Cyrus Mehta

Don’t Always Suck Up to Buy American Hire American

/0 Comments/in /by

President Trump’s Buy American Hire American Executive Order (BAHA) has little relevance in an economy where the unemployment rate is 4% and the Labor Department has reported that there is a record high of 7.3 million job openings.  BAHA has however been deployed to make life harder for legal immigrants who do their best to remain in status while pursuing lawful permanent residence. They also benefit the United States as their employers need them and follow the law in filing appropriate visa applications.   For example, H-1B visa renewals that were routinely approved previously are now being denied in the name of BAHA. The USCIS has recently released new H-1B data that reflects an increase in requests for evidence and denials in 2019, again pursuant to BAHA.

BAHA aims to create higher wages and employment rates for U.S. workers, and directs the Secretaries of State, Labor, and Homeland Security, as well as the Attorney General, to issue new rules and guidance to protect the interests of U.S. workers in the administration of the immigration system. BAHA highlights the H-1B visa program and directs the agencies to ensure that H-1B visas are awarded to the most skilled and highest-paid beneficiaries. BAHA, however, is merely an executive order. It should not take precedence over the Immigration and Nationality Act.  Still, the USCIS uses BAHA as justification to refuse otherwise approvable H-1B petitions. Some of these H-1B denials are absurd. The author recently heard that the USCIS denied a petition filed on behalf of a pathologist by an established pharmaceutical company.

Following BAHA, the State Department also swiftly made changes to the Foreign Affairs Manual regarding guiding consular officials in issuing nonimmigrant H, L, O, P and E visas. The changes relating to H and L visas are reproduced below as examples:

9 FAM 402.10-2 Overview of H Visas

On April 18, 2017, the President signed the Executive Order on Buy American Hire American (E.O. 13788), intended to “create higher wages and employment rates for workers in the United States, and to protect their economic interests.”  The goal of E.O. 13788 is to protect the interests of United States workers in the administration of our immigration system, including through the prevention of fraud or abuse, and it is with this spirit in mind that cases under INA 101(a)(15)(H) must be adjudicated.

https://fam.state.gov/FAM/09FAM/09FAM040210.html

9 FAM 402.12-2 Overview of L visas

On April 18, 2017, the President signed the Executive Order on Buy American Hire American (E.O. 13788), intended to “create higher wages and employment rates for workers in the United States, and to protect their economic interests.”  The goal of E.O. 13788 is to protect the interests of United States workers in the administration of our immigration system, including through the prevention of fraud or abuse, and it is with this spirit in mind that cases under INA 101(a)(15)(L) must be adjudicated.

https://fam.state.gov/FAM/09FAM/09FAM040212.html

Based on these FAM changes, here have been several anecdotal reports of consular officers asking visa applicants as to how their employment will further BAHA by creating jobs for American workers or not depressing their wages. Some have been questioned whether their employers first tried to hire American workers even when such recruitment is not required under the specific visa. Such questioning is entirely inappropriate and not consistent with the law under which the visa petition was approved.

For example, the remuneration of an intracompany transferee on an L-1 visa can emanate from a US or a foreign source. See Matter of Pozzoli, 14 I&N Dec. 569 (RC 1974). The L visa also does not mandate a certain wage or a test of the U.S. labor market.  An E visa treaty trader or investor does not need to be paid wages. Still, under BAHA, this may be viewed as suspect if it does not create higher wages and employment rates for US workers. BAHA was not in existence when Congress created the L, E, H-1B or O visa provisions in the INA. According to the legislative history for the 1970 Act, the L-1 visa was intended to “help eliminate problems now faced by American companies having offices abroad in transferring key personnel freely within the organization.” H.R. Rep. No. 91-851 (1970), reprinted in 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2750, 2754, 1970 WL 5815 (Leg. Hist.).  There is also no indication in the plain text of INA 101(a) (15) (L) that the purpose of the L visa was to “create higher wages and employment rates for workers in the United States, and to protect their economic interests.” If Congress desired that objective in the L visa program, it would have stated so more explicitly. Indeed, Congress did speak about protecting US workers in INA 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) requiring an H-2B worker to perform temporary services or labor only “if unemployed persons capable of performing such service or labor cannot be found in this country.” Therefore, if Congress desired the same purpose for the L or the O visa, as it did for the H-2B visa, it would have said so. Even with H-1B visas, unless an employer is a dependent employer, there is no obligation on the part of the employer to recruit for US workers. Regarding wages too, if an employer is legitimately hiring a worker for an entry level position in an H-1B specialty occupation, the employer is under no obligation under the law to pay the highest level wage.

As a result of all visa applications being viewed through the prism of BAHA, attorneys feel the need to advise their clients to answer questions of consular officials relating to BAHA. Some attorney are also indicating in H-1B and other visa petitions (both nonimmigrant and immigrant) as to how the beneficiary will further BAHA. While it may be tempting for us as attorneys to invoke BAHA as if it is a deity with magical powers, it may also lead us down a rabbit hole. Apart from not being law and only an executive order, BAHA sets no standard for the attorney to guide the client. If the attorney indicates that the H-1B worker’s entry into the US will create more jobs, there is no metric to establish this. The only metric we have under current immigration law include specific labor market tests under the permanent labor certification program, the H-2A and H-2B programs and the H-1B program for dependent employers or willful violators. These rigid criteria have not been followed in other visa petitions such as an L-1 or an H-1B (for a non-dependent employer or an employer who is not a willful violator), and they do not need to.

If a client is asked inappropriately regarding whether the position will impact American workers or not, the client should be prepared to answer that the visa petition met all the criteria under the statutory and regulatory provisions, and was approved accordingly. There is no need for the client, or the attorney, to improvise on why the applicant’s employment in the US will result in more jobs for US workers.  Advancing the client’s cause under BAHA will lead to more questions from the adjudicating official, which could be arbitrary and cannot he held up to an objective legal standard.

This is not to say that an applicant should never make a BAHA argument in his or her favor. There may be some instances where the argument in favor of BAHA is clear cut or the official asks specific questions where an answer may be readily available.  The purpose of this blog is to caution against the talismanic invocation of BAHA, when there is no metric or standard, under which an adjudicating official can be held up to. BAHA has also been used most effectively to deny immigration benefits. If an official infuses the adjudication process with BAHA, resulting in a denial, it could be grounds for appeal. Even at the consular level, which is generally immune from administrative or judicial review, a denial of a visa application based on BAHA would potentially allow the applicant to seek an advisory opinion from the Visa Office if the denial was contrary to the statutory provision.  If the applicant already conceded that the official could ask for extraneous evidence under BAHA and provided it, it may be harder to appeal such a denial. Therefore, in the opinion of this author, it is best to not always suck up to BAHA.

 

David Isaacson

Not Sure Whether to Laugh or Cry: How the Border Patrol’s Harassment of an Oregon Comedian Shows Why It Should Not Be Checking Documents Within the United States

/0 Comments/in /by

In late January, Oregon comedian Mohanad Elshieky was briefly detained by the Border Patrol while traveling on a Greyhound bus in Spokane, Washington.  He recounted the incident on Twitter, and it was also reported by a number of news organizations.  In summary, the agents boarded the bus at the Spokane Intermodal Bus Station and began questioning passengers about their citizenship.  When Mr. Elshieky admitted to the Border Patrol agents that he was not a U.S. citizen but informed the agents that he had been granted asylum in the United States, the agents rejected the Employment Authorization Document (EAD) and driver’s license that he offered them, and asserted that he was “illegal”.  After questioning Mr. Elshieky for roughly 20 minutes outside the bus in freezing weather, and checking by phone with supervisors, the agents finally allowed Mr. Elshieky to reboard the bus and go on his way.

The Border Patrol, attempting to justify its action, appears to have sent the following statement to several news organizations, at least one of which reproduced it in full.  I reproduce the statement below in full as well to avoid any suggestion that I am taking language out of context:

“Agents from the U.S. Border Patrol’s Spokane Station encountered an individual on Sunday at the Spokane Intermodal Bus Station who was not in possession of the immigration documents required by law.

While performing transportation checks, agents made contact with Mohanad Elshieky. Mr. Elshieky stated he was from Libya and presented the agents with an Oregon driver’s license and an Employment Authorization Card (EAD). As with anyone who needs to have their immigration status verified, Mr. Elshieky was asked to exit the bus. After the approximately 20 minutes needed to verify his status, Mr. Elshieky was allowed to board the bus and continue his travels without delay.

According to 8 USC 1304(e), all immigrants 18 years and older are required to carry immigration documents showing they are in the United States legally. Neither an EAD nor a driver’s license is considered a valid document to satisfy this law. A valid I-94, which is given to all immigrants when legally entering the United States, or paperwork showing a person is currently in the asylum process, which is given to the asylee by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, would have worked to resolve this inquiry quickly.

For decades, the U.S. Border Patrol has been performing enforcement actions away from the immediate border in direct support of border enforcement efforts and as a means of preventing trafficking, smuggling and other criminal organizations from exploiting our public and private transportation infrastructure to travel to the interior of the United States. These operations serve as a vital component of the U.S. Border Patrol’s national security efforts.

Although most Border Patrol work is conducted in the immediate border area, agents have broad law enforcement authorities and are not limited to a specific geography within the United States. They have the authority to question individuals, make arrests, and take and consider evidence. The Immigration and Nationality Act 287(a)(3) and 8 USC 1357 state that Immigration Officers, without a warrant, may “within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States…board and search for aliens in any vessel within the territorial waters of the United States and any railcar, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle.” A reasonable distance is defined by 8 CFR 287 (a)(1) as 100 air miles from the border.”

The notion that there is a comprehensive registration scheme currently in operation, which registers all aliens and requires them to carry certain documents, has been contested in an article by Professor Nancy Morawetz and Natasha Fernandez-Silber that is very much worth reading, but for present purposes we can take it as given.  The more important point here is that the Border Patrol, even in its statements to the media, appears to be unaware of what that registration scheme actually says.

The provision of law cited by the Border Patrol for the proposition that “all immigrants 18 years and older are required to carry immigration documents showing they are in the United States legally”, 8 U.S.C. § 1304(e), states that “Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d).”  The referenced subsection (d), in turn, states that

Every alien in the United States who has been registered and fingerprinted under the provisions of the Alien Registration Act, 1940, or under the provisions of this chapter shall be issued a certificate of alien registration or an alien registration receipt card in such form and manner and at such time as shall be prescribed under regulations issued by the Attorney General.

8 U.S.C. § 1304(d).  The statute makes clear that its structure will be fleshed out by regulations.

The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 264.1 then sets out in detail what documents qualify as evidence of alien registration for purposes of the statute.  It states:

The following forms constitute evidence of registration:

Form No. and Class

I-94, Arrival-Departure Record—Aliens admitted as nonimmigrants; aliens paroled into the United States under section 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; aliens whose claimed entry prior to July 1, 1924, cannot be verified, they having satisfactorily established residence in the United States since prior to July 1, 1924; and aliens granted permission to depart without the institution of deportation proceedings.

I-95, Crewmen’s Landing Permit—Crewmen arriving by vessel or aircraft.

I-184, Alien Crewman Landing Permit and Identification Card—Crewmen arriving by vessel.

I-185, Nonresident Alien Canadian Border Crossing Card—Citizens of Canada or British subjects residing in Canada.

I-186, Nonresident Alien Mexican Border Crossing Card—Citizens of Mexico residing in Mexico.

I-221, Order to Show Cause and Notice of Hearing—Aliens against whom deportation proceedings are being instituted.

I-221S, Order to Show Cause, Notice of Hearing, and Warrant for Arrest of Alien—Aliens against whom deportation proceedings are being instituted.

I-551, Permanent Resident Card—Lawful permanent resident of the United States.

I-766, Employment Authorization Document.

Form I-862, Notice to Appear—Aliens against whom removal proceedings are being instituted.

Form I-863, Notice of Referral to Immigration Judge—Aliens against whom removal proceedings are being instituted.

Note to paragraph (b):

In addition to the forms noted in this paragraph (b), a valid, unexpired nonimmigrant DHS admission or parole stamp in a foreign passport constitutes evidence of registration.

8 C.F.R. § 264.1(b).  (Emphasis added.)

The regulation clearly lists an “I-766, Employment Authorization Document” as a form of “evidence of alien registration.”  This is in stark contrast to the Border Patrol spokesperson’s assertion that “Neither an EAD nor a driver’s license is considered a valid document to satisfy this law.”  In fact, an EAD is indeed considered a valid document to satisfy the law—although apparently not to satisfy the Border Patrol.

The Border Patrol spokesperson’s assertion that “A valid I-94, which is given to all immigrants when legally entering the United States, or paperwork showing a person is currently in the asylum process, which is given to the asylee by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, would have worked to resolve this inquiry quickly” fares little better on close examination.  Many nonimmigrants can indeed print a Form I-94 from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) website, although paper Forms I-94 are no longer routinely issued upon entry into the United States, and one assumes that the Border Patrol did not expect Mr. Elshieky to have a printer with him.  But Mr. Elshieky’s I-94 issued upon entry to the United States, if he had had it with him, would have revealed only that he had once been a J-1 (exchange visitor) nonimmigrant, a status he no longer held—which would be of little use to the Border Patrol in their efforts to determine whether he was here legally now.  And some asylees, who initially entered without inspection but were subsequently granted asylum, would not have such an I-94 from their time of entry anyway.

What the Border Patrol spokesman presumably meant was that Mr. Elshieky should have been carrying a Form I-94 indicating his current asylum status, as opposed to his former J-1 status.  But while some asylees will indeed possess such a document, the regulations quoted above specify a Form I-94 as evidence of alien registration only for limited classes of people, and asylees are not among them:

I-94, Arrival-Departure Record—Aliens admitted as nonimmigrants; aliens paroled into the United States under section 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; aliens whose claimed entry prior to July 1, 1924, cannot be verified, they having satisfactorily established residence in the United States since prior to July 1, 1924; and aliens granted permission to depart without the institution of deportation proceedings.

8 C.F.R. § 264.1(b).  Moreover, not all asylees will have a Form I-94.  It is supposed to be issued following a grant of asylum by an immigration court or by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), but this is not done contemporaneously with the grant.  The Form I-94 is issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) within the Department of Homeland Security, while the immigration courts and BIA are part of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) located within the Department of Justice, and the government lawyers who will have the asylee’s file at the moment of the grant are part of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).  The issuance of an I-94 by USCIS following a grant of asylum by an immigration judge or the BIA has, from this author’s personal experience, sometimes taken months, depending on how long it takes for the relevant file to be transferred.

As for the Border Patrol spokeman’s suggestion that Mr. Elshieky ought to have presented “paperwork showing a person is currently in the asylum process, which is given to the asylee by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,” this misses the mark on two levels.  First, such paperwork is not listed in 8 C.F.R. § 264.1(b) as evidence of alien registration.  And second, Mr. Elshieky was not, and never claimed to be, “currently in the asylum process”; he correctly informed the Border Patrol that he had already been granted asylum.

The bottom line, therefore, is that the Border Patrol got the law wrong.  I would respectfully suggest that this misunderstanding by the Border Patrol, including not only the agents on the ground but the agency’s own official spokesperson, is illustrative of a broader problem.

The Border Patrol, according to its spokesperson’s statement, believes that “[a]lthough most Border Patrol work is conducted in the immediate border area, agents have broad law enforcement authorities and are not limited to a specific geography within the United States. They have the authority to question individuals, make arrests, and take and consider evidence.”  Whether or not this is correct as a description of the Border Patrol’s statutory and regulatory authority, it does not appear to be correct as a description of what they are qualified to do and should be doing.

Enforcement of U.S. immigration laws is, and historically has been, divided among multiple agency components.  Enforcement of the laws within the interior of the United States is performed by what is now ICE and used to be a component of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) within the Department of Justice.  There has been recent debate about whether to abolish ICE and return that enforcement function to within the Department of Justice, an issue beyond the scope of this blog post, but the important point here is that there has always been a component of the government performing this function which was not the Border Patrol.  Even within U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), of which the Border Patrol is a component, it is the Office of Field Operations (OFO), the officers in black uniforms whom one encounters at airports and other ports of entry, who have the primary responsibility for determining whether people arriving at the borders of the United States are admissible under our complex immigration laws—not the green-uniformed Border Patrol.  And when applicants seek immigration benefits from within the United States, or the government seeks to remove them from the United States, the relevant legal determinations are generally made either by USCIS, a descendant of the former INS, within the Department of Homeland Security, or by the immigration courts and BIA in EOIR within the Department of Justice.  All of these agency components have specialized training in the nuances of immigration law, and must have it in order to perform their functions.  The Border Patrol is not in the same position.

This author would respectfully suggest that the Border Patrol’s place in the overall immigration-enforcement scheme should be limited to determining whether people who are trying to cross the border, or have very recently done so and are still very near the border, have passed (or will pass) through a port of entry for inspection, or have crossed elsewhere to avoid inspection.  In the former case, when someone passes through a port of entry, CBP OFO can analyze the details of their situation.  In the latter case, the Border Patrol can hand over recent entrants without inspection to ICE (or perhaps in the future a revamped INS) and the immigration courts, and in certain cases to USCIS asylum officers for an analysis of a claimed fear of persecution.  But when someone is not a recent border-crosser in close proximity to the border, the Border Patrol is not the agency component qualified to determine whether they are properly maintaining some status in the United States or potentially ought to be processed for removal proceedings.

This is so whether or not someone in the interior of the United States is encountered less than 100 miles from the border, as was apparently the case here.  (The Spokane bus station is evidently 90-something miles from the U.S.-Canada border in a straight line, although Google Maps suggests that actually driving from there to the border would take roughly 108 miles.)  As the American Civil Liberties Union has pointed out, roughly two-thirds of the U.S. population lives within 100 miles of some U.S. border, if one includes the water boundaries of the United States.  Operating within that 100-mile zone does not equate to only patrolling the actual border and only seeking out people who appear to have recently crossed it.  Spokane, Washington, is not on the border with Canada, and I very much doubt that the Border Patrol agents who questioned Mohanad Elshieky really thought that he had just entered from Canada without inspection.

Checking documents within the United States to enforce the immigration laws in the interior of the United States is not the Border Patrol’s job, or at least should not be.  As the case of Mohanad Elshieky illustrates, forcing the square peg of the Border Patrol into the round hole of interior enforcement can produce deeply problematic results.  The Border Patrol should stick to patrolling the border, and leave interior enforcement and legal interpretation to better-qualified agency components.

Sophia Genovese

The Trump Administration’s Lawlessness at the Border: Stories from Tijuana

/0 Comments/in /by

Following the law should not be a radical idea. Yet the governments of the United States and Mexico somehow find advocacy for the codified rights of asylum seekers reprehensible.

I travelled to Tijuana in mid-January to provide pro bono assistance to asylum seekers trying to present themselves at the San Ysidro Port of Entry and lawfully claim asylum. I was hosted by the Border Rights Project of Al Otro Lado, an amazing non-profit organization that provides critical legal orientations and know-your-rights trainings to asylum seekers in Tijuana, as well as documents human rights abuses against asylum-seekers by the Mexican and US authorities. Given their zealous advocacy and pursuit of justice, Al Otro Lado has become public enemy #1 in the eyes of US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the Mexican Instituto Nacional de Migración (INM). But what Al Otro Lado and volunteers are fighting for, in part, is for the US and Mexican governments to follow the law – in particular, the right to seek asylum. They are met with shockingly hostile resistance.

Section 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides,

Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 235(b).

INA § 208 does not limit the number of asylum seekers allowed to present at a port of entry and claim asylum on any given day. It does not allow for a waitlist for entry, which forces asylum seekers to wait in Mexico until their numbers are called. Critically, INA § 208 does not limit asylum protections to only those who present at ports of entry. Somehow, the plain meaning of INA § 208 is lost on this administration; or, it simply does not care. Regardless of intent, this administration is flagrantly violating the law by preventing asylum seekers from lawfully claiming asylum and sentencing them to death in the process.

I have previously blogged about the various ways in which the Trump administration has eroded the rights of asylum seekers and has made it increasingly difficult for these folks to access justice once already in the US. The Trump administration has now taken aim at asylum seekers even before they reach the US in an attempt to prevent them from asserting their rights through its illegal metering tactics and the recent rollout of the Migrant Protection Protocol.

Illegal Turn Back Policy and the Metering of Asylum Seekers

Since at least the summer of 2016, CBP has consistently violated INA § 208 by turning back asylum seekers who lawfully present themselves at ports of entry and claim asylum. CBP officers regularly tell asylum seekers that “Donald Trump just signed new laws saying there is no asylum for anyone” or that they will be separated from their children if they claim asylum, and even coerce asylum-seekers into signing documents stating that they do not have a fear of returning to their home country. CBP has attempted to justify such unlawful conduct by claiming that there is not enough room to process all of the asylum seekers who present at a port of entry on any given day.

As a result of the illegal turn back policy, asylum-seekers are forced to remain in Mexico while they await the opportunity to access basic asylum procedures. In Tijuana and several other ports of entry, this has resulted in an unlawful metering list (referred to as la lista), where asylum seekers and their families take a number and wait to be called before they may access the port of entry. Although asylum-seekers themselves are the ones responsible for giving out numbers to newly arrived asylum-seekers, la lista is actually managed by Grupos Beta (the so-called ‘humanitarian division’ of the Mexican INM) at the direction of US CBP. Each morning, CBP officials convey to Mexican INM how many asylum seekers they will accept that day. Mexican INM then relays this information to the asylum seeker tasked with running la lista, who then relays the numbers to asylum seekers anxiously awaiting their opportunity to claim asylum. Asylum seekers whose numbers are called line up at El Chaparral border crossing, but are then transported via van to a different port of entry several miles away.

It is important to note that unaccompanied minors are not allowed on la lista, thus leaving them to languish in Tijuana where they are at severe risk of exploitation and violence. Although not officially confirmed, one can infer that CBP does not wish to accept UACs because they are entitled to additional protections under the law. One can also infer that CBP conveys this desire to the Mexican INM who then conveys this to the list-keepers to not allow UACs on la lista. As a result, UACs are systemically blocked from accessing US asylum procedures, and are forced to age out while in Mexico before they are allowed to present at the port of entry. Once in the US, they will be treated as adults and entitled to fewer protections, despite their heightened vulnerability.

Illegal Metering in Practice: A Typical Morning at El Chaparral

Each morning at 7:00am, Al Otro Lado staff and volunteers arrive at El Chaparral to welcome newly arrived asylum seekers and to let them know that we are here to help them navigate the confusing US asylum process. We let them know about the organization’s daily Know Your Rights trainings and legal clinics, medical assistance, and free food and water.

The second half of the morning, Al Otro Lado volunteers turn their attention to asylum seekers whose numbers are called off of la lista and who will be allowed to present at the port of entry and claim asylum. During my stay in Tijuana, CBP allowed in anywhere from 15 to 60 people on any given morning – a shockingly low number given that San Ysidro port of entry is one of the largest and busiest land border crossings in the world which processes over 70,000 vehicles and 20,000 pedestrians per day. For about an hour before the asylum seekers are transported to the port of entry, volunteers scramble to provide last minute Credible Fear Interview (CFI) preparation for those asylum seekers whose numbers are called. We also told folks to dress in their warmest layer on the bottom because they are only permitted one layer of clothing once they are processed by CBP. All other clothing will be confiscated. This is despite the fact that asylum seekers are held for weeks on end in freezing hieleras. We also told the asylum seekers to write the phone numbers of friends or family in the US on their bodies because all of their documents will be taken from them. We told mothers with their children that we could not guarantee that they wouldn’t be separated. One mother had a teenage daughter with autism. She wanted to know what would happen to her if they were separated. We couldn’t provide her with any guarantee that the US government would comply with the law and provide her daughter with the heightened care she was entitled to. Around 9:30am, the first vans took off to the port of entry. Volunteers were hopeful that each asylum seeker would be okay, but we will never know for sure what happens to them once they are processed by CBP.

The US government’s metering practices and endorsement of la lista are unlawful. Under both US and international law, when someone expresses a fear of returning to their country of origin, the US is obligated to provide that person with an opportunity to seek protection. The US is in flagrant violation of their international and domestic obligations by refusing admission to asylum seekers who lawfully present at ports of entry, whether they turn back those asylum seekers who make it to the port of entry, through their endorsement of la lista, or the wholesale ban on admission of UACs.

Given their on-the-ground knowledge of what the US and Mexican governments are perpetrating, Al Otro Lado, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and the American Immigration Council filed suit to challenge the US government’s unlawful metering practice in Al Otro Lado, Inc., et al. v. Kirstjen Nielsen, et al. The complaint explains that CBP has utilized various tactics to deny asylum seekers access to protection through “misrepresentations, threats and intimidation, verbal abuse and physical force, and coercion.” Id. at 1. It argues that such tactics have deprived asylum seekers of their “statutory and regulatory rights to apply for asylum, violated their due process rights under the Fifth Amendment […], and violated the United States’ obligations under international law to uphold the principle of non-refoulement.” Id. at 2. In particular, CBP has violated its statutory duty to inspect all noncitizens who arrive at ports of entry under INA § 235(a)(3), which provides “all aliens (including alien crewmen) who are applicants for admission or otherwise seeking admission or readmission to or transit through the United States shall be inspected by immigration officers.” INA § 235(a)(3) is not discretionary; thus, when CBP refuses to refer an asylum seeker to a CFI or to place them in proceedings, they are in violation of INA § 235(a)(3), as well as in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment for failure to comply with mandatory asylum procedures. On August 20, 2018, the court denied in part and granted in part the government’s motion to dismiss, allowing the majority of Al Otro Lado’s claims to go forward.

What Happens Next?

Against this backdrop, the Trump Administration has also recently carried out its inaccurately named Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), which will force asylum seekers to remain in Mexico while they adjudicate their claims in immigration court. Under the plan, asylum seekers will be given a Notice to Appear (NTA) for an immigration hearing and returned to Mexico while awaiting their hearing. However, the NTA may or may not actually list an actual court date, forcing asylum seekers to constantly check the EOIR hotline to know when their hearing will actually be. When the court date arrives, the onus is on asylum seekers to arrive at the port of entry in order to be escorted to their immigration hearing. UACs (if they can actually access the port of entry), Mexican nationals, and other undefined vulnerable individuals will not be subject to the MPP.

Under the Policy Memorandum, in order to not be returned to Mexico, one must show that he or she “would more likely than not be persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion […] or would more likely than not be tortured.” As a reminder, in order to demonstrate a credible fear of persecution, one must only show a significant possibility of eligibility for asylum. 8 CFR § 208.30(e)(2). To be eligible for asylum, one must only show that there is a one-in-ten probability of being persecuted in order to demonstrate that such fear is “well-founded.” INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 US 421, 431 (1987) (“That the fear must be ‘well-founded’ does not alter the obvious focus on the individual’s subjective beliefs, nor does it transform the standard into a “more likely than not” one. One can certainly have a well-founded fear of an event happening when there is less than a 50% chance of the occurrence taking place”). When individuals are ineligible for asylum, they can alternatively show eligibility for withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), by initially demonstrating a reasonable fear of being tortured. 8 CFR § 208.31(c).  Withholding of removal and protection under CAT require the applicant demonstrate that “it is more likely than not” that he or she will suffer harm upon return. 8 CFR § 208.17 (Deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture); see also 8 CFR § 208.16(b)(2) (Withholding of removal). Thus, under the MPP, an applicant is subject to a higher standard of proof than they would be subject to in regular credible or reasonable fear interviews, a higher standard of proof than they would be subject to in asylum proceedings, and the same standard of proof if they were in withholding proceedings. Critically, in its Policy Memorandum, USCIS explicitly states that it is “unable to provide access to counsel during the assessments” because of supposed capacity issues and the need for “efficient processing.” Such a high burden and denial of access to counsel makes it entirely certain that asylum-seekers will be forced to remain in Mexico pending their hearings.

When the US was previously considering a safe third country agreement with Mexico (where an asylum seeker would be denied the ability to seek refuge in the US if they first travelled through Mexico), I explained the numerous reasons why Mexico is not a safe third country and how such an agreement would violate the United States’ obligations of non-refoulement. These same arguments are applicable to the MPP because the plan will continue to put asylum seekers in grave danger while awaiting refuge in the US. In particular, as reported by Human Rights First and Amnesty International, asylum seekers are in extreme danger of kidnapping, murder, rape, trafficking, and other crimes by INM officers and civilians. If they are women, children, indigenous, LGBT, or a member of any other minority group, they are especially vulnerable. Forcing asylum seekers to remain in Mexico while they await their court date is also arguably a violation of non-refoulement, which requires that no State, including the US, “shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his [or her] life or freedom would be threatened.” Given the numerous reports of violence against asylum seekers in Mexico, it is clear that their life and freedom would be threatened.

The numerous assaults on asylum seekers by the Trump administration must be met with sharp rebuke by immigration advocates. Driven by xenophobia, Trump’s anti-asylum policies are not only morally objectionable, but expressly unlawful under US and international law. Although it will continue to be an uphill battle over the next few years, advocates must continue to support the incredible work of organizations like Al Otro Lado, who continue to be on the frontlines of the battle at the border. If we have learned anything over the past several years, it is that immigration advocates, backed by the power of the courts, will continue to uphold the law by ensuring that we provide safety and refuge to those fleeing persecution.

 

Cyrus Mehta

To Leave Or Not To Leave: The Devastating Impact of USCIS’s Unlawful Presence Policy on Foreign Students

/0 Comments/in /by

The new USCIS Policy on Unlawful Presence for F, J and M Nonimmigrants took effect on August 9, 2018. This policy has had the effect of rendering nonimmigrants in F, J and M status, mainly students, unlawfully present upon being found to have violated their status.

Under the new policy, unlawful presence started accruing on August 9, 2018 based upon a prior finding of a violation of status. Individuals who have accrued more than 180 days of unlawful presence during a single stay, and then depart, may be subject to 3-year or 10-year bars to admission, depending on how much unlawful presence they accrued before they departed the United States. See INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) & (II).

February 5, 2019, will be the 180th day from August 9, 2018 according to a web based date calculator. If the USCIS has determined that the foreign student violated status at some point in the past, even prior to August 9, 2018, this individual who does not depart on or before February 5, 2019, will face a 3-year bar from re-entering the US. In order to play safe, the individual should leave the US even before February 5 to avoid risks with flight delays or a difference of opinion with a consular official regarding the exact date and time of departure from the US. Those who violated their status after August 9, 2018 should start counting the 180 days from  the date of the status violation, which will now be after February 5, 2019.

