Visa Lawyer Blog

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced today that it will begin accepting H-1B petitions subject to the fiscal year (FY) 2011 cap on April 1, 2010. Cases will be considered accepted on the date that USCIS takes possession of a properly filed petition with the correct fee; not the date that the petition is postmarked.

The fiscal year cap (numerical limitation on H-1B petitions) for FY 2011 is 65,000. Additionally, the first 20,000 H-1B petitions filed on behalf of individuals who have earned a U.S. master’s degree or higher are exempt from the H-1B cap.

USCIS will monitor the number of petitions received and will notify the public of the date on which USCIS received the necessary number of petitions to meet the H-1B cap. If needed, USCIS will randomly select the number of petitions required to reach the numerical limit from the petitions received on the final receipt date. USCIS will reject cap-subject petitions that are not selected, as well as those received after the final receipt date.

We recommend employers to hurry up and get all the necessary documents in order to meet the April 1, 2010 deadline.

Read the Press Release here....

Great tip from AILA for our H1B filers trying to beat the rush. Because you cannot submit an LCA earlier than six months prior to the beginning date of the period of intended employment (20 CFR § 655.730(b)), if you want your LCA in hand before April 1, then set your employment start date on the LCA for a date in September, and set the expiration date for a date no more than three years hence. File the I-129 with a start date of October 1, but with an expiration date that coincides with the expiration date of the LCA. You will lose a couple of days on the back end of the petition by doing this, but you will get the LCA filed and back before April 1.

Example:

LCA start date: 9/1/10

LCA end date: 8/31/13

Form I-129 start date: 10/1/10

Form I-129 end date: 8/31/13

Due to delays in receiving approved LCAs, take the proper precautions and file your LCA early to avoid any undue delays.

Although under certain circumstances USCIS has agreed to accept H-1B petitions for processing that include LCAs that have not been certified, attorneys should understand that if the LCA submitted with the H-1B petition is eventually denied, the H-1B will be denied, even if a subsequent certified LCA is submitted. This is even true where the denial is due to DOL error in not being able to verify a petitioner's FEIN. However, USCIS has also indicated that if the sole reason for failing to apply for an Extension of Status or Change of Status is due to DOL delay in the certification process, USCIS may look at the totality of the circumstances in determining whether to accept the late filing.

Bottom line is that getting an approved LCA before April 1, 2010 is crucial. Pay attention to detail and get the files ready in advance is a must.

Since the recent Memo from USCIS re Employer Employee relationship, our office has been receiving anxious calls from employers and clients alike. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued in Janauary updated guidance to adjudication officers to clarify what constitutes a valid employer-employee relationship to qualify for the H-1B ‘specialty occupation’ classification. The memorandum clarifies such relationships, particularly as it pertains to independent contractors, self-employed beneficiaries, and beneficiaries placed at third-party worksites. The memorandum is titled: “Determining Employer-Employee Relationship for Adjudication of H-1B Petitions, Including Third-Party Site Placements.

The memo make it more difficult for staffing companies who hire professionals to work at third-party work locations to obtain H-1B visas on their behalf. The memo states that staffing companies must demonstrate that they "control" their employee's daily tasks.

Moreover, the memo prevents corporations owned by a future H-1B beneficiary from submitting an H-1B petition on behalf of the beneficiary. The grounds for denial would be that the beneficiary rather than the petitioning company will be controlling the beneficiary's work.

Given the economic climate, many companies rely on contract workers to supplement their work force. The new guidance limits the ability of some outside vendors to sponsor new foreign workers or extend the immigration status of their existing employees. The result will be delayed projects and some of those companies may have difficulty fulfilling their contractual obligations. Companies, including those that do not sponsor H-1B workers — should therefore consult with their outside vendors to deter­mine whether the new guidance will have business ramifications. Many companies, knowing that the new guidance may inhibit their ability to augment their work force on short notice, plan to sponsor additional H-1B workers in fiscal year 2011.

Though USCIS issued the guidance, companies should expect their H-1B workers to face additional scrutiny when they apply for a new visa with the U.S. Department of State or seek admission at a port-of-entry. In a recent advisory, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) warned attorneys that foreign workers should expect to be questioned about their employment in the United States and should carry documentation to establish their eligibility to work in the United States.

Employers must adapt and revise how they prepare and submit H-1B petitions. Any company that places H-1B workers at third-party work sites should consult with outside counsel regarding the new guidance. We will monitor the developments as the new H1B seasons progresses, and will update our readers on the impact of this Memo on new cases filed after April 1, 2010.

The Department of Labor announced Public Briefings on the Changes to the Labor Certification Process for the Temporary Agricultural Employment of H-2A Aliens in the United States. Members of our office will attend the briefings tomorrow in San Diego.

On February 12, 2010, the Department of Labor (the Department or DOL) amended the H-2A regulations at 20 CFR part 655 governing the certification of temporary employment of nonimmigrant workers in temporary or seasonal agricultural employment. See, Temporary Agricultural Employment of H-2A Aliens in the United States, Final Rule, 75 FR 6884, Feb. 12, 2010 (the Final Rule). The Department's Final Rule also amended the regulations at 29 CFR part 501 to provide for enhanced enforcement under the H-2A program requirements when employers fail to meet their obligations under the H-2A program. The Department has also made changes to the Application for Temporary Employment Certification, ETA Form 9142.

The Final Rule will become effective on March 15, 2010. All H-2A program users will be required to file their applications under the new regulations, and to comply with all applicable program requirements.

The Department is issuing this notice to announce that it has scheduled three public briefings to educate stakeholders, program users, and other interested members of the public on changes to the H- 2A program made by the Final Rule and on applying for H-2A temporary labor certifications under the new regulations using the ETA Form 9142.

As currently planned, the three briefings will take place in late February and early March of 2010 in San Diego, California; Dallas, Texas; and Raleigh, North Carolina.

The Labor Department published in the Feb. 12 edition of the Federal Register, a final rule governing the labor certification process and enforcement mechanisms for the H-2A temporary agricultural worker program.

The H-2A nonimmigrant visa classification applies to foreign workers coming to or already in the U.S. to perform agricultural work of a temporary or seasonal nature. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security may not approve an H-2A visa petition unless the Department of Labor, through its Employment and Training Administration, certifies that there are not sufficient U.S. workers qualified and available to perform the labor involved in the petition and that the employment of the foreign worker will not have an adverse effect on the wages and working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers.

What are the major Features of the Final Rule:

The employer must provide the Department with documentation that it has complied with the prerequisites for bringing H-2A workers into the country, including the requirements related to recruiting for qualified U.S. workers, instead of simply attesting to compliance.

Returns to using the USDA Farm Labor Survey as the basis for determining the Adverse Effect Wage Rate (AEWR). The 2008 rule used the Occupational Employment Statistics Survey, which resulted in a substantial reduction of worker wages (an average of over $1.00/hour).

Reinstates the critical role of the State Workforce Agencies (SWA) in assisting employers by using their expertise on local labor market conditions and recruitment patterns, thereby expanding job opportunities for U.S. workers.

Reinstates the requirement that the SWA inspect and approve employer-provided housing before the Department issues an H-2A labor certification.

Requires that all employer-provided transportation meet, at a minimum, the same Federal standards for vehicle safety, vehicle insurance and driver licensure applicable to most other agricultural workers.

Strengthens revocation and debarment authorities by providing WHD with independent debarment authority in addition to ETA, raises civil money penalties and expands audit authority to include housing.

Continues to include logging as an H-2A occupation. The NPRM proposed to add other forestry-related occupations such as tree planting and related reforestation activities as well as pine straw gathering, but this was not included in the Final Rule in response to concerns from both the industry and advocates about the costs and the workers' potential loss of MSPA protections, including a private right of action.

Creates a national electronic job registry for all H-2A job orders to improve U.S. worker access to agricultural jobs and help growers find workers from across the U.S.
Extends H-2A program benefits to workers in "corresponding employment" (other workers employed by an H-2A employer in any work included in the job order and any work performed by the H-2A workers) to ensure that similarly employed U.S. workers are not provided with lower wages or fewer benefits.

Requires employers to provide workers with copies of the job orders no later than before departure, including from the workers' home countries and to display a poster describing employee rights and protections in English and another language common to the workers at the work site.

Prohibits the use of multi-area itineraries by H-2A Labor Contractors, ending the practice of moving H-2A workers from site to site in multiple areas of employment under one labor certification. Labor contractors participating in this program will now have the same regulatory standards as fixed-site farmers. Required surety bond amounts for H-2ALCs have been increased.

Prohibits the approval of labor certification applications for worksites where workers are on strike or locked out and protects U.S. workers who are denied employment or laid off.

Read the Final rule here

Most lawyers that are versed in the H1B visa process, are getting busier and busier these days. As we are nearing the April 1, 2010 filing deadline for the H1B visa. Many speculations out there as to when will the Cap be reached this year. The economy is still in recovery mode, and employers are careful before hiring. Yet, many Immigration experts feel the Cap will be met early this year, but when is the big question.

With drastic changes to the Labor Condition Application process (now taking more than 7 days to process), as well as unreasonable denials, planning early is the key to a successful H1B case this year. But in this post, I want to go back to the basics, the Cap and the legislative background.

Background

On October 21, 1998 Congress passed, and the President signed into law, the much debated American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-277 (hereinafter ACWIA). This legislation was first introduced by Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI), the Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, in response to the inadequate numbers of H-1B visas available in any fiscal year. As part of the Immigration Act of 1990, Congress imposed a 65,000 per year cap on these visas. In 1997, the cap was reached prior to the end of the fiscal year. The situation grew to crisis proportions in fiscal year 1998 when all 65,000 visas numbers were taken in May of 1998.

In early March 1998, Senator Abraham introduced a bill entitled, "The American Competitiveness Act." The legislation was introduced on the heels of numerous reports and hearings concerning the high tech worker shortage in the United States. The primary goal of the legislation was to address the looming exhaustion of the H-1B professional or specialty occupation worker visa numbers.

The ACWIA went through many different stages before an agreement could be reached. A complete elimination of the cap had originally been proposed by Senator Abraham. The legislation was then modified to increase the number of H-1B visa numbers available during the government fiscal year; provide additional funds for scholarships in the computer science and mathematics areas; increase enforcement of the Department of Labor component of the H-1B visa process; and provide clarification on the prevailing wage requirements of the process. The legislation also addressed permanent residence by providing for an extension of the H-1B visa should a permanent residence petition be pending, and through restructuring the allocation of the employment-based immigrant visa numbers.

This legislative game between conservative isolationists/liberal protectors of the U.S. workforce and moderate Democrats and Republicans supporting business needs and demands, caused chaos among U.S.-based businesses in need of skilled professional workers. From May 11, 1998 until October 1, 1998 U.S. businesses, research institutions and other organizations were unable to recruit foreign workers as temporary professionals. With the U.S. economy still booming and unemployment rates remaining at an all-time low, businesses, especially in the high tech sector, encountered many problems as a result of the cut-off in H-1B visa availability. These problems included, but were not limited to, taking employees off the U.S. payroll, sending employees back to their home country or to sites outside the U.S. as well as the termination of some critical development projects.

Requirements in the Statute

The ACWIA purportedly balances the need for increased professional visas numbers for foreign workers and the desire to protect the U.S. workforce. The following is a summary of the significant changes made by the legislation.
A. Temporary Increase in the Number of Professional Visas Available

There will be an increase from 65,000 to 115,000 visas for fiscal year 1999 and 2000 (through September 30, 2000). In fiscal year 2001, 107,500 visas will be available. Beginning October 1, 2001 the numbers will revert back to 65,000.
B. Electronic Postings

LCA notices may be posted electronically in situations without a bargaining representative. This provision was effective upon date of enactment.
C. Attestations Required for Employers Dependent Upon Foreign Professionals

U.S. employers of 51 or more employees, whose workforce is comprised of 15% or more foreign nationals in the H-1B category are considered dependent employers and must make certain attestations. Employers will also be considered dependent if they employ 26- 50 full time employees and have more than 12 H-1B employees or if they employ 7 -25 employees and have more than 7 H-1B employees.

The dependent employer must attest that it has not and will not displace a U.S. worker within 90 days before and 90 days after filing the visa application. This attestation carries through to employers who place employees at another worksite. The H-1B dependent employer must also attest that it has taken good faith steps to recruit U.S. workers using industry wide standards and has offered the position to any U.S. worker who is equally or better qualified for the job the foreign worker is sought.

H-1B employees with a Master’s degree or a salary of $60,000 or higher are not included in the attestation requirements and for the first 6 months following the implementation will not be included in the dependent employer calculation.
D. Increased Enforcement and Penalties for Violations

The Department of Labor may fine employers between $1,000-$35,000 per violation and preclude participation in the H-1B program for up to three years.
E. Back Benching H-1B Employees

Employers must pay H-1B nonimmigrants the wage stated on the H-1B petition even if the beneficiary is in nonproductive status. This does not apply to non-productive time due to non work related factors.
F. Benefits

Employers must offer foreign workers benefits and eligibility for insurance, disability, retirement and savings plans, stock options, etc., on the same basis as offerings made to U.S. workers.
G. Additional Fee for Use of H-1B Program

Beginning December 1, 1998, employers are required to pay an additional fee of $500 for an initial H-1B petition and for the first extension. These fees are to be used to support job training programs and scholarships for U.S. workers.
H. Prevailing Wage Computations

For institutions of higher education, related or affiliated non-profit entities or non profit or governmental research organizations, the prevailing wage shall take into account employees at such institutions in the area of employment.
I. Academic Honoraria

Payments of honoraria may now be made to B-1 and B-2 visitors for usual academic activity lasting 9 days at an academic institution or affiliated non-profit entity or a non-profit governmental research organization. No more than 5 honorarium may be received within a six month period.

Employers based in the U.S. now have a temporary reprieve when hiring foreign professionals. However, it is uncertain whether the 65,000 visas for this fiscal year will be adequate to meet the demand for this year and next. Some government officials estimate that visas will be unavailable as early as the beginning of May 2010. In addition, it is still unclear what is on the legislative horizon, reform or not. Pro Immigrants want to come with a proposal to reform legal immigration. U.S. employers employing foreign nationals in any capacity would be well advised to carefully monitor future legislative and regulatory proposals on the horizon. All I can say is that if you plan on hiring a foreign worker, you better call your lawyer now!!!

From time to time we can provide most up to date information from different Consular Posts across the globe. The following update is from the US Embassy in Istanbul Turkey and is provided by our AILA liaison committee. Here are the questions and answers:

What are the scheduling/interview waiting period for NIV appts (Turks)? Scheduling waiting period for NIV appts (Iranians)? Times of year that waiting generally increases?

Current wait time for an NIV appt. is approx. 15 days for Turkish nationals. Ankara is
approx. 30 days. Spring time (March thru early July) normally results in a longer wait for NIV appts due to summer work/travel program applications (very popular in Turkey, which ranks only second to Russia in its SWT volume) and tourist visa issuance.

As is the case for Turks, Iranians are only scheduled up to one month in advance. However, the demand for Iranian visa appointments far outstrips supply. When Iranian appointments open up for the following month, they are taken within a few days. Therefore, call towards the end of a given month, and there may be openings available for the month after the incoming month.

What is the current Farsi speaking staff available for interviews?

There is no assigned Farsi speaking consular officer in Istanbul post, nor has been for many years. Therefore if an Iranian applicant cannot speak English or Turkish, post will attempt to use other consulate staff who may speak Farsi to act as translators. Availability cannot be guaranteed.

What is the Post’s acceptance of third country nationals for NIV processing (Iraqis?)

In addition to Iranians, Istanbul s regularly schedules non-resident third country national (TCN) applicants. Iraqis (for example) are welcome to try to book those slots. There are only approx. 10 non resident TCN slots available per week, but unlike the case for Turkish or Iranian appointment slots, TCN appointments have never become backlogged.

Explain the special considerations for E visa processing. Most common preparation
omission/errors for E visa cases? Outlook of “substantiality” factor for E visas at post? How is post looking at “marginality” at a time of economic crisis?

Istanbul post does not get a significant load of E visa applications as do posts such as London. Therefore there is not a dedicated E visa officer, nor is there company registration because Istanbul sees few repeat applications associated with any particular entity. Most E visa applications in Istanbul are family owned/operated businesses. They tend to be an investment of a couple $100k at most, involving relatively few personnel in areas such as restaurants or marble importers. If the investment is less than $100k, it is no surprise that there will be quite a bit of scrutiny, however there is no firm line given that the industry, how new the business
is, and its locality are all highly relevant.

They reiterate that if there is a COS (Change of Status) to E status in applicant’s possession, it is important to remind applicants that there will still be a full adjudication of the visa status eligibility. One must remember that an approval from USCIS does not guarantee a visa by the Consulate abroad. They will still require a full review and adjudication of the visa, and Istanbul is not an exception to this rule.

Regarding marginality in a time of economic crisis, even if there is poor revenue currently, if there was growth before the crisis, this is a positive factor and will be considered. We suggest clients to submit cases with a strong business plan that has a 5 year projection as well 3 year back performance for acquired businesses.

B visa adjudications for pregnant mothers? What should be provided above and
beyond a standard B visa applicant? B for dependent parents? Domestic Partners?

Istanbul post is not opposed to B visas for a pregnant mother as long as she is otherwise eligible. They would prefer that a pregnant mother disclose this at interview and show that she will not be a public charge. Therefore, as long as this can be overcome, planning to give birth while in lawful B status would not be grounds for denying a B visa. Post rarely sees B visa applications for domestic partners/dependent parents of those in H/L/E, etc status.

I was recently interviewed by the Latin America News Dispatch about the current situation in Mexico and our work with E2 investors fleeing from that country.

One option available to wealthy Mexicans who flee the violence in their country is to apply for an E-2 or Investor’s Visa. Since 1994, Mexico has been a so-called Treaty Country, making its residents eligible for E-2 visas. While the State Department only says that the investment needed must be “substantial,” based on our experience a recommended investment varies between 50,000 to 100,000 dollars.

According to the article, not many of these visas are granted every year. In 2009, the U.S. granted Mexico only 2,499 treaty investor and treaty trader visas. This is a small number compared to the 7,598 student visas and 6,020 exchange visitor visas approved for Mexicans in 2009, according to State Department statistics. Yet we feel that demand for such visas is only increasing. We will continue to provide guidance to our clients in this complex area of Immigration Law.

Read the complete article here

In recent weeks our East Coast H1B and L clients reported problems at the Newark port of entry. Problems were reported by applicants from India coming back from vacation or travel for Business. In 2 cases, workers were sent back home, visa revoked by the officer. What is going on?

The AILA U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) Liaison Committee received reports from AILA members that CBP inspectors at the Newark, New Jersey airport port of entry were apparently assisting in an investigation involving certain H-1B nonimmigrants from India and certain H-1B petitioner companies. The inspectors’ questions focused on who the individuals worked for, how their pay was computed, who paid their salary, their job duties, and what they were paid. In some cases, the individuals were subjected to expedited removal and visa cancellation.

After inquiring with CBP headquarters (“HQ”) about these incidents, the CBP Liaison Committee was advised by HQ that several of these cases involved companies under investigation by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and/or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) for ongoing fraud. CBP HQ noted that they use as much advance information as possible to target specific individuals who warrant additional inspection. HQ 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.”

Individuals with pending I-751 petitions returning to the United States via the Newark airport port of entry, who have a I-751 filing receipt documenting that an I-751 has been properly filed or an ADIT Legal Permanent Resident stamp, will be sent to secondary inspection for further interview to verify the validity of the I-751 Petition. It is unclear if CBP will undertake a substantive review of the I-751 Petition.

Best Advice

Applicants should thoroughly prepare for their trip to the United States and their inspection upon application for admission by reviewing 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.

Similarly, 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 must 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.

Continue reading "H1B Visa Lawyer - H-1B Admissions problems at Newark, NJ Airport" »

This information is available from our AILA liaison and is an important clarification for those that practice in the H2B area of law.

USCIS’ and DOL’s regulations both allow for the certification of more than one position (DOL) and filing for multiple beneficiaries (USCIS) if all H-2B workers will be performing the same service, for the same period of time, and in the same location. 8 C.F.R. §214.2(h)(2)(ii).

DOL regulation at 20 C.F.R. §655.4 defines the area of intended employment as “the geographic area within normal commuting distance of the place (worksite address) of the intended employment of the job opportunity for which the certification is sought.” It further offers the use of the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) as a reasonable measure in determining the “same area of intended employment.” The CSC uses this definition in establishing the regulatory requirement at 8 C.F.R. §214.2(h)(2)(ii).

We advise on careful planning and preparation of H2b cases, from the first steps when filing the 9041 prevailing wage form, through the 9042 application.

ComputerWorld reports about a New Jersey judge that has ordered the shutdown of three H-1B opposition Web sites.

Middlesex County Superior Court Judge James Hurley ordered firms that register domains and provide hosting services -- GoDaddy Inc., Network Solutions, Comcast Cable Communications Inc. and DiscountASP.Net, to disable the three sites, ITgrunt.com, Endh1b.com, and Guestworkerfraud.com. Facebook Inc. was also ordered to disable ITgrunt's Facebook page.

The order was made in response to a libel lawsuit filed by IT services and consulting firm Apex Technology Group Inc., based in Edison, N.J. against the three Web sites opposing the H-1B visa program. Such attacks on H1B supporters increased last year as the economic situation was gloomy, and prospects for employment were not looking good. Yet, we all know that the H1B program is not the cause of all evil and in fact is a boosting factor in creation of new jobs and opportunities for American workers. Lets hope that the antis will take it easy in 2010, and focus on the real issues at stake.

Some good news for visa holders that are about to loose their visa sponsored jobs or already lost the visa job. In a decision issued today by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) in Matter of Neto, which empowers immigration judges who are considering deportation of individuals with approved work-related visa petitions and pending permanent residence applications. The issue at stake is whether an immigration judge has the authority to decide whether the approved visa petition - issued for one job - remains valid when the individual changes jobs. Without a valid visa petition, the individual will not be eligible for permanent residence.

In 2000, Congress passed the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act, which allowed applicants for permanent residence based on approved visa petitions the flexibility to change jobs. However, in 2005, the BIA decided in Matter of Perez-Vargas that an immigration judge had no authority to decide whether a new job was the same as or similar to the old job, which determines validity of their visa petition. This left these applicants for permanent residence in limbo, stripping them of the ability to benefit from the 2000 law while in removal proceedings because the judges couldn't, and the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service wouldn't, determine the validity of their visa petition.

Today, in Matter of Neto, the BIA overruled its own earlier decision that denied judges this authority and will now allow them to decide whether a new job is acceptable, thus keeping the individual's eligibility for permanent residence intact. In which case, the visa petition remains valid and the immigrant worker can proceed with an application to become a lawful permanent resident - potentially saving them from deportation.

Read the amicus brief filed by the Legal Action Center Download file

Some updates on H2A and H2B visas. DHS issued a notice on the identification of 39 countries whose nationals are eligible to participate in the H–2A and H–2B programs for the coming year. This notice is effective 1/18/10 and shall be without effect at the end of one year after 1/18/10.

Under Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may only approve petitions for H-2A and H-2B nonimmigrant status for nationals of countries that the Secretary of Homeland Security, has designated by notice published in the Federal Register.

A new development to report, 11 additional countries are now joining to the list of countries whose nationals are eligible to participate in the H-2A and H-2B programs. In consideration of all of the above, this notice designates for the first time Croatia, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Ireland, Lithuania, The Netherlands, Nicaragua, Norway, Serbia, Slovakia, and Uruguay as countries whose nationals are eligible to participate in the H-2A and H-2B programs.

So now the following countries are eligible to participate in the H-2A and H-2B visa programs:

Argentina, Australia, Belize, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Honduras, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Jamaica, Japan, Lithuania, Mexico, Moldova, The Netherlands, Nicaragua, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay.

This notice does not affect the status of aliens who currently hold H-2A or H-2B nonimmigrant status.

After a tough December with H1B RFE's and the Cap, on January 8th USCIS issued new requirements for H1B cases. An employer who seeks to sponsor a temporary worker in an H-1B specialty occupation, as of April 2010, will be required to establish, through documentary evidence, a valid employer-employee relationship throughout the petition validity period. The sweeping and controversial new guidance will change the way employers prepare, and USCIS adjudicates, most H-1B petitions.

Employer-Employee Relationship

H-1B regulations currently require that a United States employer establish that it has an employer-employee relationship with the beneficiary of the petition. The memorandum states that the lack of guidance on this issue has made it difficult for USCIS adjudicators to determine whether such a relationship exists, especially when petitions involve independent contractors, self-employed beneficiaries, and beneficiaries placed at third-party worksites.

When determining whether an employer-employee relationship exists, USCIS will evaluate whether the petitioner has the "right to control" the beneficiary's employment, such as when, where and how the beneficiary performs the job. USCIS will consider the following, with no one factor being decisive:

* Does the petitioner supervise and is such supervision off-site or on-site?
* If the supervision is off-site, how does the petitioner maintain such supervision?
* Does the petitioner have the right to control the work of the beneficiary on a day-to-day basis if such control is required?
* Does the petitioner provide the tools or instrumentalities needed for the beneficiary to perform the duties of employment?
* Does the petitioner hire, pay, and have the ability to fire the beneficiary?
* Does the petitioner evaluate the work-product of the beneficiary?
* Does the petitioner claim the beneficiary for tax purposes?
* Does the petitioner provide the beneficiary any type of employee benefits?
* Does the beneficiary use proprietary information of the petitioner in order to perform the duties of employment?
* Does the beneficiary produce an end-product that is directly linked to the petitioner's line of business?
* Does the petitioner have the ability to control the manner and means in which the work product of the beneficiary is accomplished?

According to the memorandum, the petitioner will have met the test if, in the totality of the circumstances, a petitioner is able to present evidence to establish its right to control the beneficiary's employment. The petitioner must also be able to establish that the right to control the beneficiary's work will continue to exist throughout the duration of the beneficiary's employment term with the petitioner.

Continue reading "H1B Visa Lawyer - New Evidentiary Requirements on H-1B Employers" »

Recently the Congressional Reserch Service issued a new report titled: “The Effects on U.S. Farm Workers of an Agricultural Guest Worker Program.” Linda Levine the author writes:

Guest worker programs are meant to assure employers (e.g., fruit, vegetable, and horticultural specialty growers) of an adequate supply of labor when and where it is needed while not adding permanent residents to the U.S. population. They include mechanisms such as the H-2A program’s labor certification process to avoid adversely affecting the wages and working conditions of comparable U.S. workers. If changes to the H-2A program or creation of a new agricultural guest worker program led growers to employ many more aliens, the effects of the Bracero program might be instructive: although the 1942-1964 Bracero program succeeded in expanding the farm labor supply, studies estimate that it also harmed domestic farm workers through reduced wages and employment. The magnitudes of these adverse effects might differ today depending upon how much the U.S. farm labor and product markets have changed over time, but their direction likely would be the same.

The report further states, Despite increases in H-2A worker certifications issued by the U.S. Department of Labor in recent years, the number of H-2A workers remains quite small compared to the nearly 1 million hired farm and agricultural service workers employed in 2008.5 Thus, even if the labor certification process has not operated as intended—to protect similarly employed U.S. workers—the H-2A program’s low utilization suggests that its overall impact on the domestic farm labor force has been minimal.

Download the full report Download file

DOL announced late last year about the changes to the Prevailing Wage Determination procedures, these changes became effective today. So what cases are affected? As described in the Department’s December 4, 2009 Federal Register Notice, the National Prevailing Wage and Help desk Center (NPWHC) will process Prevailing Wage Determination (PWD) requests for H­1B, H­1B1(Chile/Singapore), H­1C (if reauthorized by Congress), H­2B, E­3 (Australia) programs, and the permanent labor certification program (PERM).

Now employers will need to plan at least 60 days in advance when filing any of the above referenced applications, we anticipate serious delays in the early stages of this program. Especially since only hard copy mail ins are accepted at this time.

Click here for the DOL complete rule.

As we predicted last night the Cap was met today. As of December 21, 2009, USCIS has received sufficient petitions to reach the statutory cap for FY2010. USCIS has also received more than 20,000 H-1B petitions on behalf of persons exempt from the cap under the advanced degree exemption. USCIS will reject cap-subject petitions for new H-1B specialty occupation workers seeking an employment start date in FY2010 that are received after December 21, 2009 USCIS will apply a computer-generated random selection process to all petitions that are subject to the cap and were received on December 21, 2009.

Applicants will soon be getting ready for April 1, 2010 filings. Our advice is to start early, with DOL delays we have to start planning differently. More updates to come.

So what do you think, will the cap be reached today, or maybe tomorrow, surely by Friday. With the snow storms hitting the east coast, delivery of H1B packages and processing at the Vermont service center have been delayed. As of December 15, 2009, approximately 64,200 H-1B cap-subject petitions had been filed. We are still waiting for the most current numbers, but it seems that the gate on new filings is soon to be shut. I will keep you posted as we earn of new info.

We like to share that the H1B cap is extremely close to being reached. The count as of December 15, 2009 is 64,200. This is 1300 cases more than the count from December 11th. This count is very close to the total cap of 65,000 which is actually somewhat reduced by numbers allocated under trade agreements. We continue to watch this very closely, and will provide updates until the FY 2010 cap is reached.

We suggest to act quickly to avoid last minute embarrassment as H-1B Cap may soon be cease to exist.

USCIS has just released the latest H-1B visa information on December 15, 2009. As of December 11, 2009, USCIS reported that 62,900 cap-subject petitions had been filed.

From December 10 to December 11, 400 more applications were filed. As mentioned in all other previous H-1B updates, spots for advanced degree holders have been satisfactorily met; all other advanced degree holders approved will be counted towards the general cap. Remember, those who receive a job offer from a governmental or non-profit organization will not count towards the general H-1B cap.

Because 6,800 out of the 65,000 regular spots are kept for citizens of Singapore and Chile, this only leaves 58,200 spots for other nationals. Bear in mind that USCIS takes into account the fact that some of these applications may be revoked, withdrawn by applicants, or denied. As such, USCIS will continue to accept both cap-subject petitions and advanced degree petitions until they specify otherwise.

We assume that the rate at which H-1B applications are being filed may result in non-availability of H-1B cap very soon. Hence, it is suggested to expedite the H-1B filing process quickly.