Category: Immigration

Supreme Court Strikes Down Majority of Arizona SB 1070

The National Law Review recently published an article by Jennifer G. Roeper of Fowler White Boggs P.A. regarding Arizona’s SB 1070:

The two-year long fight over the controversial Arizona immigration law, SB 1070, finally came to an end on Monday, when the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in Arizona v. United States. SB 1070, which permitted state officials to enforce federal immigration laws, made its way to the Supreme Court after the Ninth Circuit blocked portions of the bill last year. Three key provisions of the law were struck down on the grounds that they were preempted by federal immigration law, and one provision was upheld.

The first provision to be struck down was Section 3 of the bill, which made it a misdemeanor under state law for immigrants to fail to seek or carry federal registration papers. The Court held that the provision was preempted, as Congress intended registration of foreign nationals to be a “single integrated and all-embracing” federal system, leaving no room for states to regulate in the area.

The second provision appears in Section 5(C). Section 5(C) made it a crime in Arizona for immigrants to work or solicit work without employment authorization. The Court held that this provision was also preempted, as Congress had only imposed civil penalties on unlawful employment, specifically declining to impose criminal penalties.

The third provision struck down by the Supreme Court is Section 6, which gave local police the authority to make warrantless arrests of immigrants suspected of being removable. This provision would have provided state officers with greater arrest authority than federal immigration officers, and could be exercised with no instruction from the Federal Government. In writing the opinion of the Court, Justice Kennedy stated that Section 6 “violates the principle that the removal process is entrusted to the discretion of the Federal Government. …[It] creates an obstacle to the full purposes and objectives of Congress.”

Finally, section 2(B), one of the most controversial provisions, was upheld, as it was found to be too early to determine how the provision would be applied in practice. 2(B) requires local law enforcement to investigate into the immigration status of anyone stopped or arrested when “reasonable suspicion” exists that the person is in the U.S. unlawfully. This is the so-called “racial profiling” provision, as many believe the only way an officer could have “reasonable suspicion” that an immigrant is unlawfully present is through racial profiling. Even though the Court upheld the provision at 2(B), it nonetheless recognized these concerns, and thus left the door open for future challenges based on discrimination. Justice Kennedy stated that the Court’s holding “does not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect.”

Overall, the decision comes as both a victory and somewhat of a surprise to immigration community, as the Supreme Court Justices did not generally appear to be in favor of the law when oral arguments were heard in May. Nevertheless, the holding confirms what immigration advocates have argued all along— that immigration enforcement belongs to the Federal Government, and states are therefore prohibited from taking matters into their own hands.

©2002-2012 Fowler White Boggs P.A.

Election-year Policy Change: Obama Decision Eases Undocumented Kids’ Turmoil

The National Law Review recently published an article by Susan Ferriss of Center for Public Integrity regarding President Obama’s Decision about Undocumented Children:

Thousands of 16- to 30-year-olds could benefit from relief that will let them work legally, and stop fearing deportation.

A profound change for immigrant youths with no way to seek legal status

President Barack Obama responds as he is interrupted while announcing that his administration will stop deporting and begin granting work permits to younger illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children and have since led law-abiding lives, Friday, June 15, 2012, during a statement in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington Susan Walsh/AP

President Barack Obama responds as he is interrupted while announcing that his administration will stop deporting and begin granting work permits to younger illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children and have since led law-abiding lives, Friday, June 15, 2012, during a statement in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington Susan Walsh/AP

In a sweeping policy change with political overtones, President Obama has announced that his administration will allow undocumented youths who grew up here to apply for work permits and spare them from deportation if they meet certain criteria.

The policy will not include a path to legal residency, a first step before applying for citizenship, so it differs from the proposed DREAM Act. That proposal once had bipartisan Congressional support but has repeatedly stalled in the face of Republican opposition. Even though the new policy falls short of the path to legal status that immigration activists would like, the change is likely to expand Obama’sappeal among crucial Latino voters in November.

Obama’s decision will also have tremendous personal impact on a population of young people who were brought here as children and have no way to pursue legal status, either here or back in birth countries, under current immigration rules.

