KRSS’ New E-Verify State-by-state Legislation Survey

April 26th, 2012 by Matthew Galati

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision upholding Arizona’s legislation mandating the use of E-Verify for its in-state employers last year, several other states have followed suit and enacted their own E-Verify provisions.

In order to make some sense of these disparate laws, our team has updated and reorganized our informational State-by-State Legislation Survey which can be found on our Worksite Compliance web site. We have summarized employer E-Verify obligations when conducting business in, or contracting with entities of, the 50 states and D.C.

E-Verify laws are in a near-constant state of change and the question of whether your organization is required to enroll depends upon federal, state, and local laws. For more information on how E-Verify might impact your business, contact your Klasko Law attorney.

Share/Save/Bookmark

U.S. Department of State Provides May-July 2012 Visa Date Movement Forecast; No Further EB-2 Visas Authorized for China and India Born Applicants Until FY2013

April 4th, 2012 by Matthew Galati

As Bill Stock mentioned in a client alert last month, the Department of State has halted the dramatic acceleration of India and China’s EB-2 priority dates which we had observed throughout much of 2011. Instead, the Visa Control Office of the State Department predicted significant retrogression in these two categories, walking back priority dates approximately three years from May 1, 2010 to August 2007.

In response to questions from the immigration law community last week, Department of State Chief of Immigrant Visa Control and Reporting Charlie Oppenheim provided an updated forecast of employment-based visa date movements for the months of May through July:

Employment-Based Priority Dates (May-July 2012)

Preference Category

Projected Movement from April 2012 Visa Bulletin

First Expected to stay current
Second – Worldwide Expected to stay current
Second – India & China Retrogression to August 15, 2007 (now May 1, 2010)
Third –Worldwide Three to five weeks forward (now April 8, 2006)
Third – India Two weeks forward  (now September 1, 2002)
Third – China Up to six weeks forward (now March 1, 2005)
Fourth Expected to stay current
Fifth Expected to stay current

Mr. Oppenheim has confirmed that, effective March 23, 2012, no further EB-2 visas will be authorized for China-mainland born and India applicants with priority dates of August 15, 2007 or later. Mr. Oppenheim stated that visa applicants processing in April at consulates abroad will still receive visas, as those numbers were allocated before the cut-off date was established.

We have recommended that any EB-2 adjustment applicant with a priority date before March 2010 file immediately, so that his or her application is received at USCIS on or before April 30, 2012. USCIS will continue to accept for processing those applications for adjustment of status for individuals with priority dates prior to the date established in the April 2012 Visa Bulletin until the end of this month. Those cases with priority dates of August 15, 2007 or later will be forwarded to and held by Visa Control at the Department of State in a “pending” file until new visas are available on October 1, 2012, the beginning of the 2013 fiscal year. Applicants will still be eligible for employment authorization and advance parole travel authorization. The May Visa Bulletin is expected to address the EB-2 movement.

Contact your Klasko Law attorney if you have specific questions regarding eligibility for filing of adjustment of status and other benefits.

Share/Save/Bookmark

USCIS Announces Syrians Eligible for Temporary Protected Status

March 23rd, 2012 by William Stock

Late today, USCIS posted an announcement on its website that nationals of Syria will be eligible to apply for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) in the near future.  USCIS indicated that Syrians would be designated for an 18-month period of protection, and that details of how and when to apply would be forthcoming in the Federal Register next week.

TPS is a temporary form of permission to remain in the United States for humanitarian reasons.  TPS prevents the removal of nationals of countries undergoing civil strife, natural disasters, and similar country conditions.  It provides work authorization during the period of TPS, but does not provide for any long-term status or permanent residence after the government decides TPS is no longer warranted.

Nationals of Syria eligible for TPS should consult an attorney about the advantages and disadvantages of applying before seeking TPS, particularly if they currently hold a lawful nonimmigrant status.  In addition, Syrian nationals who fear to return to Syria should consult an attorney to discuss other possible forms of relief from removal.

Share/Save/Bookmark

Perspectives from Trip to China

March 21st, 2012 by H. Ronald Klasko

I recently returned from a two week trip to China, which included a presentation at the International EB-5 Summit in Shanghai.  I left with two distinct and related impressions:

The first impression is that there are far more interested EB-5 investors than there are investment projects that are considered to be low risk for immigration purposes (particularly condition removal) and high probability for the investor getting his money back in a definable period of time.

Second, and related, is the difficulty that agents who promote the projects to investors have in performing both the immigration due diligence and the financial due diligence that is necessary to advise investors.

The lack of good projects is, in part, a function of the USCIS long hold on I-924 adjudications pending resolution of its new position on the economic methodology to be used in tenant occupancy projects. Perhaps with RFEs being issued on all of those projects, some of the RFE responses will result in approved projects that can be made available to investors.

It is difficult to understand how overseas migration agents can be expected to perform the required immigration due diligence necessary to properly advise investors.  Immigration due diligence of projects is both complex and ever-changing.  Complicating matters is the fact that the Service steadfastly sticks to its position that it is not bound by an approval of an exemplar I-526 petition.  Migration agents should certainly seek the counsel of experienced EB-5 immigration lawyers to perform immigration due diligence prior to making a decision to promote a particular project to investors.  Failure to do so has resulted in some significant losses by investors and by their agents.

Share/Save/Bookmark

April Visa Bulletin and India/China EB-2 Retrogression Prediction

March 16th, 2012 by William Stock

The State Department’s Visa Bulletin for April did not continue the dramatic forward movement of India and China EB-2 priority dates that has been observed for the past several months.  Klasko, Rulon, Stock and Seltzer has also learned that the Visa Control Office of the State Department is predicting a retrogression of priority dates in the India and China EB-2 category, effective in the May or June Visa Bulletin, to a 2007 priority date.  It is not expected that the EB-2 category for natives of “All Other” countries will be affected.

Applicants for adjustment of status must have a priority date earlier than the priority date listed as “available” in the Visa Bulletin each month in order for their application to be filed, or for a pending application to be approved.  As of March 1, 2012, that priority date has been set at cases with a labor certification (or EB-2 I-140 not requiring a labor certification) filed prior to May 1, 2010 for natives of India and China.  The Visa Control Office rapidly advanced the priority dates in order to build an “inventory” of cases ready to be approved at the USCIS offices, and those cases will now be processed by USCIS between now and the end of the government’s fiscal year, September 30.

For the month of April, the Visa Bulletin holds the priority date for India and China EB-2 steady at May 1, 2010.  For May, the Visa Control Office recently announced that they expect the priority date will “retrogress” or be set earlier, possibly as early as August of 2007.  This retrogression will mean that new applications for adjustment of status will not be able to be filed after April 30, 2012 for cases with priority dates in 2008, 2009 and early 2010.  Priority dates are not expected to advance again until October 1, 2012, at least, when the government’s new fiscal year begins.

It is very important to note that if an I-485 Application for Adjustment of Status is filed while the person’s priority date is current, it will remain pending until the priority date is current again.  Since the I-485 will remain pending, the applicant can continue to apply for interim benefits, such as work authorization and advance parole, during the time the priority date is retrogressed.

Due to this recent announcement, we recommend that anyone with a priority date before March 2010 who is eligible to apply for adjustment of status do so by late April, as their opportunity to file the application will likely end as of May 1, 2012, and will not return until at least October 1, 2012 (and likely much later).

Share/Save/Bookmark

BALCA Grants “Special Handling” for Librarian Position; Confirms Interpretation of “College and University Teacher”

