Category: Immigration

Senate Immigration Bill To Impact Business, Technology and Defense Sectors

Barnes & Thornburg

On April 17, 2013, a bipartisan group of U.S. Senators known as the “Gang of Eight” introduced an immigration bill entitled the “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013.”

The bill includes provisions that substantially increase the number of visas for highly-skilled workers, creates a new visa category for lower-skilled workers, eliminates the backlog for employment-based immigration, and authorizes significant resources to achieve border security.

The bill aims to increase the annual cap of certain employment-based nonimmigrant visas (H-1B) from 65,000 to 110,000 and the number may increase up to 180,000 depending on labor demands and the unemployment rate. In order to ensure that American workers are not displaced by H-1B workers, employers will continue to be required to pay the prevailing wage to H-1B workers and it has been proposed that the prevailing wage system be strengthened. Also in fiscal year 2014, companies will be banned from bringing in additional workers if more than 75 percent of their workers are H-1B or L-1 employees. The bill also provides for dual intent visas for all students who come to the U.S. on a bachelor or advanced degree program.

To ensure the U.S. has sufficient lower-skilled workers, the bill creates a new nonimmigrant category known as the W-Visa. Eligible recipients would be immigrants who come to the U.S. to perform services or labor for a registered employer and for a registered position. Beginning April 1, 2015, unless the Secretary of Homeland Security extends the start date, the maximum cap for four years would be 75,000 visas.

The bill proposes to exempt from the annual numerical limits multinational executives and managers; immigrants of extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics; and doctoral degree holders in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields.

The bill allocates a significant number of all employment-based visas to individuals holding advanced degrees in STEM fields, in particular. The bill also creates startup visas for foreign entrepreneurs seeking to establish a company in the U.S.

The bill provides $3 billion to implement the Comprehensive Southern Border Security Strategy for achieving and maintaining effective control in all high risk border sectors along the southern border. The funds will be used for acquiring, among other things surveillance and detection capabilities developed or used by the U.S. Department of Defense; fixed, mobile, and agent portable surveillance systems; and unmanned aerial systems and fixed-wing aircraft and necessary and qualified staff equipment to fully utilize such systems.

The bill permits undocumented immigrants, who entered the U.S. before December 31, 2011 and who do not have a serious criminal record, to apply for a Registered Provisional Immigrant (RPI) status. This would permit an individual to work legally in the U.S. for any employer. RPI status would last for a 6-year term that is renewable if the worker has not committed any acts that would render the worker deportable.

The Senate bill is likely to undergo changes as other U.S. Senators and constituents weigh in on this important bill. A House bill is also expected to be unveiled soon. If the bills can pass their respective chambers, then bicameral negotiations would begin in an attempt to pass a final comprehensive immigration reform bill for the President to sign into law.

Article By:

 of

Business Groups Applaud Expected Compromise on Comprehensive Immigration Reform

GT Law

The Essential Worker Immigration Coalition (EWIC)*, a coalition of businesses, trade associations, and other industry organizations concerned with the shortage of lesser skilled and unskilled labor, and the TechServe Alliance, an industry group that represents IT & engineering interests before the U.S. Congress and other policymakers, have recently released statements applauding the bipartisan effort to craft a comprehensive immigration reform bill. The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013, which many expect will be formally introduced shortly, was spearheaded by the “Gang of Eight” – namely Senators Rubio, Flake, McCain, Graham, Schumer, Menendez, Bennet and Durbin – and includes proposals for granting legal status to undocumented immigrants, requiring all U.S. employers to use an electronic employment eligibility verification system, creating a new less-skilled worker visa program, and permitting IT staffing firms to retain access to the H-1B visa program.

To view a summary of the provisions included in The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013, please click here. To read EWIC and TechServe Alliance’s statements about the new legislation, respectively, please click here and here.

* Laura Foote Reiff, Co-Chair of Greenberg Traurig’s Business Immigration and Compliance practice, is a co-founder of EWIC.

Article By:

 of

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) Form I-9 Finally Makes Its Appearance

The National Law Review recently published an article, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) Form I-9 Finally Makes Its Appearance, written by W. Chapman Hopkins of McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie and Kirkland, PLLC:

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) just announced the long-awaited new Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification.  Although the previous form expired on August 31, 2012, employers have continued using the previous form pending the issuance of the revised form.

