Health Law Limitations for Young Immigrants

In June, President Obama was pleased to announce the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Memorandum – but with some ineligibilities. The Obama Administration has ruled that young immigrants, who can apply to DACA, will not qualify for health insurance under Obama’s health care renovations.

Young Immigrants Ineligible for Health Law

Normally, immigrants would fall under the definition of “lawfully present” residents, which qualifies them for government subsidies to purchase private insurance, a major facet of the new health care law. However in August, the administration declared that young immigrants will be barred from the definition of “lawfully present”.

Obama’s administration also announced that young immigrants will not be eligible for Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program – the areas of immigration and health care coverage are separate issues.

Immigration and Health Laws are Unrelated

The administration further justified their decision by stating that the immigration initiative is “an exercise of prosecutorial discretion,” that has been enacted so law enforcement officers can differentiate between immigrants who will cause a threat to national security or public safety.

According to the new federal health law, only citizens and “lawfully present” low-income immigrants are eligible for insurance subsidies. This group still includes green card holders and people granted asylum.

Immigrants who are employed, and qualify for DACA, will still be able to receive health insurance from employers; however, those who are not covered by employers will struggle to gain coverage.

(NYTimes, “Limits Placed on Immigrants in Health Law”, 18 Sept 2012)

See you in my next blog.

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

Tara Mahadevan

Copyright 2012. All rights reserved.

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

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

Employer Liability on DACA Issues

Mike is 27 and has a GED; he is employed by XYZ company. He applies for an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) card under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Memorandum. When he goes to his boss at XYZ, he tenders the EAD as evidence of his newly minted status as being allowed to work legally. While DACA does not confer status on Mike, he is now allowed to work legally for XYZ. Many employer liability issues arise from this scenario.

Employer Liability

Firstly, as the employer, XYZ could have constructive knowledge of the employee‘s prior unauthorized status. Hence, the employer could be charged under Missouri Omnibus immigration law as ‘knowingly’ employing an unauthorized worker in the US. In addition, XYZ could be charged with violating Form I-9 laws.

Secondly, the employer may have other potential Form I-9 issues. Now that the employer has constructive knowledge of the employee not having work authorization in the US, the employer may have to seriously consider terminating the employee, or could potentially become liable of knowingly retaining an employee whose immigration status is under question.

However, an employer is not supposed to be an immigration document expert. If the employer previously employed a worker who provided false documents that appeared to be valid and to relate to the individual employee, then the employer may provide a “good faith argument” if there is an ICE audit.

Yet, if a prior employee now declares that he/she is eligible for DACA work authorization, the employer needs to make certain that this policy of terminating this ‘newly discovered’ unauthorized employee does not discriminate against other similarly placed employees in the employer’s workforce. In other words, the employer cannot have one policy towards ‘seemingly foreign looking individuals’ and another policy towards ‘seemingly US born individuals’ if both populations present with similar DACA-related issues. This is called national origin discrimination.

Form I-9 Issues

The employer, under I-9 guidance, may have to terminate the employee who needs DACA employment authorization in order to continue working with the employee. The employer may have to terminate the employee and, if needed, rehire after new DACA-related employment authorization has been produced by the employee. The employer may also have to manage employer liability, and purge their employment records of all unnecessary I-9 documents in line with USCIS guidance.

See you in my next blog.

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

Tara Mahadevan

Copyright 2012. All rights reserved.

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

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

What An Employer Should Do Now that H-1B Visas are Over

As of December 1, 2011, the US Consulate General in Chennai will process all Blanket L Visas. The New Delhi US Embassy and Mumbai, Kolkata and Hyderabad US Consulates no longer process petitions for Blanket L Visas. Visas for dependent spouse and children (L-2) and individual visas (L-1A and L-1B) can still be processed at the Chennai, Hyderabad, Kolkata, Mumbai and New Delhi posts.

What is a Blanket L Visa?

A Blanket L visa is available to employees whose employers hold such a designation to file L visas under a Blanket L permit, issued by the Department of State. To be eligible, an employer must be in business in the US for more than one year; have three or more domestic or foreign, subsidiaries or affiliates; and be engaged in commercial trade or services. The employer must also have annual US sales of $25 million; a US workforce of 1,000 employees; or the employer should have received at least 10 L petitions in the last 12 months. An employer may be in danger of losing their Blanket L permit if they file fewer than 10 petitions in the prior year. Only commercial employers can be approved for a Blanket L permit; non-profits are not eligible.

Blanket L visas are for employees who have, in the three past years, been employed abroad for one year and will continue to be employed by the same company in the US. Employees can either be petitioned individually or under a blanket, and must meet the criteria of a “specialized knowledge” professional, executive or manager.

Three Major Issues

1. Will the L visa employee work at client sites?

If your answer is yes, then you must establish an employer-employee relationship during the time the employee is working at a third party worksite on behalf of the petitioner (employer). If the employee is to work in the office of the L visa employer, then that fact should be made very clear both in the documentation and at the interview. Consular officers are very concerned about L visas being misused by employers and being used when H-1B visas are no longer available.

At the US Consulate, the employee is often asked to go up to a window to answer questions. The interview is about 5 minutes, and very often consular officers may not have the time to read the entire petition. If the employee is to work on a particular project at a site other than the US employer’s offices, that fact should also be presented both at the interview and substantiated in the application.

L visa employees must be ready to answer any and all questions, and justify the reason for working at a end-client’s office instead of working at the L visa employer’s office.

2. Is the salary of an ordinary programmer or of a specialist in an L-1B visa category?

Salary earnings in India are indicative of the level of services an employee provides for his/her company; there is certainly a difference between IT workers who complete general services and those who have specialized knowledge. If the applicant is earning a sizeable salary, it is important to state the applicant’s salary in the support letter; salaries are often indicative of a specialist eligible for an L-1B visa instead of a programmer more suited to H-1B visa category status.

It is these distinctions that have caused a rise in the denial rate, 27%, of all filed L visa applications.

3. Is the applicant’s work in India not indicative of a specialized job?

The consular officers will most likely deduce that the applicant has no specialized knowledge if the applicant’s work in India is based in general services. This can include testing; enterprise recourse planning maintenance; or execution of Oracle, Microsoft or SAP software.

Experience

L-1B visa holders are supposed to be specialists; if the applicant has a three-year degree and one year of experience, then the consular officer is not likely to consider the applicant experienced enough to warrant an L-1B visa approval. The standard by which L visa applications are approved is “clearly approvable”. Hence, the burden of proving L visa eligibility lies with the employer. If the L visa has been approved by USCIS, the US Consulate may grant the L visa unless special circumstances exist, or the consulate determines more evidence is required.

We live in a climate where no USCIS application is sacrosanct, and where the Department of State often re-adjudicates USCIS approvals.

B-1 In Lieu of H-1B

The B-1 In Lieu of H-1B visa is a hybrid visa, a cross between a business visa and an employment visa in the US. The employee with H-1B visa qualifications comes to the US instead on a business visa (B-1), applies for the visa at the consulate and declares intent at the border. This employee cannot receive any remuneration in the US other than an expense allowance.

However, this visa is under attack. Employers should demonstrate that there are unexpected circumstances and an urgent need for the employee to obtain a B-1 Visa In Lieu of an H-1B. The controversy arises over the extent to which the B-1 visa is used or misused in lieu of an H-1B. Even if the consulate grants this visa, it is likely that the visa holder may encounter difficulty at the US port of entry.

True need for the visa must be well-planned to demonstrate the benefit of the short-term visit to the foreign employer, as opposed to the US client.

See you in my next blog.

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

Tara Mahadevan

Copyright 2012. All rights reserved.

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

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

How Employers can Reduce Audit in PERM Filings for Roving, Telecommuting and Traveling Employees

The tech industry is facing many challenges today, notably denials from the Department of Labor (DOL) based on very little understanding of how the industry works. Most large employers in the sector are not the ‘job shops’ that USCIS fears; and DOL is convinced the tech industry is engaged in fraud of some kind, or is somehow interested in recruiting foreign workers when willing and able US workers are available!

US employers in this sector pay a premium in governmental application costs and legal fees because they are unable to find a suitable worker in the advertised job. In fact, most recruiters I speak to would prefer to hire locally rather than internationally.

Both USCIS and DOL target employers who file for an employee with job duties involving roving, telecommuting or travelling; USCIS has recently issued guidance on roving employees placed at client worksites, in the H-1b visa context. DOL continues to audit and issue denials for roving, travelling or telecommuting positions. Current audits require employers to define employees’ positions as either national or regional roving without a residential requirement, or roving with a residential requirement. Additionally, DOL has expressed concern that these jobs may not be bona fide opportunities for the positions advertised at the intended place of hire; and, in the case of roving employees with no fixed ‘intended area of employment’, the location chosen to advertise the job opportunity and the wage may be artificial and misrepresented by the employer.

