1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar

The Government of Canada implements its New Preclearance Act

Effective August 15, 2019, the Preclearance Act of 2016 gives enhanced powers to US Customs and Border Protection officers working in preclearance areas located in Canada, much to the chagrin of many concerned Canadians. The Act was implemented in furtherance of the Preclearance Agreement, a treaty signed by Canada and the US in 2015. Please click here to read the Dentons client alert.

, , ,

The Government of Canada implements its New Preclearance Act

DHS publishes final rule governing FY 2020 H-1B cap season. Now it’s time to prepare your cap-subject petitions

Last week, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published the final rule amending regulations governing H-1B cap-subject petitions. For a detailed discussion of the proposed rule, see our recent blog post here. The final rule, however, makes some changes different from those set out in the proposed rule.

No online registration for FY 2020 H-1B cap season

Though suggested in the proposed rule, the final rule clearly states that an online registration requirement will not be implemented for the FY 2020 cap season. The agency explains that before implementation, it wants to complete user testing and other evaluative tools to ensure the system and process are fully functional. Employers should be ready in 2020 for the FY 2021 H-1B cap season, when the process change will likely take place. US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will announce the implementation in advance of the cap season in which it will implement the requirement.

Changing the order of the H-1B lottery selection for the FY 2020 H-1B cap season

Currently, H-1B cap-subject petitions filed under the advanced degree cap are selected first, and unselected petitions get a second bite at the apple—an opportunity to compete, along with the regular cap petitions, for one of the 65,000 visas available for workers holding bachelor’s degrees. The final rule reverses this order. Effective April 1, 2019, USCIS will first select 65,000 petitions from all submissions, including both regular and advanced degree petitions. USCIS will then run a second lottery to select enough qualifying petitions to meet the 20,000 cap exemption for individuals with advanced degrees from US institutions. DHS states that the change will increase the chances of H-1Bs being awarded to individuals with US master’s degrees or higher by up to 16%, or 5,340 workers. Time will tell. Why DHS thinks random holders of US master’s degrees will better serve American competitiveness than will holders of bachelors’ degrees in targeted fields of study, such as STEM, or who otherwise meet the goals articulated in President Trump’s April 2017 executive order directing an interdepartmental review of the H-1B visa program, was not addressed in the final rule.

Dentons analysis

Employers need to submit full H-1B cap-subject petitions during the first week of April. Please contact your lawyer now to be fully prepared.   

Meanwhile, Dentons will continue to closely monitor any changes to the regulations surrounding the H-1B program, particular regarding the pre-registration requirement, and update you as needed.

, , , , ,

DHS publishes final rule governing FY 2020 H-1B cap season. Now it’s time to prepare your cap-subject petitions

Does USCIS interpret its regulations consistently and correctly?

Non-immigration case before SCOTUS could change immigration law

In December of last year, the US Supreme Court agreed to review Kisor v. Wilkie, a case that could have a major impact on immigration law. At issue is the degree of deference a court must accord an agency’s interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.

How much deference courts should afford agencies in interpreting their own regulations is a central question in administrative law. It determines how much an agency is allowed to stray from the original wording of a regulation it promulgates before it becomes necessary to issue a new regulation.  

It is dangerous to grant agencies unfettered discretion based on the assumption that their personnel will wisely and fairly carry out their duties. Changing presidential administrations often result in new agency directors and the likelihood that political beliefs will change how existing regulations are interpreted.  

If an agency seeking to revise a regulation follows the legal requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), there will be notice of proposed rulemaking and a comment period to identify any issues. There’s also a published regulatory history from which to glean meaning and intent. Too often, however, federal agencies, rather than comply with the APA, seek to regulate through policy interpretation memoranda.

On its face, Kisor v. Wilkie has nothing to do with immigration law. In 2006, James Kisor a Vietnam War veteran reopened a claim for disability benefits, citing new evidence that supported a diagnosis of PTSD. While the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) agreed with the diagnosis and approved the 2006 claim, it declined to grant him retroactive benefits based on his initial 1983 claim, asserting that he had failed to present “relevant” service records required under VA regulations governing reconsideration of benefits claims. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit deferred to the VA’s interpretation of its own regulation and found in the agency’s favor.

In the context of immigration, the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), a branch of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), is the federal agency that oversees lawful immigration to the United States. Under current case law, significant deference is granted to USCIS’ interpretation of its own regulations. This deference has allowed the agency to change certain visa programs over time, often without issuing new regulations but instead relying on policy memoranda to implement what increasingly seems to be an agenda driven by White House politics rather than good policy.

For example, President Donald Trump’s “Buy American, Hire American” 2017 executive order, which, among other things, directed DHS, in coordination with other agencies, to review immigration-related policies, led to USCIS modifying many of its immigration policies in 2017 and in 2018, oftentimes by the mere publication of a memo or a press release rather than by going through the APA’s required process. Dentons’ immigration team covered several of these:

  • In October 2017, USCIS issued a policy memorandum reversing the burden of proof and eliminating the prior practice of deferring to previous approvals in the adjudication of petitions to renew H, L and other non-immigrant visas. The idea was that USCIS would accept the original determination as correct and would not review all the visa requirements again. With the elimination of this practice, visa holders merely petitioning for an extension now have to prove every criteria applicable to their visa category, even though USCIS already decided that they met such criteria. Effectively, extensions now require the same level of documentation as the original petition. This change has led to extensions being denied, thus creating confusion among alien workers.
  • In April 2018, USCIS updated its webpage for Optional Practical Training Extension for STEM Students (STEM OPT), providing that the training experience of STEM OPT workers may not be conducted at the place of business or worksite of the employer’s clients or customers.
  • In May 2018, the USCIS changed the way it calculates the accrual of unlawful presence for nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors (F, J and M visas, including F-2, J-2 and M-2 dependents). The changes increased the likelihood that individuals in these nonimmigrant visa categories would have problems with future immigration benefits. (See our previous posting “Stricter unlawful presence rules for foreign students and exchange visitors”).
  • In May 2018, USCIS revised its Policy Manual, announcing it would no longer count the jobs created for US workers through tenant occupancy of EB5 properties, which effectively reduced the amount of immigrant investor funds available to create jobs for US workers. (See our previous posting “No more EB5 job creation through tenant-occupancy models: New USCIS policy reduces availability of immigrant investor funds to create jobs for American”).
  • In November 2018, USCIS published a new policy memorandum explaining how to calculate the 12 months of employment abroad, a key requirement under the L-1 intracompany transfer visa program. (See our previous posting “How to count to 12: USCIS clarifies L1A visa requirements”).
  • In November 2018, DHS published its mid-year regulatory agenda, which included a proposed rule to revoke the H-4 employment authorization final rule. If adopted, the proposed rule is expected to become effective in the first half of 2019 and would impact all of the more than 100,000 individuals currently holding an H-4 employment authorization document. (See our previous posting “Proposed end of H-4 employment authorization likely to affect over 100,000 families”).

While USCIS’ frequent and often far-reaching policy changes created lots of business for lawyers in 2018, the agency’s unpredictability and inconsistent application of the law has created a tremendous burden on US employers and their foreign-national employees and families, as well as for US business developers seeking foreign investment and foreign investors and families.  

Critics of the deference principle have argued that it effectively allows agencies such as the USCIS to write overbroad and substantively vague rules with the expectation that they can fill in any gaps later using interpretive rules, unchecked by notice and comments. They are urging the Supreme Court to reverse the current precedent favoring judicial deference, which would force USCIS to issue clearer and more detailed regulations, thus providing  more agency transparency and accountability. The Supreme Court will hear Kisor v. Wilkie in the spring—oral arguments have not yet been scheduled—and will likely make a ruling later this year.

, , , , ,

Does USCIS interpret its regulations consistently and correctly?

Proposed end of H-4 employment authorization likely to affect over 100,000 families

Time appears to be almost up for more than 100,000 foreign citizens working in the United States under an Obama-era special authorization for spouses of foreign workers here on the H-1B visa.

