Category: H-1B - ABIL-Immigration-Updates

H-1B Non-Immigrant Work Visa Update: USCIS Reaches FY 2019 H-1B Cap

4/9/2018

By: Bernard P. Wolfsdorf, ABIL Lawyer
Wolfsdorf Immigration Blog

USCIS has reached the congressionally-mandated 65,000 H-1B visa cap for fiscal year 2019. USCIS has also received a sufficient number of H-1B petitions to meet the 20,000 visa U.S. advanced degree exemption, known as the master’s cap.The USCIS will reject and return filing fees for all unselected cap-subject petitions that are not prohibited.

USCIS will continue to accept and process petitions that are otherwise exempt from the cap. Petitions filed for current H-1B workers who have been counted previously against the cap, and who still retain their cap number, will also not be counted toward the FY 2019 H-1B cap. USCIS will continue to accept and process petitions filed to:

• Extend the amount of time a current H-1B worker may remain in the United States;
• Change the terms of employment for current H-1B workers;
• Allow current H-1B workers to change employers; and
• Allow current H-1B workers to work concurrently in a second H-1B position.
U.S. businesses use the H-1B program to employ foreign workers in occupations that require specialized knowledge.

LEVELING UP… HOW TO HANDLE THE H-1B LEVEL I WAGE ISSUE.

1/30/2018

By: Richard Yemm, Partner of Bernard P. Wolfsdorf, ABIL Lawyer
Wolfsdorf Immigration Blog

On January 25, 2018, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) published two non-precedent decisions, Matter of B-C, Inc and Matter of G-J-S-USA, Inc relating to H-1B petition denials based on the Petitioner’s classification of the proffered position as a Level I (entry-level) wage. The decision provides vital guidance to help resolve the “carnage” resulting from inconsistent interpretation and implementation of the Level 1 wage issue.

At the crux of both decisions was the issue of whether USCIS erred in comparing the Petitioner-indicated duties directly with the Department of Labor’s (DOL) generic definition of a Level I wage, i.e. “wage rates are assigned to job offers for beginning level employees who have only a basic understanding of the occupation. These employees perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment.” In these non-precedent decisions, the AAO determined that, according to DOL guidance, the proper comparison should be between the Petitioner-indicated job duties and requirements and those associated with the appropriate Occupational Information Network (O*NET) occupation.

Moreover, the AAO stated that “there is no inherent inconsistency between an entry-level position and a specialty occupation,” asserting that every case must be judged on its own merits. The AAO clarified that “for some occupations, the ‘basic understanding’ that warrants a Level I wage may require years of study, duly recognized upon the attainment of a bachelor’s degree in a specific specialty…. Likewise, at the other end of the spectrum, a Level IV wage would not necessarily reflect that an occupation qualifies as a specialty occupation if that higher-level position does not have an entry requirement of at least a bachelor’s degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent.”

We have previously discussed strategies to deal with such requests for evidence stemming from this issue and we remain hopeful that these decisions, while non-precedent, will help to clarify H-1B adjudications as we swiftly approach the FY 2019 H-1B filing season.

The Government’s “Nasty” Treatment Of Expert Opinions In Support Of H-1B Visa Petitions

11/13/2017

By: Cora-Ann Pestaina, Partner of ABIL Lawyer, Cyrus D. Mehta
The Insightful Immigration Blog

USCIS’ current ferocious attack on H-1B petitions has been discussed here, here and here. Backed by the Trump administration, USCIS has openly declared war on H-1Bs. What is most frustrating, in my opinion, is not only the fact that there appears to be a concerted effort to find some way to reject each and every logical, rational, legal argument presented in response to one of the USCIS’ Requests for Evidence (RFE) but that it appears that no argument is too baseless for USCIS to present when issuing a denial of an H-1B petition. Case in point is USCIS’ rejections of expert opinions presented to bolster an employer’s argument that an H-1B position is classifiable as a specialty occupation.

As a reminder, in order to hire a foreign worker in a specialty occupation under the H-1B category, the employer must show in its petition that the proffered position meets at least one of the following criteria:

A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position;
The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree;
The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or
The nature of the specific duties are so specialized and complex that knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree.

8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)

After USCIS issued its first wave of attack on H-1B petitions filed and selected under the FY 2018 H-1B visa lottery claiming that any position where the H-1B worker would be paid an entry-level (Level 1) wage did not appear to be a specialty occupation, previously blogged about here, this groundless claim was met with mass pushback. Without a legal leg to stand on, USCIS has largely circumvented the issue of the wage levels (although still denying some petitions on that basis) by finding ways to deny the H-1B petition on a claim that the proffered H-1B position simply fails to qualify under any of the specialty occupation prongs listed in 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). In doing so, USCIS has been rejecting expert opinion letters written by qualified experts expounding on how and why the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The arguments presented in USCIS’ rejection of these expert opinions are quite maddening.

In an effort to demonstrate that a baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position under prongs 1, 2 and/or 4 of 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), H-1B employers quite frequently solicit the opinion of an expert. This expert is usually a college professor with a rich background in the specific specialty area, who is well-experienced in reviewing and evaluating academic and experience qualifications; and who has had an opportunity to observe and compare the abilities of numerous talented students in the specialty fields, and to analyze the ways in which the educational backgrounds of these students have been applied in the professional industry. Typically, this expert has also offered opinions and analyses of the academic and professional credentials of candidates in connection with university admissions and employment positions. The expert is usually also someone who has been engaged in the preparation of equivalency evaluations and position evaluations, primarily for use with connection to immigration-related procedures, for many years, and has prepared hundreds, sometimes over 1,000 such evaluations. Accordingly, the expert is typically someone well positioned to opine on whether or not a proffered position, in his/her particular specialty field, is a specialty occupation. Pre-Trump, USCIS gave such expert opinions the respect they deserved.

However, USCIS now seeks to discredit these opinions and what’s most frustrating are the rejections reasons presented. Here are a few that this author has had the opportunity to review:

The professor did not base his opinion on any objective evidence but instead restated the proffered position as provided by the employer;
The professor’s opinion is not supported by citations of research material;
The professor did not rely on a specific study of the employer’s organization. There is no evidence that the professor knew more about the proffered position than what the employer provided. There is no indication that the professor visited the employer’s business, observed its employees, interviewed them about the nature of their work, or documented the knowledge that they apply to their jobs.
The professor’s opinion does not relate the professor’s conclusions to specific, concrete aspects of the employer’s business operations so as to demonstrate a sound factual basis for the professor’s conclusions about the educational requirements for the proffered position.
Given the professor’s limited review of the duties of the position, based largely on the job descriptions furnished by you, USCIS gives less weight to the professor’s opinion.
It was held in Matter of Caron International, Inc. 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm 1988) that legacy INS, now USCIS, may in its discretion use advisory opinion statements from universities, professional organizations, or other sources submitted in evidence as expert testimony. However, where an opinion is not in accord with other information, or is in any way questionable, USCIS is not required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence.

