THE NEUFELD MEMORANDUM REVISITED AND THE H-1B VISA CLIMATE: The New Face of Enforcement in the H-1B World.

As a result of increased site visits and a general inclination to decrease the number of H-1B’s approved, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (”USCIS”) published a watershed memo on January 8th, 2010 (“the Neufeld Memo”). The Neufeld Memo radically changed the way that H-1B’s were adjudicated. The Neufeld Memo also put enormous pressure on employers to satisfy additional evidence requirements justifying any work performed by an H-1B visa holder off of the H-1B visa petitioner’s premises. Additionally, the Neufeld Memo added additional requirements for H-1B petitioners to obtain H-1B extensions. It is this author’s opinion that as a result of this Neufeld Memo, employers will see automatic requests for evidence in any case where the beneficiary may be performing offsite work and for any H-1B visa extension petition. It continues to be our strong recommendation that employers add a section to their H-1B petitions which cover the issues addressed by the Neufeld Memo. Even one and one half years after this Memo was promulgated.

USCIS is still concerned about whether or not there is a valid employer-employee relationship. The Neufeld Memo basically states that hiring a person to work in the United States requires more than merely paying the wage or placing that person on the payroll of the H-1B petitioning organization. In considering whether or not there is a valid “employer-employee relationship” for purposes of H-1B petition adjudication, USCIS must determine if the employer exercises a sufficient level of “control” over the prospective H-1B employee. Clearly, if the employee will be working “on site” in the H-1B petitioner’s office, doing specific tasks for the petitioner, this will not be viewed as raising a “control” issue. However, with the publication of the Neufeld Memo, it remains our opinion that all employers need to address the “control” issue upon initial submission of an H-1B petition to the USCIS.

The prospective H-1B petitioner organization must be able to establish that it has the “right to control” when, where, and how the prospective H-1B nonimmigrant beneficiary will perform the professional and specialty occupation job and the USCIS will consider the following items to make such a determination (with no one of the following factors being decisive with regard to the issue of “control”):

(1) Does the potential H-1B petitioner supervise the prospective H-1B beneficiary and is such supervision off-site or on-site?
(2) If the supervision is off-site, how does the petitioner maintain such supervision, i.e. weekly calls, reporting back to main office routinely, or site visits by the petitioner?
(3) Does the petitioner have the right to control the work of the beneficiary on a day-to-day basis if such control is required?
(4) Does the petitioner provide the tools or instrumentalities needed for the beneficiary to perform the duties of employment?
(5) Does the petitioner hire, pay, and have the ability to fire the beneficiary?
(6) Does the petitioner evaluate the work-product of the beneficiary, i.e. progress/performance reviews?
(7) Does the petitioner claim the beneficiary for tax purposes?
(8) Does the petitioner provide the beneficiary any type of employee benefits?
(9) Does the beneficiary use proprietary information of the petitioner in order to perform the duties of employment?
(10) Does the beneficiary produce an end-product that is directly linked to the petitioner’s line of business?
(11) Does the petitioner have the ability to control the manner and means in which the work product of the beneficiary is accomplished?

In addition to the foregoing, the USCIS provides specific examples of employment situations in which the “control” issue is not considered to be problematic. Please note that there are numerous variations of these scenarios and that each employment situation may not fit squarely into the examples provided by the USCIS.

The “Traditional Employment” Scenario:

If the prospective H-1B beneficiary works at an office location owned/leased by the prospective H-1B petitioner and the beneficiary reports directly to the petitioner on a daily basis, the petitioner sets the work schedule of the beneficiary, the beneficiary uses the petitioner’s tools/instrumentalities to perform the duties of employment, and the petitioner directly reviews the work-product of the beneficiary. The petitioner claims the beneficiary for tax purposes and provides medical benefits to the beneficiary.

The “Temporary/Occasional Off-Site Employment” Scenario:

The prospective H-1B nonimmigrant petitioner is an accounting firm with numerous clients. The beneficiary is an accountant. The beneficiary is required to travel to different client sites for auditing purposes. In performing such audits, the beneficiary must use established firm practices. If the beneficiary travels to an off-site location outside the geographic location of the employer to perform an audit, the petitioner provides food and lodging costs to the beneficiary. The beneficiary reports to a centralized office when not performing audits for clients and has an assigned office space. The beneficiary is paid by the petitioner and receives employee benefits from the petitioner.

The “Long-Term/Permanent Off-Site Employment” Scenario:

The prospective H-1B nonimmigrant petitioner is an architectural firm and the beneficiary is an architect. The petitioner has a contract with a client to build a structure in a location out of state from the petitioner’s main offices. The petitioner will place its architects and other staff at the off-site location while the project is being completed. The contract between the petitioner and client states that the petitioner will manage its employees at the off-site location. The petitioner provides the instruments and tools used to complete the project, the beneficiary reports directly to the petitioner for assignments, and progress reviews of the beneficiary are completed by the petitioner. The underlying contract states that the petitioner has the right to ultimate control of the beneficiary’s work.

The USCIS has specifically stated that the following scenarios are now NOT acceptable to meet the “control” issue with regard to H-1B employment:

The “Self-Employed Beneficiaries” Scenario:

The prospective H-1B nonimmigrant petitioner is a fashion merchandising company that is owned by the beneficiary. The beneficiary is a fashion analyst. The beneficiary is the sole operator, manager, and employee of the petitioning company. The beneficiary cannot be fired by the petitioning company. There is no outside entity which can exercise control over the beneficiary. The petitioner has not provided evidence that the corporation, and not the beneficiary herself, will be controlling her work.

The above example (cited in the Neufeld Memo) is similar to a case recently addressed by our office for one of our clients. We have successfully processed a case such as this in the past. However, it is likely that these facts will inevitably lead to a much more complex H-1B case processing procedure by the government.
The USCIS admits that a sole stockholder of a corporation can be employed by a corporation as the corporation is a separate legal entity from its owners and even its sole owner. However, an H-1B beneficiary/employee who owns a majority of the sponsoring entity and who reports to no one but him or her may not be able to establish that a valid employment relationship exists in that the beneficiary. The issue is whether the prospective H-1B nonimmigrant petitioner can establish the requisite “control”.

The Neufeld Memo states that the Administrative Appeals Office (”AAO”) correctly determined that corporations are separate and distinct from their stockholders and that a corporation may petition for, and hire, their principal stockholders as H-1B nonimmigrant employees. However, the AAO did not reach the question of how, or whether, petitioners must establish that such beneficiaries are bona fide “employees” of “United States employers” having an “employer-employee relationship.” While it is correct that a petitioner may employ and seek H-1B classification for a beneficiary who happens to have a significant ownership interest in a petitioner, this does not automatically mean that the beneficiary is a bona fide employee.

What we believe that the USCIS is saying is that if a corporation’s sole shareholder and sole employee is the H-1B nonimmigrant beneficiary, the case is likely to be denied. If the H-1B nonimmigrant beneficiary is one of several shareholders (not a majority shareholder of the corporation and is NOT the sole employee) then the USCIS can approve the case. It appears to be the case that any person who has a small company, where the H-1B beneficiary is one of the main officers or shareholders of the company, will have a very difficult time obtaining an H-1B approval. This was one of the new rules that came out of the Neufeld Memo. In addition, our office continues to find that prospective H-1B nonimmigrant petitioners which have approval of an H-1B already (that fit in this scenario) are likely to have difficulty extending the H-1B nonimmigrant professional and specialty occupation visa on a going forward basis.

The “Independent Contractor” Scenario:

The beneficiary is a sales representative. The prospective H-1B nonimmigrant petitioner is a company that designs and manufactures skis. The beneficiary sells these skis for the petitioner and works on commission. The beneficiary also sells skis for other companies that design and manufacture skis that are independent of the petitioner. The petitioner does not claim the beneficiary as an employee for tax purposes. The petitioner does not control when, where, or how the beneficiary sells its or any other manufacturer’s products. The petitioner does not set the work schedule of the beneficiary and does not conduct performance reviews of the beneficiary.

In the past, the USCIS has stated that H-1B nonimmigrants must be employees, which means that they must be paid using a W-2 (and not a 1099). The Neufeld Memo solidifies this long-standing rule and provides a basis for a denial of an H-1B where an H-1B visa holder is treated as an “Independent Contractor”.

The “Third-Party Placement/ “Job-Shop”" Scenario:

The prospective H-1B nonimmigrant petitioner is a computer consulting company. The petitioner has contracts with numerous outside companies in which it supplies these companies with employees to fulfill specific staffing needs. The specific positions are not outlined in the contract between the petitioner and the third-party company but are staffed on an as-needed basis. The beneficiary is a computer analyst. The beneficiary has been assigned to work for the third-party company to fill a core position to maintain the third-party company’s payroll. Once placed at the client company, the beneficiary reports to a manager who works for the third-party company. The beneficiary does not report to the petitioner for work assignments, and all work assignments are determined by the third-party company. The petitioner does not control how the beneficiary will complete daily tasks, and no propriety information of the petitioner is used by the beneficiary to complete any work assignments. The beneficiary’s end-product, the payroll, is not in any way related to the petitioner’s line of business, which is computer consulting. The beneficiary’s progress reviews are completed by the client’ company, not the petitioner.

This scenario eliminates personnel or consulting agency placements for the H-1B nonimmigrant visa category. All placement firms that now use the H-1B visas to place workers at third-party companies whereby the H-1B petitioner’s role is basically relegated to payroll will no longer be able to utilize H-1B visas. The only type of H-1B visas that will be allowed by personnel agencies will be for in-house positions. One good thing that comes out of the Neufeld Memo is that many current H-1B visas, being used by some Indian Job Shops, who place workers in third-party positions, will be permissible only if the “control” issues are appropriately met. As a result of the Neufeld Memo, shabby and ill prepared job shops will slowly be eliminated as they will be unable to use the H-1B classification. Ultimately, this will leave more H-1B visas available for the “traditional” employers.

As previously pointed out, H-1B nonimmigrant professional and specialty occupation worker employers will have an extra burden proving the Employer-Employee relationship on initial H-1B petitions.
The Neufeld Memo states that the prospective H-1B nonimmigrant petitioner can demonstrate an employer-employee relationship by providing a combination of the following or similar types of evidence:

• A complete itinerary of services or engagements that specifies the dates of each service or engagement, the names and addresses of the actual employers, and the names and addresses of the establishment, venues, or locations where the services will be performed for the period of time requested;

• Copy of signed Employment Agreement between the petitioner and beneficiary detailing the terms and conditions of employment;

• Copy of an employment offer letter that clearly describes the nature of the employer-employee relationship and the services to be performed by the beneficiary;

• Copy of relevant portions of valid contracts between the petitioner and a client (in which the petitioner has entered into a business agreement for which the petitioner’s employees will be utilized) that establishes that while the petitioner’s employees are placed at the third-party worksite, the petitioner will continue to have the right to control its employees;

• Copies of signed contractual agreements, statements of work, work orders, service agreements, and letters between the petitioner and the authorized officials of the ultimate end-client companies where the work will actually be performed by the beneficiary, which provide information such as a detailed description of the duties the beneficiary will perform, the qualifications that are required to perform the job duties, salary or wages paid, hours worked, benefits, a brief description of who will supervise the beneficiary and their duties, and any other related evidence;

• Copy of position description or any other documentation that describes the skills required to perform the job offered, the source of the instrumentalities and tools needed to perform the job, the product to be developed or the service to be provided, the location where the beneficiary will perform the duties, the duration of the relationship between the petitioner and beneficiary, whether the petitioner has the right to assign additional duties, the extent of petitioner’s discretion over when and how long the beneficiary will work, the method of payment, the petitioner’s role in paying and hiring assistants to be utilized by the beneficiary, whether the work to be performed is part of the regular business of the petitioner, the provision of employee benefits, and the tax treatment of the beneficiary in relation to the petitioner;

• A description of the performance review process; and/or

• Copy of petitioner’s organizational chart, demonstrating beneficiary’s supervisory chain.

Our office continues to suggest to our prospective H-1B nonimmigrant petitioners that employer’s filing initial H-1B petitions submit some or all of this information as part of their petition. If not, the employer should expect an extensive Request For Evidence (”RFE”) document from the government requesting detailed information.

The New Rule For H-1B Extension Petitions.

The new rule for H-1B extension petitions is that a beneficiary must continue to establish that a valid employer-employee relationship exists. The prospective H-1B nonimmigrant petitioner can do so by providing evidence that the petitioner continues to have the right to control the work of the beneficiary, as described above. The prospective H-1B nonimmigrant petitioner may also include a combination of the following or similar evidence to document that it maintained a valid employer-employee relationship with the beneficiary throughout the initial H-1B status approval period:

• Copies of the beneficiary’s pay records (leave and earnings statements, and pay stubs, etc.) for the period of the previously approved H-1B status;

• Copies of the beneficiary’s payroll summaries and/or Form W-2s, evidencing wages paid to the beneficiary during the period of previously approved H-1B status;

• Copy of Time Sheets during the period of previously approved H-1B status;

• Copy of prior years’ work schedules;

• Documentary examples of work product created or produced by the beneficiary for the past H-1B validity period, (i.e., copies of: business plans, reports, presentations, evaluations, recommendations, critical reviews, promotional materials, designs, blueprints, newspaper articles, web-site text, news copy, photographs of prototypes, etc.). Note: The materials must clearly substantiate the author and date created;

• Copy of dated performance review(s); and/or

• Copy of any employment history records, including but not limited to, documentation showing date of hire, dates of job changes, i.e. promotions, demotions, transfers, layoffs, and pay changes with effective dates.

If USCIS determines, while adjudicating the extension petition, that the prospective H-1B nonimmigrant petitioner failed to maintain a valid employer-employee relationship with the beneficiary throughout the initial approval period, or violated any other terms of its prior H-1B petition, the extension petition may be denied unless there is a compelling reason to approve the new petition (e.g., the petitioner is able to demonstrate that it did not meet all the terms and conditions through no fault of his own.)

Until the promulgation of the Neufeld Memo, H-1B extensions have been granted almost automatically as long as the prospective H-1B nonimmigrant petitioner stated that the beneficiary would be performing the same work as previously petitioned for. The Neufeld Memo exponentially increased the number of RFE’s and denials in extension cases.

Our office is convinced that these new and harsh rules are a result of the USCIS site visits and numerous violations USCIS has seen as a result of the site visits. The state of the U.S. economy certainly has not helped the situation any either. USCIS will no longer permit employers to flaunt the rules and “business as usual” will no longer be an acceptable mode. We continue to see an uptick in ICE, CIS, and DOL compliance issues. We continue to warn our employer clients about the government scrutiny in many areas where there may be perceive abuse of the U.S. immigration and nationality laws.

Final Rule Adopts Interim Rule to Improving Integrity of Form I-9 Process.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced today a final rule, scheduled to be published in tomorrow’s Federal Register, that adopts, without change, an interim rule to improve the integrity of the Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) process. USCIS received approximately 75 public comments in response to the interim rule, which has been in effect since April 3, 2009.

All employers, agricultural recruiters and referrers-for-a-fee are required to verify the identity and employment authorization of each person they hire for employment in the United States. This requirement is set forth in section 274A(a)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1324a(a)(1)(B). The key changes made to the Form I-9 process by the interim rule and adopted by the final rule include: prohibiting employers from accepting expired documents for completion of Form I-9 and adding and modifying several documents on the Lists of Acceptable Documents. The final rule will be effective on May 16, 2011. Employers may continue to use the current version of the Form I-9 (Rev. 08/07/2009), or the previous version (Rev. 02/02/2009).

Questions and Answers

Q. What does the final rule accomplish?

A. The final rule adopts, without change, the changes made to the Form I-9 process by the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) interim final rule that has been in effect since April 3, 2009. The changes further DHS’s ongoing effort to increase the integrity of the employment authorization verification process. The key changes include:

* Prohibiting employers from accepting expired documents
* Eliminating from List A identity and employment authorization documentation Forms I-688, I-688A, and I-688B (Temporary Resident Card and outdated Employment Authorization Cards)
* Adding to List A foreign passports containing temporary I-551 printed notations on certain machine-readable immigrant visas
* Adding to List A as evidence of identity and employment authorization valid passports for citizens of the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) and the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), along with Form I-94 or Form I-94A indicating nonimmigrant admission under the Compact of Free Association Between the United States and the FSM or RMI

Q. Why can’t I present an expired document?

A. DHS wants to ensure that documents presented for use in the Form I-9 process are valid and reliably establish both identity and employment authorization. Expired documents are prone to tampering and fraudulent use. The requirement to present only unexpired documents takes into account the time limits placed on these documents by their issuing authorities. If a document does not contain an expiration date, as is often the case with a Social Security card, it is considered unexpired.

Q: Does this final rule make any changes to how Form I-9 is completed?

A: No. The final rule adopts, without change, the interim final rule published on December 17, 2008 and in effect since April 3, 2009. It does not make any changes to how the Form I-9 is currently completed.

Q: Is USCIS issuing a new Form I-9 with this final rule?

A: No. Because the final rule adopts the interim rule without change, USCIS is not issuing a new
Form I-9 with this rule.

Q: Which versions of Form I-9 may I use?

A: Employers may continue to use either the current version of Form I-9 (Rev. 08/07/2009) or the previous version (Rev. 02/02/2009). These dates are located on the bottom right-hand corner of the form.

Q: Where can I obtain detailed information about the comments you received and how you responded?

A: Discussion of the public comments is featured in the final rule, available for review on USCIS’s website at www.uscis.gov and published in the Federal Register. The largest number of comments addressed the interim rule’s requirement that all documents presented for Form I-9 purposes be unexpired. Several commentators suggested that the expired documents should be acceptable for some period of time after expiration, e.g., from 30 days to up to five years after expiration. USCIS did not adopt these suggestions because of its concerns about document fraud and employer confusion.

Q: Are the public comments still available for viewing?

A: Yes. The public comments are available on www.regulations.gov under DHS Docket No. USCIS-2008-0001. A description of those comments and the USCIS responses to them are also available in the final rule itself. We have posted a link to the final rule on www.uscis.gov.

Q: Where may I obtain a copy of the newly revised Employer Handbook?

A: The Handbook for Employers, Instructions for Completing the Form I-9 (M-274) was updated on January 5, 2011, and is available on the USCIS website at www.uscis.gov/files/form/m-274.pdf.

Last updated:04/14/2011

Final Rule Adopts Interim Rule Improving Integrity of Form I-9 Process:

WASHINGTON—U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today announced a final rule that adopts, without change, an interim rule to improve the integrity of the Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) process. USCIS received approximately 75 public comments in response to the interim rule, which has been in effect since April 3, 2009.

The main changes made by the interim rule and adopted by the final rule include: prohibiting employers from accepting expired documents; revising the list of acceptable documents by removing outdated documents and making technical amendments; and adding documentation applicable to certain citizens of the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands.

Employers must complete Form I-9 for all newly hired employees to verify their identity and authorization to work in the United States. The list of acceptable documents that employees may present to verify their identity and employment authorization is divided into three sections: List A documents, which show identity and employment authorization; List B documents, which show identity only; and List C documents, which show employment authorization only.

The final rule will be published in the Federal Register tomorrow and will be available at www.uscis.gov. The final rule is effective on May 16, 2011. Employers may continue to use the current version of the Form I-9 (Rev. 08/07/2009) or the previous version (Rev. 02/02/2009). The Handbook for Employers, Instructions for Completing the Form I-9 (M-274) was updated on Jan. 5, 2011, and is available for review at www.uscis.gov/files /form/m-274.pdf.

For more information on USCIS and its programs, please visit www.uscis.gov or follow us on Twitter (@uscis), YouTube (/uscis) and the USCIS blog The Beacon.
April 14, 2011

Last updated:04/14/2011

Validation Instrument for Business Enterprises (VIBE) Program

Introduction

The Web-based Validation Instrument for Business Enterprises (VIBE) is a tool designed to enhance USCIS’s adjudications of certain employment-based immigration petitions. VIBE uses commercially available data to validate basic information about companies or organizations petitioning to employ alien workers. USCIS is beta-testing VIBE, and petitioners may begin seeing VIBE-related Requests for Evidence (RFEs).
Background

Currently, when adjudicating employment-based petitions, USCIS primarily relies on paper documentation supplied by the petitioning company or organization to establish the petitioner’s eligibility for the requested classification. Petitioners often submit large amounts of paperwork as evidence of their current level of business operations. When petitioners’ paperwork does not sufficiently document the evidence required under the law, USCIS issues a Request for Evidence (RFE) for additional documentation, delaying final adjudication of the petition.

VIBE Program

VIBE allows USCIS to electronically receive commercially available information from an independent information provider (IIP) about a petitioning company or organization, including:

* Business activities, such as type of business (North American Industry Classification System code), trade payment information and status (active or inactive)
* Financial standing, including sales volume and credit standing
* Number of employees, including onsite and globally
* Relationships with other entities, including foreign affiliates
* Status, for example whether it is a single entity, branch, subsidiary or headquarters
* Ownership and legal status, such as LLC, partnership or corporation
* Company executives
* Date of establishment as a business entity
* Current physical address

A USCIS officer will review all information received through VIBE along with the evidence submitted by the petitioner. Adjudicators will use the information provided from VIBE to verify the petitioner’s qualifications. For example, if a petitioner is seeking L-1 status for a beneficiary, VIBE will help adjudicators confirm that the petitioner has a foreign affiliate, which is a requirement for granting L-1 status. In cases where petitioners must establish ability to pay, information from VIBE will assist in confirming the petitioners’ financial viability. USCIS will not deny a petition based upon information from VIBE without first giving a petitioner the opportunity to respond to USCIS’s concerns. USCIS will issue an RFE or a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) if it is necessary to resolve relevant inconsistencies or other issues that emerge upon review of information supplied by VIBE that are material to the benefit requested. The Immigration Services Officer (ISO) will make a final decision based on the totality of the circumstances.

Immigrant Classifications Included in VIBE

The following I-140 employment-based immigrant classifications will be included in VIBE:

* E12 Outstanding professor or researcher
* E13 Multinational executive or manager
* E21 Member of professions holding an advanced degree or an alien of exceptional ability (with the exception of National Interest Waiver petitions)
* E31 Skilled Worker
* E32 Professional
* EW3 Unskilled/Other Worker

Additionally, the following I-360 employment-based immigrant classifications will be included in VIBE:

* SD1 Minister of Religion
* SR1 Non-minister in a religious occupation or vocation

The following I-129 employment-based nonimmigrant classifications will also be included in VIBE:

* E-1 Treaty Trader
* E-2 Treaty Investor
* E-3 Member of specialty occupation who is a national of the Commonwealth of Australia
* H-1B Specialty occupation worker
* H-1B1 Specialty occupation worker from Chile or Singapore
* H-1B2 Worker performing services related to a Department of Defense (DOD) cooperative
research and development project or co-production project
* H-1B3 Fashion model of distinguished merit and ability
* H-2A Temporary or seasonal agricultural worker
* H-2B Temporary non-agricultural worker
* H-3 Trainee or special education exchange visitor
* L-1A Intra-company transferee in a managerial or executive position
* L-1B Intra-company transferee in a position utilizing specialized knowledge
* LZ Blanket L petition
* Q-1 International cultural exchange visitor
* R-1 Religious worker
* TN NAFTA professional from Canada or Mexico

At this time, the following classifications will not be included in VIBE due to the very unique eligibility requirements for these classifications:

* E11 Individuals of extraordinary ability
* E21 National interest waiver
* EB-5 Immigrant investor
* O Individuals with extraordinary ability or achievement (including essential support personnel)
* P Internationally recognized athletes and entertainment groups, performers under a reciprocal exchange program, and artists or entertainers under a culturally unique program (including essential support personnel)

Goals of VIBE

By enhancing USCIS’s ability to distinguish eligible petitioners more easily from those who may be ineligible, VIBE is expected to increase the efficiency of reviews by USCIS ISOs. In the future, VIBE should reduce the need for petitioners to submit identical paper documentation with each petition to establish their current level of business operations. VIBE should also assist USCIS to reduce the number of RFEs issued to otherwise eligible petitioners.

By providing the same petitioner information to all four USCIS Service Centers, VIBE promotes the consistent review of employment-based immigrant and nonimmigrant petitions. Overall, the information provided by VIBE improves the integrity of employment-based immigrant and nonimmigrant programs and the process for petitioners seeking foreign workers to employ.
Feedback about VIBE

Some petitioners may receive an RFE or NOID referencing information received from the IIP through VIBE. Petitioners are required to respond to these RFEs or NOIDs; failure to respond may result in a denial of the petition. However, USCIS encourages petitioners to bring to our attention any questions related to RFEs or NOIDs involving IIP information USCIS received through VIBE, as well as suggestions for improving the program by contacting us at VIBE-Feedback@dhs.gov.

This page can be found at http://www.uscis.gov/vibe

NEWARK: A Newark-based computer consulting company has agreed to pay more than $765,00 in back wages and penalties to workers for violating provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the U.S. Labor Department announced today.

The company, Peri Software Solutions Inc. and its owner, Saravanan Periasamy, sponsored foreign workers to work as programmer analysts across the country under a visa program known as H-1B. Companies can hire temporary workers with these visas for professional jobs and must pay the same wages as U.S. workers who perform the same type of work.

But the labor department charged Peri Software Solutions with improperly compensating these employees and not providing the appropriate labor condition applications in their offices.

Periasamy said his company has hired new legal counsel and hiring managers for immigration issues and will inspect and audit its case files quarterly to ensure it is in line with current immigration laws.

“Peri is committed to exceeding whatever it takes to ensure that we are in full compliance,” Periasamy said in a statement. He also said the firm will launch a training program in an effort to boost the number of American employees at the company.

“As we move forward, Peri plans to develop new partnerships with the goal of creating more jobs and hiring more American workers,” he said.

The firm will pay nearly $640,000 in back wages and interest for 67 employees under this program, according to the labor department. The company must also pay nearly $127,000 in penalties for failing to provide notice of the filing of labor condition applications in the offices where the employees worked, according to the labor department. Peri Software is also prohibited from participating in the H-1B program for one year.

Published: Tuesday, December 07, 2010, 1:54 PM
Updated: Tuesday, December 07, 2010, 2:49 PM

The Star-Ledger Sarah Portlock – The Star-Ledger

Abercrombie & Fitch Fined $1M After I-9 Audit; NEW IMMIGRATION REFORM BILL PROPOSED: Senators Menendez and Leahy Introduce First Comprehensive Immigration Bill of 2010; MERITS OF IMMIGRATION TO THE U.S.: Murdoch & Bloomberg Embrace Immigration Reform. Read more in our e-blast by clicking below, or for more information contact our office at info@visaserve.com or 201-670-0006 x100.

http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs092/1011188341227/archive/1103741773582.html

Abercrombie & Fitch fined after I-9 audit

DETROIT – U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Office of Homeland Security

Investigations (HSI) announced a $1,047,110 fine settlement reached with the clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch for violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act related to an employer’s obligation to verify the employment eligibility of its workers.

For assistance with regard to an audit or investigation concerning an immigration related liability from any U.S. or Canadian government agency, please feel free to contact the lawyers at Nachman & Associates, P.C. (VISASERVE) at 201-670-0006 (x100) or by e-mail at info@visaserve.com.

For more information about our immigration law services, please check out our website at http://www.visaserve.com.

Several Democratic senators recently announced a 26-page “framework of concrete bipartisan ideas” for immigration reform, called REPAIR (Real Enforcement with Practical Answers for Immigration Reform). The proposal by Sens. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Cal.), and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), calls for increasing enforcement, border security, and verification resources and efforts, along with expanded employment measures. Under the proposal, a green card (permanent residence) would be “immediately available” to foreign students with an advanced degree
from a U.S. institution in a field of science, technology, engineering, or mathematics who has an offer of employment from a U.S. employer in a related field. To address the fact that “workers from some countries face unreasonably long backlogs that have no responsiveness to America’s economic needs,” the proposal eliminates the per-country employment immigration caps. Also, the EB-5 program would be made permanent and adapted to increase foreign investment in the U.S.

Among other things, the proposal would create a new “BELIEVE” (Biometric Enrollment, Locally-stored Information, and Electronic Verification of Employment) system and a provisional H-2C visa for nonseasonal, nonagricultural workers. Workers in the H-2C program would be permitted to earn lawful permanent residence if they met “sufficient integration metrics to demonstrate that they have successfully become part of the American economy and society.”
The proposal would amend current law regarding H-1B employer application requirements to: (1) revise wage determination requirements; (2) require Internet posting and description of employment positions; (3) increase U.S. worker displacement protections; (4) apply certain requirements to all H-1B employers rather than just to H-1B dependent employers; (5) prohibit employer advertising that makes a position available only to, or gives priority to, H-1B nonimmigrants; and (6) limit the number of H-1B and L-1 employees that an employer of 50 or more workers in the U.S. may hire. The proposal also would authorize the Department of Labor to investigate applications for fraud, and conduct H-1B compliance audits.

“I say to my Republican colleagues, work with us to fix this broken system, don’t just say no,” Sen. Reid pleaded. Although Senate Democrats called the outline bipartisan, Republicans criticized the proposal. Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said in a statement that “Congress should focus on border security first.” Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) called the proposal a “cynical ploy to try to engage voters, some segment of voters, to show up in this November’s elections.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal.) said, “If there is going to be any movement in this regard, it will require presidential leadership.” President Barack Obama was quoted as saying that there may “not be an appetite” to pass immigration reform in Congress this year.

The proposal is available at:

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/REPAIRProposal.pdf?sid=ST2010042905051

DHS Unveils Initiatives to Enhance E-Verify.

Release Date: March 17, 2010

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary

Contact: 202-282-8010

Agreement with Department of Justice and Outreach Initiatives Will Strengthen E-Verify for Employers and Employees

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano today joined U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Director Alejandro Mayorkas to announce a trio of initiatives to strengthen the efficiency and accuracy of the EVerify
system.

These initiatives include a new agreement with the Department of Justice that will streamline the adjudication process in cases of E-Verify misuse and discrimination; an informational telephone hotline for employees to provide a more timely, effective and seamless customer experience for workers seeking E-Verify information; and new training videos focusing on E-Verify procedures and policies, employee rights and employer responsibilities in English and Spanish.

“E-Verify is a smart, simple and effective tool that helps employers across the country maintain a legal workforce,” said Secretary Napolitano. “The initiatives announced today will provide essential information to workers about their rights and ensure that E-Verify is used fairly while bolstering the Department’s efforts to protect critical employment opportunities.”
“USCIS continues to partner with our federal colleagues, as well as industry and employee representatives, to build a verification program that is accurate, efficient and fair for employers and workers alike,” said Director Mayorkas. “We look forward to working with our colleagues in the Department of Justice to ensure the continued integrity and improvement of EVerify.”

“This agreement will better enable us to protect individuals who are authorized to work in this country from national origin or citizenship-status discrimination,” said Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Division Thomas Perez. “We will not hesitate to take action against employers who violate our nation’s civil rights laws.” The Memorandum of Agreement signed between USCIS and the Department of Justice’s Office of Special Counsel for Unfair Immigration-Related Employment Practices establishes a streamlined process for addressing potential cases of discrimination and employer misuse of E-Verify and establishes protocol between USCIS and the Department of Justice for referring matters that fall within the agencies’ respective jurisdictions.

The two new, educational training videos, explaining E-Verify procedures and policies, employee rights and employer responsibilities in English and Spanish were created by the DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and are viewable at www.dhs.gov/e-verify and www.youtube.com/ushomelandsecurity.
Additionally, the USCIS E-Verify help line will now offer employees information about the E-Verify process, as well as assistance in completing the Form I-9 (Employment Eligibility Verification). Callers can also use the help line to file complaints about possible discrimination or employer misuse of the E-Verify program. The hotline number is (888) 897-7781 and will be active beginning April 5, 2010.

E-Verify is a free, easy-to-use Web-based system—operated in partnership by USCIS and the Social Security Administration
—that allows participating employers to electronically verify the employment eligibility of newly-hired employees. More than
192,000 participating employers at more than 705,000 worksites nationwide currently use E-Verify to electronically verify their
workers’ employment eligibility. Since Oct. 1, 2009, E-Verify has processed more than six million queries.

For more information, visit www.dhs.gov/e-verify.

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).