Supreme Court’s Decision on Future of DACA and DAPA

Supreme Court argument has taken place in United States v. Texas, a high-stakes, hotly contested case on the Administration’s executive programs that deferred possible deportation of millions of undocumented individuals. The Court’s expected June decision is likely to have far-reaching implications for employers.

In 2012, the Obama Administration introduced through executive action Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), a program which deferred deportation of certain individuals who arrived to the United States unlawfully as minors. DACA allowed these individuals access to employment authorization. In late-2014, the Administration, again through executive action, expanded DACA, in part, by increasing the available periods of employment authorization for DACA beneficiaries from two years to three years, and introduced Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA). DAPA is a program which deferred deportation of and created a basis for employment authorization for parents who, as of November 20, 2014, had a child who was a U.S. citizen or green card holder.

In February 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas concluded the 2014 DACA expansion and DAPA creation were unconstitutional and enjoined the 2014 executive action. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the lower court’s injunction later that year. The Administration appealed that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The case raises the threshold issue as to whether states have the right to bring such an action and carries with it broad implications for the limits on and use of executive power. The case is important for employers because hundreds of thousands of individuals have obtained employment authorization through DACA’s 2012 guidelines and more than 100,000 more received three-year employment authorization approvals through the 2014 expansion before the district court’s injunction.  It was expected that many individuals would continue to apply for three-year employment authorization under the DACA expansion and DAPA creation.  Since February 2015 and until the Supreme Court renders a decision, only individuals qualifying under the original 2012 DACA guidelines may obtain employment authorization, limited to two-year increments.  If the Supreme Court agrees with the Fifth Circuit, then the DACA expansion and DAPA program will be nullified.  Whether the pre-2014 DACA program and guidelines would survive a Supreme Court decision affirming the Fifth Circuit’s ruling is unclear.

Contributing to the interest in and speculation about this case is the vacancy on the Supreme Court created by Justice Antonin Scalia’s recent death. Should the Supreme Court’s deliberations end in a 4-4 tie, the lower court’s ruling  would remain intact and undisturbed, thus foreclosing the ability of individuals who would otherwise be qualified for employment authorization under DACA expansion and DAPA to receive employment authorization as the 2014 executive action intended.  However, because an affirmance by an equally divided 4-4 Court would be non-precedential, the issues could be raised again in another case, after a ninth justice was seated on the Court.

There will be great interest in the outcome of this case as the end of the current term approaches.

H-1B Cap: The Receipts Are Trickling In!

The July 2015 Visa Bulletin Brings Little ChangeOn April 7, 2016, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that it received more H-1B petitions than available under the statutory cap of 65,000 general-category visas and 20,000 U.S. Master’s visas for the fiscal year. Another record-breaking year: USCIS received over 236,000 H-1B petitions during the filing period.

This is the fourth consecutive year that the H-1B quota has been reached during the first five business days of April. Before that, the last time the cap had been reached during the first week was in April 2008 for FY 2009. The decreased demand after FY 2009 was due to the effects of the financial crises. H-1B petition submissions have increased each year, as outlined below:

FY 2017

236,000

FY 2016

233,000

FY 2015

172,500

FY 2014

124,000

On April 9, USCIS ran the computer-generated lottery to select enough petitions to meet the 65,000 general-category cap and the 20,000 Master’s cap. As such, USCIS began issuing Receipt Notices for those cases that “won” the lottery this week. They are slowly “trickling” in. Once the case is “receipted” it still must undergo review and adjudication by USCIS. USCIS will begin premium processing for H-1B cap cases no later than May 16, 2016.

Any cases not selected in the lottery will be returned with their filing fees.

We appreciate that, during this period, employers and foreign national employees will be anxious while awaiting the lottery results. Proskauer will continue to update its clients directly and through alerts as to H-1B cap developments.

© 2016 Proskauer Rose LLP.

