Labor Immigration Law

Today’s Wall Street Journal has a recap of recent high-level meetings and plans regarding an immigration reform, a topic which President Obama said he will tackle during his first year in office.

Washington has been busy for the past few months with health care, wars and the economic crisis.  Not surprisingly, immigration reform has not been high on the President’s agenda.

A pair of senators trying to put together a comprehensive immigration bill showed their outline to President Barack Obama Thursday and asked his help in recruiting additional Senate backers. But with a full plate already and elections looming, it was unclear how involved the White House plans to get on the issue.

According to the Wall Street Journal, while President Obama remains “fully committed” to immigration reform, his administration has taken a more hands-off approach and has left Congress to propose the outline of the reform plans and to “sell” it on Capitol Hill.

The Schumer/Graham plan, proposed by Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Linsay Graham (R-SC), was presented to the President.  However, Sen. Graham is looking for another Republican sponsor, but has been unable to find one.  Senator McCain (R-AZ) who supported a similar plan when President Bush proposed it, has not been willing to sign on.

The Schumer/Graham Plan Outline

While the Senators have not released their plan formally,  it may include many of the building blocks from the last failed effort, including a path to citizenship for those here illegally, now estimated at 10.8 million people; a guest worker program; and, in a new twist, a mandatory biometric identification card for workers to stem the flow of illegal workers into the country in future years.

Immigration Reform – Slow Movement

In this political climate, it seems that immigration reform, if it happens, will move forward very slowly.   The President has seemingly delegated to Congress finding support for the immigration reform, and the current political gridlock in Congress will not help.   We will provide to monitor the current state of the immigration reform from our offices in Washington, DC, and provide further updates.   To stay up-to-date on this and other immigration topics, please consider subscribing to our free weekly immigration newsletter.

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.

The NPR ran a story yesterday, March 5th, on the EB-5 investor visa program.  While the story is intended for a general audience and is fairly general in nature, it is interesting to read (or listen to the podcast) a mainstream media story about this growing in importance and profile program.

One of the points of the story is that the EB-5 program may be considered as a unfair “pay-to-play” program where foreign nationals “buy” their U.S. visa.  Of course, the story provides plenty of support for the EB-5 program which is considered by many to be a beneficial job-creating and foreign capital-attracting program in these difficult economic climate.

NPR story:  For Some Immigrants, The Ticket To A Visa Is A Check.

Our office has handled many cases where a specific USCIS benefit or application must be approved on an expedited basis.  Also, we have received numerous inquiries from applicants who seek to expedite the processing of a pending application due to long processing times.

It is helpful to describe the criteria which USCIS (and our office, in preparing such requests) uses in establishing whether a particular case warrants expedited processing:

• Severe financial loss to company or individual;
• Extreme emergent situation;
• Humanitarian situation;
• Nonprofit status of requesting organization in furtherance of the cultural and social interests of the United States
• Department of Defense or National Interest Situation (Note: Request must come from official United States Government entity and state that delay will be detrimental to our Government);
• USCIS error; and
• Compelling interest of USCIS.

Expedited processing can be requested for both an application which is about to be filed (by indicating clearly EXPEDITED PROCESSING on the cover) or for a pending application (by contacting the National Customer Service Center at 1-800-375-5283 or by sending a fax to the applicable Service Center).

Additionally, our office routinely handles expedited processing requests and we are happy to discuss your case and whether it can be expedited and, if so, whether we can help you.  Please contact us for more information.

USCIS released, on January 28, 2010, a recent report conducted by an outside research firm, Westat, on the accuracy of E-Verify with respect to identifying illegal workers, among other classes of workers run through the   E-Verify system.  The E-Verify evaluation is part of an ongoing effort to evaluate E-Verify’s accuracy.

The Report’s Findings

The report focused on many aspects of E-Verify, but the main number which has drawn attention recently is the fact that according to the Westat report, 54% of the unauthorized workers run through E-Verify result in an authorization to work.  Westat and USCIS attribute this high number to identify fraud – unauthorized workers who use and submit documents of a person who is authorized to work.  However, this high percentage of inaccurate E-Verify authorization has stirred some political and emotional responses.  See Wall Street Journal and Forbes articles.

Overall, Westat found that an estimated 96 percent of all E-Verify initial responses were consistent with the person’s work authorization status:  93.1 percent of all E-Verify cases involved authorized workers who were initially found to be authorized; 2.9 percent of all E-Verify cases involved unauthorized workers who received final non-confirmations.

4.1 percent of the initial responses were inconsistent with employment eligibility status: 0.7 percent of all E-Verify cases involved authorized workers who were not initially found to be authorized to work; 3.3 percent of all E-Verify cases involved unauthorized workers who were found to be employment authorized.

Although the numbers, overall, are positive, the main concern and recent political storm came after breaking down this number relating to the 3.3 percent of all E-Verify cases involving unauthorized workers who were found to be eligible to work.  Put in another way, out of the 6.2 percent of all E-Verify cases in which the workers were not authorized to work, the system failed to discover the unauthorized worker and permitted work 54 percent of the time.

USCIS’ Response

In the summary of the report, USCIS tries to defend this alarming number of inaccurate work authorizations by putting the numbers in context and by showing the high success rate across other categories.  While this is true, one of E-Verify’s main goals was to eliminate unauthorized work.  The Westat report casts shadow on this.   USCIS has taken steps to eliminate or decrease this rate of inaccurate authorizations.  It is USCIS’ claim that most of these false authorizations are due to identity theft – as a result, USCIS is implementing a photo tool as part of E-Verify so that employers can match the photo of the documents submitted, with one in government records, and with the actual employee.  Additionally, USCIS is attempting to integrate additional government databases to be able to provide more accurate and reliable information into E-Verify and increase its accuracy rate.

Basis for the Report

The report was based on several sources of data covering September 2007 to June 2008: USCIS staff and contractor interviews, focus groups, web survey of 2,320 E-Verify employers, in-person interview with 109 E-Verify employers and 424 workers who have received tentative non-confirmations (TNC), review of 1,246 records of workers who received TNCs and review of E-Verify program data.  Additionally, Westat developed models to develop estimates of the numbers of true employment authorizations; models were necessary because the true data is unavailable.

Conclusion

The Westat report is very useful in evaluating the E-Verify program’s current state.  Obviously, the 54 percent inaccuracy rate discussed above is going to be the focal point of discussions related to E-Verify over the near term.  It is worth noting, however, that the Westat report used data which is not at least 18 months old and E-Verify has steadily been improving the accuracy of its data and models.  Additional tools, such as the photo tool, are also helpful in eliminating certain types of work authorization and identify fraud.

We applaud USCIS efforts to improve E-Verify and to engage independent third parties to conduct research and test the accuracy of the system.  As an E-Verify Designated Agent, we have helped many of our clients handle with a number of E-Verify issues and have been happy with the willingness of USCIS to improve the system.

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.

In a December 14, 2009, meeting, USCIS has provided some helpful information about the current state of the EB-5 program.

I-526 Premium Processing Possible Later in the Year

A review of the question of reinstating premium processing for I-526 petitions will be done during the second quarter of 2010.  USCIS will reinstate premium processing if it determines that it has sufficient resources at the California Service Center to adjudicate I-526 within the 15-calendar day window.

EB-5 Statistics

As of December 14, 2009, USCIS was able to provide only statistics for fiscal year 2009 (FY 2009).  Accordingly, in FY 2009, where were 1,028 I-526 petitions (EB-5 immigrant petition) filed, of which 966 were approved and 163 denied.   Also, in FY 2009, where were 437 I-829 (removal of condition) petitions filed of which 335 were approved and 55 denied.

Note that these numbers do not add up because not all petitions filed during FY 2009 are adjudicated during FY 2009.  Additionally, some petitions filed during FY 2008 are adjudicated during FY 2009 and are included in the numbers above.

Almost four months after USCIS launched its redesigned website, the USCIS Ombudsman office is setting up a conference call to discuss the good, the bad and the ugly of USCIS’ website, in general, and of the redesign, in particular.  Our office will sit on this conference call to share our thoughts and comments with the USCIS Ombudsman.

From our daily interactions with clients, we have a number of USCIS website topics which are in need of improvement, or at the very least, discussion.  However, we wish to solicit some feedback and comments from our clients and readers.  If you have a story, comment, a complaint or a suggestion, please use our contact form to submit your comment, story or a question no later than Monday, January 25, 2010.  We will try to raise as many of those questions as we can and post the responses on our website.  Thank you!

Submit USCIS website comments and feedback.

Our firm handles a fair amount of appeals with the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) and we often receive inquiries not only about about the procedural aspects of an AAO appeal but also about the current processing times for AAO cases.

About the AAO

The AAO is an appeals office which handles appeals of certain decisions made by USCIS field offices and regional procssing centers.  The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requires that all AAO decisions be made available to the public.  As a result, AAO decisions are accessible in reading rooms at USCIS headquarters here in Washington, DC and at field offices.  Also, some (but not all) AAO decisions are available online.

Current AAO Processing Times

USCIS has released the average processing times for cases pending at the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) as of December 2, 2009  Overall, we notice delays across all categories.

Among the most notable AAO processing times:

• H-1B appeal takes 12 months (one month improvement compared to the November 1, 2009);
• I-140 EB1 Extraordinary Ability takes 4 months (one month improvement), Multinational Manager or Executive takes 11 months (increase by one month) while EB1 Outstanding Professor or Researcher category is current (meaning less than 6 months);
• I-140 EB2 (Advanced Degree) takes 26 months (one month improvement) while EB2 (NIW) takes 6 months (or current, meaning less than 6 months); and
• I-140 EB3 Skilled Worker takes 23 months (no change) while EB3 Other Worker takes 23 months on appeal (no change).

Read the full AAO Processing Times report.