Cyrus Mehta

The Ethical Obligations of a Lawyer Who Represents a Three Year Old Child

/0 Comments/in /by

There has been a justifiable sense of shock and outrage after a senior immigration judge testified in a legal proceeding that three and four year olds could represent themselves in complex removal proceedings. This is precisely what Immigration Judge Weil said in a deposition on behalf of the Department of Justice:

I’ve taught immigration law literally to three year olds and four year olds. It takes a lot of time. It takes a lot of patience. They get it. It’s not the most efficient, but it can be done.  

The Immigration Judge repeated this same assertion two more times during the deposition. These ludicrous assertions have now gone viral, and there has been much eloquent protest, although immigration attorney Amber Weeks’ takes the cake when she tried to test these assumptions on her own three year old child, and this is what she found:

I happen to have a three year old daughter, so I interviewed her to test the theory of whether she could answer even the most basic questions to represent herself in immigration court. Where were you born? Where were your parents born? Where do you live? Where would you like to live? Not legal questions, but just basic questions that a kind and thoughtful judge would want to know before deporting a child (See first video below.) Although hilarious, her candid answers are heart-wrenching when I consider where unrepresented children in immigration court will end up.

Not much has been written in the aftermath of this incident about a how a lawyer ought to handle this situation, especially if he or she had a three year old as client. Unfortunately, at the outset, most unaccompanied children are not provided legal representation, and even if they are older than three year old, ought to be provided with a lawyer as they are many times more vulnerable than an adult. The Board of Immigration Appeals in Matter of M-A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 474 (BIA 2011), has already held that for a respondent to be competent to participate in an immigration proceeding, he or she must have a rational and factual understanding of the nature and object of the proceeding and a reasonable opportunity to exercise the core rights and privileges afforded by the law.  The decisive factors are whether the respondent understands the nature and object of the proceedings, can consult with the attorney or representative, and has a reasonable opportunity to examine adverse evidence, present favorable evidence and cross examine government witnesses. When a respondent in removal proceedings is incapable of participating, the court must provide adequate safeguards, including ensuring legal representation.  It is readily obvious that a minor may not be able to participate in a proceeding; but unfortunately the Matter of M-A-M- safeguards are not being applied to minors who need them the most, especially a three year old!

Assuming the three year old has the privilege of having a lawyer, what are the lawyer’s ethical obligations when representing such a client? The lawyer is guided by ABA Model Rule 1.14, as adopted in state bar ethical rules of professional conduct:

Rule 1.14 Client With Diminished Capacity

(a) When a client’s capacity to make adequately considered decisions in connection with a representation is diminished, whether because of minority, mental impairment or for some other reason, the lawyer shall, as far as reasonably possible, maintain a normal client-lawyer relationship with the client.

(b) When the lawyer reasonably believes that the client has diminished capacity, is at risk of substantial physical, financial or other harm unless action is taken and cannot adequately act in the client’s own interest, the lawyer may take reasonably necessary protective action, including consulting with individuals or entities that have the ability to take action to protect the client and, in appropriate cases, seeking the appointment of a guardian ad litem, conservator or guardian.

(c) Information relating to the representation of a client with diminished capacity is protected by Rule 1.6. When taking protective action pursuant to paragraph (b), the lawyer is impliedly authorized under Rule 1.6(a) to reveal information about the client, but only to the extent reasonably necessary to protect the client’s interests.

Rule 1.14, at the outset, instructs a lawyer to maintain a normal lawyer-client relationship as far as possible. Thus, to the extent that a client with diminished capacity is capable of making competent decisions, including a child, the lawyer must follow them. Comment 1 to Rule 1.14 states, “For example, children as young as five or six years of age, and certainly those of ten or twelve, are regarded as having opinions that are entitled to weight in legal proceedings concerning their custody.”   A lawyer may seek help from a family member or others in communicating with a client with diminished capacity; and according to Comment 2 to Rule 1.14, the presence of such persons does not affect the applicability of the attorney-client privilege. When a lawyer represents a child, all the other ethical obligations that a lawyer owes to a client trigger, such as the duty to provide competent representation (Rule 1.1), be diligent (Rule 1.3), avoid conflicts of interest (Rule 1.7) and to adequately communicate with the client (Rule 1.4). In fact, there is a heightened duty to communicate with a child client in a way that the child will be able to properly understand the removal proceeding and make informed decisions.

Still, just because a child is older does not absolve the lawyer to ensure that the child is not at risk of harm. Even a twelve year old child, especially one who has suffered trauma or abuse, is extremely vulnerable and is at risk of being harmed by not being capable of making appropriate decisions in a removal hearing. Of course, compared to a twelve year old, a three year old will be far more vulnerable.  Under the next prong, 1.14(b), a lawyer is allowed to take reasonable protective action on behalf of the client when the lawyer reasonably believes that the client is at risk of harm and cannot adequately act in his or her own interest. This is doubtlessly going to apply to any minor, but more so with a three year old.  The lawyer may consult with parents, other family members or individuals and entities that have the ability to protect the child, and if necessary, even seek the appointment of a guardian ad litem or guardian.

A three year old is likely to be eligible for Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) relief, assuming a court can make a finding of neglect or abandonment based on unification with one or both parents not being viable, or if the child has been placed in the custody of a state agency or individual or entity.  Assuming the child is not eligible for SIJ, and there is no other relief against removal, the attorney representing the child must make every effort to invoke the protections under Matter of M-A-M, and argue that such a child is unable to comprehend the nature of the proceeding and either seek termination or administrative closure of the removal proceeding. Still, the attorney, as part of taking protective action, can seek asylum on behalf of the child, assuming that there is objective evidence that the child will fear harm or the child has already suffered past persecution based on one of the protected grounds for asylum. Even if a child will  not be able to testify credibly, the BIA in Matter of J-R-R-A, 26 I&N Dec. 609 (2015) allowed a client with diminished capacity to nevertheless testify regarding his or her subjective fear, while there was credible objective testimony. This can get further complicated when the child’s parent or guardian wishes to take the child back to the home country, and the lawyer knows that the child will be harmed in that country. When a child is twelve, it is easier for the lawyer to maintain a normal lawyer-client relationship,  and abide by that child’s informed decision. It becomes much harder when the child is only three  years old. Under these circumstances, the lawyer must take protective action by seeking the intervention of child protection agencies and the like. Comment 9 to Rule 1.14 clarifies: “In an emergency where the health, safety or a financial interest of a person with seriously diminished capacity is threatened with imminent and irreparable harm, a lawyer may take legal action on behalf of such a person even though the person is unable to establish a client-lawyer relationship or to make or express considered judgments about the matter, when the person or another acting in good faith on that person’s behalf has consulted with the lawyer.” Of course, all this begs the question as to why a non-citizen child should be put into adversarial removal proceedings  in the first place where a hostile government lawyer can sharply cross examine a child, and there are no readily available provisions for the appointment of counsel,  a guardian ad litem or child advocate.

Although the current governmental policy of not providing a child with legal representation in an imperfect immigration court setting constitutes a horrific gap in due process, the presence of a lawyer while an improvement does not necessarily solve the child’s conundrum who is in removal proceedings. Rule 1.14 does not provide an attorney with all the answers, and is far from perfect. The attorney must use the tools provided under Rule 1.14, along with all the other ethical rules, AILA’s Ethics Compendium Module on Rule 1.14   as well as a good dose of judgment and common sense, to find the optimum way to competently represent and protect the vulnerable child.

Cyrus Mehta

Senator Grassley “Hacks” The H-1B Visa For Foreign Entrepreneurs

/4 Comments/in /by

The H-1B visa program is in trouble. It has become everyone’s favorite whipping boy. Critics rail against the H-1B for bringing in so called cheap labor to the US, but ignoring the fact that an employer is required to pay the prevailing wage set by the Department of Labor. Some of the wages mandated by the DOL at www.flcdatacenter.com are unusually high. Take for example the position of Marketing Managers in New York City. A Marketing Manager on an H-1B visa would need to be paid an entry level wage of $108,493 year. The level two wage is $144, 123 per year, the level three is $179, 774 per year and level four is at a whopping $215, 405 per year. This is hardly cheap labor. The employer on top of these wages must also pay costs towards the H-1B visa including lawyer fees and excessively high filing fees in excess of $6,000. If the employer is dependent on H-1B or L workers, it has to additionally pay a super fee of $4,000. Only an employer who wishes to employ a highly skilled foreign worker will go through all the expenses, as well as all the regulatory procedures, under the H-1B visa.

The H-1B visa serves as the main entry point for a skilled foreign worker to aspire to work and immigrate to the United States. There already exists a shortage of H-1B visas with a meager annual cap of 65,000 plus another 20,000 for those with advanced degrees from US universities. If the H-1B visa is further restricted, there will be no entry point whatsoever. Foreign students graduating from top US universities will not get a chance to work and remain in the United States. The immigration system is already broken because of restricted pathways for non-citizens to acquire permanent residency, resulting in backlogs lasting decades. If the entry point through the H-1B visa is cut off, then we will truly have an unworkable immigration system that will no longer attract talent to the United States.

To rub further salt in the wound, Senator Grassley on February 26, 2016 wrote an angry missive to USCIS Director Leon Rodriguez protesting the use of the H-1B visa by entrepreneurs, which he likens to one who tries to “hack” the H-1B program. This is in direct contradiction to the USCIS’s well intentioned Entrepreneur Pathways portal that provides guidance on legitimate ways a founder can apply for a nonimmigrant visa through his or her own startup. According to Grassley, this is abusive and illegal, but he is wrong. Note that there is no independent startup visa in our immigration system, although America has spectacularly succeeded off the success of entrepreneurial ventures, many of which have been founded by people who were not born in the United States. Sergey Brin of Google is a prime example. Startups have to compete with more established companies within the immigration system, and where there is already a bias against the small business. A startup may be even more rudimentary than an established small business and thus more susceptible to being viewed as a fraudulent artifice. Startups may not yet be generating a revenue stream as they are developing new technologies that may lead to products and services later on. Many have received financing through venture capital, angel investors or through “Series A and B” rounds of shares. Startups may also operate in more informal spaces, such as the residences of the founders (with regular meetings at Starbucks) instead of a commercial premise. Some are also operating in “stealth mode” so as not to attract the attention of competitors and may not display the usual bells and whistles such as a website or other marketing material. Startups may also not have payroll records since founders may be compensated in stock options. Still, such startups are legitimate companies that should be able to support H-1B, L, O or other visa statuses. While, in the past, USCIS has often been accused by critics of harboring a systemic bias against small business, the Entrepreneur Pathways portal provides guidance for USCIS offices to adjudicate such H-1B petitions more favorably.

