Tag Archive for: Proclamation 10052

Cyrus Mehta

End the Arbitrary H-1B Lottery and Visa Quotas – and other practical considerations for the winners!

/0 Comments/in /by

By Cyrus D. Mehta and Kaitlyn Box*

On March 30, 2021, USCIS announced that it had received sufficient H-1B registrations during the initial period to reach the Fiscal Year 2022 cap, including Master’s Cap registrations. All prospective petitioners whose registrations were selected should now have been notified. These petitioners may file H-1B petitions for the selected beneficiaries beginning on April 1, 2021.  At this time, many petitioners are seeing that less than 1/3 of their registrations have been selected, a remarkably low selection rate.  The selections for a total of 85,000 H-1B slots were made out of a record number of what is believed to be over 300,000 total registrations.

This lottery system is an unfair barrier to U.S. employers who rely on the H-1B visa program to employ highly-skilled workers. Subjecting employers to the game of chance that is the H-1B lottery renders the process of planning for the future and meeting staffing needs unnecessarily complex for U.S. employers, particularly when the selection rates are as low as this year’s selection numbers. In fields like the tech industry, where the need for highly-skilled workers exceeds the number of qualified U.S. workers, the unduly restrictive cap numbers hinder companies from being able to meet demand and remain competitive in the global market. It is also highly unfair for both employers and the foreign workers they wish to hire to first be fortunate enough to be selected in a lottery, and then have to wait until October 1 to commence employment.

The only way to ensure that the United States continues to attract the best and brightest talent worldwide is to eliminate quotas and lotteries from the H-1B program. As discusses by Stuart Anderson in a recent Forbes article, highly-skilled noncitizen workers promote innovation and economic growth in U.S. markets. Even the oft-maligned IT consulting companies, which employ high numbers of H-1B workers, serve a critical role in the U.S. economy by providing reliable and inventive IT solutions to U.S. companies. Employing H-1B workers allows consulting companies flexibility, as well as the ability to provide top talent at affordable rates and respond to changes in the market. Though sometimes pejoratively referred to as “job shops”, IT consulting companies, in truth, promote ingenuity by providing a source of technical expertise that can quickly respond to the evolving needs of the U.S. market.

Some have suggested that the solution is to allocate H-1B visas to the highest wage earners but this system, articulated in the Trump administration’s H-1B lottery final rule entitled “Modification of Registration Requirement for Petitioners Seeking to File Cap-Subject H-1B Petitions”, worsens the problems with the H-1B visa program rather than solving them. As we have discussed in a prior blog, a wage based preference system would practically foreclose numerous categories of noncitizens workers who are highly skilled but do not earn overly high salaries from pursuing the H-1B visa as an option. Entry level workers, for example, including talented graduates of U.S. universities, have the potential to greatly contribute to the U.S. economy over the course of their career, but are not likely to be paid extremely high wages. Entrepreneurs who start their own companies bring innovative businesses to the United States and create jobs if they are successful, but their startups may not be able to afford to pay them an overly high wage. Similarly, employees of non-profit organizations tend to command modest salaries, but perform meaningful and significant work in the United States. Allocating H-1B workers to the highest earners will, in the long run, deter highly-skilled noncitizens from pursuing employment in the United States, which will be detrimental to the United States’ economy and competitive advantage in the global market. And even if the lottery is skewed towards those offered the highest wages in the occupation, it still continues to remain a game of chance.

Although some affiliated with respectable think tanks like the Economic Policy Institute attack the H-1B as a source of cheap labor, they are wrong. Daniel Costa and Ron Hiro of the Economic Policy Institute, for example, suggest that H-1B employers “use the program to pay migrant workers well below market wages”, but a recent Center of Growth and Opportunity paper suggests that skilled immigrants holding temporary work visas have a wage premium of 29.5 percent compared to similar natives. H-1B lotteries, whether quota or wage based, limit the United States’ ability to attract the most skilled foreign workers. Those who are truly concerned for the wellbeing of the U.S. economy understand the key role that highly skilled foreign workers play and would want to encourage top talent from all over the world to come to the United States. One obstacle to H-1B workers was already removed when Proclamation 10052, which suspended the entry into the U.S. of many H-1B and other nonimmigrants, was allowed to lapse on March 31, 2021. This Trump-era ban further obstructed the flow of skills into the United States. Ironically, it also impeded the ability of last year’s lottery winners to come to the United States but this year’s winners with approved H-1B petitions will not be impacted by the Proclamation and last year’s winners may also seek visa appointments. Even with the expiration of the Proclamation, however, it is unlikely that H-1B visa applications will immediately begin being processed, as many U.S. consulates are still not fully operational due to the pandemic. DOS will prioritize the applications of applicants who have not yet been interviewed or scheduled for an interview, and invites individuals who were refused a visa due to the Proclamation to reapply.

Abolishing the H-1B lottery is the surest way to ensure free entry of talented and skilled workers into the United States.  The reason for the lottery is because there is an arbitrary limit of 65,000 visa and an additional 20,000 for master’s degree holders that have no bearing on economic reality.  Similarly, these same H-1B workers who get sponsored for green cards are subject to unrealistic quotas in the India EB-2 and EB-3s resulting in decade long backlogs, thus depriving them of obtaining permanent residency. There is no basis for quotas on H-1B visas or immigrant visas. As pointed out in a Forbes article, unemployment rates in H-1B occupations like computer and mathematical fields were only 2.4% at the beginning of 2021, illustrating that H-1B employees are not pushing U.S. workers out of the labor market. Lotteries and quotas have no place in a modern immigration system. There should be a free flow of skills and talent into the US.

It remains to be seen whether another H-1B lottery will be conducted in August, as was the case last year. If the case was selected under the lottery, the online account will indicate “Selected.” If the case shows “Submitted,” it means that it is still eligible for selection in a subsequent lottery during this fiscal year. If it shows “Denied” it means that multiple registrations were submitted for the same registrant. If the payment was declined it will show “Invalidated-Failed Payment.” In the meantime, petitioners who were selected can begin filing Form I-129 from April 1 to June 30, 2021. They will only be eligible to start employment in H-1B status on October 1, 2021, and if the foreign national is in the US they must ensure that they are maintaining status.  Those who are on F-1 Optional Practical Training, and if their OPT will expire prior to June 30, 2021, should file the I-129 prior to expiration so that they can take advantage of the Cap Gap till September 30, 2021. USCIS will begin accepting exclusively the new (3/10/2021) version of Form 1-129 on July 1, 2021. Until then, older versions of the form may still be submitted. Also note that Question 5 in Supplement H on page 13 of Form I-129 must be completed for H-1B Cap-subject petitions.

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

 

* Kaitlyn Box graduated with a JD from Penn State Law in 2020, and works as a Law Clerk at Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners PLLC.

 

Cyrus Mehta

President Biden Must Reject Trump Era H-1B Lottery Rule and Work Visa Travel Ban

/0 Comments/in /by

By: Cyrus D. Mehta and Kaitlyn Box*

On March 3, 2021, Democratic Senator Dick Durbin and Republican Charles Grassley submitted a letter to new DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas urging the DHS to implement the Trump administration’s H-1B lottery final rule entitled “Modification of Registration Requirement for Petitioners Seeking to File Cap-Subject H-1B Petitions”, which was published in the Federal Register on January 8, 2021. The final rule would replace the current H-1B lottery system with a preference-based system that prioritizes workers earning higher wages. Originally set to go into effect on March 9, 2021, implementation of the rule was postponed until at least December 31, 2021.  It is a shame that Senator Durbin would throw his support behind a clearly ultra vires regulation of the Trump era that is designed to hurt small businesses, start-up companies and keep the U.S. from retaining the best and brightest foreign students from entering the U.S. workforce.   If allowed to go into effect during this year’s H-1B lottery, the rule will have a devastating impact on international students, entry-level workers, and employees of non-profits, all of whom tend to earn modest salaries.

The Biden administration’s welcoming immigration policies have been a breath of fresh air, but one must keep in mind that certain members of the administration disfavor the H-1B visa program, viewing it erroneously as a source of “cheap labor” that threatens the interests of U.S. workers. The H-1B visa indeed requires employers to pay the higher of the prevailing wage or actual wage paid to similarly situated workers in the company.  Distrust of the H-1B program could explain why President Biden selectively rescinded Proclamation 10014, but not Proclamation 10052, which restricts the entry of individuals who were outside the United States without a visa or other immigration document on the effective date of the Proclamation, June 24, 2020, and are seeking to obtain an H-1B visa, among other categories. We have discussed Proclamation 10052 in detail in a previous blog. In its last days, the Trump administration extended Proclamation 10052 to March 31, 2021.

Given the tremendous hardship it causes to noncitizens subject to the ban, the Biden administration ought to allow Proclamation 10052 to expire on March 31 rather than further extending it. Better still, the Biden administration should rescind it even before March 31 as every day causes hardship to those who have been adversely impacted. The affirmative rejection of 10052 would symbolically also demonstrate that Proclamation 10052 is based on the same xenophobic premise that led to the rejection of Proclamation 10014.  The Proclamation already conflicts with several of the Biden administration’s early immigration policies. Proclamation 10052 was based on the same tired and xenophobic narratives as Proclamation 10014, which Biden has already rescinded.  Section 5(c)(iii) of the Proclamation, which aims to prevent “aliens” (a term the Biden administration has pointedly avoided using) with final orders of removal from obtaining eligibility to work in the United States does not comport with Biden’s new priorities memo, which would allow such noncitizens to seek work authorization under an order of supervision. A provision at Section 5(b) in Proclamation 10052 requires measures to prevent noncitizens seeking admission under the EB-2 or EB-3 categories from disadvantaging U.S. workers under INA 212(a)(5)(A). Biden’s February 2, 2021 Executive Order entitled “Restoring Faith in Our Legal Immigration Systems and Strengthening Integration and Inclusion Efforts for New Americans”, on the other hand, lauds the contributions of immigrants to the U.S. economy and promised to reduce barriers to naturalization.

Biden’s U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021 also reflects a certain reluctance on the part of the Biden administration to address the H-1B visa program. The sweeping bill is largely favorable to immigrants, featuring as its keystone a path to legal status for undocumented noncitizens who were present in the United States as of January 1, 2021. The bill also endeavors to reduce the backlogs in the employment and family based categories by adding additional numbers and not counting dependent family members, among other ameliorative measures.  However, the bill had comparatively little to say about H-1B visas. One of the few provisions that did address the program empowers DHS to “issue regulations to establish procedures for prioritizing such [nonimmigrant] visas based on the wages offered by employers”, which concerningly echoes Trump’s H-1B lottery rule. While the issuing of more green cards to skilled workers is indeed welcome and absolutely necessary, there also needs to be a complimentary work visa program that allows employers to quickly employ much needed skilled workers and which also provides a bridge to the green card. Also another glaring lacuna in the bill is the absence of the much needed startup visa that would incentivize foreign national entrepreneurs to found companies in the US, which in turn could grow and create jobs for Americans in addition to creating paradigm shifting technologies.

If the Biden administration truly wishes to act in the best interest of the U.S. economy it must reject the idea, whether it is championed by opponents of skilled immigration on the left or the right,  that H-1B workers are a threat to the United States. The administration must seek to delay the implementation of the H-1B lottery rule and rescind it notwithstanding Senator Durbin’s support for it. Indeed, Senator Durbin, teaming up with known immigration foe Senator Grassley (who has never repudiated Trump),  has been a constant and irrational foe of the H-1B program for over two decades and his opposition to the H-1B is not a reasoned voice and lacks credibility. Proclamation 10052 also does not benefit U.S. workers by separating talented H-1B employees from their families and preventing them from performing critical jobs in the United States. As Stuart Anderson points out in a recent Forbes article, many H-1B workers are employed in the computer and tech field, which has not seen significant increases in unemployment during the COVID-19 pandemic. In fact, large numbers of positions remain open in this field and would likely go unfilled without highly skilled H-1B workers. With no cogent economic justification remaining to support it, it is hoped that Proclamation 10052 soon goes the way of Proclamation 10014.

According to an earlier Forbes article,  “H-1B visas are important because they generally represent the only practical way for high-skilled foreign nationals, including international students, to work long-term in the United Sates and have the chance to become employment-based immigrants and U.S. Citizens. In short, without H-1B visas nearly everyone from the founders of billion-dollar companies to the people responsible for the vaccines and medical care saving American lives would never have been in the United States.”. The H-1B lottery rule, if implemented, will clearly provide a disincentive for international students to pursue higher education in the US. By eliminating the chances of entry level students from obtaining H-1B visas, they will pursue educational opportunities in other countries, which in turn will adversely impact American universities. As AILA’s comment to the H-1B lottery rule points out, international students comprise over 5% of the total number of students enrolled in higher education in the U.S., and contribute billions of dollars to the American economy. See “AILA and the Council Submit Comments Opposing USCIS Proposal to Create Wage-Based Selection Process for H-1Bs”, AILA Doc. 20120234 (Dec. 2, 2020). Talented foreign students have long flocked to U.S. universities, so losing this population would not only financially devastate American educational institutions, but also result in the loss of this source of talented entry-level workers. The notion that foreign students after completing a year or two of OPT or STEM OPT will be able to command Level 4 wages and thus compete for H-1B visas under the new rule is a canard.

United States companies, too, depend on H-1B workers. U.S. employers have long recruited highly skilled and highly education H-1B visa holders to fill entry-level STEM positions. With foreign students comprising the vast majority of graduates of some STEM programs in the United States, there are simply not enough qualified U.S. workers to fill all open positions in many fields. See AILA Doc. 20120234, supra. By effectively foreclosing the H-1B visa as an option for entry-level workers who are not yet earning enormous salaries, the H-1B lottery rule will cause untold disruption and economic harm to U.S. employers who rely on H-1B talent. With some H-1B workers filling critical roles in healthcare and research to combat COVID-19, the potential for harm extends beyond the mere economic and could further delay the United States’ recovery from the pandemic. See AILA Doc. 20120234, supra. If talented H-1B workers go elsewhere for employment, the United States would also lose its ability to attract the “best and brightest” who have made contributions of untold significance to the United States. When the Immigration Act of 1990 revised the H-1B visa and set a 65,000 cap, the internet had not taken off. Since then there have been immense technological leaps, while the H-1B cap continues to remain at 65,000 with a paltry 20,000 added for those with master’s degrees in 2004. Still, it is H-1B visa holders who have contributed to advances in technology and who have ultimately become CEOs of companies like Google and Microsoft. The new H-1B lottery rule will kill the ability of attracting talented foreign nationals on H-1B visas who will ultimately greatly contribute to the US.

Finally, the fact that the H-1B visa is used by IT consulting companies should not be a justification to promulgate the new H-1B lottery rule. The use of IT consulting companies is widespread in America (and even the US government contracts for their services), and was acknowledged by Congress when it passed the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998 (AVWIA) by creating onerous additional attestations for H-1B dependent employers. The current enforcement regime has sufficient teeth to severely punish bad actors.  IT consulting employers who hire professional workers from India unfortunately seem to be getting more of a rap for indiscriminately using up the H-1B visa. Even the Durbin-Grassley letter falsely accuses outsourcing companies for gaming the H-1B lottery system without taking into account the limited supply of H-1B visa numbers and the increased demand for skilled workers each year. However, it is this very business model that has provided reliability to companies in the United States and throughout the industrialized world to obtain top-drawer talent quickly with flexibility and at affordable prices that benefit end consumers and promote diversity of product development. This is what the oft-criticized “job shop” or “body shop” or “outsourcing company” readily provides. By making possible a source of expertise that can be modified and redirected in response to changing demand, uncertain budgets, shifting corporate priorities and unpredictable fluctuations in the business cycle itself, the pejorative reference to them as “job shop” is, in reality, the engine of technological ingenuity on which progress in the global information age largely depends.

By continuing to limit and stifle the H-1B program, either through a new H-1B lottery rule or by perpetuating Proclamation 10052, U.S. employers will remain less competitive and will not be able to pass on the benefits to consumers. We need more H-1B visa numbers rather than less. We also need to respect H-1B workers rather than deride them, even if they work at an IT consulting company, as they too wish to abide by the law and to pursue their dreams in America.  The best way to reform the H-1B program is to provide more mobility to H-1B visa workers. By providing more mobility, which includes being able to obtain a green card quickly.  H-1B workers will not be stuck with the employer who brought them on the H-1B visa, and this can also result in rising wages within the occupation as a whole. Mobile foreign workers will also be incentivized to start their own innovative companies in America, which in turn will result in more jobs. This is the best way to reform the H-1B visa program, rather than to further shackle it by making it harder to win the H-1B lottery.

The comment period closes on THIS WEDNESDAY March 10 at 11:59 pm ET. We would highly recommend that everyone submit their own comment supporting the delay of the rule and the need for further review of the rule, underscoring why a delay is necessary because implementation cannot be rushed through right before cap season, why the rule is unlawful, and why the economic data does not support the rule as written.  You can submit your own comment here:

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/02/08/2021-02665/modification-of-registration-requirement-for-petitioners-seeking-to-file-cap-subject-h-1b-petitions#open-comment

*Kaitlyn Box graduated with a JD from Penn State Law in 2020, and works as a Law Clerk at Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners PLLC.

Cyrus Mehta

Extending the Immigrant and Nonimmigrant Visa Bans: The Last Gasps of 212(f) Jurisprudence Under Trump

/0 Comments/in /by

By Cyrus D. Mehta & Kaitlyn Box*

On the last day of 2020, Trump issued a Presidential Proclamation extending two previous Proclamations – Proclamation 10014 (Suspension of Entry of Immigrants Who Present a Risk to the United States Labor Market During the Economic Recovery Following the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Outbreak) and Proclamation 10052 (Suspension of Entry of Immigrants and Nonimmigrants Who Present a Risk to the United States Labor Market During the Economic Recovery Following the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Outbreak). Proclamation 10014, signed in April 2020, suspends certain green card applications, and restricts some nonimmigrant visa categories. Proclamation 10052 of June 22, 2020, itself an expansion of Proclamation 10014, curtailed the entry of individuals who were outside the United States without a visa or other immigration document on the effective date of the proclamation and were seeking to obtain an H-1B visa, H-2B visa, L visa or certain categories of the J visa. Our previous blog discusses Proclamation 10052 in detail.

Trump’s latest Proclamation extends the restrictions imposed by the previous Proclamations to March 31, 2021. The administration’s stated rationale for the Proclamation is high unemployment due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and a desire to preserve as many jobs as possible for American workers. This reasoning stands in sharp contrast to Trump’s recent boast that unemployment rates have fallen below 6.7%. It appears that the Proclamation is actually the Trump administration’s last effort at restricting the immigration of highly skilled workers before President-elect Biden takes office in January. The extensions continue to rely on INA 212(f), which gives the president broad power to suspend the entry of foreign nationals whose entry would be detrimental to the interests of the US.  While invoking INA 212(f), Trump has invented new law regarding visa categories outside what Congress enacted through the Immigration and Nationality Act.  Trump relied on INA 212(f) to issue the various iterations of the travel ban and Presidential Proclamation 9822, which banned individuals who cross the Southern border between ports of entry from applying for asylum in the United States, to cite only a few examples.  Another example where the Trump administration invented the law, as discussed in a prior blog,  was in the exceptions to Proclamation 10052. One exception can be availed of by showing that the H-1B worker  is being paid 15% over the prevailing wage. The additional wage requirement is entirely absent from the INA.

Like planting a time bomb, the Trump administration has foisted on Biden the unpleasant choice of rescinding the Proclamation come January 20, likely to be a politically unpalatable move given that unemployment rates will probably remain high in the coming months as the pandemic drags on, or letting the Proclamation expire on its own on March 31, 2021. Regardless of which strategy the Biden administration chooses to pursue, would-be immigrants and highly-skilled foreign workers can take comfort in the fact that the Proclamation will be relatively short lived.

If the Biden administration chooses to rescind the proclamations before March 31, they must be mindful of a recent Ninth Circuit decision which has also upheld the Trump administration’s invocation of 212(f), this time as the authority for Presidential Proclamation 9945, “Suspension of Entry of Immigrants Who Will Financially Burden the United States Healthcare System, in Order to Protect the Availability of Healthcare Benefits for Americans.”, which barred immigrant visa applicants for entering the United States unless they could demonstrate the ability to acquire health insurance within 30 days of entry or pay for healthcare expenses on their own.  John Doe #1 v. Trump, No. 19-36020, D.C. No. 3:19-cv-1743-SI, *1-2 (9th Cir. 2020). In Doe #1 v. Trump, the plaintiffs alleged, among other causes of action, that Proclamation 9945 exceeded the President’s authority under INA § 212(f). Id. at 10. The Ninth Circuit rejected this argument and upheld the healthcare proclamation, citing to Trump v. Hawaii in stating that INA § 212(f) grants the President broad discretion to restrict entry. Id. at 22; Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392, 2407 (2018). The court reasoned that INA § 212(f) limits the President’s authority in three ways – the President must find that entry of a certain class of immigrants is detrimental to U.S. interests, the limitations on entry imposed must be “temporally limited”, and the President must properly identify the “class of aliens” who are subject to the restrictions. John Doe #1 v. Trump at *22-26. The Ninth Circuit also indicated that another potential limitation is that a proclamation may not “expressly override” a provision of the INA, which may exist where the statute solves the “exact problem” as the proclamation. Thus, even if the healthcare proclamation overlapped with the public charge ground of inadmissibility at INA 212(a)(4), the imposition of an additional ground of inadmissibility via INA 212(f) will not be viewed as the proclamation overriding the public charge provision.  Finding that Proclamation 9945 did not exceed any of these limitations, the court upheld it as a valid exercise of the President’s authority under INA § 212(f). Id. at *26.

The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Doe #1 v. Trump may, unfortunately, make it more difficult to challenge Presidential Proclamations issued in reliance on INA § 212(f) as an invalid exercise of Presidential authority. However, the decision can be read narrowly to apply only to Proclamation 9945. It might also give ammunition to those who may wish to challenge Biden’s authority to rescind Proclamation 9945 and the extended Proclamations 10052 and 10014. The new administration must carefully  follow the holding in the Supreme Court’s decision in  Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California in rescinding Trump’s proclamations under INA 212(f) to ensure the rescissions are not found to be arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Biden administration must provide a detailed and cogent reason for rescinding Trump’s proclamations. In Department of Homeland Security v. Regents, in which the Supreme Court held that the rescission of DACA was a violation of the APA, the Court stated that an agency must comply “with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action” in rescinding an existing policy. Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, 591 U. S. ___, *29(2020). Special consideration should also be accorded to “whether longstanding policies may have ‘engendered serious reliance interests that must be taken into account.’” Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 579 U. S. ___, (2016) (slip op., at 9) (quoting Fox Television, 556 U. S., at 515). A previous blog post discusses Department of Homeland Security v. Regents in greater detail. Given the detrimental impact that Proclamation 9945, together with Proclamations 10052 and 10014, has on U.S. interests, it is hoped that the Biden administration will be able to provide ample and well-reasoned justifications for rescission. Should President-elect Biden rescind the healthcare Proclamation soon after taking office, and withdraw the appeal before the Ninth Circuit’s mandate ensues after 45 days, the opinion may become a moot one.

The Doe #1 v. Trump opinion may limit the avenues for challenging Proclamation 9945, along with Proclamations 10052 and 10014. Although the ban [on H-1B and L-1 workers] was enjoined by the court in NAM (National Association of Manufacturers) v Trump, that ruling was limited to the plaintiff organizations that brought the suit. Therefore, the extension will still be effective on others. The Ninth Circuit’s ruling in the healthcare proclamation case, Doe 1 v. Trump,  may have jeopardized NAM v. Trump, already limited in its application, since the decision in NAM v. Trump was based partly on the idea that the healthcare Proclamation exceeded presidential power. However, all this may not matter if Biden withdraws the appeal before the mandate ensues and also rescinds Proclamation 10052.

We trust that the Biden administration will ensure that Doe #1 v. Trump does not become precedent in the Ninth Circuit, and that it will carefully rescind Trump’s proclamation.

 

*Kaitlyn Box graduated with a JD from Penn State Law in 2020, and works as a Law Clerk at Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners PLLC.

 

 

 

Cyrus Mehta

Gomez v. Trump: Welcome to the Brave New World of Made Up Law Under INA 212(f)

/0 Comments/in /by

Before President Trump, one could hardly imagine that an American president would use INA § 212(f) to rewrite immigration law in a manner he saw fit and with whatever prejudices might be harboring in his mind. While INA § 212(f) does give extraordinary power to a president, Trump has exploited these powers beyond what could have been imagined when Congress enacted this provision.  INA §212(f) states:

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

President Trump, in addition to various travel bans, sought to bar various immigrants and nonimmigrants from entering the US through Proclamations 10014 and 10052 under the pretext that they pose a threat to the US labor market during COVID-19. Several plaintiffs challenged the proclamations through by seeking a preliminary injunction, which resulted in Gomez v. Trump in the District Court of the District of Columbia. Judge Amit Mehta, who wrote the decision, upheld the validity of the proclamations under INA 212(f), but still ordered the State Department to process the visas of Diversity (DV) lottery winners before the Congressionally mandated deadline of September 30, 2020. The judge said that the government had “unreasonably delayed processing” of their visas.  Others subject to the proclamation did not suffer the same irreparable harm as their visas could be processed even after September 30, but DV lottery winners needed to be issued by the hard deadline of September 30 deadline. Judge Mehta drew a distinction between processing of the visas of DV lottery winners, which were not affected by the proclamations, and their ultimate entry into the US, which would still be prohibited under them.

Trump’s proclamations will still bar immigrants and nonimmigrants from entering the US, including DV winners. The only saving grace is that DV lottery winners may some day hope to enter the US once the proclamations expire as their visas got processed before September 30. If Trump gets reelected, the ban may continue and DV winners, along with all the other immigrants and nonimmigrants, would likely still be barred from entering the US.

Apart from this narrow victory for DV winners, Judge Mehta’s decision was a disappointment.  Judge Mehta confirmed that  INA 212(f) exudes deference under Trump v. Hawaii. This was the decision of the Supreme Court that upheld what has come to be known as Trump’s Muslim ban since it fulfilled a campaign promise that he would ban Muslims if he became president. The watered down version of the proclamation that was upheld by the Supreme Court in Trump v. Hawaii banned nationals of Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Yemen, Chad and Syria, along with Venezuela and North Korea. Although the Ninth Circuit in Doe v. Trump distinguished the president’s authority under 212(f) in domestic matters – as that involved a ban on  immigrants who were unable to obtain specific health insurance – Judge Mehta gave short shrift to this distinction (see Trump is Not King, Cannot Rewrite Public Charge Law through Executive Fiat).  Judge Mehta also did not discuss the other Ninth Circuit decision in East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, where the Ninth Circuit concluded that the Trump administration had unlawfully done what the “Executive cannot do directly; amend the INA”. In that case Trump through INA 212(f) prohibited asylum seekers from applying for asylum who crossed outside a designated port of entry even though INA § 208(a)(1) categorically allows any alien who is physically present in the United States to apply for asylum regardless of the manner of entry and even though it was not through a designated  port of arrival. According to Judge Mehta, the plain language of INA 212(f) simply speaks in terms of restricting entry of aliens “detrimental to the United States”; and this  detriment is not limited to any  sphere, foreign or domestic. Since COVID-19 has resulted in changed economic circumstances, a court is not well equipped to evaluate the policy choices of the administration to restrict the entry of certain classes of aliens, according to Judge Mehta. Even if President Trump based these restrictions on false pretenses, Judge Mehta held that the court’s role in evaluating even this is constrained under INA 212(f). “Congress possesses ample powers to right that wrong. The scope of judicial review is circumscribed,” according to Judge Mehta.

Judge Mehta also disagreed that the proclamations overrode the INA, and the exceptions and waivers in the proclamations still allowed noncitizens to enter the US. Judge Mehta, unfortunately,  did not analyze that these exceptions, especially the State Department’s National Interest Exceptions,  imposed additional requirements that had no basis in the INA (see Trump’s Work Visa Ban Violates the Immigration and Nationality Act And So Do the Exceptions). Take, for example, the requirement that: “The wage rate paid to the H-1B applicant meaningfully exceeds the prevailing wage rate by at least 15 percent (see Part F, Questions 10 and 11 of the LCA) by at least 15 percent.  When an H-1B applicant will receive a wage that meaningfully exceeds the prevailing wage, it suggests that the employee fills an important business need where an American worker is not available.” This additional wage requirement is entirely absent from the INA. Another example is a provision in the guidance which states that “L-1A applicants seeking to establish a new office in the United States likely do NOT fall into this category, unless two of the three criteria are met AND the new office will employ, directly or indirectly, five or more U.S. workers.” The requirement that petitioners employ five or more U.S. workers also has no basis in the INA or in 8 Code of Federal Regulations. For L-1B applicants, the need to demonstrate significant and unique contributions to the petitioning company, that the specialized knowledge is specifically related to a critical infrastructure need and that the applicant has spent multiple years with the same company has no basis in the law or regulations. Under the existing INA and regulations, the L-1B applicant must demonstrate that he has had one year of qualifying experience in a managerial, executive or specialized knowledge capacity. Judge Mehta’s decision is devoid of any analysis on how these exceptions have no basis in the INA, and instead, he held that they did not  “expressly override” any “particular” provision of the INA and “[a]liens still may travel to the United States under the visa categories established by Congress. “

Welcome to the new world of INA 212(f) jurisprudence under which law can be simply be made up without going through the arduous process of proposing bills in Congress and having them voted in both the chambers. Indeed, this law can be invented through the stroke of a xenophobe’s pen. Arch xenophobe Stephen Miller has been the architect of Trump’s proclamations under 212(f). Either entire countries can be banned or entire visa categories pursuant to 212(f). The exceptions to these restrictions, based on national interest, can also be made up with no bearing on the actual visa category and subject to a consular officer’s caprice and whim.

If President Trump is reelected, one should expect that he will continue to wholesale rewrite the INA and restrict immigration.  If on the other hand Joe Biden is elected, the broad bans that Trump issued under 212(f) could be eliminated on January 21. In the meantime, even though Gomez v. Trump upheld Trump’s power to rewrite the law under 212(f), it remains to be seen how other courts will interpret 212(f) with respect to Proclamations 10014 and 10052. The hearing for the  preliminary injunction in NAM v. Trump is scheduled for a hearing on September 11 in the Norther District of California, which is in the Ninth Circuit where Doe v. Trump and East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump should still have sway. Let us hope that the court will rule differently in that case and the desired preliminary injunction will ensue.