H-1B E-Guidance from the USDOL:

The U.S. Department of Labor has promulgated a helpful guide for employers about the H-1B nonimmigrant visa process.

Check it out at:

http://www.dol.gov/elaws/h1b.htm

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

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.

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.