Notes from New Jersey AILA Chapter Meeting 1/26/2010

Speakers for US Customs and Border Protection:

Paula Heacock, Branch Chief, Enforcement Operations
Louis Mejia, Supervisor for Admissibility Issues
Kevin Donohue, Deputy Chief, Criminal Enforcement

Arriving Aliens with Convictions

Kevin Donohue spoke about deferred inspection and expedited removal of arriving aliens. He explained that CBP receives a list of individuals on a flight when it leaves an airport abroad. In the time that it takes for the flight to get to the US, using technology, CBP can get a record of conviction from the courthouse. Accordingly, arriving aliens with criminal convictions can be immediately placed in expedited removal proceedings. This is an improvement from the past when the alien would be placed into deferred inspection and told to return with a copy of the conviction. Under that system, many aliens were simply failing to show up at the deferred inspection. The expedited removal option that CBP is exercising with greater frequency has alleviated the burden placed on the deferred inspection system.

Mandatory Detention for Post-1998 Convictions

Officer Donohue pointed out that the law provides for mandatory detention with post-1998 convictions (Section 236(c)). Individuals with these convictions get detained in all cases. Thereafter, NTAs are sent to the General Counsel for legal sufficiency. The General Counsel for CBP is located at 1 Penn Plaza in Manhattan. Consideration will be given to humanitarian needs such as whether the individual is a sole provider for children, and whether he/she has health issues. This procedure is based on a program that was piloted in Atlanta and Miami.

A member asked about whether attorneys would be permitted at secondary interviews. Officer Donohue responded that such a right is not given under the law, but that reasonable requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis (this goes through Judith Altmann, Associate Chief Counsel). The general phone number for the airport is 973-565-8000 (press #1 for the duty supervisor). If the attorney is not permitted to attend, he or she will still be told about what is happening with the case and will be shown a copy of the NTA and be provided with a sworn statement. He pointed out that in cases where the attorney is retained later in the process, and the client does not have a copy of the sworn statement, it can be obtained through a FOIA request. A FOIA request can be made through the General Counsel at the following contact information:

Craig Stahl
FOIA Officer
CBP Office
1 Penn Plaza, 11th Floor
New York, NY
646-733-3200

An attorney can call and ask for the “attorney-of-the-day” and that person will log-in the information.

H-1B Admissions

Officer Donohue maintained that there has been fraud in the H-1B program, and that H-1Bs have been subjected to increased scrutiny at the port of entry. He indicated that officers may call the employer in order to make a determination about admissibility. He stated that while CBP will not permit the alien to call his/her attorney, CBP may call the attorney themselves.

Officer Donohue stated that CBP now has the technology to verify that the person who was interviewed at the embassy is the same person presenting at the port of entry. CBP is also able to access DOL information.

Officer Mejia indicated that he has “read the blogs” and knows that there is a perception that the H-1B denials are being experienced disproportionately by Indian Nationals. He categorically denied this claim. He also denied allegations that “rovers” are removing foreign national from the initial line and sending them directly to secondary inspection. He further noted that there are 4 flights arriving from India per day, and those flights have the most H-1Bs onboard.

Members expressed frustration with the fact that they are preparing their clients for interviews, and arming them with the necessary documentation, but the clients are still being denied visas and/or entry. This is particularly common where there is “seconding” occurring; these are complex, but legitimate, employment relationships that are even difficult for attorneys to understand. Officer Mejia indicated that members were doing exactly what they should be doing,( i.e., sending the foreign national to the port of entry well-armed with documentary evidence). Members also asked whether CBP was re-adjudicating cases based on a recent CIS memo. Officer Mejia indicated that the memo was not controlling on CBP, that they did not read it as calling for a re-adjudication, and that they were not re-adjudicating cases.

Members asked whether H-1Bs might be given a choice to withdraw their application for admission instead of being removed. Officer Mejia said that it would depend upon the circumstances; the Chief Counsel would have to be consulted. Another member suggested that, rather than removing an individual, CBP could issue an NTA. This procedure would permit an attorney to assist the foreign national. It was agreed that this would be the subject of further discussion between CBP and AILA NJ.

Closing of Varick Street Facility

Members inquired as to whether the closing of the Varick Street Facility would place extra pressure on NJ sites. The officers indicated that this would not occur because New York and New Jersey are entirely separate entities.

I-751 pending

Officer Donohue stated that when an alien presents an I-551 stamp, the alien will always be placed in secondary inspection. He also pointed out that this was true of anyone traveling with any document that did not have a biometrics identifier (e.g. I-551 stamp, I-797 extending the Conditional Residence for one year pending I-751 adjudication. In response to a member question, he indicated that there is no way for an officer to access any system that will tell him/her whether the alien has filed for divorce.

Expired Green Cards

Aliens who have been out of the U.S. for more than 6 months, or who have expired green cards, will be placed in secondary. Officer Donohue indicated that they have information about how long each LPR has spent outside the US.

Courtesy of Victoria Donoghue, Esq. and David H. Nachman, Esq.
NACHMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Immigration and Nationality Attorneys
VISASERVE PLAZA
487 Goffle Road
Ridgewood, New Jersey 07450
Phone (201) 670-0006
Facsimile (201) 670-0009
WE ALSO HAVE NEW YORK OFFICES LOCATED AT 7 WEST 36TH STREET, 14TH FLOOR, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10018 (NEAR FIFTH AVENUE).
FOR INFORMATION ABOUT OUR OFFICES IN MONTREAL AND TORONTO, CANADA AND OUTBOUND IMMIGRATION OPTIONS TO CANADA PLEASE E-MAIL US AT INFO@VISASERVE.COM.
YOU CAN ALSO VISIT US ON THE WORLD WIDE WEB AT WWW.VISASERVE.COM.

H-1B Admissions at Newark, NJ Airport – Port Of Entry (POE)

The AILA U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) Liaison Committee received reports from AILA members that CBP inspectors at the Newark, New Jersey airport port of entry were apparently assisting in an investigation involving certain H-1B nonimmigrants from India and certain H-1B petitioner companies. The inspectors’ questions focused on who the individuals worked for, how their pay was computed, who paid their salary, their job duties, and what they were paid. In some cases, the individuals were subjected to expedited removal and visa cancellation.
After inquiring with CBP headquarters (“HQ”) about these incidents, the CBP Liaison Committee was advised by HQ that several of these cases involved companies under investigation by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and/or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) for ongoing fraud. CBP HQ noted that they use as much advance information as possible to target specific individuals who warrant additional inspection. HQ also noted that recent enforcement cases reviewed ranged from simple documentary deficiency to visa/petition fraud. Upon an inadmissibility finding, the determination to either allow the applicant to withdraw his or her application for admission or to subject the applicant to expedited removal is based on “the totality of the circumstances and reviewed on a case by case basis.” In the Newark enforcement actions, CBP Newark worked closely with USCIS – Fraud Detection and National Security (“FDNS”) and the Department of Labor – Office of Investigations. CBP HQ stated that those questioned were offered the opportunity to contact their consulate and that CBP officers contacted the petitioner and/or current employer when clarification was needed. CBP HQ confirmed that they screen ALL employment-based visa holders to determine admissibility and ensure compliance with entry requirements.

In addition, on January 27, AILA members attending a CBP meeting in the Newark, New Jersey area were informed that a new policy has been instituted at Newark Airport. This policy involves conducting random checks for returning H-1B, L-1, and other employment-based visa holders. Based upon the initial check, if the person’s admissibility is questionable, then he or she will be sent to secondary inspection for further interview. In some cases, if CBP discovers discrepancies in previously filed petitions, then the applicant may be asked to withdraw his/her application for admission into the United States or be subject to expedited removal.

