Visa Lawyer BlogI-9 Audit – Company will lose over half its work force after an immigration Audit!!
A national janitorial company, will lose over half its Minnesota work force after an immigration audit, making it the second major business in that state to be hit by an Obama administration crackdown on employers of illegal immigrants.
The audit by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement will result in about 240 workers losing their jobs, the Service Employees International Union reported.
Harvard Maintenance began issuing dismissal letters to employees in early March and is in the process of terminating workers, according to the SEIU, which represents the workers. Harvard Maintenance gave workers 90 days to rectify irregularities in their employment-eligibility documents before informing them they could no longer work there. The Obama administration has made employers the cornerstone of its immigration crackdown that began in 2009.
Let police catch criminals, not immigrants – what do you think?
According to the LA Times, California reached a milestone late last month when federal immigration officials quietly announced that all 58 counties in the state are now participating in Secure Communities, a controversial program created to track and deport dangerous criminals.
Unveiled in late 2008, Secure Communities is billed as a showpiece of immigration enforcement. Under the Immigration and Customs Enforcement program, state and local police must check the immigration status of people who have been arrested and booked into local jails by matching fingerprints against federal databases for criminal convictions and deportation orders.
But today, Secure Communities is mired in problems. About 60% of the 87,534 immigrants deported under the program had minor or no criminal convictions, according to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s statistics, even though the program was aimed at dangerous criminals.
H1B Visa Denials – ? – Filing a motion to re-open might be an option for you
Our office has extensive experience assisting the clients in filing H-1B petitions. We also help the clients consider their options if the case is denied. Below is an example of the H-1B case that got approved even after the denial was issued.
The employer/petitioner was a large luxury hotel. The petitioner sought the services of the beneficiary in the position of a Food Service Manager.
The Immigration Service issued a Request for Evidence (RFE) in that case prompting the employer to submit additional evidence to establish that the position offered qualifies as a specialty occupation.
L1A Visas:Procedures for Handling Deficient or Deniable L Petitions for Canadians
If an L petition presented by a Canadian citizen in conjunction with an application for admission is lacking necessary supporting documentation or is otherwise deficient, the inspecting CBP officer shall return it to the applicant for admission.
The officer should instruct the applicant for admission to obtain the necessary documentation from the petitioner to correct the deficiency. Id. The officer should not accept the filing fee for a petition lacking necessary documentation or that is otherwise deficient. Id. Instead, the filing fee should be accepted once the necessary documents are presented or the deficiency overcome.
The foregoing paragraph contains several noteworthy observations. First, the Code of Federal Regulations governing the Canadian L petition adjudication procedures uses mandatory language, not permissive language. The regulations clearly state that the CBP inspecting officer “shall return” such a petition to an applicant. Officers do not have discretionary authority in this matter. Accordingly, CBP officers are required to return to the applicant any L‐1 petition lacking necessary documentation or that is otherwise deficient.
Second, officers should not accept a petition filing fee for any petition that lacks necessary documentation or is otherwise deficient. Of necessity, officers will be required to conduct an initial review of an L petition presented by a citizen of Canada concurrently with an application for admission to the United States in order to determine if the petition includes all necessary documentation or is otherwise deficient. Only after making such a preliminary review will an officer be able to determine whether the petition includes sufficient documentation and information or whether it should be returned to the applicant along with the tendered filing fee. Only when an applicant returns with sufficient documentation or information to overcome a deficiency may the officer accept the filing fee for the L petition.
Third, there is an implicit rationale underlying the procedures described in 8 CFR §214.2(l)(17)(iv). As noted in the section above, the petitioner, not the Canadian citizen applicant for admission, is responsible for preparing and filing the L petition. Furthermore, the petitioner is not required to appear when an L petition is filed, whether this takes place at a USCIS Service Center or at a port of entry.
Therefore, the Canadian applicant for admission, in most circumstances, will not have documentation or information demonstrating that the petitioner is a qualifying organization. Documentation relating to the duties to be performed by the beneficiary also is unlikely to be available at a port of entry. Such documentation normally would be needed to provide details concerning the qualifying nature of the duties performed. In apparent acknowledgment of these realities, the regulations instruct inspecting officers to return incomplete or deficient petitions to the applicant in order to gather the needed documents or information from the petitioner.
Clearly Deniable Petitions
In some cases, an L petition presented by a Canadian citizen concurrently with an application for admission to the United States will be clearly deniable. In such circumstances, the inspecting officer should accept the petition with the filing fee and notify the petitioner of the denial, the reasons for the denial and the right of appeal. 8 CFR §214.2(l)(17)(iv).
It may initially appear that there is a conflict between the regulatory mandate to return to an applicant an L‐1 petition lacking documentation or otherwise deficient, with the instructions to deny clearly deniable petitions. Upon closer examination, however, these two instructions are not difficult to reconcile. Consider first the definition of the term “deficient.” This word is defined as an item “lacking in some necessary quality or element.”1 Useful synonyms are terms such as incomplete, fragmental, fragmentary, partial. Id. In contrast, the term “clearly” is defined as an activity performed “in a clear manner.”2 Useful synonyms are terms such as “inarguably, incontestably, incontrovertibly, indisputably.”
When a petition is deficient, it is incomplete. Information or documentation will not be present with the petition. The absence of information will leave a question remaining about whether the petitioner is a qualifying organization or whether the beneficiary is eligible for classification as an L‐1 intracompany transferee. When a petition is deficient, it is only partially complete. There remains the possibility that production of additional documentation or information may demonstrate the petitioner and/or the beneficiary are eligible to utilize the L‐1 intracompany transferee category.
Conversely, a petition that is clearly deniable cannot be cured by presentation of additional documentation or information. No question remains unanswered by the documentation or information presented with such a petition. Instead, the facts will indisputably demonstrate that the petitioner is not a qualifying organization or that the beneficiary does not satisfy the eligibility requirements for L‐1 classification.
H1B Visas are essential to the economy – Lift Visa restrictions Now!!!
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Visa Waiver overstay and Marriage Based Adjustment of Status – Update Coming Soon
Here is the latest from the American Immigration Lawyers Association on the Visa Waiver Denials issue.
Following reports from AILA chapter USCIS liaisons that a favorable resolution on the question of adjustment eligibility for Visa Waiver Program (VWP) admittees has been reached, AILA Liaision has confirmed that USCIS HQ has instructed the field that USCIS retains jurisdiction to adjust an alien who was admitted under the VWP, whether or not the adjustment application was filed during the alien’s 90-day period of admission. Follow our Blog for more info.
This recent update comes in a time when the San Diego filed office continues to deny applications of Visa Waiver overstays. I expect the new policy to be implemented in San Diego soon as well.
EB1 Extraordinary Ability Green Card – Bodyguard of Extraordinary Ability for Celine Dione
Mr. Skokos is, by all accounts, an accomplished security consultant. But the Department of Homeland Security doubts he is at the very pinnacle of his profession, so accomplished the world over that Mr. Skokos, a Canadian citizen who lives in Las Vegas, merits a special visa to live permanently in the United States. Nobody disputes that Nikolaos Skokos is adept at what he does, which is keeping unruly crowds away from Celine Dion, the super star singer.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which normally sits in San Francisco but held a special session in Phoenix. After hearing arguments in the Skokos case, a three-judge panel took the issue under advisement.
There are numerous ways foreigners can petition to live in the United States, including random visa lotteries and asylum applications citing a risk of grave harm back home. Mr. Skokos is seeking to stay through a relatively small program that allows “aliens of extraordinary ability” — whether they are scientists, artists, athletes or even security consultants — to become permanent residents.
Change of Address form: USCIS
Beginning March 15, 2011 all Change of Address, (Form AR-11) and Alien’s Change of Address, (Form AR-11 SR) will change filing locations. Now, you must file all change of address forms at the following address:
DHS/USCIS
Harrisonburg File Storage Facility
Texas immigration bill and the special exception!
In Texas proposed House Bill 2012 would create tough state punishments for those who “intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly” hire an unauthorized immigrant. Violators could face up to two years in jail and a fine of up to $10,000.
But unlike any other Bill before this one it has an interesting exception. Those who hire unauthorized immigrants would be in violation of the law — unless they are hiring a maid, a lawn caretaker or another houseworker.
The Texas legislature convenes only once every two years, so Texas has not passed tough anti-illegal immigration laws like some other states. The result has been that unauthorized immigrants in those states are relocating to Texas. Example of other proposed Bills in Texas, one bill would place an 8% surcharge on all money wired from Texas to Latin America. About $480 million could be collected from money sent to Mexico alone, the representative said. The proceeds would be earmarked for state hospitals.