Grassley has now thrown the wrench into the works of such an entrepreneur trying to “hack” an H-1B visa. My esteemed colleague Tahmina Watson clarifies in a news article that Grassley misinterprets “hack”, which in the tech world “is a word of respect in which one finds a solution to a complicated problem.” Grassley even has the chutzpah to accuse established universities of colluding with entrepreneurs. Unfortunately, his letter is not backed up by the black letter INA provisions which support these sorts of collaborations between universities and entrepreneurs under the H-1B visa.

Under INA 214(g)(6), it is permissible for an entrepreneur to be employed by a cap-exempt employer such as a university on a part-time basis and then be able to obtain an H-1B, without being counted under the annual H-1B cap, through his or her own startup. Under INA 214(g)(5), an H-1B worker who is sponsored through a startup entity is not counted under the H-1B cap lottery if he or she is employed “at” a cap-exempt institution of higher education or is employed “at” a non-profit affiliated to an institution of higher education. While it is true that 8 CFR § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) requires the existence of an employer-employee relationship for the H-1B visa through a startup, this includes indicia such as the employer’s ability to “hire, pay, fire, supervise, or otherwise control the work of such employee.” It is the Neufeld Memo that elevates the right of control over all the other factors set forth in the regulation. Still, it is possible to invoke old decisions that recognize the separate existence of the corporate entity. It is well established that a corporation is a separate and distinct legal entity from its owners and stockholders. See Matter of M, 8 I&N Dec. 24, 50 (BIA 1958, AG 1958); Matter of Aphrodite Investments Limited, 17 I&N Dec. 530 (Comm.1980); and Matter of Tessel, 17 I&N Dec. 631 (Act. Assoc. Comm. 1980).  As such, a corporation, even if it is owned and operated by a single person, may hire that person, and the parties will be in an employer-employee relationship. This point needs to be brought out when advancing an H-1B for an entrepreneur. Still, we acknowledge that the H-1B petition may have more success when there is another investor or shareholder, and the beneficiary is not the sole owner of the entity. That person may be able to exercise control over the H-1B beneficiary, even if he or she has a minority interest. It may not be necessary to show that the other individual or entity has the power to discipline the beneficiary, but only that this person can exercise negative control over the beneficiary’s decisions. There is nothing preventing the other individual from being a family member, and the shareholder or director also need not be residing in the US.

Difficult as it already is to gain an H-1B through a startup, Senator Grassley is needlessly thwarting the intent of Congress under the H-1B visa program to attract entrepreneurs who will only benefit the country. And this is being done when we have such a paltry number of visas. With respect to H-1B filings under the FY2017 H-1B cap, some are of the opinion that there will be fewer H-1B filings because of the increase in the super fee from $2,000 to $4,000 and also since the F-1 Optional Practical Training program is vulnerable to attack in litigation. I completely disagree. The increase in the fee to $4000 will not deter certain employers dependent on H-1B or L employees from filing H-1B cases as there still continues to be a lack of skills in the US workforce,  and the need to execute and manage transformative IT projects with a skilled foreign IT workforce. Most of corporate America relies on the very employers who depend on skilled H-1B workers and have been unfairly penalized with the $4,000+ fee to keep their business and operations humming, which in turn benefit the American consumer. An increase in the fee thus will not be daunting whatsoever as the stakes are truly high for both IT consulting firms and most of corporate America.

Also, the prospects of the STEM or regular OPT being held invalid by a court create further uncertainty for the foreign entrepreneur. Fortunately, the likelihood of the court invalidating F-1 OPT is slim since the DHS has now allayed the court’s concern by proposing regulations for notice and comment under the Administrative Procedures Act. If at all there is any uncertainty with respect to OPT, entrepreneurs will be more concerned and will want to file H-1B petitions sooner than later while OPT is still in effect in order to ensure that there vital foreign worker can still be employed. This will create additional pressure on the H-1B cap, unless they are doing so in collaboration with universities and are seeking H-1B cap exemption.

All this demonstrates the need for more H-1B numbers rather than less as H-1B workers, including entrepreneurs, are essential for our economic growth and prosperity. The H-1B visa provides the entry point for someone to work in the United States, and in the absence of a special startup visa, the H-1B visa also serves an additional important purpose. Many universities have created programs to attract entrepreneurs and collaborate with them, so that they can legitimately take advantage of gaining H-1B cap exemption through INA 214(g)(5) and 214(g)(6). Senator Grassley’s letter may discourage USCIS adjudicators from granting H-1B visas filed by entrepreneurs, despite favorable policy guidance through Entrepreneur Pathways and provisions in the INA that provide cap exemption. Still, the USCIS should be assured that there is a sufficient legal basis to approve such H-1B petitions, and there is also undoubtedly a great policy argument, which Grassley overlooks, to allow entry of promising foreign entrepreneurs into the US in the hope that their startups will succeed, which in turn will create jobs and benefit the US economy.

Cyrus Mehta

High Skilled Worker Rule – Is There Scope For Porting On A Labor Certification?

/1 Comment/in /by

By Cyrus D. Mehta & David A. Isaacson

Our firm provided selected comments to the  proposed DHS rule entitled “Retention of EB-1, EB-2 and EB-3 Immigrant Workers and Program Improvements Affecting High Skilled Nonimmigrant Workers.” These comments are based primarily on three recent blogs:

Including Early Adjustment Filing in Proposed DHS Rule Impacting High-Skilled Workers Would Give Big Boost to Delayed Green Card Applicants

Preserving H-1B Extension For Spouse And Freezing Age Of Child In Rule Impacting High-Skilled Nonimmigrant Workers

The Opportunity to Be Heard: Why New DHS Proposed Regulations Regarding I-140 Petitions Should Incorporate and Expand Upon the Rule of Mantena v. Johnson.

Our comments focused on areas that others may not have commented on, and may require the DHS and even the DOL to propose supplemental rules. However, if our comments are considered, they will greatly improve the proposed rule.

The centerpiece of the rule is to grant work authorization to beneficiaries of approved I-140 petitions who are caught in the crushing employment-based backlogs. The requirement of demonstrating compelling circumstances has disappointed beneficiaries, along with further restrictions relating to the renewal of the work authorization. We do hope that the DHS removes these restrictions so that deserving beneficiaries are able to easily obtain work authorization.

It would also be highly desirable for beneficiaries of such approved I-140 petitions to exercise   job portability, and not be required to re-start the labor certification process through a new employer, even though the proposed rule allows for the retention of the old priority date under certain circumstances. Recognizing that INA 204(j) requires a pending I-485 adjustment application for 180 days, and thus the DHS may not be receptive to arguments that may justify portability, we proposed that DHS also consider promulgating a rule that would recognize the ability of applicants to file early adjustment applications based on a filing date that would be far ahead of the final action date in the State Department Visa Bulletin, even if theoretically one visa is only available in a preference category. The existence of a pending I-485 application would allow for true job mobility pursuant to INA 204(j).  If DHS does not accept our proposal for an early adjustment filing, we have proposed in our comment the following innovation, which we reproduce below:

“Modifying Labor Certification Rules to Provide Greater Flexibility to Beneficiaries of Approved Labor Certifications

Finally, we take this opportunity to suggest that USCIS propose to another Executive Branch department, specifically, the Department of Labor (“DOL”), some regulatory changes which would mesh well with those that USCIS has proposed and assist in accomplishing the goals of the President’s initiative.

First, we propose that the DOL should formalize a policy, previously suggested in some case law of the Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (“BALCA”), whereby an employer who wishes to offer an alien prospective employee a position which in substance has already been the subject of an approved labor certification, even for another employer, does not need to go through the entire labor certification process all over again.

In Matter of Law Offices of Jean-Pierre Karnos, 2003-INA-18, 2004 WL 1278081 (Bd. Alien Lab. Cert. App. 2004) [hereafter referred to as Matter of Karnos], BALCA held that if “there is a bona fide job opportunity which remains the same, despite the change in employers,” then “[t]he absence of a contractual agreement between [the employers] does not negate the fact that a bona fide job opportunity exists” and thus “the change in employers, when an adequate test of the labor market has been performed and when the position remains the same, does not offend the policies of labor certification.” Matter of Karnos, 2004 WL 1278081 at *2-*3. This is, we would submit, consistent with the text and purpose of INA § 212(a)(5)(A), which focuses on the effect on U.S. workers of the alien filling a particular position, rather than the identity of the employer who wishes to hire the alien to fill that position.

In Matter of Karnos, the lawyer who had operated the law office that was the original employer, Jean-Pierre Karnos, had died before a final decision was made on the application for labor certification. Matter of Karnos, 2004 WL 1278081 at *1. James G. Roche, Esq., continued to run a similar law firm under the name of the Law Offices of James Roche, but could not demonstrate that he had any formal contractual relationship with Mr. Karnos so as to assume ownership of Mr. Karnos’s firm. Id. at *1-2. The initial Certifying Officer within the Department of Labor denied labor certification based on the difference in employers, as BALCA explained:

[T]he CO stated that Mr. Roche was “unable to provide that he and Jean-Pierre Karnos had a written contractual or inheritance agreement.” Therefore, the CO found that Mr. Roche was a separate employer and should not be entitled to the application signed by another party. The CO denied certification on the ground that two “distinctly different employers” were involved and there was no agreement to “attest to the legality of this condition.”

Matter of Karnos, 2004 WL 1278081 at *2.

In his request for review by BALCA, Mr. Roche clarified that while he could not establish a formal relationship with the late Mr. Karnos, “he was offering the same position of accountant, under the same terms and conditions, including the same wage, set forth in the original application.” Id. BALCA agreed that this was sufficient:

In general, a new employer must file a new application unless the same job opportunity and the same area of intended employment are preserved. International Contractors, Inc. [and Technical Programming Services, Inc., 1989-INA-278 (Bd. Alien Lab. Cert. App. 1990)]; Germania Club, Inc., 1994-INA-391 (May 25, 1995). When the employer has clearly demonstrated that the job opportunity, including the wage paid, remains the same such that there is still a bona fide job opportunity, a new application is not required.

In this case, there is a bona fide job opportunity and an adequate test of the labor market has been performed. The new Employer, Mr. Roche, has indicated that the duties of the job remain the same and that the salary is the same. The same job opportunity has been preserved. The absence of a contractual agreement between Mr. Karnos and Mr. Roche does not negate the fact that a bona fide job opportunity exists with Mr. Roche as the employer. The new Employer has clearly demonstrated that there is a bona fide job opportunity which remains the same, despite the change in employers.

Therefore, in light of the particular factual circumstances presented by this case, we hold that the change in employers, when an adequate test of the labor market has been performed and when the position remains the same, does not offend the policies of labor certification. The former Employer attempted to recruit a U.S. worker for the position and the new Employer has certified that the position remains the same as that originally petitioned for, in the same area of employment. In such circumstances, labor certification should not be denied solely on the change in employers. Thus, the CO improperly denied certification.

Matter of Karnos, 2004 WL 1278081 at *2-*3.

DOL should amend the governing regulations to make explicit, and expand upon, the holding of Matter of Karnos. Where a new employer wishes to sponsor an employee for a position that remains the same, and is in the same area of employment, a new application for labor certification should not be required.

We also propose that DOL should add to Schedule A, at 20 CFR 656.5, a new “Group III” comprising persons who will be employed in a same or similar occupation to one for which they already have an approved labor certification from a different employer. Under such circumstances, it is reasonable for the Department of Labor to conclude on a categorical basis that there are not sufficient U.S. workers who are able, willing, qualified and available, and that the wages of United States workers similarly employed will not be adversely affected, because a similar determination has already been made in the process of granting the previously approved labor certification.  New employers should under such circumstances therefore be able to process their labor certification through USCIS pursuant to 20 CFR 656.15.  At the very least, even if DOL is not willing to have Schedule III cover such same or similar occupations on a nationwide basis, it should cover instances in which the alien has an approved labor certification for a same or similar occupation, and the area of intended employment for the position covered by the Schedule III filing is within normal commuting distance of the area of intended employment for the position covered by the previously approved labor certification.”

 

Cora-Ann Pestaina

BALCA Reverses Labor Certification Denials By Upholding Real World Job Advertisements

/2 Comments/in /by

Late last year, just in time to ruin the holidays for those affected, the Department of Labor (DOL) started a round of PERM denials setting forth another new and previously unheard of reason for denial. Despite having certified these types of PERMs for years (lulling practitioners into another false sense of security), the DOL started denying PERM applications where the employers, in their PERM recruitment, used terms such as “Competitive,” “Depends on Experience” (DOE), “Negotiable,” “Will Discuss With Applicant,” “Other,” or similar verbiage in lieu of stating the offered salary.

To provide some background, an employer has to conduct a good faith recruitment of the labor market in order to obtain labor certification for a foreign national employee. Obtaining labor certification is often the first step when an employer wishes to sponsor a foreign national employee for permanent residence. The PERM regulations do not require the employer to state the offered salary in any of its recruitment. In its list of frequently asked PERM questions (FAQs) on the Office of Foreign Labor Certification’s website, question number 5 under the heading of “Advertisement Content” is asked and answered as follows:

Does the offered wage need to be included in the advertisements?

No, the offered wage does not need to be included in the advertisement, but if a wage rate is included, it can not be lower than the prevailing wage rate.

The Preamble to PERM Regulations, 69 Fed. Reg. at 77347 also discusses the elimination of the requirement that the wage offer must be included in advertisement.

In filing a PERM application, the employer, under 20 C.F.R. §656.10 (c), must certify to the conditions of employment listed on the Application for Permanent Employment Certification (1) “[t]he offered wage equals or exceeds the prevailing wage determined pursuant to §656.40 and §656.41” and (8) ‘[t]he job opportunity has been and is clearly open to any U.S. worker.” And 20 C.F.R. §656.24(b)(2) requires the Certifying Officer (CO) to make a determination as to whether there “is in the United States a worker who is able, willing, qualified and available for and at the place of the job opportunity.” Using these regulations as authority for some of its denials, the DOL, after acknowledging the fact that the employer is not required to list a wage in its advertisements, goes on to state that the employer’s indication of “Competitive,” “Depends on Experience (DOE),” “Negotiable,” “Other,” etc. is in fact an expression of a salary and that any discussion concerning wages must sufficiently inform applicants of the job opportunity outlined in the PERM application. The DOL claims that terms like “Depends on Experience” and “Negotiable” could be vague and could place a potential burden on the US worker to reasonably determine the wage rate for the position or could indicate that an applicant’s experience might potentially cause the employer to offer a salary which is lower than the salary offered to the foreign worker. Incredulously, according to the DOL, a term like a “Will Discuss With Applicant” could prevent a potentially qualified US applicant from making an informed decision on whether he/she would be interested in the actual job opportunity, and could deter a number of such applicants from applying. The denials claim that the employers, by listing terms that potentially deterred US workers from applying, did not adequately test the labor market.

Under the PERM regulations at 20 CFR §656.17(e)(1)(i)(A) and §656.17(e)(2)(i), the employer’s job order for both professional and nonprofessional occupations must be placed with the State Workforce Agency (AWA) serving the area of intended employment for a period of 30 days. But one of the problems many employers face is with SWAs that require the employer to list an offered wage and to make a selection from a drop down menu under “Pay Comments” choosing from comments which include “DOE,” “Will Discuss with Applicant,” “Commission Only,” “Not Applicable,” etc. The DOL has been issuing denials in cases where, for example, the employer listed the offered salary as $0 or $1 in an effort to get past this requirement and then indicated “Will Discuss With Applicant” under the pay comments. As ludicrous as it is to suggest that any US worker would be deterred from applying for the offered position simply because the offered wage was listed as $0 – which obviously could never be the actual case – this is exactly what the DOL suggests in its denials.

The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) did raise this issue with the DOL in one of its stakeholders meetings last year informing the DOL that many of its state job order systems, and many job search websites and other recruitment sources require the use of, or they automatically insert, the terms that are now the cause of the new denials. The DOL only agreed to review the issue and may possibly issue an FAQ in the future. But they declined to suspend further denials or reopen past denials.

Many motions to reconsider have been filed and remain pending. The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) has just issued a couple of decisions that will hopefully help shed light on how those pending motions should be decided. In Bahwan Cybertek, Inc. 2012-PER-01147 (Feb. 18, 2016) the employer filed a PERM application indicating that the offered wage was $99,500. The PERM was audited. The employer submitted copies of its SWA job order which showed that the employer had listed the minimum pay and the maximum pay as $1 per year. Under “Pay Details” the employer had indicated “Competitive Salary. Will be discussed with the candidate.” The CO denied certification finding that the job order listed a wage rate lower than the prevailing wage in violation of 20 C.F.R. §§656.10(c)(8) and 656.17(f)(7). In a request for reconsideration the employer stated that it normally does not list wages in its recruitment and the PERM rules do not require it but that the Massachusetts SWA’s online job order system asked for minimum and maximum pay for the advertised position and so the employer entered $1 so that the system would accept the posting but added the pay comments as clarification making it clear that the salary was not $1. The CO still found that the statements “competitive salary” and “will be discussed with the candidate” were “not demonstrably specific enough to overcome the potential chilling affect [sic] arising from advertising $1 as an annual salary.” The employer appealed to BALCA.

BALCA simply pointed out that the regulation at 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(f) provides that “[a]dvertisements placed in newspapers of general circulation or in professional journals before filing the Application for Permanent Employment Certification must … [n]ot contain wages or terms and conditions of employment that are less favorable than those offered to the alien” and that, by its own terms, this regulation only applies to advertisements in newspapers or professional journals, and does not regulate the content of SWA job orders.

But with regard to whether or not the job opportunity had been clearly open to any US worker as the employer attested to under 20 C.F.R. §656.10(c)(8), one of the grounds for denial being used in the slew of recent denials discussed above, BALCA confirmed that stating a wage rate below the actual wage offer for the job definitely calls into question whether the job opportunity is indeed open to US workers. However, BALCA found that in the instant case, the employer’s indication of a wage rate of $1 was obviously a placeholder based on a generic data field in the SWA job order and was clearly not intended to reflect the actual wage rate. BALCA found that that “no reasonable job seeker would have been discouraged from applying for the job, especially since it was clarified that the employer is offering a competitive salary and that the salary was subject to discussion.

Similarly, as in the recent denials, where an employer has indicated a salary of $0 and had indicated that the salary will be discussed with the applicant, no reasonable job seeker would have been deterred by that.

In another case, Global TPA LLC, 2012-PER-00847 (Feb. 18, 2016), the offered Project Manager position required 4 years of specific experience which the employer detailed on the ETA Form 9089. Upon audit, the CO discovered that the employer had advertised on a website, as one of the three additional forms of recruitment required for professional positions under 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(e)(1)(ii), indicating that the Project Manager position requires 4-5 years of experience. The CO listed this as one of its three reasons for denial. The employer filed a motion to reconsider but the CO upheld its denial and the case went up to BALCA. BALCA referenced its en banc decision in Symantec Corp., 2011-PER-1856 (July 30, 2014) which I previously discussed here. BALCA pointed out that under Symantec the additional professional recruitment only requires documentation of recruitment for the occupation involved in the application and not recruitment for the particular job opportunity at issue. Therefore, the fact that the employer’s website posting stated 4-5 years of experience as opposed to 4 years of experience as listed on the PERM application did not violate the regulations.  In a footnote, BALCA pointed out that the CO in this case had only cited 20 C.F.R. §656.17(f)(6) as a ground for denial in regard to the discrepancy between the website posting and the ETA Form 9089 in regard to the experience required. BALCA pointed out that its decision is not an opinion on whether the website posting may have been in conflict with 20 C.F.R. §656.10(c)(8) which requires that the employer certify that the job opportunity has been and is clearly open to any U.S. worker.

In any event, even if BALCA declined, in that case, to state that the job opportunity was nevertheless clearly open to US workers, it doesn’t mean that the argument can’t still be made. Under Symantec, the additional forms of recruitment can represent real world alternatives and can advertise for the occupation involved in the application rather than for the job opportunity involved in the application as is required for the newspaper advertisement. Therefore, when it comes to one of these forms of recruitment, an employer’s use of terms like “Competitive,” “Depends on Experience” (DOE), “Negotiable,” “Will Discuss With Applicant,” etc. does not take away from the employer’s advertisement of the occupation and is therefore not in violation of any PERM regulation. BALCA specifically stated in Bahwan Cybertek that no reasonable job seeker would have been discouraged from applying due to the use of such terms. And to state what is probably obvious, someone that would read such terms and be left so confused as to be deterred from applying is quite likely not qualified.

After its slew of denials starting late last year and the stream of motions to reconsider that must have resulted, the DOL’s ultimate stance on this issue remains to be seen. Anecdotal and unscientific evidence seems to indicate that they have stopped or slowed down the issuing of these types of denials.

Nevertheless, going forward, it would be wise to stay away from usage of any of the “problem terms” indicated above to the extent possible.

David Isaacson

The Opportunity to Be Heard: Why New DHS Proposed Regulations Regarding I-140 Petitions Should Incorporate and Expand Upon the Rule of Mantena v. Johnson

/0 Comments/in /by

As discussed in a previous post on this blog by Cyrus D. Mehta, DHS recently promulgated a proposed rule entitled “Retention of EB-1, EB-2 and EB-3 Immigrant Workers and Program Improvements Affecting High Skilled Nonimmigrant Workers”. One of the key aspects of this proposed rule, which as discussed in Cyrus’s blog post has disappointed many with its narrowness in various respects, relates to the status of I-140 petitions which a petitioning employer may cease to support. For the reasons I will explain, this aspect of the proposed rule, too, does not go far enough.

The proposed rule will make clear through amendments to 8 CFR 204.5(e)(2) that an I-140 petition will continue to confer a priority date unless it is revoked because of fraud or willful misrepresentation, invalidation or revocation of the underlying labor certification, or “A determination by USCIS that petition approval was in error”, as proposed 8 CFR 204.5(e)(2)(iv) states. Even an I-140 petition that is withdrawn, for example, would continue to confer its priority date on all subsequent petitions filed for that beneficiary. In addition, withdrawal of the I-140 petition by the petitioning employer, or termination of the employer’s business, would only lead to revocation of the petition, per proposed 8 CFR 205.1(a)(3)(iii)(C) and (D), if such withdrawal or termination were to occur less than 180 days after approval of the I-140 petition. Otherwise, in the face of a withdrawal or termination of the employer’s business after those 180 days had passed, the petition would remain valid indefinitely. Thus, even a petition which an employer tries to withdraw after 180 days have passed could, under the proposed rule, be used as the basis for portability under INA §204(j) as enacted by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act (“AC21”), which, as discussed in numerous previous posts on this blog, provides the ability to proceed with employment-based adjustment based on a different job offer to that which underlay the I-140 so long as it is in a same or similar occupation and the adjustment application has been pending for 180 days.

While these provisions provide some insurance against a petitioning employer deliberately or inadvertently undermining §204(j) portability, however, they do not go far enough to accomplish that aim. It appears from the proposed rule that in making its determination whether “petition approval was in error”, to quote again from proposed 8 CFR 204.5(e)(2)(iv), and so should no longer confer a priority date, USCIS would look to the I-140 petitioner for further information, even though that petitioner might lack any interest in providing it. Similarly, the rules regarding revocation of an I-140 petition on notice have not been changed by the proposed rule, and presumably would again involve notice to the petitioner. A hostile petitioner who would have wished to withdraw a petition, or a petitioner which had innocently gone out of business, could give rise to a revocation by failing to respond to notice from USCIS, and in so doing undermine the exercise of §204(j) portability.

This is not merely a theoretical concern. A recent precedential opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Mantena v. Johnson, 809 F.3d 721 (2d Cir. 2015), published on December 30, 2015, demonstrates how this problem can arise under the current regulations.

The plaintiff in Mantena had been the beneficiary of an I-140 petition filed by Vision Systems Group (VSG). Roughly two years after filing her I-485 application for adjustment of status in July 2007, she sent a letter to USCIS requesting to exercise portability and substitute as a successor employer CNC Consulting, Inc. Nearly a year after that, the president of VSG pled guilty to mail fraud in connection with a different petition, which led USCIS to believe that all VSG petitions might be fraudulent. USCIS therefore sent Notices of Intent to Revoke (NOIRs) regarding, it appears, many or all VSG I-140 petitions, including Mantena’s. The NOIR for Mantena’s petition went unanswered – possibly because Mantena had, at that point, not worked for VSG in three years – so USCIS revoked the I-140 petition and then denied Mantena’s I-485.

Following repeated attempts to resolve the issue by filing motions, Mantena brought a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, claiming that the revocation of the I-140 petition and subsequent denial of her I-485 had violated the relevant regulations and deprived her of constitutionally protected due process rights. The district court ruled against her, but on appeal the Second Circuit ruled that USCIS had been required to notify either Mantena, or possibly her successor employer CNC, of the NOIR.

Under the INA as amended by AC21, the Second Circuit found, USCIS could not, when it was contemplating revocation of an I-140, notify only the former employer of an I-140 beneficiary who had already exercised portability to leave that employer. As the Second Circuit found,

By placing beneficiaries and successor employers in a position of either blind faith in the original petitioner’s goodwill and due diligence or a forced and continued relationship with the now-disinterested and perhaps antagonistic original petitioner, such a scheme would completely undermine the aims of job flexibility that those amendments sought to create.

Mantena, slip op. at 28-29. The Second Circuit in Mantena remanded to the district court for further consideration of whether the required notice should have gone to Mantena, CNC as her successor employer, or both, but held that in any event some such additional notice was required.

Mantena is not the first case to confront this sort of fact pattern. As discussed by Cyrus D. Mehta in his October 2015 post on this blog, “Don’t You Dare Yank My Precious I-140 Petition Without Telling Me!”, similar facts have been the subject of appellate decisions in the Ninth Circuit, Sixth Circuit, and Eleventh Circuit, as well as an ongoing appeal in the Seventh Circuit. The Second Circuit’s decision in Mantena does a particularly good job, however, of explaining why additional notice of proposed revocation of an I-140 petition is required.

USCIS has the opportunity, in the final revisions to its proposed rule, to clarify and expand upon this holding of Mantena. The final amended regulations should provide that when an I-140 petition has been approved for more than 180 days, or an I-485 based on an I-140 petition has been pending for more than 180 days, the beneficiary of the I-140 petition has the right to receive and respond to any notice regarding potential revocation of the I-140 petition. This will safeguard the job flexibility interests which, as the Second Circuit noted, the AC21 permanent portability provisions were designed to secure in the first place. And it will do so without unduly burdening successor employers, who may be willing only to hire their new employee but not to become too deeply enmeshed in the immigration paperwork and respond to notice regarding an I-140 petition.

Without the addition of Mantena’s rule, the current proposed regulations would leave I-140 beneficiaries “in a position of either blind faith in the original petitioner’s goodwill and due diligence or a forced and continued relationship with the now-disinterested and perhaps antagonistic original petitioner,” Mantena, slip op. at 28-29. A petitioner who is no longer interested, may no longer be in business, or may actively wish harm to the I-140 beneficiary, could quite likely fail to respond to an NOIR, leaving USCIS with the mistaken impression that a petition has been approved in error. This would, in those cases, destroy the benefits of stability that the proposed rule’s changes to 8 CFR 204.5(e)(2) and 8 CFR 205.1(a)(3)(iii)(C) and (D) are intended to produce.

Of course, as Mantena itself held, this sort of notice may in fact be mandated by the statute, whether USCIS explicitly mentions it in the regulations or not. But it would be much more efficient for USCIS to incorporate this notice into the express terms of the regulations, rather than leaving the details to the vagaries of case-by-case litigation in different circuits.

USCIS has, in the past, sometimes acquiesced by memorandum in the employment-immigration-related holding of a Court of Appeals. In a July 15, 2015, memorandum, for example, USCIS accepted the decision of the Third Circuit in Shalom Pentecostal Church v. Acting Secretary of DHS striking down regulatory provisions that required qualifying experience for an I-360 religious worker petition to have been gained in “lawful status”, which the Third Circuit had found to be ultra vires the statute. USCIS could take a similar route with regard to Mantena, which would be much better than nothing. But especially given that regulations on a related topic are being promulgated anyway, the best solution would be for a Mantena-style requirement of notice to an I-140 beneficiary to be incorporated into those new regulations.

As the Supreme Court has explained, “The fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard.” Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 267 (1970) (quoting Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 394 (1914)). USCIS should amend the new proposed I-140 rules to provide this opportunity to I-140 beneficiaries.

Cyrus Mehta

A Trap For The Unwary: Equivalent Degrees And Alternate Requirements In Labor Certification Applications

/2 Comments/in /by

When a foreign national has a three year degree instead of a four year degree, or has no degree, and is able to establish an equivalent degree through a combination of education and work experience, or only through work experience, it is important that the PERM labor certification application be carefully drafted. While an equivalent degree might pass muster for an H-1B visa, it will not always for a labor certification and the subsequent I-140 immigrant visa petition.

20 CFR §656.17(h) requires that an alternative requirement must be substantially equivalent to the primary requirement of the job opportunity in a labor certification application. If the foreign national does not meet the primary job requirement, and while already employed by the sponsoring employer, only meets the alternative requirement, the labor certification will be denied unless the application states that any suitable combination of education, training or experience is acceptable (emphasis added). 20 CFR §656.17(h)(4)(ii) essentially adopts the holding of BALCA in Francis Kellogg, 1994-INA-00465, although in that case the primary and alternative requirements, namely, experience as a cook or salad maker, were not substantially equivalent, thereby necessitating that the employer accept any suitable combination of education, training or experience. In contrast to Kellogg, 20 CFR §656.17(h) requires consideration of this language even if there is substantial equivalence between the primary and alternative requirement.

Fortunately, if this language does not appear on the form, it is no longer fatal and practitioners can challenge a denial if the sole reason for the denial was the failure to insert this “magic language” on the application. In Federal Insurance Co., 2008-PER-00037 (BALCA Feb. 20, 2009) the fact that the Kellogg language did not appear on the form could not be a ground for denial as there is no space on the ETA-9089 form for such language; and the Kellogg language also does not need to appear in recruitment materials. BALCA in Federal Insurance held that a denial would offend fundamental fairness and due process under HealthAmerica, 2006-PER-0001 (BALCA July 18, 2006). HealthAmerica is a seminal BALCA decision, which rejected the certifying officer’s (CO) denial of the labor certification based on a typographical error recording a Sunday advertisement on the form, although the employer possessed actual tear sheets of the advertisement. BALCA rejected the CO’s position that no new evidence could be submitted as the advertisement tear sheets were part of the PERM compliance recordkeeping requirement and thus was constructively submitted by the employer.

Notwithstanding the fact that the Kellogg magic language is not required, DOL’s rigid insistence that alternate requirements be substantially similar becomes especially problematic when a position requires the minimum of a bachelor’s degree but the foreign national qualifies based on equivalent work experience. It is important to draft PERM labor certification applications being aware of this pitfall, as well as the advertisements, so as to avoid a denial. Globalnet Management, 2009-PER-00110 (BALCA Aug. 6, 2009) is illustrative of this problem. In Globalnet Management,, BALCA held that a bachelor’s degree plus two years of experience was not substantially equivalent to 14 years of experience. BALCA did not accept the argument that the alternative requirement of 14 years of experience comported with the well-established formula to determine equivalency under the H-1B visa, three years of experience is equal to one year of education under 8 CFR §214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5), and held that the primary and alternative requirements were not substantially equivalent. BALCA relied on Field Memorandum No. 48-94 that set forth the years under the Specific Vocational Preparation (SVP) system for different educational attainments. Therefore, the appropriate alternative for a position requiring a B.S. degree plus two years of experience would have been four years of experience rather than 14 years of experience. While BALCA noted that 8 CFR §214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5) may be persuasive in the absence of other guidance, citing Syscorp International, 1989-INA-00212, it nevertheless relied on Field Memo No. 48-94 in affirming the denial of the labor certification.

One reason why practitioners still include an alternative requirement relating to an equivalent degree is to ensure that the requirement is consistent with the H-1B visa petition. It is not unusual to qualify a foreign national for an H-1B visa who may have the equivalent of a three year degree, and then makes up the fourth year through the equivalent of three years of experience. The following language, which previously passed muster would now put into jeopardy ETA-9089 applications that define an equivalent degree, as follows: “Employer will accept a three year bachelor’s degree and three years of experience as being equivalent to one year of college.” Under the reasoning employed in Globalnet, this assumes that the alternative requirement would involve 12 years of SVP lapsed time while a bachelor’s degree would only require two years of SVP lapsed time. The employer faces a Hobson’s choice. If the employer does not include what it means by an equivalent degree on the ETA-9089, the subsequent I-140 petition will fail. If an employer requires a bachelor’s degree, and if the foreign national does not have the equivalent of a four year degree, and the ETA-9089 does not include a definition with respect to what it means by an equivalent degree, USCIS will assume that the employer required a four year degree and the foreign national would not be able to qualify for the position by virtue of not possessing such a degree.

On the other hand, in light of Globalnet it no longer remains viable to insist on consistency between the H-1B and the labor certification. Hence, if the primary requirement is a bachelor’s degree and two years of experience, and the foreign national does not have a degree whatsoever, the substantially equivalent alternative that would be acceptable to DOL would be four years of experience, as opposed to 14 years of experience. There may be some concern that requiring this formula on the labor certification, which may pass muster for DOL, may still be problematic when the alien has filed an I-140 petition and is also extending the H-1B visa using the “3 for 1” equivalency formula to establish the equivalent degree to qualify for the H-1B occupation. There is some anecdotal evidence of the USCIS questioning the extension of the H-1B visa when the I-140 petition involving the same position did not require a degree.  However, if this issue comes up during an H-1B adjudication, it should be argued that the discrepancy lies in the USCIS regulations and USCIS interpretations relating to H-1B and I-140 petitions, not in the beneficiary’s job or the beneficiary’s qualifications. USCIS ought not to deny an H-1B solely because a beneficiary who has been classified for an H-1B visa through an equivalent degree, either based on a combination of education and experience, or purely through a requirement of 12 plus years of experience, is classified on an I-140 under the EB-3 skilled worker preference requiring something less than a bachelor’s degree.

Finding ways to escape the Globalnet trap (and to achieve consistency with the H-1B) have not been successful. In Microsoft Corporation, 2011-PER-02563 (October 16, 2012), the employer indicated in items H.4 through H.7 in the ETA 9089 that its requirements for the position was a Bachelor’s degree or foreign educational equivalent in Comp. Sci., Eng., Math, Physics, Business or related field and six months of experience in the job offered or in a computer-related occupation or student school project experience. The employer indicated in item H.8 that there was an acceptable alternate combination of education and experience, and specified that it would accept 3 years of work experience for every year missing from a four year college degree. The CO denied on grounds that the alternative requirement was not substantially similar to the primary requirement. When the employer appealed to BALCA, one of its arguments was that 20 CFR §656.17(h)(4)(i) did not apply as it was accepting an alternate combination of education and experience in H.8-C, rather than an alternate experience requirement. This argument, unfortunately, was shot down, since the employer created an alternate requirement by indicating in H.10 that it would require three years of work experience for every year of missing college education. The following extract from the BALCA decision in Microsoft Corporation is worth noting:

The Employer completed item H.8 indicating it would accept an alternate combination of education and experience, but that there was no alternate experience requirement. The Employer, however, completed box H.14 indicating that it will accept three years of work experience for every year of missing education from a four year college degree. Although not listed in item H.8C, box H.14 indicates that the position has, in effect, an alternate experience requirement which varies from zero to twelve depending on the level of education attained by the applicant. Therefore, the CO correctly applied § 656.17(h)(4)(i) in determining whether the alternate experience requirement is substantially equivalent to the primary requirement.

The reason why labor certifications of this sort stumble is because there is an alternative requirement, thus triggering 20 CFR §656.17(h)(4)(i). The employer can arguably require the equivalent of a bachelor’s degree as a sole requirement, rather than insist on a bachelor’s degree or the equivalent of such a degree, by checking No to H.6 and Yes to H.10 in ETA 9089, and explaining the equivalency formula in H.14. See Matter of DNP America LLC, 2012-PER-00335 (Oct. 6 2015) (employer properly answered No to H.6 because it did not require experience in the offered position, and was instead requiring experience in a similar position, which it appropriately indicated in H.10).   This strategy too is likely to fail as the DOL may argue that an alternate requirement was created in H.10, as in Microsoft, although BALCA has yet to rule on such a fact pattern where the labor certification expresses one requirement, rather than a primary and alternate requirement.

While achieving consistency between the H-1B and the educational requirements on the ETA 9089 may be impossible based degree equivalencies through work experience, it behooves the employer to at least frame the alternate requirement appropriately as being substantially similar to the primary requirement so as to avoid a denial of the labor certification. For foreign nationals who have no degree and have qualified for their H-1B visa status through 12 years of work experience, including the formulaic “3 for 1” year rule as a way to express the equivalency on the labor certification will most certainly be fatal. Instead, this author has experienced success when the employer required a bachelor’s degree in the specialized field as a primary requirement, and as an alternate, required two years of experience in the specialized field in lieu of a bachelor’s degree. This is consistent with DOL’s interpretation under Kellogg and 20 CFR §656.17(h)(4)(i) that the primary requirement of a bachelor’s degree (requiring 2 years of SVP time) is substantially equivalent to  the alternate requirement (which is two years of experience). If the position requires two years of experience in addition to a bachelor’s degree, then the alternate requirement could be 4 years of experience in lieu of a bachelor’s degree.  Similarly, when a foreign national has a three year degree, the best practice is to require either a 3 or 4 year bachelor’s degree plus the relevant experience.

Navigating immigration law is already challenging, and it becomes increasingly more so when one is dealing with the DOL and the USCIS, who are committed to different standards relating to equivalency. What is worse is that the goal posts are constantly moved, and what may have been acceptable previously is unbeknownst to anyone suddenly not. Until both the agencies settle their differences, or legislation forces them to do so, the immigration practitioner will need to be constantly threading the needle when representing foreign clients with equivalent degrees in order to avoid a labor certification denial and successfully obtain permanent residency.

[This is a shorter version of a forthcoming article in ILW’s PERM Book III (High Tech/IT Edition, Ed. Joel Stewart). The blog is for informational purposes only and should not be viewed as a substitute for legal advice]

Cyrus Mehta

Preserving H-1B Extension For Spouse And Freezing Age Of Child In Rule Impacting High-Skilled Nonimmigrant Workers

/1 Comment/in /by

The purpose of this blog is to draw attention to two little know legal concepts, which must either be preserved or introduced through the proposed rule entitled Retention of EB-1, EB-2 and EB-3 Immigrant Workers and Program Improvements Affecting High Skilled Nonimmigrant Workers”. They are concepts worthy of promotion since they would greatly benefit delayed green card applicants, especially with respect to extending H-1B status beyond the six years and freezing the age of a child under the Child Status Protection Act under a new I-140 petition. While there are many other proposals in need of repair and improvement, I focus on these two since I have dwelt on them with passion in past blogs, here and here, and now is a time to advocate for their inclusion in the proposed rule.

This rule when finalized will provide relief to skilled immigrants who are presently on nonimmigrant visas and are caught in the crushing employment-based backlogs. The centerpiece of this rule would allow beneficiaries of approved employment based immigration visa petitions, known as I-140 petitions, to apply for an employment authorization document (EAD), although it has disappointed many by setting stringent criteria, which would deter most from taking advantage of it. This has been addressed in my prior blog – Allowing Early Adjustment Filing in Proposed Rule Impacting Skilled Workers Would Give Big Boost to Delayed Green Card Applicants. Those who are disappointed must continue to forcefully advocate so that EADs can be granted to deserving beneficiaries of approved I-140 petitions less restrictively in the final rule.

Preserving the Ability Of H-1B To Seek H-1B Extension Based On Other Spouse’s Labor Certification

The American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act (AC 21) allows for an extension of H-1B visa status beyond the statutory time limitation of six years for those who cannot obtain a green card within this period. There are two pivotal provisions. AC 21 §106(a) allows for one year H-1B extensions beyond the sixth year if a labor certification application or I-140 petition was filed at least one year prior to the last day of the alien’s authorized admission in H-1B status. Under second provision, AC 21 §104(c), the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition can seek an H-1B extension for three additional years if it can be demonstrated that he or she is eligible for permanent residence but for the per country limitation.

The proposed rule seeks to provide this benefit only to the principal beneficiary and not to the spouse, assuming both are in H-1B status. While it is true that the other spouse who is not the direct beneficiary of a labor certification or I-140 petition can change status from H-1B to H-4 status, and seek an EAD as an H-4 spouse under the recently promulgated rule that allows for this, experience has shown that this can be a long process. Changing from H-1B to H-4 status can take several months, and there would also be additional delays in receiving the EAD. Even if the H-1B spouse proceeds overseas to apply for an H-4 visa, it would take at least 90 days before the H-4 spouse can obtain the EAD after being admitted into the US in that status. It is thus more convenient for the spouse who is also in H-1B status to continue to extend that H-1B status, and not disrupt his or her employment.

The rationale for not allowing a spouse who is also on an H-1B visa to use the other spouse’s labor certification or I-140 petition is not very convincing. The preamble discusses AC 21 §104(c), which limits H-1B nonimmigrant status beyond the six-years to the ‘beneficiary of a petition filed under section 204(a) of [the INA] for a preference status under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 203(b) [of the INA].” According to DHS’s logic, INA §203(b) applies only to principal beneficiaries, but not to derivative beneficiaries who are separately addressed in INA §203(d). The preamble also emphasizes that §104(c) refers to “the beneficiary” in the singular. The DHS uses this same logic to deprive the other H-1B spouse from extending H-1B status one year at a time based on the other spouse’s labor certification or I-140 petition filed 365 days prior under AC 21 106(a).

Unlike AC 21 104(c), which the DHS focused on, there is a clearer basis in AC 21 106(a) to allow an H-1B spouse to seek a one year extension of H-1B status beyond six years when the other spouse is the beneficiary of an appropriately filed labor certification.

On November 2, 2002, the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act (“21st Century DOJ Appropriations Act”) took effect and liberalized the provisions of AC21 that enabled nonimmigrants present in the United States in H-1B status to obtain one-year extensions beyond the normal sixth-year limitation. See Pub. L. No. 107–273, 116 Stat. 1758 (2002). The new amendments enacted by the 21st Century DOJ Appropriations Act liberalized AC21 § 106(a) and now permits an H-1B visa holder to extend her status beyond the sixth year if:

  1. 365 days or more have passed since the filing of any application for labor certification that is required or used by the alien to obtain status under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 203(b), 
  2. 365 days or more have passed since the filing of an Employment-based immigrant petition under INA § 203(b). 

Previously, AC21 § 106(a) only permitted one-year extensions beyond the sixth-year limitation if the H-1B nonimmigrant was the beneficiary of a labor certification or an I-140 petition, and 365 days or more had passed since the filing of a labor certification application or the I-140 petition. See Pub. L. No. 106-313, 114 Stat. 1251 (2000). The term “any application for labor certification” was absent in the original version of AC 21§106(a). Even under this more restrictive version of AC21 § 106(a), the Service applied a more liberal interpretation, permitting H-1B aliens to obtain one-year extensions beyond the normal sixth-year limitation where there was no nexus between the previously filed and pending labor certification application or I-140 petition and the H-1B nonimmigrant’s current employment. This is now fortunately preserved in the proposed rule, but there is no reason to also not allow a spouse to use “any” application for labor certification, which could be the labor certification filed on behalf of the other spouse.

With regards to the absence of INA §203(d) in AC21 §104(c) or §106(a), does this suggest that that only the principal spouse can immigrate under INA §203(b) and the derivative needs INA §203(d)? But INA 203(d) states that the spouse is “entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration provided in the respective subsection (INA § 203(a), § 203(b), or § 203(c)), if accompanying or following to join, the spouse or parent. Thus, the derivative spouse still immigrates under INA 203(b).” INA § 203(d), which was introduced by the Immigration Act of 1990 (“IMMACT90”), is essentially superfluous and only confirms that a derivative immigrates with the principal. See Pub. L. No. 101-649, 104 Stat. 4978 (1990). Prior to IMMACT90, there was no predecessor to INA § 203(d), and yet spouses immigrated with the principal. Thus, it is clear that a spouse does not immigrate via INA § 203(d), and the purpose of this provision is merely to confirm that a spouse is given the same order of consideration as the principal under INA § 203(b).

In conclusion, there is a very good argument under AC 21 §106(a) that the H-1B spouse can use “any” labor certification, which includes the labor certification filed on behalf of the other spouse, to seek an additional one year H-1B extension. Furthermore, there is also an equally good argument, applicable under both AC 21 §106(a) and §104(c), that the exclusion of the mention of INA §203(d) is not fatal as a derivative spouse also ultimately immigrates under INA §203(b). The fact that “beneficiary” is mentioned in the singular and not in the plural should also not undermine support for the notion that any beneficiary, either as principal or spouse, can qualify for an AC 21 H-1B extension who is capable of immigrating under a labor certification or I-140 petition, or both. DHS must interpret existing ameliorative provisions in AC 21 that Congress has specifically passed to relieve the hardships caused by crushing quota backlogs in a way that reflects the intention behind the law.

On a separate note, there is also no need to penalize an H-1B worker from availing from an AC 21 H-1B extension if s/he fails to file an adjustment application or make an application for an immigrant visa within 1 year of availability. If the rule allows an H-1B extension based on a labor certification or I-140 petition filed by another employer, it may take some time for the new employer to obtain another labor certification and I-140 approval. The exception provided in the rule for failure to file within 1 year should include this circumstance, where the applicant is waiting for another labor certification and I-140 petition through a new employer.

Freezing The Age Of A Child Under The Child Status Protection Act Even Through A New Petition

 One of the bright spots in the proposed rule at 8 CFR §204.5 is to clarify that even if an I-140 petition is revoked by the employer, the priority date of that I-140 petition can still be used if a new employer files another I-140 petition. Even if the earlier I-140 petition is not revoked, and the same employer wishes to upgrade from an EB-3 I-140 to an EB-2 I-140 petition, the priority date of the earlier EB-3 I-140 petition can still be retained. The ability to retain an old priority date always existed in the rule, but the proposed rule also clarifies that retention of the priority date is further permissible when an employer revokes a petition or goes out of business.

The key issue is whether the new I-140 petition would be able to continue to protect the age of the child under the CSPA even if it is filed after the child has turned 21. We assume that the prior I-140 petition froze the age of the child under the CSPA age protection formula because it was filed prior to the child turning 21, the date became current, and an I-485 adjustment application was filed within one year of visa availability. There are many beneficiaries under this scenario, including the class of 2007 adjustment applicants whose priority dates under the India EB-3 have not become current after they retrogressed in August 2007.Alternative, we assume that when the priority date of the earlier I-140 becomes current, it would still potentially be able to protect the age of the child. At issue is whether the new I-140 petition continues to protect the age of the child.

The CSPA, as codified in INA 203(h), applies to the “applicable” petition, and without further clarification it may be difficult to bootstrap the new I-140 onto the “applicable” prior I-140 petition, which is no longer being utilized but was filed before the child’s 21st birthday. There is room to interpret the term “applicable” petition to include the new I-140 petition, especially since the new I-140 petition recaptured the priority date of the old I-140 petition. This should be made explicit in the final rule where the new I-140 petition is considered the “applicable” petition for purposes of protecting the age of the child under the old petition. If an old I-140 petition revoked by an employer can be used for purposes of preserving the priority date in a new petition, port to another employer or seek an AC 21 H-1B extension, it should also be preserved for preserving the age of a child under the CSPA. Similarly, even if the I-140 petition is not revoked, a new I-140 petition, filed either by the same or new employer should be able to freeze the age of the child if the old I-140 petition was able to do so.

Conclusion

 It is important that everyone impacted by this rule should strive to improve it by submitting comments. We will continue to blog on this rule with the goal of providing stakeholders with good ideas for comments. While there is no guarantee that the DHS will incorporate all good and worthy ideas, it is important to continue to float such ideas as they can never really die, and have the potential to be included in other rules or even subsequently through legislation. The deadline for submitting comments to this proposed rule is February 29, 2016.

 

Cyrus Mehta

Perspectives On Immigration In 2016 Through My Crystal Ball

/2 Comments/in /by

2016 portends to be an action packed year on immigration. While we continue to watch Donald Trump touting his absurd proposal to  temporarily ban Muslims, we can feel assured that it will likely not go anywhere. This is not the first time that America has witnessed such extreme anti-immigrant sentiments. It happened before in the mid-1800s when the Know Nothing party directed its ire against Irish Catholics, and later on in that century when the Know Nothings faded,  other anti-immigrant demagogues railed against the inferiority of  Jews and Southern European immigrants.

These earlier demagogues preceding Trump included Samuel Morse,  well known as the inventor of the telegraph and Morse code, who like Trump does with Muslim immigrants warned against Catholic immigrants whom he thought would be more loyal to the Pope:

How is it possible that foreign turbulence imported by shiploads, that riot and ignorance in hundreds of thousands of human priest-controlled machines should suddenly be thrown into our society and not produce turbulence and excess? Can one throw mud into pure water and not disturb its clearness?

A leading sociologist of his time in the late 19th century Edward Ross stated that Jews were “the polar opposite of our pioneer breed. Undersized and weak muscled, they shun bodily activity and are exceedingly sensitive to pain.” Regarding Italians, Ross noted that they “possess a distressing frequency of low foreheads, open mouths, weak chins, poor features, skewed faces, small or knobby crania and backless heads.”

The good news is that all of these anti-immigrant movements soon became irrelevant, and one does not need a crystal ball to predict that Trump, regardless of his current rise in the polls,  will also be relegated to the trash bin of history.

This week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the challenge to the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) and extended Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) programs. The key issue is whether the President overstepped his powers provided to him in the INA by deferring the removal of a class of people who are in the United States in an undocumented capacity or not. My crystal ball reveals that the majority of justices in the Supreme Court will agree with the President. It is well acknowledged that the Executive Branch does have authority to prioritize on who should be removed from the country, given the limited funding that Congress gives it every year. Even if the Supreme Court required briefing on another question – whether the President is required to “take Care that the laws be faithfully executed” under Article II, Sec. 3 of the Constitution – it is hard to imaging a Supreme Court ruling that would require the President to enforce the law against each and every of the 11 million or more who are not authorized to remain in the United States.  At current levels of funding, it is manifestly impossible for ICE to deport most undocumented persons in the United States.  Even at the historically high levels of removal under President Obama who has been termed by many as the Deporter in Chief, some 400,000 per year were removed, which amounts to only 3-4% of the total undocumented population.   The government also exercises prosecutorial discretion in criminal matters, and no one bats an eyelid,  and has also developed guidelines regarding prioritizing enforcement with respect to states that have legalized marijuana. Accordingly, it is difficult to see how the President can be forced to take a different position with respect to immigration enforcement.

The truth is that deferred action is neither recent nor revolutionary. Widows of US citizens have been granted this benefit. Battered immigrants have sought and obtained refuge there.  Never has the size of a vulnerable population been a valid reason to say no. During the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George H. Bush, significant number of family members of recipients of the 1986 legalization program were allowed to remain in the United States through executive actions.  Even if the law suit alleges that the President does not have authority, now is a good time to remind critics about Justice Jackson’s famous concurrent opinion in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635 (1952), which held that the President may act within a “twilight zone” in which he may have concurrent authority with Congress. Unlike Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer, where the Supreme Court held that President Truman could not seize a steel mill to resolve a labor dispute without Congressional authorization, the executive branch under the recent immigration actions is well acting within Congressional authorization. In his famous concurring opinion, Justice Jackson reminded us that, however meritorious, separation of powers itself was not without limit: “While the Constitution diffuses power the better to secure liberty, it also contemplates that practice will integrate the dispersed powers into a workable government. It enjoins upon its branches separateness but interdependence, autonomy but reciprocity.” Id. at 635. Although President Truman did not have authorization to seize the mill to prosecute the Korean War, Justice Jackson laid a three-pronged test to determine whether the President violated the Separation of Powers clause. First, where the President has express or implied authorization by Congress, his authority would be at its maximum. Second, where the President acts in the absence of congressional authority or a denial of authority, the President may still act constitutionally within a “twilight zone” in which he may have concurrent authority with Congress, or in which its distribution is uncertain. Under the second prong, Congressional inertia may enable, if not invite, measures of independent presidential authority. Finally, under the third prong, where the President acts in a way that is incompatible with an express or implied will of Congress, the President’s power is at its lowest and is vulnerable to being unconstitutional.

