USCIS wants to increase fees!

USCIS proposes increasing filing fees of a lot of commonly used applications.  Most of them are for business immigration filings and family based immigration applications.  See some of the proposed fee increases below.

You can make a comment on the fee increase until July 5, 2016. USCIS depends on the fees to pay for its services. So USCIS was one of the few agencies not affected by the government shut down last year.

Proposed fees

Form Purpose Current Fee Proposed Increase Change
I-129 For Worker $325 $460 +$135
I-130 For Family immigration $420 $535 +$115
I-140 For Work based immigration $580 $700 +$120
I-485 Work/Family GC* $1,070 $1,225 +$155
I-539 Change visas $290 $370 +$80
I-765 Work authorization $385 $410 +$30
I-90 Renew GC $365 $455 +$90
I-129F Fiancé Visa $340 $535 +$195
I-751 Get a 10 year GC* $505 $595 +$90
N-400 Naturalize $595 $640 +$45
N-600 Citizenship Certificate $600 $1170 +$570

*Green Card

Nalini S Mahadevan, Esq

P: 314.932.7111  nsm@mlolaw.us   www.mlolaw.us

Disclaimer: Please do not rely on this blog for legal advice.  Call me if you want to get advice and sign an engagement letter with my law firm.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

How to Employ A Foreign Student

Last year I gave a presentation at a local University to employers about the advantages of employing students from foreign countries, here in student visa status.  The Director of the Career Center told me that local employers were afraid of the process involved in hiring them!

To this I say Pshaw!!!  Look at the untapped potential for a wonderful talented employee, who is willing and wanting to learn and be part of the employing company.  Imagine that student has already passed several hurdles such as qualifying to enter a prestigious University, probably has a revealed a superior understanding of her subject and has demonstrated to University admission officers and professors at their college that she can match the best of any local talent!  These students have probably passed several more exams in an effort to enter an American University!  Does that not show grit and hard work – truly American as apple pie! Like the old E.F. Hutton ad said, “they earned it”.

How to hire a student on an F-1 visa?

  • Do they have an OPT (Optional Practical Training) granted at the end of a course of academic education. If yes, Non STEM students can work up to 12 months and STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) students can work for up to 29 months for an employer.
  • STEM students have 2 bites at the H1B apple. STEM students can apply twice for an H1B visa while in OPT status and can stay employed for at least 6 more years with the employer, so the training is not wasted!
  • The student should be in valid F-1 status
  • Proposed employment should relate to the student’s academic work
  • New Obama executive orders will expand and extend the use of OPT
  • CPT – Curricular Practical Training A student can work either part time or full time for an employer during the course of their study as either an employee, an intern (paid or unpaid), in a cooperative (co-op) educational experience, or as a practicum participation in the field of their major.
  • Full time CPT will reduce entitlement to OPT.

This is a great way to test the waters.  There are many foreign students with experience who are at University in a Master’s program or even a second Bachelor’s degree.

Caveat! Employ a student from an accredited University, please.

Nalini S Mahadevan, JD, MBA

Contact: nsm@mlolaw.us

This blog is not intended as legal advice nor is it to be construed as creating a attorney client relationship!

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

PERM Plans to Modernize Recruitment Process

The US Department of Labor announced that it is modernizing US worker recruitment for the PERM process.

DOL has not comprehensively examined and modified the permanent labor certification requirements and process since their inception 10 years ago. Over the last 10 years, much has changed in our country’s economy, affecting employers’ demand for workers as well as the availability of a qualified domestic labor force. This past fiscal year, employers submitted over 70,000 PERM applications requesting foreign workers. The majority of those job openings were for professional occupations in the Information Technology and Science fields.

Over time, demands for labor have increased, and surpluses for various types of workers have changed. Advances in technology and information dissemination have dramatically altered common industry recruitment practices, and the DOL has received ongoing feedback that the existing regulatory requirements governing the PERM recruitment process frequently do not align with worker or industry needs and practices.

To respond to change, the DOL is working on new regulations for the following:

  • Options for identifying labor force occupational shortages and surpluses, and methods for aligning domestic worker recruitment requirements with demonstrated shortages and surpluses;
  • Methods and practices designed to modernize U.S. worker recruitment requirements;
  • Processes to clarify employer obligations to insure PERM positions are fully open to U.S. workers;
  • Ranges of case processing timeframes and possibilities for premium processing; and
  • Application submission and review process and feasibility for efficiently addressing nonmaterial errors.

The objective of the DOL is to align DOL recruitment methods with that of the U.S. immigration system and needs of workers and employers, and to enhance the integrity of the labor certification process.

See you in my next blog.

Nalini S Mahadevan, JD, MBA
Immigration Attorney St. Louis, Missouri
nsm@mlolaw.us

logo

The information is not meant to create a client-attorney relationship. This blog is for informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for legal advice. Situations may differ based on the facts.

Copyright 2014. All rights reserved.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

Employer Defense In a Complaint of Documentary Abuse

The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) has direct purview over three types of cases stemming from the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). In this case—Salim Hajiani vs. ESHA USA, Inc. and Sameer Ramjee—Hajiani, the complainant, alleged that the respondent engaged in two of the three areas of jurisdiction over which OCAHO resides: immigration-related unfair employment practices and immigration-related fraud, which are both in violation of the INA.

Hajiani registered a complaint against ESHA USA and Ramjee, accusing the respondents of document abuse, firing Hajiani due to his citizenship status, and taking revenge on him because of a religious discrimination complaint he filed against a former employer. Salim Hajiani is a lawful permanent resident of the US.

Hajiani was hired on October 10, 2011 at Sameer Ramjee’s gas station and convenience store, ESHA, which is in Philadelphia, Tennessee. Hajiani worked at the store until January 10, 2012, when he was fired. On June 26, 2012, he filed a complaint with OSC, to which OSC responded that the complaint didn’t fall under their jurisdiction. Hajiani then filed a charge with OCAHO in February 8, 2013.

Hajiani’s complaint against his employer was a detailed litany of purported incidents of document abuse and job complaints, such as long hours, no overtime pay, and double shifts. He also specified that one of the reasons he was fired was because Ramjee preferred to employ undocumented workers so that he wouldn’t have to pay them overtime or give them benefits.

Hajiani made various allegations against other employees that were not under the scope of OCAHO’s jurisdiction—complaints of undocumented workers also do not fall under the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). Such instances include cash register shortages, sexual harassment, allegations of tax fraud, selling tobacco to minors, and that he wasn’t hired for store’s first shift because only US citizens were allowed to work that shift. Hajiani also noted in his complaint that his claim was filed timely.

However, his claim of document abuse was not filed in a timely manner. Hajiani alleged that the document abuse occurred in October 2011, but didn’t file the charge with OSC until June 26, 2012. The IRCA strictly says, “no complaint may be filed respecting any unfair immigration-related practice occurring more than 180 days prior ot the filing of a charge with OSC.” Hajiani’s complaint would only have been valid for events after December 29, 2011.

None of Hajiani’s claims—his filed complaint of religious discrimination with the US Equal Employment Opportunity Committee (EEOC), nor his complaints about the terms and conditions of his job—come under the purview of OCAHO, or are protected by IRCA. OCAHO only covers hiring, recruitment, and discharge.

Moreover, Hajiani never submitted evidence that any discrimination occurred. If Sameer Ramjee had been prejudiced against Hajiani, then Ramjee would never have employed Hajiani. Hajiani provided too many explanations of why he was fired, allowing OCAHO to conclude that Hajiani did not divulge his own behaviors that caused Ramjee to fire him.

OCAHO dismissed Hajiani’s complaint against his employer.

See you in my next blog.
Nalini S Mahadevan, JD, MBA
Immigration Attorney St. Louis, Missouri
nsm@mlolaw.us

logo
The information is not meant to create a client-attorney relationship. This blog is for informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for legal advice. Situations may differ based on the facts.Copyright 2014. All rights reserved.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

H1B Spouses May Be Allowed to Work in the US

DHS has proposed allowing spouses of H1B visa holders in H4 status to work while waiting for their legal permanent residence to be approved.

The idea is to enhance opportunities for certain groups of highly-skilled workers by removing obstacles to their remaining time in the US, strengthen entrepreneurship and innovation, and to help the US attract and retain highly-skilled immigrants.

The H1B visa holder must have an approved I-140 form and should have an extension of their H1B status beyond 6 years.

Specifically, the change to the regulation would:

  • Update the regulations to include non-immigrant highly-skilled specialty occupation professionals from Chile and Singapore (H-1B1), and from Australia (E-3), in the list of classes of aliens authorized for employment incident to status with a specific employer;
  • Clarify that H-1B1 and principal E-3 non-immigrants are allowed to work without having to separately apply to DHS for employment authorization; and
  • Allow E-3, H-1B1, and CW-1 non-immigrant workers up to 240 days of continued work authorization beyond the expiration date noted on their Form I-94 Arrival/Departure Record, while the extension request is pending.

It would affect workers in specialty occupation nonimmigrant classifications for professionals from Chile and Singapore (H-1B1) and Australia (E-3), as well as Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Island (CNMI)-Only Transitional Workers (CW-1).

Finally, this proposal would also expand the current list of evidentiary criteria for employment-based first preference (EB-1) outstanding professors and researchers to allow the submission of evidence comparable to the other forms of evidence already listed in the regulations. This proposal would harmonize the regulations for EB-1 outstanding professors and researchers with other employment-based immigrant categories that already allow for submission of comparable evidence.
The proposed rules will be published shortly and will invite comments for a 60 day period.
See you in my next blog.
Nalini S Mahadevan, JD, MBA
Immigration Attorney St. Louis, Missouri
nsm@mlolaw.us
logo

The information is not meant to create a client-attorney relationship. This blog is for informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for legal advice. Situations may differ based on the facts.

Copyright 2014. All rights reserved.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

Alternatives to H1B visas

The H1B visa season is upon us, the filing date was on April 1, 2014, and like last year is expected to be oversubscribed. What visas can a company consider once the H1B visas are exhausted for the season?

This year, let us consider non-H1B countries, where alternative visas are available for skilled workers.

For Mexicans and Canadians

The TN visa under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Until this time, only Canadians could apply directly to the consulate or embassy or enter through the Canadian/US border with the proper credentials.

On February 10th, 2014, the US Department of State published a final rule that Mexicans applying for a TN visa could apply at the consulate or embassy in the US without first seeking approval from USCIS, or before applying for a TN visa at the US embassy or consulate in Mexico.

This is a giant leap forward for immigration, according similar trusted status for citizens south of the border.

Of course, applicants must be sponsored by an employer with a genuine job offer, and job duties must conform to the NAFTA guidelines.

While TN visas require non-immigrant intent—which means the applicant cannot apply for a green card from a TN visa status—the visa allows renewal in the US, and under tax treaties, allows the worker to accumulate the equivalent of Social Security in their country of origin.

There used to be a ceiling on admissions of TN, but that is not the case anymore.

See you in my next blog.

Nalini S Mahadevan, JD, MBA
Immigration Attorney St. Louis, Missouri

logo

The information is not meant to create a client-attorney relationship. This blog is for informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for legal advice. Situations may differ based on the facts.

Tara Mahadevan
Copyright 2014. All rights reserved.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

New Efforts to Combat Identity Theft on E-Verify

USCIS has announced that the E-Verify program will help combat identity fraud by identifying and deterring fraudulent use of Social Security Numbers (SSNs) for employment eligibility verification.

New Algorithm to Identify Identity Fraud

The new algorithm detects and prevents potential fraudulent use of SSNs to gain work authorization. An employer, for example, may enter information into E-Verify that appears valid – such as a matching name, date of birth, and SSN – but was in fact stolen, borrowed or purchased from another individual. With this new programming, USCIS can now lock a SSN that appears to have been misused, so that it cannot be used by another individual other than the owner of the social security number.

When a social security number is identified as ‘stolen’ by the E-verify system, USCIS may now lock SSNs in E-Verify that appear to have been used fraudulently. To accomplish this step, USCIS says it uses a combination of algorithms, detection reports and analysis to identify patterns of fraudulent SSN use and then lock the number in E-Verify.

The Process

If an employee attempts to use a locked SSN, E-Verify will generate a “Tentative Nonconfirmation” (TNC). The employee receiving the TNC will have the opportunity to contest the finding at a local Social Security Administration (SSA) field office. If an SSA field officer confirms the employee’s identity correctly matches the SSN, the TNC will be converted to “Employment Authorized” status in E-Verify.

See you in my next blog.

Nalini S Mahadevan, JD, MBA
Immigration Attorney
St. Louis, Missouri

The information is not meant to create a client-attorney relationship. This blog is for informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for legal advice. Situations may differ based on the facts.

Tara Mahadevan

Copyright 2013. All rights reserved.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

Employment Practices that Could Lead to Immigration Discrimination, Pt. 2

The Office of Special Counsel (OSC)‘s job is to enforce the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which disallows employment-related anti-discrimination based on immigration and citizenship status, and nationality. I previously wrote about OSC’s responses to some employers’ questions on unfair employment practices, such as an employee presenting either invalid or fraudulent documents. OSC also answers immigration-related questions posed by law firms’, pertaining to law firm clients.

If, for example, a general contractor, is hiring out to a subcontractor, and then requires the subcontractor’s employees to again produce original documents — such as a passport or driver’s license — that were already presented during the hiring process and upon completion of a Form I-9 by the subcontractor, then a host of problems can present themselves:

  1. The original documents have expired and the employee has obtained a new version of those documents;
  2. The employee’s immigration status has changed, and thus has different documents to prove work authorization; and
  3. The original documents have been stolen or lost.

This could all amount to a claim by the employees that the general contractor was discriminating against them due to their citizenship or immigration status. Employees could also maintain that they are discriminated against in this case: An employer, who is an E-Verify user, hires a private vendor to disseminate paychecks, also giving the vendor access to Forms I-9. The vendor is authorized to examine the Forms I-9 in order to confirm the identities of employees, who the employer wants to pay.

What could easily happen is that, because the vendor didn’t see the employees’ original documents, he/she inquires about the adequacy of the documents that were initially presented to the employer for I-9 purposes. If the employer feels persuaded to ask his/her employees for further documentation, such a request might be perceived as document abuse, which violates the anti-discrimination provision of the INA. OSC found that the INA was not applicable in either circumstance.

See you in my next blog.

Nalini S Mahadevan, JD, MBA
Immigration Attorney
St. Louis, Missouri

The information is not meant to create a client-attorney relationship. This blog is for informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for legal advice. Situations may differ based on the facts.

Tara Mahadevan

Copyright 2013. All rights reserved.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather