Tag Archive for: travel

Cyrus Mehta

The Application for  Prevailing Wage Determination and the Application for Permanent Labor Certification – Siblings or Twins?

/0 Comments/in /by

By Cyrus D. Mehta and Kaitlyn Box*

The process for an employer to sponsor a noncitizen employee for permanent labor certification is long and complicated. The first step in the process for filing Form ETA 9089, Application for Permanent Labor Certification, also known as PERM, is to file Form  ETA 9141, Request for Prevailing Wage Determination. It takes about 6 months for the National Prevailing Wage Center to issue the prevailing wage determination. It is only after the prevailing wage is determined, and recruitment is conducted, that the employer can file Form 9089, which takes 9 months to a year before a labor certification is issued.

The filing of  Form 9089 sets the priority date, which determines where the noncitizen is in the queue under the Employment-Based Second (EB-2) or Employment-Based Third (EB-3) Preference. The filing of the Form 9089 can also provide the legal basis for filing an H-1B extension beyond the six year limit if it is filed one year before the sixth year under section 106(c) of the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act.

As the Form 9141 is imperative in ensuring that the Form 9089 can be filed as soon as possible, the National Prevailing Wage Center has begun to issue Requests for Information (RFI) after the Form 9141 is filed to request a prevailing wage determination, which have the potential to further delay the overall labor certification process.

In the Form 9141, the position and the requirements have to be provided in detail so that the National Prevailing Wage Center (NPWC) can issue an appropriate prevailing wage determination. For instance, if the position requires travel, this too needs to be specified on Form 9141. Since June 1, 2023, Form  9141 links to the new Form 9089, automatically populating certain fields on the PERM application form. Some of the information on Form 9141, such as the description of the offered position and its requirements, remain only on Form 9141.

Practitioners have been receiving a Request for Information (RFI) after filing Form 9141 requesting the employer to answer the travel requirement question with more specificity. This could add further delays to the issuance of a prevailing wage determination, which is taking about six months, which in turn would lead to delays towards filing Form 9089.  Question F.d.3 on Form 9141 asks, “Will travel bs required in order to perform the job duties?” If the response is “Yes” to this question, then the employer is required  under Question F.d.3. to “provide geographic location and frequency of travel”

If the position requires travel, Question F.d.3. should be answered as specifically as possible. If the position requires travel about once a month domestically to meet clients, the employer must specify under F.d.3 that the position requires travel once a month with  the US to meet with clients. If such details are not provided in Form 9141, and instead, the answer is “occasional travel required” then the NPWC will issue an RFI asking for specific details as set forth in the following example we have received on behalf of a client:

Item F.d.3a states, “Frequent travel required. ” Please clarify if the occupation will require any national or international travel, and the frequency of that travel. Your response should also confirm that the NPWC has permission to correct your Form ETA-9141 with the information you provide in your response.

The employer is given the choice to respond directly to the RFI in the FLAG system or via e mail. The employer must respond within 7 days. The employer is also given the choice to withdraw and apply again too.

In the case of “roving employees”, the 1994 Barbara Farmer Memo states that the employer’s main or headquarters (HQ) office should be indicated as the worksite when a job opportunity will require a beneficiary to work in various locations throughout the U.S. that cannot be anticipated.  Even with roving employees, the employer will tend to answer “Yes” to F.d.3, which asks “Will travel be required in order to perform the job duties?” Then, under F.d.3.a. where the employer is asked to “provide [the] geographic location and frequency of travel” the employer tends to answer consistent with the  Barbara Farmer Memo as follows: “Must be willing to relocate and work anywhere in the US.”

Recently, the NPWC has been issuing an RFI on this response too stating:

Item F.d.3 states “Yes”, and Item F.d.3a states the applicant “Must be willing to relocate and work anywhere in the U.S. ”

Please clarify the frequency of that travel.

However, this response does not relate to travel because the frequency of travel is now known. The position, rather than requiring travel, requires the employee to be willing to relocate and work anywhere.

At the AILA 2024 Spring Conference in Washington DC on March 22, 2024, Lindsey Baldwin, Director, National Prevailing Wage Center, clarified that the DOL is more interested in knowing about travel in the Form 9141 than unanticipated job locations under the Barbara Farmer memo. She also said that the information in the Form 9141 does not have to match everything that is in the Form 9089, and suggested that the Form 9141 and Form 9089 may be siblings but they are not twins!

Given that the information in the Form 9141 links to the Form 9089, what if the employer answers “No” to Question F.d.3 regrading travel for a position that only requires the ability to work at unanticipated locations under the Barbara Farmer Memo? How will the ability to work at unanticipated worksites get captured in the Form 9089? Answering “No” may avoid an RFI regarding travel. However, the information in the Form 9089 must also match with the information provided in the advertisements, which requires that the job applicant  be willing to relocate and work anywhere in the US.

One way of ensuring that the need to relocate to unanticipated worksites gets into Form 9089 is to answer “Yes” to  Fb.1. in Form 9089 – Will work be performed in geographic areas other than the one identified in Section F as above? Then answer F.c. – Other Definable Geographic Area(s) – by stating “Various worksites such as the Company Headquarter [insert address] and other unanticipated locations in the US.” This further demonstrates that Form 9141 and Form 9089 are siblings and not twins.

In order to answer the RFI and also answer F.d.3.a on Form 9141 to avoid a future RFI another suggested response from the employer may include answering positively to the travel question after consulting with the employer regarding the anticipated frequency of relocation. One example is as follows:

Must be willing to relocate and work anywhere in the US. Travel in the context of relocation may be required at least once or twice a year based on clients’ needs.

Ms. Baldwin did however emphasize that when responding to the RFI regarding travel, the employer must specify:

  • Whether travel is local or international

  • How frequent is the travel? – once or twice a year or more (do not indicate “occasional travel” as that is subjective)

  • What is the nature of the travel? Is it for meetings or is it for the performance of the duties of the position?

If the employer does not answer the RFI with such specificity, the Form 9141 issuance will get further delayed.

The labor certification process has been both exacting and maddeningly complex. The recent trend of RFIs being issued in the context of travel to determine the prevailing wage have added even more complexity as well as confusion to the process. The authors only provide suggested responses to RFIs and how to complete the travel section in Form 9141 and related sections in Form 9089. They do not provide any assurances that DOL will agree with these suggested responses.

*Kaitlyn Box is a Senior Associate at Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners PLLC.

[This blog is only for informational purposes and should not be relied upon as a substitute for legal advice].

 

 

 

 

Cora-Ann Pestaina

BALCA Update: Recent Notable Cases

/3 Comments/in /by

While we have no idea what the labor certification process will look like under the Trump administration, it still behooves all PERM practitioners to keep up with the Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) decisions as they continue to directly affect how we prepare and file PERM applications. To that end, this blog will provide a brief summary of recent notable BALCA decisions.

Listing non-quantified skill requirements on the ETA Form 9089

At a December 7, 2016 meeting between the Department of Labor (DOL) Liaison Committee of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) and the DOL’s Office of Foreign Labor Certification (OFLC), OFLC representatives stated that pending review of the BALCA decision,  Smartzip Analytics, 2016-PER-00695 (Nov. 9 2016), they have suspended the issuance of denials involving the issue presented in that case and are preparing an FAQ relating to unquantified experience in Section H.14.

As background, after issuing PERM approvals dating back more than a decade to the inception of the PERM program, the DOL suddenly started to deny PERM applications where the employer included a requirement for a specific amount of work experience in sections H.6 and H.10 of the ETA Form 9089 and also a non-quantified skill requirement in section H.14. For example, in addition to indicating a requirement of a Bachelor’s degree plus 5 years of experience, an employer might also indicate in section H.14 that qualified applicants “must have experience in C++, Java & COBOL.” The DOL started denying labor certifications where the foreign national’s work experience in Section K of the ETA Form 9089 indicated the required work experience (in this example 3 years) but not also a full 3 years of experience in the specific technologies listed in section H.14.

While an indication of the quantified experience required is requested in sections H.6 and H.10, which ask whether experience in the job offered or in an alternative occupation is required, and “if yes, number of months of experience required” the same is not required in section H.14. The ETA Form 9089 indicates that H.14 should be used to list “specific skills or other requirements.” The instructions to the ETA Form 9089 also state that, in this section, the employer should “Enter the job related requirements. Examples are shorthand and typing speeds, specific foreign language proficiency, and test results. The employer must be prepared to document business necessity for a foreign language requirement.” Nowhere does it state that a specific number of months or years must be indicated in H.14.

In recent denials, the DOL argued that a failure to quantify the experience in H.14. left the Certifying Officer (CO) unsure as to how much experience was actually being required and uncertain of how to review applicants’ qualifications.

Then, in Smartzip Analytics, the employer listed the minimum requirements on the ETA Form 9089 as a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, Engineering or a related field and 60 months of experience in the job offered with 60 months of experience in any related occupation also being acceptable. In section H.14, the employer listed the following:

Experience must include experience with: delivering native mobile products at scale; publishing iOS application; Objective-C, iOS SDK, Cocoa Touch, Xcode, Interface Builder, and Auto-Layout; knowledge of Apple Human Interface Guidelines; Java.

The CO denied the application because Section K of the ETA Form 9089 did not demonstrate that the foreign national had 60 months of experience in the specific skills listed in section H.14. In a request for reconsideration the employer argued that it did not require any specific amount of experience for the skills listed in H.14. The CO held his ground and argued that by not qualifying the skills experience the employer could require more experience or proficiency of US worker applicants than it required of the foreign national and that the CO had no way of determining whether the foreign national met the employer’s requirements for the position. The employer appealed to BALCA.

BALCA relied on reasoning employed in another case, Apple, Inc., 2011-PER-01669 (Jan. 20, 2015) where BALCA considered whether the information presented in Section K of the ETA Form 9089 established that the foreign national met the special skills requirements listed in section H.14 and held that the ETA Form 9089 only solicited information about the foreign national’s work experience and did not solicit information regarding his skills gained outside of employment. Following the same reasoning, the panel in Smartzip similarly held that, unlike sections H.6 and H.10, in section H.14 the ETA Form 9089 does not solicit a statement of a duration requirement for the special skills. BALCA held that failure to provide a duration requirement for the special skills cannot be the basis for a denial without legally sufficient notice of a requirement to do so.

Hopefully, the forthcoming FAQ will clearly specify how special skills ought to be listed and make a clear distinction between skills like Java versus skills like the ability to type 50 words per minute or to speak French. While it might make sense for an employer to require 6 months of experience in using Java, there really would be no point to a requirement that the employer also issue a duration requirement for the ability to speak a foreign language or type at a certain speed.

Use of terms like “Depends on Experience (DOE)”, “Competitive”, “Negotiable” or similar language in recruitment in lieu of listing the actual wage

In late 2015, the DOL started a round of PERM denials setting forth another new and previously unheard of reason for denial. Despite having certified these types of PERMs for years, the DOL started denying PERM applications where the employers, in their PERM recruitment, used terms such as “Competitive,” “Depends on Experience” (DOE), “Negotiable,” “Will Discuss With Applicant,” “Other,” or similar verbiage in lieu of stating the offered salary. I previously blogged about this here. The DOL claimed that terms like “Depends on Experience” and “Negotiable” could be vague and could place a potential burden on the US worker to reasonably determine the wage rate for the position or could indicate that an applicant’s experience might potentially cause the employer to offer a salary which is lower than the salary offered to the foreign worker. According to the DOL, a term like a “Will Discuss With Applicant” could prevent a potentially qualified US applicant from making an informed decision on whether he/she would be interested in the actual job opportunity, and could deter a number of such applicants from applying. The denials claimed that the employers, by listing terms that potentially deterred US workers from applying, did not adequately test the labor market. Numerous motions to reconsider were filed.

Recently, Matter of Tek Services LLC, 2016-PER-00332 (Nov. 17, 2016), the employer’s recruitment did not specify a particular salary but indicated that the employer was offering a “competitive salary.” For reasons similar to those described above and in my previous blog, the CO denied the application. BALCA reversed the denial finding that the CO did not cite a specific regulatory requirement that had been violated by the employer. BALCA was not convinced by the CO’s argument that reading the words “competitive salary” creates a burden on US workers to identify the competitive wage because these applicants are under no obligation to identify this wage before applying for the position. BALCA pointed out that reading “competitive salary” in an ad also does not prevent applicants from making an informed decision on their interest in the job because this is more informative than an advertisement that is totally silent regarding the wage, an approach perfectly permissible under the regulation.

OFLC representatives have informed that they are currently reviewing the BALCA decision in Matter of TekServices and they have suspended all denials involving this issue.

Rejecting an applicant based on salary expectations

It is completely lawful to reject a US worker who desires a salary that is higher than the offered wage. But, the case of Techorbits, Inc., 2015-PER-00214 (Dec, 9. 2016) serves as a cautionary tale.

The employer filed a PERM application for the position of Business Development Manager. The application was audited. After reviewing the audit response, the CO denied the application finding that the employer had unlawfully rejected two applicants without interview claiming that the applicants desired a higher salary than the salary offered for the position. The CO stated that the employer was required to follow up with the applicants to verify whether they would accept the position at the offered salary.

In a Request for Reconsideration the employer argued that both applicants had been interviewed through interview questionnaires and phone interviews. The employer submitted an affidavit from the interviewer as to what was discussed in his interview with Applicant S.T. The employer also argued that Applicant M.D. rejected the job opportunity stating that “he would have considered this salary a few years ago, but not now.”

The CO denied the Request for Reconsideration. Regarding Applicant M.D., the CO found that he was indeed lawfully rejected based on the minimum salary he stated on the interview pre-screening form. However, Applicant S.T.’s pre-screening form indicated that his minimum salary was “open to discussion” and his resume indicated a wide range as his desired salary. The CO held that the employer had ample opportunity to submit the affidavit from the interviewer of Applicant S.T. in the audit response but did not do so. Therefore, the CO refused to consider it in the Request for Reconsideration. Without considering this affidavit, there was nothing else in the record to demonstrate that wages were ever discussed in an interview with Applicant S.T. and a rejection based on his requested salary listed as “open to discussion” was unlawful.

BALCA agreed with the CO. Without evidence to the contrary, it appeared that Applicant S.T. was rejected based on his responses to the employer’s pre-interview questionnaire. Even the employer’s email to Applicant S.T. stated, “Your minimum salary requirement you indicated on the questionnaire is higher than what is being offered for the position.” This did not help the employer in trying to prove that the applicant had been rejected based on his answers during an actual interview.  The employer also tried to argue that Applicant S.T. never responded to the employer’s rejection email to dispute the employer’s statements. BALCA shut down this argument stating that the onus is not on the applicant to correct an employer’s erroneous assumption.

BALCA also pointed out that an employer may reject an applicant as unwilling to accept the salary offered only after the position has been offered to the applicant at the salary listed and there is documentation of the offer and the applicant’s refusal. BALCA cited various cases that stand for the requirement that the position must first be offered to the applicant and the applicant must actually decline based on the low salary.

It’s interesting that BALCA did not comment about Applicant M.D. The CO found that he was lawfully rejected based only on his indication of a higher salary on his pre-interview questionnaire. But he did not actually receive and decline a job offer.

This case provides some helpful tips and reminders. An employer’s reliance on a US worker’s statements or demands as a lawful reason(s) for rejection must be very carefully documented. Pre-interview questionnaires are a great tool but employers need to carefully review them and follow up in an interview with the applicant on any statements that could potentially be used to reject the applicant. A statement indicating that the applicant will discuss wages with the employer is obvious but it might be best to also discuss an applicant’s indication of desired wage that is higher than the offered wage. This way the employer has a chance to actually inform the applicant of the offered wage and get his withdrawal of his application if he finds the wage too low.  And, as the employer learned in the instant case, an interviewer’s affidavit is an important part of the audit file and best practice dictates that it should be prepared and executed right after the interview and submitted as part of the employer’s audit response.

Is a PERM position really a “future” position if the Beneficiary is already employed in the position?

In Bally Gaming, Inc., 2012-PER-10729 (Sept. 2, 2016) the employer filed a PERM application for the position of Software Engineer located in Egg Harbor Township, NJ. The CO noted that the foreign national resided in Kennesaw, Georgia and in an audit notification requested documentation demonstrating the location of the offered position.

In the audit response, the employer explained that the foreign national currently performs the duties of the position at both locations based on the employer’s business needs but the offered permanent position will in fact be located in NJ. The employer’s application for a prevailing wage determination (PWD) indicated the New Jersey location and no travel requirement.

The CO denied the case finding that the employer had failed to obtain the proper PWD since the foreign national would also be working in Kennesaw, Georgia and failed to indicate a travel requirement on the ETA Form 9089. The employer filed a Request for Reconsideration and explained that the CO had actually misinterpreted its audit response. The employer explained that the foreign national holds H-1B status and is permitted under his H-1B to work in both locations but the permanent position does not entail any travel between the two locations.

The CO denied the reconsideration request based again on its incorrect interpretation of the PWD. The CO also stated that since the employer is permitting the foreign national to live in Georgia and travel to New Jersey to perform the job duties then the foreign national is receiving a benefit of travel or remote work that applicants for the job opportunity were not offered. The CO forwarded the case to BALCA.

The employer submitted a brief to BALCA arguing that the temporary H-1B position and the permanent position offered on the labor certification are different and that there is no legal requirement that the PERM application be for the same position in which the foreign national is employed in nonimmigrant status.  BALCA found that the employer’s PWD was indeed fully consistent with the ETA Form 9089 and also agreed with the employer that there is no requirement in the PERM regulations or in the Immigration and Nationality Act that both positions be identical. The case was remanded for certification.

What’s interesting about this case is contained in footnote 7 where BALCA suggests that there remains the question of whether the CO could deny certification on the basis of the employer’s failure to offer US workers the same benefit of travel or remote work that the foreign worker was already receiving. Due process concerns prevented BALCA from examining this issue. Since the CO initially asserted this basis for denial on a request for reconsideration, the employer was effectively denied any opportunity to address the new basis and, if appropriate, supplement the record in its request for reconsideration by the CO. BALCA also declined to address this question since it already made the determination that the CO had erred in requiring that the permanent position and the temporary position be identical.

At this point in time, we have the benefit of guidance which was not available to the employer in Bally Gaming. We know that the DOL has confirmed that the 1994 Barbara Farmer memo remains the controlling guidance on issues relating to employees who do not work at a fixed location. The DOL is still flagging cases where the foreign national’s residence is not within commuting distance of the work location. Inasmuch as a PERM position is an offer of “future” employment, if the foreign national already holds the position and is afforded a benefit in order to perform in the position, employers must be careful to offer that same benefit to US workers. I previously blogged here and here about employers’ obligation to list items or conditions of employment in its advertisements.

Other interesting cases

Micron Technology, Inc., 212-PER-02116 (Aug. 1, 2016) – BALCA held that an employer may not reject applicants for not having taken specific courses when the ad only required “knowledge of…” The employer was obligated to explore other ways in which the applicants may have gained the required knowledge.

Humetis Technologies, Inc., 2012-PER-02098 (Aug. 4 2016) – In response to an audit notification, the employer submitted email correspondence between the employer and the newspaper of general circulation. The correspondence indicated the title of two occupations to be advertised along with a description of the requirements for each position. The email confirmed that an ad would be placed online in the newspaper but did not verify the dates of publication or confirm the employer’s payment for the publication.

The regulations at 20 CFR 656.17 provide that an employer “can” document its placement of two Sunday ads by furnishing copies of the newspaper pages or proof of publication furnished by the newspaper. Various BALCA cases have established that other types of documentation could also be accepted but must be reasonably equivalent to the proof listed in the regulations. However, BALCA held that the employer’s failure to product tear sheets, a publisher’s affidavit or additional proof of publication deprived the CO of concrete evidence of the timing of the ads and the publication actually used.

Robert Bosch LLC, 2012-PER-01739 (Aug. 25, 2016) – The CO denied certification because of a discrepancy between the total number of resumes (62) stated in the recruitment report submitted with its audit response and the total number of job applicants (61) for which rejection reasons were cited in the recruitment report.  The Employer requested reconsideration, explaining that the discrepancy was the result of a typographical error in its “recruitment chart” and it offered a corrected version of the recruitment report.  BALCA held that the CO properly refused to accept and consider the employer’s corrected recruitment report which was prepared after the initial denial and thus barred by 20 C.F.R. §656.24(g)(2)(ii) which precludes an employer from submitting in an Request for Reconsideration, documentation that it previously had an opportunity to submit.

One tiny and unintentional mistake could bring a quick and unfortunate end to what is a costly and often lengthy process for an employer and foreign national. But reviewing only one BALCA case can make all the difference. Despite the fact that the DOL continues to constantly shift the goal posts in the PERM process, reviewing these cases can not only assist with avoid pitfalls but can also provide encouragement when considering appealing to BALCA.

Michelle S. Velasco

Work Authorization for H-4 Spouses: The Experience Thus Far

/2 Comments/in , /by

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS)”) announced in February 2015 that beginning May 26, 2015, eligible H-4 spouses of H-1B visa holders could begin applying for employment authorization documents (EADs) from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”).  This change in the regulations was in keeping with President Obama’s efforts to encourage highly skilled workers to stay and set roots in the U.S.  Whereas before many H-1B visa workers were often the only ones toiling for their entire families, the new H-4 EADs for their spouses provide the primary H-1B visa holders more financial stability because their spouses can also work and add to the family income, the spouses joining the U.S. workforce create new connections within the community, and economic doors are opened for prosperity, such as purchasing homes and growing families.  In the past, the lack of H-4 work authorization has frustrated many spouses who otherwise were qualified and wanted to enter the workforce, but were unable to do so because their H-1B spouses could not apply for green cards due to the crushing backlogs in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.  Even now, the H-4 EADs are not open to every H-4 spouse; it is only a limited group whose H-1Bs spouses were fortunate enough to have an employer sponsor them for a green card.

As a practical matter, the eligibility criteria for the EADs are fairly straightforward: the H-1B visa holder

  1. Must be the beneficiary of an approved I-140 or
  2. Was granted an H-1B extension pursuant to sections 106(a) and (b) of the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000 (“AC21”).

In both these cases, a Permanent Labor Certification (“PERM”) was filed on behalf of the H-1B worker.

When applying for the H-4 EAD, applicants must complete the I-765 and indicate the correct category under which the EAD should be issued; here, the correct category is (c)(26).  In addition, the applicant must provide evidence of his or her eligibility.  This is where things can be confusing.  The USCIS has provided a handy FAQ page for guidance.  The FAQ provides a list of evidence that must be provided along with the I-765 form, filing fee, and two passport-style photos.  First, the applicant must provide evidence of his or her H-4 nonimmigrant status.  This can be a copy of the I-797 Approval Notice for the change of status or extension of status for the H-4 visa or a copy of the applicant’s H-4 visa affixed to the passport.  Second, the applicant must provide proof of the spousal relationship with the H-1B principal immigrant.  This can simply be a marriage certificate.  Applicants whose marriage certificates are not in English must provide a certified translation.  Third, the applicant must submit evidence of the spouse’s H-1B status, such as copies of the H-1B approval notice, form I-94, receipt number of the approved H-1B filing, or passport plus visas and admission stamps.  We also recommend that the applicant show proof that the H-1B has maintained valid H-1B status by providing recent pay stubs.

A fourth set of evidence is required to prove how the H-1B spouse either is the beneficiary of an approved I-140 or has received an H-1B extension pursuant to AC21. To simplify matters, we will first discuss how to demonstrate that an approved I-140 petition exists.  The applicant should submit a copy of the I-797 approval notice for the I-140.  If the approval notice is not available, one could provide a copy of that petition’s receipt notice and a note explaining why the approval notice cannot be provided.

In cases where the applicant must provide evidence that the H-1B spouse was granted an H-1B extension pursuant to AC21 sections 106(a) and (b), the evidentiary requirements can get more confusing.  When the spouse is the beneficiary of a PERM filed 365 days before the end of the spouse’s 6 year maximum stay in H-1B status, the applicant must provide proof of the PERM’s filing, the date of filing, and the date when the spouse’s H-1B status is or was set to expire.  Copies of the PERM from the DOL website, along with the travel dates of the spouse while in H-1B status and an explanation of how the PERM was filed more than 365 days before the end of the 6 year maximum, should be sufficient.  Where the PERM has been certified and the I-140 timely filed within 6 months of the PERM’s certification date, the applicant should submit copies of the I-140 receipt notice with the certified PERM.  If the PERM has been denied, it would still be considered “in process” or pending for AC21 purposes if the employer has filed a Request for Reconsideration with the Certifying Officer or an appeal to the Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (“BALCA”).  If the applicant does not have access to copies of the PERM form, but the I-140 is pending, he or she can submit the receipt notice for the I-140 (or other evidence of its filing) along with an explanation of how it was filed more than 365 days before the 6-year H-1B limit.

In the event primary evidence is unavailable, USCIS seems to be willing to accept secondary evidence, such as attestations that list information about the I-129 or I-140 petition filings. However, the applicant must first demonstrate why the primary evidence could not be submitted.  If the applicant cannot submit proof of eligibility, the EAD application will be in danger of denial.

Other issues that may arise out of the H-4 EAD surround the I-140 approval.  The USCIS has expressly written in the FAQ that where H-1B spouse has a revoked I-140 approval, the H-4 EAD will be denied.  However, the FAQ mentions revocations by USCIS, which is presumably when USCIS takes action under 8 CFR §205.2 to revoke an I-140 due to fraud or misrepresentation.  Practically, however, it matters not whether the revocation was automatic pursuant to 8 CFR §205.1(a)(3)(iii)(C) because a former employer withdrew the I-140, or if the revocation was due to fraud because USCIS will deny the H-4 EAD in these cases, no matter what the root cause of the I-140 revocation.  Therefore, the applicant should check the I-140 receipt number on the USCIS case status search function to ensure that the I-140 is still approved.  Sometimes the USCIS online case status function is not updated to reflect a revocation; thus, wherever possible, applicants should be more diligent and ask their spouses to find out the status of the I-140 from the prior employers.

Another potential landmine is in cases where the filing is based on a pending I-140 which is then denied before the H-4 EAD application is adjudicated.  If this occurs and the spouse’s employer is pursuing a Motion to Reconsider or Reopen the denial, or appeal to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO), the applicant should submit through a response to a Request for Evidence (which the USCIS should be issuing) that a motion or appeal has been filed, and also submit proof that the PERM was filed 365 days before the H-1B’s six year expiration.

Timing for the H-4 EAD filing is crucial as the expiration of the EAD is based on the spouse’s H-1B expiration, and it behooves the applicant to obtain the longest validity period for the EAD.  For example, if the applicant’s spouse’s current H-1B will expire in May 2016 but the spouse is eligible for a 3-year H-1B extension by virtue of an approved I-140 and pursuant to AC21 section 104(c).  In this case, it makes more sense to wait until November 2015 to file the EAD application concurrently with the H-1B and H-4 extensions of status so that the EAD would be valid through May 2019, instead of filing the EAD application now, getting an EAD valid through May 2016, and then having to file again in early 2016.

Further, the applicant should be aware that if the EAD application is filed concurrently with an extension of status or change of status application, the underlying extension or change in status application must first be approved before USCIS will adjudicate the EAD application.  While at the time of writing this blog the USCIS processing times for change of status and extension of status applications hover around four months, there is no guarantee that processing times will not lengthen.  If timing is of the essence, the applicant might consider traveling abroad to undergo consular process for the H-4 visa.  Often this is a more speedy method of obtaining an H-4 visa.  Applicants should note that they cannot apply for the H-4 EAD until they return to the U.S. in valid H-4 status.

While on the matter of travel, it should be noted that the EAD card cannot be used to travel and it cannot be used to prove valid visa status in the U.S.  It simply allows the H-4 visa holder to accept employment.    In fact, if the applicant travels while an application to change status to H-4 is pending along with the EAD application, the change of status will be denied and this will likely vitiate the pending application for EAD too.  Thus, if the applicant cannot avoid travel during the pendency of the change of status and EAD applications, he or she must instead undergo consular process for the H-4 visa, be admitted on the H-4 visa, and again file the I-765 for the EAD once he or she is back in the U.S.  Another note we make is that recipients of H-4 EADs are not limited in the type of employment they can accept.  Aside from state licensing requirements for specific occupations (for attorneys, for example), the H-4 visa holders should be able to accept a wide array of employment.  It bears repeating that the EAD does not grant separate visa status; only the H-4 visa provides the requisite visa status and the means by which the nonimmigrant is able to remain in the U.S.

H-4 EAD applicants must be diligent in obtaining evidence of their eligibility and be aware of timing concerns.  For eligible applicants, this opportunity to obtain authorization for employment is welcome news, as it allows for more than just one family member to work lawfully in the U.S.  Still, the H-4 EAD regulation is on shaky ground.  It is being challenged in a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) where plaintiffs argue that DHS overstepped its legal power as granted by the Immigration and Nationality Act when it issued the regulations allowing for the H-4 EADs.  (Save Jobs USA v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Security, case number 1:15-cv-00615, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, April 23, 2015).  The litigation is ongoing, and it adds to the uncertainty in which many H-1B and H-4 visa holders live in the U.S. Unfortunately, it will have to suffice for the moment because many H-1B visa holders with approved I-140 petitions cannot yet apply for their adjustments of status and the ancillary benefits of an EAD and advance parole.  The disappointing actions of the Department of State (“DOS”) and USCIS in issuing a revised October 2015 visa bulletin disallowed potentially tens of thousands of beneficiaries from applying for their adjustments of status (which would have granted the benefit of applying for EADs for their spouses and other derivative beneficiaries). Those who have already waited many years for an opportunity to truly set roots in the U.S. through a green card and work authorization for their families continue to wait.  In the meantime they must maintain valid H-1B statuses even though their employers have offered them permanent employment, and in the event they lose H-1B statuses, their H-4 family members will lose their status and they too will have to give up on the dream of becoming permanent members of the American way of life.

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

Cyrus Mehta

Deferred Action: The Next Generation

/1 Comment/in /by

By Gary Endelman and Cyrus D. Mehta

President Obama at last came through with a bold memorandum on June 15, 2012, executed by DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, granting deferred action to undocumented people. The Administration has always had authority to grant deferred action, which is a discretionary act not to prosecute or to deport a particular alien. While critics decry that Obama has circumvented Congress, the Administration has always had executive branch authority to exercise prosecutorial discretion, including deferred action, which is an expression of limited enforcement resources in the administration of the immigration law. It makes no sense to deport undocumented children who lacked the intention to violate their status and who have been educated in the US, and who have the potential to enhance the US through their hard work, creativity and determination to succeed.

We have always advocated that the Administration has inherent authority within the INA to ameliorate the hardships caused to non-citizens as a result of an imperfect and broken immigration system. In Tyranny of Priority Dates, we argued that the Administration has the authority to  allow non-citizens who are beneficiaries of approved family (I-130) or employment-based (I-140) petitions affected by the crushing backlogs in the priority date system to remain in the US through the grant of parole under INA 212(d)(5) based on “urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefits.” When the DREAM Act passed the House in 2010, but narrowly failed to garner the magic super majority of 60 in the Senate, we proposed that the President could also grant similar parole to DREAM children as well as deferred action in our blog, Keeping Hope Alive: President Obama Can Use His Executive Power Until Congress Passes The Dream Act.

The new memorandum directs the heads of USCIS, CBP and ICE to exercise prosecutorial discretion, and thus grant deferred action, to an individual who came to the United States under the age of 16, has continuously resided in the US for at least 5 years preceding the date of the memorandum and was present in the US on the date of the memorandum, and who is currently in school, or has graduated from school or obtained a general education certificate, or who is an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States. Moreover, this individual should not be above the age of thirty and should also not have been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses, or otherwise poses a threat to national security or public safety. This directive further applies to individuals in removal proceedings as well as those who have already obtained removal orders. The grant of deferred action also allows the non-citizen to apply for employment authorization pursuant to an existing regulation, 8 CFR § 274a(c)(14).

While this memorandum is indeed a giant step in providing relief to a class of immigrants who have been out of status for no fault of their own, we propose other incremental administrative steps so that such individuals, even after they have been granted deferred action and work authorization, can obtain permanent residence. We are mindful, as the accompanying FAQ to the memorandum acknowledges, that the grant of deferred action does not provide the individual with a pathway to permanent residence and “[o]nly the Congress, acting through its legislative authority, can confer the right to permanent lawful status.”  But just as people were skeptical about our ideas for administrative action when we first proposed them, some of which has come to fruition, we continue to propose further administrative steps that the President can take, which would not be violative of the separation of powers doctrine.

There are bound to be many who have been granted deferred action to also be on the pathway to permanent residence by being beneficiaries of approved I-130 or I-140 petitions. Unless one is being sponsored as an immediate relative, i.e. as a spouse, child or parent of a US citizen, and has also been admitted an inspected, filing an application for adjustment of status to permanent residence will not be possible for an individual who has failed to maintain a lawful status under INA § 245(a). Such individuals will have to depart the US to process their immigrant visas at a US consulate in their home countries. Although the grant of deferred action will stop unlawful presence from accruing, it does not erase any past unlawful presence. Thus, one who has accrued over one year of unlawful presence and departs the US in order to process for an immigrant visa will most likely face the 10 year bar under INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II). While some may be able to take advantage of the proposed provisional waiver rule, where one can apply in the US for a waiver before leaving the US, not all will be eligible under this new rule.  A case in point is someone who is sponsored by an employer under the employment-based second preference, and who may not even have a qualifying relative to apply for the waiver of the 10 year bar.

We propose that the USCIS extend the holding of the Board of Immigration Appeals in Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly, 25 I&N Dec. 771 (BIA 2012) to beneficiaries of deferred action. In Arrabelly and Yerrabelly, the BIA held that an applicant for adjustment of status, who leaves the US pursuant to a grant of advance parole, has not effected a departure from the US in order to trigger the 10 year bar under INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II). If a beneficiary of deferred action is granted advance parole, this person’s trip outside the US under this advance parole ought not to be considered a departure. Such facts would square with Matter of Arrabelly and Yerrabelly if the individual returned back to the US under advance parole. However, here, the individual may likely return back on an immigrant visa and be admitted as a permanent resident. That might be hard to sell to the government – how can you apply for a visa at a consulate in a foreign country and still not leave USA? Still, this idea has merit as it is the initial “departure” under advance parole that would not be a trigger for the bar to reentry, not the subsequent admission as an immigrant. In the leaked July 2010 memorandum to USCIS Director Mayorkas, the suggestion is made that the USCIS “reexamine past interpretations of terms such as ‘departure’ and ‘seeking admission again’ within the context of unlawful presence and adjustment of status.” Using  Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly in the manner we propose seeks to do just that. Once again, as with the concept of parole, we seek to build on past innovation to achieve future gain.

As an alternative we propose, as we did in The Tyranny of Priority Dates, that the government, in addition to the grant of deferred action, also grants parole in place on a nunc pro tunc or retroactive basis under INA 212(d)(5).  For instance, the USCIS informally allows spouses of military personnel who would otherwise be unable to adjust under INA § 245(a) if they were neither “inspected and admitted or paroled” to apply for “parole in place.” The concept of parole in place was also proposed in the leaked memo. Interestingly, in this memo, a prime objective of granting parole in place was to avoid the need for consular processing of an immigrant visa application: “By granting PIP, USCIS can eliminate the need for qualified recipients to return to their home country for consular processing, particularly when doing so might trigger the bar to returning.”  This would only be the case, however, where the adjustment applicant is  married to a US citizen, or is the minor child or parent of a US citizen,  and need not be barred due to lack of an inspection or admission. Because we advocate a much wider extension of parole in place, the need for retroactivity, both for the parole and companion employment authorization becomes readily apparent. The use of parole in place, while not common, is certainly not without precedent and, as the leaked memo recites, has been expansively utilized to promote family unity among military dependents. For our purposes, “applicants for admission who entered the US as minors without inspection” were singled out as a class for whom parole in place was singularly suitable.

Upon such a grant of parole in place retroactively, non-immediate relatives who have not maintained status may also be able to adjust status.   Such a retroactive grant of parole, whether in the I-130 or I-140 context, would need to be accompanied by a retroactive grant of employment authorization in order to erase any prior unauthorized employment.  We acknowledge that it may be more problematic for the individual to be eligible for adjustment of status through an I-140 employment-based petition rather than an I-130 petition, since INA § 245(c)(7), requires an additional showing of a lawful nonimmigrant status, in the case of an employment-based petition under INA § 203(b).  Still,  the grant of nunc pro tunc parole will wipe out unlawful presence, and thus this individual can leave the US and apply for the immigrant visa in the US Consulate in his or her home country without the risk of  triggering the 3 or 10 year bar.

One conceptual difficulty is whether parole can be granted to an individual who is already admitted on a nonimmigrant visa but has overstayed. Since parole is not considered admission, it can be granted more readily to one who entered without inspection.  But this impediment can be overcome: It may be possible for the government to rescind the grant of admission, and instead, replace it with the grant parole under INA § 212(d)(5). As an example, an individual who was admitted in B-2 status and is the beneficiary of an I-130 petition but whose B-2 status has expired can be required to report to DHS, who can retroactively rescind the grant of admission in B-2 status and be retroactively granted parole.

There may be other obstacles for individuals in removal proceedings or with removal orders, but those too can be easily overcome. If the individual is in removal proceedings, if he or she is also eligible for deferred action, such removal proceedings can be terminated and he or she can also receive a grant of nunc pro tunc parole, thus rendering him eligible for adjustment of status in the event that there is an approved I-130 or I-140 petition. Even a person who already has a removal order can seek to reopen the removal order through a joint or consent motion with the government for the purposes of reopening and terminating proceedings, and this person too could potentially file an adjustment application, if he or she is the beneficiary of an I-130 upon being granted  nunc pro tunc parole, and the beneficiary likewise could travel overseas for consular processing without risking the 10 year bar.

We of course would welcome Congress to act and pass the DREAM Act, as well as Comprehensive Immigration Reform, so that this memorandum does not get reversed or discontinued in the event that a new Administration takes over from January 2013. However, until Congress does not act, the June 15, 2012 memo does provide welcome relief for young people, but it still leaves them in a limbo with only deferred action. The elephant in the room may be whether the USCIS has the capacity to deal with hundreds of thousands of requests for deferred action. In the absence of congressional action, the agency lacks the capacity to charge special fees for this purpose. Consequently,  all relevant federal agencies, including ICE and CBP, must willingly but swiftly reassign existing personnel now devoted to less urgent tasks so that the President’s initiative of last Friday does not become a dead letter. Our proposal for an additional grant of nunc pro tunc parole in place to individuals who have already been conferred deferred action will at least allow them to enter the regular immigration system and hope to adjust status to permanent residence, or consular process, and thus on the path to citizenship, should they become the beneficiaries of approved family or employment-based petitions. Again, as we noted earlier, and as we noted in Tyranny of Priority Dates, we are not asking for the executive branch to create new forms of status. We are only asking for the Executive to remove barriers to the ability of otherwise deserving applicants for permanent residents to take advantage of the existing system. We want to emphasize there is nothing in the INA that prevents the immediate adoption of our recommendations just as there was nothing in the INA that prevented last Friday’s memorandum. We also want to emphasize that I-130’s and I-140s will still be necessary. We do not want to create a new system, only to allow the old one to work more effectively. The future is ours to shape. For those who lack faith, we remind them of Tennyson’s injunction in Ulysses: “Come my friends, ‘tis not too late to seek a newer world.”