Archive for the ‘Temporary Visas’ Category

DHS Announces End to NSEERS Requirements

Thursday, April 28th, 2011

In a notice published today, April 28, 2011, the Department of Homeland Security announced the removal of all countries from the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS). The NSEERS program had required certain non-immigrant aliens or nationals of listed countries to comply with special registration and identification procedures.

NSEERS was implemented following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The countries listed were predominantly located in the Middle East and northern Africa. Citizens/nationals of each country were specifically required to provide photographs, fingerprints, and other documentation at the time of admission to the United States. Additional requirements included follow-up registration with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and that the alien depart from a specified port.

Although the regulation giving rise to NSEERS will remain in place, the removal of all designated countries marks a de facto end to the program. One of DHS’s stated reasons for the removal of the countries is that NSEERS registration is redundant and inefficient, especially with the implementation of the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology Program (‘‘US–VISIT’’). Under the provisions of US-VISIT, all non-resident aliens, regardless of nationality, are subject to digital photographing and biometric finger scanning.

Share/Save/Bookmark

USCIS Issues FAQ on Extension of OPT and F-1 Status under the H-1B Cap-Gap Regulations

Monday, April 4th, 2011

USCIS issued an FAQ today that discusses the automatic extension of post-completion Optional Practical Training (OPT) and F-1 status in the U.S. for students with pending or approved H-1B petitions for an employment start date of 10/1/11, under the Fiscal Year 2012 H-1B cap.

Share/Save/Bookmark

H-1B Cap Reached

Friday, January 28th, 2011

USCIS announced today that it has received a sufficient number of H-1B petitions to reach the statutory cap for fiscal year 2011. USCIS is notifying the public that yesterday, Jan. 26, 2011, was the final receipt date for new H-1B specialty occupation petitions requesting an employment start date in fiscal year 2011.  Individuals interested in applying for the fiscal year 2012 cap may begin to submit their applications on April 1st for an October 1st start date.

Share/Save/Bookmark

USCIS Updates H-1B Cap Count

Tuesday, January 18th, 2011

On January 14, 2011, USCIS updated its H-1B cap count and confirmed that it has received 60,700 H-1B petitions for FY 2011.  In addition, USCIS already has reached the 20,000 H-1B Master’s exemption cap for FY 2011.  Therefore, any H-1B petition filed as a Master’s degree will be counted towards the regular 65,000 H-1B cap. 

The last update from USCIS on January 7, 2011 confirmed that 58,700 H-1B petitions had been received.  Given that USCIS is receiving at least 2000 petitions per week, H-1B numbers for FY 2011 are expected to run out within the next two weeks.

Contact your Klasko Law attorney immediately if your organization wishes to sponsor a cap-subject H-1B nonimmigrant in FY 2011.

Share/Save/Bookmark

Employers Required to Make Deemed Export Attestation on New Form I-129

Tuesday, December 14th, 2010

Effective on December 23, 2010, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) is requiring the use of a new Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, to file nonimmigrant petitions for employees in categories such as H-1B, L-1 and O-1.  The new form contains several changes to previous editions of the form, including being more detailed about the location of the employee’s work.  Most notably it requires certain petitioning employers to make an export control license attestation regarding the sponsored employee.  The so-called “deemed export” attestation is made by H-1B, H-1B1 Chile/Singapore, L-1, and O-1A petitioners only.

Part 6 of Form I-129 contains the new “Certification Regarding the Release of Controlled Technology or Technical Data to Foreign Persons in the United States.”  The new Certification requires the employer to certify that it has reviewed the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”) and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”).  The employer certifies, with respect to any technology to which the employee will have access on the job, that a license from the Department of Commerce or Department of State is not required to release the technology to the foreign national (or, in the rare case that a license is required, the employer will restrict the beneficiary’s access to the technology until a license is obtained).

What Are the EAR and ITAR Regulations?

The EAR regulations (found at 15 CFR Parts 770-774) and the ITAR regulations (found at 22 CFR Parts 120-130) prevent controlled technology with sensitive military, law enforcement, anti-terrorism, or similar applications from being exported or released to other countries.  An employer who releases controlled technology or technical data to a foreign national in the course of his or her employment, even if the employment is in the United States, is deemed to have “exported” that technology to the person’s country or countries of citizenship.  More detailed information on the topic of “deemed exports” is available from the Department of Commerce’s deemed export page.  The EAR and ITAR regulations require employers to obtain export control licenses before releasing controlled technology or technical data to foreign nationals in the United States. 

Which Employers Are Likely to Require Licenses?

Employers who are military contractors or subcontractors are most likely to be affected, but both universities and private employers will be affected by the changes to Form I-129.  In general, most types of commercially-available technology are not controlled under the EAR and ITAR regulations, or are exempted from the licensing requirement because they are commercially available.  However, employers dealing with certain advanced scientific and manufacturing equipment, as well as certain software and software systems, may be subject to licensing requirements for employees from certain countries, depending on whether the technology has military, law enforcement or counterterrorism applications in addition to its normal, civilian uses.

What Additional Responsibilities Are Required Now of All Petitioning Employers?

With the new I-129, all employers sponsoring H-1B, H-1B1 Chile/Singapore, L-1, and O-1A nonimmigrants must now determine whether an export control license is needed for the nonimmigrant employee before the petition can be prepared.  Employers may be able to make such a determination for all employees of a particular type; for example, if an employer only hires physical and occupational therapists on H-1B visas, the employer may be able to consult an export control lawyer, or obtain an advisory opinion from the Department of Commerce, that such employment does not involve controlled technologies.  For other employees, a case-by-case assessment with the assistance of an export control lawyer may be necessary. 

Personnel responsible for H-1B petitions also must determine the appropriate person within the organization to contact regarding the organization’s export control compliance, who can help identify whether the technology and technical data that will be used by or available to the alien beneficiary in the course of his or her employment is controlled under the EAR and ITAR regulations .  Your Klasko Law attorney can work with your in-house export control compliance specialist to help develop a protocol between Human Resources, General Counsel and others involved in the immigration process to document that the organization has reviewed the issue and determined that no license is necessary.  If your organization does not have that capability in-house, we can help your organization select outside counsel to make an initial determination regarding export compliance, and help establish a clearance protocol with them if necessary.

The protocol developed will enable employer to document how and when the EAR and ITAR determination was made, and to keep that information in the H-1B employee’s file, should it ever be requested.  Such documentation will then be available in the case of an audit, a site visit or a request for evidence pertaining to the employer’s export control compliance. 

The deemed export control regulations are complex, but your Klasko Law attorney can help your organization get ready for the new attestations on Form I-129.    If your organization sponsors H-1B, H-1B1 Chile/Singapore, L-1, and O-1A nonimmigrants, contact us to determine how the deemed export attestation will affect your organization’s immigration compliance.

Share/Save/Bookmark

USCIS Issues Requests for Evidence on H-1B and L-1 Petitions under P.L. 111-230

Wednesday, September 15th, 2010

As Klasko previously reported, President Obama signed into law Public Law 111-230 on August 13, 2010. The law requires the submission of an additional fee of $2,000 for certain H-1B petitions and $2,250 for certain L-1A and L-1B petitions postmarked on or after Aug. 14, 2010, and will remain in effect through Sept. 30, 2014. These additional fees apply to petitioners who employ 50 or more employees in the United States with more than 50 percent of its employees in the United States in H-1B or L (including L-1A, L-1B and L-2) nonimmigrant status.

If an employer filed an H-1B or L-1 petition on behalf of an employee that was postmarked on or after August 14, 2010, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) has started to issue “Requests for Evidence” (or RFEs) to determine if the employer is subject to P.L. 111-230. The RFE requests employers to submit an attestation or other documentation to establish whether or not the petition is subject to the new fee.

If the employer is subject to P.L. 111-230, the employer should return the RFE along with a statement explaining why the employer is subject to the fee and include a check for the relevant amount (either $2,000 or $2,250 depending on the type of nonimmigrant petition). If the employer is not subject to P.L. 111-230, the employer may sign an attestation which states why the employer is not subject to the law. The attestation should be placed on the employer’s letterhead, be signed by the employer, and should state:

“[Name of employer] has [number] employees in the United States, of whom fewer than [insert number] are H-1B or L nonimmigrants. As such, [name of employer] is not subject to the additional fees required under PL 111-230.”

Employers should be careful to include only the number of employees in the United States and not the world-wide number of employees in the calculation. This number may differ from the “number of employees” question asked on Form I-129, which may include a world-wide employee figure.

For H-1B and L-1 petitions filed on or after August 14, 2010, Klasko recommends that employers create an addendum to the Form I-129 Data Collection Supplement, which explains why the employer is not subject to P.L. 111-230. USCIS also has indicated that employers should note on the H-1B cover letter whether or not the petition is subject to P.L. 111-230.  For more information, contact your Klasko Law attorney.

Share/Save/Bookmark

Kentucky Service Center Audit of Nonimmigrant Visa Petitions, Including Unannounced Telephonic Contact with Employers

Monday, August 30th, 2010

The Department of State (DOS) Visa Office announced that the Kentucky Consular Center (KCC) has started to verify information submitted in nonimmigrant petitions to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) through telephonic contact with employers. 

In November 2007, the DOS required Consular posts to verify information contained in approved nonimmigrant visa petitions through the Petition Information Management Service (PIMS).  PIMS is operated by the KCC.  When a nonimmigrant petition is filed with USCIS, a duplicate copy of the petition is scanned into the PIMS system so that a U.S. Embassy or Consulate abroad can access petition information through PIMS and the Consular Consolidated Database (CCD) when the petition beneficiary applies for a visa stamp.  The PIMS record is the primary proof that a nonimmigrant visa petition is approved.  Additionally, the PIMS record may contain information from DOS’ Fraud Prevention Unit. 

It has come to the attention of the DOS that the lack of information on the petitioner in the USCIS Computer Linked Information Management System (CLAIMS) system sometimes makes a CCD record incomplete.  Therefore, the DOS will be conducting its own investigation of both petitioners and beneficiaries of nonimmigrant visa petitions.  To verify petitioners, the KCC will review of the company website, company contact information, and use of Google earth to confirm that an office exists in an appropriate physical location. The DOS has stated that the KCC will not normally re-verify the petitioner information for two years. 

To verify factual information about the beneficiary of the petition, the KCC will make random telephonic contact with the petitioning employer.  The telephonic contact by KCC is unannounced and should be anticipated to occur shortly after the petition is transferred to the KCC from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.  The DOS has designated 15 contractors to conduct the telephonic interviews.  The contractors will contact the petitioning employer, and ask to speak with an authorized representative.  They will ask a series of questions including, but not limited to the following:

1. Whether the petitioner, in fact, submitted the petition;

2. When was the petitioner incorporated;

3. Where is the physical location of the petitioner;

4. Number of employees;

5. Names of shareholders;

6. Location of Attorney of Record;

7. General information regarding the petitioner’s operations and business plan.

Klasko wants to remind employers of the following points for the KCC telephonic interviews:

1. Request the name of the KCC contractor and confirm the credentials of the contractor with the KCC [(606) 526-7500] prior to providing any information. 

2. Contact your Klasko law attorney to advise us of the telephonic contact by the KCC contractor.

3. Do not speak with government agents or contractors without a witness present. Both the witness and the interviewee should prepare notes of what questions were asked and label them “Privileged and Confidential/Prepared at the Direction of Counsel,” and submit them to your Klasko law attorney for review and retention.

4. Retain complete copies of your I-129 petitions and supporting documents in a confidential file maintained by the designated company official for easy access during a contractor call. 

5. Never guess at the answer to a question about the petition.  If the employer is unsure about some requested information, the employer should indicate that he/she will follow up with the KCC contractor to provide accurate information after such information is obtained.

