The Yearbook of Immigration Statistics is a compendium of tables that provides data on foreign nationals who, during a fiscal year, were granted lawful permanent residence (i.e., admitted as immigrants or became legal permanent residents), were admitted into the United States on a temporary basis (e.g., tourists, students, or workers), applied for asylum or refugee status, or were naturalized. The Yearbook also presents data on immigration enforcement actions, including alien apprehensions, removals, and returns. The Yearbook tables are released as they become available. A final PDF is released in September of the following fiscal year.
Infosys Fined an Unprecedented $35,000,000.00 by the U.S. Government for Employing B-1 Visas in Lieu of H-1Bs
The Wall Street Journal reports that the U.S. Government will fine Infosys, an Indian Technology/Consulting giant, almost $35,000,000.00 for employing B-1 visa workers in lieu of H-1B visa workers.
By way of background, last year, Judge Thompson of the Federal Court for the Middle District of Alabama rejected all claims brought by Jack Palmer against his employer, Infosys. Palmer claimed to have been harassed and retaliated against after making allegations that Infosys’ massive B-1 visa program was used fraudulently in place of more appropriate visas. Palmer’s rejected claims were subsequently resurrected by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security, which continued its investigation into whether Infosys wrongly filed B-1 visas for workers performing work that actually required H-1B visas.
In a 2011 blog post I wrote about how Infosys may have been engaging in a perfectly legal action; per 9 FAM 41.31 N11, “ALIENS NORMALLY CLASSIFIABLE H-1 OR H-3″:
“There are cases in which aliens who qualify for H-1 or H-3 visas may more appropriately be classified as B-1 visa applicants in certain circumstances; e.g., a qualified H-1 or H-3 visa applicant coming to the United States to perform H-1 services or to participate in a training program. In such a case, the applicant must not receive any salary or other remuneration from a U.S. source other than an expense allowance or other reimbursement for expenses incidental to the alien’s temporary stay. For purposes of this Note, it is essential that the remuneration or source of income for services performed in the United States continue to be provided by the business entity located abroad, and that the alien meets the following criteria:
(1) With regard to foreign-sourced remuneration for services performed by aliens admitted under the provisions of INA 101(a)(15)(B), the Department has maintained that where a U.S. business enterprise or entity has a separate business enterprise abroad, the salary paid by such foreign entity shall not be considered as coming from a “U.S. source;”
(2) In order for an employer to be considered a “foreign firm” the entity must have an office abroad and its payroll must be disbursed abroad. To qualify for a B-1 visa, the employee must customarily be employed by the foreign firm, the employing entity must pay the employee’s salary, and the source of the employee’s salary must be
However, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), apparently motivated by Palmer’s Testimony, addressed a strongly worded but poorly researched memo to Secretary Hillary Clinton in which he demanded a complete review of the B-1 visa. His request was inexplicably granted, and the resultant changes substantially injured the economic interests of U.S. organizations engaged in international trade, countermanded congressional intent on the subject, and escalated denials for B-1 applicants at U.S. Consulates, especially those in the ‘B-1 in lieu of H-1B’ category.
Moving back to present: Infosys’ fine is unprecedented in the history of Immigration law. It will have a major impact on both our nation’s technology/consulting sector and on our Immigration policy. In light of the fact that other nations are eagerly recruiting the world’s best and brightest (sometimes from within our borders), it can only be hoped that the Infosys fine will reinvigorate the push for the creation of a new U.S. visa category specifically designed for short term consulting projects, and/or to increase the U.S.’s yearly quota for H-1B professional workers to a level that isn’t exhausted in one week.
Congressional Research Service Report: “Prosecutorial Discretion in Immigration Enforcement: Legal Issues”
The latest CRS Report offers valuable information on Prosecutorial Discretion, and provides insight into how such Discretion will fit in with the different Comprehensive Immigration Reform plans currently being discussed in Washington. An extract follows: Read More…
White House Press Release on Comprehensive Immigration Reform entitled “Fixing our Broken Immigration System so Everyone Plays by the Rules”
VIA The White House, Office of the Press Secretary,
For Immediate Release, January 29, 2013
FACT SHEET: Fixing our Broken Immigration System so Everyone Plays by the Rules
America’s immigration system is broken. Too many employers game the system by hiring undocumented workers and there are 11 million people living in the shadows. Neither is good for the economy or the country.
It is time to act to fix the broken immigration system in a way that requires responsibility from everyone —both from the workers here illegally and those who hire them—and guarantees that everyone is playing by the same rules.
President Obama’s commonsense immigration reform proposal has four parts. First, continue to strengthen our borders. Second, crack down on companies that hire undocumented workers. Third, hold undocumented immigrants accountable before they can earn their citizenship; this means requiring undocumented workers to pay their taxes and a penalty, move to the back of the line, learn English, and pass background checks. Fourth, streamline the legal immigration system for families, workers, and employers.
Together we can build a fair, effective and commonsense immigration system that lives up to our heritage as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants.
The key principles the President believes should be included in commonsense immigration reform are:
GAO Report – Additional Actions Needed to Strengthen Customs and Border Protection Efforts to Mitigate Risk of Employee Corruption and Misconduct
The United States Government Accountability Office report (link below) delivered to Congressional requesters is comprehensively summarized by its very title: “Additional Actions Needed to Strengthen CBP [Customs and Border Protection] Efforts to Mitigate Risk of Employee Corruption and Misconduct”
“CBP is the largest uniformed law enforcement agency in the United States, with approximately 21,400 BPAs patrolling between the nation’s ports of entry and more than 20,000 CBPOs stationed at air, land, and seaports nationwide at the end of fiscal year 2011. … The total number of CBP employees increased from 43,545 in fiscal year 2006 to 60,591 as of August 2012….
On the U.S. southwest border, there are about 5,500 CBPOs and 18,000 BPAs as of the end of fiscal year 2011. CBPOs, based within OFO, are responsible for processing immigration documentation of passengers and pedestrians and inspecting vehicles and cargo at U.S. ports of entry. BPAs are based within the USBP and are responsible for enforcing immigration laws across the territory in between the ports of entry and at checkpoints located inside the U.S. border. Together, CBPOs and BPAs are responsible for detecting and preventing the illegal entry of persons and contraband, including terrorists and weapons of mass destruction, across the border.”
The GAO report concluded that much more could be done to decrease misconduct and corruption in the agency:
200K DACA applications filed so far
Per The Hill: DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano indicates that more than 3,000 have applied for DACA every day, about 200,000 applications overall.
IMMIGRATION ATTORNEY APPLAUDS NEWLY ANNOUNCED DHS REFORMS IN FURTHERANCE OF ATTRACTING AND RETAINING HIGHLY SKILLED IMMIGRANTS/INVESTORS AND CALLS FOR PARALLEL CHANGES IN THE U.S. CONSULAR PROCESSING SYSTEM
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has announced substantial changes to our immigration system by way of a two prong strategy aimed at retaining highly skilled immigrants and increasing investment in the U.S. by foreign investors, reports U.S. Immigration lawyer Ashwin Sharma. The DHS announced this week that it would add to or modify established immigration processes so as to further President Obama’s commitments to:
1. The Creation of a “Startup Visa,”
2. Strengthening the H-1B nonimmigrant professional program,
3. “Stapling” green cards to the diplomas of certain foreign-born graduates in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields, and make improvements to existing programs.
The DHS hopes that these and other proposed changes will attract and retain highly-skilled immigrants.
Ashwin Sharma, a member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, applauds the DHS’s actions and calls for parallel changes within the U.S. Department of State’s Consular Posts. “We urgently require these changes and more, particularly with regard to professionals and investors. It has never been more difficult for tourists, professionals or investors to legally enter this country and contribute to the American economy. Our various immigration departments and agencies are interpreting the same laws differently. The U.S. Consulates, for example, appear to be ignoring specific Congressional mandates. Furthermore, there appears to be little communication between DHS and the Consulates which results in the inexplicable penalization of valuable immigrants.”
Mr. Sharma continued, “For example, to fill a specialty occupation with an H-1B professional worker, a U.S. employer may pay up to $5,500 just in government filing fees, provide hundreds or thousands of pages to DHS in support, make applicable attestations, answer up to one or two DHS queries and remain ready for a random on-site inspection. However, even after obtaining an approval subsequent to this rigorous and expensive adjudication process, which will have to be repeated each time an employer files a case, an employer may learn that their H-1B employee(s) are barred from reentering the U.S. after a short visit abroad. These employee(s) may be held abroad for months or years, away from their family, home and of course, job. U.S. employers of those encountering such a situation often lose contracts, profits and incur harm to their corporate reputation.”
“A U.S. Consular officer may deny entry to the U.S. to anyone, even someone with a DHS approved H-1B. Such a denial follows, generally, a two to five minute interview in which a Consular officer quickly flips through the same documentation previously scrutinized by the DHS. Presently, the main reason for such denials for H-1B IT workers appears predicated on Consular Officers’ outdated interpretation of what constitutes an “employee-employer” relationship within the H-1B context. This definition however, has been substantially modified by DHS and DHS Chief Napolitano since the original, restrictive definition was announced in January of 2010. Unfortunately, no one seems to have issued the revisions to the Consulates. Further, it appears that a substantial percentage of such H-1B visa denials may be improper. This is because the Foreign Affairs Manual (“FAM”) guidelines for Consulates state that a U.S. Consular Officer may only deny a case on very specific grounds, that is, the discovery of new negative facts not previously known to DHS in the course of DHS’ adjudication. For example, 9 FAM 41.53(d) states that,”
“…The consular officer must suspend action on this alien’s application and submit a report to the approving DHS office if the consular officer knows or has reason to believe that an alien applying for a visa under INA 101(a)(15)(H) is not entitled to the classification as approved.”
Mr. Sharma highlighted a selection in the FAM which indicates a Consular officer,
“…must have specific evidence of a requirement for automatic revocation, misrepresentation in the petition process, lack of qualification on the part of the beneficiary, or of other previously unknown facts, which might alter USCIS’s finding before requesting review of an approved Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker.”
Mr. Sharma noted that, “The FAM repeatedly emphasizes that DHS, the original adjudicator of the petition, should be given greater deference than Consulates in reviewing the qualifications of a particular alien for “H” status, and that Consulates should rely on DHS expertise, and not their own. This is not only so because Congress explicitly and implicitly assigned “responsibility” and “authority” of making such a decision to DHS but also because of the complexity of H petitions in general.”
“By mandating a preliminary petition process, Congress placed responsibility and authority with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to determine whether the alien meets the required qualifications for “H” status. Because DHS regulations governing adjudication of H petitions are complex, you should rely on the expertise of DHS in this area.” 9 FAM 41.53 N2.1 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Responsible for Adjudicating H Petitions”
Mr. Sharma stated, “Another unambiguous demand for Consulates’ deference to DHS is contained in 9 FAM 41.53 N2.2, under the heading entitled, “Approved Petition Is Prima Facie Evidence of Entitlement to H Classification”. Subsection (a) of this section makes it abundantly clear that the Consulate or Consular officer should not make any adverse decision on an H-1B petition approved by DHS, unless the Consulate discovers (presumably material) information during the visa interview that was not available to DHS,”
“You do not have the authority to question the approval of H petitions without specific evidence, unavailable to DHS at the time of petition approval, that the beneficiary may not be entitled to status. The large majority of approved H petitions are valid, and involve bona fide establishments, relationships, and individual qualifications that conform to the DHS regulations in effect at the time the H petition was filed.”
Mr. Sharma emphasized that it is “only if the Consulate discovers material not known to the DHS is it advised to issue a request for evidence in the following note (b),”
“If information develops during the visa interview (e.g., evidence which was not available to DHS) that gives you reason to believe that the beneficiary may not be entitled to status, you may request any additional evidence which bears a reasonable relationship to this issue. “
Mr. Sharma provided another example in 9 FAM 41.53 N2.3, “Referring Approved H Petition to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for Reconsideration” which he stated “…reemphasizes an often ignored directive: that Consular officers,”
“… should consider all approved H petitions in light of these Notes, process those applications that appear to be legitimate, identify those applications which require local investigation, and identify those petitions that require referral to the approving U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) office for reconsideration. Refer petitions to USCIS for reconsideration sparingly, to avoid inconveniencing bona fide petitioners and beneficiaries and causing duplication of effort by USCIS. You must have specific evidence of a requirement for automatic revocation, misrepresentation in the petition process, lack of qualification on the part of the beneficiary, or of other previously unknown facts, which might alter USCIS’s finding before requesting review of an approved Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker.”
Mr. Sharma concluded, “It is highly improbable that freshly discovered documentary evidence, both material in nature and unavailable to DHS at the time of original adjudication, could be discovered during the course of a typically rapid Consulate interview for the majority of H-1B petitions that have been denied recently. Visa applicants and their employers obey the law, ‘wait their turn’ and pay the requisite fees but are often those most ill treated by our system. These individuals are suffering harm because of the carelessness, ignorance and a lack of communication within and among our Immigration agencies, particularly at the Consular level. This may be one of the major reasons why our economy suffers; tourists, students, investors and professionals are increasingly selecting emigration to Australia and Canada over the U.S. and its unpredictable, almost schizophrenic immigration system. I welcome the DHS’ proposed changes but they will have little impact if the U.S. Department of State’s Consulates continue to ignore them.”
U.S. Citizen client calls on U.S. Department of State to review overbroad and erroneous Terrorism allegation against her husband
Attorney Ashwin Sharma is defending a client wrongly deemed permanently inadmissible to the U.S. under the Terrorism Related Inadmissibility Grounds (“TRIG”) section in the INA. TRIG is the same overbroad regulation that many innocent individuals have been unjustly subject to. For example, an asylee from Burundi was named a terrorist and jailed for 20 months by the U.S. because he was found to have financially supported the Rebel group that robbed him of $4.00 and a bagged lunch. Similarly, Mr. Nelson Mandela was subject to this regulation for having fought against apartheid. He required a special waiver from the then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to enter the U.S.
Opponents of TRIG’s overbroad reach have pointed out that even America’s first President George Washington would have been subject to Terrorism Related Grounds of Inadmissibility, as the law stands today, for having fought in the Revolutionary War against the British.