Category: Legal News

Available Options for Completing Form I-9 in Remote-Work Scenarios

The American Immigration Lawyer’s Association (AILA), through its Verification and Documentation Liaison Committee (“Verification Committee”) recently issued an FAQ compiling updated information related to employment verification (I-9) compliance requirements during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The FAQ addresses the viable options for completing the Form I-9 in remote-work scenarios and the most current developments in each type of process. Below are the main takeaways:

Process 1: In-person New Employee and HR/Admin Document Review: HR/Admin timely reviews the employee’s identity and employment authorization documents in the employee’s physical presence. Where employers have fully returned to in-office operations, or where they are no longer maintaining COVID-19 precautions, they must complete an in-person review of Form I-9.

Process 2: “Remote Hire” In-Person New Employee & Employer Authorized Representative Document Review: This is the so-called “Remote Hire” process, typically used in situations of on-boarding and new remote employee. Note that this is still an in-person document review conducted by a third party designated by the employer who acts as the agent. Also note that this process is not restricted only to employees based at remote locations but can also be used in any situation. Since the employer bears the liability for the agent’s errors it is best practice for the employer to train and/or provide instructions to the agents as well as perform a detailed review upon receipt of the completed Form I-9.

Process 3: Limited Temporary Option: HR/Adm’s Electronic Document Review: The virtual review option was first implemented March 20, 2020, and has been extended multiple times. The current extension expires July 31, 2023. With this process, HR/Adm timely reviews the employee’s identity and employment authorization documents electronically, not in the employee’s physical presence, but via video link, fax, email, etc.

Who can benefit from this option? The U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) confirmed to the Verification Committee the general rule in applying this option:

  • Before April 1, 2021, the temporary I-9 option was available if a business was operating 100% remotely as a result of the pandemic. If it was not, the in-person verification for Form I-9 was required. ICE acknowledged, however, that the Agency will handle audits and future enforcement on a case-by-case basis. Employers do not need to have 100% of their workforce working remotely to take advantage of the virtual option if the employer has a record supporting that the virtual review option was necessitated by the pandemic.
  • On or after April 1, 2021, the temporary virtual document review option is available, but only where the remote employment is a result of COVID-19-related precautions. Employers hiring “true remote” employees should conduct in-person reviews as they would have prior to the COVID-19 virtual review option being offered.

While virtual review provides a practical alternative to the in-person review, there are additional requirements in this process in order to maintain compliance:

  • Create and retain a written document that captures the remote onboarding and telework policy in place when this option is used for any Form I-9 created under this process;
  • Retain copies of the documents presented, as per the original guidance issued by ICE Note that security of sensitive personal information must be maintained, and the company should work with its information-security team regarding the transmission and/or capture of personal information in these situations;
  • Add “COVID-19” in the Additional Information field/box on Section 2 of the Form I-9;
  • Tell the employee that no later than three business days of cessation of this temporary electronic document review option or once the employee commences non-remote employment on a regular, consistent, or predictable basis (whichever is earlier), an in-person meeting and physical inspection of the document(s) will occur;
  • Within three business days of such a date, coordinate the in-person meeting and physical inspection of the document(s); and,
  • Add “documents physically examined,” date and initial in Section 2 Additional Information field/box, or to Section 3 of Form I-9, as appropriate.

Importantly, the virtual review process requires the employer to “perfect” the Form I-9 with an in-person meeting at a future date.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is currently reviewing the regulatory framework for document review in considering making virtual review a permanent option for I-9 compliance. DHS published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register and, since November 2022, has been reviewing comments. Simultaneously, ICE has ramped up audits and investigations as the pandemic has waned. Therefore, employers should maintain a fluid line of communication with their attorneys and employees to avoid any compliance issues.

Article By Caterina Cappellari of Greenberg Traurig, LLP

For more immigration legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2023 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

EEOC Announces Enforcement Priorities for 2023-2027

On Tuesday January 10, 2023, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) publicly released its Draft Strategic Enforcement Plan (“SEP”) for fiscal years 2023-2027. The SEP describes the EEOC’s top enforcement priorities, making it critical information for employers around the country.

The Draft SEP sets out the EEOC’s six subject matter priorities for fiscal years 2023-2027:

  1. Eliminating Barriers in Recruitment and Hiring;

  2. Protecting Vulnerable Workers and Persons From Underserved Communities From Employment Discrimination;

  3. Addressing Emerging and Developing Issues;

  4. Enforcing Equal Pay Laws;

  5. Preserving Access to the Legal System; and

  6. Preventing Harassment Through Systemic Enforcement and Targeted Outreach.

With respect to the first category, “Eliminating Barriers in Recruitment and Hiring,” the Draft SEP states the EEOC will focus on “the use of automatic systems, including artificial intelligence or machine learning, to target advertisements, recruit applicants, or make or assist in hiring decisions where such systems intentionally exclude or adversely impact protected groups.” The Draft SEP also expressly emphasizes the “lack of diversity” in both the construction and tech industries, noting the EEOC’s priority will typically involve systemic cases, though claims by an individual or small group may qualify for enforcement focus if it raises a policy, practice, or pattern of discrimination. Employers should note the EEOC’s decision to focus on AI and the tech industry demonstrates a heightened priority on remedying and preventing discrimination from automated and electronic screening tools used in hiring practices and employment decisions.

On January 31, 2023, the EEOC held a public hearing titled “Navigating Employment Discrimination in AI and Automated Systems: A New Civil Rights Frontier” where higher education professors, nonprofit organization representatives, attorneys, and workforce consultants prepared statements regarding the EEOC’s new focus.

The Draft SEP includes specific details regarding the types of hiring practices and policies that the agency seeks to scrutinize. For example, the EEOC aims to prevent employers from isolating and separating workers in certain jobs or job duties based on membership in a protected class. The EEOC plans to achieve this goal by identifying vulnerable workers for more focused attention. In addition, the EEOC will scrutinize practices which limit access to work opportunities, such as (1) job postings which either exclude or discourage some protected groups from applying, and (2) denying training, internships, or apprenticeships based on protected status. The Draft SEP also prioritizes preventing employers from denying opportunities to move from temporary to permanent roles.

As for the second category, “Protecting Vulnerable Workers and Persons From Underserved Communities From Employment Discrimination,” the Draft SEP expands the ”vulnerable worker priority” to include categories of workers who, according to the EEOC, “may be unaware of their rights . . . or reluctant or unable to exercise their legally protected rights.” These categories include workers with intellectual and developmental disabilities, individuals with arrest or conviction records, LGBTQI+ individuals, pregnant workers, individuals with pregnancy-related medical conditions, temporary workers, older workers, individuals employed in low-wage jobs, and persons with limited literacy or English proficiency. The Draft SEP proposes that district EEOC offices and the agency’s federal sector program will identify vulnerable workers and underserved communities in their districts or within the federal sector for focused attention. Employers should be aware that the “vulnerable workers” focused on under this category may vary based on location.

The Draft SEP’s third category, “Addressing Emerging and Developing Issues,” includes a focus on (1) qualification standards and inflexible policies or practices that discriminate against individuals with disabilities, (2) protecting individuals affected by pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the newly enacted Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, (3) employment issues relating to backlash in response to local, national, or global events, and (4) “employment discrimination associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.” The priorities for the EEOC’s COVID-19-related enforcement in this category include:

  • pandemic related harassment, particularly against individuals of Asian descent;

  • unlawful denials of accommodations to individuals with disabilities;

  • unlawful medical inquiries, improper direct threat determinations, or other discrimination related to disabilities that arose during or were exacerbated by the pandemic; and

  • discrimination against persons who have an actual disability or are regarded as having a disability related to COVID–19, including individuals with long COVID, and pandemic-related caregiver discrimination based on a protected characteristic

With respect to the fourth category, “Enforcing Equal Pay Laws,” the Draft SEP sets out a focus on pay discrimination based on any protected category. The Draft SEP also states the EEOC may use “Commissioner Charges and directed investigations” to enforce equal pay. Notably, the EEOC has been hesitant to use Commissioner Charges in the past, as they comprise of less than 1% of annual charge volume since 2015. However, Commissioner Charges may become necessary to identify and remedy discrimination based on artificial intelligence or machine learning, as outlined in the first category.

The fifth and sixth categories remain largely unchanged from prior EEOC SEPs. The focus for the fifth category, preserving access to the legal system, will continue to identify and target (1) overly broad waivers, releases, non-disclosure and non-disparagement agreements; (2) improper mandatory arbitration provisions; (3) employers failure to keep proper records; and (4) improper retaliatory practices. As for the final category, the EEOC will continue to focus on promoting comprehensive anti-harassment programs and practices.

The EEOC will vote on a final version of the SEP following the public notice and comment period, which concludes on February 9, 2023.

Article By Dan Syed of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

For more labor and employment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2023, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

With the US Copyright Office (USCO) continuing their stance that protection only extends to human authorship, what will this mean for artificial intelligence (AI)-generated works — and artists — in the future?

Almost overnight, the limited field of Machine Learning and AI has become nearly as accessible to use as a search engine. Apps like Midjourney, Open AI, ChatGPT, and DALL-E 2, allow users to input a prompt into these systems and a bot will generate virtually whatever the user asks for. Microsoft recently announced its decision to make a multibillion-dollar investment in OpenAI, betting on the hottest technology in the industry to transform internet as we know it.[1]

However, with accessibility of this technology growing, questions of authorship and copyright ownership are rising as well. There remain multiple open questions, such as: who is the author of the work — the user, the bot, or the software that produces it? And where is this new generative technology pulling information from?

AI and Contested Copyrights

As groundbreaking as these products are, there has been ample backlash regarding copyright infringement and artistic expression. The stock image company, Getty Images, is suing Stability AI, an artificial intelligence art tool behind Stable Diffusion. Getty Images alleges that Stability AI did not seek out a license from Getty Images to train its system. Although the founder of Stability AI argues that art makes up 0.1% of the dataset and is only created when called by the user’s prompt. In contrast, Shutterstock, one of Getty Images largest competitors, has taken an alternative approach and instead partnered with Open AI with plans to compensate artists for their contributions.

Artists and image suppliers are not the only ones unhappy about the popularity of machine learning.  Creators of open-source code have targeted Microsoft and its subsidiary GitHub, along with OpenAI,  in a proposed class-action lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges that the creation of AI-powered coding assistant GitHub Copilot is relying on software piracy on an enormous scale. Further, the complaint claims that GitHub relies on copyrighted code with no attribution and no licenses. This could be the first class-action lawsuit challenging the training and output of AI systems. Whether artists, image companies, and open-source coders choose to embrace or fight the wave of machine learning,  the question of authorship and ownership is still up for debate.

The USCO made clear last year that the copyright act only applies to human authorship; however they have recently signaled that in 2023 the office will focus on the legal grey areas surrounding the copyrightability of works generated in conjunction with AI. The USCO denied multiple applications to protect AI authored works previously, stating that the “human authorship” element was lacking. In pointing to previous decisions, such as the 2018 decision that a monkey taking a selfie could not sue for copyright infringement, the USCO reiterated that “non-human expression is ineligible for copyright protection.” While the agency is standing by its conclusion that works cannot be registered if it is exclusively created by an AI, the office is considering the issue of copyright registration for works co-created by humans and AI.

Patent Complexities  

The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will have to rethink fundamental patent policies with the rise of sophisticated AI systems as well. As the USPTO has yet to speak on the issue, experts are speculating alternative routes that the office could choose to take: declaring AI inventions unpatentable, which could lead to disputes and hinder the incentive to promote innovation, or concluding that the use of AI should not render otherwise patentable inventions unpatentable, but would lead to complex questions of inventorship. The latter route would require the USPTO to rethink their existing framework of determining inventorship by who conceived the invention.

Takeaway

The degree of human involvement will likely determine whether an AI work can be protected by copyright, and potentially patents. Before incorporating this type of machine learning into your business practices, companies should carefully consider the extent of human input in the AI creation and whether the final work product will be protectable. For example:

  • An apparel company that uses generative AI to create a design for new fabric may not have a protectable copyright in the resulting fabric design.

  • An advertising agency that uses generative AI to develop advertising slogans and a pitch deck for a client may not be able to protect the client from freely utilizing the AI-created work product.

  • A game studio that uses generative AI to create scenes in a video game may not be able to prevent its unlicensed distribution.

  • A logo created for a business endeavor may not be protected unless there are substantial human alterations and input.

  • Code that is edited or created by AI may be able to be freely copied and replicated.

Although the philosophical debate is only beginning regarding what “makes” an artist, 2023 may be a uniquely litigious year defining the extent in which AI artwork is protectable under existing intellectual property laws.

