Labor Immigration Law

Many of our clients and readers are already aware of the move by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (“USCIS”) to issue what are hundreds, or perhaps even thousands, of very similar, if not identical, requests for evidence (“RFE”) on pending employment-based primary and derivative Form I-485, Application to Adjust Status.   Most of the RFEs were issued and dated June 13th or June 14th and hardcopies are starting to be delivered to individual applicants and to their attorneys.     Our office has also started receiving such documents and we have been receiving numerous inquiries with respect to this massive RFE event.

Identical I-485 RFEs

It appears that the majority of these RFEs were issued by the Texas Service Center and most appear to be for EB-2 India applicants.    In terms of substance, the RFEs appear to be almost identical and seek information and clarification on two points – (1) evidence of continuous employment authorization in the U.S. from the date the I-485 application was filed to the date of the RFE and (2) a current (and original) employment verification letter from the original sponsoring employer or, in cases of AC21 porting to a new employer, from the new employer.   Please see a redacted sample of the RFE template issued.

Maintaining Employment Authorization

The RFE requests proof of employment authorization starting from the date the I-485 was filed until the present.   For many people this evidence would include copies of Employment Authorization Documents (EAD) or H-1B (or other employment-authorized status) approval notices/Form I-94 cards.   In many instances, I-485 applicants continue to maintain their H-1B status even after they file I-485 (and obtain EAD) or even after they switch an employer pursuant to AC21.    In other cases, I-485 applicants simply drop their H-1B and continue employment pursuant to a valid and uninterrupted EAD.

With this RFE, USCIS is trying to determine whether I-485 applicants may have been employed without authorization during the time the I-485 has been pending.   The significance is that in those cases where the I-485 applicant is deemed to have been employed without authorization (or without status) for more than 180 days since the last entry into the U.S., the government may deny the I-485 application under section 245(c).    Please see our article on this bar to adjustment and the section 245(k) defense.

As a result, special attention should be paid to ensuring that complete employment authorization history is provided.  If there are any gaps, we urge extreme caution.

Original Employment Verification Letter

The RFE also asks for an original employment verification letter (“EVL”) from the original (if no job change) or a new (if jobs changed pursuant to AC21) employer.   The EVL should be in original, on employer letterhead, and should confirm that the job offer described in the I-140 petition exists (for sponsoring employers).   In situations where the I-485 applicant has ported their I-485 to a new employer (or to the same employer but on a different position) pursuant to AC21, the RFE seeks an EVL from the new employer confirming that the new position is same or similar to the position noted in the I-140 petition.

As mentioned above, the EVL should be in original, currently-dated, describe the title and duties of the position, the salary, the minimum educational or training requirements, and the date the employment began (or will begin).

Derivative Dependents Issued Identical RFEs

What is somewhat troubling is that USCIS has issued RFEs with identical language to derivative dependents.    Specifically, dependents’ RFEs include the phrase “You are an Employment-Based Principal Applicant” which is plainly incorrect for derivative beneficiaries.

Also, the RFE for derivatives asks for evidence in the same two areas as primary applicants without any consideration that such documents or information may not be applicable for derivative family member applicants.   For example, a derivative applicant’s RFE asks for proof of continued employment authorization since the filing of I-485.   Many derivative applicants, especially children, do not seek and obtain EAD work permits as part of their I-485 application.   In fact,  whether or not a derivative applicant is employed (unless on status permitting employment such as H-1B or L-1), is not a factor in the I-485 adjudication.

The RFE for derivative applicants also asks for a letter from “your petitioning (Form I-140) employer.”    Derivative I-485 applicants, by definition, do not have a petitioning I-140 sponsor employer.    It is unclear what is USCIS’s motive — whether they seek such a letter from the primary applicant’s sponsoring employer, or simply that they reused the template without regard to a specific case’s parameters.

Attorney Assistance with Preparing RFE Response

Our office will be happy to provide consultations or assistance with responding to this (or other) kind of RFE.    If you would like to schedule a consultation with an attorney to discuss a specific case (but perhaps without engaging us to help with the RFE filing), we offer phone consultations.

We are also happy and available to assist with a more comprehensive RFE response representation.   Please feel free to complete this RFE inquiry form and we will be happy to provide thoughts and, if applicable, a quote for our legal assistance.

Conclusion

There is much speculation as to what is the USCIS intent in generating so many RFEs in such a short period of time without, in many cases, careful consideration of the facts of a specific case.    We will not speculate since and we do not yet have an official position from USCIS.    For many applicants, however, who may expect to see their priority become current over the next two to three months (see our expectations), responding to this kind of an RFE becomes very time-sensitive in order to have a complete case ready for approval once the priority date becomes current.

