OUTSIDE THE BOX THINKING, DELIVERING CUTTING EDGE SOLUTIONS!

by

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) permits employers to employ nonimmigrant alien workers in H-1B specialty occupations in the United States. In order to employ H-1B non-immigrants, an employer must obtain certification from the United States Department of Labor (DOL) after filing a Labor Condition Application (LCA). The LCA stipulates the wage levels and working conditions that the employer guarantees for the H-1B non-immigrants. After the employer received a certified LCA, the employer then petitions The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for an H-1B visa on behalf of the nonimmigrant. An employer violates the INA if, for employment-related reasons, it fails to pay an H-1B nonimmigrant worker who is in “nonproductive status.” Employment-related nonproductive status results from factors such as lack of available work for the non-immigrant or a non-immigrant’s lack of a permit or license. Furthermore, an employer violates the INA when it deducts from a nonimmigrant’s wages filing fees that INS collects from the employer to process the H-1B petition.

In a recent decision, Rajan v. International Business Solutions, Ltd.,
03-104 (ARB 8/31/04), the U.S. Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board (ARB) examined some important H-1B related issues relating to the LCA. In particular, the ARB benching in the context of the LCA, the validity of a beneficiary’s employment start and end dates and payment of H-1B fees by an H-1B beneficiary.

Case Background
International Business Solutions, Ltd (IBS), hired Ms. Rajan in a specialty occupation on an H-1B. IBS subsequently discharged Ms. Rajan after it failed to pay her salary while she was in nonproductive status (i.e., she was on “bench”). Ms. Rajan complained to theDOL’s Wage and Hour Division seeking back wages and reimbursement of $1,500 she paid to IBS, at its request, for the H-1B filing fee. After an investigation, the DOL found that IBS had violated the INA by failing to post notice of the LCA and failing properly to establish the prevailing wage rate. The DOL’s administrator did not make findings regarding Ms. Rajan’s complaint that IBS failed to pay her wages and charged her for the H-1B filing fee. Ms. Rajan then requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who found that IBS violated the INA by failing to compensate her while in nonproductive status and by assessing her money to pay the H-1B filing fee. The ALJ accordingly ordered IBS to pay Ms. Rajan back wages and to reimburse her for the money she had paid IBS for the fee. The ALJ remanded the case to the Administrator to determine whether to impose a civil money penalty for the filing fee violation. IBS petitioned for review of the ALJ’s decision.
Continue reading

by

The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) recently dismissed an appeal brought by a U.S. petitioner, a convenience store. The issue of the appeal was whether or not the petitioner had the ability to pay the proffered wage as of the priority date and continuing until the beneficiary obtained lawful permanent residence. The petitioner sought to employ the beneficiary permanently as a Manager. The ETA 750 was accepted on March 28, 2001, and the proffered wage was $18.00 per hour ($37,440.00 per year). In order to prove the ability to pay, the USCIS requires that a petitioner demonstrate financial resources sufficient to pay the beneficiary’s proffered wages from the time the labor application is accepted until the beneficiary attains permanent resident status. According to regulations, evidence of this ability shall be in the form of copies of annual reports, federal tax returns, or audited financial statements.

In determining whether the employer has the ability to pay, the USCIS will first examine whether the petitioner employed and paid the beneficiary during that period. If the petitioner can show that it employed the beneficiary at a salary equal to or greater than the proffered wage, the evidence will be considered prima facie proof of the petitioner’s ability to pay the proffered wage. However, if the petitioner does not establish that it employed and paid the beneficiary, the USCIS will then examine the net income figure reflected on the petitioner’s federal income tax return. Net income results after subtracting costs and expenses from total revenue.

In the aforementioned case, at the time the labor was submitted, the beneficiary was not employed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the USCIS chose to review the petitioner’s net income figures. As a result, the petitioner’s federal income tax returns were insufficient to pay the beneficiary the proffered wage, therefore, the USCIS elected to review the petitioner’s net current assets. Net current assets are the difference between the petitioner’s current assets and current liabilities. To clarify, net current assets are assets that are continually turned over in the course of a business during normal business activity; they are in other words, the petitioner’s working capital. After thorough review, it was determined that the petitioner had insufficient funds to pay the beneficiary the proffered wage.

Continue reading

by

The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) recently dismissed an appeal

brought by a foreign national who applied for a re-entry permit while outside of the Continental United States. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 223.2 (b) states in pertinent part that except as otherwise provided, an application may be approved if filed by a person who is in the United States at the time of application and is a lawful permanent resident or conditional permanent resident.

In the aforementioned case, the applicant filed Form I-131, Application for Travel Document with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on April 24, 2006. On July 24, 2006, a request for additional evidence (RFE) was issued asking the applicant to produce evidencing indicating his actual date of departure from the United States. The applicant replied with evidence that he had departed the U.S. on February 28, 2006. The applicant did not dispute that he was outside of the U.S. when he filed Form I-131; however, he explained that he was only attempting to extend his expired travel document.

Continue reading

by

Many of our clients ask us why certain nonimmigrant visa categories allow individuals to enter the United States and apply for permanent residency while other nonimmigrant categories do not. The answer is “dual intent.” So what exactly is dual intent? The doctrine of dual intent states that even though a nonimmigrant must honestly demonstrate that he or she has the intent to remain in the United States to remain temporarily, he or she may have both a short term intent to leave and a long term intent to remain permanently.

Most nonimmigrant visa categories require the individual that is obtaining a nonimmigrant visa to truly have an intent not to remain in the United States. Therefore, since most nonimmigrant categories are not governed by the doctrine of dual intent, individuals entering the United States in those categories can not apply to change their status from a nonimmigrant to that of a permanent resident while in the United States. However, in the case of E, H-1, L-1, O, and P visas, the United States Citizenship & Immigration Service (USCIS), recognizes the doctrine of dual intent. Consequently, individuals who enter or are in the United States in E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1, H-4, L-1, O-1, 0-2, P-1, P-2, or P-3 status, may apply to adjust their status to that of a permanent resident.

by

No matter what avenue you take towards permanent resident status (“green card”), whether it is family-based petition, employment-based petition, or diversity visa based, the priority date of your petition determines the order of visa availability for each particular category.

Priority Dates for Family-Based Petitions

For family based petitions, the priority date is established when the I-130 form (Petition for Alien Relative) is filed with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). If an I-130 petition is denied because of ineligibility and then later resubmitted when eligible, the priority date is established at the time of resubmission of the petition. Matter of Carbajal, 20 I&N Dec. 461 (BIA 1992).

Continue reading

by

In my previous blog entry, I informed you of the E-Verify program instituted by the Federal Government. The Federal Government is requiring all of its contractors to utilize this system for employment verification of their employees. Even though this is a positive first step in ensuring that employers comply with legal hiring practices, the E-Verify system does have its drawbacks.

All participating employers are required to enter personal information from Form I-9 into the government database in order to submit a query to verify a new hire’s employment eligibility. All employers who sign up with E-Verify must manually enter this key information into the government database and wait for a response that will take approximately three (3) to five (5) seconds. Although this may seem like a simple task, there is a great chance for human error. If an employer enters the wrong data into the query, and in return receives a TNC or a mismatch, the employee is required to fix the problem, either in person or over the telephone with either the SSA or USCIS, to confirm their work authorization. This TNC or mismatch turns into a headache for the employee as well as the employer. Accordingly, there is a strong possibility that people that are legally authorized to work in the U.S. may be denied because of simple human data error.

Additionally, as with any Internet based computer programs, there is a possibility that the “system” could go down due to receiving too many queries at one time, or due to minor computer system glitches. However, the USCIS claims that E-Verify has the capacity to handle up to 60 million queries per year, and promises that it will continue to work to update the current pilot architecture to handle more queries if needed.

Continue reading

by

According to U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS), an additional seventeen (17) month Optional Practical Training (“OPT”) extension is available for current OPT F-1 students who have completed a science, technology, engineering, or mathematics degree and accepted employment with an employer enrolled in the E-verify program. Additionally, this extension will benefit students with pending H-1B petitions and change of status requests, as it will enable them to maintain their employment eligibility for the duration of the H-1B processing period. Without this benefit, foreign students on F-1 nonimmigrant status would only be eligible for the normal twelve (12) months of OPT to work for a U.S. employer in a field directly related to their major area of study. This employment eligibility program essentially provides a benefit for students on F-1 status who seek employment with an employer enrolled in E-Verify.

E-Verify Requirement for Federal Contractors

On June 9, 2008, Executive Order 12989 was issued, which declared E-Verify, the electronic employment eligibility verification system that all federal contractors must use. The Executive Order directs all federal departments and agencies to require contractors, as a condition of each future federal contract, to agree to use E-Verify to verify the employment eligibility of all persons hired during the contract term, and all persons performing work within the United States on the federal contract. This rule is not final, and is open for public comment at this time. Please refer to the following link for contact information, if you would like to submit a written comment. Written comments must be submitted on or before August 12, 2008.

by

E-Verify (formerly known as the Basic Pilot/Employment Eligibility Verification Program) is a free Internet based system that electronically verifies the employment eligibility of newly hired employees. The verification program has existed for more than a decade, but is now being promoted by the Bush administration as a Homeland Security and Immigration control measure. The program is operated by the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) in partnership with the Social Security Administration (“SSA”). The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) is the agency in DHS responsible for administering the program. USCIS promotes the program as an essential tool for employers committed to maintaining a legal workforce. The program is easily accessible through a user-friendly government Web site, which allows employers to verify employment eligibility in three (3) to five (5) seconds. The program essentially compares employee information taken from Form I-9 with more than 444 million records in the SSA database, and more than 60 million records in DHS immigration databases.

Essentially, once enrolled, an employer must initiate a query by entering key information from Form I-9 into the E-Verify database within three days of an employee starting work. The key information that must be entered includes: the employee’s name and date of birth, social security number, the citizenship status he or she attests to, and the type of document provided on Form I-9 to establish work authorization status. Additionally, the following would be entered in the initial query, if applicable: an A number or I-94 number, and proof of identity, and its expiration date. Once the information is entered into the query, the employer will submit the query and wait a few seconds for a response. Depending upon the response, the employee will continue to work for the employer, or they will contest a Tentative Non-confirmation (“TNC”) or mismatch with the appropriate federal agency within eight federal business days. If the program issues a final non-confirmation, the employee shall not be further employed.

E-Verify is an entirely voluntary program, as such the government may not mandate its use by the states, according to the tenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution. However, some Federal Government employers and violators of certain immigration laws may be ordered to participate.

Continue reading

by

On June 20, 2008, the Department of State (DOS) revised its regulations governing J-1 visas by publishing the final rulein the Federal Register. The rule creates a new “Student Interns” subcategory to the College and University Student J-1 visa category. Foreign students enrolled and pursuing a degree at post-secondary academic institutions outside of the United States may participate in this category for up to 12 months at each degree level. DATES: This Final Rule will be effective July 21, 2008.

This new rule will make it possible for private sector organizations to offer internships to individuals with less training and experience than had previously been required of J-1 “trainee” category participants. To be eligible as an intern in a private sector program, foreign nationals must be currently enrolled in and pursuing studies at an academic institution or a recent graduate (i.e., within 12 months) from such institution. As an intern, the intern program participant will enter the United States to pursue a structured and guided work-based internship program in his or her specific academic field. Prior work experience is nor a requirement for participation in this program.

Sponsors of J-1 interns will be required to ensure that host organizations are legitimate entities, are appropriately registered or licensed to conduct their business, and possess and maintain the ability and resources to provide structured and guided work-based experience according to individualized Training and Internship Placement Plans. The Final Rule permits a student intern to engage in full-time employment during the internship program as outlined on the T/IPP, with or without wages or other compensation. Employment is not required for participation in the program. A student intern may be employed, however, only with the approval of the responsible officer and the student’s home institution’s dean or academic advisor.

Continue reading

by

The CSPA protects Derivative children of Employment-Based preference categories

As mentioned in my previous article, new guidelines issued by the USCIS make the CSPA retroactive to petitions filed prior to August 6, 2002. In addition to applying to children of U.S. Citizens and children of permanent residents, the CSPA also applies to children of beneficiaries of employment-based visas. As a derivative, the child of a beneficiary of an I-140 petition (Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker) is eligible for an immigrant visa number at the same time and under the same preference category as his/her parent. Prior to the CSPA, if a child turned twenty-one (21) prior to being issued an immigrant visa or obtaining approval of an adjustment of status application, the child would “age-out” and would lose eligibility for a green card based on his/her parent’s application.

Again, we must calculate the “CSPA age” of the child in order to determine if they qualify for benefits under the CSPA. First, you must determine the age of the child when the petition was filed, and the approximate date the child will be when a visa becomes available (when your priority date becomes current).

Continue reading
Contact Information
1177 Annapolis Rd #70
Odenton, MD 21113
Toll Free: 1-800-447-0796Local: 240-390-0600Fax: 240-390-0603

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2026, MVP Law Group, P.A.
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design