Cyrus Mehta

HOW EXTRAORDINARY DOES ONE NEED TO BE TO QUALIFY AS A PERSON OF EXTRAORDINARY ABILITY?

/1 Comment/in /by

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(1) While other authors’ citations (or lack thereof) might be relevant to the final merits determination of whether a petitioner is at the very top of his or her field of endeavor, they are not relevant to the antecedent procedural question of whether the petitioner has provided at least three types of evidence (emphasis added); and
(2) …[W]hile the AAO’s analysis might be relevant to a final merits determination, the AAO may not unilaterally impose a novel evidentiary requirement (emphasis added).

Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d  at 1121.

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

Unfortunately, post Kazarian decisions seem to be affirming the two-part test and final merits determination analysis notwithstanding the holding in a prior decision, Buletini v. INS, 860 F.Supp. 1222 (E.D. Mich 1994), which held, “[o]nce it is established that the alien’s evidence is sufficient to meet three of the criteria listed in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the alien must be deemed to have extraordinary ability unless the INS sets forth specific and substantiated reasons for its finding that the alien does not meet extraordinary ability.” Id. at 1234.  Under the burden shifting approach in Buletini, the petitioner should be deemed qualified, and the burden then shifts  onto  the  Service to reject the evidence that meet the criteria, if suppose, it finds that the evidence was  fraudulent or too dated and stale. In fact, such a burden shifting approach is not unknown in other aspects of immigration law. As my colleague David Isaacson has pointed out, in the asylum context, an applicant who demonstrates that he or she has suffered past persecution on account of a protected ground is rebuttably presumed to have a reasonable fear of future persecution on that same ground.  8 C.F.R. §§ 208.13(b)(1), 1208.13(b)(1).  In such cases, by regulation, “the Service shall bear the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence” that a change in circumstances, or the reasonable possibility of relocating within the country of persecution, should lead to a denial of asylum.  8 C.F.R. §§ 208.13(b)(1)(ii), 1208.13(b)(1).

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

Noroozi and Assadi v. Napolitano,  ___ F. Supp. ___ (SDNY Nov. 14, 2012), available on AILA InfoNet at Doc. No. 12111644 (posted 11/16/12), is another recent decision from the Southern District of New York that has agreed with the Kazarian two-step analysis. Petitioner Noroozi represented Iran in table tennis at the 2008 Olympics in Beijing. Although neither Noroozi nor the Iranian table tennis team won any medal at the Olympics, the USICS initially approved the EB-1 petition, but then subsequently revoked it. A second EB-1 petition was filed, which was denied on the ground that Noorzi only met two of the criteria, but not three. The court agreed with the USCIS that there was no evidence to substantiate that he played a “leading or critical role” for his team and nor did the “published material” about him pass muster since it focused more on the team and only briefly mentioned Noroozi. Even though the failure to meet the evidentiary criteria could have ended the analysis, the court also discussed how Noroozi did not merit a favorable judgment under the second part “final merits determination.”  Since Noroozi ranked 284th in the world in table tennis, and finished 65th place in table tennis in the 2008 Olympics, the court noted that this would oblige the USCIS to hypothetically grant EB-1 petitions to the 283 higher ranked table tennis players, and also to the 283 higher ranked players in other sports, assuming they were non-US citizens, as well as to the 64 table tennis players who outperformed Noroozi in the 2008 Olympics. The court’s  “final merits determination” in Noroozi  is troubling as the EB-1 was never intended only for the number one player in a sporting field, and this decision should be contrasted with a pre-Kazarian decision involving an ice hockey player in the National Hockey League whose team won the Stanley Cup, but was not an all-stars or one of the highest paid players, but was still found to be qualified  under EB-1. See Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440 (N.D. Ill 1995).  The “final merits determination” permits USCIS to set subjective baselines with respect to rankings of   players in sports even if they would potentially qualify under the ten evidentiary criteria as Muni did after he sought reversal of the denial of his EB-1 petition in federal court. Interestingly, in Noroozi, the attorney also became a plaintiff along with the petitioner on the ground that the USCIS denied the EB-1 petition based on the petitioner’s association with the attorney who had been unfairly singled out in a DOS cable. That strategy too failed since the court rejected that there was any bad faith on the part of the USCIS in denying Noroozi’s EB-1 petition.

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

It need not be this way as Congress probably did not intend for the USCIS to create a subjective final merits determination, when it enacted the priority worker categories under the Employment-based first preference in the Immigration Act of 1990. The starting point for examining the legislative history of the Immigration Act of 1990 is the House Report. See H.R. Rep. No. 723, Pt. 1, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 4 (Sept. 19, 1990).  With respect to aliens of extraordinary ability, the House Report states:

 

In order to qualify for admission in this category an alien must (1) demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim in the sciences, arts, education, business or athletics (as shown through extensive documentation); (2) be coming to the United States to continue work in that area of expertise; and (3) by virtue of such work benefit the United States. Documentation may include publications in respected journals, media accounts of the alien’s contributions to his profession, and statements of recognition of exceptional expertise by qualified organizations. Recognition can be through a one-time achievement such as receipt of the Nobel Prize. An alien can also qualify on the basis of a career of acclaimed work in the field. In the case of the arts, the distinguished nature of the alien’s career may be shown by critical reviews, prizes or awards received, box office standing or record sales. In short, admission under this category is to be reserved for that small percentage of individuals who have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor.
H.R. Rep. No. 723 at 69.

There is nothing in this passage that suggests that the USCIS needed to conduct a two-step analysis to determine extraordinary ability. On the contrary, the House Report broadly suggests a number of possibilities under which an alien can establish extraordinary ability, such as through publications in respected journals, media accounts or statements of recognition of exceptional expertise by qualified organizations. Moreover, the House Report also indicates that “[a}n alien can also qualify on the basis of a career of acclaimed work in the field.”

The implementing regulations appropriately relied on the House Report in defining “extraordinary ability” to mean “a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of the small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor.” See commentary on implementing regulations at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897 (Nov. 29, 1991). The proposed regulations would have used one of the “few (emphasis added) who has risen to the very top of the field,”  but after listening to the objection of commentators, the Service substituted the word “few” with “small percentage” in deference to the same, albeit broader, verbiage that was used in the House Report. By developing the ten evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3)(1)-(x), and recognizing that if an alien met three out of the 10 criteria, the Service appropriately followed Congressional intent by allowing this alien to demonstrate  extraordinary ability, which is “a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of the small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor.” There is nothing more that is required within the regulatory criteria to demonstrate whether an alien was within that “small percentage,” and this appears to be consistent with the House Report too. Given the broad examples in the House Report for demonstrating extraordinary ability, the Service also promulgated an additional regulation, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4),  that permits submission of comparable evidence when the given criteria do not apply to the candidate’s occupation or achievements. The DHS Ombudsman’s recommendations to improve the quality of extraordinary ability adjudications also discusses that the administrative practice prior to Kazarian was to base an applicant’s extraordinary ability on complying with 3 out of the 10 evidentiary criteria.

The extraordinary ability provision, as crafted by Congress in 1990, should be viewed in the context of other introductory passages in the House Report preceding the section on extraordinary ability. Congress was clearly concerned about the US labor market facing two problems, which immigration policy could help correct. Id. at 52. “The first is the need of American business for highly skilled, specially trained personnel to fill increasingly sophisticated jobs for which domestic personnel cannot be found and the need for other workers to meet specific labor shortages.” Id. The following passage from the House Report is worth extracting, and while written in 1990, is relevant even in 2013:

The competitive influences of the Asian Pacific Rim, Caribbean Basin, and the European Community are forcing re-evaluation of the U.S. role in the world. Immigration law is not now in synchronization with these global developments. Its current structure inhibits timely admittance of needed highly skilled immigrants. The highest preference in the employment category, relating to people of exceptional ability, currently involves an 18-month wait for a visa. The other employment category, for skilled and unskilled workers, is subject to a 2 ½ year wait. This lack of responsiveness may impede the ability of businesses to plan and operate efficiently and effectively in the global economy.
Id. at 53.

Indeed, it is very clear that IMMACT90, as reflected by the intent of Congress in the House Report, has failed to address the problem of timely admittance of highly skilled immigrants. The waits under the employment-based second preferences (EB-2) for India and China and in the employment-based third preferences (EB-3) for all countries, and worse for India, are far greater in 2013. In the case of the India EB-3, the wait could be several decades long. If immigration law was not in synchronization with global developments in 1990, it is much less so in 2013 especially since the world has become far more globalized and interdependent. Indeed, one way to correct the imbalance is for the USCIS to faithfully interpret the pivotal extraordinary ability provision in light of Congressional concern in 1990, which continues to be even more of concern today, and that is to expeditiously allow an alien of extraordinary ability who meets 3 out of the 10 evidentiary criteria to be able to obtain permanent residence  in the employment-based first preference (EB-1), which unlike the EB-2 for India and China, and the EB-3, remains current and has always remained current. A second-step subjective merits analysis, as proposed by the USCIS, would continue to thwart Congressional intent as it would lead to arbitrary denials of aliens who otherwise can demonstrate extraordinary ability, and who would clearly be able to benefit the U.S.

(This article is partly based on Demystifying the Final Merits Analysis of Extraordinary Ability by Cyrus Mehta, Roberto Caballero and Rita Sostrin, Immigration Practice Pointers, AILA 2013-14 Ed. The article contains general information and should not be relied upon as a substitute for legal advice.)

Cyrus Mehta

HOW LONG IS A LAWYER OBLIGATED TO CORRECT FALSE EVIDENCE THAT WAS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE CLIENT?

/1 Comment/in /by

One of the cardinal ethical rules governing a lawyer’s conduct is the prohibition, with some exception, from revealing a client’s confidential information. This information, which must be kept confidential, is normally gained during the course of the representation of the client. Still, at the same time, a lawyer is also prohibited from offering or using evidence before a tribunal that the lawyer knows to be false.  If a lawyer gets to know about the submission of false evidence to the tribunal, the lawyer is required to take reasonable remedial measures, and in some states, when the lawyer is unsuccessful in obtaining the client’s cooperation to remedy the fraud, the lawyer is also required to inform the tribunal. ABA Model Rule 1.6 governs a lawyer’s duty of confidentiality while ABA Model rule 3.3 governs a lawyer’s duty of candor to the tribunal. These two rules are often in tension.

The modern trend in legal ethics is that the lawyer’s duty of candor to the tribunal will almost always trump his or her duty of confidentiality to the client. This is especially true in New York. New York’s Rule 3.3 not only prohibits a lawyer from offering evidence that he or she knows to be false, but requires a lawyer to take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. The proper course, when the lawyer learns that false evidence has been submitted, is to first remonstrate with a client confidentially, and seek the client’s cooperation with respect to the withdrawal or correction of the false statement. Most clients will likely understand that taking such a measure is also in their best interests, and that a lawyer is likely to take steps that are least damaging to the client. For instance, if an asylum claim otherwise includes truthful elements but some false information or evidence, the withdrawal of the damaging evidence may be presented at the same time as part of a packet of evidence that is otherwise truthful and supportive of the client’s claim. If the client is uncooperative and withdrawal from the representation cannot remedy the false statement, the lawyer, under Rule 3.3(b), must make disclosure to the tribunal as is reasonably necessary to remedy the situation, even if such disclosure is protected under the attorney client rule of confidentiality.

Prior to April 1, 2009, New York did not require a lawyer to reveal a client’s submission of false evidence to a tribunal if it was protected as confidential information between an attorney and the client, but all that changed when New York adopted Model Rule 3.3. After this sea change in New York, I wrote from an immigration lawyer’s perspective, What Remedial Measures Can A Lawyer Take To Correct False Statements Under New York’s Ethical Rules? When writing the article I puzzled on how long does the lawyer’s obligation to correct a client’s false statement last. Does it last till the completion of the case or forever?  Unlike Comment 13 to ABA Model Rule 3.3, which clearly suggested that the obligation lasts till the conclusion of the proceeding, there is no similar comment to New York’s Rule 3.3.

This has now been answered in New York City Bar’s Formal Opinion 2013-2.  Recognizing that the New York rule does not contain a similar limiting comment like the ABA Model Rule, the New York City Bar concludes that the lawyer’s obligation to correct the presentation of false evidence survives the conclusion of proceedings. However, agreeing with opinions of its sister NY State Bar (see State 831, fn 4 and State 837), the NYC Bar opinion states that this obligation does not last forever, and “should end when a reasonable ‘remedial’ measure is no longer available.” Still, a lawyer is required to take remedial measures even after the conclusion of the proceeding if the tribunal in question, or a reviewing tribunal,  is still in a position to review the new evidence, which in turn could result in an amendment, modification or vacatur of the prior judgment.  Action that cannot result or is highly unlikely to result in such a reversal or modification of the judgment cannot be said to be “remedial,” and then the obligation of the lawyer under Rule 3.3 may end. The opinion also cautions, “The amount of work involved in fulfilling the 3.3 obligation should neither force the lawyer into insolvency or jeopardize the lawyer’s ability to continue to diligently and competently perform legal services on behalf of the lawyer’s other clients [citations omitted].”

How does the lawyer’s continuing obligation even after the conclusion of the case to take remedial measures under Rule 3.3 work in immigration practice?  The term “tribunal” is broadly defined in Rule 1.0(w) to encompass not just a court but even an “administrative agency or other body acting in an adjudicative capacity.” But the definition of “tribunal,” and its reference in Rule 3.3, as well as in the NYC Bar opinion, with respect to an administrative agency still connotes a court-like adversarial proceeding involving two parties and opposing counsel. At issue is whether the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, along with the Department of Labor and Department of State, would be considered “tribunals” under this definition. The definition of tribunal goes on to state: “A legislative body, administrative agency or other body acts in an adjudicative capacity when a neutral official, after the presentation of evidence or legal argument by a party or parties, will render a legal judgment directly affecting the party’s interests in a particular matter.” There is no question that a proceeding before an Immigration Judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals,  would be before a “tribunal,” but there is ambiguity as to whether it would extend to the above governmental agencies too as it is unclear whether there is a neutral official who will render a legal judgment “after the presentation of evidence or legal argument by a party or parties” when one files an application with the USCIS or with a U.S. Consulate.  There is also no opposing counsel in such instances. It is thus arguable whether such agencies constitute a “tribunal,” and whether the 3.3 obligation exists regarding the need to take reasonable remedial measures to correct a client’s false statement or submission of false evidence, even after the case has been completed.

As a practical matter, though, whether an immigration-related agency is a tribunal or not should not matter. If an attorney knowingly assists a client in filing a false application, such conduct may trigger criminal liability regardless of whether the application was made to a tribunal or not. An attorney is also required to be truthful to third persons, governmental or otherwise, under Rule 4.1. Moreover, Rule 1.6(b)(3), while not mandating it, allows a lawyer to withdraw a written or oral opinion or representation relied upon by a third person (even if not with a tribunal), where the lawyer belatedly learns of its falsity. In such a situation, as confirmed by NY State Opinion 837, a noisy withdrawal may constitute a reasonable remedial measure under Rule 3.3.  Finally, a similar duty of candor applies to immigration agencies under parallel ethical rules in 8 C.F.R. §1003.102(c) and 8 C.F.R. 292.3(b), governing the conduct of private immigration attorneys, although the requirement is to “take appropriate remedial measures” without a specific requirement to disclose to the tribunal.

Regardless of the ambiguity in the definition of tribunal with respect to immigration agencies, it behooves a lawyer to ensure at the outset of the representation, and prior to filing an immigration application, that there is no false, misleading or inaccurate statement. For example, it always makes sense to meet with both the spouses, and run some typical questions by them, to ascertain that the marriage is bona fide prior to taking on the case and filing the applications.

Let’s examine how the NYC Bar Formal Opinion 2013-2 requiring a lawyer to take remedial action works in immigration practice. In the most obvious case of a tribunal setting, which is a proceeding before an Immigration Judge, a lawyer would have a continuing obligation to take “reasonable remedial measures” even after the case has concluded based on the NYC Bar opinion. So in the example of the client who submitted material false evidence in her asylum claim, and the lawyer learns of it after the client has been granted asylum by the Immigration Judge, to what extent does the lawyer’s obligation last? First, the lawyer must have actual knowledge that such evidence was false, although such knowledge “may be inferred from circumstances.” Rule 1.0(k). The false evidence that was submitted must also be “material,” which is whether the evidence could have changed the result of the outcome.  Assuming that the lawyer has actual knowledge of its falsity and it is material, a case can only be reopened no later than 90 days after the issuance of a final administrative order. INA 240(c)(7); 8 CFR 1003.2(c)(2), 8 CFR 1003.23(b)(1). If the lawyer has actual knowledge of the false evidence after 90 days from the final order, can a lawyer argue that the law does not allow for a motion to reopen, and thus any action will not result in a modification of the grant of asylum by the Immigration Judge?

The NYC Bar Opinion was not written for immigration practitioners, but there are exceptions to the 90 day time limitation, such as the BIA’s sua sponte reopening authority under 8 CFR 1003.2(a). Also, reopening is possible when both parties, including the government, agree to reopen under 8 CFR 1003.2(c)(3)(iii) or 8 CFR 1003.23(b)(4)(iv). Even after the foreign national gets lawful permanent residence, the government can start rescission proceedings within 5 years or place her once more in removal proceedings. And even after this client naturalizes, it is possible for the government to start de-naturalization proceedings against her on the ground that she did not properly obtain permanent residence due to the false evidence that resulted in her grant of asylum.

In the immigration context, it may appear that a lawyer’s obligation to remedy a client’s fraud or false statement, if it was made to a tribunal, could last in perpetuity. It could result in draconian results, if say, a child or a spouse derived a green card, or even a derivative citizenship benefit innocently based on the false evidence that was submitted by the principal applicant.  As I had suggested in my previous article, there are very good policy reasons to limit the obligation to the end of the proceeding, or at least when the statutory limit for filing a motion to reopen has passed. As time passes, the undoing of previously committed fraud implicates the status and rights of other people, such as spouses, children and other relatives. Indeed, even the Board of Immigration Appeals has held in an unpublished decision, Matter of Gumapas, that a person who became a citizen through fraud is still a citizen, and can sponsor a spouse for permanent residence.  The imposition of such a limitless obligation on an attorney would also diminish the purpose of the ethics rules themselves in preventing fraudulent representations to the tribunal. In this example, the lawyer acted in good faith before the tribunal even though the client may have presented false evidence without the knowledge of the lawyer. Also, there are other processes in place that can rectify the situation, such as the government’s ability to commence de-naturalization proceedings against her through their own investigations, without relying on the attorney to inform them.   And last, there are reasons to end the obligation at the conclusion of the proceeding similar to why statutes of limitation exist.   Over time, witnesses and documents may not be available and memories fade.  This author has heard speeches by distinguished personalities whose parents may have entered the US as immigrants where they wax lyrical about how their parents perpetrated a small misrepresentation in order to immigrate to the US so that their children could succeed and realize the American dream. If a lawyer who represented this distinguished person’s parents is in the audience, is this lawyer today under a 3.3 obligation to inform the relevant immigration agency regarding the parent’s fraud even if the parent is deceased?

Indeed, Comment 13 to ABA Model Rule 3.3 is clearer than the New York rule:

A practical time limit on the obligation to rectify false evidence or false statements of law and fact has to be established. The conclusion of the proceeding is a reasonably definite point for the termination of the obligation. A proceeding has concluded within the meaning of this Rule when a final judgment in the proceeding has been affirmed on appeal or the time for review has passed.

Even NY State Bar Opinion 831, supra,  tempers the absurd effects of rule 3.3 by holding that if the client’s fraud on the tribunal took effect before April 1, 2009, then the old NY Disciplinary Rule 7-102(B)(1) applies where any confidence or secret that arose in the attorney-client relationship could not be disclosed even if it was false at the time of submission to the tribunal. Footnote 4 in Opinion 831 is also worth noting:

It is unclear when the disclosure obligations under the new rule end.  In past opinions, we appear to have assumed that the disclosure obligations in DR 7-102(B) where information was not “protected” as a confidence or secret ended when the proceeding in question concluded.  N.Y. State 674 (discussing whether a lawyer must reveal perjury “discovered after the fact when the proceeding in which the perjury was committed (and later discovered) has not yet concluded”); N.Y. State 466 (“since the existence of the negotiable instrument is not relevant to any pending proceeding”).  The New York State Bar Association proposal for the new rule, adopting the language of the ABA Model Rules, would have codified this interpretation in Rule 3.3.  The proposal stated, “The duties stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) continue to the conclusion of the proceeding and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6.”  New York State Bar Association Proposed Rules of Professional Conduct 160 (Feb. 1, 2008) (emphasis added) (available at www.nysba.org/proposedrulesofconduct020108.  As noted in the text, Rule 3.3 as adopted by the courts omits the phrase “continue to the conclusion of the proceeding and.”  There is thus an argument that the courts in adopting the rule intended the obligation to continue past the end of the proceeding and, potentially, indefinitely – or at least for some reasonable period of time.  The broadest version of this interpretation seems to us implausible.  We believe the obligation extends for as long as the effect of the fraudulent conduct on the proceeding can be remedied, which may extend beyond the end of the proceeding – but not forever.  If disclosure could not remedy the effect of the conduct on the proceeding, but could merely result in punishment of the client, we do not believe the Rule 3.3 disclosure duty applies.

As interpretations regarding the continuing obligation of an attorney under Rule 3.3 evolve in New York and elsewhere (at least in states where the obligation does not end at the conclusion of the case), it is hoped they take into account how an attorney’s potential obligation to report a client’s fraud  in perpetuity might impact foreign nationals who may have obtained immigration benefits a very long time ago, as well as their impact on innocent families.

(The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of any of the organizations that he may be involved with.)

Cyrus Mehta

Meet Our New Friend: Who Is An “H-1B Skilled Worker Dependent Employer” In Senate Immigration Bill, S. 744?

/0 Comments/in /by

By Gary Endelman and Cyrus D. Mehta

Since we last wrote about the H-1B visa provisions in Senate Immigration Bill, S. 744, Workable Or Unworkable? The H-1B And L-1 Visa Provisions In BSEOIMA, S. 744, there have been several changes to this portion of the bill. The amendment proposed by Senator Hatch (after reaching a compromise with Senator Schumer), which passed the Judiciary Committee, sought to water down some of the restrictions that would otherwise make the H-1B visa program unworkable. Seeking to advance the interests of the many high tech companies that have settled in Utah, an accommodation with Senator Hatch implicitly held out the promise of attracting other GOP Senators to vote for the bill when it reached the Senate floor. A bi-partisan Senate bill that passed with 70 votes might serve to provide political cover for embattled Speaker John Boehner to maneuver around the objections of Republican obstructionists and pass CIR with the aid of Democratic votes.

The main concern of many technology companies in Silicon Valley was that the new recruitment requirement would make it impossible for them to use the H-1B visa program, despite the increase in the H-1B visa cap. Under the bill’s original provision, the employer would first have to offer the job to any US worker who applied, who is equally or better qualified than the nonimmigrant H-1B worker. It was feared that this would allow the Department of Labor (DOL) to micromanage the employer’s recruitment processes, and also determine who an equally or better qualified US worker would be rather than leave it to the employer’s best judgment. To the extent that the Hatch amendment shifted power over the H-1B away from the DOL in favor of more market-oriented forces, it represents a significant attempt to rely upon such influences rather than direct federal regulation as the operating principle of protection for US workers in the immigration context.

As a result of the Hatch amendment, an employer who is not an H-1B Skilled Worker Dependent Employer (SWDE) or a Dependent Employer (DE), which we will explain below,   is required to use recruitment procedures that meet industry wide standards and offer compensation that is at least as great as that required to be offered to H-1B nonimmigrants. It no longer requires such an employer to offer the job to an equally or better qualified US worker. Still, it is hard to determine how this would be interpreted by the DOL  Does the employer need to establish that there were no qualified US workers who applied or does the employer only need to demonstrate that it does normally also recruit US workers for the same position? We believe that the latter interpretation is more consistent with the language of the Hatch amendment. An employer that is not a SWDE and not a DE will not be subject to the  non-displacement  attestation unless it files the petition with the intent or purpose of displacing a specific US worker for the position to be occupied by the beneficiary, or workers are displaced who provide services at worksites owned, operated, or controlled by a Federal, State, or local government entity that directs and controls the work of the H-1B worker, or workers are displaced who are employed as public school kindergarten elementary, middle school or secondary school teachers.

But here’s the catch. The Hatch amendment also creates a new concept – the SWDE. The SWDE is different from the H-1B dependent employer (DE) as we have known it under the existing law. An SWDE is “an employer who  employees H-1B nonimmigrants in the United States in a number that in total is equal to at least 15 percent of the number of its full time equivalent employees in the United States employment in occupations contained within Occupational Information Network Database (O*Net) Job Zones 4 and Job Zones 5.” Under this definition, many employers will be SWDE even if they are not dependent employers. Even if they hire thousands of US workers at lower skill levels, one needs to count how many workers are hired at Job Zone 4 and 5, and if the number of H-1B workers exceed 15% of that number, the employer becomes a SWDE. One can imagine the kind of intricate investigations and calculations that an immigration attorney may need to make on behalf of an employer client to find out how many people it hires at Levels 4 and 5 so as to determine whether the employer is a SWDE or not. As long as an employer employs even one US worker at a Level 4 or 5 positions, the hiring of an H-1B worker will render this employer a SWDE (as the hiring of this one H-1B worker will be more than 15% of the number of employees hired in Level 4 or 5). Once the employer is a SWDE, such an employer would  be required to have offered the job to any US worker who applies and is equally or better qualified for the job than the H-1B worker..

The SWDE is not based on a gradation like the traditional Dependent Employer (DE) as defined in Section 212n)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act:

  • An employer is considered H-1B-dependent if it has: 25 or fewer full-time equivalent employees and at least eight H-1B nonimmigrant workers; or
  • 26 – 50 full-time equivalent employees and at least 13 H-1B nonimmigrant workers; or
  • 51 or more full-time equivalent employees of whom 15 percent or more are H-1B.

To qualify as an SWDE, you do not have the less than 25, 12-50 and 50+ to do the calculation.  Under the new SWDE definition where you need 15%, even if you have 1 employee in Job Zone 4 or 5, and hire one H-1B, you become a SWDE. This never happened under the DE definition, as you needed to have 7 H-1Bs if less than 25, or 12 H-1Bs if between 25 and 50, or 15% after that. Unlike the DE category, which was supposed to be the exception rather than the norm, the SWDE is more easily satisfied precisely.

Our colleague David Isaacson properly points out that, because of the different rules for small numbers, it will be relatively easy for a small employer to be a SWDE but not a DE.  If an employer has 20 or 25 full-time equivalent employees (FTEEs), and 5 of them are H-1Bs who are not intending immigrants, then that employer will be a SWDE even if all of its U.S. workers are in Job Zone 4 or 5, because the 5 H-1Bs are necessarily more than 15% of however many of the 20 or 25 total FTEEs are in Job Zones 4 or 5, but that employer won’t be a DE because it has fewer than 7 non-intending-immigrant H-1Bs and one must have more than 7 to be a DE.  It is also possible to be a SWDE and not a dependent employer as a large employer, if your total number of H-1B employees who are not intending immigrants is more than 15% of your total “number that in total is equal to at least 15 percent of the number of its full-time equivalent employees in the United States employed in occupations contained within Occupational Information Network Database (O*NET) Job Zone 4 and Job Zone 5” but is less than 15% of your overall FTEEs, because of your employees in Job Zones 1 through 3 who count towards the denominator of the DE calculation but not the denominator of the SWDE calculation.

Is a dependent employer in a more advantageous position than a SWDE after the Hatch amendment? As a practical matter, it would be very difficult for an employer to be a dependent employer without being a SWDE. So long as an employer hires at least one US worker in a Job Zone 4 or 5 positions, as noted earlier, the hiring of even one H-1B worker would make this employer a SWDE. But there may exist a company that does not hire anyone in a Level 4 or 5 Job Zone. Although Level 4 or 5 Job Zones generally require bachelor’s degrees, or higher, there are many Level 3 occupations in O*Net that may require bachelor’s degrees some times, but not all of the time. For instances, Business and Operations Managers,  Lodging Managers or Food Service Managers are in Zone 3, which can qualify under the H-1B visa,  and one can conceive of a hotel establishment hiring both US workers and  H-1Bs for such positions that are only in Zone 3.