Please feel free to subscribe to our free weekly newsletter to obtain developments on this and related topics. If our office can be of any help, please feel free to contact us.

Many of our clients and readers (especially those who have family-based immigrant visa cases) are aware that a family-based Form I-485, Application to Adjust Status, required an interview to be conducted at a local (to the applicant) service center.   The requirement for these interviews is set under 8 CFR §245.6 which also indicates that interviews may be waived in certain cases.   We would like to provide description of the situations where an interview may be waived.

Instances Where Interview Can be Waived

It is important to note that USCIS has authority to waive an interview if the case falls within one of the situations where an interview waiver can be granted.   Just because a case falls under one of the situations below does not mean that an interview will be waived.      USCIS’s decision to waive the interview for certain cases is based on standards set at the national level, and include adjustment categories in which there is normally enough evidence to make a decision without an interview.

Specifically, interviews can be waived for I-485 applications for:

• Unmarried minor children and stepchildren of U.S. citizens (IR7 and CR7) that are accompanied by original or certified copies of supporting documents;
• Parents of U.S. citizens (IR0) that are accompanied by original or certified copies of supporting documents;
• K1/K2 entrants— Fiancé(e)s of U.S. citizens and children of Fiancé(e)s (CF1/CF2);
• Natives/Citizens of Cuba filing under 11/2/66 Act (also spouses/children of such individuals regardless of their citizenship and place of birth) (CU6/CU7);
• Unmarried & Under 14 year old children of lawful permanent residents (F27);
• Cases where the applicant has been interviewed in the course of an investigation or field examination, and the adjudicating examiner determines that further interview of the applicant is unnecessary;
• Cases in which there is sufficient evidence contained in the record to support a denial of the adjustment of status application.

Interview waiver will not be granted for I-485 cases:

• With Supplement A to Form I-485, Adjustment of Status Under Section 245(i);
• With an EWI class of admission; or
• As part of a family packet; unless every application in the family packet meets the interview waiver criteria.

Conclusion

We hope that this information would be helpful for family-based I-485 applicants who are preparing or are awaiting the outcome of their I-485 application.   The fact that an interview may be scheduled affects the processing time of a case, including possibly affecting the applicant’s plans for travel, employment, etc.    Please feel free to subscribe to our free weekly newsletter to obtain developments on this and related topics. If our office can be of any help, please feel free to contact us.

After the July 2013 Visa Bulletin was issued a few days ago, many of our clients and readers are anxious to get a sense of  what we should expect for the remainder of the 2013 Fiscal Year (ends on September 30, 2013).    As a result,  we would like to share the Department of State (the agency determining the Visa Bulletin cutoff dates) expectations for movement of visa numbers over the next few months and specifically, for August and September 2013.   Please note that these are short-term predictions and depending on the number of applications as a result of the next months or two’s visa numbers, the rate of cutoff date movement may change.

Expectations for Employment-based Categories for August-September 2013

EB-1.   This category is expected to remain current throughout the rest of the fiscal year.

EB-2 Rest of World (ROW).  This category is expected to remain current throughout the fiscal year; unlike last year when there was a cutoff date introduced in the summer.

EB-2 India.   Some forward movement expected.   At this time it appears that the availability of “otherwise unused” Employment Second preference numbers will allow for movement of this cut-off date in August and/or September. We do not know what kind of forward movement is expected.   It is expected that such movement will generate heavy new applicant demand, primarily by those who are upgrading their status from the Employment Third preference category.  A sustained level of heavy demand could impact the cut-off date at some point during fiscal year 2014.

EB-2 China.   Up to two months at a time possible.

EB-3 Rest of World (ROW).    No additional movement expected until October. This cut-off date has advanced 18 months during the past three months.  Such rapid movement can be expected to generate a significant amount of new demand, with the impact not being felt for three to five months. Therefore, the cut-off date will be held until it can be determined what level of demand is to be expected, and whether it is likely to be sustained.

EB-3 China.  No additional movement expected until October.

EB-3 India.  Up to three weeks at a time.

EB-3 Mexico.  No additional movement expected until October.

EB-3 Philippines.   Up to two weeks at a time.

Conclusion

It is good news to see that some forward movement in EB-2 India is expected over the next two months, although we do not know by how much the cutoff dates in this category are expected to advance.    Many of our EB-2 India clients and readers are eagerly awaiting some movement in this category and it appears that there will be some such movement coming next month.

Those EB-2 India applicants who will become current with this anticipated movement should be able to file or interfile their existing I-485s to a new I-140, if applicable, and hopefully get the benefit of AC21 portability rules. If our office can be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.   We also invite you to subscribe to our free weekly immigration newsletter to receive timely updates on this and related topics.  Finally, if you already haven’t, please consider our Visa Bulletin Predictions tool which provides personalized predictions and charts helping you understand when a particular priority date may become current and what are the movement patterns.

The U.S. State Department has just released the July 2013 Visa Bulletin which is the tenth Visa Bulletin for the FY2013 fiscal year.   The major headline in the upcoming month’s Visa Bulletin is the lack of movement (again) in EB-2 India and the very significant forward movement in the EB-3 category for most countries (with the exception of India and Philippines which moved very slightly forward).

Yesterday, May 8, 2013, the Congressional Budget Office (“CBO”) released an updated report to Congress analyzing the current immigration population in the United States.   The report is interesting not only in the context of the ongoing debate on the proposed Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) bill which is currently in Congress but also to get a current glimpse of the trends of composition of the immigrant population in the United States.   We are happy to provide  a summary of the report findings.

Size and Composition of the Foreign-Born Population

In 2012, about 40 million foreign-born people lived in the United States, making up about 13 percent of the U.S. population—the largest share since 1920. The number of immigrants was about the same in 2011, the latest year for which certain data on immigrants are available. Of that total in 2011, naturalized citizens (foreign-born people who have fulfilled the requirements for U.S. citizenship) accounted for about 18 million, and noncitizens (foreign-born people authorized to live and work in the United States either temporarily or permanently and people who are not authorized to live or work in the United States) accounted for about 22 million. About half of the noncitizens were people without authorization to live or work in the United States, either temporarily or permanently.   See chart.

In 2011, about 37 percent of foreign-born people in the United States were from Mexico or Central America; the next-largest group came from Asia and constituted about 28 percent of the total foreign-born population.  Of noncitizens unauthorized to live in the United States, an estimated 59 percent were from Mexico, and an estimated 14 percent were from El Salvador, Guatemala, or Honduras.   See chart.

Lawful Permanent Residents

From 2000 to 2012, more than 13 million people were granted lawful permanent resident (LPR) status in the United States, an average of about 1 million per year. Lawful permanent residents are permitted to live, work, and study in the United States, and receiving LPR status is an important milestone on the path to U.S. citizenship. Roughly two-thirds of new LPRs were immediate relatives of U.S. citizens or were admitted under family-sponsored preferences.

Demographic Characteristics of the Foreign-Born Population

In 2012, about 1 in 4 people in California and about 1 in 5 people in New York and in New Jersey were born in another country. However, in another 31 states, taken together, only about 1 person in 20 was foreign born. See chart.

Between 1999 and 2012, the share of the population constituted by foreign-born people increased in all but two states and, for the nation as a whole, rose by 2.8 percentage points, to roughly 13 percent.   See chart.

Level of education is somewhat less, on average, among foreign-born people than among native-born people, and it varies considerably depending on immigrants’ country of origin. In 2012, 27 percent of the foreign-born population between the ages of 25 and 64 had not completed high school, compared with 7 percent of the native-born population. More than half of the people from Mexico and Central America, 54 percent, had not finished high school, but only about 9 percent of the people from Asia and 5 percent of the people from Europe and Canada had less than a high school education. In addition, about 55 percent of the people from Asia had at least a bachelor’s degree, as did 51 percent of the people from Europe and Canada; just 33 percent of the native-born population had earned at least a bachelor’s degree.   See chart.

Labor Market Characteristics

An interesting analysis focused on the ability to seek/find employment and on the salaries received by various segments of the immigrant population.   For example, foreign-born men are more likely to be working or looking for work (that is, to be
in the labor force) than are native-born men; foreign-born women, however, are less likely than native-born women to be in the labor force.

The differences in educational attainment and participation in the labor force (as well as in groups’ concentration in particular occupations) were reflected in differences in annual earnings. The amount and distribution of annual earnings were similar for naturalized and native-born citizens, but earnings tended to be much lower among noncitizens. The amount of annual earnings among foreign-born workers also varied greatly by their country of origin. For example, in 2011, the median annual earnings of male workers from Mexico and Central America was $24,000—whereas among male workers from Asia, the median was $50,000; among their counterparts from Europe and Canada, it was $55,000; and among native-born male workers, $46,000. Among female workers from Mexico and Central America, median annual earnings were $17,000—whereas among their counterparts from Asia, the median was $30,000; among those from Europe and Canada, it was $35,000; and among native-born female workers, $32,000.

