No announcement yet.

Article: Update: USCIS H1-B and L-1 Site Visits By Shilpa Malik


  • Article: Update: USCIS H1-B and L-1 Site Visits By Shilpa Malik

    Update: USCIS H1-B and L-1 Site Visits


    In an official meeting which took place early October, leaders from USCIS met with the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) to address concerns and make changes relating to the H-1B and L-1 Administrative Site Visit and Verification Program (ASVVP). These site visits, as experts point out, could pose major setbacks for petitioning employers and employees if they do not meet the inspector’s criteria.


    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services developed the site visit and verification program in 2009 as a way to ensure that employers were reporting the accurate information on their pending visas and to confirm that all requirements were still upheld for approved petitions.

    Since 2009, nearly 75,000 H-1B inspections have been completed to confirm the legitimacy of the employment organizations.

    L-1 Site Visit Expansions Include FDNS

    In recent years, L-1 site visits started being conducted by agents of the USCIS Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS). Unlike H-1B site visits which could include any employer (whether it be a large corporation, small company or nonprofit organization) L-1 case visits are exclusively for petitions filed on behalf of multinational companies.

    Site Visit Deemed Verified or Not-Verified

    The process for carrying out a site visit is as follows:

    • An FDNS inspector shows up at the location indicated on the petition (form I-129).
    • In rare cases, the inspector may send an email prior to the site visit with information listing which documentation will be required. Again, this doesn’t happen in all cases, so as a precaution you should have the proper paperwork on hand.
    • Once on the premises, the inspector will ask to speak to the individual who signed the I-129 form and possibly the nonimmigrant employees also noted on the form.
    • After a thorough review of the working conditions and  administrative inquiries, the visit is classified as “verified” or “not-verified”.
    • H-1B employer sites are known to receive repeat visits so don’t assume you’re home-free  if you receive a “verified” report.

    How Can I Prepare for an L-1 Employer Site Visit?

    Although site visits are completely random and unannounced (meaning you won’t receive a warning beforehand), there are certain steps you can take to be prepared. Some suggestions include:

    • Establishing a central contact person for any FDNS site inspections. This person should ideally be the individual whose name appears on the I-129 form.
    • Inform employees about the possibility of a site visit and their role in the inspection so they aren’t completely caught off guard when the FDNS representative arrives.


    H-1B and L-1 site visits are in place for the deter fraud and foster compliance across the board. The best advice is to take the necessary steps prior to a site visit and be as honest as possible with FDNS and USCIS officials. If at any point the petitioning employer or nonimmigrant employee has questions regarding administrative site visits, consult with an immigration lawyer.

    About The Author

    Shilpa Malik, Esq. is an experienced immigration lawyer specializing in employment based immigration, L-1 & H-1B work visa, family and marriage based immigration. She is the Founder and Managing Attorney of SGM Law Group, PLLC, an immigration firm committed to providing professional service and legal expertise similar to large firms while ensuring personal attention, compassion and accessibility of a small law practice. Prior to founding her own law firm, Shilpa worked as a Senior Attorney at prominent New York City based law firms where she practiced Immigration Law exclusively. She is admitted to the New York State Bar and is a member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) and American Bar Association (ABA).

    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: Birthright Citizenship Is Not A Legal Assumption; It
      Last week on Fox News, Tucker Carlson said,
      08-21-2018, 01:24 PM
    • Blogging: Trump's "National Security" Abuses: First, Muslim Ban; Next, Security Clearance Revocation.. By Roger Algase
      Trump's "National Security" Abuses: First, Muslim Ban; Next, Security Clearance Revocation. Trashing Immigrant Rights Endangers Freedom of All Americans.

      CNN reports on August 21 that 175 former US officials have denounced Donald Trump for revoking the security clearance of former CIA director John Brennan for speaking out in opposition to Trump.

      Presidential use of "national security"
      08-21-2018, 12:54 PM
    • 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