FOOTNOTES

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/23/tech/microsoft-invests-chatgpt-openai/index.html; https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/12/technology/microsoft-openai-chatgpt.html

Article By Anthony V. Lupo and Dan Jasnow of ArentFox Schiff LLP

For more intellectual property legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2023 ArentFox Schiff LLP

What’s New in 5G – February 2023

The next-generation of wireless technologies – known as 5G – is expected to revolutionize business and consumer connectivity, offering network speeds that are up to 100 times faster than 4G LTE, reducing latency to nearly zero, and allowing networks to handle 100 times the number of connected devices, enabling the “Internet of Things.”  Leading policymakers – federal regulators and legislators – are making it a top priority to ensure that the wireless industry has the tools it needs to maintain U.S. leadership in commercial 5G deployments.  This blog provides monthly updates on FCC actions and Congressional efforts to win the race to 5G.

Regulatory Actions and Initiatives

Spectrum

  • The FCC grants relief to a 600 MHz licensee serving Tribal Nations, giving it more time to complete and deploy its wireless network.

    • On January 4, 2023, the FCC’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (“WTB”) released an Order granting a third request by Pine Cellular Phones, Inc. (“Pine Cellular”) to extend its construction deadline for one of its 600 MHz licenses by one year from January 9, 2023 to January 9, 2024.  In 2019, Pine Cellular was a winning bidder in the Broadcast Incentive Auction (Auction No. 1002) of two 600 MHz licenses.  After the licenses were awarded, the FCC prohibited the use of funding from the Universal Service Fund for equipment and services deemed to pose a national security risk.  Pine Cellular planned to rely on that now-prohibited equipment to meet its construction requirement, but it has since been unable to acquire and install compliant equipment due, in part, to global supply chain issues.  The WTB granted Pine Cellular’s request because it recognized that the only way for Pine Cellular to fulfill its construction requirement is to remove and replace all prohibited equipment in its network and that termination of the license would not facilitate the provision of wireless broadband service, particularly to the Choctaw Nation, which is covered by Pine Cellular’s license.

  • The FCC grants additional licenses for spectrum in the 2.5 GHz band for commercial wireless services.

    • The WTB released a Public Notice on January 5, 2023, announcing the grant of four additional licenses for spectrum in the 2.5 GHz band, the auction for which concluded on August 29, 2022.  A list of the licenses, sorted by licensee, is available here.  And list of the same licenses, sorted by market, is available here.

  • The FCC takes further action to enable commercial operations through spectrum sharing in the 3.5 GHz band.

    • On January 10, 2023, the WTB and Office of Engineering and Technology (“OET”) released a Public Notice approving the new Environmental Sensing Capability (“ESC”) sensor deployment and coverage plans of Federated Wireless in the 3.5 GHz band.  Federated Wireless is now authorized to operate its ESC sensors to protect federal incumbents in Alaska and must, among other things, operate in conjunction with at least one Spectrum Access System (“SAS”), which manages non-federal access to the 3.5 GHz band, that has been approved for commercial deployment.

    • In addition, the WTB and OET released a Public Notice on January 12, 2023, certifying that the SAS operated by RED Technologies SAS (“RED”) has satisfied the FCC’s testing requirements and been approved to begin its initial commercial deployment (“ICD”), subject to certain conditions.  After RED operates its ICD, it is required to submit a report, and assuming that the report is satisfactory, RED will then receive authorization to operate for a five-year term.

  • The FCC revises its framework for making public safety spectrum in the 4.9 GHz band available for commercial wireless services.

    • On January 18, 2023, the FCC released an Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking establishing rules that provide for a nationwide Band Manager for public safety operations in the 4940-4990 MHz (“4.9 GHz”) band.  The Order replaces the previous framework for the 4.9 GHz band, which allowed states to lease the spectrum to third parties, including commercial entities, through a designated statewide lessor.  The new framework will allow the Band Manager to coordinate all use of the spectrum nationwide, including by making it available for secondary, non-public safety use – such as commercial 5G wireless services – by allowing non-public safety entities to lease unused 4.9 GHz band spectrum.  The Further Notice seeks comment on implementing the new leasing framework and selecting the Band Manager.  Comments and reply comments on the Further Notice will be due 30 days and 60 days, respectively, after publication in the Federal Register.

Other Agency Actions

  • The Federal Aviation Administration proposes requirements to help foster coexistence between 5G operations in the C-band and aircraft relying on radio altimeters.

    • On January 22, 2023, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) was published in the Federal Register.  The Notice proposes to update the FAA’s existing Airworthiness Directive (“AD”) regarding the coexistence of licensees of spectrum in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band (“C-band”) and radio altimeters.  Specifically, the FAA proposes interference tolerance requirements for radio altimeters and requirements that all aircraft operating under its rules meet power spectral density requirements to operate in the contiguous U.S. after February 2, 2024.  The FAA has determined that radio altimeter tolerant airplanes will not experience unsafe conditions at any airport identified by the FAA as a 5G market.  It has also determined that any 5G C-band provider that maintains the mitigated actions, which are based on the power levels to which Verizon and AT&T previously agreed, will not have an effect on the safety of transport and commuter airplanes with radio altimeters that meet the interference tolerance requirements.  The FAA will assess changes in the agreed-upon power levels.  Comments on the FAA’s proposals are due February 10, 2023.

  • The Department of Defense seeks comment on developing a spectrum roadmap.

    • On January 4, 2023, the Department of Defense (“DoD”) released a Request for Information seeking input to support the development of a Next-Generation Electromagnetic Spectrum Strategic Roadmap, which Congress requested of DoD in a June 2022 letter.  Among other things, DoD requests input on its ability to use commercial systems for its operations and spectrum sharing.  The deadline for providing input is February 10, 2023 at 2:00 pm ET.

5G Networks and Equipment

  • The FCC reminds rip-and-replace funding recipients of their reporting obligations.

    • On January 11, 2023, the FCC’s Wireline Competition Bureau released a Public Notice reminding parties that receive funding from the FCC’s Reimbursement Program to remove and replace equipment that poses a national security risk of their obligation to file their Reimbursement Program spending reports.  The spending reports, which, among other things, must include a detailed accounting of the covered equipment and services that have been removed and replaced, are due by February 10, 2023.

Article By Angela Y. Kung and Christen B’anca Glenn of Mintz

For more data privacy and cybersecurity legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©1994-2023 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

Privacy Tip #359 – GoodRx Settles with FTC for Sharing Health Information for Advertising

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced on February 1, 2023 that it has settled, for $1.5M, its first enforcement action under its Health Breach Notification Rule against GoodRx Holdings, Inc., a telehealth and prescription drug provider.

According to the press release, the FTC alleged that GoodRx failed “to notify consumers and others of its unauthorized disclosures of consumers’ personal health information to Facebook, Google, and other companies.”

In the proposed federal court order (the Order), GoodRx will be “prohibited from sharing user health data with applicable third parties for advertising purposes.” The complaint alleged that GoodRx told consumers that it would not share personal health information, and it monetized users’ personal health information by sharing consumers’ information with third parties such as Facebook and Instagram to help target users with ads for personalized health and medication-specific ads.

The complaint also alleged that GoodRx “compiled lists of its users who had purchased particular medications such as those used to treat heart disease and blood pressure, and uploaded their email addresses, phone numbers, and mobile advertising IDs to Facebook so it could identify their profiles. GoodRx then used that information to target these users with health-related advertisements.” It also alleges that those third parties then used the information received from GoodRx for their own internal purposes to improve the effectiveness of the advertising.

The proposed Order must be approved by a federal court before it can take effect. To address the FTC’s allegations, the Order prohibits the sharing of health data for ads; requires user consent for any other sharing; stipulates that the company must direct third parties to delete consumer health data; limits the retention of data; and implement a mandated privacy program. Click here to read the press release.

Article By Linn F. Freedman of Robinson & Cole LLP

For more privacy and cybersecurity legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2023 Robinson & Cole LLP. All rights reserved.

DHS Guidelines Give Protection from Deportation to Undocumented Workers Who Report Labor Violations

If an employer hires undocumented workers, are they covered under the U.S. employment laws? Initially, employers must complete Form I-9s for all new employees and cannot hire workers who are unable to establish that they’re authorized to work. But once hired, the script flips and undocumented workers generally enjoy the same legal protections as the rest of the workforce (e.g., Title VII, FLSA, etc.). Undocumented workers, however, are often reluctant to make complaints to or cooperate in investigations with the EEOC, the Department of Labor, or other labor agencies, even when they have a legitimate beef with their employer. Why? It may be at least in part because they fear that they’ll be hauled into immigration court and deported. But now, the Biden administration has given those workers a possible safety valve.

Last month, the Department of Homeland Security released guidelines providing a process for undocumented workers to seek deferred action from removal (deportation) when they report a violation to a labor agency or cooperate in an agency investigation. In some circumstances, the individuals who utilize this process may also be eligible for temporary work authorization. Although each request for deferred action will be decided on a case-by-case basis, it’s clear that the purpose of this new process is to encourage undocumented workers to report labor violations and assist with agency investigations.

How Does the Process Work?

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will manage the process using a centralized intake system. If an undocumented worker makes a complaint to the EEOC, the DOL, or other labor agency, or assists the agency with an investigation, that worker can request deferred action from removal by submitting certain required documents. Among other things, the worker must submit his or her own statement setting forth the basis for the request, as well as a supporting “statement of interest” from the involved labor agency. According to the guidelines, the agency’s “statement of interest” should provide details about the nature of its investigation, how the worker may be helpful to that investigation, and how granting the worker’s request for deferred action would support the agency’s enforcement interests.

If the worker is already in removal proceedings or subject to an order of removal, the request for deferred action will be forwarded to ICE for determination. Otherwise, USCIS will adjudicate the request. Either way, USCIS or ICE will exercise its discretion on a case-by-case basis. In certain cases, the interested agency may also ask that the worker’s request be adjudicated on an expedited basis.

If an undocumented worker’s request is approved, the grant of deferred action will normally be good for two years, although it is subject to termination at any time. When submitting the request, the worker may also apply for temporary employment authorization on USCIS Form I-765. Approved applications for employment authorization, while not guaranteed, will typically allow the individual to work for the entire period of deferred action. Subsequent requests to extend the worker’s deferred action can be made if the labor agency continues to have an investigative or enforcement interest in the worker’s matter.

What’s the Practical Impact?

This is less clear. Will undocumented workers take advantage of this new process in significant numbers? The guidelines offer some potential protection, but the approval of an individual worker’s request is not automatic and, even if approved, the grant of deferred action is temporary.  Notably, the guidelines do not provide any long-term path to lawful status. And, because the guidelines have been issued without Congressional or regulatory action, they are subject both to being challenged in the courts and to being revoked in two years if there’s a change in the White House. Will undocumented workers feel comfortable using this process in the face of all this uncertainty? Stay tuned.

Article By Keith Covington and Anne R. Yuengert of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

For more immigration legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.
© 2023 Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

10 Tips When Hiring a Federal Appeals Lawyer

When hiring a federal appeals attorney, it is important not to take your decision lightly. There is a good chance that the outcome of your appeal will have a major impact on your life or business—whether positive or negative—and your choice of counsel will have a major impact on your chances of success.

For many people, their first instinct is to engage their trial counsel for their appeal. On its face, this makes sense. Trial counsel is already intimately familiar with the facts of your case, and trial counsel is—or should be—well aware of the grounds that are available for seeking relief at the appellate level.

But, while trial counsel can be a good option in some cases, defendants should not engage their trial counsel by default. There are many circumstances in which hiring trial counsel to continue forward with an appeal will not be the right choice. There are several factors to consider, and considering all of these factors is essential for making an informed decision.

“Some lawyers are better equipped to handle federal criminal appeals than others. This is not a slight toward lawyers who don’t handle federal appeals, but rather simply an acknowledgment that federal appeals are a unique practice area just like white collar criminal defense, healthcare fraud defense, or defending against allegations of serious violent crimes. If you need to appeal the outcome of your federal criminal case, it is imperative that you choose a lawyer who has been there many times before.” – Dr. Nick Oberheiden, Founding Attorney of Oberheiden P.C.

Due to the unique challenges involved in successfully pursuing a federal criminal appeal, the considerations involved in choosing a federal appeals attorney are not the same as those involved in choosing trial counsel for a federal criminal case. This is important to keep in mind, and understanding the unique nature of the federal appeals process will help you make an informed choice about your appellate representation.

How To Choose Appellate Counsel for a Federal Criminal Appeal

So, how should you choose appellate counsel for your federal criminal appeal? Here are 10 tips to keep in mind when hiring a federal appeals lawyer:

1. Understand that an Appeal is Not a Re-Trial

The first thing to understand that will help you make an informed decision about your choice of appellate counsel is that an appeal is not a re-trial. As a result, being an effective trial lawyer does not necessarily translate to having the skills needed to provide effective representation at the appellate level. The federal trial and appellate processes are very different, and many of the arguments and strategies that work at trial are completely irrelevant to the process of seeking relief from an unjust conviction or sentence on appeal.

For example, while providing effective trial representation requires the ability to effectively question witnesses and argue the facts to the jury, providing effective appellate representation requires persuasive writing abilities and the ability to effectively argue the law to a panel of judges who aren’t necessarily focused on the defendant’s guilt or innocence. On appeal, the focus is instead on determining whether errors at the trial level entitle the defendant to the opportunity to pursue a different outcome.

2. Focus on Hiring a Lawyer with Significant Federal Appellate Experience

Given the unique nature of the federal appeals process, relevant experience is undoubtedly the most important factor to consider when choosing a lawyer to represent you. This means experience handling federal criminal appeals in cases similar to yours—and ideally experience handling federal criminal appeals in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that will hear your case. Although, this latter consideration is definitely the less important of the two. While each U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has its own rules of practice, it is far easier to adapt to a new set of procedural rules than it is to get up to speed on the substantive issues involved in a complex federal case.

3. Carefully Consider Whether Your Trial Counsel is Your Best Option

As we touched on above, continuing to work with your trial counsel for your federal criminal appeal may or may not be your best option. As a baseline, you should only consider engaging your trial counsel for your appeal if he or she has extensive experience in federal appellate practice. While some lawyers handle trials and appeals, many devote their careers to handling one type of case or the other.

Even if your trial counsel also has significant experience, you will still want to weigh other factors as well. How effective was your trial representation? Do you have any concerns about whether your trial counsel was able to effectively preserve your grounds for appeal? Does your attorney have other major trials in the pipeline? These are all important questions to consider when making your decision.

4. Expand Your Search

When choosing a federal appeals attorney, you don’t necessarily have to stay local—and, in fact, staying local might not be your best option either. There are federal appeals lawyers who handle cases throughout the country; and, depending on where you live or your business is located, your local options may be fairly limited. You can (and should) expand your search to law firms with a nationwide presence, and you can (and should) choose a lawyer based on relevant experience rather than geographic proximity.

5. Schedule a Consultation to Discuss Your Appeal

Whether you are considering your trial counsel or you are looking elsewhere for your appellate representation, you should schedule a consultation to discuss your appeal. Before you invest in an appeal, you need to make sure it makes sense to move forward. Scheduling a consultation also gives you the opportunity to speak with a lawyer one-on-one and decide whether he or she seems like the right choice to handle your case on appeal.

6. Do Some Legwork Yourself

In addition to scheduling a consultation, you can also do some legwork to help you make an informed decision—and to help yourself and your lawyer begin preparing for your appeal. When it comes to choosing a federal appeals lawyer, this includes taking steps such as:

  • Visiting the lawyer’s website and reading about his or her experience

  • Reading client reviews and testimonials online

  • Preparing a list of questions to ask during your initial consultation

When it comes to preparing for your appeal, some of the steps you can take to prepare in advance of your initial appellate consultation include:

  • Taking notes about any potential grounds for appeal that you have discussed with your trial counsel

  • Taking notes about any other specific issues during your trial that you think may have led to an unjust result

  • Familiarizing yourself with the unique aspects of federal appellate practice

7. Do Not Fall for a Sales Pitch

While a lawyer should only be willing to take your case if he or she is capable of representing you effectively, you still need to be careful to avoid falling for a sales pitch. Unfortunately, if you schedule a consultation with a lawyer who isn’t the right choice to handle your case, there is a possibility that he or she may still try to convince you otherwise. While these instances are relatively rare, they do happen. If you feel like a lawyer is pressuring you to move forward with an engagement, this is most likely a sign that you should choose someone else for your federal criminal appeal.

8. Schedule Another Consultation if Necessary

This brings us to another important point: If you schedule a consultation with a lawyer and you are not confident in the lawyer’s ability to handle your appeal effectively for any reason, you should not hesitate to schedule another consultation at another firm.

9. Make Your Decision Carefully

If it is not already abundantly clear, when hiring a federal appeals attorney, you need to make your decision carefully. You should not rush, and you should not make your decision out of convenience or the desire to avoid putting in effort. Your effort to find the right lawyer for your appeal will be well worth it. Whether you are facing a conviction as an individual or your business has been convicted of corporate fraud or any other crime, you need to have unwavering confidence in your counsel’s ability to provide strategic and efficient appellate representation. The more effort you put into choosing the right lawyer, the more confidence you will have in your decision.

10. Make Your Decision Promptly

Finally, while it is important not to rush your decision, you still need to make your decision promptly. Under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, you only have 14 days to file a Notice of Appeal. While a Notice of Appeal is a simple form filing, you cannot afford to risk any mistakes or delays. So, whether it has been hours or days since the trial court’s decision, finding the right federal appeals lawyer to represent you (or your business) needs to be your top priority.

Article By Dr. Nick Oberheiden of Oberheiden P.C.

For more litigation legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Oberheiden P.C. © 2023

Multi-Club Ownership – For the Good of the Game?

Alongside the rise of investment from sovereign wealth and private equity funds, sport has also seen an increase in multi-club/franchise ownership groups. These groups, often spanning across different sports, leagues, countries, and continents, allow investors to diversify their portfolios and spread their risks.

However, in football, the rise of the Multi-Club Ownership (MCOs) model poses a challenge for how the sport is governed and has implications on current and future financial regulation. MCOs acquire multiple football clubs, building a network of related teams in the process. This, consequentially, has a knock-on effect on player transfers, commercial opportunities, and the overall competitive balance of football across the globe.

In this article, we discuss the benefits of MCOs for both clubs and owners, the potential competitive advantages clubs can gain through MCOs, and whether the existing financial regulations are fit for purpose given the increasing number of MCOs within the sport.

Governance

One of the key benefits for clubs under an MCO structure is the ability to leverage centralized governance infrastructure and apply lessons learned from across the group. By centralizing key departments at the portfolio level, and incentivizing knowledge sharing within the group, MCOs can apply synergies and implement best practices with each new acquisition, leading to a more effective and efficient operation. Additionally, the centralized governance structure within an MCO brings with it opportunities for financial benefits in the form of cost savings and potentially increased revenues.

Sponsorships and Commercial Deals

Operating under an MCO allows clubs to benefit from sponsorships and other commercial deals negotiated at the group level, while also increasing individual brand awareness for each respective club. For example, an MCO could negotiate a group sponsorship agreement with a kit manufacturer or shirt sponsor covering a number of teams within the group, including the flagship club.

Agreements of this kind would be beneficial for all parties involved. The sponsor increases its own profile by being associated with the flagship club, while also getting instant access to a variety of markets through the other clubs in the agreement. At the group level, the homogeneity created by having clubs within the group playing in similar kits creates a stronger brand identity, whilst also boosting the brand profile for the smaller clubs by further associating them with the flagship club. Additionally, a group agreement would allow the MCO to secure a competitive rate that may have been unattainable for a solitary club.

Player Scouting, Acquisition, and Development

The other major financial benefit for clubs in an MCO structure relates to how players are scouted, acquired, and developed. A common feature of MCOs is the application of a uniform strategy, across all portfolio clubs, set at a group level by a Sporting/Technical Director. When trickled down to each club, this results in a global scouting network, acquiring local talent with the group’s playing style in mind. These players will then be brought into an academy, through which they will be developed to play in the MCO’s preferred playing style.

While this does not represent an immediate cost saving, this network of local scouting and academies at the club level can lead to a significant competitive and financial advantage as players move within the group from smaller clubs to the flagship club. By transferring or loaning players “in-house”, MCOs can ensure that a player’s development is not hampered by being played in an unfavorable position, or by being asked to perform a different role, protecting their value.

Additionally, by acquiring players from within the group, clubs save both time and money on scouting, as players are already a known quantity within the network. Furthermore, the receiving club acquires a player tailor-made to their playing style, reducing the time required to bed them in.

“In-house” Transfer Agreements

As exemplified by the transfer of Hassane Kamara between Pozzo family-owned clubs Watford and Udinese, “in-house” transfers can be leveraged to alleviate financial constraints for clubs within the group. Kamara, initially purchased by Watford in January 2022 for £4m, and who went on to be Watford’s player of the season, was subsequently sold to Udinese in August 2022 for £16m.

However, Kamara was then loaned straight back to Watford for the 2022/23 season. Although prima facie, this transfer does not benefit Udinese, it allowed Watford to recognize an £8m profit on Kamara while retaining his services, and strengthening their cash flow at a time when they were negotiating contracts with other star players. While “in-house” transfers of this kind raise questions regarding their fitness and propriety, they also have implications on competitive balance.

Parent Feeder

The most recognizable transfer strategy within MCOs is the feeder club model. This can be mutually beneficial to both clubs, with the best-performing players transferring to the “parent” clubs” and the “feeder” club receiving transfer income, as well as occasional loan transfers of youth team players to develop while remaining in the MCO structure.

Such a relationship can be seen between Red Bull owned, RB Leipzig (RBL) and FC Red Bull Salzburg (FCS). Since 2015, twelve players have transferred directly from FCS to RBL, with transfer fees totaling £119.75m. Eight of these players, bought for a total of £73.85m have subsequently been sold for a total of £117.50m, generating £43.65 profit RBL. The cumulative market value of the four players still playing for RBL has risen by £26.32m since their relevant transfers. For perspective, there have only been four transfers from RBL to FCS in the same period. [i]

Competition Integrity

Although centralized governance structures provide a wealth of benefits to clubs and owners within MCOs, there is a regulation to limit the effects of centralized governance on the integrity of competition.

UEFA’s regulations on common ownership prohibit teams from competing in the same competition where a single person or entity has a de facto control over both clubs. For clubs under common ownership to compete in the same competition, they must demonstrate that there are disparities within the clubs’ corporate matters, financing, personnel, and sponsorship arrangements.

On only one occasion since 2002 has UEFA’s rule on common ownership been considered. RBL and FCS both qualified for the 2017/18 Champions League and had to make significant structural changes in order for both teams to be admitted to that season’s edition. Therefore, as long as MCOs are willing to sacrifice centralized operations to an extent satisfactory to UEFA regulations, mutual competition is allowed. However, while many smaller clubs within more centralized MCO structures may not have short-term goals of European Football, UEFA regulations do raise questions over the investor’s long-term footballing ambitions for those clubs.

Financial Sustainability Regulations

In addition to the on-field benefits, being part of an MCO also provides opportunities for clubs to improve their financial position, and potentially exploit loopholes in existing financial regulation. UEFA’s recently introduced Financial Sustainability Rules (FSR) are built upon three pillars: solvency, stability, and cost control. The new cost control regulation, known as the squad cost ratio, states that a club’s outlays on wages, agents’ fees, and amortization costs must be less than 70% of club revenues. [ii]

In a scenario where an MCO owned club requires to decrease their squad cost ratio, it is possible that group sponsorship agreements and in-house transfers could be used to achieve this. By selling players within an MCO, and then receiving those players back on loan, clubs will recognize a profit on the sale for the purposes of FSR and bring down their squad cost ratio.

When considering group sponsorship agreements in respect of FSR, it is also possible that the accounting treatment of this contract at the club level could be engineered to assist a club in complying with the squad cost ratio. The allocation of revenue from a group-level sponsorship to each of the clubs under the agreement is not required to be split evenly, which provides MCOs with an opportunity to funnel revenues from group sponsorships to their clubs complying with FSR. With no current guidance or regulation on how group sponsorships should be treated from an accounting perspective, group sponsorships are another tool that can be utilized to improve their squad cost ratio.

Fair Value Regulations

Although MCOs bring opportunities to improve squad cost ratios, the FSR regulations also require all transactions to be made at “fair value”. This means that financial arrangements for sponsorships and player transfers must be accounted for on an “arm’s length” basis. Where there are doubts amongst the Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) board, it can request an adjustment of the proceeds resulting from the transfer of a player, or the allocation of sponsorship monies.

However, there is currently no precedent or evidence to indicate how UEFA would view the accounting treatment for a club under a group sponsorship agreement or the transfer of players within MCOs. Furthermore, while there is a clear means to value a sponsorship agreement, this is considerably more difficult with regard to transfers, specifically the valuation of a player.

While age, injury record, marketability, and contract length, are all attributable factors, a player’s worth comes down to how much the selling club desires weighted against how much the buying club is willing to pay. An MCO structure circumvents this issue and allows for “in-house” transfers at an inflated value stipulated by the shared owner/s. Given the regulations, it is unlikely any club would want to pique the interests of the CFCB by hyper-inflating the value of a transfer, but whether MCOs will be deterred from increasing the value of in house transfers by smaller, nominal values remains to be seen.

The Future of MCOs

Recent trends have shown that the existence of MCOs will be sustained over the coming years. Sport has developed alongside the increasingly commercialized world, resulting in significant growth in investor interest across multiple clubs and sports. However, how the governance and regulation of MCOs evolves will define their development in the long term. Another factor that must be considered is whether investors will prefer multi-sport ownership (MSOs), which bring with them their own regulatory considerations, particularly in relation to conflicts of interest. Nonetheless, in the immediate future we expect continued investment in Football, the question is whether they remain satisfied with just one club, or one sport.

[i] All figures have been taken from https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/

[ii] A full copy of UEFA’s new regulations can be found here

Kurun Bhandari (Director) and James Michaels (Associate) at Ankura authored this article.

For more entertainment, art, and sports legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2023 Ankura Consulting Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

SECURE 2.0 Act Brings Slate of Changes to Employer-Sponsored Retirement Plans

In December, the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 (“SECURE 2.0”) was passed, a package of retirement provisions providing comprehensive updates and changes to the SECURE Act of 2019. The legislation includes some key changes that affect employer-sponsored defined contribution plans, such as profit-sharing plans, 401(k) plans, 403(b) plans and stock bonus plans. While some of the changes are effective immediately upon the law’s enactment, most required changes are not effective before the plan year beginning on or after January 1, 2024, so employer sponsors have time to prepare for compliance.

Required Changes

Mandatory automatic enrollment in new plans.

Plan sponsors are currently allowed to provide for automatic enrollment and automatic escalation in 401(k) and 403(b) plans. SECURE 2.0 requires new 401(k) and 403(b) plans to automatically enroll participants at a new default rate, and to escalate participants’ deferral rate each year, up to a maximum of 15%, with some exceptions for new and small businesses. This provision applies to new plans with initial plan years beginning after December 31, 2024.

Changes to long-term part-time employee participation requirements.

The Act currently requires 401(k) plans to permit participation in the deferral part of the plan only by an employee who worked at least 500 hours (but less than 1000 hours) per year for three consecutive years. SECURE 2.0 changes this participation requirement by long-term part-time employees working more than 500, but less than 1000, hours per year to two consecutive years instead of three. However, this two-year provision does not take effect until January 1, 2025, which means the original SECURE Act three-year provision still applies for 2024. Employers should start tracking hours for part-time employees to determine whether they will be eligible in 2024 or 2025 under this provision. For vesting purposes, pre-2021 service is disregarded, just as service is disregarded for eligibility purposes. This provision is applicable to 401(k) plans and 403(b) plans that are subject to ERISA and does not apply to collectively bargained plans. This provision applies to plan years beginning after December 31, 2024.

Changes to catch-up contributions limits.

If a defined contribution plan permits participants who have attained age 50 to make catch-up contributions, the catch-up contributions are now required to be made on a Roth basis for participants who earn at least $145,000 (indexed after 2024) or more in the prior year. This provision is effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2023.

Changes to the required minimum distribution (RMD) age.

Currently, required minimum distributions must begin at age 72 for participants who have terminated employment. SECURE 2.0 increases the age to age 73 starting on January 1, 2023, and to age 75 starting on January 1, 2033. This means that participants who turn 72 in 2023 are not required to take an RMD for 2023; instead, they will be required to start taking RMDs for calendar year 2024, the year in which they turn 73. This provision is effective for distributions made after December 31, 2022, for individuals who turn 72 after that date.

Early withdrawal tax exemption for emergency withdrawal expenses.

SECURE 2.0 provides for an exception from the 10% early withdrawal tax on emergency expenses, defined as certain unforeseeable or immediate financial needs, on a limited basis (once per year, up to $1000). Plans may allow an optional three-year payback period, and participants are restricted from taking another emergency withdrawal within three years of any unpaid amount on a previous withdrawal. This provision is effective for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2024.

Changes to automatic enrollment for new plans.

Almost all new defined contribution plans will be required to auto-enroll employees upon hire (existing plans are exempt from this provision). This provision is applicable for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2025.

Optional Changes

Additional catch-up contribution opportunities.

Currently, the catch-up contribution limits for certain plans are indexed for inflation and apply to employees who have reached the age of 50. SECURE 2.0 increases catch-up contribution limits for individuals aged 60-63 to the greater of: (1) $10,000 (indexed for inflation), or (2) 50% more than the regular catch-up amount in effect for 2024. This provision is effective for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2025.

Additional employer contributions to SIMPLE IRA plans.

Current law requires employers with SIMPLE IRA plans to make employer contributions to employees of either 2% of compensation or 3% of employee elective deferral contributions. SECURE 2.0 allows employers to make additional contributions to each employee of a SIMPLE plan in a uniform manner, provided the contribution does not exceed the lesser of up to 10 percent of compensation or $5,000 (indexed). This provision is effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2023.

Replacing SIMPLE IRA plans with safe harbor 401(k) plans.

The new law also permits an employer to elect to replace a SIMPLE IRA plan with a safe harbor 401(k) plan at any time during the year, provided certain criteria are met. The current law prohibits the replacement of a SIMPLE IRA plan with a 401(k) plan mid-year. This provision also includes a waiver of the two-year rollover limitation in SIMPLE IRAs converting to a 401(k) or 403(b) plan. This change is effective for plan years beginning after December 31, 2023.

Increasing involuntary cash-out threshold.

Currently plans may automatically cash-out a vested participant’s benefit that is between $1,000 and $5,000 and roll this amount over to an IRA. SECURE 2.0 allows plans to increase the $5,000 involuntary cash-out limit amount to $7,000. This provision of the law is effective for distributions made after December 31, 2023.

Relaxation of discretionary amendment deadline.

Under current law, a discretionary plan amendment must be adopted by the end of the plan year in which it is effective. SECURE 2.0 allows plans to make discretionary plan amendments to increase benefits until the employer’s tax filing deadline for the immediately preceding taxable year in which the amendment is effective. This applies to stock bonus, pension, profit-sharing or annuity plans to increase benefits for the preceding plan year. This provision is effective for plan years beginning after December 31, 2023.

Elimination of unnecessary plan notices to unenrolled participants.