With some of the reasons for rejection of an expert opinion, USCIS doesn’t make it clear whether they’re expressing doubt as to whether the duties of the proffered position will actually be performed as stated, i.e. whether they think the expert is relying on facts they find not credible, or whether they’re challenging the professor’s overall credibility as an expert. In any event, whatever standard is presently being used to reject the expert opinions, it is not the preponderance of the evidence standard.

Except where a different standard is specified by law, a petitioner or applicant in administrative immigration proceedings must prove by a preponderance of evidence that he or she is eligible for the benefit sought. See e.g. Matter of Martinez, 21 I&N Dec. 1035, 1036 (BIA 1997) (noting that the petitioner must prove eligibility by a preponderance of evidence in visa petition proceedings) . . .

The “preponderance of the evidence” standard requires that the evidence demonstrate that the applicant’s claim is “probably true,” where the determination of “truth” is made based on the factual circumstances of each individual case. Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm. 1989). In evaluating the evidence, Matter of E-M- also stated that “[t]ruth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality.” Id. Thus, in adjudicating the application pursuant to the preponderance of the evidence standard, the director must examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true. Even if the director has some doubt as to the truth, if the petitioner submits relevant, probative, and credible evidence that leads the director to believe that the claim is “probably true” or “more likely than not,” the applicant or petitioner has satisfied the standard of proof. See U.S. v. Cardozo-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987) (defining “more likely than not” as a greater than 50 percent probability of something occurring).

Matter of Chawathe, A74 254 994 (Admin. Appeals Ofc. / USCIS Adopted Decision, Jan. 11, 2006).

Under the preponderance of the evidence standard, the adjudicating USCIS officer is supposed to approve the petition as long as it is “more likely than not” that their claim is true. USCIS’ recent denials rejecting expert opinions show that this standard is surely not being applied. As an expert, a professor may review the job duties of the proffered position and formulate his opinion based on his expert knowledge of the specialty field, which knowledge would have been explained at length in his opinion letter. The expert need not conduct a specific study of an employer’s organization. He need not visit an employer’s business or observe its employees. His expertise is typically set forth in his opinion letter and he need not provide the USCIS with copies or citations of research material.

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, which are not binding on H-1B adjudications but may be a useful analogy, a witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:

(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;

(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;

(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and

(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) Rule 702, https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702. Moreover, an expert may base an opinion on facts or data in the case that the expert has been made aware of or personally observed. If experts in the particular field would reasonably rely on those kinds of facts or data in forming an opinion on the subject, they need not be admissible for the opinion to be admitted. But if the facts or data would otherwise be inadmissible, the proponent of the opinion may disclose them to the jury only if their probative value in helping the jury evaluate the opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect. FRE Rule 703 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_703. Thus, even under the Federal Rules of Evidence, first-hand knowledge is not necessarily required even if the expert were testifying in federal court! An expert can legitimately have an opinion about “facts or data in the case that the expert has been made aware of”, (such as the job duties of a proffered H-1B petition) not merely those which he has “personally observed”. Immigration proceedings don’t follow the Federal Rules of Evidence, but rather the rules of evidence ought to be more relaxed, not stricter!

So why is USCIS suddenly stretching to find fault with these expert opinions? The USCIS may disregard the expert opinion, but it may only reject such an opinion if it is not in accord with other information in the record or is otherwise questionable. In Matter of Skirball Cultural Center, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) held that uncontroverted testimony of an expert is reliable, relevant, and probative as to the specific facts in issue. In that case, the AAO specifically pointed out that the director did not question the credentials of the experts, take issue with their knowledge or otherwise find reason to doubt the veracity of their testimony. But when it comes to the denials of H-1B petitions, it is all too easy to claim doubt, to take issue with the expert’s knowledge and to coolly dismiss the expert opinion.

So are expert opinions still worth it? I would argue that they are. First, H-1B adjudications are still haphazard. There is always a chance that the opinion may be accepted. With the submission of any expert opinion it might be beneficial to include an argument on why the opinion ought to be accepted reminding USCIS of the applicable standard. While in most cases it may not benefit the H-1B employer or beneficiary in the short run, H-1B practitioners must continue to fight back. We cannot go gentle into that good night. A rejection of the expert opinion would lead to a conclusion that USCIS is setting a standard for expert opinions that is even higher than the Federal Rules of Evidence and that would contravene the applicable preponderance of the evidence standard. These denials need to be appealed to the AAO. If the AAO denies, the denial can also be challenged in federal court. In Fred 26 Importers, Inc. v. DHS, 445 F.Supp.2d 1174, 1180-81 (C.D. Cal. 2006) the federal court reversed the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) where it failed to address expert affidavits and other evidence that a human resource manager position was sufficiently complex and rejected the H-1B because it was a small company. The court held that the AAO abused its discretion when it did not take into account the expert opinion evidence presented by the petitioner to prove that the position required a broad range of skills acquired through a four-year university degree. It is only through continued pushback that these erroneous denials will come to an end.

Hazards of Various Forms of Leave At the Point of Termination of H-1B Employment

5/16/2017

by Michelle Velasco, Associate with ABIL member, Cyrus D. Mehta
The Insightful Immigration Blog

In most cases, termination of H-1B employment by either the at-will employer or employee is fairly straightforward. Once termination takes place, the employer in most cases is required to offer to pay the reasonable costs of the H-1B worker’s return transportation abroad, and the employer also should inform USCIS of the termination in order to withdraw the H-1B. For further details about the employer’s obligations at the point of termination, see Employer Not Always Obligation To Pay Return Transportation Costs Of An H-1B Worker. Since USCIS published its Final Rule “Retention of EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3 Immigrant Workers and Program Improvements Affecting High-Skilled Nonimmigrant Workers” in January 2017, workers in H-1B status can now benefit from a 60-day grace period during which they may try to get employment at another company or prepare to leave for their home countries. See 8 CFR 214.1(2).

And then there are the unique situations that require a more nuanced look at the rules and laws around various forms of leave. What happens when there is a contract for a garden leave, non-compete, or long-term notice period? How do various forms of employment contracts affect this? How does the recent USCIS announcement of increased fraud investigations affect how employers and workers alike prepare for potential site visits? These are questions that H-1B employers and employees alike should explore.

USCIS has long recognized leaves of absences for H-1B employees to be valid, and these employees would still maintain status even during a lengthy leave of absence. Legacy INS policy is that an alien employed by the H-1B employer may take an extended leave and still be considered to maintain status ( See Letter of Efren Hernandez II, Director, then Business and Trade Services Branch of the Office of Adjudications, to Wendi S. Lazar, Esq. (March 27, 2001), reprinted, 78 INTERREL 616, Appx. II (Apr. 2, 2001)). So long as the employer-employee relationship exists, the employee will maintain in status, and “the employer-employee relationship continues to exist when there is an identifiable tie between the employer and the alien.” Thus, paid or unpaid leaves of absence, such as maternity or paternity leave, or for health or other personal reasons, would be recognized and the H-1B worker can maintain status throughout the leave so long as the employer-employee relationship continues.