Has the SWDE made the traditional H-1B employer definition redundant? That might be an incautious overstatement for notable differences still remain. The SWDE has to attest that for 90 days before and after the filing of the Labor Condition Application, it has not and will not displace a US worker. By contrast, an employer who is a dependent employer but not a SWDE, will have to attest that for 180 days before and after the filing of the Labor Condition Application, it has not and will not displace a US worker. Also, strangely, the bill as it exists in its current form, does not require a dependent employer to first offer the job to an equally or better qualified US worker. Is this an oversight where a dependent employer is exempt from the more onerous recruitment procedures that SWDE have to go through, but is still subject to a more vigorous anti-displacement attestation?  Only a dependent employer, but not a SWDE,  is  prohibited from  outplacing H-1B workers to third party sites.

The SWDE definition was introduced to catch US-based tech companies than the Indian IT companies, as the latter are in any event dependent employers.  In a twist of fate, while the Indian IT companies have been most affected by the H-1B provisions in the bill, the SWDE concept may wind up most severely affecting the very IT giants in this country who looked to Senator Hatch for legislative relief. The end result may well be to subject them to recruitment obligations that would otherwise not have applied under the traditional H-1B dependent employer definition. Such are the unintended consequences of a compromise that Senator Hatch had to make with other Gang of 8 members, such as Senator Durbin, who have been vehemently opposed to the H-1B visa program. In exchange for a more liberal recruitment regime, the law will make more employers SWDEs and subject them to the restrictive recruitment procedures. Not only may Facebook and Google, to name but two of many such companies, have to adjust to this unwelcome and rude surprise, but it is likely that many IT start-ups, the very entrepreneurs that the Obama Administration claims to want to encourage, will find their growth stymied by the SWDE recruitment obligations that likely were never intended by Senator Hatch to apply to them at all.

This bring us finally to the definitions of “covered employer” and “intending immigrant.” A SWDE will not be subject to the more onerous recruitment requirement, and a DE as well as an SWDE will not be subject to the anti-displacement attestations if they fall under the definition of “covered employer” and are filing an H-1B visa for an “intending immigrant.” The Hatch amendment slightly modified the definition of a “covered employer,”  in fact making it easier for a SWDE or DE to get out of the more restrictive requirements. An “intending immigrant” is one who intends to live and work permanently in the US as demonstrated by a pending or approved labor certification that was filed by a “covered employer.” An intending immigrant can also be the beneficiary of a pending or approved I-140 petition  A “covered employer,” as amended by Hatch,  is an employer who during the year before filing the labor certification on behalf of the intending immigrant, has filed an immigrant visa petition for 90 percent of current employees who were beneficiaries of approved labor certifications during the one year ending six months before the petition in question is filed.

How does this work? The employer who is filing an H-1B on behalf of an “intending immigrant” (for whom a labor certification or an I-140 petition has been filed or approved) needs to look back six months. If the employer had approved labor certifications during the one year period ending six months prior to filing the H-1B petition,  and filed immigrant visa petitions for 90% of them during that look back period six months prior, the employer qualifies as a covered employer. One can conceivably argue that if the employer did not have any approved labor certifications during that look back period, it might still qualify as a covered employer. The covered employer definition applies only to approved labor certifications, out of which 90% have I-140s filed on their behalf. So, if there are no approved labor certifications or no labor certifications even filed, the employer may still be a covered employer, provided the beneficiary of the H-1B petition currently has an approved or pending labor certification or I-140 petition filed on his/her behalf.

The Senate Judiciary Committee’s report on BSEOIMA has some alarming language regarding the “covered employer” definition:

“Intending immigrants are not counted as H-1B or L nonimmigrants for the purposes of determining whether an employer is an H-1B dependent company or a L visa dependent company.  Intending immigrants are defined as persons for whom their employer has started the green card process, including those for whom an Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Form I-140) or Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (Form I-485) has been filed. However, employers may only take advantage of this counting rule if the employer has actually filed immigrant status petitions for not less than 90 percent of current employees for whom the company filed labor certifications in the previous year.”

Despite this language in the report, it can still be argued that Congress has intended that an employer who has approved labor certifications in the “look back” period follow through with the green card process (as opposed to nominally only filing labor certifications), and thus the requirement that the employer has filed I-140 petitions for not less than 90% of the relevant approved labor certifications.  Congress just does not want an employer to push paper and file labor certifications, but to actually carry through with the green card process for its employees.  However, if there is no filed or approved labor certification during the relevant period, an employer should still be treated as a “covered employer.”  If interpreted literally, only a covered employer can invoke the “intending immigrant” exception. Because the Hatch-Schumer amendment narrowed the definition of “covered employer” to require a labor certification as a condition precedent to an I-140 submission, the eligibility of any I-140 petition that does not  depend on a labor certification approval is suddenly and surprisingly called into question. Thus, outstanding researchers, persons of extraordinary ability, beneficiaries of approved national interest waivers, multinational managers, and advanced US degree STEM holders,  may never be considered as “intending immigrants” as no labor certifications need to be filed on their behalf.   The very people we need to keep most will not benefit.   At a time when there are more green card routes around PERM, can it possibly be that H-1B status will be withheld, or made more difficult, from those who take advantage of these new options?  Surely this cannot be the intended result of such imprecise drafting.  The most vociferous critics of the H-1B programs, such as the IEEE, claim to favor unlimited green cards for advanced US STEM degree holders.  Will it be necessary for them to forego, or so drastically curtail, the H category entirely in order to arrive the finish line? Despite this, as explained above, we believe that an employer who files no labor certifications can still seek protection under the chimera of “covered employer.” Moreover, despite not having to file a labor certification for the priority worker, the employer may have filed labor certifications for other sponsored employees so that the mantle of “covered employer” does not have to be alien centered so long as it applies generally to the employer in question. Doubtless, it may take a technical amendment to simplify the matter and to bring clarity to the perplexed.

Notwithstanding the exception that has been created for employers to get out of the more restrictive H-1B requirements, it would not be easy for an employer to file a labor certification in order to create an intending immigrant. It takes 60+ days of recruitment before an employer can file a PERM labor certification. An employer who wishes to quickly hire an H-1B worker, may not be able to wait for that long to file a labor certification before filing an H-1B petition, and may rather go through the recruitment requirement for an SWDE under the H-1B provision. Moreover, for a permanent labor certification, the employer has to demonstrate that there were no minimally qualified US workers who applied for the job, which is even more onerous than the recruitment requirement for a SWDE, where the standard is equally or better qualified. On the other hand, a SWDE would not have a choice and may be compelled to file a labor certification to establish that the worker is an “intending immigrant.” For instance, an employer whose business model relies on outplacement of employees to client sites will need to first have an “intending immigrant” before it can file an H-1B visa petition.

While an employer may ultimately desire to file for green cards on behalf of their employees,  the H-1B visa, like dating before marriage,  allows time for both the employer and employee to try each other out before making a commitment to sponsor the worker for permanent residence and expend resources, including considerable governmental resources to process and adjudicate a labor certification application. BSEOIMA will turn this logical progression upside down. Employers will be forced to start the green card processing for potential H-1B workers even before they have come on board under the H-1B visa, where they can be tested out first.  BSEOIMA is transformational as it gives more emphasis to green card sponsorship than temporary sponsorship. Employers will look to ways to avoid the H-1B process altogether, as well as the PERM labor certification process. They will be able to directly sponsor STEM advanced degree students on an F-1 visa for a green card without even having to go through the labor certification process. A merits based point system will kick in four years after BSEOIMA takes effect, which will also allow employers to bypass the H-1B and PERM labor certification.  Even for those employers who must resort to the H-1B visa, they may not have to depend on the H-1B visa for too long as one of the provisions in the Hatch amendment will allow a foreign national to apply for adjustment of status even before the priority date becomes current. If the foreign national gets an employment authorization after filing for adjustment of status, it may obviate the need to apply for a renewal of the H-1B status. Finally, BSEOIMA may have unintended consequences for the Indian heritage IT firms, which it seeks to disrupt and put out of business. These firms, besides being forced to file for more green cards, will change their business models and will hire more US workers or will merge with firms that would reduce their dependence on H-1B workers. Thus, in the long run, these firms may be more competitive in the US rather than weakened.

If BSEOIMA does take effect, how will it impact existing H-1B workers? The new recruitment and displacement provisions won’t kick in for existing workers. So, even if an employer files an extension for existing employees, these new provisions will not apply even after enactment. On the other hand, the ban on outplacement will take effect even for existing employees with respect to any application filed after enactment. It would thus be incumbent on employers to start planning in advance and file labor certifications on behalf of H-1B employees they were in any event planning to file in the future. This would allow a SWDE to become a covered employer and thus be able to file H-1B visas under the more liberal provisions. Still, BSEOIMA has made the H-1B visa, which was already complex, even more maddeningly difficult. The whole idea of a temporary visa is to provide employers with flexibility to bring in much needed foreign skilled workers. BSEOIMA utterly and completely fails in this department, and it remains to be seen whether employers will be able to cope with this new temporary visa regime, or whether the drumbeat for further reform will begin soon after the law’s enactment.

Cora-Ann Pestaina

Say What? Did BALCA Just Say That Healthamerica Has Been Overruled?

/0 Comments/in /by

I hang onto every word of the Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA). It’s the only way to make it through the preparation and filing of labor certification applications under Program Electronic Review Management (PERM) as not knowing what BALCA has said on a particular issue could be fatal to any PERM.  This recent statement by BALCA stopped me in my tracks for a moment.

In Matter of Sushi Shogun, 2011-PER-02677 (May 28, 2013), BALCA said, “HealthAmerica has effectively been overruled by the promulgation of 20 C.F.R §656.11(b).” Practitioners who file numerous PERM applications can empathize with my initial panicked gasp at seeing “HealthAmerica” and “overruled” in the same sentence.

As a background, over six years ago, BALCA issued HealthAmerica, 2006-PER-0001 (BALCA July 18, 2006). In this important en banc decision, BALCA held that the Certifying Officer (“CO”) should have reconsidered the denial of a PERM application where documentation held by the employer pursuant to the recordkeeping requirements of PERM conclusively established that the apparent violation was an unintentional typographical error on the ETA Form 9089. The Form 9089 contained an erroneous date indicating that the employer had placed a Monday ad instead of the required Sunday placement, when in fact the employer had acted to place the ad on Sunday and had the newspaper tear sheets of the advertisement to prove it. 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.

Since then, HealthAmerica has saved many PERM applications from certain doom and many employers from the Department of Labor’s (DOL) hyper-technical claws. BALCA even broadened HealthAmerica beyond typographical errors. In Matter of Pa’Lante, 2008 PER 00209 (May 7, 2009), the employer filed the ETA Form 9089 neglecting to list the alien’s experience gained before joining the employer and upon which he qualified for the offered position. But the alien’s substantial prior experience had been introduced in the employer’s response to the DOL’s audit notification through a September 2000 report of an Educational Consultant, who reviewed the alien’s education and experience credentials. The report clearly established that the alien had the requisite qualifications for the job well before he started work for the employer. BALCA reasoned that since the employer was able to introduce detailed evidence in its audit response and motion for reconsideration that was not fabricated or prepared after the filing, it would forgive the omission of experience and applied HealthAmerica.

After all this, does BALCA’s statement in Matter of Sushi Shogun now mean that employers can no longer cite HealthAmerica? In Matter of Sushi Shogun, the employer filed a PERM labor certification for the position of “Cook Assistant, Japanese Cuisine.” The application was audited and then denied because the ETA Form 9089 listed the prevailing wage as $10.04 per hour when the prevailing wage determination listed the prevailing wage as $10.14 per hour. The employer argued that this was a minor typographical error and a clerical mistake of minor importance; that the Notice of Filing listed the correct wage; that the offered wage was not listed in any advertisements or on the posting with the State Workforce Agency (SWA); and that no potential job applicant could possibly have been misled by the error. BALCA acknowledged that the error was likely just a result of someone mistyping the wage on the ETA Form 9089 and to deny the application essentially elevated form over substance (HealthAmerica at 19), but held that its hands were tied since the case was being considered after the promulgation of 20 C.F.R §656.11(b) which states that requests for modifications to an application will not be accepted for applications submitted after July 16, 2007. BALCA even went on to “reject the approach of the majority” in another case, Jesus Covenant Church, 2008-PER-200 (Sept. 14, 2009), in which case the employer listed a wage in the SWA job order that was the same as the prevailing wage determination, but 28 cents less than the wage offered to the alien.  The majority found that this was a harmless typographical error that did not lead to a conclusion that the job was not clearly open to any U.S. worker. In Matter of Sushi Shogun BALCA stated that it is “reluctant to second-guess the Secretary’s policy determination requiring applications filed after July 16, 2007, to be error-free.”

BALCA is taking a more firm stand in Matter of Sushi Shogun. But its holding can be limited to only preclude the use of HealthAmerica in situations involving a modification on the ETA Form 9089. This means that the employer in HealthAmerica and even in Pa’Lante whose harmless errors would essentially require a modification of the ETA Form 9089 would probably not be as successful in their appeals now. But HealthAmerica is still good law and can still be cited in cases where the denial of a PERM application is not consistent with notions of fundamental fairness and procedural due process; where the substantive integrity of the process was preserved; the test of the availability of US workers was valid; the Employer’s good faith is evident; the error is harmless; and does not require a modification of the ETA Form 9089.

HealthAmerica lives on by way of cases like Denzil Gunnels, 2010-PER-00628 (BALCA Nov. 16, 2010) and Federal Insurance Co., 2008-PER-00037 (Feb. 20, 2009). Under Denzil Gunnels (which Cyrus Mehta has blogged about here) if a PERM application is denied without an audit and the employer submits supplemental evidence that could be considered as part of the record under HealthAmerica, the CO should treat it as a request for reconsideration rather than a request for review. But, even in cases where the circumstances of a generic audit may not have been specific enough to put the employer on notice regarding a specific deficiency, the request for review should be treated as a request for reconsideration so that the employer has a fair opportunity to present supplemental evidence to the CO. For example, if the employer’s labor certification was denied because the DOL determined that a particular newspaper was not adequate, an employer could argue that the generic audit did not provide adequate notice of the deficiency and thus find its way around a strict application of the prohibition to present supplementary evidence that would otherwise be barred under 20 C.F.R. §656.24(g)(2)(ii). HealthAmerica via Denzil Gunnels can be influential in such a case which does not involve a modification of the ETA Form 9089.

In Federal Insurance Co., 2008-PER-00037 (Feb. 20, 2009), the fact that certain mandatory language pertaining to an alternative requirement under Matter of Francis Kellogg, 1994-INA-465 (Feb. 2, 1998) (en banc), did not appear on the ETA Form 9089 was not fatal as there is no space on the Form for such language. BALCA held that a denial in that instance would offend fundamental fairness and due process. A case with a similar type of issue, not involving a modification of the ETA Form 9089 can still be approved today despite BALCA’s grand statement in Matter of Sushi Shogun.

HealthAmerica is still alive and is still important to the preservation of the integrity of the PERM process in cases where there has been no demonstration of bad faith or after the fact fabrication and a modification of the ETA Form 9089 is not required.

Cyrus Mehta

AN IMMIGRATION ATTORNEY’S RESPONSE TO STATEMENT OF USCIS UNION PRESIDENT OPPOSING SENATE IMMIGRATION BILL, S. 744

/6 Comments/in /by
Kenneth Palinkas, President of the National Citizenship and Immigration Services Council, the union representing 12,000 United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) adjudications officers and staff, issued a statement joining a vocal minority of other government union bosses, most notably Chris Crane of the ICE employee union, opposing the Senate immigration bill, S. 744.

Mr. Palinkas’ statementfunnily reminds me of a Request for Evidence (RFE) that the USCIS routinely issues after it receives an application for an immigration benefit. An RFE typically lists the many real and phantom concerns that the USCIS may have about an application, which this statement does too.  I will attempt to respond to Mr. Palinkas’ statement like one would respond to an RFE, first repeating the concerns of the USCIS in bold followed by my response:

USCIS adjudications officers are pressured to rubber stamp applications instead of conducting diligent case review and investigation. The culture at USCIS encourages all applications to be approved, discouraging proper investigation into red flags and discouraging the denial of applications. USCIS has been turned into an “approval machine.” 

Really! We attorneys always thought that there was a “Culture of No” at the USCIS. I scratch my eyes with disbelief when you say that USCIS has been turned into an “approval machine.” How I wish there was some resemblance to what you say and what we actually experience in our day to day practice.

But seriously, what about all the H-1B and L-1 petitions that are filed, which receive an RFE of several pages, asking for the kitchen sink, even when the occupation is readily a specialty occupation or the position is managerial? Even after we respond with  triple or quadruple the number of pages contained in the RFE (and much longer than the instant response), your officers often deny the petition with a cursory denial. What “approval machine,” Mr. Palinkas, are you talking about?

Actually, whether you like it or not, Congress did indeed make USICS an “approval machine.”  Your mandate is to grant the benefit whenever the eligibility requirements are met through a preponderance of the evidence standard. Congress created certain visas and green card categories because it believed that they would benefit the country. So a culturally unique folk singer should be granted the P-3 visa if she qualifies for it and the manager of a new startup office could also be granted the L-1A visa.  Please do not have any qualms in approving an application if it is deserved under the law, without factoring your own biases in the decision process such as the sluggishness in the economy or the national origin of the beneficiary. That is not your job. In fact, USCIS examiners should look to approving applications after carefully examining the evidence within the legal framework, which many of them do. It is they who are doing a good job!

 

USCIS has created an almost insurmountable bureaucracy which often prevents USCIS adjudications officers from contacting and coordinating with ICE agents and officers in cases that should have their involvement. USICS officers are pressured to approve visa applications for many individuals ICE agents have determined should be placed into deportation proceedings.

Mr. Palinkas, you may not be aware of this interesting paradox in our nation’s immigration laws. One may still be authorized to remain in the United States even though technically deportable.

ICE would probably determine that just about every beneficiary of a visa petition, such as an H-1B petition, who has applied timely for an extension, is deportable during the pendency of the extension request. Still, under 8 CFR 274a.12(b)(2), such a person is  authorized to continue working for the same employer for up to 240 days. Also, a spouse who has applied for adjustment of status based on a marriage petition filed by her US citizen spouse, according to ICE, is technically deportable while the adjustment of status application is pending. This person too is allowed to remain and work in the US while waiting for the green card during the pendency of the adjustment of status application even though the underlying visa has expired.

Does this mean that you would request ICE to start deportation proceedings whenever you are asked to adjudicate a visa extension request and not do your job? Your job, again, as mandated by Congress, is to approve these applications if they qualify under law. In the event that ICE places such hapless aliens in removal proceedings, an Immigration Judge will most likely terminate or administratively close such proceedings, and you will have to continue to adjudicate such cases. Indeed, this will waste more tax dollars than what you complain of below regarding fee waivers.

USCIS officers who identify illegal aliens that, in accordance with law should be placed into immigration proceedings before a federal judge, are prevented from exercising their authority and responsibility to issue Notices To appear (NTAs). In the rare case that an officer attempts to issue an NTA, it must first be approved by a secretive panel created under DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, which often denies the officer’s request. Illegal aliens are then permitted to remain in the United States as USCIS officers are not able to take action or contact ICE agents for assistance.  

Please carefully review the USCIS NTA Policy Memo dated November 7, 2011, which still gives you considerable authority to issue NTAs, such as when you deny a Form I-751 application to remove the conditions on residence or when you do not approve an asylum case and have to refer it to an Immigration Judge. Consistent with the policy on prosecutorial discretion, which promotes the sound use of limited resources, you are still required to issue NTAs when you see a fraud case, or cases involving non-citizens with criminal convictions or where there is a national security concern. So what’s all the fuss about? You still have plenty to do if you want to put non-citizens in removal proceedings even if your mandate by Congress is to grant benefit applications. I suggest you stay focused and  adjudicate applications, and let others worry about putting folks in removal proceedings.

The attitude of USCIS management is not that the Agency serves the American public or the laws of the United States, or public safety and national security, but instead the agency serves illegal aliens and the attorneys which represent them. While we believe in treating all people with respect, we are concerned that this agency tasked with such a vital security mission is too greatly influenced by special interest groups – to the point that it no longer properly performs its mission. 

Why do you focus so much on “illegal aliens?” I thought the USCIS is required to adjudicate applications so that people may come to the US legally. If you do your job properly, there will be more people in legal status in the US. Nowadays, when you carelessly deny an H-1B extension request that you granted many times before, you place this individual and her family in jeopardy.  All of the petitions that you receive from employers for H-1B visa, L visas or O visas, just to name a few, are for folks who will enter the US legally and who will also clearly benefit our country.

Moreover, an alien has a right to be represented by an attorney when filing an application for a visa benefit, and so I would suggest that you refrain from calling us “special interest groups.” We as attorneys under ABA Model Rule 3.3 and 4.1 are required to file truthful applications on behalf of our clients, along with many other DHS rules at 8 CFR 1003.102 that can sanction improper attorney conduct. Attorneys are required to ethically represent clients, who are applicants applying for immigration benefits, that you must serve efficiently under your Congressional mandate. Indeed, most of the times, attorneys representing applicants and the USCIS can be on the same side, developing interpretations of the law that would be consistent with Congressional intent and facilitate consistent adjudications.  It is a win-win situation for everyone, including the American public, if we can work cooperatively with you!

Currently, USCIS reports a 99.5% approval rate for all illegal alien applications for legal status filed under the Obama Administration’s new deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA) policies. DHS and USCIS leadership has intentionally established an application process for DACA applicants that bypasses traditional in-person investigatory interviews with trained USCIS adjudications officers. These practices were put in place to stop proper screening and enforcement, and guarantee that applications will be rubber-stamped for approval, a practice that virtually guarantees widespread fraud and places public safety at risk.

DACA is the model of an efficiently run USCIS program that is worthy of emulation and replication. There are many USCIS applications procedures that bypass the traditional interview process. Also, if there is an issue, there is nothing to stop the USCIS from inviting the applicant for an interview. You also have your FDNS folks do as much snooping around to their hearts content without regard to counsel being present  Moreover, most DACA applicants can establish their presence in the US through school records and other concrete proof, such as bank statements and even through their Facebook profiles, which could facilitate swift approval.

While illegal aliens applying for legal status under DACA policies are required to pay fees, DHS and USCIS are now exercising their discretion to waive those fees. Undoubtedly these practices will be replicated for millions of illegal aliens if S. 744 becomes law.

I thought there is a regulation at 8 CFR 103.7(c), which allows the DHS to waive fees if an applicant can demonstrate an inability to pay based on stringent criteria. There’s also statutory authority at INA 286(m).  As the head of a union, you are probably going beyond the scope of your position to challenge a regulation that was properly promulgated under the Administrative Procedures Act and the INA. How does a rule legitimately allowing fee waivers for a narrow class of individuals affect the working conditions of your employees in the union? Let’s move on to the next concern in the RFE!

US taxpayers are currently tasked with absorbing the cost of over $200 million worth of fee waivers bestowed on applicants for naturalization during the fiscal year. This is in addition to the strain put on our Social Security system that has been depleted by an onslaught of refugees receiving SSI benefits as soon as their feet touch US soil.

There you go again about fee waivers legitimately applied for under 8 CFR 103.7(c). You gripe about $200 million, but you forget about the immense contributions made by immigrants by way of taxes, purchasing power as consumers, and as entrepreneurs through job creating businesses.  By the way, one of the founders of Google, Sergey Brin, came to the US with his parents at the age of six because they faced anti-Semitism in their native Russia. Yet, you deride refugees who have escaped persecution and legitimately come to the US pursuant to the Refugee Act of 1980 based on the U.N. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.  I wonder whether you speak on behalf to the many dedicated USCIS officers who painstakingly determine whether an applicant qualifies for asylum or as a refugee under our obligations under the UN Convention. Do you also forget that America was built since its very inception and made great by people who escaped persecution from other countries? Have you lost sight of our most cherished and enduring symbol that  gave hope to millions when they landed on our shore – the Statue of Liberty?

According to a Kauffman Foundation study, the Startup Visa in S. 744, the bill which you oppose,  could conservatively lead to the creation of between 500,000 and 1.6 million jobs, which in turn could give a boost to the US economy of between $70 billion and $224 billion a year. According to another report sponsored by Cato Institute – The Economic Benefits Of Comprehensive Immigration Reform by Raul Hinjosa-Ojeda, the legalization of 11 million immigrants would be equivalent to more than $1.5 trillion added to GDP over 10 years. Yet you gripe about $200 million.

Large swaths of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) are not effectively enforced for legal immigrants and visa holders, including laws regarding public charges as well as many other provisions, as USCIS lacks resources to adequately screen and scrutinize legal immigrants and non-immigrants seeming status adjustment. There is also insufficient screening and monitoring of student visas.

There are thousands of dedicated USCIS examiners who carry out their duties diligently and thoroughly when adjudicating adjustment of status applications. If there is a properly executed Affidavit of Support pursuant to INA 213A, the examiner need not go further under the law. Congress has allowed agencies to sue the sponsor who has executed such an affidavit in the event that the alien seeks welfare benefits. Your allegation that students are not sufficiently monitored is shorn of any basis. What about STEM students whom we want to remain here and who can contribute to US competitiveness and innovation?

A new USCIS computer system to screen applications known as “Transformation” has proven to be a disaster as the agency has spent upwards of $2 billion for a system that would eventually allow an alien – now referred to as a “customer” under current USCIS policy – to upload their own information visa the internet for adjudication purposes. To date, only one form can be accepted into the program that has been in the making for close to 10 years.

If the USCIS were to hire some crackerjack H-1B computer programmers, those same people whose applications you like denying, I think there will be “transformation” in less than 10 months! Finally, and in closing, would you not agree that “customer” is a more dignified term than “alien”?

Cyrus Mehta

Do We Still Need PERM Labor Certification? An Analysis of the Merits-Based Points System in BSEOIMA

/2 Comments/in /by

By Gary Endelman and Cyrus D. Mehta

We continue to analyze the provisions of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013, s. 744 (BSEOIMA), which seeks to bring about dramatic changes to the existing immigration system in the United States.  One of the most  transformative changes that BSEOIMA will bring, if enacted, is a merits-based points system. For previous blogs on BSEOIMA, we refer readers to Workable or Unworkable: The H-1B and L-1 Provisions in BSEOIMA, s. 744 and Some Preliminary Observations Regarding The Proposed Border Security, Economic Opportunity And Immigration Modernization Act.

There will be a two track merits-based system under BSEOIMA.  The first track points-based merits system will have 120,000 to 250,000 merit-based visas. The second track non-points merits system applies to long term residents, and this track does not have a cap. By creating a points system, Congress has voted “No Confidence” in the labor certification program as a way to provide US employers with the talent they and the economy needs. This lack of confidence is also evident in other parts of BSEOIMA where STEM graduates with advanced degrees can be directly sponsored for green cards by employers without going through the arduous labor certification process.

Perhaps, it has also dawned on Congress about the futility of the labor market test that is conducted on behalf of a foreign worker for green card sponsorship who is already hired by the employer.  A good faith test of the labor market even if conducted by a well-intentioned employer will likely fail, at least from the Department of Labor’s (DOL) view, if the foreign worker is already in the position. The statutory basis for labor certifications, which in its current form is known as PERM (Program Electronic Review Management), is provided in INA §212(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). Under INA §212(a)(5), an alien is deemed “inadmissible unless the Secretary of Labor” certifies, inter alia, that “there are not sufficient workers who are able, willing, qualified…and available at the time of application” among the U.S. workforce. Out of this simple mandate in the INA, the DOL has built a complex regulatory structure that has delegated to the employer to conduct a good faith text of the US labor market. While in the real world an employer selects the best workers based both on an objective and subjective set of criteria, the DOL requires employers to demonstrate that only minimally qualified workers are available for the position. The labor certification process neither compels nor incentivizes an employer to hire the best workers, but it also does not result in the creation of US jobs. If a minimally qualified worker applies for the position, all that happens is that the labor certification cannot be filed.

The first track points-based system moves away radically from the labor certification system as it allows a foreign national to apply for permanent residency without a specific employer’s sponsorship. It  will take effect five years after the enactment of BSEOIMA. During  the first four years from enactment,  visas shall be made available to the backlogged EB-3 preferences. From the fifth year onwards,  50 % of visas shall be allocated to applicants who get the highest number of points under Tier 1. The remaining 50% of visas shall be allocated to applicants who get the highest number of points under Tier 2.

Under Tier 1, points will be assigned as follows:

A. Education
  • 15 points for a doctoral degree
  • 10 points for a master’s degree
  • 5 points for a bachelor’s degree from an institution of higher education in the US
B.    Employment Experience
No more than 20 points can be allocated as follows:
  • 3 points for each year an alien has been lawfully employed in a zone 5 occupation
  • 2 points for each year the alien has been lawfully employed in a zone 4 occupation
C. Employment Related To Education
An alien who is in the US and is employed full time or has an offer of full time employment in a field related to the alien’s education
  • In a zone 5 occupation shall be allocated 10 points
  • In a zone 4 occupation shall be allo0cated 8 points

D. Entrepreneurship

An alien who is an entrepreneur in a business that employs at least 2 employees in a zone 4 or zone 5 occupations shall be allocated 10 points

E. High Demand Occupation

An alien who is employed full-time or has an offer of full-time employment in a high demand 1 shall be allocated 10 points

F. Civic Involvement

An alien who has attested that he or she has engaged in  significant amount of community service shall be allocated 2 points

G. English Language

An alien who received a score of 80 or more on the Test of English as a Foreign Language, or an equivalent score on similar test, shall be allocated 10 points

H. Siblings and Married Sons and Daughters of Citizens

An alien who is the sibling of a citizen of the United States or who is more than 31 years of age and is the married son or married daughter of a citizen of the United States shall be allocated 10 points

I. Age

An alien who is:
  • between 18 and 24 years of age shall be allocated 8 points
  • between 25 and 32 years of age shall be allocated 6 points
  • between 33 and 37 years of age shall be allocated 4 points

J. Country of Origin

An alien who is a national of a country of which fewer than 50,000 nationals were lawfully admitted to permanent residence in the US in the previous 5 years shall be allocated 5 points.

Under Tier 2, points will be assigned as follows:

A. Employment Experience

An alien shall be allocated 2 points for each year the alien has been lawfully employed in the US, for a total of not more than 20 points

B. Special Employment Criteria

An alien who is employed full-time, or has an offer of full-time employment
  • in a high demand tier 2 occupation shall be allocated 10 points
  • in a zone 1 occupation or zone 2 occupation shall be allocated 10 points

C. Caregiver

An alien who is or has been a primary caregiver shall be allocated 10 points

D. Exceptional Employment Record

An alien who has a record of exceptional employment shall be allocated 10 points

E. Civic Involvement

An alien who has demonstrated significant civil involvement shall be allocated 2 points

F. English Language

An alien who received a TOEFL score or an equivalent score on a similar test:

  • 75 or more shall be allocated 10 points
  • More than 54 and less than 75 shall be allocated 5 points

G. Siblings and Married Sons and Daughters of Citizens

An alien who is the sibling of a citizen of the US or is over the age of 31 and is the married son or married daughter of a citizen of the US shall be allocated 10 points

H. Age

An alien who is:

  • Between 18 and 24 years of age shall be allocated 8 points
  • Between 25 and 32 years of age shall be allocated 6 points
  • Between 33 and 37 years of age shall be allocated 4 points

I.     Country of Origin

An alien who is a national of a country of which fewer than 50,000 nationals were lawfully admitted to permanent residence in the US in the previous 5 years shall be allocated 5 points.

There is also a second merit based track system that does not depend upon points beginning October 1, 2014. The second merits non-points system cleverly acts as a safety valve to reduce the existing backlogs in the system, and also ensures that we do not experience the same horrendous backlogs as we see under the existing system. People whose employment-based petitions and family-based petitions filed before the Act have been pending for more than 5 years will begin to become eligible for merit-based visas on that basis. Those who have been lawfully present for not less than 10 years will also be eligible for this non-points based side of the merit-based visa system. Registered Provisional Immigrants (RPIs) will be able to adjust status based on 10 years of lawful presence under this second merit non-points track system.

Labor certification will undoubtedly survive even after BSEOIMA as beneficiaries under the EB-2 and EB-3 preferences still need an employer to obtain labor certification. Moreover, not everyone will be able to make it under the merits system, such as ethnic cooks for example, who may not even need to speak English but are still vital for the success of the restaurant.  The merits based points system will compliment labor certification if BSEOIMA is enacted. Congress, and probably DOL itself has realized, as the authors have previously noted in their prior article, that the very notion of a “good faith” recruitment seems oddly out of place when used with reference to a recruitment effort that achieves its desired objective by failing to locate any qualified job applicants. Only in PERM do you win by losing. Unable to utilize real world recruitment standards, compelled to base evaluations upon the entirely artificial concept of “minimal qualifications” that does not exist outside the cordon sanitaire of 20 CFR §656, wedded to an inflexible job description that can never change regardless of an employer’s business needs or a worker’s evolving talents, and effectively prohibited from taking into consideration the very subjective character traits whose presence or absence is the most reliable predictor of effective job performance, the labor certification process is fundamentally at odds with the very economic system it allegedly seeks to serve. Justification of labor certification can extend no further than a test of the relevant job market. The DOL has also failed to provide jobs to U.S. workers even though it forces the employer to conduct elaborate tests of the labor market to retain the foreign national employee. Indeed, as presently conceived and administered by the DOL, labor certification is a job killer, hurting the employment prospects of the domestic work force by artificially preventing US employers, most especially emerging companies who are the engine of job creation, from treating the foreign national as an asset to be maximized in way that promotes job growth and strengthens the very economy on which we all depend. Indeed, no intellectually honest examination of the labor certification system can fail to detect the pervasive distrust of the entrepreneurial spirit and the very ethos of capitalism itself that the DOL brings to each phase of the PERM process.

As the PERM labor certification appears to wither in BSEOIMA, giving way to a merits based points system, one can also learn from the Canadian points system where the points based system first started. A points based system may not necessarily be ideal. It could potentially encourage PhDs to win the highest points only to immigrate and not find jobs that are commensurate to their skills. Moreover, gaining the requisite points under specific criteria  are not an end unto themselves, and  that their effectiveness cannot be measured apart from the overall ability of the new immigrant to integrate into the economy and culture of the receiving nation . It  is this that ultimately will determine if the immigrant will be put into a position to succeed for themselves and their adopted home.

A Maclean’s article on the failure of the Canadian points system is revealing. According to a study conducted by the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), only 60% of Canadian immigrants found jobs in their chosen areas of specialization compared to an OECD average of 71%; in matching up skills with employment, Canada ranked near the bottom, worse than Estonia, Italy, Spain and Greece.

The labor certification system seeks to  match the employer’s demand with the foreign national’s skills. Even here, however, it seems clear that PERM is not the best way for employers to express their interest in potential new hires. An independent assessment of language and credentials after which applicants can be placed in a pool for employers to draw from may be a promising third way between a free-standing points system (Canada) and immigration linked to specific job offers (USA). This “expression of interest” as applied in Australia and New Zealand avoids the frustrations of the Canadian approach and the economic illiteracy of PERM.

The frustrations of the Canadian model suggest strongly that recruitment of even the most skilled knowledge workers cannot be divorced from domestic demand.  Not only has this produced  long waiting lines in Canada but the bias towards highly educate STEM professionals has deprived those industries which are booming, such as the oil fields in Alberta, of the blue collar talent that they so vitally need. According to a New York Times article that was written when the points based system was first proposed in the failed 2007 bill:

Part of the backlog in Canada can be traced to a provision in the Canadian system that allows highly skilled foreigners to apply to immigrate even if they  do not have a job offer. Similarly, the Senate bill would not require merit system applicants to have job offers in the United States , although it would grant additional points to those who do. Without an employment requirement , Canada has been deluged with applications.

According to a Huffington Post article, the chronic underemployment of advanced degree professionals in Canada underscores the need for employers  to play an active role in the immigration selection process. Since 2004, the Provincial Nominee Program (PNP) where provinces sponsor immigrants to designated job vacancies has expanded six fold. In Australia, 81% of immigrants obtained employment in their chosen disciplines within six months. A pure points system not anchored to what employers are looking for will produce lower income and higher unemployment. Once again, according to the Maclean’s article, a comparison with Canada is instructive:

In contrast to the Canadian experience, immigrants to the US have virtually closed the income gap with American-born workers. In 1980, US immigrants earned about 80 per cent of American-born workers, a gap that was roughly the same in Canada. By 2011, US immigrants earned 93% of native-born workers, while foreign-born college graduates now out-earn their American counterparts. During the last recession, the unemployment rate for foreign-born university grads in Canada topped out at 8.4 per cent in 2010( Among those who lived in the country less than 5 years, it was more than 14 per cent.) By comparison, unemployment among foreign-born graduates in the US was 4.4 per cent.

BSEOIMA  keeps intact the traditional labor certification system under the employment-based second and third preferences, but also introduces a merits based points and non-points system. Within the merits-based points systems, plenty of points will be given to those who have jobs, offers of employment, and even US-based employment in the area of the alien’s education,  but it does not require the employer to file a “pointless” labor certification (no pun intended!). Under the non-points merits based visa system, long term residents waiting in the pipeline for a green card can avail of visas, thus creating a safety valve in case of backlogs. BSEOIMA thus provides several pathways for foreign nationals to obtain permanent residence without obsessively focusing on labor certification.  The goal we seek is not to replace PERM with a points system but to find an alternative to both that is ethical, transparent and realistic providing the economy with the human capital it needs to grow but doing so in a manner that allows immigrants to be productive while respecting the legitimate interests of US workers.

We now have a new world.  The merit based system in the bill provides this missing alternative. BSEOIMA is a transitional document and the number of options to obtain green card status without labor certification is bound to grow in future years.  The virtue of BSEOIMA is that it is hybrid system combining a points system with employer selection. This offers the best of both worlds, and we refer readers to a Migration Policy study that thoughtfully provides models for such hybrid systems. As the global competition for top talent in science and technology intensifies, in order for the United States to attract and retain the best and the brightest, PERM will increasingly be relegated to a less important place, although it may still be important for certain occupations who cannot avail of the new pathways to permanent residency. PERM will not disappear but it will never again enjoy the dominance of old.  It is this third way that will define America’s immigration policy in the 21st century.

Cyrus Mehta

Workable or Unworkable? The H-1B and L-1 Visa Provisions in BSEOIMA, S. 744

/1 Comment/in /by

By Gary Endelman and Cyrus D. Mehta

The Senate Immigration Bill, S. 744, entitled the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (BSEOIMA) has been applauded by immigration advocates for bringing much needed changes to the broken immigration system. Although the bill does not have everything that everyone wants, S. 744 offers a pathway to legalization for the 10 million undocumented, a new W visa to allow for future flows of lower skilled immigrants and attempts to clear up the backlogs in the employment and family preferences. It also reforms the existing system in many ways by removing the 1 year bars to seeking asylum, creating a startup visa for entrepreneurs, clarifying a contentious provision under the Child Status Protection Act, providing greater discretion to both Immigration and Judges to terminate removal proceedings,  among many other beneficial provisions. We refer readers to David Isaacson’s insightful blog post, SOME PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS REGARDING THE PROPOSED “BORDER SECURITY, ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, AND IMMIGRATION MODERNIZATION ACT.Unfortunately, the H-1B visa, and accompanying L-1 visa proposals in BSEOIMA have not been received with the same jubilation as other parts of S. 744. The main concern on everyone’s mind is how the bill would deal with the shortage of H-1B visa numbers. For FY14, which commences on October 1, the H-1B cap was reached on April 5, 2013. S. 744 increases the H-1B cap undoubtedly, but this increase is accompanied by changes to the H-1B and L visa programs, which may make it more difficult to obtain H-1B and L visas quickly. A nonimmigrant visa ought to provide a quick pathway for a much needed worker to be employed in the US. This BSEOIMA fails to do. BSEOIMA increases the H-1B ceiling to 110,000, which could go all the way up to 180,000.

However, any increase or decrease in H-1B visa numbers cannot be more than 10,000 visas from the previous year. The market based adjustments from year to year, according to the succinct BAL summary,  will be based on the number of H-1B visa petitions in excess of the cap and the average number of unemployed persons in “management, professional and related occupations” when compared to the previous year.  Moreover, BSEOIMA will also increase the Master’s cap from 20,000 to 25,000, but this new cap will only be applicable to those who have graduated from universities with advanced degrees in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) fields. This would be a significant improvement from what we have today, which is a paltry 65,000 H-1B visas plus 20,000 for advanced degree holders, which under current law is not restricted to only STEM degree holders. The Society of Human Resource Management found in a recent national survey that 2/3 (66%) of employers hiring  full-time staff experienced difficulty in recruiting scientists, engineers, and cutting-edge technical experts, an increase from 52% in 2011. Until this gap between demand and supply is closed, the US economy cannot reach its true potential.

