Mediaboss Marketing

Using data from data.census.gov, a new CIS Backgrounder examines growth in the nation's immigrant population. That data, from the American Community Survey (ACS), shows that in the first two years of the Trump administration (2017 to 2019), growth in the immigrant population (legal and illegal) averaged only about 200,000 a year, in contrast to 650,000 a year from 2010 to 2017. (See Figure 1.) That Backgrounder also estimated that net migration the difference between the number of immigrants coming vs. leaving averaged 953,000 from 2010 to 2017, but 525,000 from 2017 to 2019. The Census Bureau has now released the public-use file of the ACS, allowing researchers to do more detailed analysis, including estimating in- and out-migration separately. Our analysis of the public-use data indicates that the falloff in net migration was caused by a substantial increase in out-migration in the first part of the Trump administration, as well as a more modest reduction in new arrivals. (All figures are through July 2019 and pre-date the impact of Covid-19.)

Source: American Community Survey 2010 to 2019 from data.census.gov.

The green bars in Figure 2 report the number of immigrants arriving each year based on the 2001 to 2019 ACS. As the ACS reflects the population on July 1 of each year, it is only possible to know how many people arrived during an entire calendar year once the following year's data is released. So, for example, the number of immigrants who arrived in all of 2018 is based on the 2019 ACS and the number arriving for all of 2017 is based on the 2018 ACS and so on. (The arrival numbers are all based on the year of arrival question in the survey.) The half-year arrival numbers shown in the blue bars are based on the survey for the year in which it is shown.

Source: 2001 to 2019 public-use files of the American Community Survey (ACS).

Figure 2 shows that the number of immigrants arriving fell during the Great Recession and then rebounded, peaking at 1.7 million in 2016, the last year of the Obama administration. But in 2017, 1.4 million immigrants arrived and 1.3 million arrived in 2018. Figures for the first half of 2019 indicate that the number of arrivals in 2019 is likely to be similar to 2017 and 2018. Clearly, the slowdown in growth partly reflects a decline in newcomers. It should be pointed out that Figure 2 shows that the unemployment rate of immigrants continued to improve between 2017 and 2018, and yet the number coming fell. As we discussed in our Backgrounder on this data, the decline in immigration almost certainly reflects policy changes, not the economy.

While the arrival data shows a clear decline, the really big change seems to have been in out-migration. Simply put, out-migration is the number of immigrants leaving each year. It is possible to roughly calculate this number by taking new arrivals and subtracting growth and deaths. Performing this calculation indicates that between 2010 and 2017 about 467,000 immigrants left each year on average. But between 2017 and 2019, 975,000 left each year on average.1

While these numbers reflect our best preliminary estimates based on the data, there are some important caveats about them. First, there are margins of error around each of the numbers used for these calculations, whereas our calculations take the point estimates as givens. (See Table 2 for confidence intervals.) Sampling variability can result in significant year-to-year fluctuations. However, calculating outmigration over multiple years should provide more statistically robust estimates. Second, out-migration is calculated for the entire period 2010 to 2017, and there may have been substantial variation during those years. Third, our method for estimating half-year migration for the second half of 2010 and the second half of 2017 are somewhat crude. Even with these caveats, it appears that annual out-migration in the first part of the Trump administration (2017 to 2019) was substantially higher than the average annual rate 2010 to 2017.

While the out-migration figures seem quite high, mathematically out-migration must have increased dramatically. It is the only way to account for the numbers in Figures 1 and 2. The number of deaths does not change much year to year, so the very modest growth (Figure 1) in the face of many new immigrants arriving (Figure 2) can only be explained by high out-migration. The only other possible explanation is some kind of problem with the data. This might take the form of a coding error or perhaps immigrants, or some subpopulation of them, have become less willing to identify themselves in the ACS. But at this point there is no indication this is the case.

Figure 3 reports the number of new immigrants settling in the United States by sending region.2 Table 1 (download as an Excel file, here) reports regions with more detail, and some countries. Figure 3 and Table 1 indicate that immigration declined after 2016 from just about every region and country. The only exception seems to be Central America and to some extent South America.

Source: 2001 to 2019 public-use files of the American Community Survey (ACS).

The biggest takeaway from these numbers, and our larger Backgrounder, is that immigration has slowed even as the economy expanded. We discuss at length in our Backgrounder, some of the policy changes under the Trump administration that seem to have had an impact on immigration levels both in- and out-migration. The new data demonstrates that the notion that immigration operates outside the control of governmental policy is clearly wrong. Even relatively modest policy changes seem to have made a significant difference.

Source: Source: 2001 to 2019 public-use files of the American CommunitySurvey (ACS) and the 2000 decennial census.

Confidence intervals were calculated using parameter estimates usingACS Source and Accuracy statements.

1 To estimate out-migration, we use the following formula: new arrivals (growth + deaths) = out-migration. To estimate new arrivals, we can use the year of arrival information from Figure 2 and Table 1. However, arrival data in the ACS is by calendar year and so does not match growth in the total immigrant population year over year in the ACS. The total population is for July 1 of each year. To make the arrival numbers match the growth figures for 2010 to 2017, we take half of the arrivals from 2010 (to reflect the number coming in the second half of that year) and add it to the number who come 2011 through 2016. We add to this the number who came in the first half of 2017, shown in the blue bar for that year in Figure 2. This sums to 9.942 million arrivals mid-2010 to mid-2017. We perform the same calculation for 2017 to 2019, taking half of the arrivals from 2017, and using the figures for the first half of 2019. Total arrivals mid-2017 to mid-2019 equals 2.999 million. Based on the race, age, and gender of the immigrant population we estimate 2.102 million deaths among the immigrant population 2010 to 2017 and 643,000 2017 to 2019. Finally, growth 2010 to 2017 was 4.57 million and growth 2017 to 2019 was 407,000. Plugging in the numbers for the 2010 to 2017 period, we get: 9.942 million (4.570 million + 2.102 million) = 3.27 million or average out-migration of 467,000 a year. For the period 2017 to 2019, we get: 3 million (.407 million + .643 million) = 1.949 million or average out-migration of 975,000 a year.

2 Regions are defined in the following manner: East Asia: China (including Hong Kong and Taiwan), Japan, Korea, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Mongolia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Other South Central Asia, Other Asia not specified; South Asia: Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka; Caribbean: Antigua and Barbuda, Bermuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Haiti, Jamaica, St. Kitts-Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, West Indies, Caribbean not Specified, Americas not Specified; Central America: Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Other Central America; South America: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Peru, Paraguay, Uruguay, Venezuela, Other South America; Middle East: Afghanistan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, United Arab Emirates, Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Libya, Sudan; Europe: United Kingdom, Ireland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Other Northern Europe, Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland, Other Western Europe, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Albania, Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Russia, Ukraine, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Armenia, Other Southern Europe, Other Eastern Europe, Europe not specified; Sub-Saharan Africa: Cameroon, Cabo Verde, Congo, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Liberia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Democratic Republic of Congo (Zaire), Zambia, Zimbabwe, South Sudan, Western Africa not Specified, Other Africa not Specified, Eastern Africa not Specified; Oceania/Elsewhere: Australia, Fiji, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, New Zealand, Tonga, Samoa, Other U.S. Island Areas, Oceania not Specified, or at Sea, American Samoa. Latin America Other than Mexico includes the regions of Caribbean, Central America and South America.

Read this article:
New Census Bureau Data Indicates There Was a Large Increase in Out-Migration in the First Part of the Trump Administration - Immigration Blog

With the end of the fiscal year, federal agencies have begun publishing their annual reports, including reports on the number of aliens in federalBureau of Prisons (BOP) custody in FY 2019, and final workload totals from Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for FY 2020. One theme runs through each drugs and the ties between immigration and the drug trade.

First, BOP, which is a component of the Department of Justice (DOJ). In accordance with Executive Order13768, "Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States", DOJ and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) are required to provide reports on the number of aliens in the custody of BOP, the U.S. Marshals Service, and in state prisons and local detention throughout the United States.

The resulting report is captioned "Alien Incarceration Report, Fiscal Year 2019", and it is broken down into quarterly totals. With respect to non-federal prisoners and detainees, the report notes: "The lack of comprehensive data on this topic is a noteworthy limitation of this report because state and local facilities account for approximately 90 percent of the total U.S. incarcerated population."

This coincides with a statement that I often make: No one really knows how many aliens let alone illegal aliens have committed crimes, because there is a dearth of data on the immigration status of criminal aliens. But all criminal aliens have committed crimes, by definition, and,in general, re-offend.

Based strictly on the BOP population, however, the statistics are staggering. Looking just at the fourth-quarter data, at the end of that quarter, 27,494 known or suspected aliens were in BOP custody. By way of comparison, as of October 15, 2020, there were a total of 125,905 inmates in BOP custody and an additional 14,013 federal inmates in privately managed facilities, as well as 15,115 federal inmates in other types of facilities (mostly on home confinement and in residential reentry centers, i.e."halfway houses").

Of the number of known or suspected aliens in BOP custody, 72 percent were confirmed to have no immigration status, including 61.7 percent who had been ordered removed, and 10.2 percent who were in removal proceedings. Three percent were here legally and in removal proceedings, and 2.8 percent had been granted relief or protection.

Of the known or suspected aliens in BOP custody at the end of the fourth quarter of FY 2019 with criminal convictions (a small number were in pre-trial detention), more than half (13,727) had committed drug trafficking or other drug-related offenses. Another 5.1 percent had committed fraud and 4 percent committed weapons offenses. Racketeering and continuing criminal enterprise offenses (including murder for hire) were the main offenses committed by an additional 3.7 percent. Sex offenders made up an additional 2 percent.

Just 31 percent were in for immigration-related offenses, such as alien smuggling or illegal reentry after deportation. It is important to note that this would likely not include many (if any) aliens who had been arrested for illegal entry as a first offense under section 275 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, a misdemeanor for which aliens are usually given time served (meaning that they would never come into BOP custody).

Given that most crimes are prosecuted at the state and local levels, the fact that these individuals were serving federal time means that their offenses were particularly serious. This is especially true of the known or suspected aliens with drug convictions. You don't end up in U.S. Penitentiary Allenwood because you got caught on a street corner in Altoona with a nickel bag of dope.

Which brings me to the CBP statistics. In FY 2020, Border Patrol seized 809 pounds of the incredibly lethal narcotic fentanyl, a 258 percent increase over FY 2019 (when agents seized 226 pounds of the drug). As CDC has reported: "Deaths involving illicitly manufactured fentanyl are on the rise." Border Patrol is doing its part to reverse this trend.

Methamphetamine seizures by Border Patrol were also up year-to-year by 44 percent (20,795 pounds as compared to 14,434 pounds), as were cocaine seizures, by 31 percent (15,360 pounds vs. 11,682 pounds).

As I explained in a September post, these increases in drug seizures are likely (at least in part) a function of the fact that, with fewer aliens entering illegally in FY 2020 (400,651 alien apprehensions along the Southwest border, compared to 851,508 in FY 2019), Border Patrol agents were better able to nab smugglers.

Such seizures likely also explain why such a large number of known or suspected aliens in BOP custody have drug convictions. Get caught dealing fentanyl on the streets of Baltimore (which had 692 opioid-related deaths in 2017), you will go to the city jail or state prison (assuming your case doesn't get dropped). Get caught hauling meth over the Southwest border, and you are looking at federal time (and likely to get it).

None of this is to say that aliens are more likely to use or sell drugs within the United States than the general population as a whole. But, of the aliens who end up in federal prison, most have committed some pretty serious drug offenses. And the border is at least one conduit by which those drugs reach the streets of this country to begin with.

Remember for as good as CBP generally and the Border Patrol, in particular, are at catching drug smugglers, they can't stop them all. More and better barriers along the border would help, but that is an argument for another day.

Read more:
End-of-Year Totals on BOP Criminal Aliens, Border Patrol Drug Seizures - Immigration Blog

EL PASO, Texas (Border Report) The federal government has built 109 miles of new or replacement border wall in the El Paso Sector the past couple of years and more is coming.

Dozens of miles of 30-foot steel bollard barrier are rising on empty expanse between Santa Teresa and Columbus, New Mexico and construction is picking up in El Pasos Lower Valley.

Were hoping that by the end of January were done with seven projects. Thatll give us 150 miles of solid, 30-foot steel bollard wall to replace old mesh. Now, thats a barrier because we still have places in Deming (New Mexico) with chain-link, sticks with barbed wire and some vehicle (obstacle), said Border Patrol Sector Chief Gloria I. Chavez.

The work is part of the Trump administrations goal of building or replacing 450 miles of border wall by the end of the year. The construction has taken on added urgency and controversy as the COVID-19 pandemic continues to rage along the border and the Nov. 3 presidential election draws near.

As he did in Tucson, Arizona last week, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Acting Commissioner Mark A. Morgan came to El Paso on Wednesday to pitch the importance of better walls and a firm immigration policy in the era of COVID-19.

In an exclusive interview with Border Report, Morgan said it would be a mistake for any future administration to give up on wall construction or try to reverse Trump administration programs like the Migrant Protection Protocols that stopped the migrant surge from Central America last year and have discouraged further mass migration.

By February of this year, we had reduced illegal immigration by 75%. We went from releasing 230,000 individuals in the U.S. which we never heard from again in Fiscal Year 2019 to (a few thousands) by 2020. We all but ended catch and release. Things changed because of the tools this president has provided us, Morgan said.

He added that if those things stop, the 140,000 unauthorized migrants who were caught or surrendered themselves at the border in May 2019 would be nothing compared to the number of people who will come.

Whats going to come next is going to make that look like childs play. You can take that to the bank, Morgan said.

Fernando Garcia, executive director of El Pasos Border Network for Human Rights, said Morgans comments this close to the election show the Trump administration is still trying to score political points with conservative voters through immigration fearmongering.

Trump thinks he can continue to use migrants to overcome his political troubles, Garcia said. A new administration has to reverse those racist and erroneous policies. Migration has many root causes and is part of the history of this country. Immigration should be treated as humane and necessary, not as a criminal act. That generates terror for political purposes.

Morgan also talked about the growing number of stash houses along the border where smugglers pack migrants into crowded, unsanitary quarters with no regard for the spread of the coronavirus. In El Paso, at least seven such houses have been raided recently.

Even before, stash houses were unsanitary (and) crowded, but now you throw in the pandemic, no social distancing, no (personal protective equipment) no hand sanitizer and thats an active Petri dish, he said.

The acting CBP commissioner railed against transnational criminal organizations that for decades have made money on the backs of people looking for jobs or a better life in the United States. But he also chastised the migrants whore risking catching or spreading COVID-19 making the trip now.

I used to go hard after the cartels, those disgusting, despicable organizations [] Im still going after them, but the immigrants themselves who are trying to enter in the middle of a global pandemic, they have a responsibility, too, he said. They are knowingly and willingly allowing themselves into stash houses and tractor-trailers [] They have a responsibility to listen to the medical experts across the world and not try to illegally enter this country.

Morgan toured the border wall along a stretch in El Paso that shows the weathered 18-foot mesh barrier and towering new 30-foot steel bollard.

The first can still be climbed over or cut by migrants or their guides, while the latter poses a formidable barrier.

This makes it impossible for the average young adult male to shimmy up like they used to. Unfortunately, were still having people that are trying and falling and injuring themselves, he said. Were trying to get the message across to [] first of all, you shouldnt come to this country illegally and you sure as heck shouldnt try to climb over a 30-foot steel wall with an anti-climb plate. Youre going to get seriously injured.

Standing a few yards from the Rio Grande, Morgan reflected on the extreme drug violence going on across the border. Juarez, Mexico this year has seen some 1,400 homicides. Most of them are drug related, according to authorities there, and many of the victims have been tortured, mutilated, beheaded or burned.

Its something that should resonate with the American people. Why do you think theres so much violence on the Mexican side? Why are the cartels fighting each other? Theyre fighting over the drug smuggling and human trafficking corridors leading into the United States, he said.

That violence rarely spills into American border cities like El Paso, Laredo and Brownsville, Texas. Law enforcement and drug experts say thats because of U.S. vigilance and Mexican criminals fear of an American justice system that cannot be coerced.

Morgan said the border wall is adding a layer of protection against criminals just across the river.

Its not just a wall, its a wall system. Its got integrated lighting, technology and access roads. Everything that the experts, the Border Patrol agents out in the front lines, those who risk their lives every day, need, Morgan said.

El Paso has had border walls, fences or barriers for decades, and no demonstrators have been spotted around construction areas.

But in Arizona, the debate over wall construction on sacred Indigenous grounds and wildlife environs has led to confrontation and arrests.

On Wednesday, Morgan said he wasnt worried about the protests.

Weve had different types of barriers for decades. Were just building them better and faster, he said. If somebody wants to protest, knock yourself out. I totally support their First Amendment right to protest, you just have to do it legally. If youre going to go throw yourself in the middle of the wall to stop construction, thats not legal. Were going to arrest you and take you away, and construction is going to keep going on.

Visit theBorderReport.com homepagefor the latest exclusive stories and breaking news about issues along the United States-Mexico border.

Originally posted here:
CBP acting head stresses need for border wall during tour of construction site in El Paso - WANE

The US Supreme Court Monday granted petitions for writs of certiorari in three cases: Wolf v. Innovation Law Lab, Lange v. California, and Trump v. Sierra Club. The certiorari order came after the Courts October 16 conference to vote on new petitions and discuss previous oral arguments.

Two of the newly-accepted cases involve the Trump administrations efforts to halt immigration along the US-Mexico border. In Trump v. Sierra Club, the Court will tackle the long-awaited issue of funding for the promised border wall. Specifically, the Court will examine two separate issues surrounding the legality of the secretary of defenses $2.5 billion transfer to fund the border-wall in 2019. Although this money was initially allocated as military-personnel funds, it was redirected through an internal transfer.

The second case invokes both federal immigration law and international law in its dispute over the Trump administrations so-called Migrant Protection Protocols, often referred to as the remain in Mexico policy. Wolf v. Innovation Law Lab, which originated early in 2019, will force the Court to confront whether the proposed efficacy of the policy is justified given the dangers asylum-seekers face when they are forced to return.

The final case taken Monday, Lange v. California, deals with the Fourth Amendment issue of whether a police officer can enter a persons home without a search warrant under specific circumstances. While officers are not required to obtain search warrants in emergency situations, this case seeks to expand the exception to situations where a suspect is believed to have committed a misdemeanor.

The three cases are not yet set for argument, but they are expected to be scheduled in February 2021.

Read more:
Supreme Court to hear immigration and Fourth Amendment cases - JURIST

The long waited Fourth Amendment of the Chinese Patent Law was eventually passed into law by the Standing Committee of the People's Congress on October 17, 2020. The newly amended Patent Law will take effect as of June 1, 2021.

The main points of the amendment are as follows:

1. Strengthening patent protection

In the recent years, there has been a clear trend towards stronger protection in the Chinese practice of the patent enforcement. That trend is evidently reflected in the amendment. There are quite a few changes concerning strengthening patent protection, which include:

1) The term (protection period) for design patent is extended from 10 years in the current law to 15 years. This is believed to make China ready to join The Hague Agreement Concerning the International Deposit of Industrial Designs.

2) Patent term compensation is available where the patent grant occurs beyond 4 (four) years from the filing date and beyond 3 (three) years from the date of requesting substantive examination, with the exception of any unreasonable delay caused by the applicant's side. This provision is considered as echoing the voice of domestic patent filers for quicker grant of patent rights.

3) So as to make up the time period taken by the regulatory process of a new drug, patent term compensation of up to 5 (five) years is available for a patent concerning the new drug for which marketing authorization has been obtained, provided that the total protection period after the approval of marketing for the new drug is no longer than 14 (fourteen) years. This is the very first time for the Chinese law to make patent term extension available for pharmaceutical patents.

4) The Patent Office (China National Intellectual Property Administration, CNIPA) is empowered to handle patent infringement disputes which are influential country-wide, at the request of an involved party or an interested party. It is noted as the first time for the law to entrust the Patent Office to handle disputes over patent infringement, which handling is supposed to be more speedy and efficient as compared to the judicial track of patent infringement.

5) The acts of willful, serious infringement of a patent right are subject to punitive damages of up to 5 times of regular damages. This provision has been attracting attention of the public ever since it was initially proposed. In fact, 3 (instead of 5) times of regular damages was put forward when the amendment was initially drafted. Notably, the punitive damages provided in the law (5 times of regular damages) are even harsher than in the US practice. Doubtlessly, the amendment makes it possible for patentees to collect relatively high damages when facing willful, severe infringement. However, it is yet to be tested in the future court practice how the legal provisions are applied.

6) The upper limit of the "statutory damages" (meaning the damages awarded at the handling court's discretion) is lifted to amounting 5 million RMB (equivalent to about USD 745,000) from 1 million RMB, which is currently applied. This is obviously another embodiment of the idea of strengthening patent protection.

7) Limitation of actions for patent infringement actions is extended to 3 (three) years from 2 years, which is currently applied. Also, the starting point of the limitation of actions is now the date on which the patentee or an interested party obtains knowledge of the act of infringement and of the identity of the infringer(s). This change makes it possible to avail patentees assertion of legal rights more practically.

2. Introduction of patent linkage system for pharmaceutical patents

There are new provisions in the amendment that are believed to set forth the framework of Chinas patent linkage system for pharmaceutical patents. Again, this is the very first time for the Chinese law to adopt such a system.

1) In the case where, in the regulatory process for drug evaluation and approval, any dispute arises between the applicant for drug marketing authorization and concerned patentee or an interested party over a patent right related to the drug for which regulatory registration is applied for, an involved party may institute legal proceedings in the people's court for requesting a verdict on whether the technical solution related to the drug, for which regulatory registration is applied for, falls with the protection scope of a pharmaceutical patent right owned by a third party. The regulatory authority (National Medical Products Administration, NMPA) may, within prescribed time limit, make a decision on whether to suspend the approval of marketing of the concerned drug in accordance with an effective ruling of the people's court.

2) The applicant for drug marketing authorization and concerned patentee or an interested party may also request the Patent Office (China National Intellectual Property Administration, CNIPA) for an administrative ruling on the dispute over a patent right related to the drug for which regulatory registration is applied.

3) Detailed measures for matters relevant to patent linkage are to be enacted by the regulatory authority (NMPA) in collaboration with the Patent Office.

3. Patentability

1) "Partial design" (meaning a design of a part of a concrete product, but not of the entire product) becomes patentable, in contrast with the current law in which a design application must be for an entire product. This change makes the law more lenient to designers who intend to have the patent protection right on the gist of their designs.

2) The so-called "grace period" (meaning a six-month period during which certain scenarios of disclosure do not constitute novelty-destroying disclosure) is now applicable to the case where the disclosure is for the first time at a time of national emergency state or exceptional circumstances and for the purpose of public interest. This new provision is believed to have been prompted by the current coronavirus pandemic and is aimed at encouraging early publication of technologies needed for the handling of social crisis such as the pandemic.

3) Statutorily unpatentable subject matters now include processes for nuclear transformation in addition to substances obtained by means of such processes, which are already prohibited in the current law. This is merely a confirmation of the current practice.

4. Open license of patents

As part of the effort of to promote commercialization of patents, an open license mechanism is introduced in the amendment. A patentee may declare to the Patent Office that his patent is licensed to any entities at indicated royalties. Then any parties who are interested in the license may obtain it simply by notifying the patentee and paying the required royalties without any further negotiations with the patentee.

5. Domestic priority for designs

Domestic priority for design applications is newly introduced. An applicant for a design patent may claim priority from his earlier Chinese application on the same design within 6 months from the filing date of the latter. This is to give the same leniency to domestic design filers as foreigners, who can enjoy conventional priority.

More:
Main Points of the 4th Amendment of Chinese Patent Law - Lexology