Conclusion

The CBO report is very interesting as it raises some questions with respect to the demographics and labor market participation of the individuals who would be covered under the proposed CIR.   Also, this report is likely to be used by all sides in the CIR debate as to why certain parts of the proposed reform should be kept or changed, depending on the political standpoint of those making the argument.

We continue to monitor closely developments in Congress related to Comprehensive Immigration Reform and we expect a lot of activity over the next days and weeks.   Please feel free to subscribe to our free weekly newsletter to obtain developments on this and related topics. If our office can be of any help, please feel free to contact us.

Our office handles a substantial number of ETA Form 9089 – Permanent Labor Certification (“PERM”) applications and we are closely monitoring the current PERM processing times not only for the benefit of our clients but also to be able to predict longer-term trends in PERM processing.

The Department of Labor (“DOL”) has provided an update on the current PERM filing and processing statistics in addition to the processing dates as of April 1, 2013.

Current PERM Processing Times

Most notable is the slight delay in the processing time for regular PERM applications — to approximately four months.  The processing times, as reported by DOL, are as follows:

• Regular processing: December 10, 2012.  DOL is processing PERM applications with priority dates of about December 10, 2012.  Accordingly, regular PERM processing times should be around four to five months.   Our office has experienced PERM approvals consistent with this timeline and we can confirm it.
• Audited applications: June 30, 2012.  DOL is processing PERM audits which have a priority date of June 30, 2012.  This processing time has remained steady over the past few months.   Accordingly, audited PERM applications are processed approximately eight to nine months after the initial PERM was filed and the priority date established.
• Appealed applications (requests for reconsideration to the Certifying Officer):  April 4, 2013.  DOL is processing PERM appeals (requests for reconsideration to the certifying officer) which were appealed in April 2013.  There is continued notable improvement in this category in comparison to prior months.    Accordingly, PERM requests for reconsideration are processed within approximately one or two months  after PERM appeal (motion for reconsideration to the Certifying Officer) is filed.
• “Government error” appealed applications. DOL has indicated that PERM appeals in this category are reviewed on a 30-45 day timeline.   However, after filing an appeal, DOL does not make an indication whether a PERM appeal is accepted to be processed under the  “government error” queue or under the regular appeal queue.   As a result, DOL has indicated that the only way to know whether a PERM appeal has been accepted for processing under the “government error” queue is to wait for 45 days for response.  If the PERM appeal is reviewed within this time, this would be an indication that a PERM appeal has been accepted (and reviewed) under the “government error” queue.  If no response is received 45 days after filing of a PERM appeal, then this should be an indication that the PERM is pending under the regular appeals queue.

Conclusion

The April 2013 PERM processing times report shows steady trend in the regular and appealed PERM processing times, and a notable (and welcome) improvement in the PERM appeal (motion for reconsideration) processing times.   We hope that DOL would be able to continue to improve the PERM processing times over the next weeks and months.  We also hope the improvements in PERM audit and appeal processing times would continue in the fall and spring.

Our office has developed a great practice handling PERM filings and/or audit/appeal responses so please do not hesitate to contact us if we can help you.  Also, we will continue monitoring the PERM processing times and analyze any updates.  Please visit us again or subscribe to our free weekly newsletter to ensure that you obtain this and related immigration-related news and announcements.

Many of our readers and clients are already aware and are using the new Form I-9, but it is worth sending another alert to remind that the revised Form I-9 (revision date 03/18/2013) becomes the only acceptable version after May 7, 2013.

Please see our recent alert about the changes to the Form I-9.   Among the most notable changes in the new edition of the Form I-9 are:   improvements to include new fields (such as passport, telephone and email of the worker), reformatting to reduce errors, and clearer instructions to both employees and employers.

Those employers who are still using a Form I-9 edition other than revision date 03/18/2013 should immediately start using the new form for hiring and re-verification, when applicable.  USCIS has also updated the Handbook for Employers, Guidance for Completing Form I-9 to reflect the changes to Form I-9.

Conclusion

The newest version of Form I-9 represents the most significant revision of the Form since its last major revision in November 1991. Capitol Immigration Law Group is happy to answer any questions and will host a Form I-9 training seminar to assist employers with navigating and understanding the new Form I-9. Please feel free to subscribe to our free weekly newsletter to obtain developments on this and related topics. If our I-9 compliance practice group can be of any help, please feel free to contact us.

