THE NEUFELD MEMO CAN CHANGE THE WHOLE H-1B PROFESSIONAL AND SPECIALTY OCCUPATION VISA
LANDSCAPE IN THE UNITED STATES.

By David H. Nachman, Esq., Managing Attorney – Nachman & Associates, P.C.
(Ridgewood, New Jersey, New York City and Canada), Business and family Immigration Lawyers and Attorneys.

As we have recently reported, H-1B “season” for the 2010-2011 Fiscal Year will begin on April 1st 2010. This means that H-1B employers will be able to submit H-1B nonimmigrant professional and specialty occupation worker visa petitions requesting an October 1st 2010 start date. Our offices continue to remain poised to assist U.S.
employers to prepare and submit these petitions.

Recently, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Citizenship and Immigration Service (”CIS”) implemented several important changes to the H-1B “professional and
specialty occupation” work visa program in the U.S. The changes have alarmed many H-1B employers. Some of the changes included redefining the employer-employee relationship for third-party worksite placements.

The new guidelines were set forth a January Memorandum from the Associate Director of Service Center Operations, Donald Neufeld (the “Neufeld Memo”). While it may be
the case that the Neufeld Memo targets consulting companies that place H-1B visaholders at third-party sites, it appears that the document may have a significant impact on U.S.
employers who use H-1B nonimmigrant contract consultants to supplement their full-time workforce. The use of contract consultants (such as H-1B nonimmigrants), especially in an economic downturn or recession, continues to be critical to many organizations.

For example, information technologies projects are of a limited nature and duration. Organizations find it to be economically feasible to engage the services of temporary consultants as opposed to creating a full-time position.

If inappropriately applied, the guidelines set forth in the Neufeld Memo can result in (1) denials of H-1B amendments and extensions; and (2) denials of entry to the U.S. of H-1B
nonimmigrants who have traveled internationally; and (3) increased propensity by CIS for H-1B site visits and H-1B enforcement actions.
The issues raised in the Neufeld Memo are of great concern for H-1B employers as well as H-1B nonimmigrants.

The ripple effects of the Neufeld Memo are still spreading. We will continue to monitor any new developments as they surface. For more information
about the H-1B nonimmigrant visa or the Neufeld Memo, please feel free to contact our offices at 201-670-0006 (X100) or e-mail to us at info@visaserve.com.

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.

Americans across the country are familiar with Wal-Mart for their “roll-back” prices and friendly service. What most people don’t know is that, after their immigration scandals in 2001 and 2003, Wal-Mart has lead the country in enforcing employer compliance with requirements of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (“IRCA”). Since paying a record-setting $11 million to the United States Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division (“ICE”), Wal-Mart has become the reluctant leader in employer compliance programs. As anyone trying to sign a contract with Wal-Mart will tell you, it’s no walk in the park to meet their strict demands, but it is the way of the future for employment verification procedures.

By way of history, in 2001, 100 illegal immigrant janitors were arrested at Wal-Mart stores in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri and New York, and an additional 245 were arrested in October 2003 at 60 stores across 21 states. The allegation that Wal-Mart knew the janitors were illegal was denied by Wal-Mart’s top executives; nevertheless they admitted that they should have been keeping a more watchful eye over what their sub-contractors were doing. In a statement from Washington, federal officials announced that 12 janitorial contractors that worked for Wal-Mart had agreed to forfeit $4 million to the government and to plead guilty to criminal charges of employing illegal immigrants. The workers came from nearly 20 countries, including Mexico, Brazil, the Czech Republic, China, Poland and Russia.

As part of the $11 million settlement, Wal-Mart was permanently barred from hiring illegal immigrants and was ordered to establish a mechanism to make sure that its contractors “are taking reasonable steps to comply with immigration laws” within 18 months from the settlement date. Wal-Mart has since pledged to train all of its store managers to avoid “knowingly hiring” or “continuing to employ” illegal immigrant workers. Wal-Mart also agreed to continue cooperating with federal officials investigating its contractors. It’s no surprise that the regulations Wal-Mart has since built into their sub-contractor agreements are very rigid.

If you’re unfortunate enough to have seen the addendums to the Wal-Mart contracts, you are aware that there are stipulations which require all sub-contractors and sub-sub-contractors to follow the ICE “10 Best Practices for Employers”, which is a component of ICE’s IMAGE (“Ice Mutual Agreement between Government and Employers”) Program. Such practices include registering with the E-Verify Program, conducting training programs for all staff related to I-9 compliance, annual internal and third party I-9 audits, implementing an internal tip line, and full cooperation with government officials from the Department of Homeland Security. Not only are these required for the general contractor, but also for all sub-contractors and sub-sub-contractors. Needless to say, it has become burdensome for many small employers who wish to partner with a company such as Wal-Mart.

Nachman & Associates, P.C. is a Global Immigration Law Firm that has successfully helped companies become compliant with the regulations pushed down by Wal-Mart. In fact, other large employers such as Verizon have also been adopting the Wal-Mart compliance plan and requiring it for their own contractors, sub-contractors and sub-sub-contractors. In this era of compliance, it is important that employers can not only be in compliance with the law (as it will most likely only get tougher on violators), but also be able to handle the demands of both the government and large corporations who are pushing down these mandates. As Managing Attorney David H. Nachman says, “when we look into the crystal ball, we can see what’s coming down the pike and it means that employers need to be more vigilant.”

Mr. Nachman and his staff have been training employers about proper employment verification procedures for over a decade and most recently, pursuant to a federal training grant from the US Department of Justice, Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (“OSC”), the Nachman & Associates team has been traveling across the tri-state area, and across the country via webinar, to help employers overcome the confusion in this “age of enforcement.” To contact Nachman & Associates for more information on compliance programs or to attend or schedule free training on employment verification procedures, anti-discrimination, E-Verify and IMAGE, please feel free to visit the website at www.visaserve.com. You can also feel free to call us at 201-670-0006 (x107).

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.