Global Immigration Blog : Immigration Lawyers & Attorneys : Jackson Lewis Law Firm : Labor Certification, Adjustment of Status

Are you subject to the Federal Acquisition Rule’s (FAR) E-Verify requirements?Many companies mistakenly think they are subject to FAR and therefore required to use the E-Verify System.

FAR sets out certain prerequisites for determining whether a government contract makes an employer subject to mandatory E-Verify Registration. For example, the contract period must be for at least 120 days and the contract value must be for at least $100,000. More importantly, however, the contract also must contain the FAR provision. Many employers seem to miss this point. They worry needlessly whether they should be using E-Verify when the clause is not in the contract. Existing contracts can be modified to include the clause, but until your contract is modified, or you receive a new contract with the FAR clause, you should not be subject to the E-verify requirement.

The contracting government official, not DHS or SSA (unless they also are the contracting agency), determines if you are subject to the requirement. In negotiating your contract, you can argue why you should not be subject in order to keep the clause out of the contract. For example, if you believe your product meets the commercially available off-the-shelf (“COTS”) exemption, try to persuade the contracting official to omit the clause from your contract in the first place.

While E-Verify is always an option for new hires, remember it can only be used for the entire workforce or employees assigned to the contract if you have a FAR clause. Using it in this context without the clause also is a violation.  Many issues surrounding the FAR E-verify clause remain unsettled as this is still a relatively new regulation. The government has been addressing questions as they arise and may issue a new Memorandum of Understanding in the future. Watch this blog for the latest developments on E-verify compliance and strategy.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Social Security Administration (SSA) No-Match Rule illustrates the problem employers can face when intensive government scrutiny is combined with a lack of government guidance. This problem was further exacerbated by the Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (CIS) announcement in November of 1,000 I-9 Audits.

This issue arose in 2007, when DHS issued guidelines for employers confronting SSA “No-Match” notices. However, the SSA initiative was enjoined quickly by federal court order and never took effect. Prior to the injunction, the SSA issued “No-Match” letters to employers on an annual basis, notifying them of employees whose social security information presented to employers did not match information contained in the government’s database. In some cases, the discrepancies were acknowledged to be SSA error, others resulted from name changes of which individuals had failed to inform SSA, and some pointed to possible fraud or identity theft by the employee.
Employers were left with little guidance, however, since the No- Match letters expressly cautioned against taking “personnel action solely based on this letter.” Employee advocates warned employers of discrimination issues, arguing that affected employees should be given many months to address the issue while remaining at work.

The No-Match Rule would have required employers to take concrete steps over a defined period to address employee social security discrepancies, or risk being charged with “constructive knowledge” that their employees were undocumented. Briefly, the Rules called for employers to check their records and to ask employees to resolve any discrepancies within 90 days. It also instructed employers to reverify an employee’s work authorization with documentation not listing the questioned social security number if the discrepancy could not be resolved within that timeframe.

Despite the government’s attempt to clarify the Rule and its justification through an economic impact analysis in March 2008, the No-Match Rule eventually was withdrawn and abandoned entirely under the new Administration.

After all this, employers are back to square one. They have to determine for themselves what steps to take when No-Match issues arise. With government audits on the increase, legal counsel have been getting more requests to advise on these issues. This blog will continue to update you on this developing area of the law.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America’s Security and Prosperity Act of 2009 (“CIR ASAP”) has been introduced by Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (D. Ill.). The bill proposes a broad array of changes to the visa system, some of which may place additional burdens on employers:

Included in the bill, introduced on December 15, 2009, are measures to reduce immigrant visa backlogs for highly-skilled workers and expansion of the EB-5 investor immigrant visa program. There also are provisions for a new lottery-based temporary visa for unskilled workers and a special six-year visa to allow currently undocumented aliens an opportunity to apply for permanent residence through a points system.

The bill includes proposals for enhanced border security, employer immigration enforcement and employment authorization verification. In addition, the bill modifies existing policies to increase employer obligations for companies who utilize the H-1B, H-2B and L-1 Visa programs. Particularly troubling is the proposal to require recruitment prior to filing H-1B visa petitions.

While CIR ASAP contains interesting proposals for resolving the problems employers face in finding low-skilled workers who are in the U.S. lawfully, the measure does not offer employers much to ensure that they will be able to access the highly-skilled workers required by the U.S. economy. The proposal for a Commission on Immigration and Labor Markets will be particularly problematic for employers, as such a body is unlikely to be able to predict the need for various types of workers or respond timely to market changes. A self-adjusting, demand-based visa allocation system would better meet the needs of the economy.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Although the economy has hit all employees hard, Reductions-in-Force (RIFs) have a disproportionate affect on H-1B employees. When an H-1B employee is terminated from employment, that employee must deal with not only the financial difficulties of a layoff, but the additional complexity of losing authorized status in the United States as of the day of the termination. Even if the individual were to find employment subsequent to the termination, there are many issues in switching employers legally. 

Anytime an employer terminates the employment of an H-1B worker, the employer is liable for reasonable costs of return transportation abroad. Moreover, the employer should withdraw immediately its H-1B petition with United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (“USCIS”), to avoid “front” and “back” pay obligations. The petition, however, may be automatically revoked if the employer goes out of business. 

If a new employer wishes to hire an H-1B individual terminated by a previous employer, the new employer should keep in mind that the individual may need to return to his home country to obtain an H-1B visa if employment has ended prior to the filing of the new employer’s application and his beginning new employment. The Immigration regulations do not provide a grace period from the time the individual ceases employment until the new petition has been filed to find a new position and sponsoring company. 

Other major changes in employment, such as location, duties, or level of responsibility, may require the filing of an amended H-1B petition. While a corporate reorganization may not trigger a duty to amend the petition with the USCIS, this must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. 

Understanding the immigration implications for H-1B workers that may be part of a RIF or other corporate change can make all the difference in mitigating both financial and personal issues for employers, H-1B employees and their dependant family members.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This just in! As of December 8, 2009, approximately 61,500 H-1B cap-subject petitions had been filed. USCIS has approved sufficient H-1B petitions for aliens with advanced degrees to meet the exemption of 20,000 from the fiscal year 2010 cap. Any H-1B petitions filed on behalf of an alien with an advanced degree will now count toward the general H-1B cap of 65,000. USCIS will continue to accept both cap-subject petitions and advanced degree petitions until a sufficient number of H-1B petitions have been received to reach the statutory limits, taking into account the fact that some of these petitions may be denied, revoked, or withdrawn.

Look to this blog for ideas on how to find solutions to the H-1B cap being hit for fiscal Year 2010.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link