Update on rumored expansion of U.S. entry ban to additional countries

News Release from Jewell Stewart & Pratt – February 2, 2017 Seven countries are currently listed in the President’s Executive Order of January 27, 2017 banning entry of some foreign nationals to the United States – Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. On February 1, 2017, unconfirmed rumors circulated regarding the potential addition of up to ten more countries/regions, as reported in our second post of 02/01/2017.

As a follow up to the unconfirmed rumors, the U.S. Department of State (DOS) informed the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) on February 2, 2017 that there are no current plans to expand the travel ban beyond current seven countries.

Further, DOS issued a statement on February 2, 2017 clarifying that, “This Executive Order does not restrict the travel of dual nationals from any country with a valid U.S. visa in a passport of an unrestricted country. Our Embassies and Consulates around the world will continue to process visa applications and issue nonimmigrant and immigrant visas to otherwise eligible visa applicants who apply with a passport from an unrestricted country, even if they hold dual nationality from one of the seven restricted countries.”

Please refer to our prior posts for more information on the Executive Order of January 27, 2017 (Executive Order 13769, titled “Protecting the Nation from Terrorist Attacks by Foreign Nationals”) and subsequent clarifications by the Department of Homeland Security about how it will treat Lawful Permanent Residents, persons with dual nationality, existing nonimmigrant and immigrant visas, and more.

© Jewell Stewart & Pratt PC 2017

Unconfirmed rumors - more countries could be added to U.S. entry ban

News Release from Jewell Stewart & Pratt – February 1, 2017 Seven countries are currently listed in the President's Executive Order of 1/27/2017 banning entry of some foreign nationals to the United States – Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. There are unconfirmed rumors that the following countries/regions could be added to the ban on entry:

Afghanistan Colombia Egypt Lebanon Pakistan Southern Philippines Sulu/Sulawesi seas littoral Trans-Sahara (Mali) Turkey Venezuela

Anyone with country of birth, nationality or citizenship from these countries/regions may wish to consider not departing the United States, if they are already here; or returning to the United States immediately, if they are abroad.

Please refer to our prior posts for more information. In particular, our first post of 02/01/2017 discussed clarifications by the Department of Homeland Security about how it will treat Lawful Permanent Residents, persons with dual nationality, existing nonimmigrant and immigrant visas, and more.

© Jewell Stewart & Pratt PC 2017

DHS clarifications regarding Executive Order banning U.S. entries by citizens of seven countries

News Release from Jewell Stewart & Pratt – February 1, 2017 As discussed in our post of January 30, 2017, an Executive Order signed by President Trump on January 27, 2017 bans immigrant and nonimmigrant entries into the United States, for at least 90 days, by nationals of seven countries – Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. Other countries may be added to the list and adjudications of other immigration benefits could be affected. (The Executive Order is also targeted at refugee admissions, with longer bans; however, our posts are currently focused on immigrant and nonimmigrant visa provisions.)

In the days following the Executive Order, its ambiguous language and the inconsistent application of its provisions at U.S. ports of entry and in other parts of the U.S. government created confusion among foreign-born travelers to the United States. Much remains to be resolved through litigation and legislation, but in the meantime, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has provided some clarifications. In a Q&A posted by U.S. Customs & Border Protection (CBP) on 1/31/2017, CBP made the following clarifications:

  • Lawful Permanent Residents: Individuals from the listed countries who are U.S. lawful permanent residents (LPRs, or green card-holders) will be exempted from the bar on entry “in the national interest,” unless CBP finds “significant derogatory information” indicating a serious threat to public safety and welfare. Green card holders intending to travel to the United States must apply for a waiver of the bar. So far, a majority of such waiver applications have been granted; however, the term “significant derogatory information” has not been defined.
  • Dual Nationality: The Executive Order refers to individuals “from” the seven countries, leaving open the question whether dual citizens of one of these countries and any other country outside the United States would be subject to the bars on entry. CBP has now clarified that “Travelers are being treated according to the travel document they present.” Therefore, for example, a dual citizen of Iran and Canada who presents a Canadian passport should be treated as a Canadian applicant for admission. Note that this is not apparent from the Executive Order itself; it is CBP’s policy statement and may be subject to change.
  • Visas Immediately Revoked: Upon issuance of the Executive Order, all immigrant and nonimmigrant visas issued to citizens of the seven countries were revoked. Individuals physically in the United States and maintaining legal status did not lose their status as a result of the order, but any visa that would have permitted them to return to the United States from travel abroad ceased to be valid. Visa-holders outside the United States who attempt to return will not be permitted to do so at this time if they are citizens of one of the seven countries. With regard to international students, interns and trainees on F-1, J-1, and M-1 visas that are canceled, suspended or revoked because of the Executive Order, CBP has stated that DHS is evaluating whether those who are precluded from returning to the United States “will be considered to have maintained their status as F1 or M1 students.” The meaning of this is not clear, but it suggests that students unable to maintain the required full-time course of study due to their inability to enter the United States, should they eventually be admitted to the United States to resume their studies, might not be required to apply for “reinstatement” to valid status as they otherwise would be required to do.
  • Naturalization Applications: The Executive Order has prompted many longtime U.S. permanent residents to finally take the step of applying to become naturalized U.S. citizens. Despite rumors of a freeze on USCIS processing of naturalization applications and other visa- and immigration-related applications, the government has stated that “USCIS will continue to adjudicate N-400 applications for naturalization and administer the oath of citizenship consistent with prior practices.” Naturalization applicants from certain countries, including the seven countries named in the Executive Order, have historically been more likely to experience longer delays and extra scrutiny in the naturalization process, and this is not expected to change.

© Jewell Stewart & Pratt PC 2017

New developments following Executive Order of 1/27/2017 banning entries into United States by nationals of seven countries

News Release from Jewell Stewart & Pratt – January 30, 2017 As reported in our most recent post, an Executive Order signed by President Trump on Friday, January 27, 2017 bans immigrant and nonimmigrant entries into the United States, for at least 90 days, by nationals of seven countries – Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. Other countries may be added to the list and adjudications of other immigration benefits could be affected. (The Executive Order is also targeted at refugee admissions, with longer bans; however, our posts for the time being are focused on immigrant and nonimmigrant visa provisions.) The Executive Order has been challenged on legal and constitutional grounds, and further lawsuits are expected, as well as legislation that will be introduced in both houses of Congress to overturn the bans.

The ACLU obtained a court order staying enforcement of the Executive Order on Saturday 1/29/2017. However, the stay only applies to a narrow class of migrants and news reports suggest that not all Customs & Border Protection personnel are complying with it. Meanwhile, there are unconfirmed reports circulating that adjudication by USCIS of applications for visa-related “benefits” may have been halted for applicants and beneficiaries from the seven countries. This would include naturalization applications, adjustment-of-status applications, I-140 immigrant petitions, H-1B petitions, and other applications and petitions within USCIS’s jurisdiction. Although the Executive Order of 1/27/2017 appeared to be potentially expandable to "benefits," not just entries, it did not order a ban on adjudications of benefits applications. That this appears to be happening anyway suggests that another, more comprehensive policy statement may be imminent.

Because of the Executive Order, we strongly advise that individuals with past or present citizenship or birth ties to any of the listed countries who live, study, or work in the U.S. not travel outside the U.S. without first consulting an immigration expert. The Department of Homeland Security clarified on Sunday 1/29/2017 that lawful permanent residents of the United States (i.e., green card holders) would qualify for a “national interest” exception in the Executive Order; however, having a green card still does not guarantee admission back into the United States of citizens from the seven countries. Green card holders (which the administration apparently intends to mean only those individuals who are already U.S. permanent residents and are in physical possession of unexpired green cards) reportedly are being allowed to board U.S.-bound aircraft, but on arrival at the U.S. port of entry, they are being “assessed” for national security concerns and granted a “waiver” of the executive order on a case-by-case basis.

Individuals who are from of one of the seven countries and who wish to enter the United States in nonimmigrant status (e.g., B, F, H, I, J, L, O, TN, etc.) are not being allowed to board flights to the United States. If they had visa appointments at U.S. consulates, those appointments have been cancelled. Their visa applications will not be processed, even if the application is for a visa classification the individual already held in the United States and the visa is needed only to return from a trip abroad.

This is a rapidly evolving situation, and there is a lack of clarity regarding key terms. For example, the ban refers to individuals “from” the seven countries, and this could include citizens and nationals of those countries, holders of passports from those countries, and individuals who are dual citizens of one of the seven countries and any other country outside the United States (or, in an extreme scenario apparently not contemplated by the Executive Order – though it could be – dual citizens of one of the listed countries and the United States itself). The ambiguous drafting of the Executive Order and the reported differences in how it is being applied by CBP at ports of entry have made it difficult to say with certainty who “from” one of the listed countries will be allowed entry.

There is a chance the list of seven countries will be expanded, and that the bans will be not only to entry, but – as already appears to be happening – to other immigration “benefits,” which could include extensions-of-stay, change-of-status, adjustment of status, etc. Moreover, it is important not to forget that a federal regulation pre-dating the Executive Order bars the entry of visitors to the United States under the Visa Waiver Program (ESTA) to anyone who travels to the designated countries, even if they are not a citizen or national of those countries.

The ambiguities in the Executive Order’s language and the changing and inconsistent application are cause to get advice from an immigration expert regarding questions about whether one’s nationality, country of birth, country of residence, or travel history would make them subject to the ban on entry, or eligible for relief from the ban.

© Jewell Stewart & Pratt PC 2017

Executive Order bans entries into United States, for 90 days, by nationals of seven countries

News Release from Jewell Stewart & Pratt – January 28, 2017 An Executive Order signed by President Trump on Friday, January 27, 2017 bans immigrant and nonimmigrant entries into the United States, for at least 90 days, by nationals of seven countries -- Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. Other countries may be added to the list and adjudications of other immigration benefits could be affected.

The Executive Order also suspends the Visa Interview Waiver Program (VIWP). The VIWP allowed U.S. consular officers to waive interviews for certain applicants seeking to renew nonimmigrant visas in the same visa classification as their previously issued visa. All nonimmigrant visa applicants are now required to attend an interview unless an interview is, by statute, not required.

The Executive Order is already being challenged on legal and constitutional grounds. While it does not explicitly name Islam, it clearly targets Muslim-majority countries, raising legal and constitutional questions of due process, freedom of religion, discrimination, and the president’s authority over immigration in general.

© Jewell Stewart & Pratt PC 2017

DHS ends National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) program

News Release from Jewell Stewart & Pratt – December 24, 2016 The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has ended the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) program effective yesterday, 12/23/2016. NSEERS was a registry created after 9/11 to track noncitizen men from predominantly Muslim countries. (See our blog post here for more information.) The registry had not been used for years, though the regulatory framework remained intact. (See our blog posts here and here.)

NSEERS has been formally dismantled through a published regulation in the Federal Register that removes the various regulations that comprised the program. Removing this regulatory framework, which was developed over a number of years, prevents any subsequent Administration from using the NSEERS framework without publishing a new regulation.

© Jewell Stewart & Pratt PC 2016

Retention of EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3 Immigrant Workers and Program Improvements Affecting High-Skilled Nonimmigrant Workers

News Release from Jewell Stewart & Pratt – November 22, 2016 On November 18, 2016, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a Final Rule, 81 FR 82398, effective January 17, 2017, that amends certain regulations governing employment-based immigrants and high-skilled non-immigrant workers. It is called, “Retention of EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3 Immigrant Workers and Program Improvements Affecting High-Skilled Nonimmigrant Workers.”

The new regulations or “final rules” create and amend regulations related to employment-based visa programs. They are intended to better enable U.S. employers retain high-skilled nonimmigrant workers through temporary and permanent sponsorship, and to provide job flexibility and certainty to foreign workers who have been in the United States for some time. It provides clarity and agency instructions regarding certain sections of the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998 (ACWIA) and the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000 (AC21).

 

Extending H-1B status for workers being sponsored for Permanent Residency

Three-year extensions based on per country limitations

Consistent with AC21, DHS states in the final rule that an employer may extend an employee’s H-1B status beyond the six-year limit, on the basis of an approved I-140 filed on his or her behalf, so long as the employee is subject to a country-specific or worldwide immigrant visa limitation in accordance with his or her priority date (an employee’s placeholder for an immigrant visa number).

The determination for an employer’s eligibility to extend the employee’s H-1B status is based on a review of the Visa Bulletin in effect at the time the H-1B extension petition was filed. If the Visa Bulletin applicable at the time of filing shows the employee’s priority date is not “current,” i.e., he or she cannot apply for Permanent Residency (also called a “green card”), then the H-1B extension request may be granted for a period of up to three years. This rule allows employers to continue extending their employees’ H-1B statuses until the affected employees are able to complete the Permanent Residency process.

Extension petitions pursuant to this rule may be filed within six months of the requested H-1B start date, and the employer petitioning for the H-1B extension beyond the six-year limit is not required to be the same one that filed the underlying I-140 used to qualify for this exemption.

One-year extensions based on lengthy adjudication delays

The final rule confirms and clarifies the circumstances under which an H-1B nonimmigrant worker may be eligible for one-year increments of H-1B extensions beyond the general six-year H-1B limit when the H-1B worker is subject to lengthy adjudication delays in the permanent residence process. To qualify, the H-1B worker must have had an application for permanent labor certification (also known as a PERM application) filed with the Department of Labor or an immigrant visa petition (Form I-140) filed with USCIS on his or her behalf at least 365 days before the date the exemption would take effect (i.e., the requested extension start date), and not at least 365 days prior to the end of the six-year H-1B limit.

The final rule also includes the following provisions:

  • One-year extensions are permitted until either the labor certification expires (a certified labor certification is only valid for 180 days, during which an I-140 must be filed otherwise it lapses) or a final decision is made to (1) deny the labor certification, (2) revoke or invalidate the labor certification, (3) deny the immigrant visa petition, (4) revoke approval of the immigrant visa petition, (5) grant or deny adjustment of status (Form I-485) or an immigrant visa (Form I-140), or (6) administratively close one of these applications.
  • Extensions based on adjudication delays may be filed up to 180 days before the requested H-1B start date and can include any periods of time the H-1B worker spent outside the U.S. to be recaptured.
  • An H-1B worker will not be eligible for an extension based on adjudication delays if he or she fails to apply for adjustment of status (Form I-485) or an immigrant visa within one year of the date an immigrant visa becoming available based on the relevant Final Action Date in the Visa Bulletin. This one-year clock resets when an immigrant visa is no longer available (i.e., if priority dates retrogress). Also, failure to timely file based on circumstances beyond the worker’s control may be excused at the discretion of USCIS.
  • Each petition approval will provide the H-1B worker with a new expiration date for their H-1B admission. Only one petition may be used to support an extension and multiple petitions cannot be aggregated.
  • The extensions are available to beneficiaries not currently in the U.S. at the time the H-1B petition is filed.
  • Extensions based on adjudication delays are permitted even if the H-1B petitioning employer is not the employer that filed the labor certification or I-140 that is the basis for the extension.
  • Spouses and children in H-1B status are not eligible for the one-year extensions; instead, the benefit only extends to H-4 dependents.

 

Recapturing the remainder of the initial six-year period of admission

The final rule states that any time exceeding 24 hours that an alien spends outside the United States, during their initial six-year period of H-1B admission, is not considered for purposes of calculating the alien’s total time in H-1B status. This time can be recaptured at any point during the initial six years of H-1B status. Time spent inside the United States in a nonimmigrant status other than H-1B or L-1 is also “recapturable.”

The rule lists appropriate evidence that can be provided in support of recapture, including copies of passport stamps, Arrival-Departure Records (Form I-94), or airline tickets, and reminds the H-1B petitioner that it is their burden to request and demonstrate the specific amount of time for recapture.

 

H-1B cap-exempt employment

The final rule codifies DHS’s current policies for determining which H-1B employers qualify as a “cap-exempt” institution, including: an institution of higher education; a nonprofit entity related to or affiliated with an institution of higher education; a nonprofit research organization; or a governmental research organization.

  • The final rule confirms DHS’s current interpretation of “institution of higher education” providing that DHS’s definition mirrors section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965.
  • The rule confirms DHS’s current definition a nonprofit entity related to or affiliated with an institution of higher education with one modification to its interpretation of “related or affiliated nonprofit entity.” Currently, a nonprofit entity must establish that it is related to or affiliated with an institution of higher education, which may be demonstrated through (1) shared ownership or control by the same board or federation; (2) operation by an institution of higher education; or (3) attachment to an institution of higher education as a member, branch, cooperative, or subsidiary. The new rule adds a fourth way a nonprofit entity can qualify, which is the through a formal written affiliation agreement that establishes (a) an active working relationship between the two parties for purposes of research or education, and (b) as a fundamental activity, the nonprofit entity directly contributes to the research or education mission of the institution of higher education. DHS notes that nonprofit entities may qualify for the cap even if their organization engages in more than one activity that is considered “fundamental” to the organization.
  • The rule confirms DHS’s existing interpretation of a “nonprofit research organization” as described by H-1B fee exemptions regulations.
  • The rule also clarifies DHS’s interpretation of “government research organization” to include state and local research entities – not just federal research entities whose primary mission is the performance or promotion of basic research and/or applied research.
  • The rule also exempts all four types of cap-exempt institutions from H-1B fees imposed by American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998 (“ACWIA”).
  • The rule codifies DHS’s other existing policies and practices in this area including: (1) the requirements for exempting H-1B nonimmigrant workers from the cap in cases in which they are not directly employed by a cap-exempt employer)); (2) the application of cap limitations to H-1B nonimmigrant workers in cases in which cap-exempt employment ceases; and (3) the procedures for concurrent cap-exempt and cap-subject employment.

 

H-1B portability

The final rule confirms the ability of H-1B nonimmigrant workers to begin employment with new H-1B employers upon the filing of non-frivolous petitions for new H-1B employment (a “portability petition”). To be eligible for this the H-1B worker: (1) must have been lawfully admitted into the United States; (2) must not have worked without authorization after such lawful admission; and (3) must be in a period of stay authorized by the government. The portability petition must be filed while the foreign worker is in H-1B status or in a period of authorized stay based on a timely filed H-1B extension petition. Employment authorization under a pending portability petition lasts until the petition is adjudicated.

 

Successive H-1B portability petitions

The final rule confirms the ability of H-1B employers to file successive H-1B portability petitions on behalf of H-1B nonimmigrant workers. This means that an H-1B worker who has changed employment based on an H-1B portability petition may again change employment based on the filing of a new portability petition, even if the former portability petition remains pending.

Successive portability petitions may provide employment authorization as long as each petition meets the requirements for H-1B classification and an extension of stay. However, if the request for an extension of stay is denied in a preceding portability petition, and the individual’s Form I-94 has expired, a request for an extension of stay in any successive portability petition(s) must also be denied.

 

Job portability for certain adjustment of status applicants

Consistent with AC21, the final rule provides instruction to long-standing agency policy regarding the “porting” of an employee’s adjustment of status process to a new employer.

  • An addition to Form I-485, the Supplement J (to be added by USCIS) will be used to standardize the collection of information about the new job offered.
  • The applicant will need to meet three prongs for porting: (1) where Form I‑485 has been pending for 180 days; (2) moving to the same or similar occupation; and (3) establish continuing eligibility for an adjustment of status with the underlying I-140 petition either approved, or approvable.
  • The former employer’s ability-to-pay is assessed up to the time of filing the petition, but all other eligibility criteria must be met at the time of filing and until the adjustment of status application has been pending for 180 days.
  • The determination of whether the applicant is moving to a new position in the same or similar occupation will follow the guidelines set out in the 03/16/16 USCIS Policy memo.
  • If the two positions are not identical or resemble in every relevant respect, an analysis and determination as to whether they are similar will be done. In cases where there is career progression, USCIS will look at the preponderance of the evidence to show a similar occupational classification.
  • Applicants with an I-140 petition filed under a National Interest Waiver or in the EB-1 visa preference for extraordinary ability are exempt from filing the supplement.

 

Employment Authorization (EAD) Based on Compelling Circumstances

This rule provides short-term relief to high-skilled individuals who are already on the path to permanent residence, but find themselves in a particularly difficult situation, generally outside their control, while they are waiting for an immigrant visa to become available. This one-year benefit is available to applicants currently in one of these nonimmigrant statuses: H‑1B, H-1B1, O-1, L-1, or E-3.

  • The applicant must have an approved I-140 petition (EB-1, EB-2, or EB-3) but is waiting for an immigrant visa to become available (established by the Final Action Date in effect on the date the EAD application is filed).
  • The applicant must provide compelling circumstances such as a serious illness or disability faced by the applicant or dependent, employer retaliation against the applicant, other substantial harm to the applicant, or where there would be significant disruption to the employer.
  • There is no eligibility for the benefit where the applicant has been convicted of a felony or two misdemeanors.
  • Authorization can be renewed in one-year increments, and the compelling circumstances do not have to be the same (or where there is less than one year difference between the applicant’s priority date and the Final Action Date on the date the renewal is filed, compelling circumstances do not have to be demonstrated).
  • Dependents may also apply, but employment authorization will be tied to the date of the principal applicant.
  • This type of EAD does not grant an underlying nonimmigrant status; however, applicants who are beneficiaries of this EAD will not be accruing unlawful presence. USCIS policy guidance is to be adjusted to consider this EAD period to be in a period of approved stay.
  • Unless the successful applicant is able to acquire a new nonimmigrant status, they will not be able to adjust their status to a permanent resident and will therefore have to process their immigrant visas from outside the U.S., once they become available.

 

Revocation of approved employment-based immigrant visa petitions

The final rule amends existing automatic revocation regulations for immigrant visa petitions (Form I-140). Under the new rule, I-140s will not be automatically revoked if:

  • the petition has been approved for 180 days or more and based solely on: (1) the sponsoring employer’s withdrawal of the I-140; or (2) the termination of the employer’s business; or
  • the petition is withdrawn or the business terminates 180 days after an associated adjustment of status (Form I-485) is filed.

I-140s will continue to be valid for priority date retention purposes unless approval is revoked on the following grounds: (1) fraud or a willful misrepresentation of material fact; (2) revocation by the Department of Labor of the approved permanent labor certification that accompanied the I-140 petition; (3) invalidation by USCIS or the Department of State of the permanent labor certification that accompanied the I-140 petition; and (4) a determination by USCIS that I-140 approval was based on material error.

In the event that an I-140 has been withdrawn or revoked, the Department of Homeland Security has confirmed that a new I-140 petition must be filed on behalf of the foreign national worker or, if eligible, the foreign national worker must have a new offer of employment in the same or a similar occupational classification for job portability.

 

Retention of priority dates

A priority date can be thought of as an applicant’s placeholder in line for an immigrant visa number. The priority date, as well as the employment-based immigrant category through which a worker qualifies for Permanent Residency (a “green card”), is established by an approved Form I-140, which is filed by an employer on the worker’s behalf. Generally, once an I-140 is approved, the worker can reuse, or retain, that initial priority date for use with another EB-1, EB-2, or EB-3 Form I-140, should subsequent petitions be filed on his or her behalf.

Prior regulations did not allow workers to retain priority dates in all instances in which approval of a Form I-140 was revoked. With its newly-amended rule, however, DHS states that priority dates will be available even if the I-140 is revoked, so long as the revocation was not for (1) fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact; (2) invalidation or revocation of a labor certification that accompanied the I-140 petition; or (3) a determination that there was a material error behind USCIS’s approval of the I-140 petition.

This rule therefore allows many employment-based workers subject to backlogs to continue to retain the earliest established priority date for future I-140s filed on their behalf.

 

Grace periods for nonimmigrant workers

10-day grace period

The final rule gives DHS the authority to grant two “grace periods,” of up to 10 days, to nonimmigrant workers in the E-1, E-2, E-3, L-1 and TN classifications. The rule is designed to extend grace periods, similar to those currently available to H-1B, O, and P nonimmigrants, to these other high-skilled temporary worker classifications which have not previously been afforded these periods.

The rule provides for an initial grace period, of up to 10 days, prior to the start of a nonimmigrant petition validity period (or other authorized validity period). This initial grace period is designed to give these nonimmigrants a reasonable amount of time to enter the U.S. and get sufficiently settled that they are immediately able to begin working when the petition validity period begins. The rule also provides for a second grace period for same nonimmigrant categories, of up to 10 days, after the end of the worker’s nonimmigrant validity period to allow the worker to wrap up his or her affairs and prepare for departure.

The final rule specifically prohibits employment during either 10-day grace period (initial or post-validity), unless otherwise authorized. Although E-1, E-2, E-3, L-1, and TN nonimmigrants may not be employed during this time, the rule makes it clear that they may apply for, and be granted an extension of stay or change of status, if otherwise eligible, during an either the initial or post-validity grace period.

60-day grace period for employment termination

The final rule provides a grace period of up to 60 days for E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-1, and TN nonimmigrants during the validity period of the nonimmigrant petition, or other authorized validity period.

The purpose of this grace period is to provide stability and flexibility to qualifying nonimmigrants facing employment termination prior to the end of their petition validity periods. It allows the nonimmigrant to remain the United States without violating their status for up to 60 days, or until the end of the existing validity period, whichever is shorter. During this time, the nonimmigrant may seek new employment and/or apply for, and be granted, an extension of stay or change of status (if eligible). The rule also states that a qualifying H-1B nonimmigrant, under the H-1B portability rules, may begin employment with a new H-1B employer during this grace period. For employers, the grace period is designed to easily facilitate employment changes for existing or newly-recruited nonimmigrant workers.

The final rule permits DHS to grant multiple 60-day grace periods to a single individual, during the person’s total time in the U.S.; however, to prevent abuse of this provision, the grace period may only apply one time per authorized nonimmigrant validity period.

Employment is prohibited during the 60-day grace period unless otherwise authorized. The new rule also provides DHS the authority to make a discretionary determination to shorten or entirely refuse the 60-day grace period for reasons which may include violations of status, unauthorized employment during the grace period, fraud or national security concerns, or criminal convictions, for example.

 

H-1B occupations that require licensure

The amended regulations incorporate and clarify current DHS policy and practices that provide for a temporary exception to the licensure requirement and allow foreign workers, such as pharmacists, teachers, and architects, to perform duties without a license in an occupation that generally requires a professional license.

First, the amended regulations allow for an unlicensed beneficiary, to work under the supervision of licensed senior or supervisory personnel. Incorporated in the new law are long-standing DHS policies and practices that require detailed evidence concerning the duties to be performed by the prospective H-1B worker, as well as the identity, physical location, and credentials of the individuals(s) who will supervise the worker. Also, it must be shown that such an arrangement is in compliance with state or local licensure requirements.

Second, the new regulations incorporate current DHS policy that indicates H-1B status can be granted without a license if the prospective H-1B worker faces certain obstacles in obtaining the license. These obstacles, which typically place a prospective H-1B worker in a Catch-22 situation, include: 1) unable to obtain a social security number; 2) unable to obtain legal authorization to work in the U.S; or 3) unable to fulfill a similar technical prerequisite to obtaining licensure. In these circumstances, corroborating evidence must be provided from the relevant licensing authority as well as evidence showing the beneficiary has applied for the appropriate license, or show that the beneficiary is prohibited from applying until the beneficiary first meets the technical requirements. The prospective H-1B worker must otherwise qualify to receive a license by having met all educational, training, experience, and other substantive requirements.

These temporary exception rules allow H-1B status to be granted for up to one year. Subsequent H-1B status will not be granted unless the required license has been obtained, or the beneficiary is employed in a different position or location that requires another type of license or does not require a license.

Finally, these amended regulations do not extend to H-1B status for physicians, and the existing regulations and policies governing physicians will remain enforced.

 

Processing of Employment Authorization Documents

The new rules provide for several changes surrounding the processing of Employment Authorization Documents (“EADs”):

  • The rule automatically extends employment authorization and validity of EADs (Form I-766) for up to 180 days if the request for renewal is (1) properly filed before the expiration date shown on the face of the EAD; (2) based on the same employment authorization category as shown on the expiring EAD (or is for an individual approved for TPS); or (3) based on an employment authorization category that does not require adjudication of an underlying application or petition before adjudication of the renewal application (including people granted TPS).
  • The period of extended employment authorization will automatically terminate the earlier of up to 180 days after the expiration date of the EAD or upon issuance of notification of a decision denying the renewal request.
  • For I-9 purposes, an EAD card that has expired on its face is considered unexpired when combined with a Notice of Action (Form I-797C -- receipt notice for the timely I-765 filing) demonstrating that the requirements of the Rule (filed before expiration date on EAD, in same employment authorization category, and in a category that does not require adjudication of an underlying application or petition) have been met.
  • DHS is expanding the filing window to 180 days before expiration, except when impracticable.
  • DHS has eliminated the requirement that Forms I-765 must be adjudicated within 90 days, and USCIS will also stop issuing interim employment authorization documents when adjudication is not completed within the 90-day timeframe.

 

Disclaimer

This article is for information only. It is not intended as legal advice, and should not be relied upon as legal advice in any specific case.

© Jewell Stewart & Pratt 2016

USCIS Publishes Final Rule For Certain Employment-Based Immigrant and Nonimmigrant Visa Programs

News Release from Jewell Stewart & Pratt PC The final rule “Retention of EB-1, EB-2 and EB-3 Immigrant Workers and Program Improvements Affecting High-Skilled Nonimmigrant Workers,” was published today in the Federal Register, and will take effect 60 days later (January 17, 2017). This is notable as it will be effective before the inauguration of the new president two days later.

This rule is concerned with creating and amending regulations related to employment-based visa programs and is intended to better enable U.S. employers in retaining high-skilled nonimmigrant workers through temporary and permanent sponsorship, and to provide job flexibility and certainty to foreign workers who have been in the U.S. for some time.

Jewell Stewart & Pratt will be posting analysis on the rule next week, in the interim, the highlights are:

  • Retention of approved immigrant visa petitions (I-140) and priority dates.
  • H-1B extensions beyond the sixth year.
  • Job portability for H-1B workers and for those who are in the final step of the permanent residence process.
  • Definition of nonprofit entity for H-1B cap exemption.
  • Grace periods for nonimmigrant workers.
  • Employment authorization in compelling circumstances for certain beneficiaries (and their dependents) of an approved I-140 petition, as well as employment authorization automatic extensions in certain circumstances.

© Jewell Stewart & Pratt PC 2016

New Form I-9 Released

News Release from Jewell Stewart & Pratt PC On November 14, 2016, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) published a revised version of Form I-9, "Employment Eligibility Verification," the form used by employers to verify the identity and employment authorization of all new hires in the United States.  Because the form is significantly different fron the prior version and permits on-screen form-filling, it is critical for employers to review the new form and the associated instructions. The new I-9 form is dated "11/14/2016N," which would ordinarily indicate that prior versions are not acceptable after November 14, 2016; however, USCIS separately indicated that the new version is not mandatory until January 22, 2017.  Until then, employers may use either the new I-9, or the immediate past version, "03/08/2013N." When the new I-9 was released, USCIS did not release an updated M-274 Handbook for Employers, Guidance for Completing Form I-9. When the M-274 is updated, the revision will be available on the USCIS website.

© Jewell Stewart & Pratt PC 2016

A word on the 2016 U.S. presidential election

News Release from Jewell Stewart & Pratt PC Dear Clients & Friends -

The 2016 presidential election resulted in news that many of us were not expecting: Donald Trump will become the president of the United States when he is sworn into office on January 20, 2017. This raises many questions, as the potential effects of a new administration may reach many areas of our immigration system, and, in spite of campaign rhetoric, there is uncertainty as to what those changes may look like, and when they might be implemented.

We are a nation built by immigrants and strengthened by each new generation. Our firm strongly believes that our shared prosperity relies on the innovation and creativity of immigrants from all over the world, from all walks of life, and from all faiths and cultural traditions.  We continue to commit to working tirelessly to help our clients achieve their dreams.

We are following legal developments and will carefully consider strategies and implications for our clients’ cases as information becomes available. Our dedicated staff of attorneys and paralegals will use every resource and tool at our disposal to further our work that promotes justice and will advocate for fair and reasonable immigration law and policy. As we learn more about the new administration’s intended actions, we are available to discuss your options and answer any questions.

Onward!

© Jewell Stewart & Pratt PC 2016