As before, all U.S. employers must ensure proper completion of Form I-9 for each individual they hire for employment in the United States, including citizens and non-citizens. The form requires input from both the employee and employer (or an authorized representative of the employer). Although the new form is largely substantively the same, several stylistic changes were made in order to make it easier to read and more user-friendly.

For example, the instructions are clearer and there are new distinct data fields for employee information. The entire document consists of nine pages, with only two of these (pages 7 and 8) requiring completion. When providing the form to employees to fill out, however, it is important to provide the entire form so that they may read all instructions.

If your business maintains an electronic I-9 system, you should receive an update from your vendor about implementation. If you use paper versions, you can access the form here. It is a fillable PDF file, but may also be completed by hand. Despite only two pages requiring information, the form in its entirety should be kept on file.

Employers can start using the new form immediately, but must use it after May 7, 2013, as the old form will no longer be accepted after that date. Failure to use the new form could result in fines and penalties. Remember that required government forms are free, so you should never have to pay to be in compliance.

The USCIS provides in-depth detail about Form I-9, however government instruction is not legal advice.

© 2013 by McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie & Kirkland, PLLC

USCIS Correction: Most Employers Must Complete English Version I-9

Varnum LLP
On March 12, 2013 the USCIS announced the new Form I-9 is available and may be completed in English or Spanish. Today, March 13, 2013, USCIS clarified that Spanish I-9 is available for completion only by Puerto Rico employers.
USCIS incorrectly announced full use during a teleconference but has now clarified onwww.USCIS.gov that the Spanish new form I-9 may not be used by employers (except Puerto Rico employers). Employers may continue to use the Spanish form for reference, but the English version must be completed.

The new Form I-9 is available in English and Spanish. In addition, USCIS has published aHandbook for Employers to provide guidance for completing the new Form I-9.

Employers are required to use the new Form I-9 beginning on May 7, 2013, but it may be used immediately. USCIS will accept prior versions of Form I-9, “(Rev. 08/07/09) Y” and “(Rev. 02/02/09) N”, until May 7, 2013.

Impact of Sequester on Immigration-Related Government Services

The National Law Review recently featured an article by Eric S. Bord, Lisa Stephanian Burton, Tracy Evlogidis, Malcolm K. Goeschl, Eleanor Pelta, and A. James Vázquez-Azpiri of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP regarding Sequester and Immigration:

Morgan Lewis logo

 

The automatic spending cutback is expected to result in diminished immigration-related services.

It is anticipated that the sequester (the automatic spending cutback that went into effect on March 1, 2013) may result in diminished immigration-related services provided by federal departments and agencies, as outlined below.

The U.S. Department of State (DOS), which is responsible for the adjudication of U.S. visas at consular posts abroad, may experience significant delays in the visa adjudication process, particularly at high-volume posts in India and China. In its press briefing on February 27, 2013, DOS noted that it is difficult to anticipate exactly how the sequester will impact delays at consular posts in each individual country. Nevertheless, foreign nationals should anticipate the possibility of considerably longer wait times when applying for U.S. visas and should plan ahead to minimize the impact of visa service delays to travel.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which conducts inspections of individuals arriving at U.S. ports of entry, may experience delays in the inspection of arrivals at U.S. ports of entry. Individuals traveling outside the United States should anticipate possible delays during inspection upon their return.

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), which processes prevailing wage determinations, Program Electronic Review Management (PERM) labor certifications, and labor condition applications (LCAs), may also experience delays in processing times as a result of the sequester. DOL certification of H-1B LCAs is governed by a regulation that mandates a decision within seven days of filing. It is therefore presumed, at the present time, that DOL will honor its legal obligation and not permit the sequester or any related budget cuts to impact the timing of LCA certification.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), which is responsible for adjudicating immigrant and nonimmigrant petitions and applications, funds its services largely through filing fees rather than congressional appropriations. As a result, the likelihood of USCIS processes being impacted by the sequester is less than that of other agencies.

It remains to be seen exactly how the sequester will affect these immigration-related matters. We will provide updates as developments occur.

Copyright © 2013 by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

Immigration Reform: It’s Time for a Course Correction

The National Law Review recently published an article regarding Immigration Reform written by  Susan J. Cohen with Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.:

MintzLogo2010_Black

 

The first two months of 2013 have seen a flurry of activity relating to immigration reform.  President Obama is pushing for comprehensive reform as are powerful factions within both the Senate and the House. And the political will and rising tide of opinion in favor of reform are making for unusual bedfellows, as exemplified by the recent joint statement of principles from the American Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO.

But in this same timeframe, lawmakers anxious to change current immigration law to create new pathways for entrepreneurs and highly educated immigrants have introduced a number of bills designed for this purpose, including the Immigration Innovation (I²) Act of 2013 introduced by Senators Hath, Klobuchar, Rubio and Coons and the Startup Act 3.0, introduced by Senators Moran, Warner and Coons. These bills contain many excellent provisions that make tremendous sense, addressing shortcomings and deficiencies in our current law. For example, the I² bill would significantly increase the H-1B cap and would exempt graduates of U.S. advanced degree programs from the cap. It would authorize employment for the spouses of H-1B workers and would make it easier for those workers to move from one company to another.  It would also streamline the green card process and eliminate the enormous backlogs in the current system.  The Startup Act 3.0 would provide a new and much-needed work visa for foreign entrepreneurs who can attract angel or venture funding to their new U.S. ventures.

Our immigration laws are so broken and outdated that only comprehensive reform will correct  our course.  And the lawmakers who have introduced bills such as I² and the Startup Act 3.0 clearly hope that their prescriptions for specific improvements will be incorporated into any final comprehensive bill. But should comprehensive reform prove elusive, at a minimum Congress should pass some version of these bills, to attract and retain the best and the brightest of our foreign students and entrepreneurs, and help to boost and strengthen the U.S. economy.

©1994-2013 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

ICE Worksite Fines, No Thaw in Sight for 2013! (Immigration and Customs Enforcement)

The National Law Review recently published an article regarding Immigration Compliance written by Dawn M. Lurie with Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP:

Sheppard Mullin 2012

Just how much money did Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) fine US companies last year? While we don’t have an exact number confirmed by the government, we do know the fine amounts skyrocketed to over $10 million according to data released by ICE in response to a request from the Associated Press. What’s more important is the fact that ICE issued over 3,000 Notices of Inspection (NOI) in FY 2012. An NOI initiates a government administrative inspection of a company’s Form I-9s. NOIs are considered administrative tools which are used to assist in criminal investigations. We also know that 238 company managers were arrested last year in light of these investigations. Under the Obama administration, civil administrative audits are just one of many tools ICE is using to reduce the demand for unauthorized unemployment and protect opportunities for U.S. workers. This enforcement strategy also includes the expanded use of civil penalties, employer audits, and debarment. While ICE has told stakeholders it no longer tracks the conclusion of an investigation or whether a matter is being pursued before the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO), we know the Agency does track how many Notices of Inspection (NOIs), Notices of Fines, Final Orders, and Debarments it issues. The scope of this Alert does not cover debarments for federal contractors, but it should be noted that ICE has rapidly expanded the program and continues to refine the suspension and debarment process.

With comprehensive immigration reform on the horizon and President Obama’s proposal calling for “cracking down on employers hiring undocumented workers,” we can expect at least another 3,000 audits in 2013 (bets anyone?). ICE is fairly predictable and consistent in its approach to worksite enforcement. In fact, it is likely we will see the first round of audits by mid-March. While the days of “worksite enforcement actions” (AKA raids) are gone, there are many in the government that still agree with the words of Julie Myers Wood, a current proponent for comprehensive immigration reform and former Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for ICE who said, “We want to send the message that your cost of business just went up because you risk your livelihood, your corporate reputation and your personal freedom.” Wood was also quoted as saying that ICE was prosecuting “individuals who have profited from hiring illegal aliens…we’re going after their houses, their Mercedes and any money that they have, as well.”

For certain, NOIs and administrative audits are something every employer needs to take very seriously. These inspections are clearly serving as examples and being used as deterrents. Again, as immigration reform heats up and the Administration focuses on effectuating a new policy, the fines are likely to increase and enforcement efforts will be stepped up. The inequities that plague the worksite program in terms of how some employers are treated verses other employers will likely be addressed during the reform process. We can also expect that once reform is effectuated there will be serious consequences embedded in the legislation, not only for employers, but also for employees that work without authorization. That said, in order toemployers to the government, and provide employers with adequate tools and discernible guidance to determine who is authorized to work and who is not.

In the meantime, the fine amounts listed below, coupled with ensuing bad P.R., legal expenses and other drains on a company involved in a worksite investigation should be high enough to catch the attention of “mom & pop” employers and the Board of Directors of public companies alike.

Specifics from four states

In numbers that were just released today, February 5th, ICE noted it fined 10 businesses in San Diego and Imperial counties more than $173,800 for hiring “unlawful” employees. In addition to listing the names of the businesses and the amounts fined the agency noted in a news release, “In fiscal year 2012, HSI conducted 151 worksite audits in San Diego and Imperial counties, compared to 86 audits the previous year and 63 audits in fiscal year 2010.”

In Massachusetts, ICE issued a total of thirty-five NOIs and ultimately fined seventeen employers for a total of $349,620. The fines hit Northern Pelagic Group (NORPEL) particularly hard with the highest amount fined in Massachusetts, $151,200. Special agent in charge (SAC) of Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Boston Bruce M. Foucart disclosed that ICE’s investigation of NORPEL discovered 351 suspect documents, which according to Foucart “for the most part…means the employee[s] [were] illegal.”

Companies in Connecticut were fined a total of $132,584. Out of the eighteen inspections ICE conducted, ICE issued twelve fines to Connecticut companies ranging from $45,000 to $1,386. Calabro Cheese Corporation of East Haven received the highest fine of $45,000. Foucart, who has jurisdiction over this area as well, announced that the company had a “significant amount” of workers with suspect documents, along with “supporting documents that were not real or were from someone else.” Calabro’s general manager Rich Kaminski noted that ICE “led all of the people who were illegal out of [the company] on the same day.”

Rounding third on the list of fines was Maine with a grand total of $78,967. Out of the twenty-two inspections ICE conducted, eight resulted in fines ranging from $13,900 to $1,777. While substantial, these numbers represent a significant drop from ICE’s total fines of $150,000 for only six Maine companies in 2011. SAC Foucart of Boston who oversees HSI throughout New England noted that these settlements will “serve as a reminder to employers that HSI will continue to hold them accountable for hiring and maintaining a legal and compliant workforce.” Foucart expanded that employers should “take the employment verification process seriously” because ICE is expanding the number of audits it is conducting each year, focusing on employers that are “knowingly employing illegal workers.” According to Foucart, ICE will continue to target specific industries and businesses known or alleged to hire illegal workers. ICE has continued its trend of ramping up worksite enforcement efforts in the criminal arenas, as well. Last October, three individuals were arrested for unlawful employment and for conspiracy to induce illegal aliens to reside in the United States. The indictment alleges that the three owners of the Bamboo Village restaurant in Rosenberg, Texas, hired employees without completing Form I-9s or viewing identification and work authorization documents. If convicted of the conspiracy charge, the owners could face up to ten years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

In September, Micro Solutions Enterprises (MSE) and its owner both pled guilty to criminal charges resulting from a HSI investigation in 2007. As part of its plea bargain, MSE pled guiltyto one misdemeanor count of continuing to employ unauthorized workers, admitted to hiring fifty-five unauthorized workers and continuing to employ them, will pay $267,000 in civil and criminal fines, and is on a three-year probation term with implementation of “stringent measures” to ensure it is complying with hiring laws. MSE’s owner pled guilty to one felony count of false representation of a Social Security number and faces up to five years in prison and up to a $250,000 fine.

There is good news to add in at this point. A review of recent OCAHO decisions, illustrates that for the majority of those employers challenging the fine assessments ICE in 2012, the court reduced the amounts of the fines/penalties sought by the government.

The Takeaway

What is the bottom line? Take NOIs seriously. Consider while some companies get lucky with new/inexperienced auditors and agents who may not have the time or interest to pursue an investigation, other special agents remain aggressive. Also consider that in many instances neither ICE nor the U.S. Attorney’s office will forgive companies who they consider to be “willfully blind”. Ignoring a “problematic” work force, identity theft issues, and error-ridden Form I-9s can lead to the knowing hiring or continued employment of unauthorized workers. At the same time, if you have received a fine notice from ICE after trying to negotiate a reasonable settlement, don’t rule out a hearing before OCAHO, if the economics warrant, and the company has the appetite to challenge the fine assessment.

The message remains the same: Be proactive; review your Form I-9-related compliance; conduct internal audits supervised by experienced counsel and act on the results; do not ignore unconventional Social Security no-match notifications (such as unemployment claims of employees not working at your company) and potential identity theft issues; provide ongoing training to those individuals completing Form I-9s; seriously consider the use of E-Verify, and finally, above all else, institute a written compliance plan and establish workable policies.

Copyright © 2013, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

New Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) Release will Address Student and Exchange Visitor Visa Overstays

Featured recently in The National Law Review, New Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) Release will Address Student and Exchange Visitor Visa Overstays, an article by William J. Flynn, III with Fowler White Boggs P.A.:

Fowler_NoShadow_Logo

A new version of the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS)is scheduled to release this spring. The Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), a faction of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), is developing the new release as part of a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) initiative to address visa overstays by F and M students and J exchange visitors. “Release 6.12” will enable better and more frequent data sharing between SEVIS and the Arrival Departure Information System (ADIS). As a result, SEVIS will now contain I-94 Arrival/Departure Record information, as well as passport information for students and exchange visitors who overstay their visas.

SEVIS is an internet-based system that was launched in 2002. The system allows DHS to track and monitor information related to SEVP-certified schools and international students in F and M status, along with their dependents. The U.S. Department of State (DOS) also uses SEVIS to access information related to DOS-designated visitor program sponsors and J-1 exchange visitors and their dependents. The new information-sharing technology of Release 6.12 will facilitate the efforts of both agencies with respect to overstays.

As part of the DHS initiative, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano has also created a visa overstay working group to address the overstay of students and exchange visitors. The group will work towards creating a solution to facilitate the identification, location, and removal of students who overstay their status.

In light of these new initiatives, it is especially important for students and other nonimmigrant visa holders to maintain lawful status for the entire duration of stay in the United States. Overstaying a visa can not only jeopardize one’s eligibility for renewals and extensions, but may also negatively affect eligibility for permanent residence and other immigration options in the future. If you have questions on maintaining lawful status in the U.S., or would like more information on the new DHS student overstay initiative, please contact Bill Flynn, Board Certified Immigration and Nationality attorney.

©2002-2013 Fowler White Boggs P.A.

Immigration Legislation: What You Need To Know Now

The National Law Review published an article by Teresa B. Finer of Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed, P.A., regarding Immigration Legislation:

Lowndes_logo

Senator Rubio and his “Gang of Eight” proposed an outline for immigration reform Monday, and President Obama followed on Tuesday with his broad initiatives.  The bipartisan committee intends to have draft legislation by March, and a vote by August.  After many years of congressional debates to no avail, Democrats and Republicans are tripping over each other these days to be the first to suggest a reasonable plan to resolve the immigration concerns that most of the country agrees needs to be fixed in some way.  But immigration is perhaps more politically charged than many longstanding and widespread national concerns, and the concern is whether legislation proposed and passed so quickly can actually solve the problems with our current system.

In order to understand whether proposed legislation will make a positive difference, of course, it is important to understand what our current set of immigration laws provides.  Most Americans have little to no knowledge about the current laws restricting immigration, simply because they have had little to no meaningful exposure to these regulations.  Here is a review of some of the key issues proposed thus far:

The media has focused primarily on the estimated 11 million residing illegally in the U.S.  The debate ranges from whether we should provide any benefits to these individuals, to whether the fix should include a “path to citizenship,” and what must occur before benefits are extended to this group.  In evaluating the best course, it is important to understand the difference between temporary work authorization, permanent residency, and U.S. citizenship.  The first level immigration benefit is temporary legal status coupled with employment authorization – a temporary work card with conditions for extension.  The second step is permanent residency – casually referred to as “green card” status, authorizing long-term stay and open employment authorization.  The very highest benefit would be U.S. citizenship – the right to carry a U.S. passport, a faster route to sponsor certain relatives, and most significantly for politicians – the right to vote.  Providing the right to vote for 11 million new voters certainly has serious political ramifications for both parties, and this is probably why the “path to citizenship” issue is so important in the congressional debate.  But for the actual individuals living here illegally for years, work authorization leading to a green card would be a major win.

