Welcome to the third issue of The Globe for the year.
Our lead item, by Juliet Boyd, Chair of the International and Immigration Law Section Council deals with the Continuing Legal Education program “Presenting an Asylum Case: Tips for Trial and Judicial Review” on November 11, 2005.
Other International and Immigration Section Council contributions in this issue include: “When the Client’s Testimony Goes Beyond What the Asylum Application Describe: Adverse Credibility, or Consistent Support?” by Shannon M. Jackson, Section Council Secretary; “Seventh Circuit Interprets Notice Requirement with Regard to Removal Hearing and Motion to Reopen Such Hearings” by member Pradip Sahu; and “Reform of the United Nations” from member Cindy Buys.
Christopher Scott Maravilla is a Legal Advisor with the Federal Aviation Administration in Washington, D.C. His submission is, “International Practitioner’s Deskbook Series: Joint Ventures in the International Arena, Darrell Prescott and Salli A. Swartz, Eds.” This review of reference material is very beneficial to practitioners. This is the second article that Mr. Maravilla has contributed.
Yevgeniy Tregubenko and Maxim Savostianov are both officed in Moscow and submitted “The New Currency Control Regulations in Russia.”
Alen Takhsh, a second year law student at The John Marshall Law School in Chicago provided, “Unaccompanied Immigrant Children: The Problem,” the first in a two-part series.
Gabrielle M. Buckley is with Vedder, Price, Kaufman & Kammholz, PC in Chicago. She submitted “Business Immigration Law Update.”
“It’s a Small World After All” was prepared by Robyn Donaldson, who is in her final year of study at The John Marshall Law School.
Thanks to all of you who contributed to this issue. We always appreciate receiving articles from our Section Council membership. If you are not a member, I would encourage you to become one by visiting www.isba.org.
Lewis F. Matuszewich
Matuszewich, Kelly & McKeever, LLP
Telephone: (772) 279-8787;
Facsimile (773) 279-8872
E-mail: lmatuszewich@mkm-law.com
On November 11, 2005 the International and Immigration Law Section Council will host two dynamic programs, certain to bring together our members for a day of learning and discussion. The Section Council is co-sponsoring a seminar on Asylum law featuring the Honorable Judge Wood, Justice of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In addition, we will separately host a presentation by Dr. Robert Briner, Chair of the Court of International Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce.
The keynote speaker for the Asylum Law CLE seminar, Judge Diane Wood, will share her perspective from the bench on the many important opinions in which she has participated in the area of asylum law. In addition to Judge Diane Wood, we have an impressive list of speakers: Judge Hon. Robert D. Vinikoor is a well known immigration judge at the Executive Office for Immigration Review in Chicago and is also an adjunct professor, at Loyola University Chicago School of Law. Sheila McNulty, Assistant U.S. Attorney will provide a government and appellate lawyers perspective to these cases. Patrick M. Kinnally, of Kinnally, Krentz, Loran, Hodge & Herman of Aurora is a practitioner and adjunct professor at the Northern Illinois University School of Law. Finally, Scott D. Pollock, of Scott D. Pollock & Associates P.C., will review of recent notable decisions affecting asylum and immigration law. The Asylum Law CLE seminar will take place at 9:00 a.m. on November 11, 2005 at the Chicago regional office of the International and Immigration Law Section Council.
Later in the day Dr. Briner will discuss current issues in International Chamber of Commerce Arbitration (ICC). The International Chamber of Commerce is a prominent international business organization that champions the rights of international business groups and individuals. Dr. Briner, based in Geneva, Switzerland, is an expert in international commercial arbitration and international contract and business law. Dr. Briner will discuss the alternative dispute resolution services which the ICC provides the international business community. We encourage all our section members to attend this free presentation. The presentation by Dr Briner will take place at the ISBA Chicago regional office on November 11, 2005 at 3 p.m. - 4 p.m. There is no charge for the presentation, however, we ask attendees to register for the program with Tracy Potter at tpotter@isba.org or by faxing 217.525.9063.
The focus of the programs are different and are intended to address the various interests of our membership in the areas of international business and immigration practice. These programs will also offer our members and other practitioners a chance to share ideas, raise issues, and enjoy one another’s company. We look forward to good participation at both seminars.
Juliet Boyd, Chair
International and Immigration Law Section Council
Partner at Richardson, Stasko, Boyd & Mack LLC, and may be reached at jboyd@rsbmlaw.com
The Seventh Circuit has added to its string of recent cases addressing the careful standards the Court expects all applicants, counselors, and Immigration Judges (IJ’s) to conform to when faced with a claim for asylum. Most recently, the Court addressed a common issue: Whether an applicant’s testimony to events not included on the written asylum application automatically calls for an adverse credibility finding.
The asylum practitioner is faced with this issue on many occasions. Many clients come to a lawyer only after they have filed an asylum application. Sometimes, it is too late to amend the application, and the attorney is faced with bringing the threadbare description of events on the application to life at the merits hearing. Other times, the client will surprise the attorney, and testify to things the attorney has not heard before and that are not on the application. (and this can happen despite thorough preparation with the client before the merits hearing!)
In the very recent case of Ssali v. Gonzales, No. 03-3567 & 04-2148 (decided Sept. 14, 2005), the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals (7th Circuit) granted a Petition for Review of the denial of an asylum claim based on an adverse credibility finding. The case revolved around “discrepancies” between the applicant’s testimony and his asylum application.
Fred Ssali was an applicant from Uganda who claimed in his asylum application, which was prepared without the assistance of an attorney, that he was tortured and detained without trial by Ugandan soldiers, and that he feared torture and future persecution if forced to return. See Ssali v. Gonzales, Nos. 03-3567 & 04-2148, p. 2-3. On the written application form, Mr. Ssali checked the boxes that identified his grounds for this fear as (1) his membership in a particular social group and (2) his political opinion. Ssali, at p.2. Mr. Ssali elaborated that he was strongly opposed to the one-party system in his home country, and that was suspected to be an anti-government conspirator. Id. For these reasons, he feared being subjected to torture if he returned to Uganda. Id. at p. 2-3.
Mr. Ssali next identified himself on the application as a member of the Human Rights Africa group, and said that he was opposed to what he perceived as the Ugandan government’s human rights violations. Id. at p. 3. His application also mentioned a brother, Ben Jjuko, who was a member of the Uganda Freedom Movement, a guerilla military group, that was tortured and detained without trial. Id.
In his oral testimony at the merits hearing, Mr. Ssali gave more elaborate descriptions of his past persecution and the circumstances surrounding it. He explained that he had once been kidnapped from his dormitory room at university and taken to a camp where he was beaten, kicked, and forced to kneel for extended periods. Id. Mr. Ssali attributed this treatment to his captors’ perception that he was associated with members of the Allied Democratic Front, another paramilitary organization. Id. He described a second incident whereby he was kidnapped from a bus on which he was traveling, again due to suspected ties to the ADF. Id. at p. 4.
Mr. Ssali’s testimony then revealed that he was a member of the Democratic Party in Uganda, as was his father. Id. at p. 4. Mr. Ssali noted his father had been questioned about Mr. Ssali’s whereabouts after his departure from Uganda, something he also did not mention on his asylum application. Id. On cross-examination, Mr. Ssali also stated that he had two sisters and one brother, but on direct examination he stated that he had no siblings. Id. at p. 4-5. He further testified on cross examination that he had an uncle named Ben Jjuko who was killed in 1998, while in his asylum application he said that his brother was named Ben Jjuko. Id. at p. 5.
The Immigration Judge (IJ) found that the incidents of kidnapping described by Mr. Ssali rose to the level of persecution. Id. However, the IJ denied Mr. Ssali’s application for asylum because he believed there were “significant omissions or discrepancies” between Mr. Ssali’s written application and his oral testimony. Id. For example, the application mentions Mr. Ssali’s membership in the group Human Rights Africa, but he did not discuss it in his testimony. Id. Further, Mr. Ssali described his uncle Ben Jjuko’s detention and torture in his application, but did not mention it in his direct testimony. Id. at p. 6. Instead, during cross, Mr. Ssali testified that he had a brother named Ben Jjuko who had met that terrible fate. Id.
The BIA accepted the IJ’s adverse credibility finding, asserting that there was “evidence… that [Mr. Ssali] significantly embellished his asylum claim by the time of the hearing to the point where we are unable to ascertain what is truthful.” Id. at p. 6, quoting Administrative Record (A.R.) at p. 82. The BIA focused on the fact that Mr. Ssali contradicted himself as to whether Mr. Jjuko was his brother or his uncle, and that Mr. Ssali failed to mention his Democratic Party membership in his application and failed to describe the details of his two detentions. Id. at p. 7. In questioning his membership in the Democratic Party, the BIA also mistakenly stated that Mr. Ssali was from eastern Uganda and not southern Uganda as the record shows. Id.
In its decision, the 7th Circuit first noted the BIA’s mistake regarding Mr. Ssali’s geographic origins, calling it “very significant” and suggesting “the BIA was not aware of the most basic facts of Mr. Ssali’s case” and therefore that the BIA’s decision was deprived of a rational basis. Id. at p. 12. The Court went on to say that the “discrepancies” between Mr. Ssali’s application and testimony were not significant; in fact, the Court found that the events Mr. Ssali described were consistent with his application, and supported it. Id. at p. 13.
For example, although Mr. Ssali did not specifically state on the application that he was a member of the Democratic Party, he did write that he criticized Uganda’s one-party dictatorship and that he feared the government suspected him as “a collaborator with ant[i]-government personnel.” Id. at p. 12, quoting A.R. 360.
Additionally, the BIA thought that Mr. Ssali’s failure to include the incident where an unknown person approached his father, asking about Mr. Ssali’s whereabouts adversely affected his credibility. Id. at p. 13. Again, the 7th Circuit insists that when an applicant testifies to something that is consistent with the application, even if it was not specifically set forth in the application, that testimony serves to support the claim, and does not impact the applicant’s credibility. Id.
Mr. Ssali’s assertion that Ben Jjuko was his uncle during his testimony, while he stated in his application that Mr. Jjuko was his brother, seemed “merely peripheral” to the 7th Circuit. Id. at p. 14. The central issue in Mr. Ssali’s claim was his persecution on account of his political opinion, not whether Mr. Jjuko was his uncle or his brother. Id. Therefore, it should not have adversely impact his credibility.
Mr. Ssali’s case is not unusual. Many asylum applicants are traumatized when they first arrive in the U.S., and details surrounding traumatic events can be blurred. By the time the merits hearing begins, many asylees have had an opportunity for counseling and time to reflect on the past, which may lead to testimony about events not specifically set forth in the application.
On the other hand, it takes so long for applicants to get to the merits hearing stage, that many details such as dates, names, and times, may have escaped the client’s memory. It is always important to carefully review the application and supporting documents with the client prior to the hearing, and to practice the types of questions they may be asked. But the fact of the matter is, your client will always surprise you, and in those instances, the practitioner need only emphasize that the newly revealed information is consistent with the claim and should be considered favorably, at least according to the 7th Circuit.
__________
Shannon M. Jackson, a graduate of The John Marshal Law School, currently practices with the Law Offices of John Z. Huang & Associates in Chicago. She is Secretary of the International & Immigration Law Section.
On August 26, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit handed down its ruling in Sabir v. Gonzales, XX NE2d XX. This case is a good example of the procedural complexities in immigration matters. The main issues interpreted were the notice requirements under the Immigration Act for removal proceedings and for motions to reopen such proceedings. The appellate court clarified the two different notice requirements using a succinct statutory analysis.
Sabir was a foreign national who overstayed his visitor’s visa by three and one half years. After the USCIS discovered this, Sabir was personally served with a Notice to Appear. The notice stated that he would have to appear before an immigration judge at a date to be set at a future time. The immigration court accordingly sent a notice by U.S. mail advising Sabir of the hearing date and location. The envelope containing the notice had the correct name and address, but it was returned as undeliverable and stamped “Attempted – Not Known.” The hearing was held as scheduled without Sabir present, and he was ordered removed in absentia.
The immigration court sent the removal order via U.S. mail as well, but this time the mail was properly received by Sabir. Sabir accordingly filed a motion to reopen the removal hearing based on 8 USC 1229a(b)(5)(c), which allows for rescission of in absentia removal orders if the alien demonstrates that he did not receive notice of the removal proceeding. The immigration judge denied Sabir’s motion, relying on 8 USC 1229(c) which states that proof of attempted delivery to the last address provided by the alien is sufficient to meet notice requirements for a removal hearing. Sabir appealed.