Employers are reminded that the investigations conducted by the KCC are separate and apart from the investigations conducted by the Fraud Detection and National Security Unit (FDNS) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).  DHS will continue to conduct its own fraud investigations using the FDNS unit.  FDNS conducts site visits of petitioning employers in an effort to combat fraudulent petitions.  Employers are reminded to contact their Klasko law attorney if they receive a site visit from a Department of Homeland Security contractor.

Share/Save/Bookmark

The Latest Update on the H-1B Numbers

Tuesday, June 15th, 2010

On June 11, 2010, USCIS issued an update count of Fiscal Year 2011 cap-subject numbers.  Approximately 22,200 H-1B cap-subject petitions counting towards the 65,000 general cap were receipted in by the Service. Only 9,400 H-1B petitions for aliens with advanced degrees from U.S. institutions have been receipted in counting towards the 20,000 Master’s cap.  (more…)

Share/Save/Bookmark

Complaint Filed Challenging USCIS Guidance Relating to Employee-Employer Relationships in H-1B Petitions

Monday, June 14th, 2010

Last week, an application for Preliminary Injunction and a Complaint (Broadgate, Inc., et al v. USCIS, et al) were filed in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia, challenging the USCIS’s application of the January 8, 2010, Neufeld Memorandum’s definition of employer-employee relationships

As Klasko Law previously reported, the H-1B guidance issued by USCIS earlier this year reinterpreted the H-1B program to place added emphasis on the relationship between the employee and employer as a basis for eligibility for the visa classification.  The memorandum asserted that it would no long recognize employees hired by staffing agencies and assigned to work at third party worksites because the USCIS no longer considered such arrangements did not constitute a valid employer-employee relationship. Almost immediately after issuance of the memorandum, employers who had previously had no issues in obtaining H-1B status for their employees across a variety of industries that include healthcare, information technology, education, engineering and manufacturing reported receiving extensive requests for evidence and denials of petitions.   

The Compliant claims that the USCIS violated mandatory rule marking procedures under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), which requires that the agency conduct an analysis of the impact of the new rule on small business and entities per the Regulatory Flexibility Act.  Moreover, the compliant asserts that the USCIS failed to follow proper rule making procedures by seeking to legislate through memorandum.  Federal regulations require that agencies amend rules through posting in the Federal Register and allowing for notice and comment from the public.  Finally, the complaint alleges that the rule is arbitrary and capricious because it targets a specific business model that has been regularly recognized under immigration law without good cause or public hearing. 

Klasko Law will continue to provide our clients with updates regarding the status of the Neufeld memorandum.

Share/Save/Bookmark

New York Academy of Sciences Posts E-Briefing Featuring Klasko Law Attorneys Suzanne Seltzer and Kate Kalmykov

Monday, June 7th, 2010
 
Science education and research is a global endeavor. The recently released NSF Survey of Earned Doctorates reported that 33% of the 41,000 PhDs awarded in science and engineering in the U.S. in 2008 went to non-U.S. citizen visa holders. What is more, these highly skilled and trained scientists are not leaving, with a separate study by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) finding that 62% of foreigners who came to the U.S. for their doctorates were still working here five years later. The implication then is that a large part of the scientific workforce in the U.S. consists of and relies upon foreign talent.

These statistics supporting the role of the U.S. in the globalization of academic science belie a common impediment that foreign scientists face: a challenging visa process that has seen a recent resurgence in delays for students and a low cap on permanent-resident visas for those aspiring to remain and work here. For international scientists, the immigration and visa process in the U.S. is a legitimate concern.

To help international science PhDs understand the intricacies involved in studying and working in the US, Science Alliance hosted the event “Navigating Immigration and Visa Issues: A Primer for Postdocs and Young Scientists” March 8, 2010, at the Academy.  Leading the discussion were Suzanne Seltzer, Partner, and Kate Kalmykov, Associate, from Klasko, Rulon, Stock & Seltzer, LLP, a law firm that specializes in immigration and nationality law.  In their talk, they stepped through the alphabet of visa options available to foreign scientists, from H-1Bs, O-1s and J-1 Waivers, and addressed factors for those wishing to establish permanent residence status. 

Tune in to the E-Briefing to learn more.

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.