Certain states, such as California, Arizona, Texas, New York and Florida, are home to significant numbers of these youths. And many of them have anguished over their predicament. They say they have been left with no option but to work with fake identification, or under the table, or drive without a license or not drive at all. Some have been admitted to college but barred from pursuing loans and grants. Others have given up such dreams.

Stories of ambitious students foiled by their status and with no way to fix it have become a staple of TV and newspaper coverage. A few years back, college students at Sacramento City College made a short fiction film about undocumented students who had grown up as Americans only to discover that they were illegal immigrants. Some of the actors were undocumented. The characters talked about their fear of getting stopped by police, as well as their complex feelings about their parents’ decision to bring them to the United States.

Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano explains the new criteria in this memo. The policy will be limited to youths who arrived before the age of 16, have lived here continuously for at least five years and who are not older than 30. Criminal backgrounds will disqualify youths from the benefit. Youths must also be in school, have graduated or obtained a GED.

Reprinted by Permission © 2012, The Center for Public Integrity®

2013 H-1B Visa Cap Closing Soon

The National Law Review recently published an article by Kimberly A. Clarke, Nina Thekdi, and Luis E. Avila of Varnum LLP regarding 2013 H-1B Visa Caps:

Varnum LLP

As of June 1, 2012, approximately 10,000 H-1B visas remain within the fiscal year 2013 H-1B cap. This indicates that the cap will likely be reached within the next few weeks.   Employers will then need to wait until April 2013 to file new H-1B visa for an October 1, 2013 start date.

This H-1B cap limitation does not apply to extensions of H-1B status or those obtaining H-1B status to teach at colleges, universities, related nonprofit or government research organizations or J waiver physicians.

If your company has potential new H-1B candidates such as international students in their OPT work authorization period or foreign candidates, please contact us to prepare H-1B petitions for these individuals as soon as possible to secure an available visa.

© 2012 Varnum LLP

Department of State Releases June 2012 Visa Bulletin

Immigrant visas have become unavailable for Indian and Chinese nationals in the EB-2 category; DOS indicates that it may be necessary to establish a cutoff date for the EB-1 category.

The U.S. Department of State (DOS) has released its June 2012 Visa Bulletin. The Visa Bulletin sets out per country priority date cutoffs that regulate the flow of adjustment of status (AOS) and consular immigrant visa applications. Foreign nationals may file applications to adjust their status to that of permanent resident, or to obtain approval of an immigrant visa application at an American embassy or consulate abroad, provided that their priority dates are prior to the cutoff dates specified by the DOS.

What Does the June 2012 Visa Bulletin Say?

EB-1: All EB-1 categories remain current.

EB-2: Priority dates remain current for foreign nationals in the EB-2 category from all countries except China and India; immigrant visas are UNAVAILABLE for Indian and Chinese nationals in the EB-2 category.

As had been widely expected, the June Visa Bulletin indicates visa unavailability in the EB-2 category for individuals chargeable to India and China. The cutoff dates that were indicated in the May Visa Bulletin have been replaced with a “U” notation. This means that the annual quota of immigrant visas for EB-2 Indian and Chinese nationals has been exhausted for the 2012 fiscal year, and that no more immigrant visas for EB-2 Indian and Chinese nationals will be available until the 2013 fiscal year begins on October 1, 2012. When the October Visa Bulletin is published in mid-September, it is expected that the “U” notation will be removed from the EB-2 category for Indian and Chinese nationals and that cutoff dates will once again appear in this category. The DOS expects that the EB-2 India and China cutoff dates will not return to May 1, 2010 (the cutoff date indicated in the April Visa Bulletin), until the spring of 2013, however.

The practical effect of this immigrant visa unavailability is that, after June 1, no I-485 AOS applications for EB-2 Indian or Chinese nationals may be filed or approved until at least October of this year, regardless of the applicant’s priority date. Thus, even an EB-2 Indian or Chinese national with a 2006 priority date would not be able to file an I-485 application or have it approved. I-485 applications that are pending for EB-2 Indian and Chinese nationals will continue to be processed and Advance Paroles and Employment Authorization Documents will be issued as appropriate, but the I-485 applications themselves may not be approved until October 1, 2012, at the earliest.

Note: AOS applications for EB-2 Indian and Chinese nationals with current priority dates may be filed until May 31.

EB-3: There is continued backlog in the EB-3 category.

The relevant priority date cutoffs for foreign nationals in the EB-3 category are as follows:

China: August 8, 2005 (forward movement of 129 days)
India: September 15, 2002 (forward movement of 7 days)
Mexico: June 8, 2006 (forward movement of 38 days)
Philippines: May 22, 2006 (forward movement of 21 days)
Rest of the World: June 8, 2006 (forward movement of 38 days)

DOS Predictions for the EB-1 Category and the Rest of the World EB-2 Category

The DOS has indicated that, in view of higher usage in the EB-1 category, it may be necessary to establish a cutoff date for the category, regardless of country of chargeability. The DOS has also indicated that a cutoff date may be established for the rest of the world EB-2 category (which is current at the moment), and that this may occur at any time in the next few months. Given the publication schedule of the Visa Bulletin, the establishment of such cutoff dates should be publicized at least two weeks before they become effective.

How This Affects You

Priority date cutoffs are assessed on a monthly basis by the DOS, based on anticipated demand. Cutoff dates can move forward or backward, or remain static and unchanged. Employers and employees should take the immigrant visa backlogs into account in their long-term planning, and take measures to mitigate their effects. To see the June 2012 Visa Bulletin in its entirety, please visit the DOS website.

Copyright © 2012 by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

Employers Urged to File H-1B Petitions Without Delay

Increased demand over previous years could see H-1B visas exhausted by June 2012 or earlier.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that as of April 27, U.S. employers have filed for 29,000 H-1B visas subject to the regular cap of 65,000 and 12,300 H-1B visas subject to the U.S. Master’s degree cap of 20,000 for FY2013. USCIS began accepting H-1B petitions on April 1, 2012. Approved petitions would authorize the employment of H-1B workers starting on October 1, 2012, or thereafter.

H-1B visas for this fiscal year are being used at a significantly increased rate from previous years. By comparison, for FY2012, 8,000 regular cap H-1B visas and 5,900 U.S. Master’s degree cap H-1B visas had been allotted by April 27, 2011. This increased rate of usage reflects the gradual improvement of the U.S. economy, as the demand for H-1B visas rises and falls in response to current economic conditions.

Type Cap Amount Cap Petitions Filed Date of Last Count
H-1B Regular Cap 65,000 29,200 04/27/2012
H-1B Master’s Degree Exemption 20,000 12,300 04/27/2012

Implications

We recommend that employers contemplating the hire of an H-1B worker file the petition with USCIS as soon as possible. Although it not possible to predict the exact date that either H-1B cap will be reached, at the current rate of usage, H-1B visas in either category will likely be exhausted much earlier than last year, perhaps as early as this summer.

Copyright © 2012 by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

Fighting for the DREAM

Recently The National Law Review published an article by Mahsa Aliaskari of Greenberg Traurig, LLP regarding the DREAM Act:

GT Law

States get involved, students organize, Federal gridlock continues

After being reintroduced into the Senate last year by Senator Harry Reid, The DREAM Act, which would provide conditional legal permanent resident status and a path to citizenship to certain qualifying undocumented individuals who came to the U.S. as children and who wish to attend college or join the military, has yet to become law — although politicians continue to weigh in on it while advocates continue to fight for it.

In its latest form as introduced in 2010, the DREAM Act would provide a six-year grant of conditional legal permanent residence to individuals between the ages of twelve and thirty-five at the time of enactment, who are of good moral character, graduated from U.S. high schools, came to the U.S. as minors, have continuously resided in the U.S. for the five years prior to enactment, and who then go on to complete a minimum of either two years of military training or two years of education at a U.S. institute of higher learning. Moreover, the Act would provide the added benefits of enabling qualifying college students who are currently undocumented to take advantage of certain opportunities for which they are now ineligible, such as internships, study abroad programs and greater access to financial assistance.

Upon removal of the conditions on their legal permanent resident status, DREAM Act beneficiaries would be full legal permanent residents or green card holders and eligible to apply for U.S. citizenship. The Act in its current form would impose strict evidentiary requirements, with the burden of proof of eligibility falling on the applicants.

Of the estimated eleven million individuals living in the U.S. without legal immigration status, The DREAM Act would help an estimated 1.1 million to legalize. In 2010, the Congressional Budget Office issued a highly anticipated cost estimate for the latest version of the legislation, in which it found that by permitting a path to legalization for this portion of the undocumented population, the deficit would be reduced by $1.4 billion over ten years, and that revenues, owing to an increase in tax-paying authorized workers, would be increased by $2.3 billion over ten years. Another study was conducted by the UCLA North American Integration and Development Center, in which it was found that the DREAM Act cohort, over the course of their working lives, would generate an estimated $1.4 trillion to $3.6 trillion over the course of forty years.

Despite its estimated benefits for a narrow demographic within the undocumented population, the DREAM Act remains controversial. It failed to pass in 2010 after passing in the House but failing to garner the votes to move it to the Senate; it failed to pass as part of failed efforts at comprehensive immigration reform in 2007 and 2006; it failed to pass in 2003; and its earliest incarnation (not yet called the DREAM Act), failed to pass in 2001. Its lengthy history shows that the politically charged issues preventing its passage mirror those that have to date prevented comprehensive immigration reform.

In the meantime, faced with the practical everyday issues of undocumented residents seeking to attend school, to the extent that they can, states are taking matters into their own hands. While they cannot legislate a path to legalization, they can pass laws pertaining to education.

For example, in California, two bills collectively called the “California Dream Act”were signed into law in 2011, effective in 2012, aimed at making it easier for undocumented students to pay tuition by enabling them to apply for private financial aid. In a similar vein, two other bills were passed in California to make it easier for undocumented individuals to attend school: AB 176, which allows high school students to show certain unofficial forms of identification to get into college entrance exams, and AB 207, which allows parents to show different types of documents to schools to prove their children’s residency such as pay stubs and property tax receipts. Moreover, similar bills have been passed in Illinois and Texas, and are circulating in Florida, Pennsylvania, and New York, with a recent failed effort in Virginia.

Additionally, growing numbers of students across the U.S. have been coming out publicly as undocumented, advocating for passage of the DREAM Act and hoping to raise awareness about their need for legalization. Given that these individuals are undocumented, the question obviously arises as to whether, by coming out publicly, they are jeopardizing their ability to remain in the U.S. Under the Obama administration, ICE maintains that it concentrates its removal efforts on criminals as opposed to those who are lacking legal status but are otherwise law abiding. With an election year and a potential change in administration however, this policy could change quickly and drastically.

©2012 Greenberg Traurig, LLP.

From the Office of Special Counsel: Anatomy of an OSC Investigation

An article regarding The Anatomy of an OSC Investigation written by Dawn M. Lurie of Greenberg Traurig, LLP recently appeared in The National Law Review:

GT Law

The phone rings.

“Hello, this is Attorney Smith with the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices, may I speak to the Human Resource manager in charge of your Form I-9 process?”

You say to yourself, “This is not good. I have no idea what this government agency is — Office of the Special Counsel for…what?” Your gut confirms: this does not sound good at all.

“This is she. I’m sorry, you are with whom?”

“The Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices…the OSC. I’m calling about a complaint our office received regarding your company re-verifying Permanent Residents, requiring applicants to complete Forms I-9 before you offer them employment and, last but not least, asking certain employees to bring in Social Security cards.”

You ask yourself, “Is this as serious as it sounds? What do I do now?”

What is the The Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC for short)?

The Office of Special Counsel (OSC) for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices is responsible for enforcing the anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which protects work-authorized individuals from discrimination during the process of hiring, firing, employment eligibility verification, and recruitment or referral for a fee on the basis of citizenship status and national origin. The statute also protects all work-authorized individuals from retaliation in connection with exposing such practices or asserting their rights under the law’s anti-discrimination provision.What is the The Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC for short)?

OSC provides a hot-line where employees can report concerns and discuss complaints that they often will make queries to ascertain. As a result of receiving a call, OSC attorneys will review the facts and determine if a basis exists for moving
forward. Often times there are miscommunications that can be cleared up at the initial stage. This can be done through educating the employer and/or clarifying the situation with the employee.

What happens when an actual charge is received?

OSC investigates every complete charge received, although many charges are dismissed as incomplete for lack of jurisdiction or failure to state a claim that indicates a violation of the INA’s anti-discrimination provisions. OSC also conducts self-initiated or independent investigations when it discovers information that suggests a possible violation of the INA’s anti-discrimination statute by an employer. This information is often the result of an unrelated investigation.

Timeline

Within 10 days of receiving a complete charge, the Equal Opportunity Specialist (EOS) or attorney assigned to a case sends letters to the person or group bringing the charge, the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO), and the entity allegedly violating the INA anti-discrimination provision.The letter explains the filing of a complete charge and the time frame of an initial investigation (120 days). Respondents are directed to submit additional information and documents relevant to the investigation. If your company receives a letter from OSC, it should be taken very seriously and the response should be reviewed by counsel.

By the 120th day, OSC determines whether there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of the INA’s antidiscrimination statute has occurred, whether to continue investigating the charge for an additional 90 days, or whether to dismiss the charge. Irrespective of OSC’s decision, the person or group bringing the claim receives a letter stating that he or she has 90 days from the date of receiving OSC’s 120-day letter to submit a complaint with OCAHO even if OSC ultimately declines to pursue its own complaint. At this point, the OSC also notifies the respondent of the status of its investigation.

At this point, we often recommend a review of companies’ policies as they relate to immigration compliance, including the hiring process, E-Verify procedures, and Form I-9 completion, even if these policies are outside the scope of the specific information being investigated by OSC. OSC attorneys are bright, resourceful, and relentless when necessary, and we have found them to be knowledgeable adversaries. Fortunately, we have been able to work with OSC at the initial investigation stage in a number of matters, including instituting compliance safeguards and closing out investigations with settlement agreements when appropriate. When an investigation continues past the initial 120-day period, OSC must decide by the 210th day whether to dismiss the case, begin settlement negotiations, or file a lawsuit. In cases where the OSC attorney is unable to render a decision within 210 days, both parties generally agree to additional time.

What does this mean to my company?

Investigations by the OSC should be taken very seriously and internal reviews of employment verification practices must be central to companies’ overall compliance strategies. Companies must ensure that they abide by the INA’s anti-discrimination provisions and treat all employees consistently by not arbitrarily requiring employees to provide new or updated Form I-9 information or document copies. It is important to note, however, that companies do not need to run very far afoul of the law to trigger the OSC’s attention. Indeed, the Obama administration has resurrected the use of civil fines for Form I-9 violations and intensified the government’s enforcement efforts to actively pursue employers who engage in discriminatory hiring practices. Companies contacted by the OSC should immediately retain experienced immigration counsel and assess potential liability at additional locations, if applicable.

Examples of recent investigations by the Office of Special Counsel (OSC)

On January 4, 2012, the Justice Department reached a settlement with the University of California San Diego Medical Center over allegations that it subjected newly hired non-U.S. citizens to excessive demands for documents verifying their employment eligibility but did not impose the same requirement on newly hired U.S. citizens. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of citizenship status or national origin by imposing disproportionate documentary burdens during the hiring and employment eligibility verification processes. Under the terms of the agreement, the Medical Center will implement new employment eligibility verification policies to ensure equal treatment of all employees, pay a $115,000 civil penalty, conduct supplemental training of its human resources personnel, and coordinate with the Department of Justice to maintain compliance with proper employment eligibility verification processes across all University of California campuses, medical centers and facilities. To date, the Medical Center has taken appropriate measures to comply with the INA’s anti-discrimination provision and has received a Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) training on how to properly use work authorization documents.

On December 30, 2011, the Justice Department announced a settlement with Garland Sales, Inc. of Georgia over allegations that the rug manufacturer engaged in discrimination by subjecting employees of Hispanic descent to unnecessary documentary requirements when establishing their eligibility to work in the United States and retaliating against a worker who protested. According to the terms of the settlement, Garland will pay $10,000 in back pay and civil penalties and will undergo training on proper employment eligibility verification practices. The Department’s complaint alleges that Garland required newly hired non-U.S. citizens and foreign-born U.S. citizens to present work authorization documents beyond those required by federal law, including a “green card” in addition to an unexpired driver’s license and an unrestricted Social Security card. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) mandates equal treatment of authorized workers during the hiring process, regardless of their national origin or citizenship status.

