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

Posts Tagged ‘New York City’

Federal Litigation and How to Turn a USCIS Denial into an Approval

Posted on: July 17th, 2019

By: Ken Levine

The FMG Immigration Section was retained to prepare a green card case for one of the top chess players in Asia.  Our client, Oliver Barbosa, is a chess Grandmaster who hails from the Philippines.  He is currently ranked the 2nd best chess player in his country, the 60th best chess player on the Asian Continent and the 474th best chess player in the world.  FMG was already familiar with Oliver’s credentials. Our firm had previously secured an O-1 (extraordinary ability) work visa on his behalf, which allowed him to work as an Instructor for a prominent chess instruction company in New York City.

Information on Oliver’s impressive chess accomplishments can be seen in the attached articles:

http://bangkokchess.com/gm-oliver-barbosa-runner-up-of-the-14th-bcc-open-2014/

http://www.chessdom.com/parsvnath-international-open-oliver-barbosa-clinches-title/

Given the substantial evidence supporting Oliver’s O-1 work visa we had confidence that USCIS would look favorably upon our EB1 filing.  However, USCIS raised several legal issues in a request for evidence (RFE) and cast doubt on his eligibility to receive a green card under this category.  FMG immigration attorneys vigorously responded to the Immigration Service’s RFE and two weeks later we were met with a surprising denial decision.

After assessing the denial and determining that the legal reasoning set out in the decision was very much at odds with the actual evidence, FMG strongly recommended pursuing federal legal action.  While there are appellate steps within the USCIS process (Motion to Reconsider or an Appeal to the Administrative Appeals Office) these options were substantially less preferable than simply taking USCIS straight to Federal Court.   FMG filed what is known as a “Declaratory Action” in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York – https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/28492611/Barbosa_v_Barr_et_al

Our case was never reviewed by the Federal Judge nor was it necessary to appear in court.  23 days after filing and a mere five days after the Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) entered their appearance, we received a notice that USCIS had reopened the denial and approved the EB1 petition.  The approval means that Oliver and his wife (Sunshine) will receive their green cards under our country’s most elite and prestigious immigration category.  Congratulations Oliver and Sunshine!

Oliver emailed us the below comments and has authorized us to print them here:

I have had the privilege of having Ken as my immigration attorney for over 3 years.  He had my O1 application approved then we hired him to prepare the green card.  Since the beginning of the green card process I was realistic and understood that the immigration process will sometimes not go smoothly, but I also believed that my decades of success and recognition in chess would work in my favor. 

The EB1 denial was unexpected and devastating.  While we were reluctant to challenge Immigration in court, since taking the government to court is just not what one does in the Philippines, Ken convinced us.  He spent a lot of time answering our questions about a lawsuit and addressing our concerns.  Ken explained his reasons for wanting to sue the government, pointed out what evidence he felt Immigration did not consider, and overall really seemed to have all the bases covered. Less than 3 weeks after the case was filed we received a call from Ken.  Immigration reversed the denial and approved my EB1 case!! 

I want to say a few things about Ken.  He is honest, trustworthy and very straightforward. He will tell you exactly where you stand and what direction you should go.  Thank you so much Ken for all your help, your perseverance and last, but certainly not least, for believing in my case.  Winning in court would not have been possible without your hard work, knowledge and skill.  I have already recommended him to other chess players and will certainly retain his services for my future immigration matters.”

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].

“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)

 

Philadelphia’s “Salary History Ban Law” Gets Banned!

Posted on: May 7th, 2018

By: John McAvoy

More than a half-century after President JFK signed the Equal Pay Act, the gender pay gap is still with us. Women earn 79 cents for every dollar men earn, according to the Census Bureau.  What will it take to bridge that stubborn pay gap? Well, some believe we can and will reduce the impact of previous discrimination by not asking new hires for their salary history. Several cities and states agree with this approach and have passed legislation that prohibits employers from asking questions about an applicant’s salary history. In the cities and states where such laws have been passed, they are not without controversy.

Philadelphia passed a similar law last year. In response, Philadelphia’s Chamber of Commerce, backed by some of Philadelphia’s biggest employers, including Comcast and Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP), filed suit against the City of Philadelphia challenging the constitutionality of the salary history ban law, arguing the portion of the law that prevents companies from inquiring about an applicant’s wage history violated an employer’s free speech rights.

On Monday, April 30, 2018, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania made two rulings with respect to Philadelphia’s salary history ban law in the matter of Chamber of Commerce for Greater Philadelphia v. City of Philadelphia, docket no. 2:17-cv-01548-MSG (E.D. Pa. Apr. 30, 2018) (Goldberg, J.).

First, the court found that the law as written violated the First Amendment free speech rights of Philadelphia employers. In sum, the court’s ruling is that employers can ask salary history questions.

Second, the court upheld the ‘reliance provision’ of the salary history ban law, which makes it illegal to rely upon that wage history to set the employee’s compensation.  This means that Philadelphia employers can ask salary history but cannot use it as a basis to set salary.  The purpose of this is to encourage employers to offer potential candidates what the job is worth rather than based on prior salary which could have been set based on discriminatory factors.

There is a prevailing trend nationwide for salary history ban laws. To date, California, Delaware, Massachusetts, Oregon, Puerto Rico, New York’s Albany County, New York City, and San Francisco have enacted salary history ban laws, and at least 14 other states are considering following suit.  Although we anticipate future and continued legal challenges, it seems likely that laws banning salary history inquiries will continue to gain ground, particularly in more progressive states or areas where the pay disparity directly impacts a large segment of eligible voters. As such, prudent employers should prepare themselves to address this new workforce right through smart planning and proper training of employees, including managers, supervisors and HR personnel responsible for ensuring a lawful hiring process.

Want to learn more about what Philadelphia’s salary history ban law means for your business? Let us help you by analyzing your hiring practices. Please call or email the employment experts and John McAvoy (215.789.4919 [email protected]).