When Congress failed legislatively to address the lengthy wait times for many professionals and their families to be granted resident status, the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in 2015, under the Obama administration, issued a regulation to allow H-4 visa spouses of qualified H-1B professionals to apply for an employment authorization document (EAD). Some members of Congress complained that the executive branch was overstepping its authority by making law—which is Congress’s job—and the regulation was the subject of much debate during the last presidential election. Now the Trump administration is seeking to make good on the President’s campaign promise to eliminate EADs for H-4 spouses.

This change especially impacts US employers of people born in India.

The reason why Indian-born professionals are impacted is because there are numerical limits on the number of green cards granted each year. To promote the diversity of new immigrants to the US, there are quota limits on the place of birth. No more than 7 percent of the total number of family-sponsored and employment-based visas available in a fiscal year may be issued to natives of any one independent country. As the demand for Indian-born professionals is far greater than the annual supply of green cards under the quota, this has created a backlog.

In 2018 for instance, the backlog of Indian-born professionals waiting their turn to get a green card was well in excess of a half million individuals. As a result, it now takes many years for an Indian-born professional to receive his or her green card. As a consequence, Indian-born professionals comprise the bulk of H-4 EAD holders.

Under the current regulation, an H-4 spouse can request an EAD if the H-1B professional is the beneficiary of either an approved employment-based immigrant visa petition, or a Department of Labor alien employment certification application or employment-based immigrant visa petition filed at least 365 days prior to the end of the sixth year of the professional’s H-1B status.

In April 2017, President Trump signed the “Buy American and Hire American” executive order, which, among other things, directed the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in coordination with other agencies, to review H-1B-related policies. The H-4 EAD regulation was one of the policies reviewed and the result was its proposed elimination.

US employers rely on H-1B professionals to make up for the shortage of qualified American professionals while keeping jobs in the US. CEOs of major US companies, sent a letter to DHS opposing the plan to eliminate the H-4 EAD. The letter pointed out that “[t]hese spouses are often highly skilled in their own rights,” and “revoking their US work authorization will likely cause high-skilled immigrants to take their skills to competitors outside the United States.

These US employers found some support in Congress. Senators Kamala D. Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand sent a letter to DHS and USCIS opposing rescission of the H-4 EAD, pointing out that the proposed change would disproportionately impact South Asian women (in 2017, 94 percent of H-4 EAD were women and 93 percent were from India).

But the administration has not changed its position. In November 2018, DHS published its mid-year regulatory agenda, which included a proposed rule to revoke the H-4 employment authorization final rule. DHS stated that “[s]ome U.S. workers would benefit from this proposed rule by having a better chance at obtaining jobs that some of the population of the H-4 workers currently hold, as the proposed rule would no longer allow H-4 workers to enter the labor market early.” With record low unemployment levels and US employers already complaining of recruiting problems, it is unclear where the DHS thinks employers will find these US workers.

The new rule, if adopted, is expected to become effective in the first half of 2019 and would impact all 100,000+ individuals currently holding an H-4 EAD. Researchers also estimate that the proposed rule will affect entire families, including the H-1B professionals themselves, because many will not be able to afford to live on one income if their dependent spouse is forced to abandon his or her career. This is especially true in areas such as Seattle and the Silicon Valley, which employ high numbers of H-1B workers and have a high cost of living. Entire families may leave the US, taking their job skills to other countries to compete with their former employers—whose only options to remain competitive may be to outsource the jobs or set up their own offshore facilities. Nearshoring to Canada has become increasingly popular, due to the relatively lower cost of doing business there and proximity to the US.

The direct cost of each failed expatriate assignment is estimated to range from $250,000 to $1 million, according to researchers. More important, the departure of these highly skilled workers represents a brain drain and a significant loss of talent for most companies.

Dentons helps employers develop strategies to recruit the world’s best and brightest to fill posts in the US and abroad. For more information, please contact the authors or your Dentons lawyer.

, , , , , , , , , ,

Proposed end of H-4 employment authorization likely to affect over 100,000 families

DHS new rule on H-1B lottery process: Who’s the winner?

 

Following President Trump’s “Buy American and Hire American” executive order issued back on April 18, 2017, a long-awaited new rule has been proposed by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that would change the existing H-1B selection process, although perhaps not before the April 2019 filing season.

Online registration

The proposed rule would require petitioners seeking to file cap-subject H-1B petitions to first electronically register with US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) during a designated registration period, which would begin at least two weeks before April 1. The registration would require information about the employer, as well as the individual H-1B beneficiary.

USCIS would then select at random from the online registration database until the limited supply available under the quota (65,000 regular cap and 20,000 US advanced degree holders) is exhausted.

The big change is that US employers would only file complete H-1B petitions for the named beneficiaries who have been selected. Government processing fees would only be paid for selected petitions.

Similar to current processing, DHS would prohibit more than one registration from the same petitioner for the same beneficiary during any given year. Further, the new rule would require petitioners to attest to their intent to file an H-1B petition for the named beneficiary in the position for which the registration is filed.

DHS believes that this will prevent US employers from submitting a large numbers of registrations but not following up with complete filings of H-1B petitions for the selected beneficiaries—something that was not possible under the existing system. The proposed rule states that USCIS would closely monitor whether selected registrations are resulting in the filing of complete H-1B petitions. If USCIS finds that petitioners are registering numerous beneficiaries but are not filing petitions “at a rate indicative of a pattern and practice of abuse of the registration system,” it would investigate and could hold the employers accountable.

Selection process

The proposed rule would reverse the order by which the H-1B cap petitions are selected. Currently, USCIS first selects 20,000 with US graduate degrees, and then allow the unselected to be considered a second time, with the rest of the world, for the 65,000 quota. The proposed rule reverses this order. The proposed rule claims that it would increase the likelihood that a US graduate degree holder would be selected by up to 16 percent, but no explanation for that calculation is provided in the rule.

Petitioners whose petitions are selected will be notified to file complete H-1B petitions for the named beneficiaries within a designated filing period, expected to be at least 60 days.

Dentons analysis

The new rule reduces USCIS’ workload, since it does not have to handle the return of unselected petitions. However, this is not likely to speed up the slow processing of H-1B petitions, since the agency generally relies on contractors to handle mailroom services, rather than the officers who adjudicate petitions.

While the new rule may reduce some paperwork for US employers, it will not likely reduce the costs, since the cost of evaluating potential H-1Bs and registering is still incurred prior to the employer signing the petition. In fact, the extra step of registration creates extra work for employers and lawyers.

The anti-fraud provision of the rule attempts to address some of the realistic problems in the H-1B problem, but at the same time creates uncertainty for US employers and would most likely result in employers that have made bona fide job offers backing out for fear of the heightened scrutiny and potential liabilities.

DHS estimates that it will spend nearly $280,000 to develop the new system and $200,000 per year to maintain it. The proposed rule does not charge employers for the registration. How long the agency will forgo charging employers for registration is hard to predict, but USCIS has very few services that it provides to employers without a fee.

It is clear that this change will detrimentally impact the ability of US employers to continue to employ foreign workers. Current law allows the continued employment of F-1 OPT/STEM OPT and J-1 workers while the H-1B is pending, until their petitions are selected and approved OR even until the government announces they are not selected or not approved. The new rule means that fewer employers will have fewer H-1B petitions pending. The situation will be even worse if the new rule speeds up adjudications, as faster adjudications means faster denials. In sum, the new rule will result in fewer US employers being able to meet their staffing needs with pending H-1B petitions.

The announcement warns that the new rule may not be implemented in time for the April 2019 H-1B filing season, since there may not be enough time to fully test the system. If the new system has not gone into effect at least two weeks prior to the filing deadline, employers should be prepared to submit full H-1B petitions for all candidates on the first business day of April 2019.

Employers and stakeholders have until January 2, 2019 to submit comments on the proposed rule.

, , , , ,

DHS new rule on H-1B lottery process: Who’s the winner?

Stricter unlawful presence rules for foreign students and exchange visitors

Individuals in the United States on F, J and M visas (including F-2, J-2 and M-2 dependents) who fail to maintain their status will start accruing unlawful presence earlier, potentially spelling trouble for future immigration benefits, according to new US rules.

The US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced on Friday May 11, 2018, that the agency is changing the way it calculates the accrual of unlawful presence for nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors. The changes increase the likelihood that individuals in these two nonimmigrant visa categories will have problems on future immigration benefits.

Non-US citizens can be barred from obtaining visas, entering the US, and obtaining immigration benefits based on extended periods of unlawful presence in the US. If the individual accrues more than 180 days (but less than 1 year), he or she may be barred from re-entry for 3 years. Unlawful presence greater than 1 year can result in a 10-year bar.

The new policy, which becomes effective August 9, 2018, provides that nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors will start accruing unlawful presence either:

(1) the day after the visa holder no longer pursues the course of study or the authorized activity, or the day after they engage in an unauthorized activity; or

(2) the day after they complete the course of study or program, including any authorized practical training plus any authorized grace period.

In addition, visa holders start accruing unlawful presence on:

(3) the day after their I-94 expires; or

(4) the day after an immigration judge orders their deportation or removal of the individual.

Under the previous policy, an F, J or M visa holder would start accruing unlawful presence the day after the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) notified the visa holder that the individual violated his or her nonimmigrant status while adjudicating a request for another immigration benefit. Accruing unlawful presence under this criterion required notification by the USCIS to the visa holder of the violation.

This change is very important. There has always been a clear distinction between violating status and being unlawfully present, with only the latter situation having severe consequences for visa holders. A person could be in violation of status and not be unlawfully present. For instance, a foreign student on an F visa could drop out of school or perform unauthorized work and not accrue unlawful presence.

This situation is very specific to nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors because their Form I-94 and admission stamp usually list duration of status (or D/S) and not a specific date. Typically, F, J and M visa holders can maintain status as long as they remain enrolled or continue to participate in the activity for which they were admitted in the first place. The situation is different from other nonimmigrant visas, such as H-1B and L-1A visas, where unlawful presence generally starts accruing on the day after their visa stay permission on Form I-94 expires.

Under the new rule, even foreign students and exchange visitors who violate status unintentionally and without being aware of it, will start accruing unlawful presence—and may be in for an unpleasant surprise when they later apply for a new visa.

This announcement comes less than a month after USCIS updated its web page regarding the optional practical training (OPT) extension for international students with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). USCIS now specifically provides that the training experience of STEM OPT workers may not be conducted at the place of business or worksite of the employer’s clients or customers. Combined with last week’s policy change, such an arrangement could cause the visa holder to accrue unlawful presence and later trigger a re-entry ban and visa denial.

We encourage employers who currently employ workers on F, J or M visas or who plan to do so, to carefully review the applicable rules, especially if you intend to subsequently apply for a new visa (e.g., H-1B, EB1, EB2) on their behalf.

For more information, please contact your Dentons lawyer and see the USCIS website for additional information.

, , , , , ,

Stricter unlawful presence rules for foreign students and exchange visitors

Graduation: Time to request post-graduation work permission for foreign students

It’s April. Graduation is just around the corner. International students who are in F-1 status must consider their post-graduation plans. Now is the time to work with foreign student advisors and the USCIS for those seeking to work and gain practical training after graduation.

Optional Practical Training (OPT) is a period of temporary employment in the US that is directly related to an F-1 student’s major area of study. An F-1 student may be authorized 12 months of OPT after completing a degree from a US university. Eligible students must apply within 30 days of the foreign student advisor (known to USCIS as the “designated school official” or “DSO”) for OPT into the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) record system.

The application time window is only open from 90 days before to 60 days after completing the degree. The latest possible start date for the OPT is 60 days after completing the degree. F-1 students must make sure to submit their applications, with application fee, within the time window. OPT will start after USCIS approves the Form I-765 and issues an employment authorization document (EAD).

An employer is not required when OPT is requested, but the student will need to find work soon or OPT will be lost and the student will need to leave the US if he or she is without work for more than 90 days after OPT is granted. F-1 students on OPT must report employment status to their DSOs, who will then update their SEVIS records. The reporting is important because a student with approved OPT but without current employer information in SEVIS is considered unemployed. This can have serious ramifications on the student’s future immigration opportunities. We are seeing an increasing number of requests from USCIS regarding OPT employment information when the student later applies for the H-1B work visa that is widely used by F-1 students to work in the US beyond OPT.

OPT can be extended by 24 months for F-1 students who graduate with a bachelor’s or higher degree in an eligible science, technology, engineering or mathematics (STEM) field from an SEVP-certified school accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by the US Department of Education. Eligible students must apply before the end of the OPT as indicated on the EAD.

During the STEM OPT period, the permitted unemployment period is 60 days. Unlike the initial OPT, where employer involvement is minimal, STEM OPT requires that the employer enroll in USCIS’ E-Verify employment eligibility verification program. Dentons lawyers guide employers on the E-Verify registration process and advise on compliance issues.

Also, the employer must agree to employ the student for a minimum of 20 hours per week and to provide the student with formal training and learning objectives. To fulfill this requirement, the student and the employer must complete and sign Form I-983, which must explain how the training opportunity has a direct relationship to the student’s qualifying STEM degree. Dentons lawyers assist employers in developing STEM OPT-compliant training programs.

During the STEM OPT extension period, students must report to their DSOs every six months and supply updated information regarding their employment. If an employer terminates a student’s employment or if the student leaves the job, the employer has to report in either situation to the relevant DSO within five business days. STEM OPT students must submit annual self-evaluations and report to their DSOs regarding the progress of their training. Both student and employer must report to the relevant DSO any material changes to the training plan. Reporting and record-keeping are important in case the student applies for H-1B later.

For more information about STEM OPT, please contact your Dentons lawyer and see the USDHS website for additional information.

, , , , , , , ,

Graduation: Time to request post-graduation work permission for foreign students

New Form I-9 and E-Verify User Manual for US employers

The US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a revised Form I-9 and E-Verify User Manual. Employers should use the new Form I-9 for all new hires and for re-verification of current employees when their temporary employment authorization expires.

Form I-9 is used for verifying the identity and employment authorization of individuals hired for employment in the United States. All employers must ensure proper completion of Form I-9 for each individual they hire for employment in the United States, citizens and noncitizens included.

USCIS, which is an agency under the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS), operates the E‑Verify program, an Internet-based system that allows any US employer to electronically verify the employment eligibility of a newly hired employee.

E-Verify is a voluntary program. However, employers with federal contracts or subcontracts that contain the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) E-Verify clause are required to enroll in E-Verify as a condition of federal contracting. E-Verify is also a requirement for employers of F-1 foreign students employed under STEM Optional Practical Training. Further, employers in states that have enacted legislation require some or all employers to utilize E-Verify as a condition of business licensing.

The new Form I-9 is available at the USCIS website. The new E-Verify User Manual is available for download here.

, , , , , , ,

New Form I-9 and E-Verify User Manual for US employers

Supreme Court allows travel ban

The US Supreme Court partially lifted preliminary injunctions that had blocked President Trump’s revised executive order suspending US entry by foreign nationals from six, rather than the previous seven, mostly Muslim countries. However, the Court carved out an exception for foreign nationals who have a “bona fide relationship” with a person or entity in the United States,” raising such questions as “What is a bona fide relationship?” and “What is an entity in the US?” that will likely be the subject of further court action.

Supreme Court allows travel ban

The US Supreme Court partially lifted preliminary injunctions that had blocked Executive Order No. 13780, signed by President Donald J. Trump in March 2017 (EO-2), banning travel to the US for citizens of six countries. The Supreme Court scheduled a full hearing of the case for October 2017.

“Bona fide relationship” exception

The Supreme Court found that the preliminary injunction shall remain in place and the travel ban will not impact foreign nationals who have a “bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” Further, refugees will continue to be allowed to enter the US, subject to the 50,000 person cap on refugee admissions, except that the cap cannot be used as a means to bar an individual with a bona fide relationship with the US.

The Supreme Court defined “bona fide relationship” as either (with respect to individuals) “a close familial relationship” or (with respect to entities), a relationship that is “formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course.” What constitutes a sufficiently close familial relationship is likely to be the subject of further court action.