Many of our readers are aware that as of April 5, 2013, USCIS has received a sufficient number of H-1B cap-subject petitions to fill the annual H-1B quota.  All cap-subject new H-1B petitions received by USCIS on or after April 5th have been rejected.  Additionally, due to the high number of H-1B petitions (124,000), the government has run a lottery to allocate the available 85,000 H-1B visas.   Well before the H-1B cap season, our office was anticipating that the demand this year would be very high and we have repeatedly warned our readers and clients that the H-1B cap filing window this year would be extremely narrow.   As a result,  some employer and prospective employees who wanted to take advantage of the H-1B program this year are unable to do so — either because they were unable to file between April 1st and 5th or because their application was not picked by the H-1B lottery.     We seek to provide some alternatives which may be available.

Alternatives to H-1B Cap Petitions

Now that the H-1B quota has been reached, we are receiving an increasing number of inquiries by both cap-subject employers and prospective employees about the alternatives for work authorization between now and October 1, 2014, when the new fiscal year’s H-1B quota would begin (as a reminder, April 1, 2014 is the earliest a cap-subject H-1B application can be filed).  We describe some of the most common H-1B visa alternatives.  Note that the list is not intended to exhaust all possible visa types and scenarios pursuant to which an employee may be legally employed.  Our goal is to list some of the common options for the benefit of our clients and readers.  We are happy to discuss individual cases as part of our FREE initial consultation.

Cap-Exempt H-1B

A number of employers may qualify to be cap-exempt and are allowed to file for H-1B petition at any time.   A cap-exempt employer is (1) an institution of higher education, (2) related or affiliated to a higher education institution nonprofit entity, or  (3) nonprofit research organization or a governmental research organization.  Please see our cap-exempt H-1B employer guide.   As a result, many educational institutions, non-profit and research organizations may qualify to file cap-exempt H-1Bs.   We are happy to help evaluate whether an employer can qualify to be cap-exempt.

O-1 or P-1 Extraordinary Ability Visas

O-1 and P-1 visas are generally reserved for individuals who have extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts (including the television and motion picture industry), education, business, or athletics.  By definition, not many individuals qualify for one or both of these visa types, but where possible, an application for O-1 and/or P-1 should be prepared in lieu of H-1B.   In addition to being able to obtain work authorization pursuant to these visa types, an O-1 and/or P-1 approval may establish the basis for the subsequent application for an EB-1 category permanent residency.  Please contact us if you would like our help in evaluating your O-1 and/or P-1 visa case.

L-1 Intracompany Transferee

The L-1 visa type allows multinational companies who have presence abroad to transfer their employees from their overseas offices to their U.S. office (or to establish a new U.S. office).  This visa type is a good option for foreign employers seeking to establish or boost their U.S. presence and for foreign nationals currently employed abroad.   Foreign nationals who are currently in the U.S. generally will not qualify for L-1 visa.  An added benefit to the L-1 visa is that family members are entitled to a work authorization pursuant to L-2 status.

TN for Canadian and Mexican Professional Workers

An option available to certain Canadian and Mexican nationals in certain occupations is the TN visa classification.   It is available to citizens of Canada and Mexico who would be employed in the U.S. in one of the designated occupations.  The TN visa is not subject to a cap and can be obtained fairly easily either by applying at the border (for Canadians) or by filing a petition with USCIS.    Please see more information on the TN visa classification.

E-1/E-2 Treaty Trader or Investor

The E-1/E-2 visas allow nationals of countries with which the U.S. has trade treaties to invest an amount in the U.S. and receive an E-1 (treaty trader) or E-2 (treaty investor) visa.  See a list of treaty countries.

The E-1 treaty trader visa is suitable if the foreign national has a multinational employer who is willing to transfer them, and the company has significant trade between the foreign country and the U.S.  The employee must also have skills which are essential to the operation of the company trade.   Dependents of E-1 visa holder are eligible for work in the U.S.

The E-2 treaty investor allows foreign nationals to invest (preferably) a substantial amount in the U.S. and obtain an E-2 visa to be able to manage and direct their investment.  The amount required for investment generally varies depending on the industry (the so called, proportionality test) with more capital-intensive industries requiring more significant investment for E-2 application.   Dependents of E-2 visa holders are eligible to apply for work authorization.

H-1B Program Changes by Congress Possible, Although Timing is Uncertain

Not entirely by coincidence, the comprehensive immigration reform proposal which was introduced in the U.S. Senate over the past couple of days increases substantially the H-1B cap, among other changes to the H-1B program and the immigration system, generally.     Please read our overview and analysis of this proposal.

Unfortunately, this proposal is likely to be subject to extensive discussion, amendments and negotiation here on Capitol Hill and we do not know if or when the proposed immigration reform would become a law.   As a result, we urge caution with respect to reading too much into the initial proposal.   However, if the proposal becomes a law, then the H-1B cap would expand significantly and hopefully,  in upcoming  H-1B cap years, we would not face this kind of extremely narrow filing H-1B cap window.

Wait and File on April 1, 2014 for the FY2015 Cap

For some of our clients, waiting until April 1, 2014 to file a new cap-subject H-1B petition may be the best (or only?) option.  The H-1B visa type, although subject to some requirements, is a fairly common visa type for which many qualified employees are eligible.    As of now, and assuming the proposed immigration reform is not enacted by then, the FY2015 H-1B cap is expected to be the same as it was for the FY2013 fiscal year – 65,000 H-1B visas (plus 20,000 for holders of U.S. master’s degrees).

Conclusion

Our office will continue to monitor developments relating to the H-1B program, this and next year’s caps and the immigration proposals.   In the meantime, please feel free to subscribe to our free weekly newsletter to obtain developments on this and related topics. If our office can be of any help, please feel free to contact us.

Many of our clients and readers are aware that the U.S. Congress here in Washington, DC has been working on a comprehensive immigration proposal over the past few months.     Until today, there have been many proposals, a lot of discussion and even more rumors as to what may or may not be included in a comprehensive immigration proposal.  Today, the so-called “Gang of Eight” U.S. Senators have released their proposal for an immigration reform — The Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 — and we finally have some actual and detailed proposal to share with our clients and readers.

Update (April 17, 2013):  the full text of the proposed legislation has been made available.

Please note that at this point, this is only a proposed legislation and is not the law.

Summary of the Proposed Immigration Reform

The Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 deals with a number of immigration issues:

• Family Visa (Green Card) Program.   Allows unlimited number of immigrant visas per year for spouses, children and parents of U.S. citizens and permanent legal residents.   Eighteen months after enactment of the law, eliminates immigrant visas for foreign brothers and sisters of US citizens, and married children over 30 years of age.  Backlog to be eliminated.
• Employment Visa (Green Card) Program.  Backlog targeted for elimination.  Derivative beneficiaries (spouses/children) will be exempt from the annual visa numerical limits.  Also, exempt will be extraordinary ability, outstanding professors/researchers, multinational executives/managers, Ph.D. holders and certain physicians.  Increased allocation for EB-2 and recent U.S. STEM Master’s degree holders.
• Startup Visa (Green Card) Created.  The proposal would create a startup visa for entrepreneurs who seek to emigrate to the U.S. to start their own company.
• Merit Based Visa (Green Card) Created.  After five years, a new merit-based visa will be created and would allocate green cards based on points awarded on the basis of education, employment, length of residence in the US and other factors.   120,000 visas available per year, with annual adjustments.
• H-1B Cap, Salaries and Fees Increases; H-1B Dependent Employers.   The H-1B cap will double to 110,000 with the possibility of adjustments of the cap of up to 180,000 per year.  The minimum H-1B salary will increase and the fees paid by H-1B employers will be increased.   Employers will see limits on how many H-1B workers they can have.
• Guest Worker Program.  Establishes a new visa program for 20,000 foreigners in low-skilled jobs starting in 2015.   The number of visas increases to 75,000 in 2019.   A new federal agency will analyze employment date to make adjustments on the cap – with a maximum of 200,000 annually.   Construction companies will be limited to no more than 15,000 per year.   There is also a “safety-valve” to allow additional visas in excess of the annual cap provided employers pay workers higher wages.
• Farm Worker Program.   Visas for agriculture workers (including those who are without authorization) would be made available and wages will have to be based on survey of labor-market data.  The H-2A program will be eliminated once the new W-2 or W-3 program is operational.
• Diversity Visa (Green Card) Lottery.   To be eliminated in 2015.
• Path to Citizenship.   Most of the 11 million people who are in the country without authorization would be able to apply for a green card after 10 years and for citizenship three after that.   Applicants must pay a fine, pay back taxes, learn English and pass background check.   The cutoff date for eligibility is December 31, 2011.   Dream Act youth can obtain green cards in five years and citizenship immediately thereafter.
• Border Control and E-Verify Required.   The Department of Homeland Security will receive funding to improve border security with drones, agents and fencing.   US companies must implement the E-Verify employment authorization system which ensures that workers are legal residents within five years.   All non-citizens will be required to show “biometric work authorization card” or “biometric green card.”   A new entry/exit tracking system will be implemented at ports to better track foreign visitors who overstay their visas.

Family and Employment-Based Immigrant Visas

The proposed immigration law will substantially revise the current family- and employment-based immigrant visa (green card) system.  It will aim to eliminate the current (significant) backlog in most of the immigrant visa categories and then, in five years, introduce a merit-based immigrant visa.

Family-based.

Out of the four family-based preference categories (which have annual limit of 480,000), two will be eliminated and the eligibility for the rest will be revised.   Under the new bill, there will be two family-based categories and they will cover unmarried adult children; married adult children who file before age 31, and unmarried adult children of lawful permanent residents.   The V visa will be expanded to allow individuals with approved family petition to reside in the US and other family members to visit the US for up to 60 days per year.

The bill removes immigrant visas for siblings of U.S. citizens (in 18 months after the bill is enacted) and amends the definition of “immediate relative” to include a child or spouse of an alien admitted for lawful permanent residence.  Also, the existing category for married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens is amended to include only sons and daughters who are under 31 years of age.

Employment-based.

The new bill will exempt the annual numerical limitations the following categories:  derivative beneficiaries (spouses/children) of employment-based immigrants; aliens of extraordinary ability, outstanding professors/researchers; multinational executives and managers; Ph.D. degree holders in any field; and certain physicians.  Currently, all of these categories are counted under the annual numerical limits and, as a result, are slowing down the approval of the immigrant visas for everyone else.

Forty percent of the employment-based immigrant visas will be allocated to what are now considered to be EB-2 workers with the addition of recent (the five years before petition is filed) U.S. master’s degree holders in a STEM field.

Additionally, an increased allocation (forty percent) of the annual employment-based limit will be allocated to skilled workers, professionals and other professionals.  The limit to immigrant visas for special immigrants will be ten percent and visas for those who foster employment creation (entrepreneurs/job creators) will also be limited to ten percent.

The bill would also create a startup visa for foreign entrepreneurs who seek to emigrate to the U.S. to start their own companies (and presumably create jobs).

Merit-based.

The merit-based immigrant visa will be created in the fifth year after enactment of the proposal and would award points to applicants on the basis of education, employment, length of residence in the US and other factors.   The applicants with the most points would be granted the merit-based immigrant visa.   The annual limit would be set at 120,000 and the number would increase by 5% per year if demand exceeds supply in any year, assuming the U.S. unemployment rate is under 8.5%.  The cap cannot exceed 250,000 per year.

Until the merit-based program starts (five years after enactment), the government will allocate the visa numbers to employment-based applicants who have been pending for more than three years, family-based petitions filed prior to enactment and pending for more than five years, long-term immigrants (those who have been in the US for 10 years).  In other words, the government will use these numbers to decrease the current backlog in the employment and family immigrant visa categories.

H-1B Visa Reformed – Cap and Fees Will Increase; H-4 Spouses May Work; Additional Requirements on H-1B Employers

Cap Increase.

The H-1 work visa program is set to be revised substantially.  The H-1B cap will be doubled from 65,000 to 110,000 per year, with the U.S. master’s cap amended to include only U.S. master’s degree holders in STEM fields and with the cap for such holders increased to 25,000 per year.   The H-1B cap will be adjusted annually, depending on demand and can go as high as 180,000 per year (but with maximum annual adjustment of 10,000).

H-1B Fees.

The H-1B fees will increase substantially, for some (mostly H-1B dependent) employers.  If an employer has 50 or more employees and more than 30% but less than 50% are H-1B or L-1 employees (who do not have a green card petition pending), the employer must pay a $5,000 fee per additional worker in either H-1B or L-1 status.  If the employer has 50 or more employees and 50% are on H-1B or L-1 status (and do not have a green card petition pending), then the additional fee is $10,000 per worker.

H-1B Employee Number Limits and Recruitment Requirements.

The bill also introduces certain restrictions on the number of H-1B employees a company can have.   Starting fiscal year 2014, companies will be banned from brining any additional workers if more than 75% of their workers are H-1B or L-1 employees.   Starting fiscal year 2015, the ban applies to companies if more than 65% of their workforce are H-1B and L-1 workers and in fiscal year 2016, the ban moves down to 50%.  It is unclear if pending green card applicants would be included in this count.

Before an employer can file an H-1B petition, the employer will have to recruit American workers first.  The Department of Labor will have a searchable website for posting H-1B positions and employers will have to post a detailed job opening on this website for 30 days before hiring an H-1B applicant to fill that position.

H-4 Employment Authorization

The bill would allow spouses of H-1B workers (who are on H-4 status) to obtain work authorization if the country of origin provides reciprocal treatment to spouses of U.S. workers.