As a policy memo or advisory letter does not have the same effect as a statute or regulation, USCIS could still decide that even an employee who is fully compensated while in non-productive status has failed to maintain lawful nonimmigrant status. In fact, in a 1999 advisory opinion concerning reductions in force, USCIS indicated that a severance package that offered terminated H-1B and L-1 employees their normal compensation and benefits for a 60-day period did not preserve the beneficiaries’ nonimmigrant status. Specifically, Branch Chief Simmons wrote, “An H-1B nonimmigrant alien is admitted to the United States for the sole purpose of providing services to his or her United States employer. Once H-1B nonimmigrant alien’s services for the petitioning United States employer are terminated, the alien is no longer in a valid nonimmigrant status” (See Letter of Thomas W. Simmons, Brach Chief, Business and Trade Branch to Harry J. Joe, HQ 70/6.2.8, HQ 70/6.2.12, reprinted in 76 NO. 9 Interpreter Releases 378 (March 8, 1999)). However, an H-1B worker who has not been terminated, but is on leave, can distinguish his or her situation from one who has indeed been terminated.

Non-compete clauses or restrictive covenants are common in highly competitive industries where intellectual property is extremely valuable. They are sometimes also called garden leaves when the employee, usually highly compensated, is paid throughout the non-compete period. Non-compete agreements restrict employees from directly or indirectly engaging in employment with any competitor during a certain agreed-upon time period. Although non-compete arrangements are frowned upon when they apply to lesser compensated employees who are not paid during the restricted period, thus preventing them from taking new jobs, these garden leave arrangements are distinguishable as they apply to highly compensated employees who are fully paid during the restricted period and who possess valuable knowledge of the company. They are often enforced after termination of employment, meaning they can adversely affect nonimmigrant workers who cannot start employment at a competing firm for upwards of 12 months in some cases. Although an H-1B employee subject to a 12-month non-compete might be able to stay in the U.S. during the 60-day grace period, after that time, he would no longer have status in the U.S. because H-1B employment has been terminated and he could not violate the non-compete agreement by starting work at a competing firm. That H-1B employee would have to leave the U.S., upend his life, and move himself and perhaps family members abroad to wait out the non-compete period. This can cause tremendous chaos and uncertainty. And it matters not whether the employee is being paid by the employer during the non-compete period: if it is taking place after termination of the H-1B employment, the employee has no choice but to leave the U.S. or else risk being in violation of status and even accrue unlawful presence once the 60-day period lapses. Ideally, non-competes enforced after termination of employment should last 60 days so that the grace period can cover it. If at all possible, H-1B employees should negotiate down the non-compete periods if they wish to avoid having to leave the U.S. for an extended amount of time to wait out the non-compete.

In some cases, the non-compete period takes place before formal termination of employment. In essence, the H-1B worker is in the U.S. not permitted to work for her employer, yet also not permitted to seek employment at a competing firm. Usually the employee is also paid the H-1B wage throughout this period. In such a situation, even if the leave is in connection with an eventual termination of employment, it is nonetheless arguably permissible so long as the H-1B worker is treated as an employee and receives the regular paychecks. In the event the worker is terminated before the H-1B petition expires, the 60-day grace period begins and the worker maintains H-1B status in that time. The employer at that point should effectuate a bona fide termination by offering the return transportation, if applicable, and sending notification to the USCIS regarding the termination.

Further, this unique situation begs the question: must the employer pay the H-1B worker throughout this pre-termination non-compete period? The answer is “yes’, according to this author. The DOL “no benching rule” requires employers to pay the H-1B worker who is not working due to a nonproductive status brought about at the direction of the employer (benching because of lack of work or a lack of permit/license). See 20 C.F.R. §655.731(c)(7)(i); INA §212(n)(2)(B)(vii). But if the nonproductive period is due to conditions unrelated to employment at the employee’s voluntary request and convenience, such as to take care of a sick relative, or maternity leave, employers do not have to pay a salary. Id. Non-competes may not necessarily fit neatly into either category since this was not a period requested voluntarily by the employee and it is also not similar to a stop in the employment for lack of work. However, since the employer considers the H-1B worker to still be employed and is the party imposing the non-compete, the employer should be paying the salary in order to avoid being held liable for back wages during the non-compete period. Is it also problematic that someone is being paid an H-1B salary for effectively not working for many months? It seems counterintuitive to allow this to occur because much of the H-1B’s regulations are meant to ensure that foreign workers do not displace or hurt the wages or working conditions of U.S. workers. However, under the LCA regulations, there is no violation so long as the H-1B worker continues to be paid the required H-1B wage as listed on the LCA, whether or not the individual is performing the tasks of the position.

Recently the USCIS announced that it would increase site visits to find H-1B visa fraud and abuse. The approach involves targeting H-1B dependent employers and instances where employers have placed their H-1B workers at customer or client worksites. Increased site visits will likely mean that sometimes they will involve the H-1Bs of workers who might be spending time in a non-compete or garden leave period. During such a site visit, the employer must be prepared to answer questions about all of its nonimmigrant employees, including those who may be away from the office due to an enforced non-compete. If possible, the employer should present copies of the non-compete agreement in writing, whether it was a clause in the employment agreement or a separately negotiated contract. The employer should also monitor the date the non-compete period started, and also have ready access (if possible) to pay statements in order to demonstrate that the H-1B worker is still paid the required LCA wage and remains employed.

Lastly, it should be noted that the H-1B worker who is subject to a non-compete should be very careful about travel. Even with a valid visa and ongoing salary payments, it would be difficult for an H-1B worker to explain upon reentering the U.S. that he or she is not going to be performing work, even if employed at the H-1B employer. On the other hand, if the still employed H-1B worker can justify that he or she is maintaining H-1B status even under the non-compete, then the H-1B worker has a good argument to being admitted into the United States in H-1B status. While the law relating to H-1B status at the point of termination is grey, this blog points out situations that allow nonimmigrant workers to compete with US workers for highly compensated jobs, and thus participate in its rewards and risks, including being able to maintain status during paid garden leave. The same logic can apply to highly compensated nonimmigrant workers in other statuses such as L-1, TN, O-1, E-3 or H-1B1.

Avoid The Confusion: Complying With The Simeio Decision One Year Later

7/10/2016

by Michelle Velasco, Associate with ABIL member, Cyrus D. Mehta
The Insightful Immigration Blog

Employers of roving H-1B employees have scratched their heads in confusion over the Administrative Appeals Office’s April 9, 2015 decision, Matter of Simeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542 (AAO 2015), discussed in detail in this blog here, here and here. This is because while the decision lays out the requirements for filing an amendment when an H-1B worker’s worksite changes, but is mute on a variety of other situations that employers may face.

Briefly, the Simeio decision, formalized in a USCIS final guidance on July 14, 2016, requires H-1B employers to file an amended petition when there is a change in the H-1B employee’s place of employment requiring a new LCA to be certified, with the following exceptions:

When it is a move within the same “area of intended employment”
When the move is a short term placement pursuant to 20 CFR 655.735
When the move is to a non-worksite location, such as in cases where:
The H-1B employee is going to a location merely to participate in developmental activity, such as attending conferences or seminars;
The H-1B employee spends little time at any one location; or
The job is “peripatetic in nature” per 20 CFR 655.715.

The same final guidance from USCIS provided for a safe harbor period for employers to comply with the decision’s rules so that for any moves made prior to the Simeio decision or that took place after April 9, 2015 but before August 19, 2015, employers would be able to file an amendment by January 15, 2016. But for any moves that take place after August 19, 2015 the employer must first file an amendment before the H-1B employee starts at the new worksite.

Now that it has been more than 1 year since the decision and at least six months since the safe harbor due date in January 2016, it would be helpful to assess compliance in various situations including those where it may not be entirely clear whether an amendment pursuant to Simeio is required. To that end, here are some fact patterns where some H-1B employers may wonder whether precisely an amendment is warranted.
Fact Pattern #1: Employee Edgar has been at worksite A since January 2015. Worksite A is in New York City. His employer ABC Company now wishes to assign him to a project for a new client located at worksite B, in Piscataway, NJ. Must ABC Company file an amendment?

Here, the analysis turns on whether Piscataway, NJ and New York City are in the same “area of intended employment.” According to the National Bureau of Statistics (BLS)’s definitions of Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) as designated by the Office of Management and Budget, Piscataway and New York City are indeed within the same MSA. But does this mean that they are within the same area of intended employment? It is not very clear. The Final Guidance provides as an example a change in worksite within the New York City metropolitan area as one that does not require an amendment. According to 20 CFR 655.1300, an area of intended employment is defined, within the regulations for an H-2A filing as:

the geographic area within normal commuting distance of the place (worksite address) of the job opportunity for which certification is sought. There is no rigid measure of distance which constitutes a normal commuting distance or normal commuting area, because there may be widely varying factual circumstances among different areas (e.g., average commuting times, barriers to reaching the worksite, quality of the regional transportation network, etc.). If the place of intended employment is within a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), including a multistate MSA, any place within the MSA is deemed to be within normal commuting distance of the place of intended employment. The borders of MSAs are not controlling in the identification of the normal commuting area; a location outside of an MSA may be within normal commuting distance of a location that is inside (e.g., near the border of) the MSA.

Based on the definition above, Piscataway and New York City would arguably be in the same area of intended employment as they are within the same multistate MSA. Here, the employer could reasonably decide not to file an amendment, though it would have to post the LCA at the new worksite for the required ten days.
Fact Pattern #2: Employee Edgar has been at worksite A since January 2015. Worksite A is in New York City. His employer ABC Company now wishes to assign him to a project for a new client located at worksite B, in Chicago, IL. However, he will only be there for about 24 days and then he will return to work at worksite A. Must ABC Company file an amendment?

Since the new worksite is not within the same area of intended employment, ABC Company could file an amendment here. However, since Edgar would only be at the new client’s site for 24 days, ABC Company could avail itself of the short-term placement option. Pursuant to 20 CFR 655.735, an employer may place an employee for up to 30 days at a worksite on a short-term placement (and in some cases 60 days where the employee is still based at the “home” worksite”). During the time spent at this worksite, the employee must be treated as a per diem employee, and the employer must pay all expenses such as housing and travel. If ABC Company decides to use the short-term placement option for Edgar, then it would not have to file an amendment. If it chooses not to use the short-term placement option, then ABC Company should file an amendment before Edgar travels to Chicago. Since it already is aware that after this short assignment Edgar will return to New York City, ABC Company ought to place both New York City and Chicago on the LCA and provide an itinerary in the H-1B petition.

Fact Pattern #3: In the original petition, employee Edgar’s place of employment was listed as ABC Company’s headquarters located in New York City, a home office. Edgar’s position is peripatetic in nature and he must travel to various client sites constantly. When he is not traveling, he may telecommute to employer ABC Company’s headquarters from his home located in San Antonio, Texas. Must ABC Company file an amendment now?

Here, it is not entirely clear whether an amendment is required. Edgar’s position is peripatetic in nature and may fall into one of the exceptions under the Simeio rule. Moreover, when he is not traveling, he is telecommuting to ABC Company’s headquarters. However, the LCA did not list his home office as his place of employment. Simeio is silent on telecommuting and instead only discusses actual changes in the work location. Here, ABC Company could file an amendment in an abundance of caution, providing a certified LCA listing both New York City and Edgar’s home as work locations, and explain that the ambiguity in the Simeio rules with regard to telecommuting warrants the favorable exercise of USCIS’s discretion.

Fact Pattern #4: Employee Edgar is on a TN and his coworker Emily is on an E-3. They both work for ABC Company in New York City on the same project. ABC Company now needs them to transfer to a new project located in San Francisco, CA. Would ABC Company need to file an amendment?

Neither Edgar nor Emily are in H-1B status. Simeio only touches upon changes in worksite location for H-1B workers, and it does not discuss whether the rule extends to similar nonimmigrant temporary employment visas such as the TN and E-3. Furthermore, there would be nowhere that ABC Company could file an amendment since TNs and E-3s are applied for by the nonimmigrant at either port of entries or consular posts abroad. There is therefore no petition with USCIS that ABC Company could amend. Furthermore, in the case of a TN, no LCA is filed with the Department of Labor, and so the crux of the decision in Simeio, that a change in worksite location requiring a new certified LCA is a material change, has no bearing on a TN. Theoretically, however, if ABC Company had filed an extension of status for Emily through USCIS by filing the Form I-129, and then a change in worksite occurred, then ABC Company could choose to, in an abundance of caution, file an amendment in the spirit of the Simeio guidance.

Fact Pattern #5: Emily is on an H-1B and working for ABC Company. She is at a client site in Atlanta, Georgia and her employer’s headquarters is in New York City. The LCA for the H-1B petition contained both Atlanta and New York City as places of employment. ABC Company wishes to move her from Atlanta to work from their headquarters. Must ABC Company file an amendment?

Here, both New York and Atlanta are on the original LCA. Even if there is a change in employment location from Atlanta to New York City, there would not be an amendment required under Simeio because no change warranted a new certified LCA and thus no material change occurred that requires an amended petition.

Fact Pattern #6: Esther is on an H-1B, and was working at a client site in Minneapolis from November 2014 until May 2015 when she was transferred to a client site in Jacksonville, Florida. Prior to that transfer, her employer obtained a new LCA for Jacksonville, but did not file an amendment. Her employer now wishes to move her to a worksite in Philadelphia. Must ABC Company file an amendment?

Yes! ABC Company should have filed an amendment when Esther’s worksite changed from Minneapolis to Jacksonville. This change occurred after the Simeio decision and therefore, ABC Company should have filed an amendment by January 15, 2016. Since it did not, it is not in compliance with the Simeio decision and may face fines and other sanctions for violating the new rule. ABC Company may investigate whether Esther’s employment is peripatetic in nature or whether she was telecommuting in which case they may not have been required to file an amendment. With the new planned change in worksite to Philadelphia, ABC Company very likely will need to file an amendment before Esther moves to the new worksite. ABC Company should try to explain in its amended petition the reasons why an amendment had not been filed prior to Esther’s move to Jacksonville, discuss any extraordinary circumstances that may have led to the failure of filing the amendment, and seek favorable discretion from the USCIS pursuant to 8 CFR 214.1(c)(4). If the extension of status is denied because Company ABC failed to file the amendment timely, then Esther could still leave the U.S. and undergo consular processing for her H-1B visa.