The Seventh Circuit disagreed with the immigration judge’s denial of Sabir’s motion, pointing out that 8 USC 1229(c) pertains to the procedures in removal hearings but not motions to reopen such hearings. 8 USC 1229a(b)(5)(c)(ii) provides the appropriate procedural foundation in motions to reopen. According to that provision, an alien may pray for rescission of a removal order if he demonstrates that he “did not receive notice” of such order.
The appellate court construed the term “receive” as used in the statute to mean that the alien must have actually received the notice. Attempted delivery was not sufficient. However, the court placed a limit on the actual notice requirement: An alien should not be able to make himself unreachable, and then later ask to have his case reopened because he did not receive actual notice.
In the Seventh Circuit’s opinion, the immigration judge’s initial determination that attempted delivery was sufficient to order an in absentia removal of the alien was correct under the statute pertaining to removal. However, once Sabir demonstrated that he did not receive actual notice of the hearing, Sabir met his burden under the provision regarding rescission of orders. Because the USCIS did not put forward adequate evidence showing that Sabir tried to make himself unreachable, the immigration judge should have granted Sabir’s motion and moved forward with the removal hearing.
__________
Pradip Sahu is an attorney with Northwestern University’s Office of Research and a member of the International and Immigration Law Section Council. He can be reached at pradip@sahu.com.
This year, the United Nations celebrates its 60th anniversary. As with any anniversary, the United Nations’s 60th anniversary has been a time for reflection: a time to assess what the United Nations has done well and what it has not done so well.
In the fall of 2003, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan used this upcoming anniversary as an opportunity to challenge the Members of the U.N. to find ways to make the organization more effective. He convened a high-level panel of eminent persons to create a shared comprehensive plan as to how to proceed with respect to the critical issues facing the U.N. That panel became known as the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change. The Secretary General tasked the High-Level Panel with three challenges: (1) assessing current threats to international peace and security; (2) evaluating how existing policies and institutions have done in addressing those threats; and (3) making recommendations for strengthening the U.N. so it can provide collective security for all in the 21st century.
The High-Level Panel issued its report and recommendations in December 2004. Its recommendations included:
(1) Adoption of a broader, more comprehensive concept of collective security which recognizes that the interconnectedness of contemporary threats to security such as terrorism, civil war, and poverty.
(2) Increasing preventive efforts to prevent threats from emerging rather than responding to threats after the fact.
(3) Adopting clearer criteria for the use of force, including reaching an agreement on the definition of terrorism.
(4) Reforming the institutions of the U.N., including expansion of membership in the Security Council from 15 members to 24 members.
(5) Creating a new intergovernmental body to be known as the Peacebuilding Commission to deal with post-conflict peacebuilding.
(6) Reforming the Human Rights Commission.
While the High-Level Panel was carrying out its work, calls for reform of the United Nations’ bodies and procedures grew in light of the developing oil-for-food scandal in Iraq and the sex scandals involving U.N. peacekeepers in Africa. Kofi Annan responded to all of these developments with his own report in March 2005, entitled “In Larger Freedom.” The Member States of the United Nations then took both those reports and recommendations and began discussing what aspects of reform they could agree upon. The negotiations were to be finalized at the World Summit of Heads of State held at the U.N. Headquarters in New York from September 14-16, 2005.
On the eve of the summit, the negotiators issued a Draft Outcome Document outlining the results of their negotiations. The Document reaffirmed the commitment of the Members to the U.N. Millennium Development Goals, including the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger, achievement of universal primary education by 2015, increasing resources to combat HIV/AIDS, reducing infant mortality; promoting gender equality, and ensuring environmental sustainability. However, much of the final language of the Draft Outcome Document is vague and aspirational rather than containing concrete commitments for reform. Negotiators were unable to reach any agreement with respect to reform of the Security Council or agreement on a definition of terrorism.
Despite the overall lack of agreement on many of the proposed reforms, there were a few concrete commitments that did emerge from the summit. First, the Members endorsed the creation of a “standing Police Capacity to provide coherent effective and responsive start-up capability for the policing component of the UN peacekeeping missions and to assist existing missions.”
Second, the Member States also decided to establish a Peacebuilding Commission as an intergovernmental body to bring together all relevant actors to marshal resources and to advise on and propose integrated strategies for post-conflict peacebuilding and recovery. The Peacebuilding Commission is to begin its work no later than 31 December 2005. The Members further requested that the Secretary General establish a Peacebuilding Fund for post-conflict peacebuilding to be funded by voluntary contributions and a peacebuilding support staff. Similarly, the Members agreed to establish a Democracy Fund, also to be funded by voluntary contributions.
Third, the Members resolved to strengthen the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights by doubling its budget over the next five years and requiring more regular and streamlined communication between that office and other U.N. bodies, such as the U.N. Security Council.
Fourth, the Members resolved to create a new Human Rights Council, which would become one of the principal organs of the U.N. alongside the Security Council and the General Assembly. This elevation of human rights issues is certainly welcome, but the negotiators’ failure to agree on any details is disappointing. The current Human Rights Commission only meets six weeks of the year and has 53 members who are selected based on geographic representation. Six weeks has proven to be an inadequate amount of time to deal with human rights crises that occur year-round. And selection of members based solely on geographic representation without taking into account the human rights records of those members has led to a decrease in the effectiveness and credibility of the Human Rights Commission. As a result, Secretary General Kofi Annan had recommended the creation of a smaller, standing body. Unfortunately, the Members provided no guidance as to the size or membership of the new Human Rights Council, instead leaving those issues to be resolved at a later date by the General Assembly.
Overall, the results of the summit are disappointing to those who wished for more broad-based and concrete reforms to address perceived inefficiencies and failures of the U.N. system. However, the agreements that were reached are a step in the right direction. Perhaps the momentum created by the summit will carry the organization forward one small step at a time toward a more efficient and effective future.
__________
Cindy G. Buys is an Assistant Professor of Law at the Southern Illinois University School of Law where she teaches a variety of international law courses, as well as constitutional law. Prior to joining the SIU faculty in 2001, Professor Buys spent ten years in the public and private practice of international law in Washington, D.C. Professor Buys also is a section council member of the International and Immigration Law Section of the ISBA and on the Board of the UNA, Southern Illinois Chapter.
