Tag Archive for: Labor Condition Application

Cyrus Mehta

DOL Fails to Side with H-1B Worker who Claimed Back Wages Against Employers After Being Terminated

/0 Comments/in /by

By Cyrus D. Mehta and Kaitlyn Box*

H-1B workers can file complaints against employers to the Department of Labor if they are not paid the promised wage.  Ankit Jain is one such worker who filed complaints against two of his employers, Metromile, Inc, and Hinge Health, for back wages. When Mr. Jain was not satisfied with the initial decisions, he appealed them to an Administrative Law Judge (ALF). The ensuing decisions of the ALJ limiting back wages to Mr. Jain are instructive as the DOL will not always side with H-1B workers who claim back wages against their employers on grounds that they had not been properly terminated under technical DOL rules.

In Jain v. Metromile, Inc., ALJ Case No. 2021-LCA-00018 (July 19, 2022), Mr. Jain sought back wages after being terminated by his employer, Metromile. He accused his employer of not effectuating a bona fide termination, which required the employer to continue to pay him the wage.  Under the Labor Condition Application that is submitted with the H-1B petition, an employer must pay the required wage that has been promised in the LCA until the employer terminates the H-1B worker.

Earlier, in  Amtel Group of Fla., Inc. v. Yongmahapakorn, ARB No. 04-087, ALJ No. 2004-LCA-0006 (ARB Sept. 29, 2006), the Administrative Review Board (ARB)) held that an employer must meet three requirements to effectuate a bona termination of the relationship under 20 CFR 655.731(c)(7)(ii):  (1) the employer must expressly terminate the employment relationship with the H-1B worker,  (2) the employer must notify USCIS of the termination so that the USCIS can revoke its prior approval of the employer’s H-1B petition under 8 CFR 214.2(h)(11), and (3) the employer must provide the H-1B worker with payment of return transportation home under INA 214(c)(5)(A) and 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(E). The ARB in Amtel held that an employer can still be obligated to pay an H-1B worker back wages if it explicitly terminates his employment but fails to notify USCIS of the termination and/or pay for the employee’s return transportation.

Metromile had not paid for Mr. Jain’s return transportation to India and did not notify USCIS that his employed had been terminated until long after the fact. A few months after Mr. Jain was fired by Metromile, a second employer, ForeThought, filed an H-1B change of employer petition on his behalf, which got approved. The ALJ held that a “bona fide termination of employment can occur and end back wage liability for an employer that proves it (1) expressly notified an H-1B employee that it terminated the H-1B employment, and (2) thereafter, the H-1B employee secured USCIS’s approval for a ‘change of employer’.” Because Mr. Jain was aware that he had been terminated by Metromile and had no present need to leave the United States given that he was to begin work for a new employer in H-1B status, the ALJ did not find his previous employer liable for his return transportation costs. Moreover, the court held that Metromile was liable for back wages only for the period from Mr. Jain’s termination until the change of employer petition filed by ForeThought was approved, at which time a bona fide termination had been effectuated.

Jain v. Metromile reinterprets Amtel Group of Fla., Inc. v. Yongmahapakorn. The ARB in Amtel held that an employer can still be obligated to pay an H-1B worker back wages if it explicitly terminates his employment but fails to notify USCIS of the termination and/or pay for the employee’s return transportation. In a previous blog, we discussed Vinayagam v. Cronous Solutions, Inc., ARB Case No. 15-045, ALJ Case No. 2013-LCA-029 (ARB Feb. 14, 2017), which had previously modified the ARB’s holding in Amtel. In Vinayagam, the ARB held that an employer’s failure to pay return transportation costs for a terminated H-1B employee was not fatal when the worker voluntarily decided not to return to her home country but instead remained in the U.S. and sought H-1B status through a new employer.

In Jain v. Metromile, the ALJ held that the “Amtel definition is not the only means of making a bona fide termination.” Citing Batyrbekov v. Barclays Capital, ARB No. 13-013, ALJ Case No. 2011-LCA-025, slip op. at 10 (ARB) July 16, 2014, the ALJ held that when there are multiple H-1B employers, a strict reading of Amtel would render a former employer liable for back wages even if the H-1B worker changes employers, and this former employer would remain liable until the H-1B worker was provided the return transportation costs. Thus, when USCIS approves a “change of employer” petition, the back wage claim against the former employer stops accruing. Batyrbekov v. Barclays Capital involved an H-1B worker who was terminated by Barclay’s Capital, which failed to notify USCIS of the termination. Though another employer filed an H-1B petition on his behalf, Batyrbekov never began working for this employer. Batyrbekov sought back wages, but the Administrative Review Board (ARB) found that Barclays’ liability ended on the date that an H-1B petition filed by a new employer was approved on Batyrbekov’s behalf. The ARB held that “the Amtel definition of a bona fide termination cannot be strictly applied to cases involving multiple H-1B employers”. The ARB further opined that a bona fide termination can occur when an employer expressly notifies an H-1B worker that his employer is terminated and a new employer then files an H-1B “change of employer” petition for the worker that is approved by USCIS.

In January 2020, Mr. Jain began working for a third employer employer, Hinge Health. See Jain v. Hinge Health, Inc., ALJ Case No. 2021-LCA-00015 (July 19, 2022). Hinge Health terminated Mr. Jain in October 2020 and he filed a complaint to the DOL, which found that Hinge Health had failed to pay Mr. Jain required back wages in violation of 20 C.F.R. § 655.731 and had failed to either “offer equal benefits or equal eligibility for benefits or both” in violation of 20 C.F.R. § 655.731(c)(3). Jain appealed, arguing that Hing Health owed him additional back pay.  Jain alleged that the company failed to pay for his return transportation to his home country, failed to inform USCIS of his termination, and did not timely notify him of the withdrawal of his LCA. Shortly after his termination, Mr. Jain had signed a “Confidential Severance and General Release Agreement” in which he agreed to absolve Hinge Health of any claims under federal or state law. The ALJ found that this broad waiver precluded Mr. Jain for pursuing any of the claims he had raised, including the alleged LCA violation, and accordingly dismissed the case. The ALJ relied on Gupta v. Headstrong, ARB Case Nos. 15-032, 15-033 (ARB Jan. 26, 2017), which involved a claim for back wages by a terminated H-1B employee who had signed a similarly broad release agreement. In Gupta, the ARB held that the release agreement was valid and barred recovery, noting that it “did not have authority to adjudicate collateral attacks on a facially valid contract and that Gupta had ‘evoked no statute, regulation, or precedent authorizing’ it to do so”.  Additionally, the ALJ found that Hinge Health had fulfilled its duty to inform USCIS that Mr. Jain’s employment had been terminated, even though it did so several months after the fact. Hinge Health was not required to pay for Mr. Jain’s return transportation because he never intended to leave the country. Even if the release agreement is not upheld, the ALJ found that Hinge Health would not be liable for Mr. Jain’s return transportation costs because he did not intend to return to his home country and instead had immediately begun seeking new employment in the United States following his termination. Interestingly, the ALJ is both cases found that Mr. Jain was not a credible witness. In Jain v. Hinge Health, the ALJ determined that Jain’s testimony regarding whether he had hired attorney to assist him and the timeline in which he found another job was unreliable. Similarly, in Jain v. Metromile, the ALJ did not find Jain’s statements regarding when his complaints were filed to be credible.

Both the decisions limited liability for the employer where the H-1B worker claimed that his termination was not effective by not following the steps set forth in Amtel. In Jain v. Metromile, an employer is no longer liable for back wages once the H-1B employee obtains an approval of an H-1B change of employer petition even if the employer did not notify the USCIS or provide return transportation costs prior to the transfer to the new employer. In Jain v. Hinge Health, a properly drafted release agreement can absolve the employer of liability under the LCA.

* Kaitlyn Box is a Senior Associate at Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners, PLLC. She is admitted to practice in New York.

(This blog is for informational purposes and should not be viewed as a substitute for legal advice).

 

 

 

Cora-Ann Pestaina

To Amend, or Not to Amend: That is the Question For Visas Not Associated With a Labor Condition Application

/0 Comments/in /by

As the COVID-19 pandemic unfortunately rages on, employers nationwide continue to seek ways to keep their businesses open and reduce costs while also protecting their nonimmigrant employees. This blog has addressed, here, here and here, some of the unique challenges facing employers of H-1B and other nonimmigrant workers. Employers have basically come to accept the fact that the H-1B worker is tethered to the LCA and there are several changes that could necessitate the filing of an amended petition. But while it is generally understood that other work visas such as the E-1, E-2, L-1, O and TN visas afford greater flexibility because they are not subject to the LCA, the lack of specific governmental guidance means that employers are still unsure of what steps they can and cannot take with regard to their workers in these visa categories. This blog discusses best practices for employers considering remote work, furloughs, reduction in hours of work or salary reductions for employees in nonimmigrant visa categories without wage requirements.

Change in Work Location

One requirement common to all visa types is that USCIS must be notified if there is a material change in the terms of employment. Over the past year, many employers have had to close headquarters and implement remote work policies. Because the E, L, O and TN visas do not require an LCA, they are not as location specific as the H-1B and they afford more flexibility regarding a change in the nonimmigrant employee’s work location.

In the L-1 context, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(7)(i)(C) states that an employer should file an amended petition to reflect changes in approved relationships, additional qualifying organizations under a blanket petition, change in capacity of employment (i.e. from a specialized knowledge position to a managerial position), or any information which would affect the beneficiary’s eligibility under the Act. As long as the L-1 employee continues to perform the duties of the approved L-1, a change in work location, especially if only temporary, should not be considered sufficiently material to require the filing of an amendment. However, employers of nonimmigrant workers in L-1 status, and especially when the change in work location will be long-term, should consider the fact that L-1s are subject to USCIS site visits. The employer should consider whether it makes more sense to file the L-1 amendment in an effort to protect against the potential negative effect of a failed USCIS site visit to the initial L-1 worksite. This was exactly what happened in Matter of W- Ltd., ID# 1735950 (AAO Nov. 20, 2018). This non-precedent decision involved an employer who relocated the L-1 employee without filing an amendment. Upon discovering, after a site visit, that the L-1 was no longer employed at the original worksite, USCIS issued a Notice of Intent to Revoke (NOIR) the approved L-1 petition. This was despite the fact that the officer was able to speak to the L-1 employee’s supervisor at the worksite, interview the L-1 employee over the phone and collect additional information from the L-1 employee via email! The employer responded to the NOIR explaining the relocation and that the L-1 employee continued to perform in the same position. However, the L-1 was still revoked. USCIS stated that it was not evident that the beneficiary was currently employed in a managerial position pursuant to the terms and conditions of the approved petition. Upon appeal, the employer successfully argued that neither the statute, regulations, nor USCIS policy expressly require an L- I employer to file an amended petition in every instance where a beneficiary is transferred to a new worksite to perform similar duties for the same employer. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) agreed and held that the L-1 had been improperly revoked. While this decision is excellent it is still only a non-precedent decision and the AAO stated that such determinations must be made on a case-by-case basis. Employers considering permanently relocating their L-1 employees may wish to engage in a costs-benefits analysis to determine whether it would make more sense to simply file the amended petition rather than risk a failed site visit and a possible revocation which would likely have a negative impact on their business and on the L-1 employee who would not be able to continue to work and may even have to leave the US while the revocation is under appeal. If the L-1 obtained L-1 status based on a blanket L-1 petition and will be relocated to an office location already listed in the approved blanket petition, then the L-1 amended petition would not be required.

The E, O and TN visas are not currently subject to site visits. As long as the other terms and conditions of employment remain the same, it is not likely that an employer would encounter any issues in implementing a switch to remote work.

Furloughs

A ‘furlough’ is a temporary leave of absence from employment duties, without pay. Employers continue to consider furloughs as a means to decrease spending as the pandemic continues. Generally, a nonimmigrant worker may request unpaid leave for personal reasons, such as to take care of a sick parent, and the employer may grant this leave as long as it is well documented in the employee’s file, the period of absence is reasonable, and the employer-employee relationship is maintained throughout the leave. But a furlough is not a voluntary request for leave.

Since there has been no communication to the contrary from USCIS, a furlough can only be interpreted in one way and that is to effectively place the nonimmigrant worker employee out of status. An employer who wants to implement furloughs but maintain the ability of the E, L-1, O or TN worker to return to work at the end of the furlough period, could take advantage of the fact that employees in these nonimmigrant statuses, under 8 CFR 214.1(l)(2) are allowed a grace period of 60 days upon a cessation of their employment. Specifically, these nonimmigrant workers shall not be considered to have failed to maintain nonimmigrant status solely on the basis of a cessation of the employment on which their nonimmigrant classification was based, for up to 60 consecutive days. The grace period could be shortened if worker’s remaining nonimmigrant status validity period is less than 60 days. In this case, the grace period will end when the status expires. If the employee is rehired, under the same working conditions described in their nonimmigrant visa petition, before the end of their grace period, then they could go back to business as usual. A nonimmigrant worker may only be granted this grace period once during each authorized validity period. Accordingly, an employer could only utilize this furlough strategy once during the employee’s validity period without jeopardizing the employee’s nonimmigrant status and maintaining the ability to rehire the employee.

Reduction in the Number of Hours Worked

A reduction in the number of hours worked, switching from full-time to part-time employment, could be considered a material change necessitating the filing of an amended petition. Because the E, L-1, O and TN visas are not tied to an LCA, it may be possible for the employer to reduce the nonimmigrant employee’s work hours especially if that change will only be temporary. While it could be argued that the switch to part-time employment is not material, the issue must be analyzed on a case by case basis to ensure that all other terms and conditions of the nonimmigrant worker’s employment will remain the same especially if the change will be long-term. For example, if there are some job duties that will no longer be performed, perhaps because the company downsized, best practices may necessitate the filing of an amended petition to describe the new part-time position.

Salary Reduction

Once again, because there is no LCA and therefore, no prevailing wage requirement attached to the E, L-1, O and TN visas, a reduction in salary may be permissible as long as the other terms and conditions of employment continue to be fulfilled.  The facts of each case ought to be carefully examined. If the L-1 nonimmigrant worker will continue to work in their executive, managerial or specialized knowledge capacity, a reduction in salary, especially when company-wide, should likely have no effect on L-1 status. Cyrus Mehta discussed the effect of salary reductions here and pointed out that while it is quite settled that the L-1 worker’s employment is not necessarily determinative upon the amount or existence of a salary, the question of whether the L-1 worker’s salary is commensurate with his or her executive, managerial or specialized knowledge position is one that should be carefully considered, especially if that change is significant. For example, a substantial salary reduction, such as halving of the original salary, may be significant enough to warrant an amended L-1 petition. Again, this must be assessed on a case by case basis. If the L-1 worker continues to perform in the same capacity, and continues to be compensated from overseas, then it may still be defensible to not file an amendment.  Further, employers should be careful not to offer a wage that violates the minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act. USCIS is prohibited from approving such an L-1 petition under its adopted decision, Matter of I Corp, Adopted Decision 2017-02 (AAO April 12, 2017).

For an E-2 investor, a reduction in salary is permissible as long as the E-2 enterprise does not become marginal. An enterprise is marginal if it does not have the present or future capacity to generate income to provide for more than a minimal living for the E-2 investor and family. An enterprise that continues to employ workers other than the investor and his or her family is not marginal. Similar to the above discussion in the L-1 context, employers of E-1/E-2 employees in managerial, executive, essential or specialized positions should always consider whether a new, lower salary is still commensurate with the nature of the E-2 position.

In the end, it is worth reiterating that every case must be examined on its own merits. While great flexibilities may exist with regard to what could be considered a material change in E, L, O and TN contexts, that doesn’t mean that the government won’t ask questions later. A careful costs-benefits analysis may lead to the conclusion that it is safest to file an amended petition rather than being forced to later defend current decisions. Having said that, the costs-benefits analysis must include the fact that USCIS rescinded its policy of requiring officers to defer to prior determinations in petitions for extension of nonimmigrant status. This policy has not yet been rescinded by the Biden administration. Employers must consider whether the bigger risk lies in filing an amended petition only to have it be denied for new reasons that were not at issue when the initial petition was approved or in not filing the amendment and leaving the matter open to potential questions or an NOIR in the future.

Cora-Ann Pestaina

LCA Posting Requirements at Home During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Do I Post on the Refrigerator or Bathroom Mirror?

/0 Comments/in /by

“The LCA is to an H-1B worker like a leash is to a dog.” (Cyrus Mehta and Myriam Jaidi, The LCA in the Age of Telecommuting). In the midst of the global pandemic that is COVID-19, these words have never seemed truer.  Across the US, employers of H-1B workers are understandably very concerned about how to handle forced changes in the employment of their H-1B workers. Employers have had to make the difficult decisions such as to shut down completely, lay off employees, lower salaries, reduce employees’ hours of work, place employees on furlough or have them work from home. In last week’s blog, FAQ on Changes in Salary and Other Working Conditions for H-1B Workers During the COVID-19 Crisis, Cyrus Mehta provided a list of frequently asked questions (FAQ) seeking to provide some guidance to US employers. But one issue keeps on rearing its ugly head, how exactly can an employer ensure compliance with the Labor Condition Application (LCA) posting requirements when the H-1B worker is forced to work from a worksite (such as his/her home) that was not intended at the time the LCA was filed?

As background, the LCA ensures that notice is provided to US workers about the fact that an H-1B worker is being sought, the occupational classification, the wages offered, the period of employment, locations at which the H-1B worker will be employed, and that the LCA and accompanying documents are available for public inspection. See 20 CFR § 655.734. The notice must be posted at the “place of employment”, which means the worksite or physical location where the work actually is performed by the H–1B, H–1B1, or E–3 nonimmigrant. See 20 CFR § 655.715. So one’s home in the age of virtual cloud-based desktops and Zoom video can conceivably constitute “place of employment.”

As explained in the FAQ, if the H-1B worker relocates to the home within the area of commuting distance from the original workplace, a new LCA need not be obtained, but notice must still be given at the new place of employment. If the H-1B worker relocates to a home outside the area of intended employment, a new LCA has to be obtained and the employer must file an amended petition. “Area of intended employment” means the area within normal commuting distance of the place (address) of employment where the H–1B nonimmigrant is or will be employed. See 20 CFR §655.715.

Employers have run into issues due to the fact that employees are hesitant to post LCAs at their home. They are understandably resistant to the idea of broadcasting their yearly salary to everyone currently sheltering in place due to COVID-19 (e.g. in-laws or au pairs) and they may also be unable to even print the LCA at home due to lack of a printer. There is constant pushback from employers and pleas for an alternative. Unfortunately, the Department of Labor (DOL) has not set forth any guidance upon which the employer can confidently rely. In the above referenced blog, The LCA in the Age of Telecommuting, the authors discussed the fact that however absurd it may sound, it might still be advisable to file an LCA for the worker who telecommutes (if the home location was not contemplated when the LCA was filed), and have the worker post the LCA in two conspicuous locations in his or her home or the location from which he or she is telecommuting. In the alternative, the LCA notice provision may be satisfied by an electronic posting directed to employees in the relevant occupation classification. Pursuant to 20 CFR 655.734(a)(ii)(B), such electronic posting may be accomplished:

by any means [the employer] ordinarily uses to communicate with its workers about job vacancies or promotion opportunities, including through its “home page” or “electronic bulletin board” to employees who have, as a practical matter, direct access to these resources; or through e-mail or an actively circulated electronic message such as the employer’s newsletter. Where affected employees at the place of employment are not on the “intranet” which provides direct access to the home page or other electronic site but do have computer access readily available, the employer may provide notice to such workers by direct electronic communication such as e-mail (i.e., a single, personal e-mail message to each such employee) or by arranging to have the notice appear for 10 days on an intranet which includes the affected employees (e.g., contractor arranges to have notice on customer’s intranet accessible to affected employees).

Electronic posting is not foolproof. The rules governing electronic posting do not make clear who has to be notified – all employees everywhere and anywhere who fall within the same “occupational classification” (how narrowly or broadly should that be interpreted?) or only those in the “area of intended employment.” But, on how to effectuate a compliant electronic notification, see Cyrus Mehta’s blog, “Nuts and Bolts of Complying with the H-1B Notice Requirements”. 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.

Then, in the minutes of an October 13, 2017 meeting between the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) and the DOL Wage and Hour Division (WHD) there was this question and answer:

10. Many H-1B workers are now working remotely from their homes, instead of the employer’s office. If the employer has an LCA for its office but then will allow the H-1B worker to work remotely from home in a geographic area of employment that is not covered by the LCA, is the employer required to file a new LCA prior to the H-1B worker being allowed to work from home (assuming that the short-term placement option does not apply)? Is an employer required to complete the LCA notifications for an H-1B worker who will be working from home? If so, how/where should these notifications be posted at the H-1B employee’s home?

WHD Response: WHD does not expect employees to post at their houses. If the worker will be working at HQ and at home, the employer should post at HQ. Unless one of the short-term placement exceptions apply, the employer will need to file a new LCA for the employee’s home location if the employee will be working at a home location that is not within normal commuting distance of the location on the existing LCA covering the employee.

That unclear response provided no comfort that there would be no future penalty for failing to post an LCA at an employee’s home during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Most recently, on March 20, 2020 the DOL’s Office of Foreign Labor Certification answered FAQs that addressed COVID-19 impacts to OFLC operations and employers. The following question and answer was included:

4. I am an employer with an approved Labor Condition Application (LCA). Due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, I may need to move workers on an H-1B, H-1B1, and/or E-3 visa to worksite locations unintended at the time I submitted the LCA for processing by OFLC. Do I need to file a new LCA if the worksites are located in the same area of intended employment? If not, what are my notice obligations for moving the workers to the new worksite locations?

If an employer’s H-1B employee is simply moving to a new job location within the same area of intended employment, a new LCA is not generally required. See 20 CFR 655.734. Therefore, provided there are no changes in the terms and conditions of employment that may affect the validity of the existing LCA, employers do not need to file a new LCA. Employers with an approved LCA may move workers to other worksite locations, which were unintended at the time of filing the LCA, without needing to file a new LCA, provided that the worksite locations are within the same area of intended employment covered by the approved LCA. Under 20 CFR 655.734(a)(2), the employer must provide either electronic or hard-copy notice at those worksite locations meeting the content requirements at 20 CFR 655.734(a)(1) and for 10 calendar days total, unless direct notice is provided, such as an email notice. It is important to note that if the move includes a material change in the terms and conditions of employment, the employer may need to file an amended petition with USCIS. Notice is required to be provided on or before the date any worker on an H-1B, H-1B1, or E3 visa employed under the approved LCA begins work at the new worksite locations. Because OFLC acknowledges employers affected by the COVID-19 pandemic may experience various service disruptions, the notice will be considered timely when placed as soon as practical and no later than 30 calendar days after the worker begins work at the new worksite locations. Employers with an approved LCA may also move H-1B workers to unintended worksite locations outside of the area(s) of intended employment on the LCA using the short-term placement provisions. As required for all short-term placements, the employer’s placement must meet the requirements of 20 CFR 655.735. The short-term placement provisions only apply to H-1B workers.

Requiring the H-1B worker to post at home makes no sense as there are no other workers in that home. Some of our esteemed colleagues believe that since the H-1B worker is the only worker at the home location, e-mailing the LCA notification to that worker, without requiring a posting in two ridiculous conspicuous locations – such as one on the refrigerator and the other on the bathroom mirror – would be the most appropriate way to handle it.

At the end of the day, the lack of various concessions in the midst of a global pandemic does nothing to ease fears that employers who fail (with good reason) to properly post the LCA for their H-1B workers could be penalized following a DOL audit. Knowing the various issues employers face during the pandemic, will the chances of an audit actually increase once everyone is able to go back to work? Will the DOL seize the opportunity to say “gotcha?” It remains to be seen and of course, the hope is that any DOL auditor will exercise discretion and not impose any penalty against an employer with a history of compliance. But, at this point, it is still a significant risk. Unless and until the DOL says otherwise, the refrigerator and the bathroom mirror may have to come into play.

 

 

 

Cyrus Mehta

The Nuts and Bolts of Complying with the H-1B Notice Requirements

/0 Comments/in /by

A US employer has to meet several requirements when filing an H-1B visa petition on behalf of the foreign national employee. One important requirement is for the employer to notify affected US workers regarding its intent to hire a foreign worker in H-1B nonimmigrant status. The notification requirement is considered to be an important protection for US workers as it informs them of the terms of the employment of the nonimmigrant H-1B worker, including the wage being offered, and the right of the US worker to examine documents justifying the wage, as well as the ability of the US worker to file complaints if they believe that violations have occurred.

The Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor has issued useful guidance regarding H-1B notice requirements by electronic posting in a Field Assistance Bulletin dated March 15, 2019 (FAB).  The WHD has seen a rise in the use of electronic notification by employers who file H-1B petitions. Employers have the option to notify US workers either through a hard copy notice or through electronic means. In the case of large employers, especially consulting companies who place thousands of H-1B workers at third party worksites of their clients, they have been using their own public website to meet the notification obligation. The FAB clarifies that use of a public website is permissible provided “all affected workers, including those employed by a third party, have access to, and are aware of, the electronic notification.”

212(n)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides the legal basis for employers to provide notification to affected US workers of its intent to hire H-1B nonimmigrant workers. This notification obligation is triggered prior to the employer filing the Labor Condition Application (LCA). It is only after the LCA is certified that an employer may file the Form I-129 petition to classify the foreign worker for an H-1B visa or H-1B status. The DOL is required to certify the LCA within 7 days unless the information provided therein is inaccurate or incomplete. The notice must be given on or within 30 days before the date the LCA is filed with the DOL. It is important to first post and then electronically file the LCA in order to ensure perfect compliance.

20 CFR 655.734 provides further guidance on the employer’s notification obligation. Employers may comply with their notification obligation by posting either a hard copy notice or by electronic notification. Where there is a collective bargaining representative for the occupational classification in which H-1B nonimmigrants will be employed, the employer must provide the notice to the collective bargaining representative on or 30 days before the date the LCA is filed with the DOL.

Regarding who affected workers are, the FAB states:

“Affected workers are those at the same place of employment and in the same occupational classification in which H-1B workers will be or are employed. See 65 FR 80110; 80161. Affected workers need not be employed by the H-1B petitioner to qualify as such: the H-1B petitioner’s notification responsibilities extend to all affected employees, regardless of whether they are employed by the H-1B petitioner or by a third party company. Id.”

The FAB then goes onto discuss hard copy and electronic notification requirements.

Hard Copy Posting Requirements

These requirements are set forth in 20 CFR 655.734(a)(1)(ii). The petitioning employer must post notice in at least two conspicuous places at the place of employment so that affected workers can easily see and read the posted notices. The notice shall indicate that H-1B nonimmigrants are sought; the number of such nonimmigrants the employer is seeking; the occupational classification; the wages offered; the period of employment; the locations at which the H-1B nonimmigrant will be employed, and that the LCA is available for public inspection at the employer’s principal place of business or at the worksite. The notice shall also include the following statement: “Complaints alleging misrepresentation of material facts in the labor condition application and/or failure to comply with the terms of the labor condition application may be filed with any office of the Wage and Hour Division of the United States Department of Labor.”

There are additional requirements for H-1B dependent employers or willful violators who are not using exempt workers, which are also set forth in the regulation.

A copy of the LCA that is posted at two conspicuous locations also fulfills the notice requirement.  Note, though, that the most recent version of ETA 9035 requires the employer to indicate the business name and address of the entity, if the H-1B worker will be assigned to a third party site. Thus, the information contained in the LCA, if it is used to fulfill the notice requirement, goes beyond what is required in the regulation. 20 CFR 655.734(a)(1)(ii) only requires notification of the “location(s) at which the H-1B nonimmigrants will be employed” and not the business name and address of the entity.

The FAB states that an employer will not be in compliance of its notice obligation if it posts the “hard copy notification, for example, in a custodial closet or little visited basement.” 20 CFR 655.734(a)(1)(ii)(A)(2) suggests that appropriate locations for posting could be in immediate proximity to wage and hour notices or occupational safety and health notices. Still, if the intention of the notice is for workers in the same occupational classification to see them, then the notices could conceivably be posted conspicuously in the place where say software engineers in a large company congregate, such as in their pantry or recreational area. It would, however,  be prudent for the employer to post the hard copy in the vicinity of other notices that the employer is obligated to post under law as that would maximize the ability of affected workers to read it.

The employer who intends to employ H-1B workers at third party worksites also has an obligation to post at the third party site even if that place is not owned by the petitioner. The FAB suggests that the hard copy posting must be placed in a location available to all affected employees. “For example, if the H-1B petitioner posts at a third-party worksite, but in a physical location accessible only to its own employees (such as a private employee lounge or office) affected workers employed by the third-party have not been notified and the employer has not complied with this provision.”

There have been instances of entities that receive H-1B workers who do not cooperate with the posting requirement. The H-1B petitioner, unfortunately, is still liable for violating the notification requirement even if the third party entity refuses to post the notice. See Administrator v. Sirsal, Inc. and Vijay Gunturu, 11-LCA-1 (ALJ July 27, 2012).  There is no legal basis for penalizing the third party that refuses to cooperate.  Some petitioners in a good faith attempt to comply, when the third party refuses to post,  have the H-1B worker post the notice on his or her cubicle, but this  attempt, even if sincere,  may still not be in compliance if the posting is not visible to all affected workers in the occupational classification at the third party worksite.

The notice shall be posted on or within 30 days before the date LCA is filed, and shall remain posted for a total of 10 days.

Electronic Notification

In cases where the third party entity refuses to cooperate, electronic notification may be a way for the employer to be in compliance, especially those who place large number of H-1B workers at many worksites throughout the country. Electronic notification is as effective as hard copy notification under 20 CFR 655.734(a)(1)(ii)(B). The employer, according to the FAB, “must make the notification readily available, as a practical matter, to all affected employees.” Thus, the affected worker must be capable of accessing the electronic notification. The employer may e mail or actively circulate electronic messages such as through an employer newsletter.

Such notification shall be given on or within 30 days before the date the LCA is filed, and shall be available to the affected employees for a total of 10 days, except that if employees are provided individual, direct notice (as by e-mail), notification only need to be given once during the required time period. The notification must contain the same language as a hard copy posting.

With respect to notification to affected workers employed at a third party worksite, when the petitioner places its employees there, electronic notification must be given to “both employees of the H-1B petitioner and employees of another person or entity which owns or operates the place of employment.” 20 CFR 655.734(a)(ii)(B). The FAB still warns that some electronic resources used by H-1B petitioners may not be accessible to affected workers at a third party. Even if employees of the third party site can visit the electronic resource, “if they do not know to visit the electronic resource, the notification is not readily accessible, to affected workers employed by the third party.” And if affected employees have access to the electronic notice, but they cannot determine which notice is applicable to their worksite, the notice is insufficient and the employer will not be in compliance.

Electronic Notification on Public Websites

H-1B petitioners may provide electronic notification on their public websites, so long as the affected workers at the third-party worksite are aware of the notice and are able to determine which notice is applicable to their worksite. A number of large employers post the LCAs on their website and indicate the work locations.

Take for example PwC. PwC’s website has a link to Careers. From the Careers page, one scrolls down to Labor Condition Applications, which in turn takes you to a link to the work location such as San Antonio, TX, which opens up the actual LCA for that location.

Similarly, with respect to Cognizant, one has to go to Careers, and then scroll quite a way down to LCA Notices, which then links to a location, which further links to the LCA notice rather than the actual LCA.

Both PwC and Cognizant are compliant relating to a website posting as the affected workers are able to determine which electronic notice applies to their worksite. However, the FAB indicates that employers may need to do more than just posting the links with the work locations on their websites, and may have to make affected workers aware that the petitioner has posted on its website. This is not to suggest that these companies are not taking additional steps to notify affected workers, but the point being made is that posting the worksite by any employer on its public website may not be enough.  The FAB suggests posting a link to the electronic notice for a particular third-party employer’s intranet site or emailing the link to all affected employees at that worksite. The FAB also suggests that the H-1B petitioner complies, after electronic notification, by posting a hard copy message in a conspicuous site or directing affected workers to the website where the notice is posted for that particular website.

According to Roman Zelichenko, CEO and Co-Founder of LaborLess, the “DOL has allowed for some flexibility.” In the penultimate paragraph, the FAB states that, “an H-1B petitioner may provide this notification using whatever method, or combination of methods, it deems most prudent for its businesses.”  Zelichenko, whose company automates LCA posting for employers and attorneys, adds: “And this makes sense – small companies who hire H-1B workers through a consulting company or staffing firm might use Slack, Microsoft Teams, etc. to communicate with their staff, making that potentially the “most prudent” means of notifying their employees of an LCA posting. For other employers, the easiest way to comply would be to post a notice where they traditionally posted hard copy LCAs, except now it would direct employees to a URL. Ultimately, the memo’s language allows companies to decide for themselves how best to comply, while outlining the basic guidelines those companies should follow if they want to remain compliant.”

Even if an H-1B employer posts electronically, the DOL may still find that the employer is non-compliant if affected workers are not notified about the existence of the electronic posting. The guidance thus suggests that “[a]n H-1B petitioner may default to posting of a hard copy if it cannot ensure that all affected employers have ready access, as a practical matter, to the electronic notice.” The lesson to be learned from this is that electronic notification may not be the ultimate solution, especially to get around a recalcitrant third party entity that refuses to cooperate, and H-1B employers may still have to resort to a paper posting to ensure that all affected workers  have been notified.  And if the third party refuses to post, the H-1B employer is caught in a classic Catch -22!

 

 

Cora-Ann Pestaina

How One Employee’S Complaint Can Lead to a Full Blown Investigation of an H-1B Employer’S LCA Records

/0 Comments/in /by

A recent U.S. Court of Appeals decision in Greater Missouri Medical Pro-Care Providers, Inc.ARB Case No. 12-015, ALJ Case No. 2008-LCA-26 (2014), is worth noting as it addressed the issue of how much latitude the DOL has to investigate an H-1B employer’s H-1B documents and records.

As background, an employer seeking to employ a temporary foreign worker in H-1B (also H-1B1 or E-3) nonimmigrant status must, as the first step in the petition process, file a Labor Condition Application (LCA) with the Department of Labor (DOL) and receive certification. The LCA is completed on electronic Form 9035 and submitted through the DOL’s iCERT system. The LCA collects information about the occupation including the occupational title, the number of immigrants sought, the gross wage rate to be paid, the starting and ending dates of employment, the place of employment, and the prevailing wage for the occupation in the area of intended employment. The LCA contains special attestation requirements for employers who previously committed willful violations of the law or for employers who are deemed to be H-1B dependent. The employer must also state that its employment of nonimmigrants will not adversely affect the working conditions of workers similarly employed in the area of intended employment. An employer is permitted to file the LCA no more than six months before the initial date of intended employment. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(n)(1)ID); 20 C.F.R. §§ 655.730-733.

Once the LCA is filed, the DOL must approve it within 7 days unless the application is incomplete or obviously inaccurate. 20 C.F.R. §§ 655.740(a)(1)-(2). Within one day of the LCA filing, the employer must maintain a public access file accessible to interested and aggrieved parties. The file must be available at either the principal employer’s place of business or at the employee worksite. 20 C.F.R. § 655.760(a). An aggrieved employee has 12 months after the latest date on which an alleged violation was committed to file a complaint with the DOL Wage and Hour Division (WHD). 20 C.F.R. § 655.806(a)(5).

In Greater Missouri, the employer hired numerous physical and occupational therapists from the Philippines on H-1B status. As required, the employer filed LCA applications for the desired workers. One H-1B employee, a physical therapist from the Philippines, filed a complaint alleging that she had personally paid all the fees, including attorney’s fees, to file and to extend her H-1B status and that the employer failed to pay her during a nonproductive period of over one year when she was reviewing for her licensing exam. The employee also questioned whether the H-1B employer was legally permitted to charge her a fee for “breach of contract” due to her early termination of her employment.

Upon review of the employee’s complaint (forwarded to the DOL by the Missouri state regulators), the DOL treated it as an “aggrieved party” complaint and the DOL investigator concluded that there was “reasonable cause” to investigate the charge that the H-1B employer had attempted to require the employee to pay a penalty for ceasing her employment early. Based only on the determination that this one charge was worth investigating, the DOL investigator launched a full scale investigation and sent a letter to the H-1B employer requesting all of its H-1B documents and records. The DOL investigator also interviewed the aggrieved employee and the employer’s other H-1B workers.

Based on its investigations, the DOL found that the employer improperly failed to pay wages to employees who it had placed in nonproductive status (benched); made improper deductions from employee wages for H-1B petition fees; and required or attempted to require improper penalty payments from some employees for early termination. The employer was ordered to pay over $380,000 in back wages to 45 employees.

The employer fought back by requesting a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).  The employer argued that the applicable statute and regulations limited the DOL’s investigation to the specific issues of the complaint that was filed and only to that aggrieved party’s LCA. The employer also argued that the statute and regulations impose a 12 month time limit for investigating violations. However, the ALJ held that the 12 month time limit only refers to when a complaint can be filed and does not refer to the scope of remedies that can be meted out. The ALJ issued a decision ordering the employer to pay back wages, fees for illegal fee deductions and amounts to employees for illegally withholding paychecks.  When the ALJ failed to hold in the employer’s favor, the employer petitioned for review before the Administrative Review Board (ARB).

The ARB held that the DOL indeed had the authority to investigate alleged violations involving H-1B workers who did not file complaints but also held that violations that occurred outside of the 12 month period prior to the filing of a complaint are not actionable.  However, the ARB affirmed the order for employer to pay awards. The employer took the case up to the District Court which affirmed the ARB’s decision and payment of awards. The employer then appealed to the US Court of Appeals. The DOL did not appeal the District Court’s ruling that violations that occurred outside the 12 month period are not actionable.

In the end, the Court of Appeals held that the DOL’s initial investigatory authority is limited to the complaint that was filed and to those specific allegations and the DOL was not authorized to launch a comprehensive investigation of the employer based only on a single allegation by one employee. The Court of Appeals recognized that additional violations could come to light in the course of the DOL’s investigation of a single complaint and that the DOL may need to modify or expand its investigation based on reasonable cause. However, the Court of Appeals found that this was not how the investigation proceeded in the instant case. The Court of Appeals held that the awards cannot stand because the ARB’s finding of violations and the resulting awards were based entirely on the DOL’s unauthorized investigation of matters other than the allegation in the aggrieved party’s complaint. The US Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the District Court.

While this was ultimately a victory for the H-1B employer and it is good to note that the DOL does not have sweeping authority to investigate allegations of violations that fall outside of the 12-month statute of limitations, this case is nevertheless a cautionary tale for all H-1B employers. Even a single complaint from one disgruntled employee could lead to a comprehensive investigation of the employer’s H-1B practices. Even though the Court of Appeals in Greater Missouri found that the DOL had overstepped in its initial investigation, the court also pointed out that the DOL may modify its investigation of a single complaint if other violations come to light.   Greater Missouri also highlights the fact that once allegations are made, the employer bears the burden of proof to prove that it has complied with the LCA attestations. Therefore, the importance of excellent record keeping cannot be overstated.

Going into 2016, it would be a good idea for any H-1B employer that is not 100% confident in its LCA records, and its ability to withstand a DOL audit of those records, to conduct a self-audit on behalf of the employer and bring to light any issues that the employer can immediately correct and ensure that it is in compliance. Such a self-audit will give the employer the confidence that it needs should the DOL ever launch an investigation and will help the employer to avoid the potential financial and reputation damage that could come from such an investigation. When it comes to DOL investigations, the proactive approach is always best.

Cyrus Mehta

AAO FIRMLY TETHERS H-1B WORKERS TO AN LCA LIKE A DOG IS TO A LEASH

/3 Comments/in /by

In Matter of Simeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542 (AAO 2015), the AAO affirmed the Service Center Director’s decision and revoked the petition’s approval. Among other things, the Director had concluded that changes in the beneficiary’s places of employment constituted a material change to the terms and conditions of employment as specified in the original petition. The changes included different metropolitan statistical areas from the original place of employment, which USCIS agents were unable to find. The AAO found that the petitioner should have filed an amended Form I-129 H-1B petition corresponding to a new labor condition application (LCA) that reflected these changes, but the petitioner failed to do so. The AAO noted that petitioners must immediately notify USCIS of any changes in the terms and conditions of employment of a beneficiary that may affect eligibility for H−1B status

In affirming the Director’s decision, the AAO noted:

(1) A change in the place of employment of a beneficiary to a geographical area requiring a corresponding Labor Condition Application for Nonimmigrant Workers (LCA) be certified to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security with respect to that beneficiary may affect eligibility for H-1B status; it is therefore a material change for purposes of 8 CFR §§ 214.2(h)(2)(i)(E) and (11)(i)(A) (2014).

(2) When there is a material change in the terms and conditions of employment, the petitioner must file an amended or new H−1B petition with the corresponding LCA.

In the not too distant past, employers relied on informal USCIS guidance indicating that so long as a new LCA was obtained prior to placing an H-1B worker at a new worksite, an amended H-1B petition was not required. See Letter from Efren Hernandez III, Dir., Bus. And Trade Branch, USCIS, to Lynn Shotwell, Am. Council on int’l Pers., Inc. (October 23, 2003). The AAO has now explicitly stated in Simeio Solutions, footnote 7, that the Hernandez guidance has been superseded. Even prior to the guidance being formally superseded, employers were filing amended H-1B petitions as consular officers were recommending to the USCIS that the H-1B petition be revoked if a new LCA was obtained without an amendment of the H-1B petition. According to the AAO, “[i]f an employer does not submit the LCA to USCIS in support of a new or amended H-1B petition, the process is incomplete and the LCA is not certified to the Secretary of Homeland Security.” The AAO cites INA 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(i)B)(1) and 20 CFR 655.700(b) to support its position, but none of these provisions seem to suggest that an LCA obtained after an H-1B petition has already been submitted is not valid if it is “not certified to the Secretary of Homeland Security.”   The DOL certifies the LCA. There is no separate process where the DOL also has to certify the LCA to the Secretary of Homeland Security.

It is not so much the cost that troubles employers with respect to filing an amended H-1B petition. The USCIS has made it extremely onerous for employers to obtain H-1B petitions especially when an H-1B worker will be assigned to third party client sites. This is a legitimate business model that American companies across the board rely on to meet their IT needs, but the USICS requires an onerous demonstration that the petitioning company will still have a right to control the H-1B worker’s employment. Each time the employer files an amendment, the USCIS will again make the employer demonstrate the employer-employee relationship through the issuance of a humongous Request for Evidence (RFE). The employer will thus risk a denial upon seeking an amendment, even though it received an H-1B approval initially on virtually the same facts.

H-1B workers in other industries such as healthcare also get re-assigned to different locations, such as physicians, nurses and physical therapists. They too will be over burdened by the need to file amended H-1B petitions each time they move to a new work location. One may also have to await the approval of the amendment before the H-1B worker can move to the new job location. The portability provision at INA 214(n) seems to apply only when an H-1B worker is accepting “new employment” by a “prospective employer of a new petition.”

Arguably, if an H-1B worker is being moved to a new job location within the same area of intended employment, a new LCA is not required and nor will an H-1B amendment be required. The original LCA should still be posted in the new work location within the same area of intended employment.

20 CFR 655.17 defines “area of intended employment”:

Area of intended employmentmeans the area within normal commuting distance of the place (address) of employment where the H-1B nonimmigrant is or will be employed. There is no rigid measure of distance which constitutes a normal commuting distance or normal commuting area, because there may be widely varying factual circumstances among different areas (e.g., normal commuting distances might be 20, 30, or 50 miles). If the place of employment is within a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) or a Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA), any place within the MSA or PMSA is deemed to be within normal commuting distance of the place of employment; however, all locations within a Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA) will not automatically be deemed to be within normal commuting distance. The borders of MSAs and PMSAs are not controlling with regard to the identification of the normal commuting area; a location outside of an MSA or PMSA (or a CMSA) may be within normal commuting distance of a location that is inside (e.g., near the border of) the MSA or PMSA (or CMSA).

So a move to a new job location within New York City would not trigger a new LCA, although the previously obtained LCA would need to be posted at the new work location. This could happen if an entire office moved from one location to another within NYC, or even if the H-1B worker moved from one client site to another within NYC.

The  DOL Wage and Hour Division Fact Sheet # 62J at http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/FactSheet62/whdfs62j.htmalso confirms this:

If the employer requires the H-1B worker to move from one worksite to another worksite within a geographic area of intended employment, must the employer obtain an LCA for each worksite within that area of intended employment?

No. The employer need not obtain a new LCA for another worksite within the geographic area of intended employment where the employer already has an existing LCA for that area. However, while the prevailing wage on the existing LCA applies to any worksite within the geographic area of intended employment, the notice to workers must be posted at each individual worksite, and the strike/lockout prohibition also applies to each individual worksite.

The AAO decision in Simeio Solutions further over regulates the H-1B visa, which is already subject to the most hyper-technical scrutiny. This in turn will deprive American companies of an efficient business model that has provided reliability to companies in the United States and throughout the industrialized world to obtain top-drawer talent quickly with flexibility and at affordable prices and scale that benefit end consumers and promote diversity of product development. This is what the oft-criticized “job shop” readily provides. By making possible a source of expertise that can be modified and redirected in response to changing demand, uncertain budgets, shifting corporate priorities and unpredictable fluctuations in the business cycle itself, the pejorative reference to them as “job shop” is, in reality, the engine of technological ingenuity on which progress in the global information age largely depends.  Such a business model is also consistent with free trade, which the US promotes vehemently to other countries, but seems to restrict when it applies to service industries located in countries such as India that desire to do business in the US through their skilled personnel

The Hernandez guidance provided flexibility to employers whose H-1B workers frequently moved between client locations, while ensuring the integrity of the H-1B visa program. Employers were still required to obtain new LCAs based on the prevailing wage in the new area of employment, and also notify US workers. However, they were not required to file onerous H-1B amendments each time there was a move, and risk further arbitrary and capricious scrutiny. The AAO has removed this flexibility, and has further regulated the H-1B to such an extent that the LCA must now always firmly and securely tether an H-1B worker through an amended petition just like a dog is to his leash, although the latter may still be occasionally let loose to enjoy more freedom than an H-1B!

Cyrus Mehta

The Ambiguous B-1 Visa: Lessons Learned From the Infosys Settlement

/0 Comments/in /by

Infosys is one of India’s most storied IT companies with a roster of impressive clients in the US, including named Wall Street Banks, Silicon Valley companies, retail chains, insurance companies and manufacturers. With a footprint all over the world and known for its integrity and probity, it thus came as a surprise that the United States accused Infosys of malfeasance in procuring visas for its foreign national employees to come to the US.

The US Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Texas, in conjunction with the Department of Homeland Security, launched an investigation in 2011 into Infosys’s alleged misuse of B-1 business visas. The investigation was spurred by a whistleblower’s law suit that made similar allegations, which got dismissed. On October 30, 2013, Infosys reached a settlement agreeing to pay a civil fine of $34 million to the US government, the biggest fine ever paid for an immigration case, but did not admit to the allegations of fraud and malfeasance.

There are plenty of lessons one can take away from the Settlement Agreement upon an objective review. Despite the seriousness of the allegations, Infosys did not incur any criminal liability. For instance, the government accused, among other things, the IT giant for bringing its employees on B-1 business visas to the United States to actually perform work. The government further accused Infosys of generating invitation letters to US consular officials indicating that their purpose of travel was for “meetings” and “discussion” when the true purpose was to work in the US, which can only be performed under the more onerous H-1B visa, such as coding and programming. Infosys, on the other hand, countered that it has always used the B-1 visa for legitimate purposes and not to circumvent the H-1B visa. Infosys also stated that the Department of State’s Foreign Affairs Manual permits other activities under the B-1 visa provided that they are incident to international trade or commerce, including those alleged by the US to be improper, such as coding and programming. The government also accused Infosys of directing its employees to misrepresent that they would be performing work at the location stated on the Labor Condition Application (LCA) underlying the H-1B visa petition, when they would actually be going to work at another location. Infosys also denied this accusation. Infosys, however, admitted to violations concerning its obligations to verify employees on form I-9. Still, despite the denial of any fraud or malfeasance, Infosys paid a humongous fine of $34 million.

It was indeed the ambiguity in the B-1 rules that snared Infosys and it was the same ambiguity in the B-1, which ultimately saved it from criminal liability. This is evident in the statement of the lead prosecutor in the case, Shamoil Shipchandler, who is quoted in a Wall Street Journal article:

“It’s not 100% clear what someone who holds a B-1 visa can actually do,” he said. For example, placing someone within a company for six months to do in-house tech support is an improper use of a B-1 visa. But if a consultant helps refine software during a meeting with a client, as part of a larger project, that could be seen as an appropriate use of a visitor visa, Mr. Shipchandler said. “It’s a murky area, but for our purposes they misled consular officials.”

As we noted in a prior blog on the B-1 category, the B-1 business visa remains one of the “most ill-defined” visas but plays a very important role in providing flexibility to business travelers. While the B-1 visa is associated with visiting the US to participate in meetings and negotiate contracts, it can have broader purposes. For example, the “B-1 in lieu of H-1B” was created to facilitate travel to the US of individuals who would otherwise qualify for an H-1B visa, but only needed to come to the United States for a limited period of time. In the current controversy over the B-1 visa, scant attention has been paid to the “B-1 in lieu of the H-1B,” which permits broader activities than the regular B-1 visa, albeit for a short period of time. Indeed, many of the activities that have been alleged to be outside the scope of the B-1 may be permissible under the “B-1 in lieu of the H-1B.” The case law with respect to business visitors only adds to the confusion over the definition of “business” in the US.  In Matter of Hira, 11 I. & N. Dec. 824, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) held that the term “business” does not include ordinary labor for hire, but is limited to intercourse of a commercial character. The BIA concluded that an alien entering with a B-1 visa to “study the US business market”, who on behalf of his employer (a Hong Kong based manufacturer of custom made men’s clothing), took orders from, and the measurements of, prospective customers in the United States whom he did not solicit; and who then sent the orders, together with the purchase price, to his employer overseas, was engaged in “intercourse of a commercial character,” and was eligible for B-1 visitor for business classification. The BIA specifically stated that Hira’s sojourn in the US was of a “temporary character” and he clearly intended to continue his foreign residence at the termination of his authorized stay. The profits of Hira’s B-1 activities also accrued to the foreign entity. The BIA, however, also clarified that the nature of the business activity itself need not be temporary. The BIA held that for B-1 purposes, the business relationship may be of a continuing or long standing nature. The only condition in this respect is that each visit be temporary in duration. While applicants can make their best case under the ambiguous standards of the B-1 visa in a forthright manner, deception and malfeasance can never be tolerated.

Even though Infosys is allowed to continue to access US visas in the future under the settlement, which also expressly ensures that past investigations  or alleged wrongful conduct will not be used to prejudice future applications, this episode is a wakeup call for others to ensure that corporations exercise good governance with respect to immigration matters. There is bound to be stricter scrutiny in the future of all applicants, and there is little doubt that Congress in future legislation may also use the Infosys example to tighten the ability for IT consulting firms to access business and work visas, as it has already accomplished in S. 744. Still, this episode can prove to be a valuable teaching moment for Infosys and other IT consulting firms. One of the conditions under the settlement agreement is that Infosys will provide more detailed description of the activities that will be performed when an applicant applies for a B-1 visa. As the B-1 visa allows a wide range of permissible activities, a best industry practice can evolve to specify the proposed activities in some detail, and the legal basis for them, when applicants apply for a B-1 visa or at the time of seeking admission at a port of entry. As a quid pro quo, it is hoped that the government will also seriously adjudicate such applications on their merits.

The work location indicated in the LCAs of H-1B workers in the IT consulting industry are also bound to change after the initial filing. Interestingly, the settlement agreement does not suggest that the employer file an amended H-1B petition, and instead, only alleged that Infosys did not submit a new LCA covering the new location. In the future, employers should immediately file new LCAs to cover the new locations after the original location has changed, and make disclosure at the time of applying for a visa or at the port of entry. It may also be prudent for the employer to proactively file LCAs in future anticipated locations, whenever feasible, in case there is a change in the work location, thus obviating the need to submit one after the H-1B petition is already approved. It is further hoped that the government will not insist on the more cumbersome and expensive H-1B amendment, which was not suggested in the settlement agreement.

It goes without saying that employers must also be compliant with their I-9 obligations. While there have been no dearth in enforcement actions for I-9 violations, the action against Infosys was novel as it involved allegations of misuse of the B-1 visa in addition to the I-9 violations, while Infosys countered by saying that its use of the B-1 was proper. Despite the settlement, the scope of the B-1 visa continues to remain ambiguous, although it would behoove employers to articulate the reasons for the B-1 visa in an application and then to have their employees abide by the terms and conditions upon visiting the US.

As noted in a prior blog, it is important too for the end user client company to be vigilant to ensure that foreign national workers assigned to the company are working under the appropriate visa categories. In the event that the end user client has knowledge or encourages activities not authorized under these visa categories, there is potential for the company to be ensnared in criminal liability.  Even short of criminal liability, it is important to make sure due diligence has been done to avoid being caught up in an embarrassing investigation against a partner company. If the end user company urgently needs software engineers through its IT contracting company for a project, a manager within the end user company may be requested to write a let­ter as a client of the contracting compa­ny to justify the need for its employee overseas to visit the US on a B-1 visa. If this letter indicates that the software engineer is required for meetings, or to conduct an analysis of the project to be subsequently worked on overseas (an obviously per­missible B-1 activity), but the actual pur­pose is for the engineer to actually par­ticipate in programming and working on the solution in the U.S., it may come back to haunt the end user company if there is a criminal investigation against the IT contracting company. Therefore, when drafting such a letter, it is important to ensure that the proposed activities discussed in the letter are per­missible B-1 activities, and when the foreign national arrives, he or she engages in activities that are consistent with the listed activities.  Of course, if the foreign national is assigned to perform work at the client company, the end user must ensure that the worker has an appropriate work visa such as the H-1B visa. End user clients must cooperate with the sponsoring employer to post the LCA at their sites.

