Tag: DHS

To Reverify or Not: Form I-9 and Lawful Permanent Residents

On Friday, May 15, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a notice clarifying to employers that they cannot reverify Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs) who presented evidence of permanent residence status that was unexpired at the time of the employee’s initial Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, regardless of later expiration. While employers were never required to reverify LPRs, there has long lacked specific instruction on this, leading many involved in human resources across Pennsylvania and New Jersey to conduct reverifications of LPRs in violation of federal law.

What is Form I-9?

Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification (“Form I-9”), is used to:

verify the identity and employment authorization of individuals hired for employment in the United States.” All employers in the United States must are required to implement procedures for the use of Form I-9 that ensure its proper completion for each individual that is hired for employment in the United States—citizens and noncitizens alike.

Federal law requires employers to “allow employees to choose which document(s) they will present from the Lists of Acceptable Documents” that is included with Form I-9. As the DHS M-274, Handbook for Employers, notes, in “Section 1, an LPR may choose to present a List A document (such as Form I-551, Permanent Resident Card, commonly referred to as a Green Card) or a List B and C document combination (such as a state-issued driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security card).”

LPRs are issued a Form I-551, Permanent Resident Card (LPR Card) as evidence of permanent resident status. If an individual is an LPR and presents a valid LPR Card when completing Form I-9, the LPR Card is deemed a sufficient “List A” document, thereby rendering successful the employer’s verification of the individual’s identity and ability to work in the United States. An employee need not present any further evidence. Acceptable LPR Cards include:

  • Those issued from January 1977 to August 1989 that have no expiration date;
  • Currently unexpired, but with 10-year expiration dates; and
  • Currently unexpired, but with 2-year expiration dates.

To Reverify or Not to Reverify?

The DHS notice informs that employers who successfully complete the Form I-9 verification process with an LPR Card that either did not have an expiration date or was a 10- or 2-year LPR Card that was unexpired at the time of verification must not seek to reverify the employee in the future even if the LPR Card later expires.

However, when an individual that is an LPR presents the following to an employer during the Form I-9 verification process, it is necessary to reverify:

  • Expired LPR Card and Form I-797, Notice of Action (which is issued when an individual applies to renew an LPR Card), that indicates the LPR Card’s validity has been extended. Employers should consider these documents as acceptable “List C” evidence, requiring reverification at the end of the extension period. Note that the employee must still present a valid, unexpired “List B” document to satisfy the initial Form I-9 verification.
  • Form I-94 or Form I-94A, Arrival-Departure Record, containing an unexpired temporary I-551 stamp and a photograph of the individual. When presented, these documents are acceptable “List A” evidence. Employers must conduct a reverification no later than when the I-551 stamp expires, or one year after the issuance of Form I-94 or Form I-94A, Arrival-Departure Record, should the record not indicate an expiration date.
  • Current foreign passport with a photograph and either a temporary I-551 stamp or I-551 printed notation on a Machine-Readable Immigrant Visa. Additionally, if the current, foreign passport is, in the rare instance, endorsed with “CR-1,” rather than an I-551 stamp, the employer is reminded that the “CR-1” endorsement is the equivalent of an I-551 stamp. Employers must conduct a reverification when the I-551 stamp or I-551 printed notation on the Machine-Readable Immigrant Visa expires. If there is no expiration date listed, the reverification must occur no later than one year from the date that the I-551 was stamped or “CR-1” was endorsed in the foreign passport.

©2020 Norris McLaughlin P.A., All Rights Reserved

For more on employment verification, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law section.

CARES Act Provider Relief Fund – Acceptance of Funds Comes with Conditions

Healthcare providers are among those financially adversely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.

A survey conducted by the Medical Group Managers Association (“MGMA”) on April 7 and 8, 2020, found that 97% of medical practices have experienced a negative financial impact directly or indirectly related to COVID-19.  MGMA also indicates that, on average, practices report a 55% decrease in revenue and a 60% decrease in patient volume since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis.

In response to the financial impact on healthcare providers, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act, signed into law on March 27, 2020, appropriated $100 billion in relief funds to hospitals and other healthcare providers under the Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund, also called the “CARES Act Provider Relief Fund.” On April 10, 2020, the United States Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) released the initial terms and conditions related to the distribution of the initial $30 billion of the $100 billion.  Rather than await the submission of applications by healthcare providers, HHS has begun a rapid delivery of relief funding to healthcare providers and suppliers that are enrolled in Medicare and received Medicare fee-for-service reimbursement in 2019.  These eligible healthcare providers are being allotted a portion of the initial $30 billion distribution based upon their proportionate share of the approximately $484 billion of Medicare fee-for-service reimbursements made in 2019.

Healthcare providers identified as eligible to receive funds from this first distribution should have received an email to that effect.  Eligible healthcare providers have begun receiving payments via the Automated Clearing House account information on file used for reimbursements from The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”).  Healthcare providers that normally receive a paper check for reimbursement from CMS will receive a paper check in the mail.

These payments are not loans and, if used consistent with the applicable terms and conditions, will not need to be repaid.  Healthcare providers must sign an attestation confirming receipt of the funds and agreeing to the terms and conditions of payment within 30 days via the online payment portal.  Should a healthcare provider choose to reject the funds, the healthcare provider within 30 days of receipt of payment must complete the attestation to indicate this and remit the full payment to HHS.  The portal will guide the healthcare provider through the attestation process to accept or reject the funds.

The healthcare provider is required to certify, among other things, that it provides or provided after January 31, 2020 diagnoses, testing, or care for individuals with possible or actual cases of COVID-19.  In a recent update, HHS clarified that to meet this requirement, care does not have to be specific to treating COVID-19, as “HHS broadly views every patient as a possible case of COVID-19.” HHS also clarified that a healthcare provider’s eligibility is not adversely affected if it ceased operations as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, so long as the healthcare provider provided diagnoses, testing, or care for individuals with possible or actual cases of COVID-19.

In addition to imposing use restrictions for the funds and recordkeeping requirements, the CARES Act authorizes the HHS Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) to audit both interim and final payments made under the program.  Healthcare providers that elect to accept the funds must be prepared to submit to these OIG audits.  Because the funds are limited to necessary expenses or lost revenues due to the pandemic not otherwise reimbursable from other sources, there may be differences in OIG’s interpretation of whether the funds were used for an appropriate purpose.  At a minimum, this may necessitate returning certain disallowed funds following an audit.

Failure to abide by the terms and conditions could result in False Claims Act liability for healthcare providers that do not make proper use of the funds.  Thus, recipients of the funds should carefully consider their ability to comply with the terms and conditions and should ensure that proper controls are in place for proper use of the funds.

© 2020 Ward and Smith, P.A.. All Rights Reserved.

For more on CARES Act funding, see the Coronavirus News section of the National Law Review.

An Overview of STEM OPT Employer Site Visits

Employers who have employed F-1 students in the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) category of the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program can expect site visits by the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP). The March 2016 STEM OPT rule allows the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to conduct site visits of employers that train STEM OPT students.

Conducting Site Visits

The site visits are aimed to ensure that STEM OPT students are in compliance with the OPT program rules. Employers must engage the students in a structured, work-based learning experience consistent with the practical training and other information provided in Form I-983 – Training Plan for STEM OPT students. Employers will receive prior notification of such visit and the DHS will then assess if the program mentoring is working for both the student and employer.

The DHS is looking to verify if the employer has enough supervisory personnel to effectively maintain the program. The DHS might first request information through phone or email and conduct a site visit right after giving notice or do so later.  The DHS may ask employers to provide evidence that they use to assess the wages of similarly situated U.S. workers. The DHS will maintain all the information that is obtained during a site visit.

Consequences of Site Visits

The DHS’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will be overseeing employer location site visits. The DHS may refer matters to the U.S. Department of Labor or any other appropriate federal agency if the site visit warrants such referral.

If the DHS determines that an employee or student needs to update or clarify any information, the DHS will send a request in writing to the employer on how they should provide that necessary information.

Preparation for Students and School Officials

Students and Designated School Officials (DSO) must be prepared in anticipation of these upcoming site visits. Students must update their information in the SEVP portal or report updates to their school officials to make sure that their employer information and home addresses are up-to-date. Students must also be careful to update the address and name of the employer’s location where they are working. DSOs should also be prepared to provide the student’s up-to-date Form I-983 if requested.

Preparation for Employers

Now will be a good time for the employers to ensure that Form I-983 is updated and to ensure that the student’s training complies with the training plan. Also, to designate a company representative and train them on how to handle any such site visits by ICE. Employers must also maintain audit files containing all relevant STEM OPT form copies and supporting documents.

©2020 Norris McLaughlin P.A., All Rights Reserved

For more on DHS STEM OPT visits, see the National Law Review Immigration law sections.

DACA: Updates and Options for Dreamers

This November, the United States Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on the case that will decide the fate of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.[1] This program, established through executive action, has offered a temporary reprieve from removal (deportation) to nearly 800,000 students and young professionals raised in the United States.[2] While the program protects a generation categorically denied opportunity to gain legal status,[3] it is very limited in scope. Remarkably, DACA does not confer any immigration status itself nor offer a separate pathway to any other status including permanent residency.[4]

The idea that someone can be present in the United States without legal status while not unlawfully present is confusing – not only to the general public, but apparently to the Supreme Court. In oral argument for U.S. v. Texas, Chief Justice John Roberts wondered, “I’m sorry, that just so I get that right… Lawfully present does not mean that you’re legally present.”[5] Justice Samuel Alito also asked, “[H]ow can it be lawful to work here but not lawful to be here?”[6] If members of this nation’s highest court struggle with this concept, it is no wonder there is confusion surrounding DACA.

DACA: Benefits and Limitations

The DACA recipients, or “Dreamers,”[*] are in legal limbo: allowed to work in the United States, but with no legal status. DACA recipients are permitted to continue their education, and receive a social security number.[7] In some states, recipients can also apply for a driver’s license.[8] DACA also offers a reprieve from accruing “unlawful presence,” a legal term for time spent in the United States without status as an adult, which can lead to future bars to reentry to the US.[9] However, the deferred action program does not, on its own basis, allow its recipients to apply for a separate status.[10] DACA protections expire every two years, and require subsequent renewal applications.[11]

It is no wonder that Dreamers have been called “the best and brightest young people.”[12] The DACA protections only extend to a group of educated youth that have never been convicted of most categories of crimes.[13] To qualify, an applicant must have arrived to the country under the age of sixteen, attend school or have completed their education, and be under the age of thirty, among other requirements.[14] By the nature of the program, recipients arrived as children and therefore may not have a connection to their country of birth. As a result, many Dreamers are attending universities, building careers, and living their lives in the United States without a guarantee that they can obtain legal status to stay permanently.

DACA is Unique Only in its Limited Scope

Deferred action is a commonly used exercise of prosecutorial discretion.[15] As with many other government actions, officials set enforcement priorities to manage limited resources. In addition, the Department of Homeland Security can grant deferred action on an individual basis at any time.[16] The Dreamers’ immigration standing is also not unique, because, as Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito learned, many foreign nationals in the US can work legally but do not have legal status. This includes applicants for adjustment of status to permanent residence, and foreign nationals of countries granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS).[17] Applicants for political asylum are also permitted to work legally in the US after a certain time period while awaiting a final decision on their applications.[18]

The DACA program is part of a long history of executive actions related to immigration. In 1961, the Kennedy Administration established a program to give immigrant visas to Cuban refugees, as well as provide financial help, medical care, and other resettlement services.[19] The program benefitted around one million Cuban Americans.[20] Subsequently, when an influx of both Cubans and Haitians arrived on Florida shores in 1980, most were discretionarily admitted to the country.[21] Several years later, President Reagan announced that immigration standards for 200,000 undocumented Nicaraguans would be eased, and directed the immigration service to “encourage and expedite” their work authorizations.[22] After the 1986 immigration reform bill offered a pathway to residence to many undocumented families, around 100,000 children of those families were shielded from deportation by executive action.[23] In 1990, former President Bush expanded the program by creating an application process for undocumented individuals to stay in the United States and receive work permits.[24] Two consecutive administrations also expanded the TPS status of thousands of Salvadorans and Nicaraguans until they were offered a pathway to permanent residency by law.[25] Within this context, DACA is much less beneficial to eligible foreign nationals than other major executive actions on immigration, because it provides no pathway to any other immigration status and certainly not permanent residence.

