Tag: Immigration

DACA Program Continues as U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Expedite Consideration of Cases

The “Dreamers” have received another reprieve from the U.S. Supreme Court.

DACA litigation has been in the news since September 2017, when then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the DACA program would be terminated. In response to that announcement, multiple lawsuits were filed in federal courts in California, New York, Maryland, Texas, and the District of Columbia, resulting in multiple nationwide injunctions blocking the termination of the program. Indeed, the injunctions have forced USCIS to continue granting DACA renewals.

According to Vice President Mike Pence, the Trump Administration is looking for a way to prevent U.S. District Courts from imposing nationwide injunctions. In a speech in May, he said these injunctions are “judicial obstruction.” Absent relief from these injunctions, the Administration is attempting to expedite review of pending cases that are blocking its policies.

For instance, the Administration attempted to force the Supreme Court’s early consideration of the DACA cases in early-2018, which the Court rejected. At the end of May 2019, the government again sought to expedite the case by filing a brief urging the Court to decide whether to grant review by the end of this term, i.e., by June 24, 2019. The Administration argued, “The very existence of this pending litigation (and lingering uncertainty) continues to impede efforts to enact legislation addressing the legitimate policy concerns underlying the DACA policy.” But that argument did not prevail. On June 3, 2019, the Court rejected the Administration’s request.

The Court probably will not even consider reviewing the DACA cases until the fall and, if it grants review, a decision might not come down until sometime in 2020.

For now, the “Dreamers” can continue to renew their status, but they also will have to continue to live with the uncertainty. There is always the possibility that Congress will pass legislation that might provide a permanent solution for the “Dreamers,” but the legislative route has been bumpy. While numerous deals have been proposed regarding a DACA solution, stumbling blocks continue to appear in the form of unacceptable “quid pro quos.” Indeed, DACA was even a pawn in the most recent government shutdown.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2019

This post was written by Forrest G. Read IV of Jackson Lewis P.C.

Get updates on Immigration and the Dreamers on our Immigration type of law page.

Texas Service Center Now Accepting Form I-129 for Certain H-1B Petitions

The Texas Service Center has begun processing Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, for H-1B petitions where the beneficiary has already been charged against the H-1B annual limit.  USCIS is now distributing the workload for H-1B adjudications among the Texas, California, Vermont, and Nebraska service centers. The location for filing is determined by the geographic location of the petitioner’s primary office.

Petitions that are exempt from the H-1B cap because the petitioner is a cap exempt entity will continue to be filed with the USCIS California Service Center. USCIS also clarified that petitions that are cap exempt based on a Conrad/Interested Government Agency (IGA) waiver under INA 214(l), or petitions where the employer is located in Guam or the beneficiary will be performing services in Guam must also be filed with the CSC.

Petitioners filing any of the above H-1B petitions should file their Form I-129 at the address indicated on the Direct Filing Addresses for Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker page. Starting July 19, 2019, USCIS may reject petitions filed at the wrong service center.

 

©2019 Pierce Atwood LLP. All rights reserved.

U.S. Supreme Court to Decide If Immigration Law Preempts State Law Prosecution

Does the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) preempt states from using information in Form I-9 to prosecute a person under state law? The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review a case involving prosecution for identity theft under Kansas law based on information in the Form I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification. Kansas v. Garcia (No. 17-834).

Background

Ramiro Garcia, Donaldo Morales, and Guadalupe Ochoa-Lara did not have social security cards. They were all convicted of identity theft in Kansas for using other people’s social security numbers to gain employment in various restaurants. In September 2017, the Kansas Supreme Court reversed those convictions on the grounds that the state was prohibited from using information found on the defendants’ I-9 forms to prove its case because such prosecution was preempted by the IRCA. State v. Garcia, 401 P.3d 588 (Kan. 2017).

Questions Presented

The State of Kansas petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review and, on March 18, 2019, the Court agreed to review the case. The Court will decide the following:

  • Whether IRCA expressly preempts the states from using any information entered on or appended to a federal Form I-9, including common information such as name, date of birth, and social security number, in a prosecution of any person (citizen or alien) when that same, commonly used information also appears in non-IRCA documents, such as state tax forms, leases, and credit applications; and
  • Whether IRCA impliedly preempts Kansas’ prosecution of the defendants.

Kansas Supreme Court Opinion

IRCA expressly limits the use of information on or attached to I-9 forms. The Kansas Supreme Court held that the state may not use such information even if the information could be found elsewhere. In this case, the defendants’ “fake” social security numbers also had been entered on their tax withholding forms. The Kansas Supreme Court’s opinion would prevent all prosecutions by states based on false employment verification data supplied to employers on I-9 forms. Indeed, the broad effect of this was pointed out by Kansas Supreme Court Justice Daniel Biles in his dissent. Justice Biles noted that the decision would “wipe numerous criminal laws off the books” and that Congress “did not intend to immunize [defendants] from traditional state prosecutions for identity theft” by enacting IRCA.

The State of Kansas echoed the argument that the Kansas Supreme Court’s opinion would prohibit the use of all sorts of identifying data in state criminal prosecutions that happened to also be found on I-9 forms.

***

Oral arguments in Kansas v. Garcia will take place during the U.S. Supreme Court’s term starting in October 2019.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2019

DHS Publishes Final Rule for H-1B Lottery

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

The E-2 Visa: A Potentially Useful Tool in Cross-Border M&As

Changes to corporate structure, including mergers and acquisitions, can have enormous implications for the U.S. immigration status of key workers and potential new hires. When a U.S. company is acquired or formed because of a merger, and is majority-owned by a foreign entity or foreign national from an E-2 country, the E-2 Investor Visa may be available. In addition, the E-2 visa provides protections to cross-border investment between the two countries and the option to resolve investment disputes through international arbitration.

Who Can Use the E-2 Visa?

Typically, the E-2 visa is available to the principal investor as well as managerial, executive, or essential-skilled employees with the same nationality as the E-2 country, and the nationality of the majority owners of the E-2 company. To qualify, E-2 applicants must show they are actively investing or have invested a substantial amount of capital in a bona fide enterprise. An E-2 visa, issued for five years at the U.S. consulate overseas, allows an E-2 spouse to work and any E-2 children under 21 to study in the United States.

What Must the E-2 Visa Applicant Show?

The E-2 applicant, who submits the application directly to the E-2 visa offices at the pertinent U.S. consulate overseas, must include evidence of: 1) ownership; 2) nationality; 3) the substantial investment at risk explaining the path of the E-2 investment funds; 4) the corporate documentation of the E-2 company — in the cross border M&A transaction, this includes the purchase of the acquisition or the formation of the newly-merged company, evidencing 50 percent or more ownership by treaty national or nationals; 5) the applicant’s qualifications to direct and operate the E-2 company; 6) a detailed and complete business plan if the newly-formed U.S. company has existed for less than a year; and any other evidence the U.S. consulate requires.

How Does the U.S. Government Determine an Investment Is ‘At Risk’?

General E-2 visa processing considerations for founders, principal investors, or employees (those to be transferred from overseas or new hires) are to ensure that the substantial investment be one that is “at risk.” This means the capital must be subject to partial or total loss if investment fortunes reverse. Further, the E-2 applicant must show irrevocable commitment of funds to the U.S. E-2 company. The U.S. immigration rules allow the placement of funds in escrow pending approval of the E-2 visa with a legal mechanism that irrevocably commits funds but also protects investors if the E-2 application is denied. Commercial investments must be active (not passive), entrepreneurial, and cannot be made in nonprofit institutions.

What Constitutes a ‘Substantial’ Investment?

To establish that an investment is substantial, the U.S. Department of State uses a relative proportionality test that considers the amount of qualifying capital invested weighed against the total cost of purchasing or creating the E-2 company; the amount of capital normally considered sufficient to ensure the investor’s financial commitment to the success of the E-2 company; and the magnitude of investment to support the likelihood that the investor will successfully develop and/or direct the E-2 company. Thus, the lower the cost of the E-2 company, the higher, proportionally, the investment must be to be considered “substantial.” The E-2 investment cannot be marginal to only support the E-2 principal. The January 2017 Buy American, Hire American executive order is now an oft-cited requirement in E-2 investment applications. The E-2 investment must show the potential for hiring Americans and inducing economic growth in the area of the E-2 investment.

Conclusion

The U.S. government is more closely vetting immigration applications, and work visas like the E-2 in particular. To determine whether the E-2 visa may be the right option in light of a cross-border M&A, it is critical that foreign nationals consult with their immigration counsel.

©2011-2018 Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A.

EB-5 Processing During the Government Shutdown

The U.S. federal government shut down at the end of the day on Dec. 21, 2018, and the president did not sign into law the extension of the EB-5 program passed by the Senate. Until the shutdown ends, and the Regional Center EB-5 program extension is signed into law, no new I-526 petitions can be filed. To clarify, while EB-5 petitions may continue to be prepared, petitions cannot be mailed to USCIS until the conclusion of the shutdown and extension of the program. Please note, however, that investors must continue to file timely responses to USCIS Requests for Evidence (RFE) and Notices of Intent to Deny (NOID). In addition, investors may continue to prepare and file I-829 petitions.

With respect to the immigrant visa process, the State Department will cease to schedule new immigrant visa interviews until extension of the program is signed into law and the government resumes operations. If the interview was previously scheduled, and the Consular Post has not reached out to cancel said interview, the investor and family should still plan to attend. However, the immigrant visas will not be issued until the government resumes operations. The State Department will experience a significant slowdown and even cessation of all visa-issuing services during the period of the government shutdown. Furthermore, investors will be unable to file new DS-260 applications and supporting documents until the program is officially extended and the Visa Bulletin is updated.

With respect to the adjustment of status process, investors will be unable to file any new adjustment of status applications based on the I-526 petitions until the program is officially extended and the Visa Bulletin is updated. However, investors can continue to file renewals of employment authorization and advance parole, and should continue responding in a timely manner to USCIS’s RFEs relating to pending adjustment of status (I-485) applications. USCIS is unlikely to schedule any adjustment of status interviews until the conclusion of the shutdown and extension of the program.

 

©2018 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.
This post was written by Jennifer Hermansky of Greenberg Traurig, LLP
More immigration news on the National Law Review Immigration Page.

More Employers Were “ICED” in Fiscal Year 2018

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) recently released statistics on its worksite enforcement activities for the federal fiscal year ending on September 30, 2018. It should surprise no one that worksite enforcement designed to crack down on the employment of undocumented aliens has skyrocketed.

In FY 2018, 6,848 worksite investigations were initiated, representing a fourfold increase from the prior fiscal year. Similarly, ICE conducted 5,981 audits of employers’ Form I-9s, which is five times the number from the prior year. Criminal and worksite arrests were also way up and readers will recall that immigration law violations are one of the few areas of employment law which can result in direct criminal prosecution.

As stated by ICE, “[our] worksite enforcement strategy continues to focus on the criminal prosecution of employers who knowingly break the law, and the use of I-9 audits and civil fines to encourage compliance.”

What does this flurry of activity mean for employers? Under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, all employers must verify the identity and work eligibility of all individuals hired by completing a Form I-9 within three days of starting work. While appearing to be fairly simple on its face, many employers fail to pay attention to the details and fail to properly complete and certify that they have carefully verified the identity and work authorization of each hire. This can be especially true when hiring is done in remote locations where there are no trained management personnel to supervise the completion of the I-9.

When an employer receives a Notice of Inspection from ICE, it has three business days after which ICE will physically inspect the I-9s. Noncompliance could result in civil fines or even criminal prosecution. ICE worksite investigations are also designed to look for evidence of mistreatment of workers, human trafficking, and document fraud.

Given the reality that immigration enforcement activities are not likely to update anytime soon, employers are well-advised to take the following steps now:

  • Conduct a self-audit of all of your I-9s and if mistakes are identified take the appropriate steps to correct them. Consult the Handbook for Employers to know how the form must be completed.

  • Review and, where necessary, retrain all employees who are responsible for reviewing the documents presented by the new hire and certifying the accuracy of the form I-9.

  • Be sure you know the right way to fix errors that are identified.

  • Audit the records of any employees who are working under temporary visas. Oftentimes, employers verify work authorization at the time of hire but then fail to track expirations and renewals. What may have been legal at the time of hire may not be the case years later.

© 2018 Foley & Lardner LLP
This post was written by Mark J. Neuberger of Foley & Lardner LLP.
More immigration news at the National Law Review’s Immigration Page.

Social Security Administration ‘No Match’ Letters to Employers Make Another Comeback

Social Security Administration (SSA) has begun notifying employers that the information reported on an individual employee’s W-2 form does not match the SSA’s records with “Request for Employer Information” letters, known as “No-Match” letters.

SSA started sending these controversial informational requests in 1993, but the practice has waxed and waned in part due to litigation. In 2011, SSA resumed the practice of notifying employers of social security number mismatches. But in 2012, the Obama Administration decided to simply stop the practice.

Now, the letters are back! In July 2018, probably in response to President Donald Trump’s Buy American, Hire American Executive Order, SSA re-started the practice by sending “informational notifications” to employers and third party providers telling them of mismatches on their 2017 Forms W-2 and explaining where to find helpful resources. The plan was to send 225,000 of these notices every two weeks. Starting in Spring 2019, notices will be sent regarding 2018 Forms W-2s, but these letters, unlike the “informational” letters, will tell employers that corrections are necessary.

A mismatch does not necessarily mean that there is any wrongdoing. It can be caused by an administrative error: numbers can be reversed, names might be misspelled or changed, for instance, due to marriage. But once a letter is received, in determining how to respond, employers find themselves caught between agencies. SSA wants to maintain accurate records of earnings. ICE wants to ensure compliance with employment verification laws. And the Immigrant and Employee Rights Section of the Department of Justice (IER) wants to ensure that employers are not discriminating on the basis of citizenship, nationality or by pursuing unfair documentary practices in violation of the INA.

What is an employer to do?

  1. Don’t take any adverse action against an employee based on a No-Match letter alone.

  2. Compare the SSA information with the individual’s employment records.

  3. If the employer’s records match, ask the employee to check the name and number on his or her Social Security card.

  4. If there is a mistake on the card or the card needs to be changed or corrected, ask the employee to reach out to SSA to resolve the issue.

There are no “safe harbors.” Each case is different and must be analyzed individually to avoid missteps and penalties from either SSA, ICE, or IER.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2018
This post was written by Sean G. Hanagan of Jackson Lewis P.C.

Federal Court Allows Challenge to Government Policy of Using Detained Immigrant Children as Bait to Arrest Families

A November 15th ruling in the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia could have a major effect on the Trump Administration’s policy, which unnecessarily detains 1000’s of immigrant children for extended periods of time and which in effect traps certain sponsor’s of the detained immigrant children who try to claim them. The Government’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought on behalf of detained immigrant children was denied by the court on five of the six counts of the amended complaint allowing the lawsuit to move forward. Judge Leonie Brinkema’s decision also has implications for immigration battles to come, not only in Virginia but throughout the United States. (see J.E.C.M., a minor, by and through his next friend JOSE JIMENEZ SARAVIA, et al. v. SCOTT LLOYD, Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement, et al. Case No.1:18-CV-903-LMB ).

Legal Aid Justice Center (LAJC), together with the Washington, D.C. intellectual property law firm of Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein, and Fox(Sterne Kessler), brought this first-of-its-kind class action lawsuit on behalf of four minor immigrants challenging the Trump Administration’s recent policy of sharing the sponsor information of immigration children and information about the sponsors’ household members with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). This policy has resulted in the arrest of people who come forward to help undocumented migrant children including family and friends that came forward to bring their children home.

In April 2018, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHS) and the Department Health and Human Service (HHS) entered into an agreement, which went into effect May 13, 2018, for the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), the branch of HHS that is in charge of housing immigrant children, to transfer fingerprints and other information on immigrant children’s sponsors and other adult members of the sponsor’s household to ICE.

As reported by the Guardian in September:  ICE’s acting deputy director, Matthew Albence, said at a Senate committee hearing:

We’ve arrested 41 individuals thus far.  Our data that we’ve received thus far indicates close to 80% of the individuals that are either sponsors or household members of sponsors are here in the country illegally, and a large chunk of those are criminal aliens. So we will continue to pursue those individuals.

The November 15th ruling stems from a case where four children were detained and held in custody for a five-month period by the ORR in Virginia, while their relatives attempted to bring them home.

The children involved in the lawsuit claimed they were fleeing violence and neglect in their home countries of Honduras and Guatemala. Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala, consistently rank among the most violent countries in the world. Together these countries form a region known as the Northern Triangle, whose extreme violence stems from civil wars in the 1980s, which left a legacy of violence and fragile governmental institutions. The region remains menaced by corruption, drug trafficking, and gang violence despite tough police and judicial reforms according to the Council on Foreign Relations.

In this case, three of the four detained children were reunited with their families weeks before the court’s ruling. One of the children was reunited only one week before the court’s decision. For the three children who were released from custody first, their cases were dismissed by the court. The court allowed the case to go forward for the fourth child, who remained in custody for a six-month period and was held apart from his sister for the duration of the proceedings.

Groups including the Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law and the LAJC’s lead attorney on the case, Becky Wolozin, say the lawsuit highlights how:

The Trump administration has been carrying out a backdoor family separation agenda, keeping immigrant children apart from their families and using children as bait to break up the very families they have traveled so far and risked so much to join.

Working alongside Sterne Kessler, Wolozin and the LAJC challenged the ICE Policy for unaccompanied children entering the country and other related issues, which has resulted in arrests of families and friends trying to bring their children home. With more than 13,000 children being held by the ORR, this case’s outcome will possibly impact all families covered under the Administration’s current detainment policies. 

Wolozin goes onto highlight the importance of this decision as being “An important victory and decision for immigrant families and children who are being detained.” Per Wolosim, Judge Brinkema acknowledged Constitutional violations in this case and the violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in administering her decision.

Stern Kessler Director, Salvador Bezos, head of the firm’s immigration pro bono practice, says, “For years, ORR has neglected its obligations under the Administrative Procedure Act.” Bezos further noted, “The APA provides essential protections against this kind of agency overreach. I am proud of my colleagues’ and LAJC’s efforts to force the government to meet its obligations to the children in its custody.”

LAJC’s Legal Director of the Immigration Advocacy Program, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, also weighed in on the decision, saying “ORR is supposed to protect vulnerable immigrant children. Instead, it is placing them in harm’s way under the guise of child welfare.” “[These] policies and their enforcement undermine successfully placing children with their families and the vast surveillance actions are destabilizing immigrant communities.”

Wolozin, further details the importance of the decision. She states:

The exponential increase in the number of immigrant children in government custody has not been caused by more children crossing the border, but instead by ORR’s own policies dramatically increasing the amount of time ORR holds children in its custody. In denying the motion to dismiss, Judge Brinkema recognized the failure of due process for these children and their families, the disregard for the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, and importantly, the tantamount importance of protecting all people’s constitutional right to family unity, even when not between a parent and a child.

The Virginia case will move forward as LAJC works to certify the class and the parties work to complete discovery.

Monday another setback for the Trump Administration was issued by Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court in San Francisco, which may at least temporarily, stall the administration’s attempt to clamp down on the rights of immigrants seeking asylum in response to the wave of Central Americans crossing the border. Judge Tigar ordered the Trump administration to resume accepting asylum claims from migrants no matter where or how they entered the United States. “Whatever the scope of the president’s authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden,” Judge Tigar wrote in his order and issued a temporary restraining order that blocks the government from carrying out a new rule issued this month that denies protections to people who enter the country illegally. The order, which suspends the rule until the case is decided by the court, applies nationally.

 

Copyright ©2018 National Law Forum, LLC
This post was written by Jennifer Schaller and Alessandra de Faria of the National Law Review.

USCIS Will Begin Accepting Cap-Subject H-1B Petitions for Fiscal Year 2020 on April 1, 2019

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will accept new H-1B petitions subject to the annual quota for fiscal year 2020 (FY 2020) starting April 1, 2019. Employers should identify any current or future employees who may require new H-1B visas to work in the United States. Individuals currently holding F-1 student visas, individuals seeking to change to H-1B status from another visa status (such as L-1, TN, O-1, or E-3), and individuals outside the United States likely will require cap-subject H-1B petitions to be filed on their behalf.

Overview of the H-1B Visa Program

The H-1B visa program permits U.S. companies to employ foreign nationals in specialty occupations. A “specialty occupation” is a position that requires the theoretical or practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, such as that of an engineer, economist, or scientist. The specialty occupation must require a bachelor’s degree or higher (or its foreign equivalent) in a specific field.

The number of new H-1B visas available on an annual basis is subject to limitations for each fiscal year. Currently, the annual limit is 65,000 visa numbers per year with an additional 20,000 available to H-1B applicants who possess advanced degrees from U.S. academic institutions. Of the 65,000 available H-1B visas, 6,800 are reserved for citizens of Chile and Singapore. Due to the cap, employers will want to plan far in advance and file their cap-subject petitions as early as possible to help ensure they have the best chance to secure H-1B status for the next fiscal year.

When USCIS receives more cap-subject H-1B petitions than the annual fiscal year limitation, USCIS conducts a computer-generated random lottery selection process. The first lottery is limited to individuals who possess advanced degrees from U.S. academic institutions. If a qualifying advanced degree holder is not selected in this first lottery, his or her petition will be rolled into a second lottery for the regular H-1B cap.

Cap-subject petitions that have not been selected in the lottery will be returned with the U.S. government filing fees. Once the number of available H-1B visas has been fulfilled, USCIS will not accept or approve any additional cap-subject H-1B petitions until the filing period for the next fiscal year opens.

Cap-Exempt Petitions

Some H-1B petitions are exempt from the annual fiscal year limitation, including (1) H-1B petitions that are filed to extend or amend H-1B employment for foreign workers who are already in H-1B status and (2) petitions filed on behalf of new workers to be employed in H-1B status by institutions of higher education or related nonprofit entities, nonprofit research organizations, or government research organizations.

How to Prepare for the FY 2020 H-1B Cap

The annual fiscal year cap for H-1B visas is typically reached within the first week of filing. Because the number of cap-subject H-1B petitions that will be filed by employers for FY 2020 is uncertain, employers will want to mail all cap-subject H-1B petitions early within the filing window. The first day to mail FY 2020 cap-subject petitions will be March 29, 2019, for delivery to USCIS on April 1, 2019, which is the first day of the filing period. Employers should immediately begin identifying individuals for whom H-1B sponsorship will be needed to allow sufficient time for H-1B petition preparation.

In preparing FY 2020 H-1B petitions, employers should keep in mind the time required to file and receive certification of a Labor Condition Application (LCA). The LCA is a prerequisite to a properly filed H-1B petition. As part of the LCA, employers must attest that they will pay the H-1B worker the higher of the prevailing wage or actual wage for the position in the geographic area of intended employment. The LCA is then submitted to the U.S. Department of Labor, which can take up to 10 days to certify the application. Employers should keep this processing time in mind to ensure timely approval of an LCA. Timely filing and approval of an LCA will help ensure that an employer is best positioned to mail the H-1B cap-subject petition on March 29, 2019, for delivery to USCIS on April 1, 2019.

Employers can take action now to initiate cap-subject H-1B petitions.

 

© 2018, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.