Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE





The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
© 1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

  • Article: ABC's of H-1B [Part VI] BY Michael Phulwani David Nachman and Rabindra K. Singh, Esq.

    ABC's of H-1B [Part VI]

    by


    NOW THAT THE CAP IS REACHED . . . DO I STILL HAVE A CHANCE OF GETTING AN H-1B VISA?

    On Monday, April 7, 2014, 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, for fiscal year (FY) 2015. Because of the surge of petitions that were filed, USCIS conducted a lottery (technically referred as “random selection process”) on April 10, 2014, to determine which petitions received in the five-day submission period, the minimum time USCIS can accept petitions, will actually be considered. USCIS will soon start sending receipt notices for the petitions selected in the random selection process.

    As expected, it is a very stressful time for thousands of potential H-1B workers. 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[i] 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. 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.[ii] Thus, to get a cap-exempt H-1B visa using this category 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 set forth in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965. As detailed in the previous article[iii], 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[iv]. Moreover, the educational institution must satisfy all of the following three requirements: (1) admits as regular student 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.

    Assuming that the 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[v] 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.”

    Reducing the provision to its essential elements, the AAO has stated that 8 C.F.R. § 214(h)(l9)(iii)(B) allows an H-1B petitioner to demonstrate that it is an affiliated or related nonprofit entity if it establishes one or more of the following: (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.[vi]

    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[vii] and/or applied research[viii]. 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” 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.



    [i] Up to 6,800 visas are set aside from the cap of 65,000 during each fiscal year for the H-1B1 program designed specifically for the nationals of Chile and Singapore (1,400 visas for the nationals of Chile, and 5,400 visas for the nationals of Singapore). The annual 6,800 H-1B1 numerical is counted against the H-1B numerical cap.

    [ii] Section 214(g)(5)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as modified by the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act (AC21), Pub. L. No. 106-313 (October 17, 2000)

    [iii] ABCs of H-1Bs (This is Part V of a VIII Part Series): Does My Master’s Degree Qualifies Me for the H-1B Master’s Cap?, published on ILW.COM (posted April 1, 2014).

    [iv] or if not so accredited, is an institution that has been granted pre-accreditation status by such an agency or association that has been recognized by the Secretary for the granting of pre-accreditation status, and the Secretary has determined that there is satisfactory assurance that the institution will meet the accreditation standards of such agency or association within a reasonable time.

    [v] Congress deemed certain institutions worthy of an H-1B cap exemption because of the direct benefits they provide to the United States. Congressional intent was to exempt from the H-1B cap certain alien workers who could provide direct contributions to the United States through their work on behalf of institutions of higher education and related nonprofit entities, or nonprofit research organizations, or governmental research organizations. In effect, this statutory measure ensures that qualifying institutions have access to a continuous supply of H-1B workers without numerical limitation.

    [vi] This reading is consistent with the Department of Labor’s regulation at 20 C.F.R. § 656.40(e)(ii), which is

    identical to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(l9)(iii)(B) except for an additional comma between the words “federation” and

    “operated”. The Department of Labor explained in the supplementary information to its American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act (ACWIA) regulations that it consulted with legacy INS on the issue, supporting the conclusion that the definitions were intended to be identical. See 65 Fed. Reg. 80110,80181 (Dec. 20, 2000).

    [vii] Basic research is general research to gain more comprehensive knowledge or understanding of the subject under study, without specific applications in mind. Basic research is also research that advances scientific knowledge, but does not have specific immediate commercial objectives although it may be in fields of present or potential commercial interest.

    [viii] Applied research is research to gain knowledge or understanding to determine the means by which a specific, recognized need may be met. Applied research includes investigations oriented to discover new scientific knowledge that has specific commercial objectives with respect to products, processes, or services.

    THIS IS PART VIII OF AN VIII PART SERIES. Reprinted with permission.


    About The Author

    Michael Phulwani Michael Phulwani 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 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.


    Rabindra Singh Rabindra K. Singh is a Staff Attorney in Nachman Phulwani Zimovcak (NPZ) Law Group, P.C. A U.S. immigration professional since 2004, Rabindra's work at NPZ focuses on complex employment- and family-based immigration matters. Rabindra received his first law degree, LL.B, from the prestigious University of Delhi's Campus Law Center, one of the top five law colleges in India. He also received a Bachelor of Science degree with Honors from the University of Delhi's Hansraj College, one of the top ten science colleges in India. In the United States, he graduated from the University of Kansas School of law. In law school, Rabindra attended the Immigration and Asylum Clinic, and received the highest grade because of his much appreciated work in the area of Terrorism-related Inadmissibility Grounds (TRIG) waiver. His work experience entails working with one of world's largest Information Technology (IT) Company, where he played a pivotal role in initiating the nonimmigrant visa work in-house. Rabindra is an avid writer. He writes frequently for both print and electronic media.


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

    Comments 1 Comment
    1. Ritesh Kumar's Avatar
      Ritesh Kumar -
      Thanks NPZ team for providing this valuable inputs. I like the significant changes made to Mr. Nachman and Mr. Singh details. As always......keep it up.
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: