No announcement yet.

Article: 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(5) and its potential for abuse by USCIS. By Spencer Sheehan


  • Article: 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(5) and its potential for abuse by USCIS. By Spencer Sheehan

    8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(5) and its potential for abuse by USCIS


    The purpose of this letter is to share with fellow practitioners the conduct of USCIS. Specifically, in the context of the well-known non-immigrant employment application, otherwise known as the H-1B Visa.

    In 2014, my office filed an application for an H-1B visa on behalf of a client’s business. After an initial Request for Evidence, the application was denied in less than twenty-four (24) hours. While it is not expected that decisions churned out by overworked service center employees will be paragons of legal reasoning, it is surely not too much to ask that USCIS actually read the submitted materials.

    Case in point, my client had submitted job advertisements which were publicly posted in an attempt to fill the position in question. In the RFE, USCIS requested that if job advertisements were posted, they should be submitted to the agency as evidence of the position's requirements.

    In its decision of July 30, 2014, defendant USCIS recounted the usage of job advertisements as a form of potential proof of the duties described for the position. In reciting the evidence it believed I submitted on behalf of my client, USCIS stated I had provided them with:

    Job postings for similarly related positions. However, USCIS cannot determine the size of these companies, the number of employees working, the duties and responsibilities, since the information submitted was without regard to company size and they all employ residential market research analyst related positions with unspecified degrees.

    All of the job advertisements contained the company's name on them. The job ads for this specific position were also referenced in other parts of the application. These job postings were the first piece of evidence examined by USCIS. After "evaluating" the ads, USCIS discarded the other evidence in the application based largely on its negative determination regarding the job ads it failed to read.

    The client and I decide not to partake in the administrative appeals process, since it was expected that users would merely rewrite the decision and deny it on other grounds, though without the glaring errors present in its initial denial.

    In mid-October, 2015, I commenced an action in the District Court for the Eastern District of New York seeking a determination that the agency's decision was arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law. As a courtesy to my adversary, I contacted a senior attorney at the U.S. Attorney's Office who often handles these matters for the agency. It was my expectation that, having seen the blatant errors in USCIS' decision, my client’s application would subsequently be approved. And even if it wasn't approved, I'd litigate the case until I couldn't anymore.

    Several weeks later, USCIS purportedly reopened the application by invoking 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(5) ("Motion by Service officer"). I say "purportedly" since their internal record of the date which it was reopened is inconsistent. Lo and behold, the United States Attorney argues to the Court that since the decision was reopened and now the case must be dismissed since there no longer exists a "final agency action." 5 USC § 704.

    After over a year lying dormant, suddenly my client’s case is reopened and USCIS would have the Court believe, jurisdiction disappears in a puff of smoke. While there are decisions from Washington and California which support the government's position, the more important question is "When does it end?" 1

    What's to stop USCIS from ever having to litigate an H-lB visa case if they can, like Lucy to Charlie Brown, pull away the football at the last possible moment? Suppose my client responds to the new Request for Evidence and USCIS again denies the application, theoretically I can come back to the same court. However, why can’t USCIS just reopen the case again?

    This type of action allows an agency to insulate its decisions from scrutiny and of course, judicial review. Additionally, this conduct encourages an agency to not be accountable for its mistakes. After all, it can just ask for a "do over" and there’s little that could be done. I was told by the U.S. Attorney that almost everyone in my position accepts the agency’s reopening and discontinues their case. However, doing so allows this cycle to continue whereby agency decisions go unreviewed by any independent body- in this case, the judiciary. That's why I said to opposing counsel that I'd rather lose the case on the jurisdiction argument than permit abuses like this to continue, despite what I'm told is a "fair review" of the evidence. Sometimes principles have to come first.

    1 Net-Inspect, LLC 11. US Citizenship and Immigration Services, No. C14-1514JLR (W.D. Wash. Feb. 28, 2015) and True Capital Management, LLC v. United States Department of Homeland Security, No. 13-261 jSC (N.D. Cal. June 20, 2013).

    Reprinted with permission.

    About The Author

    Spencer Sheehan is an attorney in private practice in Great Neck, New York. He practices in the areas of immigration, consumer and administrative law. To Sheehan, the common strand in such cases is the misuse or abuse of authority/negotiating power by a larger entity (be it a corporation or governmental body) with respect to its more diminutive and generally weaker adversary. Among other activity, Sheehan was co-lead counsel in the first case which challenged food manufacturer's labeling of their products as "raw." Sheehan also represents former subway vigilante Bernard Goetz against his landlord's claims that Goetz possesses "wild squirrels" in his Manhattan apartment. Before becoming an attorney, Sheehan served in the United States Marine Corps. He is a graduate of a Georgetown University (2002) and Fordham University School of Law (2010).

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

    • ImmigrationLawBlogs
      Editing a comment
      Putting an H-1B petitioner in a position where it is necessary to rely on newspaper job ads in order to show that the offered position is a specialty occupation can be very risky and counterproductive. Yes, I know that the regulations allow using this kind of proof, but for some reason, USCIS officers hate to accept it. It is possible that the entire unfortunate saga of denial and fruitless appeals described above might have been avoided by a little more attention to the OOH (Occupational Outlook Handbook), which, in my long (more than 25 years) H-1B experience is the only type of evidence that H-1B examiners like to rely on to show proof of specialty occupation.

      So here are my three rules for avoiding the kind of problem described in the above article:

      1) Check out the OOH's educational requirements for the offered H-1 job first,
      2) Check the OOH again,
      3) Keep checking the OOH until you are absolutely sure that the OOH requires at least a bachelor degree related to the job as the minimum requirement for the position,
      4) Finally, make sure that the H-1B beneficiary has the required degree (or equivalent).

      Anyone who doe not use the OOH as the Alpha and Omega (beginning and end) of preparing an H-1B job title and job description is simply looking for trouble.

      Roger Algase
      Attorney at Law
      Last edited by ImmigrationLawBlogs; 02-18-2016, 03:57 PM.
    Posting comments is disabled.





There are no tags yet.

Latest Articles


  • 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
  • Article: PERM Book Practice Tip - Maintenance of Status in PERM Cases By Joel Stewart, Editor PERM Book III
    PERM Book Practice Tip - Maintenance of Status in PERM Cases by Joel Stewart, Editor PERM Book III Before beginning a PERM case, an employer must always check the immigration history of the foreign national to confirm that he or she is eligible to receive permanent residency, and whether the applicant may expect to apply by Adjustment of Status or by Consular Processing. Focus must be placed on determining that the foreign national has always maintained status in the United States – whether it by as a temporary visitor for pleasure, business, as a student or in an authorized category of work. In addition to the Resume and Diplomas of the foreign worker, it is recommended to ask the worker to provide a time line to prove maintenance of status. This can be done by establishing an unbroken line of authorized stay and status in the US, and by confirming that the applicant has not worked without authorization by proving the monthly income from the time of first entering the United States. The issue of maintenance of status is more acute for vi...
    08-13-2018, 02:21 PM