CLOSE X
RSS Feed LinkedIn Instagram Twitter Facebook
Search:
FMG Law Blog Line

Archive for the ‘Immigration & I-9 Services’ Category

Did You Really Terminate That H-1B Employee?

Posted on: May 21st, 2019

By: Layli Eskandari Deal

U.S. Department of Labor Awards $43,366 Back Pay to Engineer.

In January, a Microfabrication Engineer, employed under the H-1B visa program by Minnesota-based TLC Precision Wafer Technology, Inc., was awarded $43,366.67 in back wages and interest after an investigation by the Department of Labor’s Wage and hour Division.

The employment began in October 2008 under the H-1B visa program. After a downturn in business, the company began experiencing financial difficulties. In a letter dated November 16, 2008, TLC notified the Engineer that he would be laid off effective immediately. However, TLC continued to employ the Engineer until January 2009, at which point he was advised by email that his hours would be reduced to part-time. The Engineer resigned his position in February 2010 and in the same month filed a complaint with the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division alleging that the company had failed to pay him the required wage.

Department of Labor Regulations set the wage requirement employers must meet in employing H-1B workers. Employers must pay the H-1B employee the greater of the prevailing wage for the occupational classification or the amount they pay other employees with similar experience or qualification. The H-1B employee must be paid beginning on the date that they “enter into employment” with the employer. This condition occurs when the employee becomes “available for work or otherwise comes under the control of the employer, such as reporting for orientation or training.” H-1B employees must be paid the required wage even if they are not performing work and are in nonproductive or idle status.

In the instance case, the Administrative Law Judge found that TLC was obligated to pay the Engineer $43,000 per year starting in October 2008 until his departure in February 2010.

How can employers limit exposure?

U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) regulations address the employer’s obligations with regard to material changes to H-1B employment.

  1. Employer must notify USCIS immediately of any changes in the terms and conditions of employment which may affect eligibility under the H-1B regulations. This includes changes in position or duties, changes in job location, changes in any condition of employment such as going from full-time to part-time status.
  2. If the employer no longer employs the H-1B worker, the employer must send a letter to USCIS indicating the termination of employment. DOL considers such communication to USCIS to effectively terminate the employer’s wage obligation.

It is clear that DOL will look at the actions of the employer and communication with USCIS to determine whether the employer has abided by rules governing the employment of H-1B workers.  It is vitally important for employers to be familiar with the rules and timely communicate with USCIS when dealing with changes in employment status of foreign national employees.

For additional information related to this topic and for advice regarding how to navigate U.S. immigration laws, you may contact Layli Eskandari Deal of the law firm of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP at (770-551-2700) or [email protected].

 

The Door Swings Both Ways for U.S. and Israeli Investors

Posted on: April 29th, 2019

By: Layli Eskandari Deal


In June 2012, Congress passed a law which authorized E-2 Investor visa classification for Israeli nationals provided that Israel’s government would establish a similar status for U.S. citizens. After a long regulatory change process, U.S. citizens can now apply for and obtain the B-5 Israeli Investor visa. In response, the U.S. government has made available the E-2 Investor Visa to Israeli citizens. The U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv will start accepting E-2 visa applications on behalf of Israeli investors on May 1, 2019.

The E-2 Investor Visa is a temporary visa that can be used to develop, direct, or provide specialized skills to an enterprise in which the owner has invested a substantial amount of capital. To qualify for a Treaty Investor (E-2) visa:

  • The individual or the company has the nationality of the treaty country (at least half of the company must be owned by Israeli nationals).
  • The investment must be substantial and sufficient to ensure the successful operation of the enterprise beyond just providing a minimal living for the investor and their family.
  • The business must be a real operating enterprise.
  • The investor must be traveling to the U.S. to develop and direct the enterprise.
  • If the applicant is not the investor, he or she must be employed in a supervisory, executive, or highly specialized skill capacity.

The E-2 visa will provide a much-needed alternative visa category to Israeli entrepreneurs and Israel’s flourishing hi-tech sector.

For additional information related to this topic and for advice regarding how to navigate U.S. immigration laws, you may contact Layli Eskandari Deal of the law firm of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP at (770-551-2700) or [email protected].

DHS to Double Number of H-2B Visas for the 2019 Summer Season

Posted on: April 8th, 2019

By: Kenneth Levine

Despite the current Administration’s two-year campaign to issue executive orders placing limits on U.S. work visas, a surprising limited expansion of the H-2B work visa program was announced by DHS this week. This development is especially welcome news for the landscaping, seafood processing, forestry and hospitality industries, all of whom depend heavily on this visa for temporary, seasonal workers.

The H-2B visa program has an annual quota of 66,000 workers. The 66,000 annual quota is split evenly between the spring/summer and fall/winter seasons. The above DHS announcement represents an additional 30,000 H-2B visas, on top of the 33,000 H-2B visas already designated for the 2019 spring/summer season. However, the extra 30,000 allocation of H-2B visas is being limited to those workers who have previously held H-2B visa status.

While virtually every U.S. work visa program is the subject of intense and polarizing debate in Congress, this H-2B visa expansion proposal is an encouraging sign. Indeed, this proposal should be seen as recognition by the current administration that U.S. businesses continue to experience significant difficulties in recruiting U.S. workers for temporary, seasonal positions.

For additional information related to this topic and for advice regarding how to navigate U.S. immigration laws you may contact Kenneth S. Levine of the law firm of Freeman, Mathis & Gary, LLP at (770-551-2700) or [email protected].

Latest Update on the H-1B Visa Application Process

Posted on: February 11th, 2019

By: Layli Eskandari Deal

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has issued a final rule implementing changes to the H-1B visa program for petitions filed under the H-1B cap (better known as the H-1B visa lottery).

The rule reverses the order whereby USCIS selects H-1B petitions for the standard allotment of 65,000 visas and the 20,000 visas allocated for the advanced-degree exemption. It also adds an electronic registration requirement for petitioners seeking to file H-1B cap-subject petitions. The final rule is scheduled to become effective on April 1, 2019.

Under the reverse selection process, USCIS will first select H-1B petitions for the general allotment of 65,000 visas. Then USCIS will select from the remaining petitions a number estimated to reach the advanced degree exemption. The reverse selection rule applies to petitions filed for the FY 2020 H-1B cap season (this year). The agency expects the lottery reversal to increase the number of individuals selected who possess an advanced degree from a U.S. institution.

The rule also implements an electronic registration requirement for H-1B cap-subject petitions which DHS has postponed until next cap season (FY 2021). Once implemented, it will require those seeking to file H-1B cap petitions to first electronically register with USCIS. Only petitioners whose registrations are selected will then be able to file an H-1B cap-subject petition.

For additional information related to this topic and for advice regarding how to navigate U.S. immigration laws you may contact Layli Eskandari Deal of the law firm of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP at 770.551.2700 or [email protected].

“Sanctuary Cities” Get a Reprieve For Now

Posted on: January 10th, 2019

By: Pamela Everett

As many city, county and state attorneys are aware, in 2017 the US. Department of Justice (DOJ) added three conditions to the application process for the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (“Byrne JAG”) program in an effort to eliminate so called sanctuary cities. The Byrne JAG program originated from the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968,  which created grants to assist the law enforcement efforts of state and local authorities. Under the Byrne JAG program, states and localities may apply for funds to support criminal justice programs in a variety of categories, including law enforcement, prosecution, crime prevention, corrections, drug treatment, technology, victim and witness services, and mental health.

The first condition, called the “Notice Condition” requires grantees, upon request, to give advance notice to the Department of Homeland Security of the scheduled release date and time of aliens housed in state or local correctional facilities. The second condition, called the “Access Condition,” requires grantees to give federal agents access to aliens in state or local correctional facilities in order to question them about their immigration status. The third condition, called the “Compliance Condition” requires grantees to certify their compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373, which prohibits states and localities from restricting their officials from communicating with immigration authorities regarding anyone’s citizenship or immigration status. Grantees are also required to monitor any subgrantees’ compliance with the three conditions, and to notify DOJ if they become aware of credible evidence of a violation of the Compliance Condition. Additionally, all grantees must certify their compliance with the three conditions, which carries the risk of criminal prosecution, civil penalties, and administrative remedies. The DOJ also requires the jurisdictions’’ legal counsel to certify compliance with the conditions.

A number of jurisdictions have sued the DOJ and the U. S. Attorney General regarding these new conditions and sought a nationwide injunction; however, so far, none have  been successful in obtaining a nationwide injunction.  Recently a partial win was handed to the states of New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Washington, and Commonwealths of Massachusetts and Virginia and the City of New York. The States and the City challenged the imposition of the three conditions on five bases: (1) the conditions violates the separation of powers, (2) the conditions were ultra vires under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), (3) the conditions were not in accordance with law under the APA, (4) the conditions were arbitrary and capricious under the APA, and (5) § 1373 violated the Tenth Amendment’s prohibition on commandeering.  This case challenged the authority of the Executive Branch of the federal government to compel states to adopt its preferred immigration policies by imposing conditions on congressionally authorized funding to which the states are otherwise entitled.

While the court held that the plaintiffs did not make a sufficient showing of nationwide impact to demonstrate that a nationwide injunction was necessary to provide relief to them, it did find as follows: (1) The Notice, Access, and Compliance Conditions were ultra vires and not in accordance with law under the APA. (2) 8 U.S.C. § 1373(a)–(b), insofar as it applies to states and localities, is facially unconstitutional under the anticommandeering doctrine of the Tenth Amendment. (3)  The Notice, Access, and Compliance Conditions violated the constitutional separation of powers. (4)The Notice, Access, and Compliance Conditions were arbitrary and capricious under the APA.  (5) The DOJ was mandated to reissue the States’ FY 2017 Byrne JAG award documents without the Notice, Access, or Compliance Conditions, and upon acceptance to disburse those awards as they would in the ordinary course without regard to those conditions.  Additionally, the DOJ was prohibited from imposing or enforcing the Notice, Access, or Compliance Conditions for FY 2017 Byrne JAG funding for the States, the City, or any of their agencies or political subdivisions.

The DOJ was prohibited from imposing or enforcing the Notice, Access, or Compliance Conditions for FY 2017 Byrne JAG funding for the States, the City, or any of their agencies or political subdivisions.

There are several other cases pending, including one filed by the City of San Francisco, seeking the issuance of a nationwide injunction to prohibit the enforcement of the new conditions. Stay tuned for more developments in this area.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Pamela Everett at [email protected].

 

Related litigation: City of Chicago v. Sessions, 264 F. Supp. 3d 933 (N.D. Ill. 2017); affd. appeal, City of Chicago v. Sessions, 888 F.3d 272 (7th Cir. 2018), but later stayed the nationwide scope of the injunction pending en banc review. Conference City of Evanston v. Sessions, No. 18 Civ. 4853, slip op. at 11 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 9, 2018) City of Philadelphia v. Sessions, 280 F. Supp. 3d 579 (E.D. Pa. 2017); City of Philadelphia v. Sessions, 309 F. Supp. 3d 289 (E.D. Pa. 2018)(currently on appeal); California ex rel. Becerra v. Sessions, 284 F. Supp. 3d 1015 (N.D. Cal. 2018)