WASHINGTON — U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today announced revised filing instructions and addresses for applicants filing an Application for Replacement/Initial Nonimmigrant Arrival-Departure Document (Form I-102). The new form is dated 1/13/10. This is part of an overall effort to transition the intake of benefit forms from Service Centers to USCIS Lockbox facilities. Centralizing form and fee intake to a Lockbox environment allows USCIS to provide customers with more efficient and effective initial processing of applications and fees.

Beginning February 22, 2010, applicants submitting Form I-102 by itself must mail their application to the USCIS Phoenix or Dallas Lockbox facility, based on where they are located. Detailed guidance can be found in the updated Form I-102 instructions, which can be accessed through the Form I-102 link to the right. Applicants submitting their Form I-102 with another form should submit both forms according to the filing instructions for the other form.

NATO and Partnership for Peace under SOFA Military Members seeking an initial Form I-94 should submit their application through their foreign commander or designee, to NATO/Headquarters, Supreme Allied Commander Transformation at NATO/HQ SACT, 7857 Blandy Road, Suite 100, ATTN: Legal Affairs, Norfolk, VA 23551-2490.

The Service Centers will forward mail to the USCIS Phoenix and Dallas Lockbox facilities for 30 days until March 24, 2010. After March 24, 2010, applications incorrectly filed at the Service Centers will be returned to the applicant, with a note to send the application to the correct location.

Applicants filing a Form I-102 at a USCIS Lockbox facility, may elect to receive an email and/or text message notifying them that their application has been accepted. They must complete an E-Notification of Application/Petition Acceptance (Form G-1145), and attach it to the first page of their application.

For more information on USCIS programs, visit www.uscis.gov or call the USCIS National Customer Service Center at 1-800-375-5283.

USCIS to Offer Free E-Verify Informational Seminars for
Federal Contractors.

WASHINGTON—U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites federal contractors
and subcontractors affected by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) E-Verify clause to attend
a free E-Verify informational seminar on Feb. 23 or 24 at 2451 Crystal Drive, Arlington, Va.
Each two-hour seminar will include a demonstration of the E-Verify system, presentations
concerning issues related to the employment verification process, and question and answer
segments with government representatives.
The seminars are being offered twice each day from 10 a.m. until noon and again from 2 p.m. until
4 p.m.
To register for a seminar, e-mail E-VerifyOutreach@dhs.gov with your company name, telephone
number, number of guests, and date and time of desired seminar. Advance reservations are
required; a registration confirmation will be provided.
More than 183,000 participating employers nationwide currently use E-Verify to electronically verify
their workers’ employment eligibility. Since Oct. 1, 2008, more than 3.9 million employment
verification queries have been run through the system and about 97 percent of all queries are now
automatically confirmed as work-authorized within 24 hours or less.
USCIS operates E-Verify in partnership with the Social Security Administration. More information
on the program is available on the E-Verify Web site at www.dhs.gov/e-verify. E-Verify customer
support is also available by calling toll free (888) 464-4218.

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

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.

As our economy continues in its downward spiral, company mergers, acquisitions and restructurings (“transactions”) are likely to continue. In general, since a merger, acquisition or restructuring is a “corporate transaction”, the immigration issues often get left in the dust. For this reason, it is important that immigration repercussions that arise from a merger, acquisition or restructuring are considered and that Business Immigration Counsel is brought into the “deal” or arrangement at the appropriate time – earlier rather then later. This is especially the case since Business Immigration Counsel may be able to save money for the parties to the transaction.

Immigration regulations closely tie the employer’s identity, location and ownership structure; any change from the merger/acquisition may immediately invalidate an alien employee’s non-immigrant visa. The loss of non-immigrant visa validity could immediately affect an employee’s work status in the U.S. For example, if a transaction is undertaken and the successor party fails to amend the H-1B petition and/or the underlying Labor Condition Application (the “LCA”) then the H-1B nonimmigrant may be out of status. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Citizenship and Immigration Service (“CIS”) has made it clear that there is no “grace period” and that once an H-1B non-immigrant is no longer employed with the H-1B sponsor then the individual is deemed to be out-of-status.

It is for this very reason that Business Immigration Counsel advise employers who are involved in a transaction to be sure to annotate the Public Access File (“PAF”) prior to the transaction so that the successor organization clearly assumes the liabilities of the H-1B nonimmigrants. This “assumption” can be added to the PAF prior to the closing of the transaction and this way there is no requirement that there be amendments to the H-1B be submitted. However, amendments to H-1Bs may be desired by H-1B employees if they will be traveling outside the U.S.

Depending upon an individual’s progress in the green card process, Immigrant Visa Petitions may also be affected. A determination will need to be made as to whether or not the new company owner would be considered to be a “successor-in-interest”. If the organization’s new owner has assumed all of the past owner’s liabilities, then the new owner may qualify as a “successor-in-interest”. If the new company is a “successor-in-interest” then the green card process can be continued by the successor organization. Hence, the new employer would continue with the green card process on behalf of the foreign national employee without having to start the green card process/labor certification/PERM from the beginning.

The third and one of the most important issues with which a business owner or transferor should be concerned is the Form I-9. A “successor-in-interest” can assume the I-9 liabilities of the organization. Failure to comply with I-9 requirements may result in serious sanctions. Therefore, before a transaction is undertaken, an examination of the Forms I-9 of the organization should be conducted through either an audit or a review. If the successor organization does not assume the Forms I-9 of the prior organization then new I-9s can be done for each of the organization’s employees. Such Forms I-9 should be prepared for all employees to avoid any allegation of an unfair immigration-related employment practice such as document abuse or discrimination on the basis of citizenship or nationality.

Immigration repercussions should be considered early on in any transaction. Initially, an analysis of the immigration status of all of the organization’s alien employees and a determination of the form of the corporate change on their status should be considered. Following this analysis, filings of any applications necessary to maintain the employees’ status can be appropriately considered.

In an ongoing attempt to keep HR professionals up-to-date with business immigration law rules and regulations, our office continues to forge strategic alliances with various professional organizations that are able to obtain and provide important information to their members.

When traditional immigration approaches do not work, our knowledgeable and skilled legal team offers many visa options to meet immigration goals. Please feel free to contact us at any of our several office locations, and speak to a member of our staff in one of the 15 languages spoken, English, Spanish, French, Japanese, Korean, Slovak, Czech, Polish, Tagalog, Hindi, Tamil, Italian, Russian, Chinese, and German.

To meet a growing demand for Canadian Immigration Law Services, Nachman & Associates formed a Canadian Division in 2005. Managed by licensed Canadian legal staff and with offices in Montreal and Toronto, as well as New York and New Jersey, our Canadian Division attorneys are in the unique position to assist with cross-border issues.

Nachman & Associates, P.C. is also proud to announce the 2007 formation of a Global Immigration Division to assist clients with immigration services to countries such as the UK, China, New Zealand, Australia, and more. Our Global Division staff is fully equipped to assist with international transfers to and from the United States. If you, or any member of your staff, are interested in receiving more information about with regard to changes in the corporate structure or in connection with a merger or acquisition or layoff or termination. please contact us at 201-670-0006 (x100) or at info@visaserve.com. Feel free to visit us on the web at www.visaserve.com.

There are three potential “hot spots” for audits and investigations for the government related to the immigration and nationality laws. The first has to do with the documentation that the employer is required to maintain in connection with the H-1B nonimmigrant professional and specialty and occupation worker visa. The second area of potential audit concerns the employer’s obligations under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (“IRCA”) [Pub. L. No. 99-603, 100 Stat. 3359] (known to HR Professionals as the “I-9 Process”). The third, and one more recent, area of audit surrounds the new Labor Certification Application Program called “Permanent Electronic Review Management” (“PERM”). Each of the foregoing government programs anticipates compliance through “audit”. Even a rudimentary understanding of the complex documentary requirements for each of these programs can help and employer to avoid potential liability.

First, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) regulations that govern the maintenance of professional and specialty foreign national worker require an organization to develop and produce certain documents concerning the wages and the working conditions of an H-1B nonimmigrant. These documents are referred to as the Public Access File (“PAF”). The PAF documents are required to be maintained at the H-1B worksite immediately after the employer files the Labor Condition Application (“LCA”) with the DOL. The employer is well-situated to ensure they maintain PAF documents and be sure that they continue to pay the H-1B nonimmigrant the specified wage on the LCA. Under the American Competitiveness and Workplace Improvement Act (“ACWIA”), an H-1B nonimmigrant must be offered the same company benefits as those offered to “similarly situated” non-H-1B employees in the organization.

DOL audits can arise as a result of a complaint by a disgruntled employee or as a result of a randomly conducted investigation. Upon a DOL audit (normally undertaken by the Wage and Hour Division) an employer may be found not to be in compliance with (1) paying the H-1B nonimmigrant the specified wage (which pursuant to the H-1B Reform Act of 2004 became effective on March 8, 2005 must be 100% of the federally mandated prevailing wage); and/or (2) maintaining PAF documents; and/or (3) providing the H-1B nonimmigrant with the same benefits as those provided to all other “similarly situated” non-H-1B employees. Any failure to comply with DOL requirements can result in an employer being liable to pay back wages to an H-1B employee, debarment from the use of the H-1B program and/or other potential civil and/or criminal liabilities. Also, if the employer is a government contractor, the failure to comply may result in the debarment from the government contacts.

A second potential audit area for audit and investigation of an employer concerns employment verification and employer sanction law (referred to as the “Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986” or “IRCA”). As every HR Professional knows, IRCA is an integral aspect of every hire. Under IRCA, every employer is required to properly verify the eligibility of an employee to work in the U.S. on the Form I-9. The I-9 Form is a deceptively simple document. The I-9 Form is only one page in length but it continues to raise issues about proper preparation and retention.

Since the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) absorption of the Legacy-INS, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division (“ICE”) has been charged with worksite inspections and audits of I-9 documents. The “good news” for employers is that the number of I-9 inspections has been on the decline. The “bad news” for employers is that ICE Officers are not inclined to be lenient and educate employers about their responsibilities but are more likely to impose sanctions.

Given the present focus on “security” and “identity” in the workplace, it is likely that ICE Officials will be more active in their investigations in the future. ICE is not required to wait for a specific lead. The investigative authorities of the DHS have implemented a “General Administrative Plan” (the “Plan”). The Plan identifies employers from a national database and it targets specific industries that have developed a reputation for hiring unauthorized workers (e.g., restaurant, meat-packing, commercial cleaning, textile and garment). The Plan also provides for “random” audits. For example, due to national security concerns, great efforts continue to be placed on identifying those individuals who have access to the nation’s “critical infrastructures” such as airports, wastewater facilities, and highways.

Finally, the third area of interest for employers from an audit perspective is the new PERM process for Labor Certifications Applications (the “Green Card”). After pending for over two (2) years, in December 2004, the PERM regulations became “Final” and on March 28th, 2005, the old Labor Certification Application process was replaced by PERM. While PERM promises faster green card processing, the application process is much more complex. The DOL seems to be sending a message that it is easier to audit the employer as opposed to processing an Application.

The new PERM process requires an employer to obtain a Prevailing Wage Determination (the “PWD”) from the State Workforce Agency (the “SWA”) (e.g. The NJDOL, Alien Labor Certification Unit) in the State where the position has been offered. The PWD area of the law is constantly evolving. Once the PWD is obtained, an employer must undertake a rigid “recruitment process”. Recruitment consists of placing a job order with the SWA and placing two (2) Sunday advertisements in an appropriate newspaper. The recruitment process needs to be completed within six (6) months of the filing of the PERM Application.

PERM requires meticulous preparation and a thorough understanding of the Regulations. The PERM process is analogous to the administrative process that surrounds the filing of a U.S. tax return. When the return is filed, the filer makes representations, declarations, and attestations about annual income and expenses. The filer does not submit evidence about annual income and expenses. Such information is only provided if the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) sends the filer a notice for an audit. The PERM program is similar. A PERM Application is filed by making attestations on the new DOL Form 9089. The Form 9089 is submitted to the DOL. DOL can either certify the Form without receiving documentation, or DOL can send out an audit letter.

The new PERM Regulations state that the DOL can request an audit of any pending Labor Certification Application for cause or in the DOL’s discretion. In the event that a prospective employer is noticed for an audit, the employer will receive an audit letter that lists the documents that will have to be submitted. The audit letter shall set a date that is thirty (30) days from the date of the letter for submission of the additional documents and shall advise the employer that the Labor Certification Application will be denied if the information is not received in a timely manner. If the employer does not respond, the PERM Labor Certification Application will be denied.

It appears clearly to be the case that immigration-related programs that are undertaken by employers may be subject to either directed and/or random government audits from the DHS and/or the DOL. Failure to adequately comply with government regulations can result in penalties. The employer’s familiarity with the intricacies of the auditing and compliance are likely to save a considerable amount of both time and money.

David H. Nachman, Esq. is the Managing Attorney at Nachman & Associates, P.C. with offices located in Ridgewood, New Jersey, New York City and Canada (and having corresponding offices in Ohio, Netherlands Antilles and California). David Nachman received his BS from Georgetown University and his JD from Case Western Reserve University where he also received a Master’s Degree in Business Administration. Nachman & Associates, P.C. provided counsel throughout the U.S. on a full array of immigration law issues. Visit us at www.VISASERVE.com .com.