Partially as a result of our outreach on the upcoming H-1B cap limit, we have been getting many questions on what happens when the H-1B cap is reached?  How does USCIS handle applications which are received on or after the date the H-1B cap is reached?

H-1B Applications Filed on the Day the H-1B Cap is Reached Are Subject to Random Lottery

H-1B filings which are received on the day the H-1B cap is reached are counted and, assuming the number of filed applications exceeds the remaining number of H-1B visas, USCIS conducts a random lottery to determine which of these H-1B applications would be counted and included under the cap.   Those H-1B applications which are filed on the last day but are not selected on the lottery for that last H-1B day are returned to the petitioners.

For example, if on the last day of the H-1B quota there are 700 available H-1B visas, but USCIS, on that day, receives 1,000 H-1B filings, there will be a random lottery among these 1,000 H-1B filings to determine 700 cases which will be accepted for processing under the cap.   The 300 H-1B filings not selected in this last-day lottery will be returned.

H-1B Filings Not Picked by the Last-Day Lottery or Filed Afterwards Are Rejected and Returned

H-1B cases filed on the last day of the H-1B cap but not picked by the last-day lottery (if there is one), or, H-1B cases filed after the last day are processed by USCIS to be returned to the filing petitioner employer (or their attorney) with an explanation that the H-1B cap has been reached and that there are no longer H-1B visas under this year’s cap.

Conclusion

Considering the increasing volume of H-1B filings and given our recent reports on the status of the FY2012 H-1B cap, we believe that the H-1B cap will be reached by the end of November 2011.    We will continue providing updates on the H-1B cap and, once it is reached, on possible alternatives.   If you need our help and services, please contact us at your earliest convenience

USCIS just released the information on the numbers of cap-subject FY2012 H-1Bs filed since April 1.   As November 14, 2011, USCIS has received approximately 56,300 H-1B petitions counting toward the 65,000 cap (an increase of 7,100 over the previous two weeks).  Similarly, as of November 14, there were 20,000 H-1B visas filed subject to the U.S. Masters cap which has 20,000 limit.

H-1B Quota Trends – Rate of Regular Cap H-1B Filings Increases Significantly; H-1B Masters Cap Reached

The numbers, as just reported for the past week, confirm that the rate of filing of new cap-subject H-1B filings is increasing significantly.  Now that the H-1B U.S. Master’s cap has been reached, all H-1B filings (regardless of level of education) will be counted under the regular H-1B cap.   As a result, we expect the average weekly rate of filings to be around 3,500, compared to 1,000-1,500 previously.     Additionally, we often see a rush of filings towards the end of the cap season as employers realize that the cap is about to close, so we anticipate the rate of filings to increase over the next few weeks.

H-1B Cap Likely to Close by Late November or Early December 2011 — Last Call for Cap-Subject H-1B Filings

Given an estimated rate of H-1B filings of 3,500 per week for the next few weeks, and given that there are approximately 9,000 H-1B visa numbers left towards meeting the annual cap, it is likely that the H-1B cap for FY2012 will be reached towards the end of the year — likely by the end of November or early December  2011.

Considering the fact that an H-1B petition takes at a minimum 7 to 10 business days to file, we urge all employers and future H-1B workers to start the H-1B filing process as soon as possible.    If you are considering filing a cap-subject H-1B petition as part of the FY2012 quota, please contact us.   We also invite you to subscribe to our free weekly immigration newsletter to receive timely updates on this and related topics.

H-1B Quota Trends – Rate of Regular Cap H-1B Filings Increases; H-1B Masters Cap Reached

The numbers, as just reported for the past week, confirm that the rate of filing of new cap-subject H-1B filings is increasing slightly.  Now that the H-1B U.S. Master’s cap has been reached, all H-1B filings (regardless of level of education) will be counted under the regular H-1B cap.   As a result, we expect the average weekly rate of filings to be around 3,000-3,500, compared to 1,000-1,500 previously.     Additionally, we often see a rush of filings towards the end of the cap season as employers realize that the cap is about to close, so we anticipate the rate of filings to increase over the next few weeks.

H-1B Cap Likely to Close in Mid- to Late December 2011 — Last Call for Cap-Subject H-1B Filings

Given an estimated rate of H-1B filings of 3,500 for the next few weeks, and given that there are approximately 15,000 H-1B visa numbers left towards meeting the annual cap, it is likely that the H-1B cap for FY2012 will be reached towards the end of the year — likely in mid- to late December 2011.

Considering the fact that an H-1B petition takes at a minimum 7 to 10 business days to file, we urge all employers and future H-1B workers to start the H-1B filing process as soon as possible.    If you are considering filing a cap-subject H-1B petition as part of the FY2012 quota, please contact us.   We also invite you to subscribe to our free weekly immigration newsletter to receive timely updates on this and related topics.

The Problem – H-1B Workers Changing Job Locations

Many consulting companies who hire H-1B holders place their workers at third-party client sites.   It is very common for these H-1B workers to change projects, end clients or simply to relocate to a different client site during their H-1B validity period.   In such cases, the question arises, What should be done to ensure that the H-1B employer and employee remain in compliance with the relevant H-1B regulations?

There is fair amount of confusion among H-1B employers and workers with respect to their obligations when there is a change in the work location.   Below we discuss what has been currently the recommended approach and also what USCIS has recently announced.

Currently:  Change in H-1B Job Location Requires a New LCA

Pursuant to previous USCIS guidance, our office often advises that when there is a change in the job location, but all of the other terms of an H-1B petition remain valid — title, duties, salary — then all the petitioning employer must do is file a new LCA for the new job location(s) and ensure that the proper posting and compliance for each new LCA has been done.

This approach is supported by the Adjudicator’s Field Manual 31.2(e) which states that “[t]he mere transfer of the beneficiary to another work site, in the same occupation, does not require the filing of an amended petition provided the initial petitioner remains the alien’s employer and, provided further, the supporting labor condition application remains valid.”

The relevant regulations, in 8 CFR 214.2 specify that  “[t]he petitioner shall file an amended or new petition, with fee, with the Service Center where the original petition was filed to reflect any material changes in the terms and conditions of employment or training or the alien’s eligibility as specified in the original approved petition.”   (emphasis added).   As a result, the question becomes what is “material change.”   In light of previous guidance, a change in location only was not considered a material change.

Possible Changes in Interpretation in “Material Change” – California Service Center and Upcoming USCIS Guidance

In recent discussions with the California Service Center, some of which is prompted by a number of “Notice of Intent to Revoke” notices, it becomes apparent that the California Service Center is starting to consider a change in the job location a “material change” and, as a result, requiring an H-1B amendment to be filed.   According to the California Service Center, as of August 10, 2011, “it is the position of [California Service Center] Counsel that an amended H-1B petition should be filed if an LCA is filed after approval of an H-1B petition.”

It is worth noting that no such guidance has been issued by the other service center processing H-1B petitions – the Vermont Service Center.   As a result, an apparent conflict arises between both Service Centers — because the Vermont Service Center has not provided any guidance on the issue, it may be inferred that H-1B petitions filed with the Vermont Service Center do not require amendment when there is change in the job location.

Conclusion

We are aware that USCIS is working on official guidance on this topic which would, hopefully, provide clear guidance applicable to both service centers.  Unfortunately, there is no known or anticipated release date.   In the meantime, in abundance of caution, we are starting to recommend that H-1B amendment petitions be filed when there is a change of job location, at a minimum, for petitions with the California Service Center, but also for petitions filed with the Vermont Service Center.   If you are not sure whether a petition has been filed with the Vermont or California Service Centers, please see this guide to service centers and receipt numbers.

We invite you to subscribe to our free weekly immigration newsletter to receive timely updates on this and related topics.  In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions or comments, or if we can be of any assistance with analyzing or filing H-1B petitions, including amendments.

Report Results and Recommendations

According to the audit report, an estimated 18% of H-1B workers analyzed in the relevant sample may have used their SSN for a purpose other than to work for the H-1B sponsor employer.   This includes 11% of H-1B workers who had posted wages from another an employer other than their H-1B sponsor employer.   This also includes 7% H-1B workers who had no posted wages from 2007 through 2009.

While we think that the audit is based on a very small sample (of 200) and while we believe (and the report acknowledges) that there may be some absolutely legitimate explanation for what the reports counts as unlawful employment, the numbers of possible irregularities is very high.   For example, the report acknowledges that some H-1B employees may be paid their H-1B wages abroad, or that some employees may have transferred their H-1B petition to a new employer (for example, by porting H-1B under AC21 and working upon filing of the H-1B paperwork, and not upon approval) which may not have been reflected in the data used in the audit report.

Conclusion

Notwithstanding these possible explanations for the high number of irregularities, the OIG makes the recommendation that DHS and SSA establish a data-matching protocol for identifying H-1B workers who are working for employers other than the H-1B sponsor employer or who are not working at all.    It is possible that, after such protocol is established, DHS would take a more proactive role in identifying and revoking H-1B petitions for workers who are not employed by the respective H-1B employer or to seek to identify H-1B workers who are in violation of their H-1B status by working for another (and non-H-1B sponsor) employer.

The OIG report highlights the need of proper H-1B compliance for both H-1B employers and employees.   Our office routinely advises H-1B employers on proper H-1B and I-9 compliance and H-1B employees on proper steps to maintain valid status — please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of any assistance or if you have any questions or comments.

The H-1B Quota and Expectations for This Year

When the H-1B visa category was created in 1990, Congress imposed an annual cap on the number of new H-1B visas which can be issued.  Although the cap has varied through the years, it is set to 65,000 per year plus 20,000 for graduates of U.S. masters programs for the new fiscal year (FY2012) starting on October 1, 2011.

As discussed above, the H-1B cap “opens” on April 1, 2011 and will remain open for new H-1B filings until the 65,000 H-1B limit is reached.  While it is impossible to predict exactly when the FY2012 H-1B cap will be reached, it is helpful to provide some context.  For FY2009, filing made on or after April 1, 2008, caused the H-1B cap to be reached in eight (8) days.   For the FY2010, the H-1B cap was open between April 1, 2009 and December 22, 2009 and for last year, FY2011, the H-1B cap was open between April 1, 2010 and January 25, 2011.

Conclusion

As a result, and due to the slow economic recovery, while we expect a robust H-1B filing season this spring, we anticipate that H-1B visa demand would be similar to last year when the H-1B cap was open for eight months.   Throughout the H-1B season, and as early as mid-April, we will be providing updates on the number of H-1B cap filings and will be revising (hopefully by making them more accurate) our estimates of how long the H-1B cap would last.  To ensure you receive these updates, please sign up to our free weekly newsletter.  If you wish to start a new H-1B work visa petition under this year’s quota, or if our office can be of any help, please contact us.

Proposed Rule Published Today, March 3, With a 60-day Comment Period

Today USCIS published a proposed rule which describes the pre-registration process in more details and establishes the procedures for pre-registration, selection and actual H-1B petition filing.   The rule has a 60-day comment period during which the public can provide comments to USCIS with respect to the new regulations.  Our office plans to do so as there are some provisions which substantially alter the process to our clients’ disadvantage.

The Proposed H-1B Pre-Registration System

The proposed rule would require employers who wish to file for a cap-subject H-1B petition to submit a simple electronic registration for each H-1B case the employer wants to file.  The electronic submission would open in early March and for each H-1B petition would require (1) the employer’s name, employer identification number (FEIN), and employer’s mailing address; (2) the authorized representative’s name, job title, and contact information (telephone number and email address); and (3) the beneficiary’s full name, date of birth, country of birth, country of citizenship, gender and passport number.

Once USCIS receives a number of pre-registrations over a certain period of time, they would evaluate the H-1B visa demand and if the demand exceeds the available 65,000 plus 20,000 visa numbers, they would run a random lottery to determine which of the pre-registrations would be allowed to submit a full H-1B petition.  Those selected would be notified electronically and would be allowed to print a selection confirmation page which would then be included with the H-1B petition.

Upon selection in the H-1B cap, an employer would have 60 days from the date of notification to submit the actual full H-1B petition for the beneficiary named, including the applicable Labor Condition Application (LCA).  H-1B petitions which are selected but are filed after the 60-day filing deadline would be rejected.

If the demand is lower than the available H-1B visas, the pre-registration system would continue to accept new pre-registration submissions until the H-1B cap is reached.   USCIS contemplates creating a waitlist system to handle pre-registrations which are not selected initially, but may be selected at a later time should the number of allocated H-1B pre-registrations exceeds the actual H-1B petitions filed and accepted for processing.

USCIS’s Rationale of H-1B Cap Filing Pre-Registration

The new proposed Internet-based registration system allows employers to complete a much shorter and less expensive registration process for consideration of available H-1B cap numbers.  The new system will also relieve a significant administrative burden and expense from USCIS.   This proposed rule is estimated to reduce costs for H-1B employers, or at least eliminate waste associated with filing of H-1B petitions which may be subsequently rejected due to reaching of the H-1B cap.    USCIS is also estimated to realize cost-savings from this process.

Important Note: Published Rule is Not Final; This Year’s H-1B Cap Filing Season Is Not Affected

It is very important to stress that this is only a proposed rule which is subject to a 60-day comment period and further USCIS revisions.   This year’s H-1B cap season is not affected by this rule and it would continue under the current system where all H-1B cap filings are filed in their entirety on or after April 1st, without any pre-registration requirements.

This is an important development in the H-1B cap filing season and we will continue monitoring the proposed rule throughout and after the 60-day comment period.   Please feel free to subscribe to our weekly newsletter to obtain timely updates on this and related issues.  Also,  feel free to contact us with any questions, comments or if our office can be of help.

About VIBE

VIBE is a tool designed to enhance USCIS’s adjudications of certain employment-based immigrant and non-immigrant petitions such as I-140 and I-129.  VIBE uses commercially available data to validate basic information about companies or organizations petitioning to employ alien workers.

The need for VIBE (or a similar tool) is apparent.  Currently, when adjudicating employment-based petitions, USCIS primarily relies on paper documentation supplied by the petitioning company or organization to establish the petitioner’s eligibility for the requested classification. Petitioners often (rightly) submit large amounts of paperwork as evidence of their current level of business operations.  When petitioners’ paperwork does not sufficiently document the evidence required under the law, USCIS issues a Request for Evidence (RFE) for additional documentation, delaying final adjudication of the petition.

With VIBE, USCIS would be able to obtain electronically commercially-available information from an independent provider (Dun & Bradstreet) about a petitioning company or organization.  Among the pieces of information which would be available through VIBE are:

• Business activities, such as type of business (North American Industry Classification System
  code), trade payment information and status (active or inactive).
• Financial standing, including sales volume and credit standing.
• Number of employees, including onsite and globally.
• Relationships with other entities, including foreign affiliates.
• Status, for example whether it is a single entity, branch, subsidiary or headquarters.
• Ownership and legal status, such as LLC, partnership or corporation.
• Company executives.
• Date of establishment as a business entity.
• Current physical address.

USCIS Would Use VIBE To Verify and Test Petitioner’s Information

As part of the adjudication process, VIBE would not only be used to verify the information submitted by the petitioning employer but also to obtain key pieces of information which may not be provided.  For example, if a petitioner is seeking L-1 status for a beneficiary, VIBE will help the adjudicating officer confirm that the petitioner has a foreign affiliate, which is a requirement for granting L-1 status.  In cases where petitioners must establish ability to pay (e.g. certain I-140 petitions), information from VIBE will assist in confirming the petitioners’ financial viability.

USCIS has indicated that they would not deny a petition based on information obtained from VIBE without first giving the petitioning employer the opportunity to explain or clarify the information via RFE or a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID).

Petitions Included in VIBE

As of this time, the following petition types are subject to VIBE confirmation:

• Immigrant: E12 (EB-1 OR), E13 (EB-1 MM), E21 (EB-2), E31 and E32 (EB-3), EW-3 (Other Workers) — all filed on I-140 and SD1 and SR1  — filed on I-360.
• Non-immigrant: E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-2A, H-2B, H-3, L-1A/B, Blanket L, Q-1, R-1 and TN.

Petitions explicitly excluded from VIBE at this time are E11 (EB-1 EA), E21 (EB-2 NIW), EB-5, O and P.

Conclusion

While USCIS has always maintained the position that they are free to and do indeed check public records (which may include simple web searches or maps) to verify the information on a petition, the formal use of the VIBE tool would add another avenue for USCIS to test the information and, possibly, find more reasons to issue RFE or NOID notices.   Small companies, for which the Dun & Bradstreet data may not be of such high quality or accuracy are likely to suffer the most because the chance of discrepancy between information, as submitted at the time a petition is filed, and the information contained in the Dun & Bradstreet database is higher.

Employers may wish to register with Dun & Bradstreet which allows an opportunity to update key company information.  This is especially true for employers who suffer a disproportionate number of RFE or NOID notices.   Please feel free to contact us for further help or information.

After an exchange of arguments about dismissal of the suit in July, the District Court for the District of Columbia sided with the government and dismissed the lawsuit.   The court ruled that the Neufeld Memo did not constitute “final agency action” that might be subject to judicial review.

Background of the Neufeld Memo Lawsuit

The complaint was filed earlier this year by a coalition of staffing companies and representative trade associations. USCIS was asked to stop temporarily and permanently from applying the Neufeld Memo in H-1B adjudications.

The complaint alleged that the Neufeld Memo abruptly altered long-standing agency policy which has permitted companies from placing H-1B workers at third-party job sites.  The plaintiffs claimed that the Neufeld Memo constitutes a legislative regulation because it sets forth new binding standards that prevent employers that place employees at third-party worksites, but which otherwise meet the regulatory definition, from sponsoring H-1B nonimmigrants.

Specifically, the complaint alleged that the new policy (i) is contrary to existing law and regulations, (ii) is arbitrary and capricious because the government failed to articulate a policy justification, (iii) violates the Administrative Procedure Act notice-and-comment requirements, and (iv) should have been issued following a certification under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (which requires regulators to consider the potential impact of regulations on small business).

The Federal District Court Dismissal of the Broadgate Case

Judge Kessler dismissed the case because the Neufeld Memo is not legislative rule.  The court ruled that the Memo merely provides “interpretive guidelines” for the implementation of the relevant regulations and does not providing binding instructions to USCIS adjudicators in their review of H-1B petitions.

Judge Kessler determined that “the evidence demonstrates that the Memorandum is intended to provide only guidance for application of the Regulation”, somewhat based on the fact that four petitions submitted by the plaintiffs had been approved while the lawsuit was pending.    By failing to show immediate harm, the plaintiffs could not show harm in an injunction case.

Additionally, Judge Kessler found that the Administrative Procedures Act does not apply in this case.

Additional Notes from the Dismissal of the Neufeld Memo Lawsuit

There is some silver lining for consulting companies.  In the proceedings, USCIS has acknowledged that that joint employment, or staffing, is permissible under the H-1B program and that the Neufeld Memo is not binding to adjudicators.  Judge Kessler agreed and wrote that adjudicators can consider a number of factors when weighing an H-1B application,

“The memorandum instructs USCIS adjudicators to look to the totality of the circumstances in each case to determine whether there is an employer-employee relationship,” Kessler wrote.

However, Kessler added, they have “considerable discretion”  in interpreting H-1B rules.

Conclusion

Seems like this may be the end of the Neufeld Memo lawsuit as the plaintiffs do not seem likely to appeal Judge Kessler’s decision.   The Neufeld Memo lawsuit failed to accomplish its mail goal — the repeal of the Neufeld Memo; however, as a result of the lawsuit, there may be a little bit more clarity that the adjudicators are not required to follow the Neufeld Memo regulations.  Consulting companies should continue to follow the guidelines set forth by the Neufeld Memo with respect to proving employer-employee relationship.

Our office has received a number of “Neufeld Memo” requests for evidence (RFEs) and we have been able to successfully respond and address USCIS’ concerns.   Our expectation is that such RFEs will continue (if not intensify now that the Neufeld Memo lawsuit has been dismissed).   We have also shifted our filing practice towards filing upfront more evidence showing the employer-employee relationship to try and avoid RFEs.  Please feel free to contact us if we can help you respond to a Neufeld Memo RFE (on existing case) or prepare a new filing.

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 Transferree

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.

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 Unlikely

While we do not expect Congress to raise the H-1B cap for FY2010, it is nonetheless possible.  There are a number of proposals currently circulating in Congress, some of which aim to increase the H-1B cap.  However,  the chance of such proposals becoming law outside of a comprehensive immigration reform (which is barely starting to gain ground) is small.

Wait and File on April 1, 2010 for the FY2011 Cap

For some of our clients, waiting until April 1, 2010 to file a new cap-subject H-1B petition may be the best 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, the FY2011 H-1B cap is expected to be the same as it was for the FY2010 fiscal year – 65,000 H-1B visas.  However, as the economy starts to improve and employers increase hiring, we do not expect that next year’s H-1B numbers will remain available for as much as 8 months, as they did in 2009.   Accordingly, we urge employees and employers to prepare and file most or all of their H-1B petitions on or about April 1, 2010, to ensure that their petition has the greatest chance to be included in the quota.

U.S. Masters Degrees Quota Reached

USCIS has received sufficient number of petitions for aliens with advanced degrees and as a result, USCIS has announced that the master’s cap for FY2010 has been met.  As of October 25, 2009, all FY2010 H-1B petitions for holders of U.S. advanced degrees will be counted towards the general cap of 65,000.

H-1B Quota Trends

The numbers, as reported over the past few weeks indicate that there was a notable increase in the H-1B filings.  As we previously reported, there has been an increase of about 900-1,300 H-1B visas for each of the past five weeks, in addition to this week’s increase of 2,000 H-1B visas.  Based on our tracking of the H-1B numbers, this increase shows a notable weekly increase in the numbers of H-1B filings.  As a result, if the current trend remains, we estimate that the H-1B quota will be reached within a 3-5 weeks.

If you are considering filing a cap-subject H-1B petition as part of the FY2010 quota, please contact us as soon as possible.

What is Critical Infrastructure Employer?

The announcement seems to focus on employers associated with critical infrastructure.  What exactly does this mean?  The 1,000 businesses served with audit notices have been selected for inspection as a result of investigative leads and intelligence and because of the business’ connection to public safety and national security—for example, privately owned critical infrastructure and key resources.

What Would the Audits Focus On?

The audits will involve a comprehensive review of Form I-9s, which employers are required to complete and
retain for each individual hired in the United States. I-9 forms require employers to review and record each individual’s identity and work eligibility document(s) and determine whether the document(s) reasonably appear to be genuine and related to that specific individual.

What Are the I-9 Audit Procedures and Fines?

By law, employers are required to maintain for inspection original Forms I-9 for all current employees. In the case of former employees, retention of Forms I-9 are required for a period of at least three years from the date of hire or for one year after the employee is no longer employer, whichever is longer.  The authority of ICE to perform I-9 audits is specifically granted by law and penalties range from $375 to $16,000 per violation.  Penalties for failing to produce a Form I-9 range from $110 to $1,100 per violation.  For employers with many employees, the potential fine amount can be substantial.

The procedures for I-9 audits and the applicable fines can be found in this Form I-9 Inspection Overview document.

Generally, site inspectors arrive unannounced at the H-1B petitioner’s location.  Site inspectors will identify themselves with USCIS credentials and seek to speak with the petitioner (or the person who signed the H-1B paperwork).  In the petitioner’s absence, another suitable individual, such as HR representative, will  be sought.

The site inspector will seek information for the following categories.

1.  Does the facility visually appear to be that of the sponsoring organization?

The goal is to make sure that the address of the sponsoring organization and the actual facility suggest that the petitioner does business at that facility.  Information about the location, including whether it appears to be a residential or commercial property, whether other businesses share the same location, etc.  Some photographs may be taken.

2.  Was an organizational representative authority present?

The goal is to speak with a proper petitioner representative about the business.  If access is denied or no such representative is found, the site inspector may seek information from neighboring businesses.

3.  Did results of the site visit suggest presence of a legitimate organization?

In this section the site inspector tries to determine whether the site is one of a legitimate organization.  In addition to reviewing the site location and representative (#1 and #2 above), the site inspector may ask and analyze other factors to determine whether a legitimate business is conducted.  Such datapoints include type of product or service offered, number of employees (part- and full-time), type of clients, number of H-1B employees, number of alien employees, length of time the organization has been in business, other business locations.

4.  Did the organization have knowledge of the beneficiary and the petition filed on behalf of the organization?

This is a fairly simple question the answer to which may suggest fraud if the company representative is not aware of an H-1B application filed by the company.  Information about the employee’s duties, salary, job location may be sought.

5.   Was the beneficiary working for the organization?

The site inspector may seek information and records showing that the beneficiary was working for the employer, including time sheet reports,  performance reports, etc.

6.  Were you able to identify and speak to the beneficiary?

The site inspector will attempt to determine whether the beneficiary is currently at the location, and if not, whether the employee has been terminated, working at a different job site, etc.

7.  Was the beneficiary knowledgeable, cooperative and forthcoming with questions?

The site inspector will describe the behavior of the H-1B beneficiary and the beneficiary’s description of his or her employment with the petitioner company.  Any discrepancies noted with the information provided by the employer should be highlighted by the site inspector.

8.  Was the beneficiary paid the indicated salary?

This kind of inquiry seeks to determine whether the beneficiary may be underpaid or placed on bench period.  The site inspector may seek W-2s, pay stubs or other payroll information.

9.  Was the beneficiary performing the duties as indicated?

The site inspector will seek information and records from the company to determine whether the beneficiary’s duties are consistent with the stated duties on the sponsor paperwork.

10.  Do you recommend further inquiry?

The site inspector would, based on the entire record, make a recommendation as to whether further inquiry on this employer is necessary.

Definition of H-1B Dependent Employer

Pursuant to 20 CFR 655.736,  an H-1B dependent employer is one which meets one of the following standards:

1. The employer has 25 or fewer full-time equivalent (“FTE”) employees in the U.S. and employs more than seven (7) H-1B nonimmigrants;
2. The employer has at least 26 but no more than 50 FTE employees and employs more than twelve (12) H-1B nonimmigrants; or
3. The employer has at least 51 FTE employees and employs H-1B nonimmigrants accounting for more than fifteen percent (15%) of the employer’s total FTE employees.

Duties of H-1B Dependent Employers

If an employer is deemed to be H-1B dependent, then an additional set of requirements applies:

1. The employer has to promise that it will not displace a similarly employed U.S. worker within ninety (90) days before or after an H-1B visa petition is filed;
2. The employer will make good faith efforts to recruit U.S. workers; and
3. The employer must make a job offer to an equally or better qualified U.S. applicant.

Exempt Employees

The  H-1B dependent requirements do not apply to “exempt” H-1B candidates.  Exempt H-1B candidates are those holding a master’s or higher degree or its equivalent in a specialty related to the intended employment, or who earn wages (including cash bonuses and similar compensation) at an annual rate of at least $60,000.

Calculations Must Be Made With Each LCA/H-1B Filing

As employers constantly change the composition of their workforce, it becomes important to perform the H-1B dependent employer analysis with each LCA/H-1B filing.  If an employer turns out that it is H-1B dependent and if the H-1B candidate it not exempt (as described above), then the additional set of requirements (described above) must be met before the H-1B petition can be filed.

As our clients and readers know, the H-1B nonimmmigrant work visa is one of the most commonly used work visas for sponsoring foreign workers.   The H-1B visa requires that the H-1B beneficiary be employed as an “employee” (as opposed to a “consultant”) with all the benefits and rights afforded to the company’s other employees.   All wages earned by H-1B employees must be reported on Form W-2 and subject to withholding of income tax (and often employment tax) in the same way as U.S. citizens and residents.  Additionally, the IRS can examine expenses paid for or reimbursed to the employee which payments could represent compensation or a taxable employee benefit. 

Our firm often receives inquiries from corporate and individual clients as to whether there is a specific requirement that the H-1B employee be considered a “W-2 employee” versus a “1099 contractor.”  The IRS statement and the upcoming audits of H-1B employers make it very important that any H-1B employee be considered as an “empoyee” and a Form W-2 prepared along with the proper withholdings.

Rule Goes Into Effect on September 8, 2009

On August 26, 2009, a U.S. District Court struck down the challenges to the E-Verify rule.  As a result, the new rule goes into effect on September 8, 2009.

This means that most federal contracts awarded, as well as solicitations issued after September 8, 2009, must include a clause mandating use of E-Verify for all employees hired during the contract period and all existing employees assigned to perform work under the contract.  The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has published information and frequently asked questions on its website regarding application of the rule.

E-Verify Compliance

The Capitol Immigration Law Group is an E-Verify designated agent which allows us to handle E-Verify compliance on behalf of our clients.  If you or your company are interested in E-Verify compliance assistance please feel free to contact us.

Prior I-140 SI Standard

The prior standard by which I-140 SI filings were reviewed was that the I-140’s validity will be reaffirmed only if the successor company had assumed all of the rights, duties, obligations and assets of the original employer and continue to operate the same type of business as the original employer.  Additionally, the new employer had to establish its ability to pay the profferred wage specified on the labor certification.

The old standard, initially set forth in a 1993 Paleo memorandum, is quite old and does not reflect the realities of the corporate M&A and business practices where it is now rare that a successor company would assume all of the predecessor company’s rights and obligations.

New Standard for I-140 SI Review

According to the Neufeld Memo, for all SI I-140 petitions filed after August 6, 2009, the adjudication officers should focus  on the following factors:

1.  The Job Opportunity Offered By The Successor Must Be The Same As The Job Opportunity In The Original Labor Certification.

The job offered by the successor must remain unchanged with respect to rate-of-pay (upward adjustments due to passage of time are acceptable), job description and job requirements specified on the labor certification.   There cannot be any changes to the job which would affect the labor market test conducted initially by the predecessor company.  The job opportunity must continue to exist at all time and there must not be a substantial lapse of operations with respect to the successor company after the business transfer.

2. The Successor Company Bears Burden To Establish Continuing Eligibility In All Respects, Including Ability-to-Pay.

The successor company must demonstrate that all of the criteria for the visa classification initially proposed have been met.  This includes, but is not limited to, the predecessor’s ability to pay the profferred wage from the date of the filing of the labor certification (the “priority date”) until the date of the business transfer. Similarly, the successor must demonstrate that it is a valid “employer” under the USCIS regulations and that it has ability to pay the profferred wage.   The I-140 SI petition must also include evidence to establish that the sponsored employee possesses the minimum education/experience specified on the labor certification.

3. The Successor Must Fully Document The Transfer And Assumption Of Ownership.

The Neufeld Memo specifically addresses that the transfer of ownership must occur after the approval of the underlying labor certification.  Additionally, the successor must present evidence to document the business transaction such as:

• contract of sale or similar document of the acquisition;
• mortgage closing statements;
• SEC Form 10-K;
• audited financial statements;
• documentation of the transfer of real property and business licenses;
• copies of financial instruments used to executed the transfer; and
• media or other reports of the business transfer.

When a specific unit of the predecessor unit is being transferred, the transferred unit must be clearly defined unit within the predecessor organization and that unit must be transferred in its entirety to the successor except certain unrelated liabilities.  As discussed above, the job offered to the alien beneficiary must continue to be in the transferred unit.

AC21 and Successor-in Interest

The Neufeld Memo specifically addresses the situations in which the alien beneficiary is entitled to port his or her process to a new employer under Section 106(c) of AC21.  In such cases, a SI entity need not file a new petition on alien’s behalf assuming AC21 conditions have been met (such as “same or similar job”).

SI Amendments Not Needed For Self-Sponsored I-140 Petitions

I-140 petitions filed in connection with visa categories which do not require labor certifications (EB-1 EA, EB-2 NIW) remain valid even if a business transfer has occurred.  There is no need of I-140 SI amendments in such cases.

New Labor Certification May Be Required In Certain Cases

If the successor entity cannot support the requirements outlined above a new labor certification setting forth the changed job conditions must be filed.   Specifically, USCIS required a new labor certification be filed when (1) the successor entity has not met the three factors outlined in the Neufeld Memo, (2) the labor certification is not valid for the new geographic area of the alien beneficiary’s proposed employment, or (3) there has been another material change in the job opportunity offered.

FY2009 H-2B Numbers Are Under the Quota

On January 7, 2009,  USCIS announced that it has accepted a sufficient number of H-2B petitions to meet the annual cap of 66,000 H-2B visas.  However, the Department of State has received far fewer than expected requests for H-2B visas and as a result, has issued only 40,640 H-2B visas for fiscal year 2009 to date. This means that there are approximately 25,000 visas that may go unused, as they have not been granted. Because of the low visa issuance rate, USCIS is reopening the filing period to allow employers to file additional petitions for qualified H-2B temporary foreign nonagricultural workers.

FY2009 Filing Deadline Is Imminent

The normal (non-premium processing) adjudication time frame for H-2B petitions is 60 days. USCIS will make visa numbers available to petitions in the order in which the petitions are filed. However, because H-2B petitions (Form I-129) for fiscal year 2009 visas must be received, evaluated, and adjudicated on or before the fiscal year 2009 deadline of Sept. 30, 2009, USCIS cannot guarantee approval of any H-2B petition on or before the Sept. 30, 2009 deadline. Employers therefore are encouraged to file as soon as possible and to request premium processing by filing a Form I-907 and
submitting the $1000 premium processing fee, which will allow for expedited adjudication before October 1.

Petitions received on or after Oct. 1, 2009, and/or requesting a starting date on or after Oct. 1, 2009, will be considered towards the fiscal year 2010 H-2B cap and are subject to all eligibility requirements for fiscal year 2010 H-2B filings, including 8 CFR 214.2(h)(6)(iv)(D), which requires that the start date listed on the petition be the same as the starting date authorized on the temporary labor certification.

Please see a USCIS FAQ regarding this H-2B filing window reopening.

The guidance sheet is helpful in not only describing in more detail what happens when an OPT F-1 holder is a beneficiary of an H-1B petition.  Normally, when USCIS receives an H-1B petition it enters the information into its mainframe called CLAIMS.  This update automatically updates the SEVIS system and which automatically should reflect the cap-gap extension for the F-1 holder.    If this process does not work (due to time constraints, mainly), SEVIS allows the Designated School Official (“DSO”) to enter manually that the student is in valid status pursuant to cap-gap into SEVIS.

This functionality also allows DSOs to enter gap-cap information in cases where the H-1B application has been filed but it has not yet been processed by USCIS.  The guidance notes, however, that the “manual” update of cap-gap status by the DSO should not be done unless in cases where the student’s OPT may expire before USCIS can receipt the H-1B petition (and therefore enter the H-1B petition in CLAIMS).

An E-Verify designated agent, we work with our E-Verify company clients to ensure that they follow the rules and procesures required by E-Verify.  This is a helpful chart showing some of the major DOs and DON’Ts when it comes to E-Verify.

DOs:

• Use program to verify employment eligibility of new hires;
• Use program for all new employees regardless of national origin or citizenship status;
• Use program for new employees after they have completed the I-9 Form;
• Promptly provide and review with the employee the notice of tentative nonconfirmation (of one is issued);
• Promptly provide the referral notice from the Social Security Administration (SSA) or Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to the employee who chooses to contest a tentative nonconfirmation;
• Allow an employee who is contesting a tentative nonconfirmation to continue to work during that period;
• Contact E-Verify if you believe an employee has received a final nonconfirmation in error;
• Post required notices of the employer’s participation in E-Verify and the antidiscrimination notice issued by the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC);
• Accept any Form I-9 List B document with a photo from an employee who chooses to provide a List B document;
• Secure the privacy of employees’ personal information and the password used for access to the program;
• Delay running an E-Verify query for an employee who has not yet been issued a Social Security number until the Social Security number is issued;
• Allow an employee who has not been issued a Social Security number to work throughout the period that the employee is waiting for his or her Social Security number to be issued.

DON’Ts

• Use program to verify current employees;
• Use program selectively based on a “suspicion” that a new employee or current employee may not be authorized to work in the U.S. or based on national origin;
• Use program to pre-screen employment (applicants unless you are a State Workforce Agency);
• Influence or coerce an employee’s decision whether to contest a tentative nonconfirmation
• Terminate or take adverse action against an employee who is contesting a tentative nonconfirmation, including denying or reducing scheduled hours, delaying or preventing training, mistreating the employee, requiring the employee to work longer hours, requiring the employee to work in poorer conditions, or subjecting the employee to any assumption that s/he is unauthorized to work during this period, unless and until receiving a final nonconfirmation or no show response;
• Ask an employee to obtain a printout or other written verification from SSA or DHS when referring that employee to either agency;
• Ask an employee to provide additional documentation of his or her employment eligibility after obtaining a tentative nonconfirmation for that employee;
• Request specific documents in order to activate E-Verify’s photo tool feature;
• Run an E-Verify query for an employee who is waiting for his or her Social Security number to be issued until the employee is issued a Social Security number.

If you are an employer and are not already E-Verify participant, we would be happy to discuss the options and the needs of your organization to become part of E-Verify.  Please contact us to set up an E-Verify appointment and evaluation.

About EB-5

Section 203(b)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act creates a class of immigrant visas, EB-5, for individuals who invest a specified amount of capital in the U.S. economy and who will “create full-time employment for not fewer than 10″ qualified employees.   Initial EB-5 status has conditions which condition must be removed at the end of a two-year period by filing an application to remove conditional residency and by showing that the applicant has continued to meet section 203(b)(5) requirements.

The Neufeld Memorandum and Job Creation

The Neufeld Memorandum directs the adjudicators that a specific business plan be required as part of each EB-5 application which business plan must provide accounting of the required number of jobs created within the two-year period of conditional residency.  However, the adjudicators are given some flexibility as to  the timing of job creation.

For purposes of determining the period in which job creation is counted, USCIS has indicated that such period begins six (6) months after the adjudication of Form I-526 and the business plan filed in support of Form I-526 must make sure that job creation covers this 2-year period commencing 6 months following adjudication.

The Neufeld Memorandum specifically indicates that certain construction jobs can be included in the count of 10 full-time jobs required by EB-5.  Section 203(b)(5) requires that 10 full-time jobs be created by the proposed venture.  Full-time employment is defined as “employment in a position that requires at least 35 hours of service per week at any time, regardless of who fills the position” (emphasis added).  USCIS has advised previously that intermittent, temporary or seasonal jobs do not qualify for “full-time jobs.” However, the Neufeld Memorandum specifically indicates that some construction-related jobs should qualify to be considered full-time jobs and should therefore be counted.  The focus on the inquiry, according to the Neufeld Memorandum, should be whether the position created is continuous full-time employment rather than intermittend, seasonal job.  This shift in focus allows some full-time construction jobs, generated from the foreign entrepreneur’s investment, to be counted towards the 10 jobs requirement.

An additional clarification by the Neufeld Memorandum — independent contractors and multiple part-time jobs cannot be used and be counted towards the jobs requirement.

Generally, the Velarde memorandum provides two kinds of guidance, one for beneficiaries with a license and one for beneficiaries who do not.  We will review each in turn.

Beneficiaries Who Have a License

According to the memorandum, when the USCIS adjudicator reviews H-1B application where the beneficiary has provided documentary evidence of his or her valid license to practice a health care occupation in the state in which the beneficiary will be employed, the adjudicator should not look beyond the license and should accept its validity on its face.

If the beneficiary has an unrestricted license the adjudicator should approve the petition for up to three years (or the maximum permissible depending on the LCA validity period and other circumstances).  The fact that a license has to be renewed periodically, for example, every year, should not prevent the adjudicator from issuing a 3-year H-1B visa.

On the other hand, if the beneficiary has restricted license, the adjudicator should approve the petition for one year only or the duration of the restricted license, whichever is longer.

Beneficiaries Who Do Not Have a License

Generally, in order to perform a health care occupation, the beneficiary must obtain a license from the state in which the beneficiary will be employed.  If the H-1B petition claims that the beneficiary cannot obtain a license due to the fact that the beneficiary needs to obtain a social security (SSN) card or a valid work authorization document, then the adjudicator is asked to determine the requirements for obtaining license and whether the beneficiary is qualified to perform the specialty occupation.  Additionally, the beneficiary will have to show that he or she (1) has filed an application for license and (2) cannot obtain a full unrestricted license due to the requriements of possessing a SSN card or valid immigration document in the form of a letter from the State Board.

Assuming the H-1B petition is approvable in accordance with the standards set forth in the memorandum, the validity period should be one year.   Subsequent requests for extension must include evidence that the beneficiary has been granted a valid unrestricted license to practice the health care occupation.  Failure to provide such evidence will result in the denial of the H-1B extension  petition.

The Cap Gap

If the employer employs an F-1 nonimmigrant student on post-completion (OPT) and that student is the beneficiary of a pending or approved H-1B petition, the student may be able to continue working beyond the expiration date on his or her employment authorization document (EAD).   In recent years, the number of H-1B petitions filed per year has exceeded the annual cap. Due to demand, the annual cap of 65,000 H-1B visas has been met during the initial filing period, beginning on April 1. All  cap-subject petitions filed during this initial filing period indicate a requested start date of October 1 (the start of the government fiscal year). In the past, F-1 students who were the beneficiaries of an H-1B petition often had their F-1 status expire before their H-1B status began on October 1 –- a period known as the cap gap. The most common situation occurred when a student’s OPT ended in the spring or early summer, and the student’s F-1 status expired 60 days after that, leaving a gap of several months before the individual’s H-1B status began on October 1.

The OPT Interim Final Rule

On April 8, 2008, the Department of Homeland Security published an Interim Final Rule (IFR) titled, Extending Period of Optional Practical Training by 17 Months for F-1 Nonimmigrant Students With STEM Degrees and Expanding Cap-Gap Relief for All F-1 Students With Pending H-1B Petitions. The changes made by this rule became effective upon publication of the rule.

One provision of the rule applies to F-1 students who are the beneficiaries of a pending or approved H-1B petition that is subject to the annual cap. The IFR automatically extends the F-1 status and, for students in a period of approved post-completion OPT when the H-1B petition is filed, the OPT employment authorization.

The cap-gap extension of OPT is automatic for eligible students. A student does not file an application for the extension or receive a new EAD to cover the additional time. The only proof of continued employment authorization currently available to an affected student is an updated Form I-20 showing an extension of OPT, on page 3. This document serves as proof of continued employment authorization.  However, this automatic extension of an F-1 student’s duration of status and employment authorization is terminated upon the rejection, denial, or revocation of the H-1B petition filed on the F-1 student’s behalf.

Student’s Obligations

A student who is eligible for the cap-gap extension must work with a designated school official (DSO) at the student’s school to receive an updated Form I-20. If a student is eligible for the cap-gap extension of OPT, the student can continue to work while the update to his or her Form I-20 is being processed. Because the cap-gap extension is automatic, the updated Form I-20 is not required for a student to continue working; it merely serves as proof of the extension of OPT employment authorization.

Employer’s Obligations

To assist a student in obtaining an updated Form I-20, the employer may need to provide the student with an I-797 receipt or approval notice issued by USCIS for the H-1B petition filed on the student’s behalf.  This receipt notice serves as proof of filing the H-1B petition and may need to be submitted to SEVP in order to update a student’s Form I-20 to show eligibility for the cap-gap extension.

Obtain the new version of Form I-9.

The restrictions apply to any Labor Condition Application (LCA) and/or H-1B petition filed on or after Feb. 17, 2009, involving any employment by a new employer, including concurrent employment and regardless of whether the beneficiary is already in H-1B status. The EAWA also applies to new hires based on a petition approved before Feb. 17, 2009, if the H-1B employee had not actually commenced employment before that date.

However, one of the main questions after the Stimulus Bill passed was whether the new rule would apply for existing H-1B holders at TARP companies.  The USCIS memorandum makes it clear that  the restrictions do not apply to H-1B petitions seeking to change the status of a beneficiary already working for the employer in another work-authorized category. It also does not apply to H-1B petitions seeking an extension of stay for a current employee with the same employer.

We do not have good estimates that the H-1B demand will be less than the 65,000 (plus additional 20,000)  and as a result there will not be a lottery to distribute the available visa.  However, we do agree wholeheartedly with the article that the H-1B demand this April is likely to be the weakest it has been in many years.

Some of our H-1B clients ask whether the recession will impact the H-1B processing and we understand that despite the slowdown in the economy, there is an expectation that there will be more than 65,000 H-1B visas which would result in there being a lottery to distribute the available H-1B numbers.

We would be happy to help you or your company with preparing and filing an H-1B cap-subject visa application this April.  If you need our help and services, please contact us at your earliest convenience.

Final Text of the Stimulus Bill Imposing the H-1B Limitations

Section 1611 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“ARRA”)  reads:

SEC. 1611. HIRING AMERICAN WORKERS IN COMPANIES RECEIVING TARP FUNDING.

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This section may be cited as the ‘‘Employ American Workers Act’’.

(b) PROHIBITION.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it shall be unlawful for any recipient of funding under title I of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–343) or section 13 of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 342 et seq.) to hire any nonimmigrant described in section 101(a)(15)(h)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(h)(i)(b)) unless the recipient is in compliance with the requirements for an H–1B dependent employer (as defined in section 212(n)(3) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(3))), except that the second sentence of section 212(n)(1)(E)(ii) of such Act shall not apply.

(2) DEFINED TERM.—In this subsection, the term ‘‘hire’’ means to permit a new employee to commence a period of employment.

(c) SUNSET PROVISION.—This section shall be effective during the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.

What Exactly Are the H-1B Restrictions?

Covered companies are not allowed to “hire” an H-1B worker unless the company has complied with additional LCA attestations which are generally imposed on H-1B dependent employers.  These additional attestations are:

(1) that the employer has, prior to filing the H-1B petition, taken good-faith steps to recruit U.S. workers for the position for which the H-1B worker is sought, offering a wage that is at least as high as that required under law to be offered to the H-1B worker. The employer must also attest that, in connection with this recruitment, it has offered the job to any U.S. worker who applies and is equally or better qualified for the position; and

(2) that the employer has not laid off, and will not lay off, any U.S. worker in a job that is essentially equivalent to the H-1B position in the area of intended employment of the H-1B worker within the period beginning 90 days prior to the filing of the H-1B petition and ending 90 days after its filing.

Which Employers Are Covered Under the H-1B Restriction?

A company which receives funding under title I of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-343, the “TARP Bill”) or that receives funding under Section 13 of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. § 342 et seq., authorizing the Federal Reserve’s “Discount Window” for short-term, secured loans to financial institutions and other companies) is covered under the H-1B restriction.   USA Today has a chart with names of the TARP companies and the U.S. Treasury has a list of transaction reports under the TARP program.

Note that companies recipients of funds pursuant to the ARRA stimulus bill, but not under the TARP Bill, are not subject to the H-1B restriction.

Are There Exemptions?

Generally, employers who are H-1B dependent can claim one of two exemptions – having salary higher than $60,000 or having a master’s degree – and avoid having to provide the additional attestations.  However, these two exemptions have been made explicitly unavailable to TARP companies.

What Happens to H-1B Workers at Existing TARP Companies?

The statute is drafted to prohibit any “new hires” between February 17, 2009 and February 16, 2011.  “Hire” is defined as permitting “a new employee to commence a period of employment.” As a result, it seems that the H-1B restrictions do not apply to H-1B workers who are already employeed at the TARP companies.  However, neither USCIS nor DOL have issued implementation guidance or regulations yet, so it is not completely certain that they will take the same view.

Work Allowed While H-1B Transfer Pending Even if There is a Gap in Employment

Just this week, VSC’s AILA Liaison provides some clarifications which, in these difficult economic times, provide a fair amount of relief to terminated H-1B workers.    Our article, and the previous guidance from VSC, indicated that in order to be eligible to “port” to a new H-1B employer, the new H-1B petition must be filed before termination or before the old petition is revoked or withdrawn by the old employer.

However, if the H-1B portability criteria are met, then the foreign national would be eligible to work pursuant to H-1B portability upon filing the H-1B transfer application even if s/he was not eligible for an extension or change of status. The H-1B portability criteria are: (1) the foreign national was lawfully admitted; (2) the new H-1B petition is “nonfrivolous;” (3) the new H-1B petition was filed before the date of expiration of period of authorized stay (as described on the I-94 card); and (4) subsequent to lawful admission, the foreign national has not been employed without authorization.  (INA § 214(n))

For example, if an H-1B employee is terminated on February 1, and her employer requests revocation of her H-1B on February 1, then the H-1B status is automatically revoked pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(11)(ii).  However, the foreign national remains in the U.S. and finds a job on March 1 and the new employer files a new, non-frivolous H-1B petition on her behalf.  Since the foreign national was lawfully admitted, the petition is non-frivolous, the I-94 was not expired, and she has not worked without authorization between February 1 and March 1, then the foreign national is eligible to start work under INA § 214(n).

Scenarios Upon Approval of Pending H-1B Transfer Application

The foreign national is eligible to work until the petition is adjudicated.  Once the H-1B petition is approved, this “interim” authorization to work ceases, and one of two things can happen.  One, USCIS will use its discretion and approve an extension of status and the employee will continue to be able to work for the new sponsoring employer.  Or, two, USCIS will deny the extension of status request and the employee will have to depart the U.S., and either obtain an H-1B visa at a U.S. consulate, or, if she already has a valid H-1B visa from her former employer, she will simply need to depart the U.S. and, upon re-entry, present her old visa with the new I-797 and continue working.

Conclusion

The guidance from VSC makes it easy for employees to understand their options in the event their H-1B employment is terminated. Working for the new H-1B employer while the application is pending allows an employee to continue to receive income especially when there is a period of unemployment between the old H-1B employment and the new one.  However, it should be noted that it is possible that USCIS may decline to “forgive” the period of unemployment between the two H-1B jobs and as a result the foreign national will have to travel outside of the U.S.

The H-1B visa is one of the most commonly used U.S. work visas for highly skilled foreign born workers in fields such as information technology, engineering, research, academia, and others.  The H-1B visa is both highly desirable and, unfortunately, in short supply.

The H-1B visa category was created in 1990 through the Nationality and Immigration Act of 1990 (INA).  An H-1B job must require a bachelor’s degree or equivalent and the foreign national must have a bachelor’s degree or equivalent in a field of study that is related to the job.   Upon the creation of the H-1B visa type,  INA imposed a numerical limitation (“cap”) on the number of H-1Bs that could be issued in each fiscal year.  This “cap” (or quota) has varied over the past years but is set to 65,000 per year for the 2010 Fiscal Year starting on October 1, 2009.  As part of the Visa Reform Act which went into effect as of May 5, 2005, an extra 20,000 H-1B visas were made available to foreign nationals graduating with a US Master’s or higher degree from a US institution. These 20,000 are counted in addition to the annual cap of 65,000 visas.

Who is Counted Towards the Cap?

Most H-1B applications are subject to the annual cap.   Generally, all H-1B petitions which are filed for a new employment of an H-1B beneficiary (whether the foreign national is current outside of the U.S. or in the U.S. on a different visa type) and where the beneficiary has never held an H-1B visa in the past six years are subject to the cap.

However, some H-1B petitions are cap-exempt. Petitions filed by institutions of higher education or their affiliates or by non-profit or government research organizations are not subject to the H-1B cap (see our Guide to H-1B Cap-Exempt Employers)  Additionally, H-1B petitions where the beneficiary has had H-1B visa approved within the last six years are also exempt – in many cases such cases are H-1B employer transfers or changes in terms of employment.

What is H-1B Season?

All H-1B petitions which are subject to the cap must be filed on April 1 with a starting date of not earlier than October 1.  The demand for H-1B visas over the past several years has far exceeded the available 85,000 H-1B visas and as a result the government has instituted a lottery which randomly determines which H-1B applications submitted on or shortly after April 1 are to be considered.  Because of this limited window of opportunity, H-1B petitions which are subject to the cap must be filed on April 1 or a day or two afterwards.  Petitions filed late are automatically rejected.  As a result, the months of February and March are generally referred to as the “H-1B Cap Season” because this is the only time of the year when H-1B cap cases can be prepared and filed.

Deadline is April 1

The H-1B Season is underway.  We are already receiving many new H-1B cap inquiries and we are starting to get very busy with new H-1B cap applications.  Because cap-subject H-1B applications have only one opportunity to be filed per year, it is very important that each application be properly prepared and timely filed and we take extra effort to do so.  We still accept new cases so please contact us for a free initial consultation and evaluation on your case.  We would be happy to evaluate whether your H-1B petition is subject to the cap and if so, guide you through the process.

We wrote and analyzed about the proposed amendment on Tuesday, February 10th, and we received a number of comments and reactions.  There was a very intensive effort to try and defeat the Sanders amendment during the conference, but ultimately, the Sanders amendment survived the conference and made its way into the final stimulus bill.

Following the passage, one of the major issues with analyzing the bill were (1) ths size of ARRA and (2) the scanned PDF format in which it was distributed.  Recognizing the urgency of the bill and its passage, we understand that to some extent transparency and convenience were sacrficed.  However, the inability to properly parse the text of the bill delayed its analysis.

According to the Conference Report:

Section 1611 provides that it shall be unlawful for any recipient of funding of Title I of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 or section 13 of the Federal Reserve Act to hire any nonimmigrant described in section 101(a)(15)(h)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act unless the recipient is in compliance with the requirements for an H-1B dependent employer as defined in that Act.  This requirement is effective for a two-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act.

We would seek a final copy of the bill (as opposed to reading the PDF of the conference report) and post on this site any updates.

The relevant section of the Stimulus Bill is Sec. 1610:

Sec. 1610. Hiring American workers in companies receiving TARP funding.

(a) Short Title- This section may be cited as the `Employ American Workers Act’.

(b) Prohibition-

 (1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it shall be unlawful for any recipient of funding under title I of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-343) or section 13 of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 342 et seq.) to hire any nonimmigrant described in section 101(a)(15)(h)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(h)(i)(b)) unless the recipient is in compliance with the requirements for an H-1B dependent employer (as defined in section 212(n)(3) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(3))), except that the second sentence of section 212(n)(1)(E)(ii) of such Act shall not apply.

 (2) DEFINED TERM- In this subsection, the term `hire’ means to permit a new employee to commence a period of employment.

(c) Sunset Provision- This section shall be effective during the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.

What is Going to Happen?

The Senate version of the Stimulus Bill, including the language above, is expected to be approved by the Senate today.  However, the House version of the Stimulus Bill does not have such language and both versions will have to be reconciled so that both the Senate and the House approve the same text.  Only then the Stimulus Bill would become law after it is signed by the President.

This means that the language restricting H-1Bs at TARP recipients may not end up in the final law.  However, given the pressure to pass the legislation quickly, it is very possible that the House would adopt the proposed Senate language and ultimately impose the H-1B restrictions.

What Does the Prohibition Mean?

The text, as currently drafted, would impose some limits on the ability of companies recipients of TARP funds to hire new foreign workers on H-1B visas.  By making such employers “H-1B dependent”, the law would require any TARP recipient willing to sponsor an H-1B for the next two years to, among other things, (1) provide certain “displacement attestations” that no U.S. workers have been or will  be displaced as a result of the H-1B employee; (2) provide recruitment attestations about the nature of the recruitment process; (3) remain liable for displacement of U.S. workers as a reuslt of placement of H-1B employee with another employer.

However, the requirements on an H-1B dependent employer do not apply for “exempt H-1B nonimmigrants” which include (1)  those holding a master’s or higher degree or its equivalent in a specialty related to the intended employment, or (2) who earn wages (including cash bonuses and similar compensation) at an annual rate of at least $60,000.   This exemption is not likely to cover all, but is likely to cover many of the intended foreign national beneficiaries of H-1B visas from TARP recipient companies.

Finally, the definition of “hire” is drafted in a way that includes only new employment.  This should mean that H-1B extensions for H-1B holders already employed at TARP recipient companies should not be subject to the additional requirements.

Who are TARP Recipients?

The list of companies recipients of TARP funds is very long, so we will not publish it at length.  Please find the full and recently updated list here.

Conclusion

While the Stimulus Bill draft may be a source for alarm for some, the reality is that (1) until the law is approved by both the Senate and the House, the text is not final and (2) there are some exceptions which would allow TARP companies to hire H-1B workers either by complying with the H-1B dependent employer requirements or by claiming the applicable exemptions.

Update (14:57 pm):  the Senate approved the Stimulus Bill by 61-47 votes.

There are some interesting numbers.  Unfortunately, the news is not good for PERM applicants.  As of December 31, 2008, there were 53,200 active PERM cases pending at DOL.  This is significantly higher than the 40,200 cases which were pending as of September 30, 2008.  This means that for the past three months, the backlog at DOL’s PERM processing centers has increased by 13,000 cases, or by 32%.   For the same period, between October 1 and December 31, 2008, DOL received 20,752 new PERM applications but it completed only 4,571 cases.

These  numbers confirm our observations that PERM applications are backlogging significantly and the processing time is likely to skyrocket over the next 6-12 months.  According to (fairly reliable) information compiled by our friends at trackitt.com, the PERM processing times have been steadily increasing from somewhere around 70 days in late 2007 and early 2008 to 200-200 days in mid 2008.   Based on DOL’s statistics, we expect the PERM processing times to incrase more.

We will continue monitoring the PERM timelines and attempt to draw some conclusions which would help our clients plan their immigration strategy.  Please subscribe to our newsletter to receive regular updates on this topic.

There are a number of legal challenges on the proposed rule and we will continue posting updates on the topic as they become available.

UPDATE: the implementation of the updated Form I-9 has been delayed.

The Interim Final Rule narrows the list of identity documents which are acceptable and specifies that expired documents are not considered acceptable forms of identification.   The changes included in the Interim Final Rule are intended to improve the security and the trustworthiness of the employment eligibility verification process.

The Interim Rule eliminates Forms I-688, I-688A, and I-688B (Temporary Resident Card and older versions of the Employment Authorization Card/Document) from List A on Form I-9.  These documents are no longer issued and those that were in circulation have expired. The Rule also adds to List A of the Form I-9 foreign passports containing specially-marked machine-readable visas and documentation for certain citizens of the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands.  The Rule makes other, technical changes to update the list of acceptable documents. The revised Form I-9 includes additional changes, such as revisions to the employee attestation section, and the addition of the new U.S. Passport Card to List A.

Form I-9.

Federal contracts awarded and solicitations issued after January 15, 2009 will include a clause committing government contractors to use E-Verify. The same clause will also be required in subcontracts over 3,000 for services or construction. Contracts exempt from this rule include those that are for less than $100,000 and those that are for commercially available off-the-shelf items. Companies awarded a contract with the federal government will be required to enroll in E-Verify within 30 days of the contract award date. They will also need to begin using the E-Verify system to confirm that all of their new hires and their employees directly working on federal contracts are authorized to legally work in the United States.

It is interesting to note that the final rule is significantly narrower than the proposed rule circulated earlier this year.  The revised final rule would limit its application to contracts worth $100,000 or more, instead of $3,000, and require employers to check the eligibility only of workers on those contracts, instead of all their workers. The changes would apply to solicitations or awards made after January 15, and exempt workers who have already received security clearances, contracts for commercial, off-the-shelf items, and contracts lasting less than 120 days.

According to Department of Homeland Security numbers, more than 92,000 employers currently use E-Verify, a free Internet-based system operated by the DHS in partnership with the Social Security Administration that allows participating employers to electronically verify the employment eligibility of their employees. During Fiscal Year 2008, more than 6.6 million employment verification queries were run through the system representing 1 out of every 8 hires made in the United States. Approximately 96.1 percent of all cases queried through E-Verify are instantly found to be employment authorized, and individuals who are not immediately cleared are given the opportunity to correct their government records in order to confirm their work eligibility.

We are attaching a Frequently Asked Questions document, released by USCIS yesterday, to address most of the concerns and questions which may be raised by this new rule.  We at the Capitol Immigration Law Group are an E-Verify registered agent and we can help you understand the requirements of the system and we can help you in your compliance efforts.  Please contact us for more information.