DHS Grants Same-Sex Couples a Reprieve

US immigration allows US citizens, who are ‘married’ to citizens of other countries, to apply for permanent residency based on marriage. In other words, the foreign spouse can qualify for permanent residency based on their marital relationship with the US citizen. The US government is now seeking to expand the scope of the marital relationship to include same-sex couples in long-term relationships.

To achieve this, in June 2011 the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued a policy called, “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion Consistent with Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities of the Agency for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Aliens”, or the Prosecutorial Discretion Memorandum. This policy outlined the guidelines that enforcement officers are to follow when finding and removing illegal aliens from the US. This memo was issued to explain the position that DHS and ICE would take on treatment of young immigrants who are in long-term, same-sex relationships with American citizens.

In a written statement in September, DHS further clarified the Prosecutorial Discretion Memorandum by specifically stating that young immigrants, with American same-sex partners, will remain eligible for deferral, which means that no action would be taken to remove foreign-born, same-sex couples from the US.

Prosecutorial Discretion Policy

Prosecutorial discretion is the act of an agency or officer deciding how to bring charges upon a person and how to handle a case.

When deciding how to pursue a case, enforcement officers follow the guidelines of the Prosecutorial Discretion Memorandum. As the guidelines state, officers must asses an individual’s “ties and contributions to the community, including family relationships.” As it was made clear by DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano this September 2012, these ‘family relationships’ also include “committed, long-term, same-sex partners.” Instead of centering efforts on cases that do not pose a threat to US security, the Obama administration is focusing enforcement resources on deporting immigrants who are potential risks to public safety and national security.

Policy Ambiguities

Though guidelines for same-sex couples were outlined in the Prosecutorial Discretion Memorandum, many thought the memo was vague. In July, over 80 Democrats from the House of Representatives wrote to Secretary Napolitano, “it would be beyond senseless to see L.G.B.T. persons with family ties here in the United States deported” because officers might be uninformed about the guidelines on gay partners (NYT, “Same-Sex Couples Granted Protection in Deportations”, 28 Sept 2012).

Thousands of deportation cases have been closed since DHS’s clarification. While immigrants-in-question can remain in the US, they still will not be granted legal status.

DHS’s clarification does not affect the issue of gay immigrants, who are married to American citizens, being able to acquire permanent resident visas. According to current law, same-sex immigrant spouses are not eligible for green cards and can be deported.

DHS may not deport same-sex couples, and will give these couples reprieve. However, deferral is not a path for citizenship. We will wait until November to see if these policies will be continued.

See you in my next blog.

Nalini S Mahadevan, JD, MBA
Immigration Attorney
Lowenbaum Partnership, LLC
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 2012. All rights reserved.

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

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

Employers Could Admit to ‘Knowingly’ Hiring

Young immigrants applying to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) must prove that they have lived in the US for at least five years, and one way to obtain evidence is to ask employers to supply proof of job status. However, employers who consent might also be admitting that they ‘knowingly’ hired an unauthorized worker, which violates federal law.

Low Figures

There are an estimated 1.2 million young immigrants who are eligible for DACA, but since Aug. 15, when US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) began accepting applications, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has only received over 82,000 applications. Figures are lower than predicted, partly because of unforeseen drawbacks in DACA guidelines.

If young immigrants receive eligibility for DACA, they receive deferred action and legal work permits; but they do not receive legal immigration status. While DACA does not lead to a ‘green card’, in most states, applicants are eligible for a driver’s license, a huge benefit.

‘Knowingly’ Hiring and New DACA Guidelines

In order to be eligible, young immigrants must be enrolled in school or have a high school diploma, which may present a dilemma for employers and applicants alike. Many employers rely on low-wage labor in order to run their businesses, and many employees are young immigrants who must work in order to pay for university, or who were forced to drop out because they couldn’t afford university costs. It is estimated that 740,000 working immigrants are eligible for DACA.

USCIS, a division of DHS, made addendums to the DACA guidelines, confirming that employers can help verify DACA applicants. Evidence of knowingly hiring unauthorized workers will not be revealed, “unless there is evidence of egregious violations of criminal statutes or widespread abuses,” the guidelines state. All DHS enforcement resources are being directed towards threats on public safety.  However, the term ‘egregious violations’, has not been defined in the guidance.

DACA guidelines ask applicants to provide any Social Security numbers (SSN) they have previously used. Falsification of SSNs, whether they are fake numbers or real numbers belonging to someone else, is a common occurrence and can be seen as evidence of fraud or identity theft. However, the new guidelines state that the form is only inquiring about numbers, “that were officially issued to you by the Social Security Administration.”  Hence no disclosure of social security numbers is required if the number was not specifically applied for by the applicant. This is a huge relief for E-verify employers, who may reduce the possibility of facing social security mismatches and tentative non-confirmation messages from the Social Security Administration.

The bottom line is that no DACA applicant will be given immunity, but DHS is not interested in using the application as a means to discover individuals who may have abused federal law in an employee-employer relationship.

(NYTimes, “Deportation Deferrals Put Employers of Immigrants in a Bind”, 9/26/2012)

See you in my next blog.

Nalini S Mahadevan, JD, MBA
Immigration Attorney
Lowenbaum Partnership, LLC
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 2012. All rights reserved.

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

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

The Plan for More Visas for STEM Grads

Earlier this September, Sen. Charles Schumer introduced the Benefits to Research and American Innovation through Nationality Statutes (BRAINS) Act to the Senate. BRAINS proposes to make 55,000 more green cards available for STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) graduates, over a two-year period.

STEM graduates are foreign-born students who have obtained graduate degrees from American universities in science, technology, engineering or math. In order to receive a green card, the graduate must have a US job offer in one of these four fields.

Texas Rep. Lamar Smith also proposed a similar bill to the House. Unlike Schumer’s BRAINS Act, Smith’s bill recommends an elimination of diversity visas, the US’s lottery program for receiving a US Permanent Resident Card. The diversity visa program makes 55,000 visas available to people with certain eligibilities, and who have emigrated from countries with low US immigration rates.

The House bill did not pass. Democrats were against Smith’s bill, which they believe will reduce legal immigration. Both parties want to make more green cards available for STEM graduates, but have not agreed on a plan of action. Schumer’s bill will go through the Senate before November elections.

Microsoft’s Proposal

Microsoft is also lobbying Congress to boost the number of H1b visas that companies use by 20,000. Currently, Microsoft has 6,000 job openings, more than half of which necessitate expertise in the fields of technology and science. However, there is a gap between available jobs and job seekers’ ability levels – Microsoft’s petition targets this issue.

In Microsoft’s petition, the company recommends increasing H1B visa fees to $10,000 in order to create a STEM adaptation of the Race to the Top federal grant program that stimulates school education improvements. The program would be called Race to the Future, which would pay to hire STEM teachers and include computer science classes in schools.

Microsoft proposes giving STEM employees access to 20,000 green cards, an action that would begin to undertake the large build up of green cards, while also allowing skilled workers to remain in the US and contribute to our economy.

The problem with Microsoft’s proposal is that the scheme shuts out smaller employers who already pay substantial amounts in immigration and other fees to increase their workforce by sponsoring H1B visa holders. The scheme will create a two tier system of petitioners for visas.

Effect on the US Economy

Call and write your Senator about supporting increased visas for STEM graduates so that we keep their valuable knowledge in the US and prevent reverse ‘brain drain’. These graduates create jobs in other ‘support’ fields, promote innovation and contribute to the tax base.

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

Slow Pace of H1B Adjudications Affects US Businesses & Economy

In mid-September, we had to inform many of our clients, who had filed H1B visas for their employees, that we had not received a response from USCIS; and judging from the published backlogs about these filings (over as many as 17,000 H1B visas), it isn’t likely that we will receive any decisions until the end of the year. Reluctantly, we advised our clients to pay the additional premium processing fee for urgent requirements.

Business and Economic Losses

If the losses from the slow adjudication process are added up, losses for American businesses are also adding up. First, there are the current projects that American businesses have with American client companies, which run the gamut from hospitals, car rental companies and credit card processors; financial and banking companies; retail, hotel and restaurant chains; IBM and Microsoft; and universities. In this day and age, everything is online and mobile. Current contracts are either delayed or postponed, and taxes paid by visa holders to the US and State government coffers are not collected. If delays continue, US businesses are likely to send these operations overseas, enriching foreign tax coffers.

Second, we face a brain drain from American universities. The difficulty for foreign students obtaining a timely US visa forces these students, who have gathered knowledge at our universities, to migrate to Australia, Canada, UK and their home countries where their US-gained knowledge is welcomed. This situation, again, is a loss of millions of dollars to the US economy.

Foreign Students in American Universities

This past year, enrollment of temporary residents in graduate school surged by 7.3%. Temporary residents made up 16.9% of American graduate school enrollment, a figure only growing as foreign governments pay for their citizens’ American education, specifically in technical fields. Foreign students made up a sizable percentage of technical areas: 45.5% of students in US engineering graduate programs, and 42.4% of students in US mathematics and computer science graduate programs, are foreign students. (NYTimes, “Enrollment Drops Again in Graduate Programs”, 9/28/2012).

Recently, some beneficiaries of H1B visas have reported receiving tremendously shortened periods of visa approvals from the consulates, despite being approved for the full period of H1B visa entitlement from USCIS. This re-adjudication contributes to the unfriendly and unwelcoming atmosphere facing H1B applicants and their sponsoring companies.

The tide of demand for US visas ebbs and flows: often, the federal government is not able to support US companies’ efforts to attract the best and brightest to work for us.The wave of hostility generated by our actions should not arrive at a tipping point. We could very well lose what makes up our American identity, and our ability to produce multi-million dollar products like Facebook, iPhones and Google.

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

Justice Department Finds Practices of Discriminatory Policing in North Carolina

The Justice Department found that the Alamance County Sheriff’s Office (ACSO) in North Carolina operates in a practice of discriminatory policing, specifically targeting Latinos.

Policing Practices in Violation of the Constitution and Federal Law

By using methods that discriminate against Latinos, ACSO has violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; the Fourth Amendment; the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act; and Title VI. ACSO’s modes of discriminatory policing are as follows:

  • ACSO deputies target Latino drivers for traffic stops;
  • A study of ACSO’s traffic stops on three major county roadways found that deputies were between four and 10 times more likely to stop Latino drivers than non-Latino drivers;
  • ACSO deputies routinely locate checkpoints just outside Latino neighborhoods, forcing residents to endure police checks when entering or leaving their communities;
  • ACSO practices at vehicle checkpoints often vary based on a driver’s ethnicity.   Deputies insist on examining identification of Latino drivers, while allowing drivers of other ethnicities to pass through without showing identification;
  • ACSO deputies arrest Latinos for minor traffic violations, while issuing citations or warnings to non-Latinos for the same violations;
  • ACSO uses jail booking and detention practices, including practices related to immigration status checks, that discriminate against Latinos;
  • The sheriff and ACSO’s leadership explicitly instruct deputies to target Latinos with discriminatory traffic stops and other enforcement activities;
  • The sheriff and ACSO leadership foster a culture of bias by using anti-Latino epithets; and
  • ACSO engages in substandard reporting and monitoring practices that mask its discriminatory conduct. (source)

Policing Reforms

The Justice Department’s inquiry allowed for a thorough investigation, comprising of a detailed analysis of ACSO policies, procedures, training materials and records on traffic stops, arrests, citations, vehicle checkpoints and other archived evidence. For the inquiry, the Justice Department also interviewed former ACSO employees and Alamance County residents.

In order to reform ACSO’s discriminatory policing, the police department must accept structural and fundamental change by creating and employing new policies, procedures, and training so as to promote constitutional policing. ACSO must also be held accountable for their actions, and guarantee the Justice Department that any unlawful bias has been eradicated. The Justice Department will request a court-enforced, written document that will help to solve ACSO’s violations.

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

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

Post-DACA, Illegal Immigrants Face Challenges in Arizona

After this summer’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Memorandum, illegal immigrants have been on the receiving end of great news. However, the story is slightly different in Arizona, even after many of the state’s immigration laws were found unconstitutional this past July.

Deferred Action Challenges

According to DACA, in order to be eligible for deferred action, a child must, “currently be in school, have graduated from high school, or have obtained a general education development certificate.” Arizona passed Proposition 300 in 2006, which prohibits state-funded schools from admitting undocumented immigrants to free GED classes. The situation has become problematic for illegal immigrants who are now too old to take classes in the public school system.

Denial of Benefits

In August, both Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer and Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman issued executive orders to prohibit deferred action applicants from acquiring a driver’s license or other public benefits. Texas Gov. Rick Perry has also followed suit.

Taking the GED

While it is not compulsory to take a GED course before taking the exam, it is required that test-takers present two forms of identification at the exam. Many undocumented immigrants do not have green cards or work visas, which complicates things. The best option is to take an online course, which does not necessitate legal presence.

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