Tag: Immigration

Automation of U.S. Customs & Border Protection (CBP) Form I-94 and Release of New Immigration Form I-9

VedderPriceLogo

Visitors to the United States May Need to Print Form I-94 Arrival/Departure Records

U.S. Customs & Border Protection (CBP) will begin a new program on April 30, 2013 that will end issuance of paper Form I-94 Arrival/Departure Records for many visitors. Foreign visitors arriving in the United States via air or sea who need to prove their lawful immigration status will be required to access their arrival information online and print their own Form I-94 Arrival/Departure Records (Form I-94). A hard copy of Form I-94 is required to begin employment, apply for a Social Security Number, and obtain a driver’s license or identification document.

CBP indicated that it expects this automation to save the government an estimated $15.5 million per year. Because advance information is transmitted only for air and sea travelers, CBP will continue to issue paper Forms I-94 at land border ports of entry.

CBP will phase in the I-94 automation at air and sea ports of entry in April and May. Foreign visitors will continue to receive a paper I-94 until the automated process arrives at their port of entry. If a visitor does not receive a paper Form I-94 record to verify immigration status or employment authorization, the record number and other admission information will be available here. A CBP officer will stamp the travel document (passport) of each arriving nonimmigrant traveler showing the date of admission, class of admission and the date until which the traveler is admitted. The visitor will not need to print Form I-94 to provide to the government upon departure. A CBP Fact Sheet may be found here.

All U.S. Employers Required to Use New Employment Eligibility Verification Form I-9 as of May 7, 2013

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will require all U.S. employers to use its revised Employment Eligibility Verification Form I-9 as of May 7, 2013. All employers are required to complete an Employment Eligibility Verification Form I-9 (Form I-9) for each new employee hired in the United States. The updated Form (Revision Date 03/08/13) includes new information fields and has been expanded to two pages. USCIS has stated that the new formatting will reduce errors and provide clearer instructions for both employees and employers. The List of Acceptable Documents has not changed.

Employers should NOT require current employees to complete the new Form I-9. The new Form will be used only for new employees or when reverifying the work authorization for current employees. The new employee may complete the Form after acceptance of the job offer, and no later than the first date of hire. The new instructions confirm that an employer has three business days to complete the Form; in the case of reverification, the employer must re-verify the document(s) before the work authorization expires.

The new Form I-9 does NOT change any requirements relating to remote hires. USCIS’s position is that the employer representative who signs the attestation must be the same person who physically examines each original document to determine if it reasonably appears to be genuine and relates to the employee. An employer with remote hires may delegate the verification to a person who serves as an agent of the employer, but that agent must examine the documents and complete Section 2 or Section 3 of the Form I-9. The employer retains the liability for the actions of the agent.

A Spanish language version of the new Form is also available on the USCIS website for use in Puerto Rico only. Spanish-speaking employers and employees in the 50 states, Washington, DC, and other U.S. territories may refer to the Spanish version but must complete the English-language version of the Form.

Employers may receive monetary fines for all substantive and uncorrected technical Form I-9 violations. Penalties for these violations, which include failure to utilize the correct version of the Form I-9, range from $110 to $1,100 per violation.

 of

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

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

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Immigration Reform: It’s Time for a Course Correction

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

MintzLogo2010_Black

 

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

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

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

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

Department of State Releases October 2012 Visa Bulletin

The National Law Review recently published an article by Eleanor Pelta, Eric S. Bord, A. James Vázquez-Azpiri, Lance Director Nagel, Lisa H. Barton, and Malcolm K. Goeschl of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP regarding the October 2012 Visa Bulletin:

 

EB-2 category for China and India is no longer unavailable; cutoff dates remain for Rest of the World EB-2 category.

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

What Does the October 2012 Visa Bulletin Say?

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

EB-2: A cutoff date of January 1, 2012, has been imposed for foreign nationals in the EB-2 category from all countries except China and India; a cutoff date of July 15, 2007, has been imposed for foreign nationals in the EB-2 category from China; a cutoff date of September 1, 2004, has been imposed for foreign nationals in the EB-2 category from India.

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

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

China: February 8, 2006 (forward movement of 139 days)
India: October 15, 2002 (forward movement of 23 days)
Mexico: October 22, 2006 (forward movement of 92 days)
Philippines: August 1, 2006 (forward movement of 54 days)
Rest of the World: October 22, 2006 (forward movement of 92 days)

Developments Affecting the EB-2 Employment-Based Category

MEXICO, THE PHILIPPINES, AND THE REST OF THE WORLD

In July, for the first time in many years, the DOS imposed a cutoff date for individuals who qualify for the EB-2 category and are chargeable to a country other than China or India (Mexico, the Philippines, and the Rest of the World). Since July, the cutoff date for individuals from these countries had been January 1, 2009. The October Visa Bulletin announced that, as of October 1, 2012, the cutoff date will move forward to January 1, 2012. This means that, beginning on October 1, 2012, an individual chargeable to Mexico, the Philippines, or the Rest of the World with a priority date before January 1, 2012, may file an AOS application or an immigrant visa application. It is expected that the DOS will remove cutoff dates for these countries completely in November and that the EB-2 category will be “current” for individuals chargeable to these countries.

INDIA AND CHINA

The October Bulletin indicates a cutoff date of September 1, 2004, for EB-2 individuals chargeable to India and a cutoff date of July 15, 2007, for EB-2 individuals chargeable to China. The EB-2 category was previously unavailable to individuals chargeable to India or China. This means that EB-2 individuals chargeable to India or China with a priority date preceding these respective dates may file an AOS application or have the application approved on or after October 1 of this year. It appears that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has a large number of AOS applications for EB-2 Indian and Chinese nationals that have been “preadjudicated” and will be approved on October 1.

How This Affects You

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

Copyright © 2012 by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

Department of State Releases June 2012 Visa Bulletin

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

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

What Does the June 2012 Visa Bulletin Say?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How This Affects You

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

Copyright © 2012 by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

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

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

GT Law

The phone rings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What happens when an actual charge is received?

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

Timeline

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

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

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

What does this mean to my company?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resources from the Office of Special Counsel (OSC)

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

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

©2012 Greenberg Traurig, LLP.

2013 H-1B Visas

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

Varnum LLP

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

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

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

© 2012 Varnum LLP