With regard to whether Esther may have accrued unlawful presence, we would argue that she did not since unlawful presence during a period of authorized stay only is triggered once the USCIS makes an adverse finding regarding her status. In this case, if USCIS were to deny the extension of status and make an adverse finding, the unlawful presence would only trigger from the adverse finding and not retroactively.

The above are just a few examples of scenarios that H-1B employers face that require them to analyze the best ways to comply with the Simeio decision. Because of the complex ways in which companies conduct business in the modern world, it is imperative that H-1B employers remain up-to-date on the latest rules with regard to compliance with H-1B employment, particularly for roving employees. It has been one year since the Simeio decision and the safe harbor period has expired. If employers anticipate that H-1B workers will need to change worksites in the future, it is helpful to perform due diligence and plan accordingly for the H-1B amendments that it will need to file. Some employers prepare certified LCAs for various worksites in advance, so that when changes in worksites occur, the H-1B amendment can be filed quickly without waiting the usual 7 days for the LCA to be certified. If an LCA is prepared in advance, the employer must still comply with the attestation requirements relating to the anticipated worksite(s), including posting the LCA for 10 days at each worksite listed on the LCA. Employers should also be ready with the required documents to demonstrate its right to control the H-1B employee’s employment (i.e. contracts, work orders, end client letters, etc.) and that there is sufficient H-1B work to be performed at the new site. Some employers may opt to plan an itinerary and appropriate LCA if it anticipates that a single H-1B employee may move several times within the H-1B validity period so that it would not have to file multiple amendments for the same employee. Lastly, employers that anticipate worksite changes lasting 60 days or less should examine whether it could opt for a short-term placement and budget accordingly for it.

Since the surprise decision was issued last year, it has been a costly and burdensome process for many H-1B employers who suddenly needed to file multiple amendments for their employees when before the decision new certified LCAs would suffice. It particularly hurts employers in the tech sector who rely on H-1Bs for employees who work on various projects throughout the year for different clients. The ruling also ignores the realities of business today – which is that, often, tech employers must provide consultants for projects very quickly or else risk losing the contract with the customer. Filing amendment after amendment cuts into companies’ bottom line, ignores the modern methods of business in IT consulting, and overall has a negative effect on this bustling field of American technology. One sliver of a silver lining has been that employers who are subject to the super fee under Public Law 114-113 (employers who have 50 or more employees, 50% or more of whom are in H-1B or L-1 status; see our blog about this fee here) need not pay the $4000 super fee for amendments as the fee is only required for initial H-1Bs and H-1B transfer petitions. Still, it has indeed been a year of adjustments. Because it has indeed only been one year, no official statistics have been released about how USCIS has dealt with non-compliance with the Simeio decision. It remains unclear whether the USCIS or DOL will issue penalties or fees against employers who have failed to comply with Simeio, whether H-1B petitions will be revoked, and exactly how much discretion USCIS will wield when there had been a good faith effort to file the amendment but it was not done timely.

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

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

1/16/2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How One Employee’S Complaint Can Lead to a Full Blown Investigation of an H-1B Employer’S LCA Records

12/30/2015

by Cora-Ann Pestaina, Associate with ABIL member, Cyrus D. Mehta
The Insightful Immigration Blog
A recent U.S. Court of Appeals decision in Greater Missouri Medical Pro-Care Providers, Inc.ARB Case No. 12-015, ALJ Case No. 2008-LCA-26 (2014), is worth noting as it addressed the issue of how much latitude the DOL has to investigate an H-1B employer’s H-1B documents and records.

As background, an employer seeking to employ a temporary foreign worker in H-1B (also H-1B1 or E-3) nonimmigrant status must, as the first step in the petition process, file a Labor Condition Application (LCA) with the Department of Labor (DOL) and receive certification. The LCA is completed on electronic Form 9035 and submitted through the DOL’s iCERT system. The LCA collects information about the occupation including the occupational title, the number of immigrants sought, the gross wage rate to be paid, the starting and ending dates of employment, the place of employment, and the prevailing wage for the occupation in the area of intended employment. The LCA contains special attestation requirements for employers who previously committed willful violations of the law or for employers who are deemed to be H-1B dependent. The employer must also state that its employment of nonimmigrants will not adversely affect the working conditions of workers similarly employed in the area of intended employment. An employer is permitted to file the LCA no more than six months before the initial date of intended employment. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(n)(1)ID); 20 C.F.R. §§ 655.730-733.

Once the LCA is filed, the DOL must approve it within 7 days unless the application is incomplete or obviously inaccurate. 20 C.F.R. §§ 655.740(a)(1)-(2). Within one day of the LCA filing, the employer must maintain a public access file accessible to interested and aggrieved parties. The file must be available at either the principal employer’s place of business or at the employee worksite. 20 C.F.R. § 655.760(a). An aggrieved employee has 12 months after the latest date on which an alleged violation was committed to file a complaint with the DOL Wage and Hour Division (WHD). 20 C.F.R. § 655.806(a)(5).

In Greater Missouri, the employer hired numerous physical and occupational therapists from the Philippines on H-1B status. As required, the employer filed LCA applications for the desired workers. One H-1B employee, a physical therapist from the Philippines, filed a complaint alleging that she had personally paid all the fees, including attorney’s fees, to file and to extend her H-1B status and that the employer failed to pay her during a nonproductive period of over one year when she was reviewing for her licensing exam. The employee also questioned whether the H-1B employer was legally permitted to charge her a fee for “breach of contract” due to her early termination of her employment.

Upon review of the employee’s complaint (forwarded to the DOL by the Missouri state regulators), the DOL treated it as an “aggrieved party” complaint and the DOL investigator concluded that there was “reasonable cause” to investigate the charge that the H-1B employer had attempted to require the employee to pay a penalty for ceasing her employment early. Based only on the determination that this one charge was worth investigating, the DOL investigator launched a full scale investigation and sent a letter to the H-1B employer requesting all of its H-1B documents and records. The DOL investigator also interviewed the aggrieved employee and the employer’s other H-1B workers.

Based on its investigations, the DOL found that the employer improperly failed to pay wages to employees who it had placed in nonproductive status (benched); made improper deductions from employee wages for H-1B petition fees; and required or attempted to require improper penalty payments from some employees for early termination. The employer was ordered to pay over $380,000 in back wages to 45 employees.

The employer fought back by requesting a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The employer argued that the applicable statute and regulations limited the DOL’s investigation to the specific issues of the complaint that was filed and only to that aggrieved party’s LCA. The employer also argued that the statute and regulations impose a 12 month time limit for investigating violations. However, the ALJ held that the 12 month time limit only refers to when a complaint can be filed and does not refer to the scope of remedies that can be meted out. The ALJ issued a decision ordering the employer to pay back wages, fees for illegal fee deductions and amounts to employees for illegally withholding paychecks. When the ALJ failed to hold in the employer’s favor, the employer petitioned for review before the Administrative Review Board (ARB).

The ARB held that the DOL indeed had the authority to investigate alleged violations involving H-1B workers who did not file complaints but also held that violations that occurred outside of the 12 month period prior to the filing of a complaint are not actionable. However, the ARB affirmed the order for employer to pay awards. The employer took the case up to the District Court which affirmed the ARB’s decision and payment of awards. The employer then appealed to the US Court of Appeals. The DOL did not appeal the District Court’s ruling that violations that occurred outside the 12 month period are not actionable.

In the end, the Court of Appeals held that the DOL’s initial investigatory authority is limited to the complaint that was filed and to those specific allegations and the DOL was not authorized to launch a comprehensive investigation of the employer based only on a single allegation by one employee. The Court of Appeals recognized that additional violations could come to light in the course of the DOL’s investigation of a single complaint and that the DOL may need to modify or expand its investigation based on reasonable cause. However, the Court of Appeals found that this was not how the investigation proceeded in the instant case. The Court of Appeals held that the awards cannot stand because the ARB’s finding of violations and the resulting awards were based entirely on the DOL’s unauthorized investigation of matters other than the allegation in the aggrieved party’s complaint. The US Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the District Court.

While this was ultimately a victory for the H-1B employer and it is good to note that the DOL does not have sweeping authority to investigate allegations of violations that fall outside of the 12-month statute of limitations, this case is nevertheless a cautionary tale for all H-1B employers. Even a single complaint from one disgruntled employee could lead to a comprehensive investigation of the employer’s H-1B practices. Even though the Court of Appeals in Greater Missouri found that the DOL had overstepped in its initial investigation, the court also pointed out that the DOL may modify its investigation of a single complaint if other violations come to light. Greater Missouri also highlights the fact that once allegations are made, the employer bears the burden of proof to prove that it has complied with the LCA attestations. Therefore, the importance of excellent record keeping cannot be overstated.

Going into 2016, it would be a good idea for any H-1B employer that is not 100% confident in its LCA records, and its ability to withstand a DOL audit of those records, to conduct a self-audit on behalf of the employer and bring to light any issues that the employer can immediately correct and ensure that it is in compliance. Such a self-audit will give the employer the confidence that it needs should the DOL ever launch an investigation and will help the employer to avoid the potential financial and reputation damage that could come from such an investigation. When it comes to DOL investigations, the proactive approach is always best.

Meet Our New Friend: Who is an "H-1B Skilled Worker Dependent Employer" in Senate Immigration Bill, S. 744?

6/10/2013

by Cyrus D. Mehta, ABIL Lawyer and Gary Endelman
The Insightful Immigration Blog

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? Both a dependent employer and SWDEs are 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.

The H-1B Process Gets Even Harder: DOL Proposes Dramatic Changes to the LCA Form

7/23/2012

by Cora-Ann Pestaina, Associate with ABIL member, Cyrus D. Mehta
The Insightful Immigration Blog

I still think longingly of the days when certification of a Labor Condition Application (“LCA”) could be obtained within seconds. Three years ago, the Department of Labor (DOL) mandated that all LCA filings must be filed through its iCERT portal (http://icert.doleta.gov/) and that each application form, also changed to request additional, new information, would be manually reviewed prior to certification. This change increased the official LCA processing time from a few seconds to 7 business days. Human error and other systemic problems at the onset of the change resulted in filings taking three weeks or longer to process which led to late filings on H-1B petitions, a public outcry and US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) temporarily allowing employers to file H-1B petitions without certified LCAs! The new iCERT system forced H-1B employers to change their approach to filing H-1B petitions. The LCA process is about to change again.

As a background, an employer seeking to employ a temporary foreign worker in H-1B, H-1B1 or E-3 nonimmigrant status must, as the first step in the petition process, file an LCA with the DOL and receive certification. The LCA is completed on electronic Form 9035 through the DOL’s iCERT system. The LCA collects information about the occupation and there are special attestation requirements for employers who previously committed willful violations of the law or for employers who are deemed to be H-1B dependent. An employer is permitted to file the LCA no more than six months before the initial date of intended employment.

The DOL now seeks to once again revise the scope of the information collected on the LCA citing, in its LCA supporting statement, a desire to improve its integrity review and ensure the accuracy and completeness of the information. On July 9, 2012, the DOL published a Notice in the Federal Register announcing a 60-day comment period (to end on September 7, 2012) on its proposed changes to the form ETA-9035. In a process that is likely to take several months, the changes must be approved by the federal Office of Management and Budget before they can be implemented.

Changes include requiring more detailed information about the prevailing wage; requiring more detailed information regarding how the employer determined whether it is H-1B dependent and whether the nonimmigrant worker is an exempt employee or if not exempt, specifying the employer’s recruitment efforts to recruit US workers; and requiring the employer to list the address where the employee’s public access file is kept.

Some of the changes are even more significant.

Identification of Intended Beneficiaries

The current LCA does not require any information identifying the intended beneficiaries. The new form will collect information on the nonimmigrant(s) including name, date of birth, country of birth, country of citizenship and current visa status. If a PERM labor certification application was filed on behalf of the intended beneficiary, the PERM application number must be listed.

n its LCA supporting statement, the DOL states that this new information will allow its Wage Hour Division (WHD), which was created with the enactment of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and is responsible for the administration and enforcement of a wide range of laws which collectively cover virtually all private, State and local government employment, to more efficiently gather information during its enforcement activities and to find beneficiaries who may be entitled to back wages after an investigation. The DOL claims that this change will cause little extra burden because employers “generally know who the beneficiaries are before filing the LCA except possibly for the 2.6 percent of employers who file LCA’s for more than 10 employees.” Because iCERT saves much of the information on an LCA which can later be used to fill out other LCAs, the DOL states that it will not be overly burdensome for an employer to complete more than one LCA. The DOL also refers to its “relatively quick turnaround on LCA approval” as another reason why employers do not need to complete one LCA for large numbers of beneficiaries.

The DOL makes some valid points. The majority of employers do not need to complete an LCA for more than 10 workers at a time. iCERT indeed saves most of the information and it may not be overly burdensome to complete multiple LCAs. However, since employers are required to make LCAs available for public inspection, privacy and identity theft concerns are easily justifiable. The DOL ought to address this.

In addition, what the DOL has not addressed is the flexibility that will be lost because employers will no longer be able to use an existing, certified LCA to file a nonimmigrant petition for a new hire. The new identification requirement may be hard on large employers who file numerous H-1B petitions. The current annual cap on the H-1B category is 65,000. Each year, on April 1, USCIS begins accepting cap-subject H-1B petitions for employment to commence in the new fiscal year, on October 1. Employers typically scramble to prepare and file cap-subject H-1B petitions before the cap closes. For large employers, especially those with branches abroad, it is may be difficult to come up with a list, in March or April, as to who will be transferred to the US to work in October. These hiring decisions are ongoing and employers rely on the flexibility of the LCA which allows them to quickly file an H-1B petition using an existing, certified LCA provided it lists the correct information such as visa category, job classification, etc. This way, employers are not always forced to spend 7 business days waiting for the LCA to be certified and watching existing H-1B visa numbers dwindle.