March 12th, 2012 by NataliyaRymer

In a recent decision, Matter of Mercer University, the Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) – the Department of Labor’s appeal body – adopted a flexible approach to determining who qualifies for optional special recruitment. This type of recruitment under the PERM regulations can be performed when an employer is preparing to file a labor certification for an employee qualifying as a “college or university teacher,” and is completed under the different standard of having to demonstrate that the foreign national on whose behalf the labor certification is being filed, was the “best qualified” of all the candidates.
BALCA reviewed this case after it was by the Certifying Officer because he did not believe that the position in question, a librarian position titled “Instructional Coordinator,” included teaching responsibilities. Specifically, in the decision denying the Application for Permanent Labor Certification , the certifying officer found that “the principal duties described [were] not those involved in teaching, evaluating and advising students within an assigned instructor workload in a classroom setting.” Mercer University, however, argued that its requirement that the instructional coordinator “participate in instruction activities” clearly referred to “college and university teaching” job duties needing to be performed in this position. Additionally, Mercer University argued that there has never been a requirement setting forth the minimum amount of teaching duties to be performed in order for the position to qualify for optional special recruitment under the PERM regulations.
BALCA reviewed the job duties of the position, as well as the documentation prepared by Mercer University prior to the filing of the Application for Permanent Labor Certification. Upon completing this review, BALCA found that the responsibilities of teaching were clearly reflected in the job duties of the position as well as the employer’s education and experience requirements, and that the documentation contained in the labor certification file clearly described the foreign national as having teaching responsibilities. Finally, BALCA agreed with the employer and stressed that the regulations lack any requirements of “special definitions” to describe the position or duties of college or university teacher. BALCA further noted that the Application for Permanent Labor Certification clearly set forth that teaching responsibilities were part of the job duties of the Instructional Coordinator with Mercer University. In so finding, BALCA reaffirmed the long held belief of institutions of higher education, and immigration law practitioners, that in order to qualify for optional special recruitment under the regulation, the position must involve any amount of teaching with a college or university.

Share/Save/Bookmark

USCIS Proposes Allowing Certain Foreign Nationals The Ability To Apply For A Waiver Stateside

January 11th, 2012 by NataliyaRymer

Foreign nationals who are immediate relatives of U.S. citizens currently in the U.S. seeking to become lawful permanent residents, but who originally entered without inspection, could soon benefit from a change in the waiver application process being proposed by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. On Friday, January 6, 2012, USCIS announced that it intends to develop a framework allowing certain foreign nationals who have accrued unlawful presence in the U.S., and are thus inadmissible without a waiver, to file their waiver applications (Forms I-601) stateside.

This change would significantly reduce the time that U.S. citizens are separated from their immediate relatives, as foreign nationals are currently required to remain outside the U.S. while their immigrant visa application and their waiver application are adjudicated. This USCIS proposal clarified that only foreign nationals who are immediate relatives of U.S. citizen spouses or parents would be able to take advantage of this change. This proposal is not expected to be implemented until the end of this year. We will continue to monitor and report on the progress of this important development.

Background

Immigration law bars certain foreign nationals from being admitted into the U.S. (receiving permanent residence or any other visa) 

View rest of post »

Share/Save/Bookmark

Bill to Reduce EB-2 and EB-3 Backlogs Held in Senate

December 17th, 2011 by William Stock

Two weeks ago, I reported on a bill that passed the House of Representatives and would have helped addressed the severe delays faced by natives of India and China in the employment-based second and third preference visa categories (EB-2 and EB-3).

Yesterday, Senator Grassley, R-IA, informed the Senate that he was placing a “hold” on the Senate’s consideration of HR-3012.  Such a hold greatly complicates the ability of the Senate to pass the bill, as it is a warning that the Senator would filibuster the bill if it came to the floor.

You can read my thoughts on the bigger picture at AILA’s Leadership Blog, but it’s enough to note that for now, the bill is effectively dead unless other Senators can convince Senator Grassley to remove his hold.

Share/Save/Bookmark

DOL Appeals Body Limits Hospitals in Filing PERM Applications for International Medical Graduates

December 1st, 2011 by William Stock

According to a recent decision by the Board of Alien Labor Certifications Appeals (BALCA), the Department of Labor’s appeals body, hospitals wishing to retain International Medical Graduates in their medical residency programs will likely not qualify for foreign labor certification during the residency. On November 21, BALCA issued a consolidated decision with regard to seventeen PERM applications filed on behalf of medical residents by  Albert Einstein Medical Center and Abington Memorial Hospital.  In BALCA’s view, the decision whether to approve or deny the applications turned on whether, in general, medical residency programs may still be considered offers of “permanent employment,” as they have been for the last 25 years or more.

In reaching its decision, BALCA first reviewed prior regulations, DOL memoranda, and caselaw, and found that to date, DOL consistently approved labor certifications for positions in medical residency programs. However, BALCA went on to note the absence of a definition of “permanent employment” in the regulations or prior caselaw – including caselaw specifically approving medical resident labor certification — and chose to fashion a new test for whether any position may be considered “permanent employment” and thus eligible for labor certification.  BALCA announced a three part test for a position to be considered “permanent:”

  • There must be an agreement – not necessarily a written contract, but at least an intention on the part of the employer to offer, and of the employee to accept, employment of indefinite duration;
  • The position need not be guaranteed to last forever – that is, a position may be “permanent” even if it can be ended by the employer and the employee at some point in the future; and
  • To be “of indefinite duration,” the position must have two characteristics.  First, it must be “of lasting duration,” meaning that the person will fill the position for an indefinite period of time – certainly expected to last more than a year, but with no specific ending date, even one that is three or more years away.  Second, there must be an “assurance of continuation of employment,” meaning that the employer must have the capability and intention of providing lasting and continuous employment.

In BALCA’s own words, “[T]he regulatory requirement of an offer of permanent employment is focused on a snapshot of the good faith intention of the employer at the time the labor certification is filed to make an offer of permanent employment – that is, indefinite employment of a lasting and continuous nature – within the expectations of any typical job offer.  An employer that has no intention to continue the employment of the immigrant beyond a set term of years cannot have the requisite intent.” (Opinion at page 72, footnote omitted).

Applying this definition to  medical residencies generally, BALCA found that the employers of medical residents do not generally have the intent to offer permanent employment, but instead only employment for the duration of the residency term. BALCA explained that its newly-adopted definition of “permanent” contemplated the expectation of indefinite employment at the time of the filing of the labor certification.  BALCA then concluded that resident positions do not fit the newly adopted definition of “permanent employment” because medical residency positions are not of “lasting duration” and do not offer an “assurance of continuation.”

Though BALCA ruled that medical residency programs in general may not qualify for foreign labor certifications, it did note that the specifics of the residency programs at Albert Einstein Medical Center and Abington Memorial Hospital were not in the appellate record.  BALCA remanded the labor certification denials back to the Certifying Officer for review of the evidence submitted by the Hospitals that related specifically to these two medical residency programs and for new decisions consistent with the Board’s general findings.

Though the full impact of BALCA’s decision is unknown at this point, it will likely limit medical facilities’ ability to sponsor their International Medical Graduates for permanent residence during their residency.  Abington Memorial Hospital and Albert Einstein Medical Center asserted to BALCA that their intention in recruiting resident physicians was to obtain the services of physicians who would continue on an indefinite basis with the Hospitals after their residencies; BALCA left that issue for the Certifying Officer to address on remand, but in doing so, asserted (with no basis in the record) that post-residency positions were “distinct positions” from the upper year resident positions offered in these applications.

Even prior to this decision, many hospitals were rethinking their strategies for retaining International Medical Graduates in light of the Department of Labor’s reluctance to approve labor certifications during the residency period.  This BALCA decision will cause foreign born physicians to have to rethink their career paths and plans, and hospitals their recruiting and retention strategies.  For further information or consultations on the effect of this decision, please contact your attorney at the Firm.

Share/Save/Bookmark

House Passes Bill Reallocating Immigrant Visas, India and China EB-2 Would Benefit Most

November 30th, 2011 by William Stock

News reports have summarized the passage by the House of Representatives of HR 3012, the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act, by 389 votes for to 15 votes against.  The bill now goes to the Senate, where supporters had hoped the bipartisan support in the House would help obtain quick passage.

What Problem is HR 3012 Addressing?

Under current law, no more than 7% of the visas issued per year in any one immigrant visa category can go to natives of any one country.  On the employment-based immigrant visa side, natives of India and China face longer waits than natives of other countries, because natives of those countries send more high-skilled immigrants to the US than any other country.  On the family-based immigrant visa side, natives of Mexico and the Philippines face longer waits than natives of other countries, because there are more immigrants and US citizens with family ties to those countries than there are to other countries.

View rest of post »

Share/Save/Bookmark

       
Copyright © 2012 Klasko, Rulon, Stock & Seltzer, LLP. All rights reserved. Review our disclaimer.
Disclosure: Law firm web sites such as this one are considered 'Attorney Advertising' by the State Bar of New York.