On December 13, 2011, the Justice Department announced a settlement with S.W.J.J. Inc., or Sernak Farms, of Weatherly, Pennsylvania over allegations that Sernak engaged in discrimination on the basis of citizenship status by preferring to hire temporary visa holders over U.S. citizen applicants and adversely treating its U.S. citizen employees. The Department of Justice investigation revealed that Sernak hired three foreign national workers under the H-2A visa program but did not consider hiring three of the eight U.S. citizens who brought the underlying charge on the belief that H-2A visa holders are more diligent than U.S. workers. Of the five U.S. citizens who were hired, the government’s investigation suggested that Sernak treated them differently than its foreign national employees in the terms and conditions of their employment and then dismissed them because of their citizenship status, a violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Under the terms of the settlement, Sernak agreed to pay $30,000 in back pay to the eight injured parties, who are U.S. citizens residing in Puerto Rico. The company has also agreed to provide its employees with training on the anti-discrimination requirements of the INA, adopt nondiscrimination policies with respect to recruitment and hiring, and maintain and submit records to the Department of Justice for the three-year term of the agreement.

On September 21, 2011, the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) issued a letter of resolution to Glenn Walters Nursery of Cornelius, Oregon, in response to a charge of document abuse and citizenship status discrimination brought by a Legal Permanent Resident. The employee who brought suit alleged that he was fired when he could not comply with an improper request to present a new permanent resident card and thereby demonstrate employment eligibility. The letter of resolution provides that Glenn Walters Nursery will train its human resources staff on the Form I-9 process and the anti-discrimination provision of the INA, implement corrective measures to correct the computer software error that caused the improper document request, refrain from reverifying the employment eligibility of permanent residents whose Permanent Resident Cards expire, and reinstate the employee with seniority, benefits and $12,000 in back pay.

On August 31, 2011, OSC issued a letter of resolution to Dollar Bank of Cleveland, Ohio in response to allegations that the Bank engaged in discriminatory hiring practices based on citizenship status. The employee who brought an action against Dollar Bank alleged that the company declined to hire her because she was a Legal Permanent Resident and not a U.S. citizen at the time of her application. The letter of resolution awards the employee $6,500 in back pay and requires Dollar Bank to consult with OSC about creating a comprehensive training program for its human resources personnel.

On August 30, 2011, OSC issued a letter of resolution to Texas Women’s University (TWU) of Denton, Texas to resolve allegations that the university engaged in citizenship discrimination by denying an internship to the aggrieved employee because he is a Legal Permanent Resident and is not required to register for the Selective Service due to age. In response to his claim that the university preferred to hire U.S. citizens who registered for the Selective Service, the letter of resolution awards the employee $1,023.47 in back pay and requires TWU to consult with OSC to create a comprehensive training program for its human resources personnel.

Crossing the citizenship discrimination spectrum, OSC issued a letter of resolution to Best Packing Services, Inc. of Philadelphia, PA to resolve allegations of discriminatory hiring practices against a U.S. citizen. The letter, issued on August 22, 2011, resolves an employee’s claim that Best Packing Services preferred to hire non-U.S. citizens and denied him employment because he is a U.S. citizen. The letter of resolution provides that the employee receive $1,500 in back pay and requires Best Packing Services to work with OSC to create a comprehensive training program for its human resources personnel.

Resources from the Office of Special Counsel (OSC)

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) that created OSC mandates a rigorous outreach effort to educate employers and workers about their rights and obligations under the INA’s anti-discrimination and employer sanctions provisions. To this end, OSC’s outreach materials target employers and workers alike. Resources intended for employer audiences include written materials on avoiding discrimination, navigating the E-Verify process, and posting employment opportunities online, as well as Social Security no-match guidance and information about the Form I-9 documents that refugees, asylees, and individuals with Temporary Protected Status (TPS) may present. In addition to printed materials, OSC also offers a variety of multimedia resources including videos and PowerPoint presentations.

To access these materials, please visithttp://www.justice.gov/crt/about/osc/htm/employer.php. We urge employers to access these resources as part of a robust compliance strategy which includes developing or improving existing compliance plans and providing regular and ongoing training, including anti-discrimination and fraud document seminars, to human resources staff responsible for Form I-9 completion. For up-to-the-minute immigration compliance news, please visit http://immigration.gtlaw.com.

©2012 Greenberg Traurig, LLP.

Another Circuit Jumps on the Anti – “Departure Bar” Bandwagon

Published recently in The National Law Review an article regarding the “Departure Bar” by William J. Flynn, III of Fowler White Boggs P.A.:

Recently, the Tenth Circuit became the seventh circuit court to reject the“departure bar” to motions to reopen found at 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(d). The departure bar essentially prohibits noncitizens from pursuing motions to reopen or reconsider in removal proceedings after having departed from the United States. The Tenth Circuit had been the only court to issue a precedent decision in favor of the bar, but overturned that decision in a recent rehearing en banc. Contreras-Bocanegra v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1170 (10th Cir. 2010).

The Third, Fourth, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits, among others, had all specifically found the bar unlawful. See e.g. Reyes-Torres v. Holder, 645 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2011). These courts have held, and many immigrants’ rights groups have argued, that the regulation deprives immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals the authority to adjudicate motions to remedy wrongfully executed deportations. Additionally, the regulation conflicts with a noncitizens’ statutory right to pursue reopening.

Although many courts have outright rejected the departure bar, the issue still remains open in many other circuits, the 11th included. The closest the Eleventh Circuit has come to making such a decision was in Ugokwe v. U.S. Attorney General, 453 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. 2006), in which it held that the filing of a motion to reopen tolls the period of voluntary departure, so as to prevent a subsequent departure from invalidating the motion. Nevertheless, the Ugokwecourt did side with the prior, similar holdings of the Ninth and Third Circuits, and so there remains hope that the Eleventh Circuit could do the same with respect to the legality of the departure bar, should the issue arise.

The full text of the Contreras-Bocanegra decision can be found here.

©2002-2012 Fowler White Boggs P.A.

2013 H-1B Visas

Posted in The National Law Review recently was an article by Kimberly A. Clarke, Nina Thekdi, and Luis E. Avila of Varnum LLP regarding H1B Visas:

Varnum LLP

Employers may first apply for 2013 H-1B visas for individuals not currently in H-1B status on April 2, 2012 with a start date of October 1, 2012.  While the 2012 H-1B visa cap for individuals not currently in H-1B status was not reached until November 2011, in previous years the cap has been reached within the first five days applications were accepted.

This H-1B cap limitation does not apply to extensions of H-1B status or those obtaining H-1B status to teach at colleges, universities, related nonprofit or government research organizations or J waiver physicians.

If your company has potential H-1B candidates working on post-education employment authorization that will expire prior to October 1, 2013, please contact us to prepare H-1B petitions for these individuals as soon as possible to secure an available visa.

© 2012 Varnum LLP

Pending Final Rule: Issuance of Full Validity L Visas to Qualified Applicants

The State Department published a pending final rule that permits the issuance of L visas with validity periods based on the visa reciprocity schedule.

Current State Department regulations require that L visa duration be limited to the validity period of the petition, which, under Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations, cannot exceed three years. Petitioners may apply to USCIS for extension of petition validity in increments of up to two years, but the total period of stay may not exceed five years for foreign nationals employed in a specialized knowledge capacity or seven years for foreign nationals employed in a managerial or executive capacity.

As a result of the change, L visa validity will be governed by 22 CFR § 41.112, rather than 22 CFR § 41.54(c), which provides that a nonimmigrant visa shall have the validity prescribed in schedules provided to consular officers by the State Department. These schedules reflect the reciprocal treatment the applicant’s country accords U.S. nationals, U.S. permanent residents or foreign nationals granted refugee status in the United States. The change will mostly benefit beneficiaries of petitions for L status who are nationals of countries for which the reciprocity schedule prescribes visa validity for a longer period of time.

©2002-2012 Fowler White Boggs P.A.