International Touring: A Report From The Front Lines

As the U.S. Legal Advisor to the International Artist Managers’ Association (IAMA), I’ve been asked to prepare an update on a variety of current issues involving international touring at the next membership meeting in London on November 27, 2015. Not only do I adore IAMA, but as this would provide a lovely excuse for my wife and I to avoid having to spend Thanksgiving with either of our families, I was more than happy to agree. Having prepared the report, I thought I would share it with all of you…  

Visa Stercus

1.         USCIS is presently taking a minimum of 8 – 10 weeks to process visa petitions at both the Vermont and California Service Centers. 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.) 

·         As a reminder, visa petitions can be filed up to one year in advance of the performance date. 

2.         For those of you who have Canadian musicians eligible for P-2 visas, we are receiving reports that Canadian AFM is experiencing a backlog in preparing filing petitions. This is in addition to the current USCIS processing time of 8 – 10 weeks.

3.         I’ve said this before, but the message not getting through, so its worth repeating. ARTISTS CANNOT DO ANYTHING IN THE U.S. ON A TOURIST VISA OR ESTA (Visa waiver) STATUS!!  Please stop listening to the colleges, universities, and festivals that tell you otherwise. They have nothing to lose other than perhaps having to find a replacement artist. On the other hand, I have recently learned of two artists—one from Germany and the other from Spain—who have had their ESTA status permanently revoked because they tried to enter the U.S. in ESTA status to perform in the U.S. Both artists had entered multiple times in the past and one were merely entering to “perform” a master class.

·         It doesn’t matter whether an artist is paid or unpaid, whether the concert is free, or whether the performance is for educational purposes. They must have an appropriate visa—most often an O or P visa. United States Immigration Officers are taking this very seriously. 

4.         In preparing visa petitions, please start collecting and providing the evidence USCIS wants as opposed to giving them what you have lying around in your press package. The days of being able to supply a bio and a few press articles are long gone and we are seeing more and more visa denials and delays because of this.

·         I recently, and with much regret and sadness, had to advise a client to re-cast a role because the artist’s European management was simply refusing to cooperate in our efforts to obtain a visa for the artist. (In case that manager is reading this…no, USCIS will not “just google the artist to find out how famous he is!”)

Tax Stercus

1.         For those of you waiting to receive a refund check from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for a non-U.S. artist who has had 30% withheld from their gross engagements fees and are due a tax refund, please be advised: the check is NOT in the mail, and won’t be for the foreseeable future. The IRS has added an extra layer of scrutiny to nonresident tax returns involving refunds. Aside from the usual 2 to 3 month processing time, there is a second review to be sure that everything on the 1042-S form is accurate and complete.  If the IRS senses ANYTHING off, the taxpayer will receive a letter asking for more info. To be fair, the IRS has announced that it will be paying interest on all overdue refund checks. To be practical, it doesn’t matter how much interest they offer to pay if, in fact, they never issue the refund.

·         Bottom Line: There is currently a very good chance that if 30% is withheld from an artist’s engagement fee, the artist will not get that money back…or, at least, not for the foreseeable future. Please plan cash flow accordingly. 

2.         A Central Withholding Agreement (CWA) is still the best way of avoiding or reducing the mandatory 30% withholding required from all engagement fees for non-U.S. artists. To be eligible for a CWA, among other requirements, an artist must have filed a U.S. tax return for each prior year in which they have ever performed in the U.S.-- even where no tax was owned. If an artist has not filed past U.S. tax returns, he or she will be required to file them as a prerequisite to obtaining a CWA. Unfortunately, we are seeing a sharp increase in the instances where filing such past tax returns is triggering an IRS audit in which they are requesting documents and records from the artist’s world-wide income.

·         In this one particular area, the IRS has displayed a remarkable degree of efficiency in identifying artists who have simultaneously made the least amount of money and kept the least amount of records to prove it.

3.         Obtaining Social Security Numbers (SSNs) and Individual Tax Payer Identification Numbers (ITINs) continue to be a challenge. While SSSs are not any easier for an artist to obtain, they have not become harder. ITINs, on the other hand, have become increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to get. Despite both staffing and budget cutbacks, the IRS has been requested to scrutinize ITIN requests more closely—particularly with regard to proof of identity. For most non-US residents, the most obvious and best proof of identity is a copy of their passport. However, the IRS lacks the resources and training to evaluate how to tell legitimate passports from forged ones. As a result, the IRS is now only accepting copies of passports that have been certified by the actual agency that issued the passport. However, even when this is provided, we are seeing the IRS send notices requesting that the actual, physical passport be sent to them instead. DO NOT DO THIS! You will never see that passport again!

·         There IS one option for some Europeans:  There are IRS offices located in the U.S. Consulates in Paris and London. One can go to these offices and request an ITIN in person (with an original passport, which the IRS will review and return on the spot.)  HOWEVER – one can obtain an ITIN only if one has an “immediate tax need”, such as filing a return. So, if requesting an ITIN in the Paris or London Consulates, one must also bring a completed tax return in hand, ready to file.

4.         We are seeing a large number of U.S. presenters--especially those based at colleges and universities—insisting that non-U.S. artists are legally required to have either a SSN or ITIN in order to perform or get paid in the U.S. Please be advised: There is no such law! While such numbers may make book keeping and accounting easier for the presenter, there is no law that requires an artist to have either one. Not only are SSNs and ITINs not proof of work authorization, but as we addressed above, many artists will be unable to get them in advance—if ever.   

5.         Canada requires 15% withholding for gross engagement fees of non-Canadian performers performing there (similar to the 30% withholding requirement in the U,S.) Canada Revenue allows performers to file a waiver/reduction request to reduce/waive the withholding (an R-105 request). On their website, Canada Revenue indicates that the deadline for filing such a request is 30 days prior to the first payment due.  However, it's taking them MUCH longer to process the requests. So, we are recommending that you file your request with them AT LEAST 60 days prior, or earlier, if possible.

General Travel Stercus 

1.         There is nothing new to report with regard to the ban on bringing musical instruments into the U.S. that contain ivory or other protected materials. United States Customs and Border Patrol isn’t strictly enforcing this with any degree of regularity. However, if any orchestras are touring and don’t want to take the risk, we are recommending that they contact Heather Noonan (hnoonan@americanorchestras.org) at the League of American Orchestras (http://americanorchestras.org) who is among the leading and most effective legislative arts advocates in the U.S. and is happy to talk to them about the “Instrument Passport” process.

·         The League and others are continuing to lobby for specific amendments, including exemptions to the rules for “personal effects” (which would include carry-on musical instruments).

2.         There has been some recent concern about Amtrak, the U.S.’s ersatz rail service, implementing a new policy requiring additional seats to be purchased for oversize musical instruments which cannot fit into overhead compartments. To date, this policy has been posted, but not enforced. We are recommending that artists and ensembles that intend to use Amtrak to travel to engagements within the U.S. check with an Amtrak representative in advance of the tour…and then be prepared for whatever they are told in advance to then be either incorrect or disputed by Amtrak at the actual time of travel.  

Other Stercus

1.         When negotiating fees for U.S. engagements, please remember to specify the currency in which the artist is to be paid, including exactly how and when the exchange rate is to be calculated. We are seeing an increased number of misunderstandings over this point.

·         At the same time, use this as an opportunity to clarify any other costs or deductions (such as taxes, visas costs, hotel, travel, etc.) which either are or are not to be included as part of the engagement fee.

2.         Too many people are still relying on general, vague, boilerplate, or unspecific contractual language to take the place of actual negotiation. Do not rely on the misguided belief that there are standard legal terms and procedures that magically govern engagements and bookings when words fail. If you want something, or don’t want something, say something—or, preferably, write it down.  

3.         When dealing with performances of new works or contemporary music, bear in mind that licensing laws differ. What’s in the public domain in Europe may not be in the United States. Even a re-arrangement or re-orchestration may not be permissible in certain countries. 

Press "Pause" On That Recording

Dear GG Arts Law:

In reviewing an engagement contract for one of my artists, I was surprised to see that the presenter wants the right to record the artist’s performance as a “work-for-hire”. The Presenter says that this is a standard requirement and also that its reasonable because my artist is protected by language in the contract that says: “In no event shall Producer have the right to exploit the recordings and/or an audiovisual program in connection therewith in any other manner other than non-commercial, educational and/or charitable uses or exhibitions without Artist’s prior written approval and without a separate agreement, negotiated in good faith with respect to any such uses or exploitation thereof.” Is this standard these days? Should I advise the artist to agree to this?

Standard for whom? As I have said, and will keep repeating until someone listens, no terms are “standard”—not recording rights, nor commissions, nor exclusivity restrictions, nor unilateral cancellation rights, nor any other nonsense which parties like to throw at one another under the banner of “standard.”

While, ultimately, it’s your artist’s decision, not yours, you should advise your artist not to agree to the language the presenter has proposed. The proposed language reflects a common mistaken belief within the performing arts part of the entertainment industry that so long as you don’t sell a recording, then all other uses are inherently “non-commercial.” However, particularly in the classical world where a classical recording hasn’t actually generated a profit since the release of “Fantasia”, no one really “sells” recordings anymore—at least, not for a profit. This means that, except in limited situations, there really are no practical uses or exhibitions for recordings other than “non-commercial, educational and/or charitable uses or exhibitions.” This further means that if you were to agree to the proposed terms, the presenter could do just about anything they wanted with your artist’s recording. Their proposed “protection” is meaningless.

Just because a recording isn’t sold, is unprofitable, is used for education, or is used by a non-profit organization does not make it inherently “non-commercial” or valueless. A recording still has value. Using a recording to promote the presenter or further a presenter’s mission provides value to the presenter which the presenter has not paid for. Otherwise, why does the presenter want it in the first place? Presenters need to stop believing that just because they engage an artist and pay for the artist’s performance then that also includes the right to record the artist’s performance and “own” the recording. In the real world, you only get what you pay for. When you buy a car, does it come with a chauffeur? It’s not merely presumptuous, but it completely demeans the value of the artist’s work—which, quite frankly, happens all too often these days by the same parties who should know better.

In addition, an artist always needs to be able to control how the artist is seen and heard. A poor recording of a brilliant performance could have devastating impact on an artist—particular a young or developing artist. Even a good recording, if released in its entirety, could limit an artist’s ability to release a recording of the same work in the future if it has already been made available for free.

While I generally have no objection to a recording being made, it’s the uses of and rights to the recording that need to clearly defined—and limited. First and foremost, unless the engagement fee includes an additional fee for “ownership” of the recording or the opportunity to perform with a particularly presenter is of such magnitude as to provide additional value to the artist, then the whole concept of a “work for hire” should be off the table. Instead, if anything, the presenter should only be able to use limited excerpts of the recording for limited purposes. Just as importantly, the artist should be always able to approve any recording to make sure that the artist is pleased both with her performance as well as with the quality of the recording itself. Third, whatever rights are granted to the presenter in an artist’s recording, should be granted to the artist as well. If the presenter gets the right to make and use a recording, then the artist should get a copy for the artist’s own promotional and marketing purposes as well. Any restrictions or approvals should be mutual.

Paying By The Numbers

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.  

Dear GG Arts Law:

A presenter is refusing to pay one of our artists who has an O-1 visa, but does not have a Social Security Number. Does a foreign artist who is performing in the U.S. under an O-1 also have to get a Social Security number in order to get paid?

Many presenters and venues—particularly those affiliated with university or other academic institutions—have an affinity for imposing arbitrary policies and procedures and insisting that they are legal requirements. To be fair, many of those presenters and venues are merely passing along edicts that have been dictated to them by other departments and offices within their labyrinthine institutions who are more familiar with hiring snow plow services than with engaging non-U.S. artists.

Non-U.S. artists are not required to obtain anything other than an appropriate artist visa (usually, but not always, either an O or a P visa) in order to be authorized to perform legally in the U.S. Whilst it is not uncommon for presenters and venues to insist that a non-U.S. artist have either a Social Security Number (“SSN”) or the SSN’s evil twin, an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (“ITIN”), as an additional condition for an artist to be paid, that is not a legal requirement. More often than not, it is merely a requirement of the presenter or venue’s finance department or booking software which cannot physically write a check without having either a SSN or ITIN. Provided the artist has an appropriate artist visa, he or she is legally permitted to be paid and, unless there is an express contractual provision to the contrary, the presenter is legally required to honor an engagement contract and to pay the artist for services performed.

SSNs and ITINs have absolutely nothing to do with work authorization or immigration law. Rather, they are creatures affiliated with U.S. tax obligations and tax returns. An artist will need either an SSN or an ITIN to file a U.S. tax return, which artists are required to do—especially if they want a refund of any engagement fees that might have been subject to 30% withholding. However, if the artist elects not to file a U.S. return and just let the IRS keep their money, that's entirely at the discretion of the artist. The failure or an artist to have a SSN or ITIN cannot be used as an excuse by a presenter or venue to pay the artist or otherwise honor a valid engagement contract.

When It Comes To Visas, Plan For The Worst and Hope For The Best

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear GG Arts Law:

We got our P visa for a group returned because it included the tour manager. USCIS is saying we need to file a separate petition and get a separate union letter for him. But USCIS has approved prior P petitions with everyone on the same petition. Is this something new? This would mean another petition and another union fee. Also, we have heard that USCIS is taking 8 weeks to review petitions. Is this true? The group cannot afford to premium processing fees for two petitions.

It’s almost impossible to choose amongst the many frustrating aspects of the U.S. immigration laws pertaining to visas for artists and performers. The high fees for poor service? Having to provide documentation that The New York Times is a “major publication”? Trying to explain to a USCIS examiner that an orchestral conductor is, in fact, a “lead role”? The regulatory presumption that the U.S. Government (which has never significantly supported any artistic endeavor ever since Abraham Lincoln died in a theater) is in a better position that an artistic director to determine who is and who is not a “distinguished artist”?  However, it’s the unpredictability of the entire process that most people fail to appreciate with sufficient magnitude.   

It has always been the rule that a petition for a P-1 visa can only include the actual performers in the group. Any support staff—tour managers, general directors, production managers, stage crew, administrative personnel, and even artistic directors and choreographers (unless they will also be performing)—must be listed on a separate petition for a P-1S visa. Unless someone is actually performing in front of the audience, do not list them as part of a P-1 petition. 

The frustration in your case is that the USCIS apparently approved your prior P-1 visa petitions where you included the group’s tour manager on the same petition as the performers. While this saved you both time and money in the past, it was also a mistake on the part of the USCIS. It’s not uncommon for USCIS to treat similar petitions or even prior petitions from the same artist or group inconsistently, approving some and rejecting others. The problem, in addition to poorly trained, underpaid, and overworked USCIS examiners, is that unlike other legal proceedings—and, yes, filing a visa petition constitutes a legal proceeding just like filing a lawsuit—USCIS is not bound by the precedence of its own prior decisions, actions, or mistakes. In other words, just because USCIS overlooked an evidentiary requirement or interpreted an immigration regulation a certain way in the past does not mean they are under any obligation to do so in the future. Even if they approved a visa for an artist or group in the past does not mean they have to do so again. Under U.S. immigration law, USCIS is always free to apply the rules as strictly as they wish, ask for additional documentation, or even determine that a prior visa petition should not have been approved.

The “take away” from this is that you should never assume that simply doing everything you did last time will result in the same outcome. Always prepare every visa petition for every artist and every group as if it was the artist or group’s first petition, paying particular attention to understanding and satisfying all of the regulations and evidentiary requirements regardless of how absurd or inconvenient. Take no shortcuts. Overkill. Overkill. Overkill. This includes making sure that the immigration rules and procedures have not changed since you last prepared and filed a visa petition. USCIS frequently changes filing fees and updates its forms with little notice unless you go looking for it.

For example, earlier this year, USCIS updated the Form I-129 that is required for an O or P visa petition. Guess what? THEY JUST UPDATED IT AGAIN!!!  That’s right, effective August 13, 2015, there is an even newer new I-129 form. At some yet to be announced date, any petitions using any version prior to August 13, 2015 will be rejected. So you might as well start using the new form now. If you prepared a visa petition last year and tried to use the same form, it would be returned.

Always begin a visa petition by getting the newest version of the USCIS forms directly from the USCIS website: www.USCIS.gov  DO NOT USE FORMS FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE AS THEY MAY BE OUTDATED. www.USCIS.gov will also be your best source for any new filing fees or other updates.

For instance, were you aware that effective August 30, 2015, you will no longer be able to upgrade pending petitions to premium processing on-line? Now you are. After August 30, 2015, all premium processing forms will require physical paper I-907 forms to be sent physically to USCIS.

As for the processing times: Yes, USCIS (particularly the Vermont Service Center) is experiencing a significant backlog of 8 weeks or more for standard processing. This could change again over the next few months, but right now it is taking an outrageous amount of time. Unlike forms, never rely on the processing times posted by the USCIS Service Center themselves. They are notoriously inaccurate and misleading. Always assume that unless you have paid the additional USCIS Premium Processing Fee, a petition will take a minimum of 4 – 6 weeks and plan accordingly.

In addition to www.USCIS.gov, your best source of current updates and information should be www.artistsfromabroad.org and other official sources of vetted information. An artist’s or group’s performance should be too important to trust to gossip or anecdotal surveys.   

In your situation, there’s no way to avoid having to file a separate P-1S petition for the group’s Tour Manager. That’s the law and always has been. However, if your group cannot afford premium processing and they will be performing for a non-profit or educational institution, then contacting a U.S. Senator or member of Congress can “sometimes” be helpful under the right conditions, including the particular political leanings of the Senator or member of Congress. If the stars and moons align, the Senator or member of Congress can contact USCIS and request an emergency expedite on your behalf. 

IRS Steps Up Enforcement of Foreign Artist Tax Withholding!

FTM Arts Law is receiving an increasing number of reports from artists, managers, agents and presenters that the Internal Revenue Service is contacting presenters and venues where non-resident foreign artists are scheduled to perform and directing them to withhold 30% of the artists’ gross fee.

The IRS is sending out letters called Directed Withholding Letters (“DWLs”) and they have serious implications. Unless a foreign artist qualifies for an exemption from tax withholding, or enters into a Central Withholding Agreement (“CWA”) with the IRS, then 30% of the artist’s gross fee must be withheld. (Note that not all exemptions from taxation entitle an artist to an exemption from withholding!) Those who represent or present foreign artists in the U.S. and who continue to choose not to address tax issues are taking an enormous risk.

Why is this happening? How is this happening?

Until recently, the IRS did not actively pursue non-resident artists for U.S. taxes. This led to lax attention to, and even complete disregard of, applicable tax obligations. However, the IRS is now using the internet to search for, find, and aggressively pursue nonresident artists who will be touring the U.S. The IRS finds the touring non-resident artist on the internet and then sends out DWLs to all presenters and venues on that artist’s U.S. tour. Unfortunately, in many cases, these letters are being sent to presenters and venues much too late for the artist to obtain a Central Withholding Agreement and, therefore, the artist is stuck with the 30% withholding—even where the artist has previously been able to avoid withholding by providing presenters and venues with a W-8BEN!

To make matters worse...

To make matters worse, it appears as if the IRS very recently has revised its rules for obtaining a CWA and now is examining CWA requests much more closely.

Among the new procedures:

• Budgets are being more closely scrutinized, and artists are required to provide much more detail than in the past. For instance, if an artist's budget shows a cost of $10,000 for airfares, the IRS will require detailed information as to how the $10,000 was computed, i.e., exactly how many airfares are included, what is the origination and destination point of each ticket, etc. If a budget includes a cost of $5,000 for hotel, the IRS will require information on how many rooms this figure covers, and in what cities.

• Even more importantly, the IRS now requires an artist requesting a CWA to identify, by name and country of residence, each member of the artist’s touring party, including each performer who will be performing with the artist. Each performer touring with the artist must be in compliance with their U.S. tax returns. If any performer is not in compliance with their U.S. tax returns, the IRS will direct that 30% of that person's income must be withheld for U.S. taxes.

Its time to abandon long-cherished myths!

The IRS's history of non-enforcement led many artists, agents, managers and presenters into a false sense of security that there were exemptions, actions, or forms that would automatically exempt an artist from withholding or tax – as well as exempt the presenter from the withholding requirements. While these beliefs may have worked in the days of a less-vigilant IRS, this is no longer the case.

Here are the two most common myths:

• The most enduring misconception is that the W-8BEN form is an easy cure-all for U.S. tax issues, including tax withholding. FTM Arts Law is being contacted more and more frequently by frustrated managers and agents who are accustomed to avoiding all withholding by issuing a W-8BEN form to each venue or presenter. Many venues and presenters – particularly those receiving DWLs – will no longer accept this form to exempt the artist from tax withholding. In fact, the W-8BEN is applicable only in very limited circumstances. For a W-8BEN to be applicable, the foreign group or company cannot be owned by the artists themselves. This excludes almost all quartets, bands, or any ensemble where the artists in any way split the profits. In most situations, such groups, even if they are legitimately incorporated entities in their home countries, must obtain a CWA, or the presenters will be required to withhold 30%. And a W-8BEN is never applicable for an individual artist, even if he/she has formed his/her own corporation. Which brings us to...

• The second most popular misconception, which is perpetuated by U.S. accountants unfamiliar with taxation issues for nonresidents, is that a foreign artist may avoid U.S. taxation and withholding altogether by forming a U.S. corporation. As an example, we currently are working to resolve the tax quagmires of several foreign artists who had set up U.S. corporations through which all of their U.S. tour income and expenses would flow. In most cases, this plan will NOT avoid U.S. taxes – it will only cause the artist to incur late filing and payment penalties, interest, and unnecessary accountant fees. Most tax treaties provide that income paid to a foreign performing artist through a corporation (U.S. or otherwise) is attributable to the artist individually, and not to the corporation. Our clients - who believed they were in compliance with U.S. tax law under their accountants' plan - are now paying the consequences. One artist in particular has been advised by the IRS that he must file past individual U.S. tax returns going back seven years before the artist will be eligible for a CWA!

Forewarned is Forearmed!

Don't panic! Be proactive! There are several steps that foreign artists and their managers and agents can take toward compliance with U.S. tax law:

1). Be realistic. If the presenters or venues on a nonresident artist’s tour have received DWLs,and it’s too late to obtain a CWA, accept the fact that the artist will be subject to 30% withholding. When the artist files his U.S. tax return, he may claim deductions and exemptions to offset income, or claim the benefits of a tax treaty, and likely receive a refund of part or all of the withheld tax.

2) Plan ahead. Foreign artists and their agents and managers must address tax planning (along with visas and work authorization!) when planning U.S. tour, not after. Determine at the outset if the artist is eligible for a CWA, and if not, what steps must be taken to make the artist eligible (e.g., filing past U.S. tax returns.) If applicable, factor taxes into the engagement fees and budget. If these issues are not addressed at the planning stage, the IRS's current enforcement efforts can impose an insurmountable barrier to a successful U.S. tour.

3) Educate yourself:

• There is a wealth of information on www.ArtistsFromAbroad.org. This website, sponsored by the League of American Orchestras and the Association of Performing Arts Presenters, is regularly updated by FTM Arts Law. The site includes a multitude of information on visa and tax issues for foreign artists, including what artists are eligible for a W-8BEN tax exemption, and how to obtain a CWA. However, if you find the volume of information on this site a bit overwhelming, you might first…

• Go to www.FTMArtsLaw-pc.com. Our website contains additional free information and resources that simplify the legal issues involved in U.S. tours of foreign artists - including a foreign artist taxation memorandum which summarizes the information contained in the Artists from Abroad website. (Its also a good resource to print out and provide to anyone who thinks you're making this stuff up!)

• Go to www.IRS.gov. The Internal Revenue Service's website, though not known for its depth of wit and good humor, is a valuable source of information that includes complete tax treaties, and forms and publications that offer guidance as to both withholding and taxation. Publications relevant to taxation of foreign guest artists are Publication 515 ("Withholding of Tax on Nonresident Aliens and Foreign Entities"); Publication 519 ("U.S. Tax Guide for Aliens") and Publication 901 ("U.S. Tax Treaties").

4) Don't be afraid to ask for help. There are times when you can self medicate and other times when you really need to see a doctor before you get worse!

Effective Immediately: New I-129 Forms!!!!

That’s right. You heard correctly, on November 23, 2010, with very little fanfare or advanced warning, USCIS implemented a revised I-129 form and O/P Supplement form. According to the USCIS website, the new forms must be used effective immediately. However, USCIS has “unofficially” officially confirmed with the American Immigration Lawyers Association that USCIS will continue to accept the old versions of the I-129 and O/P Supplement until December 22, 2010.

Any petitions that are POSTMARKED December 22 or later MUST use the new forms. After December 22, USCIS will reject any petitions using the old forms.

The new forms themselves impose a new layout, new questions, and additional required signatures. FTM Arts Law is currently in discussions with USCIS seeking clarification and guidance on various inconsistencies and challenges imposed by certain questions, as well as format issues. While we anticipate that further pointers will be forth-coming, here are some of the exciting highlights in the new forms you should be aware of:

I-129 Form

• Part 2; Question 3: You must now provide the artist’s most recent visa petition receipt number even if you are not requesting an extension of stay or change of status or the artist is not present in US or if the Artist’s prior visa was in a different classification than the one you are now applying for.

• Part 3; Question 1(f): You must now indicate the gender of the artist. If filing for a group, we are assuming that this is left blank.

• Part 3; Question 2(e): You must now provide the artist’s Student & Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) number, if applicable.

• Part 3; Question 2(f): You must now provide the artist’s Employment Authorization Number (EAD), if applicable.

• Part 4; Questions 11(a) and 11(b): You are now being asked to provide information as to whether or not the artist has ever been in the US in J-1/J-2 (exchange visa) classification.

• Part 4: With regard to all of the questions in Part 4, if you answer “yes” to any question (prior denials, accompanying petitions, prior green card petitions, valid passports, etc), you must now put your explanation on an official explanation page which is now part of the new I-129 form. This explanation page must also be signed by petitioner. Not using the official explanation page could result in the entire petition being rejected by the mailroom and/or may give UCIS examiners another reason to issue a request for evidence.

• Part 5; Question 4: You must now indicate whether or not an itinerary is included with the petition. (NOTE: As we don’t yet know how USCIS will respond in situations where an itinerary is not required in the first place, we are advising either to check “No or leave blank and write “N/A” in such circumstances.)

• Part 5; Question 5: You must now indicate whether the artist will work-off site. (NOTE: we are advising petitioners filing on behalf of performing artists to leave this blank and hand write “N/A” in such circumstances.)

• Part 5; Question 6: You are now being asked to indicate whether or not your artist will work exclusively in the CNMI (Commonwealth of Northern Marina Islands). Either check “No” or leave blank and write “N/A."

• Part 6: This is an entire new section which does not apply to those filing for artists and performance groups.

O/P Supplement

• Section 1; Question 7: You must now indicate whether or not a labor organization exists for the petitioned activity. If the answer is “No”, then you must provide an explanation on the new form explanation page. (NOTE: If the answer is “Yes”, but you choose to submit a consultation from a peer group or service organizations, this could result in a rejection or an RFE.)

• Section 1; Question 8: You must now indicate whether or not a union consultation or written advisory option is attached to the petition. For petitions that include positions that are and are not covered by unions (i.e. P-1S with administrative worker and technical workers covered by IATSE), answer “No” to Question 7 and explain positions not covered by unions AND answer “Yes” to question 8 for positions covered by unions.

• Section 2: The petitioner must now sign a statement confirming liability for returned transportation costs if the artist is dismissed by the employer before the end of classification period. (NOTE: This is likely to have little practical implication in most itinerary-based petitions for performing artists, but will cause petitioner confusion and alarm, nonetheless!)

Merry Christmas from USCIS! Check back for further developments and clarifications as they occur.

Visa Filing Fees to Increase November 23

Our "friends" at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) have increased the fees for O and P visa petitions filed on or after November 23, 2010, as follows:

• The fee for an I-129 petition for an O or P visa will increase from $320 to $325.
• The fee for premium processing will increase from $1000 to $1225.

Petitions mailed, postmarked, or otherwise filed on or after November 23, 2010 must include the new fee.

To avoid delays in processing, please note the fee change and plan accordingly. USCIS will likely return any petitions that are filed with the new fee before November 23rd, or with the old fee after November 23rd.

See the www.ArtistsfromAbroad.org for complete details regarding all fee changes.

Visa Petitioners: Big Brother May Be Contacting You!

The U.S. Department of State (DOS) may soon be contacting petitioners at random to verify petitioner information!

We know about the Vermont Service Center (VSC) and the California Service Center (CSC), but have you ever heard of the Kentucky Consular Center (KCC)? KCC is a DOS facility that provides domestic support to the worldwide operations of the Bureau of Consular Affairs Visa Office. KCC provides consular posts with official interagency notification of H, L, O, P, and Q classification petition approvals, as well as additional information that DOS may choose to add about a petition, petitioner and beneficiary.

After USCIS approves a visa petition, it sends the approval to KCC, which must enter it into a database before a foreign consulate can issue a visa to an artist. (This is why original approval notices are no longer needed during the visa process—though we continue to recommend strongly that artists bring copies of their petitions and approvals with them to the consulate.)
KCC recently started a pilot program to verify information contained in the approved nonimmigrant visa petitions it receives from USCIS. The information relates to the petitioner, the artist or group, and the artist or group’s proposed U.S. activities. These checks will be done primarily by telephone by a KCC contractor who will contact the petitioner. The checks will be unannounced and random. They should occur shortly after USCIS transfers the petition to KCC.

If You Receive a Call from a KCC Contractor:

• Don’t panic!
• Ask for the contractor’s name and confirm its credentials with KCC (call 606-526-7500) before providing any information. Multiple governmental agencies may audit a given petition, so find out which agency is seeking information in case follow-up is needed.
• Try to contact counsel immediately if contacted by a KCC contractor.
• Don't panic!
• Do not speak with government agents or contractors without a witness present.
• Retain complete copies of the I-129 petitions and supporting documentation you filed and review this documentation before speaking with the contractor.
• If the contractor asks for information you cannot provide accurately without further research, say so! Do not “guess” about any information provided during the call. If unsure about some requested information, tell the contractor you will follow up with accurate information. This is especially important if you do not have immediate access to information being requested by the KCC contractor and are unable to call on someone else to answer the questions during the call.
• Remember that any information obtained during the call and subsequent nonimmigrant visa interview can later be used to deny a visa (even where USCS has already approved the petition) and/or can be referred to USCIS and ICE for further investigation.
• Don't panic!

Be prepared to provide the following information:

• Whether you, in fact, submitted the petition;
• If a business, when you were incorporated (or otherwise founded);
• Your physical location;
• Number of employees;
• Names of shareholders (if a stock corporation);
• Location of attorney of record (if represented in the petition);
• General information regarding your operations and business.

What You Can/Should Do Ahead of Time:

• Be prepared for an unannounced telephone call by an authorized contractor.
• Have a policy for handling such calls.
• Ensure that all relevant records are up to date and information is easily accessible.
• Maintain full copies of each petition, including all forms you sign.
• Determine who can speak with a contractor on your behalf.
• If you typically rely on others to serve as your petitioner, make sure they are aware that this may be contacted by KCC.
• If you receive advance notice of such a call, consider contacting FTM Arts Law immediately.

At this point, we can only hope that this pilot program, and whatever ensues, does not affect the timing of visa issuance to petition beneficiaries, but, unfortunately, we cannot be sure this will be the case. We will make every effort to update you as soon as we have more information as to how this new scheme is actually impacting the arts community.

USCIS Proposes Another Increase In Visa Petition Fees: Its Time To Whack Another Mole!

Dealing with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is like playing the “whack-a-mole” game at the state fair. As soon as you deal with one issue, another rodent rears its ugly little head. As you may recall, within the last six months, USCIS tried to re-define the term “agent” to limit the ability of petitioners to submit visa petitions to cover multiple engagements, then they began arbitrarily cutting-off classification periods where there were engagement gaps longer than 45 days. The performing arts community (led by the League of American Orchestras, American Federation of Musicians, Association of Performing Arts Presenters, Dance/USA, North American Performing Arts Managers and Agents, OPERA America, Performing Arts Alliance, and Theatre Communications Group) successfully drove back these moles. Undaunted in its in inexplicable campaign to vex the performing arts community, USCIS is now proposing an across-the-board fee increase!

The USCIS proposes a $5 increase in the fee for the regular I-129 visa processing form (which would bring the fee to $325), and a $225 increase in the Premium Processing fee (bringing the total fee to $1,225). The performing arts community is urging USCIS to immediately make long-overdue improvements to the regular artist visa process and to refrain from increasing the already-unaffordable Premium Processing fee. In other words, they need to fix their already broken system before charging us more for the same arbitrary, capricious, and unacceptable—and often illegal—results!

Comments to USCIS are due by July 26. However, in its inimitable fashion, the League of American Orchestras has made it easy for you to get involved and make your voices heard! Visit:

www.americanorchestras.org/advocacy_and_government/foreign_artist_visa_tax_news.html

At the League’s website, you will find more information on this issue as well as sample language for you to personalize and instructions for how to submit your comments to USCIS. It really couldn’t be easier and it will only take a few minutes. We hear regularly from many of you about how frustrated you are with USCIS. Don’t tell us, tell them!

The League will submit detailed comments on behalf of orchestras, in collaboration with its national colleagues in the Performing Arts Visa Working Group: American Federation of Musicians, Association of Performing Arts Presenters, Dance/USA, North American Performing Arts Managers and Agents, OPERA America, Performing Arts Alliance, and Theatre Communications Group.

At this point, we need to consider forming our own arts-based tea-party movement—with a shot of vodka thrown in!

Visa Application Fees Increased: The US Needs Your Cash

Effective June 1, 2010, many US consulates increased their visa application fees. This is in addition to the fees charged by USCIS for the petitions themselves. Just as a reminder, a petitioner pays fees to USCS to file an I-129 so an artist or group can be approved for a visa. Once the visa has been approved, the artist or group (unless they are Canadian) must then make an appointment at a US Consulate where each artist or member of the group must pay a visa application fee, be interviewed, harassed, etc. This is the fee which has increased.

I am attaching the link to the US Consulate in London.
http://london.usembassy.gov/fee.html

However, each US Consulate is independent and charges different fees. Some charge additional fees to issue multiple entry visas or simply as “reciprocity” for additional fees charged to US citizens by the country where the particular US Consulate is located. Before sending yourself or your artists to a consulate, be sure to check the consulates website for specific information on any new fees at that consulate. You can reach each consulate through the State Department's website: http://www.usembassy.gov/

Artist Visa Classification Periods: Your Immediate Attention Required!

We hear often from those of you who are justifiably frustrated, angry and distraught over the process of obtaining visas for foreign artists to perform in the United States. The process is arbitrary, expensive, and unpredictable...and, in many respects, insulting and offensive to the arts community. Now, here’s something you can do about it. A chance to be heard…but we need you to act quickly.

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the agency in charge of approving visa petitions for foreign artists, occasionally makes overtures about improving the process, takes a small step forward, and then takes two steps back. Often making things worse. USCIS is, once again, willing to making a gesture to address a key concern, but is asking for our feedback to their proposal. If we don’t give them some direction, then we are forfeiting the process to individuals who have, very often, never seen a live performance.

Here’s the issue…

Historically, assuming an artist or group qualified for a visa, the visa would be approved to cover the US engagements on their itinerary, even if the engagements were months apart. For example, if an opera singer or orchestra had a series of engagements in the spring and then another set of engagements in the fall, their visa would be issued for a full year to cover both sets of engagements. For a conductor hired to conduct concerts for a summer festival, it was not uncommon to receive a three-year O-1 visa, even if the artist’s only engagements were in July and August of each successive year. And then….it all went very wrong.

Beginning in the fall of 2009, USCIS began arbitrarily reversing, reinterpreting, and reinventing (without warning and without legal authority) a number of long standing policies and regulations. Among them, visa classification periods began being severely truncated. Where artists or ensembles had gaps between engagements longer than 45 days, USCIS began approving visas only to cover the engagements prior to the first gap. After that, to re-enter the US to perform the remaining engagements, the artists and ensembles would have to re-apply for visas to cover the subsequent engagements.

Despite USCIS’s protestations to the contrary, this was an obvious attempt to drive more revenue into the system. Whereas an artist could previously file one petition to cover a spring and fall tour, the artist would now have to file two petitions: one for each “tour.” This would, of course, require two $320 filing fees and, if USCIS was lucky, two $1000 premium processing fees. For those of you following such things, during this same period of time, USCIS also attempted to redefine and limit the word “agent” in order to force each venue to file its own petition as opposed to the longstanding practice of allowing an agent to file a petition to cover an itinerary of multiple engagements. The end goal was the same: multiple petitions and, thus, multiple filing fees.

A coalition of key performing arts organizations, including the League of American Orchestras, American Federation of Musicians, Association of Performing Arts Presenters, Dance/USA, North American Performing Arts Managers and Agents, OPERA America, Performing Arts Alliance, and Theatre Communications Group, was able to convince USCIS to reverse its position with regard to “agents” and preserve the ability for a petition to cover an itinerary of engagements…albeit with a few new irritating, but relatively minor, bits of required documentation. And now, that same devoted, beleaguered, and relentless group of arts advocates has persuaded USCIS to re-think its new policy of arbitrarily restricting the length of a visa classification period…maybe…as it pertains to O visas…and….maybe….P visas….but we don’t know.

Here is where we need your help…

USCIS has issued a memorandum on the guidance it proposes to offer USCIS examiners when processing visa petitions in which there are gaps of time between performances. (I, too, was surprised to learn that USCS examiners could read, but apparently they do if it comes from USCIS!) While we are cautiously optimistic and generally support the memo, UCIS has given us until May 24, 2010 for the performing arts community to weigh in with statements and comments explaining why efficient and reliable visa processing is essential to supporting international cultural exchange. We also need to explain the financial and logistical burdens of requiring foreign artists and ensembles to apply for multiple visas when they are on tour throughout the year. (Bear in mind, these issues are not obvious to people who do not frequent the arts. That is less of an admonition than an enticement to use this as an opportunity to educate.)

The Performing Arts Alliance has conveniently created a link where you can read the proposed USCIS memo as well as send an email message directly to USCIS with your thoughts and comments. Suggested comments and talking points are even included for you. Please visit: http://theperformingartsalliance.org/campaign/Artist_Visa_Validity_Period

As the memo only currently applies to O visas (for individual performers), we particularly need managers, agents, artists, and presenters who can also explain to USCIS why this memo should also apply to P visas for groups and ensembles.

If USCIS tried this with any other industry, there would be a flood of lawsuits, politicians, and outrage. But the arts, as an industry, have long been trained to ask rather than demand. To be grateful for crumbs, rather than insist upon an entrée. As a result, we are too often marginalized and overlooked when it comes to regulatory and legislative policies. However, what we may lack in highly paid lobbyists, highly funded political action committees, and highly mad tea-parties, we can make up for in creativity, passion, and numbers. Please take a moment to let USCIS know we are out there, we care, and we count.

If possible please send us a copy of what you send USCIS so we can keep track of the responses.

Thanks!