H1B Visa Lawyer Blog

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has issued information collection for Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker until April 9, 2010.

During this period, USCIS will be evaluating whether to revise Form I-129.

The purpose of this form is for employers to petition for an alien to come to the United States temporarily to perform services or labor, or to receive training, as an H-1B, H-1C, H-2A, H-2B, H-3, L-1, O-1, O-2, P-1, P-1S, P-2, P-2S, P-3, P-3S, Q-1 or R-1 nonimmigrant worker. Employers may also use this form to request an extension of stay or change of status for an alien as an E-1, E-2, or TN nonimmigrant.

Members of the public are encouraged to submit comments and/or suggestions to USCIS, especially comments regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time.

Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Comments may be submitted to:
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), USCIS,
Chief, Regulatory Products Division, Clearance Office,
111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 3008
Washington, DC 20529-2210.

Comments may also be submitted to DHS via facsimile to 202-272-8352 or via e-mail at rfs.regs@dhs.gov.

**When submitting comments by e-mail, please make sure to add OMB Control No. 1615-0009 in the subject box.

The American Immigration Lawyers Association (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 CBP inspector’s questions focused on (1) who the individuals worked for, (2) how their pay was computed, (3) who paid their salary, (4) their job duties, and (5) what they were paid. According to the reports, some individuals were subjected to expedited removal and visa cancellation.

After inquiring with CBP headquarters about these alleged incidents, the CBP Liaison Committee was advised that many of the cases involved in the allegations involved companies currently under investigation by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and/or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for ongoing fraud. The CBP provided that 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 was based on “the totality of the circumstances” and was reviewed on a “case-by-case” basis. The CBP also confirmed that they screen ALL employment-based visa holders to determine admissibility and ensure compliance with entry requirements.

AILA was provided with additional news regarding a new policy instituted at Newark Airport dealing with random checks of returning H-1B, L-1 and other employment-based visa holders. Based upon the initial check, if the person’s admissibility is questionable, then he or she will be sent to secondary inspection for further review, and if questions still surround the person’s admissibility they may possibly be asked to withdraw his/her application for admission to the U.S. or be subject to expedited removal.

The Newark Airport port of entry has another policy regarding Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs). The Airport has a mandatory detention policy for returning LPRs who have a post-1998 conviction. There are several exceptions to detainment for humanitarian reasons, and if the CBP cannot get a copy of the conviction record within 24 hours, the person may be released.

Moving Forward:
Employment Based Immigration applicants - If you must travel outside of the U.S., you should thoroughly prepare for your return trip to the U.S. by reviewing all pertinent documents, as well as carrying certain evidence to support assertions made in the petition. Certain evidence may include but is not limited to the following: pay stubs, employment verification letter, income tax returns, W-2 Forms, Employment offer letter, Employment Agreement.

Petitioning Employers – You must be prepared for inquiries from CBP officers to confirm the assertions made in any nonimmigrant petition. Additionally, you should keep and maintain adequate employee personnel and inspection files, and keep public information as accurate and current as possible.

Additionally, please note that the USCIS has revised I-797 Approval notices to include the following fraud related language:

NOTICE – Although this application/petition has been approved, DHS reserves the right to verify the information submitted in this application, petition, and/or supporting documentation to ensure conformity with applicable laws, rules, regulations, and other authorities. Methods used for verifying information may include, but are not limited to, the review of public information and records, contact by correspondence, the Internet, or telephone, and site inspections of businesses and residences. Information obtained during the course of verification will be used to determine whether revocation, rescission, and/or removal proceedings are appropriate. Applicants, petitioners and representatives of record will be provided an opportunity to address derogatory information before any formal proceeding is initiated.

Source: AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 10020237 (Posted 2/2/2010)

Now that all of the new H-1B visas for the 2010 Fiscal Year have been allocated, What options do Employers who are looking to hire Foreign National Professionals have?

Here are some creative solutions to this problem:

O-1 Visa
The O-1 visa is suited for individuals of extraordinary ability or achievement. The O classification is a useful and flexible alternative to the H-1B program because there is no overall limit on time in the classification and there is no cap. O-1 beneficiaries in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics must have extraordinary ability “demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim.”

E-3 Visa
The E-3 visa classification is limited to Australian Professionals. The E-3 visa is a “specialty occupation” visa similar to the H-1B visa. Therefore to be eligible for the visa, the Australian citizen must possess a bachelor’s degree or higher (or its equivalent) in the specialty and the specialty occupation must require the degree. There is a 10,500 annual limit on the E-3 visa.

L-1 Visa
The L-1 visa is an option for international organizations with offices in the United States who transfer employees to the United States for temporary periods of time. In order to be eligible for an L-1 visa, the petitioning entity must prove that the beneficiary of the visa has worked for the non-U.S. based sister company/subsidiary for at least one full year within the last three years as an executive, manager or employee with specialized knowledge.

Contact MVP Law Group for more information!

On Thursday, April 23, 2009, Assistant Senate Majority Leader Dick Durbin and Senator Chuck Grassley introduced the H-1B and L-1 Visa Reform Act. This bipartisan legislation would reform the current H-1B and L-1 guest worker programs to prevent abuse and fraud, and to protect American workers.

This legislation calls for a “good faith attempt” to solicit qualified American workers before hiring an H-1B guest worker. Accordingly, Employers would be prohibited from using H-1B visa holders to displace qualified American workers. Additionally, the bill calls for a prohibition against the blatantly discriminatory practice of “H-1B only” ads and would prohibit Employers from hiring additional guest workers if more than 50% of their workforce consisted of H-1B and L-1 visa holders.

To address the issues of fraud and abuse, the bill would allow the Department of Labor (DOL) to initiate investigations without a complaint and without the personal authorization of the DOL Secretary. In addition, the bill would allow the DOL to conduct random audits of companies that utilize the H-1B nonimmigrant visa program. Specifically, the bill calls for annual audits by the DOL for employers who employ a large number of guest-workers.

Senators Durbin and Grassley introduced similar legislation last Congress.

The L-1B intra company business visa allows specialized knowledge employees to transfer from a foreign company to a U.S. parent, affiliated, or subsidiary branch to perform temporary jobs. For a foreign applicant to attain L-1B visa status, three requirements must be met. First and foremost, the petitioning U.S. company must be affiliated with the company abroad, as a branch, subsidiary, or affiliate. This relationship shall be demonstrated either by one entity having control over the other, or by both entities being controlled by the same person or entity. Additionally, the L-1B visa applicant must be employed at the company abroad for at least one of the previous three years before the L-1B visa application is filed with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Finally, the employee must be coming to work at the U.S. company to utilize specialized knowledge. An employee with “specialized knowledge” has either a special knowledge of the company product and its application in international markets or has an advanced level of knowledge of processes and procedures of the company; or demonstrates an advanced level of professional or technical expertise, and proprietary knowledge of the organization’s services, products, technology, strategies, or any other corporate function that is essential to the U.S. company’s successful operation.

The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) recently reviewed a decision certified by the Director of the California Service Center (CSC). The particular case involved the submission of an I-129 petition on behalf of a foreign professional for L-1B nonimmigrant visa classification. The director originally denied the petition after concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that it had been doing business or that the beneficiary would be employed in a capacity requiring specialized knowledge. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted a motion to reopen, and the director entered a new decision denying the petition on the same two grounds. The certified decision was thereafter sent to the AAO for review.

The purpose of review by the AAO is to determine from the documentation produced by the petitioner whether the petitioner had been doing business and whether the beneficiary would be employed in a capacity requiring specialized knowledge. After a thorough review and analysis of the evidence produced by the petitioner, the AAO found that the petitioner had been doing business. Accordingly, the decision of the director as to the first issue dealing with the petitioner’s business had been withdrawn. The AAO then reviewed the evidence in light of the second issue, whether the beneficiary would be working in a specialized knowledge capacity. According to the AAO, the record did not distinguish the beneficiary’s knowledge as more advanced than the knowledge possessed by other people employed by the petitioning organization or by workers employed elsewhere. Based on the evidence presented, the AAO concluded that the beneficiary will not be employed in the United States, and was not employed abroad, in a capacity involving specialized knowledge.

The legislative history of the term “specialized knowledge” provides ample support for a narrow interpretation of the term. In the aforementioned case, the petitioner had not demonstrated that the beneficiary should be considered a member of the “narrowly drawn” class of individuals possessing specialized knowledge. In this proceeding, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remained entirely with the petitioner and the petitioner failed to meet that burden. Accordingly, the decision of the director was affirmed in part and withdrawn in part. As a result, the petition was denied.