Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Article: Employers Need to Know That Site Visits Continue to be a Routine Protocol For USCIS. By: David Nachman, Michael Phulwani, and Ludka Zimovcak

Collapse
X
Collapse

  • Article: Employers Need to Know That Site Visits Continue to be a Routine Protocol For USCIS. By: David Nachman, Michael Phulwani, and Ludka Zimovcak

    Employers Need to Know That Site Visits Continue to be a Routine Protocol For USCIS

    by


    Some time back, the Nachman Phulwani Zimovcak (NPZ) Law Group, P.C. reported that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"), sought to step-up its efforts to find fraud in the H-1B program. This was done by conducting investigations and visiting H-1B petitioner worksites throughout the U.S.

    These investigations came to be known as H-1B “site visits”. The site visits began as part of the USCIS' goal to decrease the number of H-1B violations and instances of fraud reported by the H-1B Benefit Fraud & Compliance Assessment from CIS' Office of Fraud Detection and National Security ("FDNS").

    According to the FDNS' findings, as many as one in five H-1B applications were affected by either fraud or "technical violations" in the H-1B program. Additionally, there have been inquiries into the religious worker visa program over the past several years that threatened to derail the program as a result of an allegation that nearly 30% of the religious worker visas submitted were fraudulent applications.

    Over the past several years, the FDNS has expanded its investigations from the H-1B visa program to the religious worker program. Now, FDNS site visits and/or investigations are a mandatory part of the religious worker visa process. Additionally, and while our office has experienced this on a less frequent basis, there is rumored to be an increase in site visits for L-1 visa petitions. Particularly, “new company” L-1A visa cases seem to be impacted. However, all L-1 cases seem to be under the preverbial “microscope”.

    Why should employers be concerned about the site visit? Any employer who sponsors a foreign national worker for an H-1B professional and specialty occupation work visa, religious worker visa or an L-1 intracompany transfer nonimmigrant work visa, can be subject to an unannounced site visit. A site visit can also be announced but these would tend to be more common in the context of the nonimmigrant religious worker visa classification.

    What this means is that an FDNS investigator (and/or a DOL or CIS or DOS investigator) can randomly show-up at a worksite and demand to see a copy of the petition, interview the person who represented the company in connection with the petition as well as the employee/beneficiary or other employees presently at the proposed or intended worksite specified in the petition. Any inconsistencies in the information that was represented in the petition submitted to the government can result in a potential headache for the employer.

    FDNS has indicated that it does not need a subpoena in order to complete a site visit because USCIS regulations governing the filing of immigration petitions allows the government to take testimony and conduct broad investigations relating to the petitions. In fact, the fine print on the petition forms seems to permit these inquiries. However other sources say that employers are not required to respond to the investigator’s demands without a formal subpoena.

    What is an employer to do? From a practical standpoint employers and employees should do everything that they can to always comply (as much as possible) with any investigative agency that seeks information. Failure to do so may result in the issuance of a “Notice of Intent to Deny” (NOID), which, if issued, can result in the employers need to prepare a formal response or rebuttal to the NOID. If accurate and consistent information can be provided in response to the initial site visit then the investigating officer, in his/her discretion, may choose not issue a NOID.

    USCIS has indicated that employers (and their staff) may have their immigration lawyers or immigration attorneys present during a site visit or inspection, however, it is important to note that the investigator is not likely going to return on another day if the immigration law counselor for the employer is not available on the day of the visit. From a practical standpoint, immigration law counselors who handle H and L and religious worker visa cases and R and L visa cases should discuss the site visit process with their clients and they should explain to them that they can make themselves available via telephone in the event that the employer is facing a site visit.

    Some common questions that have been raised by employers about the site visit process include: (1) "how are companies selected to be investigated," and (2) "if I am visited, should I be concerned," and (3) "what type of violations are the investigators looking for," and (4) "how can I prepare for a site visit from a USCIS/FDNS investigator?"

    To address these issues in order, firstly, any employer who has filed an H-1B or an L-1 or an R-1 (or an EB-4 Religious Worker Visa) petition can be subjected to a site visit. For religious worker visas, site visits are mandatory. For the H-1B and L-1 visa petitions, CIS claims the employers are chosen at random.

    However, when the site visit program began (back about 5 years ago), close to 40,000 employers' were slotted for site visits. We are given to understand that some of the factors that may have been taken into consideration when selecting these 40,000 employers included: (1) companies with less than 15 employees; (2) companies with less than $10 million in sales; (3) companies less than 10 years old; (4) accounting, HR, business analyst, sales and advertising positions; and (5) petitions where the beneficiary merely had a bachelor's degree, not an advanced degree.

    However, the site visit process has now matured. Now it appears that any organization that has done a religious worker visa, an H-1B or an L-1 may receive a site visit from an FDNS investigator. What also appears to be the case in the programs maturity is that the investigations are being handled by in-house by FDNS officers as opposed to independent contractors for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. When the site visit program was in its genesis, independent contractors (folks retained by USCIS who had little understanding about the immigration law process) were the ones who did the site visits and many legal practitioners at that time expressed concern about the ability of these individuals to obtain, convey, or generate accurate information.

    If your company receives a site visit and all of your records are in order, you have nothing to worry about. Generally, employers are aware of inconsistencies before any investigative agency may catch wind of it. That being said, if the investigators uncover any inconsistencies or instances of fraud, the case may be referred to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), or the Department of Labor (DOL) or another administrative agency (such as the U.S. Department of Justice) for further investigation depending upon the issue. This could mean there could be monetary, and if egregious offenses, possible criminal penalties for the employer.

    The objective of the site visit program is clear. The CIS is seeking to detect fraud and abuses in its visa programs. According to USCIS, offenses can range from technical violations to outright fraud, with the most common violation being the non-payment of a prevailing wage to the H-1B beneficiary. More specifically, for an H-1B nonimmigrant employer, the FDNS investigators may be looking for the following types of violations: (1) job location not listed on the H-1B petition and/or LCA; (2) H-1B worker not receiving the required wage; (3) fraudulent H-1B documents or H-1B worker credentials; (4) non-existent business or office location; (5) job duties significantly different from those listed on H-1B petition/LCA; (6) misrepresentation of H-1B status by the H-1B worker (e.g., had been terminated from previous H-1B position prior to new employer H-1B being filed); and H-1B worker paid the $1500 ACWIA fee. Many of these same issues can be the focus in an L-1 and religious worker site visit context (although the LCA – and therefore DOL’s jurisdiction - is not relevant).

    How can an employer prepare for a possible site visit? For the H-1B employer, the first step would be to ensure that the organization is maintaining proper Public Access Files (PAF) for each H-1B worker. Of course, it is also important for the H-1B employer (and employee) to ensure that the PAF documents are accurate and up-to-date. In general, we continue to advise our clients to review and audit H-1B/LCA records to make sure everything is in order and that all of the information is readily available. If the employer is not aware of its obligation to create and maintain a PAF we encourage employers to contact our office.

    Another important step in the site visit process is for the employer to designate a specific individual at each H-1B worker location to meet an investigator or government official should he/she arrive. The person who greets the site visit officer from the FDNS should be prepared to give the investigator a quick list of facts about the company and also a listing of H-1B workers, work locations, title and salary information so that the employer does not need to search frantically for this information while the investigator is there. The same information and documentation is also important for the religious worker and the L-1 employer. However, as previously stated, the LCA does not apply in the religious worker or the L-1intracompany transfer visa context.

    Reprinted with permission.


    About The Author

    Michael Phulwani Michael Phulwani, Esq. is admitted to practice law in India, New York and New Jersey. He has been practicing law for about 39 years in the field of Immigration and Nationality Law. He is admitted to practice law in New Jersey, New York, and India. He maintains law office in Maywood New Jersey, and in Mumbai India.. He has successfully handled many complex immigration matters with the Immigration and Naturalization Service and consular processing cases at American Consulates abroad especially consular posts in India. Michael Phulwani is the author of 'Guide to U.S. Visas' and numerous articles published in various ethnic newspapers and other publications in the U.S. and abroad such as News India, India Tribune and Gujarat Times. He has also co-authored a series of articles on American Consulates in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh published in "The Visa Processing Guide" by American Immigration Lawyers Association.




    David Nachman David Nachman, Esq. is the founder and one of the Managing Attorneys in the Nachman Phulwani Zimovcak (NPZ) Law Group, P.C., a pre-eminent International Immigration and Nationality Law Firm dedicated to providing a wide array of business and family immigration law services for skilled U.S.- and Canada-bound workers. Attorney Nachman and fellow lawyers contributed to landmark decisions in such cases as Berger v. Berger and Woolley v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. The NPZ Law Group is an International Immigration Law Firm with offices in NJ and NY. The Firm has affiliated offices in Canada and India. The Firm specializes in providing assistance with waivers, removal defense, asylum, PERM, immigrant (Green Card) and various nonimmigrant visas, and immigration compliance matters for employers and employees and their families. Immigration professionals in NPZ Law Group speak many foreign languages including, but not limited to: Spanish, French, Japanese, Korean, Tamil, Hindi, Gujarati, Nepalese, Slovak, Czech, Russian, Polish, Tagalog, Hebrew, Chinese, German and English.




    Ludka Zimovcak Ludka Zimovcak, Esq. is one of the Managing Attorneys at the Nachman Phulwani Zimovcak (NPZ) Law Group, P.C., a pre-eminent International Immigration and Nationality Law Firm dedicated to providing a wide array of business and family immigration law services for skilled U.S.-and Canada-bound workers. Ms. Zimovcak is an experienced US Immigration Attorney with a sincere passion for excellence in immigration law. Her passion for excellence in immigration law derives from her own family's first-hand immigration experiences. As a foreign attorney herself, Ms. Zimovcak has an acute understanding of the issues facing the immigrants and she is eager to help families, businesses and individual immigrants to realize their dream of coming to the United States and legalizing their status.

    For more information about employer compliance issues and what steps that an employer can take to prepare itself for a site visit or even an I-9 Form investigation (by ICE), please feel free to contact the immigration and nationality lawyers at the Nachman Phulwani Zimovcak (NPZ) Law Group by e-mailing us at info@visaserve.com or by calling our office at 201-670-0006 (x107). Our immigration and nationality lawyers are ready to assist you and your HR staff with regard to your business immigration compliance issues.


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

      Posting comments is disabled.

    Categories

    Collapse

    article_tags

    Collapse

    There are no tags yet.

    Latest Articles

    Collapse

    • Birthright Citizenship Is Not A Legal Assumption; It's the Law by Kristie De Pena
      ImmigrationDaily

      08-21-2018, 03:12 PM
    • Blogging: Trump's "National Security" Abuses: First, Muslim Ban; Next, Security Clearance Revocation.. By Roger Algase
      ImmigrationDaily
      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.

      https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/20/polit...ent/index.html

      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
      ImmigrationDaily

      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
      ImmigrationDaily
      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
      ImmigrationDaily
      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.
      ImmigrationDaily

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

      by


      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). https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/...immigrants.pdf

      USCIS also published an announcement (hereinafter “announcement”) “USCIS Issues Revised Guidance on Unlawful Presence for Students and Exchange Visitors https://www.uscis.gov/news/uscis-iss...hange-visitors , and a general discussion “Unlawful Presence and Bars to Admissibility” ...

      08-15-2018, 12:57 PM
    Working...
    X