During that same local CBP meeting, attendees were advised that if CBP discovers that a returning Lawful Permanent Resident has a post-1998 conviction, the Lawful Permanent Resident may be detained. The Newark airport port of entry has adopted a mandatory detention policy for crimes that were committed after 1998. In the event that CBP cannot get a copy of the conviction record in twenty-four hours, the person may be released. The only exceptions are that CBP will release a Lawful Permanent Resident for humanitarian reasons; extenuating circumstances such as if the foreign national is traveling with children and there is no one to pick up the children; or when the person is a sole provider for United States Citizen or Lawful Permanent Resident children.
Individuals with pending I-751 petitions returning to the United States via the Newark airport port of entry, who have a I-751 filing receipt documenting that an I-751 has been properly filed or an ADIT Legal Permanent Resident stamp, will be sent to secondary inspection for further interview to verify the validity of the I-751 Petition. It is unclear if CBP will undertake a substantive review of the I-751 Petition.

In all cases, attorneys should remind their clients to thoroughly prepare for their trip to the United States and their inspection upon application for admission by reviewing all pertinent documents to their petition and to consider carrying evidence to support the assertions made in the petition filed on their behalf by their employer. Similarly, employers must be prepared for telephone inquiries from CBP officers at ports of entry to confirm the assertions made in any nonimmigrant petition and supporting documentation.

Finally, employers must be advised that the government may review information in any public venues such as websites and other media for consistency with petition content. Thus, keeping such public information accurate and current is essential.

Note the new fraud related language added to I-797 approval notices –
NOTICE: Although this application/petition has been approved, DHS reserves the right to verify the information submitted in this application, petition, and/or supporting documentation to ensure conformity with applicable laws, rules, regulations, and other authorities. Methods used for verifying information may include, but are not limited to, the review of public information and records, contact by correspondence, the Internet, or telephone, and site inspections of businesses and residences. Information obtained during the course of verification will be used to determine whether revocation, rescission, and/or removal proceedings are appropriate. Applicants, petitioners, and representatives of record will be provided an opportunity to address derogatory information before any formal proceeding is initiated.
Please do not forget to contact the CBP port director to follow up on case problems at a particular port. In addition, as needed, file complaints through the CBP complaint process.

Learn more… About Nachman & Associates, P.C.

When traditional immigration approaches do not work, we analyze a candidate’s resume and determine if they may qualify for various nonimmigrant or temporary work permits or permanent immigrant visa transfer options such as outstanding researcher classification, TN under NAFTA or E-3 classification for Australia. Now that the H-1B nonimmigrant visa has become more difficult to obtain, we work closely with our clients who are seeking to transfer highly-skilled foreign national workers to the U.S. to determine if there are other nonimmigrant options for such transfers. No matter what the situation, our attorneys work hard to provide a variety of visa options to support their needs.

Contact Us.

Our staff of immigration lawyers and professionals are sensitive to the needs of our clients and the members of their families. Many members of our staff are themselves foreign born and have family and/or friends who have gone through the immigration process. As a result, our staff of business immigration lawyers and professionals have a personal and unique approach to processing visas and for dealing with our foreign national clientele. Our legal team can clearly explain how to process temporary and permanent work permits in the U.S. The PERM Labor Certification Process is time-consuming and complex and our staff of business immigration law professionals can clearly explain the process in Spanish, French, Japanese, Korean, Tamil, Hindi, Slovak, Czech, Russian, Chinese, German and English.

To schedule a consultation, please feel free to contact Nachman & Associates by e-mail or call 1-866-599-3625. Please contact our offices at 201-670-0006 (x100) or e-mail to us at info@visaserve.com.

Website: http://www.visaserve.com

Nachman & Associates, P.C.
David H. Nachman
Managing Attorney
E-mail: david_nachman@visaserve.com

For the past few months, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Citizenship and Immigration Services (”CIS”) has conducted an investigation program aimed at visiting H-1B petitioner worksites throughout the U.S. These site visits began as part of the CIS’ goal to decrease the number of H-1B violations and instances of fraud reported by the H-1B Benefit Fraud & Compliance Assessment from CIS’ Office of Fraud Detection and National Security (“FDNS”), published this past September.