Individuals have been found to have been in violation of their status for a number of reasons, and at times the reason may not be so readily obvious. The determination is often even erroneous, but since August 9, 2018,  the student would have begun to accrue unlawful presence and will face a 3 -year bar upon departure from the US after February 5, 2019.  It is one thing when a student drops out of school and engages in unauthorized unemployment. This is an obvious violation of F-1 status. One instance of a less obvious violation is when an  F-1 student who has received more than 12 months of Curricular Practical Training (CPT) may be found by USCIS to have violated F-1 status and thus ineligible to be granted a change of status in the US.  8 CFR § 214.2(f)(10) provides that a student may be authorized a total of 12 months of practical training, and becomes eligible for another 12 months when the student changes to a higher educational level. Under 8 CFR § 214.2(f)(10)(i), however,  “students who have received one year or more of full time curricular practical training are ineligible for post-completion academic training.” Note that the inclusion of “academic training” appears to be an obvious typographical error, and it ought to have been “practical training” when the rule was last promulgated on 12/11/2002.

This supposed finding of a status violation is erroneous as 8 CFR § 214.2(f)(10)(i) clearly contemplates a student to be authorized to receive more than 1 year of CPT. The school authorizes it, and this authorization is entered in the student’s SEVIS, which in turn is administered by ICE. If ICE authorizes more than 12 months of CPT, it is clearly erroneous and contradictory on the part of the USCIS to find that the student violated status.

Still, if one’s change of status request from F-1 to H-1B has already been denied, this student should leave the US by February 5, 2019. A departure after February 5, 2019, would likely result in a 3 year bar to reentry to the US. If an applicant for change of status has received a Request for Evidence (RFE) accusing him or her for not maintaining status for exceeding one year of practical training, then the dilemma to leave or not to leave becomes more acute. Not all allegations of violation of status based on being issued more than 1 year of CPT result in denials. Many have been able to overcome this finding in the RFE and successfully obtain a change of status from F-1 to H-1B. Thus, one who decides to remain in the US must carefully evaluate the risk in the likelihood of success or failure in overcoming an RFE of this sort. As there is some risk that the request for change of status may be denied, the student may feel that it is safer to leave the US by February 5 rather than take a chance and overcome the objection. If the student cannot overcome the objection, and leaves after February 5, the 3 year bar would have triggered.  However, this is a decision that each individual must make with his or her immigration attorney.

Others face different challenges. A student in F-1 Optional Practical Training may have been thought to have been unemployed for more than 90 days. Such an individual who is unemployed for more than 90 days ceases to be in F-1 OPT status (and if in STEM OPT more than 150 days). See 8 CFR 214.2(f)(10)(ii)(E).  However, whether one is employed or unemployed may not be so readily obvious. The individual may be treated as an employee by the employer listed on the I-20, but the employer may not have paid her because there was no work during the 90 day period. But the student could have still been viewed as an employee by the employer. Again, one who faces an allegation of not maintaining status due to unemployment for more than 90 days has to make a risk assessment whether to stay in the US beyond February 5, 2019 or whether to leave by February 5.

Those who have found to have violated their status can salvage the situation by leaving the US by February 5, 2019. They still have time to do this. They can return again on another visa, such as the H-1B visa. If one wants to return again in F-1 status, and on the existing F-1 visa, care should be taken as the student may start accruing a new period of unlawful presence if he or she was not properly admitted into the US. If the student received a new I-20 to correct the violation prior to departure, then arguably the student would have been properly admitted and may not start accruing unlawful presence again.  However, after February 5, those who were found to have violated their status prior to August 9, 2018 will be trapped. If they leave after February 5, 2019, they will face a 3-year bar. If they leave after August 9, 2019, and if the violation occurred on or prior to August 8, 2018,  they will face a 10-year bar. The USCIS unlawful policy memo’s devastating impact on foreign students has already begun to unfold, and will become more acute after February 5.

The only silver lining in the horizon is a lawsuit, Guildford College et al v. Nielson,  that has been filed to challenge the unlawful presence policy. The plaintiffs have also subsequently moved for a preliminary injunction on December 14, 2018 to take effect on February 4, 2019. If the preliminary injunction is granted by February 4, 2019, students who have been accused of violating their status, especially those contesting erroneous allegations, can breathe easy for now as they do not have to make plans to depart by February 5.

Update – January 28, 2019: The court in Guildford College v. Nielson granted a temporary restraining order in favor of the two individual plaintiffs who would otherwise be impacted by the unlawful presence policy. This is a positive development.  Thus far, the the TRO only positively impacts the two plaintiffs and does not apply globally to all students who may be adversely impacted by the policy.  The court has granted a date on March 26, 2019 on the motion for preliminary hearing. If plaintiffs win on the merits at this hearing, that relief should provided global protection.

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

Cyrus Mehta

Trump Can Provide a Potential Path to Citizenship for H-1B Visa Holders

/0 Comments/in /by

On Friday, January 11, 2019, many were intrigued by President Trump’s tweet assuring H-1B visas that they should expect a potential path to citizenship. This is what he tweeted:

“H1-B holders in the United States can rest assured that changes are soon coming which will bring both simplicity and certainty to your stay, including a potential path to citizenship. We want to encourage talented and highly skilled people to pursue career options in the U.S.”

There is no direct path to citizenship for H-1B visa holders. They first have to obtain permanent residence, and must then wait for at least 5 years, in most cases, before they become eligible for naturalization.

Trump’s appointee, USCIS Director Cissna, has made life extremely difficult for H-1B visa holders, and thus this tweet was seen like rubbing salt on an open wound. In recent times, even routine requests for extensions of H-1B status for occupations, which should have traditionally been recognized for H-1B classification, have been denied. These arbitrary denials by no means bring simplicity and certainty in the life of an H-1B visa holder, leave alone providing a path to citizenship. To add further insult to injury, the Trump administration is proposing a rule that would rescind the grant of work authorization to H-4 spouses.

Indeed, the goal of the Trump administration, inspired by restrictionists like Steve Miller, is to restrict legal immigration to the United States. This is to appeal to Trump’s base that feel threatened by immigrants of all stripes, whether they are legal, undocumented or refugee.

Some thought that Trump was referring to a proposed rule that would allow employers to preregister for the H-1B lottery, and would be skewed in favor of those with advanced degrees, but this rule too does nothing for existing H-1B visa holders and also does nothing to put them on the path to citizenship.

But if Trump really wants, he can make his tweet become reality without the need to even go through Congress. It has become de riguer for presidential administrations to bring about seismic policy shifts in immigration through executive actions such as President Obama’s DACA or Trump’s travel ban. Even if frowned upon, bypassing Congress to provide benefits to foreign nationals like Obama did is far more preferable than Trump’s travel ban that potentially prevents mothers from banned countries to see their dying child in the United States.

Trump could immediately order Director Cissna to adjudicate H-1B visas in the way that Congress intended, with the goal of approving rather than denying the visa, bringing about much needed simplicity and certainty to both employers and H-1B visa holders. This used to be the case, where the supporting letter for an H-1B petition seldom exceeded a page or two. Presently, employers must brief an H-1B visa petition as if they are filing a brief in federal court. This is quite unnecessary for a routine work visa application.

If H-1B processing resumes in a fair and rational manner, most nationals not born in India and China should be able to obtain permanent residency relatively quickly upon being sponsored by their employers through the labor certification process. Unfortunately, the situation is different for people born in India and China. Due to the per country limits in the employment preferences, they have to wait for several decades even after the employer’s labor certification has been approved. One study predicts that the wait time could be 151 years for Indian born beneficiaries in the employment based second preference.

The outrageous waiting times are due to the excess demand and limited supply of visas, further compounded by the per country cap, set by Congress each year. On first brush, only Congress can change this and not Trump. As Congress is divided, such changes for H-1B visa holders are unlikely for now. There have been proposals in Congress to eliminate the per country caps, which have yet to pass.  However, if he wanted to and had the guts, Trump could change the way we count dependents that would dramatically decrease, and ultimately eliminate the backlogs, thus providing a pathway for citizenship to H-1B visa holders.

Ever since I co-wrote The Tyranny of Priority Dates in 2010, followed by How President Obama Can Erase Immigrant Visa Backlogs With A Stroke Of A Pen in 2012,  I have steadfastly maintained that the current Trump and the prior administrations of Obama, Bush, Clinton and Bush (Senior), have got it wrong when counting visa numbers under the family and employment preferences.

There is no explicit authorization for derivative family members to be counted separately under either the employment-based or family based preference visas in the Immigration and Nationality Act. The treatment of family members is covered by INA 203(d), enacted in 1990, which states:

“A spouse or child defined in subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E) of section 1101(b) of this title shall, if not otherwise entitled to an immigrant status and the immediate issuance of a visa under subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section, be entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration provided in the respective subsection, if accompanying or following to join, the spouse or parent.”

Nothing in INA 203(d) provides authority for family members to be counted under the preference quotas. While a derivative is “entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration” as the principal, nothing requires that family members also be allocated visa numbers. If Congress allocates a certain number of visas to immigrants with advanced degrees or to investors, it makes no sense if half or more are used up by family members. I have also written blogs over the years, here, here and here, to further advance this argument.

If Trump wanted to give meaning to his tweet so as to truly assure H-1B visa holders, even if he may not have known what he was saying,  he does have room under INA 203(d) to order the State Department and USCIS to count both the principal beneficiary and the family members as one. This will greatly reduce the backlogs and put H-1B visa holders, born in India and China, on a path to permanent residency and citizenship.

In Wang v. Pompeo a group of EB-5 investor arguments made the same argument that the State Department was counting visa numbers incorrectly. Their request for preliminary injunction was recently denied, although the case has to yet be decided on the merits. Still, this is a setback as the judge did not accept the plaintiff’s argument that the administration was counting visas incorrectly under INA 203(d). Even if plaintiffs were denied the preliminary injunction, the Trump administration could cease opposing the plaintiffs in this litigation and start counting the principal and derivative beneficiaries as one unit. There is sufficient ambiguity in INA 203(d) for the administration to count in this new way, and a government agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute is entitled to deference under Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)—often abbreviated as “Chevron deference”.

