Immigration Visa Attorney Blog

Department of Homeland security is stepping up enforcement nationwide. We see stepped-up enforcement in Columbus, Ohio and throughout Michigan as in many parts of the US. By now, many have likely heard the news surrounding the February 10, 2010 federal grand jury indictment of Opas Sinprasong. The E visa holder and restaurant owner is charged with 10 counts of wire fraud, 40 counts of failure to pay employee federal payroll taxes, 5 counts of false swearing in an immigration matter and 4 counts of harboring illegal aliens. Last Wednesday, a $1 million bond was set for Opas Sinprasong. The specific allegations against Mr. Sinprasong include keeping the passports of his foreign national employees to ensure they would not leave the U.S., requiring his employees to work up to 32 hours of overtime per week without proper compensation, and requiring his foreign national employees to pay him illegal and exorbitant visa preparation fees. The highly publicized story of Opas Sinprasong's flagrant immigration and tax violations, unfortunately, draws attention to a small minority of individuals that abuse the system and overshadows the vast majority of law-abiding foreign nationals.

What many have likely not heard about is the behind-the-scenes story of how Mr. Sinprasong was brought to justice through the efforts of an anonymous employee, a Colorado University student and the Immigrant Legal Center. The anonymous employee worked at one of Mr. Sinprasong's restaurants and was brave enough to notify El Centro Humanitario (The Humanitarian Center for Day Laborers) in Denver when he noticed Mr. Sinprasong's foreign national employees were working around the clock. A Colorado University student, Diego Pena, who was volunteering at El Centro Humanitario encouraged the anonymous employee to share his concerns with the Immigrant Legal Center. The Immigrant Legal Center was then able to compile information and gather evidence for local law enforcement.

If not for the combined efforts of the individuals and organizations noted above, Mr. Sinprasong would still be mistreating his foreign national employees. Just as it is important to uncover and prosecute immigration violators, it is also vitally important to prevent vulnerable foreign nationals from being taken advantage of by foreign or U.S. employers. The anonymous employee who reported Mr. Sinprasong should be an inspiration to us all to be more cognizant of foreign nationals being exploited and to immediately report any such suspicions to the proper authorities.

On January 8, 2010, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) released a guidance memorandum written by Donald Neufeld on "Determining Employer-Employee Relationship for Adjudication of H-1B Petitions, Including Third-Party Site Placements." This memorandum has left many employers, especially those whose employees work primarily outside of the main office, more confused than ever. They are rightfully asking if there is a sound legal ground that gives USCIS the basis to question whether its employees qualify for H-1B visas. Employer's struggles to understand the need for policy changes if they are headquartered in Michigan, for example, and have employees working Columbus, Ohio. USCIS also appears to struggles defending its ill conceived and legally questionable policy memo it issued last month

Despite the USCIS' February 18, 2010 collaborative session to hear feedback and gather input on the impact of this guidance, there is no guarantee the concerns expressed will be considered or that the guidance memorandum will be revised. Therefore, H-1B employers with "roving employees" should consider implementing, or confirm their business has the following policies in place to ensure their employer-employee relationship meets the "clarified" requirements.

One question, according to the memorandum, that the USCIS adjudicator must ask when assessing the existence of an employer-employee relationship is whether the petitioner evaluates the work-product of the beneficiary. For off-site employees, evaluations and progress reviews may be unconventional or infrequent, but employers should consider implementing a firm and consistent review policy. The H-1B employer should progressively review the foreign national employee's work and conduct an annual evaluation of the employee to establish the requisite control or right to control, as is stressed in the recent guidance memorandum. These progress reviews and evaluations should be adequately documented and maintained in the employee's personnel file.

Further, a USCIS adjudicator will also be looking for evidence of supervisory control over the employee. The USCIS will first look to see if the employee is supervised by the H-1B employer on-site. Supervision on-site by H-1B employers is atypical for roving employees. Accordingly, in the absence of on-site supervision, the USCIS will look for evidence of off-site supervision by the H-1B employer. To adequately establish supervision for off-site employees, employers should schedule and document regular meetings with such employees. These meetings can be accomplished through a combination of weekly calls, reporting back to the main office and site visits by the H-1B employer. Regardless of the method, the meetings should be regularly held and sufficiently recorded. Consult with an experienced immigration attorney to assure that any policy changes are well designed and implemented to help success in future H-1B petitions.

