H-1B Cap Count – as of April 5, 2012 – Double the cases filed as compared to last year about this time
Q & A: Extension of Post-Completion Optional Practical Training (OPT) and F-1 Status for Eligible Students under the H-1B Cap-Gap Regulations
VIA USCIS
Introduction
These Questions & Answers address the automatic extension of F-1 student status in the United States for certain students with pending or approved H-1B petitions (indicating a request for change of status from F-1 to H-1B) for an employment start date of October 1, 2012 under the Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 H-1B cap.
Questions & Answers
Q1. What is “Cap-Gap”?
A1. Current regulations allow certain students with pending or approved H-1B petitions to remain in F-1 status during the period of time when an F-1 student’s status and work authorization would otherwise expire through the start date of their approved H-1B employment period. This is referred to as filling the “cap-gap,” meaning the regulations provide a way of filling the “gap” between the end of F-1 status and the beginning of H-1B status that might otherwise occur if F-1 status is not extended for qualifying students.
Q2. How does “Cap-Gap” Occur?
A2. An employer may not file, and USCIS may not accept, an H-1B petition submitted more than six months in advance of the date of actual need for the beneficiary’s services or training. As a result, the earliest date that an employer can file an FY 2013 H-1B cap-subject petition is April 2, 2012 for employment starting not before October 1, 2012. If USCIS approves the H-1B petition and the accompanying change of status request, the earliest date that the student may start the approved H-1B employment is October 1, 2012. Consequently, F-1 students whose periods of authorized stay expire before October 1, 2012, and who do not qualify for a cap-gap extension, are required to leave the United States, apply for an H-1B visa at a consular post abroad, and then seek readmission to the United States in H-1B status, for the dates reflected on the approved H-1B petition.
Q3. Which petitions and beneficiaries qualify for a cap-gap extension?
A3. H-1B petitions that are timely filed on behalf of an eligible F-1 student and request a change of status to H-1B on October 1, 2012 qualify for a cap-gap extension.
Timely filed means that the H-1B petition (indicating change of status rather than consular processing) was filed during the H-1B acceptance period, which begins Monday April 2, 2012, while the student’s authorized F-1 duration of status (D/S) admission was still in effect (including any period of time during the academic course of study, any authorized periods of post-completion Optional Practical Training (OPT), and the 60-day departure preparation period, commonly known as the “grace period”).
Once a timely filed request to change status to H-1B on October 1, 2012 has been made, the automatic cap-gap extension will begin and will continue until the H-1B petition adjudication process has been completed. If the student’s H-1B petition is selected and approved, the student’s extension will continue through September 30, 2012 unless the petition is denied, withdrawn, or revoked. If the student’s H-1B petition is not selected, the student will have the standard 60-day grace period from the date of the rejection notice or their program end date, whichever is later, to prepare for and depart the United States.
Students are strongly encouraged to stay in close communication with their petitioning employer during the cap-gap extension period for status updates on the H-1B petition processing.
Q4. How does a student covered under the cap-gap extension obtain proof of continuing status?
A4. The student should go to their Designated School Official (DSO) with evidence of a timely filed H-1B petition (indicating a request for change of status rather than for consular processing), such as a copy of the petition and a FedEx, UPS, or USPS Express/certified mail receipt. The student’s DSO will issue a preliminary cap-gap I-20 showing an extension until June 1, 2012.
If the H-1B petition is selected for adjudication, the student should return to his or her DSO with a copy of the petitioning employer’s Form I-797, Notice of Action, with a valid receipt number, indicating that the petition was filed and accepted. The student’s DSO will issue a new cap-gap I-20 indicating the continued extension of F-1 status.
Q5. Is a student who becomes eligible for an automatic cap-gap extension of status and employment authorization, but whose H-1B petition is subsequently rejected, denied or revoked, still allowed the 60-day grace period?
A5. If USCIS denies, rejects, or revokes an H-1B petition filed on behalf of an F-1 student covered by the automatic cap-gap extension
of status, the student will have the standard 60-day grace period (from the date of the notification of the denial, rejection, or revocation of the petition) before he or she is required to depart the United States.
For denied cases, it should be noted that the 60-day grace period does not apply to an F-1 student whose accompanying change of status request is denied due to the discovery of a status violation. The student in this situation is not eligible for the automatic cap-gap extension of status or the 60-day grace period. Similarly, the 60-day grace period and automatic cap-gap extension of status would not apply to the case of a student whose petition was revoked based on a finding of fraud or misrepresentation discovered following approval. In both of these instances, the student would be required to leave the United States immediately.
Q6. May students travel outside the United States during a cap-gap extension period and return in F-1 status?
A6. No. A student granted a cap-gap extension who elects to travel outside the United States during the cap-gap extension period will not be able to return in F-1 status. The student will need to apply for an H-1B visa at a consular post abroad prior to returning. As the H-1B petition is for an October 1, 2012 start date, the student should be prepared to adjust his or her travel plans, accordingly.
Q7. What if a student’s post-completion OPT has expired and the student is in a valid grace period when an H-1B cap-subject petition is filed on their behalf? It appears that F-1 status would be extended, but would OPT also be extended?
A7. F-1 students who have entered the 60-day grace period are not employment-authorized. Consequently, if an H-1B cap-subject petition is filed on the behalf of a student who has entered the 60-day grace period, the student will receive the automatic cap-gap extension of his or her F-1 status, but will not become employment-authorized (since the student was not employment-authorized at the time H-1B petition was filed, there is no employment authorization to be extended).
Q8. Do the limits on unemployment time apply to students with a cap-gap extension?
A8: Yes. The 90-day limitation on unemployment during the initial post-completion OPT authorization continues during the cap-gap extension.
Q9. What is a STEM OPT extension?
A9. F-1 students who receive science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) degrees included on the STEM Designated Degree Program List, are employed by employers enrolled in E-Verify, and who have received an initial grant of post-completion OPT employment authorization related to such a degree, may apply for a 17-month extension of this authorization. F-1 students may obtain additional information about STEM OPT extensions on the Student and Exchange Visitor Program website at www.ice.gov/sevis.
Q10. May a student eligible for a cap-gap extension of post-completion OPT employment authorization and F-1 status apply for a STEM OPT extension while he or she is in the cap-gap extension period?
A10. Yes. However, such application may not be made once the cap-gap extension period is terminated (e.g., if the H-1B petition is rejected, denied, or revoked), and the student has entered the 60-day departure preparation period.
Q11. In recent years, employers have been able to file H-1B cap-subject petitions after April 1, and have not always requested an October 1 start date. However, some students’ OPT end dates were nevertheless shortened to September 30, even though their H-1B employment would not begin until a later date. What should the student do to correct this?
A11. The student should contact their DSO. The DSO may request a data fix in SEVIS by contacting the SEVIS helpdesk.
Q12. If the student finds a new H-1B job, can he or she continue working with his/her approved EAD while the data fix in SEVIS is pending?
A12. Yes, if the (former) H-1B employer timely withdrew the H-1B petition and the following conditions are true:
§ the student finds employment appropriate to his or her OPT;
§ the period of OPT is unexpired; and
§ the DSO has requested a data fix in SEVIS.
Note: If the student had to file Form I-539 to request rei
nstatement to F-1 student status, the student may not work or attend classes until the reinstatement is approved.
Q13. If the student has an approved H-1B petition and change of status, but is laid off/terminated by the H-1B employer before the effective date, and the student has an unexpired EAD issued for post-completion OPT, can the student retrieve any unused OPT?
A13.Yes. The student will remain in student status and can continue working OPT using the unexpired EAD until the H-1B change of status goes into effect. The student also needs to make sure that USCIS receives a withdrawal request from the petitioner before the H-1B change of status effective date. This will prevent the student from changing to H-1B status. Once the petition has been revoked, the student must provide their DSO with a copy of the USCIS acknowledgement of withdrawal (i.e., the notice of revocation). The DSO may then request a data fix in SEVIS, to prevent the student from being terminated in SEVIS on the H-1B effective date, by contacting the SEVIS helpdesk.
If USCIS does not receive the withdrawal request prior to the H-1B petition change of status effective date, then the student will need to stop working, file a Form I-539 to request reinstatement, and wait until the reinstatement request is approved before resuming employment.
Q14. In cases where a student is authorized to work OPT past the H-1B change of status effective date, can the student continue working on OPT if a request to revoke/withdraw the H-1B change of status is submitted to USCIS?
A14. If the H-1B revocation occurs before the H-1B change of status effective date, the student may continue working while the data fix remains pending, because the student will still be in valid F-1 status.
If the H-1B revocation occurs on or after the H-1B change of status effective date, the student will need to stop working before the H-1B change of status effective date, apply for reinstatement, and wait until the reinstatement request is approved before resuming employment.
NOTE: This is NOT a cap-gap situation since the student has an EAD authorizing OPT beyond the H-1B change of status effective date.
Q15. Do students remain in valid F-1 status while the request to change the OPT end date is pending?
A15. If the H-1B revocation occurs before the H-1B change of status effective da te, the student is still deemed to be in F-1 status while the data fix is pending.
If the H-1B revocation occurs after the H-1B change of status effective date, the student will not be in valid F-1 status and will therefore either need to apply for reinstatement or depart the United States.
Last updated:03/29/2012
USCIS – New Countries Eligible for H-2A and H-2Bs
VIA USCIS.gov
WASHINGTON— U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced today that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in consultation with the Department of State, has identified 53 countries whose nationals are eligible to participate in the H-2A and H-2B programs for the coming year.
The H-2A program allows U.S. employers to bring foreign nationals to the United States to fill temporary agricultural jobs; the H-2B program allows U.S. employers to bring foreign nationals to the United States for temporary nonagricultural jobs. USCIS, with limited exception, approves petitions only for nationals of countries designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security as eligible to participate in the H-2A and H-2B programs. A new list of eligible countries publishes in a Federal Register notice on January 18, 2011 , and the designations are valid for one year from the date of publication.
Effective Jan. 18, 2011, nationals from the following countries are eligible to participate in the H-2A and H-2B programs: Argentina, Australia, Barbados, Belize, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Jamaica, Japan, Kiribati, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Mexico, Moldova, Nauru, The Netherlands, Nicaragua, New Zealand, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Samoa, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, South Korea, Tonga, Turkey, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, and Vanuatu. Of these countries, the following were designated for the first time this year: Barbados, Estonia, Fiji, Hungary, Kiribati, Latvia, Macedonia, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu.
After considering a number of relevant factors under the governing regulations, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State have determined that Indonesia currently does not warrant a renewed designation as a participating country in the H-2A and H-2B programs for 2011.
This new list does not affect the status of individuals who currently hold valid H-2A or H-2B visas or status. A national from a country that is not on the list may be the beneficiary of an approved H-2A and H-2B petition if the Secretary of Homeland Security determines, in her sole and unreviewable discretion, that it is in the U.S. interest for the alien to be a beneficiary of the petition.
Last updated:01/14/2011
USCIS Reaches Fiscal Year 2012 H-1B Cap
VIA USCIS
Released Nov. 23, 2011
WASHINGTON – U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced today that it has received a sufficient number of H-1B petitions to reach the statutory cap of 65,000 for fiscal year (FY) 2012. USCIS is notifying the public that yesterday, Nov. 22, 2011, was the final receipt date for new H-1B specialty occupation petitions requesting an employment start date in FY 2012.
Properly filed cases will be considered received on the date that USCIS physically receives the petition; not the date that the petition was postmarked. USCIS will reject cap-subject petitions for new H-1B specialty occupation workers seeking an employment start date in FY 2012 that arrive after Nov. 22, 2011.
As of Oct. 19, 2011, USCIS had also received more than 20,000 H-1B petitions filed on behalf of persons exempt from the cap under the ‘advanced degree’ exemption. USCIS will continue to accept and process petitions that are otherwise exempt from the cap. In addition, petitions filed on behalf of current H-1B workers who have been counted previously against the cap will not be counted toward the FY 2012 H-1B cap. Accordingly, USCIS will continue to accept and process petitions filed to:
- extend the amount of time a current H-1B worker may remain in the U.S.;
- change the terms of employment for current H-1B workers;
- allow current H-1B workers to change employers; and
- allow current H-1B workers to work concurrently in a second H-1B position.
U.S. businesses use the H-1B program to employ foreign workers in specialty occupations that require theoretical or technical expertise in specialized fields such as scientists, engineers or computer programmers.
USCIS Redesigns Employment Authorization Document and Certificate of Citizenship to Enhance Security and Combat Fraud
USCIS Improves Processing for Naturalization and Citizenship Forms
WASHINGTON — U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is enhancing the filing process for select forms dealing with naturalization and citizenship (N-Forms). Beginning Oct. 30, 2011, the new process will allow individuals to file N-Forms at a secure Lockbox facility instead of our local offices. This change streamlines the way forms are processed, accelerates the collection and deposit of fees and improves the consistency of our intake process.
Individuals should begin submitting affected forms directly to the appropriate Lockbox beginning Oct. 30, 2011. Forms received by local USCIS offices during a transition period between Oct. 30 and Dec. 2, 2011, will be forwarded to the USCIS Lockbox facility for processing. Forms received at local USCIS offices after Dec. 2, 2011, will no longer be forwarded but will be returned to the individual with instructions on how to re-file at a designated USCIS Lockbox facility. USCIS will centralize intake of Forms N-336, N-600 and N-600K at the Phoenix Lockbox facility. The Dallas Lockbox facility will handle the Form N-300. Individuals filing Form N-400, Application for Naturalization, already file at a Lockbox facility.
The following table lists N-Forms affected by this filing change:
|
Affected N-Forms |
Date that Lockbox starts accepting |
Last receipt date that local offices will forward |
|
Sunday, Oct. 30, 2011 |
Friday, Dec. 2, 2011 |
USCIS has updated the information on our N-Form Web pages regarding filing forms at a Lockbox to clearly identify this change in procedure. Please carefully read the form instructions before filing your form to ensure that you are filing the correct form type at the correct location. Any individual submitting the wrong form type for the benefit sought will not receive a fee refund. Instead, individuals will have to re-apply using the correct form and pay a new fee.
USCIS Announces “Entrepreneurs in Residence” Initiative
WASHINGTON—U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Director Alejandro Mayorkas joined the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness in Pittsburgh to announce “Entrepreneurs in Residence.” This new innovative initiative will utilize industry expertise to strengthen USCIS policies and practices surrounding immigrant investors, entrepreneurs and workers with specialized skills, knowledge, or abilities. Mayorkas announced the initiative at the Jobs Council’s High Growth Entrepreneurship Listening and Action Session at AlphaLab in Pittsburgh before the Council’s quarterly meeting with President Obama.
“This initiative creates additional opportunities for USCIS to gain insights in areas critical to economic growth,” said Director Mayorkas. “The introduction of expert views from the private and public sector will help us to ensure that our policies and processes fully realize the immigration law’s potential to create and protect American jobs.”
USCIS will launch the “Entrepreneurs in Residence” initiative with a series of informational summits with industry leaders to gather high-level strategic input. Informed by the summits, the agency will stand up a tactical team comprised of entrepreneurs and experts, working with USCIS personnel, to design and implement effective solutions. This initiative will strengthen USCIS’s collaboration with industries, at the policy, training, and officer level, while complying with all current Federal statutes and regulations.
The initiative builds upon USCIS’s August announcement of efforts to promote startup enterprises and spur job creation, including enhancements to the EB-5 immigrant investor visa program. Since August, USCIS is:
- Conducting a review of the EB-5 process
- Working with business analysts to enhance the EB-5 adjudication process
- Implementing direct access for EB-5 Regional Center applicants to reach adjudicators quickly; and
- Launching new specialized training modules for USCIS officers on the EB-2 visa classification and L-1B nonimmigrant intra-company transferees.
USCIS Issues Guidance Memorandum on Establishing the “Employee-Employer Relationship” in H-1B Petitions
VIA USCIS.GOV
Published Jan. 13, 2010; revised Aug. 2, 2011
Introduction
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued updated guidance to adjudication officers to clarify what constitutes a valid employer-employee relationship to qualify for the H-1B ‘specialty occupation’ classification. The memorandum clarifies such relationships, particularly as it pertains to independent contractors, self-employed beneficiaries, and beneficiaries placed at third-party worksites. The memorandum is titled: “Determining Employer-Employee Relationship for Adjudication of H-1B Petitions, Including Third-Party Site Placements: Additions to Officer’s Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 31.3(g)(15)(AFM Update AD 10-24).” In addition to clarifying the requirements for a valid employer-employee relationship, the memorandum also discusses the types of evidence petitioners may provide to establish that an employer-employee relationship exists and will continue to exist with the beneficiary throughout the duration of the requested H-1B validity period.
Questions & Answers
Q: Does this memorandum change any of the requirements to establish eligibility for an H-1B petition?
A: No. This memorandum does not change any of the requirements for an H-1B petition. The H-1B regulations currently require that a United States employer establish that it has an employer-employee relations with respect to the beneficiary, as indicated by the fact that it may hire, pay, fire, supervise or otherwise control the work of any such employee. In addition to demonstrating that a valid employer-employee relationship will exist between the petitioner and the beneficiary, the petitioner must continue to comply with all of the requirements for an H-1B petition including:
- establishing that the beneficiary is coming to the United States temporarily to work in a specialty occupation;
- demonstrating that the beneficiary is qualified to perform services in the specialty occupation; and
- filing of a Labor Condition Application (LCA) specific to each location where the beneficiary will perform services.
Q: What factors does USCIS consider when evaluating the employer-employee relationship?
A: As stated in the memorandum, USCIS wi
ll evaluate whether the petitioner has the “right to control” the beneficiary’s employment, such as when, where and how the beneficiary performs the job. Please see the memorandum in the links in the upper right hand of this page for a list of factors that USCIS will review when determining whether the petitioner has the right to control the beneficiary. Please note that no one factor is decisive and adjudicators will review the totality of the circumstances when making a determination as to whether the employer-employee relationship exists.
Q: What types of evidence can I provide to demonstrate that I have a valid employer-employee relationship with the beneficiary?
A: You may demonstrate that you have a valid employer-employee relationship with the beneficiary by submitting the types of evidence outlined in the memorandum or similar probative types of evidence.
Q: What if I cannot submit the evidence listed in the memorandum?
A: The documents listed in the memorandum are only examples of evidence that establish the petitioner’s right to control the beneficiary’s employment. Unless a document is required by the regulations, i.e. an itinerary, you may provide similarly probative documents. You may submit a combination of any documents that sufficiently establish that the required relationship between you and the beneficiary exists. You should explain how the documents you are providing establish the relationship. Adjudicators will review and weigh all the evidence submitted to determine whether a qualifying employer-employee relationship has been established.
Q: What if I receive or have received an RFE requesting that I submit a particular type of evidence and I do not have the exact type of document listed in the RFE?
A: If the type of evidence requested in the RFE is not a document that is required by regulations, you may submit other similar probative evidence that addresses the issue(s) raised in the RFE. You should explain how the documents you are providing address the deficiency(ies) raised in the RFE. Adjudicators will review and weigh all evidence based on the totality of the circumstances. Please note that you cannot submit similar evidence in place of documents required by regulation.
Q: Will my petition be denied if I cannot establish that the qualifying employer-employee relationship will exist?
A: If you do not initially provide sufficient evidence of an employer-employee relationship for the duration of the requested validity period, you may be given an opportunity to correct the deficiency in response to a request for evidence (RFE). Your petition will be denied if you do not provide sufficiently probative evidence that the qualifying employer-employee relationship will exist for any time period.
Q: What if I can only establish that the qualifying employer-employee relationship will exist for a portion of the requested validity period?
A: If you do not initially provide sufficient evidence of an employer-employee relationship for the duration of the requested validity period, you may be given an opportunity to correct the deficiency in response to a request for evidence (RFE). Your petition may still be approved if you provide evidence that a qualifying employer-employee relationship will exist for a portion of the requested validity period (as long as all other requirements are met), however, USCIS will limit a petition’s validity to the time period of qualifying employment established by the evidence.
Q: What happens if I am filing a petition requesting a “Continuation of previously approved employment without change” or “Change in previously approved employment” and an extension of stay for the beneficiary in H-1B classification, but I did not maintain a valid employer-employee relationship with the beneficiary during the validity of the previous petition?
A: Your extension petition will be denied if USCIS determines that you did not maintain a valid employer-employee relationship with the beneficiary throughout the validity period of the previous petition. The only exception is if there is a compelling reason to approve the new petition (e.g. you are able to demonstrate that you did not meet all of the terms and conditions through no fault of your own). Such exceptions would be limited and made on a case-by-case basis.
Q: What if I am filing a petition requesting a “Change of Employer” and an extension of stay for the beneficiary’s H-1B classification? Would my petition be adjudicated under the section of the memorandum that deals with extension petitions?
A: No. The section of the memorandum that covers extension petitions applies solely to petitions filed by the same employer to extend H-1B status without a material change in the original terms of employment. All other petitions will be adjudicated in accordance with the section of the memorandum that covers initial petitions.
Q: I am a petitioner who will be employing the beneficiary to perform services in more than one work location. Do I need to submit an itinerary in support of my petition?
A: Yes. You will need to submit a complete itinerary of services or engagements, as described in the memo, in order to comply with 8 CFR 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B) if you are employing the beneficiary to perform services in more than one work location. Furthermore, you must comply with Department of Labor regulations requiring that you file an LCA specific to each work location for the beneficiary.
Q: The memorandum provides an example of when a beneficiary, who is the sole owner of the petitioner, would not establish a valid employer-employee relationship. Are there any examples of when a beneficiary, who is the sole owner of the petitioner, may be able to establish a valid em
ployer-employee relationship?
A. Yes. In footnotes 9 and 10 of the memorandum, USCIS indicates that while a corporation may be a separate legal entity from its stockholders or sole owner, it may be difficult for that corporation to establish the requisite employer-employee relationship for purposes of an H-1B petition. However, if the facts show that there is a right to control by the petitioner over the employment of the beneficiary, then a valid employer-employee relationship may be established. For example, if the petitioner provides evidence that there is a separate Board of Directors which has the ability to hire, fire, pay, supervise or otherwise control the beneficiary, the petitioner may be able to establish an employer-employee relationship with the beneficiary.
Q: What happens if I do not submit evidence of the employer-employee relationship with my initial petition?
A: If you do not initially provide sufficient evidence of an employer-employee relationship for the duration of the requested validity period, you will be given an opportunity to correct the deficiency in response to a request for evidence (RFE). However, failure to provide this information with the initial submission will delay processing of your petition.
Transcript: Press Conference on Initiatives to Promote Startup Enterprised and Spur Job Creation, Aug. 2, 2011
Teleconference: L-1B Specialized Knowledge
Overview
On May 12, 2011, the Office of Public Engagement, the Service Center Operations Directorate, and the Office of Policy and Strategy hosted a stakeholder engagement to discuss issues related to the L-1B nonimmigrant classification. More specifically, USCIS was seeking feedback on the interpretation of the term “specialized knowledge” within the regulatory framework and what standards and evidentiary requirements should be followed in determining eligibility for this classification.
Principal Themes
Interpreting Specialized Knowledge
An overwhelming majority of stakeholders asserted that the existing regulatory definition of “specialized knowledge” and USCIS policy memoranda which relate to this issue are fine as written, and there is no need to issue any new policy memorandum. Some stakeholders provided feedback indicating that the definition of “specialized knowledge” should be interpreted more broadly than is currently being practiced at the Service Centers. Stakeholders noted that USCIS is interpreting the definition too narrowly as evidenced by the Requests for Evidence (RFE) and denials which are being received by many petitioners for this category. One stakeholder stated that it appears that USCIS has made a change in its interpretation in recent years without any change in the law.
USCIS also sought feedback from stakeholders on whether the current interpretation being used by Service Centers meets the needs of employers. Some stakeholders stated that the current interpretation did not meet the needs of employers because it was being too strictly and narrowly interpreted. They suggested that it would better serve employers if there was an increased flexibility and a broader interpretation of the term specialized knowledge.
Requests for Evidence
One stakeholder commented that petitioners were unsure of what documentation to submit with L-1B petitions at this time because it appeared that USCIS officers were making determinations as to required evidence on a case by case basis rather than having a general requirements list for all cases. They requested that USCIS provide stakeholders with a list of recommended initial evidence as well as additional evidence that should be included with a petition for an L-1B nonimmigrant so as to help petitioners avoid receiving so many Requests for Evidence.
Some stakeholders indicated that petitioners are overwhelmed by the information being requested in RFEs and that some RFEs requested evidence associated with O-1 requirements. They commented that these RFEs are too burdensome and costly and may lead petitioners to withdraw their petitions. Stakeholders also commented that this may lead to highly qualified individuals deciding to go to other countries rather than sharing their expertise to strengthen the U.S. economy.
Several stakeholders commented that USCIS should provide additional training on the proper adjudications standards for USCIS officers working on L-1B nonimmigrant petitions in order to avoid lengthy and repetitive RFEs in the future. Stakeholders suggested that this training should include input from various industries so as to provide USCIS officers with real life examples of how companies utilize L-1B nonimmigrants. It was further suggested by stakeholders that USCIS officers are not following the “preponderance of the evidence” standard, and that this evidentiary standard should be reinforced through training. It was also suggested that the Service Centers should implement a more rigorous supervisory review on all potential RFEs and denials on L-1B adjudications.
Factors in determining Specialized Knowledge
USCIS also asked stakeholders to provide feedback on what relevant factors should be considered in determining if a beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge. One stakeholder commented that the specialized knowledge held by the beneficiary may be of the petitioner’s already existing product rather than of a product the beneficiary is producing or developing for the petitioner.
Another stakeholdercommented that in some cases, an individual is brought in to lead the implementation of a product and to guide the team rather than to create a new product. In other cases, the knowledge relates to the industry rather than a particular company. It is not unique to the company, but rather enhances a company’s competitiveness. Another stakeholder commented that in certain industries such as the software industry, the information is not unique to the company in that there are other individuals who have knowledge of the software as well. The goal, however, is to bring skilled individuals from the overseas market in order to be more competitive.
Stakeholders also indicated that specialized knowledge is different from proprietary knowledge and should not be confused. Some stakeholders reminded USCIS that the L-1B nonimmigrant classification did not require the individual to be extraordinary, and that specialized knowledge need not be proprietary. It was pointed out that specialized knowledge is a special knowledge of the product or processes of a company. Stakeholders also stated that specialized knowledge need not to be narrowly held by a select few individuals within a company. Furthermore, stakeholders stated that specialized knowledge should not be determined by country of origin or by the petitioner’s business model.
Next Steps
USCIS will provide additional guidance and training to USCIS officers adjudicating L-1B petitions.
H-1B CAP COUNT AS OF 06/24/2011
As of June 24, 2011, approximately 17,400 H-1B cap-subject petitions were receipted. Additionally, USCIS has receipted 11,300 H-1B petitions for aliens with advanced degrees.
H-1B Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 Cap Count as of 06/25/2011
FY 2012 H-1B Cap Count
|
Cap Type |
Cap Amount |
Cap Eligible Petitions |
Date of Last Count |
|---|---|---|---|
|
H-1B Regular Cap |
65,000 |
13,100 |
5/26/2011 |
|
H-1B Master’s Exemption |
20,000 |
9,000 |
5/26/2011 |
Cap Eligible Petitions
This is the number of petitions that USCIS has accepted for this particular type of cap. It includes cases that have been approved or are still pending. It does not include petitions that have been denied.
Cap Amounts
The current annual cap on the H-1B category is 65,000. Not all H-1B nonimmigrants are subject to this annual cap. Please note that up to 6,800 visas are set aside from the cap of 65,000 during each fiscal year for the H-1B1 program under the terms of the legislation implementing the U.S.-Chile and U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreements. Unused numbers in this pool are made available for H-1B use for the next fiscal year.
USCIS Data on the approval and denial for the E-11 classification (Alien of Extraordinary Ability) of the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers.
Table A provides data on the approval and denial for the E-11 classification (Alien of Extraordinary Ability) of the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers.
Table A: I-140 E-11 Approval/Denial by Fiscal Year 2005 to 2010
|
Fiscal Year |
Approvals |
Denials |
Approval Rate |
Denial Rate |
|
2005 |
791 |
647 |
55% |
45% |
|
2006 |
1,646 |
1,032 |
61% |
39% |
|
2007 |
2,236 |
2,313 |
49% |
51% |
|
2008 |
2,329 |
2,667 |
47% |
53% |
|
2009 |
4,337 |
3,053 |
59% |
41% |
|
2010 |
3,200 |
1,998 |
62% |
38% |
Table B provides data on the approval and denial for the E-12 classification (Outstanding Professor or Researcher) of the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers.
Table B: I-140 E-12 Approval/Denial by Fiscal Year 2005 to 2010
|
Fiscal Year |
Approvals |
Denials |
Approval Rate |
Denial Rate |
| 2005 | 5,042 | 340 | 94% | 6% |
| 2006 | 2,991 | 146 | 95% | 5% |
| 2007 | 2,459 | 283 | 90% | 10% |
| 2008 | 2,148 | 172 | 93% | 7% |
| 2009 | 3,893 | 300 | 93% | 7% |
| 2010 | 3,140 | 306 | 91% | 9% |
Last updated:02/28/2011
The U.S. Immigration Law Blog by Ashwin Sharma 