Some years ago Wal-Mart was criminally investigated for engaging janitors as independent contractors when it knew that they were not authorized to work in the US. The investigation ended with a consent decree in 2005 where Wal-Mart like Infosys did not also acknowledge any wrong doing,  although the practices that have emerged from that episode with respect to ensuring that even employees of independent contracting companies have I-9s have become the gold standard. While its reputation has taken a beating – not to mention that Indian heritage IT firms even if compliant have borne the brunt of intense governmental scrutiny in recent years – Infosys also has the opportunity to develop gold standard best practices in the B-1 and other arenas (such as tracking work sites of their employees under the LCA) to not only comply with the terms of the settlement but to also assure its prestigious clients who must be anxious after the settlement.

Infosys should consider itself fortunate that it did not go down in flames like Enron or Anderson, and has been given another chance. It must seize this opportunity to redeem itself by elevating standards and best practices, which others will follow and which the government will hopefully honor.  In conclusion, the following quotefrom US Attorney for the Eastern District of Texas is worth noting:

“Infosys persuaded me and our partners that they could be fully fledged legal participants in the immigration process of the United States, so we’ll see,” Bales said. He added that Infosys hired American workers and was valuable to the American economy, and “we’re not in the business of putting people out of business when they provide value.”

Cora-Ann Pestaina

The H-1B Process Gets Even Harder: DOL Proposes Dramatic Changes to the LCA Form

/0 Comments/in , /by

I still think longingly of the days when certification of a Labor Condition Application (“LCA”) could be obtained within seconds. Three years ago, the Department of Labor (DOL) mandated that all LCA filings must be filed through its iCERT portal (http://icert.doleta.gov/) and that each application form, also changed to request additional, new information, would be manually reviewed prior to certification. This change increased the official LCA processing time from a few seconds to 7 business days. Human error and other systemic problems at the onset of the change resulted in filings taking three weeks or longer to process which led to late filings on H-1B petitions, a public outcry and US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) temporarily allowing employers to file H-1B petitions without certified LCAs! The new iCERT system forced H-1B employers to change their approach to filing H-1B petitions. The LCA process is about to change again.

As a background, an employer seeking to employ a temporary foreign worker in H-1B, H-1B1 or E-3 nonimmigrant status must, as the first step in the petition process, file an LCA with the DOL and receive certification. The LCA is completed on electronic Form 9035 through the DOL’s iCERT system. The LCA collects information about the occupation and there are special attestation requirements for employers who previously committed willful violations of the law or for employers who are deemed to be H-1B dependent. An employer is permitted to file the LCA no more than six months before the initial date of intended employment.

The DOL now seeks to once again revise the scope of the information collected on the LCA citing, in its LCA supporting statement, a desire to improve its integrity review and ensure the accuracy and completeness of the information. On July 9, 2012, the DOL published a Notice in the Federal Register announcing a 60-day comment period (to end on September 7, 2012) on its proposed changes to the form ETA-9035. In a process that is likely to take several months, the changes must be approved by the federal Office of Management and Budget before they can be implemented.

Changes include requiring more detailed information about the prevailing wage; requiring more detailed information regarding how the employer determined whether it is H-1B dependent and whether the nonimmigrant worker is an exempt employee or if not exempt, specifying the employer’s recruitment efforts to recruit US workers; and requiring the employer to list the address where the employee’s public access file is kept.

Some of the changes are even more significant.

Identification of Intended Beneficiaries

The current LCA does not require any information identifying the intended beneficiaries. The new form will collect information on the nonimmigrant(s) including name, date of birth, country of birth, country of citizenship and current visa status. If a PERM labor certification application was filed on behalf of the intended beneficiary, the PERM application number must be listed.

In its LCA supporting statement, the DOL states that this new information will allow its Wage Hour Division (WHD), which was created with the enactment of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and is responsible for the administration and enforcement of a wide range of laws which collectively cover virtually all private, State and local government employment, to more efficiently gather information during its enforcement activities and to find beneficiaries who may be entitled to back wages after an investigation. The DOL claims that this change will cause little extra burden because employers “generally know who the beneficiaries are before filing the LCA except possibly for the 2.6 percent of employers who file LCA’s for more than 10 employees.” Because iCERT saves much of the information on an LCA which can later be used to fill out other LCAs, the DOL states that it will not be overly burdensome for an employer to complete more than one LCA. The DOL also refers to its “relatively quick turnaround on LCA approval” as another reason why employers do not need to complete one LCA for large numbers of beneficiaries.

The DOL makes some valid points.  The majority of employers do not need to complete an LCA for more than 10 workers at a time. iCERT indeed saves most of the information and it may not be overly burdensome to complete multiple LCAs.  However, since employers are required to make LCAs available for public inspection, privacy and identity theft concerns are easily justifiable. The DOL ought to address this.

In addition, what the DOL has not addressed is the flexibility that will be lost because employers will no longer be able to use an existing, certified LCA to file a nonimmigrant petition for a new hire. The new identification requirement may be hard on large employers who file numerous H-1B petitions. The current annual cap on the H-1B category is 65,000. Each year, on April 1, USCIS begins accepting cap-subject H-1B petitions for employment to commence in the new fiscal year, on October 1. Employers typically scramble to prepare and file cap-subject H-1B petitions before the cap closes. For large employers, especially those with branches abroad, it is may be difficult to come up with a list, in March or April, as to who will be transferred to the US to work in October. These hiring decisions are ongoing and employers rely on the flexibility of the LCA which allows them to quickly file an H-1B petition using an existing, certified LCA provided it lists the correct information such as visa category, job classification, etc. This way, employers are not always forced to spend 7 business days waiting for the LCA to be certified and watching existing H-1B visa numbers dwindle.

What about that H-1B worker who just received notice from his current employer and has luckily found a new employer willing to file an H-1B on their behalf? How significant would it be if the new employer is able to use an existing, certified LCA and file an H-1B transfer petition before that worker falls out of status? What the DOL describes as a “relatively quick turnaround on LCA approval” can seem interminable in the case of an emergency. The DOL must bear in mind that no matter the emergency, it provides no expedite procedures for the LCA. Flexibility is therefore very important.

Interestingly, the new LCA would require listing the beneficiaries’ PERM application numbers. At this time, the possible acceptable responses to this question are not clear. But, since the PERM application is filed by the employer, a new employer of an H-1B transfer might not have this information. But this requirement suggests that the DOL may begin to cross reference the job opportunities in the nonimmigrant and immigrant cases as well as match the wages in both the cases.

Limiting the LCA to only 10 workers

Currently, a single LCA may be filed for up to hundreds of workers. An employer may use a single LCA to request multiple positions where they are in the same visa category and job classification and are either all part-time or all full-time positions.

The DOL now seeks to limit the number of workers to 10 per LCA explaining that it has found enforcement of LCA obligations difficult when an LCA is for 50 or 100 job opportunities and it would be a significant expenditure to build an electronic form to accept more than 10 names.

The issue, as discussed above, may not be with the limit of 10 names, but with naming requirement itself and the limitations that come from that.

Worksite Identification

The current LCA form requires the employer to identify the place(s) of intended employment. This entails listing the complete address and county where the beneficiary will work. The proposed new LCA will require significant additional detail.

The employer will have to indicate whether the intended worksite is the employer’s business premises; the employer’s private household; the worker’s private residence; or other business premises which type must then be inserted on the form. The employer must state whether the employee placement is at an end client location. If yes, the form then requires the name of the end client.

In its LCA supporting statement, the DOL stated simply that the additional information is needed for “clarification on actual worksite to enable employer to demonstrate regulatory compliance regarding changes in worksite.” This requirement could cause serious problems.

Again, the employer’s flexibility may be taken away. Currently, the employer has the flexibility to send employees to new worksite locations without filing a new LCA provided the new location is in the same area of intended employment listed on the certified LCA. See 20 C.F.R. §655.731(a)(2) which states that the wage on an LCA is valid for the area of intended employment. If each LCA has to list the end client information, will the employer be required to complete a new LCA each time it moves an employee even if it is within the intended area of employment?

Also, in cases where the employer is filing a change of status petition on behalf of the beneficiary or the beneficiary is abroad and will obtain an H-1B visa to enter the US, until the beneficiary is lawfully present in the United States in valid H-1B status and is thereby authorized to accept employment in the United States, the employer cannot hold him out as an employee.  See 8 C.F.R § 274a.1(c) and (f). Therefore, the employer may not be able to obtain that end client agreement prior to preparing the LCA.

Business immigration practitioners may already know that cases involving telecommuting and roving employees are currently being given increased scrutiny by the DOL. In light of that, the proposed changes to the LCA form are not surprising and seem to stem from some concern on the part of the DOL, with regard to LCA compliance and the bona fides of the offer of employment. Following the request for end client information on the proposed form is the irrelevant and possibly offending question, “Is this a bona fide job opportunity?” The DOL’s makes no effort to hide its blatant mistrust of the employer who places its employee at an end client site.

In recent times, the US government has taken small steps to attract foreign workers and to show that they are an asset rather than a liability. The changes to the LCA will again add more burdens on the employer by eliminating flexibility. On March 12, 2012, the USCIS issued revised guidance indicating that the failure to obtain an end client letter would not be fatal to an H-1B petition. The DOL is now insisting on exactly that by requiring that the precise worksite be listed on the LCA. We need less regulation rather than more in order for US companies to attract global talent.  In addition to the proposed changes to the LCA, there is proposed legislation in the form of HR 3012 (following the compromise between Senators Grassley and Schumer) that will grant the DOL draconian powers in denying LCAs based on undefined indicators of suspected fraud and thus hold up the processing of H-1B petitions.    Are the proposed changes to the LCA form taking two steps back?

Cyrus Mehta

The LCA in the Age of Telecommuting

/8 Comments/in /by

By Cyrus D. Mehta and Myriam Jaidi

An H-1B employee has a job with a company based in New Jersey. Her job can, however, be performed remotely from virtually anywhere in the United States or the world. So long as she has good internet access, she can sign in to her employer’s server and perform her work as if she were in the office. She usually works at her office, but has decided to work from home in Pennsylvania for two months. When her boyfriend’s mother, who lives in California, becomes ill, she and her boyfriend go out to care for her, staying for six weeks. She then goes on a cruise in US waters, still telecommuting to work. She has no work-related duties in Pennsylvania or California (or out in US waters during the cruise), such as working with clients there, and will be effectively telecommuting to the New Jersey office. What would her employer need to do in order to comply with the Department of Labor’s regulations for H-1B workers, specifically with regard to the Labor Condition Application (LCA) rules?

As a background, the LCA is to an H-1B worker like a leash is to a dog. The LCA ensures that notice is provided to US workers about the fact that an H-1B worker is being sought, the occupational classification, the wages offered, the period of employment, locations at which the H-1B worker will be employed, and that the LCA and accompanying documents are available for public inspection. See 20 CFR § 655.734.

Telecommuting (or “telework” as labeled by the US government) has become more and more prevalent. (See studies here, http://tinyurl.com/6jcc7ww.) Telecommuting employees raise important questions and issues in the immigration context, especially with regard to the Labor Condition Application required for H-1B nonimmigrant workers.

The first issue raised under the facts above is whether a new LCA is required for each location, and if so, whether the posting should be done in the employee’s home and in her boyfriend’s mother’s home.

These situations raise interesting concerns about how (and where) work is “actually” performed (as stated in the regulations) in a global economy increasingly characterized by telecommuting. Can it be argued that because the employee is logging into the employer’s system in New Jersey, the work is actually being performed in New Jersey? Not likely given the structure of the regulatory scheme, but it is something that should be considered in the global economy.

The laws governing the LCA and H-1B processes are out-dated. They do not recognize, and in fact guidance issued by USCIS in 2010, available at http://tiny.cc/z3ZU8, makes clear that some government agencies view with skepticism, the global economy and the increasing frequency of telecommuting.

The LCA and the attestations an employer makes when submitting one were developed as a means to protect wages and working conditions, and to ensure that US workers are made aware of the hiring of H-1B professionals (which makes the concept of posting an LCA in someone’s home or vacation hotel room somewhat absurd). The regulatory scheme is largely location-oriented. Violation of the regulatory framework may result in fines, debarment from participation in the LCA (and thus H-1B) process, and further investigations. Thus, even where a company pays the required wage for any location and has no intent of violating the procedures, a failure to comply with the specific technical requirements, even where compliance seems absurd, may result in penalties.

USCIS has become more location-oriented in its analysis of H-1B petitions. USCIS now examines worksite issues more closely and, with the recently issued Form I-129, has begun to request greater detail on worksites and itineraries for all H-1B petitions. The agency’s interest stems in part from its concern with the existence of a proper employer-employee relationship to support an H-1B petition. (For more information, see From Problem to Springboard: Tips on Using the Neufeld Memorandum in Support of H-1B Petitions, available at http://tinyurl.com/33t7fkz.) Such a relationship is defined in part by where an employee is working and whether the employer has control over the employee’s work at that location. The companies currently subjected to the highest scrutiny are those that place workers at end client sites (i.e., work locations not controlled by the petitioning employer) to perform services/work. But the concerns raised in that category may spread to other circumstances, such as the employee telecommuting from home.

The definitions addressing where an H-1B employee works were developed originally with a focus on the worker’s actual physical location, assuming that the job duties would need to be performed in a particular location. Gathering statistics and issuing prevailing wage determinations require pinpointing a particular city or geographic area. The entire prevailing wage framework is place-based. 20 CFR 655.715 provides the following definitions:

Area of intended employment means the area within normal commuting distance of the place (address) of employment where the H–1B nonimmigrant is or will be employed. …

Place of employment means the worksite or physical location where the work actually is performed by the H–1B, H–1B1, or E–3 nonimmigrant.

These definitions are vague and do seem to leave room to argue that an H-1B worker who can be anywhere but works through the employer’s location via the internet (thus the work arguably “actually is performed” at the employer’s location), is always within “normal commuting distance” so long as the employee has proper internet access. If all that the worker needs is a computer and an internet connection to perform the work, then it would be most logical to post the LCA where the employer’s server is located! To go back to our hypothetical and show how absurd it can be, imagine our H-1B telecommuter embarking on a voyage on a cruise ship for more than 30 days from San Francisco, CA to Anchorage, Alaska. Each time the ship enters a location, which is not within commuting distance from the original location posted on the LCA, a new LCA will need to be posted on the cruise ship. So, her employer, who is a stickler about compliance, posts an LCA with a San Francisco, CA location, which is where the ship starts its voyage. By the time, the cruise ship sails up the waters adjoining Oregon and Washington, new LCAs will need to be obtained and posted on the cruise ship. Once the cruise ship is in Canada, we can assume that the DOL’s LCA regulations do not apply in foreign territories, but with the DOL you can never tell as it passionately attempts to expansively interpret its rules. Once the ship reaches Alaska, more rounds of LCA’s will need to be posted (as Alaska is a huge territory) until its final destination in Anchorage, Alaska.

Nevertheless, using the employer’s address even where the employee telecommutes because the work is being done virtually at the employer’s location has not been tested. This problem does not arise in the PERM labor certification process with roving employees, because an employer can obviate the problem by using headquarters as the base from which to conduct recruitment. See Cora-Ann Pestaina’s article PERM and the Roving Employee, available at http://tinyurl.com/64dhcv5. A DOL auditor who reviews a company’s LCA public access files may not accept this 21st century application of the policies and definitions. Therefore, however absurd it may sound, it might still be advisable to file an LCA for the worker who telecommutes, and have the worker post the LCA in two conspicuous locations in his or her home or the location from which he or she is telecommuting. In the alternative, the LCA notice provision may be satisfied by an electronic posting directed to employees in the relevant occupation classification. Pursuant to 20 CFR 655.734(a)(ii)(B), such electronic posting may be accomplished:

by any means [the employer] ordinarily uses to communicate with its workers about job vacancies or promotion opportunities, including through its “home page” or “electronic bulletin board” to employees who have, as a practical matter, direct access to these resources; or through e-mail or an actively circulated electronic message such as the employer’s newsletter. Where affected employees at the place of employment are not on the “intranet” which provides direct access to the home page or other electronic site but do have computer access readily available, the employer may provide notice to such workers by direct electronic communication such as e-mail ( i.e., a single, personal e-mail message to each such employee) or by arranging to have the notice appear for 10 days on an intranet which includes the affected employees (e.g., contractor arranges to have notice on customer’s intranet accessible to affected employees).

The benefit of electronic posting is that it may protect an employer in situations where the employee is working remotely from various locations (not office sites, but locations such as a relative’s home or vacation spot) for more than 30 days per year, based on the argument that the electronic posting covers all potential locations. There are some general problems with electronic notification – it does not obviate the need to obtain a new LCA when the H-1B telecommutes, nor does it obviate the need to pick an address to indicate on the LCA. Electronic posting only obviates the absurd situation of having an employee post the LCA in his or her home. Furthermore, the rules governing electronic posting are quite vague and thus fraught with risk. The rules do not make clear who has to be notified – all employees everywhere and anywhere who fall within the same “occupational classification” (and the rules do not indicate how narrowly or broadly that should be interpreted) or only those in the “area of intended employment.” Where is that in an economy increasingly characterized by telecommuting?

The DOL’s framework is location-focused, and gives no clear guidance on whether the work a telecommuting employee does is “actually is performed” at the employer’s address as listed on the LCA, and not where the telecommuting employee is located. What is clear is that one who works remotely for less than 30 days (or in some limited circumstances, up to 60 days, see 20 CFR 655.735((c)) in a one year period need not have a new LCA to cover that employee’s new location.

Even if the DOL has not taken a position on the issue, it is hoped that the DOL auditor who wishes to rigidly apply this 20th century rule on work locations in the 21st century may exercise discretion in not imposing a penalty if the employer has complied in every other aspect. The DOL auditor may decide that given the lack of clarity in this area, the employer took a good faith position. However, to ensure against such risks, employers may wish to prepare a new LCA indicating the address from which the individual will be telecommuting, and have the individual post the LCA in two locations at that address. Until the regulations catch up with reality in the 21st century, this would be the appropriate course of action.