Admittedly, hoping that Trump would put H-1B visa holders on a pathway to citizenship is really a pipe dream.  So long as restricitonists like Stephen Miller continue to make the United States hostile to immigrants, there is no chance that Trump’s tweet would ever become reality. If he really wanted to carry out his proposal, it might anger his base. He may have to also fire Miller.  But if Trump ever wants to follow through on his tweet, this blog shows him a way to do so.

 

 

 

Cyrus Mehta

Top 10 Most Viewed Posts Published On The Insightful Immigration Blog In 2018

/0 Comments/in /by

Thank you for reading and supporting The Insightful Immigration Blog.  Listed below are the top 10 most viewed blogs that were published in 2018.  While these are the 10 most viewed blogs, each blog is a carefully crafted gem, and we invite you to read all of them.  In 2018, the Trump Administration continued its assault on immigration to the United States including restricting the right to apply for asylum as well as restricting the ability of an employer to obtain a routine H-1B visa for a skilled worker.  We covered many of these efforts to undermine our immigration system, which included the proposed public charge rule, the horrific practice of separating children from parents,  the new unlawful presence policy for foreign students, how to challenge H-1B denials as well as combat efforts to limit due process in our immigration courts, among many other burning issues.

Our blogs, a labor of love, critically reflect on  these developments and also endeavor to educate readers as well as provide food  for thought to overcome Trump’s restrictions.  Many of our blogs are also written solely for the purpose of providing timely commentary on cases, policy memos and other developments.  We strongly believe that it is important to inform people in the hope that they effectively advocate and litigate against restrictive or unfair immigration policies to ensure that the noble idea of America as a nation of immigrants never ever gets undermined.

We do hope that 2019 bodes better for immigration, and wish all of our supporters and well-wishers a very happy New Year notwithstanding the challenges that lie ahead!

  1. USCIS Denying Change of Status for F-1 Students with Over 12 months of Curricular Practical Training
  2. USCIS Finalizes Unlawful Presence Policy Putting F, J and M Nonimmigrants in Great Jeopardy
  3. Guidance to the Perplexed After USCIS Sneaks In Ban on Third-Party Placements of STEM OPT Workers 
  4. Potential Adjustment of Status Options After the Termination of TPS 
  5. USCIS Improperly Blurs Distinction Between Violation of Status and Unlawful Presence for F, J and M Nonimmigrants
  6. Analyzing the Definition of a Specialty Occupation under INA 214(i) to Challenge H-1B Visa Denials
  7. No Win Immigration Policy: Denying H-1B Extensions to Skilled Workers from India so that They Self-deport 
  8. Fearlessly Challenging H-1B Visa Denials Through Litigation 
  9. Beware the Gap: USCIS’s Policy Changes Cause Headaches and Confusion for F-1 Change of Status Applicants
  10. Suspension of Premium Processing: Another Attack on the H-1B Program 

 

Cyrus Mehta

The Curse of Kazarian v. USCIS in Extraordinary Ability Adjudications Under the Employment-Based First Preference

/0 Comments/in /by

When Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010), was first decided, it was received with much jubilation as it was thought that the standards for establishing extraordinary ability would be more straightforward and streamlined. Kazarian essentially holds that a petitioner claiming extraordinary ability need not submit extraordinary evidence to prove that he or she is a person of extraordinary ability. If one of the evidentiary criteria requires a showing of scholarly publications, the petitioner need not establish that the scholarly publications in themselves are also extraordinary in order to qualify as a person of extraordinary ability. This is a circular argument, which Kazarian appropriately shot down.  If Kazarian just stopped there, it would have been a wonderful outcome. Unfortunately, Kazarian has been interpreted to also require a vague and second step analysis known as the “final merits determination,” which can stump even the most extraordinary.

As background, an individual can obtain permanent residence in the US under the employment-based first preference (EB-1) by establishing extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. See INA § 203(b)(1)(A)(i). Furthermore, the individual seeks entry to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability and his or her entry will substantially benefit prospectively the U.S. See INA § 203(b)(1)(A)(ii) & (iii). Unlike most other petitions, no job offer is required and one can even self-petition for permanent residency. Evidence to demonstrate “sustained national or international acclaim” could be a one-time achievement such as a major international award (for example, a Nobel Prize, Oscar or Grammy). If the applicant is not the recipient of such an award then documentation of any three of the following is sufficient:

  • Receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards.
  • Membership in an association in the field for which classification is sought, which requires outstanding achievement of its members, as judged by recognized national or international experts.
  • Published material about the person in professional or major trade publications or other major media.
  • Participation as a judge of the work of others.
  • Evidence of original scientific, scholastic, artistic, athletic or business-related contributions of major significance.
  • Authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other media.
  • Artistic exhibitions or showcases.
  • Performance in a leading or cultural role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation.
  • High salary or remuneration in relation to others in the field.
  • Commercial success in the performing arts.

See 8 CFR § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). An applicant may also submit comparable evidence if the above standards do not readily apply.

In Kazarian, the main bone of contention was what constitutes “authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other media.” In the original decision, Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030 (Kazarian 1), the Ninth Circuit agreed with the Appeals Administrative Office (AAO) that “publication of scholarly articles is not automatically evidence of sustained acclaim; we must consider the research community’s reaction to those articles.” The court in Kazarian 1 acknowledged that this reasoning “may be circular, because publication, on its own, indicates approval within the community.” However, the court went on to justify the AAO’s circular reasoning probably unmindful of the adverse impact that it would have for future EB-1 petitioners, “Because postdoctoral candidates are expected to publish, however, the agency’s conclusion that the articles must be considered in light of the community’s reaction is not contrary to the statutory mandate that the alien have achieved “sustained national or international acclaim.” (citation omitted).

It was precisely this reasoning that  the new Kazarian decision reversed, on the ground that it was inconsistent with the governing regulation, 8 CFR § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), which simply states, “Evidence of the alien’s authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other major media.” The regulation does not require consideration of the research community’s reaction to those articles, which was essentially an invention of the USCIS.

Unfortunately after the initial victory, Kazarian, as interpreted by the USCIS, has resulted in a two part test. In the first part of the test, the USCIS has to determine whether the individual has met three of the 10 criteria to establish extraordinary ability. However, that is not sufficient and does not result in an approval. Even after meeting the first part of the test, the individual has to establish through a vague and undefined “final merits determination” that he or she is extraordinary.

Whether we like it or not, the two part test, based on the USCIS’s interpretation of Kazarian is here to stay with us – at least for now – and the focus of this article is to suggest ways to confront it and still win petitions for persons of extraordinary ability or outstanding professors and researchers.

In its December 22, 2010 Policy Memorandum, (“Policy Memorandum”), USCIS implemented a “two-part adjudicative approach” for extraordinary ability, outstanding researcher and professor, and exceptional ability immigrant visa petitions. The Service cites Kazarian as the basis for modifying the Adjudicator’s Field Manual to include a second step in the adjudication process, the “final merits determination.” Although Kazarian did not actually create a “final merits determination,” and objected essentially to the AAO’s imposition of extra requirements under the evidentiary criteria in 8 CFR §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the Service seized on the following dicta in Kazarian as a basis for justifying a “final merits determination” analysis:

(1) While other authors’ citations (or lack thereof) might be relevant to the final merits determination of whether a petitioner is at the very top of his or her field of endeavor, they are not relevant to the antecedent procedural question of whether the petitioner has provided at least three types of evidence (emphasis added); and

(2) …[W]hile the AAO’s analysis might be relevant to a final merits determination, the AAO may not unilaterally impose a novel evidentiary requirement (emphasis added).

Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d at 1121.

Under this two part test, the USCIS must essentially accept the evidence of extraordinary ability under the 10 criteria set forth in 8 CFR §204.5(h) (3)(i)-(x). The USCIS cannot object to the submission of the alien’s “scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other major media” under §204.5(h)(vi) unless there is consideration of the research community’s reaction to those articles, as it did erroneously in Kazarian. Still, the USICS may take this extra evidentiary factor into consideration, namely, the lack of reaction in the research community, during the “final merits determination” analysis. It is readily apparent that the analysis under the second step defeats the very essence of the holding in Kazarian that the USCIS cannot impose extra requirements under the evidentiary criteria. What it cannot do under the first step, the USCIS can still do under the “final merits determination.”

Post Kazarian decisions have generally affirmed the two-part test and final merits determination analysis notwithstanding the holding in a prior decision, Buletini v. INS, 860 F.Supp. 1222 (E.D. Mich 1994), which held, “[o]nce it is established that the alien’s evidence is sufficient to meet three of the criteria listed in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the alien must be deemed to have extraordinary ability unless the INS sets forth specific and substantiated reasons for its finding that the alien does not meet extraordinary ability.” Id. at 1234.  Under the burden shifting approach in Buletini, the petitioner should be deemed qualified, and the burden then shifts  onto  the  Service to reject the evidence that meet the criteria, if suppose, it finds that the evidence was  fraudulent or too dated and stale. Moreover, even while courts have adopted the final merits analysis, they seem to also be upholding the USCIS’s conflation of the step one analysis with the step two analysis.

Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011), aff’d Rijal v. USCIS, 683 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2012) is a decision that explicitly follows the Policy Memorandum, ignored the burden shifting approach as set forth in Buletini and conflated the two steps.  Although the petitioner in Rijal, a Nepali documentary film maker, submitted a UNICEF prize, the USCIS concluded that it did not meet the evidentiary criterion of “lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards of excellence”   as it was awarded more than 4 years ago and did not provide evidence of the alien’s sustained acclaim. While the court criticized the USICS for failing to consider this evidence under 8 CFR §204.5(h)(3)(i) and for similar errors under other evidentiary criteria, it nevertheless held that the petitioner did not suffer prejudice from these errors as “it made those errors with an eye toward the ultimate merits determination.” Rijal at 1347.  Based on a holistic determination of the petitioner’s evidence, the court held that the USCIS appropriately found that the petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. It is clear that the court in Rijal affirmed the two step test set forth in the Policy Memorandum even though the suggestion of a “final merits determination” was mere dicta in Kazarian. However, instead of remanding the case because of the USCIS’s faulty step one analysis in rejecting the evidence, the Rijal court held these errors to be harmless under the step two final merits determination.

Noroozi and Assadi v. Napolitano is another decision, albeit unpublished, from the Southern District of New York that has agreed with the Kazarian two-step analysis, but also seemed to agree with the USCIS’s conflation of the two. Petitioner Noroozi represented Iran in table tennis at the 2008 Olympics in Beijing. Although neither Noroozi nor the Iranian table tennis team won any medal at the Olympics, the USICS initially approved the EB-1 petition, but then subsequently revoked it. A second EB-1 petition was filed, which was denied on the ground that Noroorzi only met two of the criteria, but not three. The court agreed with the USCIS that there was no evidence to substantiate that he played a “leading or critical role” for his team and nor did the “published material” about him pass muster since it focused more on the team and only briefly mentioned Noroozi. Although the failure to meet the evidentiary criteria could have ended the analysis, the court also discussed how Noroozi did not merit a favorable judgment under the second part “final merits determination.”  Since Noroozi ranked 284th in the world in table tennis, and finished 65th place in table tennis in the 2008 Olympics, the court noted that this would oblige the USCIS to hypothetically grant EB-1 petitions to the 283 higher ranked table tennis players, and also to the 283 higher ranked players in other sports, assuming they were non-US citizens, as well as to the 64 table tennis players who outperformed Noroozi in the 2008 Olympics. The court’s “final merits determination” in Noroozi is troubling as the EB-1 was never intended only for the number one player in a sporting field, and this decision should be contrasted with a pre-Kazarian decision involving an ice hockey player in the National Hockey League whose team won the Stanley Cup, but was not an all-stars or one of the highest paid players, but was still found to be qualified under EB-1. See Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440 (N.D. Ill 1995).  The “final merits determination” permits USCIS to set subjective baselines with respect to rankings of   players in sports even if they would potentially qualify under the ten evidentiary criteria as Muni did after he sought reversal of the denial of his EB-1 petition in federal court. Interestingly, in Noroozi, the attorney also became a plaintiff along with the petitioner on the ground that the USCIS denied the EB-1 petition based on the petitioner’s association with the attorney who had been unfairly singled out in a DOS cable. That strategy too failed since the court rejected that there was any bad faith on the part of the USCIS in denying Noroozi’s EB-1 petition.

Various unpublished AAO decisions [See e.g. AILA InfoNet Document Nos. 12062752 and 12062753]   suggest that the government’s final merits determination will consider evidence whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated : 1) a “level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of the small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor,” 8 CFR § 204.5(h)(2); and 2) “that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise.” § INA 203(b)(1)(A); 8 CFR § 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20.   While it makes sense to preserve the argument in the record that the final merits determination is inapplicable and to propose the burden shifting approach under Buletini instead, it also behooves a petitioner to argue that his or her client merits a favorable adjudication under the “final merits determination” analysis given that it has been blessed in post-Kazarian decisions.  The amorphous nature of this standard allows the petitioner’s attorney flexibility to make a broad argument just as it gives the USCIS examiner the same flexibility to approve or not approve a case even after the petitioner has submitted evidence under the evidentiary criteria. For instance, if a petitioner has met 3 out of 10 evidentiary criteria, the agile practitioner may be able to argue that the petitioner has demonstrated to be among the small percentage who has risen to the top of the field, sustained national or international acclaim, and recognition of achievements, by highlighting only the strongest evidence rather than evidence submitted under all three criteria. If the scholarly articles are very impressive, but the awards are not and the petitioner may have judged the work of only one PhD student, then the focus could be on the impressive scholarly articles when qualifying him or her under the final merits determination. Moreover, under the final merits determination, a petitioner may be able to point to other evidence that may not categorically fall under the 10 evidentiary criteria, such as testimonials from eminent authorities in the field, as well as petitioner’s stellar academic background. Of course, if the evidence submitted under the evidentiary criteria is all qualitatively superior and extensive, then the practitioner must not rest on these laurels and take pains to highlight this for the final merits determination. Finally, the practitioner must always remind the USICS that the final merits determination is governed by the preponderance of evidence standard, as suggested in the Policy Memorandum too, which requires only 51% certainty.

In more recent cases, the USCIS has continued to conflate the step one with the step two analysis by rejecting that the petitioner met the evidentiary criteria and thus  bypassing the step two final merits determination altogether. A petitioner may seek review under the Administrative Procedure Act asking a federal court to find that the USCIS decision was arbitrary and capricious by conflating the two steps. Therefore, if we in any event have to deal with Kazarian, one strategy is to force USCIS to adopt the two steps if it only denied the case under step one.   Thus, in Eguchi v. Kelly, another unpublished decision, the USCIS denied an EB-1 petition of a Brazilian bullfighter. Eguchi submitted evidence that he won Brazil’s PBR Rookie of the Year in 2008. USCIS rejected the award on the ground that “such an award by its very nature is limited to neophytes, excluding more experienced bull riders. And therefore, such an honor does not measure your standing or selection from among those who are well established in the field or show your extraordinary ability under this criterion.”  The court disagreed since USCIS was conflating the step two final merits determination when the regulation only required Eguchi to submit evidence of receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor, which he did. Eguchi also submitted articles from various publications, including Yahoo! Sports, ESPN, and PBR’s website. The articles acknowledge Eguchi’s high rankings, victories, and earnings in PBR events. USCIS concluded that Eguchi submitted no evidence that PBR’s website is a major trade publication. The court held that it was self-evident that the website of the world’s premier professional bull riding association is a major publication for professional bull riding. The court also cited Muni v. INS., supra, at 444 which concluded that the petitioner did not need to show that National Hockey League’s (“NHL’s”) own magazine was major trade publication. Eguchi submitted evidence that he had earned over $700,000 in PBR events and ranked 44th on the association’s all-time money list—a ranking of the top earners in PBR history. He also submitted a history of PBR, which states that “[m]ore than 1,200 bull riders from the U.S., Australia, Brazil, Canada, and Mexico hold PBR memberships. But USCIS disputed this evidence on the ground that Eguchi’s earnings did not compare with the top 3 earners, whose earning have grossed between 3.9 and 5.15 million dollars, thus failing to establish that he is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of their endeavor. The court again smacked down USCIS that it impermissibly conflated step 1 with step 2.  At step one, according to the court, Eguchi was not obligated to prove that his salary illustrates that he is one of a small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor and enjoy sustained national or international acclaim. Rather, Eguchi need only provide documentation showing that he has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. According to the court, USCIS only focused on the top 2 or 3 earners in the sport but ignored the earnings of 1,200 PBR members.

Although the court in Eguchi v. Kelly found the USCIS’s denial to be arbitrary and capricious, and remanded, this author is unaware of the outcome of this case after it got remanded. It remains to be seen whether USCIS in similar cases will find a way to deny the petition again under the step two final merits determination analysis after a court has remanded based on the faulty analysis under step one. However, it still at least behooves the practitioner have a court hold the USCIS to the two step analysis rather than let USCIS conveniently deny the petition under step one. This is precisely what happened in Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126 (D.D.C. December 16, 2013) involving an EB-1 petition for a ballroom dancer from Moldova. The court agreed with the USCIS that the petitioner failed to provide evidence that she influenced the field with her dance techniques, although it seemed that the USCIS conflated step two with step one. The court also agreed with USCIS that the petitioner had not played a leading role in a dance club in Moldova, which petitioner claimed had a distinguished reputation in Moldova, but USCIS countered that the club’s reputation did not extend beyond the borders of Moldova. Here too, the USCIS conflated step two with step one, which the Court endorsed. Finally, the USCIS interpreted the artistic exhibitions criterion as only including “visual arts”, where “tangible pieces of art … were on display” and not dance performances. This was a strained interpretation of the regulation, but the court still gave deference to the agency’s interpretation. Finally, the court also agreed with the rejection of the USCIS’s strained interpretation that “lesser national and international awards” must involve winning more than one such award, and the petitioner in that case only won one world championship in the World Dance Sport Federation Junior II Ten category.

Petitioners must at least try to get USICS to accept that the petitioner meets 3 out of the 10 criteria, and then fight USCIS under step 2 final merits determination. If the USCIS can knock out the petitioner under step 1, the game is over. The author highly recommends the reader to Recent Trends in EB 1 Extraordinary Ability and Outstanding Professor/Researcher Green Card Petitions by Dan Berger, Emma Binder, Philip Katz, David Wilks, and Stephen Yale‑Loehr. This insightful article surveys recent decisions of the AAO in the EB-1 extraordinary ability and Outstanding Professor/Researcher arena. It provides useful guidance regarding what kinds of evidence will be accepted under the 10 evidentiary criteria. Under the outstanding contributions of major significance evidentiary criterion, the authors point to AAO decisions that suggest that the contribution must have “measurably” expanded the scholarship such as in the case of an insect researcher whose discovery of ninety‑six new species of jumping spiders represented “10% of the overall documented information regarding certain spider families.” With respect to the authorship of scholarly articles prong, the authors have analyzed decisions where the “AAO is critical of inconsistent and declining publication records. According to the AAO, a publication rate that has declined in the past five years or so may indicate a lack of sustained acclaim, even if the individual published prolifically in prior years.”

Still, this begs the question that Kazarian sought to clarify, which is that the evidence submitted by the petitioner need not inherently be extraordinary under step one. That has to be determined in the step two final merits determination analysis. But, unfortunately, the Kazarian two step analysis is fundamentally flawed for it will continue to confuse and confound USCIS adjudicators and courts where the merits determination is often made under step one, and if it is not, the evidence is rejected under step two. If only one can convince a federal court to adopt the clearer standard in Buletini v. INS, the two step analysis under Kazarian will continue to roil EB-1 extraordinary ability adjudications.

A prior version of this blog, How Extraordinary Must One Be to Qualify as a Person of Extraordinary Ability, was published on The Insightful Immigration Blog on July 5, 2013, https://blog.cyrusmehta.com/2013/07/how-much-more-extraordinary-does-one.html

 

Sophia Genovese

Acting AG Whitaker Takes Aim at Asylum Seekers Fleeing Family-Based Persecution

/0 Comments/in /by

Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker has followed in his predecessor’s footsteps by referring yet another immigration case to himself, Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 494 (A.G. 2018). The Acting AG asks parties to brief “whether, and under what circumstances, an alien may establish persecution on account of membership in a particular social group under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42)(A) based on the alien’s membership in a family unit.”

