- It's H-1b time...
53 days
Posted by MikeHammond on February 4, 2012 in US Immigration Policy
Earlier this week, Senator Schumer (D NY) attached a bill that would allow up to 10,000 E3 visas for nationals of Ireland under the same rules currently utilized by the Australian E3 program. The measure has been hotlined in the Senate which typically means it will move faster and has a greater likelihood of passage. Of importance to everyone outside of the emerald isles is that this measure is attached to S1983 which is the Senate version of HR3012 which would eliminate the per country immigrant visa limits and would have a huge impact on nationals of India and China. HR3012 passed the House overwhelmingly by a vote of 389-15 in a show of bi-partisanship rarely seen in this Congress but, when the bill arrived in the Senate, one man, Senator Grassley put a stop to it. It is not know whether Senator Grassley will continue to try and stop this bill in its current form, and if so, whether there are enough votes in the Senate to overcome his opposition.
related topics: E3, E3 Irish, HR3012, retrogression, S1983Posted by MikeHammond on in Government Agency Actions - USCIS, ICE, etc.,US Immigration Policy
As part of President Obama’s public claims to foster legal immigration and encourage entrepreneurship, the DHS announced several planned reforms to achieve these goals without the need for legislative action. We applaud the goals of the administration and these planned reforms and just hope that the culture of no which so permeates the agency at the service center levels are not able to quickly thwart the Preseident’s plans in much the same way that Senator Grassley and his cohorts in Congress would most assuredly stop these reform measures if Congressional action were required.
related topics: DHS reforms, E-3, OPT, STEMPosted by Cadence Moore on January 31, 2012 in Visas - H-1b, L-1, E, O, TN
On January 23, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a decision in Edwards v. Geisinger Clinic. In this case, Dr. Philip Edwards, a licensed physician from the United Kingdom, argued that the at-will employment clause in his employment agreement with Geisinger Clinic was not valid. Instead, he stated that this contract guaranteed that he would remain employed by the Geisinger Clinic for at least three years because this was the time requested by the Geisinger Clinic when it petitioned for his H-1b. The Third Circuit rejected this argument. It noted that “sponsorship of an H-1b visa alone does not imply that the employer-sponsor has guaranteed employment for the visa’s duration.” Thus, an organization that sponsors an employee for an H-1b does not have a duty to employ the beneficiary throughout the duration of the H-1b validity period. Dr. Edwards other arguments also failed and the Third Circuit dismissed this appeal. The immigration effects of having an at-will employment agreement versus an express employment agreement can be crucial. The Hammond Law Group is always happy to help explore this topic.
Posted by Cadence Moore on January 23, 2012 in Immigration Compliance,Visas - H-1b, L-1, E, O, TN
On December 20, 2011, the Administrative Review Board (“ARB”) of the Department of Labor decided In Matter of University of Miami . In this case, the University of Miami submitted a petition for a H-1b worker who would perform as a clinical anesthesiologist. When the doctor arrived in the United States, the University of Miami told her that she must obtain a social security card before beginning employment. The doctor received the social security card and informed the University that she was ready to begin working. Due to issues regarding the offered position, the doctor’s employment was terminated. However, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (“USCIS”) was not notified for more than four months. The ARB determined that the time that the doctor spent trying to obtain a social security card was involuntary non-productive time. Consequently, the University was ordered to pay backpay for this period. In addition, the ARB stated that the doctor’s termination only became effective on the date that USCIS was notified. Thus, the University was also liable for backpay from the date of actual termination until the date that USCIS received notification. This case should remind all employers that they risk being held liable for backpay if they create requirements that an H-1b worker must fulfill before starting work and if they fail to alert USCIS to a H-1b worker’s termination. If you have any questions regarding these types of issues, please contact the Hammond Law Group.
Posted by MikeHammond on January 20, 2012 in Government Agency Actions - USCIS, ICE, etc.,US Immigration Policy
In several circles, the recent AG report which we discussed on Jan 4th and Jan 16th, has derisevely became known as the Grassley Report. In part, because Senator Grassley himself commissioned the report but, more importantly, and sadly, because it is a report that is so flawed in methodology, that if it were not a government product, it would be considered worthless. Senator Grassley is well known for his xenophobic policies and his stances that prevent legal immigration from flourishing but, that’s a political position, and although I may disagree with such a position, I certainly support his right to hold and advocate for those positions. I presume that many of his constituents in Iowa share in those same beliefs. What is disheartening is that his political policies and his esteemed position as a US Senator have allowed him to manipulate various government agencies into creating policies and reports that start with the desired conclusion and then build upon half-truths, poor survey methodology, definitions devoid of any support in the law, and other tactics until, presto ! We have a damning report or memorandum that serves his political purposes. If only his talent at mudraking could be put to better use. For another opinion on this report, check out a recent post from the AILA leadership blog.
related topics: AG report, AILA leadership blog, Senator GrassleyPosted by MikeHammond on January 18, 2012 in Government Agency Actions - USCIS, ICE, etc.,Visas - H-1b, L-1, E, O, TN
The CBP released a statement on its procedures for handling L petitions under NAFTA. Our experience is that CBP officers have a far greater grasp of the L regulatory standards and far less of a political agenda than their US Consulate brethren and that well-prepared L petitions are met with routine approval at the border.
related topics: CBP, L-1, NAFTAPosted by admin on January 16, 2012 in US Immigration Policy
If you are looking for more information on the AG report which was recently released (refer to our post from 1-4-2012) please read the blog post by our friend, Angelo Papparelli, which ILW.com recently ran.
related topics: AG report, ILW.com, Senator GrassleyPosted by MikeHammond on January 9, 2012 in Green Cards
The DOS released the Feb Visa Bulletin and the priority dates for EB2 India and China moved forward by a full year to Jan 2010. The rapid movement over the past several months is due to reports from the USCIS of fewer than expected 485 filings. Future retrogression remains likely if the number of I-485 filings increases. All EB3 categories saw snail like movement forward and the predictions are for more of the same.
related topics: dos, EB2 China, EB2 India, February 2012 visa bulletin, retrogressionPosted by admin on January 7, 2012 in Events,Visas - H-1b, L-1, E, O, TN
On Jan 12th, Mike Hammond will be one of the speakers for a webinar event being sponsored by TechServe Alliance . The topic will be ”Utilizing H-1Bs within Your Contingent Workforce: Understanding the Changing Landscape” The webinar is offered to TechServe members only.
Posted by MikeHammond on January 4, 2012 in Government Agency Actions - USCIS, ICE, etc.,US Immigration Policy
As recently reported at www.thedaily.com, the OIG released a report detailing that many rank and file USCIS examiners have faced pressure and even threats of job loss and demotion if they did not follow the policies and instructions of their supervisors including Director Mayorkas. The commentary suggested that those practices were horrible when, in fact, they should’ve been asking the question; “why should rank and file examiners think that their personal interpretations of the law be relevant ?” Rank and file examiners should follow the law, nothing more and nothing less. The complaints of the “culture of no” which many immigration practitioners and employers believe is pervasisve at the USCIS Service Centers, are derived from rank and file examiners who want to be policy makers and legislators instead of performing their jobs as tasked. I applaud the pressure that USCIS HQ is putting on examiners and suggest that more is warranted.
related topics: OIG, USCIS examiners, USCIS Service centers