Cyrus Mehta

FAQ on Changes in Salary and Other Working Conditions for H-1B Workers During the COVID-19 Crisis

/0 Comments/in /by

The novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), which causes the disease COVID-19, is a pandemic threatening populations in the United States and worldwide. The US economy has virtually shut down.   Many employers who have been forced to shut down or modify their businesses have been severely impacted and may no longer be able to afford to pay H-1B workers the required wage.  Based on my recent observations, many employers fortunately still view H-1B workers as a vital resource and do not wish to terminate their H-1B workers. They, however, do want to know whether they can temporarily reduce wages or temporarily suspend employment or put them on furlough. Likewise, H-1B workers fearful of termination also have questions about grace periods and unemployment benefits.

Although none of us have seen a pandemic as fast moving and horrific as COVID-19 in our lifetimes, we have experienced the rigidity of DOL rules governing H-1B workers in other disasters such as 9/11, the Great Recession of 2008 and Hurricane Sandy. For instance, an employer is not permitted to bench an H-1B worker for a temporary period due to economic hardships without risking liability for back wages and other draconian sanctions. Correspondingly, the H-1B worker could also be in danger of falling out of status if no longer employed.  In prior disasters, the inflexibility of the DOL rules governing the wages and other working conditions of H-1B workers came into sharp focus and caused great hardship to employers and the H-1B workers. These rules have not changed, and the same inflexible rules unfortunately equally apply with equal force today during the COVID-19 crisis, which appears to be far worse than other recent disasters.

Below are frequently asked questions (FAQ), which I will endeavor to answer. Since there are plenty of grey areas with no definitive answers, my interpretations of these rules are based on my experience in advising employers and H-1B workers during past disasters and presently during the COVID-19 crisis.  I also refer readers to two excellent AILA practice advisories on this topic, here and here. It is hoped that the DOL and USCIS will provide more flexibility and compassion given that the COVID-19 crisis is worsening. But until that happens, here are my responses.

1. Must I Pay H-1B Workers Even if I Want to Temporarily Suspend Employment During the COVID-19 Crisis?

An employer can incur liability if an H-1B worker is in nonproductive status. According to 20 CFR 655.731(c)(7)(i),   if the H-1B worker is in nonproductive status due to a decision of the employer, such as lack of work or lack of a permit or license, the employer must still pay the H-1B worker the required wage. Thus, if the employer decides to temporarily suspend employment, bench or furlough the employee, the required wage must still be paid notwithstanding the sudden economic downturn caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Failure to pay the required wage can result in fines, back wage obligations, and in some serious cases debarment from the DOL’s temporary and permanent immigration programs for a period of time. Pursuant to 20 CFR 655.810(d), DOL can also notify USCIS to no longer approve immigrant and non-immigrant petitions filed by the employer.

2. What if the H-1B worker voluntarily requests leave?

Under 20 CFR 655.731(c)(7)(ii), an employer is not required to pay the required wage to an employee in non-productive status, when the employee is non-productive at the employee’s voluntary request and convenience, such as taking an extended holiday or caring for ill relative,  or because they are unable to work, as a result of maternity leave or automobile accident which temporarily incapacitates the H-1B worker due to a reason which is not directly work related and required by the employer. 20 CFR 655.731(c)(7)(ii) nevertheless requires the employer  to pay the required wage if the employee’s non-productive period was subject to payment under the employer’s benefit plan or other statutes such as the Family and Medical Leave Act (29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.) or the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.).

While leave based on a COVID-19 illness or related need to quarantine will also be considered a leave upon the behest of the employee, employers will most likely need to treat H-1B workers in the same way as they would with other employees under their COVID-19 leave policies, and will also be subject to the CARES Act that guarantees extended paid leave to all employees relating to COVID-19 illness or quarantine.

So long as the H-1B worker is employed, being on leave, paid or unpaid, will not undermine their ability to maintain H-1B status.

The DOL will carefully investigate whether the employee’s request for leave is genuine. The leave should not be forced upon the employee as a pretext for the employer’s inability to pay the required wage due to lack of work. Such contrived leave would be viewed as a decision by the employer to place the worker in unproductive status, thus rendering the employer liable for sanctions.