The current H-1B base cap dates back to 1990 when the American economy was only 1/3 its current size and when the importance of STEM talent was nowhere as evident as it is today. Our H-1B policy predates the full impact of the Internet and the transition to a knowledge based economy. While we welcome the concept of an H-1B cap escalator, it is overly complex and its lack of precision will not accurately predict or reflect the actual and ever-rising demand for world-class expertise. For this reason, Congress would be well-served to adopt the methodology set forth in the bipartisan Immigration Innovation (I-Squared) Act (S. 169) which simply and elegantly links H-1B annual adjustments to how fast the H cap had been reached that same year. Unfortunately, in exchange for an increase in H-1B visas to 110,000, with further adjustments based on a market based adjustment formula, BSEOIMA imposes significant restrictions to accessing the H-1B visa for all employers, as well as L-1 visas for some employers,  which will adversely affect corporate immigration practice. Unlike the 4 level wage system we have today, BSEOIMA will replace it with 3 wage levels, and all non-DOL wage surveys must be specifically sanctioned by DOL.  The new Level 1 wage shall be the mean of the lowest two thirds of wages surveyed but can’t be less than 80% of the mean of the wages surveyed. This is clearly wage inflation with a vengeance. Dependent employers will only be able to pay new Level 2 wages, which is the mean of all wages. The third level shall be the mean of the highest two thirds of wages surveyed. All employers will have to now attest that they have recruited for the position before filing an H-1B petition via an internet posting for 30 days, including advising where applicants can apply for the job. Dependent employers will have to undergo additional recruitment steps. The employer must offer a job (not just decline to hire the H-1B beneficiary) to any US worker who applies and who is “equally or better qualified.”  One can imagine how this will be interpreted by the DOL when an employer takes the top graduate of Wharton in a Bachelor’s program and turns down a U.S. applicant with an MBA from the University of Podunk.   Or, a law firm employer offers a position to a JD from a national law school over someone with comparable grades and achievements from a local law school. Will an employer dare to take the chance that might not be viewed as legitimate by the DOL? There is more. The period within which an H-1B complaint can be brought against the H-1B employer is lengthened from 12 to 24 months, even when DOL itself complains or when the source remains anonymous. This can also encourage malicious complaints from restrictionist organizations, and  is bound to result in many more H-1B investigations especially when the bill authorizes annual  H-1B compliance audits for any employer with more than 100 employees if more than 15% are in H-1B status. The advertisement must contain all requirements including the higher than market wage salary. The compelling rationale for all this is the obvious desire to discourage H1B sponsorship by making it more expensive, more invasive, and less concerned with protection of business norms.

Non-dependent employers will also be subject to the non-displacement attestations, which until now have only been applicable to dependent employers or willful violators. Employers will need to attest that they have and will not displace a US worker within the 90 day period before and after filing an H-1B visa petition, but they will not be subject to such a non-displacement attestation if the number of US workers employed in the same O*Net job zone as the H-1B worker have not decreased during the past one year ending on the date of the filing of the labor certification application. Dependent employers will be subject to a longer non-displacement period of 180 days, and they will not be able to take advantage of the non-reduction of workforce in the same job zone exception available to non-dependent employers.  We saw when similar recruitment and non-displacement attestations were imposed on certain financial institutions and other entities that were bailed out by the US government under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) that they stopped using the H-1B visa program and even rescinded offers to foreign MBAs who were graduating from top business schools. BSEOIMA seems to abhor the notion of “outplacement” of H-1B workers and L-1 workers, even while assigning workers to third party client sites is part of the business model of certain industries such as IT consulting. Dependent employers may not “place, outsource, lease, or otherwise contract for services or placement of an H-1B nonimmigrant employee.” A non-dependent employer must pay $500 if “outplacing” an H-1B worker. This model has been readily embraced by American companies, and provides efficiency by allowing companies to utilize skilled IT resources whenever needed. Consumers benefit, and it also allows companies to hire US workers higher up in the food chain.

The definition of “Dependent Employer” will remain the same: 1) Employer with 25 or fewer full time employees who hire more than 7 H-1B nonimmigrants; 2) Employer with at least 26 but not more than 50 full time employees who hire more than 12 H-1B nonimmigrants; 3) Employer with at least 51 full time employees who hire at least 15% of H-1B nonimmigrants.

Moreover, BSEOIMA seeks to ultimately bar a category of so called “super dependent” H-1B or L-1 employers by FY 2017 from filing new H or L petitions if more than 50% of their workforce are in H-1B or L status and hire 50 or more employees. For the first time, there will be a restriction on L employment too as a result. There is a sliding scale for this over the next few years: (1) if the employer employs 50 or more employees, and there is no distinction between full or part-time, the number of H-1B and L-1B, but not L1A, employees together cannot exceed 75 % of the total number of employees for FY 2015; (2) 65 %of total number of employees for FY 2016 and (3) 50% of total number of employees after FY 2016 which starts on October 1, 2017 . This does not apply to universities or non-profit research centers.The filing fees for the H-1B and L go way up in a clear effort to discourage such visa sponsorship.  For FY 2014-FY 2024, the H-1B and L filing fee will be $5000 for an employer that employs 50+ employees in the USA if more than 30% but less than 50% of such employees are in H or L status.  From FY 2014-FY 2017, the filing fee goes up to $10,000 per H-1B or  L petition if the employer employs 50+ employees, again no distinction between full or part time, if more than 50% but less than 75% of such employees are in H1B or L status. BSEOIMA goes beyond the L-1 Visa Reform Act of 2004 which allowed outplacement of L-1B workers so long as the L1 beneficiary remained under the direction and control of the  petitioner. Here, even if this was the case, such secondment would be limited to an affiliate, subsidiary or parent of the L1 petitioner.  All L employers who place L-1s at third party sites are now subject to a displacement obligation of 90 days before and after the L petition was filed.  For a new office L, the L beneficiary could not have been the beneficiary of 2 or more L petitions in the immediately 2 preceding years. For the first time, BSEOIMA introduces an explicit provision for L investigations that can be based on anonymous sources. In addition, DOL shall conduct annual L compliance audits for each employer with more than 100 employees if more than 15% are in L status. Non-compliance with new L restrictions can lead to fines up to $2000 per violation and a 1 year debarment + an obligation to make the employee whole through payment of lost wages and benefits. A willful misrepresentation of a material fact on an L petition can result in $10,000 fine and 2 year debarment. The DHS Inspector General must prepare a report on fraud and abuse in Blanket L program within six months of enactment. The opponents of immigration have long sought to impose on the L-1 visa many of the same straightjacket restrictions that have suffocated the H-1B.  Now it seems they have a major victory. While these provisions against dependent employers are designed to put certain industries out of business that rely on H-1B and L workers, BSEOIMA introduces the concept of “intending immigrant” which does provide some respite.  If an employer has an H-1B or L employee who is an “intending immigrant,” that worker is not counted in the employer’s dependency or “super dependency” calculation.  With respect to not counting an alien from the dependent calculation who is the subject of the labor certification, the employer has to qualify first as a “covered employer” who is an employer of an alien, which during the one year period that the employer filed a labor certification application for such alien, has filed I-140 petitions for not less than 90% of the total labor certifications filed during that one year period. However, labor certification applications pending for longer than 1 year may be treated for the calculation as if the employer filed an I-140 petition. The purpose of this “covered employer” definition is to probably ensure that employers do not file labor certifications without pursuing permanent residency on behalf of their employees. In reality, most employers who take the trouble to file labor certifications will go ahead and file the I-140 petition within the 180 day expiration period. It is clear that Professor Ron Hira, a critic of the H-1B and L visa program, was engaging in sophistry in his testimony before the Senate committee when he said that it would be easy for employers to avoid becoming dependent employers through paper pushing!!The question is what happens to the “covered employer” status if an I-140 petition (among the 90%) gets denied based on an ability to pay issue or a 3 year degree issue. All that the definition of “covered employer” requires is that the I-140s have been filed for no less than 90 percent of the aliens for whom a labor certification was filed during the 1 year period. With respect to not counting an alien who is the beneficiary of a pending or approved I-140 petition from the dependency calculation, the employer does not have to establish that it is a “covered employer.”

A pending or approved I-140 petition on behalf of a foreign national will remove that person from the employer’s dependency calculation. There is a possibility that an amendment might be proposed during the markup phase to remove the “intending immigrant” concept, and so every attempt must be made to preserve this concept in BSEOIMA, so as to give dependent employers some chance to legitimately do business in the US. H-4 spouses will be able to apply for work authorization, but only if the spouse is a national of a country that permits reciprocal employment. While H-4 spouses who are Indian nationals will benefit from this provision (as Indians have been most affected under the EB-2 and EB-3 backlogs), it is worth noting that India does not currently provide employment authorization to spouses of  those who hold an Indian employment visa. However, unlike the US with many nonimmigrant visa categories that authorize work, there is only one temporary employment visa category in India. The Indian employment visa does not parallel the H-1B visa in any way. It is difficult to understand why this proviso has been inserted in the bill when spouses of L-1 visa holders (as well as E and J-1 visas) can seek employment authorization without regard to whether the spouse’s country permits reciprocal employment.  Regardless of a few bad actors, there has been an unjustified anti-India sentiment in immigration policy for a few years. This is the genesis behind all the adverse provisions against H-1B dependent employers in BSEOIMA, who otherwise try very hard to comply with the existing complex rules in place.  This sentiment was reflected in the Neufeld memo that was specifically aimed against IT consulting, along with the jaundiced way that Indian equivalent degrees have been viewed by the USCIS. Then, even after an H-1B petition is approved, upon responding to a lengthy RFE and FDNS site visit, the visa applicant is delayed at the US consular post in India (although BSEOIMA brings back visa revalidation in the US for certain work visa categories). All this happened only since 2009 when all along before that there was no issue of H-1B workers being placed legitimately at third party sites, which is indeed how the business model works to the benefit of US businesses and consumers.

Clearly, the success of the Indian IT global model has led to a backlash in the same way that Japanese car makers were viewed in the late 1980s. The IT global giants along with the smaller IT firms have been “tainted” by the same brush. There is no doubt that corporations in the US and the western world rely on Indian IT, which keeps them competitive. Spurred on by Senators Durbin and Grassley, the architects of BSEOIMA have unwittingly prepared the way for a massive dislocation of the American economy which will no longer be able to benefit from the steady supply of world class talent that the Indian IT providers most directly harmed by this legislative vendetta have always supplied at prices that American business and its consumers could afford. What has gone unnoticed by the so-called Gang of 8 in the Senate is the fact that the ability of American companies to maintain their competitive edge has been due in no small measure, to the very Indian IT global model that BESEOIMA seeks to destroy.

One can also recall Senator Schumer’s infamous slip of tongue when he referred to Indian IT companies as “chop shops” instead of job shops at the time Congress outrageously raised the filing fees for certain L-1 and H-1B employers (to fund a couple of drones on the Mexican border), as if job shops is not enough of a pejorative. Senator Durbin also falsely insinuated this week that highly regarded employees of companies like Infosys pay to come to the US. These sentiments will now become part of the law, and it is not hard to guess the senators who have inspired these provisions, further supported  by the diatribe of Professor Ron Hira, who spew outrageous falsehoods in the guise of academic scholarship. Perhaps, one can look at the other side of the picture and find out how the H-1B visa program has benefitted the US and even creates jobs. It is unfair to assume that an employer who depends on H-1B workers in engaging in fraud. Interestingly, under BSEOIMA even “non-Indian non-dependent non-fraudulent employers” will need to go through more bureaucratic red tape, and will have to actually offer the job to a qualified US worker (unlike a PERM where all that happens is that the application is not filed) before being able to file the H-1B petition. The provisions that were previously enacted to target dependent employers in 1998 have now been expanded to cover all employers.

Unfortunately, the H-1B provisions, in an otherwise good Senate immigration bill, reflect a complete lack of understanding of the role of globalization and free trade in services during the second decade of the 21st century, which can benefit the US, India and the world. We need to draw attention to this fact in the hope that these discriminatory provisions against Indian IT, which are also inconsistent with principles of free trade and in violation of GATS, can be eliminated.  Indeed, BSEOIMA has extended the additional recruitment attestations that have only applied to dependent employers to all employers, along with artificially forcing employers to pay higher than market wages for H-1B workers.

BSEOIMA seems to give more emphasis on green card sponsorship rather than prolonging the temporary visa status of foreign national workers. To some extent, this is a good thing. By allowing foreign nationals to obtain green cards, it gives them mobility and to not be bound to one employer for many years. There is also a good provision that allows an H-1B who has been terminated to be accorded a grace period of 60 days, and an application to extend, change or adjust status during that period shall be deemed to have been lawful H-1B status while that application was pending. Indeed, many employers may be able to avoid the H-1B process altogether by directly sponsoring STEM advanced degree students on an F-1 visa for a green card without even having to go through the labor certification process. BSEOIMA also allows F-1 students to have dual intent, and so their desire to obtain green cards will no longer impede their ability to obtain an F-1 visa at a US consular post overseas. PhDs, regardless of whether they got the degree from a US institution or not, can also avail of this fast track green card and they do not also need to have their PhDs in a STEM field. Still, not all employers can rely on PhDs and students in the US who graduate with STEM advanced degrees. They will need to rely on the H-1B visa, and to some extent on the L-1B visa, and BSEOIMA will clearly not quell the demand of US companies for IT services and expertise through consulting companies. It remains to be seen whether the H-1B and L provisions in BSEOIMA prove to be workable or not. Everyone thought that when the Labor Condition Application was introduced in the Immigration Act of 1990, that the H-1B visa would become unworkable. Yet, H-1Bs have continued to chug along for 22 years, and if the new provisions get enacted, it is hoped that the government agencies administering the new H and L visa programs will interpret the provisions in a way that will allow them to work.

BSEOIMA is a transformational document heralding a fundamental realignment of US immigration policy. The paradigm shifts from family ties to merit-based strategies designed to invigorate the economy. Before, it had been easier to come for temporary work reasons and difficult to stay permanently. Now just the reverse will be true. Years ago, the H-1B was a lightning rod for critics while the L-1 sailed on smoothly in calm seas. No longer. For the first time, the L and the H are fused in the minds of its critics. At a time when our permanent immigration model is more open to STEM talent as never before, our H and L policy reflect a pervasive insularity that will contradict our trade commitments, slow down our innovation, and increase the intrusiveness of government regulators as they audit the legitimacy of immigration sponsorship decisions by those American employers who seek to take advantage of this brave new world.  For this reason, while BSEOIMA has much to commend it, what it gives on the permanent side of the ledger, it takes away on the H and L side. This lack of internal consistency must be resolved before it is born.

 

David Isaacson

THE SECOND CIRCUIT AMENDS SHABAJ v. HOLDER: WHAT HAPPENED TO FOOTNOTE 4? HAS THE POTENTIAL AVAILABILITY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF USCIS DECISIONS BEEN ALTERED?

/2 Comments/in , /by
By David A. Isaacson

On April 25, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit released an amended opinion in Shabaj v. Holder, docket number 12-703.  The prior opinion in Shabaj was the subject of a previous post on this blog.  To summarize, Shabaj held that a claimed error by the USCIS Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in analyzing whether an applicant for a waiver of inadmissibility under INA §212(i) had shown extreme hardship could not be reviewed by a district court, because the jurisdiction provided by 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(D) to review constitutional claims and questions of law is only available on a petition for review to a court of appeals.  (This is a very brief summary of a more complex issue; for additional details, readers are referred to the above-linked previous blog post.)
The only changes in the amended Shabaj opinion are in the footnotes, but one of those changes has particularly interesting implications.  Although the amended opinion adds a new footnote 3 addressing why a statutory reference to the Attorney General applies to the Secretary of Homeland Security (and makes a slight formatting change at footnote 2), the particularly interesting part is the change in what was formerly footnote 4 and is now footnote 5.
In the old footnote 4, the Court of Appeals sought to explain why Shabaj could not have simply filed a petition for review invoking its §1252(a)(2)(D) jurisdiction under his particular circumstances, but suggested that others under similar circumstances could do so:

Indeed, this Court denied Shabaj’s petition for review of his removal order over two years ago. See Shabaj, 602 F.3d at 106. Although Shabaj is ineligible to reopen his removal proceedings and file a petition for review because of his participation in the Visa Waiver Program, see 8 U.S.C. § 1187(b), we do not mean to preclude a petitioner who is otherwise eligible to reopen proceedings from attempting to reopen those proceedings in order to raise legal challenges to hardship rulings by the AAO. Under those circumstances, as permitted by § 1252(a)(2)(D), we would have jurisdiction over any “constitutional claims or questions of law” raised by petitions for review to this court.

As explained in my previous post on the original Shabaj opinion, the procedure for judicial review that this footnote seemed to point to would be interesting but not unprecedented:

The process that this footnote seems to contemplate, in which a Court of Appeals could review an AAO decision in a petition for review from a removal order even though the authorities that issued the removal order did not themselves have any ability to address the AAO decision, would not be unprecedented.  Judicial review of an AAO decision denying an application for legalization under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 or the related LIFE Act Legalization provisions proceeds in this way, as explained in Orquera v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 413 (4th Cir. 2003): the legalization applicant must become subject to an order of removal or deportation, and then petition for review of that order, to seek judicial review of the legalization denial, even though the immigration judge and the BIA cannot review the legalization denial during the removal proceedings.  If an arriving alien whose adjustment application or related waiver application is denied by USCIS later becomes subject to an order of removal, footnote 4 of Shabaj suggests that they could seek review of the USCIS determination on petition for review of the removal order, analogously to the process discussed in Orquera.

In its amended opinion, however, the Court of Appeals has removed the language that was previously in footnote 4.  In its place, the Court of Appeals wrote in the new footnote 5:

The government contends that a petitioner could never file a “petition for review” of a CIS hardship determination because petitions for review are only available for challenges to orders of removal, and CIS determinations are not made as part of removal proceedings. However, we need not decide whether a petitioner could file a “petition for review” of a CIS hardship determination directly with this court because, in this case, Shabaj filed his legal challenge in the district court, which indisputably lacked jurisdiction under § 1252.

The question that arises is whether this amendment of the Shabaj decision has any effect on the jurisdictional possibilities that may exist in the Second Circuit for judicial review of USCIS waiver determinations.

Certainly, the new Shabaj footnote 5 does not purport to preclude the sort of petition for review that the original Shabaj footnote 4 endorsed.  Rather, the Court of Appeals has explicitly chosen not to address the issue of whether such a petition for review is possible, while noting that the government, as one might expect, contends that it is not. Thus, it still remains possible for others, under appropriate circumstances as described in my previous blog post, to argue for judicial review of a USCIS determination that is in some sense either incorporated into an order of removal, as in Orquera, or constitutes a refusal to reopen an order of removal, such that the USCIS denial is “the functional equivalent of a removal order,” Kanacevic v. INS, 448 F.3d 129, 134-135 (2d Cir. 2006). The Court of Appeals would then need to face the issue that it avoided as unnecessary in its amended Shabaj opinion.

Also interestingly, the new footnote 5 does not preclude the possibility that Mr. Shabaj or someone else in a similar position could have reopened his removal proceedings, in the way that the old footnote 4 seemed to assert such reopening was necessarily impossible.  Assume, for example, that Mr. Shabaj or someone else who had entered under the Visa Waiver Program had not actually waived his right to review in the way that the statute and regulations suggest he should have been required to.  Like the petitioner in Galluzzo v. Holder, 633 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2011), whom the Second Circuit held could not simply be assumed to have waived his rights to removal proceedings, such a petitioner would properly be able to attack his removal order despite his Visa Waiver Program entry.  

Perhaps for this reason, the Second Circuit declined, in its amended opinion, to necessarily rule out the possibility of such judicial review; it said in the new footnote 5 merely that, regardless of whether or not Mr. Shabaj could have filed a petition for review directly with the Court of Appeals, he had not in fact done so.  While that might raise the question of whether Mr. Shabaj’s lawsuit in the district court should have been considered as a petition for review filed in the incorrect venue and transferable to the Court of Appeals in the interest of justice under 28 U.S.C. §1631, it is possible that such relief was not requested or considered, perhaps because the lawsuit evidently was not filed within 30 days of the final administrative order as a petition for review would need to have been (the original and amended opinions both indicate that Shabaj’s appeal to the USCIS AAO was dismissed on May 2, 2011, and his lawsuit filed on July 14, 2011).

Thus, while the amended Shabaj decision has deleted language which seemed to give the blessing of the Court of Appeals to a creative strategy for seeking judicial review of certain USCIS decisions, it has not precluded such a strategy.  In addition, it may implicitly have acknowledged that some Visa Waiver Program entrants, in circumstances similar to Mr. Shabaj’s, could in fact reopen their removal proceedings and seek relief in that way.


David Isaacson

Some Preliminary Observations Regarding the Proposed “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act”

/8 Comments/in /by

As most readers of this blog are likely aware, earlier this week the U.S. Senate’s “Gang of 8” – that is, Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY), John McCain (R-AZ), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Michael Bennet (D-CO), and Jeff Flake (R-AZ) – introduced a proposed comprehensive immigration reform bill.  A copy of the bill as introduced is available on Senator Schumer’s website.  Its short title is the “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act”, and so I will refer to it in this blog as BSEOIMA, although that acronym is somewhat more difficult to pronounce than previous well-known immigration bills such as 1986’s IRCA and 1996’s IIRIRA.  (Personally I would tend to pronounce it “B’soyma”, although Angelo Paparelli reports that Dan Kowalski, Editor-in-Chief of Bender’s Immigration Bulletin, has dubbed the bill “BESSIE MAE”.) Broadly speaking, it combines increased border security with a new “Registered Provisional Immigrant” (RPI) status available to much, but not all, of the current undocumented population – primarily those present in the United States since December 31, 2011 who lack any significant criminal record – and various provisions designed to handle the “future flow” of immigration somewhat differently than our current system, such as a merit-based system of awarding some immigrant visas to those who accumulate an appropriate number of “points” in a system reminiscent of that currently used in Canada.

The Immigration Impact blog of the American Immigration Council has already published some preliminary reactions to BSEOIMA, and AIC and the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) have also released a detailed summary of the bill.  In this blog post, I do not claim to provide a comprehensive summary of the bill, which is after all 844 pages long, and which has already been summarized by AIC/AILA (and others as well).  Instead, I will simply highlight some of the portions of the bill that caught my attention on a first read-through, with citations to the page number of the introduced bill on which they appear.  Readers should keep in mind that this is a preliminary assessment of complex legislative language that may change in the future (assuming the bill passes at all), so it should not be taken as a precise description of the future final version of any provision; it is, so to speak, a first-draft reaction to the first draft of the bill.  Because this is an entirely subjective list of some provisions that happened to catch my attention, it is also naturally skewed to the sorts of provisions that were of interest to me as an attorney practicing immigration law; I do not mean to deprecate the significance of the substantial provisions for increased border security with which the bill begins, for example, but since I am not in the habit of advising people to enter the U.S. unlawfully or smuggle in others, they are of less direct relevance to my practice and thus attracted less of my initial attention.And this is not even a list of every single provision that caught my attention on a first read—such a list would be a bit too lengthy for a blog post. With those preliminaries out of the way, here are some of the provisions that were interesting to me and may be interesting to readers as well:

Nonimmigrants who are lawfully present according to DHS or DOS records will not be eligible for the new RPI status, even if they have violated status or been employed without authorization—apparently making the analysis under BSEOIMA different from the one that was used under IRCA to determine whether applicants were known to the government to be here unlawfully by the key date and thus eligible for legalization. Pages 64-65.  While nonimmigrants with a currently valid status as of the date of introduction of the bill are excluded from RPI status, however, if they have already been lawfully present for 10 years or finish accumulating that total period of consecutive lawful presence after the bill passes, they’ll be able to apply for LPR status under the new merit-based system, about which more below.

Expunged convictions don’t count for purposes of determining eligibility for RPI status, but otherwise any felony, an aggravated felony, or 3 misdemeanors will disqualify RPI applicants, except for convictions under state and local laws having immigration status/violations as essential elements—for example, some crimes created by Arizona’s recently infamous SB 1070.  Pages 61-66.

There is a limited discretionary waiver under which some people could be eligible for RPI status even after previous departure or removal, at pages 71-72.  While the language is complex, it appears that the waiver will be potentially available to certain “DREAMers” (those who would have been eligible for relief under the previously proposed DREAM Act that is in large part incorporated in BSEOIMA), spouses and children of U.S. citizens and LPRs, and parents of U.S. citizen or LPR children.

Employers will be able to continue employing people who they know are, or will be, RPI applicants, pending adjudication of the application for RPI status, without violating the INA.  Page 78.  This will help avoid the specter of employers being reluctant to assist with the RPI applications of their employees because, having come to know that their employee lacks valid immigration status authorizing employment, they would otherwise be supposed to fire them.

RPIs will not be able to be absent from the United States either for a continuous period of more than 180 days, or for more than 180 days in any calendar year, without extenuating circumstances; otherwise they will lose their status and not be able to adjust status to permanent residence.  Pages 89-90, 94-95.

While there are limited exceptions based on age and disability, most RPIs will need to show that they have been continuously employed or had resources above 125% of the poverty line, or have been full-time students, in order to adjust to LPR.  Pages 96-99.

The DREAM Act is present in modified form as proposed INA section 245D: the DREAMers will only need to be RPIs for 5 years before they can become LPRs, instead of the usual 10.  There can be a “streamlined procedure” for those who have been granted Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).  The DREAMers (including the DACA grantees) will be able to apply for naturalization as soon as they complete their 5 years of RPI and adjust to LPR (but not sooner).  Pages 110-116.

The “AGJobs” bill benefiting certain agricultural workers, which like the DREAM Act has been floating around for a number of years, also makes an appearance in BSEOIMA. Like DREAMers, AGJobs “blue card” holders will be able to adjust after 5 years under certain circumstances, not 10 years like other RPIs. See pages 150-255.

We learn on page 262 of BSEOIMA that while siblings of U.S. citizens and married sons and daughters over 31 would no longer be separate family preference categories, they would get points in the new merit-based system that will make up a substantial portion of future immigrant visa numbers.  Although the diversity lottery in its current form would be abolished, the preference for diversity in the current lottery system also lives on somewhat in the form of an award of points to people from countries from which fewer than 50,000 nationals were admitted in the previous 5 years.  (Page 263.)  You will also be able to get points in the new system for things like speaking English, being between the ages of 18 and 37 (you get the most points for being between 18 and 24), having specific types of employment, or even civic involvement.  See pages 260-265.

Beginning on October 1, 2014, people whose employment-based petitions and family-based petitions filed before the Act have been pending for more than 5 years will begin to become eligible for merit-based visas on that basis (although this eligibility will not be immediate for everyone affected, but will phase in over a 7-year period).  People who have been “lawfully present” for not less than 10 years will also be eligible for this non-points-based side of the merit-based visa system.  See pages 270-273.  RPIs will not be able to adjust status to LPR except under this second merit-based track, based on 10 years lawful presence—a provision which may hopefully be changed before the bill is finally enacted, since it seems unnecessarily cruel to prohibit, for example, an RPI who marries a U.S. citizen from becoming an LPR in the same way that any other lawful entrant who became a bona fide immediate relative of a U.S. citizen could adjust status under section 245(a) of the INA (even if they had, for example, overstayed a tourist admission).  Pages 108, 269-274.

Anyone, including RPIs and others, who was lawfully present and work-authorized for 10 years before becoming an LPR, will be able to naturalize 3 years after becoming an LPR instead of 5.  Pages 109-110.

BSEOIMA will recapture previously unused visa numbers from past fiscal years, so that should also reduce the backlog of people awaiting immigrant visa numbers. Pages 276-279.

Spouses and children of Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs) will become “immediate relatives” not subject to a visa number limit. Pages 280-281.

The BIA’s highly dubious decision in Matter of Wang, 25 I&N Dec. 28 (BIA 2009), rejecting automatic conversion and retention of priority dates under the Child Status Protection Act, would be overturned legislatively by a provision of BSEOIMA making even clearer how automatic conversion is supposed to work.  Pages 287-288.

Priority dates from any approvable-when-filed immigrant visa petition will be transferable to any other petition, regardless of category.  Page 288.

The numerical per-country limitations will be raised to 15% for family-based cases and eliminated for employment-based cases, which is good news for Indian and Chinese nationals who currently face substantial employment-based backlogs, and also (to a somewhat lesser extent) good news for Mexican and Phillipine nationals who currently face substantial family-based backlogs. Pages 294-296.

Visa number usage calculations would no longer include employment-based derivatives, the employment-based first preference (all three subcategories), aliens with a doctorate, or former J nonimmigrant physicians who have completed their 2-year foreign residence requirement under section 212(e) of the INA or obtained a waiver thereof.  Pages 299-303.  STEM graduates with a master’s degree or higher (as a practical matter this just means masters since doctorates are separately exempt) would be able to be exempt from the visa number limits if they have a job offer from a US employer and earned their degree within the 5 years preceding the petition filed for them.  These STEM immigrants would not require labor certification.  Pages 304-312.

V visas will be extended to cover all family preference immigrants with approved petitions, but siblings and married children over 31 (whose family preferences are anyway being phased out under BSEOIMA) won’t get work authorization if they come on V visas, and will only be allowed to be present for 60 days per fiscal year.  The unmarried sons and daughters, and married ones under 31, will get work authorization with their V visas and will be able to stay on a longer-term basis.  Pages 313-317.  So for the family preferences that will continue to exist, this is like the old V visa; for siblings and over-31 married sons and daughters, it’s more like a dual-intent B-2 tourist visa.

The cutoff for stepchildren will be parental marriage by 21 years of age, consistent with the other “child” definitions of most of the rest of the INA, instead of the current age-18 cutoff.  Page 322.

The general cutoff age for adoptions valid under the INA will be extended from 16 to 18. Pages 322-323.

Immigration Judges and DHS would gain new discretionary authority to terminate removal proceedings or admit someone to the U.S. if removal or refusal of admission is against the public interest or would result in hardship to certain U.S. citizen or LPR immediate family members, although this new authority would not apply in the case of certain criminal removability grounds and certain other grounds of removability.  Pages 328-331.

H nonimmigrant petition beneficiaries who entered the US before age 16 and had a baccalaureate or higher degree from a US institution would be exempt from the unlawful presence bars (that is, the 3- and 10-year bars). The unlawful-presence waiver for others, under section 212(a)(9)(B)(v) of the INA, would be extended to cover hardship to a U.S. citizen or LPR spouse, son, daughter, or parent.  Pages 331-332.

J-2 spouses and children of J-1 exchange visitors would not be subject to the INA 212(e) foreign-residence requirement.  Also, physician training even under a status such as a J-1, which ordinarily requires a foreign residence which one has no intention of abandoning, would be dual-intent (that is, would not require such a foreign residence). Pages 367-370.

The exemptions from the English and civics testing requirements for naturalization in the case of certain older immigrants would be expanded somewhat.  Those who are over 65, and have lived in the US as an LPR for 5 years, would be exempt from the English/civics tests.  The limited exemption from the English language requirement, under which the applicant is still required to take the U.S. civics test but can do so in their native language, would apply with 50 years of age plus 20 years as an LPR, 55 years of age plus 15 years as an LPR, or 60 years of age plus 10 years as an LPR.  For those 60 years of age or older who had been LPRs for 10 years, the civics-test requirement could be waived on a case-by-case basis.  Pages 393-394.

The one-year filing deadline for asylum claims would be eliminated, and people who have been granted withholding of removal but denied asylum because of the one-year deadline would be allowed to reopen their cases. Page 552.

Over the next three fiscal years, there would be 75 new Immigration Judges appointed each fiscal year, for a total of 225, in an effort to reduce the backlog of immigration court cases.  Pages 566-567.

H-4 spouses will be employment authorized so long as they are from a country that grants reciprocal benefits to U.S. citizens. Pages 663-664.

H-1B nonimmigrants whose employment terminates will have a 60-day grace period, and will also be considered to be maintaining H-1B status during the pendency of “a petition to extend, change, or adjust their status” that is filed during such 60-day grace period. Some low-risk H-1B nonimmigrants, as well as A, E, G, (other) H, I, L, N, O, P, R, or W nonimmigrants, can have their visas renewed in the United States at the discretion of DOS.  Pages 664-667.

F-1 student status will be dual-intent for a bachelor’s degree or above: that is, students applying for visas to study in bachelor’s degree programs, doctoral programs and so on will not need to show intent to return to their home country afterwards, but can plan to remain in the United States and put their valuable knowledge to use here.  Pages 725-727.

E-4 nonimmigrant visas, which would function like the current E-3 visas available to Australian nationals working in a specialty occupation, will be created for South Korea and other countries with which we have free trade agreements as recognized by DHS with the concurrence of DOS and the US Trade Representative.  There is a limit of 5,000 E-4s per sending country, which does not include derivative spouses and children. Pages 732-733.

There will be E-3 visas created for Irish nationals which only require a high school education or at least 2 years of work experience in an occupation requiring at least 2 years of training or experience (a la the current diversity visa standard).  Page 734.

O-1s will get portability between employers like what H-1Bs have now.  Pages 736-737.

Nonimmigrants with a pending application for extension of stay and related work authorization are authorized to continue employment until the application is adjudicated (as opposed to the current limited regulatory extension of employment authorization). Page 738.

Canadians over age 55 will be allowed to come as B-2 visitors for up to a 240-day period out of any 365 days, and maintain a home here, as long as they also have one in Canada.  Pages 742-744.

Retirees over 55 will be able to get a new Y visa, renewable in 3-year increments, if they use at least $500,000 to purchase one or more residences in the US which sold for more than 100% of the most recent appraised value (per their local property assessor), reside here for more than 180 days per year, and meet certain other financial requirements.  Pages 744-746.

A limited number of new W nonimmigrant visas will be available for workers in O*Net Job Zone 1, 2, and 3 occupations, but they will not be available for  higher job zones (requiring more than 2 years of preparation) or positions requiring a bachelor’s degree or involving “computer operation, computer programming, or computer repair”.  Pages 776-778, 803-804.

W status is for an initial term of 3 years, renewable for additional 3-year periods.  You have to first apply at a consular post abroad to be designated a “certified alien”.  If you are unemployed for more than 60 days, you have to leave. You can only work for a registered employer, and they have to first carry out recruitment for their desired registered position and fail to find a “qualified United States worker . . . who is ready, willing and able to fill such position”.  The recruitment is reminiscent of PERM recruitment for professional occupations, except that a “U.S. worker” would be defined more broadly than under PERM, to include anyone with unrestricted work authorization, rather than only U.S. citizens, LPRs, asylees, refugees, and temporary residents such as RPIs or their IRCA equivalent.  Pages 785-786, 789-804.

The registered W-visa position continues to be registered if the employer has filed an I-140 petition for the W worker by the end of the 3-year period.  It will cease being so if the petition is approved or denied, or the employment of the worker is terminated. Pages 805-806.  This raises the question of what happens if the petition is approved, but the priority date is not current—is the worker then stuck in limbo?  That may be an unintended flaw in the legislation that can be fixed as the bill moves forward.

W visas are, at least, dual-intent, page 828, so it isn’t a problem that the W worker is anticipating such a petition being filed for him or her.  But, W nonimmigrants will not be able to take advantage of the prong of the merits-based visa system that will allow others to become LPRs after being in lawful status for 10 years.  Page 271.  This, too, is an anomaly that may hopefully be fixed as the bill moves forward—why should W nonimmigrants be treated less favorably than absolutely everyone else who is lawfully present?

The W nonimmigrant may terminate his employment for any reason and take up employment with another registered employer in another registered position.  Page 819.

There will be new X nonimmigrant visas, and a new immigrant visa program, for qualified entrepeneurs.  The qualifications have to do with number of jobs created, financing devoted to your company by qualified venture capitalists etc., and/or your company’s revenue.  You will need to maintain nonimmigrant status for at least two years before you can petition as an entrepreneur immigrant (although not necessarily as an X nonimmigrant).  Pages 828-844.

And thus ends this first list of some highlightsof BSEOIMA.  Watch this space for additional blogging about BSEOIMA either from this author or from others at Cyrus D. Mehta and Associates, PLLC…

Cyrus Mehta

212(k) WAIVER VICTORY TEACHES THAT IT’S NOT WORTH MANIPULATING THE IMMIGRATION SYSTEM TO SETTLE PERSONAL DISPUTES

/0 Comments/in /by

When two parties are in a personal dispute, and one of them is not a US citizen,  it is often tempting to use the immigration system to seek a remedy. For instance, the desire to see someone you are feuding with get deported from the United States may be tempting. However, the immigration system may not be the best forum to settle personal scores. If two spouses are in marital discord, the spouse who wishes to seek a remedy can resort to a family court to seek a separation rather than manipulate the immigration system to dump the foreign national spouse. The complaining spouse may also press criminal charges against the other spouse in the event that there are allegations of physical abuse.  But relying on the immigration system, when there  are clearly other avenues to seek redress, may likely backfire, especially if the claim is not found to be credible,  and the non-citizen you wish to see deported may still end up with a green card.

This is what happened in a case our firm handled on behalf of a foreign national spouse who was in removal proceedings. The unpublished decision of Immigration Judge McManus in New York Immigration Court where he was ultimately vindicated and victorious,  Matter of X (November 2012), can be found here.

The foreign national spouse, the Respondent in the removal proceeding,  had married a US citizen in India through an arranged marriage in late 2006, which based on the record and voluminous evidence was undoubtedly bona fide and celebrated with much pomp. After the Respondent received an immigrant visa at the US Embassy, based on the US citizen spouse filing an I-130 petition, they travelled back to the United States in July 2007. The Respondent was refused admission at the airport when his wife alerted Customs and Border Protection officials that he married her solely for the green card, and that he had physically abused her. After being detained by the CBP for one day in the airport, he was denied admission as a lawful permanent resident and further paroled into the country for deferred inspection. Three days later, his spouse withdrew the I-130 petition she had filed on behalf of the respondent. After over two years, Respondent was served with a Notice to Appear in 2009 charging him with removability under INA § 212(a)(7)(A)(I)(i) as an alien not in possession of a valid entry document.

The first  issue in this case was whether the Respondent who was issued an immigrant visa could be admitted even though his US citizen spouse indicated at the airport that she wished to withdraw the I-130 petition, which she did three days later. Alternatively, could the Respondent be eligible for a waiver under INA section 212(k)?

With respect to the first issue, the IJ denied our motion to terminate removal proceedings. Even though former INA § 205 required the revocation of the petition to be communicated to the beneficiary before he commenced his journey to the US, it was amended in 2004, and new §205 did not contain this limitation. Under new § INA 205, an I-130 petition can be revoked at any time for good and sufficient cause, and the revocation shall be effective as of the date of the approval of the petition. While we were aware of the change in the statute, we pointed out that the government had not amended the regulation at 8 CFR § 205.1, which still contained the limiting language of the old statute. We argued that by not rescinding the regulation, the government still intended to interpret new § 205 in accordance with the way it was interpreted prior to the amendment. The Court held that when there is a conflict between a statute and a regulation, the amended statute trumps the regulation by citing K Mart Corp v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988). The Court also rejected our related argument that the Respondent should have been found to be admissible, notwithstanding the withdrawal of the I-130 petition, as he still had a valid immigrant visa issued  by the State Department, which had not been revoked.

With respect to seeking a waiver under INA §212(k), the IJ found  the Respondent to be eligible for the  waiver as he  was unaware of the ground of inadmissibility before he embarked upon his journey to the US.

INA §212(k) provides, as follows:

Attorney General’s discretion to admit otherwise inadmissible aliens who possess immigrant visas – Any alien, inadmissible from the United States under paragraph (5)(A) or (&)(A)(i) of subsection (a), who is in possession of an immigrant visa may, if otherwise admissible, be admitted in the discretion of the Attorney General if the Attorney General is satisfied that inadmissibility was not known to, and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of reasonable diligence by, the immigrant before the time of departure of the vessel or aircraft from the last port outside the United States and outside foreign contiguous territory or, in the case of an immigrant coming from foreign contiguous territory, before the time of the immigrant’s application for admission.

This case should be contrasted with Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458 (BIA 1987), which is controlling. In Aurelio, the petitioner’s death resulting in the revocation of the I-130 petition did not entitle the respondent in that case to a 212(k) waiver  as the respondent should have known about the inadmissibility arising out of the  death of her father one year prior to her departure The IJ found in this case, unlike in Aurelio,  that Respondent could not have possibly known that his spouse would revoke the I-130 petition three days after his arrival in the US. Respondent was eager to embark on a new life in the US with his spouse and could not have known of the steps she was planning to take to withdraw the I-130 petition.

Although the DHS attorney vigorously sought to pretermit Respondent’s motion to seek a 212(k) waiver on the ground that he was not in possession of an immigrant visa, the IJ agreed with our contention that “the invalidity of the visa..is the reason a waiver is required, not a reason the waiver cannot be granted.” See also Kyong Ho Shin v. Holder, 607 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2010) (“By definition, §212(k) refers to visas that are invalid in nature – otherwise, the applicant would not be seeking a waiver of inadmissibility in the first place”). The IJ also soundly rejected the government’s claim that Respondent ought to have foreseen his potential inadmissibility as he was experiencing difficulties in the marriage and could have expected his wife to level allegations against him upon his arrival in the US. The Court held, “[S]imply because there were some problems in the marriage, which is typical of most couples, does not mean that Respondent should have known that his wife would withdraw her  support for Respondent’s visa application immediately upon arrival in the United States.”

Moreover, Respondent also merited a favorable exercise of discretion as the IJ credited Respondent’s detailed testimony, along with the testimony of his sister and uncle,  that he did not abuse his spouse in India, and agreed that several allegations made against Respondent at the airport and elsewhere may not have been truthful. For instance, one of the allegations by the spouse was that Respondent beat her up on the plane, which the Court thought found “unlikely that such a physical altercation would have  gone unnoticed, especially in light of evidence in the record indicating that such behavior is taken extremely seriously by airlines.” We provided evidence of how in a post September 11 world, such incidents could not possibly go unnoticed.  Another allegation that Respondent was  carrying drugs on his person while entering the country was also proved to be false as there was no indication, especially since he had been searched by the CBP, upon his arrival in the country. The allegation that the wife was kept captive in India was also disproved with credible accounts that she went out to Bollywood movies, visited relatives (including relatives in other Indian cities), and religious places on a regular basis.

The decision concludes as follows, “While the Court cannot know why Ms. [redacted] took such dramatic steps to withdraw the I-130 petition that she filed on Respondent’s behalf, the Court is troubled by the seemingly false statements made by Ms. [redacted] to various immigration officials, and agrees with Respondent’s counsel that it was improper for her to attempt to manipulate the immigration process in the manner that she did.”

The government doggedly pursued the case for over five years. Responded was denied admission in 2007 upon his arrival in the US and paroled for two years. After unsuccessfully convincing the government to admit him, in 2009, the government instead initiated removal proceedings against Respondent,  and the case dragged on for another three and a half years in Immigration Court, which included several hearings and motions. After the IJ issued the decision granting the Respondent a waiver under §212(k) and admitting him as a lawful permanent resident in late November 2012, the government did not appeal the decision within the 30 day period. To top up the hard fought victory in Immigration Court,  Respondent very recently received his actual green card in the mail!