Through the Immigration Accountability Executive Actions, the President is likely acting under either prong one or two of Justice Jackson’s tripartite test. INA 103(a)(1) charges the DHS Secretary with the administration and enforcement of the INA. This implies that the DHS can decide when to and when not to remove an alien..”  INA  212(d)(5), which Congress also enacted, authorizes the Executive to grant interim benefits for “urgent humanitarian reasons” or “significant public benefits.”  Incidentally, parole can also be used to allow promising entrepreneurs to come to the United States and establish startups, although this and many other executive actions to help businesses have not been attacked in the law suit. Moreover, INA 274A(h)(3) provides authority to the Executive to grant employment authorization. Even if such authority is implied and not express, Congress has not overtly prohibited its exertion but displayed a passive acquiescence that reinforces its constitutional legitimacy. It should be noted though that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in upholding the preliminary injunction noted that this provision did not provide authority for the President to issue work authorization under DAPA.   In terms of employment authorization issuance, Congress has rarely spoken on this except via INA § 274A(h)(3), so that many instances of employment authorization issuance are purely an act of executive discretion justified by that one statutory provision. If the Supreme Court limits the President’s authority under INA 274A(h)(3), it could jeopardize many other immigration programs under which work authorization is issued through this provision. Furthermore, INA 103(3) confers powers on the Secretary of Homeland Security to “establish such regulations, prescribe such forms or bonds, reports, entries and other papers; issue such instructions; and perform such other acts as he deems necessary for carrying out his authority under the provisions of this Act.”

Another more recent case that cuts in favor of President Obama is  Arizona v. United States, 132 S.Ct. 2492, 2499 (2012), which  articulated:

“[a] principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials…Federal officials, as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all…

Discretion in the enforcement of immigration law embraces immediate human concerns. Unauthorized workers trying to support their   families,  for example, likely pose less danger than alien smugglers or aliens who commit a serious crime. The equities of an individual case may turn on many factors, including whether the alien has children born in the United States, long ties to the community, or a record of distinguished military service. Some discretionary decisions involve policy choices that bear on this Nation’s international relations. Returning an alien to his own country may be deemed inappropriate even where he has committed a removable offense or fails to meet the criteria for admission. The foreign state maybe mired in civil war, complicit in political persecution, or enduring conditions that create a real risk that the alien or his family will be harmed upon return. The dynamic nature of relations with other countries requires the Executive Branch to ensure that enforcement policies are consistent with this Nation’s foreign policy with respect to these and other realities.”

Another key issue is whether states should be even permitted to sue the federal government on immigration enforcement policy. If President Obama loses, it would then be an open invitation for any cantankerous state politician to bring a law suit against the federal government over an immigration policy that he or she dislikes. The ability of a state to harass the federal government could be endless. For instance,  a state could sue the federal government for granting deferred action to other groups of non-citizens, such as victims of domestic violence or crime victims or widows and widowers of US citizens, like the federal government has done in the past. These sorts of challenges from states would undermine the long established doctrine that immigration policy is within the purview of the federal government and Congress, and that the federal government has that discretion with respect to enforcement, as upheld in Arizona v. United States. Another concern for upholding preemption of federal immigration law from interference by states is the concern about the relationship between immigration and foreign affairs. See Toll v. Moreno, 458 U.S. 1 (1982); Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941).  If a state were allowed to sue each time the federal government issued a policy and blocked it, this would upset the long acknowledged preemption doctrine relating to immigration. If there is a disagreement in how the Executive Branch implements immigration policy, it is for Congress to intervene by changing the law rather than for states like Texas to file a law suit.

Ultimately, Justice Kennedy will most likely cast the deciding vote in upholding DAPA, but my crystal ball hints that other justices from the conservative wing such as Justice Roberts may concur, due to their abhorrence on broadening the standing doctrine under Massachusetts v. EPA, which was essentially a liberal decision that gave Massachusetts standing to force the EPA to issue a rule to regulate greenhouse gases. On a personal note, it is highly abhorrent to equate the harm caused by pollutants with the supposed harm caused by immigrants, who will more likely benefit than harm the state through their tax dollars and many other contributions.

On the business immigration front, things do not look so bright unfortunately. The H-1B cap filing season will again take place this April 2016, and the cap will surely be hit within the first five days of April, and Congress will not lift a finger to increase the cap. Indeed, it will be fortunate if it does not lift that finger since the current mood in Congress is to restrict the H-1B, along with the L-1 visa programs, even further. It is better to have the H-1B program in place as is, as further restrictions could also affect those who are already in H-1B status, and it would be harder for them to seek H-1B extensions through their employers under a new law.

Regarding forward movement in the employment-based dates, although the filing dates for the EB-2 and EB-3 for India and China have remained the same when they were abruptly pulled back on September 25, 2015, the December 2015 Visa Bulletin  predicted the following:

China: Forward movement of this date during FY-2015 has resulted in a dramatic increase in demand. Little, if any movement is likely during the coming months.

India: Up to eight months.

EB-2 China actually did creep forward in February from 01FEB12 to 01MAR12, when the above-quoted predictions said there would be “Little, if any movement”, and EB-2 India has already advanced more than a year from 01JUN07 in December to 01AUG08 in February despite being predicted to move only “Up to eight months”, so the predictions may have been a bit overly pessimistic.  My crystal ball predicts some forward movement over the remainder of the year,  but alas, with regards to the movement in the filing dates, my crystal ball has become cloudy as it fails to understand the logic of the government in not moving the filing dates correspondingly forward. Perhaps, the Mehta v. DOL lawsuit will force the government to provide some clarity, or the government will some day realize that it can move the filing dates substantially forward based on its historic broad interpretation of visa availability under INA 245(a)(3). But for now my crystal ball fails me, which is most unfortunate, as skilled immigrants who are legally in the United States deserve more clarity than anyone else.

 

Cyrus Mehta

The H-1B and L-1 Punitive Super Fee Rears its Ugly Head Again

/1 Comment/in /by

By Cyrus D. Mehta and Michelle S. Velasco

Last December, Congress passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act (Public Law 114-113) (“Omnibus Bill”) that set up the government’s budget until October 2016.  It is one of Congress’s basic tasks to create the budget for the government – something it has failed to do without rancorous debate, shutdowns, threats of shutdowns, and political rigmaroles in the past five years.  The passage of the recent bill was not immune to controversy as it only passed after close-to-deadline negotiations with new House Speaker Paul Ryan.  And as is par for the course in large spending bills, lurking within the nearly 1000 page bill were pork barrel projects and controversial amendments.  The full text of the bill is available here, but what concerns us lies at Section 411, entitled “9-11 Response and Biometric Entry-Exit Fee,” and which includes the following language:

  • TEMPORARY L-1 VISA FEE INCREASE.—Notwithstanding section 281 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1351) or any other provision of law, during the period beginning on the date of the enactment of this section and ending on September 30, 2025, the combined filing fee and fraud prevention and detection fee required to be submitted with an application for admission as a nonimmigrant under section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(L)), including an application for an extension of such status, shall be increased by $4,500 for applicants that employ 50 or more employees in the United States if more than 50 percent of the applicant’s employees are nonimmigrants admitted pursuant to subparagraph (H)(i)(b) or (L) of section 101(a)(15) of such Act.
  • TEMPORARY H-1B VISA FEE INCREASE.—Notwithstanding section 281 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1351) or any other provision of law, during the period beginning on the date of the enactment of this section and ending on September 30, 2025, the combined filing fee and fraud prevention and detection fee required to be submitted with an application for admission as a nonimmigrant under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b)), including an application for an extension of such status, shall be increased by $4,000 for applicants that employ 50 or more employees in the United States if more than 50 percent of the applicant’s employees are such nonimmigrants or nonimmigrants described in section 101(a)(15)(L) of such Act.

In essentials, this confusingly worded section boils down to an increase in the H-1B and L-1 petition fees for certain employers who have 50 or more employees, more than 50% of whom are in H-1B or L-1 status.  The provision not only reintroduces the super fee from Public Law 111-230 that sunset on September 30, 2015, but it doubled that super fee!  However, unlike Public Law 111-230, These extra fees will be used to fund healthcare for 9/11 first responders and a new system to track entries and exits using travelers’ biometric data.  What left many immigration attorneys and businesses scratching their heads was the bill’s language that left many things unclear: Should employers should pay the super fee right away because the statute says “beginning on the date of the enactment of this section…”?  Would the super fee apply to extensions of status because the statute says “including an application for an extension of such status”?  Are fraud fees now also required in extension of status petitions?

It took nearly a month, but on January 12, 2016 USCIS finally issued its interpretation of the statute in a website announcement that as of January 12, 2016 USCIS began accepting the super fee for eligible H-1B and L-1 petitions.  The announcement included some helpful clarifications:

  • The fee is applicable only for initial or transfer filings, not to extensions of status.
  • The super fee was not required for petitions filed prior to January 12, 2016.
  • The fraud fee is not required in extensions.

However, as of writing this blog, USCIS has yet to revise the Form I-129 and Form I-129S.  Outside of this announcement there are no other instructions on the USCIS website, and its page on H and L filing fees has not been updated.  Nevertheless, USCIS provides only a 30-day grace period post the January 12 announcement where USCIS will merely RFE for missing fees.  After February 11, 2016, USCIS will reject petitions with missing fees.

We accordingly provide the following practice pointers for employers affected by the new super fee to minimize the likelihood of RFEs and rejections or other processing delays:

  • Employers should carefully complete the Form I-129, in particular Section 1, Numbers 1.d. and 1.d.1 of the H-1B and H-1B1 Data Collection and Filing Fee Exemption Supplement (page 19 of the 36-page I-129 form) and Numbers 4.a and 4.b of the L-1 supplement (page 22 of the 36-page I-129 form).
  • Employers ought to make a careful count of their employees and their nonimmigrant statuses.
  • When possible, employers should send filing fees in separate checks. In the event USCIS has received extra fees, it will simply return those extra checks to the employer without delaying the process.  This way, employers can avoid RFEs or rejections of their petitions.

Given the severe increase in fees, employers affected by the change will have to reevaluate the business costs of filing these petitions.  Once totaled, the filing fees can be exorbitant.  An initial or transfer H-1B filing for affected employers will total $6325 in filing fees alone: ($325 basic filing fee; $500 fraud fee; $1500 ACWIA fee; $4000 super fee).  Tack on the premium processing fee and the filing fees alone will total $7550!  For initial L-1 filings, the total filing fee would be $5325 in regular processing ($325 basic filing fee; $500 fraud fee; $4500 super fee).  Meanwhile, other employers would pay anywhere from $825 to $2325 for initial H-1Bs and only $825 for initial L-1 petitions.  The difference in costs is striking.  Indeed, by enacting this super fee targeted at larger companies with nonimmigrant workforces, the U.S. has cemented its anti-immigrant and anti-business stance particularly with respect to India-based technology companies who are disproportionately affected by the punitive fees.  Though it is a nation built on the backs of immigrants and their entrepreneurial spirit, the U.S. can’t seem to reconcile its claim as the greatest country in the world with the spread of hypocritical and unjustifiable fear of foreign worker takeovers.