As background, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) in Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2017) recognized that membership in a family unit constitutes a particular social group. However, it held that to establish eligibility for asylum on such a basis, “an applicant must not only demonstrate that he or she is a member of the family but also that the family relationship is at least one central reason for the claimed harm.” The BIA denied asylum to the respondent, L-E-A-, for failing to meet this nexus requirement. The respondent was a native and citizen of Mexico whose father owned a general store in Mexico City. Members of a drug cartel approached the respondent’s father to ask if they could sell drugs in the store as they viewed it as a favorable distribution location. The respondent’s father refused. The members of the drug cartel approached respondent to see whether he would sell drugs for them at his father’s store. Upon respondent also refusing, the members of the cartel tried to abduct him, but he was able to get away. The respondent fled to the United States and sought asylum. The IJ and BIA reasoned that the respondent was not entitled to relief because even if the persecutor had harmed the respondent, it was done so as a means to an end, i.e. to sell drugs. In other words, they argued, the persecution was not due to the respondent’s membership in a particular social group and animus towards the family, but rather because he was interfering in their drug trade.

The BIA in Matter of L-E-A- recognized the long history of family units constituting particular social groups. See, e.g., Crespin-Valladares v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117, 128 (4th Cir. 2011); Al-Ghorbani v. Holder, 585 F.3d 980 (6th Cir. 2009); Torres v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 616, 629 (7th Cir. 2008). The BIA has previously “explained that ‘persecution on account of membership in a particular social group’ refers to ‘persecution that is directed toward an individual who is a member of a group of persons all of whom share a common, immutable characteristic…such as…kinship ties.” Matter of C-A-, 23 I&N Dec. 951, 955 (BIA 2006) (quoting Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211, 233-34 (BIA 1985)). “It has been said that a group of family members constitutes the ‘prototypical example’ of a particular social group.” INS, Asylum Officer Basic Training Course: Eligibility Part III: Nexus 21 (Nov. 30, 2001) (quoting Sanchez-Trujillo v. INS, 801 F.2d 1571, 1576 (9th Cir. 1986)). “There can, in fact, be no plainer example of a social group based on common, identifiable and immutable characteristics than that of the nuclear family.” Gebremichael v. INS, 10 F.3d 28, 36 (1st Cir. 1993). Indeed, the BIA found that L-E-A-’s membership in his family constituted a particular social group. Instead, the key issue was whether the harm he experienced or feared was on account of his membership in that particular social group. The BIA in L-E-A- upheld the IJ’s decision below, opining that “any motive to harm the respondent because he was a member of his family was, at most, incidental…[Rather,] the cartel’s motive to increase its profits by selling contraband in the store was one central reason for its actions against the respondent and his family.” 27 I&N Dec. at 46.

As we and others have previously discussed, the BIA missed the mark in L-E-A-. The BIA in L-E-A- critically notes that “[i]f the persecutor would have treated the applicant the same if the protected characteristic of the family did not exist, then the applicant has not established a claim on this ground.” 27 I&N Dec. at 44. Under this reasoning, L-E-A- should have been granted asylum. But for L-E-A-’s familial relationship with his father, he would not have been targeted by the cartel. In other words, despite their motivation of wanting to sell drugs at his father’s store, the cartel’s motivation in targeting L-E-A- was to get to his father, thus satisfying the nexus criteria. There is a reason why the cartel did not target the father’s neighbor – because the neighbor does not have a close, i.e. family, relationship to him. That the cartel ultimately had monetary motivations is irrelevant in the analysis of why they persecuted L-E-A-.

It is unclear how the Acting AG, or the incoming AG (anticipated to be William Barr), will rule in a case that has already made the obstacles more onerous for asylum-seekers. Given the administration’s animus towards asylum-seekers, it is unlikely that they seek to redress the problems with the BIA’s holding. Rather, it is likely that the Acting AG seeks to build upon the BIA’s flawed reasoning and make it even more difficult for those to flee persecution and obtain asylum. The BIA in Matter of L-E-A- affirmed, without question, that kinship ties are inherently a particular social group. Given the wording of the Acting AG’s question Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 494 (A.G. 2018), he will likely attack the case on this front.

As outlined by the BIA in Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2017), and reiterated above, there is no clearer definition of particular social group than kinship ties. To be granted asylum based on one’s membership in a particular social group, the applicant must show that the group is “(1) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question.” Matter of A-R-C-G-, 26 I. & N. at 392. As set forth in Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211, 212 (BIA 1985), a “common immutable characteristic” is defined as “a characteristic that either is beyond the power of the individual members of the group to change or is so fundamental to their identities or consciences that it ought not be required to be changed.” Under  Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I&N Dec. 208 (BIA 2014) and clarified in Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 227 (BIA 2014), the social group must be defined with “particularity,” or be defined by boundaries of who is actually a member of the group. Finally, as explained in Matter of W-G-R-, “social distinction” is defined as the ‘recognition’ or ‘perception’ of the particular social group in society. 26 I&N Dec. at 216. Family units very clearly satisfy each of these requirements, where you cannot change who your family is, where who members of your family are can be defined with particularity, and where others in society can recognize you as a member of your family. A challenge to the family unit particular social group would undermine the construction of nearly all particular social groups thereafter.

Once formulating one’s social group, the applicant must also show that their persecution was on account of their membership in the social group (the “nexus requirement”), and that the government in the country of origin is unable or unwilling to afford them protection from such persecution. As we’ve previously argued, the Courts need to clarify the nexus requirement. In Matter of L-E-A-, for example, the nexus analysis needed to have focused specifically on why L-E-A- was targeted and persecuted – not what the cartel’s ultimate aim was after targeting him. Clarification on this issue is imperative for uniform adjudication of particular social group asylum cases. Additionally, given AG Sessions’ holding in Matter of A-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018), future courts and advocates will need to clarify the state protection analysis, especially when the persecution is carried out by private actors. In particular, advocates will need to demonstrate through country conditions reports and expert testimony that the country of origin is unable or unwilling to provide protection from these private actors. In Matter of L-E-A- in particular, one can demonstrate that the cartel acts as a quasi-government in the respondent’s town, and that the police do not have control (or choose not to have control) over them.

Although the legitimacy of Acting AG Whitaker’s appointment, and thus his self-referral of cases, has been called into question, advocates must instead focus their efforts on litigating the asylum requirements. The constant self-referral of cases and unilateral, sweeping changes to the law have been tiresome for immigration advocates; however, we should use these opportunities to litigate existing, flawed case law to create a more robust asylum framework so that we can actually protect those fleeing violent persecution.

Cyrus Mehta

H-1B Visa Contest: US Master’s Degree v. Foreign Degree

/0 Comments/in /by

The Trump Administration has proposed a rule that would require petitioners seeking to file H-1B cap-subject petitions to first electronically register with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) during a designated registration period. USCIS said the proposed rule would also reverse the order by which the agency selects H-1B petitions under the H-1B cap and the advanced degree exemption, with the goal of increasing the number of beneficiaries with master’s or higher degrees from U.S. institutions of higher education to be selected for H-1B cap numbers and introducing “a more meritorious selection of beneficiaries.”

The H-1B program allows companies in the United States to temporarily employ foreign workers in specialty occupations that require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and a bachelor’s or higher degree in the specialty, or its equivalent. When USCIS receives more than enough petitions to reach the congressionally mandated H-1B cap, a computer-generated random selection process, or lottery, is used to select the petitions that are counted toward the number of petitions projected as needed to reach the cap.

Currently, in years when the H-1B cap and the advanced degree exemption are both reached within the first five days in which H-1B cap petitions may be filed, the advanced degree exemption beneficiaries are selected before the H-1B cap beneficiaries. The proposed rule would reverse the selection order and count all registrations or petitions toward the number projected as needed to reach the H-1B cap first. Once a sufficient number of registrations or petitions have been selected for the H-1B cap, USCIS would then select registrations or petitions toward the advanced degree exemption. This proposed change “would increase the chances that beneficiaries with a master’s or higher degree from a U.S. institution of higher education would be selected under the H-1B cap and that H-1B visas would be awarded to the most-skilled and highest-paid beneficiaries,” USCIS said. The proposed process would result in an estimated increase of up to 16 percent (or 5,340 workers) in the number of selected H-1B beneficiaries with a master’s degree or higher from a U.S. institution of higher education, the agency noted.

USCIS said it expects that shifting to electronic registration would reduce overall costs for petitioners and create a more efficient and cost-effective H-1B cap petition process for the agency. The proposed rule would “help alleviate massive administrative burdens on USCIS since the agency would no longer need to physically receive and handle hundreds of thousands of H-1B petitions and supporting documentation before conducting the cap selection process,” USCIS said. “This would help reduce wait times for cap selection notifications.” The proposed rule also would limit the filing of H-1B cap-subject petitions to the beneficiary named on the original selected registration, “which would protect the integrity of this registration system.”

On the one hand, there are compelling policy justifications to skew the allocation of scarce H-1B visas towards employers who hire foreign nationals with advanced degrees from US educational institutions. The H-1B reform Act of 2004 exempted the first 20,000 from the H-1B cap who had a US master’s or higher degree. After the first 20,000 were exempted, the remaining applicants with master’s degrees are considered under the overall 65,000 cap minus the H-1B1 numbers for Singapore and Chile. This counting methodology, deployed since 2004, is a faithful interpretation of INA § 214(g)(5)(C), which exempts an applicant master’s or higher degree from the H-1B cap “until the number of aliens who are exempted from such numerical limitations during such year exceeds 20,000.”

It remains to be seen whether the proposed methodology of counting all petitions first under the 65,000 cap, and then selecting those left out under the regular cap to qualify under the 20,000 master’s degree exception, would still be a faithful interpretation of both INA § 214(g)(5)(C) and the overall H-1B visa program as defined in INA § 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) and § 214(i)(1). If there is a lawsuit, a federal court would have to make that determination

Under INA § 214(i)(1), the H-1B visa requires the qualified foreign national to perform services in a specialty occupation, which requires “theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge” and “attainment of a bachelor’s or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States.” Thus, the minimum threshold degree to qualify for H-1B visa classification is a bachelor’s degree and not a master’s degree.

Moreover, INA § 214(i)(1) contemplates one who has a foreign degree to be able to qualify by establishing that it is equivalent to a US bachelor’s degree. See also 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C). Even experience can count as equivalent to a bachelor’s degree. See INA § 214(i)(2)(C). The skewing of H-1B visas towards those with master’s degrees from US institutions may in some senses be counter to Congressional intent, which was to permit those with foreign degrees, and equivalent work experience, to qualify for H-1B classification. Hence, a foreign physician with a master’s degree in medicine from a foreign university who intends to provide critical medical services in a shortage area in the United States may have less chances of nabbing an H-1B visa under the new proposal. So would a highly skilled  IT worker with a bachelor’s degree in computer science from a reputed Indian institution such as the Indian Institute of Technology. Both the physician and the IT worker with foreign degrees have the potential of making contributions to the US in the same way, or even greater,  as one who has graduated with an MBA from a US university.

In recent times, H-1B workers from India have in IT fields have been perceived to be taking away the jobs of US workers notwithstanding their acknowledged contributions to US businesses. Whether intentional or unintentional, the proposed rule will adversely impact the ability of IT consulting companies to sponsor such workers from India, even though the use of IT consulting companies is widespread in America (and even the US government contracts for their services), and was acknowledged by Congress when it passed the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998 (AVWIA) by creating onerous additional attestations for H-1B dependent employers. It is this very business model 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 that benefit end consumers and promote diversity of product development.

The new rule, unfortunately, has begun to create divisions within the H-1B community. Those who have paid tuition fees to US universities to earn master’s degrees feel that they are entitled to get preference in the H-1B lottery. At the same time, those who have earned bachelor’s degrees in the US will not get a preference, although US universities also gain from fees paid by foreign undergraduate students.  Others with degrees from abroad, including their employers who have sought them out for specialized skills that may not be found in the United States, feel equally entitled. Moreover, it is not always the case that one with a master’s degree will be paid a higher wage than others. A skilled professional with a bachelor’s degree and many years of experience could be paid more than an entry level worker with a master’s degree. Also, as noted before, applicants are selected under the H-1B advanced degree exception not because they are entering into a specialty occupation that requires a minimum of a master’s degree, but only because they graduated with an advanced degree from a specified US institution under INA § 214(g)(5)(C). The position may require a bachelor’s degree even though the H-1B worker possesses a higher degree, and will thus get the commensurate wage that would be paid to a comparable US worker with a bachelor’s degree.   In a perfect world, the solution is for Congress to create more H-1B visa numbers that would serve all constituencies, which in turn, would also serve the US national interest.  Unfortunately, the national interest is defined differently by the Trump administration. The proposed rule is being issued in response to the Buy American Hire American (BAHA) executive order instructing DHS to “propose new rules and issue new guidance, to supersede or revise previous rules and guidance if appropriate, to protect the interests of U.S. workers in the administration of our immigration system.” The executive order specifically mentioned the H-1B program and directed DHS and other agencies to “suggest reforms to help ensure that H-1B visas are awarded to the most-skilled or highest-paid petition beneficiaries.” BAHA has already been deployed to wreak havoc to the legal immigration system by either delaying the processing of visa applications or denying them, and this rule may also cause more harm than good in the long run.

There is some chance that the proposed rule may not take effect by April 1, 2019, which is when H-1B petitions may be filed for FY2020 commencing October 1, 2019. It includes a provision that would enable USCIS to temporarily suspend the registration process during any fiscal year in which USCIS “may experience technical challenges with the H-1B registration process and/or the new electronic system.” The proposed temporary suspension provision would also allow USCIS to “up-front delay the implementation of the H-1B registration process past the fiscal year (FY) 2020 cap season, if necessary to complete all requisite user testing and vetting of the new H-1B registration system and process.” If the rule is finalized as proposed but there is insufficient time to implement the registration system for the FY 2020 cap selection process, USCIS said it would likely suspend the proposed registration requirement for the FY 2020 cap season.

 

Cyrus Mehta & Sophia Genovese

Trump Is Not King. He Cannot Change the US Asylum System Through Executive Orders.

/0 Comments/in /by

Donald Trump probably thinks that section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) makes him king as far as immigration matters are concerned. As a president with autocratic impulses, INA § 212(f) gives him leeway to act out these impulses on immigrants, which he may not be able to do so readily on US citizens.

INA § 212(f) states,

“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

Trump invoked INA § 212(f) through presidential proclamations to impose his travel ban against nationals of mainly Muslim countries. This was done to fulfill a campaign promise to impose a ban on Muslims.  He decided without foundation that the entry of Iranian nationals (one of the countries subject to the ban) would be detrimental to the interests of the United States even though they came to pursue studies, marry a US citizen or visit relatives.   The Supreme Court, unfortunately,  upheld the third version of the ban in  Trump v. Hawaii  stating that INA § 212(f) “exudes deference to the President” and thus empowers him to deny entry of noncitizens if he determines that allowing entry “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

Trump got more emboldened. On November 9, 2018, he issued another proclamation invoking INA § 212(f), which banned people who cross the Southern border outside a designated port of entry from applying for asylum in the United States.  The Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security followed by jointly issuing a rule implementing the proclamation.

The key issue is whether INA § 212(f) allows a president like Trump with authoritarian impulses to override entire visa categories or change the US asylum system?  Can Trump use INA § 212(f) to reorder the asylum system because he believes that the people in a caravan heading to the United States to apply for asylum are detrimental to the interests of the United States? INA § 208(a)(1) categorically allows any alien who is physically present in the United States to apply for asylum regardless of his or her manner of arrival in the United States “whether or not at a designated port of arrival.” Trump has attempted to change that by virtue of the authority given to him in INA § 212(f) by not allowing people who cross outside a port of entry from applying for asylum. Never mind that the administration has virtually closed the designated ports of entry for asylum seekers, which forces them to cross the border through irregular methods.

In East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, Judge Tigar on November 19, 2018 forcefully ruled that the president could not use INA § 212(f) to override Congress’s clearly expressed legislative intent. Indeed, even in Trump v. Hawaii, the administration successfully argued that INA § 212(f) only supplanted other provisions that allowed the administration to bar aliens from entering the United States, but did not expressly override statutory provisions. Thus,  INA § 212(f) could not be used as a justification to override INA § 208.

Trump was obviously displeased with the ruling and branded Judge Tigar, who was appointed by President Obama, as an “Obama judge.” This resulted in an unusually strong rebuke from Chief Justice Robert who stated, “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.”

Trump then attacked Justice Robert in a tweet on Thanksgiving day:

“Justice Roberts can say what he wants, but the 9th Circuit is a complete & total disaster. It is out of control, has a horrible reputation, is overturned more than any Circuit in the Country, 79%, & is used to get an almost guaranteed result. Judges must not Legislate Security…

……and Safety at the Border, or anywhere else. They know nothing about it and are making our Country unsafe. Our great Law Enforcement professionals MUST BE ALLOWED TO DO THEIR JOB! If not there will be only bedlam, chaos, injury and death. We want the Constitution as written”

Trump is wrong. The judge was not legislating, but rather, was correctly interpreting INA § 208(a)(1), which allows any person physically present in the United States to apply for asylum regardless of whether they arrived through a port of entry or not. It is likely that even a judge appointed by President Bush or even Trump could have ruled the same way. Even the Supreme Court may find it easier to smack this proclamation down than the travel ban, which it found facially neutral on its face.

But Trump is still determined to stop the caravan. The media has reported that the US   has won the support of the incoming Mexican government under Andrés Manuel López Obrador to let asylum claimants wait in Mexico while their claims are heard in the US. There are also reports now claiming that Mexican officials have denied that there is such a plan, but this is not inconsistent with the fact that negotiations are still underway even though a deal is not yet finalized. If the deal is put into place, which is being called “Remain in Mexico”, Mexico will become a waiting room for America’s asylum system.

It is not clear how this will work. If asylum claimants need to pass the credible fear interview, they will then have to wait for their cases for several years on end in Mexico and may be subject to the continued abuse of smugglers who brought them to the US border as well as drug cartels who are predominant in the Mexican border towns. While the scheme will also allow the applicant to show that they have a reasonable fear of staying in Mexico, demonstrating that will require a higher standard than the credible fear standard. Many will not meet this standard and will unfortunately be subjected to persecution and abuse in Mexico while they wait out the outcome of their asylum claims in the US. Most claimants who base their asylum claims on gang based persecution or domestic violence will also likely lose, and they will be then directly deported to their country of origin. They will have difficulty in accessing US trained lawyers to assist them in the preparation of their asylum claims. There is also a good chance that Mexico may deport an asylum claimant under its own laws on grounds that may not even constitute deportable offenses under US law.

What would the legal authority be for such a scheme? It is unclear, but INA § 235(b)(2)(C) provides that an alien who is arriving by land, whether or not from a designated port of entry, from a foreign territory contiguous to the US may be returned to that territory pending a proceeding under INA § 240.

A section 240 hearing offers the full panoply of rights of a removal hearing, including the right to appeal, as opposed to a limited asylum hearing before an Immigration Judge after an applicant passes the credible fear interview. INA § 235(b)(2)(C) does not contemplate a credible fear interview set forth in INA § 235(b)(1). Even a reasonable fear of remaining in Mexico is not contemplated and may be ultra vires the INA.   The administration could try to bypass the credible fear interview process and issues a  Notice to Appear that would initiate a removal proceeding under INA § 240. But this will create far more work for the administration.    INA § 235(b)(2)(C) arguably applies to inspection of “other aliens” as opposed to those found inadmissible under sections 212(a)(6)(C) or 212(a)(7) under § 235(b)(1). Thus, INA § 235(b)(2)(C) provides dubious legal authority for a “Remain in Mexico” scheme.

Any new proclamation and rule to set into effect this new policy will most likely be successfully challenged in federal court. Instead of creating an orderly procedure to process a few thousand asylum claims under the INA, Trump seems hell bent on creating chaos and disorder. If he loses in court, Trump attacks the judge and also blames the media by calling in “fake news.”  On November 25, 2018, the administration closed the San Ysidro port of entry near San Diego and fired tear gas shells at people seeking asylum, including children in diapers. Cruelty is part of Trump’s nature. He also systematically separated migrant children from their parents as a stated deterrent policy. The morning after the tear gassing episode, Trump tweeted that he wants to close the border to asylum seekers, and without foundation, stated that “many of them are stone cold criminals.” The law does not allow him to even do that. To imagine an American president acting so cruelly before November 2016 was inconceivable. We only write in the faint hope that in addition to our courts, America will come to its senses and not tolerate this man any longer. We can only hope!