What about that H-1B worker who just received notice from his current employer and has luckily found a new employer willing to file an H-1B on their behalf? How significant would it be if the new employer is able to use an existing, certified LCA and file an H-1B transfer petition before that worker falls out of status? What the DOL describes as a “relatively quick turnaround on LCA approval” can seem interminable in the case of an emergency. The DOL must bear in mind that no matter the emergency, it provides no expedite procedures for the LCA. Flexibility is therefore very important.

Interestingly, the new LCA would require listing the beneficiaries’ PERM application numbers. At this time, the possible acceptable responses to this question are not clear. But, since the PERM application is filed by the employer, a new employer of an H-1B transfer might not have this information. But this requirement suggests that the DOL may begin to cross reference the job opportunities in the nonimmigrant and immigrant cases as well as match the wages in both the cases.

Limiting the LCA to only 10 workers

Currently, a single LCA may be filed for up to hundreds of workers. An employer may use a single LCA to request multiple positions where they are in the same visa category and job classification and are either all part-time or all full-time positions.

The DOL now seeks to limit the number of workers to 10 per LCA explaining that it has found enforcement of LCA obligations difficult when an LCA is for 50 or 100 job opportunities and it would be a significant expenditure to build an electronic form to accept more than 10 names.

The issue, as discussed above, may not be with the limit of 10 names, but with naming requirement itself and the limitations that come from that.

Worksite Identification

The current LCA form requires the employer to identify the place(s) of intended employment. This entails listing the complete address and county where the beneficiary will work. The proposed new LCA will require significant additional detail.

The employer will have to indicate whether the intended worksite is the employer’s business premises; the employer’s private household; the worker’s private residence; or other business premises which type must then be inserted on the form. The employer must state whether the employee placement is at an end client location. If yes, the form then requires the name of the end client.

In its LCA supporting statement, the DOL stated simply that the additional information is needed for “clarification on actual worksite to enable employer to demonstrate regulatory compliance regarding changes in worksite.” This requirement could cause serious problems.

Again, the employer’s flexibility may be taken away. Currently, the employer has the flexibility to send employees to new worksite locations without filing a new LCA provided the new location is in the same area of intended employment listed on the certified LCA. See 20 C.F.R. §655.731(a)(2) which states that the wage on an LCA is valid for the area of intended employment. If each LCA has to list the end client information, will the employer be required to complete a new LCA each time it moves an employee even if it is within the intended area of employment?

Also, in cases where the employer is filing a change of status petition on behalf of the beneficiary or the beneficiary is abroad and will obtain an H-1B visa to enter the US, until the beneficiary is lawfully present in the United States in valid H-1B status and is thereby authorized to accept employment in the United States, the employer cannot hold him out as an employee. See 8 C.F.R § 274a.1(c) and (f). Therefore, the employer may not be able to obtain that end client agreement prior to preparing the LCA.

Business immigration practitioners may already know that cases involving telecommuting and roving employees are currently being given increased scrutiny by the DOL. In light of that, the proposed changes to the LCA form are not surprising and seem to stem from some concern on the part of the DOL, with regard to LCA compliance and the bona fides of the offer of employment. Following the request for end client information on the proposed form is the irrelevant and possibly offending question, “Is this a bona fide job opportunity?” The DOL’s makes no effort to hide its blatant mistrust of the employer who places its employee at an end client site.

In recent times, the US government has taken small steps to attract foreign workers and to show that they are an asset rather than a liability. The changes to the LCA will again add more burdens on the employer by eliminating flexibility. On March 12, 2012, the USCIS issued revised guidance indicating that the failure to obtain an end client letter would not be fatal to an H-1B petition. The DOL is now insisting on exactly that by requiring that the precise worksite be listed on the LCA. We need less regulation rather than more in order for US companies to attract global talent. In addition to the proposed changes to the LCA, there is proposed legislation in the form of HR 3012 (following the compromise between Senators Grassley and Schumer) that will grant the DOL draconian powers in denying LCAs based on undefined indicators of suspected fraud and thus hold up the processing of H-1B petitions. Are the proposed changes to the LCA form taking two steps back?

Stop the Assault on Employment Immigration to the USA

3/2/2012

by Cyrus D. Mehta, ABIL Lawyer
The Insightful Immigration Blog

At the behest of Senator Grassley (R-IA), the DHS Office of Inspector General recently issue a controversial report, The Effects of USCIS Adjudication Procedures and Policies on Fraud Detection by Immigration Service Officers. I wonder about the intentions of Senator Grassley who put a hold on the Fairness For High Skilled Immigrants Act, which passed the Republican controlled House of Representatives by a landslide on November 29, 2011. More recently, Senator Grassley also put a hold on the Startup Visa Act, which has also received bipartisan support. Is he truly concerned about the integrity of the system or is there a deeper hidden agenda. Mind you, he has also been a foe of immigration from India with his recent opposition to the use of the H-1B and B-1 visas by Indian IT professionals. It is amazing how one Senator, who has only one vote among 100 Senators, can have so much influence over immigration policy. It is time to speak out.

The report stems from a pet concern of Senator Grassley, as expressed by Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith in a February 15, 2012 hearing before the House Subcommittee on Immigration, about whether “senior [USCIS] leaders are putting pressure on employees to approve more visa applications, even if the applications might be fraudulent or the applicant is ineligible.”

The Inspector General interviewed 147 managers and staff, received 256 responses to an online survey, and reviewed USCIS policies related to the effort to detect benefit fraud. The report was based on testimonials, not empirical data. The report recommended process improvements, such as instituting more training and collaboration to improve the fraud referral process; developing additional quality assurance or supervisory review procedures to strengthen identification of names and aliases of those seeking an immigration benefit; performing nationwide onsite outreach efforts to discuss the performance management system with Immigration Service Officers (ISOs); developing standards to permit more time for an ISO's review of case files; revising policy on requests for evidence (RFEs) to clarify the role that the requests play in the adjudication process; and developing a policy to "establish limitations for [USCIS] managers and attorneys when they intervene in the adjudication of specific cases." The report stated that "special treatment of complainants fosters a sense among ISOs that USCIS inappropriately grants benefits in certain cases."

The report noted that "[t]here may be a basis for clarifying adjudication policy for O visa petitions. A low approval rate is not one of them." The Inspector General found that O visa petitions are granted at a high rate. "Quality assurance information we examined demonstrates that excessive O visa approvals are more likely than denials." The report stated, "From January 2008 through March 2011, the California and Vermont service centers approved 40,719 of 44,386 O visa petitions (91.7%). This approval rate exceeds the approval rate for many other nonimmigrant worker petitions. During the same time period, the two centers approved 78.5% of H-1B (specialty occupations) and 76.1% of L-1B (specialized knowledge worker) petitions."