H-1B Portability.

The bill would create a 60-day transitional period during which H-1B workers will be eligible to change jobs – in contrast to the current system where there is no grace period between switching jobs.

Dual Intent for F-1 Student Status.

The bill would create dual intent for F-1 students who apply to come to the U.S. to study in a bachelor’s (or higher) level program.  This should make it easier for many F-1 students to obtain a visa stamp at the U.S. Consulate as a substantial number of F-1 visas are being denied due to some immigrant intent.

New Guest Worker Program

The bill proposed a new guest worker program which would be a “W” visa.   The W visa holder will be able to come to the US o perform services or labor for a “registered” employer in a “registered” position.  Spouses and children would be able to accompany the worker and would be given work authorization.   There will be an annual cap of 20,000 initially, with annual increase to a maximum of 75,000 in 2019.  Afterwards, the annual cap would vary depending on a calculation of employment and demand with an increase in the cap being linked to lower unemployment and increase in the required salary – the so-called “safety valve”

The maximum period of stay for W nonimmigrants would be 3 years and may be renewed for an additional 3-year period.  There is a limit on unemployment (60 consecutive days).

Employers who wish to employ W visa workers will have to submit an application and describe the type and number of employees needed.  Before an application can be submitted, however, the employer would have to advertise for at least 30 days and carry a number of recruitment steps.  Annual reports will have to be submitted to the government.  The wages should be either the actual wage paid by the employer to other employees with similar experience or the prevailing wage, whichever is higher.

The W visa would not be available to positions which normally require a bachelor’s degree or higher, including some computer-related occupations.

Diversity Visa Lottery to be Eliminated in 2015

The diversity visa (green card) lottery will be eliminated in 2015.  Applicants/winners under the 2013 and 2014 lotteries will be processed.

Path to Citizenship to People without Authorization

The bill creates a path to citizenship to the 11 million or so people who are currently in the U.S. without authorization.  The bill creates a Registered Provisional Immigrant (RPI) status.  To obtain an RPI status, a foreign national must have been in the US as of December 31, 2011 with continuous physical presence in the US, must pay a $500 penalty (except Dream Act youth), pay taxes and application fees (to be determined).  Ineligibility grounds include:  conviction for aggravated felony; conviction of felony; conviction of three or more misdemeanors; conviction of an offense under foreign law; unlawfully voting; and otherwise inadmissible due to health, security or moral grounds.

Immigrants who are granted RPI status and their spouses/children will obtain work and travel authorization.  The RPI status will be for a 6-year term, with the possibility of extension.  After an immigrant has been in RPI status for 10 years they can adjust to a permanent status under the merit-based system (described above) and assuming all existing immigrant visa backlogs have been cleared and after paying a $1,000 fine (and only after the borders have been secured, see below).

Border Control Strengthened and E-Verify Required for All Employers

The bill sets certain goals for securing the US borders and directs the Department of Homeland Security to implement certain measures to secure the border.  Beginning to implement such programs is a condition to the approval of RPI status to people who are in the US without authorization and there are certain benchmarks as conditions to allowing RPI holders to adjust and obtain lawful permanent status.

Additionally, the bill requires all employers to use the E-Verify system over a 5-year phase-in period.  Large employers with 5,000 or more employees will be required to start using E-Verify in two years.  Employers with more than 500 employees will have three years and all employers will have to start using E-Verify in four years.  E-Verify will have a photo-matching component requiring employers to match E-Verify system photo with the new hire and to ensure that this is the same person.

Finally, the new bill would create a better entry/exit tracking system at ports of entry to allow better tracking of foreign visitors who overstay their status in the U.S.

Important Note:  This is Just a Legislative Proposal and Not a Law Yet

It is important to underscore that this is a legislative proposal introduced by a number of U.S. Senators and not a law.  Only after an identical bill is passed by both the Senate and the House and signed by President Obama would the bill be enacted into law.   We expect that there would be a number of hearings, comments, amendment to this proposal over the next days and weeks and it is entirely possible that many of the provisions would change, some substantially.

Conclusion

We are very happy to be finally able to share some actual proposal for a comprehensive immigration reform.  We expect a lot of activity over the next days and week and we will monitor closely and report on any substantial developments on immigration reform.   Also, we will be conducting a series of live chats and webinars to discuss and analyze this proposal, in its current form and as it may be amended before it becomes law.   In the meantime, please feel free to subscribe to our free weekly newsletter to obtain developments on this and related topics. If our office can be of any help, please feel free to contact us.