James Pittman: Welcome to Immigration Uncover, the docket wise video podcast. I'm James Pittman, your host. And today, we're gonna be talking about business immigration under Donald Trump two point o and specifically what's happening with some very important, business immigration categories like the O Visa, the p Visa, and also the e b one, immigrant category. And I have here an outstanding employment based immigration attorney, James Hollis, from the law firm of Siskin and Susser out of Memphis, Tennessee. James, welcome to the program.

James Hollis: Thank you for having me. You know, nothing going on in the world. So, so glad we could be on such a calm podcast.

James Pittman: It's less calm, uneventful times that we're in right now. So, James, let's let's talk a little bit first, just by way of introduction about your journey into immigration law, why you chose immigration. I'm sure you could have done lots of things in the law. And why focus on, you know, sports and entertainment specifically?

James Hollis: Oh, man. I feel like, you know, first of all, I'll say it's a privilege to actually be in the sort the sports entertainment practice. That was not where I thought I was going to end up, and it's not sort of where I started either. You know, I graduated from WashU in Saint Louis in, in, I don't know, 02/2012. It was it still wasn't a great time for, lawyers around then. Like, it was post financial collapse. You know, the big law situation was not amazing. You know, they were not folk folks were not recruiting. And I was not very good at actually, figuring out what I wanna do after law school. Like, I had a very good immigration professor at at law school. I I clerked for an immigration firm in Saint Louis for a little while, and then I I actually went to China, to teach English after I passed the bar, which, at the time, I was like, I'm never gonna be a lawyer. It's fine. And then I came back and, went to Charleston, South Carolina and was working for, like, a removal defense, like, family based immigration type firm, and I wasn't really enjoying that that much. I I kinda wanted to do, business immigration, but I had no one who I knew who was a business immigration lawyer. You know? I it was not something we really covered in law school. I just happened to my my brother at the time, was engaged with a lot of entrepreneurs, and one of them had gotten an o one visa. And, you know, we decided, hey. Let's let's be idiots, and we can, we could start a business in which we're gonna provide legal services to, like, location independent, entrepreneurs. And this guy gave me a copy of his o one visa packet. I I then took it and filed my first o one for somebody else, got it approved, and and sort of the rest is history. But, I I met up with, Greg Siskind a couple years later, and and he offered me the the opportunity to come to his firm and, so I I took it. You know, with regard to the sports entertainment stuff, you know, I I certainly, I got my start in, like, you know, entrepreneur immigration. That was sort of the main focus of my practice for a while. I I started to get into the more o's and p situation, you know, as as my practice developed at Sysken Susser, sort of the Siskincessor the first, period. And then I happened to meet, an attorney at an AILA conference who did a lot of sports immigration. And, you know, I'm a soccer obsessive, and I have been a soccer obsessive for many years, and, you know, I just happen to know a whole lot about soccer internationally and in The United States, so we hit it off. And, you know, went went up to his firm in Washington DC for a couple of years, and then, managed to come back down to Siskin Susser, and and, you know, continue with my, sports entertainment practice after that and sort of grown grown more, in on both sides, both the sports and the entertainment side.

James Pittman: I I agree that it's really a privilege to be in that niche because you're dealing you're dealing with amazingly talented people. And, you know, it's it's it's inherently interesting, you know, sort of, getting the visas for these people and dealing with the the specific issues that you have to deal with with these type of cases in terms of their reputations, you know, their achievements, their accomplishments. It's just it's just a good time all around. I mean, of course, it has its frustrations like any other profession. But, I mean, in terms of, you know, niches that you could occupy, sports and entertainment really is it is a privilege to be in it.

James Hollis: You know, I I agree. I think the the way that, I I tell people about sort of what I did in the past Trump administration, I I kinda felt bad because everybody else was sort of, you know, taking on water at all James, doing h's and l's and, and everything, where, you know, most of the time, we were getting taken care of fairly fairly easily. It did it did sort of strike a a chord with me when, you know, a lot of the visa bans went in and, you know, professional athletes were able to bypass those visa bans, while, you know, family members were were, like, you know, not being able to see each other, medical professionals not able to get into The United States. It was it was an absolute, mayhem trying to get visa appointments to get the national interest exception waivers, but, you know, the pro sports, teams that that I was dealing with, they were fine. And I I I thought that was a little bit of a disconnect and and thought that was strange and hope I don't have to experience that again. But it I do think it it gives you a sense of, how certain, like, areas of immigration law are treated a little bit better than other areas, which I think we're gonna go into a little bit more as well.

James Pittman: There's a certain amount of, you know, sort of, deference and privilege according to certain of the categories.

James Hollis: Oh, absolutely. Yeah. I mean, I often tell people that, like, if I have to, like, sort of leverage a business issue to get somebody a faster visa appointment or to get a faster adjudication at USCIS, it's a whole lot harder. Whereas if I go to to them and say, hey. This person, this this person is needed at the show on this date. Right. They're going to lose this much money if this happens. It it's much easier to sort of motivate change or motivate, like, a processing decision, than it would be if it was like, oh, well, look. You know, I gotta come here and close this deal for my bank and, you know, it's gonna be this amount of money. It's like, well, why don't you just do it on Zoom? You don't have to they don't they don't need you they don't need you physically president in The US. There's a whole you have that sort of, extra, I don't know, angle because it's like, okay. Well, you know, if this person's playing a sport, like, nobody else can play that for him. You know? Personalized. Yeah. And it also I feel like it also makes everybody, like, a little bit, you know, more interested because it's like, oh, you play for who? Oh, that's cool. I might see you on TV. It's like, yeah.

James Pittman: Right. There's that familiarity in the fact that everybody everybody likes entertainment and practically everybody likes sports. Most people do. So there's that that familiarity. Yeah. It's it's it's all true. It's all it all goes into the mix. But let's talk, just go through some of the, you know, the essentials of the different categories. So you're working with regard to sports and entertainment. We're talking mostly about O, P visas, and then for permanent immigration, e b one.

James Pittman: So can you just give us sort of the nutshell version of these the distinctions between them and their essential requirements?

James Hollis: Sure. O one visa, easiest way to remember it. There there are basically three types. There's the o one a for, sports and for, science and for business and for education. There's the o one b for arts, and then there's the o one b for motion picture and television industry. The the motion picture and television industry is supposed to be the highest level of, of, o one b's, followed by the o one a, followed by the o one b arts. Generally speaking, the l one b arts is, is processed quite reasonably. There are a lot of arts organizations in The United States that use it, pretty frequently. O one a is used by all sorts of things. Quite frankly, don't don't generally use it for, professional athletes unless I have a very specific reason for doing so. Like, sometimes there are activities that certain pro athletes will need to do, that are better encompassed by the o one a than by the p one, which basically the p one allows you to come to The United States and solely compete. Whereas the o one, you you can add some additional activities in there and add some additional sort of payment, arrangements in there that are important. So that's frequently how it's used for for pro athletes. All of those visas are three year maximum in length. So that's o one, a, o one b, and o one b, film and TV. There are some intricacies about how you can request for three year extensions versus one year extensions and all that sort of thing. But generally speaking, three years at a time, and you can extend them, you know, virtually as long as the person continues to qualify and has a reason to be in The United States that qualifies.

James Pittman: Let me just, interject two questions. So so, o, even though it reminds one of the word outstanding, the actual the actual name is, extraordinary ability or achievement, and it's specifically extraordinary ability or achievement. So when when are we talking about ability, and when are we talking about achievement?

James Hollis: This is the funny thing. Right? This is the funny thing about all of the, the OPM, the e b one, visas. Like, if you read the regulations, you have all of these definitions about, you know, what is distinction, what is extraordinary ability, what sustained national or international claim, what's ex what does extraordinary achievement mean? I, do not think about those overall, standards at all when I'm preparing cases. And the reason I the reason I don't is because I don't think USCIS does. You know, I think when there's a question about, like, overall does, you know, does somebody have, sustained national or international claim, they I think they back into the logic of that instead of, instead of actually sort of analyzing on the whole, like, 95% of the time, if I get three of the categories and they o one any of the o one categories, I'm going to win the case. So regardless of, you know, the overall standard, I I really think it's a matter of, do you have the evidence that actually satisfies the regulatory criteria? If you do and it's and it's sort of at a a high enough level, you're not gonna have any problems with the overall standard. I think it's a different it's a different issue in the in the e b one context, but it it often is similar, I I would say. So but, primarily, I I look at the evidentiary criteria instead of the the overall definition. Because I don't think I don't know what it means, and I I I do these visas all the time. I really don't think USCIS knows what what they mean.

James Pittman: Right. Or at least it's malleable.

James Hollis: Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. Well, I mean, the way I describe it to my clients is, like, those standards mean that over the course of a period of time, you have a sufficient amount of evidence in these categories to show that you have been both active in the profession and you have been, you know, understood to have been doing good things in the profession during that time period. That's sort of the way that I that's the way I sort of analyze it internally. So that's that's how I sort of, tell them.

James Pittman: Got it. And you mentioned that the duration is, of the initial grant is up to three years for both the o and the p. If you had someone coming for let's say you had someone coming to do a movie or something and you're expecting the shooting to take, you know, one to two years, would you typically request the full three years, or do you try to align it with sort of, you know, the projected duration of the project?

James Hollis: Well, maybe the maybe the secret with the the all of these visas, particularly those and the p's, is that if you have a lesser period, my general sense is that you get a or if you request a lesser period, my general sense is that you get a a slightly different adjudication. So, like, for example, when I do, musical artists, if somebody's coming for, like, a three month tour, it's a much less concerning approval for USCIS to be like, okay. Well, this person's coming in for three months, and then they're gonna leave. So I find that it's a whole lot easier for them to approve it. So where possible, I wanna sort of limit the approval to only what's needed, but it depends on what sort of how the the actual case is structured and what the person wants to do. So if, say, if, like, you know, an artist tells me, hey. I wanna you know, I'm gonna come and do the, you know, this film shoot or whatever, but I also want to, you know, have the opportunity to do this and this and this. What I'll try to do is is actually accommodate that by how you structure the case and, you know, add in, you know, the the manager serving as an agent plus multiple employers so that we can extend that period to the full three years so that they can actually do the do all the things they would like to do. So it's it's sort of a balancing act between, like, what the person actually wants to do, how much time we have between when we're, preparing and when we're filing and when they need to get here, and, you know, overall, what I think in terms of, you know, how strong the evidence is and and what I think USCIS is going to do.

James Pittman: Gotcha. Let's let's let's encapsulate sort of the criteria for the the o one and compare it to the p in terms of the eligibility and application process.

James Hollis: Okay. Well, o ones, basically, well, o one a's breakdown into eight criteria, awards, memberships and associations, published material about the person, original contributions of major significance, judging the work of others, scholarly articles, critical central capacity for distinguished organizations, and, high remuneration compared to others in the field. Look at that. Go straight go just come straight off the tongue. The the o one b categories are so the the thing to remember about the o's and the p's, and this is what I tell people all the time is the o one categories are identical to the p one b categories, except instead of the, the individual having to prove each of the categories, it's the group, the entertainment group that has to prove the categories. So, you know, it's basically, you know, performance in a, a lead starring or critical role for productions or events with distinguished reputation. It's national or international recognition for achievements. It's, lead starring or critical role for distinguished organizations. It's, significant critical acclaim or commercial success, high remuneration. I feel like I'm missing one. Basic it's it is basically the media about the person and their achievements in the field is the last one for the o one p's and for the p ones.

James Pittman: Gotcha. Now, you know, as with a lot of the nonimmigrant categories, there's there's an Pittman based immigration. There's a corresponding immigrant category. So the l one criteria sort of mimic in many respects the e b one extraordinary ability, which is a permanent immigration category. Can you talk about how closely, the o one criteria map onto the e b one, and how good of an indicator if someone's held if someone has held an o one, how good of an indicator is that that they might be, you know, eligible for the e b one, and and and could there be any reason why they wouldn't be?

James Hollis: Yeah. It's it's a good question that, you know, when I when I've when I convert o ones to e b ones, it's really easy to convert an o one a to an e b one a because the the other than critical or central capacity to leading a critical role, the, like, you know, they're they're very similar arguments. So it's the same it's basically the same language in the same, categories as the o one a. O one b's, it's a little bit different, but, you know, what you pick up in the EB one with, that you don't have in the the o one a is that you have the ability to use what's, like, what are called artistic show artistic or athletic showcases, which generally are gonna give an artist or, a performer or, you know, whoever it is at least one of those extra categories. And, you know, if it's a if it's a particularly strong performance, like, you're gonna you're gonna be able to make an argument for leading a critical role. Here's a here's a good sort of, breakdown for it. So I do a lot of, e b ones for, circus performers who are in The United States on p ones. Many of them have, like, you know, a a a successful athletic career in, like, gymnastics or acrobatics or trampoline or whatever it is before they actually come and do the performances. And this includes, like, you know, national team level, international competition. So a lot of them are gonna have awards, which you you can't get on the o one, well, you can get on the o one b in, you know, national international recognition, but it's a little bit of shoehorn. But we have membership and associations because, you know, they were on their national team and and were selected competitively in order to do that. We don't get a lot of pushback on that argument. Media tends to be one of the harder parts for, for some of the performers that are in part parts of larger groups. But, you know, if it's actually an individual who's who's really talented, they're gonna have media from the time that they were an athlete. They're probably gonna have some media from the time that they were a, have been a circus performer. That that will certainly work. USCIS will push back on us on leading a critical role every once in a while because they're basically saying, hey. Well, you know, you're one person out of, you know, 80 in a in a production. You're on stage for ten minutes or whatever. That, you know, maybe or not maybe that's not a leading or critical role. But we always have the ability to bring in the former, like, athletic career. So, you know, basically, you know, all of that to say, there are often a lot of opportunities to use the argumentation on the l one b side creatively. As an attorney, it can be frustrating because you're basically gonna have to go completely repackage the argument because they're the the the, evidence slicing is done slightly differently on the l one b, context to to the e b one a. So, basically, you know, where before you would you basically have to link the person's name to the particular productions. You actually have to go back and argue, you know, hey.

James Hollis: This is a leading or critical role, or, hey. This is, you know, this is media about the person, or this is an artistic showcase instead of the other way that you would present the evidence.

James Pittman: Gotcha. Well, what are like, let's talk about, some of the the most common challenges. I mean, each of these criterion, you know, you could see USCIS coming out with a request for evidence. I mean, I've I certainly started back, you know, long time ago when I was in practice. I mean, and I did these types of visas. You would see, you know, if you're talking about press conference

James Hollis: how you is that how you started, by the way?

James Pittman: Yes. I mean, I was yeah. Before DACA wise, I was in private practice. Yes.

James Hollis: You're you're living you're living the you're living my dream.

James Pittman: Come on. Okay. I'm glad to hear that. Okay. Yeah. That's great. Thank you. That's very flattering. But I mean, some of these because you can see, you know, that where they could question some of these categories. Like, if it's major media exposure, press coverage, they could come back and question, you know, you know, the circulation of the publication and and and all of these take it into the weeds on these issues. But, I mean, what are some sort of, like, repetitive or most common sort of RFA issues that come out when you're talking about, let's say, the l one?

James Hollis: This is sort of the entire, focus of my practice since the last Trump administration is, like, how much can I limit these opportunities for RFEs? I mean, what I try to do is lock down particular categories where it's hard for them to to argue that. So, like, I find the judging categories particularly hard for them to push back against because, like, if it is judging and it occurred and you have evidence of it, there's there's you know, they can say, hey. It's not you you haven't determined the significance of it. But, you know, if we have if we document it correctly, then then, you know, we're gonna take care of that. Published material the funny thing is, you know, what I've seen recently, the RFE is on my desk right now, is a a push from USCIS to try to, I don't know, figure out their way to technical, to be to be to create these technical requirements to avoid accepting evidence that's clearly qualifying. So they'll say stuff like, you know, hey. You presented, published material, but, you know, it's it's from a website, and you didn't include a link at the bottom of every web of every web page, so we can confirm that it's actually legitimate. So we think, you know, you you need to respond by sending us a a web page, that or a printout that has the web, address at the bottom of, of every printout. And it's like, okay. Well, that's not a requirement. First of all, it's not a requirement. It's, you know, violative of, Kazarian, v u s c I s. It's, you know, a variety of other things, but, you know, that's the it used to be like, okay. Well, you know, you haven't given us sufficient circulation data or, like, I'm ignoring the fact that you presented the, the the media publication or, like, that the New York Times is a major publication. I find that they're getting more technical. Like, a a lot of times when I submit, media to USCIS, I'm submitting three things with each media publication. So I've got the media, and I've also got, initially, an about some sort of page saying, you know, what the publication is. It could be the masthead. It could be, like, the about page on the publication's website. Ideally, and this is mainly because I'm just trying to be a smart aleck, I try to submit Encyclopedia Britannica articles about the publication. Like, if I have the opportunity, that's the first thing I do because they used to send me RFEs saying, oh, well, we don't accept Wikipedia. It's like, I'm not having you accept Wikipedia. I'm trying to give you extra context. And they were like, you know, it's not it's not acceptable. So I basically just started sending Encyclopedia Britannica articles to them. Funny. So I'll do that, and then I will also, you know, you need there needs to be a search circulation information. You know, you get, media kits are ideal, but sometimes you get USCIS saying, well, we don't trust media kits from publications. And it's like, well, why why don't you trust media kits from publications? Like, I didn't make that up. They might. And then, you know, the the final thing is, something, you know, focusing on the web traffic, you know, normally, like, a report from, like, SimilarWeb or something like that. I've had specific pushback on SimilarWeb saying, hey. We don't count this as the same as, circulation, and it's, you know, it's it's it's hit or miss. Like, sometimes you just get adjudicators who would really like to raise those issues. And I and I would say it's more of, like, it's more indicative of how they're overall viewing the application than it is necessarily like a a hard and fast standard by USCIS. Like, if I submit a a strong artist case, same type of evidence, like, identical to a case for, like, an IT worker in, you know, who's an Indian national or something like that. I'm gonna get the case for the artist approved with no RFE, and and then I'm going to instead of getting, you know, USCIS accepting certain categories in the e b one a context and and sort of giving us legitimate feedback of, like, okay. Look. You know, you said it's the a leading critical role, but here's why I don't think it's a leading or critical role. I find that they're more likely to put in these little technical garbage arguments where it's like, oh, here's why the evidence you submitted doesn't qualify. And it's like, well, look. You can disagree with it. But, you know, I think I think it would be fair for them to grant the criteria and say, okay. The criteria, you know, still doesn't satisfy the overall requirement of sustained national or international claim. So I that's that's sort of the direction I see USCIS going in.

James Pittman: Alright. Now you mentioned that, you know, you're you're really big on soccer, and that was some of the first ones that you, you know, that was one of the first sports that you dealt with. But nowadays, you know, are there particular sports where you get, you know, particularly large caseload? And how about with entertainment? You know, you deal mostly with, you know, Hollywood or you deal mostly with recording industry, or what is it?

James Hollis: Mostly entertainment groups. So, people will know, I do pro wrestlers.

James Pittman: Oh, okay.

James Hollis: I do I do some I do some circuses. I do, some, ballet companies. Yeah. Some recording artists as well, some sports teams. You know, it's, it's it's quite a wide variety. And then, you know, a lot of, of conversions to, e v one green cards as well for sort of everybody within that community.

James Pittman: And how about sports?

James Hollis: Mainly mainly soccer.

James Pittman: Yeah. Okay. Still soccer. Yeah. Yeah. Now when you're submitting when you're submitting evidence that I mean, let's say someone's had extensive, you know, television coverage, submitting evidence of that, what format are you submitting it in?

James Hollis: Are you saying that USCIS doesn't accept that evidence very easily?

James Pittman: That's what I'm saying. Yeah. At least they they certainly did it in years ago when I was doing it.

James Hollis: Honestly, most of the time, it's, it's stills of the person on screen. If there's, like, a if there's a cry on where it says their name, it's better, and then a transcript of the of the materials.

James Pittman: So that's still the same. Yeah.

James Hollis: Yeah. Still, yeah, still the same. Exactly. We we we tried over the years, like, sending them links that they're like, oh, hey. This is on YouTube, but they just don't seem to trust it. So

James Pittman: Let's talk a little bit about what's going on nowadays. So, you know, we're in the midst of this incredible turmoil, that we're going through the first couple weeks of the Trump administration, and it almost feels like it's been two years rather than two weeks. Or It's

James Hollis: only been two weeks. My god. It's a

James Pittman: little more than two little more than two weeks, but it feels like years at this point. Have you detected from your perch any effect on approval rates or any activity with regard to RFPs, visa processing time so far for the cases that you're dealing with?

James Hollis: No. Okay.

James Pittman: Alright. Well, that's, you know, that's good. That's good.

James Hollis: Yeah. I mean, I I'll say I'll say that with the context of it feels like everyone on both sides of the equation are are afraid of where of where things are going. You know, I I I keep a very, focused ear to the ground on, consular issues as well. You know, I've had to I've had to push a number of cases through in the past couple of weeks. You know, steady steady as she goes, but nothing nothing particularly, meaningful. I would say, you know, at the end of the Biden administration, processing for o's and e b ones and e b two and I w's is a lot of people were know were became a lot harder. So, you know, a lot of James, these categories can be very difficult and were very difficult in the prior Trump administration. You know, the prior Trump administration, if you look at the data, like, the approval rate on on average, or I suppose, across all of the cases only went down about, like, 4%, but the RFE rate went up by about 30%. So that's sort of what I'm expecting again. It just hasn't sort of materialized yet. Maybe I'm just lucky.

James Pittman: But are are there any is there noise or rumors of any executive orders that you think would directly impact your caseload? And were there any you mentioned, I I imagine the travel ban, like, the Muslim travel ban could have had an effect on on you if you were dealing with any, you know, clients from the affected countries. But were there any executive orders the first Trump administration that did affect you? And how about rumors of ones this time around?

James Hollis: I think buy American, hire American affected everybody Okay. For the most part. You know, just the increased, I don't know, attitude of scrutiny, made some of the things harder. Like, I think I think the processing of the o's in particular like, I had USCIS, last time around tell me that, the New York tie New York James, like, sports, like, front page was not a major publication, like, just because they seemed like they were being mean at the time. Yeah. It was it's a so there there were periods in which bad things would would occur like that. I'm a little concerned in that the administration's going to be, I don't know, more more quieter about, how they're going to process, and and add scrutiny. Like, there's an executive order that they issued that that basically said, you know, directed USCIS and Department of State to, to further scrutinize visa applications. So I I mean, that may be them doing it without a lot of fanfare, though, you know, given how they seem to like the marketing efforts, it would surprise me if that was the only thing that they would do. So that's sort of where I have my ear to the ground. The other thing that I think is is happening to everybody and and certainly affects these case types is that there's a huge rush of cases, from basically November and December, and USCIS, like, seems to have missed the premium processing deadline on, like, hundreds of cases. And, you know, there there's been a there's been cases transferred out of the Nebraska service center to the Texas service center to try to get them adjudicated, but I I've been hearing from people online, you know, I it happened a couple of my cases as well, but, hearing from people online that their case haven't been processed, haven't been touched since December, they filed on the premium processing. I actually got a refund check for one of my clients as well, which has already been received. So clearly, the refunds are happening, but, something something sort of occurred in, November and December that that resulted in that for, e b one processing for sure.

James Pittman: So, are you are you doing anything differently nowadays compared to, you know, how you what you would have been doing if Trump hadn't been elected? I mean, are there any preparatory steps that you're or, you know, cautionary steps you're taking?

James Hollis: So I would say the first Trump administration was a really formative experience for me. I the way I prepared cases, you know, got very, I don't know, defensive in the Trump administration and got you know, I'm basically submitting these monumental cases that are a thousand pages long, and they're a thousand pages long because I'm I'm documenting, each of the aspects so clearly. That has stayed the same since the the prior Trump administration, and I'm gonna do the same thing until, you know, it stops working. So, so I'd say that's that's sort of the thing that stayed with me, and that's how I'm continuing to prepare. Because I overall, I would say when scrutiny increases, the thing that lawyers need to do for their clients is make sure that you're you're being as focused as possible. You're getting the the documents that are very responsive to the issues that you expect USCIS to have. You know, you can't rule out every request for evidence, but you can prepare your cases in a way that makes it less interesting for them to, file the request for evidence because they're like, okay. Look. You're gonna be this guy who's going to who's going to do, you know, a crazy response instead of the the person that they would ideally like, which is the person that that you send an RFE to and then they don't respond. I think that's what the agency ultimately, would like when their increased scrutiny is, you know, to increase the percentage of cases that choose not to respond to the RFEs. You know, so in some way, signaling that you're the type of person that's going to, to reply very heavily to an RFE isn't you know, hopefully identifies you as a as the person that they want to send the fewer RFEs to.

James Pittman: I mean, one of the things that I think helps you is and it goes back to kind of what we were saying that it's a bit of a privileged niche is is that, you know, you're not subject to a lot of the invective that the other some of the other immigration categories are getting. I mean, you don't find, you know, sort of the the administration or the MAGA base or, you know, clamoring against, you know, o's and p's the way they do.

James Hollis: When they when they when the h one b discussion was happening, like, like, a month or so ago, some people started mentioning o's, and I was like I was like, everybody shut up. We're not talking about o one b's, but but for for that exact reason, you know, the everybody calls it sort of the Einstein Visa, which I'm, like, in the media, it's like, okay. Well, it's not. It's just a very useful category for a variety of different things. Please don't please don't touch it. It works well. It works well the way it is.

James Pittman: Are you aware of, of other countries that have a sim or any any other countries that have a similar category to our O Visa or our P Visa?

James Hollis: Most of the sort of Anglosphere countries, they don't have sort of an exact, like, quality for quality visa category, but they have, like, similar types of concepts. So I'm I'm aware of the the general process in in The UK and the general process in Canada as well. Honestly, it it's easier than what we're dealing with here. It's it's similar in certain ways, but it's it's easier in certain ways, because I think ultimately with The US, the concern is always everybody wants to come to The US. There's a higher likelihood of fraud as a result of that. And that's certainly true for some of the other countries as well, but, you know, I've I've seen, you know, I've I've I've seen athletes, get visas to go to Canada to to play, and it's more collaborative. It's it tends to be easier. You know? It's it's done electronically. No offense.

James Hollis: So, I think the systems work a little bit better. I would say the the, you know, sort of old tribunal system in The UK when somebody's trying to bring over a player that's not from, you know, a list of, of, countries that they, that they typically, have relationships with or whatever. That can be a little bit harder, and I think that's a whole lot more like, what we deal with with the o one, which is basically like, okay. Well, if the if we're gonna bring over this person who's from this other you know, a lot of times it was like South African and, or some sorry. South American and African countries, you know, you have to go through this extra standard of proof in order to actually get the visa to play in, like, the Premier League or the championship or whatever. So that, you know, that's a whole lot more similar to what we're dealing with here, which is like, no foreigners. You gotta you have to really prove your, your your case.

James Pittman: Let let me ask. Let's look at things from the vantage point of the the industry, the sports and entertainment industries. I mean, do you think the current our current climate around immigration right now, the rhetoric, and and some of the actual changes, do you think it's having or is likely to have an effect on the industry's ability to attract international talent?

James Hollis: I think attracting international talent is rarely the problem. Like, I think everybody always wants to come to The US. Obviously, it varies in some in some sports and in some, like, entertainment areas, like some of the you know, you're you're gonna a lot of James, the the top leagues in Europe for soccer, for instance, are going to get, you know, the primary focus or whatever. But The US, leagues are are, you know, very popular for a reason and and, you know, have have folks coming in quite a bit. I think that the thing that the politics and the thing that the rhetoric does is maybe it has The US miss out on opportunities not because the people don't wanna try, but because the people get caught up in, you know, whatever processing, you know, malaise, is hit. And as a result of that, they get denied, and they have to go do something else instead. So I would say it's more of a a possibility that they miss the opportunity because I still think, you know, most of the entertainers and most of the artists, like, this is the place of innovation. It's the place of, you know, the media capital of the world. So, you know, from that perspective, most of the big organizations are still gonna get people in, and that's not gonna be a problem. It's just what are we gonna miss out on because we're we're being, more stringent with, with our requirements.

James Pittman: So and and just let me get your opinion. I mean, even though you're you're working in a specific niche, I mean, just looking more broadly, I mean, how do you feel in general about, you know, the implications of what we're currently going through, in immigration policy shifts on US's global competitiveness just as a general proposition?

James Hollis: I think that closing closing our sort of, doors and saying, you know, the the problem is coming from the outside is, is shortsighted. You know, the this is you know, the the globalization that's happened over the past I don't know what year is this? Like, fifty, sixty, seventy years. It is a movement that has, has changed the face of how we do industry, how we do, you know, entertainment, how we do everything. And the idea that we can sort of put the genie back in the bottle by, you know, closing up shop and and, you know, changing some business practices, I think, is a little bit of unlikely to succeed. So, you know, what we have to do and and this is I think this is something that both parties should it would be great if they would get behind. Arlo is from 1965. It was updated significantly in the late nineteen eighties, and and the early nineteen nineties. Like, the o one categories, the p one categories, the e b one, regulations that we're dealing with have not been significantly touched since, like, 1990. The economy is different. Our needs as a country are different. What we need to do is actually define what what we would like immigration to achieve in The United States. Like, there are programs that are very successful. If you look at, like, the the Conrad thirty, you know, physician program, it is one of the most successful immigration programs because they identified a need and created a system that works really well to provide for that need. So, you know, I think there there needs to be a good some good communication with, with, you know, business owners, with entertainment groups, with artists, with communities, and actually figure out what we need, which is a a way to access temporary labor when we need it, and in all of the other categories of visas that we have and actually do it in a modern way based on what the country needs now and creating a system that allows it to be updated over time so that we don't get, like, a law that's been on the books for, you know, seventy years and can't be updated because it's too much of a, you know, political firestorm whenever you talk about it.

James Pittman: Yeah. I mean, we're having we're we're we're not having a debate that's a debate about what we want our immigration system, what immigration policy should be in terms of maximizing the benefits for for the economy and for the population. We're having a kind of a fun house reflection, fun house mirror reflection of a debate where the debate's been kind of hijacked. The debate's been hijacked, and that's affected not only, you know, talk about the border, but also just talk about immigration more generally. I mean, there's certain things that I think a broad, you know, swathe of The US population and US industry would would agree that we want, you know, we wanna attract highly talented people here. We wanna attract the very best people to The United States. We do wanna have a a means for people to come in to fulfill, you know, some labor positions that, most American citizens are not thrilled about taking, like, with whether it be agriculture or some other, you know, jobs that just are not the most sought after James. We you know, it's good to have a a a mechanism to to have labor for those positions. And, and we wanna, you know, we want the border to be secure. But, you know, and we wanna act in a in a humanitarian way or at least most of us do to the extent that it's sustainable. I mean, but we're that's not the debate that we're having. Right. So, you know, and and like you said, I mean, the laws I mean, the laws came many of the laws came into play at the very beginning of globalization. I mean, globalization has really really got underway very late eighties, you know, around '19 let's say 1990 to make it around around figure. So we're talking about, like, thirty five years of globalization at this point. And like you said, many of the laws date from that time period. So, I mean, we're not properly tweaking we should be tweaking the law. We should be tweaking the existing laws to to enact, or create a system and enact policies that facilitate achieving what we want the immigration system to achieve for The United States. But that's not what we're doing right now. It's not what we're doing. The date debate has been hijacked, you know, for for other purposes, for political purposes, for power grabs, and things like that. And it's really it's really unfortunate.

James Hollis: Well yeah. And and I and I'd say that the the way that the the the law was created, like, originally, it was a reflection of our experience with World War two and our experience with, like, the civil rights era occurring right around the same time. So the way that the humanitarian, aspects were created, we're sort of looking at the holocaust and looking at, you know, what happened in that era and saying, hey. We don't wanna we don't wanna do that again. That that was we we feel bad about how we handled this. And, you know, understandable, but, obviously, the entire the entire situation is is different now. And then you look at the, you know, the way that the the individual, like, nonimmigrant visa classifications were crafted, and it's like it's like, you know, how are we putting in, you know, these categories that are only updated by, like, you know, internal guidance because, you know, the jobs are completely different than they were back then. So, you know, we're it's dealing with different economic realities and also, you know, out of concerns for, brain draining other countries, which, you know, is certainly something that that can can, motivated the folks who were creating the INA back in the day. But the question is, you know, hey. Is that something that is still important to us today, or, you know, are do are we interested in, you know, bringing over the the best and brightest because it helps us innovate? It helps Americans get James. It, you know, it does all of these things. You know, if we determine that's the case, we need to change the law so that it's better at identifying and selecting those people.

James Pittman: Yeah. Absolutely. I mean and that's, you know, that's just, it means that, you know, people need to be much more engaged in, you know, in the immigration debate and definitely, need to get involved so that the terms of the debate, can be shifted to, you know, to substantive issues. You know, I but, I mean, I think right now, it's it's, you know, it's it's hard to accomplish that. But it's it really means that we need more we need more activity, more activism, more involvement of people, to try to get us, you know, back onto the path where we can actually discuss some of these issues.

James Pittman: I mean, there's plenty of things that need to be updated in the immigration system. It's you know, there were already a lot of things that need to be updated, whether it's how applications are submitted, e filing, other things like that, all the way all the way through, both the the the laws themselves as well as the system itself. But, it's hard to accomplish any of that in an absolute Are

James Hollis: you saying wait. Are you saying that are you saying that the there's something wrong and inefficient about this?

James Pittman: Yeah. There you go.

James Hollis: It's unbelievable.

James Pittman: It is unbelievable. It is it is unbelievable. It's unbelievable. And it makes me think back to to the the the early years of when when I was actually in practice and they were and you're going to immigration court and they were still using cassette tapes and this is men and it was actually shot it was actually hard to believe. Well, you'll be thrilled.

James Hollis: They they basically got rid of the fax machines, USCIS. So, I mean, they still have them, but, they don't send they don't send RFPs via fax anymore. So, you know, at least at least they're updating something or at least not using

James Pittman: it anymore. Out of the eighties. Right? The fax machine, yeah, technology from the eighties. Let's talk a little bit about, if whether there are any specific ethical considerations that, you know, go into the sports and entertainment industries in dealing with those cases compared to, say, other aspects of immigration law? What types of ethical issues do you find coming up in your need?

James Hollis: Yeah. This is a this is a really good question. The the one that I thought of immediately was, where you represent multiple teams in the same sport. You know, sometimes it happens that a team signs a player and, you know, as a result of your good advocacy, the USCIS processes the case faster and the visa is issued early. And, you know, what happens when you your work, you know, get somebody, into the country right before a game against another one of your clients? And, but, you know, because you went so fast, it looks, at least to some of the people, like, like, you moved the case, for them faster than you moved the case for, for the the other client. And, you know, that can come up, and I think it creates an interesting sort of idea of a conflict of interest where it's like, okay. Well, I'm, you know, I'm advocating for my, my client as strenuously as I can, which results sometimes results in USCIS or the state department processing a case faster or slower depending upon where they're applying from and and, you know, what the analysis is on the the agency side. It can put you into real conflict with, with other, you know, other clients in within the same league where it's like, oh, well, this person just got in. And as a result of that, they scored, you know, a a game winning shot or whatever against, against your other client. And it's like, you're gonna get a call from, you know, the client who scored against them and say they're gonna say, why did you why did you process that so fast? And it's like, that's something that you're gonna have to you're gonna have to deal with quite frequently because, you know, they're they're competing against one another. There are a lot there's a lot of money at stake, and I think that's one of the areas that has is not frequently identified and discussed by other practitioners in this area because of the way that, you know, I think the the actual leagues and the teams are are are typically represented. It's a lot of a lot of the same lawyers doing a lot of the same teams. So as a result of that, that comes up from time to time. And I'm I'm not sure that's, realized of the the bar more broadly.

James Pittman: Mhmm. Anything else? Any other ethical issues? That's your your main concern.

James Hollis: I'd say that's that's certainly one of the concerns. I mean, the other the other thing that comes up a lot of times is when you're when you're practicing at a at a high enough level in in terms of, like, sports and entertainment, qualifying for the visa is not the issue. Like, qualifying you know, you submit the application to USCIS. You're you're confident it's going to get approved. The question is how quickly is it going to get approved. And one of obviously, the the the ethical dilemma that comes up, you know, from that perspective is, like, how how much am I able to push? What am I able to say? Who, you know, who am I able to contact? What, you know, other assistance am I able to generate from, you know, congressional or senate offices or or within the administration itself to motivate this approval, and where are the guidelines for like, I don't there's to to my knowledge, there's no guidelines saying, you know, what what I can and can't do from that perspective. So you have to sort of define that internally and and act in a professional and ethical way because, you know, it it's a powerful tool, and and you have to use it correctly and and try not to ruin it for everybody else.

James Pittman: Mhmm. This might seem like a a kind of a slightly wild question, but, you know, people the entertainment industry and sports and, you know, people in those industries, you know, they like to have a good time. Let's let's put it that way. I'm not going

James Hollis: to be paranoid. Setting.

James Pittman: And, you know, frankly, I'm thinking about the grounds of inadmissibility. And I'm wondering whether, you know, there are any no. I didn't see it, you know, back when I was in practice. I but were there any particular grounds of inadmissibility that tend to come up more commonly with these with these folks rather than in other types of cases?

James Hollis: Well, certainly not for my clients. My clients clean the best people. Just to be clear, none of them have any problems whatsoever. They're they're wonderful, citizens. If I were to, pose a guess about other experiences that people may have, principle ones are, drinking and drug related and, criminals issues like, you know, drunken assault and domestic violence, sexual

James Pittman: violence, perhaps DUI or DUI. Yeah. Yeah.

James Hollis: Yeah. So, I mean, what basically, what you what you're seeing, more broadly in the in the entertainment and sports space, for Americans. It's the same deal for everybody else.

James Pittman: Yeah. Okay. It's pretty much what I thought. I kinda wanted

James Hollis: to say. Yeah. I mean, if you have, like, a sometimes you get, sometimes you get sort of weird, inadmissibility issues. Like, I I I within the era of, like, DACA and things like that, you'll every once in a while, you'll get like, oh, well, this person's, like, undocumented and, you know, was was very successful in college and, you know, well, all of that, those sorts of issues. That's a lot rarer. The the garden variety stuff is like, you know, I got arrested because I was, I was I was drinking and, like, firing fireworks at somebody or something like that.

James Pittman: Do you think it's feasible for for an attorney in the in the sports and the in sports space to, like, focus focus I mean, you're, you know, you're focusing mostly on soccer. Let's say, someone was gonna do just just sports. You think it's feasible to focus on one particular sport like that and make a whole niche out of it? Like, somebody wanted to be like the, oh, I don't know, the boxing attorney or the golf attorney, and and you know any examples of that?

James Hollis: Yeah. They exist. The golf attorney is Steve Vladeck in, Dallas.

James Pittman: That's true. I like

James Hollis: to know

James Pittman: that name.

James Hollis: The the track and field attorney is Ksenia Marova, in Florida. The, I mean, the god of music immigration is Leah Kushner. So so, you know, she's a legend, obviously. There there are a variety of there's a guy who, I met in, Arizona last year the year before last, who a lot of what he does is just like professional bull riding, which I didn't even realize was a thing. He gave an entire, like, panel on, and it was fascinating because, you know, his primary niche is just professional bull riding. You got MMA people, principally focused in sort of the the West Coast area. You know, Northeast is a lot of the, the the pro sports. Don Moore is obviously my, my my colleague in, in Maryland has done a lot of the soccer related immigration, over the years. It's, yeah, it it can certainly happen. The diversification of practice is always a little bit interesting because, you know, the the thing about entertainment in in sports is it can come and go. Like, you can be amazing at it, but the clients will sometimes not be happy and and will want to seek other opinions if things aren't happening fast enough or if, you know, they're getting results that they don't like because it they're, you know, they're people that in organizations that people really wanna vie for in terms of representing them. So, I mean, my I have a I have sort of a corporate practice as well that goes along with it, but, but, yeah, I, it's certainly possible.

James Pittman: So are you operating in the entertainment law space as well as the the immigration space or

James Hollis: is the corporate No. No. I'm all I'm all immigration. I'm all immigration. Okay. K.

James Pittman: Well, what's the corp what do

James Hollis: you mean? Yeah. I mean, I just do standard corporate immigration as well. So I do a

James Pittman: lot of stuff.

James Hollis: L one blankets, h one b's, or not as many h one b's, but, perms, all all those sorts of things as well.

James Pittman: Okay. I understand. Yeah.

James Hollis: Yeah.

James Pittman: Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So let's, let's take a look at, like, a future outlook here. So do you expect any more changes coming down the pipe? I mean, are there particular changes or any Hollis shifts that you're expecting with regard to these categories?

James Hollis: I mean, it's gotta happen. Right? I mean, it it's hard to sort of predict exactly what they're going to do. I mean, my my general assumption is that we're going to see a tightening of, of, like, adjudication standards across these categories. I mean, I do I do think it tends to flow within, like, an occupation or industry based, like, paradigm.

James Hollis: So, like, you know, o o one b's for artists, you know, for major organizations, they're not gonna have problems. O one p ones for, for athletes at major organizations, typically not gonna have problems. Like, there may be processing hiccups every once in a while. But the ones that are gonna that are gonna have issues are sort of the smaller arts organizations that don't have the ear of, you know, the agency or or politicians, or it's going to be, you know, folks in, less preferred, you know, nationalities or less preferred, like, sports. Like, for example, it's all it's been hard for years in, immigration law for, like, MMA athletes or jiu jitsu athletes. Like, that's going to continue because the overall concern is pushing fraud, fraud, fraud, and and, you know, there's an agency predisposition that doesn't like that. And, you know, same deal for, like, nationalities where USCIS is potentially looking at, like, you know, somebody getting out of a visa backlog. So Chinese nationals, Indian nationals who are applying for e b one, they're gonna get a different they've got a different experience during the Biden administration. They typically get a different experience than all of my other clients generally. So, you know, I expect that to just continue because, you know, where once once scrutiny is ratcheted up at at an agency, it's very difficult to ratchet the, scrutiny back down. What what tends to happen is that the the ratcheted scrutiny on certain categories get transferred to other categories. So, like, I there the only main that changed the last time around for p ones, you know, it was scrutiny on, you know, the solely to compete issue, which is basically like, hey. We're concerned that people are gonna come and do coaching or do, like, training aside from competing. And then the second one was we saw they saw a lot of fraud in the p one s category in certain sports, so they limited the approval period for initial p one so they could basically come back and and, you know, review it a a year later and make sure that the person wasn't actually, committing fraud. So, you know, thing little fixes like that very likely, you know, did the main aim again make the process a little bit more difficult, cut out some applications when when they have it, and then, you know, the overall focus is again on ratcheting up the the, you know, the look at potential, you know, exaggeration or potential fraud instead of, you know, whether the person actually qualifies.

James Pittman: What's some advice for applicants nowadays? I mean, given the climate that we're in, are there specific tips that for for how applicants can can best prepare themselves for visa interviews, and what are the common pitfalls that they should look out for?

James Hollis: The biggest one that so it's there's become an ecosystem of, like, you know, profile creation for, you know, e b ones and e b two and IWs and all of that. That is sort of advice that immigration lawyers have given for many years in terms of, like, how to actually develop your your case and make it better. The thing that I the the thing that I know USCIS is on the lookout for is, like, you know, what I what I call astroturfed media or astroturfed documentation. Like, if you're paying for media, if you're paying for for things that make your case look better but aren't actually, like, delivered organically or created organically, that's the thing that they're they're really queuing on. The other thing is that, you know, I communicate from time to time with people who I know are USCIS adjudicators in these categories, on sort of a a, I don't know, a friendly basis. And what I hear from them all the time is we're getting boatloads of crap in turn you know, AI generated large blocks of text, and it's making and it's making the adjudication process really terrible. And, you know, the the the funny thing is I feel like I went through a period of time where it was like, okay. I wanna make my petitions longer because I want to just hammer them with everything I've got. And I think what the the sort of generative AI situation has done is it's making me go back and say, okay. Instead of, I want this to be as long as possible. It's like, I want this to be as direct as possible so that when the officer is scanning through it on, you know, the scan that they have now, because they don't we we waste the paper. They scan the paper, and and then they actually review it. They're they can actually see what I'm trying to say and and hopefully are getting less frustrated with me instead of, you know, I send them 1,500 pages and it's like, okay. Well, where's the stuff I wanna see? So I think, you know, over documenting, you gotta do it right, and you can't hack your way into an EB one. Like, you're maybe you can, still, like, you know, it's certainly possible that you get through, but the the bar is becoming higher and they're looking out for it more. And and it's and it's harming the rest of us. So don't you know, submit real stuff.

James Pittman: You said something very important, which is there's a difference, and and all immigration lawyers take this to heart, between thoroughly documenting and over documenting or adding superfluous material that isn't isn't really helpful to the case. And, actually, when you do that, you're you're running the risk of, obscuring the the really important material or having it get sort of lost in, you know, in in an overabundance, the things that aren't that important. So, so there's an art to that, and it's a skill, and it's something which, you know, is, you know, develop over time, but it's it's something to watch out for. And then with the AI, god, I mean, that is just something which is practically all lawyers and all industries should just take that to heart. I mean, I mean, the the best illustration of that I saw a cartoon, you know, it was sort of like two panels. It was like two. It's one person at a computer talking to someone else and another another panel with another person talking to and the first person said, this AI is great. It turns the few bulletin points a few bullet points I have into a full email that I can pretend I've written. And on the other side, it's the person's like, this AI is great. It takes this full email and just reduces it to a few bullet points so I could pretend that I read the email. So it's like, you know, what are what are we doing here? But yeah. I mean, certainly I mean, god. I mean, use AI strategically. Use it effectively. It's it's it's it's really a very powerful tool. But, I mean, you know, for god's sakes, there's a lot of learning resources out there for for how to to properly use it. And the way to use it is not to just generate a lot of, redundant language or redundant argumentation or verbiage that you put into your filings because god I mean, certainly, again, it risks losing your important points. It it it it makes you look really, bad if if the person who's reading it realizes that it was just AI generated dribble.

James Hollis: Yeah. I feel like we need to we also need to maybe create some sort of certification. It's like, hey. Here's here's a, sign under penalty of perjury. None of this is AI generated. It's like I don't know if it'll help, but it's basically like, oh, yeah. You know, this, this was created by our own hands. I don't know if it may it creates a higher value, but maybe it, it sends some sort of message.

James Pittman: Yeah. I mean, that's the whole question is I mean, I think it's something which, you know, regulatory authorities and courts and so forth are gonna they're they're gonna they're gonna come to the right place with that. You see, it it's an it's an the question of regulation of of AI tool used by lawyers is something I'm very interested in. We've we've talked about that on other episodes of the podcast. We're gonna continue talking about it because it's so important. But you see a variety of approaches being taken by their regulatory bodies where where it's pretty minimal, like, you know, you sign off saying, you know, if I used AI, I I've I personally checked, you know, checked all the citations and checked everything all the way up until, like, a prohibition by some courts on any use of AI or or, you know, certifications of very specific things. So you see a see variety of approaches, and, you know, it's it's something which is gonna evolve. But, I mean, certainly, again, the the idea being you wanna harness the power of the tool, but the concerns being accuracy. And then the the other concern being, you know, your your pride in your work, your professionalism, your your personal attention to detail, that that really should shine through, the human touch that it has, you know, the subtleties that, the human mind and, the mind of, of an immigration lawyer or other professional who's experienced in in a particular field. The subtleties that, you know, you you you bring to that, which aren't, you know, gonna be replicated when you're, you know, churning up oil.

James Hollis: My my my handwritten notes and the margins of evidence pointing them to specific things that I would like them to look at. You know? They can't I I wish somebody could do that for me, but, you know, I haven't I haven't figured out a way to do it. One one thing that I would also flag, in terms of, like, the the AI discussion, there's a I don't know if it's a conspiracy theory, but people in in our office and people I've talked to, you know, are interested to know if USCIS, workers are using AI in any of their RFE generation. Inquiring minds wonder. I know that there there's actually a, like, a a or at least there was. I haven't seen I haven't looked at it in the past two weeks, but, there was, like, an inventory of AI programs, authorized for use at USCIS. I know one, like, one of them basically, like, reviewed, like, I five thirty nines to determine whether or not they were likely to be approved or something like that. So that's a little interesting tidbit. I, you know, I I would be very concerned with, AI in its current state making decisions of that nature, but that's certainly something to watch.

James Pittman: It's hugely important. It's another major, major topic that I've been covering on the podcast. We're gonna continue to cover is a the potential for AI use and adjudications. There's so many concerns, and you hinted at a lot of them. There are biases. There's just inherently parent biases, or depending on how the AI model is trained. And you can, you know, as well as, the I mean, the main the main one would be the biases, and and, you know, you can think of, the case of, you know, you know, how the it's very in the news, the health insurance company, UnitedHealthcare, using an AI algorithm to deny claims. You could you know, you fear That ideal. You just have a sense of dread that, you know, the immigration authorities would be using an algorithm to come up with to formulate additional reasons to deny cases. It's something which I think all of us, you know, are afraid of.

James Hollis: Yeah. But you put in you put in a filing and you say, hey. Give me 10 reasons to deny this.

James Pittman: 10 reasons to deny. But on the other hand, you can think of some instances where, you know, you what they wanna do sort of a quick overview, like, credible fear determinations or something just to get to the root of what the person is saying, like, say, in an asylum situation, get to the, and how does that stack up to other claims that have been brought by other applicants just to see whether there's a colorable claim there that it could then be passed on for for not being the final word for the adjudication, but just an initial determination as to whether there's a colorable claim and whether it deserves to go into the asylum system. That's one, you know, one instance to one possible instance where I could think, you know, where the tools could help in a high volume situation for kind of finding meritor the the essence, the colonels of a meritorious claim, potential meritorious. So, James, let's talk about, you know, what motivates you, you know, in in in and how do you how do you stay updated with the all the changes going on in immigration law? What what's your favorite score staying on top of everything?

James Hollis: Sure. Well, in terms of motivation, you know, I thought a lot about it, starting about November. I was like, are we gonna do this again? Okay. The biggest ones that I find, you know, I I, I don't like bullies very much. I don't like, nontransparent government organizations. So, you know, in some ways, when I see an administration that's very hostile to a group of people that I think benefit The United States in a lot of ways, it makes me wanna go defend them. And then at the same time, where I see, you know, our dear friends at the state department or our friends at USCIS who are, you know, operating these bureaucracies in which people can get caught in them with errors and James. And I've I've resolved, you know, any number of errors over the years where it's like, somebody just screwed this up, and I can't get anyone's attention because they're trying to keep me from communicating with them at the customer service line or they're sending me to a Visa navigator and no one will answer my inquiry or whatever it is. You know, resolving those bureaucratic hiccups is something that I I find quite enjoyable because oftentimes it's not standard, you know, filing petitions or whatever. It's it's doing something strategic and creative and and trying to get someone's attention to look at a particular issue. And and, you know, I think that those sort of fixes are very valuable to people and are, you know, I always remember them very positively where it's like, oh my gosh. They denied my adjustment of status incorrectly. I'm literally cannot work in The United States. Something has gone wrong. And, you know, I figure out a way and, you know, file a two ninety b, getting it reopened in, like, a two week period just because of a little creative strategy. And it's like, okay. Well, that's a, that that changed that person's life, and I certainly didn't make me the most money of anything that I do, but it's, it that's the sort of thing that, hacking my way in and figuring out a way to, to to resolve the person's issue and and do it in a respectful way and but do it in a way that, you know, realizes that negative, bureaucratic decisions can have real, awful impacts, for people, and and sometimes it's really hard to move the needle on there. In terms of, like, how I keep up to date, I feel like I have my brain, like, plugged into my computer all the time. You know, it's AILA resources. It's AILA listservs. It's talking to, it's talking to my clients, my larger clients, seeing what they're seeing. It's seeing my own case flow and analyzing, you know, what I'm seeing in particular decisions in terms of timelines. I keep, like, spreadsheets of, like, processing times and, like, specific decisions and consulates and all that sort of thing. And, you know, it's it's it's talking to people. It's being on social media. It's, looking at the news. Fortunately, the e b ones, o's and p's, regulations don't change that often. But what changes is the particular interpretations of, you know, some of the evidence in certain types of, industry categories. So, like, you know, so there was a period in which for entrepreneurs, we would have a lot of success making the same arguments every time in terms of, like, investments as awards, accelerators as memberships and associations. Over the past, you know, three years, that has shifted in a way that, like, it makes us somewhat less comfortable in terms of analyzing and filing those cases. We'll still do it, but, you know, the the prognosis is not as good as it used to be. And and getting each of those individual nuances is something that you're gonna get from filing, cases over and over again and seeing what the agency actually does and then, like, you know, learning lessons from from, the cases that you file and how they're treated.

James Pittman: Mhmm. I mean, there's issues that I can see. Well, first of all, let me let me just share a couple of tips for, you know, co coping with the current environment that I'm using. These are my personal favorites, which is, like, consume information about what's going on in immigration and just going on in the country overall consumer. But I I personally, what I'm doing is consuming intelligently sources that I think really add really add something to the debate rather than just, you know, listening to things that sort of are rehashing, you know, all the the horribles that are going on over and over again on a loop. Because I think all that that that does is kinda bring you down. And I think, really, if you if you're smart about your sources and you're listening to to, information, which is really lending to a greater understanding, I think that's that's the way to go for me personally, and, you know, I I I would suggest that. But, you know, certainly, in sir in terms of things that, you know, looking ahead, what's coming down, do you have any concerns about things that, you you know, not specific to the OMP, but, like, more generally, this more general anti immigration line and some of the other policies. Like, let's say, for example, I mean, some of the the issues coming out with the anti trans. I mean, that affects a a small number of people, but it's a significant effect on them in terms of, you know, their immigration, their identity documentation. I mean, just now we found out that the the state department is not gonna recognize, x as a gen gender neutral, you know, marker on US passports. That's an issue for the people that I mean, there have only been I don't know. There's some number of thousands of passports that were issued with that marker. I mean, it's not a gigantic number. But for the people that are affected, it's very significant. So I'm just you know, there's that issue, and then there's, you know, the potential for some of the the other issues. I mean, let's say, for example, I'm thinking also same sex marriage. You know, that if that were ever overturned, that would be a huge huge disenfranchisement of immigration benefits for for a large number of people. So, I mean, I can see some of these other potential social issues, but, you know, coming into the immigration debate as we as we progress along.

James Hollis: Well yeah. And I'm and I I'm particularly concerned as well about the, the, like, freedom of speech issue regarding, like, visa holders. You know? That is obviously something

James Pittman: There's another

James Hollis: that the yeah. The administration has said, you know, hey. We wanna we wanna evaluate, you know, people who are on student visas and and whether or not they're, you know, protesting or or, you know, taking taking actions that do not violate the law here and and, you know, in fact, are protected by the the constitution. The visa applications for, I don't know, since, I think it was, like, 02/2018 or something like that have been collecting social media data on visa applicants and, to my knowledge, generally not using it, but aggregating it. And, you know, those aggregation systems and those databases can be used to identify and and evaluate, you know, somebody's, online speech and potentially affect somebody's visa adjudication. I think that's that's very problematic because, you know, it doesn't make a lot of sense for United States to invite people into the country and say, hey. Well, you know, even though everybody else is protected and can do what they would like, you know, we would we would like to constrain your speech, because it it reduces it reduces voices. It makes, it makes it more problematic for visa applicants and, you know, it also makes makes another creation of the surveillance state that maybe maybe, then is subsequently transferred to The United States. So, you know, very it's very concerning. It's it creates the the exact type of, you know, chilling effect that that most, you know, regulations of speech are, you know, prevented from in terms of the government, decisions.

James Pittman: Absolutely. And it also brings it to play mentioning the social media collect the on the collection of social media data on visa applicants reminds me again of the AI issue where you can see, you know, algorithms, being used in a way to identify people who have, you know, made certain kinds of posts on on social media or voice certain views and things like that. I mean, I'll

James Hollis: tell you I'll tell you a story about, about one that's that's a little bit interesting. There is a or there's an organization in, I think it's Department of Homeland Security called the National Vetting Center because, of course, in in immigration law, we need two NVCs. We need the National Visa Center, and we need the National Vetting Center because that's not confusing. But, basically, the National Vetting Center, what they do is, they're the organization that's responsible when somebody applies for an ESTA of, sort of doing the evaluation of whether the person should be qualified. So, you know, sometimes what I you know, I'll be contacted because, you know, say an artist wanted to come in for the weekend or whatever on ESTA and happened to make a social media post of, like, hey. I'm really excited about, playing this club or whatever. And, you know, they got an initial ESTA approval, which is done, you know, essentially automatically, and then somebody went back in, because some sort of aggregator that they have, and they have social media aggregators, systems at Department of Homeland Security, you know, it flagged the post where the the person indicated they were coming in to, to play at a club and denied a Zesta and weren't able to get in as a result of it. And and and that's that's a very significant concern that they have the capacity to do that. So you apply the, okay. Well, that person was, you know, gonna work in an unauthorized way potentially. You know, the precrime version of that to to, you know, freedom of speech, and it's like, oh, well, hey. This person liked these posts about x, you know, issue. Does that then render them, unable to to get an ESTA because the government decided that, that we don't like that viewpoint? I think that's a real problem.

James Pittman: Yeah. Especially when they've they've explicitly talked about ideological screening. It's it's been made explicit, that, you know, they want to make use of additional ideological screening to filter out people who, have viewpoints that they don't like. So it's something to watch along with along with, you know, many of these issues. But, yeah. But we're we're coming to the the end of our hour. So, James Hollis, it's it's been a a great discussion. Certainly, we'll, you know, have you back to continue to follow developments in the sports and entertainment space as we as we progress through our turbulent turbulent immigration waters that we are swimming in nowadays. But I I hope you've enjoyed it, and I've certainly enjoyed the conversation. And I thank you very much for being here on Immigration Uncovered.

James Hollis: Hey. Thanks for having me, James.