Labor Immigration Law

During a recent AILA conference, the Vermont Service Center (VSC) Director Dan Renaud told the audience that the performance review structure for adjudicating officers has recently changed. Pursuant to the new performance review structure, officers get credit for issuance of Requests for Evidence (RFES), in addition to issuing approvals and denials, under the previous performance review structure.

Anticipating reaction from practitioners and affected individuals, AILA has attempted to clarify this comment with VSC. VSC has clarified this statement. In the VSC’s view, the “credit” for RFES is meant to encourage qualitative RFES. Under the previous policy, VSC was concerned that since examiners were not given “credit” for RFES, examiners were not spending the appropriate amount of time on them, resulting in RFES that were not appropriate. According to VSC, the purpose of giving credit is to improve the quality of RFES by making it something adjudicators have to stop and think about, rather than something to quickly send off. VSC has indicated that the amount of RFES issued has not changed as a result of the policy change.

Inevitably, this comment will trigger a fair amount of speculation and, possibly, accusations that RFES are being issued unfairly. We cannot confirm that RFES are unfair or issued disproportionately; our recent experience indicates that VSCS RFES are fair and well-prepared. We will continue to monitor RFES coming out of VSC and provide updates to our clients and readers.

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) is set to begin accepting H-1B visa applications pursuant to its Fiscal Year 2011 (FY2011) quota.   The first day on which USCIS will accept new, cap-subject H-1B petitions, is April 1, 2010.

About the H-1B Program and the Annual Cap

The H-1B visa category was created in 1990 through the Nationality and Immigration Act of 1990 (INA).  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 FY2011 starting on October 1, 2010.

H-1B is a nonimmigrant visa classification used by U.S. employers to hire a foreign national who will be employed temporarily in the U.S. in a specialty occupation (generally one which requires a bachelor’s degree or higher) or as a fashion model.  Each year, by law, USCIS can approve up to new 65,000 H-1Bs, thereby allowing many private and employers to hire temporary qualified workers.   H-1B non-immigrants who work at (but not necessarily for) universities and non-profit research facilities are excluded from the numerical cap (see below for discussion of cap-exempt employers).

There are certain exceptions to the congressionally-mandated maximum of 65,000 H-1B visas per fiscal year.  The first 20,000 H1B visas issued to alien workers who obtained their master’s degree from a U.S. university are exempt from the 65,000 cap;  H1B visas issued to such U.S. master degree holders subsequent to the first 20,000 are then counted against the overall 65,000 cap.    Additionally, the cap does not apply to foreign nationals in the U.S. who are in lawful H1B status and who are seeking to extend their visa or change employers.

Timing of the Cap-subject H-1B Petition Filing

The earliest date on which cap-subject H-1B petitions to be counted under the FY2011 H-1B cap is April 1, 2010.  By law, the earliest starting employment date for petitions approved under the FY2011 H-1B cap is October 1, 2010.  As a result of this up to 6-month window  between the time of filing and the time of employment, it becomes important to plan properly with respect to resources, valid status in the U.S. and work authorization.

Before an H-1B petition can be filed on or after April 1, there are a number of lead-time items.   Employers who have not submitted Labor Condition Applications (LCAs) with the Department of Labor’s iCERT system must have their Federal Employer Identification Number (FEIN) verified – a process which generally takes 2-4 business days.  Subsequently, an LCA must be filed for the offered position.  LCAS tend to be certified within 7 business days.   Only after the LCA is certified (with very minor exceptions) can an H-1B petition can be finalized and filed.  Accordingly, it becomes important to start the H-1B petition process as early as possible.  At a very minimum, an H-1B petition preparation can take at least two (2) and often at least three (3) weeks.

Cap-exempt Employers Can File H-1B at Any Time

Not all H-1B petitions must be filed under the H-1B annual cap.  Certain employers can file for H-1B workers at any time of the year and without being subject to the numerical H-1B visa limitations.  Such employers are generally qualified institutions of higher education (universities, colleges) and non-profit research organizations, or non-profits affiliated with institutions of higher education.   Note, not all non-profit organizations qualify; only those who are engaged in research may file for cap-exempt H-1B petitions.

Please see our helpful Guide to H-1B Cap Exempt Employers for more details.

Projections About This Year’s H-1B Cap

As discussed above, the H-1B cap “opens” on April 1, 2010 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 FY2011 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.   Last year, for FY2010, the H-1B cap was open between April 1, 2009 and December 22, 2009.

Due to the recovering economy, we do not expect that this year’s H-1B cap will be reached in eight days.  However, we do not anticipate that the H-1B cap will remain open until December of 2010.  Accordingly, to eliminate uncertainty, we recommend to our clients to aim for an early April H-1B filing.

Throughout the H-1B filing season, we provide weekly (or more often, if necessary) updates about the status of the H-1B cap and any related developments.  Please check back often or subscribe to our Weekly Newsletter to receive news and updates related to the H-1B filing season.

Conclusion

Because USCIS received more applications than there were visas available for fiscal years 2009, 2008, 2007 and 2006 within a few days of the cap opening, and for the 2010 fiscal year the cap was hit in December 2009, we recommend that clients consider their needs as soon as possible and be prepared to file on the first available date – April 1, 2010.    Our attorneys and professionals stand ready to review your case, as part of our free initial consultation, and will help you prepare a strong H-1B application.

Earlier today USCIS held a collaboration session on “Determining Employer-Employee Relationships for Adjudication of H-1B Petitions.“  We had the opportunity to attend the session, to listen and to engage in a discussion regarding the January 8, 2010, USCIS Memorandum by Donald Neufeld on the Employer-Employee Relationship.

The Session Generated Great Interest

The session proved to be very popular.  There were about 50 in-person attendees and over 600 phone conference dial-ins.   Obviously, this Memorandum has stirred many interests and has caused a tremendous amount of emotions, both negative and positive.

Although the session was expected to be a question-and-answer format, it turned out that both the questions were posed mainly as comments and reactions to the Memo.  In addition, when questions were posed, USCIS representatives, which included Donald Neufeld, did not provide much information or guidance.  As a result, we can report on what we heard and felt are concerns associated with the January 8, 2010 Memo.  Hopefully, USCIS will provide some sort of a response to the multitude of comments and reactions.

There were comments from immigration attorneys and practitioners, business owners, employees, representatives of trade organizations, and former congressmen, among others.  USCIS started first, by setting out their goals in drafting the Memorandum – to provide clearer standards for adjudication and to provide more clarify and transparency in the H-1B adjudication process for all parties involved.

Comments Were Mostly Critical

Then, the floor was open for questions and comments.  Overall, the comments were critical of the Neufeld Memorandum.   Many comments confirmed what we have realized from recent conversations with some of our consulting or staffing company clients – that the new Memorandum is likely to hurt their business due to the unpredictability of the current adjudication standards.  Several owners of IT consulting companies cited downsizing (and potentially closing) their companies due to the new standards and having to cut not only H-1B employees but also U.S. workers who work at the company.  A number of comments referred to the unintended (negative) consequences of the Neufeld Memorandum – for example, some physicians work at hospitals, but hospitals are prohibited by state law to employ them directly, thereby resulting in a situation where H-1B for a physician employed at a hospital is not possible under the Memorandum.

A caller expressed a concern that the Memorandum creates even more ambiguity in cases where an employer has in-house and client-placements of H-1Bs and with respect to a real situation where USCIS rejected H-1Bs for both in-house and client-placed employees due to the fact that USCIS could not have guarantee that in-house employees would not be placed at a client site at a later time.

We have seen RFEs which are drafted as a result of the January 8, 2010 Memorandum and a caller expressed dissatisfaction with (1) the length of the standard RFE seeking explanation of the employer-employee relationship but also with (2) the legally incorrect requirements for establishing such employer-employee relationship.

Some Callers Praised the Memorandum

There were also comments which praised the Memorandum.  A caller from a professional association was outraged that in this economic climate the H-1B program exists at all; citing high unemployment, the caller seemed to call for abandonment of the H-1B program altogether.   The Memorandum was similarly praised from callers representing organizations calling for limited number of work visas and also calling for a more restrictive set of rules on current staffing companies.

USCIS Listened, Mostly

USCIS representatives mostly listened.  What USCIS could acknowledge was that the January 8, 2010 Memorandum is not related to the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issues some H-1B holders faced since the holidays at Newark, New Jersey, airport.   However, it was noted that CBP has coordinated its Newark actions with the FDNS investigations on employers who potentially have violated the H-1B program rules.

Conclusion

While we applaud USCIS’ desire to open a dialogue with its stakeholders regarding the implementation and the impact of the Memorandum, given the number of negative comments and the unintended consequences of the Memorandum, it may seem that such dialogue should have been done before the publication of the Memorandum.  USCIS stated as one of its goals a transparent process; yet, it appears that the Memorandum was drafted in the shadows.

We are hoping that, in response to this meeting, USCIS will engage in a more robust review process and will provide some amendments to the Memorandum or, at the very least, some clarifications and explanations.

Effective January 1, 2010, the Department of Labor (DOL) centralized all prevailing wage determinations needed in connection with certain programs – PERM, H-1B, H-2B and E-3.   All prevailing wage requests now must be submitted to DOL for processing and not to the state workforce agencies, as it was done before.

Because DOL was not ready to accept electronic submissions on January 1, it announced that it would accept paper prevailing wage submissions until the iCert system is modified to accept prevailing wage requests on Form 9141.   As a result, many prevailing wage requests from early this year were submitted via mail.  On or about January 15, 2010, DOL launched the online prevailing wage request form and is now accepting online submissions.

Prevailing Wage Determinations Currently Take Three to Four Weeks

Unfortunately, delays in the processing of the prevailing wage requests are widely reported.  In many instances, paper request forms submitted before January 15th took one or two weeks to be entered into the system and confirmed as submitted.  We are seeing that it currently takes between three and four weeks for DOL to provide prevailing wage determinations.

In communications related to the new system, DOL has indicated that prevailing wage determinations may take up to 60 days.  This is in a sharp contrast to the pre-January 1, 2010 system where state workforce agencies were often able to provide prevailing wage determinations within 1-2 days.

We hope that DOL is experiencing adjustment issues to the new system and once system glitches are ironed out, DOL will staff the prevailing wage determination bureau properly so that determinations can be issued promptly.   To avoid delays in H-1B petitions associated with prevailing wage determinations, our office uses alternative prevailing wage surveys.  However, for PERM labor certification applications, the new prevailing wage determination system adds one to two months of additional PERM preparation time.

The American Immigration Lawyers’ Association (AILA) has provided some guidance and information from Customs and Border Protection (CBP) at the Newark, New Jersey airport.

Background

Starting in December of 2009, our office has been receiving alerts from current and prospective clients about a number of incidents where holders of valid H-1B stamps were questioned and, in some cases, offered the opportunity to withdraw their request for admission into the U.S. or be subject to expedited removal proceedings;  in many cases, such H-1B holders were not admitted into the U.S. and sent back to their home country and have had their H-1B visas cancelled.

Due to the lack of information from CBP and the seriousness of the situation, a number of misleading and sometimes false rumors have began circulating among communities of H-1B holders on the Internet.    We hope that this alert will provide helpful information and understanding of what happens at Newarj, NJ airport and what can be done about it.

USCIS/ICE Employer Fraud Investigations Cause Scrutiny of H-1B Employees

CBP has confirmed that at least several of these cases involved companies which were under investigation by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and/or USCIS for ongoing H-1B program fraud.  CBP noted that they use as much advance information as possible to target specific individuals who warrant additional inspection.  CBP also noted that recent enforcement cases reviewed ranged from simple documentary deficiency to visa/petition fraud. Upon an inadmissibility finding, the determination to either allow the applicant to withdraw his or her application for admission or to subject the applicant to expedited removal is based on “the totality of the circumstances and reviewed on a case by case basis.”

In the Newark enforcement actions, CBP Newark worked closely with USCIS – Fraud Detection and National Security (“FDNS”) and the Department of Labor – Office of Investigations.  CBP stated that those questioned were offered the opportunity to contact their consulate and that CBP officers contacted the petitioner and/or current employer when clarification was needed.  CBP confirmed that they screen ALL employment-based visa holders to determine admissibility and ensure compliance with entry requirements.

Newark, NJ Airport New Policy to Verify L-1 and H-1B Employees

CBP has also announced that the Newark, New Jersey airport has instituted a new policy which involves conducting random checks for returning H-1B, L-1, and other employment-based visa holders.  Based upon the initial check, if the person’s admissibility is questionable, then he or she will be sent to secondary inspection for further interview. In some cases, if CBP discovers discrepancies in previously filed petitions, then the applicant may be asked to withdraw his/her application for admission into the United States or be subject to expedited removal.

Public Information May be Consulted During or After Inspection

Employers should be advised that the government may review information in any public venues such as websites and other media for consistency with petition content. Thus, keeping such public information accurate and current is essential.

Note the new fraud related language added to I-797 approval notices –

NOTICE: Although this application/petition has been approved, DHS reserves the right to verify the information submitted in this application, petition, and/or supporting documentation to ensure conformity with applicable laws, rules, regulations, and other authorities. Methods used for verifying information may include, but are not limited to, the review of public information and records, contact by correspondence, the Internet, or telephone, and site inspections of businesses and residences. Information obtained during the course of verification will be used to determine whether revocation, rescission, and/or removal proceedings are appropriate. Applicants, petitioners, and representatives of record will be provided an opportunity to address derogatory information before any formal proceeding is initiated.

Conclusion: Proper Pre-Travel Preparation is Essential

It should be noted that although the recent news were linked with Newark, New Jersey airport, CBP may expand its policy and enforcement to other airports at any time.  In light of these developments, it becomes increasingly important for holders of H-1B and L-1 visas to prepare well for their return trip into the U.S., regardless of the port of entry they use to enter the U.S.

We advise all of our clients to thoroughly prepare for their trip to the U.S. and their inspection upon application for admission.  H-1B and L-1 visa holders should review all pertinent documents to their petition and to consider carrying evidence to support the assertions made in the petition filed on their behalf by their employer.  In addition, the H-1B or L-1 employers must be prepared for telephone inquiries from CBP officers at ports of entry to confirm the assertions made in any nonimmigrant petition and supporting documentation.  Finally, employers should ensure that public information, such as websites and/or other materials, may be consulted by CBP agents to determine whether a particular H-1B or L-1 petition is valid.

We wrote in late October and early November of 2009 about the USCIS Ombudsman’s recommendation that USCIS (1) accept H-1B filings without a certified LCA but with a proof of filed and pending LCA and (2) to excuse late H-1B filings where the delay in filing was caused by pending LCA or employer’s Federal Employed Identification Number (“FEIN”) verification.

In November of 2009, USCIS agreed to temporarily (for a period of 120 days) create a policy in line with the USCIS Ombudsman’s recommendations.   In a Memorandum dated as of January 28, 2010, by Alejandro Mayorkas addressed to the USCIS Ombudsman, USCIS announces that it will make permanent policy changes in line with the October 2009 Ombudsman recommendations.

USCIS Will Accept H-1B Petition With Evidence of Initial LCA Filing

H-1B petitions will be accepted with evidence of initial LCA filing if the H-1B has been filed at least 7 calendar days after the LCA was filed with DOL.   The petitioner must include a copy of the LCA submission’s email confirmation as evidence.

Petitioners who seek to use this H-1B filing procedure must wait until they receive an RFE before they can submit the already DOL-certified LCA in support of the H-1B filing.  The certified LCA must be the same LCA which was filed with the original H-1B petition, unless the petitioner provides an LCA which was certified prior to the submission of the H-1B petition.

Late Filings Due to LCA/FEIN Verification Delays Should Be Excused

In addition, USCIS has confirmed that it will continue to excuse late H-1B filings under 8 C.F.R. 214.1(c)(4) or 8 C.F.R. 248.1(b) when the delay in filing of the H-1B petition requesting an extension of H-1B stay or change of status to H-1B was related to LCA issuance delays beyond the control of the petitioner and/or denials by DOL due to employer’s FEIN verification issues.

The Neufeld Memorandum of January 8, 2010, has generated a substantial amount of discussion with its newly-proposed standard for “employer-employee” relationship applied to third-party H-1B employee placements, which are very common for consulting companies.  Our office has handled many consultations and inquiries relating to the Neufeld Memorandum and what it means for the thousands of H-1B employees currently on H-1B visa and for their employers.

AILA Seeks Rescission of the Neufeld Memorandum

Our office has revised its standard H-1B preparation guidelines for third-party worksite H-1B petitions to comply, to the extent possible, with the new requirements imposed by the Neufeld Memorandum.  In the meantime, the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), in a January 26, 2010, Memorandum addressed to the Chief Counsel of USCIS, calls for the rescission of the Neufeld Memorandum effective immediately and for the issuance of a new memorandum to redefine the employer-employee relationship differently, considering legal precedent.

The AILA Memo is quite lengthy (24 pages) and goes into a great detail to substantiate its main claims that (1) the Neufeld Memorandum improperly creates substantive new rule outside the proper channel for making such rules and (2) that the employer-employee relationship definition in the Neufeld Memorandum is improper and is against congressional intent.

The Neufeld Memorandum is Improper Rulemaking

As an initial matter, AILA argues that the Neufeld Memorandum is issued improperly  because it seeks to change substantive rules without the necessary process.  Change in substantive rules must be done by following the required notice and comment procedures.  AILA argues that the “guidance” in the Neufeld Memorandum is a substantive rule change which cannot be imposed by a memorandum;  instead it should follow the normal rulemaking process.  As a result, AILA argues that the Neufeld Memorandum should be set aside as a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).

The Neufeld Memorandum Definition of Employer-Employee Relationship is Incorrect

As its main argument for seeking the rescission of the Neufeld Memorandum, AILA argues that the sweeping definition of “employer” is inconsistent with the law, impedes its intent and purpose and is inconsistent with decades of precedent.  The AILA Memo then goes into great detail and legal analysis of its claim to conclude that the Neufeld Memorandum, in addition to certain recent AAO’s non-precedent decisions and the accompanying adjudications at the Service Centers that are applying these decisions to current filings seek to overturn over fifty years of consistent precedent and regulatory interpretation to categorically deny eligibility for benefits to an entire class.

Conclusion

The AILA Memorandum is a well researched and substantiated request for the rescission of the Neufeld Memorandum.  However, we do not know yet what USCIS’ position would be in response and whether USCIS will take any steps in response to this memorandum.  We will continue to provide updates on this topic as it is of great interest of our clients, readers and a large portion of the employment-based immigration community.

Our office received many inquiries by both H-1B sponsor companies and employees about what kind of fee payment arrangement is permissible under the H-1B regulations.

Background of H-1B Filing Fees

There are several H-1B filing fees, which are applied differently depending on the employer (private employer v. university or non-profit research entity) and on the type of petition (new H-1B, first extension or second/subsequent extension).  We are happy to guide on the applicability of these fees.

Regardless of their applicability, the H-1B filing fees are:

1. H-1B filing fee – $320;
2. Fraud prevention fee – $500;
3. ACWIA fee – $750 (for employer with 25 or less employees) or $1,500 (for employers with 26 or more employees); and
4. Premium processing fee (optional) – $1,000.

Fraud Prevention Fee Must be Paid by Employer

The only requirement with respect to who pays a specific H-1B fee is that the $500.00 fraud prevention fee be paid only by the employer.  The rest of the H-1B filing fees can be paid by either the employer or the employee.

What Happens if the Employee Pays the $500 Fraud Prevention Fee?

In cases where the $500.00 fraud prevention fee is paid by the employee, this cost will be deducted from the total wage paid to the H-1B beneficiary when determining whether s/he has received the required wage.   Pursuant to H-1B regulations, the “required” wage is the higher of the actual or prevailing wage.  The “actual” wage is defined as the wage rate paid by the employer to all other individuals with similar experience and qualifications for the specific employment in question.

As a result, if the employee is paid an amount which is $500.00 or less more than the required wage (as defined above), then the employer may be deemed to be in violation of the H-1B regulations requiring payment of the so called required wage.

Conclusion

To avoid uncertainties associated with whether the employer has paid the required wage, we urge our H-1B clients to structure the fee payment in a way that the $500 fraud prevention fee is paid by the employer.   The rest of the fees may be paid by either the employee or employer, as the parties negotiate or as the employer’s policies dictate.

In a January 8, 2010, Memorandum, Donald Neufeld, the Associate Director for Service Center Operations, provides some guidance on the standards for H-1B petitions filed by independent contractors, self-employed beneficiaries, and beneficiaries working at third-party worksites.

Focus on Employer-Employee Relationship

The guidance is primarily concerned with the employer-employee relationship.  Pursuant to the H-1B regulations, an employer who seeks to sponsor a temporary worker in an H-1B specialty occupation is required to establish such employer-employee relationship.  USCIS deems that such relationship is established when the employer has the right to control the means and manner in which the work is performed.

Some of the factors which are helpful in determining whether such employer-employee relationship exists are the employer’s ability to pay, hire, fire, supervise or otherwise control the work of the employee.

Who Is Most Affected by the New Guidance?

While the employer-employee relationship must be established in all H-1B cases, in practice, the right to control and the employee-employer relationship issues arise in self-employment, contractor (or consultant) companies or with beneficiaries placed at third-party worksites.  The right to control issue should be addressed also with in-house H-1B petitions, although in many cases it would be easy to establish such right to control when the employee is working on the employer’s premises.

Establish the Employer’s Right to Control

Under the Neufeld Memorandum guidance, with each H-1B petition, USCIS must determine if the employer  has a sufficient level of control over the employee.

The right to control can be established when considering the following factors:

1. Does the petitioner supervise the beneficiary and is such supervision off-site or on-site?
2. If the supervision is off-site, how does the petitioner maintain such supervision (weekly calls, progress reports, site visits, etc.)?
3. Does the petitioner have the right to control the work of the beneficiary on a day-to-day basis if such control is required?
4. Does the petitioner provide tools or instrumentalities needed by the beneficiary?
5. Does the petitioner hire, pay and  have the ability to fire the beneficiary?
6. Does the petitioner evaluate the work-product of the  beneficiary?
7. Does the petitioner claim the beneficiary for tax purposes?
8. Does the petitioner provide the beneficiary any type of employee benefits?
9. Does the beneficiary use proprietary information of the petitioner in order to perform the duties?
10. Does the beneficiary produce an end-product that is directly linked to the petitioner’s line of business?
11. Does the petitioner have the ability to control the manner and the means in which the work product of the beneficiary is accomplished?

The Neufeld Memorandum provides that these factors should be weighed in the “totality of the circumstances” which allows some flexibility to focus on some, but not all, factors.

Additional Evidence Required in H-1B Filings by Consulting Companies and Third-party Worksite Employers

As a result of the Neufeld Memorandum, USCIS establishes a new level of evidence to be submitted as part of all new, transfer and even extension H-1B petitions filed by employers which intend to place the beneficiary at a third-party worksite.

Currently, such third-party worksite H-1B applications require evidence to establish the exact position and duties in which the beneficiary will be engaged at the third-party worksite.  In addition, as a result of the new guidance, H-1B petitioners will have to now include information to satisfy all or many of the right to control factors described above.

Pursuant to the field guidance, such right of control test is applied to all new, transfer and even H-1B extensions with the same employer.

Conclusion

The Neufeld Memorandum creates another set of information and documents which will have to be prepared and provided as part of each H-1B filing by a consulting, self-employment and third-party worksite petitioner.

While the guidance is intended to apply for all H-1B beneficiaries, regardless of where they are employed, the guidance is most likely to be more rigorously enforced against employers who file H-1B petitions on behalf of employees placed at a third-party site or off-site.

Petitioners who regularly place employees off-site should become familiar with the 11 factors described above  and be prepared to answer and document the petitioner’s right to control the intended H-1B beneficiary.

Now that the H-1B quota has been reached (as of December 21, 2009), 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, 2010, when the new fiscal year’s H-1B quota would begin (as a reminder, April 1, 2010 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.

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.