Department of State Issues May 2016 Visa Bulletin

The Department of State (DOS) has released the May 2016 Visa Bulletin with the Application Final Action Date chart for employment-based applications which reflects some modest movement for some applicants.

The second and third preference categories for China-mainland born applicants had no movement. The second and third preference categories for India move ahead a few weeks to Nov. 22, 2008, and Sept. 1, 2004.  There was no movement in the third preference for all chargeability areas except those listed, and no movement for Mexico. The third preference and other workers categories for the Philippines move ahead a few months to Aug. 8, 2008.

There was no movement in the Dates for Filing chart for employment-based categories with the exception of the other workers category for China-mainland born applicants, which moved up several months to April 1, 2008.

The May 2016 Visa Bulletin states that “during the past month, there have been extremely high levels of Employment-based demand in most categories for cases filed with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for adjustment of status. If this sudden and unanticipated change in the demand pattern continues, it could impact final action dates in the coming months and possibly require corrective action in some.” The DOS also notes an oversubscription of applicants from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.

As previously reported, last month prospective adjustment of status applicants have been advised to use the Application Final Action Date chart to determine their eligibility to file applications, despite previous guidance that the Dates for Filing chart could be used. Greenberg Traurig will continue to monitor the movement of Visa Bulletins and consequences on eligibility for filing.

APPLICATION FINAL ACTION DATES FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED PREFERENCE CASES

IBI May 2015 1

DATES FOR FILING OF EMPLOYMENT-BASED VISA APPLICATIONS

IBI May 2015 2

©2016 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

April 2016 Visa Bulletin Release

visaThe Department of State (DOS) has released the April 2016 Visa Bulletin, with the Application Final Action Date chart for employment-based applications reflecting some substantial movement. The 2nd preference category for China-mainland born applicants has moved ahead one month to Sept. 1, 2012, and for India born applicants it has moved ahead a few weeks to Nov. 8, 2008. The 3rd preference and Other Workers categories have moved ahead at least one month for all applicants. The Final Action Date cut-off for China-mainland born applicants is now Feb. 1, 2014, for all 5th preference category applicants. There was no movement in the Dates for Filing chart for employment-based categories.

The family-based categories also showed slight movement in the Application Final Action Date chart, but there was no movement in the Dates for Filing chart.

As reported, last month prospective adjustment of status applicants were advised to use the Application Final Action Date chart to determine their eligibility to file applications, despite previous guidance that the Dates for Filing chart could be used. USCIS has not yet advised which April 2016 charts should be referred to in filing adjustment of status applications for family- or employment-based petitions, but anticipates that this information will be released within the week.

©2016 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

DHS Announces Final Rule on STEM OPT Employment Authorization

The final rule adds employer obligations to the STEM OPT program.

The US Department of Homeland Security has released an advance version of its long-anticipated final rule that expands employment authorization for foreign students with science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM) degrees. The rule, which will be published in the Federal Register on March 11 and take effect on May 10, 2016, will allow such students to extend their period of optional practical training (OPT) by an extra 24 months, for a total of 36 months of OPT employment authorization. Previously, students in STEM fields were allowed a total of 29 months of OPT. Foreign students with degrees in non-STEM fields will continue to be limited to 12 months of OPT.

The rule also improves and increases oversight over STEM OPT extensions by, among other things, requiring that employers implement formal training plans, adding wage and other protections for STEM OPT students and US workers, and allowing extensions only to students with degrees from accredited schools. The rule also allows US Immigration and Customs Enforcement to conduct site visits to employers of STEM OPT holders to ensure that the rule’s requirements are being complied with.

Previous 17-month STEM OPT employment authorizations issued before May 10 will remain valid until their expirations. Starting May 10, STEM students will have a chance to apply for an additional seven months of OPT.

Copyright © 2016 by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. All Rights Reserved.

Can USCIS Raise EB-5 investment Amount Without Congressional Intervention?

The July 2015 Visa Bulletin Brings Little ChangeSince its inception as part of the Immigration Act of 1990, the EB-5 program has had a $1,000,000 threshold capital investment requirement, with that minimum decreased to $500,000 for projects in targeted employment areas. Last year, legislation was introduced and circulated on Capitol Hill that would raise this investment amount in varying proposals and conditions.

Some have argued that raising the amounts is necessary given inflation: $1 million in 1990 has the same buying power as $1,813,443 in 2015. Others argue the investment amounts should remain at their present level to compete with other countries’ investment programs and maximize EB-5 visa usage –which has been quite low for most of the program’s history, spiking to fulfill the ~10,000 annual quota allocation only relatively recently.

Suppose, though, that USCIS wanted to change the investment amount without waiting for Congress to agree on a new bill. Could it do so?

The answer is clearly yes, and there are several ways of so doing. INA § 203(b)(5)(C) provides:

Amount of capital required.–

(i) In general.–Except as otherwise provided in this subparagraph, the amount of capital required […] shall be $1,000,000. The Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of State, may from time to time prescribe regulations increasing the dollar amount specified under the previous sentence.

(ii) Adjustment for targeted employment areas.–The Attorney General may, in the case of investment made in a targeted employment area, specify an amount of capital required […] that is less than (but not less than 1/2 of) the amount specified in clause (i).

(iii) Adjustment for high employment areas.–In the case of an investment made in a part of a metropolitan statistical area that at the time of the investment–

(I) is not a targeted employment area, and

(II) is an area with an unemployment rate significantly below the national average unemployment rate, the Attorney General may specify an amount of capital required under […] that is greater than (but not greater than 3 times) the amount specified in clause (i).

The statute, written in 1990, utilizes the antiquated term “Attorney General;” however, immigration regulatory functions now fall under the purview of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security following the dissolution of the INS. Nevertheless, it is clear that Congress has delegated the power to increase the minimum investment amounts in several ways that would not require a statutory amendment:

  1. USCIS, in conjunction with Labor and State, could increase the default $1,000,000 capital amount. Since $500,000 would be less than the increase, the TEA minimum would also need to be increased;

  2. USCIS could change the TEA amount, provided that it remains at least 1/2 of the non-TEA investment amount; and/or

  3. USCIS could increase the investment amount to $3,000,000 presently for projects which are:

a. In metropolitan statistical areas;
b. Not in TEAs;
c. Have unemployment rates which are “significantly below” the national average.

It is worth noting that Form I-526 already takes into consideration investments made in such “upward employment areas” even though they do not presently exist – see Part 2.b.

It is difficult to predict the likelihood of any of these events occurring. Any increase would likely create significant market disruption unless adequately anticipated and planned. Stakeholders would also need to understand and have input on the terms of grandfathering for pending filings, securities offerings, and initial investments so that the transition does not shutter the program.

Finally, it is worth noting that while Congress has delegated the ability to raise the EB-5 investment amount to DHS (through consultation with other agencies were required), its ability to do so is tempered somewhat. The Supreme Court’s Chevron test requires that regulations be “permissible construction(s)” of the statute. Could USCIS legally raise the minimum investment amount to $10,000,000 overnight, or change the TEA minimum investment so that it is only $1.00 less than the base amount? Potentially, but such actions would likely draw a federal court challenge to the limits of USCIS authority on the matter given the underlying legislative intent of the EB-5 program.

©2016 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

USCIS Releases Processing Information for March 2016 Visa Bulletin

USCIS has released another updated Visa Bulletin chart listing the dates to file adjustment of status applications. As we previously reported, USCIS and the DOS revised the procedures for determining visa availability for individuals looking to file adjustment of status applications.  The DOS Visa Bulletin now has two categories of cut-off dates:

  • Application Final Action Dates (dates when visas may finally be issued); and

  • Dates for Filing Applications (earliest dates when applicants are eligible to apply).

Under USCIS’s recent guidance, prospective adjustment of status applicants should use the Application Final Action Dates chart to determine whether they are eligible to file their applications.  Therefore, contrary to previously-issued DOS guidance, EB-2 Chinese nationals whose priority dates fall after June 1, 2013, currently are not eligible for file their adjustment of status applications with USCIS.

APPLICATION FINAL ACTION DATES FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED PREFERENCE CASES

March Visa Bulletin

The DOS and USCIS websites should be monitored each month to determine adjustment of status filing dates, as we expect to see similar discrepancies between DOS and USCIS policy arise in the future.

©2016 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

Department of State Releases March 2016 Visa Bulletin

Employment-based second- and third-preference China categories show significant advancement.

The US Department of State (DOS) has released its March 2016 Visa Bulletin. The Visa Bulletin sets out per-country priority date cutoffs that regulate immigrant visa availability and the flow of adjustment of status and consular immigrant visa application filings and approvals.

What Does the March 2016 Visa Bulletin Say?

The March 2016 Visa Bulletin includes both a Dates for Filing Visa Applications and Application Final Action Dates chart. The former indicates when intending immigrants may file their applications for adjustment of status or immigrant visa, and the latter indicates when an adjustment of status application or immigrant visa application may be approved and permanent residence granted.

If the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) determines that there are more immigrant visas available for a fiscal year than there are known applicants for such visas, it will state on its website that applicants may use the Dates for Filing Visa Applications chart. Otherwise, applicants should use the Application Final Action Dates chart to determine when they may file their adjustment of status applications. For March 2016, it is not yet clear whether employment-based (EB) applicants may use the Dates for Filing Visa Applications chart or the Application Final Action Dates chart. USCIS will announce its decision within the next week.

Application Final Action Dates

To be eligible to file an EB adjustment application in March 2016, foreign nationals must have a priority date that is earlier than the date listed below for their preference category and country (changes from last month’s Visa Bulletin dates are shown in yellow):

EB All Chargeability
Areas Except
Those Listed
China
(mainland born)
India Mexico Philippines
1st C C C C C
2nd C 01AUG12—
(was 01MAR 12)
15OCT08
(was 01AUG08)
C C
3rd 01JAN16
(was 01OCT15)
01JUN13

(was 01OCT12)

15JUL04
(was 15JUN04)
01JAN16
(was 01OCT15)
15MAR08
(was 08JAN08)
Other Workers 01JAN16
(was 01OCT15)
01FEB07
(was 22DEC06)
15JUL04
(was 15JUN04)
01JAN16
(was 01OCT15)
15MAR08
(was 08JAN08)
4th C C C C C
Certain Religious Workers C C C C C
5th
Nonregional
Center
(C5 and T5)
C 22JAN14
(was 05JAN14)
C C C
5th
Regional
Center
(I5 and R5)
C 22JAN14
(was 15JAN14)
C C C

Filing Dates

The chart below reflects dates for filing visa applications within a timeframe that justifies immediate action in the application process. Visit www.uscis.gov/visabulletininfo for information on whether USCIS has determined that this chart can be used in March for filing applications for adjustment of status.

EB All Chargeability
Areas Except
Those Listed
China
(mainland born)
India Mexico Philippines
1st C C C C C
2nd C 01JUN13
(was01Jan13)
01JUL09 C C
3rd C (was
01JAN16)
01MAY15
(was 01OCT13)
01JUL05 C (was
01JAN16)
01JAN10
Other Workers C (was
01JAN16)
01AUG07
(was 01JAN07)
01JUL05 C (was
01JAN16)
01JAN10
4th C C C C C
Certain Religious Workers C C C C C
5th
Nonregional
Center
(C5 and T5)
C 01MAY15 C C C
5th
Regional
Center
(I5 and R5)
C 01MAY15 C C C

How This Affects You

The largest changes in the Application Final Action Dates chart are in the EB-3 China category, which has advanced by eight months to June 1, 2013, and in the EB-2 China category, which has advanced by five months to August 1, 2012. The EB-2 India category advanced by three and a half months to October 15, 2008. The EB-3 category for the worldwide preference and Mexico categories advanced to January 1, 2016. The largest changes in the Dates for Filing Visa Applications chart are in the EB-2 and EB-3 China categories, which advanced by six months each. Other classification categories saw only minimal advancement of one week to one month. Read the full March 2016 Visa Bulletin.

Copyright © 2016 by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. All Rights Reserved.

USCIS Proposal May Increase Strike Zone for Professional Athletes

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has proposed new guidance for adjudicating O-1 visa petitions for athletes and other individuals of extraordinary ability in certain fields. If the proposal becomes effective, athletes will have greater flexibility in satisfying the O-1 visa criteria.

Under current USCIS regulations, an athlete may qualify for an O-1 visa by demonstrating extraordinary ability in his or her field in one of three ways: (A) by reason of a nomination or receipt of a significant national or international award; (B) by meeting a certain number of listed criteria; or (C) by submitting “comparable evidence” when the listed criteria in part (B) do not readily apply.

Part (A) is fairly straightforward. For example, winning a Gold Glove award would qualify the athlete. The same goes for league MVP or an Olympic gold medal. If an athlete does not meet Part (A), Part (B) requires meeting at least three of the USCIS criteria,  such as receiving lesser but still nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards, membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements, being written about in major media, making athletic contributions of major significance, being employed in a critical capacity for a prestigious organization, and commanding a high salary.

If an athlete does not meet Part (B), then Part (C), the catch-all “comparable evidence,” aka “alternate but equivalent,” should be considered. But here’s the rub: the regulatory text is not clear as to exactly when comparable evidence may be considered. Can applicants go directly to Part (C) or must they meet a certain number of the Part (B) criteria before comparable evidence could be considered? Moreover, must an athlete show that all or a majority of the Part (B) criteria do not readily apply?

The proposed guidance attempts to clarify this ambiguity, stating that comparable evidence can be considered on a criterion-by-criterion basis. That is, to an athlete need not first satisfy a minimum number of the Part (B) criterion before moving on to Part (C). An athlete must show only that any single criterion does not readily apply to his or her field before offering comparable evidence as to that criterion, as well as why the submitted evidence is “comparable” to the Part (B) criterion listed in the regulations. In addition, a petitioner relying upon comparable evidence still must establish the beneficiary’s eligibility by satisfying at least three separate evidentiary criteria, as required under the regulations.

According to the proposal, even if awards aren’t given for the league’s best on-base percentage or for singlehandedly increasing ticket sales, it’s certainly comparable evidence. It’s time to start thinking outside the batter’s box. This proposed guidance would make the path to an O-1 visa a little clearer.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2016

USCBP Expected to Extend Global Entry Eligibility to All German Citizens

IUSCBP Expected to Extend Global Entry Eligibility to All German Citizensn a notice expected to be published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, February 16th, with an effective date the same day, US Customs and Border Protections (USCBP) announced that it is extending Global Entry eligibility to all citizens of Germany.

In 2013, USCBP launched a pilot program for German citizens to enroll in Global Entry. Eligibility for Global Entry for German citizens was limited to certain citizens who participated in ABG Plus, Germany’s former trusted traveler program. Individuals who qualified and received Global Entry authorization under the pilot program will not have to reapply.

Application Process

Newly eligible citizens of Germany will first need to visit an EasyPASS enrollment center in Germany and complete the risk assessment by the German Federal Police. Once approved, the German Federal Police will notify USCBP and the applicant will be able to apply for Global Entry via the GOES website.

Germany Registered Traveler Reciprocity

US Citizens may apply for EasyPASS at an EasyPASS enrollment center in Germany. There is currently no fee to apply for this program. You do not need to be registered in Global Entry in order to qualify for EasyPASS.

©1994-2016 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.
  • See more at: http://www.natlawreview.com/article/uscbp-expected-to-extend-global-entry-eligibility-to-all-german-citizens#sthash.8hVrniyu.dpuf