The DACA program was designed as a solution to a problem created by more recent changes to immigration law, which were promoted by many of the same immigration restrictionists that now oppose DACA. For most of American history, migrants from Mexico and other countries travelled back and forth across the border for work in the United States, but maintained a primary residence in their home countries.[26] Migration consisted of seasonal flows from Mexico corresponding to the need for agricultural and railroad workers.[27] There was often no need to stay permanently, so workers returned home in the winter.[28] As a result, families often stayed in Central America instead of relocating to the U.S.[29]

During the second half of the 20th century, U.S. law made it difficult to legally migrate from Central America.[30] As a result, it became risky to travel across the border and entire families settled undocumented.[31] While DACA did not fix this legal status discrepancy, it allowed the children of these families to stay and continue their education and careers.

Recent Changes to the DACA Program

In 2017, the Trump Administration attempted to end the DACA program.[32] After several lawsuits were filed to challenge the termination of DACA, injunctions were issued to order the Department of Homeland Security to continue to process DACA renewals and employment authorizations, but the government could refuse new applications.[33] The pending litigation challenges whether the Trump administration acted with proper authority in attempting to end the program, and whether the Court has the authority to review the administration’s decision.[34]

Even if the Supreme Court upholds the Trump Administration’s decision to end the DACA program, there remains a chance that Congress will act to protect Dreamers. An amendment to immigration law would render the pending case moot and take precedence over any Department of Homeland Security administrative decision. Although at least ten iterations of the bill have been introduced, none have passed.[35] This year, the House passed the American Dream and Promise Act which would grant DACA recipients permanent, statutory protections.[36] However, the bill still has to pass the hurdle of a favorable Senate vote.[37]

The situation of Dreamers is that of legal purgatory – with the door shut to legal status and very few options to leave the United States and return with a visa. Legislative action has been stalled for decades and now a conservative Court is poised to hear the case in the coming weeks. Dreamers and activists alike hope the Court will see DACA as a rational response to protect 800,000 young people from the legal conundrum created by U.S. immigration law.

Options for the Future

With the future of the DACA program uncertain, many Dreamers and employers are assessing their options. The following section is an overview of considerations for DACA recipients, who are in a unique and challenging legal position. With each type of visa, there are exceptions and complicating factors, such as criminal convictions, that may affect eligibility. Although immigration law permits waivers of certain conditions, waivers are granted only in narrow circumstances. As a result, each individual should discuss their unique situation with an experienced immigration attorney.

Immigrant Visa Petitions.

There are several types of immigrant visas available for individuals wishing to become permanent residents, including primarily (1) immediate relative petitions, (2) family-based petitions, and (3) employment-based petitions.[38] The first category can be filed by a U.S. citizen spouse, parent, or an adult child (over the age of twenty-one).[39] The second two types of immigrant visas, based on family and employment, each have different subcategories and are subject to numerical annual limits.[40]

Even if a DACA recipient can qualify for an immigrant visa, there are unique issues that may prevent many from receiving the green card. There are two avenues to receive permanent residency: consular processing at a U.S. Consular Post abroad; and adjustment of status while present in the United States.

Adjustment of Status. Whether a DACA recipient can adjust their immigration status to permanent resident depends on the time spent in the United States without legal status, the manner of U.S. entry, and the type of immigration sponsor. As a general rule, Dreamers cannot adjust status with a family-based petition because it requires continuous lawful status.[41] Employment-based petitions are only available if the individual has less than 180 days of unlawful presence.[42] Thankfully, the immediate relative petition allows adjustment to those who have been undocumented for many years.[43] However, like all petitions, the immediate relative petition requires lawful entry to the United States with either a visa or a travel authorization document.[44] Dreamers who marry a U.S. citizen may have other options even without lawful entry, but will want to seek the advice of an immigration attorney.

Consular Processing. The alternative to adjustment of status is applying for an immigrant visa and interviewing at a U.S. embassy. Most DACA recipients will face challenges in this method, as well. Beginning at age eighteen, any person who has spent over 180 days without legal status faces a three year bar to reentry to the United States.[45] This bar increases to ten years after one year of unlawful presence.[46] Therefore, leaving the country for an interview at a U.S. embassy is a practical impossibility for many recipients who have accrued unlawful presence before approval under DACA.

Non-Immigrant Visa Petitions.

There are numerous types of temporary visas. The F-1 student visa, the O-1 extraordinary ability visa, H-1B work visa, and the B visas for tourism and business are all examples.[47] Most DACA recipients face one fundamental challenge to receiving any of these visas: a grant of a temporary status while living in the U.S. requires an existing, valid underlying status. DACA does not confer any non-immigrant status for this purpose.

Thus, Dreamers seeking a temporary visa are in a similar position as those hoping to receive a green card through consular processing. The process requires leaving the United States and reentering with a visa, a path complicated by three-year and ten-year statutory bars. If available, Dreamers may want to pursue a position abroad with their company. In addition, individuals who are eligible may want to consider whether they qualify for Temporary Protected Status (TPS), which would confer the ability to apply for other temporary statuses.

Humanitarian Petitions.

It is worth noting that there are a few pathways in immigration law for humanitarian-based relief, including the special immigrant juvenile visa, asylum, and visas available for survivors of crimes and domestic abuse.[48] These options may present a pathway to permanent residency for DACA recipients, but only for those that qualify and receive a favorable exercise of discretion.

In summary, individuals temporarily protected under DACA should consider alternatives in the coming months before the Supreme Court’s decision. Though the pathway to permanent residency is narrow, there may be a few options available to stay continuously or to work abroad and return after a few years. The most important step is to continue to renew DACA in the meantime. Finally, it is important to consult with an experienced immigration attorney to help navigate the available options.

[*] The name “Dreamers” originated from the name of the legislative act, the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, originally introduced in 2001.

[1] See DHS v. Regents of the Univ. of Calif., 139 S.Ct. 2779 (2019). The case was consolidated with two other lawsuits, Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen and NAACP v. Trump, with oral arguments set for November 12, 2019 and decision expected around June 2020. DACA Litigation Timeline, Nat’l Immigration Law Center, https://www.nilc.org/issues/daca/daca-litigation-timeline/ (Last updated Sep. 28, 2019).

[2] Gustavo Lopez & Jens Manuel Krogstad, Key Facts about Unauthorized Immigrants Enrolled in DACA, Pew Research Cent. (Sep. 25, 2017), https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/25/key-facts-about-unauthorized-immigrants-enrolled-in-daca/.

[3] See Dara Lind, Why Ending DACA is so Unprecedented, Vox (Sep. 5, 2017), https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/5/16236116/daca-history (noting DACA protects individuals largely without legal pathways to permanent residency).

[4] See U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children 3 (2012), https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/s1-exercising-prosecutorial-discretion-individuals-who-came-to-us-as-children.pdf; See also Frequently Asked Questions, Nat’l Immigration Law Center https://www.nilc.org/issues/daca/faqdeferredactionyouth/ (Last updated Dec. 16, 2016).

[5] Transcript of Oral Argument at 28, United States v. Texas, 136 S.Ct. 2271 (2016) (No. 15-674).

[6] Transcript of Oral Argument at 28, United States v. Texas, 136 S.Ct. 2271 (2016) (No. 15-674).

[7] DACA, Immigration Legal Resource Center, https://www.ilrc.org/daca, (Last visited Oct. 18, 2019).

[8] Immigration Legal Resource Center, Preparing for the Future 15 (2019), https://www.ilrc.org/preparing-future-understanding-rights-and-options-daca-recipients.

[9] Unlawful Presence and Bars to Admissibility, USCIS, https://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/unlawful-presence-and-bars-admissi… (Last visited Oct. 18, 2019); Understanding Unlawful Presence Under INA § 212(a)(9)(B) and Waivers of Unlawful Presence, Immigrant Legal resource Center 3 (2019), https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/resources/understanding_unlawful_presence_march_2019.pdf.

[10] See U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children 1 (2012), https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/s1-exercising-prosecutorial-discretion-individuals-who-came-to-us-as-children.pdf (“This memorandum confers no substantive right, immigration status or pathway to citizenship.”).

[11] See Id.; The Dream Act, DACA, and Other Policies Designed to Protect Dreamers, American Immigration Council 3 (2019), https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/the_dream_act_daca_and_other_policies_designed_to_protect_dreamers.pdf.

[12] Get the Facts on the DREAM Act, The White House President Barack Obama (Dec. 1, 2010), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2010/12/01/get-facts-dream-act; See also The Dreamers Are a Good Part of America’s Future, The Wall Street Journal (July 25, 2017), https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-dreamers-are-a-good-part-of-americas-future-1501002274; Power to the Doers and Dreamers, Unleashing the Best and Brightest, Int’l Business Times (Aug. 16, 2010), https://www.ibtimes.com/power-doers-dreamers-unleashing-best-brightest-193274; Gabrielle Levy, Obama: Trump’s DACA Decision ‘Cast a Shadow’ of Deportation Over ‘Best and Brightest’ U.S. News (Sep. 5, 2017), https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-09-05/obama-trumps-daca-decision-cast-a-shadow-of-deportation-over-best-and-brightest.

[13] U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children 1 (2012), https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/s1-exercising-prosecutorial-discretion-individuals-who-came-to-us-as-children.pdf.

[14] Id.

[15] See Shoba S. Wadhia, The Role of Prosecutorial Discretion in Immigration Law, 9 Conn. Pub. L. J. 243, 246 (2010)

[16] Id.

[17]Employment Authorization Document, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, https://www.uscis.gov/greencard/employment-authorization-document (Last updated Apr. 5, 2018).

[18] Id.

[19] See Larry Nackerud et al., The End of the Cuban Contradiction in U.S. Refugee Policy, 33 Int’l Migration Rev. 176, 177 (1999); See also Drew Desilver, Executive Actions on Immigration Have a Long History, Pew Research Center (Nov. 4, 2014), https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/11/21/executive-actions-on-immigration-have-long-history/.

[20] See Larry Nackerud et al., The End of the Cuban Contradiction in U.S. Refugee Policy, 33 Int’l Migration Rev. 176, 177 (1999)

[21] See Drew Desilver, Executive Actions on Immigration Have a Long History, Pew Research Center (Nov. 4, 2014), https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/11/21/executive-actions-on-immigration-have-long-history/; See also Julio Capo, The White House Used This Moment as Proof the U.S. Should Cut Immigration, It’s Real History is More Complicated, Time (Aug. 4, 2017), https://time.com/4888381/immigration-act-mariel-boatlift-history/.

[22] Immigration Rules Are Eased for Nicaraguan Exiles in the U.S., New York Times (July 9, 1987), https://www.nytimes.com/1987/07/09/world/immigration-rules-are-eased-for-nicaraguan-exiles-in-us.html.

[23] Am. Immigration Council, Reagan-Bush Family Fairness (Dec. 2014), https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/reagan_bush_family_fairness_final_0.pdf.

[24] Id.

[25] See Drew Desilver, Executive Actions on Immigration Have a Long History, Pew Research Center (Nov. 4, 2014), https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/11/21/executive-actions-on-immigration-have-long-history/; See also Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act, 8 C.F.R. § 240.60 (2014).

[26] See Dara Lind, Why Ending DACA is so Unprecedented, Vox (Sep. 5, 2017), https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/5/16236116/daca-history (noting DACA protects individuals largely without legal pathways to permanent residency); See also Douglas Massey & Karen Pren, Unintended Consequences of US Immigration Policy 38 Population and Dev. Review 1-3 (2012), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2012.00470.x.; Marc Rosenblum & Kate Brick, US Migration and Policy and Mexican/Central American Migration Flows 1-3 (2011)

[27] Marc Rosenblum & Kate Brick, US Migration and Policy and Mexican/Central American Migration Flows 3 (2011).

[28] Id.

[29] See Dara Lind, Why Ending DACA is so Unprecedented, Vox (Sep. 5, 2017), https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/5/16236116/daca-history

[30] See Douglas Massey & Karen Pren, Unintended Consequences of US Immigration Policy 38 Population & Dev. Rev. 1-3 (2012), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2012.00470.x; Marc Rosenblum & Kate Brick, US Migration and Policy and Mexican/Central American Migration Flows 1-3 (2011).

[31] See Dara Lind, Why Ending DACA is so Unprecedented, Vox (Sep. 5, 2017), https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/5/16236116/daca-history.

[32] Michael Shear & Julie Davis, Trump Moves to End DACA and Calls on Congress to Act, New York Times (Sep. 5, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/us/politics/trump-daca-dreamers-immigration.html.

[33] See DACA Litigation Timeline, Nat’l Immigrant Justice Cent., https://www.nilc.org/issues/daca/daca-litigation-timeline/ (Last Updated Sep. 28, 2019); See also Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. DHS, 908 F.3d 476 (9th Cir. 2018).

[34] Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. DHS, 908 F.3d 476 (9th Cir. 2018).

[35] Id.

[36] American Dream and Promise Act of 2019, 116th Congress, H.R.6 https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/6.

[37] See Alan Gomez and Ledyard King, House Passes Bill to Protect ‘Dreamers’, but Faces Long Odds in Republican-led Senate, U.S.A. Today (Jun. 4, 2019), https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/06/04/house-passes-bill-dreamers-tps-but-senate-unlikely/1337753001/; Natalie Andrews & Andrew Duehren, House Passes Bill Aimed at Protecting Immigrants Brought Illegally to the U.S. as Children, Wall Street Journal (Jun. 4, 2019), https://www.wsj.com/articles/house-passes-bill-aimed-at-protecting-immigrants-brought-illegally-to-u-s-as-children-11559689659.

[38] See 8. U.S.C. § 1151 (2018).

[39] See 8. U.S.C. § 1151(b)(2)(A)(i) (2018).

[40] See 8. U.S.C. § 1151 (2018).

[41] See 8 C.F.R. §245.1(b)(6) (2018).

[42] Applicability of Section 245(k) to Certain Employment-Based Adjustment of Status Applications, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (July 14, 2008), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/Static_Files_Memoranda/Archives%201998-2008/2008/245%28k%29_14jul08.pdf.

[43] See 8 C.F.R. §245.1(b)(6) (2018).

[44] See 8 C.F.R. §245.1(b)(3) (2018).

[45] See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(b) (2018).

[46] See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(b) (2018).

[47] See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15) (2018).

[48] See Humanitarian, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian (Last visited Nov. 1, 2019). For additional resources, see Humanitarian Protection, Am. Immigration Council https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/topics/humanitarian-protection (Last visited Nov. 1, 2019).

©1994-2019 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

ARTICLE BY Lauren Watford & the Immigration Practice at Mintz Levin.
For more on DACA/Dreamers, see the National Law Review Immigration law page.

DHS Proposes Fee of $10 to File H-1B Petition

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has proposed a fee of $10 per H-1B petition. The agency considers this to be an “appropriate, nominal fee” to recover some costs involved.

In January 2019, DHS published the rule establishing an H-1B electronic registration system. At that time, no fee was proposed, but the “door was left open.” In mid-August, DHS announced that there would be a fee.

As to what information will be required, that is still a bit up in the air – again, the door is left open by DHS. The agency wants enough information to be able to check for fraud, duplicate registrations filed by the same company, and to ensure that those selected during the registration period ultimately file H-1B petitions. In addition to company identification, each registration would include the beneficiary’s:

  • Full name
  • Date of birth
  • Country of birth
  • Gender
  • Passport number

Each registration also will require the petitioner to complete an attestation about the “bona fides” of the registration. Frivolous registrations, DHS warns, “may be referred to appropriate federal law enforcement agencies for investigation and further action as appropriate.” Under a “catch-all,” DHS could require: “any additional basic information requested by the registration system to promote certainty.”

Some concerned about frivolous registrations suggested that information include job title, worksite address, salary offers, SOC code, LCA wage level, and specific educational qualifications. Others suggested including disclosure of any recent labor violations or disputes and EEOC complaints and whether the petitioner is H-1B dependent. DHS rejected these ideas (for now), noting that much of that information would be used to review eligibility once an H-1B petition is filed.

Questions remain about what DHS does with the information it gathers during the electronic registration. In accordance with the Administration’s “Buy American, Hire American” Executive Order,  DHS is already gathering and sharing much information on its H-1B Data Hub. The public can search the number of H-1B approvals and denials by company and by year. The public also can see, by employer, the number of approved H-1B petitions by salary and degree type. In addition to making the information public, DHS has stated in a description of the H-1B registration tool that it “may share the information with other Federal, State, local and foreign government agencies” and “may also share [the] information, as appropriate, for law enforcement purposes or in the interest of national security.” The full scope of this statement is not yet known.

It is unclear whether the electronic registration will be ready in 2020 or when the promised trial period for stakeholders will occur.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2019

ARTICLE by Amy L. Peck of Jackson Lewis P.C.
For more on DHS filing, see the National Law Review Immigration Law page.

Modernization at Last: Insight to the Newly Published EB-5 Modernization Rules … Now the Race is On …

On July 23, 2019, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (USCIS) regulations to update the Immigrant Investor Program were published in the Federal Register. The new EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program Modernization rules (New Rules) amend the historic Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations governing the employment-based, fifth preference (EB-5) immigrant investor classification and associated regional centers to reflect statutory changes and modernize the EB-5 program. The New Rules are creating quite a buzz in the EB-5 community with good reason. Of particular note, the New Rules modify the EB-5 program by:

  • Increasing the required minimum investment amounts;

  • Providing the long-awaited priority date retention to EB-5 investors in certain cases;

  • Amending targeted employment area (TEA) designation criteria;

  • Centralizing TEA determination;

  • Clarifying USCIS procedures for the removal of conditions on permanent residence fulfilment;

  • Providing for periodic minimum investment increases henceforth; and

  • Implementing a myriad other amendments.

The New Rules are effective 120 days from publication, which is November 21, 2019. The effective date of the New Rules presupposes that Congress will extend the EB-5 Program’s current sunset date of September 30, 2019. USCIS clarified that it will adjudicate investors, who file a Form I-526 petition before November 21, 2019, under the current EB-5 program rules. Now the race is on to initiate and complete investments by the effective date.

The “New” EB-5 Program: A Closer Look at Certain Changes.

Increased Minimum Investment. To account for inflation since the commencement of the EB-5 Program, the New Rules increase the minimum investment amount per investor to participate to $900,000 (from $500,000) if the project is located in a TEA or to $1.8 million (from $1 million) if not in a TEA. This increased amount commences on November 21, 2019. For many this is good news as the minimum investment amount increase is substantially lower than DHS’ initial proposal to increase to $1.35 million. To further adjust for inflation, the New Rules provide for periodic increases henceforth to the minimum investment every five years. USCIS proposes that this fixed schedule will create “predictability and consistency” by allowing EB-5 participants to plan accordingly.

TEA Determination. The amendments to TEA’s determination procedures that commence on and after November 21, 2019, are a hot topic. The biggest change in the New Rules is the abolishment of state sovereignty in the TEA determination process. No longer will the state in which the project is located determine TEA qualification. USCIS, which operates under DHS, will review and determine the designation of high-unemployment TEAs. EB-5 program stakeholders believe this change alone will dramatically limit the number of projects that qualify as a TEA, which could lead to an obsolescence of the EB-5 program. Also of note, the New Rules provide that any city or town with a population of 20,000 or more, whether inside or outside of a metropolitan statistical area, may qualify as a TEA henceforth. The New Rule also provides that a TEA may consist of a census tract or contiguous census tracts in which the new commercial enterprise (NCE) is principally doing business if the NCE is located in more than one census tract, and the weighted average of the unemployment rate for the tract or tracts is at least 150% of the national average. The applicability of TEA status to rural areas remains unchanged. Thus, only projects in metropolitan areas are at risk of no longer qualifying as a TEA under the New Rules after November 20, 2019.

DHS supports these steps with the position that the New Rules will ensure consistency in TEA adjudications by directing investment to areas most in need and increase the consistency of how high-unemployment areas are defined in the program. Of note, the New Rules do not include any preference for rural and urban distressed areas, notwithstanding the proposals for visa set-asides for such project. In addition, the New Rules do not integrate TEA determination with the new qualified opportunity zone designations under the 2017 Tax Cuts and Job Creation Act. These provisions might be addressed legislatively by Congress as part of a reauthorization bill this year. Some EB-5 stakeholders believe that Congress might overrule the New Rules in part (i.e., regarding the minimum investment amount and TEA changes) plus enact additional modernization rules such as authorizing additional visas, etc.

Priority Date Retention. For many years, both Congress and USCIS have recognized the value of a modification to the EB-5 Program to permit EB-5 investors to retain their visa priority date if they are required to amend their EB-5 petition for reasons unrelated to their own doing. The New Rules will allow EB-5 investors to use the priority date of a previously approved EB-5 petition. If and when an investor needs to file a new EB-5 petition, they can now retain the priority date of the previously approved petition, subject to certain exceptions.

An EB-5 immigrant petition’s priority date is normally the date on which the petition was properly filed. In general, when demand exceeds supply for a particular visa category, an earlier priority date is more advantageous. DHS will allow an EB-5 immigrant petitioner to use the priority date for a subsequently filed petition for the same classification for which the petitioner qualifies (unless the petition is revoked for material error, fraud or willful misrepresentation). We note that the New Rules allow an EB-5 petitioner to retain the priority date from an approved Form I-526 petition for a subsequently filed Form I-526 on or after November 21, 2019.

Removal of Conditions on Permanent Residence. The New Rules clarify that derivative family members must file their own Form I-829 to remove conditions on their permanent residence if they are not included in the principal petitioner’s I-829 petition. In addition, the New Rules streamline the adjudication process for removing conditions by providing flexibility in interview locations.

What happens next?

Until November 21, 2019, foreign investors, regional centers, developers and job-creating entities can rely on the existing rules. We urge those considering participation in the EB-5 program who desire to be grandfathered under the current law and the minimum investment amount of $500,000 to invest as soon as possible. As discussed above, if a project’s location in the market no longer qualifies as a TEA, then the minimum investment amount increases to $1.8 million, not just to $900,000. Accordingly, we recommend amending offering documents to include a discussion of the additional risks caused by the New Rules; principal among them is the potential inability to raise funds after November 21.

Regarding future viability of the EB-5 program, the increased investment amount may cause foreign investors to look to other United States programs, such as the L-1 and EB-1, as multinational executive or may look to the immigrant investor programs in other countries with a lower investment amount than the United States.[1]

[1] https://www.eb5investors.com/eb5-basics/international-immigrant-investor-programs

© Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California
Article by Debbie A. Klis of Polsinelli PC.
For more on EB-5 immigration developments, see the National Law Review Immigration Law page.

DHS Publishes Final Rule for H-1B Lottery

On Nov. 30, 2018, the Department of Homeland Security issued the notice of proposed rulemaking to amend its H-1B cap-subject lottery process. On Jan. 31, 2019, USCIS will publish the final rule after a 30-day comment period. The final rule encompasses a pre-registration process and a modified selection process. The registration process will be suspended for FY 2020 cap season to finish testing the H-1B registration system. Below is what employers, attorneys, and employees alike need to know:

How to Register: The USCIS will house the H-1B cap registration process through ICAM, a portal that will allow accounts to submit H-1B cap registrations. A petitioner must submit a separate registration for each beneficiary, and the beneficiary must be named. A petitioner may submit one registration per beneficiary, and as with previous years, if multiple requests for the same beneficiary and same petitioner are found, the registration for that beneficiary will be considered invalid.

Timing: The registration period will last at least 14 calendar days, and will start at least 14 calendar days before the earliest date the H-1B petition can be filed. USCIS will announce the start of the registration period at least 30 days before the first date of open registration. As with previous filings, the start date on the petition may only begin on the first day of the fiscal year, Oct. 1. If for any reason the registration period is open longer than anticipated by USCIS, then the start date may begin later.

Selection Process: USCIS will conduct a random lottery of the registrations it receives. If the cap has not been reached at the end of the period, USCIS will notify all those that are selected and keep the registration period open until the slots have been filled, which will determine the “final registration date.” If the cap is reached at the end of the registration period, USCIS will notify the public of the “final registration period” and will then randomly select via computer the registrations that will move on to the next stage.

Most notably, the order of selection will change for the petitions filed for FY 2020, though the registration process will take effect FY 2021 due to testing of the proposed system. Instead of the U.S. Master’s degree registrations being selected first for the 20,000 spots, the general pool will go first, where 65,000 regular cap registrations are selected. This means there will be more U.S. Master’s degree registrations mixed within the regular pool. USCIS will announce the “final registration date” after all U.S. Master’s degree registrations have been selected.

USCIS will maintain a reserve pool of registrations in case it needs to increase the number of registrations to meet the H-1B cap (both regular and advanced degree exemption).

Notification: Petitioners will receive an electronic notification that their registration has been selected, and can therefore move forward with filing the H-1B petition, only for the beneficiary named on the registration notice. The H-1B petition must be filed within the filing period indicated on the notice, which will be at least 90 days. If this window is missed, USCIS will deny or reject the H-1B petition.

Fine Text: USCIS makes it very clear that even if the registration process is suspended, the order and manner in which the cap subject petitions are selected will remain in effect.

Implications: The registration process will not go into effect this coming H-1B cap season, but the system will be tested throughout the year for implementation next year. The manner of selecting cap cases will change, with the regular cap going first, then the U.S. Master’s cap. As such, there will be a greater chance for those with U.S. Master’s degrees to be selected in the process.

 

©2019 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.
This post was written by Kristen W. Ng of Greenberg Traurig, LLP.

Foreign Entrepreneurs – The Facts

The United States has long been attractive to foreign entrepreneurs due to the county’s historically open marketplaces and tolerance for new ideas and new products. Foreign entrepreneurs have come to the United States in many different ways; however, there is still no direct “entrepreneur visa” or immigration status for entrepreneurs looking to come to the United States in order to grow a U.S.-based business enterprise. On this account, oftentimes foreign entrepreneurs will run into roadblocks while in the United States as they seek to both grow their businesses and obtain and maintain lawful immigration status.

More so, with global competition growing, the United States is no longer the default stop for the best and the brightest to set up their shops—in fact, numerous studies have shown that a growing number of would-be entrepreneurs are choosing to start and run their business elsewhere due to financial and societal incentives. Other countries are seeking to prevent their native entrepreneurs from leaving as nations such as China and India set up policies to dissuade would-be entrepreneurial immigrants from leaving their home countries.

Legal Avenues for Foreign Born Entrepreneurs

Entrepreneurial Parole

On January 17, 2017, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a final rule establishing a parole program for international entrepreneurs seeking to improve the ability of certain startup founders to remain in the United States legally in order to grow their companies and help create new jobs for U.S. workers.

On July 11, 2017, less than a week before the final rule was set to take effect, DHS delayed the implementation of the rule, foreshadowing that it would seek to rescind the rule altogether pursuant to an Executive Order (EO) signed by the President on January 25, 2017. DHS originally estimated that approximately 3,000 entrepreneurs will be eligible to apply under this rule annually. If the rule is allowed to take effect, these entrepreneurs would then be granted a stay of up to 30 months, with the possibility of an additional 30-month extension if they meet certain criteria, in the discretion of DHS.

As there are currently limited visa options for international entrepreneurs, this rule would create an avenue in our immigration system for innovators and allow entrepreneurs the opportunity to establish new businesses in the United States, contribute to the economy, and help maintain the United States’ competitive edge in the world marketplace of ideas.

E Visas

Some entrepreneurs may be eligible for an E visa, which is a visa category reserved for nationals of certain countries that have treaties with the United States. Specifically, there is the E-1 and the E-2 visa category—E-1s can be for foreign nationals who conduct “substantial trade” between the United States and their home country, while E-2s can be for foreign nationals who come to the United States in order to develop and direct the operations of an enterprise in which they have invested a “substantial amount” of capital. Also, the E visa applicant must control at least 50% of the company.

E visas are nonimmigrant visas, meaning that they are by nature “temporary”; however, there is no limit to the amount of extensions an applicant may be eligible for, and, in certain instances, it can lead to permanent residence (i.e., a green card).

H-1B Visas

Although most people probably don’t think of the H-1B visa as an “entrepreneurial visa,” with proper planning and advice the H-1B visa category can be a viable option for an entrepreneur looking to start their own company and invest in the United States. For USCIS to grant an individual an H-1B visa they must demonstrate that there is a valid “employer-employee” relationship; this can be an issue with entrepreneurs since they are more often than not their own bosses and therefore will have trouble establishing the requisite employer-employee relationship between themselves and their companies. Even so, one option for the entrepreneur would be to set up an independent board of directors for their company that can exercise control over the entrepreneur’s employment. This requires extremely careful planning and oversight and the assistance of competent counsel. Also, the fact that H-1B visas are statutorily capped at 85,000 per year makes this visa category less appealing for entrepreneurs.

EB-5 Investor Visas

The EB-5 program is a statutory program that allows for investors to obtain conditional permanent resident status (and eventually full permanent resident status) based on a qualifying investment of between $500,000 and one million dollars. The required investment amount is dependent on the type of program in which the investor is participating (whether it be participating in a USCIS-designated regional center, investing in Targeted Employment Area, or direct investment in a new or existing company); however, in any scenario, in order for the investor to eventually obtain their full-fledged permanent residency, they must be able to create at least 10 U.S. jobs within two years. If the investment is successful after the initial 2 year trial period, then the investor may apply for their permanent green card with USCIS.

EB-2 National Interest Waiver

Certain foreign nationals may be eligible for permanent residency pursuant to the National Interest Waiver (NIW) provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) if they either: (1) are members of the profession holding an advanced degree (or their equivalent); or (2) possess exceptional ability in the arts, sciences, or business, and they will “substantially benefit the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare of the United States.” In most cases, such workers are also required to obtain a Labor Certification from the Department of Labor (DOL) prior to filing their petition with USCIS; however, the INA gives USCIS the authority to waive the Labor Certification requirement, in their discretion, if it is determined that it would be in the national interest to do so. More so, NIW cases allow for so-called “self-petitioners” (meaning that no job offer or employee sponsor is required), which is uncommon in U.S. immigration law. These features therefore make this category extremely desirable as it allows for both skipping the tedious and pedantic Labor Certification process and for petitioning without the sponsorship of an employer (something that is ideal for an entrepreneur seeking to start their own business in the United States).

When a foreign national’s work will be deemed to be in the “national interest” is subject to a three-part test, which includes: (1) the foreign national’s proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) the foreign national is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus a labor certification.  This new standard—which was announced in early 2017—is less demanding than the old standard, but will still undoubtedly provide challenges to immigrant entrepreneurs seeking to utilize the category.

Conclusion

As seen above, there are several solid options for immigrant entrepreneurs seeking to enter the United States in order to start, manage, and run their own businesses. However, petitioning the United States government for any sort of immigration benefit is a complex process which requires competent counsel, proper planning and close oversight.

 

© Copyright 2018 Murtha Cullina
This post was written by Michael J. Bonsignore of Murtha Cullina.
Read more on Immigration Matters at the NLR’s Immigration Page.

US State Department Clarifies Implementation of Travel Ban Exemptions

The diplomatic cable instructs consulates on how to interpret the US Supreme Court’s direction to enforce the restriction only against foreign nationals who lack a “bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”

This Immigration Alert serves as an addendum to our prior summary of the Supreme Court decision partially granting the government’s request to stay enforcement of two preliminary injunctions that temporarily halted enforcement of Executive Order (EO) No. 13780. As a result of this decision, foreign nationals from six countries (Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Iran, and Yemen) who cannot show bona fide ties to the United States may be denied visas or entry for 90 days starting Thursday, June 29 at 8:00 p.m. EDT.

The communication from the US Secretary of State’s office enumerates the following situations where the EO’s travel restrictions will not apply:

  • When the applicant has a close familial relationship in the United States, which is defined as a parent (including parent-in-law), spouse, fiancé, child, adult son or daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, or sibling, whether whole or half. This includes step relationships, but does not include grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, or any other “extended” family members.

  • When the applicant has a formal, documented relationship with an entity formed in the ordinary course, rather than for the purpose of evading the EO. This includes established eligibility for a nonimmigrant visa in any classification other than a B, C-1, D, I, or K, as a bona fide relationship to a person or entity is inherent in the visa classification.

  • When there are eligible derivative family members of any exempt applicant.

  • When the applicant has established eligibility for an immigrant visa in the immediate relative, family-based, or employment-based classification (other than certain self-petitioning and special immigrant applicants).

  • When the applicant is traveling on an A-1, A-2, NATO-1 through NATO-6, C-2 for travel to the United Nations, C-3, G-1, G-2, G-3, or G-4 visa, or a diplomatic-type visa of any classification.

  • When the applicant has been granted asylum, is a refugee who has already been admitted to the United States (including derivative follow-to-join refugees and asylees), or is an individual who has been granted withholding of removal, advance parole, or protection under the Convention Against Torture.

Applicants admitted or paroled into the United States on or after the date of the Supreme Court decision are also exempted, as are those currently in the United States who can present a visa with a validity period that includes either January 27, 2017 (the day the EO was signed) or June 29, 2017. Any document other than a visa, such as an advance parole document, valid on or after June 29 will also exempt the holder.

As described in the prior alert, any lawful permanent resident or dual foreign national of one of the six named countries who can present a valid passport from a country not on the list is not impacted by the EO. The EO also permits consular officers to grant case-by-case waivers to otherwise affected applicants who can demonstrate that being denied entry during the 90-day period would cause undue hardship, that entry would not pose a threat to national security, and that their admission would be in the national interest.

This post was written by Eric S. Bord and Eleanor Pelta of  Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.

DHS Announces Intent to Award Contracts for Border Wall “Prototypes” by Mid-April

border wall immigration DHS

On Friday, February 24, 2017, the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection published a presolicitation notice announcing its intent to issue a solicitation “for the design and build of several prototype wall structures in the vicinity of the United States border with Mexico.” At least on the government procurement front, this notice marks the most concrete indication of the federal government’s intent to construct a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico.

The notice — issued under Solicitation No. 2017-JC-RT-0001 — indicates that the resultant contracts will be for the design and build of “prototype wall structures,” suggesting that the Government may not yet be asking for the design and build of the wall itself.  And while the notice is only one paragraph long, it is noteworthy in several respects.

As an initial matter, the notice sets out a dizzyingly fast timeline for the procurement:

  • March 6, 2017: solicitation anticipated to issue

  • March 10, 2017: “vendors to submit a concept paper of their prototype(s)”

  • March 20, 2017: “evaluation and down select of offerors”

  • March 24, 2017: remaining offerors “to submit proposals in response to the full RFP,” including price

  • Mid-April 2017: “Multiple awards . . . contemplated”

Even considering the Government’s desire to take rapid action, it is difficult to see how contractors, or government personnel, will be able to comply with these incredibly tight turnarounds or if working at this pace for a project of this magnitude is in the ultimate interest of the country.  In addition, no specific funds have yet been appropriated for this project, meaning that it is unclear how the federal government plans to pay for the work that, presumably, it intends to commence shortly after awards in mid-April.

Beyond timing and funding, many other questions remain that will hopefully be answered when the full solicitation is issued, including:

  • How prototypes will be evaluated in light of the variety of terrains and concerns at different areas of the border.

  • How potential domestic sourcing preferences may be incorporated — if at all — at this stage of the project, as such requirements have the potential to impact costs, supply chain, and design, among other things.

  • How pricing will be evaluated at this stage of the process and how costs will be taken into account in the project as a whole, in light of the broad range of estimated costs that have been reported by various sources.

  • How the option periods mentioned in the notice will operate — the notice states that “[a]n option for additional miles may be included in each contract award,” although the need for “additional miles” of wall at the conceptual stage of the work is not evident.

Contractors and non-contractors alike will be keeping a close eye on this procurement and marking their calendars for March 6 in the hopes that their many questions will be answered.

ARTICLE BY Jennifer L. Plitsch & Kayleigh Scalzo of Covington & Burling LLP

© 2017 Covington & Burling LLP