Visa Lawyer Blog

by

On Sunday, October 9th, 2011 Governor Jerry Brown signed into law AB 1236, the Employment Acceleration Act authored by Assemblymember Paul Fong (D-Cupertino). The bill ensures that it prohibits the state, cities or counties from requiring employers to use E-Verify, an electronic employment verification system that uses employees’ social security numbers to determine work eligibility. Exceptions are made, however, for city or county workers, or if E-verify is a requirement for particular employers under federal or as a condition for employers receiving federal funds.

While supporters of mandatory E-Verify claim the system will magically open up millions of jobs to American workers, reports find that the program would actually cost California’s small businesses (which make up 99% of employers in the state) more than $312 million per year and potentially put 90,000 U.S. citizen and legal state workers out of a job. Nationally, mandatory E-Verify would cost small businesses $2.6 billion a year, according to Bloomberg News Service, and cost federal contractors $10 billion to implement. According to Assemblyman Paul Fong, AB 1236’s sponsor:

“This bill protects our California workers and businesses. The mandated use of E-Verify would impose a major financial burden on businesses, especially small businesses. In addition, businesses will suffer from delayed hiring and the cost of mistaken identities. In this tough economy, we need to help businesses and grow and provide jobs, not set up barriers that cost jobs.”

Continue reading

by

An asylum seeker is a person who has fled their own country and applies to the government of another country for protection as a refugee.

According to the United Nations Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (the Refugee Convention), a refugee is a person who is outside their own country and is unable or unwilling to return due to a well-founded fear of being persecuted because of their:

* race

Continue reading

by

Illegal immigrants can now apply for state-financed scholarships and aid at state universities after Gov. Jerry Brown announced last Saturday that he had signed the second half of a legislative package focused on such students.

The bill is the second half of the California Dream Act. Mr. Brown signed the first half of the package back in July, which approved private scholarships and loans for students who are illegal immigrants.

Under current law, illegal immigrant students who have graduated from a California high school and can prove they are on the path to legalize their immigration status can pay resident tuition rates. The bill would allow these students to also apply for state aid.

Continue reading

by

Since he arrived in this country two decades ago, Chef Jose Andres has been a tireless advocate for Spanish cuisine. His D.C.-based restaurants helped popularize tapas, the small plates that typify Spanish food. He is also a model and inspiration to many aspiring Chef immigrants looking to move to the US and start their restaurants.

Although many Hospitality workers wait months or even years for permission to live and work in the US legally, a small but growing number have found a legal path that is relatively simple and fast: come with money to buy a businesses here. As the Hospitality business is booming in the US, more and more Hospitality professionals in Europe are coming to the US and starting their own businesses via the E2 visa investment.

This is also known as the nonimmigrant investor visa. It is a temporary category that is granted in two-year to five year increments with no limits on the number of extensions.

Continue reading

by

In the past several months we have received numerous lengthy Requests for Evidence regarding L1B visa cases. We are not alone, many lawyers across the country report similar requests in L1B cases.

The L1B visa is designed for individuals from foreign countries who plan to come to the United States to work. These individuals possess specialized knowledge, skills and experience regarding the procedures, systems, services or products of a firm, corporation, company or other entity. The area of specialized knowledge for the individual includes highly developed technical expertise or professional knowledge. It also relates to a person’s private, exclusive understanding relating to a company’s products, services, methods of production, organizational make up, marketing strategies or other information that’s connected to the successful functioning of the entity in the United States.

Immigration attorneys continue to be concerned about USCIS’s L-1B adjudications and the failure to apply current binding USCIS guidance to these adjudications. Instead, adjudicators are relying on pre IMMACT 90 case law, as well as adjudicatory standards enunciated in a line of non-precedent AAO decisions.

Continue reading

by

I-9 Audits is always a hot topic. Chief of U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE), John Morton, recently announced that the agency is going to increase the number of companies it will audit for I-9 violations and regularly impose fines on violators.

I-9 violations can be devastating. Fines for I-9 violations range from $110 to $1,100 for one single, minor, or technical violation. Incorrect I-9 forms can be used as evidence of knowingly hiring an illegal alien that can result in a fine of up to $3,200 per violation. A third offense can lead to a fine of up to $16,000 per offense.

In this guest article, former ICE Agent Mark Kochanski shares his experience and unique perspective with our readers about I-9 Audits.

Continue reading

by

When you are traveling to the United States for the first time you are likely to have questions and concerns about what happens when you arrive at the Port-of-Entry?

A foreign national traveling to the United States will arrive initially at a U.S. “Port-of-Entry” (POE). The POE can be an airport, a land border crossing, or a seaport. Passing through a Port-of-Entry generally means that you are seeking permission from an Immigration Inspector, an official of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), to enter the U.S. for a specific reason, purpose and duration, which are generally always predefined.

We have posted below a recent CBP Muster on the Basic Elements of a Thorough Primary Inspection for the benefit of our readers.

Continue reading

by

Alabama has prevailed where four other states which enacted anti-immigrant state laws, including Arizona, did not. Today Alabama law enforcement officers will have the right to question and detain anyone they suspect may be an undocumented immigrant, Gov. Robert Bentley said, after a federal judge upheld key provisions of the state’s immigration law on Wednesday.

Yesterday U.S. District Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn returned her ruling for the Department of Justice’s challenge to Alabama’s recently passed HB 56, widely recognized as the harshest state immigration law on the books. Blackburn blocked several parts of the law, but let stand provisions that no other judge considering these laws so far has, including provisions that give law enforcement officers unprecedented power to act as immigration agents.

Mary Bauer of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s legal director, said Wednesday in a statement. “Today is a dark day for Alabama. This decision not only places Alabama on the wrong side of history but also demonstrates that the rights and freedoms so fundamental to our nation and its history can be manipulated by hate and political agendas – at least for a time.”
Blackburn blocked a provision that would have made it illegal for undocumented immigrants and other non-citizens from enrolling in Alabama public colleges and universities from going into effect. She also enjoined the enforcement of provision targeting day laborers’ rights to look for work and be picked up for a job, as well as a provision that would have criminalized undocumented immigrants’ attempts to look for and get a job. Blackburn also blocked a portion of the law that would have made it illegal to give a ride to or harbor a person who’s undocumented.

However, she was unconvinced by arguments from the Department of Justice, faith groups and a civil rights coalition that other severe parts of the law ought to be blocked as well. Blackburn refused to enjoin provisions that equip law enforcement agents with the power to question and detain anyone who they have “reasonable suspicion” to believe may be undocumented. Immigrant and civil rights groups have argued that this provision all but legalizes racial profiling, because it’s impossible to determine a person’s immigration status on sight alone, and any inference would rely on profiling.

“This is precisely contrary to the decision that courts that have looked at similar provision in Arizona and Georgia enjoined,” Linton Joaquin, general counsel for the National Immigration Law Center told Colorlines. NILC is one of the plaintiffs in a coalition of civil rights groups’ legal challenge to the law. “It’s a classic example of an area for states not to be legislating in.”
Blackburn also let stand a provision that demands that K-12 schools track the immigration statuses of their students, and let stand a provision that makes any business contract that an undocumented immigrant enters into unenforceable. Even though the Supreme Court has upheld elementary and secondary education as a constitutional right, undocumented immigrant parents who fear being tracked by the government will likely be too fearful to send their kids to school, said Kevin Johnson, a professor of immigration law at the University of California, Davis.

HB 56 and these provisions in particular are an attempt to frighten immigrant communities and undercut their basic constitutional rights, Johnson said.

“Taking away contract rights is just another effort to strip the few, if any, rights that undocumented immigrants have from them.”
The legal strategy to fight Alabama’s HB 56 is very different from the moral arguments against the law, though.

Continue reading

by

Attorney Ekaterina Powell spearheaded this remarkable victory. Camille is a citizen of the Philippines. She came to the U.S. in August 2007 on a J-1 visa to train in the hospitality operations of a restaurant. The restaurant subsequently hired Camille to work for them under H-1B visa in the position of Human Resources Specialist. The employer did not follow the H-1B regulations, did not pay Camille the required wage for the position or overtime wages.

On September 28, 2010, the restaurant informed Camille that she is fired effective immediately. Camille has long been thinking about continuing her education and obtaining a Master’s Degree. She immediately started searching for good MBA programs at local schools. On Monday, October 4, 2010, Camille retained an attorney, collected all the necessary documents for Change of Status application which was filed on Tuesday, October 5, 2010.

USCIS denied Camille’s application for Change of Status because, in the opinion of the Service, Camille was not in a lawful status when she filed the Change of Status application because she was discharged from work on September 28, 2011 and was in violation of her status the next day.

Due to several reasons, Camille could not go back to the Philippines in order to apply for a student visa from there. Our office has filed a motion to reopen the case arguing that the denial decision should be overturned and Camille should be granted the F-1 status.

MOTION TO REOPEN THE CASE

In the motion to reopen, we argued that Camille continued to maintain her valid status when she filed the application on October 5, 2011. We presented evidence that there was no bona fide termination of Camille’s employment until February 8, 2011 when the employer notified USCIS. Additionally, and most importantly, we provided proof that Camille was an employee of the restaurant on the date of filing the application because her termination was not effective until October 19, 2010, the date the Separation Agreement between her and the employer became effective.

In addition, we argued that even if the period of previously authorized status had expired, Camille’s circumstances warrant the favorable exercise of discretion to grant the applicant the change of status to F-1 student. The lack of notice given to Camille regarding her discharge from work, Camille’s good faith and expeditious efforts to find an appropriate school program supported the favorable exercise of the Service’s discretion in granting the Change of Status.

There has not been a bona fide termination of Camille’s employment until February 8, 2011 when the employer notified USCIS.

In order to determine whether Camille was in a valid nonimmigrant status, we need to determine the date the employment relationship between her and the H-1B employer terminated.

U.S. employers who hire temporary H-1B nonimmigrants are required by law to notify the Service that an H-1B employee no longer works for the employer so that the petition is canceled. 8 Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) 214.2(h)(11)(i)(A). The regulations similarly require the employer to provide the employee with payment for transportation home under the circumstances in 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(E)). Upon the Service’s receipt of an employer’s request to withdraw an H-1B petition, the revocation of the approval of such petition is automatic. 8 CFR sec. 214.2(h)(11)(ii).

Therefore, notification to USCIS is fundamental to ending an H-1B employer’s obligations. The notice triggers USCIS’s ability to revoke the H-1B petition, thereby invalidating the employee’s H-1B status. See 8 CFR sec. 214.2(h)(11)(iii)(A)(1).

USCIS regulations do not provide for the automatic revocation of an H-1B petition when the employee leaves his/her employer. The petition remains valid until its expiration date or its revocation by the employer. This means that the employer remains liable for payment of back wages to the employee up to the point of the petition’s expiration or revocation.

An employee may not be considered properly terminated unless the employer follows the regulations and notifies USCIS that the employment relationship has been terminated so that the I-129 petition is canceled and provides the employee with payment for transportation home. See Amtel Group Florida, Inc. v. Yongmahapakorn, ARB case no. 04-087, ALJ case no. 2004-LCA-006 (Sept. 29, 2006).

Under Amtel, a bona fide termination requires 1) notice to the employee; 2) notice to USCIS that employer has terminated the employment relationship and withdrawing the petition; and 3) employer providing the employee with payment for transportation home.

Therefore, notification of USCIS and payment for return transportation abroad are essential components of evidencing bona fide termination of employment.

In Camille’s case, the employer has not notified USCIS until February 8, 2011 that it is withdrawing the H-1B petition for the beneficiary. Therefore, there has not been a bona fide termination of Camille’s H-1B employment up until February 8, 2011.

Camille was an employee of the Restaurant on the date of filing the application for a change of status on October 5, 2010 because the Separation Agreement became effective only on October 19, 2010

Additionally, Camille signed the Separation Agreement and General Release of All Claims with her employer on October 11, 2010. The Separation Agreement itself became effective on October 19, 2010. The separation agreement serves as additional proof that Camille was an employee of the company when she filed the application for a change of status on October 5, 2010.

Camille’s circumstances warrant the favorable exercise of discretion to grant the applicant the change of status

In the motion, we also requested the Service to favorable exercise the discretion to grant Camille the change of status even if it is determined that her previously authorized status had expired.

Continue reading

by

Two bills in Congress would gut the H-2A visa program, replacing it with one more open to abuses.

Few would dispute that the existing system is broken. Its failure can be seen most clearly on farms: An estimated 70% of all agricultural workers in the U.S. are here illegally. However, without undocumented workers, crops would rot in the fields. Skeptics need only consider the plight of growers in Alabama and Georgia, who say that new anti-immigrant state laws have put their harvests at risk. Latino migrant workers have fled those states because they fear being deported, and few documented workers or U.S. citizens have applied for the jobs even though they pay above minimum wage.

It is also not difficult to understand why farmers are reluctant to use the existing guest-worker program that allows them to apply for H-2A visas for temporary foreign workers. Growers say the program is expensive and cumbersome, and requires them to predict harvest schedules and labor needs a year in advance. Such requirements make it difficult for them to determine if they have the need for such laborers or not.

Continue reading