The bipartisan group has proposed that permanent residency for those here illegally only be granted after border security and a better tracking system have been established, and only after those foreign nationals who have applied through traditional legal channels have gone through the system and been approved for permanent residency.  President Obama thus far has opposed a hold on residency based on a decision on secure borders. The question is whether there should be some waiting period before granting permanent residency to those here illegally, and if so, how we will determine that the border is sufficiently secure to prevent mass illegal entry in the future.  How can this be measured?  Are secure borders a logical tie into the grant of permanent residency for this group, or should this be included but unrelated?  Requiring those illegally here to wait their turn behind those that have applied legally seems easier to track, but this, too, is a complex issue, as the lines for legal immigration are unreasonably long and should also be adjusted in a comprehensive bill.

While the illegal issue has been in the press for several years, in contrast, the proposed legislation’s suggestions to change legal immigration are new and unfamiliar to most.  Specifically, for example, the proposal suggests that for the first time, permanent residency should be awarded to anyone that graduates with a U.S. Master’s degree in science, technology, engineering, or math (“STEM” fields of study.)  Current law gives some preference to those with U.S. Master’s degrees in any field of study.  Under current law, for example, additional H-1B temporary visas for professionals are available for those with U.S. Master’s level degrees in any professional field.  But this new proposal goes way farther, issuing permanentresidency for anyone with a U.S. Master’s STEM degrees.  Would this include the graduate at the bottom of the class?  Would it include graduates with U.S. degrees completed online, or even U.S. Master’s degrees completed while residing overseas?  Should we grant permanent residency to a foreign national who comes to the U.S. for a one year graduate program and who has no job offer in a STEM field, maybe not even a temporary offer of employment in any field?  Do we want to immediately extend this valuable benefit to those who are able to graduate, or only to those able to secure job offers following graduation?  If so, how long must they work to maintain the status?

The proposal also includes more visas for unskilled workers, which might include roofers, caretakers for the elderly, groundsmen, and other positions that have been difficult for employers to fill, as well as a program to add visa categories to bring in more temporary agricultural workers to the U.S.  Many employers will welcome such provisions. The details of precisely how employers would petition for these workers, however, and whether these employees ultimately will be given a long-term right to stay in the U.S. is the key to whether this represents worthwhile change or just more government bureaucracy.

© Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed, PA

 

The Rush to File H-1B Visa Petitions for the Next Fiscal Year Quota Starts April 1, 2013

The Immigration Practice of  Barnes & Thornburg LLP recently had an article featured in The National Law Review regarding H1B Visa Petitions:

Barnes & Thornburg

 

In less than three months, the fiscal year 2014 H-1B quota filing starts on April 1, 2013. This applies primarily to first time H-1B applicants but also to those who already have H-1B status and wish to change jobs from a quota-exempt employer to a quota -subject employer. The actual employment start date in H-1B status cannot be prior to Oct. 1, 2013, the date when the FY 2014 H-1B quota goes into effect.

Please note that with an improving economy the rush to file on April 1 in an attempt to secure a visa before the quota is depleted is expected to be even greater than last year. The H-1B quota for fiscal year 2014 will be limited to 65,000 visas with an additional 20,000 visas for graduates of U.S. institutions of higher education with a master’s degree or higher. The quota has been met quickly in years past and it is possible that this year it will be met in a matter of weeks, if not days. Now is the time to review your visa-dependent staff, including students on OPT who will need an H-1B visa in order to continue employment after their OPT expires. A prudent approach would be to contact immigration counsel no later than the end of January to allow for all the documents and steps in the process to be completed in preparation of an April 1, 2013 filing date.

© 2013 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP