A challenge brought by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to the new H-1B wage levels and the new definition of “Specialty Occupation” was upheld by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on December 1, 2020. The plaintiff’s Summary Judgement motion was granted when the Court held that the government failed to demonstrate good cause for not following the normal notice and comment procedures required for immigration regulations. The government’s failure to follow the proper rulemaking procedures makes the new rules invalid and requires them to be rescinded by the government. Continue reading “H-1B Wage Rules Rescinded – Another Win for Employment-Based Immigration”
Employers who may be trying to proceed with PERM applications for foreign national workers are in an uphill battle. With layoffs, furloughs and unemployment at all time highs, the Department of Labor is on high alert for unsuspecting PERM employers who are trying to do the right thing under difficult circumstances.
Employers who have H-1B or other workers with limited time on their nonimmigrant status, don’t have the luxury of waiting until the job market improves to begin PERM applications for their employees. For H-1B or L-1B workers in their final year or two of nonimmigrant visa eligibility, PERM is a necessity or they will have to return to their home countries. Continue reading “PERM Gets Rough in an Uncertain Job Market”
The White House is continuing to slowly roll out many of the 2014 promised changes to improve the U.S. immigration system. New regulations, published in the Federal Register on December 31, 2015 seek to modernize and improve certain employment-based immigrant and nonimmigrant visa programs for high-skilled foreign workers. Benefits to participants in those programs would include improved processes for U.S. employers seeking to sponsor and retain immigrant and non-immigrant workers; greater stability and job flexibility for such workers; and more transparency and consistency in the application of DHS policy.
Many of these changes are aimed at improving the ability of U.S. employers to hire and retain high-skilled foreign nationals who are already the beneficiaries of approved employment-based immigrant visa petitions and are waiting to become lawful permanent residents (LPRs), while also increasing employment flexibility for such workers. The proposed regulations would increase the ability of such workers to further their careers by accepting promotions, making position changes with current employers, changing employers, and pursuing other employment opportunities in the U.S. job market.
Some of the highlights of the proposed rule include:
Improved Job Portability with an Approved I-140:
The proposed rule would limit the grounds for automatic revocation of approved I-140 Petition for Immigrant Worker. Once an I-140 has been approved for 180 days or more, it will still be valid for purposes of retaining one’s priority date and extending one’s H-1B status, even if the employer subsequently withdraws the petition or the employer’s business shuts down. The exception to this rule would be cases of fraud, misrepresentation, and a few other limited situations.
One-Time Grace Periods
The proposed rule would authorize a one-time grace period for certain nonimmigrant workers of up to sixty (60) days after employment ends, or until the existing validity period ends, whichever is shorter. This grace period would apply to those in H-1B, E, L-1, and TN status. Similar flexibility already applies to F-1 nonimmigrant students and j-1 nonimmigrant exchange visitors.
Eligibility for Employment Authorization in Compelling Circumstances
The proposed rule would allow certain high-skilled individuals in the United States in H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-1, or E-3 nonimmigrant status who are the beneficiaries of an approved I-140 petition to apply for one year of restricted employment authorization if they:
- are unable to adjust status due to visa backlogs; and
- can demonstrate “compelling circumstances” which justify issuing an employment authorization document.
At this time, DHS has not defined the term “compelling circumstances,” however the proposed rule offers possible examples such as serious illnesses/disabilities or cases of employer retaliation. Accordingly, this benefit will likely only apply in very limited circumstances.
Automatic Extensions of EAD Work Authorization in Certain Circumstances
The proposed rule would amend the way USCIS processes applications for employment authorization to help prevent gaps in work authorization that are problematic for foreign nationals and their U.S. employers. Specifically, DHS is proposing to repeal the current regulations that require the issuance of interim EADs if the I-765 application for work authorization (“EAD”) has been pending more than 90 days. Under the new rule, USCIS will automatically extend the EAD for up to 180 days upon the timely filing of a renewal application for applicants who meet certain requirements. To be eligible for this benefit, the renewal application must be based on the same employment authorization category as the expiring EAD, among other requirements.
The proposed rule also clarifies various policies and procedures related to the adjudication of H-1B petitions, including extensions of status, determining cap exemptions, and counting workers under the H-1B visa cap.
USCIS is seeking public comment on the proposed rule through February 29, 2016. The proposed changes would take effect on the date indicated in the final rule once it is published in the Federal Register.
Special thanks to Christina Haines, Esq. for her assistance with this blog post.
In recent years the Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel for Unfair Immigration Related Employment Practices (OSC) has stepped up enforcement against employers who commit violations during the hiring process. The primary source of information for the commencement of investigations against employers is a Department of Justice Hotline for workers who believe they have been mistreated by potential employers during the hiring process. Attorneys at the OSC follow up on every hotline call, often contacting employers directly to educate them and obtain additional information. From its experience on the hotline, the OSC has compiled a list of the most common hiring violations it encounters. While many seem obvious, they are worth reviewing with human resources staff, as they continue to reoccur and cost employers significant civil fines and pack pay awards.
Refusing to hire workers who sound or appear foreign: Employers have been fined and required to pay back wages to non-U.S. citizen workers who were rejected on the basis of employer blanket policies of rejecting applicants who sounded or appeared to be foreign. There are many non-U.S. citizen workers who are authorized to work for any employer in the United States, include Legal Permanent Residents, Asylees, and Refugees.
Preferring to hire U.S. citizens is also an unfair employment practice, unless a law, regulation, government contract, or executive order requires that the position be filled by a U.S. citizen. Employers have been prosecuted by the OSC for including “citizen only” type language in employment advertising or application materials, as well as for communicating this preference to applicants during the hiring process. Fines for this violation have ranged as high as $100,000 in prior years.
Hiring non-immigrant visas holders while rejecting qualified U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents who apply for the same jobs. Employers have been subject to investigation and fines during the H-2B application process after they did not hire U.S. citizens and green card holders who applied for the H-2B advertised jobs. This type of investigation is even more troublesome as it arises out of an information sharing agreement between the Department of Labor and the Department of Justice. Significant back pay awards to the affected workers are common in this type of case.
Hiring undocumented workers instead of employment-authorized individuals. The OSC is vigilant about investigating this type of complaint, which is often presented when a terminated worker complains about being replaced by an undocumented worker. The typical remedy is reinstatement and back pay for the affected worker.
No Duty to Sponsor: In spite of all of these admonishments, it is important to remember that employers have no obligation to “sponsor” any worker for immigration status under any circumstances. This means that, there is no obligation to file an H-1B petition or green card application on behalf of any employee. Foreign nationals who do not have unlimited work authorization to work for any employer in the United States are not protected by anti-discrimination provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act. However, employers should still beware of treating various classes of foreign national employees differently. Having sponsorship policies in place, which include a time frame for the decision to sponsor as well as specific criteria and manager recommendations, is a best practice that allows employers to have defined criteria and time frames to review each individual employee for sponsorship consideration.