Joint Ventures in the International Arena is the second in the American Bar Association’s International Law Section’s International Practitioner’s Deskbook Series which aims to publish practitioner oriented guides on frequently arising issues in international practice. These books also serve as the textbooks for the International Practitioner’s Workshop Series at the Section’s annual meeting. Darrell Prescott, at the time of publication, was chair of the Section of International Law Publications Board and a partner at Coudert Brothers, and Salli A. Swartz was editor of the Section-published International Law News and a partner at Phillips, Giraud, Naud & Swartz in Paris. Joint Ventures is divided into six chapters each individually written by prominent practitioners in the area of cross border transactions. The book concludes with an Appendix comprised of: (A) Checklist for Joint Venture Agreements, (B) Sample Joint Venture Agreement, (C) Sample Corporate Joint Venture Agreement, (D) Sample Real Estate Joint Venture Agreement, and (E) a sample Agreement of Formation and Activities of Joint Venture in the Form of a Limited Liability Partnership. It concludes with an entire chapter dedicated to practical issues and guidance on international joint ventures including discussions on doing business in Europe, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and China. Some of the topics addressed in this chapter are choosing a partner, getting into the country (i.e. obtaining work permits, choice of local counsel, and banking issues), operating the joint venture, and ending the joint venture when necessary.
The overview chapter provides a working definition of a joint venture and discusses the most frequently raised legal issues in executing one. A joint venture or “strategic alliance” is defined herein as “a joint undertaking by two existing businesses in which they share risk (that is, loss and liabilities), profits, and control and/or management.” The author also provides an alternative definition, far looser than her own, that a joint venture is “’a business established by two or more parties to achieve a specific purpose. The business should share resources and not merely be a monetary investment. . . . A joint venture does not necessarily mean a jointly managed company. Either or both parties may form the management.’” More recently, there have been variations in the structure of joint ventures including reciprocal or “cross” ventures, multiparty joint ventures, “truncated” joint ventures, forward integration, backward integration, and multi-stage joint ventures. Generally, a new entity such as a corporation or limited liability partnership is formed to conduct the actual business of the joint venture. The new entity will enter into agreements with the joint venturers for intellectual propert, capital in the form of loans, and distribution and sale agreements for the products manufactured by the new entity. These agreements are typically attached to the master agreement as exhibits. This chapter also raises the legal and business issues associated with forming a joint venture. The form of entity that the joint venture will take is important for tax planning and local law may also impact the form of the entity. The financing must also be determined. The term of the joint venture should take “exit strategies” into consideration in the event the project is unsuccessful. Often the term is either arbitrary in years or left indefinite but there are strategic goals such as profitability and performance set in which if not met the joint venture will terminate. Finally, transfer of ownership interests must be addressed in the final agreement. Some of the types of restrictions used are rights of first refusal, right of first offer, drag-along rights, tag-along rights, Russian roulette, and options/forced sales.
Chapter 2 deals with joint venture governance. A high percentage of joint ventures fail partly because it is difficult to control a foreign joint venture in practical terms. Even if clauses are written into the agreement to insure control, the local partner may not abide by them, and litigation can be protracted and sour the relationship. The author of this chapter emphasizes the importance of choosing a partner wisely. This chapter goes on to discuss majority and minority ownership of the joint venture’s corporate entity. Finally, the author concludes with practical advice on how to resolve deadlocks including discussions with higher level authority figures and even a buy-out agreement.
Chapter 3 addresses the tax considerations in the United States when forming an international joint venture. The common goals of structuring the transaction in light of United States tax considerations are to reduce the overall tax rate so that the burden is no higher than that of the locality, to derive sufficient foreign income to avail the new entity of available foreign tax credits, prevent the disallowance of interest deductions by balancing loans, and avoid reallocation of income by tax authorities. These tax considerations will impact on the decision of what type of corporate vehicle to use. In other words, should the new entity be a corporation incorporated in the home country or a form of partnership? Another consideration is whether the new entity will be deemed a Controlled Foreign Corporation (CFC) by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. Subpart F of Section 482 of the Internal Revenue Code states:
A foreign corporation is a CFC if one or more U.S. shareholders hold more than 50 percent of the total combined voting power of the stock of the corporation, or more than 50 percent of the total value of the stock of the corporation.
The idea behind this addition to Subpart F is to deal with the problem of foreign-based companies being used as accumulation centers for offshore trading and financing used by US shareholders to take advantage of low or zero tax rates in foreign jurisdictions. The would-be joint venture should also be structured to take into consideration transfer pricing regulations. The regulations issued pursuant to Section 482 in 1994 attempt to prevent profits among related entities to be shifted outside of US tax jurisdiction. Chapter 3 continues with discussions on foreign tax credits, utilizing partnerships to avoid subpart F income, and the tax aspects of unwinding an international joint venture. Finally, this chapter concludes with a discussion of some of the common pitfalls practitioners encounter with joint ventures and US taxation.
Chapter 4, entitled The Regulation of Joint Ventures by Competition Authorities in the United States and Europe, concerns the US antitrust law and EU competition law as they impact the formation of a joint venture. The chapter is divided into two parts. The first covers the US approach to regulating joint ventures in light of antitrust laws. The second part addresses the same issues, but with regards to regulation by the European Union. Both positions are thoroughly analyzed and by comparing and contrasting the theoretical approaches by both the US and the EU. For this reason, this is the single chapter of the book that may be of interest outside of the practitioner community. As the authors of this chapter observe at the outset, US and EU authorities can not only block corporate mergers, but also have the power to “block more malleable cooperative activity between competitors.” In other words, joint ventures are also subject to antitrust and anti-competition authorities. Both the US and EU support the pro-competitive and efficiency benefits that joint ventures offer including lowering prices and brining new products to market. However, regulators in both the US and EU are wary of the darker side of joint ventures. Some of the specific concerns of regulators are price fixing, output restrictions, market allocation, and the creation of monopolies and oligopolies. In some instances, albeit rare, the US and EU authorities’ rationales for blocking or not blocking a particular transaction may be at odds. Is blocking the merger designed to achieve lower prices and a higher quality product for consumers or protect an existing industry? Because of this theoretical divergence, regulators have taken a more flexible approach to analyzing the impact of joint ventures on competitiveness in the marketplace.
The US regulatory approach follows Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, and the Clayton Act. Thus, pursuant to decisions by the US Supreme Court, interpreting section 1 of the Sherman Act, unreasonable restraints on trade will be prohibited. The EU takes a similar approach to the United States. The European Commission, pursuant to its Merger Regulation requires that all concentrations touching the EU be identifies to the Commission. The Commission takes two approaches to analyzing joint ventures distinguishing between those that are “concentrative” and those that are “cooperative.” A joint venture that is deemed concentrative is considered not to pose a risk of anticompetitive behavior. A concentrative joint venture “does not give rise to the possibility that the parent companies will coordinate their competitive behavior in the joint venture’s market or in a market closely related to the joint venture’s market.” A cooperative joint venture, in contrast, will address those “situations where the parent companies remain active in the market after establishing the joint venture, and thus run the risk of coordinating their competitive behavior.” The practical result of this distinction is that cooperative joint ventures are subject to additional scrutiny under both Article 2(3) and Article 2(4) of the Merger Regulation whereas concentrative joint venture is only subject to regulation under Article 2(3).
Finally, chapter 5 lays out the regulatory considerations in forming and managing an international joint venture pursuant to the applicable international trade laws. These include in-bound and out-bound trade issues such as antidumping and countervailing duties, international compliance issues, and additional issues related to market access. Counsel must also be prepared to advise the potential joint venture on the application of export controls under US law and any economic sanctions restricting business in a country. The US Departments of State, Commerce and the Treasury administer the following laws: The Arms Export Control Act and the International Traffic-in-Arms Regulations (ITARs), The Export Administration Act and the Export Administration Regulations, and any trade and investment embargoes regulated by the Treasury Department that may be in effect at the time the joint venture is contemplated. If the joint venture at issue will concern defense, national security, technology or a country subject to US or UN sanctions, counsel should carefully review these laws and their accompanying regulations.
Joint Venture in the International Arena, thus, is an invaluable resource for practitioners. Practitioners will find this book as an excellent tool to be consulted at the outset of a contemplated international joint venture to identify the issues and authorities that may come into play. Moreover, those new to cross-border transactions will enjoy this book as a primer on putting together a joint venture of this kind. Academicians will likely find this work lacking in sufficient detail and theoretical construct to understand the international joint venture beyond merely putting together the transaction. However, as discussed at the outset of this review, the intended audience is intentionally limited to practitioners and students with an interest in international transactions. With that stated aim, the book is a remarkable success as are the others in this acclaimed series. If you are working in this area of law or wish to work in this area of law, Joint Ventures will serve as an excellent addition to your library.
__________
Christopher Scott Maravilla is Legal Adviser in the Federal Aviation Administration in Washington D.C. and a former clerk to Justice Wainwright of the Texas Supreme Court. He may be reached as cmaravilla@hotmail.com.
Introduction
The new Law on Currency Control (hereinafter - “the Law”) was adopted by the State Duma (the lower house of the Parliament) on 21 November 2003. The new law has replaced the old one, which was in force since 1992. The Law introduces significant changes to the currency control, and has substantial impact on business development in Russia. The law governs questions relevant to transactions with foreign currency and internal/external payments. The new Law is a part of on-going economic and legislative reforms which aim is to make business “à la russe” more transparent. In addition, Russia wishes to become a WTO member, which requires from Russian authorities to comply with international standards and custom, and introduce further changes to tax, foreign trade, and investment laws.
New Approach
The law imposes a direct ban on the establishment by the currency control authorities of any requirement for residences and non-residence to obtain individual permits and limits the scope for advance registration requirements for the opening of bank accounts outside Russia by residents and certain imports and exports of Russian currency and internal securities in documentary form. Due to the cancellation of permits, currency control is to be performed through reservation, the preliminary registration of an account or the use of special accounts for certain categories of currency transactions. The law establishes the temporary nature of the regime for reservation and the use of special accounts.
The new Law fundamentally changes the approach to currency regulation in Russia. In the past, all currency operations except those expressly specified in the law and Central Bank regulations were subject to prior licensing by the Central Bank, i.e. the currency regime was based on the principle that everything is subject to the Central bank licensing requirements unless specifically permitted. Under the new Law, the Central Bank licensing requirement has been abolished and currency transactions between residents and non-residents may be conducted without restrictions, unless otherwise required by the Law, i.e. the new currency control regime is based on the principle that everything is permitted unless specifically restricted by the Law.
Some of the positive changes follow along the lines of reforms to the Russian tax system in recent years. For example, the Law provides for that currency legislation and regulations, which establish new obligations for residents and non-residents or worsen their position may not have retroactive force, while the provisions, which improve their position may apply retroactively, if this is stated in the relevant legislation. The law also states that any doubts and contradictions concerning Russian currency legislation, the acts of currency regulation and currency control bodies should be interpreted in favor of residents and non-residents.
Residents/Non-residents
The Law distinguishes “residents,” who are usually Russian incorporated legal entities and Russian citizens, and “non-resident”, legal entities registered outside of Russia, and who are normally not taxable in Russia. Please note that “residents” and “non-resident” terms for tax purposes are somewhat different from “resident” and “non-resident” definitions given in the Law. For example, branches and representative offices of foreign companies in Russia are taxable if they gain profit in Russia, but they are considered as “non-residents” for currency control purposes.
Resident Deposit For Export
Article 7 of the Law contains an exhaustive list of currency transactions for which certain Rubles amounts must be deposited by residents and/or non-residents with a Russian authorized bank, e.g. certain deferred payments for goods, work or services, participation by residents in foreign companies or purchase/sale by non-residents of ruble denominated securities issued in Russia. For example, the Law requires a resident who shipped goods to a non-resident and granted him a payment deferral in excess of 180 days, to deposit 50 percent of the future payment on the date which is 180 days from the date of export transaction until the non-resident actually pays for received goods.
Upper limits for reserve deposit periods are specified, as well as the circumstances in which the deposited amount may be refunded early.
Special accounts
Article 8 of the Law contains an exhaustive list of the currency transactions which must be conducted by residents and non-residents through special accounts, e.g. obtaining and providing loans, payment by residents for securities denominated in foreign currency and purchase/sale of foreign currency. For example, the Central Bank may require from a resident, selling foreign securities to a non-resident, reserve at a special account a sum up to 20 percent of the total amount of the transaction for one year. The good news is that such measures of currency control are intended to have a limited lifespan ceasing from January 1, 2007.
Please note, however, that individuals, Russian residents, may freely without any permission sale/purchase foreign securities traded outside of Russia in the amount up to USD150,000 per calendar year.
Payments within Russia
Settlements between residents must be carried out in Rubles only. The Law provides for an exhaustive list of transactions which may be conducted in foreign currency between residents such as duty free shops, international transportation, securities issued abroad, credits in foreign currency from Russian authorized banks, etc. In general, there is no restriction on payments in foreign currency between non-residents within Russia.
Resident Bank Account Abroad
Residents, individuals and companies, are permitted to open accounts with banks located in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering (FATF) member countries. This provision will come into force from 17 June 2005. In the transition period, from 17 June 2005 through 1 January 2007, residents prior to opening an account abroad must “register” such account, basically by obtaining a consent, with the tax authorities. After 1 January 2007 residents will have only a duty to notify Russian tax authorities about opening/closing its foreign bank accounts within a month. As soon as the account in a foreign bank is opened and duly registered, residents have the right to transfer funds from their accounts in Russia to their accounts abroad and vice versa, however, they must report about all transactions to the Russian tax authority.
Non-Resident Bank Account in Russia
Foreign residents have the right to open a bank account in rubles or any foreign currency with Russian commercial banks and may freely transfer their funds in/out of Russia. They do not require any permission for such transfers.
Cash in/out of Russia
Residents and non-residents may bring cash into Russia without limitation. They may take up to USD3 000 in cash out of Russia without declaring it at the customs, and with a customs declaration maximum up to USD10 000. It is not obligatory to submit documents to customs authorities confirming that the foreign currency in question had been previously brought in, transferred to or legitimately purchased in Russia. Foreign currency cash in excess of US$10,000 can be taken out of Russia if it has been brought into Russia earlier and declared at the customs according to the relevant procedures.
Currency operations between residents and non-residents that are not covered in Articles 7, 8 and 11 of the new law may be carried out without any restriction. This apparently means, for example, that resident physical persons have the right to carry out without restriction currency operations not associated with the transfer of assets and the rendering of services in Russian territory using the funds which have been transferred in accordance with the new law to the accounts held with the banks outside of Russia. This will also apply to resident legal entities, with the exception of currency transactions where both parties to the operation are residents (i.e., one of the parties should be a non-resident).
Reporting
Payments in foreign currency to a non-resident outside of Russia, for example, a international purchase/sale agreement, are subject to mandatory reporting called “passport of a deal,” which contains basic information about the transaction and is to be filed with the resident regular bank.
Mandatory Conversion
Until 1 January 2007 the Law maintains the requirement for mandatory conversion by residents of their foreign currency proceeds into Rubles through authorized banks at the market rate. The foreign proceeds must be sold for Rubles within seven days. The percentage of profit to be converted is set up by the Central Bank of Russia but may not exceed 30 percent of the company’s gross foreign earnings, and, currently is fixed at 25 percent.
Before entering into a transaction, the currency law provisions must be considered as the law provides for severe sanctions. The Currency Law came into force on 17 June 2004, however, some provisions will come into force from 17 June 2005 only, and finally most of existing limitations on conducting currency transactions will be abolished by January 2007.
__________
Mr. Tregubenko is an attorney at law licensed in New York, Norway and Russia. He holds LLM degree from the University of Texas at Austin Law School, Ph.D in law from St. Petersburg State University, and LLM degree from the University of Paris. He is currently a senior associate of Selmer law firm (Oslo and Moscow). Mr. Savostyanov is a senior manager of Ernst & Young Moscow office.
I. Introduction
Cesare Pavese, the renowned Italian novelist and poet, once exclaimed that, “One stops being a child when one realizes that telling one’s trouble does not make it any better.” The weight of atrocities that unaccompanied immigrant children endure in their native countries initiates their emotional and psychological death long before they set foot on American soil. However, it is the United States immigration system, whose protection these children desperately seek, which often lands the final blow. The majority of immigrant children, including the instant author, are fortunate, because they pass through the gates of immigration along with their parents. Despite the various struggles that a family leaves behind, it is the father’s calming presence and the mother’s soothing voice that reassure a child that there are no insurmountable obstacles in this world. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about the experiences of unaccompanied immigrant children: these children often face persecution in their native countries, become separated from their families, then, they somehow find themselves on American soil only to face further humiliation and abuse.
II. Reasons For Displacement
It is precisely due to their “unaccompanied” status that these children face persecution in their native countries. For instance, Salvadoran street children flee from gangs, Indian child laborers escape from slavery-like status, Chinese children flee from forced marriages and Honduran children escape widespread child abuse.1 The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees [hereinafter “UNHCR”] and the United Nations General Assembly [hereinafter “UNGA] have expressed great concern over the plight of these separated children. Specifically, UNHCR has noted that refugee children “are often exposed to armed conflict, and lack of access to food, water, shelter and basic health care,” while being especially vulnerable to manipulation, forced military recruitment and exposure to HIV.2 UNGA has also reiterated that unaccompanied refugee minors are “among the most vulnerable refugees and the most at risk of neglect, violence, forced military recruitment and sexual assault.”3
III. Statistics On Unaccompanied Minors
Unaccompanied immigrant children comprise nearly five percent of any given refugee population in the world, or approximately 500,000 individuals.4 However, despite their substantial number, unescorted children appearing at ports of entry were rarely considered to be subjects of independent asylum applications.5 In the past ten years, the number of unaccompanied children seeking asylum in industrialized countries has grown exponentially.6 For instance, in 1998 Ireland faced two unaccompanied children seeking asylum, as supposed to 868 in 2003. In 1996 the Netherlands experienced an equally stark surge of 1,562 unaccompanied immigrant children as compared to 6,705 in 2003. Additionally, Great Britain experienced a six-fold increase in the number of unescorted children seeking asylum from 1997 to 2003.7 In the United States, the majority of unaccompanied children seeking asylum are from Latin America and China and are unable to speak English.8 The average age of unaccompanied immigrant children in the United States is 15, but officials have encountered children as young as eighteen months old.9
IV. Conditions In Detention Facilities
Unlike most other countries, which adhere to UNHCR guidelines suggesting alternatives to detention, the United States has detained children anywhere from three months to three years old.10 During this time, these children are usually housed in juvenile detention facilities or facilities intended for adult criminals.11 There are numerous accounts of unaccompanied immigrant children having been severely beaten by immigration officials, housed with adult criminals, denied human contact while in detention and beaten with sticks.12 In 1998, Human Rights Watch found that United States’ policies did not comply with International human rights standards:
[O]ne-third of children in INS detention are placed in secure detention centers for juvenile offenders. Often held with youth detained for committing violent crimes, they are denied personal possessions and held in a severely restricted, punitive environment... handcuffed during transport, [and] strip searched... [C]hildren in INS custody do not receive adequate legal information or representation and are transferred without the knowledge of their attorneys or families, ... [often] confined for months at a time without direct access to a single person with whom they can converse in their own language.13
Unaccompanied immigrant minors are also subjected to adversarial cross-examination and pressure tactics to drop their asylum claims, because officials often regard their cause to be inherently suspect and unreliable.14 Some children have even been denied release to stay with family members because they are used, in essence, as “bait” to trap their undocumented parents.15
V. Reno v. Flores
In response to the atrocious conditions in juvenile detention facilities, a class-action lawsuit was filed on behalf of any person under the age of 18 detained by the Immigration and Naturalization Service [hereinafter “INS”] challenging the agency’s release policy.16 The Juvenile-Respondents contended that the Constitution of the United States and the Nation’s immigration laws mandated their release into the custody of responsible adults.17 Previously, the INS’ release policy had stated that, “[N]o minor shall be released except to a parent or lawful guardian… [except] in unusual and extraordinary cases.”18 The District Court granted the INS partial summary judgment on the statutory and international law challenges to the release policy.19 The court also granted partial summary judgment in favor of Respondents on their equal protection claim that “the INS had no rational basis for treating alien minors in deportation proceedings any differently from alien minors in exclusion proceedings.”20
The appellate court affirmed the District Court’s decision and the Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to review the issue. The Court examined the language in the uniform deportation-exclusion rule, 8 C.F.R. § 242.24 (1992), published in 1988, and it concluded that the lower court’s decision permitting the release of unaccompanied minors to responsible adults was incorrect, because the regulation in question was in compliance with the United States Constitution.21 In her concurring opinion, Justice O’Connor reiterated that,
[w]here a juvenile has no available parent, close relative, or legal guardian, where the government does not intend to punish the child, and where the conditions of governmental custody are decent and humane, such custody surely does not violate the Constitution. It is rationally connected to a governmental interest in ‘preserving and promoting the welfare of the child and is not punitive since it is not excessive in relation to that valid purpose.22
VI. Flores Agreement
In 1997, pursuant to Flores, the Respondents reached a settlement agreement with INS [hereinafter the “Flores Agreement”], which provided that, “the INS treats, and shall continue to treat, all minors in its custody with dignity, respect and special concern for their particular vulnerability as minors.” 23 The Flores Agreement also provided for, inter alia, safe and sanitary detention facilities, separation of juveniles from unrelated adults, separate transportation of minors, advanced notice to minors’ attorneys prior to relocation, and release from INS custody “without unnecessary delay.”24 Most importantly, “the settlement instituted nationwide procedures allowing unaccompanied minors to be released to any adult who executes an agreement to care for the child and ensures his or her presence at immigration proceedings.”25
__________
This is the first of a two-part article. The solution will be described in the next issue of The Globe.
Alen Takhsh is a second year at The John Marshall Law School. He can be contacted at 5Takhsh@stu.jmls.edu
1. Jacqueline Bhabha, Internationalist Gatekeepers?: The Tension Between Asylum Advocacy and Human Rights, 15 Harv. Hum. Rts. J. 155, 177 (2002).
2. Carolyn J. Seugling, Toward a Comprehensive Response to the Transnational Migration of Unaccompanied Minors in the United States, 37 Vand. J. Transnat’l L. 861, 862 (2004).
3. Id. at 883.
4. Seugling, supra n. 2, at 863.
5. Bhabha, supra n. 1, at 176 .
6. Seugling, supra n. 2, at 861.
7. Id. at 863-64.
8. Id. at 869.
9. Id. at 868-69.
10. Id. at 870.
11. Id. at 871.
12. Id. at 871-73.
13. Areti Georgopoulos, Beyond the Reach of Juvenile Justice: The Crisis of Unaccompanied Immigrant Children Detained by the United States, 23 Law & Ineq. J. 117, 119 (2005) (citing Hum. Rts. Watch, Detained and Deprived of Rights: Children in the Custody of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 10 Hum. Rts. Watch pt. III (1998)).
14. Bhabha, supra n. 1, at 179.
15. Id.
16. Georgopoulos, supra n. 13, at 122.
17. Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 294 (1993).
18. Flores v. Meese, 934 F.2d 991, 994 (9th Cir. 1990).
19. Flores, 507 U.S. at 296.
20. Id.
21. Flores, 507 U.S. at 314.
22. Id. at 319 (citing Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 766 (1982)).
23. Georgopoulos, supra n. 13, at 123 (citation omitted).
24. Id. at 123-24 (citation omitted).
25. Seugling, supra n. 2, at 871 (citation omitted).
H-1B (Specialty Occupation) Visas—Cap Crisis
The H-1B visa allows employers to sponsor a foreign national for a temporary professional position (e.g., engineer, financial analyst, physician, graphic designer, researcher) if the foreign national has at least a bachelor’s degree in the specialized field normally required for the position. However, only 65,000 new H-1B visas are available in the U.S. for each fiscal year, and on August 12, 2005, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced that it had reached maximum capacity. Except in very limited circumstances, no new H-1B petitions will be accepted until April 1, 2006, for a start date of October 1, 2006. Foreign nationals already in the U.S. on H-1B status may continue to change employers or extend their stay regardless of whether the cap is reached.
An important recent change in the law adds 20,000 H-1B visas for persons who have earned a master’s degree or higher from a U.S. college or university. Also, a new E-3 visa category enables Australian nationals in specialty occupations to work in the U.S. despite the cap. Steep new filing fees of $1,500/$750 per employee (payable by employer) now apply, in addition to the regular $185 filing fee and new one-time $500 antifraud fee.
L-1 (Intracompany Transferee) Visas—New Restrictions
The L-1 visa enables a U.S. employer to transfer to this country a foreign national who is currently employed by a foreign parent, subsidiary, branch or affiliate company. The foreign national can be transferred to the related U.S. company temporarily in a managerial or executive capacity or in a position that requires specialized knowledge of the multinational company. Effective June 6, 2005, all L-1 applicants must have worked at least one full year at a related company abroad, without exception for Blanket L beneficiaries. A new $500 antifraud fee applies to each new L-1 petition filed after March 8, 2005.
Changes to Permanent “Green Card” Certification Program
On March 28, 2005, a new and supposedly faster labor certification process called “PERM” went into effect for sponsoring foreign national employees for permanent residence (“green card”) status. PERM requires employers to test the job market before filing a permanent labor certification application. Employers will be subject to audit for up to five years after an application is approved. The PERM process anticipates approval or denial of an application within 45 to 60 days of filing. However, the U.S. Department of Labor has approximately 350,000 applications on file which it is adjudicating through its “backlog reduction” centers.
Machine-Readable Passport Requirement at U.S. Borders
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security now requires persons traveling to the United States without a visa under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) to present a machine-readable passport (MRP). MRPs have two optical-character typeface lines at the bottom of the passport’s biographic page to discourage fraud and confirm the passport holder’s identity.
Visa Waiver travelers seeking to enter the U.S. for business or tourist visits who do not have an MRP may apply for a nonimmigrant visa at a U.S. embassy or consulate in the following countries: Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brunei, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Singapore, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and United Kingdom.
Passport Requirement Awaits Travelers in the Western Hemisphere
By January 1, 2008, travelers to and from the United States, the Caribbean, Bermuda, Panama, Mexico and Canada must have a passport or other acceptable document to enter or reenter the United States. This will apply to all U.S. citizens entering the United States from Western Hemisphere countries and to certain foreign nationals who currently do not need a passport to travel to the United States. This requirement will be phased in on a country-by-country basis, but employers should encourage their representatives to apply now for passports if they are currently traveling on birth certificates or other documents.
Pending Legislation
Several bills proposing major immigration law reform have been introduced in the U.S. Congress. Some of these bills highlight increased enforcement; others address undocumented workers and workplace protections. Clearly, new legislation is needed to meet the need for more H 1B visas. Ideally, Congress should reinstate the 195,000 H 1B visas previously available annually. Concerned employers are encouraged to contact their Congressional representatives to remind them that the ability to hire the best and the brightest, no matter the country of origin, helps keep U.S. businesses competitive.
__________
© Gabrielle M. Buckley is with Vedder, Price, Kaufman & Kammholz, PC, and she may be reached at Tel: 1-312-609-7500 or gbuckley@vedderprice.com
Attorneys in the U.S. are learning everyday that their legal practice is extending beyond the borders of this nation. Everyday unexpected international legal issues are frequently cropping up in domestic cases.
Are most domestic attorneys prepared to assist loyal clients, who want to expand their business to Nairobi, Kenya, or find distributors for U.S. products in Tegucigalpa, Honduras? Should attorneys who are unable to answer their client’s international legal questions turn their clients away, or should they be prepared to have the answers, even if it is not their area of expertise?
Help is just a phone call away.
The U.S. Commercial Service Office, which is part of the United States Department of Commerce (USDOC), has offices in more than 100 U.S. cities and 150 offices in 83 countries. Last year, their offices helped 9,000 small and medium-sized U.S. businesses, export goods and services worth $34 billion dollars. Over 1,700 trade specialists are available to help client’s grow their businesses and increase their knowledge of global markets and industries.
Illinois has four Commercial Service offices, also referred to as Export Assistance Centers (EAC), located in Chicago, Rockford, Highland Park and Peoria. There are seven trade specialists in the Chicago office, who specialize in everything from telecommunications, consumer goods, aerospace, environmental products, food processing, amusement equipment and pharmaceuticals, as well as other industries. The EAC offices provide comprehensive reports concerning market conditions in foreign countries, and best export prospects, and also conduct distributor and international business partnership searches. In addition, the EAC arranges one-on-one appointments with pre-screened business contacts in a targeted export market. These services are ideal for attorneys whose clients are interested in expanding their businesses, in addition to dabbling in foreign investments and international trade.
This summer, the USDOC’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) launched, Notify U.S., a FREE Internet-based service that electronically notifies interested businesses when foreign governments propose regulations that potentially affect U.S. exports. Notify U.S. might prevent attorneys from getting that dreadful call from a panicked client, who informs them that there has been a last-minute change in a technical requirement that delays market entry of their products. Notify U.S. could save attorneys and clients, money and time because it gathers, organizes and disseminates notifications of proposed regulatory changes from 148 countries that are members of the World Trade Organization (WTO).
A common challenge for U.S. Exporters is familiarizing themselves with foreign markets. Another challenge is offering quotes that comply with Incoterms 2000 (International Commercial Terms).
Commercial Service offices are there to assist businesses and attorneys in closing gaps when it comes to the global market and international trade. The Chicago Export Assistance Center houses the U.S. Export-Import Bank that specializes in Export Credit Insurance and Trade Finance Solutions. In addition, the Chicago EAC office houses the Small Business Administration (SBA) office that provides inquiries on Export Working Capital and Export Express Loans.
Attorneys might also consider downloading a free copy of “Don’t Let This Happen to You.” This Introduction to U.S. Export Control Law features recent, real life investigations of export control and anti-boycott violations, as well as other topics that are useful in the current practice of law.
There is more good news!
The Chicago EAC office provides many valuable services FREE of charge.
The world is becoming a much cozier place. It is important that domestic attorneys keep their fingers on the pulse of international legal issues and business. Don’t get caught off guard when a client calls with a pressing international legal issue. Attorneys should familiarize themselves with the resources that are offered at the Export Assistance Office because “it’s a small world after all.”
For more information on the Export Assistance Center in Chicago and other areas of Illinois, visit: <www.buyusa.gov/illinois> or call 312-353-8040.
Other helpful Web sites:
SOURCES
USA Trade World Illinois (Fall 2005)
Follow the Flag to Global Markets
Reach New Customers Worldwide
*All publications are from the U.S. Commercial Service; United States of America, Department of Commerce
__________
Robyn C. Donaldson is a January 2006 Juris Doctor candidate at The John Marshall Law School in Chicago. Currently, she interns at the Export Assistance Center in Chicago. She received her undergraduate degree in Journalism from Florida A & M University. She may be reached at 5donalds@stu.jmls.edu.