It is clear that this severe increase in fees has been aimed against India-based companies to punish them, without giving any thought to the fact that most of corporate America relies on them to run business efficiently, which in turn benefits the American consumer.  It is this very business model that has provided reliability to companies in the United States and throughout the industrialized world to obtain top-drawer talent quickly with flexibility and at affordable prices that benefit end consumers and promote diversity of product development. This is what the oft-criticized “job shop” or “body shop” readily provides.  By making possible a source of expertise that can be modified and redirected in response to changing demand, uncertain budgets, shifting corporate priorities and unpredictable fluctuations in the business cycle itself, the pejorative reference to them as “job shop” is, in reality, the engine of technological ingenuity on which progress in the global information age largely depends.  Such a business model is also consistent with free trade, which the U.S. promotes vehemently to other countries (including the protection of intellectual property rights of its pharmaceutical companies that keep lifesaving drugs high), but seems to restrict when it applies to service industries located in countries such as India that desire to do business in the United States through their skilled personnel.

It is not necessarily the case that H-1B employees who work in the United States through these IT firms are taking jobs out of the United States.  That has been the prevailing rhetoric, but the benefits that IT consulting firms and their H-1B workers provide by way of productivity gains, resulting in an increase in jobs elsewhere and a lowering of costs to the consumer, is often overlooked.  As a recent Times of India editorial put it bluntly:

These workers are not feeding off the American economy, they are contributing to its innovation and productivity.  Jobs are no nation’s monopoly; if Indians work hard and well they are not breaching any globally mandated caste system.  Indian companies pay taxes and create jobs in the US too.  These controversies are not new.  But an effective counter to America’s Indophobia remains to be found.

The current rhetoric ultimately results in disparaging H-1B workers from India who are also here to work hard and pursue the American dream.  It also affects H-1B adjudications, resulting in extra scrutiny, and denials of H-1B extension visa requests that hitherto were easily granted.  While many recognize and justifiably condemn the absurd anti-immigrant rhetoric of Donald Trump, punitive efforts against India-based companies, resulting in stricter H-1B visa adjudications of individual workers who are waiting for years in the crushing India employment-based second and third preference backlogs, must also be recognized as xenophobic.  It is only then that anti-immigrant rhetoric, in the guise of protecting U.S. workers, will be acknowledged and the media, politicians and others who currently freely engage in this will get less of a free pass.

(This blog is for informational purposes only, and should not be relied upon as a substitute for legal advice)

Cyrus Mehta

Including Early Adjustment Filing in Proposed DHS Rule Impacting High-Skilled Workers Would Give Big Boost to Delayed Green Card Applicants

/5 Comments/in /by

A proposed DHS rule entitled “Retention of EB-1, EB-2 and EB-3 Immigrant Workers and Program Improvements Affecting High Skilled Nonimmigrant Workers” has disappointed beneficiaries of I-140 employment-based immigration visa petitions who are caught in the crushing employment-based preferences. Everyone was waiting with bated breath about how the rule would allow beneficiaries to apply for an employment authorization document (EAD) based on an approved I-140 petitions. The proposed rule was announced on New Year’s Eve, December 31, 2015,  but the balloon hastily deflated well before New Year. EADs would be issued in a very niggardly manner. This blog’s focus is not to explain every aspect of the proposed rule, and refers readers to Greg Siskind’s detailed summary, but suggests that the DHS also consider adding a rule to allow early filing of an I-485 adjustment application. Including a rule that would allow early filing of an I-485 application, along with some of the ameliorative provisions in the proposed rule, would truly make the rule positively impactful to those who are seeking relief.

Under the proposed rule, DHS will provide EADs to beneficiaries in the United States on E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1 or O-1 nonimmigrant status if they can demonstrate compelling circumstances. While compelling circumstances have not been defined in the rule, DHS has suggested that they include serious illness and disabilities, employer retaliation, other substantial harm to the applicant and significant disruption to the employer. Regarding what may constitute significant disruption; DHS has suggested loss of funding for grants that may invalidate a cap-exempt H-1B status or a corporate restructure that may no longer render an L-1 visa status valid. The EAD will be renewed if such compelling circumstances continue to be met, or if the beneficiary’s priority date is within one year of the official cut-off date.

As a result of these stringent standards, very few I-140 beneficiaries will be able to take advantage of this EAD provision. Furthermore, in order to keep the existing I-140 petition valid, the sponsoring employer must continue to offer the position to the beneficiary. While the recipient of an EAD can engage in open market employment, he or she must intend to work for the sponsoring employer upon the issuance of permanent residency. It is hoped that the final rule will provide a broader basis for beneficiaries of approved I-140 petitions to obtain EADs without needing to show compelling circumstances. INA 274A(h)(3) provides broad authorization to the DHS to issue work authorization to any non-citizen. While there is broad authority in the INA to issue an EAD, it is difficult to conceptualize how such a beneficiary may be able to port to another employer without a pending I-485 application. INA 204(j) requires an I-485 application to be pending for more than 180 days before a worker can change jobs in a same or similar occupational classification, while still keeping the I-140 petition and underlying labor certification intact.  On the other hand, a new employer can re-sponsor a worker if he or she has an EAD through a new I-140 petition, while retaining the priority date of the old petition, upon which the worker can consular process for the immigrant visa if not in a valid nonimmigrant status at the time the final action date becomes current.

Although the centerpiece proposal is disappointing, there are some bright spots. I-140 petitions that have been approved for at least 180 days would not be subject to automatic revocation due to a business closure or withdrawal by the employer. DHS has invoked its discretion under INA 205 to retain an I-140 even if an employer withdraws it or the business closes. This assurance would allow workers who have pending I-485 applications for 180 days or more to safely exercise job portability under INA 204(j), although this dispensation is not possible if USCIS revokes the I-140 based on a prior error. Even those without pending I-485 applications could take advantage of this provision to obtain H-1B extensions beyond six years under the American Competitiveness in the 21stCentury Act (AC 21). They would also be able to keep their priority dates if a new employer files another I-140 petition.

The proposed rule would also allow workers whose jobs are terminated a grace period of 60 days if they are holding E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1 or TN status. There will also be automatic extensions of an EAD for 180 days, but will take away the mandatory processing time for an EAD within 90 days.

Notwithstanding the stingy circumstances under which the DHS proposes to issue EADs to beneficiaries of approved I-140 petitions, the proposed rule could be salvaged, and truly resurrected, if workers can file early I-485 adjustment of status applications. While the proposed rule has not touched upon this, the DHS must revisit the innovation that was made in the October 2015 Visa Bulletin by creating a filing date and a final adjudication date. Although the filing dates got substantially pulled back in the EB-2 for India and China shortly before the new visa bulletin took effect on October 1, resulting in a lawsuit, DHS has a chance to redeem itself through this rule to truly benefit high skilled workers.

INA 245(a)(3) allows for the filing of an I-485 application for adjustment of status when the visa is “immediately available” to the applicant. The Department of State (DOS) has historically never advanced priority dates based on certitude that a visa would actually be available. There have been many instances when applicants have filed an I-485 application in a particular month, only to later find that the dates have retrogressed. A good example is the April 2012 Visa Bulletin, when the EB-2 cut-off dates for India and China were May 1, 2010. In the very next May 2012 Visa Bulletin  a month later, the EB-2 cut-off dates for India and China retrogressed to August 15, 2007. If the DOS was absolutely certain that applicants born in India and China who filed in April 2012  would receive their green cards, it would not have needed to retrogress dates back to August 15, 2007.  Indeed, those EB-2 applicants who filed their I-485 applications in April 2012 are still waiting and have yet to receive their green cards even as of today! Another example is when the DOS announced that the July 2007 Visa Bulletin for EB-2 and EB-3 would become current. Hundreds of thousands filed during that period (which actually was the extended period from July 17, 2007 to August 17, 2007)  . It was obvious that these applicants would not receive their green cards during that time frame. The DOS  then retrogressed the EB dates substantially the following month, and those who filed under the India EB-3 in July-August 2007, also known as the class of 2007,  are still waiting today.

These two examples, among many, go to show that “immediately available” in INA 245(a)(3), according to the DOS, have never meant that visas were actually available to be issued to applicants as soon as they filed. Rather, it has always been based on a notion of visa availability at some point of time in the future. The Visa Bulletin in its new reincarnation, notwithstanding the pulling back of the filing dates prior to October 1, 2015,  now views it more broadly as “dates for filing visa applications within a time frame justifying immediate action in the application process.” The USCIS similarly views visa availability opaquely as “eligible applicants” who “are able to take one of the final steps in the process of becoming U.S. permanent residents.”  These new interpretations provide more flexibility for the State Department to move the filing date even further, and make it closer to current. While it is acknowledge that certain categories like the India EB-3 may have no visa availability whatsoever, DOS and DHS can reserve one visa in the India EB-3 like the proverbial Thanksgiving turkey. Just like one turkey every Thanksgiving is pardoned by the President and not consumed, similarly one visa can also be left intact rather than consumed by the alien beneficiary.   So long as there is one visa kept available, the proposal to allow for an I-485 filing through a provisional filing date would be consistent with INA §245(a)(3).

The author has proposed the following amendments to 8 C.F.R. § 245.1(g)(1) in the past with Gary Endelman (who has since become an Immigration Judge), shown here in bold, that would expand the definition of visa availability:

An alien is ineligible for the benefits of section 245 of the Act unless an immigrant visa is immediately available to him or her at the time the application is filed. If the applicant is a preference alien, the current Department of State Bureau of Consular Affairs Visa Bulletin will be consulted to determine whether an immigrant visa is immediately available. An immigrant visa is considered available for accepting and processing the application Form I-485 [if] the preference category applicant has a priority date on the waiting list which is earlier than the date shown in the Bulletin (or the Bulletin shows that numbers for visa applicants in his or her category are current) (“final action date”). An immigrant visa is also considered available for submission of the I-485 application based on a provisional priority date (‘filing date”) without reference to the final action date. No provisional submission can be undertaken absent prior approval of the visa petition and only if all visas in the preference category have not been exhausted in the fiscal year. Final adjudication only occurs when there is a current final adjudication date.An immigrant visa is also considered immediately available if the applicant establishes eligibility for the benefits of Public Law 101-238. Information concerning the immediate availability of an immigrant visa may be obtained at any Service office.

If early adjustment filing consistent with INA 245(a)(3) is included in the final rule, imagine how many more workers will benefit from it. Having an actual rule in place, as proposed, will prevent the shenanigans that obstructionists in the USCIS have engaged in by arbitrarily holding back the filing date, and in recent months, not even recognizing it for purposes of filing I-485 applications.   While an EAD of an approved I-140 will also be beneficial, being able to port off a pending adjustment application under INA 204(j) would allow the retention of the earlier I-140 petition (and underlying labor certification), without the need for an employer to file a new labor certification and I-140 petition. The filing of the I-485 application would also be able to protect a child from aging out under the Child Status Protection Act, which an EAD off an approved I-140 would not be able to do. Folks whose filing date would not be current could still take advantage of the EAD based on an approved I-140, but for those who can file an early I-485, they would incur many more benefits, including the ability to exercise true portability and eventually adjust to permanent residence in the United States.