Update on Save Jobs USA’s Lawsuit regarding H4 EAD’s

The group of information technology workers know as Save Jobs USA, who claim that they were replaced by H-1B visa holders is now appealing a decision upholding a new U.S. Department of Homeland Security rule that would allow spouses of certain H-1B workers to apply for employment authorization, the H4 EAD rule.

On Wednesday, September 28, Save Jobs filed notice that it’s appealing to the D.C. Circuit, a day after U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan of the District of Columbia found that Save Jobs lacks standing to proceed with its case. Save Jobs has argued that there isn’t “statutory authorization” for DHS to allow an H-4 visa holder to work, but Judge Chutkan said that despite the group’s lack of standing in the case, the court would likely conclude that the DHS’ interpretation of its authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act is not unreasonable and that the H-4 rule is valid.

Save Jobs basis for their appeal is the Fifth Circuit’s holding regarding the blocking of the expansion of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The Court had ruled that immigration law specifically defines the categories of immigrants allowed to work in the U.S. and that an Immigration and Nationality Act provision didn’t give the DHS the power to grant work authorization. This interpretation has been rebutted by DHS, pointing out that the cases address different questions. There appears to be no immediate danger of losing the H4 EAD Rule and those working under this authorization should continue to do so without hesitation.

BALCA Reverses Denial where Employer Failed to State Geographic Area of Employment on Website Posting

The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (“BALCA”) recently considered whether a website advertisement that did not list the location of employment failed to apprise U.S. workers of the nature of the role. In Matter of VLS It Consulting, Inc., the employer submitted a labor certification for the position of “Computer Systems Manager/ Training Division Manager.” The case was audited and denied on the basis that the website advertisement did not list the geographic area of employment. The Certifying Officer argued that the lack of worksite location information violated 20 C.F.R. §656.17(f)(4). The employer appealed and argued that its corporate address was ‘listed on the homepage and the ‘contact us’ portion of the website.” BALCA reviewed the case and reminded the Department of Labor that 20 C.F.R. §656.17(f)(4) only applies to advertisements placed in newspapers of general circulation. Thus, this statutory section could not serve as a basis for denial. Furthermore, BALCA determined that since the employer’s address was listed on other sections of its website, no U.S. worker was misinformed of the nature of the job opportunity. BALCA reiterated that “when relevant information on a website advertisement is a ‘simple mouse click’ away, denial of certification is not supported by the regulations.” While this case does support the idea that the location of employment is not required to be listed on website advertisements, the Hammond Law Group suggests that all advertisements include the location of employment to avoid improper denials by the Department of Labor.

By |September 29th, 2016|Green Cards|0 Comments|

SIA’s take on H-1b visas

Staffing Industry Analysts (SIA) recently published an in depth article on the H-1b visa and HLG Sr. partner, Mike Hammond was quoted in the article.

Issa Bill Dead

The House Judiciary Committee pulled the Issa bill which would’ve made changes to the H-1b dependency rules. Given such a short legislative season, it is unlikely that the bill will be re-drafted and presented again during this legislative session.

Changes to PERM ?

As part of President Obama’s call to action on immigration (in late 2014), an effort to modernize the PERM program was initiated and most US employers were ecstatic; hoping, that the “waste of money Sunday print ads” would become a relic of the past however, earlier this week, the DOL announced that they would not be able to complete any rule-making prior to President Obama leaving office thus making the modernization project dead for now. Guess 2 years wasn’t enough time to figure out that the internet is here to stay and there are better ways to recruit workers than newspaper ads. Hopefully, the next Administration will continue this task (and faster).

By |September 15th, 2016|Green Cards|0 Comments|

New Form I-9 Approved – Current Form I-9 Valid until 1/21/2017

On August 25, 2016, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved a revised Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification. The new Form I-9 must be published by November 22, 2016. Employer can continue to use the current form until January 21, 2017. After that date, the new Form I-9 must be used. No other editions will be valid.

October Visa Bulletin

Late last week, the Department of State (DOS) released the October Visa bulletin. This visa bulletin was particularly anticipated since it was the first bulletin of the new fiscal year. Unfortunately, it did not deliver much in the way of positive news. On the positive side, it did wipe out much of the “short-term” retrogression that raised its head in the EB1 and EB2 categories in Aug and Sept. but, the “Dates for Filing Chart” which is viewed as a predictor of movement for the upcoming fiscal year, fell short of expectations. A comparison of the Dates for Filing chart from Oct 2015, show further retrogression in the EB2 categories for China and India and no movement forward for India EB3. EB3 for the Philippines and all other countries are the only 2 categories with notable advancement. A legislative fix remains sorely needed but, with the ‘build a fence” radicals in charge of both the Senate and the House, no relief is in sight.

HLG Immigration Advocate Published

HLG has published the August edition of Immigration Advocate featuring an article on the OPT STEM rules. Check it out here.

By |September 1st, 2016|Uncategorized|0 Comments|

Search Results Page is Insufficient Documentation of a Website Posting

Recently, the Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (“BALCA’) considered whether a search results page could serve as alternative documentation to dated copies of the posting on the employer’s website. In Matter of Spring Branch Independent School District, the employer sponsored the position of “Elementary (Pre-K-5th grade) – Bilingual (Spanish) Teacher.” The case was audited and the employer submitted a copy from its human resources job search page showing the position’s title, the salary, the position’s classification as professional, and that the role would have a probationary contract. No other information regarding the role was provided on this page. The Department of Labor (“DOL”) denied the case on the basis that the employer failed to provide copies of the website posting that included the language of the advertisement. In reviewing the case, BALCA noted that an employer may provide alternative documentation of its website positing beyond dated copies of the website listing. However, it also found the content of these advertisements must be provided so that the DOL can determine “whether the advertisement is for the occupation listed on the ETA Form 9089 and whether the advertisement was placed in good faith and the job was clearly open to U.S. applicants.” Consequently, the denial was upheld. While employers can use alternative documentation to prove that a position was listed on the employer’s website, the Hammond Law Group suggests that dated copies of the website posting that include the language of the advertisement be included in the recruitment report and in any response to an audit.

OCAHO FINES TEXAS RESTAURANT $33,379.50 FOR 32 I-9 VIOLATIONS

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) served Jula888, LLC (Para Tacos La Chilanga) on August 4, 2014 with Notice of Inspection (NOI) which required production of the Forms I-9 for its employees, along with other business documents by August 7, 2014. On August 13, 2014, Jula888, through their attorney, notified ICE that no records were available to be produced. On December 15, 2014, ICE served Jula888 with Notice of Intent to Fine (NIF) with one count, alleging 32 violations of 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(B). Specifically, failure to prepare and/or present Forms I-9 for 32 employees. ICE proposed a fine of $34,408.00. Jula888 timely filed a request for a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) with the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO). ICE filed its complaint incorporating the violations included in the NIF, including the proposed fine. On September 21, 2015, Jula888 filed its prehearing statement, agreeing to the first six proposed stipulations, but not the seventh which concerned whether or not the 32 individuals were in fact employees of the company. On December 18, 2015, ICE filed a Motion for Summary Decision contending that it has it burden demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact as to Jula888’s liability for the 32 violations. Jula888 filed a Response to the government’s Motion for Summary Decision on January 20, 2016 arguing that the Government has not presented any evidence regarding the number of people employed by Jula888. On June 9, 2016, the ALJ ordered the parties to submit additional evidence. Jula888 did not provide any additional evidence. The evidence from ICE included testimony from former employees confirming the number of employees at each location and sworn statements from current employees confirming the number of employees, the fact that they were undocumented and that wages were withheld to pay smuggling fees. Based on the evidence in the record, OCAHO granted the government’s motion but adjusted the fines as a matter of discretion to an amount close to the maximum of permissible penalties.