Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Article: ABCs Of H-1Bs (This Is Part Vi Of An Viii Part Series): The H-1B Cap Was Reached; Do I Still Have A Chance Of Getting An H-1B Visa? By David H. Nachman, Esq., Michael Phulwani, Esq. and Ludka Zimovcak, Esq.

Collapse
X
Collapse

  • Article: ABCs Of H-1Bs (This Is Part Vi Of An Viii Part Series): The H-1B Cap Was Reached; Do I Still Have A Chance Of Getting An H-1B Visa? By David H. Nachman, Esq., Michael Phulwani, Esq. and Ludka Zimovcak, Esq.

    ABCs Of H-1Bs (This Is Part Vi Of An Viii Part Series): The H-1B Cap Was Reached; Do I Still Have A Chance Of Getting An H-1B Visa?

    by


    In the first week of April during the last several years the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) announced that it has received a sufficient number of H-1B petitions to reach the statutory cap, both regular and master’s. Because of the surge of petitions filed, USCIS conducts a lottery (technically referred as “random selection process”), to determine which petitions received in the five-day submission period, the minimum time USCIS can accept petitions, will actually be considered. USCIS then begins sending receipt notices for the petitions selected in the random selection process.

    The H-1B lottery is a very stressful time for thousands of potential H-1B candidates. Until the prospective H-1B employers (or their legal representatives) start receiving receipt notices, and the dark clouds of uncertainty over prospective H-1B visa holders move past, the question worth asking and exploring is: “Do I still have a chance of getting an H-1B visa even if my H-1B petition does not make it to the H-1B cap?”

    Unfortunately, the regular (bachelor’s) H-1B cap remains at 58,200 and the master’s cap cannot accommodate more than 20,000 specialty occupation workers. However, there are certain categories of cap-exempt H-1B visas that candidates can look to. One such category is for beneficiaries of employment offers at: (1) institutions of higher education or related or affiliated nonprofit entities; or (2) nonprofit research organizations or governmental research organizations. To get a cap- exempt H-1B visa using these categories the fundamental question to ask is: whether the offer of employment is from an institution of higher education, or related or affiliated nonprofit entities, or from nonprofit research organization or governmental research organization.

    For the purposes of H-1B cap exemption, the H-1B regulations have adopted the definition of institution of higher education as the definition has been set forth in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965. As detailed in our previous article, to be classified as an institution of higher education, the educational institution must satisfy five (5) requirements. First, the educational institute must be a public or other nonprofit institution. Second, the master’s degree issuing institution must be accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association. Additionally, the educational institution must satisfy each of the following three requirements: (1) admits as regular students only persons having a certificate of graduation from a school providing secondary education, or the recognized equivalent of such a certificate; (2) is legally authorized within such state to provide a program of education beyond secondary education; and (3) provides an educational program for which the institution awards a bachelor’s degree or provides not less than a 2-year program that is acceptable for full credit toward such a degree. The previous article in this series discussed in detail which educational institutions may or may not qualify as an institution of higher education. Further guidance was recently provided in a set of regulations that became effective on January 17th, 2017.

    Assuming that an academic institution will qualify as an institution of higher education, the next two questions that have perplexed immigration practitioners (and potential H-1B employers are):

    (1) what is the difference between employed “by” and employed “at”; and (2) how does one determine if the nonprofit institution is “related to or affiliated with” an institution of higher education.

    The 2006 Aytes memo clarified the difference between employed “at” and employed “by”, and the purpose behind it. This memo explained that commonly, qualifying institutions petition on behalf of current or prospective H-1B employees and claim this exemption. In certain instances, petitioners that are not themselves a qualifying institution also claim this exemption because the prospective H- 1B beneficiary will perform all or a portion of the job duties “at” a qualifying institution. Such petitioners are referred to as “third party petitioners”.

    Thus, USCIS allows an exemption in situations where the employee is employed by a “third party petitioner” but the prospective H-1B employee will perform job duties at a qualifying institution that directly and predominately furthers the normal, primary, or essential purpose, mission, objectives or function of the qualifying institution, namely, higher education, or nonprofit research organization, or governmental research organization. Thus, if the petitioner is not itself a qualifying institution, the burden is on the petitioner to establish that there is a “logical nexus” between the work performed predominately by the beneficiary and the normal, primary, or essential work performed by the qualifying institution.

    In this context, the issue that has been source of frequent litigation is: “How to determine whether the nonprofit institution is “related to or affiliated with” the institution of higher education?” The Administrative Appeals Office (“AAO”), a component of USCIS, has always deferred to the USCIS approach as to whether the nonprofit institution is related to or affiliated with the institution of higher education. According to USCIS policy, the definition of related or affiliated nonprofit entity that should be applied can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(19)(iii)(B). In particular, USCIS takes into consideration the following definition: “A nonprofit entity (including but not limited to hospitals and medical or research institutions) that is connected or associated with an institution of higher education, through shared ownership or control by the same board or federation operated by an institution of higher education, or attached to an institution of higher education as a member, branch, cooperative, or subsidiary.”

    Per new 2017 guidance, The term “related or affiliated nonprofit entity” is defined, both for ACWIA fee ( 8 CFR §214.2(h)(19)(iii)(B) and cap exemption purposes, to include nonprofit entities that satisfy any one of the following conditions: (1) the non-profit is connected or associated with an institution of higher education through shared ownership or control by the same board or federation; (2) the non-profit is operated by an institution of higher education; (3) the non-profit is attached to an institution of higher education as a member, branch, cooperative, or subsidiary; or (4) the non-profit has entered into a formal written affiliation agreement with an institution of higher education that establishes an active working relationship with the institution of higher education for the purposes of research or education; and a fundamental activity of the non-profit is to directly contribute to the research or education mission of the institution of higher education.


    The AAO has further interpreted the terms “board” and “federation” as referring specifically to educational bodies such as a board of education, board of regents, etc. Arguing that all public universities and public primary and secondary schools are all nonprofit entities ultimately owned by the State government will not help to fetch the exemption.

    However, consider a situation where the primary or secondary school runs a teacher’s certification program in collaboration with a qualifying institution of higher education, and one of the essential purposes of the institution of higher education is to train primary and secondary school teachers. This collaboration could be used to satisfy the third prong that the petitioner is attached to an institution of higher education as a member, branch, cooperative, or subsidiary. Thus, individuals involved in such a program could be treated as being H-1B cap exempt. However, such an exemption is limited to the employees of a nonprofit petitioner who are directly involved in the jointly managed program that directly and predominantly furthers the essential purposes of the institution of higher education.

    Switching gears from the most hotly contested issue to that of the least contested issue is a focus upon which institution may qualify as a nonprofit research organization or governmental research organization. USCIS always follows the definition as stated in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(19)(iii)(C). Specifically, a nonprofit research organization is an organization that is primarily engaged in basic research and/or applied research. A governmental research organization is a United States Government entity whose primary mission is the performance or promotion of basic research and/or applied research. The research, be it basic or applied, includes sciences, social sciences, or the humanities.

    In conclusion, to claim H-1B cap exemption under this category, the institution should qualify either as an institution of higher education or as a nonprofit research organization or as a governmental research organization. Even if the petitioner is not an institution of higher education, it may qualify for the exemption if it is “related to or affiliated with” the institution of higher education. In order to be “related to or affiliated with” an institution of higher education, one or more of the following must be satisfied: (1) The petitioner is associated with an institution of higher education through shared ownership or control by the same board or federation; (2) The petitioner is operated by an institution of higher education; or (3) The petitioner is attached to an institution of higher education as a member, branch, cooperative, or subsidiary.

    Last but not the least; the regulations do not demand that the prospective H-1B employee should be employed “by” an institution of higher education (or related or affiliated nonprofit entities), or nonprofit research organization, or governmental research organization. Even if the H-1B employee is employed by a third-party but s/he performs majority of work “at” (upon) a qualifying institution and that work directly and predominately furthers a primary or essential purpose of the qualifying institution, such an employee will be treated as cap-exempt. Of course, it is likely that we will receive further and additional guidance on these issues in the future.

    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

    • Article: The EB-5 Immigration Program and the Investors Process By H. Ronald Klasko
      ImmigrationDaily
      The EB-5 Immigration Program and the Investors Process by H. Ronald Klasko At Klasko Immigration Law Partners, LLP, we represent businesses, individuals, and organizations across the world with various aspects of employment-based immigration. The EB-5 Immigrant Investor Visa Program is one program through which we help wealthy foreign nationals with no employment sponsorship or family in the United States gain permanent residence status. In the infographic below, we highlight the steps of the EB-5 program and the investment requirements associated with it, so individuals and companies alike can understand the program before coming to Klasko Immigration Law Partners, LLP for assistance. This post originally appeared on www.klaskolaw.com. Reprinted with permission. About The Author H. Ronald Klasko is recognized by businesses, universities, hospitals, scholars, investors and other lawyers as one of the country's leading immigration lawyers. A founding member of Klasko, Rulon, Stock & Seltzer, LLP and its Managing Partner, he has practiced immigration law exclusively over three decades. Under his leadership, the firm was chosen with five other firms by Chambers Global in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 as the top U.S. business, hospital and university immigration law firm. Ron, himself, was named as the world's most respected corporate immigration lawyer (The International Who's Who of Business Lawyers 2007 and 2008) and one of the country's top immigration lawyers by clients and other immigration lawyers who said he is revered for coming up with unique arguments that can save a clients (Chambers Global). A former National President of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), Ron served as General...
      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
    • Article: Update On Express Entry Immigration To Canada By Edward C. Corrigan and Selvin Mejia
      ImmigrationDaily
      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
      ImmigrationDaily
      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
    Working...
    X