Why should employers care?

Any employer who sponsored a foreign national worker for an H-1B visa can be subject to an unannounced site visit. What this means is that an investigator can randomly show up at a worksite and demand to see a copy of the H-1B petition, interview the person who represented the company in connection with the H-1B as well as the H-1B employee. Any inconsistencies found can mean big trouble for employers.
Presently CIS has turned over the names of close to 40,000 companies across the US for investigative action via unannounced site visits.

For more information about these H-1B site visits, as well as helpful tips to prepare employers for these visits, please click on our Firm’s website at www.visaserve.com.

Article:

For the past few months, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Citizenship and Immigration Services (”CIS”) has conducted an investigation program aimed at visiting H-1B petitioner worksites throughout the U.S. These site visits began as part of the CIS’ goal to decrease the number of H-1B violations and instances of fraud reported by the H-1B Benefit Fraud & Compliance Assessment from CIS’ Office of Fraud Detection and National Security (“FDNS”), published this past September. According to the FDNS’ findings, as many as one in five H-1B applications were affected by either fraud or “technical violations” of the H-1B program.

Why should employers care?

Any employer who sponsored a foreign national worker for an H-1B visa can be subject to an unannounced site visit. What this means is that an investigator can randomly show up at a worksite and demand to see a copy of the H-1B petition, interview the person who represented the company in connection with the H-1B as well as the H-1B employee or other employees presently on site.

Any inconsistencies found can mean big trouble for employers. FDNS has indicated that it does not need a subpoena in order to complete the site visit because USCIS regulations governing the filing of immigration petitions allow the government to take testimony and conduct broad investigations relating to the petitions.

However other sources say that employers are not required to give in to the investigators’ demands without a subpoena.

What to do?

Our office recommends that you always comply as much as possible with any investigative agency that shows up at your door. CIS has indicated that attorneys can be present during an inspection, but the investigator is not likely going to come back another day if the attorney is not available on the day of the unscheduled visit.

Attorneys may be present via telephone in these circumstances.

Some common questions that have been raised by employers include: “how are companies selected to be investigated,” “if I am visited, should I be concerned,” “what type of violations are the investigators looking for,” and “how can I prepare for a site visit from a CIS/FDNS investigator?”
To address these issues in order, firstly any employer who has filed an H-1B petition can be subject to a site visit. While CIS claims the employers are chosen at random, close to 40,000 employers’ names have been selected for site visits.

Some factors that may have been taken into consideration when selecting these 40,000 employers include: companies with less than 15 employees; companies with less than $10 million in sales; companies less than 10 years old; accounting, HR, business analyst, sales and advertising positions; and petitions where the beneficiary merely had a bachelor’s degree, not an advanced degree.

If your company is visited and your records are in order, you have nothing to worry about. Generally speaking employers are aware of inconsistencies before any investigative agency may catch wind of it. That being said, if the investigators uncover any inconsistencies or instances of fraud, the case may be referred to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), or the Department of Labor (DOL) for further investigation depending on the offense.

This could mean there will be monetary, and if egregious offenses, possible criminal penalties for the employer.
The objective of the unannounced on-site visits is clear: to detect fraud and abuses of the visa program. According to USCIS, the offenses range from technical violations to outright fraud, with the most common violation being the non-payment of a prevailing wage to the H-1B beneficiary.

More specifically, the investigators may be looking for the following types of violations: job location not listed on the H-1B petition and/or LCA; H-1B worker not receiving the required wage; fraudulent H-1B documents or H-1B worker credentials; non-existent business or office location; job duties significantly different from those listed on H-1B petition/LCA; misrepresentation of H-1B status by the H-1B worker (e.g., had been terminated from previous H-1B position prior to new employer H-1B being filed); and H-1B worker paid the $1500 ACWIA fee.

How can you prepare yourself and your company for a possible site visit?

Step one is to ensure that you have Public Access Files (PAF) for each H-1B worker, and that the PAF documents are accurate and up to date. In general, it is a good idea to review and audit your H-1B/LCA records to make sure everything is in order and all information is readily available. Designate a specific individual at each H-1B worker location to meet the investigator should he/she arrive.

Prepare a quick list of facts about the company and also a listing of H-1B workers, work locations, title and salary information so you don’t need to search frantically for this information while the investigator is there. If you are not sure what a PAF is, or if you’d like to have your documents reviewed by legal counsel, you may contact our office at the number or e-mail below.

About Nachman & Associates, P.C.

The Business and Corporate Immigration Attorneys at our Firm have focused their practice, for over a decade and a half, on assisting companies that employ highly-skilled foreign nationals in visa applications. We serve our clients’ business objectives. A natural extension of that service is counsel that helps the client to avoid the disruption and expense of ICE audits, recent CIS actions and the consequences of being found to be out of compliance with any number of regulations related to immigration and employment.

Our Business Immigration Attorneys can organize and conduct a review of records, assist in establishing procedures to reduce exposure to liability, and participate in training of managers to comply with the numerous requirements imposed by the US Department of Homeland Security.

Contact us for more information: Website: http://www.visaserve.com
Phone: 201-670-0006

E-mail: info@visaserve.com

For more information about Business and Family-based immigration law check out our website at http://www.visaserve.com

SEVERAL IMPORTANT IMMIGRATION PROGRAMS EXTENDED:

Obama Signs FY10 DHS Spending Bill; Four Immigration-Related Programs Extended through 2012.

On October 28th, 2009, President Obama signed into law the FY10 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill (P.L.111-83).

The new Law extends the non-minister religious worker (section 568), the “Conrad 30″ (section 568), the EB-5 visa (section 548), and the E-Verify (section 547) programs through September 30, 2012.

The Law also includes statutory authority for CIS to complete the processing of permanent residence applications for surviving spouses and other relatives of immigration sponsors who die during the adjudication process (section 568).

The Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman, established by the Homeland Security Act of 2002, provides independent analysis of problems encountered by individuals and employers interacting with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and proposes changes to mitigate those problems.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In August and September 2009, the Ombudsman received complaints concerning H-1B cases with incorrectly denied Labor Condition Applications (LCA/ETA-9035) filed with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). LCA processing delays and errors at DOL, when coupled with USCIS’ current
H-1B petition initial filing requirements, are prejudicing employers and individuals who are unable to timely file original or extension H-1B visa petitions. Untimely H-1B petition filings lead to problems, including: (1) the potential loss of employees’ legal status; (2) business operation disruptions due to the loss of continuity in the employment of key employees; and (3) economic loss to employees in the form of lost wages and costs of travel overseas due to loss of status. USCIS has the authority to mitigate the impact upon these customers.

To mitigate the impact of LCA processing difficulties, the Ombudsman recommends that USCIS:

(1) Reinstate USCIS’ previous practice of temporarily accepting an H-1B petition (Form I-129) supported by proof of timely filing of an LCA application with DOL, and issue a Request for Evidence (RFE) whereby the H-1B petitioner later provides the certified LCA; and

(2) Establish a temporary policy under which USCIS would excuse late H-1B filings where the petitioner has documented an LCA submission to DOL that was improperly rejected.

BACKGROUND

Pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 212(n)(1), USCIS may not approve an
H-1B petition without a supporting certified LCA. However, the INA does not prohibit acceptance of the petition filing without the certified LCA. The applicable regulation,

Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Recommendation from the CIS Ombudsman to the Director, USCIS
October 23, 2009, Page 2 of 2

8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B) (2008), states that “[b]efore filing a petition for H-1B classification …, the petitioner shall obtain a certification from the Department of Labor that it has filed a [L]abor [C]ondition [A]pplication …” [emphasis added]. Further, the June 12, 2009, revision to the “Instructions for Form I-129” state, in relevant part (see p. 3), that “[t]he petition must be filed by the U.S. employer and must be filed with: 1. Evidence that a [L]abor [C]ondition [A]pplication has been filed with the U.S. Department of Labor …” [emphasis added]. However, USCIS currently requires that petitioners include a certified LCA with their H-1B petition.

Stakeholders have detailed to the Ombudsman errors stemming from the new DOL LCA certification process, iCERT, launched on April 15, 2009.

For example, DOL is denying LCAs based on false FEIN (Federal Employer Identification Number) mismatches with DOL’s database. Both DOL and USCIS indicated to the Ombudsman that cases involving LCA certification problems represent up to seven percent of total iCERT filings from April 15, 2009 through the beginning of August 2009 (approximately 2,900 denials out of approximately 41,700 LCAs submitted). The Ombudsman understands that neither DOL nor USCIS can specify the exact number of incorrect LCA denials.

In 1992, the legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) responded to LCA processing problems occurring at DOL at that time by accepting H-1B filings accompanied by evidence of an LCA filing, and subsequently issuing an RFE to obtain the later-approved LCA. This approach permitted customers to meet filing requirements, preserve legal status, and avoid employment disruptions until DOL was able to address its underlying LCA processing problems.

ANALYSIS

Despite DOL’s jurisdictional ownership of H-1B-related LCA processing problems, these difficulties extend to USCIS through the agency’s requirement that petition filings include certified LCAs. Any costs to USCIS such as issuing RFEs or temporarily lowering production levels, are outweighed by the burden that incorrect denials have on employers and individuals. USCIS currently has the capacity to make what amounts to a minor processing modification to address a temporary situation.
Given that Form I-129 instructions say a petitioner must provide evidence that an LCA has been filed with DOL, and that USCIS has previously accommodated petitioners in nearly the same circumstances, implementing these recommendations as a temporary solution is warranted.

====================

1 Under 20 C.F.R. § 655.740(a)(1) (2009), DOL allows itself up to seven working days to certify LCAs.

2 A March 5, 1992, memo from INS Assistant Commissioner Lawrence Weinig stated “petitions for H-1B nonimmigrants do not have to be accompanied by an approved [L]abor [C]ondition [A]pplication. Instead, petitions for H-1B nonimmigrants must now be accompanied by a certification from the Secretary of Labor that the petitioner has filed a [L]abor [C]ondition [A]pplication with the Department of Labor …. The certification will be a copy of the original ETA 9035 filed by the petitioner with the Department of Labor with the Department of Labor’s stamp affixed to the form.” The Ombudsman understands that USCIS reaffirmed this approach as recently as 2001.

“U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has a media initiative to inform the public about the horrors and the prevalence of human trafficking, which is modern-day slavery. As part of ICE’s continued efforts, the agency has unveiled an outdoor public service announcement campaign, “Hidden in Plain Sight,” to draw the American public’s attention to the plight of human-trafficking victims in the United States. The campaign message explains that human trafficking includes those who are sexually exploited or forced to work against their will. Posters, billboards and transit shelter signs were rolled out last month bearing the slogan “Hidden in Plan Sight.” They are displayed in Atlanta, Boston, Dallas, Detroit, Los Angeles, Miami, Philadelphia, Newark, New Orleans, New York, St Paul, San Antonio, San Francisco and Tampa. The campaign’s goal is to raise public awareness about the existence of human trafficking in communities nationwide, and asks mem bers of the public to take action if they encounter possible victims.” ICE, Nov. 2, 2009.

Almost on a daily basis we get calls from our clients about the process for allocating visas. I always tell a humerous anecdote about my discussions with Mr. Charles Oppenheim at the DOS who is the “knower of all things” about visa allocations.

In connection with the notification that all employment-based visas had been allocated for FY2009, Mr. Oppenheim, Chief, Immigrant Control and Reporting Division Visa Services Office, provided the following background explaining how the Department of State allocates visas through its Immigrant Visa Allocation Management System (IVAMS):

USCIS submits requests for visa authorizations if all required case processing has been completed (e.g., interview [if required], all clearances received, etc.). Therefore, once the authorization has been granted the case would be adjusted immediately, and could be forwarded to the “green card” processing facility. If the case is not within the established cut-off date the request goes into our “pending” demand file, which also contains the demand which has been received from our overseas posts. That demand is then used as the basis for the establishment of future cut-off dates.