The Inspector General's report noted, however, that: (1) the testimonial evidence shared by interviewees may not represent views shared by other employees; (2) USCIS has taken action to diminish threats to the immigration benefits system; (3) general employee concerns about the impact of production pressure in the quality of ISO decisions "do not mean that systemic problems compromise the ability of USCIS to detect fraud and security threats; (4) "[n]o ISOs presented us with cases where benefits were granted to those who pose terrorist or national security threats"; and (5) "[e]ven those employees who criticized management expressed confidence that USCIS would never compromise national security on a given case."

The report concluded, however, that "[e]ven with the additional security checks and process improvements USCIS has made in the past several years, national security and fraud concerns may require more thorough review of immigration applications and petitions." The OIG noted that "[a]dditional documentation, or further insight gained through more interview questions, would ensure that ISOs have greater confidence before making a decision." Also, the report suggests that "Congress may wish to raise the standard of proof for some or all USCIS benefit issuance decisions."

As an immigration practitioner, the Inspector General’s conclusions about applications being granted too easily have no bearing with reality. A filing of an H-1B or L petition, especially in certain industries such as IT consulting, results in a lengthy and detailed RFE asking for every aspect of the job duties, elaborate itineraries and unrealistic work schedules (such as the percentage of time performing each duty) and other unnecessarily and trivial information about the employer and the employment. This is true even if the USCIS has been approving an H-1B petition previously on the exact facts for the very same worker who must be now be on his 10th year in H-1B status. Also, in the case of an H-1B worker in an IT consulting company who is placed at a third party client, the employer has to repeatedly demonstrate that it has a right of control under the Neufeld Memo over this worker’s employment even if the employer demonstrated this in great detail when it last filed a request for an H-1B extension.

Senator Grassley, I ask you to put yourself in the shoes of this H-1B worker who has an approved I-140 immigrant visa petition for the green card, but is still waiting endlessly for it, along with his family, only because of the long waits in the EB-2 or EB-3 for India. If you did not put a hold on the Fairness for High Skilled Immigrants Act, this H-1B worker may have received a green card by now or close to receiving one. He now needs to wait nervously each year for an approval, with the fear that the H-1B may be denied this time around even though it got approved under the same facts the year before and the year before that. If the H-1B gets denied this time under some arbitrarily invented heightened scrutiny standard, he and his family will fall out of status and will have to most likely need to leave the US after working in the US legally for 10 years, paying taxes and otherwise contributing to the productivity of his employer and clients. He will also be forced to yank his brilliant children out of school disrupting their lives and causing great turmoil in their young impressionable minds.

If the OIG report becomes USCIS policy, it will kill and stifle a US employer’s ability to bring in skilled foreign national workers on H-1B, L-1 and O-1 visas. Despite Senator Grassley placing a hold on the Startup Visa Act, the DHS in August 2011 announced initiatives for entrepreneurs who founded their own startups to be able to have the company file for an H-1B visa on their behalf. This initiative too will get killed because if the government wants to look for fraud for the sake of satisfying certain statistical requirements, it will find it by shifting the goal posts. Look how many times over the past 10 years the USCIS has redefined what it means by the US equivalent of an Indian bachelor’s degree or equivalent education, thus blowing apart I-140 petitions approved after the employer meticulously but unsuccessfully tested the US labor market. Or look how the Neufeld Memo has been aimed against a very successful business model that has served the needs of Fortune 500 US corporations. If we see stricter adjudications, the US will be deprived of the talents and vision of foreign entrepreneurs who have a burning desire to set up startups in the US even in the absence of the Startup Visa Act, which have the potential to do brilliantly well like Google, E-bay or Yahoo.

At the February 15, 2012 Congressional hearing, the testimony of Bo Cooper, former General Counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, is worth noting. Summaries of other witnesses at this Congressional hearing can be found in our forthcoming March 2012 Immigration Update. Mr. Cooper said that USCIS has released official data since the report came out. He noted that recent analysis shows that the data refute concerns "that USCIS may be institutionally biased toward unjustified approvals and that the agency observes policies that would suppress RFE issuance." The data tell the opposite story, he said: "Particularly with respect to the key nonimmigrant categories for foreign professionals, denial rates and RFE rates have risen very sharply in recent years."

The "most startling example," Mr.Cooper said, appears in the L-1 program, which is used by multinational corporations to transfer managers, executives, and specialists into the United States. Noting that such visas "are an essential component of a huge range of productive economic activity in this country," he said that L-1 visas are critical to attracting foreign investment that supports the creation of jobs for U.S. workers and are critical when U.S. companies acquire companies based oversees and need to have the acquired company's specialists come to the United States to integrate their expertise and processes. L-1 visas are also critical to companies who need to bring specialists from their overseas affiliates into their research centers and operations in the United States, he noted. "Without predictable, reliable access to these visas, employers find themselves having to move jobs and projects to other countries."

The data for employees with specialized knowledge in the L-1B program "shows a steep rise in denials and requests for evidence beginning in 2008," he said, noting that the denial rate for L-1B petitions more than tripled in 2008 and is now at nearly quadruple the pre-2008 rate, at 27 percent in 2011. The RFE rate change is even starker, he said. From 2005 to 2011, the rate soared from 9 percent to 63 percent of L-1B cases.

He also noted that in the L-1A program for managers and executives being transferred within multinational corporations, the RFE rate rose from 10 percent in 2005 to 51 percent in 2011. Denial rates rose 75 percent over five years, from 8 percent in 2007 to 14 percent in 2011. In the H-1B program for professionals in specialty occupations, the denial rate increased from 11 percent in 2007 to 17 percent in 2011. Over a quarter of all H-1B filings generated an RFE in 2011.

Seen in the light of this data, Mr. Cooper said "there is no basis for the concern expressed in the OIG report that USCIS has an institutional bias in favor of approvals or against RFEs." In fact, he said, the data show the opposite trend. Noting that USCIS said in its response to the OIG report that it is reviewing its RFE policy and aims to issue new RFE guidance this year, Mr. Cooper recommended that the new policy reflect "the needs of today's business environment and the innovation economy," and that it be monitored carefully once put into practice.

Finally, the Inspector General’s report asks that the standard for adjudicating visa petitions be raised from the “preponderance of evidence standard” to something higher, such as the “clear and convincing evidence” standard or the even higher standard used in criminal proceedings, which is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Under the preponderance of evidence standard, applicants have to demonstrate that the facts in their case are slightly more true than not true. Even though the preponderance of evidence standard requires a lesser degree of proof than the clear and convincing standard, this does not mean that it provides an invitation for fraud. The preponderance of evidence is the common standard used in civil proceedings, and allows the USCIS examiner to fairly evaluate very nebulous criteria while giving the benefit of doubt to the application, for instance, whether an O-1 visa applicant is extraordinary or not or whether an L-1B worker has specialized knowledge. If the applicant provided patently fraudulent documentation, he or she can be charged with the fraud ground of inadmissibility under INA § 212(a)(c)(6) and there also exist tough criminal sanctions. In any event, it does not seem that the USCIS is faithfully adhering to the preponderance of evidence standard even today, and officially raising the bar will surely serve as an invitation for USCIS officials to arbitrarily deny even more case without fairly weighing the evidence. This would further undermine the ability of US employers to use our employment-based immigration system in an effective and rational manner to benefit them and simultaneously make the US prosper.