As for what constitutes a sufficiently established relationship with an entity, the Supreme Court provided three examples:

  • Students admitted to attend university in the US
  • Workers who have accepted an offer of employment from a US company
  • Lecturers invited to the US for a speaking engagement

The travel ban will apply to individuals whose relationship with an entity was formed to purposefully circumvent the ban.

It is worth noting that EO-2 in its original form applies only to the new issuance of visas, and not the US entry of individuals who have already been issued visas, green cards or asylum/refugee status.

Also, there is a chance that the Supreme Court will not have to hear the case in its entirety in October. If EO-2 goes into effect as scheduled by the Trump administration, the 90 day temporary ban will conclude at the end of September, several days before the Supreme Court begins its term. This would, then, remove any controversy over the legality of that piece of the order.

Citizens from these countries impacted

Citizens from the following countries are detrimentally impacted:

  • Iran
  • Libya
  • Somalia
  • Sudan
  • Syria
  • Yemen

EO-2 does not apply to citizens of other countries who merely visited the listed countries. Further, it does not apply to citizens of these six countries who are dual citizens and use the passport of a non-affected country to apply for a visa and enter the US.

When does the ban start?

In a June 14 memorandum, President Trump directed the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of State and other relevant agencies to wait 72 hours from the release of the Supreme Court decision before banning refugees and travelers from the six affected countries to “ensure an orderly and proper implementation” of the changes.

Background

During his first six months in office, President Trump signed two travel ban executive orders. The first, Executive Order 13797 (EO-1), issued on January 27, 2017, took a number of steps, including:

  • Suspending for 90 days the entry of foreign nationals from seven mostly Muslim countries identified as presenting heightened concerns about terrorism and travel in the US [1]
  • Suspending for 120 days the United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP), during which an adequacy review is to be undertaken
  • Reducing to 50,000 per year the total number of refugees that could be admitted to the United States, starting in fiscal year 2017
  • Suspending indefinitely admission of refugees from Syria

EO-1 was quickly blocked  by the US District Court for the Western District of Washington, which issued a nationwide temporary restraining order. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied an emergency motion by the US government to stay the district court order pending appeal. In response, the government rescinded EO-1 and went back to the drawing board.

On March 6, 2017, President Trump signed EO-2, which closely mirrored the directives in EO-1, but was intended to correct some its perceived errors, including:

  • Reducing the reach of the 90-day temporary suspension of entry to foreign nationals from six (rather than seven) mostly Muslim countries, with Iraq no longer included [2] and with a case-by-case waiver of the entry bar.
  • Directing the Secretary of DHS to undertake a 20-day global review of whether foreign governments provide sufficient information about nationals applying for visas.

EO-2 was immediately challenged in court, which challenges led to prompt nationwide preliminary injunctions by the US District Court for the District of Maryland and (as stated above) the Western District of Washington, which were then appealed to the US Courts of Appeal for the Fourth and Ninth Circuits, respectively.

The Fourth Circuit concluded that the EO-2 ban on entry from the six named countries was primarily motivated by religious considerations and, as such, violated the First Amendment. In that case, the preliminary injunction only applied to the suspension of entry of foreign nationals from particular countries. The 120-day ban on USRAP and the quota on total refugee immigration would still be in force.

The Ninth Circuit, meanwhile, found that EO-2 exceeded the president’s authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and, on that basis, upheld the injunction with regard to the entirety of EO-2.

The federal government appealed both decision to the Supreme Court, certiorari was granted, and the two cases were consolidated and oral argument scheduled for October Term 2017. The Supreme Court, meanwhile, heard the government’s application to stay the aforementioned injunctions.

Dentons will continue to issue further information as it becomes available.

[1] Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen

[2] Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen

, , , , , ,

Supreme Court allows travel ban

‘Hire American’ executive order

End of days—or much ado about nothing?

The visa rules that allow US employers to temporarily hire certain foreign professionals is either going to change dramatically…or not, and there will have been much ado about nothing.

President Trump signed the “Buy American and Hire American” Executive Order (EO) on April 18, 2017. This EO does not change any existing law or regulation. It merely calls on the relevant federal agencies to make changes. This means employers can anticipate more, not less, government regulation and new agency policies, limited by US immigration law made by Congress.

Here is the text of the immigration-related components of the EO:

Sec. 5. Ensuring the Integrity of the Immigration System in Order to “Hire American.” (a) In order to advance the policy outlined in section 2(b) of this order, the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall, as soon as practicable, and consistent with applicable law, propose new rules and issue new guidance, to supersede or revise previous rules and guidance if appropriate, to protect the interests of United States workers in the administration of our immigration system, including through the prevention of fraud or abuse.

(b) In order to promote the proper functioning of the H-1B visa program, the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall, as soon as practicable, suggest reforms to help ensure that H-1B visas are awarded to the most-skilled or highest-paid petition beneficiaries.

It is clear that the EO makes no new rule or change in law, unlike previous EOs like the travel bans. This EO merely instructs the relevant agencies to propose new rules and issue guidance, if appropriate, with the stated goal of protecting US workers and preventing fraud/abuse and suggesting H-1B reforms.

With so little information in the EO, what can employers expect. Limited insights can be gleamed from the backgrounder issued the night before this EO was issued, when the White House held a press briefing.

Enforcement

The EO merely instructs the agencies to issue proposals and guidance to prevent fraud or abuse. The backgrounder does not do much more than explain that the Administration seeks the strict enforcement of all laws governing entry into the US of foreign workers. The EO calls on the Departments of Labor, Justice, Homeland Security and State to take prompt action to crack down on fraud and abuse. The backgrounder states:

And then again, you add that on top of the across-the-board reform process for guest worker and visa programs in general to make sure that they’re strictly complying with all the rules, laws, and protections for American workers, again, which there are many, but there hasn’t been this kind of systematic review. And this is something that the President, if you look, actually promised that he would have the Department of Labor go and do this kind of systematic review and take these kinds of actions.

We will monitor agency actions carefully to see how this develops, but employers are well advised to review the immigration-related records keeping and compliance systems. Annual affirmative audits and trainings are best practices that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency looks to when considering whether to reduce fines and penalties for violators. Employers are well-advised to consult with counsel on what steps can be taken now, as well as expected changes that can be planned for.

H-1B visa random selection and wages

The EO instructs these agencies to suggest reforms to ensure that H-1B visas are awarded to the most-skilled or highest-paid petition beneficiaries. The backgrounder says that these agencies are expected to report back on proposed ways to change how new H-1B visa petitions are allocated.

Existing rules allocate the limited annual supply of new H-1B visa petitions for most US employers on a random-selection basis. The EO suggests that the foreign worker’s skills and compensation be taken into consideration. Ironically, this would give preference to requests from employers who pay foreign workers more than the average paid to Americans.

The backgrounder acknowledges that some immigration changes can only be made by Congress. Just like the Obama Administration, however, the Trump Administration seems willing to bypass Congress and act unilaterally and not wait for Congress to act.

From the backgrounder:

But you could be looking at things on the administrative side, like increasing fees for H1B visas.  You could be looking at things like if we could adjust the wage scale—a more honest reflection of what the prevailing wages actually are in these fields. Obviously, taking a more vigorous stance, which various—in the Department of Justice do with respect to enforcing gross and egregious violations of the H1B program. You could see potential—and again, we’ll have to get a full legal analysis and review from all the departments, but right now the lottery system disadvantages master’s degree holders. There’s ways that you could adjust the lottery system to give master’s degree holders a better chance of getting H1Bs relative to bachelor’s degree holders. There’s a lot of possible reforms that you could do administratively in addition to a suite of legislative actions.  

There is no change in the H-1B random selection process, which is already concluded for fiscal year 2018. Changes can reasonably be anticipated for fiscal year 2019 filings in April 2018. What skills, wage offers, or other factors will impact the likelihood of selection remains to be determinedassuming that the status quo changes at all.

We will continue to share more information and analysis as the law evolves.

The full text of the EO is published on the White House web site; click here to read the backgrounder press release. To read the President’s remarks on signing the EO click here.

, , , , , ,

‘Hire American’ executive order