No announcement yet.

Article: H-1B PETITIONS FOR 2014 AND WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW (Part 2) by Alan Lee, Esq.


  • Article: H-1B PETITIONS FOR 2014 AND WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW (Part 2) by Alan Lee, Esq.



    (This is the second of a 4 part article based on a talk given by Alan Lee, Esq., at the Queens Borough Public Library in Flushing, Queens, on March 10, 2014. Today’s topics are the cap issue and the lottery. The remaining parts will discuss the filing process and strategies of filing, common misperceptions of premium processing benefits, the cap gap, and problems after the H-1B petition is approved and before October 1st.)

    3. The Cap Issue and the Lottery

    A The Numbers Available in 2014 and the Lottery

    Now we move on to the cap issue. The first question is whether there will be an H-1B lottery this year, and the answer is that unless the economy crashes this month, we will have a lottery and the H-1B application season will close almost as soon as it opens. Assuming that there is a lottery, what are your chances of being picked? I can tell you that even though there is random selection by computer, most who apply will be picked. How many numbers are out there? We have a sense of the numbers although they are only approximates and depend upon the reasonableness of U.S.C.I.S. in adding further numbers. Under the current H-1B cap quotas, there are 4 sets of numbers. The first number is 65,000 for those with bachelor's or higher degrees or their equivalent with the exception of U.S. advanced degree holders. Second is 20,000 allotted first to those with masters or higher degrees earned in the U. S. Third, 6800 is the number subtracted from the total for H-1B1 petitions filed by those under the Singapore/Chile Free Trade Agreement. However, the actual number of those petitions filed is usually small, and so based on the past, one can assume that there will be at least 5500 added back into the mix for persons applying for cap H-1B’s. The last number is for those who are wait-listed, and that number is up to U.S.C.I.S., but the least amount of numbers should be 10,000. Wait-listed petitions substitute for those that are denied, withdrawn or otherwise found ineligible. We base the 10,000 number on statistics provided by U.S.C.I.S. in October 2012 showing that from FY 2009 to FY 2012, the number of H-1B cap cases denied, withdrawn, or otherwise found ineligible averaged 11%. We note, however, that the statistics are difficult to reconcile with earlier 2012 information in a National Foundation for American Policy brief analyzing government data that denial rates alone for all H-1Bs without regard to the other two categories were 29% in FY 2009, 21% FY 2010 and 17% FY 2011. For these years, the average denial rate was 22%. Obviously the statistics must be taken with a grain of salt since the U.S.C.I.S. official numbers do not contain FY 2013 and the National Foundation numbers only go up to FY 2011 – but they give us a sense of where the numbers could be or should be. The difference between the 2 figures is approximately 8000 cap numbers. But using the official numbers, the available numbers should be a little north of 94,000. I might note that this number is without regard to the hundreds of thousands of unused H-1B visa numbers over the years which if recaptured would probably do away with the need for H-1B lotteries for many years. The budget reconciliation bill (S 1932) in 2005 had a provision that was never adopted by the House which would have allowed the recapture of approximately 300,000 unused H-1B numbers dating back to FY 1991.

    How many people will be applying? How many H-1B petitions can we expect to be submitted in April? Last year there were approximately 124,000. No one expects that there will be less this year. The economy is up, hiring is up, and the leavening factor of the extra $2000 filing fee since August 2010 (for companies employing 50 or more individuals in the country of whom 50% or more are in either H-1B or L-1 intracompany transferee status) bringing the total filing fee to $4325 in addition to attorneys fees and other expenses (usually over $6000) seems to so far have been absorbed by companies as just part of the cost of doing business.

    But as I said previously, given the number of available H-1B cap numbers, the chances are much more in favor of a petition being receipted than rejected. The odds further favor those having U. S. Masters degrees as they are first put into the electronic spin barrel selecting 20,000 numbers and if not selected for the first spin, put into a second drawing encompassing all of the remaining numbers.

    B What Filings Are Exempt From The Cap?

    H-1B filings that are exempt from the cap are where the work is for an institution of higher education or an organization associated with an institute of higher education, a nonprofit organization related to or affiliated with an institution of higher education, or a nonprofit research organization or governmental research organization. In addition, work for a company or other organization on the campus of an institute of higher education may also be exempt if the work relates to the purpose of the institution – for example, the private physician group with its physicians working in the University teaching hospital as opposed to a company with managers and other staff opening a sportswear store on campus. If you're being sponsored by one of them, you don't have to worry about the cap. Other people who are exempt from the cap are people who already have H-1s and are extending or transferring to another organization, persons working for institutes of higher education or other cap exempt organizations who take concurrent employment with outside organizations that are cap subject, or those who have not used up all the time on former H-1B’s and have an organization ready to sponsor them. With this group, if they have already been outside the U. S. for one year, they would have the choice of either going for a new cap-subject H-1B or using the remainder of the 6 years when they file their H-1B petitions.

    What can you do if you miss the cap? The choices are going back to school, changing status to another category, leaving the country, or staying here illegally. Most of the people that we know choose to go back to school and try again in the next year. Those keeping to their F-1 student status can take on another degree program, do continuing education courses, or pick up knowledge in other fields in lesser programs. People with have high credentials in their chosen field may be able to qualify for O-1 visa consideration as either extraordinary or outstanding. Others may qualify for L-1 intracompany transferee status at a later date as manager, executive, or person with specialized knowledge if the company that is interested in them sends them abroad for one year (a requirement) and then petitions for them to come back. An L-1 is not cap subject. So it's not the end of the world if you miss the cap.

    This article © 2014 Alan Lee, Esq.

    About The Author

    Alan Lee, Esq

    Alan Lee, Esq. is a 30+ year practitioner of immigration law based in New York City holding an AV preeminent rating in the Martindale-Hubbell Law Director, registered in the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers, on the New York Super Lawyers list (2011-12, 2013-14), and recognized as a New York Area Top Rated Lawyer in 2012. He was awarded the Sidney A. Levine prize for best legal writing at the Cleveland-Marshall College of Law in 1977 and has written extensively on immigration over the past years for Interpreter Releases, Immigration Daily, and the ethnic newspapers, World Journal, Sing Tao, Pakistan Calling, Muhasba and OCS. He has testified as an expert on immigration in civil court proceedings and was recognized by the Taiwan government in 1985 for his work protecting human rights. His article, "The Bush Temporary Worker Proposal and Comparative Pending Legislation: an Analysis" was Interpreter Releases' cover display article at the American Immigration Lawyers Association annual conference in 2004, and his victory in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in a case of first impression nationwide, Firstland International v. INS, successfully challenged INS' policy of over 40 years of revoking approved immigrant visa petitions under a nebulous standard of proof. Its value as precedent, however, was short-lived as it was specifically targeted by the Bush Administration in the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004.

    The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.

      Posting comments is disabled.





    There are no tags yet.

    Latest Articles


    • Article: The EB-5 Immigration Program and the Investors Process By H. Ronald Klasko

      If you are having difficulty viewing this document please click here.

      08-20-2018, 08:15 AM
    • Article: Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence By Karolina Walters
      Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence by Karolina Walters The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), the union that represents the nation’s immigration judges, is challenging the government’s decision to remove an immigration judge from a well-known case and replace him with a judge who immediately ordered the immigrant in the case deported. NAIJ’s grievance addresses the treatment of one immigration judge, but its resolution will have implications for judicial independence throughout the entire immigration court system. The grievance was filed on behalf of Philadelphia-based immigration judge Steven A. Morley, who was presiding over the case of Mr. Reynaldo Castro-Tum. Castro-Tum’s case rose to national importance earlier this year when Attorney General Jeff Sessions chose to refer the case to himself to reconsider the Board of Immigration Appeals’ previous decision in the case. In reconsidering the decision, Sessions effectively eliminated judges’ use of administrative closure, a docket management tool. Sessions sent Castro-Tum’s case back to Judge Morley, noting that the immigration court order Castro-Tum removed if he did not appear at his next hearing. Castro-Tum did not appear at the next hearing. However, Judge Morley continued the case to resolve whether Castro-Tum received adequate notice of the hearing. Due process requires, at a minimum, that an individual be given notice of proceedings and an opportunity to be heard by a judge. But before the next hearing could take place, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) replaced Judge Morley with an Assistant Chief Immigration Judge who ordered Castro-Tum removed when he did not appear at court again. In their grievance, NAIJ asserts that the decision to remove Judge Morley from Castro-Tum’s case and reassign many other cases from his docket resulted in unacceptable interference with judicial independence. The grievance specifically claims that EOIR’s actions violate immigration judges’ authority under the regulations to exerci...
      08-17-2018, 11:12 AM
    • Article: Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico By Sophia Genovese
      Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico by Sophia Genovese The Trump Administration is seeking to create and implement a safe third country agreement with Mexico . Under this agreement, asylum seekers arriving at the US border who have travelled through Mexico would be denied the ability to file their asylum claims in the US. Such an agreement would trample on the rights of asylum-seekers, violating both international and US asylum law. In particular, the US would be violating the international principle of non-refoulement , which provides that no State “shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his [or her] life or freedom would be threatened,” where Mexico has a proven track record of being anything but safe for asylum seekers . The US has also codified Article 33(1) of the Refugee Convention into Section 208(a)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) which provides that it will not return an asylum seeker to his or her country of origin, but may, at the determination of the Attorney General, remove the asylum seeker to a “safe third country… where the [asylum seeker] would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection.” Although Mexican officials have not yet indicated whether they would sign a safe third country agreement with the US, asylum advocates should proactively seek to prevent such a devastating policy with a country that lacks adequate asylum protections. As reported by Human Rights First and Amnesty International , 75 percent of asylum seekers apprehended and detained by the National Institute of Migration (INM), the Mexican immigration enforcement agency, were not informed of their right to seek asylum. Even if asylum seekers are able to make their claims, only 30% of the asylum proceedings are ever concluded , and even fewer are granted, leaving many bona fide asylum seekers stranded without a resolution. The treatment of unaccompanied minors’ asylum claims in Mexico are even more dismal. Of the 35,000 minors apprehended by the INM in the first half of 2016, only 138 were able to apply for asylum , of which only 77 were granted protection. Beyond the failing asylum system in Mexico, asylum seekers are also in extreme danger of kidnapping, murder, rape, trafficking, and other crimes by INM officers and civilians. A safe third country agreement with Mexico would violate the United States’ international obligations under the 1967 Optional Protocol to the Refugee Convention, to which we are a signatory, which adopts by incorporation the obligations outlined in the 1951 Refugee Convention, to which the US is not a signatory. Take the example of an asylum-seeker, Mrs. H, who is fleeing politically-motivated violence in Honduras. Her husband, Mr. H, was a vocal political activist who opposed the National Party and members of the Honduran government. Mr. H began to receive death threats due to his political beliefs and reported such threats to the authorities. The authorities, however, di...
      08-16-2018, 02:32 PM
    • Article: Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence By Eugene Goldstein, Esq.

      Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence


      On August 9, 2018 USCIS published a “Policy Memorandum” restricting the 20-year-old calculation of Duration of Status (D/S) for F-1, J-1 and M-1 entrants (and their derivative families).

      USCIS also published an announcement (hereinafter “announcement”) “USCIS Issues Revised Guidance on Unlawful Presence for Students and Exchange Visitors , and a general discussion “Unlawful Presence and Bars to Admissibility” ...

      08-15-2018, 12:57 PM
    • Article: Update On Express Entry Immigration To Canada By Edward C. Corrigan and Selvin Mejia
      Update On Express Entry Immigration To Canada by Edward C. Corrigan and Selvin Mejia On January 1, 2015 the Federal Conservatives introduced significant changes to Canada’s economic immigration program. Formerly called the Skilled Worker program the new program was re-branded as Express Entry which included Skilled Workers, the Federal Skilled Trades program, and the In-Canada Experience Program. Canada modelled its revamped economic immigration program on New Zealand’s. There is also an Atlantic Immigration program. In addition there is a separate Live-In Caregiver program where individuals can apply for Permanent Residence after two years employment in this category. EXPRESS ENTRY The initial object of the changes was to create a list of Applicants where the Federal Government could select the best and the brightest from the list of Applicants. The Express Entry was supposed have applicants who had an approved Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) and a valid job offer from an approved Canadian Employer. Under the Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS) candidates were award 600 points for having an approved job offer. Applicants would have achieved a point score of around 1,000 with the 600 points for having a valid offer of employment under the CRS. The provinces in Canada were also allowed to select Applicants according to their economic needs and these applicants that were selected through the respective provincial nominee programs by a province were awarded 600 points to be added to their score. Ontario also has a program where graduates from an Ontario University with a Master’s or who were in a PhD. program would be approved and awarded 600 points which virtually assured that they would be approved and provided with an invitation to apply. There is a quota that governs this graduate program. LABOUR MARKET IMPACT ASSESSMENTS Things did not go according to plan with Federal Express Entry. Very few Applicants were able to attai...
      08-14-2018, 12:50 PM
    • Article: USCIS Finalizes Unlawful Presence Policy Putting F, J and M Nonimmigrants In Great Jeopardy By Cyrus D. Mehta
      USCIS Finalizes Unlawful Presence Policy Putting F, J and M Nonimmigrants In Great Jeopardy by Cyrus D. Mehta The USCIS finalized its unlawful presence policy for F, J and M nonimmigrants on August 9, 2018. The final policy makes no significant changes from the draft policy of May 10, 2018. My earlier blog noted the flaws in the draft policy, which persist in the final policy. The final policy incorrectly breaks down the distinction between violating status and being unlawfully present in the US. As of August 9, 2018, F, J and M nonimmigrants who have failed to maintain nonimmigrant status will start accruing unlawful presence. Individuals who have accrued more than 180 days of unlawful presence during a single stay, and then depart, may be subject to 3-year or 10-year bars to admission, depending on how much unlawful presence they accrued before they departed the United States. See INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) & (II) . Individuals who have accrued a total period of more than one year of unlawful presence, whether in a single stay or during multiple stays in the United States, and who then reenter or attempt to reenter the United States without being admitted or paroled, are permanently inadmissible. See INA § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(1). Prior to August 9, 2018, foreign students (F nonimmigrants) and exchange visitors (J nonimmigrants) who were admitted for, or present in the United States in, Duration of Status started accruing unlawful presence on the day after USCIS formally found a nonimmigrant status violation while adjudicating a request for another immigrant benefit or on the day after an immigration judge ordered the applicant excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision was appealed), whichever came first. F and J nonimmigrants, and foreign vocational students (M nonimmigrants), who were admitted until a specific date certain accrued unlawful presence on the day after their Form I-94 expired, on the day after USCIS formally found a nonimmigrant status violation while adjudicating a request for another immigration benefit, or on the day after an immigration judge ordered the applicant excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision was appealed), whichever came first. This will no longer be the case. Under the new policy effective August 9, 2018, any status violation will start the accrual of unlawful presence. The nonimmigrant will not be provided with any formal notice of a status violation, and any violation from the past that has been discovered would have already started the accrual of unlawful presence. According to the pol...
      08-14-2018, 10:51 AM