Continue reading "H1-B Immigration Attorney Discusses Needed Changes in Employer Policy In Light Of The Neufeld H-1B Memorandum" »

The purpose of this blog is to give you a simplified overview of the E visa program. The E visa route is often overlooked when evaluating options of bringing adult family members with an ability to invest funds in the US. Since the E visa normally is not approved for those with pending family immigrant petitions, it may be advisable in some situations to consult with an attorney before rushing and filing certain family petitions with substantial backlog.

E visa comes in two varieties: the E-1 Treaty Trader and the E-2 Treaty Investor. To qualify for any type of E visa, the investor or trader must be a national of a country that maintains a treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation or a Bilateral Investment Treaty with the United States. The U.S. Department of State keeps a list of the qualifying countries and two of the most notoriously backlogged countries, Mexico and the Philippines, are currently on the list. Though the E visa is not typically considered a path to permanent residence, E visa holders can apply for an indefinite number of visa renewals. Notably, despite the significant amounts of trade and investment between the United States and China, Chinese nationals are not eligible for an E visa. This is due to the fact that there is no formal treaty between the United States and China recognizing the trading and investment relationship.

The E-1 visa is available for foreign nationals of treaty countries whose intent in the United States is to carry on substantial trade between the United States and the treaty country. Moreover, the E-2 visa is available for foreign nationals of treaty countries whose intent in the United States is to develop and direct the operations of an enterprise, in which they have invested, or are in the process of investing, a substantial amount of capital. Both the amount of trade and investment must be "substantial," however; the definition of substantial does not provide clear guidance for E applicants. Specifically, the definition of substantial trade is "a sizable and continuing volume," whereas a substantial investment is one that is sufficient to ensure the successful operation of the enterprise.

As there is no statutory threshold for the amount of trade or investment that qualifies as substantial, it may be difficult to ascertain whether an applicant clearly qualifies without the help of an experienced immigration attorney. It is highly recommended that E applicants consult with an experienced immigration attorney regarding their application prior to submission. An experienced attorney should be able to advise on the likelihood of success and help develop the business concept in a fashion that meets E visa regulations and policies Regardless of the vague qualification standards, one advantage of the E visa is the fact that the U.S. Consulate or Embassy can usually process applications quickly and the applicant can receive a decision within weeks or months.

The EB-5 preference category was created to encourage foreign nationals to invest in either a new commercial enterprise in the U.S. or an already existing U.S. business that is struggling. Now, more than ever, the EB-5 preference category is especially beneficial to both the United States and foreign national investors alike. With the ever present and continually growing immigrant visa backlogs, the EB-5 preference category is one way to circumvent the uncertainty and delays associated with traditional employment-based immigration. Moreover, the U.S. economy, and particularly small business, desperately needs outside investment to help maintain and create jobs for U.S. workers.

The threshold investment to qualify for the EB-5 preference category is quite steep: at least $1,000,000 or, if investing in a "targeted employment area," at least $500,000. Although the $1,000,000 investment is likely out of reach for most foreign nationals, the $500,000 investment in a targeted employment area is more attainable. If a foreign national has the ability to make such an investment, they should not discount the EB-5 preference category as a viable option. A targeted employment area is defined by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) as "a rural area or an area that has experienced high unemployment of at least 150 percent of the national average." Considering the national unemployment rate is currently averaging 10%, a targeted area of employment would be a rural area or an area with at least 15% unemployment.

Depending on whether the foreign national invests in a new enterprise or a troubled business will dictate whether they need to remain involved with the business. If the foreign investor does not want any commitment beyond making their investment, they should consider investing in an existing U.S. business that is struggling. A troubled U.S. business for EB-5 investment purposes is one which has been in existence for at least 2 years and has incurred a net loss of approximately 20% of the business' net worth in the preceding 1 to 2 years. If the foreign national investor would like to invest in a new business venture, they must remain involved with the enterprise and manage the day-to-day operations to help ensure its continued success. While an investment in a troubled business need only preserve a certain number of jobs, an investment in a new enterprise must create at least 10 additional full-time jobs for U.S. workers.

If a foreign national has the means to make the size of investment required by the EB-5 preference category, they should seriously consider it. Not only would it help them and their family members obtain green cards much faster, but it would also help to bolster the U.S. economy and create or preserve many vital jobs for U.S. workers.

States and cities with higher unemployment rate such as Columbus, Ohio and Michigan can certainly benefit from foreign investment. The purpose of investor visas and immigration is to encourage foreign nationals to invest substantial amounts of capital and resources into the U.S. economy. In light of the current economic climate and staggeringly highly unemployment rate, outside investment could be particularly beneficial to U.S. businesses and U.S. workers. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) should be encouraged to give priority processing to foreign nationals who apply for investment visas, as they guarantee capital contributions to U.S. businesses and create jobs for U.S. workers. There are three different types of investment classifications: the E visa, the L visa (when opening a new office) and the EB-5 preference category.

The E visa is reserved for Treaty Traders and Treaty Investors. Citizens of countries with which the U.S. maintains a Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation or a Bilateral Investment Treaty are eligible for an E visa if they meet certain requirements. Treaty Traders are coming to the United States with the intent to conduct substantial trade between the U.S. and the treaty country, whereas Treaty Investors intend to develop or direct the operations of an entity in which they have invested. For both Treaty Traders and Treaty Investors, the amount of trade or investment required is not quantified by statute, but must be "substantial."

The L visa is considered an investment visa when the intracompany transferee is coming to the U.S. to open a new branch office. The intracompany transferee must have executive or managerial experience and continue to work in an executive or managerial position. As is required for any L classification, the employee must have worked abroad for a branch, parent, affiliate, or subsidiary of the U.S. company for at least one out of the past three years. The employer is obligated to ensure the new office investment is sufficient to not only compensate the L manager/executive, but also immediately begin conducting business in the United States.

The EB-5 preference category is the last investor classification. Foreign nationals can qualify for the EB-5 preference category by investing in a new U.S. commercial enterprise that will create 10 additional full-time jobs for U.S. workers. Unlike the E visa, there is a defined minimum investment required: at least $1,000,000 or, if investing in a "targeted employment area," at least $500,000. The EB-5 investor must also continue to be involved in the day-to-day operations of the new commercial entity. The U.S. economy greatly benefits from the investments required to obtain an E visa, certain L visas or the EB-5 preference category and the USCIS, especially during these tough economic times, should be giving expedited processing to investment visa applicants.

Not all issues related to the Child Status Protection Act are settled law. There remain several unanswered questions. An example is the Matter of Xiuyi WANG. Many families in Michigan and throughout the US await some positive news on a class action law suite related to CSPA. In the Matter of Xiuyi WANG, the Board of Immigration Appeals found that certain automatic conversion/retention of priority date provisions of the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) do not apply under certain circumstances. In that case the court ruled that foreign national children who age out of eligibility for an immigrant visa as a derivative beneficiary in the fourth preference category will not retain their priority date under the CSPA when they are the beneficiary of a second preference petition later filed later by a different petitioner. Astonishingly, this decision -- which punishes children for aging and only serves to divide families -- has been upheld by the U.S. District Court.

Specifically, in the Matter of Wang, the foreign national's child was only 10 years old when the original petition was filed naming her as a derivative beneficiary. However, an immigrant visa number did not become available until she was 22 years old and no longer eligible for derivative status. The father, upon receiving his green card, filed a second preference category petition on behalf of the daughter, who is now above 21 and is no longer a child, and requested the earlier priority date of the previous petition be assigned to her. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) refused to apply the earlier priority date.

The decision in the Matter of Wang was appealed to the United States District Court in the Central District of California, Southern Division, but the Court granted the government's motion for summary judgment. Encouragingly, the Court had certified a class on July 16, 2009 comprised of "[a]liens who became lawful permanent residents as primary beneficiaries of third- and fourth-preference visa petitions listing their children as derivative beneficiaries, and who subsequently filed second-preference petitions on behalf of their aged-out unmarried sons and daughters, for whom Defendants have not granted automatic conversion or the retention of priority dates pursuant to § 203(h)(3)." Nonetheless, on November 10, 2009, the Court held the decision in Matter of Wang was entitled to deference and, therefore, no issues of material fact existed for trial. The case has been appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Allowing decisions such as this to remain "good law" is only to enforce the separation of families and frustrate the entire purpose of the CSPA. Notably, the BIA's decision in Matter of Wang discussed the legislative history of the CSPA and recognized that "[t]here was repeated discussion in the House, both before and after the Senate amendment, of the intention to allow for retention of child status 'without displacing others who have been waiting patiently in other visa categories.'" The child beneficiary in Matter of Wang had done nothing but wait patiently for 12 years for an immigrant visa to become available, only to be sent to the "back of the line" due to no fault of her own. We can only hope that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will uphold the underlying purpose of the CSPA, find in favor of keeping families together, and not punish innocent children for the USCIS' processing delays and the unavoidable passage of time. Stay tuned.

In many parts of the US including Columbus, Ohio and Michigan, Refugees and Asylees struggle to find a new life and to forget their troubled past. The Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) offers much needed assistance to them. As we discussed in prior blogs, the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) prevents certain foreign national children from losing their preferential immigration benefits due to "aging out" at 21 years old. The asylum and refugee provisions of the CSPA are especially vital in helping to keep families together. Sections 3 and 4 of the CSPA provide special assistance to the unmarried children of asylees and refugees whether accompanying or following-to-join their parent. The CSPA allows the children of asylees and refugees to maintain their child status and, thus, their eligibility for derivative status even after reaching the age of 21 years old.

For the most part, so long as the child of the asylee or refugee was under the age of 21 when their parent applied for asylum or refugee status, they will be eligible for derivative benefits even after attaining the age of 21 years old. To qualify as a child included on an asylum or refugee application, the aging out child must be listed on Form I-589 or Form I-590, respectively, prior to a final determination on the application. Indeed, a parent can add a child of any age to their asylum application before it is adjudicated, and the child will be entitled to derivative benefits so long as the application was originally filed while the child was under 21 years of age.

The asylum and refugee provisions of the Child Status Protection ACT (CSPA), also apply to children whose parents did not include them on their asylum or refugee application. If the asylee or refugee did not include their child on their application, the aging out child may obtain derivative status if their parent filed Form I-730 within two years of being granted asylum or refugee status. If Form I-730 was pending at the time the CSPA was enacted, a child who aged out would still be eligible for derivative status if the I-730 petition was originally filed before the child turned 21 years old. The USCIS even considers an approved I-730 application to be pending if the U.S. Embassy or Consulate has not issued travel documents. Asylees and refugees, by definition, have experienced extremely difficult circumstances in their lifetime, but they can be encouraged by the fact that laws exist to help keep their family together.

Many of our Family Immigration clients in Columbus, Ohio and in Michigan and elsewhere share their frustration that notwithstanding near a decade passage of the Child Status Protection ACT (CSPA), USCIS continues to struggle with its interpretation. I explained in my prior blog, The Child Status Protection Act (CSPA), enacted on August 6, 2002, contains remedies for foreign nationals claiming a "child" status who are in jeopardy of losing their immigration benefits due to aging out. Though the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA), was enacted in 2002, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) were still changing its interpretation of the CSPA's provisions until 2008. In particular, foreign nationals who had an approved immigrant visa petition prior to the CSPA's inception, but had not filed a green card application before August 6, 2002 were initially not eligible for the CSPA's benefits.

In guidance issued in February 2003 and August 2004, the USCIS reiterated their initial position: that the provisions of the CSPA took effect on August 6, 2002 and were not retroactive. Thus, benefits would only be available to foreign nationals who aged out on or after August 6, 2002. The only exceptions for foreign nationals who aged out prior to August 6, 2002 were for those who had a visa petition either pending on August 6, 2002 or had an approved petition with a green card application pending on August 6, 2002. Interestingly, pending for the purposes of visa petitions includes appeals or motions to reopen filed with the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) or the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on or before August 6, 2002.

The USCIS' policy shift was not voluntary, rather mandatory in light of the BIA's decision in In Re Rodolfo Avila-Perez in February 2007, holding that it is not mandatory for a foreign national to have an application for adjustment of status or immigrant visa pending on August 6, 2002 to be eligible for CSPA benefits. Accordingly, the USCIS revised its previous position regarding the retroactivity of the CSPA provisions. Currently, qualifying foreign nationals who aged out prior to the CSPA's implementation can file a new green card application to take advantage of the CSPA. Additionally, foreign nationals whose green card applications were denied due to age can file motions to reopen or reconsider. It took the USCIS a long time to settle on the appropriate interpretation of the CSPA, but fortunately the correct conclusion was reached: that the benefits of the CSPA should have retroactive application to certain foreign nationals.

From Columbus, Ohio and Troy Michigan and beyond, The Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) gives children of immigrants badly needed protection form government slow immigration processing. The Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) was first enacted on August 6, 2002 for the purpose of allowing certain children of lawful permanent residents or naturalized U.S. citizens to maintain their "child" status through 21 years of age. Increasingly, processing delays at the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) were causing children to lose their eligibility for certain visa classifications due to "aging out" or turning 21 years old.

In general, the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) provides that the age of a foreign national claiming a child classification will be frozen upon the occurrence of various events, depending upon the type of petition pending. For example, if an immediate relative petition was originally filed, the CSPA considers the foreign national's age to be fixed as of the date Form I-130 Petition for Alien Relative was filed. If Form I-130 Petition for Alien Relative was filed while the foreign national was 20 years old, the foreign national's age for visa classification purposes would be frozen at 20 years old until a visa number became available.

The CSPA contains special provisions for children whose lawful permanent resident parents naturalize, children self-petitioning under The Violence Against Woman Act (VAWA), and married children whose marriage is subsequently terminated. Additionally, the most recent guidance from the USCIS allows retroactive application of CSPA benefits to foreign nationals who had an approved immigrant visa petition prior to the establishment of the CSPA, but had not yet applied for a green card by the date the CSPA was enacted. This development in CSPA interpretation allows many foreign nationals who never filed a green card application, or had their application denied due to age, to refile.

The CSPA provisions are anything but easy to comprehend. Originally, the USCIS even had some difficulty in determining how the provisions of the CSPA should be interpreted and, for many years, was continually issuing revised guidance memoranda. There has been well documented cases of improper denials by USCIS since 2002. Notwithstanding the confusion, it is in the best interests of any foreign national in danger of aging out to fully understand and avail themselves of the benefits of the CSPA. I will provide more details on this in follow up blogs.

We have not noticed a change in H-1B review and approval process since the publishing of the Neufeld H1B Memo regarding H-1B visa and employer-employee relationship. We continue to submit our applications in the same fashion. We have always allocated a portion of our petitions addressing the employer employee relation form a traditional common law approach. In a case from Columbus, Ohio we have received a premium processing approval from the Vermont Processing Center in a record 24 hours. While the memo clearly shows certain flaws in USCIS legal analysis, USCIS continues to approve cases provided end client letters evidencing specialty occupation and petitioner right to control are well documented.

This is the second of three blogs on USCIS most recent H-1B memo. On January 8, 2010, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services released a guidance memorandum to assist in clarifying what constitutes a valid employer-employee relationship for H-1B purposes. Though the memorandum likely caused more confusion than clarification due to its internal contradictions and repudiation of established law, the following is an overview of the USCIS' "guidance" regarding employer-employee relationships for H-1B petitions.

The memorandum recognizes that certain employment relationships are sometimes difficult to classify in the classic master-servant context. Therefore, the USCIS developed factors, purportedly based on Supreme Court precedent and common law principles, to assist adjudicators and petitioners in determining if the employment situation involves a legitimate employer-employee relationship. The factors outlined by the USCIS generally pertain to who supervises and evaluates the employee, who provides the tools and instrumentalities needed for employment, who claims the employee for tax purposes and provides compensation/benefits, and who has the ability to control the manner and means in which the work is accomplished.

To illustrate the correct application of the employer-employee relationship factors, the USCIS memorandum further classifies certain employment scenarios as having a valid or invalid employer-employee relationship. Specifically, the following situations are considered permissive employer-employee relationships for H-1B purposes: traditional employment, temporary/occasional off-site employment, long-term/permanent off-site employment, and long-term placement at a third-party worksite. The employment scenarios that, according to the memorandum, do not qualify as a valid employer-employee relationship include self-employment, independent contractors and certain third-party placements or "job shops."

Among other problems, the memorandum attempts to overturn well-settled law regarding the H-1B eligibility of consulting companies and is riddled with internal contradictions regarding whether the legal standard is "actual control" or the "right to control" the employee. The USCIS will undoubtedly face numerous legal challenges to the content of their most recent "guidance," but employers and employees should be aware that they are, nevertheless, bound by it in the meantime.

As an immigration attorney the new USCIS memo is most baffling. On January 8, 2010, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) released a memorandum offering guidance on "Determining Employer-Employee Relationship for Adjudication of H-1B Petitions, Including Third-Party Site Placements." Based on the memo, companies across the nation from Columbus Ohio to Troy Michigan and beyond must now learn that some of their employees may not meet what USCIS calls employment. Though the memorandum facially claims that the requirements to establish eligibility for an H-1B petition have not changed, the substance of the memorandum indicates a dramatic policy shift. In particular, the USCIS has abrogated its position with regards to whether certain employers that place their employees at third-party worksites -- precisely employers they classify as "job shops" -- constitute a legitimate employer-employee relationship. Historically, such employment relationships satisfied the employer-employee requirement so long as the petitioner could prove the right to control when, where and how the beneficiary performed the job.

The recent memorandum continues to assert that a valid employer-employee relationship exists if the petitioning party can establish they have the right to control and are responsible for the direction of the foreign national employee's work. The USCIS relies on common law principles and the employer-employee relationship factors endorsed in the Supreme Court cases of Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. v. Darden and Clackamas Gastroenterology Assoc. v. Wells to support its position. Notably, the memorandum recognizes that "[t]he common law is flexible about how these factors are to be weighed" and a totality of the circumstances test should be employed, "with no one factor being decisive."

Unfortunately, the memorandum's "examples" of situations that do not present a valid employer-employee relationship deprive petitioners of the case specific, factor-by-factor analysis called for by the Supreme Court and common law principles. The blanket assertion that computer consulting companies that place employees at third-party worksites do not constitute a valid employer-employee relationship is devoid of the proper legal analysis and a complete deviation from previous USCIS guidance. Even more interesting, the Supreme Court cases cited in the USCIS memorandum rely on an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission notice that reaches the exact opposite conclusion concerning whether staffing/consulting companies are the employers of individuals they place at third-party worksites.

Though the legal theory upon which the USCIS is basing their authority to unilaterally issue new regulations is unclear, one fact is clear -- the USCIS' recent actions do not comport with existing law and, rest assured, will be vehemently challenged by immigration lawyers, organizations, employers and employees alike.

A special election was held on January 19, 2009 to fill the Senate seat left vacant by the late Edward Kennedy. Although this was a Massachusetts special election, people from Columbus, Ohio to Troy, Michigan and all across the United States watched intently as Republican attorney Scott Brown defeated the democratic front-runner, Martha Coakley. Some have declared that his election did away with the filibuster-proof majority of Congressional Democrats and, with it, any chance of immigration reform. The election of Scott Brown may have been a surprise, but should by no means be considered the end of any possibility of immigration reform in the United States.

It is true that today's contentious political climate has fostered a system where a party change in one single Senate seat could potentially jeopardize the passage of much needed reforms, including immigration. While campaigning for Congress, Scott Brown's statements regarding immigration policy focused on stripping rights for illegal immigrants and combating illegal immigration through enhanced border security. His legacy as a Massachusetts State Senator includes the introduction of legislation that, if passed, would have required foreign nationals to provide proof of work authorization to pursue a wage enforcement action against a U.S. employer. Unfortunately, such laws are short-sighted and fail to recognize that preventing wage enforcement actions could serve to embolden U.S. employers that hire and take advantage of undocumented workers.

However, Scott Brown's record as a U.S. Senator is yet to be established and, regardless of whether he is ultimately a proponent or opponent of immigration reform, he is but one vote. Comprehensive immigration reform, before and after the election of Scott Brown, needs to be a bi-partisan effort -- with the support of Democrats, Republicans and Independents alike. The President did not dedicate much of his State of the Union Address to immigration reform, but he did urge Congress to "continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system - to secure our borders, enforce our laws so that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nation." Hopefully, the members of Congress will heed the President's words -- remembering that the United States is a "nation made up of immigrants from every corner of the globe" and "neither party should delay or obstruct every single bill just because they can" -- and work towards passing positive immigration reforms in the upcoming year.

Attorney Sam Shihab, co founder of the law firm of Shihab & Associates Co., LPA has teamed up with Attorney Cheryl Brikho a former partner & co-founder of Brikho & Kallabat to form Sam Shihab & Associates, LLC a boutique law firm with offices in Dublin, Ohio and Troy, Michigan. Combined, they offer over 30 years of experience in the area of Immigration Law.

Sam Shihab, Esq.

Mr. Sam Shihab offers 15 years of experience as an immigration counsel representing corporations, investors, families, and individuals in all aspects of U.S. immigration law. Mr. Shihab represent corporate clients in complex technology-related and multi-national transactions, and assist foreign scientists, engineers and information technology professionals in immigration law-related matters. He is listed in Strathmore's Who's Who.
Mr. Shihab received his Bachelor Degree in Civil Engineering form The Ohio State University in 1984 and his Juris Doctorate in Law degree from Capital University in 1994. Mr. Shihab is member of the Ohio Bar Association and several US District Courts. He is admitted to practice law in the State of Ohio.

Cheryl Brikho, Esq.

Ms. Cheryl Brikho Offers 16 years of experience, with the last 15 years of which were exclusively dedicated to serving clients in the area of immigration law. She is an accomplished immigration attorney with a reputation for commitment and excellence. Ms. Brikho has successfully represented individuals as well as fortune 500 and smaller companies in all aspects of employment immigration law. Ms. Brikho has personally appeared in over 600 hearings and interviews and has successfully filed several thousand petitions and labor certifications before the USCIS, its predecessor agency the INS and the US Department of Labor.

Ms. Brikho received her Bachelors degree from the University of Michigan in 1990 and her Juris Doctorate in Law from the University Of Detroit School Of Law in 1993. Ms. Brikho is an active member of the Michigan Bar Association and the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). She is member of the Michigan State Bar.

Offices and contact Information

Columbus Metro: 565 Metro Place South, Suite 100, Dublin, Ohio 43017. Phone 614-791-0500. Fax 614-791-7727

Detroit Metro: 100 West Big Beaver Road Suite 200, Troy, MI 48084. Phone 248-524-0700. Fax: 248-573-0450

Nationwide: 866-665-0001

In a New York Times op-ed, Thomas Friedman, wrote that America should remember how it became the wealthiest country in history. He says it was not through fearing free trade, state owned banks or protectionism. It was through a flexible open market, adding to it, the most diverse highly intelligent immigrants from all over the world.

Some of our legislators have forgotten the principles that lead to our success. A clear example is a new anti H-1B & H-2B proposed legislation introduced this month by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) dubbed as "Employ American Act," which in fact has nothing to do with employing Americans. It basically mandates that if a company lays off more than 50 workers in any area, the company cannot hire any foreign workers for one year and all company foreign workers on visas approved in the preceding 12 months shall be cancelled. The bill also precludes judicial review for any visa cancellation.

This has to top the list of most irresponsible legislation introduced in 2009. To highlight the hasty nature of the introduced legislation, let's consider an example. If this legislation to become law, the practical effect is as follows: If, let's say, Ford lays off workers in a plant in Detroit Michigan, this legislation would prevent Ford form hiring on H-1 B a foreign scientists in its Columbus, Ohio research facility that is working on designing a more efficient engine to compete with its foreign competitors. It further will automatically cancel all recently approved H-1B visas for its entire foreign scientists anywhere in the US. This legislation servers no purpose except to harass companies that hire foreign nationals on H-1B visa. The practical impact of this legislation is that hiring foreign nationals becomes a liability to US corporations.

Sen. Grassley said with the current high unemployment rates (over 10%), companies should give preference to American workers when recruiting. But what he does not say, is that H-1B visas fill job vacancies in high tech areas where American workers are unavailable. It serves no purpose to force companies to cancel visas on difficult to fill positions because it had layoffs in completely unrelated job classifications in a completely different part of the country. This legislation is better dubbed as "Kill American Competiveness ACT"

Continue reading "Killing The H-1B visa Program! Will They Succeed?" »