|
|
|
|
 |
Posts Tagged ‘Agency Updates’
Thursday, June 9th, 2011
Sometimes, being a little off is not a bad thing.
Last month, we held to our prediction that EB-2 dates for China and India would advance to late 2006, perhaps January 2007, before this September. While technically correct, the State Department yesterday released its July 2011 Visa Bulletin indicating a much steeper acceleration: the India/China cutoff date has leapt to March 8, 2007 (up from this month’s October 15, 2006 date).
| Employment- Based |
All Charge-ability Areas Except Those Listed |
CHINA- mainland born |
INDIA |
MEXICO |
PHILIPPINES |
| 1st |
C |
C |
C |
C |
C |
| 2nd |
C |
08MAR07 |
08MAR07 |
C |
C |
| 3rd |
08OCT05 |
01JUL04 |
01MAY02 |
01JUL05 |
08OCT05 |
| Other Workers |
22NOV04 |
22APR03 |
01MAY02 |
22NOV04 |
22NOV04 |
| 4th |
C |
C |
C |
C |
C |
| Certain Religious Workers |
C |
C |
C |
C |
C |
5th
Targeted Employment Areas/ Regional Centers and Pilot Programs |
C |
C |
C |
C |
C |
Another surprise found in next month’s bulletin is that the date for EB-3 Other Workers has advanced from November 8, 2003 to November 22, 2004. Recent Visa Bulletins offered no indication that such a major leap was coming. For those who remember, around this time two years ago all EB-3 advancement came to a standstill.
For the past two Bulletins, the State Department has offered some commentary explaining the acceleration in EB-2 China/India categories by attributing advancement to unused EB-1 allocation. In the May 2011 Bulletin, the State Department predicted that because increasing amounts of Chinese/Indian EB-3 applicants have been “upgrading” to EB-2, less than a month’s advancement was to be expected for either country through July. Clearly, the dates have been advancing at a much faster rate. This month’s bulletin offers no commentary explaining the sudden acceleration or predictions for future cut-off dates through the summer.
Although some may optimistically argue that the movement for China/India EB-2 is beginning to form a pattern, it is not certain whether this acceleration in priority dates will be sustained or whether dates will retrogress in the coming months. Stay tuned.
Tags: Agency Updates, EB-2, immigrant visa numbers Posted in Agency Updates, Green Cards | Click Here To Comment »
Thursday, May 12th, 2011
The State Department has released its June 2011 Visa Bulletin. As was the case last month, we again see a significant advance on EB-2 priority dates for China and India.
Employment-
Based |
All Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed |
CHINA-
mainland born |
INDIA |
MEXICO |
PHILIPPINES |
| 1st |
C |
C |
C |
C |
C |
| 2nd |
C |
15OCT06 |
15OCT06 |
C |
C |
| 3rd |
15SEP05 |
15MAY04 |
22APR02 |
22DEC04 |
15SEP05 |
| Other Workers |
08NOV03 |
22APR03 |
22APR02 |
08NOV03 |
08NOV03 |
| 4th |
C |
C |
C |
C |
C |
| Certain Religious Workers |
C |
C |
C |
C |
C |
5th
Targeted Employment Areas/ Regional Centers and Pilot Programs |
C |
C |
C |
C |
C |
Whether this acceleration in priority dates will be sustained in the coming months remains to be seen. The State Department explains that there is an increased demand by applicants “upgrading” their category from EB-3 to EB-2, which could potentially stymie the advancement of EB-2 priority dates. Nonetheless, the impact of this increased EB-2 demand has so far been minimal. The State Department cautions that priority date cut-offs for upcoming months cannot be guaranteed and therefore no assumptions should be made. At this time, we make no changes to our prediction that decreased EB-1 applications and approval rates should advance Chinese and Indian EB-2 priority dates to late 2006, and perhaps to January 2007, by September of 2011.
Tags: Agency Updates, Green Cards, immigrant visa numbers Posted in Agency Updates, Green Cards | Click Here To Comment »
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.
Tags: Agency Updates Posted in Agency Updates, Temporary Visas | Click Here To Comment »
Wednesday, April 13th, 2011
The State Department has released its May Visa Bulletin. As we predicted, India and China Eb-2 moved forward for the month:
| Employment- Based |
All Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed |
CHINA- mainland born |
INDIA |
MEXICO |
PHILIPPINES |
| 1st |
C |
C |
C |
C |
C |
| 2nd |
C |
01AUG06 |
01JUL06 |
C |
C |
| 3rd |
22AUG05 |
15APR04 |
15APR02 |
08SEP04 |
22AUG05 |
| Other Workers |
08SEP03 |
22APR03 |
15APR02 |
08SEP03 |
08SEP03 |
| 4th |
C |
C |
C |
C |
C |
| Certain Religious Workers |
C |
C |
C |
C |
C |
5th
Targeted Employment Areas/ Regional Centers and Private Programs |
C |
C |
C |
C |
C |
The State Department said it would be able to release an extra 12,000 visas for processing in EB-2 this year because of USCIS reporting low demand (and low approval rates) in EB-1. The “extra” numbers that “spill down” to EB-2 from EB-1, plus the regular ones (about 2300 each for India and China), should get the priority dates to late 2006, and perhaps to January 2007, by September of 2011. Continue to monitor the Visa Bulletin each month for updates.
Tags: Agency Updates, Green Cards, Visa Retrogression Posted in Agency Updates, Green Cards | Click Here To Comment »
Friday, April 1st, 2011
Earlier this week, Kate reported that the State Department said it would be able to release an extra 12,000 visas for processing in EB-2 this year because of USCIS reporting low demand (and low approval rates) in EB-1. What does that mean for possible movement of priority dates this year? Some people have reported across the internet that the EB-2 China/India backlog may disappear. Unfortunately, the numbers don’t bear that out.
The last pending I-485 inventory number released from USCIS said that, as of January 2011, there were about 5,000 pending I-485s for EB-2 China with priority dates earlier than January 1, 2007, and there were about 14,000 pending I-485s for EB-2 India with priority dates earlier than January 1, 2007.
So, the “extra” numbers that “spill down” to EB-2 from EB-1, plus the regular ones (about 2300 each for India and China), should get the priority dates to late 2006, and perhaps to January 2007, by September of 2011.
While that is still better than no movement at all, it is far from being current.
Tags: Agency Updates, EB-2, Green Cards, visa backlogs Posted in Green Cards, News & Politics | Click Here To Comment »
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.
Tags: Agency Updates, Government Investigations, H-1B, Immigration Compliance, Worksite Enforcement Posted in Agency Updates, Hot Questions, Temporary Visas, Worksite Enforcement | Click Here To Comment »
Monday, November 1st, 2010
As further evidence of increased enforcement efforts by the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), its Office of Special Counsel for Unfair Immigration-Related Employment Practices (“OSC”) has just announced that it reached a the settlement agreement with Catholic Healthcare West (CHW) to resolve allegations that it discriminated against non-US citizens by requiring them to provide more documentation of work authorization than is required for the purposes of the Form I-9. This type of violation is often referred to as document abuse, a violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) which prohibits employers from imposing different or greater employment-eligibility verification (I-9) standards on the basis of a worker’s citizenship status.
Under the terms of the settlement, CHW has agreed to pay $257 ,000 in civil penalties as well as $1,000 in back pay to the charging party. The OSC reported that this is largest amount of civil penalties ever paid to resolve such allegations. Nor do the fines and the potential for additional back-pay end there. As part of the agreement, CHW has also agreed to complete a review (conducted by employees who are independent of the routine I-9 process) of I-9s for all non-US citizens and naturalized citizens hired at all CHW hospitals and medical centers to identify each instance of over-documentation and whether employees suffered lost wages due to the document abuse. CHW agreed to issue progress reports on the review every 60 days and to provide back pay to make whole any employees who suffered lost wages as a result of document abuse within 10 days of the report. CHW also agreed to provide to OSC full documentation relating to the review as well as a final report to be reviewed by OSC to determine whether CHW was in full compliance. CHW also agreed to implement a detailed system-wide written policy describing nondiscriminatory employment eligibility verification procedures and to conduct I-9 training with annual updates.
Such actions by OSC against employers—including Universities and Hospitals—are not new. As the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has stepped up I-9 audits, so has OSC increased enforcement of antidiscrimination rules as they relate to the I-9 process. As previously reported, for example, OSC recently filed suit alleging that John Jay College (“John Jay”) discriminated against non-US citizens by requiring them to provide more documentation of work authorization than is required for the purposes of the Form I-9. That lawsuit alleges that John Jay engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination, as at least 103 other people were also required to provide documentation beyond what was required and it seeks penalties of $1100 for each individual, in addition to compensation for each person who was impacted by the alleged discriminatory practice. Indeed, as we discussed previously, OSC also entered into an agreement with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to share E-Verify information. Specifically, under the agreement, the USCIS will share data obtained from queries run through E-Verify with OSC, which will allow OSC to identify potential violations of the anti-discrimination provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. USCIS will also provide employer information to OSC, as necessary, when employers have engaged in potential misuse or abuse of E-Verify.
In light of these recent OSC enforcement actions, and the recent information sharing agreement, it is clear that the issue of discrimination in employment verification is a focus of both USCIS and DOJ. Employers should discuss I-9 compliance with experienced legal counsel and take all steps to ensure that employees responsible for I-9 completion are aware of the anti-discrimination provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. These steps include not only training employees on the “nuts and bolts” of these processes, but also training related to potential discrimination claims.
For more information, contact Elise Fialkowski at Efialkowski@klaskolaw.com
Tags: Agency Updates, discrimination, DOJ Office of Special Counsel, E-Verify, Government Investigations, I-9, I-9 Compliance, Immigration Compliance, Worksite Compliance, Worksite Enforcement Posted in Agency Updates | Click Here To Comment »
Friday, September 24th, 2010
Today, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced a final rule adjusting fees for immigration applications and petitions. The final rule will increase overall fees by a weighted average of about 10 percent but will not increase the fee for the naturalization application. The rule also will reduce fees for six individual applications and petitions and will expand the availability of fee waivers to new categories. The adjusted fees will go into effect on November 23, 2010.
The final fee rule establishes three new fees for:
- Regional center designation under the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program (EB-5) (Form I-924);
- Individuals seeking civil surgeon designation (with an exemption for certain physicians who examine service members, veterans, and their families at U.S. government facilities); and
- Recovery of the USCIS cost of processing immigrant visas granted by the Department of State.
The final fee rule adjusts fees from $1000 to $1225 for the premium processing service.
The following schedule lists the adjusted fees that will take effect on November 23, 2010, alongside the existing fees in effect until that date:
| Form No. |
Existing Fees |
Adjusted Fees |
| I-90 |
$290 |
$365 |
| I-102 |
$320 |
$330 |
| I-129/129CW |
$320 |
$325 |
| I-129F |
$455 |
$340 |
| I-130 |
$355 |
$420 |
| I-131 |
$305 |
$360 |
| I-140 |
$475 |
$580 |
| I-191 |
$545 |
$585 |
| I-192 |
$545 |
$585 |
| I-193 |
$545 |
$585 |
| I-212 |
$545 |
$585 |
| I-290B |
$585 |
$630 |
| I-360 |
$375 |
$405 |
| I-485 |
$930 |
$985 |
| I-526 |
$1,435 |
$1,500 |
| I-539 |
$300 |
$290 |
| I-600/800 |
$670 |
$720 |
| I-601 |
$545 |
$585 |
| I-612 |
$545 |
$585 |
| I-687 |
$710 |
$1,130 |
| I-690 |
$185 |
$200 |
| I-694 |
$545 |
$755 |
| I-698 |
$1,370 |
$1,020 |
| I-751 |
$465 |
$505 |
| I-765 |
$340 |
$380 |
| I-817 |
$440 |
$435 |
| I-824 |
$340 |
$405 |
| I-829 |
$2,850 |
$3,750 |
| I–881 |
$285 |
$285 |
| I–907 |
$1,000 |
$1,225 |
| I-924 |
$0 |
$6,230 |
| N-300 |
$235 |
$250 |
| N-336 |
$605 |
$650 |
| N-400 |
$595 |
$595 |
| N-470 |
$305 |
$330 |
| N-565 |
$380 |
$345 |
| N-600/600K |
$460 |
$600 |
| Imm. Visa Costs |
$0 |
$165 |
| Biometrics |
$80 |
$85 |
Importantly, the final fee rule also expands the availability of fee waivers to new categories, including:
- Individuals seeking humanitarian parole under an Application for Travel Document (Form I-131);
- Individuals with any benefit request under the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008; and
- Individuals filing a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) following a denial of any application or petition that did not initially require a fee.
For more information on filing fees, visit www.uscis.gov.
Tags: Agency Updates Posted in Agency Updates | Click Here To Comment »
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.
Tags: Agency Updates, H-1B Posted in Agency Updates, Temporary Visas | Click Here To Comment »
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.
Tags: Agency Updates, Government Investigations Posted in Agency Updates, Temporary Visas | Click Here To Comment »
|
 |
| |
|
|
|
|