This may have influenced the modest movements seen in the Visa Bulletin for October 2021 and may also portend small movements in the priority date going forward.Immigration law (8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(2)) states that no more than 7 percent of the employment-based immigrant visas issued per fiscal year may go to nationals of “any single foreign state or dependent area.” China and India have significant backlogs of applicants applying for EB immigrant visas, but no other country does.

8) Not yet numbered, available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidents-executive-order-hong-kong-normalization/.9) Impacted laws include section 103 of the Immigration Act of 1990 (8 U.S.C. 1152 note); sections 203(c), 212(l), and 221(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1153(c), 1182(l), and 1201(c), respectively); the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.); section 721(m) of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S.C. 4565(m)); the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (50 U.S.C. 4801 et seq.); and section 1304 of title 19, United States Code.10) 15 C.F.R. Parts 730-774.11) 22 C.F.R. Parts 120 et seq.12) U.S. Secretary of State Press Statement, “U.S. Government Ending Controlled Exports to Hong Kong,” (June 29, 2020).13) 15 C.F.R. Part 740, Supplement No. 1. Hong Kong presently is listed in Country Groups A:6 and B. In contrast, China is in Country Groups D:1, D:3, D:4, and D:5 (restricted for reasons of national security, chemical and biological weapons proliferation, missile technology, and U.S. arms embargo policies).14) See Dechert’sApril 28 OnPoint on tightened export restrictions on China, Russia and Venezuela.

[5] The majority found that the plaintiffs had Article III standing to bring the suit, because, “A person’s interest in being united with his relatives is sufficiently concrete and particularized to form the basis of an Article III injury in fact.”[6] They raised both statutory and constitutional objections to the President’s Proclamation.Statutory Argument Plaintiffs’ statutory argument focused on both the plain language of 8 USC §1182, as well as the statutory prohibition in 8 USC §1152(a)(1)(A), against discrimination on the basis of nationality in the issuance of immigrant visas. Their argument was essentially that the Proclamation failed to provide a persuasive rationale for the use of nationality alone as a basis for excluding individuals subject to the travel ban; and that the President’s travel ban conflicted with the statutory prohibition on discrimination based on nationality.