SECURE 2.0 eases the administrative burden on plan sponsors by eliminating unnecessary plan notices to unenrolled participants. Under the amended law, plan sponsor notices to unenrolled participants may consist solely of an annual notice of eligibility to participate during the annual enrollment period, as opposed to numerous notices from the plan sponsor. This provision is effective for plan years beginning after December 31, 2022.

Crediting of student loan payments as elective deferrals for purposes of matching contributions.

Under SECURE 2.0, student loan payments may be treated as elective deferrals for the purposes of matching contributions to a retirement plan. This provision is available for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2024.

Matching contributions designated as Roth contributions.

Previously, employer matching contributions could not be made as Roth contributions. Effective on the date of the enactment of SECURE 2.0, 401(a), 403(b), or governmental 457(b) plans may allow employees the option to designate matching contributions as Roth contributions.

Expansion of the Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System (EPCRS).

Currently, EPCRS contains procedures to self-correct certain limited, operational failures that are insignificant and corrected within a three-year period. SECURE 2.0 expands this, generally permitting any inadvertent failure to be self-corrected under EPCRS within a reasonable period after the failure is identified, without a submission to the IRS, subject to some exceptions. This provision went into effect on the date of enactment.

Recoupment of overpayments.

Currently, fiduciaries for plans that have mistakenly overpaid a participant must take reasonable steps to recoup the overpayment (for example, by collecting it from the participant or employer) to maintain the tax-qualified status of the plan and comply with ERISA. Under SECURE 2.0, 401(a), 403(a), 403(b), and governmental plans (not including 457(b) plans) will not lose tax qualification merely because the plan fails to recover an “inadvertent benefit overpayment” or otherwise amends the plan to permit this increased benefit. In certain cases, the overpayment is also treated as an eligible rollover distribution. This provision became effective upon enactment with certain retroactive relief for prior good faith interpretations of existing guidance.

Simplified plan designs for “starter” 401(k) and 403(b) plans.

Effective for plan years beginning after December 31, 2023, SECURE 2.0 creates two new plan designs for employers who do not sponsor a retirement plan: a “starter 401(k) deferral-only arrangement” and a “safe harbor 403(b) plan.” These plans would generally require that all employees be enrolled in the plan with a deferral rate of three percent to 15 percent of compensation.

Financial incentives for contributions.

SECURE 2.0 allows participants to receive de minimis financial incentives (not paid for with plan assets) for contributing to a 401(k) or 403(b) plan. Previously, plans were prohibited from offering financial incentives (other than matching contributions) to employees for contributing to a plan. This provision became effective for plan years starting after the date of enactment.

When do employers need to amend their plans for the SECURE Act, CARES Act, and SECURE 2.0 (“the Acts”)?

If a retirement plan operates in accordance with the Acts, plan amendments must be made by the end of the 2025 plan year (or 2027 for governmental and collectively bargained plans). (The amendment deadlines for SECURE and CARES were extended late last year.)

Article By John D. Arendshorst, Andrea M. Gumushian, and Kristy L. De Vos of Varnum LLP

For more labor and employment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2023 Varnum LLP

Employment-Based Immigration Updates for 2023

As we move deeper into the new year, the U.S. government continues to try to resolve the challenges facing the immigration system due to the disruptions of the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting processing backlogs. These challenges may still continue, but new changes and updates have already taken effect—and more will likely come in 2023, impacting employers and the decisions they make with regard to their foreign national employees. Below are several updates the U.S. government has already released that impact employment-based immigration processes.

USCIS Proposed Fee Increases

On January 4, 2023, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) proposed changes to its fees for certain types of cases. The changes to the fees are dramatic increases to some employment-based visa types and are in an effort to make up for funding shortages that have impacted USCIS. Proposed filing fee increases for the following employment-based visa types include:

  • H-1B: $460 to $780
  • H-1B registration fee: $10 to $215
  • L-1: $460 to $1,385
  • O-1: $460 to $1,055
  • Adjustment of Status Application (I-485): $1,225 to $2,820

As we previously reported, the proposed rule—which is in the public comment phase—also includes a change to the existing premium processing timeline. The timeline would increase from fifteen calendar days to fifteen business days.

Continued Expansion of Premium Processing

On May 24, 2022, USCIS implemented a phased approach to expanded premium processing service. In 2022, premium processing was expanded to I-140 petitions, and on January 30, 2023, premium processing will be available to all EB-1C multinational executive and manager and EB-2 National Interest Waiver petitions. The January 30 expansion will include new filings as well as upgrades on pending petitions.

USCIS’s next phase of premium processing expansion will apply to the following applications:

  • Form I-539, Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status
  • Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization

Foreign National Employees and RIFs

With changes in the U.S. economy and world markets, employers may start conducting reductions in force (RIF) to adjust to new budget goals. RIFs have the potential to impact foreign national employees. As we discussed in a recent podcast, employers may want to consider the potential impact of restructurings on workers who are in nonimmigrant status, those who are in the permanent residency process, and students working in F-1 status.

Equal Pay Transparency Laws

An increasing number of states and local jurisdictions—such as California, Colorado, Connecticut, New York State, New York City, Rhode Island, and Washington—have implemented equal pay transparency (EPT) laws that now require employers to make additional disclosures regarding offered salaries and/or benefits on job requisitions and postings. This will have a significant impact on the PERM process for green card applications in these jurisdictions by mandating employers list a salary or salary range on PERM and non-PERM recruitment materials. EPT laws vary across jurisdictions as to which types of postings or recruitment efforts will require additional information.

Nonimmigrant Visa Interview Waivers Extended Until December 31, 2023

In an effort to reduce visa wait times and processing backlogs at U.S. consulates, the U.S. Department of State has extended the authority of consular officers to waive in-person interviews for certain nonimmigrant categories through December 31, 2023.

Fiscal Year 2024 H-1B Cap Preparation

With the annual H-1B lottery just two months away, employers may want to consider the foreign national employees they plan to sponsor and enter into this year’s upcoming H-1B cap or quota process. The process will start with the initial registration period, which typically opens at the beginning of March and lasts for a minimum of fourteen calendar days each fiscal year (FY). USCIS will soon announce details about the FY 2024 H-1B registration period. If enough registrations are submitted, USCIS will conduct a random selection of the registration entries to determine who will be eligible to file H-1B petitions. If selected, the employers will have ninety days to file the H-1B petitions, starting April 1. So far, there have not been any changes in this process for this upcoming cycle.

Article By Awanti A. Damle of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

For more immigration legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2023, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.