3. Can the employer temporarily reduce the wage?

The required wage should be the higher of the actual or prevailing wage, which is determined at the time of filing the Labor Condition Application (LCA). The actual wage is the wage paid to similarly situated workers in the employer’s organization within the area of intended employment. The prevailing wage is the wage rate for the occupational classification in the area of employment, which is generally based on a wage survey of a cross section of employers.

What if the employer wishes to drop the required wage below what was indicated in the LCA and the I-129 petition for H-1B classification? This supposes that the required wage is still at or above the prevailing wage, although the actual wage paid to similarly situated workers has dropped. Since the employer represented on the forms that it would pay a specific required wage, it may not be prudent to reduce the wage even if it is still meets the definition of the required wage. Under these circumstances, the safest course of action is to file an amendment to the H-1B petition.

Another argument that can be made against amending the H-1B petition when there is a reduction in the required wage from what was stated on the forms is that when the required wage increases during the validity period of the H-1B, an employer is not required to file an amendment to the H-1B petition and so the same argument can be made against an amendment when there is a reduction in the wage, so long as it still is the required wage. This argument would have greater force if the H-1B worker’s salary went up after the LCA was filed and it is  now  being reduced to the wage that was stated on the LCA and Form I-129.

4. Can the employer convert the employment of the H-1B worker from full time to part time employment?

Yes, although the employer will be required to file an amended H-1B petition. Converting the employment from full time to part-time employment would be considered a material change as the employer must obtain a new LCA reflecting the part time wage and employment, and thus file an amendment to the H-1B petition under USCIS guidance based on Matter of Simeio Solutions. The H-1B worker can commence with the part-time employment upon the filing of the amended H-1B petition.

5. Can the employer reduce the wage during the COVID-19 period, but still guarantee a bonus to the H-1B worker later on to make up the deficit?

If the employer lowers the salaries for H-1B employees below the required wage, according to 20 CFR 655.731(c)(2)(v), an employer can give a guaranteed bonus in the future that may be credited toward satisfaction of the required wage obligation. The bonus cannot be conditional or contingent on some event such as the employer’s annual profits.  While I would never advise this in normal times, I believe in these unusually hard COVID-19 times, this may be defensible but one cannot tell for sure how DOL will view it if there is an investigation. Once the bonus is paid, it must be paid as a salary and reported as earnings with appropriate taxes and FICA contributions withheld and paid.

6. May the employer reduce the required wage and instead offer the equivalent value of the deficit in stock options?

No. The employer is required to guarantee the required wage, and this must be paid in the form of wages reported to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as the employee’s earnings, with appropriate withholding for the employee’s tax paid to the IRS and as required under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA). A stock option would not guarantee the required wage as the value of a stock option can go up or down. A stock option also does not comply with the requirement that the compensation must be paid as a wage that is reported to the IRS, and appropriate tax and FICA contributions be withheld.

7. Does the employer’s obligations to pay the H-1B worker end when the H-1B worker’s employment is terminated?

The H-1B worker need not get paid if there has been a bona fide termination of the employment relationship. DHS regulations require the employer to notify the DHS that the employment relationship has been terminated so that the petition is canceled (8 CFR 214.2(h)(11)), and require the employer to provide the employee with payment for transportation home under certain circumstances (8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(E)). If the employer does not notify the USCIS about the termination and provide the employee with payment for the return transportation home, the DOL will not consider it as a bona fide termination and may still hold the employer liable for back wages. However, note that in Vinayagam v. Cronous Solutions, Inc., ARB Case No. 15-045, ALJ Case No. 2013-LCA-029 (ARB Feb. 14, 2017) the Administrative Review Board held that an employer’s failure to pay return transportation costs home of a terminated H-1B employee was not fatal when the worker did not return to her home country on her own volition.

For further details on effectuating a bona fide termination and the exceptions to meeting all the requirements, see “Employer Not Always Obligated to Pay Return Transportation Costs of Terminated Worker”, http://blog.cyrusmehta.com/2017/03/employer-not-always-obligated-to-pay-return-transportation-cost-of-terminated-h-1b-worker.html

8. Is the H-1B worker entitled to a grace period upon termination of employment?

8 CFR 214.1(l)(2) allows E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-1or TN nonimmigrant workers a grace period of 60 days based upon a cessation of their employment. The 60-day grace period is indeed a salutary feature and was not around during prior disaster episodes. Up until January 17, 2017, whenever workers in nonimmigrant status got terminated, they were immediately considered to be in violation of status. There was also no grace period to depart the United States. Therefore, if a worker got terminated on a Friday, and did not depart on the same day, but only booked the flight home on Sunday, this individual would need to disclose on a future visa application, for all times, that s/he had violated status. Derivative family members, whose fortunes were attached to the principal’s, would also be rendered out of status upon the principal falling out status. Thus, the 60-day grace period not only gives the worker more time to leave the United States, but it also provides a window of opportunity to transition to another employer who can file an extension or change of status within the 60-day period. Similarly, the worker could also potentially change to some other status on his or her own, such as to F-1, after enrolling in a school. Prior to January 17, 2017, nonimmigrant workers who fell out of status upon cessation of their employment, and sought a late extension or change of status had to invoke the USCIS’s favorable discretion pursuant to 8 CFR 214 .1(c)(4) and 8 CFR 248(b)(1)-(2) by demonstrating, among other things, extraordinary circumstances.

When an H-1B worker is terminated, it is a common practice for a highly compensated employee to first be put in inactive status, known as “garden leave” but still considered as an employee and paid the full salary. The final termination date occurs at a later point. Although one needs to view these scenarios on a case by case basis, a good argument can be made that the 60 day grace period starts running from the final termination date and not from the date when the H-1B worker was placed on garden leave.

For further details on the 60 day grace period, see “Analysis of the 60 Day Grace Period for Nonimmigrant Workers”, http://blog.cyrusmehta.com/2017/07/analysis-of-the-60-day-grace-period-for-nonimmigrant-workers.html

9. Can the employer rehire the H-1B employee within 60 days of the termination?

If the H-1B worker is still within the validity period under H-1B classification, then arguably this worker can resume employment with the same employer. The worker never lost status during that 60-day grace period, and if joining the same employer, may not need to file an extension with the same employer. This is also a situation where the worker would most likely not be able to get a second 60-day grace period within the validity period of the same petition or admission. Legacy INS has indicated that when an H-1B worker returns to the former employer after a new extension of status has been filed through the new employer, the first company need not file a new H-1B petition upon the H-1B worker’s return as the first petition remains valid. See Letter, LaFluer, Chief, Business and Trade Branch, Benefits Division, INS, HQ 70/6.2.8 (Apr. 29, 1996); Letter, Hernandez, Director, Business and Trade Services, INS (April. 24, 2002).

Note, however, that if the employer laid off the H-1B worker, and did not notify USCIS regarding the termination, the employer could still potentially be liable for back wages under its obligation to pay the required wage under the Labor Condition Application for failing to effectuate a bona fide termination. See Amtel Group of Fla., Inc. v. Yongmahapakorn, ARB No. 04-087, ALJ No. 2004-LCA-0006 (ARB Sept. 29, 2006). Therefore, if the employer notified the USCIS, which resulted in the withdrawal of the H-1B petition, the same employer would need to file a new H-1B petition within the 60-day grace period.

10. Since most H-1B workers are required to work from home, what rules govern and what actions does the employer need to take?

Employers who have instructed their employees to work from home must ensure they still comply with Department of Labor rules about the geographic scope of positions; for example, as specified for H-1B (specialty occupation) employees on the labor condition application.

If an employee works from a home which is within commuting distance of the workplace, then there is no need to file an amendment. However, a copy of the original posting should be posted again in two places in the employee’s home, although it does not make sense to do so since the posting cannot be seen by other employees. Until the DOL provides clarification, following this procedure would be in compliance.  Alternatively, the employer may provide electronic notification to affected workers in the area of intended employment.

If an employee works from a home which is NOT within commuting distance from the workplace, the employer should obtain a new LCA for that location and file an H-1B amendment. Since there is a 30 working day short term placement exception (per year), the employer can file the amendment within 30 working days of the move to a home location that is not within commuting distance.

On how to effectuate a compliant electronic notification, see the “Nuts and Bolts of Complying with the H-1B Notice Requirements”, http://blog.cyrusmehta.com/2019/03/the-nuts-and-bolts-of-complying-with-the-h-1b-notice-requirements.html . An employer can post notice on its own website or on a web portal of an LCA hosting service, but must still inform affected workers of the existence of this web posting through notification via e mail, the company intranet,  through Slack channels or by providing hard copy notification of the existence of the notice on the website.

Although notice must be provided before the H-1B worker begins work at the new location, the DOL has allowed to a 30 day extended period to provide such notice. For further details see # 4 of DOL’s recently issued COVID-19 guidance at https://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/DOL-OFLC_COVID-19_FAQs_Round%201_03.20.2020.pdf

 

11. Do these regulations apply to other workers in nonimmigrant statuses who may be employed?

They would apply to any nonimmigrant visa statuses that require an underlying LCA such as the E-3 for Australians and the H-1B1 for  nationals of Singapore and Chile. The same rules governing wages and other working conditions for H-1B workers would apply to workers in E-3 or H-1B1 status.

There is more flexibility with respect to workers in nonimmigrant statuses. For example, if an intracompany transferee’s in L-1A or L-1B status is reduced, it may not have an adverse impact so long as the L-1 worker is still working under the appropriate L-1 classification as an executive or manager, or as a specialized knowledge employee.

However, if there is cessation of employment, other nonimmigrant workers will fall out of status after the 60 day grace period.

12. Can Terminated H-1B Workers Claim Unemployment Benefits?

Although one must look at state rules, generally speaking, H-1B visa holders cannot claim unemployment benefits because they will not be able to work in the future due to the loss of their status as a result of the loss of the job. The legal status of an H-1B workers is based on employment, and once the H-1B worker is terminated, they are not able to work in the future due to lack of that status.

On the other hand, unemployment benefits may work for an H-4 spouse with an EAD if the H-1B spouse is in status. The H-4 spouse’s ability to work in the future is linked to the H-1B status of the spouse, and if the H-4 spouse is terminated, s/he can work in the future if the H-1B spouse continues to maintain that H-1B status. Of course, one has to look at the state rules concerning unemployment insurance regarding how long one will be able to work in the future in order to be eligible to make such a claim.

If an H-4 spouses can claim unemployment benefits, they will likely not be impacted by the new public charge definition as unemployment is not a public benefit. One has earned the unemployment insurance by contributing to it while employed.

This blog is for informational purposes and should not be relied upon as a substitute for legal advice. 

Cyrus Mehta

Immigration Attorneys on the Frontlines in the COVID-19 Crisis

/0 Comments/in /by

Since USCIS still requires paper submissions by mandated deadlines and the immigration courts in detention centers still function, the COVID-19 crisis has compelled immigration attorneys to take more risks than others, and many are performing essential services on behalf of clients like first responders, medical personnel and delivery people. If some people in certain occupations do not take risks to help others in a crisis, then everything collapses.

While some attorneys have had the privilege of working from home but effectively crank out cases, other attorneys have been compelled to step out of their home to represent detained clients in immigration court, and until last Tuesday, March 17, at adjustment and naturalization interviews. Not all work can be 100% remote, and some filings comprising hundreds of pages may still have to be assembled in the office. Legal support staff have stepped out of their homes to assemble the case and file it in time with the USCIS and just before the client falls out of status or misses the asylum deadline.

Those living in large cities like NYC may still be taking the subway to help their clients as it may be their only mode of transportation. An empty subway car is probably less risky than travelling in a taxi or Uber as one can maintain the recommended six feet of social distance. Whatever valiant efforts that are being made by attorneys and their staff on behalf of clients’ unique circumstances in these perilous times must be saluted until such time that the government comes to its senses and halts immigration hearings and automatically extends all deadlines by 3 months.

The USCIS and other agencies have made some modest concessions such as not insisting on wet signatures, but that is not enough when the submission must still be on paper rather than electronically. The submission must also be accompanied by a check rather than through a credit card or ACH payment. Because of the significant number of such filings, key operations cannot be handled remotely, and these include sorting out mail from the USCIS and other agencies, organizing and assembling the filings, scanning and making extensive copies and shipping out packages through Fedex or US mail. The USCIS has put the immigration bar in an awful place. They are forced to risk their health and safety to process cases, and even suffer sanctions under state laws for violating restrictions, or fail in their duty towards their clients.

To add further insult to injury, the DOJ has kept open the immigration courts in immigration detention centers. ICE requires attorneys to provide their own protective gear to visit clients in detention. It would be in the interests of all to release noncitizen detainees. There is no reason to detain noncitizens in removal proceedings during the COVID-19 period unless they are not a flight risk or a threat to public safety. Noncitizens who have already been convicted and completed their sentences and facing removal proceedings need not be in detention. If they were US citizens, they would not be incarcerated and so noncitizens, even lawful permanent residents, are doubly penalized if they remain incarcerated and are at greater risk of contracting COVID-19 and spreading it. We also learned that the New York Varick Street Immigration Court has closed today because of a case of coronavirus further confirming that immigration detention and the courts within should cease  at this time.

Various calls to extend deadlines and provide other ameliorative relief by the American Immigration Lawyers Association and the Alliance of Business Immigration Lawyers have gone unheeded.  Is this foot dragging deliberate as a result of Trump’s known hostility towards immigrants or is it because a bureaucracy cannot get its act together fast enough? The failure to act while other federal agencies have acted, such as IRS extending the tax deadline, is unconscionable. The quickest way to eradicate the disease is for all to be united, whether citizen or noncitizen, and all prior prejudices by this administration towards immigrants have to be put on the back burner, or better still, completely incinerated. President Trump is not doing much to help the cause by referring to COVID-19 as the Chinese Virus. This only inflames tensions against not just Asian Americans but against all people who are perceived to be “foreign”, and abrogates from the historic role that presidents in the past have played to heal and unite the nation.

Cyrus Mehta

How USCIS Can Remain True to its Mission by Exercising Compassion During the COVID-19 Period

/0 Comments/in /by

Although the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services is mandated by Congress to grant benefits, it has become an enforcement oriented agency under the Trump administration that has displayed remarkable hostility towards immigrants.    During the period when people are mandated to stay confined and practice social distancing in order to prevent the spread of the coronavirus, and many will unfortunately also fall sick, the USCIS ought to become compassionate and true to its mission of  being a benefits granting agency.

The USCIS has admittedly made some changes in a niggardly fashion. Although the public charge rule got rolled out last month, which is intended to deny immigration benefits under a more expansive interpretation of who is likely to become a public charge, it made one small exception on March 13, 2020 by encouraging noncitizens with symptoms resembling COVID-19 to seek medical treatment or preventive services. “Such treatment or preventive services will not negatively affect any alien as part of a future public charge analysis,” the agency said in a statement.  The exception goes beyond treatment and preventive services, and the USCIS goes onto state: “[I]f the alien is prevented from working or attending school, and must rely on public benefits for the duration of the COVID-19 outbreak and recovery phase, the alien can provide an explanation and relevant supporting documentation.” The USCIS has also allowed applicants to reschedule appointments if they have travelled internationally to any country within the past 14 days of their appointment, believe they have been exposed to the COVID 19 virus or are experiencing flu like symptoms. Separately, DHS has notified that foreign students  should be able to maintain status even if the program goes online so long as the school makes the notification within 10 days.

While these fixes are steps in the right direction, USCIS ought to make more bold changes to provide ameliorative relief to noncitizens that would be in the best interests of the nation. Below are some suggestions:

  1. As employers and law firms have allowed their staff to work remotely, USICS should immediately allow all filings with USCIS to be made online, and also allow scanned or electronic signatures. The electronic H-1B Registration is a good example of how this can be implemented for all USCIS filings.
  2. While an H-1B workers who works from home in the same area of intended employment or within commuting distance does not need a new LCA, eliminate the need to file a new LCA and H-1B amendment even if the home is located outside the MSA or beyond the area of commuting distance. The DOL rules governing LCAs never contemplated telecommuting, and it makes no sense for affected workers to post the LCA on their refrigerator.  The telecommuting is tied to the location where the work is actually performed and for which the LCA was originally obtained and where the posting already occurred.
  3. While the USCIS should give a blanket 90 day extension for filing extension and change of status requests (and this is beyond the 60 day grace period that is given to certain nonimmigrants upon cessation of employment); any delay beyond the 90 days can still be deemed an extraordinary circumstance, and thus excused, under 8 CFR 214.1(c)(4) or 248.1(c) if it is based on a corona virus circumstance.
  4. Coronavirus issues should be deemed technical reasons for INA 245(c)(2) purposes to allow delayed adjustment filings when necessary.
  5. Similar extensions ought to be given with respect to filing responses to RFEs and I-290B appeals or motions as well as filing an I-140 beyond 180 days of the grant of labor certification.
  6. Auto-extend EADs, Advance Paroles and I-551s to eliminate the need to file I-765, I-131 and I-90 extensions.
  7. Automatically reschedule all missed USCIS appointments (biometrics, adjustment and naturalization interviews and oath ceremonies) rather than deem that the application has been deemed abandoned. Also, if possible, develop technology for noncitizens to securely process their biometrics through their own phone devices.
  8. The filing of a meritorious and nonfrivolous I-290B should no longer trigger unlawful presence for purposes of the 3 and 10 year bars.
  9. Have a policy of granting parole in place to one otherwise eligible to adjust status if it can be demonstrated that it would be impossible or harmful for a person to return to the home country.
  10. Advance the Chart B filing dates to Current or close to Current as the notion of an “immigrant visa is immediately available” under INA 245(a)(3) has always been viewed with elasticity, especially in the case of the July 2007 visa bulletin and more recently in the implementation of Chart B filing dates. In the same vein, rescind the USCIS policy that requires the CSPA age to be triggered only if the final action date becomes current rather than the filing date becoming current.
  11. Allow for video interviews for adjustment of status and naturalization applications, as well as with respect to an oath swearing ceremony. If that is not feasible in the short run, at least minimize the interviews. For example, employment-based adjustment cases do not need interviews, which was the case before.
  12. Relax the standard for competent representation at 8 CFR 1003.102(o) and diligent representation at 8 CFR 1003.102(q), as well as the duty to communicate at 8 CFR 1003.102(r), if an attorney is affected by the coronavirus and is forced to be quarantined for several weeks and has no other attorneys who can act on his or her behalf.

These are a few suggestions for USCIS to revert to its historic role of viewing its mission as providing benefits rather than being a junior partner to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Other agencies also need to step up to also take appropriate actions, and this blog only focuses on USCIS fixes. If God forbid the situation goes out of hand,  bolder action would need to be taken. There is statutory authority to grant mass Temporary Protected Status under INA 244(b). There is also authority to grant deferred action to large groups of noncitizens who may be at grave risk to themselves and others if they are asked to leave the US. The President has broad powers in times of a national emergency. Now is not the time for restrictionists to oppose such measures that benefit noncitizens, and it would also be perverse for them to advocate that the President use these powers to hurt noncitizens. The health and safety of everyone is paramount, and all people living in this nation, whether citizen or non-citizen, are intractably connected and the administration must take all measures to protect everyone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cyrus Mehta

How Interpol Red Notices Allow Abusive Foreign Governments to Manipulate and Undermine the Integrity of Immigration Proceedings in the United States

/0 Comments/in /by

The Board of Immigration Appeals in Matter of W-E-R-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 795 (BIA 2020) recently ruled that an Interpol Red Notice may constitute reliable evidence of criminality that serves as a  bar for asylum and withholding of removal. Giving credence to a Red Notice without more undermines the integrity of our asylum system as it allows a foreign government to sway the outcome of an asylum case against an opponent who is in the US.

As a background, a Red Notice is a request to locate and provisionally arrest an individual pending extradition, which Interpol issues at the request of a member country or an international tribunal based on a valid national arrest warrant.  A Red Notice does not establish that the person has been convicted of a crime. It is based on the word of the government that issued the arrest warrant, and does not add any further force or legitimacy to it. Unfortunately, the issuance of a Red Notice by a country whose government is corrupt or abusive can result in adverse  consequences for persons applying for immigration benefits under US law. Many immigration benefits may not be granted based on the commission of a crime or if there is reason to believe that the person will commit a certain crime.  For an excellent overview, please read Challenging a Red Notice – What Immigration Attorneys Need to Know About INTERPOL by Ted R. Bromund and Sandra A. Grossman, AILA Law Journal, April 2019.

In W-E-R-B– , the respondent, an El Salvadorian, was the subject of an Interpol Red Notice, reflecting an arrest warrant by the Magistrate Court of San Salvador, for his arrest regarding a violation of article 345 of the Salvadoran Penal Code, which prohibits participation in an “illicit organization.” The Red Notice indicated that the respondent was a “hit man” with the MS-13 gang. Under INA 208(b)(2)(A)(iii), a respondent is barred from obtaining asylum when “there are serious reasons for believing that the alien committed a serious nonpolitical crime.” The companion bar to withholding of removal is at INA 241(b)(3)(B)(iii).

The BIA agreed with the Immigration Judge’s finding that there were serious reasons to believe that the respondent had committed a serious nonpolitical crime prior to his entry in the US, and was thus barred from obtaining political asylum or withholding of removal. Although a Red Notice is not even a formal arrest warrant, the BIA still found that it constituted reliable evidence of a serious nonpolitical crime for triggering the bar to asylum. While the respondent can rebut the finding through a preponderance of evidence, his rebuttal was found to be unavailing in W-E-R-B. The respondent submitted a letter from an attorney in El Salvador indicating that the charges stemming from the incident were dismissed, but the BIA held that an attorney’s letter standing alone was insufficient in the absence of official court documents.

The respondent could have also shown that his crime was political in nature, but he conceded that it was not. He was arrested in El Salvador following a melee in 2010 that resulted in injury to a police officer. The respondent was also shot and had a gun on this person. Although not applied in this case, the BIA has established a framework in Matter of E-A-, 26 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 2012) to determine whether the bar applies or not. First, in Matter of E-A-, the BIA interpreted the “serious reasons for believing” standard as being equivalent to probable cause. Next, in determining the political nature of the crime, the BIA explained that the political nature of the crime must outweigh its common law character. If the criminal conduct was of “an atrocious nature” or grossly out of proportion to the political objective, then there is no question of the crime being political in nature. If the crime is not of “an atrocious nature” then the BIA balances the seriousness of the criminal acts against the political aspects of the conduct to determine whether the criminal nature of the applicant’s acts outweighs their political character. Interestingly, in footnote 5 of the W-W-R-B decision, the BIA noted that where a respondent has put forth evidence of the political nature of the crime, the Immigration Judge should consider evidence in the record that the foreign country issuing Red Notices abuses them for political reasons, and cites Tatintsyan, 2020 WL 709663, which held that a Red Notice from Russia may provide grounds for overcoming the bar if there is credible testimony that the Russian government persecuted the respondent.

As the only remaining issue was to determine whether the crime indicated in the Red Notice was serious or not, the BIA agreed that the Respondent’s crime was serious in nature within the meanings of the bars in INA 208(b)(2)(A)(iii) and 241(b)(3)(B)(iii) as it involved a substantial risk of violence and harm to persons.

W-E-R-B unfortunately gives leeway for a foreign government persecuting the asylum claimant to issue an arrest warrant based on a false charge, and then inform Interpol to issue a Red Notice. If the charges remain outstanding, an IJ can potentially take for true the accusations in the charge even though there has not been a conviction. The burden of establishing the nonpolitical nature of the accusation is high under Matter of E-A as well as the nonseriousness of the crime. It has long been established that fear of prosecution under laws that are fairly administered does not qualify an individual as a refugee, although prosecution can amount to persecution where the prosecution is arbitrary or excessive, indicating that the motive, in part, may be on account of one of the five enumerated grounds. See, e.g., Singh v. Holder, 764 F.3d 1153, 1162 (9th Cir. 2014) (“If a petitioner has presented evidence that [a]… political opinion was a central reason for the persecution…then the fact that the persecution occurred during the course of a legitimate criminal investigation would not preclude eligibility for asylum” (emphasis added)); Osorio v. INS, 18 F.3d 1017, 1032 (2d Cir. 1994) (finding that prosecution became persecution when the Respondent established a pattern of the Guatemalan government targeting similarly situated union leaders); Tagaga v. INS, 228 F.3d 1030, 1034-35 (9th Cir. 2000) (finding that prosecution for treason for refusal to participate in persecution of Indo-Fijians constitutes persecution); Bandari v. INS, 227 F.3d 1160, 1168 (9th Cir. 2000) (finding that while the police’s initial stop may have been for law enforcement, subsequent beatings were on account religion); Singh v. Ilchert, 63 F.3d 1501, 1509 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[i]f there is no evidence of a legitimate prosecutorial purpose for a government’s harassment of a person… there arises a presumption that the motive for harassment is political”); Matter of S-P-, 21 I&N Dec. 486 (BIA 1996); El Balguiti v. INS, 5 F.3d 1135, 1136 (8th Cir. 1993) (finding prosecution becomes persecution where prosecutorial conduct seeks to disguise a government’s intent to persecute with the veneer of legitimacy – where an alien fears punishment “that is not legitimate, but instead masks an invidious motive” to prosecute the alien on account of an enumerated ground). W-E-R-B could undermine these decisions by nixing asylum claims via a Red Notice when the asylum claimant is escaping a politically motivated criminal prosecution and the foreign government maliciously causes the issuance of a Red Notice through Interpol.

The issuance of a Red Notice can also potentially roil other applications for immigration benefits such as when one files an I-485 application for adjustment of status. Although W-E-R-B applies to the bars set forth in INA 208(b)(2)(A)(iii) and 241(b)(3)(B)(iii), which require at a minimum only the commission of a crime and not a conviction, the criminal grounds of inadmissibility also similarly only require at a minimum a commission of a crime. Thus, under INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(1), a person who has admitted to the essential elements to the commission of  a crime involving moral turpitude, and who does not fall under the petty offense exemption, is inadmissible.  INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(1) does have an exception for a “purely political offense,” but unlike the bar to asylum, there is no balancing test. The offense must be purely political, and thus this stricter standard has been set forth in Matter of O’Cealleagh, 23 I&N Dec. 976 (BIA 2006).  In practice, though, it would be difficult for the government to find  a person inadmissible under INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(1) based on an admission as it is generally difficult to extract an admission that meets the standard under Matter of K, and a conviction is thus  generally required.  There are other grounds of inadmissibility that do not require either a conviction or admission, such as under INA 212(a)(2)(C)(i), where a noncitizen can be found inadmissible if the government has reason to believe that the applicant is or has been an illicit trafficker in a controlled substance.

While the W-E-R-B standard is not applicable in a non-asylum context,  the applicant subject to bogus charges must be prepared to strenuously contest that the underlying charges of a Red Notice are without merit, the applicant never committed the crime and provide evidence that the country abused the process in having Interpol issue the Red Notice to target him or her. Bromund and Grossman’s article  in the AILA Law Journal provide invaluable advice on how to challenge a Red Notice if it violates Interpol rules or indicates a bias on the part of the requesting authorities. More often than not, the charges against a non-citizen who is already in the US applying for a benefit will likely remain outstanding indefinitely in the foreign country. The Department of Justice infrequently extradites people subject to a Red Notice. If the DOJ has not taken any action, this too could be pointed out that the US has not taken the Red Notice seriously.  One should try to convince the adjudicating official that the accusation, apart from not constituting a conviction, does not necessarily prove that the applicant even committed the crimes and do not render him or her inadmissible. Even if the applicant is granted permanent residence, it can further be asserted that the government can always hypothetically commence removal proceedings if there is a conviction that would render the applicant deportable.  Interpol Red Notices are being erroneously viewed by the US immigration authorities as conclusive proof of criminality against non-citizens living in the US. Every effort must therefore be made to push back against this assumption. Otherwise, the US becomes complicit in the abuse by foreign governments to manipulate and undermine the integrity of immigration proceedings, including asylum claims, that otherwise ought to assure fairness and due process to non-citizens under the law.