Cyrus Mehta

Ethical Dimensions to Federal Court Litigation in Immigration Matters

/0 Comments/in /by

In light of the higher possibility of denials of routine H-1B and L-1 petitions, immigration lawyers may want to consider stepping out of their comfort zones. They should consider thinking about representing the client beyond the motion to reopen or appeal to the Appeals Administrative Office (AAO) in the event of a denial. Seeking judicial review of a denial under the Administrative Procedures Act is a very viable route to challenge a denial. Immigration lawyers may wish to structure the engagement to contemplate federal court action too, and also discuss this possibility with clients at the very outset. Sure enough, not all lawyers, especially business immigration lawyers, may wish to become federal court litigators. Even if they do not wish to do so, they must still provide that option to the client and be willing to refer the federal court matter to another firm.

Before representing a client in federal court, immigration lawyers must be mindful of some key ethical rules, which will be discussed in greater detail below: ABA Model Rule 1.1 – a lawyer must provide competent representation. ABA Model Rule 1.2(a) – a lawyer shall abide by client’s decisions concerning the objectives of representation, and shall consult with client as to means by which they are pursued. ABA Model Rule 1.2(c) – a lawyer may limit the scope of the representation.  ABA Model Rule 1.3 – a lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.  ABA Model Rule 1.4 – lawyer is obligated to communicate with client with respect to which the client’s informed consent is required (e.g. lawyer must communicate pros and cons of administrative v. judicial review). ABA Model Rule 1.7 – a lawyer may represent two clients even if there is a conflict of interest if the lawyer reasonably believes that he can provide competent and diligent representation to both affected parties.

Immigration lawyers should have federal court litigation in their sights at the very outset of the representation as it is possible to altogether bypass the AAO upon denial and seek review in federal court.  Under Darby v. Cisneros, 509 U.S. 137 (1993),  exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required when the agency’s regulation does not mandate it, which is the case with AAO appeals. Still, judicial review may not always be the optimum strategy. If the administrative record is not adequately developed, then seeking administrative review may also allow the lawyer to supplement the record on behalf of the client. The lawyer must competently advise on the pros and cons of seeking judicial review over administrative review, which has been addressed in Administrative Review Versus Judicial Review When an Employment-based Petition is Denied. The lawyer may then proceed based on the client’s wishes, and in immigration cases there will generally be two clients, after obtaining informed consent.

The immigration lawyer normally undertakes dual representation of the employer and the employee. Representing both employer and employee is permissible so long as the goals are aligned, which they normally are in the pursuit of an H-1B or L-1 petition by the employer on behalf of the foreign national employee. Under ABA Model Rule 1.7, even if there is a potential for conflict of interest, lawyers may represent both client so long as they provide competent and diligent representation to both. The risk for conflict may become more acute after a denial when one client may wish to seek judicial review while the other client doesn’t. The lawyer must be able to manage such a conflict or withdraw from the representation of both clients.

Lawyers should objectively evaluate the pros and cons of federal court litigation with their clients. They must adequately communicate with the client, in accordance with ABA Model Rule 1.4, so that the client can give informed consent regarding whether to litigate in federal court or not. Most employer clients are hesitant to litigate because they may fear government retaliation. The lawyer should assure the client that the government does not have a policy of retaliating if the employer chooses to litigate. An employer may also be dissuaded from litigating because of potential adverse publicity. If the employer is gun shy about litigating, and the employee desires to litigate, a lawyer can resolve the conflict by having the beneficiary as plaintiff so long as the employer supports litigation and keeps the job open. Of course, the lawyer must research the case law in the circuit regarding whether the beneficiary can serve as a plaintiff and also  be prepared to face more resistance from the government if the beneficiary as opposed to the employer is the plaintiff.

One aspect of managing conflicts at the time of federal court litigation is determining who can pay fees involved in litigation?  As noted, there are times when the foreign national beneficiary may wish to sue while the employer takes a back seat. In such cases, the employee wishes to pay the fee rather than the employer. As the APA potentially gives the beneficiary standing to seek review over a denied labor certification and H-1B, fee restricting rules such as 20 CFR 656.12(b) (concerning labor certifications)  and 20 CFR 655.731(c)(9)(ii) (concerning H-1Bs) cannot thwart the foreign national’s right under the APA to challenge the denial. Therefore, it may arguably not be a violation of these rules prohibiting the foreign national from paying the fee in the context of a law suit filed under the APA. This has been addressed in  Can the Beneficiary Pay the Fee in Federal Court Litigation Challenging an H-1B or Labor Certification Denial?

Lawyers may also claim fees under the Equal Access Justice Act, which may give them the incentive to take on a case on behalf of a client who may not be able to afford to pay the fees. The EAJA authorizes the payment of attorney’s fees to a prevailing party in an action against the United States absent a showing by the government that its position in the underlying litigation “was substantially justified.” The engagement agreement should be able to address how fees under the EAJA will be addressed. A lawyer may have the client pay all the fees and then let the client get the EAJA fees if victorious in the action. Alternatively, the lawyer may charge no fee or a low fee, but the client agrees to give the EAJA fee to the lawyer. It must be clearly indicated in the engagement agreement when the lawyer will claim the EAJA fee and when lawyer will give back EAJA fee to client.

Here are some other nuggets regarding the ethics of financing litigation that might be useful for immigration lawyers. Pursuant to DC Bar Ethics Opinion 375  lawyers are generally free to represent clients who pay for legal services through crowdfunding. However, the lawyer must be mindful of the source of the funds because of the heightened risk in the event that the funds are obtained through illegal means.  The lawyer may also wish to counsel the client about the risk of sharing confidential information to third parties funding the litigation. But when the lawyer directs the crowdfunding, the lawyer must be aware of the ethical rules relating to payment of fees by third parties, management of client funds, communications with third parties, and fee agreements. Also note that under ABA Model Rule 1.8(e), a lawyer is prohibited from providing financial assistance to a client in contemplation of pending or contemplated litigation, except with respect to advancing court costs and expenses of litigation, the repayment of which may be contingent on the outcome of the matter. With respect to indigent clients, lawyers may pay court costs and litigation expenses regardless of whether these funds will be repaid is warranted.

The lawyer must be mindful of ABA Model Rule 1.1 regarding competence. If a lawyer knows that she is not competent to handle a federal litigation matter, she should associate with a lawyer who is competent to handle it. Rule 1.1, however, does not preclude new lawyers from handling a matter for the first time provided they become competent. Comment 2 to ABA Model Rule 1.1 is worth noting:

A lawyer need not necessarily have special training or prior experience to handle legal problems of a type with which the lawyer is unfamiliar. A newly admitted lawyer can be as competent as a practitioner with long experience. Some important legal skills, such as the analysis of precedent, the evaluation of evidence and legal drafting, are required in all legal problems. Perhaps the most fundamental legal skill consists of determining what kind of legal problems a situation may involve, a skill that necessarily transcends any particular specialized knowledge. A lawyer can provide adequate representation in a wholly novel field through necessary study. Competent representation can also be provided through the association of a lawyer of established competence in the field in question.

Moreover, part of being a competent lawyer is to also be prepared to carry forward federal court litigation to completion. While most lawyers have been able to reverse an adverse decision through settlement with the Assistant US Attorney, some have had to be litigated to conclusion. While there are many reported cases of a district court judge overturning a denial, many district courts have also upheld USCIS denials. The lawyer should not take the position that because she is comfortable with only seeking administrative review with the AAO, she will not litigate, consider litigation or provide any advice regarding litigation. While a lawyer may stay within his comfort zone by not litigating, and can also limit representation under ABA Model Rule1.2(c), it is incumbent upon this lawyer to recommend client(s) to another counsel who will be able to litigate the matter.

The lawyer may also have to get pro hac vice admission or get admitted in new jurisdiction. The lawyer must then not subsequently become administratively ineligible by failing to pay annual fees, either intentionally or inadvertently,  or complying with CLE requirements in that jurisdiction.  The lawyer can be sanctioned under 8 CFR 1003.102(f) for knowingly misstating his/her qualifications on a G-28 or EOIR 27/28.

There are other considerations prior to undertaking federal court litigation.  The lawyer must check whether underlying basis of denied H-1B petition still exists. Has the job site changed so that the  LCA is no longer valid (as one cannot do a Simeio amendment on a denied H-1B)? Is there still a job offer? Otherwise, the lawyer could be sanctioned under ABA Model Rule 3.1, non-meritorious claims, or Rule 11of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) if the factual contentions in a pleading do not have evidentiary support. However, if the facts change after litigation has commenced, such as the loss of the job, it may still be ethical to proceed with litigation as a successful outcome can impact positively impact the ability of the beneficiary to change status or to port to a new employer.

Finally, since immigration lawyers started filing APA actions in the past two years, most of the cases have settled favorably. After filing a complaint in federal district court, the case has often settled through the USCIS reopening the case and outright reversing the denial or through the issuance of another Request for Evidence.  Still, it is not prudent to undertake federal court action with the objective to solely to settle as FRCP 42 only allows withdrawal if defendant has not filed any pleading. Otherwise, an action may be dismissed upon the plaintiff’s request only by court order and on terms that the court considers proper. The lawyer must manage the expectations of the client in this regard, and charge appropriate fees to cover the entire duration of the court action rather than just the first phase in the hope that the case will settle.

While undertaking judicial review of denials, immigration lawyers must not just learn new rules, skills and procedures, but must also be cognizant of the ethical dimensions. This blog provides some pointers.

 

Cyrus Mehta

The Fascinating Confluence of Temporary Protected Status, Removal and Employment-Based Adjustment of Status

/0 Comments/in /by

Immigration Judge Ila C. Deiss’ summary order shows how one who is granted Temporary Protected Status can adjust to permanent resident status through an I-140 petition filed by an employer.

Here are the facts based upon which IJ Deiss issued the order:

The Respondent is a native and citizen of Nepal who arrived in the United States in 2006 in F-1 student status. In 2007 he stopped going to school and began working without authorization. He affirmatively filed for asylum in 2008, but his asylum claim was not granted and he was placed in removal proceedings in the same year. An Immigration Judge denied his asylum claim in 2010 and he was granted voluntary departure. Respondent appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which dismissed his appeal in 2011. Respondent then filed a Petition for Review in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which was denied in 2014. His case was then remanded to the Immigration Judge and was subsequently Administratively Closed based on a grant of Temporary Protected Status. In 2015, as a result of a massive earth quake, the Attorney General designated Nepal for Temporary Protected Status. Respondent, as a citizen of Nepal, applied for and was granted TPS in the same year and continued to be a recipient of TPS registration at the time of the decision.

Respondent’s employer filed an I-140 petition to the USCIS on his behalf in 2019, and in the same year, Respondent concurrently filed an I-485 adjustment of status application with the court.  The legal question before IJ Deiss was whether the Respondent was eligible for adjustment of status.

Earlier, in Ramirez v. Brown, 852 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 2017), the Ninth Circuit held that TPS constitutes an admission for purpose of establishing eligibility for adjustment of status under INA 245(a). A foreign national who enters the United States without inspection, which was the case in Ramirez v. Brown, does not qualify for adjustment of status even if married to a US citizen since s/he does not meet the key requirement of INA § 245(a), which is to “have been inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States.” However, both Ramirez, and another case in the 6th Circuit with the same facts,   Flores v. USCIS, 718 F.3d 548 (6th Cir. 2013), held that as a matter of statutory interpretation, Congress intended TPS recipients to be considered “admitted” for purposes of INA 245(a). Thus, even if the foreign national entered without inspection, the grant of TPS constituted an admission thus rendering the TPS recipient eligible for adjustment of status. Of course, the other conditions of INA 245(a) must also be met, which is not be inadmissible as well as have a visa that is immediately available. The disqualifications to adjustment of status in INA 245(c)(2) such as working without authorization, being in unlawful status or failing to maintain lawful status since entry are not applicable to immediate relatives of US citizens, who are spouses, minor children and parents.

The courts in Ramirez and Flores relied on INA § 244 (f)(4), which provides:

(f) Benefits and Status During Period of Protected Status – During a period in which an alien is granted temporary protected status under this section-

(4) for purposes of adjustment of status under section 245 and change of status under section 248, the alien shall be considered as being in, and maintaining, lawful status as a nonimmigrant

Both courts read the above phrase, especially “for purposes of adjustment of status under section 245 and change of status under section 248” to be in harmony with being “admitted” for purposes of adjustment of status. As § 244(f)(4) bestows nonimmigrant status on a TPS recipient, an alien who has obtained nonimmigrant status is deemed to be “admitted.” Thus, at least in places that fall under the jurisdiction of the Sixth and Ninth Circuits, TPS recipients who have been granted nonimmigrant status under INA 244(f)(4) could potentially adjust status to permanent residence as immediate relatives of US citizens. Those who have entered without inspection in these two circuits need not travel outside the US under advance parole in order to become eligible to adjust status under § 245(a). On the other hand, those not in the jurisdiction of the Sixth and Ninth Circuit who were not previously admitted will need to travel under advance parole to become eligible for adjustment of status as immediate relatives by availing of Matter of Arrabelly and Yerrabelly, 25 I&N Dec. 771 (BIA 2012). Under this decision, a departure under advance parole does not trigger the 3 and 10-year unlawful presence bars pursuant to INA 212(a)(9)(B).

In a prior blog titled Potential Adjustment of Status Options After the Termination of TPS, I raised the question whether the holdings in Ramirez and Flores could apply to TPS recipients who are beneficiaries of an approved I-140 petition under the employment-based first, second, third and fourth preferences. I postulated that the “answer arguably is ‘yes” under § 245(k) provided they fall under the jurisdiction of the Sixth and Ninth Circuits.

IJ Deiss’ order in the San Francisco Immigration Court, which falls under the Ninth Circuit’s jurisdiction, now confirms that §245(k) can rescue such persons even if they are in removal proceedings. § 245(k) exempts applicants for adjustment of status who are otherwise subject to the § 245(c)(2) bar based on unauthorized employment or for not maintaining lawful status provided they are present in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission and subsequent to such admission have not failed to maintain lawful status or engaged in unauthorized unemployment for more than 180 days. § 245(k) also waives the bars under §§ 245(c)(7) and (c)(8) that otherwise apply to employment-based adjustment applicants.  Thus, even if the TPS recipient may have not been in lawful status prior to the grant of TPS, the grant of TPS resulted in the individual being admitted into the US. If this person files within the TPS validity period, 245(k) should allow this person to adjust to permanent residence, as IJ Deiss also held.

The attorney for the respondent, Emily Wilson,  in arguing for 245(k) eligibility relied on a USCIS memo by Acting Associate Director, Donald Neufeld, titled Applicability of Section 245(k) to Certain Employment Based Adjustment of Status Applications filed under Section 245(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. This memo correctly interprets 245(k) by stating that “adjudicators must only examine the 180 day period from the date of the alien’s last lawful admission to the United States and must not count violations that occurred before the alien’s last lawful admission.” In the instant case, the Respondent’s last lawful admission to the United States was his grant of TPS in 2015. Ms. Wilson went on to argue, “Under a plain reading of the regulation and USCIS’ guidance on the applicability of 245(k) it is clear that only violations of 245(c)(2), (c)(7), and (c)(6) that occurred after the TPS grant are relevant in this case. Since the Respondent has no violations of 245(c)(2), (c)(7), and (c)(8) since his TPS grant on [redacted] 2015 he is eligible to adjust status to lawful permanent resident under §§ 245(a) and 245(k) of the INA.”

Another interesting aspect of this case is that the grant of TPS constituted another admission, thus resenting the clock, although the Respondent was previously admitted in F-1 status. In Ramirez and Flores, the adjustment applicants had entered without inspection, and conceptually, it is easier to admit someone who was previously not admitted. However, there is nothing in the reading of  §244(f)(4) that should preclude someone from being admitted again, as in the instant case,  even if previously admitted in a nonimmigrant status prior to the TPS grant.

There are other interesting things to ponder about. Although the Trump administration has sought to terminated TPS for Nepal, under the court ordered stipulation in Bhattarai v. Neilsen the TPS designation for Nepal remains in effect. I would argue that even assuming TPS for Nepal was terminated at the time IJ Deiss rendered her decision, 245(k) ought to allow a respondent in removal proceedings to adjust status. Although INA 244(f)(4) bestows lawful nonimmigrant status to a current TPS recipient, that grant of nonimmigrant status also previously admitted the TPS recipient into the United States. The fact that she was once admitted through the TPS grant cannot vanish just because she is no longer a TPS recipient, and she ought to be eligible to adjust status under 245(k) so long as she has not stayed in the US greater than 180 days from the termination of TPS designation. Once a person has been admitted, the person is still considered to have been admitted for 245(a) purposes even if the period of stay under TPS expires. I would further argue that this should apply to a § 244(f)(4) implied admission as much as it does to any other kind of admission. If you are necessarily admitted because you have gone from having entered without inspection to being in nonimmigrant status, that does not cease to have been the case because your nonimmigrant status later goes away. Finally, Ms. Wilson correctly pointed out in footnote 1 in her decision that a derivative may also benefit under § 245(k), according to the USCIS 245(k) memo, and so the Respondent’s spouse who presumably is also a TPS recipient along with her spouse is also eligible to apply for adjustment of status.

Note that § 245(k) is only applicable to I-485 applications filed under the employment-based first, second, third and fourth preferences. With respect to family-based preference petitions, USCIS has taken the position that anyone who has ever failed to maintain continuously a lawful status will not be eligible for adjustment of status (although there is one outlier federal district court decision, See Figueroa v. Rodriguez, No. CV-16-8218 -PA, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128120 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2017)). Hence, the beneficiary of an I-130 filed by a permanent resident on behalf of his spouse will likely not be able to adjust status if he was not in status prior to the grant of TPS. Also, one who needs to travel outside the United States in order to become eligible for adjustment of status under § 245(a) as an immediate relative, especially those outside the jurisdiction of the Sixth and Ninth Circuits, will not be able to avail of § 245(k) to adjust pursuant to an employment-based I-140 petition as § 245(k) only applies to one who has been admitted rather than paroled into the United States..

Unfortunately, the beneficial impact of a TPS grant for employment-based adjustment applicants is only applicable to those within the jurisdiction of the Sixth and Ninth Circuit. It is also important to note that the Eleventh Circuit in Serrano v. Unites States Attorney General, 655 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2011) held that TPS was not an admission for purposes of adjustment under INA 245(a). A class action, filed by the American Immigration Council, is designed to replicate the Ramirez and Flores decisions in all Circuits that have not yet ruled and has been awaiting a decision from the district court judge for over a year in the Eastern District of New York. In the interim, the issue is now pending in the Third, Fifth, and Eight Circuits and the AIC has filed amicus briefs in all of them. There is a strong statutory argument that the grant of TPS constitutes an admission under § 244(f)(4), and thus allows one to adjust status both as an immediate relative and also through an employment-based I-140 petition under § 245(k). This logical and unambiguous interpretation should ultimately be adhered to by all courts.

(Hats off to Emily Wilson who was the Respondent’s attorney!)

Cora-Ann Pestaina

Filing under the FY 2021 H-1B Cap; How will H-1B Registration Work?

/0 Comments/in /by

It’s the year 2020! We celebrate the start of a new decade and are hopeful for good things to come. Will the upcoming H-1B cap season be one of those good things? All we know for sure is that it will be different. Preparing for the cap season can be stressful but we recognize the stressors and, through trial and error, we have developed various coping strategies and mechanisms. But this year, we are not sure what to expect.

As background, the H-1B program allows U.S. companies to temporarily employ foreign workers in occupations that require the application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and a bachelor’s degree or higher in the specific specialty, or its equivalent. Congress has set a cap of 65,000 H-1B visas per fiscal year. An advanced degree exemption from the H-1B cap is available for 20,000 beneficiaries who have earned a U.S. master’s degree or higher from a U.S. institution of higher education. Each year, USCIS monitors the number of petitions received during the designated filing period and notifies the public when the H-1B numerical allocations have been met.

It was over a year ago, in December 2018, that USCIS first issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking announcing a rule that would revolutionize the H-1B cap process. The rule was made final on January 31, 2019 and amended the regulations governing cap-subject H-1B petitions, including those that may be eligible for the advanced degree exemption and setting forth an H-1B registration process.  Ever since then, business immigration practitioners have been anticipating (or dreading?) the change. USCIS was unable to implement the registration process during the FY 2020 H-1B cap season but they previously announced that the process would definitely be implemented for the FY 2021 H-1B cap season and on January 9, 2020, USCIS published “Registration Requirement for Petitioners Seeking To File H–1B Petitions on Behalf of Cap-Subject Aliens” announcing that the agency had completed all requisite user testing and is implementing the registration process in advance of the H–1B cap season for FY 2021. Based all USCIS has released thus far, here is what we know about the registration process:

  • Employers seeking to file cap-subject H-1B petitions, or their authorized representatives, must complete a registration process that requires basic information about the H-1B employer and each requested H-1B worker. USCIS will open an initial registration period from March 1 through March 20, 2020.
  • There will be a non-refundable registration fee of $10 per for each H-1B registration submitted by petitioning employers.
  • If a specific employer submits more than one registration per beneficiary in the same fiscal year, all registrations filed by that employer relating to that beneficiary for that fiscal year will be considered invalid.
  • There is still no prohibition on a prospective H-1B beneficiary considering job opportunities with multiple employers which may seek to extend a job offer.
  • USCIS will provide step-by-step instructions on its website regarding how to register and employers and authorized representatives will be able to start setting up their registration accounts in advance of the registration period opening.
  • USCIS will post the date that employers and authorized representatives may start setting up accounts on its website.
  • Employers will be able to edit a registration up until the registration is submitted. An employer may delete a registration and resubmit it prior to the close of the registration period.
  • If a sufficient number of registrations are received, USCIS will use a computer-generated random registration selection process (lottery) to select enough registrations to meet the congressionally-mandated regular cap and the U.S. advanced degree exemption for fiscal year (FY) 2021.
  • The lottery will be conducted no later than March 31, 2020.
  • Employers with selected registrations will be eligible to file a cap-subject petition only for the beneficiary named in the registration. An employer may not substitute the beneficiary named in the original registration or transfer the registration to another employer.
  • USCIS will send notices electronically to all registrants with selected registrations. The notifications will be added to registration accounts. The account holder who submitted the selected registration will receive notification via email or text message stating that an action has been added to their account, and they will have to log in to see the full notice.
  • USCIS intends to notify registrants with selected registrations from the initial registration period no later than March 31, 2020.
  • After such selection, employers will be notified by USCIS of the exact amount of time allowed for filing the H-1B petition, which will in all cases be at least 90 days, but may be longer at the discretion of USCIS. Employers will have the ability to file their petitions as soon as eligible (i.e. by April 1) to allow the beneficiary to obtain cap-gap, if required.
  • USCIS may determine it is necessary to continue accepting registrations, or open an additional registration period, if it does not receive enough registrations and subsequent petitions projected to reach the numerical allocations.

According to the “H-1B Registration Workflow with Payment” that USCIS released in association with the proposed registration fee requirement, it appears that USCIS will require payment of the $10 registration fee through the Pay.gov portal. Employers may submit one combined registration fee payment for multiple prospective H-1B workers at the same time and the registration fee payment can be paid with either a debit or credit card, or with a withdrawal from a checking or savings account. It appears that USCIS will only require information such as employer and beneficiary names, addresses, employer identification number, and beneficiary date of birth and passport information.  USCIS has stated that they will not evaluate the “quality” of the registration other than to eliminate duplicate submissions. USCIS recognizes that some employers may be more willing to submit a registration than they are willing to submit a complete H-1B cap-petition with filing fees under the old process. However, USCIS will not have any means to determine whether a registration is meritorious until after it is selected and a petition resulting from such registration is properly filed. Because some registrations will not lead to approved H-1B cap-petitions, USCIS plans to hold unselected registrations in reserve and will conduct additional selections if necessary.

There are still many details yet to be divulged about the registration process but USCIS has promised to conduct outreach and training prior to the initial implementation of the registration system to allow the public the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the electronic registration process. In the meantime, this author believes that it makes the most sense to conduct a complete evaluation of any potential H-1B petition even prior to submitting the registration. For example, there ought to be preliminary discussions on education credentials, education evaluations, occupational classifications, wage levels, job descriptions, proving specialty occupation, etc. all before submitting a registration. It would be a terrible thing for an employer to be notified of a selection only to be later advised that their H-1B petition would likely be denied due to a degree or specialty occupation issue!

While one should anticipate that the new registration system will be up and running, there is still an outside chance that the system might not be ready, or may crash, and employers may at the last minute be asked to file full H-1B petitions in the first five business days of April 2020. Filers must be prepared for all eventualities, and this further underscores the need to ensure that the prospective employees for whom employers will file  H-1B petitions must be properly screened for H-1B eligibility and that all available information and documentation is available to file meritorious cases.