Visa Lawyer Blog

Articles Posted in Immigration Compliance

by

8536270677_216de82424_z

 

Yesterday, December 2, 2015 the state of Texas brought suit against the federal government and the International Rescue Committee (IRC), before the United States District Court in Texas Health and Human Services Commission V. United States et al., 12/2/15. In its suit, the state of Texas claims that the federal government and the IRC acted unlawfully in their attempt to resettle Syrian refugees without prior consultation and direct cooperation with the state of Texas, as required by federal law. The lawsuit was brought by the Texas Health and Services Commission (THSC) representing the interests of the state of Texas in court. The THSC is an agency responsible for the administration and development of the refugee resettlement program in Texas. The state of Texas discovered in a phone call with the IRC that the Committee intended on resettling 6 Syrian refugees in Dallas, Texas on December 4, 2015 without consent. On December 1, 2015 Texas addressed the Committee in a letter requesting a halt to the resettlement of Syrian refugees until the state would receive security assurances and discuss proper screening procedures for said refugees. The IRC responded on December 2nd that it would continue the resettlement process as planned resettling the refugees in Texas.

Refugee Resettlement Program

Texas administers the refugee resettlement program along with the assistance of local government agencies responsible for the financial costs associated with the refugee’s resettlement and transition to the state of Texas.  In order to accomplish its endeavors, all federal and state agencies must adhere to strict framework’s established by the Refugee Act of 1980, which require collaborative and cooperative efforts between all entities involved in the process of refugee resettlement. According to Texas, “instead of adhering to that statutory framework, the federal government and the Committee have left Texas uninformed about refugees that could well pose a security risk to Texans and without any say in the process of resettling these refugees.”

Arguments for the state of Texas

In its suit, Texas aims to re-assert its sovereignty and obligation to protect the safety of its residents. Texas claims that the government’s failure to adhere by the law has raised legitimate security concerns involving potential complicity between refugees and terrorists.

Continue reading

by

11116320723_8d37fed841_z

Last week, in a 289-137 vote the House of Representatives overwhelmingly voted in favor of a bill that would require a comprehensive background check to be conducted for every Syrian and Iraqi seeking refugee admission to the United States. Among its provisions, the bill, better known as the American Security Against Foreign Enemies Act of 2015 (American SAFE Act of 2015) will require supplemental certifications and background investigations to be conducted before a Syrian or Iraqi refugee can be admitted to the United States. These additional security protocols will require multiple federal government agencies to work together in order to determine whether 1) such an alien poses a threat to the national security of the United States and 2) whether it is in the public interest of the United States to admit the alien based on the findings of the security checks conducted. The bill received overwhelming support from Democrats and Republicans alike amid the recent terrorist attacks claimed by ISIS leaving 129 dead and 353 wounded in the city of Paris. Though the bill will need to pass through the Senate before it can become law, the House’s overwhelming support for the bill has blocked the President from using his veto power.

Specifically, the bill will apply only to Syrian and Iraqi nationals referred to in the bill as ‘covered aliens.’ A covered alien means any alien applying for admission to the United States who is either a) a national or resident of Iraq or Syria b) has no nationality but whose country of last habitual residence is Iraq or Syria c) has been present in Iraq or Syria at anytime on or after March 1, 2011.

Continue reading

by
16205135740_83caef24c9_z

Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson

On October 28, 2015 sixteen Democrats from the House of Representatives including —Zoe Lofgren, Michael M. Honda, Judy Chu, Katherine M. Clark, Elijah E. Cummings, Anna G. Eshoo, Tulsi Gabbard, Luis V. Gutierrez, James A. Himes, Ruben Hinojosa, Eddie B. Johnson, James P. McGovern, Frank Pallone Jr., Jared Polis, David E. Price, and Alma S. Adams — issued a letter addressed to the Secretary of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson concerning drastic revisions made to the Visa Bulletin on September 25, 2015.

In the letter, House Democrats argue that the revisions to the Visa Bulletin have compromised the integrity of the immigrant visa process, and resulted in a lose of faith in our immigration system. More over they argue that these revisions have adversely impacted the lives of thousands of immigrants, the American businesses who employ highly skilled workers, and our economy which benefits from retaining highly skilled workers.

As previously reported, the Department of State had published a dual chart system on September 9, 2015 with the addition of a new ‘date of filing chart’ which first appeared on the October Visa Bulletin. This new ‘date of filing’ chart was implemented in an effort to modernize and streamline the immigration process, as part of President Obama’s executive actions on immigration reform.

Continue reading

by

Senate

On October 20, 2015 Democrats in the Senate successfully blocked the Republican backed bill S. 2146: Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act from moving forward with a vote of 54-45. At its core, the bill aimed to hold sanctuary jurisdictions accountable for noncompliance of federal orders including detainment of undocumented immigrants, increasing penalties for individuals caught re-entering the United States after their removal, and providing protection to state and local law enforcement officials cooperating with federal law enforcement officials. The bill was introduced by Republicans after an act of violence took the life of a San Franciscan woman at the hands of an alleged undocumented immigrant with a felony record, who had also been the subject of multiple removals. Public outcry ensued after the city sheriff released the perpetrator despite a federal immigration detainment order. According to Republicans, San Francisco is one of hundreds of sanctuary cities that refuse to comply with federal immigration orders to facilitate the detainment and removal of undocumented immigrants.

Among its provisions, the bill aimed to crackdown on so called ‘sanctuary cities’ notorious for their noncompliance by limiting government funding. By cutting necessary funding, Republicans hoped that this would force cooperation between local law enforcement officials and federal law enforcement officials including ICE officers. Republican Senator Vitter who introduced the bill, argued that the violent crime that occurred in San Francisco was just one example highlighting the magnitude of compliance concerns. According to Vitter, ‘sanctuary cities’ like San Francisco have repeatedly refused to comply with orders of detainment issued by the Department of Homeland Security. Prior to the vote, the White House had warned Senate Republicans that if the bill did pass with the 60 necessary votes, they could expect the President to veto the bill. Although the bill was criticized by Democrats for stereotyping undocumented immigrants and making sweeping allegations against the undocumented immigrant community, the bill raises serious competence and compliance concerns.

Continue reading

by

1

Last week, we reported to our readers that on September 25th the Department of State and USCIS re-issued the October Visa Bulletin and changed the date of filing chart drastically, rolling back the ‘Dates of Filing’ for heavily used visa categories, including employment based and family-sponsored petitions. The American Immigration Lawyers Association, along with policymakers, and immigration advocates, are urging Congress, the White House, USCIS, and Department of State to restore the initial dates of filing that were authorized and released on September 9th 2015 with the October Visa Bulletin.

If you would like to pressure the government to honor the initial dates of filing, released on September 9th, we invite you to sign the White House petition by clicking here. We must hold the government accountable for their actions by advocating for the restoration of the initial dates of filing. With the release of the October Visa Bulletin, the DOS introduced a dual chart system for the first time in history which included a new ‘date of filing’ chart. The new date of filing chart would have allowed thousands of foreign nationals to file their adjustment of status and employment authorization applications, before a visa became available to them. This action was made by the DOS in an effort to modernize and streamline our immigration system as part of President Obama’s Executive Actions on Immigration announced on November 20th of last year. Due to the recent drastic changes that have been made to the date of filing chart, we encourage you to become involved by signing the petition or writing to your local Congressman/Congresswoman. Thousands of foreign workers and family members of foreign nationals have been impacted by the recent changes, given that the majority of applicants who would have been eligible to file for their green card applications and employment authorization cards, will no longer be able to do so. They must continue to wait until their priority date becomes current on the date of filing chart.

Continue reading

by

By Yingfei Zhou, Esq.

On July 21, 2015, USCIS issued the final guidance on when an employer must file an amended or new petition when the H-1B employee has changed or is changing his or her job location.

Except the situations listed below, the general requirement is that an employer must file an amended or new H-1B petition if the H-1B employee has changed or is changing his or her place of employment to a geographical area requiring a corresponding LCA to be certified to USCIS, even if a new LCA is already certified by the U.S. Department of Labor and posted at the new work location. Once an employer properly files the amended or new H-1B petition, the H-1B employee can immediately begin working at the new place of employment. The employer does not have to wait for a final decision on the amended or new petition for the H-1B employee to start work at the new location.

Exceptions when an employer does NOT need to file an amended petition are as follows:

  1. A move within an “area of intended employment”: If an employer’s H-1B employee is simply moving to a new job location within the same metropolitan statistical area, a new LCA is not generally required, and without material changes in the terms and conditions of employment the employer does not need to file an amended or new H-1B petition. However, the employer must still post the previously obtained LCA in the new work location.

Continue reading

by

11697209523_14b9817f14
Since the year 1990, USCIS has administered the Immigrant Investor Program, better known as ‘EB-5’. The program was first launched by Congress with the goal of expanding the U.S. economy by encouraging job creation and capital investment through foreign investment. It has now become known for its Regional Center pilot immigration program, with the purpose of allocating certain EB-5 visas to investors in Regional Centers designated by USCIS. These Regional Centers support the goal of economic growth. Recently, the program director of the pilot immigration program, Nicholas Colucci, held a conference with EB-5 stakeholders assuring them that he is committed to revitalizing the program. This action by Colucci signals an interest in making the EB-5 process more efficient, transparent, and resourceful. First a brief overview of the EB-5 visa process:

General Guidelines:

  • Under section 203 (b)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act also known as INA, 10,000 EB-5 immigrant visas are allocated per year
Continue reading

by

Infosys Limited, an Indian company involved in consulting, technology and outsourcing, has agreed to a record $34 million civil settlement based on allegations of systemic visa fraud and abuse of immigration processes, and also agreed to enhanced corporate compliance measures. The $34 million payment made by Infosys as a result of these allegations represents
the largest payment ever levied in an immigration case.

Infosys is located in 30 countries and in 17 U.S. cities, including a location in Plano, Texas. The Plano location is responsible for handling the immigration practices and procedures for U.S. operations of Infosys. Infosys brings foreign nationals into the United States to perform work and fulfill contracts with its customers under two visa classification programs relevant to this matter, H- 1B and B-1.

The H-1B visa is a strictly regulated visa program that protects the American worker from unfair competition from overseas countries that have drastically lower labor wages. The H-1B visa allows employers to temporarily employ foreign nationals needed for certain specialty occupations. The H1-B visa also protects foreign workers and mandates that they must be paid fair wages while working in the United States. H-1B visas are limited by congress to 65,000 visas nationally per year.

However, there is no limit to B-1 visitors. And the B-1 visa program only allows foreign nationals to temporarily enter the United States, for conferences, seminars, and other limited business endeavors. B-1 visa holders are not authorized to work in the United States. Infosys unlawfully and fraudulently used B-1 visa visitors as though they were H-1B workers in violation of U.S. immigration law.

Continue reading

by

AILA recently released a great summary about responding to a Notice of I-9 inspection, here is a brief summary.

A company’s Employment Eligibility Verification Forms, also known as Form I-9, is used to verify employee’s identity and employment authorization. Employers must complete Form I-9 to document verification of the identity and employment authorization of each new employee (both citizen and noncitizen) hired after November 6, 1986, to work in the United States.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is authorized to issue a Notice of Inspection (NOI) and any accompanying subpoenas from ICE, to audit a company’s I-9 forms. Although ICE can issue both, it is more common that you will get an NOI with a document list. Since government investigations and audits can become complicated and lead to serious consequences, many companies will panic. It is important for the company to seek a counsel as soon as possible to assist you throughout the process. This article provided you following tips in responding to a Form I-9 Notice of Inspection:

Continue reading