When a USCIS authorization is made from the “pending” demand file an e-mail message is sent to a single address which each CIS Office has provided to the Immigrant Control and Reporting Division. The first page(s) of the message provides a summary listing of the A-numbers which have been authorized, and the following pages contain an individual authorization page for each A-number. That listing would be the same type as received if the case had been authorized when the USCIS Officer had originally submitted the request. Such authorizations are assumed to have been processed to conclusion during the month of authorization. If not, USCIS must notify VO that the case was not processed, the case record would then be deleted, and the case would be resubmitted to VO once the reasons for the deletion have been resolved.

If the Officer believes that a case should have been authorized, but has not received such notification, the program which is used to submit requests has a feature for checking on the status of individual A-numbers.

The authorizations from the “pending” demand file are sent to a central address to ensure that they are seen by someone should the officer who originally requested the case not be there (e.g., reassigned, on leave, etc.). If authorization is immediately available at the time of request the response would be send to the requesting officer, not the central address.

Seminar in Bangkok, Thailand

Seminar on US Family & Business Immigration and Starting a Business

David Nachman and David Sindell, two well known U.S. attorneys will explain ways to obtain a green card by marriage, opening a restaurant, and general business immigration to the U.S.

Date: Monday, October 5, 2009
Time: 10am-12pm (Private consultations possible after the seminar)

Place: Narai Hotel, Bangkok – 222 Silom Road, Bangrak, Bangkok, 10500 Thailand

Cost: 200 Baht/Person (Pay In Advance)/300 Baht/Person (At Door)

RSVP: Email at bkkseminar@sindelllaw.com (Attn: David Sindell (English)) or call 212-459-3800(Ext.106) or Send an e-mail to info@visaserve.com to register for this event

จากคุณ : TeePopy
เขียนเมื่อ : 25 ก.ย. 52 03:03:25 [แก้ไข]

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Butler County Sheriff’s Office announced today a $40,000 fine settlement reached with the Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corporation for violations of immigration laws.

ICE conducted an I-9 inspection of Krispy Kreme after receiving information from the Butler County Sheriff’s Office which revealed the company had employed dozens of illegal aliens at one of their doughnut factories in Cincinnati.

Employers are required to complete and retain a Form I-9 for each individual they hire for employment in the United States. This form requires employers to review and record the individual’s identity document(s) and determine whether the document(s) reasonably appear to be genuine and related to the individual.

“Employers have a responsibility to hire men and women who are authorized to work in the United States and fines are an important component of ensuring their compliance,” said Brian Moskowitz, special agent in charge of the ICE Office of Investigations in Michigan and Ohio. “ICE will use the legal tools at its disposal to address those who neglect or falter in their corporate responsibilities.”

The audit also revealed violations to the Immigration and Nationality Act. In September 2007, ICE issued a notice of Intent to Fine. The fine was settled Friday.

As part of the settlement, the company has taken measures to revise its immigration compliance program, and has agreed to begin implementing new procedures to prevent future violations of federal immigration laws.
In April, ICE implemented a new, comprehensive strategy to reduce the demand for illegal employment and protect employment opportunities for the nation’s lawful workforce.

Under this strategy, ICE is focusing its resources on the auditing and investigation of employers suspected of cultivating illegal workplaces by knowingly employing illegal workers. Last week, ICE announced as part of this initiative, 652 businesses around the country would be audited to determine their compliance.

As we have informed our clients in the past and on an ongoing basis, the implementation and use of an immigration compliance plan is of great assistance in negotiating and mitigation of fines with ICE.

It is our guess that the fine of $40,000 was very low because the company took an aggressive approach to compliance and showed good faith to ICE in implementing this plan. Stay tuned for more stories as I-9 audits become more commonplace.