Where to Advertise for Roving Employees

In the past few years, DOL has audited and denied applications where the residential address of the employee does not match the location of employment. DOL decided that this position was for a telecommuting employee, a benefit the employer did not disclose in the advertisement for the position and therefore not disclosed to an eligible US applicant, but offered to the beneficiary as a benefit. A PERM application can also be denied based on job advertisements in the incorrect Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). The employer advertised the job where the client worksites were located, instead of the MSA where the employer’s headquarters was located.

In Paradigm Infotech, Inc (BALCA, June, 2007), the employer advertised the roving position in Erie, Pennsylvania where the client worksite was located, instead of the company headquarters. To reach the PERM denial, DOL conducted research on the employer. DOL ascertained that the employer’s headquarters was in Columbia, Maryland as confirmed by employer’s tax records and DOL interviews with employees. DOL also performed site visits to the Erie location of the employer’s branch to ascertain that sufficient office space existed, and parking space was available for the number of employees who were supposed to work there, in accordance with employer’s documentation filed with Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA). Based on short term contracts with client companies, inadequate office space at Erie, and payroll records that confirmed that employees worked at different locations, PERM labor certification was denied by DOL and the denial was upheld by BALCA. BALCA reasoned that the employer needed to test the labor market at the place where the alien was working, and since this was a roving employee and that geographical area of the labor market was unknown, the job market to be tested for PERM purposes was located at the employer’s headquarters.

Following Paradigm, employers with large business units away from company headquarters should also advertise at headquarters location. This is confirmed by the Barbara Farmers Memo: ETA Field Memorandum 48-94§10, published by DOL in 1994 and still followed by DOL.

Prevailing Wage Issues

Employers should also file to obtain prevailing wage determinations from DOL in all the intended areas of potential work sites for the foreign worker. Future locations can be determined from itineraries and statement of work signed with the end client.

Employers with International Locations

In August 2012, BALCA upheld that advertisements in the PERM context also include ‘travel requirements’. The employer in M-IL.L.C., filed a PERM for an employee who was required to travel to international locations as part of the job requirement. This fact was listed on the PERM application Form 9089 and the prevailing wage determination, but not listed on the advertisement for the job opening. 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(f)(4) states, “Advertisements placed in newspapers of general circulation or in professional journals before filing the Application for Permanent Employment Certification must… indicate the geographic area of employment with enough specificity to apprise applicants of any travel requirements and where applicants will likely have to reside to perform the job opportunity.” The employer’s advertisements did not include the travel requirement. Denial was based on the fact that travel requirements listed on the PERM application and the prevailing wage determination was not matched by the advertisement for the position.

Conclusion

While we cannot with certainty expect every PERM filing with travel requirements to be audited by DOL, we must certainly file like that is a very real possibility. Any filing with the DOL is subject to audit, even if in the past those very same requirements were certified by DOL. The safest course in our uncertain climate is to match information on the prevailing wage with the PERM form, and the employer’s advertisement requirements for the position advertised.

See you in my next blog.

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

Tara Mahadevan

Copyright 2012. All rights reserved.

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

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

Deferred Status for Dreamers

In the last few months, there has been many reports on Obama’s new Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Memorandum, a form of prosecutorial discretion. The memorandum states that children who entered before June 15 2012, and before they turn 15 years old, could be granted authority to work and lawful status for a period of two years. There are a lot of misunderstandings about the benefits offered, and not enough understanding about the dangers and caveats of filing this application.

Radio Stations Report Incorrect Facts about Deferred Status
Even reputable radio stations get the facts wrong. KMOX and NPR both erroneously reported the incorrect age of eligibility. The eligibility starts at age 15 and ends at age 31, not 30 as these stations reported.

No Path to Citizenship
Deferred action does not confer any lawful immigration status, such as the status enjoyed while waiting for an adjustment of status. Deferred action also does not change the current immigration status, such as a grant of a visa, or lead to US citizenship.

What deferred status provides is a period of authorized stay. In other words, the person in deferred status is allowed to stay in the US with the permission of the government. Any unlawful status before deferred action is granted, or after deferred action status ends, will still be unlawful (source). Immigration can review and/or withdraw the deferred action status at any time.

Presence in the US
In order to apply, individuals must be between the ages of 15 to 31 as of June 15, 2012. They must also have lived in the US continuously from June 15th 2007 to the present, and should have been physically present in the US on June 15th, 2012. Presence in the US is also required when filing an application.

Inspection at the border is not required; individuals could have ‘snuck’ over the border or have overstayed their visa.

Proving Presence in the US
It is fine to have left for a few days to Mexico or the Caribbean; this will not interrupt continuous physical presence. Documentation of stay could include medical and school records, or utility bills and tax filings. The evidence is weighed by USCIS using a ‘totality of circumstances’ standard to prove circumstantially that there is the required presence in the US. In addition, presence could be proved by evidence of stay in the US before and after June 15th, 2012.

Stay in school! Be “all that you can be.”
Applicants must be enrolled in elementary, secondary, high school or college to be eligible. A GED from a reputable school is fine, and a college education is great. An honorable discharge from the Coast Guards or Armed Forces is fine too. Anecdotally, there are only a few who will benefit from service in the armed forces. Only US citizens and permanent residents can enroll with a few exceptions from ‘those vital to the national interest’, and even then most would be eligible for naturalization and would not need deferred status.

Beware of Crimes
Applicants with significant criminal history need not apply. Those who are subject to removal orders from an immigration judge should apply for prosecutorial discretion. ICE may administratively close cases for individuals who are eligible for deferred action.
But if an individual has remained in the US after a grant of voluntary departure from a judge, then that person is subject to other immigration penalties, such as fines and bars to filing an immigration application for 10 years.

Being a Member of a Gang
Many law enforcement agencies maintain a ‘gang book’ of tattoos and the meaning of gang symbols. If an applicant has a gang tattoo or has been profiled in a ‘gang book,’ then that may be a problem, especially if the applicant is interviewed and the tattoos are revealed.

Traffic Offenses
Generally, traffic offenses are not considered fatal to an application. However, those with outstanding traffic tickets; unpaid parking tickets; accidents and arrest warrants for traffic violations; and accumulation points on a drivers’ license close to suspension of the license, need to exercise caution.

DWIs and Domestic Violence
Increasingly domestic violence and driving under the influence are being targeted as bars to immigration benefits. DWI convictions are already a bar to returning on a non-immigrant visa to the US. DWIs are a bar to applying, regardless of the sentence imposed.

Using a False Social Security Number
Using a false social security number is a federal crime with applicable jail time and fines. The applicant risks USCIS reporting the false document use to ICE, which could end in removal and federal prosecution. Chances are that false claims of US citizenship status have been made on I-9 forms, and taxes have been filed using the same social security number. In addition to all the federal crimes, there could also be immigration law violations due to the possible allegations of identity theft. Filing an application under these circumstances is very risky.

Entering Using False Documents
While a minor may not have a say on if the parents entered using false documents, USCIS can still share that information with ICE, and those facts could pose a problem for the parents and others who entered using false documents. All applicants are fingerprinted and photographed. There will be a background check on all applicants, and USCIS can share information about false documents and criminal history with ICE.

Arizona Decided Not to Issue Drivers’ Licenses
Gov. Brewer recently signed an executive order not to issue drivers licenses to conferees of deferred status on the basis that they were in unlawful status. Perhaps she did not read the relevant statutes. This statute is also called the Real ID Act.

Improved Security for Drivers’ Licenses and Personal Identification Cards

Pub.L. 109-13, Div. B, Title II, §§ 201 to 207, May 11, 2005, 119 Stat. 311, provided that:
“(2) Special requirements.–
“(A) In general.–To meet the requirements of this section [this note], a State shall comply with the minimum standards of this paragraph.
“(B) Evidence of lawful status.–A State shall require, before issuing a driver’s license or identification card to a person, valid documentary evidence that the person–
“(i) is a citizen or national of the United States;
“(ii) is an alien lawfully admitted for permanent or temporary residence in the United States;
“(iii) has conditional permanent resident status in the United States;
“(iv) has an approved application for asylum in the United States or has entered into the United States in refugee status;
“(v) has a valid, unexpired nonimmigrant visa or nonimmigrant visa status for entry into the United States;
“(vi) has a pending application for asylum in the United States;
“(vii) has a pending or approved application for temporary protected status in the United States;
(viii) has approved deferred action status; or
“(ix) has a pending application for adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States or conditional permanent resident status in the United States.

The Final Word
Deferred status could be used to keep a person in status while they are waiting for a priority date, in the family context. This status could stall unlawful status for a person shy of their 18th birthday. There is also a lot of discussion about filing for advanced parole after obtaining deferred status to exit and re-enter the US, and then, without filing a waiver, to file for immigrant status based on a relative.

The deferred status application is seemingly simple, but could be extremely complicated and lethal for the applicant and family members (see Arrabally, Yerrabelly). Those matters should be discussed with an immigration attorney before applying. Contact Nalini Mahadevan or Diane Metzger at Lowenbaum Partnership, LLC.

See you in my next blog.

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

Tara Mahadevan

Copyright 2012. All rights reserved.

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

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

DHS Enforcement Actions — July 2012

On July 19, Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano spoke before the House Judiciary Committee, offering important information on how US immigration law enforcement would affect employers.

US Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Since January 2009, ICE has audited 8,079 employers who are suspected of “knowingly hiring” workers who do not have authorization to work in the US. The federal government has also debarred 726 companies and individuals from federal contracts; imposing and collecting more than $87.9 million in fines and sanctions against companies and their officers.

Sec. Napolitano said ICE will eliminate high-profile raids on worksites because such raids do little to improve public safety. The government now feels that deportation of criminal aliens and unauthorized workers is having little affect on employers’ willingness to hire these individuals. Instead, the government will renew and focus its efforts on Form I-9 inspections; civil fines; debarment; and employer education and compliance with current law.

USCIS, ICE and the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) have greatly increased their engagement with employers and the public through national and local stake holder meetings, webinars and newsletters. Self-check through E-Verify is also encouraged for individual employees. There are now 385,000 companies participating in E-Verify with more than 1.1 million hiring sites. E-Verify is also developing a robust customer service hotline; and increasing outreach staff to promote the E-Verify’s benefits, and educate employers and employees about rights and responsibilities.

Federal agencies receive information to prosecute employers through local police enforcement; traffic stops; criminal prosecutions and informers; and through employee complaints to ICE hotlines and OSC online complaint forms.

The Obama Administration is refocusing efforts on worksite compliance and arrests of unauthorized and criminal aliens, and deporting these aliens at great cost to their countries of origin.

See you in my next blog.

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

Tara Mahadevan

Copyright 2012. All rights reserved.

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

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

Missouri Lawyers Weekly: Immigration decision may have impact on Missouri laws

My coworker, Diane Metzger, and I were recently interviewed for an immigration article in Missouri Lawyers Weekly. The article focuses on the Supreme Court’s ruling of Arizona immigration law, and how the ruling may affect Missouri immigration law.

Reprinted with permission from Missouri Lawyers Media.

See you in my next blog.

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

Tara Mahadevan

Copyright 2012. All rights reserved.

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

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

Part XII: Retaining and Storing I-9

This is Part XII of our I-9 blog series, which explains how employers can best avoid audit by ICE. In our last segment, we will be detailing the most affective methods of retaining and storing Forms I-9.

Retaining Form I-9

Employers must have a completed Form I-9 and Employment Eligibility Verification on file for each person on their payroll. The employer must also determine how much longer to keep the employee’s Form I-9 after the employee leaves.

To calculate how long to keep an employee’s Form I-9, enter the following:

Employers must retain Form I-9 until the date on Line C.

Employers are required to retain the page of the form on which the employer and the employee enter data. Copies of the employee’s documents should also be kept with the I-9. Employers may store the instructions and Lists of Acceptable Documents page as well. The I-9 may be stored on paper, microfilm, microfiche or electronically.

Storing Form I-9

Form I-9 requires the collection of personal information about individual employees. Employers should keep this in mind when determining how to retain and store completed Forms I-9. Employers should store completed Forms I-9 and accompanying documents in a manner that fits their business needs, and fits the requirement to make Forms I-9 available for inspection. Typically, employers store completed Forms I-9 and accompanying documents:

• on-site or at an off-site storage facility
• with personnel records or separate from personnel records
• in a single format or a combination of formats
• paper
• microfilm or microfiche
• electronically

No matter how you choose to store Forms I-9, you must be able to present them to government officials for inspection within three days of the date on which the forms were requested. Officers from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), employees from the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices at the Department of Justice (DOJ), and employees from the Department of Labor (DOL) may ask to inspect these forms.

Storing the Original Paper Forms I-9
Form I-9 contains personal information about employees. When storing these forms, USCIS recommends that employers provide adequate safeguards to protect employee information. If an employer chooses to keep paper copies of an employee’s documents, the employer may store them with the employee’s Form I-9 or with the employees’ records.  However, USCIS recommends that employers keep Forms I-9 separate from personnel records to facilitate an inspection request.

Storing Forms I-9 on Microfilm or Microfiche
Employers may keep copies of original, signed Forms I-9 on microfilm or microfiche. Select film stock that will preserve the image and allow for access and use for the entire retention period.

Microfilm or microfiche must:
• exhibit a high degree of legibility and readability when displayed on a reader, or reproduced on paper.
• include a detailed index of all data so that any particular record can be accessed immediately.

If an officer notifies an employer of an inspection, the employer must provide the microfilm or microfiche and a reader-printer that provides safety features; is in a clean condition, properly maintained and in good working order; and is able to display and print a complete page of information. Once employers have preserved Forms I-9 on microfilm or microfiche, they may destroy the paper originals.

Storing Forms I-9 Electronically
Employers may use a paper system, an electronic system or a combination of paper and electronic systems to store Forms I-9. An electronic storage system must include:
• controls to ensure the integrity, accuracy and reliability of the electronic storage system.
• controls to detect and prevent the unauthorized or accidental creation of, addition to, alteration of, deletion of or deterioration of an electronically stored Form I-9, including the electronic signature, if used.
• controls to ensure an audit trail so that any alteration or change to the form since its creation is electronically stored and can be accessed by an appropriate government agency inspecting the forms.
• an inspection and quality assurance program that regularly evaluates the electronic generation or storage system, and includes periodic checks of electronically stored Forms I-9, including the electronic signature, if used.
• a detailed index of all data so that any particular record can be accessed immediately.
• production of a high degree of legibility and readability when displayed on a video display terminal or reproduced on paper.

See you in my next blog.

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

Tara Mahadevan

Copyright 2012. All rights reserved.

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

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

Part XI: Correcting I-9

This is Part XI of our I-9 blog series, which explains how employers can best avoid audit by ICE.

Correcting Mistakes

When correcting errors on Form I-9, only the employee can correct Section 1; the employer can correct Sections 2 and 3. If the employer discovers an error in Section 1, then the employer should ask the employee to make the corrections. The best way to correct the form is to cross-out any inaccurate information. After entering the correct information, initial and date the correction.

Multiple Errors

If the employer needs to correct multiple errors, then the employer may redo the section on a new Form I-9 and attach it to the old form. A new Form I-9 can be completed if major errors, such as entire sections being left blank, need to be corrected. A note should be included in the file detailing the reason the employer made changes to an existing Form I-9, or completed a new Form I-9. It is not in the employer’s best interest to conceal any changes made on the form–doing so may lead to increased liability under federal immigration law.

Make the method of correction uniform for all Form I-9 corrections. If the employer uses abbreviations, keep an index of abbreviations for use by the auditor.

See you in my next blog.

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

Tara Mahadevan

Copyright 2012. All rights reserved.

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

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

H1Bs may be over by mid-June, 2012!

If you are an employer with plans to employ a student on an H1B visa or employ someone from abroad or transfer an H1B employee from a US non-profit to your company, ACT FAST.

FY 2013 H-1B Cap Count
65000 Cap subject visas are issued every year. About 6800 visas are set aside for fashion models and citizens from Chile and Singapore under treaties with those countries. For the sake of simplicity, these visas have not been excluded from the H1B visa count below.

H1B visas receipted by USCIS so far:
Regular Cap Count             H-1bs Receipted             Difference from week to week
April 4                                     16,742                                0
April 9                                     17,400                                658
April 13                                    20,600                               3200
April 20                                    25,000                               4400
April 27                                    29,200                               4200
May 4                                      32,500                                3300
May 11                                    36,700                                4200
May 25                                    48,400                                11700

Forecast: All dates are approximate, and meant for planning purposes only.
If the Regular Cap Count is 65000, and the Balance of H-1bs remaining as of 5/4/2012 is 32500:

If 3500 visas are received per week, H-1b cap will be reached in 9 weeks, or July 13th.
If 5000 visas per week, the cap will be reached in 6.5 weeks, or June 27th.
If 6000 visas per week, the cap will be reached in 5.4 weeks, or June 15th.
If 7000 visas per week, the cap will be reached in 4.64 weeks, or June 10th.
If 8000 visas per week, the cap will be reached in 4 weeks, or June 6th.

There was an uptick in filings for the last 2 weeks in May, from the 4th to the 15th. Filings increased to pre-May levels. With this progression, the regular cap visas may be finished by mid-June, 2012.

See you in my next blog.

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

Tara Mahadevan

Copyright 2012. All rights reserved.

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

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather