Immigration Visa Attorney Blog

I receive many calls daily requesting recommendations on immigration related matters. Like most lawyers, I am reluctant to provide legal advice based on general information over the phone. My response to most calls is that I will need to review the case records in details before I can give you an informed opinion. There is a very good reason why attorneys don't like to give phone advice. In most cases an attorney's advice over the phone is incomplete and could be flat out wrong because the attorney does not have all the information. What appears to be a simple question can be easily answered in a misleading way inadvertently.

One example of such situation is a phone call I received from a lady in 2005 who was calling on behalf of her husband, and the father of her two children. She wanted to know if a conviction of Trafficking in Cocaine is a deportable offense. As a first impression, most readers will believe that you don't need an attorney to answer this question. In fact most attorneys will probably respond by saying, obviously: yes it is a deportable offense and it probably is. Of course it does not answer the question the lady really wanted answered which is whether her husband's conviction of Trafficking in Cocaine is a deportable offense. I politely explained to her that the conviction does not appear encouraging but a quick response to a question as such over the phone cannot do justice to deciding if her husband has any chance of staying in the US. I informed her that I would need to know more to be able to answer the question and I asked her to send the conviction records and also informed her that I would need to charge a fee to provide sound legal advice.

Upon reviewing the records of convictions and analyzing the Ohio Revised Code definition of "Trafficking in Cocaine" as the conviction was in Columbus, Ohio, I found a deficiency in Ohio law in its definitions. This told me that her husband had a chance to remain in the US. I met the husband and the family and I was convinced that he has been rehabilitated and felt that I would do good if I can help keep the father with his family in the US. In addition the facts of the case were stunning. This person who is convicted of Trafficking in Cocaine in Ohio never in fact sold, or possessed drugs ever. Ohio's harsh law that convicts people with such crime without the person ever selling or possessing drugs must not be used to separate this family.

Continue reading "Mendieta-Robles v. Gonzales: "Offer To Sell" Not Considered An Aggravated Felony. Why It Pays To Pay An Attorney For Advice. " »

Certain acts, events or circumstances can render a foreign national ineligible for a visa or inadmissible to the United States. One such event is certain criminal convictions.It matter not if such conviction occurred in Columbus, Ohio, Troy Michigan, or anywhere in the US or overseas. Any foreign national that is convicted of, or admits to having committed, a crime of moral turpitude or a violation of any U.S. or foreign law or regulation relating to most controlled substances is considered inadmissible. Generally, a foreign national seeking admission to the United States who has committed a crime of moral turpitude would need to apply for a waiver of inadmissibility using Form I-601, Application for Waiver of Ground of Inadmissibility. However, there are exceptions to the rule of inadmissibility.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act § 212(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II), a foreign national who has committed a single crime of moral turpitude will still be admissible if the maximum penalty possible for the crime is less than one year imprisonment and the foreign national was not sentenced to more than six months in prison. If the foreign national's conviction falls under the aforementioned Petty Offense Exception, they need not apply for a waiver of inadmissibility. Along the same lines, a foreign national's petty offense crime cannot be used against them as evidence of bad moral character for purposes of voluntary departure or to stop the clock for cancellation of removal.

It is important to remember that under the Petty Offense Exception the foreign national's conviction or admission must be their first and only crime. Notably, the foreign national need not be convicted of the crime to be deemed to have committed the crime for admissibility purposes. If a foreign national admits to having committed a crime, or even admits to having committed the elements of a crime, the Department of Homeland Security will treat such admissions the same as if the foreign national was actually convicted of the crime. Thus, foreign nationals should be aware of, and immigration attorneys should counsel their clients on, the consequences of making admissions to the Department of Homeland Security.

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has been continually threatened with lawsuits ever since the Neufeld Memorandum on Determining Employer-Employee Relationship for Adjudication of H-1B Petitions, Including Third-Party Site Placements was released. On June 8, 2010, precisely six months after the Neufeld Memorandum was released, the first lawsuit was filed against the USCIS, USCIS Director Alejandro Mayorkas, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano. Several IT staffing companies and two staffing associations, namely Broadgate, Inc., Logic Planet, Inc., DVR Softek Inc., TechServ Alliance and American Staffing Association (Plaintiffs), have filed a five count complaint in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. In addition, the Plaintiffs have filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction preventing the agency from enforcing the policies contained in the Neufeld H-1B Memorandum until their claims can be decided by the Court.

The basis for the lawsuit is no secret or surprise. Although IT consulting and other staffing companies have a well-established history of sponsoring and employing H-1B workers, the Neufeld H-1B Memorandum's guidance makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for such companies to be H-1B visa sponsors. In fact, there have been reports that numerous IT consulting companies have closed due to the negative impact the Neufeld H-1B Memorandum has had on their ability to sponsor H-1B professionals. The supposed motivation behind the Neufeld H-1B Memorandum was to prevent staffing companies from sponsoring H-1B workers who were, in turn, hired out to other companies that were abusing or fraudulently using the workers. Unfortunately, the USCIS went so far in its efforts to prevent a small number of staffing companies from committing fraud that its guidance wrongfully prevents virtually all staffing companies from employing H-1B workers altogether.

In the complaint, Plaintiffs are alleging the USCIS has illegally changed the law regarding whether staffing companies have the requisite control over their employees to qualify as H-1B employers. Count one of the complaint claims the USCIS violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) by issuing a new rule without following the proper rule-making procedures and seeks to have the memorandum vacated. Count two of the complaint claims a violation of the Regulatory Flexibility Act for failing to analyze the new rule's impact on small businesses. The third, fourth and fifth counts allege the USCIS has exceeded its statutory and regulatory authority, that the memorandum is arbitrary and capricious, and that the memorandum is not authorized by law.

Broadgate, Inc., Logic Planet, Inc., DVR Softek Inc., TechServ Alliance and American Staffing Association have finally done what many groups have been threatening to do since the Neufeld H-1B Memorandum was first issued on January 8, 2010. The immediate motion for a preliminary injunction, if granted, may give staffing and consulting companies some relief in the short term. In the long term, hopefully this challenge will not only be successful in reversing the Neufeld H-1B Memorandum's ill-conceived guidance, but also make the USCIS think twice before hastily issuing new rules without following the proper rule-making procedures.

Our firm has recently learned that, in light of the Neufeld H-1B Memorandum, certain ports of entry are more vigilantly checking the Labor Condition Applications (LCA) of H-1B visa holders. Immigration officers are reviewing the LCAs of H-1B visa holders to confirm the end client work location matches the work location indicated on the LCA. If the end client work location does not match the information on the LCA, immigration officers are finding H-1B visa holders inadmissible. While this procedure may not seem atypical or unjust, it has come to our attention that Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is using LCA inspections as a means of testing the validity of the H-1B employer-employee relationship.

CBP's newly found emphasis on verifying the validity of the employer-employee relationship is undeniably based on the controversial Neufeld H-1B Memorandum on the H-1B Employer-Employee Relationship. In addition to memorandum's conflicting guidance regarding the standard of employer control, the Neufeld H-1B Memorandum has received harsh criticism for unilaterally implementing new immigration laws without following the proper rule-making procedures. In response to these concerns, the United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) vaguely suggested that it would "take it under advisement." However, the practices is in place at certain ports of entry indicate that the USCIS's controversial memo is finding its way to CBP's screening process as an enforcement tool at certain locations.

By way of example, an H-1B visa holder recently traveled to India and returned through the Newark International Airport in New Jersey. Upon his return from India, the foreign national was going to be working as an IT consultant at a client site in Redmond, Washington. Though an amended LCA was filed with the proper work location, the foreign national did not have a copy of the new LCA. At the inspection point, the foreign national was asked by the CBP officer to produce his current LCA. The H-1B visa holder only had a copy of his previous LCA, which indicated his work locations were Texas and Georgia. The CBP officer informed the H-1B visa holder that his LCA did not demonstrate the proper H-1B relationship with his employer. The CBP officer then stated he should withdraw his H-1B extension application, go back to India and reapply. Even though the foreign national's work location was properly documented in an amended LCA, he was deemed inadmissible for not being able to produce the new LCA at the port of entry.

Despite the controversial nature of the Neufeld H-1B Memorandum, DHS appears to be enforcing the the policies promulgated therein. Unfortunately, until the Neufeld H-1B Memorandum is retracted, H-1B visa holders are required to abide by its contents. To avoid any issues at the border, all H-1B visa holders should be advised to not only file a new LCA for any change in end client work location, but also promptly amend their H-1B petition accordingly. And above all, the H-1B visa holder should be sure to carry documentation that accurately reflects their current employment situation, including copies of their the most recent LCA and H-1B petition with up-to-date work location information.

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issues 65,000 new H-1B visas annually for individuals with a Bachelor's degree or higher who will be working in a specialty occupation. In addition, the USCIS issues 20,000 H-1B visas to individuals with a Master's degree or higher under the advanced degree exemption every year. The H-1B fiscal year begins on October 1st, but the USCIS begins accepting petitions for the new fiscal year on April 1st. The USCIS will continue to accept petitions until the annual limitation on H-1B visas has been reached. Once the yearly cap has been fulfilled, H-1B hopefuls must wait until the next H-1B fiscal year to apply for an H-1B visa.

The time frame in which the H-1B cap is reached has varied from year to year. For instance, for Fiscal Year 2005, reverted to 65,000 limit, it was not filled until October 1, 2004. For Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007 it, likewise, took the cap a few months to be exhausted. Beginning in Fiscal Year 2008, though, the USCIS was flooded with H-1B petitions on April 1st, enough to exhaust the entire fiscal year cap by April 2, 2007. At that point, the USCIS instituted a lottery just to determine which of the hundreds of thousands of H-1B petitions received would be processed. This trend continued into Fiscal Year 2009, as well. Unlike the previous two years, however, the Fiscal Year 2010 cap remained open until December 21, 2009. At that time, it was becoming clear that the downturn in the U.S. economy was slowing the demand for new H-1B workers.

Unfortunately, the Fiscal Year 2011 demand for H-1B visas does not seem to have increased any from Fiscal Year 2010 and may, in fact, be lower. As of May 14, 2010, the USCIS had received only 19,000 cap-subject H-1B petitions and 8,100 cap-exempt H-1B petitions. This is far fewer petitions than had been received by this time last year. In comparison, the USCIS had received 45,000 cap-subject petitions and 20,000 cap-exempt petitions by May 18, 2009. It appears that much like the Fiscal Year 2010 H-1B visa cap, the Fiscal Year 2011 H-1B visa cap will take many months to reach. It is even possible that, for the first time since the mid 1990's, the H-1B, it will not be completely filled before the next H-1B fiscal year begins. However some trend analysts still predict that the H-1b cap will be reached this year around November. Only time will tell when.

In light of the immigration law recently passed in Arizona, similar legislation has been proposed in other states and, unfortunately, Michigan will be no exception. House Representative Kim Meltzer announced on May 7, 2010 that she is in the process of drafting and will be introducing an immigration bill modeled after the Arizona law in the Michigan Legislature. Though the actual bill has not yet been introduced, Representative Meltzer has been speaking publicly about the contents of the fledgling bill.

In particular, the proposed bill would give Michigan law enforcement the authority to inquire about an individual's immigration status if they have been stopped for any lawful reason. The stopped individual can be questioned about and required to prove their lawful status on the spot. Any individual that cannot prove their lawful status risks being arrested. Interestingly, according to Representative Meltzer, a Michigan Driver's License would be acceptable proof of lawful status. This begs the question, will the inability to produce a Michigan Driver's License lead to the presumption that an individual is not lawfully in the United States?

Representative Meltzer has stated the bill would prevent law enforcement from solely considering race, color or national origin when questioning an individual about their immigration status. The exact language of the bill remains to be seen, but based on Representative Meltzer's comments race, color and national origin can be a consideration, just not the only consideration. If the bill is in fact drafted in such a fashion, it would essentially be giving law enforcement the ability to discriminate and racially profile. Regardless of the reasons, discriminatory conduct and racial profiling should never be tolerated, let alone legalized by the Legislature.

There are several immigration-related bills that have been introduced in the Michigan Legislature not patterned after the Arizona law, including one which was just passed into law. The new law requires employers that are servicing public contracts to verify the legal status of their workers. The new law also prevents cities and counties from enacting legislation that restrains local authorities enforcement of immigration-related laws, otherwise known as sanctuary ordinances. There are also bills pending in the Michigan Legislature that require heightened scrutiny and additional verification of the employment authorization of foreign national workers.

With each immigration law passed at the state level, the immigration system becomes more and more fractured at the national level. Michigan is not the first state, and it certainly will not be the last state, to try to address the national system's deficiencies through mis-guided policies at the state level. These state immigration laws are a clear indication of more to come and Congress would be wise to reform immigration at the national-level before each state takes it upon itself to enact its own immigration law.

On May 5, 2010, President Obama held a Cinco de Mayo Reception to celebrate Latino culture in America. He used the opportunity to voice his concerns regarding Arizona's recently enacted immigration law and, more generally, to discuss comprehensive immigration reform. In his remarks, the President signaled the need for comprehensive immigration reform and his desire to begin work on such reforms this year. He also made his disapproval of Arizona's immigration law clear, stating "the answer isn't to undermine fundamental principles that define us as a nation. We can't start singling out people because of who they look like, or how they talk, or how they dress. We can't turn law-abiding American citizens --- and law-abiding immigrants --- into subjects of suspicion and abuse." The President is undoubtedly sensitive to the racial profiling and discrimination that will inevitably stem from the enforcement of Arizona's new law.

Though it may comfort some to know the Administration will be closely monitoring Arizona's law, and evaluating the civil rights and other implications it may have, the only solution in the end will be comprehensive immigration reform. Comprehensive immigration reform, as noted by President Obama, will be difficult, especially because it will require bipartisan support which has not been easy to come by as of late. Regardless, it is the only solution that will "close the door on [the] kind of misconceived action" that we recently witnessed in Arizona.

In his speech, President Obama called for "common-sense, comprehensive immigration reform." He did not provide many details regarding his vision for comprehensive immigration reform, but what he did say was enlightening nonetheless. The President predictably spoke out in favor of securing our borders and holding businesses accountable for "undermining American workers and exploiting undocumented workers." The most interesting comment, though, was what the President said regarding illegal immigration. Specifically, the President stated that people who are living illegally in the U.S. should "admit that they broke the law, and pay taxes, and pay a penalty, and learn English, and get right before the law -- and then get in line and earn their citizenship."

In one very carefully crafted yet informative sentence, the President laid out his proposal for how to handle the current population of people living in the United States illegally. Though he never used the word amnesty, the President appears to be endorsing a program that would ultimately allow undocumented foreign nationals to earn U.S. citizenship. The problem of illegal immigration is one of the greatest challenges facing comprehensive immigration reform and it is encouraging to know the President has a realistic and constructive solution to the problem. Before comprehensive immigration reform can be debated in Congress, however, a proposal must first be put forth. No bill has been introduced, but the Senate Democrats have developed a conceptual proposal for immigration reform. The introduction of the Senate Democrats' immigration reform plan is the first measure in what will surely become the next hotly debated issue of the Obama Administration and, needless to say, the world and history will be watching closely as the debate unfolds.

As of May 2010, the unemployment rate in the United States is close to 10%, representing at least 15.3 million people out of work. Cities such as Troy, Michigan and Columbus, Ohio continue to struggle. Indeed the economy is improving but unemployment rate is expected to hold steady and with tougher H-1B review by USCIS and higher rates of H-1B denials, it is expected that more H-1B holders will lose their jobs in the next few months. While U.S. Citizens and permanent residents can collect unemployment benefits as they search for a new job, H-1B visa holders do not have that option. In fact, for H-1B visa holders, losing their job means losing their status.

There is a fair amount of confusion concerning whether there is a "grace period" after an H-1B visa holder's employment is terminated. Rumors abound that the 60 day grace period applicable to F-1 student status applies to H-1B status. Moreover, many interpret CFR 214.2(h)(13)(i)(A) as providing for a grace period after the validity period of the H-1B ends. Technically speaking, an H-1B visa holder is out of status once their H-1B has been revoked or expires. The 10 day period provided for in CFR 214.2(h)(13)(i)(A), however, is intended to provide the foreign national time to wrap up their affairs and leave the United States. It is not, unfortunately, meant to provide the foreign national time to find and port to a new H-1B position. What, then, are the options for H-1B visa holders who have been laid off?

Despite the lack of a formal grace period, one option may be for an H-1B visa holder to port to another H-1B employer. Depending upon the amount of notice the employer has provided, the H-1B visa holder may be able to secure a new H-1B position before their termination is effective. For example, if the H-1B employer gave the H-1B visa holder two months notice before their termination became effective, the H-1B visa holder may be able to find and port to a new H-1B position before their H-1B is revoked. Under the American Competitiveness in the Twenty First Century Act, the H-1B employee can begin working with their new H-1B employer as soon as the new employer files a portability petition with the United States Customs and Immigration Services (USCIS). Thus, it may be possible for the foreign national to port to the new H-1B position before their original employer revokes their H-1B status.

If the H-1B employer has not provided sufficient notice or porting is not an immediate possibility, another option is for the foreign national to change status. A change of status, though, is highly dependent upon each individual H-1B visa holder's situation. For instance, an H-1B visa holder may be able to change their status to F-1 student status. This may be difficult, though, considering the H-1B visa holder must be accepted and begin classes within a short period of time. Another option may be a temporary change of status to a B1/B2 visa or to a dependent status such as H-4 or L-2, again depending upon the foreign national's specific circumstances. Additionally, if an H-1B visa holder has commenced the permanent resident process, they may be eligible to work in a substantially similar position on an EAD card.

An H-1B visa holder that is being laid off should immediately consult with an experienced immigration attorney about their individual situation. The H-1B employee should thoroughly understand their options for remaining and working in the United States after the lay off. And it is important to remember that time is of the essence, because for an H-1B visa holder losing their job means losing their status.

In the absence of national-level immigration reform, Arizona has passed its own version. Unfortunately, it is not the type of immigration reform that most in the immigration community would appreciate. Specifically, Arizona's new law requires foreign nationals to carry their immigration documents at all times and allows law enforcement to question any individual suspected of being in the U.S. illegally. Aside from the obvious problems of racial profiling and discrimination, laws such as this one continue to fracture an already cracked immigration system. This law will also, as many in the law enforcement community have pointed out, impede law enforcement's efforts. Not only will this monopolize police time with questioning individuals "suspected" of being an illegal immigrant, but individuals who have witnessed crimes may not be willing to come forward if they fear being deported.

Arizona's recent immigration law demonstrates why nationwide, comprehensive immigration reform is so desperately needed in this country. If not for the benefit of the foreign nationals whom have waited so patiently for a better system, then to prevent radical legislation like that passed in Arizona. Immigration is a federal issue under the constitution. By allowing individual States to dictate immigration reform, the system is going to become even more inconsistent and piecemeal. Arizona's recent legislation should send a clear message to Congress that it needs to regulate this area of the law and it must act promptly. If not, each State will take it upon itself to pass its own version of immigration reform, as Arizona has done. Clearly, other States will be inspired to introduce similar legislation or perhaps even worse.

Interestingly, Janet Napolitano, Homeland Security Secretary, preceded Jan Brewer as Governor of Arizona and vetoed several comparable bills that were placed on her desk for signature. Many different civil rights and immigration groups have staunchly opposed the bill, and the Mexican Government has even voiced its criticisms of the bill. Various groups have also vowed to challenge the law on constitutional grounds if signed into law by Governor Brewer. One can only hope that Governor Brewer realizes this law would do much more harm than good -- socially, politically and economically -- and veto the bill. The Governor has not made her position known and has another day to veto or sign the bill. Undoubtedly, the country, and perhaps other countries, will be watching closely to see what the Governor's decision will be.

For Canadian professionals who qualify, the L visa combines the faster processing of the TN visa with the path to permanent residency provided by the H-1B. As with the TN visa, a Canadian professional can apply for an L visa at a U.S. port of entry. This makes the application process faster than applying for other nonimmigrant employment classifications, such as the H-1B, that must be processed through a USCIS Service Center. Moreover, Canadian professionals working in a managerial or executive capacity do not usually need a labor certification to begin the green card process, which can also significantly expedite the permanent resident process. These benefits make the L visa an attractive option for Canadian professionals, especially those seeking permanent residence in the United States.

The L visa is available for intracompany transferees in either specialized knowledge positions or executive or managerial positions. The intracompany transferee must have worked abroad with a parent, affiliate, subsidiary, or branch of the U.S. employer for one continuous year out of the preceding three years. Interestingly, time spent by the Canadian professional in the United States in lawful status for business or pleasure will not interrupt the continuity of employment abroad; however, such periods will not be counted towards the accrual of one year employment abroad. To qualify as a specialized knowledge individual, the Canadian professional must have special knowledge or expertise regarding their employer's product, service, research, equipment, techniques, management, processes or procedures. A specialized knowledge employee is eligible to hold L status for a maximum of 5 years.

Continue reading "Work Visa Options For Canadian Professionals: L Visas" »

Ironically, Canadian professionals have many work "visa" options, even though Canadians for the most part are visa-exempt due to the special relationship between Canada and the U.S. Despite not needing an actual visa in many instances to enter the United States, Canadian professionals must still qualify for an employment classification to work in the U.S. One of the most popular employment classifications for Canadian professionals is the TN. The TN is especially attractive because there is no limit to the number issued each year, the processing times are significantly faster when applying at a port of entry, and it can be renewed indefinitely. However, Canadian professionals should understand and appreciate the benefits, as well as the limitations, of TN status before determining if it is an appropriate classification for their situation. One important characteristic of TN status is that it does not allow for dual intent. Thus, a Canadian professional seeking U.S. permanent residence would want to seriously consider the fact that TN status does not lead to a green card.

The TN classification is an immigration benefit provided by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a treaty between the United States, Canada and Mexico. In addition to being a Canadian or Mexican citizen, to qualify for TN status one must work in a NAFTA-approved profession and possess the requisite qualifications. There are over 60 professions designated as TN eligible under NAFTA, such as Computer Systems Analyst, Engineer, Research Assistant, Pharmacist, Psychologist, Veterinarian, Plant Breeder, and University Professor just to name a few. The education/experience requirements for each NAFTA profession are also outlined in the agreement. For example, to work as a Computer Systems Analyst one must have a Baccalaureate or Licenciatura Degree, or a Post-Secondary Diploma/Certificate and three years of experience.

Continue reading "TN Visa Options For Canadian Professionals" »

For Fiancé and Marriage visa applicants, the interview at the Embassy can be the most stressful part of the process. The interview is also, arguably, the most important part of the process and, thus, it is important for applicants to be prepared. Though one might expect the application process to be somewhat standardized, each U.S. Embassy has different policies and procedures governing how visa applications are processed. Therefore, it is imperative for the visa applicant to research the Embassy they will be visiting in order to adequately prepare for the interview. It is highly advisable for any visa applicant to review the website of the Embassy they will be visiting for information on the specific policies and procedures of that Embassy. A Fiancé or Marriage visa applicant's interview will be scheduled at the Embassy with jurisdiction over their residence abroad.

Visa interviews are conducted by appointment only and it is vital that the applicant be on time for the interview. There is usually some form of security screening at the Embassy and applicants should allow time for security when planning their visit. Generally, after entering the Embassy, the applicant will check-in with a Consular Official and may be required to provide their visa application(s)/documentation for review. Upon checking-in, the visa applicant will usually be told to remain in the waiting area until their name/number is called. At some point, the visa applicant will be asked to complete a digital fingerprint scan. The applicant's documents , if previously collected, will be returned prior to meeting with the Consular Officer.

Continue reading "What To Expect In A Fiancé Or Marriage Visa Interview At The Embassy" »

1. The memorandum is in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), which governs rule-making by government agencies and sets forth minimum procedures which must be followed by government agencies issuing new rules. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) did not follow the procedures required by the APA when it unilaterally changed the requirements for an H-1B employer-employee relationship.

2. Though the intended target of the H-1B memorandum was clearly IT Consultants, its consequences extend far beyond the IT Consulting profession. For example, doctors in many circumstances would no longer meet the H-1B employer-employee requirements because many are employed by entities other than the hospitals in which they perform their day-to-day services.

3. The policies set forth in the memorandum will negatively impact H-1B employers and employees alike. The memorandum imposes evidentiary obligations that an H-1B employer may not necessarily be able to fulfill at the time of the petition, such as letters from the end clients in the context of IT Consultants. These requirements are extremely cumbersome and make it very difficult for H-1B employers to petition for legitimately needed H-1B employees.

4. The adjudication policies outlined in the memorandum will undoubtedly spread to other nonimmigrant visas and further the effects of this illegal rule-making. If the Neufeld Memorandum is not withdrawn, not only will such policies have an adverse effect on adjudications in the H-1B visa category, but will embolden the USCIS to continue illegal rule-making in other visa categories.

5. The Neufeld Memorandum introduces new factors to be considered when evaluating an H-1B employer-employee relationship. The current regulations define an H-1B employer as one which is "indicated by the fact that it may hire, pay, fire, supervise, or otherwise control the work of any such employee." The memorandum's employer-employee relationship requirements far exceed the scope of the current regulation.

6. The Neufeld Memorandum creates more confusion than clarity surrounding the requirements for an H-1B employer-employee relationship, especially because the memorandum contains internal inconsistencies regarding the requirements of employee control. The memorandum is riddled with contradictions regarding whether the legal standard is "actual control" or the "right to control" the H-1B employee.

Continue reading "10 Reasons Why The Neufeld H-1B Memorandum Should Be Withdrawn" »

Many permanent residents consider attaining a green card to be the final step in the immigration process. Most green cards are valid for 10 years and can be renewed indefinitely. Consequently, a surprisingly large number of permanent residents renew their green cards for decades and never naturalize or, in other words, become citizens of the United States. While it is true that the green card provides a foreign national with the ability to live and work permanently in the United States, there are a multitude of benefits conferred to U.S. Citizens for which green card holders are not eligible. All permanent residents should be aware of the advantages of U.S. Citizenship and make an informed decision about naturalization.

First, U.S. Citizenship is not a status that needs to be maintained or renewed and, barring the existence of any fraud or misrepresentation in obtaining citizenship, cannot be revoked. Accordingly, U.S. Citizens can travel abroad for extended periods of time without the risk of abandoning their privileges to live and work in the U.S. A U.S. Citizen can even live permanently in another country and return to the U.S. as often or as little as they desire. A naturalized citizen can obtain a U.S. passport and avail themselves of the U.S. Government's assistance abroad. As U.S. Citizenship cannot be revoked except for fraud or misrepresentation, U.S. citizens are immune from deportation. While it is certainly not assumed that any foreign national would willfully or intentionally violate the law, if placed in such circumstances a green card holder would be deportable whereas a U.S. Citizen would not.

Continue reading "Why Is Citizenship Better Than A Green Card?" »

A Columbus, Ohio Client asked me What has changed at the embassy interview and what to expect due to recent H-1B policy changes. So I thought a blog on this topic is appropriate. The H-1B visa is an employment-based, non-immigrant visa available for foreign national workers in specialty occupations. Unless a foreign national is already in the United States and eligible for a change of status, they will have to visit a U.S. Consulate or Embassy to obtain an H-1B visa. Notably, the U.S. Department of State has recently reiterated that "visa applications are now subject to a greater degree of review than in the past." Thus, it is more important than ever for an H-1B visa applicant, especially those in consulting positions in the IT industry, to know what to expect at the U.S. Consulate or Embassy interview and how to prepare themselves.

An H-1B visa applicant should always check the website of their specific Consulate or Embassy for a list of items to bring to the interview. The foreign national should bring the following documents to the interview regardless of which U.S. Consulate or Embassy they will be visiting:

• The original I-797 Approval for the H-1B Petition;
• A copy of the entire I-129 Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker, including certified Labor Condition Application;
• Their original passport, as well as a copy;
• Their original educational documents - such as diplomas, transcripts and certificates - as well as copies.
• The completed Nonimmigrant Visa Application Form (DS-156 or DS-160) and, if necessary, the Supplemental Nonimmigrant Visa Application (DS-157);
• Two passport style photographs; and
• A letter from the prospective U.S. employer confirming the specialty occupation, wage and intent to hire the foreign national.

If the foreign national is going to be working for a consulting company, the H-1B visa applicant needs to bring two employer letters to the interview. Not only should the foreign national bring a letter from the petitioning employer, but they should also bring a letter from the end client confirming the details of the project for which the foreign national's services are being contracted.

Given the current downturn in the economy and the recent USCIS guidance on the employer-employee relationship for H-1B purposes, it is even more essential for an H-1B visa applicant to know how to respond appropriately to questions asked during the interview. The foreign national should be able to succinctly answer questions about the prospective U.S. position and actual employer (not to be confused with the end client), their qualifications for the position including educational information and prior experience, and how long they intend to remain in the U.S. It is important to remember that although the H-1B visa ultimately allows for dual intent, it is a nonimmigrant visa and the consular officer will be looking for indications that the foreign national has immigrant intent. The H-1B visa applicant should always stress that their intended stay in the U.S. is temporary to comply with the nonimmigrant nature of the H-1B visa. Moreover, H-1B visa applicants working for consulting companies will likely need to prove the employer has positions to fill, that the foreign national will not be benched and that the petitioning employer will have sufficient control over the H-1B employee. It is highly recommended that any H-1B visa applicant preparing for an interview at the U.S. Consulate or Embassy consult with a knowledgeable immigration lawyer in advance of the appointment. Consular officers are reviewing H-1B visa applications, especially those for IT consultants, with increased scrutiny due to the downturn in the U.S. economy and, therefore, it is more necessary than ever for H-1B applicants to be fully prepared for the visa interview.