schools. Not for training. Not if no tickets are sold. Not no way! Not no how! If any US manager, agent, presenter, venue, or academic institutions tells you otherwise—RUN AWAY!
3) Plan ahead. This has always been important, but now it has become critical. In other words, don’t schedule any quick connecting flights or wait until the last minute to file visa petitions and schedule consulate interviews.
Lastly, because the situation can change at any time, it is critical that you consistently check with reliable sources for updates and developments before making any travel decisions, applying for visas, or booking foreign artists. We strongly recommend:
All questions on any topic related to legal, management, and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. Questions will be answered ONLY in future blogs. 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 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!
It is with the deepest bewilderment and frustration that we are compelled to announce:
USCIS HAS IMPLEMENTED A FEE INCREASE FOR VISA PETITIONS
On Friday, October 21, the US Department of Homeland Security announced that it has approved the request of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to increase the fee for US visa petitions from $325 to $460. The new fee is scheduled to be officially published in the Federal Register on Monday, October 24, 2016 and will be effective 60 days later. This means that:
Effective December 24, 2016 the filing fee for all I-129 Petitions for O and P visas will be $460
Any petitions received after December 24, 2016that do not include a filing fee of $460 will be rejected! (Merry Christmas from our friends at USCIS!)
The Fee for Premium Processing will remain $1225 per petition.
As a reminder, standard processing continues to range from 3 – 4 months!
For the curious or masochistic among you, on Monday, October 24, 2016 you’ll be able to read all 157 pages of the official notification at:
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 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!
I realize there are other equally important issues out there than visas and international touring. However, in the wake of the recent terrorist attack in California, and as U.S. politicians and political candidates roll out a “Keep the Hate Alive” campaign, we are constantly receiving alarming updates from clients as well as from the American Immigration Lawyers Association of artists encountering new obstacles and challenges. Here are the latest changes and challenges you need to be aware of:
1. A Visa Cannot Be Valid Beyond The Dates In The Approved Visa Petition
When a visa petition is approved by USCIS, it is approved for a specific classification period. When an artist then goes to a U.S. Consulate to apply for her or her visa, the visa issued is supposed to reflect the classification period of the approved petition. For example, if a violinist is approved for an O-1 classification period of August 1, 2015 to July 31, 2016, then the O-1 visa stamped into her passport should reflect an expiration date of July 31, 2016. If you examine an O or P visa, you will most often see the letters “PED” followed by a date. “PED” refers to the “Petition Expiration Date.” The PED date “should” coincide with the expiration date of the visa itself.
Unfortunately, some U.S. Consulates have erroneously been issuing O-1 visas that expire beyond the classification period of the approved petition—in some cases, O-1 visas have been issued for with a validity period of up to five years in the future! If this happens, your artist has not won the immigration jackpot! Under U.S. law, the maximum validity period of an O-1 visa for an artist cannot exceed three years. Moreover, it cannot exceed the classification period of the approved petition.
Recently, a prominent artist was turned away because she attempted to enter the U.S. under just such circumstances. A visa petition had been filed for her in 2014 and the petition was approved for an O-1 classification period of 8 months. However, the U.S. Consulate issued her an O-1 visa that did not expire until 2019. She and her management reasonably presumed that this meant she was free to use her O-1 visa until 2019 and no further visa petitions were required. Indeed, until recently, she had been entering the U.S. on the visa ever since 2014 without any trouble. Her past entries were the result of luck and inadvertence on the part of U.S. Immigration Officers at the port of entry. This will no longer be the case. All U.S. Immigration Officers will be scrutinizing all visas far more closely.
When USCIS approves a visa petition, it issues an I-797 Approval Notice with the specific dates of the approved visa classification period. If you or your artist ever receives a visa from a U.S. Consulate that expires beyond the dates of the classification period or beyond the PED date on the visa, ignore all dates beyond the PED date! Assume the visa expires on the PED date and do not use it for any work or travel beyond that date.
(For those of you who are actually interested in legal minutiae, there ARE, in fact, legitimate categories of 5 year O and P visas—they just don’t apply to artist categories. This is why the consulates can get easily confused.)
2. All Artists Should Travel With A Copy of Their I-797 Petition Approval Notice
Another artist was recently detained at a U.S. airport for attempting to enter the U.S. on an erroneous “5-year O-1 visa.” Ultimately, he was permitted to enter only because he happened to have a copy of his I-797 O-1 Petition Approval Notice indicating that his upcoming U.S. engagement was within the approved classification period. However, he was reminded not to travel on his O-1 visa after the expiration date of the classification period.
Earlier this week, an artist was actually refused entry on his P visa because a U.S. Immigration Officer claimed that he needed to have a copy of his I-797 approval notice. The U.S. Immigration Officer was wrong. The artist had to fly home and be booked on a return flight to the U.S. the next day. Aggravatingly, but not surprisingly, when the artist flew back to the U.S. the next day with a copy of his approval notice, the U.S. Immigration Officer on that occasion didn’t even ask for a copy of the approval notice and the artist was admitted without any questions.
Also this week, a Canadian artist arrived in the U.S. with a copy of her I-797 approval notice (which is all that is required for Canadians) and was refused entry because the U.S. Immigration Officer claimed that she needed to have the original I-797 approval notice. The U.S. Immigration Officer was wrong on this occasion as well. Fortunately, a supervising officer was able to step in and resolve the matter so that the artist was ultimately able to enter.
Except for Canadians, artists and others are not required to travel with a copy of their I-797 petition approval notices—much less the original I-797 approval notice itself. Nonetheless, given that U.S. Immigration Officers have been placed on high alert (without always knowing exactly what they are looking for), we are recommending that all artists travel with a copy of their I-797 approval notice. Should any artist be asked for an “original” approval notice, he or she should calmly and politely ask to speak with a supervising immigration officer. More often than not, the supervising officers are better trained than the officers assigned to the inspection desks.
3. Changes To The ESTA/Visa Waiver Program
Congress is in the process of adding additional restrictions to the Visa Waiver Program—the program which permits citizens of 38 countries to travel to the United States for business or tourism for stays of up to 90 days without a visa. This is often erroneously referred to as an “ESTA visa.” The term “ESTA” stands for “Electronic System For Travel Authorization” and is merely the registration process through which an individual indicates their intent to enter the U.S. without a visa. It is not a visa. This is important because artists are required to have a visa whenever they enter the U.S. to perform—even if they perform for free; even if no tickets are sold; even if they are performing for a non-profit; even if they are performing for a festival; or even if they are performing for a college or university. In short, performers can never enter the U.S. to “perform” under the Visa Waiver Program.
While most of the propose changes to the Visa Waiver Program should not have any impact on artists (unless the artist is from or has ever travelled to certain counties in the past 5 years), United States Customs and Border Patrol has already begun significantly seeking out artists who may be registering for ESTA and attempting to enter the U.S. on the visa waiver program with the intention of performing. We are getting almost daily reports of artists being stopped, refused entry, and having their ESTA/Visa Waiver privileges revoked for life!
I cannot emphasize this enough: any artist who attempts to enter the U.S. under the Visa Waiver Program for any purposes that involves actually performing does so at his or her own peril!
The only limited exceptions—and they are very narrowly construed—are competitions, auditions (including non-public showcases at arts conferences) and speaking (but not performing) at a college or university.
4. There Continue To Be Significant Delays In Processing Visa Petitions
USCIS is presently taking a minimum of 8 – 10 weeks to process visa petitions at both the Vermont and California Service Centers and there appears to be no end in sight to these delays. This means that, as of today, if you need to have an artist enter the U.S. any earlier than March 2016, you need to pay the additional $1225 for premium processing. (The official visa processing times that USCIS posts on its website have always been purely propaganda and should always be disregarded as such.)
On the bright side, dealing with international touring at the moment makes all those other topics we write about–cancellations, copyright infringement, taxes, commission disputes–a little less daunting.
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 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!
It’s no secret that a vast expanses of artists, venues, managers, presenters, and agents prefer to have engagement contracts with all the “fun stuff” (dates, fees, travel, repertoire, etc) confirmed and signed on the front and the “terms and conditions” left alone, shunned, cold, abandoned, and forsaken on the back. Such “terms and conditions” are often dismissed as “just all the legal stuff” or “the legalese” or “stuff we had a lawyer draft for us years ago and we have no idea what it means, but we can’t change it.”
“Try not to focus too much energy on whether you can trust someone else. When a bird lands on a branch, it doesn’t trust that the branch will never break. It trusts its ability to fly away if it does.”
GG Arts Law provides a comprehensive range of legal services and strategic support for the performing arts, including: Artist Visas, Taxes, and Touring; Rights & Licensing; Negotiations & Representation; Contracts; Business & Non-Profit Organization & Management; Project Management; and Strategic Consulting & Planning.
For additional information and resources on this and other legal, project management, and business issues for the performing arts, as well as to sign up for our newsletters and follow us on social media visit 
I hope everyone is having a wonderful summer…because we are just about the ruin it. So be prepared for some serious sunburn, chiggers, sand fleas, and food poisoning as we give you the latest updates:
For additional information and resources on this and other legal, project management, and business issues for the performing arts, as well as to sign up for our newsletters and follow us on social media visit 
For additional information and resources on this and other legal, project management, and business issues for the performing arts, as well as to sign up for our newsletters and follow us on social media visit