Immigration Visa Attorney Blog

According to the latest United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) count, released on August 27, there were 34,900 cap eligible petitions for the H-1B regular cap, and 13,000 cap eligible petitions for the H-1B Master's exemption filed. These numbers include all approved cases as well as the cases that are still pending and under review. The USCIS issues a total of 65,000 regular H-1B visas, and an additional 20,000 visas under the advanced degree exemption for foreign employees who possess a US master's degree or higher. Regular H-1B visas enable employers to hire foreign employees with a bachelor's degree or higher who work in specialty occupations, including business- and science-related fields.
The USCIS began accepting applications on April 1, and will continue to do so until limitations have been reached. After the cap limit is reached, applicants must wait for the next fiscal year to apply. In order to ensure the consideration of petitions, applicants must make sure the petition is properly filed by completing all sections of Form I-129, including proper payment with the application and submitting all necessary documentation at the time the petition is filed.

The September Visa Bulletin marks the end of the fiscal year (FY10), which usually coincides with the aggressive advancement of priority dates for EB1 and EB2 visas. The EB2 is current for all countries of chargeability with the exception of India and China. For the third month in a row, the U.S. Department of State has advanced the EB2 visas for Indian nationals, one the largest groups immigrating to the U.S. The EB2 China and EB3 All Chargeability Areas except those listed have also advanced. This is said to be due to the dwindling number of visa requests in underutilized categories due to low demand. It is expected that the advancement of cutoff dates that were seen in the last few months will retrogress substantially with the release of the October Visa Bulletin 2010 at the beginning of FY11.
The limit for employment-based preference immigrants for FY10 is 150,657. The limit for family-sponsored preference immigrants for FY10 is 226,000. The limit for individual countries is 7% of the total number of employment-based preference and family-sponsored preference limits, or 26,366, while the dependent area limit is 2% of the total numbers, or 7,533.
EB1 visas, Employment-Based First Preference visas, are issued by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to certain managers and executives, researchers and professors and those who have shown extraordinary ability in business, science, athletics, art or education. EB2 visas, also known as Employment-Based Second Preference visas, are issued to foreign professionals with a masters degree or higher or those who have exceptional ability in business- or science-related fields who have been offered a position from a U.S. company. EB3 visas, or Employment-Based Third Preference visas, are issued to foreign professional workers who have a bachelors degree or higher, skilled workers who have been offered positions by U.S. companies that require at least two years of training, as well as to unskilled workers who have been offered positions by U.S. companies that require less than two years of training. EB4 visas are issued to religious workers who have been active members of a religious denomination that has a nonprofit religious organization in the United States for at least the past two years. EB5 visas are issued to those who plan to immigrate to the U.S. to create employment for U.S. citizens through development and investing. Family-based preference visas also enable the spouses and children, and sometimes the siblings, of the employed person to come to the U.S. as well. Children and spouses of preference immigrants are given the same status, as well as the same order of consideration, as the family member who has applied for the employment-based visa.

Continue reading "Priority Date Improvement: Expected " »

The Department of State has recently confirmed the commencement of its independent verification of information contained in visa applications. Sam Shihab & Associates also confirms that some of its clients have been contacted by the Kentucky Consular Center (KCC) via contractors by telephone as part of the process. However, some of our clients complained that the questions asked were quite intrusive and were not related to the visa applications. For example, some of the questions were about company profit margins. The initial announcement of the program was on November 17, 2007 when the Department of State (DOS) and the Kentucky Consular Center (KCC) said that NIV petitions would be reviewed through a program that focused on information verification. Consular officers began to track petition information through the use of the Petition Information Management Service (PIMS) as well as the Consular Consolidated Database (CCD). The KCC audit on NIV petitions was structured to verify information and correct mistakes in the visa petition applications. One specific aspect of the audit authorized consular officers to make an unannounced phone call to the petitioner in order to obtain and verify the information that was provided to the USCIS when the visa petition was submitted. They claim that the outcome of the audit is critical in order to accurately process and further the status of visa petitions.

Along with the announcement, KCC approved fifteen contractors to individually contact petitioners. Through the embassies, KCC is responsible for reviewing the visa petitions that are obtained from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). After the initial review process, the contractors verify and obtain the necessary information. Then, any corrections or additional steps are taken in order to advance and finalize the petition. The idea is that contractors specifically review and gather information on the petitioner as well as the beneficiary. In the past, DOS found that visa petitions were lacking important information when KCC received them from USCIS. The contractor was supposed to focus on the company website, the contact information, and the physical location of the company's office in order to ensure the validity and existence of the petitioner. The contractor also performed random phone calls to petitioners in order to gather information about the beneficiaries.

Continue reading "H-1B Visa Attorney on Audit by DOS: Verification or Intrusion?" »

This is the conclusion to a three blog series that detailed a lawsuit which was filed in the District of Columbia Federal court challenging the new H-1B Neufeld Memo. The first three blogs discussed the complaint that was filed in court, the motion for preliminary injunction that was filed by the Plaintiffs, and the response by Homeland Security. On June 8, 2010 five specialty businesses filed a lawsuit against the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in response to the Neufeld Memo. The court analyzed the points that were made by both the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. This blog will focus on the final outcome of the case which for the dismissal of the case and finding in favor of USCIS.

Upon receiving and reviewing the details of the case, the court proposed to consolidate the hearing though a determination on merits based on the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. On July 7, 2010 both parties submitted a joint agreement based on the courts consolidation proposal. At the Motions Hearing on August 5, 2010 both parties presented their arguments. A detailed review of both parties' arguments can be found in the previous blogs. The main focus of the court was to determine whether or not the Plaintiffs had a substantial likelihood of success in their claims. The court's final classification of the Neufeld Memo, whether it is a general policy or a legislative rule, impacted the outcome of the case.

Continue reading "H-1B Attorney on Broadgate et al. v. USCIS: Case Dismmissed" »

If the employer has a drug and criminal background screening policy that they place in the PERM Labor Certification advertisement, they must also include this requirement in the PERM Labor Certification application form ETA 9089, BALCA ruled. If this is not done, the Certifying Officer (CO) will conclude that the foreign national is being offered more favorable working conditions than otherwise offered to American workers and the application will be denied. It is critical that accurate information is included in the PERM application that matches the advertisement. Strict regulations are in place in order to protect the integrity of the work force as well as the advertising and hiring process. An example of this issue is a PERM Labor Certification that was filed by Noll Pallet & Lumber Company (NPLC).

On December 15, 2006 NPLC filed an Application for Permanent Employment Certification on behalf of a foreign national who was selected for a production worker position. On March 1, 2007 the CO at the U.S. Department of Labor issued an Audit Notification. The CO requested that NPLC submit more detailed recruitment documentation. NPLC provided the additional documents on March 20, 2007. On June 25, 2007 the CO denied certification because the newspaper advertisements for the position offered terms and conditions that were less favorable than those offered to the foreign national. The CO further explained that the advertisement called for criminal and background checks as well as a drug test. These specifications were not listed on the application. On July 23, 2007 NPLC requested a reconsideration stating that they had amended the issues cited by the CO. A letter of reconsideration was issued by the CO on November 5, 2008. The CO stated that the initial issue had not been corrected. As a result, the certification was denied.

Continue reading "PERM Labor Certification - Properly Drafting The Job Advertisement" »

If the newspaper advertisement being used for a PERM Labor Certification contains language that certain requirements are "preferred," the certifying office (CO) officer will properly assume that "employer preferences are actually job requirements." Unless these requirements are included in the PERM application, the CO will properly deny the application. An example of this issue is a PERM Labor Certification filed by Eastern Tennessee State University (ETSU).

On August 21, 2007 ETSU filed an Application for Permanent Employment on behalf of a foreign national who was chosen for an assistant professor position. The CO issued an Audit Notification on November 19, 2007 and requested additional recruitment information. The CO specifically wanted copies of the job advertisements and other documentation that described the position. ETSU provided all of the necessary documentation. On August 28, 2009 the CO denied certification because of inconsistencies within the supplied documents. The CO stated that the Notice of Filing, job order, and job advertisements all contained job requirements that exceed those listed on the application. It was also noted that four minimally qualified American candidates were rejected during the hiring process. As a result, the CO concluded that ETSU did not conduct competitive or thorough job recruitment. ETSU filed a request for review on September 16, 2009. In the request, ETSU stated that the various recruitment documents did not include additional requirements. Instead, they explained that the extra skills listed were merely preferences. ETSU mentioned that the four American candidates were rejected because they were not fluent enough in Spanish. The CO forwarded the request for review to BALCA. Once ETSU responded with the intent of proceeding with the appeal, the CO sent a letter to BALCA that outlined the reasons that certification was denied.

Continue reading "PERM Labor Certification Advertisement Improperly Drafted Leads to Denial" »

When the employer is unable to provide adequate documentation of its internet advertisement due to internal company error, the Certifying Officer (CO) can properly deny an application for Labor Certification. One such example is a PERM Labor Certification filed by Trans Atlantic Systems, Inc.

On July 16, 2007 TAS filed an Application for Permanent Employment Certification on behalf of a foreign national that they selected for a professional programmer position. On September 11, 2007 the CO issued an Audit Notification. Among other issues, CO asserted that TAS had not provided enough documentation to show that the experience requirements found in the job advertisement were considered appropriate business necessity. TAS complied and provided more documentation which included copies of job requirements, the recruitment report, the Notice of Filing, evidence of the employee referral program, and the newspaper advertisements for the position. On November 29, 2007 the CO denied the certification because TAS had not provided documentation of its internet advertisement. TAS submitted a request for review on December 13, 2007 stating that the recruitment report should be accepted as sufficient evidence to prove that the company had met the application requirements. TAS explained that there was no record of the requested internet advertisement due to an internal error within the company. On appeal to BALCA, TAS submitted the recruitment report in place of the required documentation of the internet job advertisements and made the same argument that its report should be sufficient evidence of the internet advertisement. The CO filed an appellate brief which explained that a lack of specific documentation in this case was a valid reason for denying certification.

Continue reading "PERM Labor Certification Filing Requires Strict Regulatory Compliance" »

A proposed bill that would significantly raise H-1B and L1 visa application fees for companies with more than 50 percent of their work force on H-1B or L1 status with more than 50 employees was passed in the Senate Friday, August 6, and the House Tuesday, August 10. H1B visas are used for professionals coming to the United States to work for U.S. employers. L1 visas are intra-company transfer visas, for employees of companies that operate in the U.S. and abroad. USCIS wasted no time and announced on Aug 19th that new applications must immediately pay the fee or explain why the fee is inapplicable. This law raise the application fee for visas for skilled workers by at least $2,000. The H-1B visa will be raised to $2,320 from $320, and the L1 visa will be raised to $2,570 from $320. The fees will apply to companies who use visas for more than 50 percent of its employees. The additional $600 million that will be generated by the fee hike will be used to construct operating bases and deploy surveillance drones in efforts to secure the U.S.-Mexico border. The bill passed by the House was slightly different than that of the Senate, It was back to the Senate for approval and has been signed into law by President Obama.

Continue reading "Visa Application Fee Hike: Punitive or Functional? " »

On June 28, 2010 the Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari (for review) in a case that questions the legality of the proposed Legal Arizona Workers Act. Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. v. Napolitano, 558 F.3d 856 (9th Cir. 2009), cert. granted sub nom. Chamber of Commerce v. Candelaria, (June 28, 2009) (No. 09-115) . The case directly challenges the Arizona state law that intends to prohibit employers from intentionally hiring unauthorized immigrants and mandates how employers should verify employees. The petition that was sent to the Supreme Court states that the Arizona law is preempted by federal law. In other words, the court will answer the question if Arizona law is stepping into an area that is reserved for the federal government not for the individual States. What the Supreme Court will answer is can each state creates its own system of penalties and verification to immigration violations or this area is reserved for the federal government.

The Petition for the Writ of Certiorari requested that the Supreme Court reexamine the actions and findings of the lower courts. The district court and the Ninth Circuit both ruled that the Arizona statute was not preempt by federal law in two specific areas. Both courts concluded that the statute fell within the savings clause of the preemptive provision in the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). They also ruled that Congress did not specify that states could not require employers to participate in the electronic verification system for checking the status of immigrants. The petition's main focus is that federal immigration laws preempt the proposed state laws.

Continue reading "Supreme Court to Analyze the Legality of the Legal Arizona Workers Act " »

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.

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" »