Background

USCIS current policy is that when a denied I-140 is appealed and is sent by a service center to the AAO for adjudication (which can take up to two years months), the service center will hold in abeyance a newly refiled I-140 the same Beneficiary in the same EB classification.  The question becomes whether a new I-140 for the same beneficiary but for a different classification would be also held in abeyance?

Recent Texas Service Center Guidance

A recent guidance from the Texas Service Center (TSC) has indicated that whether or not an I-140 filed for a Beneficiary in a different classification will be held in abeyance while an appeal is pending is determined on a case-by-case basis and depends on the reason for the initial denial.   As an example, if an I-140 is denied for lack of ability to pay, and the ability to pay issue is appealed, a subsequent identical I-140 filing, even in a different classification, would typically be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the appeal.

Considering the long AAO processing times (20-24 months for I-140 appeals), before an I-140 appeal is filed, it is important to evaluate the alternatives and the options of filing a new I-140 without appealing the previously-denied I-140.  Many beneficiaries need to file an appeal in order to be able to obtain H-1B extension benefits; however, if this is not a factor, appealing I-140 may not provide much of a strategic benefit, in fact, it may only delay the I-140 process.

How We Can Help

Our office handles a number of I-290B I-140 AAO appeals and we would be happy to review your case and advise you on the best options.  Please do not hesitate to contact us for a free initial consultation.  Also, please feel free to subscribe to our weekly newsletter to receive free immigration law updates.

Background About the Required Vaccinations

Under Section 212(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), any alien who seeks admission into the United States as an immigrant, or who seeks adjustment of status to the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, is inadmissible into the United States if the alien is unable to present documentation of having received vaccination against “vaccine-preventable diseases, which shall include at least the following diseases: Mumps, measles, rubella, polio, tetanus and diphtheria toxoids, pertussis, Haemophilus influenzae type B, and hepatitis B, and any other vaccinations against vaccine-preventable diseases recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.”  Current guidance by the Center of Disease Control (“CDC”) includes the HPV vaccin to the list of vaccine-preventable diseases and is therefore required by girls and women between the ages of 11 and 26 who are seeking to become legal permanent US residents.  Those within this age range were required to get at least the first dose of the HPV vaccine, which protects against some strains of the virus blamed for cervical cancer. Additionally, the Gardasil shot was added to the vaccine list for immigrants in July 2008 by the CDC.

HPV Vaccine Requirement Controversy 

While HPV remains the single most widespread sexually transmitted disease in the country, only a small percentage of those infected with the virus will go on to develop life-threatening diseases like cervical cancer. The cost-effectiveness of the Gardasil vaccine (the HPV vaccine) remains largely in debate especially when young girls coming from a variety of foreign nationalities and cultures have to be subjected to medical exam and vaccination.  Additionally, the price of the vaccine, which is administered in three separate shots, can cost anywhere from $400 to $1000  (and the cost is often not reimbursable by insurance companies).

New CDC Guidance

Accordingly, CDC has announced a revised rule which becomes effective December 14, 2009, and under which the HPV vaccine will not be required for aliens seeking admission as an immigrant or seeking adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.

In providing explanation to this change in policy, CDC recognized that genital infection with HPV is an extremely common infection due to its efficient transmission via sexual intercourse. There are approximately 6 million incident infections occurring annually in the United States. Over half of sexually active men and women will develop HPV infection at some point in their lives and 15% of all Americans have current infection with HPV.

Although there are millions of HPV infections annually, it is very difficult to distinguish those cases which resolve from those (about 10,000 per year) cases which result in cervical cancer.  Therefore, while HPV may be an age-appropriate vaccine for an immigrant applicant, HPV neither causes outbreaks nor is it associated with outbreaks (per explanation in the background section).  Further, HPV has not been eliminated, nor is in the process of elimination, in the United States. Therefore, because HPV does not meet the adopted criteria, it will not be a required vaccine for immigrant and adjustment of status to permanent residence applicants.

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.

Until now, USCIS has a policy from a Memorandum of Feb. 28, 2003 from William R. Yates, “Procedures for Concurrently Filed Family-Based or Employment-Based Form I-485 when the Underlying Visa Petition is Denied” pursuant to which policy TSC has been using its discretion to wait 30 days before denying the I-485 applications, in case an I-290B was filed on the I-140 denial and TSC might be able to act on that at the Service Center level.

Under the new policy, both TSC and NSC will deny I-485 applications when they deny the underlying I-140 petition.   As a result, a motion to reopen/reconsider or appeal on Form I-290B will have to be filed not only on the I-140 denial but also for all of the I-485 denials (more than one of the direct beneficiary has dependents). This not only creates additional work for preparing and filing more I-290B forms, but also requires additional payments of the I-290B filing fee (which is $585.00 as of the time of this writing).

The goal was to achieve a performance (which can actually be sustained going forward) of completing 98 percent of name checks requests submitted by USCIS within 30 days and the remaining 2 percent within 90 days.   USCIS has announced that this performance level will become the standard.

USCIS has noted, however, that any information provided by the FBI through these checks may require further evaluation and may need additional interaction with agencies outside USCIS to obtain updated or additional information. This could result in additional delays in processing and is not governed by the processing goals contained in the joint business plan.  There is no estimate on the percentage of such cases in which additional checks (and the corresponding delays) may be expected.

A U.S. medical degree is obtained after completing a bachelor’s degree and as a result, a U.S. medical doctor degree is considered to be an advanced degree. In many other countries a person may be admitted to medical school directly out of high school. In these instances the program of study for the foreign medical degree is longer in length (generally 5-7 years in duration) than is required for a less specialized foreign bachelor’s degree (generally 3-4 years in duration.) In some countries the name of the degree is “Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery”, and the program of study may involve ONLY medicine, to include some limited basic sciences. A foreign medical degree may qualify as the equivalent of a U.S. MD degree and thus an advanced degree for EB2 purposes if, at the time of the filing of the labor certification application, the following two conditions are met:

1.  The alien beneficiary:

A. Has been awarded a foreign medical degree from a medical school that requires applicants to obtain a bachelor’s degree equivalent to a U.S. bachelor’s degree as a requirement for admission, or;

B. Has been awarded a foreign medical degree and a foreign education credential evaluation is provided that credibly describes how the foreign medical degree is equivalent to a medical degree obtained from an accredited medical school in the United States, or;

C. Has been awarded a foreign medical degree and has passed the National Board of Medical Examiners Examination (NBMEE) examination or an equivalent examination, such as the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE), Steps 1, 2 & 3,

2.  The alien beneficiary was fully eligible for the position described on the labor certification application, on the date that it was filed, by establishing that:

A. He or she had a full and unrestricted license to practice medicine in the state of intended employment and continues to hold such an unrestricted license, or;

B. His or her foreign medical degree is shown to meet the medical degree requirements to be eligible for full and unrestricted licensure specified by the medical board governing the place of intended employment.

The Neufeld memorandum further describes requirements for filing a petition for a foreign national holding a medical doctor degree.

The main reason for the temporary suspension of the I-140 premium processing was the increased volume of I-140 applications in the summer of 2007.  USCIS has now determined that due to its backlog  reduction efforts, it can continue processing I-140s on expedited basis.

Not All I-140s Would Qualify – EB-1(c)  and EB-2 NIW Are Excluded

USCIS  has indicated that not all Form I-140 filings would qualify for premium processing.   The government will accept premium processing requests for Form I-140s involving EB-1 Aliens with Extraordinary Ability, EB-1 Outstanding Professors and Researchers, EB-2 Members of Professions with Advanced Degrees or Exceptional Ability not seeking a National Interest Waiver, EB-3 Professionals, EB-3 Skilled Workers, and EB-3 Workers other than Skilled Workers and Professionals.

Premium processing service is still not available for Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, involving EB-1 Multinational Executives and Managers and EB-2 Members of Professions with Advanced Degrees or Exceptional Ability seeking a National Interest Waiver.

Conclusion

With the reinstatement of premium processing for most I-140s, USCIS provides an important strategic tool for many employment-based green card applicants.  While premium processing for I-140 was available for holders of H-1B status who were in danger of “H-ing out”, the expanded scope of premium processing now allows many petitioners (and their respective beneficiaries) to speed up the I-140 process in order to gain advantage of H-1B 3-year renewal provisions or to generally speed up the processing of one’s green card application.

While upgrading a pending I-140 case to premium processing makes sense in some cases, it is not cost-justified in all cases.  We are happy to consult and help in evaluating the best course of action.

• Premium Processing for I-140.  Some I-140s which were previously eligible for premium processing may be made again eligible.  Expected this summer.

• H-1B Application Process to be Redesigned.  USCIS is working on reengineering the H-1B application process to go into effect for the FY2011 H-1B filings.  Under the planned H-1B application process, employers will file a petition online with limited information and if the limited-information petition is selected, then the remaining forms and full documentation will be requried to be submitted.

• Case Resolution Problems.  USCIS has changed the case problem resolution process.  Under the new system, customers are required to call the National Customer Service Center (“NCSC”, at 1-800-375-5283) and make an inquiry.  If the inquiry is not resolved within 30 days, customers may contact the applicable service center by email and provide the date the initial inquiry was made, the referral NCSC number and the ID of the customer service rep.  Email inquiries should be directed as follows:  CSC – csc-ncsc-followup@dhs.gov;  NSC – ils.nebraska@dhs.gov; TSC – tsc.ncscfollowup@dhs.gov; and VSC – vsc.ncscfollowup@dhs.gov.

• As we reported previously, the Nebraska and Texas Service Centers are pre-adjudicating I-485 adjustment cases.  USCIS reports that as of May 30, 2009, they have pre-adjudicated 110,000 EB adjustment cases and such cases are now awaiting a visa number to be approved.

• USCIS is in the process of introducing a new I-551 card (the green card) and they are updating equipment for the enhanced features.  As a result, there is a delay in issuing I-551 cards. Field offices are being authorized to issue temporary I-551 stamps in family cases at the conclusion of interviews when the case is approved.   Employment-based I-551s are being issued first as these individuals are not generally interviewed. Employment-based immigrants may obtain a temporary stamp by making an InfoPass appointment.

Processing Numbers.   TSC has shown improvement in the processing numbers.  Previously, TSC was processing between 3,000-4,000 I-140s and concurrent I-140/I-485sper month.  Recently, TSC has improved to 3,500-4,500 such cases per month.  TSC’s goal is to improve the processing of I-140s down to 4 months by June 2009 (this month!).

Pre-processing.  Similarly to the Nebraska Service Center, TSC is pre-processing (or “pre-adjudicating”) I-485s.  TSC reported that they have pre-processed 85,000 I-485s which are in queue for processing and are waiting for a visa number to be available.

July 2007 “tsunami”.  TSC reported that they have “almost completed”  adjudication of I-140s filed during the “visa tsunami” of July and August 2007.

Backlog.  The net overall backlog at the end of first quarter of FY2009 was 250,000 cases; reduced to 87,500 cases by the end of the 2nd quarter of FY2009.  NSC expects that by June 2009 there would be no case backlog.  Additionally, the I-140 backlog was 40,000 in October 2008, as of May 2009 it is down to 10,000.

Receipts.  There has been a notable decrease in receipts in new cases.  There were 80,000 issued in October 2008 while there were less than 40,000 receipts issued in January 2009.  There has been a slight increase since January to about 50,000 receipts per month.  Since receipts have decreased, the adjudicators have been able to catch up and even review cases from other centers.  NSC has been reviewing I-130 from the California Service Center and some standalone I-140s from the Texas Service Center to help reduce the national backlog.

Preadjudicating I-485s.  The EB-485 at NSC has been “pre-adjudicating” cases to try and have them done but-for the priority date being current.  This means that it is possible to obtain RFEs or NOIDs on cases which do not have current priority dates.

The NSC Liaison has confirmed that TSC transferred a number of standalone I-140s to NSC in order to help achieve the target 4-month processing time.

The report provides a very useful breakdown by category and year which allows us to analyze the trends in green card approvals.  It is important to note that both 2007 and 2008 noted a slight decrease in the total number of green cards given.  In 2006, DHS recorded  1,266,129 green cards.  The decrease in 2008 is wholly attributed to a decrease in the family-based petitions. Despite this slight decrease, the numbers of green cards approved for each of the family-based categories remained fairly stable over the past three years.

The employment-based petitions in 2008 increased from 159,081 (2006) to 162,176 (2007) to 166,511 (2008).  It is interesting to note that the number of EB-1 petitions remained stable, while the number of EB-2 green cards approved increased significantly, more than 3 times from 21,911 (2006) to 70,046 (2008).   On the other hand, EB-2 recorded a significant decrease, from 89,922 (2006) and 85,030 (2007) to only 48,903 in 2008.  What do these numbers mean?  We think that they suggest a trend in that many applicants for green cards who are in EB-3 are, after many years of waiting, trying to upgrade and ultimately succeeding in obtaining their green cards approved under the EB-2 category.

Beneficiaries who have an I-140 approved are eligible to retain their priority date if they have another I-140 approved for the same or a different EB category.   Under 8 CFR § 204.5(e), if more than one I-140 is approved for a single beneficiary, the beneficiary gets the benefit of the earliest priority date even if the I-140s are approved in different EB categories.

In a recent USCIS/AILS Liaison exchange, USCIS has acknowledged that the approval notice for the second I-140 should automatically reflect the earlier priority date if the beneficiary is eligible to retain it.  However, USCIS has confirmed our practice at the Capitol Immigration Law Group to clearly mark the the second I-140 filing (by bright cover sheet and including a copy of the earlier I-140 approval notice showing the earlier priority date).   USCIS has advised that second I-140s which do not retain the earlier priority date should be corrected by calling the NCSC (or Division 12 at CSC).

Eligibility Criteria

I-140 Premium Processing, starting March 2, 2009, will be available to beneficiaries who, as of the date of filing the premium processing request:

• are the beneficiary of a Form I-140 petition filed in a preference category that has been designated for premium processing service;
• have reached the sixth-year statutory limitation of their H-1B stay, or will reach the end of their sixth year of H-1B stay within 60 days of filing;
• are only eligible for a further H-1B extension under section 104(c) of the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000 (AC21) (which allows beneficiaries to extend H-1B in 3-year increments if I-140 is approved and a visa number is not immediately available); and
• are ineligible to extend their H-1B status under section 106(a) of AC21.

Documents Needed by USCIS to Determine Eligibility

USCIS has indicated that certain documents are helpful to determine the premium processing eligibility of a particular  I-140 application:

• Copies of all Forms I-94, Arrival/Departure Record and I-797 H-1B or L approval notices that have been issued on his or her behalf;
• A copy of the relating Form I-140 petition receipt notice if the form was previously filed; and,
• A copy of the labor certification approval letter issued by the Department of Labor, if filing under the EB-2 or EB-3 classifications.

Conclusion

By expanding the premium processing program for I-140s, USCIS effectively expands the window in which the premium processing request may be filed.  Previously,  only holders of valid H-1B status who had 60 days or less remaining on their status were eligible.  Now, under the new rule, premium processing can be filed 60 days before the expiration of H-1B status or after it expires.

Retaining an earlier priority date is possible when:

1. If the same petitioner (employer) and beneficiary (employee) are parties to both the original and the subsequent petitions (under 8 C.F.R. 204.2(h)(2)) and:
   1. the subsequent petition is for the same preference classification;
   2. the original petition has not been terminated pursuant to 203(g);
   3. the original petition has not been revoked pursuant to 205; and
   4. an immigrant visa has not been issued to the beneficiary based on the original petition.
2. If the Service erred in any way on the prior petition, an earlier priority date may be granted to correct the error on the subsequent petition.
3. If derivative beneficiary of a family-based second preference immigrant petition (F2A) ages out (under 8 C.F.R. 204.2(a)(4)).

According to the new procedure, which is effective immediately, I-485s are subject to the new procedure only when an immigrant visa has been made available, according to the State Department Visa Bulletin.   The new procedure allows submission via email of I-485 cases which are subject to review based on the visa numbers.  An automatic system picks up the cases and determines whether they are subject to review.  If they are, it has some mechanism to prioritize them and distribute the case to a case worker.

The procedures are as follows:

EB I-485 Cases

The procedure may be used by AILA-member  attorneys who see that a visa number is available to his or her client according to the Visa Bulletin.  The inquiry can be submitted as soon as the Visa Bulletin is published.

1. Identify all clients on one email whose visa numbers will be available according to the visa bulletin.
2. Send an email to streamline.tsc@dhs.gov
3. On the subject line, write “EB I-485/”MM” (Example:EB I-485/OCT)
4. In the body of the email, provide A numbers only. The system will use these A numbers to pull cases and distribute them to floor case workers.
5. If the applicant has more than one A number, type both separated by a “/” (Example: A111222333/A444555666)
6. If there are multiple family members, type them all on the same line separated by commas (Example: A111222333, A222333444, A444555666)

I-140 Cases

Attorneys who are AILA members can use this procedure when the filing date is prior to the processing time date for the I-140 as published on the USCIS website.

1. Identify all clients on one email whose filing dates are prior to the published timeframe
2. Send an email to streamline.tsc@dhs.gov
3. On the subject line write “I-140″
4. In the body of the email, provide A numbers only. If there is no A number on the receipt, provide the receipt number only.  (For stand-alone I-140s where the beneficiary is out of the U.S. and will be applying for a visa at the consulate).  Do not provide any additional information as the text of the email will be used to automatically check the submitted cases and pull the cases for distribution to floor case workers.
5. If the applicant has more than one A number, type both separated by a “/” (Example: A111222333/A444555666)

Full text of these instructions is available here.

We are AILA members and we will be happy to assist you in moving your case along using the new TSC streamline procedure.  Please contact us.

The premium processing procedure will guarantee 15 calendar-day response by USCIS for a non-refundable fee of $1,000.  To take advantage of the I-140 premium processing, the I-140 petition must be filed on behalf of aliens:

• who are currently in H-1B nonimmigrant visa status;
• whose sixth year will end within 60 days;
• who are only eligible for for a further extension of H-1B nonimmigrant status under section 104(c) of AC21 (permitting 3-year H-1B extensions upon approved I-140); and
• who are ineligible to extend their H-1B status under section 106(a) of AC21 (permitting 1-year H-1B extensions if I-140 or the underlying labor certification is pending for at least 365 days).

Even though the premium procedure is limited in certain cases, it brings welcome relief to a number of H-1B holders who are nearing the limit on their H-1B status.  Please contact us for more information on how you can take advantage of this new rule.

The USCIS has confirmed that on July June 16, 2008, it will resume premium processing for I-140s in certain limited circumstances. It is expected that these limited circumstances will cover cases where beneficiaries whose H status will expire within 60 days of filing the request and who need I-140 approval to become eligible for the additional H time. This change is intended to address circumstances where an individual needs the approved I-140 to receive additional H time under AC21.

The USCIS has not yet issued an official notice and we will continue to monitor the situation and update as we learn more.

Update: the starting date is June 16, 2008, not July 16, 2008, as we reporter earlier.

The proposed rule is scheduled for publication in June with a 60-day comment period.

Reasons
We do not have reliable information at this point as to the rationale of this proposed rule change. It seems that USCIS may be trying to eliminate the backlog of I-140/I-485 applications which were filed in the summer of 2007 when there was a substantial forward visa movement. It has been suggested that USCIS may be trying to control the volume of filings should a dramatic forward movement, similar to the summer of 2007, occur in the future.

About the I-140/I-485 Concurrent Filing Procedure
The concurrent filing procedure was implemented in 2002 and it has become a very useful for aliens who qualify. The concurrent filing procedure permits an alien who has an I-140 filed to file a I-485 adjustment of status application and, as a result, take advantage of a number of benefits associated with pending I-485. A properly filed and pending I-485 opens eligibility for employment authorization documents (EAD) and advanced parole (AP) for the beneficiary and his or her immediate family. Also, having I-485 pending for certain period of time may open other benefits, such as job portability to similar job opportunities.

Consequences
As a result of the new rule, foreign employees would be impacted negatively in several important ways. First, they would be restricted in switching employers. Additionally, families of foreign employees would not be entitled to work authorization until later in the process, thus putting financial strain on some of the immigrant families. Finally, international travel may be impacted as fewer families would be entitled to AP earlier in the process.

It should be noted that it is not expected that the proposed rule will impact currently filed concurrent I-140/I-485. We will continue to monitor the situation and update our clients as we learn more.