Articles Posted in Work Visas

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:

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

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.

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

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).

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.

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.

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