H-1B Visa

March 18, 2009

2009 – The Year of Immigration Compliance

Tighter government oversight over the H-1B visa program and permanent employment-based immigration expected.

On October 8, 2008, the U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Service (USCIS) released a report that 13% of all H-1B petitions filed on behalf of U.S. employers are fraudulent. The same report also stated that another 7% of those petitions contain some sort of technical violation. The report’s conclusion states: “Given the significant vulnerability, USCIS is making procedural changes, which will be described in a forthcoming document.”
Continue reading

March 16, 2009

ALJ Finds H-1B Employer liable for Back Wages and Retaliatory Discharge

by Kellie N. Lego

An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the Department of Labor (DOL) recently ordered the employer of an IT company to pay the alien beneficiary’s unpaid salary for the full term of the H-1B visa with interest, an amount for his monthly health, dental and vision insurance benefits, an amount for his unpaid annual 401(k) contributions with interest, his litigation travel expenses, and ordered the return of his work experience certificate and H-1B extension approval notice.

The Petitioner filed an H-1B nonimmigrant petition on behalf of a Chinese national to work in an IT specialty occupation. The filed H-1B petition contained a certified Labor Condition Application (LCA) which detailed the salary the alien beneficiary was to be paid and made several other attestations that the employer acknowledged. The H-1B program contains strong provisions to ensure that U.S. and foreign workers are protected. Employers must guarantee that U.S. workers will not be adversely affected upon the hiring of an H-1B professional. For instance, a U.S. employer using the program must also guarantee that (1)the foreign professional will not adversely affect the working conditions of U.S. workers; (2) the foreign professional will be paid the greater of the job’s actual wage rate or the prevailing wage rate throughout the entire period of authorized employment; (3) U.S. colleagues will be given notice of the foreign professional’s presence among them; (4) there is no strike or lockout at the worksite; and (5) the position requires a professional in a specialty occupation and the intended employee has the required qualifications.

The problem arose when the alien beneficiary received no work and no pay. The alien beneficiary came to the United States to seek work in a specialty occupation; however, the investigation conducted by the DOL illustrated that the petitioning company never really had any work for the alien worker. The evidence indicates that the petitioning company brought the H-1B worker to the U.S. intending to contract his labor out to other entities, rather than to use the worker’s labor directly in the business. With this plan, the petitioning employer was more of an employment broker than a traditional employer, and would not pay the worker until it collected the money from the entities that actually utilized the worker’s professional skills. This practice is often referred to as “benching.” Benching is a violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and accordingly forbidden by the H-1B nonimmigrant visa program. The alien worker was in the U.S., not working and not receiving any type of salary, health insurance or other benefits that were guaranteed by his employment contract and by his signed and certified LCA. The record shows that the alien worker kept in contact with several of his employer’s staff and was never told that his work was inadequate or that the employer intended to terminate his employment.

March 11, 2009

All H-1B Cap EXEMPT visa petitions should be filed with the California Service Center

by Kellie N. Lego

Employers who are filing H-1B cap exempt visa petitions including extension petitions must file those petitions with the California Service Center (CSC). Additionally, please note that any H-1B cap exempt and extension petitions mistakenly sent to the Vermont Service Center (VSC) will be REJECTED.

H-1B “Cap EXEMPT” petitions include petitions filed by:

• Institutions of higher education, as defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C. 1001(a);

March 9, 2009

Accepted Documentation to Demonstrate H-1B Beneficiary has Completed Degree Requirements

by Kellie N. Lego

The California Service Center (CSC) has issued a statement regarding what type of documentation is sufficient proof that an H-1B beneficiary has completed the requisite degree requirements for the specialty occupation. The documentation that may be submitted to satisfy the degree requirements includes: (1) a final transcript; (2) a letter from the Registrar; or (3) a letter executed by the person in charge of the records of the educational institution where the degree was awarded. Additionally, if option three is utilized, proof must be provided that the person is authorized to issue such letters.

It is recommended that these documents are provided in the initial H-1B visa filing in order to avoid an RFE or possible outright denial.

If you have any questions regarding the H-1B visa process, please contact our office.

March 5, 2009

Award of Payment of Back Wages to VA Aliens Hired under the H-1B Program is BARRED by U.S. Federal Government’s Sovereign Immunity

by Kellie N. Lego

The Department of Labor (DOL) determined that the Department of Veteran’s Affairs (VA) failed to pay the prevailing wage to eleven alien physicians employed by VA hospitals pursuant to the H-1B visa program.

The H-1B is an employment based nonimmigrant visa that enables United States employers to seek highly skilled foreigner workers from around the world to increase productivity and develop new innovations within their fields. The system was designed to protect both U.S. and foreign workers by: (1) including labor certifications and attestations; (2) implementing costly filing fees; (3) requiring extensive background documentation/proof; and (4) conducting on-site employer investigations and continuous oversight by several federal agencies. Specifically, the program requires that a U.S. employer using the program guarantee that the alien will be paid the prevailing wage or higher for the specialty occupation, and that the foreign professional will not adversely affect the working conditions of U.S. workers.

Unfortunately in this case, several of the alien physicians filed administrative complaints asserting that the hospitals had failed to pay them the prevailing wage for their occupation. The DOL Administrative Review Board ruled in favor of the complainants’ and ordered the VA to pay approximately $230,000 in back wages.

January 21, 2009

DOL Administrative Review Board orders payment of back wages to H-1B visa holder

by Kellie N. Lego

The Department of Labor’s (DOL) Administrative Review Board (ARB) recently upheld the final decision of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who found that the petitioner failed to pay the H-1B beneficiary the required wage under the H-1B provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

The petitioner, a not-for-profit corporation that operates medical clinics sought the expertise of the beneficiary, a medical doctor. After interviewing the beneficiary, a “Physician Employment Agreement” was signed which reflected an annual wage of $125,000. Thereafter, an H-1B petition was filed to hire the beneficiary as a full time medical doctor with H-1B non-immigrant status for three years. A Labor Condition Application (LCA) was filed along with the petition on behalf of the beneficiary listing the prevailing wage as $118,222 for the position. The beneficiary began working for the petitioner in June 2004 and was allegedly terminated in March 2005. During the course of the beneficiary’s nine-months of employment, he was paid a total of $49,000 in wages. The $49,000 (or $65,333.33 per year) falls below both the $125,000 per year wage that the beneficiary contracted for and the prevailing wage of $118,222 listed in the LCA. The beneficiary thereafter reported the wage violation to the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division who conducted a hearing and entered a decision in favor of the beneficiary. The petitioner thereafter sought review of the decision by the ARB.

The ARB found the petitioner liable for back wages calculated using the prevailing wage rate of $118,222 per year for the beneficiary’s nine-month employment during which time he worked as assigned and made himself available for work. According to the regulations, when an employer signs and files an LCA, he is attesting that for the entire “period of authorized employment” the listed wage rate will be paid to the H-1B non-immigrant. One of the ways in which an employer may escape liability is if they effect a bona fide termination and inform the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) immediately, and where appropriate provide the nonimmigrant employee with payment for transportation home. In this case, a bona fide termination did not occur until November 2005, when DHS was informed of the revocation of the H-1B petition. Accordingly, the petitioner was liable for payment of wages until the time of termination. The petitioner should have paid the beneficiary a total of $88,666.47 in wages for the nine months in which he worked.

August 14, 2008

Future Rule Tightening by the U.S. Department of Labor

by Kellie N. Lego

The U.S. immigration system is constantly changing. At a recent stakeholders meeting, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announced several upcoming changes to the Labor Certification and Labor Condition Application process.

Expect More PERM Audits

The DOL announced that with Backlog Elimination Centers (BECs) closing, the DOL will now be now focusing its resources on parts of the PERM regulations that were not focused on earlier, including audits and supervised recruitment. Since April 2007, Immigration attorneys have seen a spike in PERM audits by the DOL. It looks like Audits are going to be commonplace from now on. DOL announced that both targeted and random PERM audits will continue. The DOL stated that the 60 to 90 day timeframe discussed in the preamble to the PERM regulation is not binding and is irrelevant if there is an audit. Therefore, once a case has gone into audit, it will most likely not be adjudicated within the 60 to 90 timeframe.