Scott Railton's Blog

« Older Entries Newer Entries »

Cap Gap Work Authorization Ends On October 1st for H-1B Applicants

Saturday, September 29th, 2018 by W. Scott Railton

USCIS sent out a reminder today that students in F-1 status, waiting on their H-1B adjudications, are no longer permitted to work on October 1st based on the cap gap rules.  Employers need to be alert to this as well, due to work authorization rules.  Working without authorization can risk accrual of unlawful presence, which is another can of worms. This is s yet another unfortunate consequence of the agency’s delays in adjudicating petitions this year.

Here is the alert:

F-1 students who have an H-1B petition that remains pending on Oct. 1, 2018, risk accruing unlawful presence if they continue to work on or after Oct. 1 (unless otherwise authorized to continue employment), as their “cap-gap” work authorization is only valid through Sept. 30. Due to increased demand for immigration benefits, resulting in higher caseloads as well as a significant surge in premium processing requests, USCIS may not be able to adjudicate H-1B change of status petitions for all F-1 students by Oct. 1.

USCIS regulations allow an F-1 student who is the beneficiary of a timely filed H-1B cap-subject petition requesting a change of status to H-1B on Oct. 1, to have his or her F-1 status and any current employment authorization extended through Sept. 30. 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. The “cap-gap” period starts when an F-1 student’s status and work authorization expire, and they are extended through Sept. 30, with Oct. 1 being the requested start date of their H-1B employment, unless otherwise terminated or the H-1B petition is rejected or denied prior to Oct. 1.

While the temporary suspension of premium processing of certain types of H-1B petitions has allowed USCIS to allocate additional resources to prioritize the adjudication of these cap-gap cases, if a cap-gap H-1B petition remains pending on or after Oct. 1, the F-1 student is no longer authorized to work under the cap-gap regulations. However, the F-1 student generally may remain in the United States while the change of status petition is pending without accruing unlawful presence, provided they do not work without authorization. If an F-1 student with a pending change of status petition has work authorization (such as an I-765 with valid dates) that extends past Sept. 30, they may continue to work as authorized.

USCIS is committed to adjudicating all petitions, applications, and requests fairly and efficiently on a case-by-case basis to determine if they meet all standards required under applicable laws, regulations, and policies.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in General, Scott Railton |

USCIS to Begin Implementing New Policy Memorandum on Notices to Appear on October 1st

Friday, September 28th, 2018 by W. Scott Railton

USCIS will begin to implement a new policy memorandum for issuing Notices to Appear on October 1st.  The memorandum outlines criteria for issuing Notices to Appear, which is the document for initiating immigration court proceedings. The agency will issue Notices to Appear after certain denials of many of the application types presented. These will include Adjustments of Status, Naturalization, and Temporary Protected Status applications, to name a few.  The importance of seeking counsel before filing applications is all the more heightened by this memo, particularly if there is any issue at all to consider.

The memo says that USCIS will issue Notices to Appear in many cases. The focus will be on a number of different serious criminal matters where persons are “under investigation for, has been arrested for (without disposition), or has been convicted.  The offenses include serious offenses like murder, rape, sexual abuse of a minor, and firearms offenses. The list also includes “human rights violators, known or suspected street gang members, or Interpol hits.”

Additionally, persons who make misrepresentations or “abused any program related to the receipt of public benefits” may be noted to appear.

Naturalization applicants who are denied on good moral character grounds, based on an underlying offense, “provided they are removable,” will be noted to appear.

The agency policy memo includes many other bases, many of which sound reasonable, but the language of the memo leaves much open for interpretation and negative discretionary actions by the agency.  Notably, the current immigration court case backlog is over 700,000 cases, and this will just add to that backlog.  Unless these measures are adequately funded, they threaten all normal immigration processing timelines, which are even now considerably delayed.

Here’s the agency’s press release:

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will begin implementing the June 28 Updated Guidance for the Referral of Cases and Issuance of Notices to Appear (NTAs) in Cases Involving Inadmissible and Deportable Aliens Policy Memorandum (PM) (PDF, 140 KB) on Oct. 1, 2018. USCIS will take an incremental approach to implement this memo.

An NTA is a document that instructs an individual to appear before an immigration judge. This is the first step in starting removal proceedings. Starting Oct. 1, 2018, USCIS may issue NTAs on denied status-impacting applications, including but not limited to, Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, and Form I-539, Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status.

USCIS will send denial letters for status-impacting applications that ensures benefit seekers are provided adequate notice when an application for a benefit is denied. If applicants are no longer in a period of authorized stay, and do not depart the United States, USCIS may issue an NTA. USCIS will provide details on how applicants can review information regarding their period of authorized stay, check travel compliance, or validate departure from the United States.

The June 2018 NTA Policy Memo will not be implemented with respect to employment-based petitions and humanitarian applications and petitions at this time. Existing guidance for these case types will remain in effect.

USCIS will continue to prioritize cases of individuals with criminal records, fraud, or national security concerns. There has been no change to the current processes for issuing NTAs on these case types, and USCIS will continue to use its discretion in issuing NTAs for these cases.

USCIS is holding a public teleconference on Thursday, Sept. 27 from 2 – 3 p.m. Eastern to provide an overview of the PM and respond to pre-submitted questions. The teleconference will conclude with a question and answer session, as time permits. Additional information is available on the Upcoming National Engagements page.

USCIS will provide updates and information on the implementation of this PM on the new Notice to Appear Policy Memorandum page.

 

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in General, Scott Railton |

USCIS Processing Times Are Getting Longer

Tuesday, September 25th, 2018 by W. Scott Railton

Longer waits, longer applications, and higher fees are the unfortunate reality for persons and businesses seeking immigration benefits with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.  Here in Washington State, the USCIS Field Office in Seattle says it is taking 15 to 16.5 months to adjudicte a naturalization application.  The application itself costs $725, has 18 pages of instructions, and 20 pages of application to complete.  USCIS Field Offices appear to be swamped with additional vetting responsibilities, with no additional funding, despite the high application costs.

Similarly, the Service Centers have long waits for many important benefits.  Work authorization documents are taking 4.5 to 6.5 months to issue out of the National Benefits Center.  It used to be that the agency was required to issue a work authorization document within 90 days by regulation, but since that regulation was stricken, wait times have increased. This can be really hard on adjustment application couples, who need their significant other to be earning income to pay the bills.

H-1B applications have really slowed down too, now taking 5.5 to 7.5 months, according to the California Service Center.  We’ve heard of longer adjudications. The agency has noted the issue as well, and has suspended much of its premium processing program in order to try to get a handle on things.  It seems likely that the increase in Requests for Evidence and Denials has added to the agency’s workload.  H-1B applications include thousands of dollars in filing fees, but that doesn’t seem to be relevant.

Last week I participated in a teleconference with Congressional staffers and discussed the issue of delays.  It is a universal concern in immigration law right now, and hopefully something can be done. As part of that call, I put together the following list of published adjudication timeframes:

Timeframes for initial adjudications:

Local Field Offices:

I-485s

(Seattle):             10 to 19.5 months

(Yakima)              9.5 to 21.5 months

(Spokane)           9.5 to 21.5 months

Application fee:                $1225

Form length:                      18 pages; 42 pages of instructions, not including parole and work authorization applications

N-400s

(Seattle):                              15 to 16.5 months

(Yakima)                              3.5 to 5.5 months

(Spokane)                           11.5 to 18 months

Application Fee:               $725

Form length:                      20 pages; 18 pages of instructions.

 

National Benefits Center:

I-765                      4.5 to 6.5 months for adjustments;   5 to 7 months at NBC for all others

I-131                      4.5 to 6.5 months at NBC

 

California Service Center (I-129s)

H-1B:                     5.5 to 7.5 months

Ls:                           4 to 6 months

Rs:                          4 to 7 months

 

Nebraska Service Center (I-140s)

Extraordinary ability (E11)                                         5 Months to 7 Months

Outstanding professor or researcher (E12)                 5 Months to 7 Months

Multinational executive or manager (E13)                  9.5 Months to 12 Months

Advanced degree or exceptional ability (E21)           5 Months to 7 Months

Skilled worker or professional (E31; E32)                  5 Months to 7 Months

Unskilled worker (EW3)                                             7 Months to 9.5 Months

Advanced degree/ (NIW)                                           5 Months to 7 Months

Schedule A Nurses                                                     8 Months to 10 Months

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in General, Scott Railton |

Canada’s Cannabis Act and U.S. Inadmissibility

Friday, September 21st, 2018 by W. Scott Railton

Canada’s Cannabis Act, otherwise called Bill C-45, legalizes cannabis nationally on October 17th. The starting point for all U.S. border issues is the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act. With that in mind, I’ve put together a list below of the key provisions of the INA concerning marijuana and inadmissibility.

I. Criminality Related Grounds

A. Personal:

a.) A past conviction related to cannabis [INA § 212(a)(2)(A)(II)];
b.) Admitting to committing a violation of any law or regulation of a foreign country related to controlled substances [INA § 212(a)(2)(A)(II)];
c.) Admitting to committing acts which constitute the essential elements of any law or regulation of a foreign country related to controlled substances [INA § 212(a)(2)(A)(II)];

Note: Cannabis on person/in car: this is a Customs violation, likely warranting a fine and further questions. Not typically referred for prosecution, though a violation of the Controlled Substance Act. Waiver usually required thereafter. Also, note, cannabis may also be involved in crimes involving moral turpitude, a separate basis of inadmissibility.

B. Illicit Trafficking (“Reason to Believe”: no conviction required)

d.) Where the U.S. Government knows or has “reason to believe” (no conviction required) is an illicit trafficker, or who is or has been a knowing aider, abettor, assister, conspirator or colluder with others who are in illicit trafficking [INA § 212(a)(2)(C)(i)];

e.) A spouse, son or daughter of an illicit trafficker, who has received financial or other benefit from the illicit trafficking in the past five years, and knew or reasonably should have known that the financial or other benefit was a product of such illicit activity. [INA § 212(a)(2)(C)(ii)];

II. Health related grounds (“Drug abuser/Drug Addict”; “Physical/Mental Disorder”)

f.) A determination that a noncitizen is a drug abuser or drug addict, in accordance with regulations prescribed by Health and Human Services [INA § 212(a)(1)(A)(iv)];

g.) A determination that a noncitizen has a physical or mental disorder and behavior/ history of behavior posing threat to property, safety or welfare of others [INA § 212(a)(1)(A)(iii)(I and II)]

• Panel physician – have to pay government certified physician for exam
• CDC Technical Instructions requires 1 year of remission

III. National Security- (Unlawful purpose)

h.) Seeking entry principally or incidentally for an unlawful activity [INA § 212(a)(3)(ii)];

IV. Misrepresentation/Fraud

i.) Fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact in pursuit of an immigration benefit [INA § 212(a)(6)(C)].

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in General, Scott Railton |

J-1 Conrad Waiver Slots for Physicians Opens On October 1st

Wednesday, September 19th, 2018 by W. Scott Railton

On October 1st, Health Departments around the country will begin accepting J-1 waiver applications under the Conrad program. Each state is allotted 30 spots, with the majority going to primary care physicians, who agree to work for three years in a health professional shortage area. In turn, their two year foreign residency requirement is waived. We routinely prepare these applications.

Rules vary state to state, although the federal government has minimum requirements. Washington State, where we are located, historically takes between six and twelve months to fill all of its spots. However, last year Oregon, which also used to be slow to fill, filled their spots in record time. Some states receive more than 30 applications on the first day the window opens.

Here are a few of the key rules for Washington State:

  • Up to ten sponsorships are available for Specialists between October 1st to March 31st. Last year, more than 10 applications were submitted during this period, but spots were still left available after March 31st. This has historically been true too.
  • Washington State also allows 10 non-designated FLEX waivers per year, with these slots opening on January 15th.
  • Washington State limits employers to only three waivers, prior to June 1st of the fiscal year.
  • Applicants, including integrated health care systems in a single HPSA, are limited to a.) two sponsorships per practice location; b.) one hospitalist sponsorship per hospital; c.) no more than three sponsorships total across all practice locations in the HPSA between October 1st and May 31st; d.) and no more than three FLEX spots by a an applicant for a single county.
  • Sponsors must show at least 15% of total patient visits are for Medicaid or other low income patients. This is up from the former 10% figure.
  • The process also requires that sponsors show at least six months of qualifying recruitment in the past 12 months in Washington State.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in General, Scott Railton |

Premium Processing Price Hike, Suspension

Thursday, September 6th, 2018 by W. Scott Railton

USCIS will raise the price for Premium Processing on October 1st, from $1225 to the odd number of $1410. Premium processing allows petitioners for certain types of applications to be guaranteed initial adjudication within 15 days, by paying the additional fee. Employers often choose to pay this fee, since the agency often takes months upon months to adjudicate applications through regular processing. The process works a lot of the time, though sometimes attorneys feel that the Premium Processing Unit may adjudicate the petition differently than regular processing. Long-time immigration attorneys probably have seen a few Day 15 Requests for Additional Evidence, which seem issued just to comply with the 15 day adjudication window.

Many Petitioners won’t be able to pay this new, higher fee, because a few days earlier USCIS announced that it is extending and expanding the suspension of premium processing for most types of petitions, in order to get a better handle on the non-premium processing workload. This is an agency which is struggling to manage increasing vetting obligations while delivering adjudications in reasonable timeframes. Employers are best advised to be aware of these bureaucratic challenges, as they can have a real impact on noncitizen worker availability.

Here are the two press releases from USCIS announcing these changes to the Premium Processing service:

USCIS Adjusting Premium Processing Fee (8/31/18)

Fee Increase Consistent with the Consumer Price Index

WASHINGTON – U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced today it is adjusting the premium processing fee for Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker and Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers beginning on Oct. 1, 2018 to more effectively adjudicate petitions and maintain effective service to petitioners.

The premium processing fee will increase to $1,410, a 14.92 percent increase (after rounding) from the current fee of $1,225. This increase, which is done in accordance with the Immigration and Nationality Act, represents the percentage change in inflation since the fee was last increased in 2010 based on the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers.

“Because premium processing fees have not been adjusted since 2010, our ability to improve the adjudications and service processes for all petitioners has been hindered as we’ve experienced significantly higher demand for immigration benefits. Ultimately, adjusting the premium processing fee will allow us to continue making necessary investments in staff and technology to administer various immigration benefit requests more effectively and efficiently,” said Chief Financial Officer Joseph Moore. “USCIS will continue adjudicating all petitions on a case-by-case basis to determine if they meet all standards required under applicable law, policies, and regulations.”

Premium processing is an optional service that is currently authorized for certain petitioners filing Forms I-129 or I-140. The system allows petitioners to request 15-day processing of certain employment-based immigration benefit requests if they pay an extra fee. The premium processing fee is paid in addition to the base filing fee and any other applicable fees, which cannot be waived.

USCIS intends to hire additional staff and make investments in information technology systems with the premium funds that are generated by the fee increase. This will allow the agency to provide premium processing service with less disruption while improving adjudications and operational processes.

For more information on USCIS and its programs, please visit uscis.gov or follow us on Twitter (@uscis), Instagram (/uscis), YouTube (/uscis), and Facebook (/uscis).

USCIS Extends and Expands Suspension of Premium Processing for H-1B Petitions to Reduce Delays (8/28/18)

USCIS is extending the previously announced temporary suspension of premium processing for cap-subject H-1B petitions and, beginning Sept. 11, 2018, will be expanding this temporary suspension to include certain additional H-1B petitions. We expect these suspensions will last until Feb. 19, 2019, and will notify the public via uscis.gov before resuming premium processing for these petitions.

While H-1B premium processing is suspended, we will reject any Form I-907, Request for Premium Processing Service filed with an affected Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker. If a petitioner submits one combined check for the Form I-907 and Form I‑129 H-1B fees, both forms will be rejected.
Who Is Affected

The expanded temporary suspension applies to all H-1B petitions filed at the Vermont and California Service Centers (excluding cap-exempt filings as noted below).

The previously announced suspension of premium processing for fiscal year 2019 cap-subject H-1B petitions was originally slated to last until Sept. 10, 2018, but that suspension is being extended through an estimated date of Feb. 19, 2019.

We will continue premium processing of Form I-129 H-1B petitions that are not currently suspended if the petitioner properly filed an associated Form I-907 before Sept. 11, 2018. Therefore, we will refund the premium processing fee if:

The petitioner filed the Form I-907 for an H-1B petition before Sept. 11, 2018; and
We did not take adjudicative action on the case within the 15-calendar-day processing period.

Premium Processing Remains Available for Certain H-1B Petitions

The suspension does not apply to:

Cap-exempt petitions that are filed exclusively at the California Service Center because the employer is cap exempt or because the beneficiary will be employed at a qualifying cap exempt institution, entity, or organization; or
Those petitions filed exclusively at the Nebraska Service Center by an employer requesting a “Continuation of previously approved employment without change with the same employer” (Box b. on Part 2, Question 2, Page 2 of the current Form I-129) with a concurrent request to:
Notify the office in Part 4 so each beneficiary can obtain a visa or be admitted. (Box on Part 2, Question 4, Page 2 of the current Form I-129); or
Extend the stay of each beneficiary because the beneficiary now holds this status. (Box c. on Part 2, Question 4, Page 2 of the current Form I-129).

This temporary suspension of premium processing does not apply to any other nonimmigrant classifications filed on Form I-129.
Requesting Expedited Processing

While premium processing is suspended, petitioners may submit a request to expedite an H-1B petition if they meet the criteria on the Expedite Criteria webpage. The petitioner must demonstrate that they meet at least one of the expedite criteria, and petitioners should be prepared to submit documentary evidence to support their expedite request.

We review all expedite requests on a case-by-case basis and requests are granted at the discretion of the office leadership.
Why We Are Temporarily Suspending Premium Processing for H-1B Petitions

This temporary suspension will help us to reduce overall H-1B processing times by allowing us to:

Process long-pending petitions, which we have been unable to process due to the high volume of incoming petitions and premium processing requests over the past few months;
Be responsive to petitions with time-sensitive start dates; and
Prioritize adjudication of H-1B extension of status cases that are nearing the 240-day mark.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in General, Scott Railton |

Canadian Senate Committee Issues Report on Border and Legalization

Wednesday, June 6th, 2018 by W. Scott Railton

I had the honor of testifying before Canada’s Senate Committee on National Security and Defence in April, concerning the border and Canada’s bill to legalize cannabis nationally.

The Committee issued an interesting report, in which they recognize that legalization may lead to border issues. The Committee makes recommendations for diplomatic and legislative action. The Report mentions potential issues with Pre-Clearance, NEXUS, and with interrogations.  Below I’ve pasted the Committee’s report and related press release.

Report of the committee

Tuesday, May 1, 2018

The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence has the honour to table its

SIXTEENTH REPORT

Your committee, which was authorized to examine the subject matter of Bill C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other Acts, insofar as it relates to Canada’s borders, has, in obedience to the order of reference of Thursday, February 15, 2018, examined the said subject-matter and now reports as follows:

At the Committee’s meetings of March 19, March 26 and April 16, 2018, thirteen witnesses appeared to present their views on the subject matter of Bill C-45. Your committee presents the following comments on the bill as it relates to Canada’s borders:

1) Your committee wishes to minimize any negative effects of Bill C-45 on the movement of travellers and goods across the Canada-U.S. border. First, your committee wishes to prevent, as much as possible, Canadian travellers from being further interrogated or searched by U.S. customs officers as a result of the legalization of cannabis in Canada. Your committee also wants to prevent, as much as possible, an increase in the number of Canadian and U.S. travellers being stopped at the border for possession of cannabis. Your committee heard from witnesses who believe that, after Bill C-45 comes into force, Canadians could face delays and more Canadian travellers could face legal proceedings and/or inadmissibility for life for a cannabis offence or for simply admitting previous cannabis use to U.S. customs and border protection officers.

2) To prevent the above-mentioned problems, your committee encourages the Canadian government to have formal discussions with the U.S. government to clarify the U.S. government’s position with respect to Canadian travellers who admit to previous cannabis use. Specifically, your committee encourages the Canadian government to have formal discussions at the political level in order to clarify whether Canadians who admit to having previously used cannabis will face inadmissibility to the United States if Bill C-45 is passed. If so, your committee encourages the Canadian government to make it clear to U.S. authorities that, in its view, following the coming into force of Bill C-45, Canadian travellers should not be prohibited entry into the United States for activities that are legal in Canada, such as using cannabis or working for a company that legally produces cannabis. Your committee encourages the government to continue its dialogue with the U.S. government and to clearly and firmly communicate Canada’s position in order to minimize the impact of Bill C-45 on Canadian travellers. This dialogue could also help find solutions to issues and problems that will arise at the border following the entry into force of Bill C-45.

3) In the context of this dialogue with the United States, your committee encourages the government to negotiate an agreement with the United States on the treatment of travellers at the border on issues related to cannabis, notably on the types of questions that border officers of both countries ask travellers in light of the fact that consuming cannabis will be legal in Canada following the entry into force of Bill C-45 and that it is already legal in several American states. This bilateral agreement could also protect workers of Canadian companies in the emerging cannabis sector in order to ensure that the workers of these companies are not banned from entry into the U.S. because they are “associated with drug trafficking,” as current U.S. law states.

4) In conjunction with diplomatic activities, your committee encourages the government to increase the scope of its awareness campaign to make it clear to Canadians that crossing the Canada-U.S. border while in possession of cannabis will remain illegal even if Bill C-45 comes into force. This awareness campaign should also make it clear to Canadians that they may be denied entry into the United States if they admit to previous cannabis use. Although Canadian officials who appeared before your committee stated that an awareness campaign would be launched soon, your committee believes that additional efforts should be made in the coming months to ensure that Canadians understand the seriousness of the consequences they will face if cannabis is found in their possession at the border or if they admit to previous cannabis use. Additional awareness campaigns, one specifically targeting youth and the other focused on those who hold or apply for trusted traveller programs (such as NEXUS and FAST), should be put in place due to the unique vulnerabilities of these groups.

5) Your committee encourages the Canadian government to install signs and posters at border crossings and pre-clearance sites clearly explaining to travellers that it is illegal to cross the Canada-U.S. border with cannabis. Witnesses from Public Safety told the committee that such signs would be installed at the border. Your committee encourages the Canadian government to accelerate the implementation of its awareness campaign and the installation of signs and posters before Bill C-45 comes into force so that travellers are aware of the consequences they face if they try to cross the Canada-U.S. border with cannabis.

6) Your committee encourages the government to modernise preclearance measures in light of Bill C-45. In accordance with An Act respecting the preclearance of persons and goods in Canada and the United States, which received Royal Assent on December 12, 2017, travellers are obliged to truthfully answer any question posed to them by U.S. border officers, which means that Canadians who submit to preclearance must truthfully answer any questions about their cannabis use. At regular border crossings, travellers who refuse to answer these types of questions can be denied entrance into the U.S., but do not face lifetime bans or prison terms. However, travellers who refuse to answer questions in preclearance areas could face sentences of up to two years in prison for “resisting or wilfully obstructing a preclearance officer.” Your committee therefore encourages the government to modernise the Act respecting the preclearance of persons and goods in Canada and the United States in light of Bill C-45.

7) Lastly, your committee requests that the government table before Parliament a plan to protect Canadian travellers at the border. This plan should outline the measures that the government intends to take to minimise the impact of Bill C-45 on the movement of travellers and goods across the Canada-U.S. border. This plan should also explain the approach that the government intends to take in its negotiations with the United States in order to ensure that Canadian travellers are not denied entry into the United States for previous cannabis use or for engaging in any other type of activity that would become legal following the entry into force of Bill C-45.

Respectfully submitted,

GWEN BONIFACE

Chair

 

News Release
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence
Legalized cannabis could lead to border-crossing woes
May 2, 2018
________________________________________
Ottawa – If recreational cannabis becomes legal in Canada, the federal government should continue official discussions with the United States about the treatment of Canadian travellers so that they remain able to cross the border with minimal inconvenience, the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence said Tuesday.

Committee members made a number of comments with regard to the legalization of cannabis after studying the issue as it relates to Canada’s borders.
Senators wish to minimize the effect of legalization on the movement of travellers and goods so that Canadians do not, for instance, face lengthy interrogation or increased searches by U.S. customs officials.

Witnesses have testified that Canadians travelling to the U.S. could be inadmissible for entry simply for admitting to previous cannabis use.

The committee requests that the government table before Parliament a plan to protect Canadian travellers at the border.

Quick Facts

• Pursuant to a motion adopted in the Senate on February 15, 2018, the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence was authorized to study Bill C-45, the Cannabis Act, as it relates to Canada’s borders.

• The motion also authorized the Senate committees on Aboriginal Peoples, Foreign Affairs and International Trade, and Legal and Constitutional Affairs to study aspects of Bill C-45.

• These committees’ reports will be reviewed by the Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology during its study of the bill.

Quotes

“With legalization looming, Canada must be prepared for the consequences. Canadians must be confident that they will still be able to cross into the United States without fear that activities legal in Canada will be held against them. We urge the government to make the necessary diplomatic overtures.”
– Senator Gwen Boniface, Chair of the committee.

“If the legalization of cannabis is to take place with a minimum of harm, the government will need to address the issues our committee has raised. The mobility of people and goods across the U.S. border is crucial to Canada’s economy; we cannot afford to be unprepared.”
– Senator Jean-Guy Dagenais, Deputy Chair of the committee.

“Our actions, as legislators, have consequences. Sometimes they are difficult to foresee, but in this instance it is all too clear that Bill C-45 could adversely affect cross-border mobility. There is still time for the government to take steps to protect Canadian travellers.”
– Senator Mobina S.B. Jaffer, Deputy Chair of the committee.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in General, Scott Railton |

USCIS Narrows Meaning of a Specialty Occupation

Wednesday, May 23rd, 2018 by W. Scott Railton

USCIS is challenging employers on whether their positions fit the definition of a “specialty occupation.” It has become for the agency to issue “Requests for Additional Evidence” (RFEs) of employers, providing up to three months to respond. The Requests are overly broad, and a disguised tax on the company for filing the petition in the first place. It has been said that the agency anticipates denying as many as 25% of the applications submitted.  Applications were down this year, probably due to these bureaucratic challenges.  Many fear where this is going, with the best and the brightest opting for jobs elsewhere.

The requests can be several pages long.  In doing so, the agency is piling up the costs for businesses. This fits in with the Administration’s overall goal of making immigration harder. Or, as the Executive Order goes, “Buy American, Hire American.”

We are seeing businesses disrupted by this red tape, as new petitions and renewals for key personnel are challenged. The occupations most commonly challenged are managers and information technology professionals. Often, these professionals have many years of experience, and have seen past approvals from the agency.

In my experience, employers don’t typically want to sponsor H-1B professionals unless they have great cause to, due to the underlying costs. Employers don’t typically seek an attorney’s assistance to hire a professional, but that is standard for an H-1B.  There are just too many regulations and procedures to navigate. However, the U.S. has record unemployment and a shortage of qualified STEM professionals right now. So, the H-1B program has the potential to help businesses.

Here is the Request for Evidence template that many petitioners are receiving:

Specialty Occupation

A specialty occupation is one that requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and which requires the attainment of a bachelor’s or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as a minimum, for entry into the occupation in the United States.
USCIS does not use the job title, by itself, when determining whether a particular position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The specific duties of the proffered position, combined with the nature of the petitioning entity’s business operations, are factors that USCIS considers.

To qualify as a specialty occupation, the position must meet at least one of the following criteria:

1. Bachelor’s or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position;
2. The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree;
3. The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or
4. The nature of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a bachelor’s or higher degree.

USCIS interprets the term degree in the above criteria to mean not just any degree, but a degree in a specific field of study that is directly related to the proffered position.

To show that the position offered to the beneficiary qualifies as a specialty occupation, you submitted:

• A certified Labor Condition Application (LCA)
• Other evidence described, relating to occupation title

The Occupational Outlook Handbook (“OOH”) (a publication of the U.S. Department of Labor) indicates that a [occupation title] is an occupation that does not require a bachelor’s level of education or higher or its equivalent in a specific specialty as a normal, minimum for entry into the occupation.

You have not shown that the position offered to the beneficiary is a specialty occupation. You may submit additional evidence to satisfy this requirement.

Evidence may include, but is not limited to:
• A detailed statement to:
o explain the beneficiary’s proposed duties and responsibilities;
o indicate the percentage of time devoted to each duty; and
o state the educational requirements for these duties.
• A copy of a line-and-block organizational chart showing your hierarchy and staffing levels. The organizational chart should:
o list all divisions in the organization;
o identify the proffered position in the chart;
o show the names and job titles for those persons, if any, whose work will come under the control of the proposed position; and
o indicate who will direct the beneficiary, by name and job title.
• Job postings or advertisements showing a degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations.
• Letters from an industry-related professional association indicating that they have made a bachelor’s degree or higher in a specific specialty a requirement for entry into the field.
• Copies of letter or affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry that attest that similar organizations routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals in a specific specialty. Any letter or affidavit should be supported by the following:
o The writer’s qualifications as an expert;
o How the conclusions were reached; and
o The basis for the conclusions supported by copies or citations of any materials used.
• Copies of your present and past job postings or announcements for the proffered position showing that you require applicants to have a minimum of a bachelor’s or higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent.
• Documentary evidence of your past employment practices for the position, including:
o Copies of employment or pay records; and
o Copies of degrees or transcripts to verify the level of education of each individual and the field of study for which the degree was earned.
• An explanation of what differentiates your product and services from other employers in the same industry and why a bachelor’s level of education in a specific field of study is a prerequisite for entry into the proffered position. Be specific and provide documentation to support any explanation of complexity.
• Copies of documentary examples of work product created by current or prior employees in a similar position, such as:
o Reports;
o Presentations;
o Evaluation;
o Designs; or
o Blueprints.
• Additional information about your organization, such as:
o Press releases;
o Business plans;

Tags: , , ,
Posted in General, Scott Railton |

Scott Railton Testifies Before Canadian Senate Committee on Border

Thursday, April 19th, 2018 by W. Scott Railton

I was honored to speak this week with Canada’s Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence concerning Bill C-45, the Cannabis Act, insofar as it relates to Canada’s borders. Legalization hasn’t happened at the U.S. federal level, and this begs many questions about border travel after legalization. Increasingly, I am asked, “What happens when Canada legalizes marijuana for all to use, like in Washington State?” Parliament is now taking up the query, as it studies moving forward with Bill C-45.

There are still many unanswered questions. The U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act and the U.S. Controlled Substances Act haven’t changed on marijuana, despite the sea change in legalization in many other jurisdictions, including Washington State and soon Canada. In our observation, this has led to issues for persons seeking admission or other immigration benefits, with some regularity.

The Senators had questions about how legalization might impact border traffic. My co-panelists were the Mayor of Windsor, Drew Dilkens, and Jonathan Blackham, Director of Policy and Public Affairs at the Canadian Trucking Association. Like me, they expressed concerns. These included possible slow-downs in inspections and increased wait-times; cannabis or cannabis residue being found increasingly in cars and trucks; trusted traveler and FAST interviews; and the queries made by U.S. officers.  The Mayor and I both emphasized the need to educate the public on the conflicts of laws, concerning immigration and cananbis.

I used my introductory remarks to lay out the bases for inadmissibility to the United States that involve cannabis. Even if Canada legalizes cannabis, there are several bases for inadmissibility that may still involve cannabis and affect persons seeking admission. These include admitting to past violations of a Controlled Substance law; health-related grounds related to being deemed a drug abuser or drug addict; national security grounds for inadmissibility relating to seeking entry for an illegal purpose (e.g. to purchase cannabis in a state where it is legalized); misrepresentation related to cannabis questions; involvement in cannabis-related businesses associated with the U.S. (e.g. aiding/abetting illicit trafficking); and customs violations for having cannabis in a vehicle or on a person.

The United States laws on admissibility are more complicated than many might imagine. We know, since this is what we do daily. As I told the Committee, cannabis continues to be listed as a Schedule 1 substance under the U.S. Controlled Substances Act, making it as a matter of law equal to cocaine, heroin, or L.S.D. A Schedule 1 substance is one which has no medical purpose and has a high propensity of abuse. I also acknowledged to the Committee that this is not the popular opinion of the majority of the States, based on voter initiatives. The conflict of federal and state laws will also likely present an issue at the border, should Canada legalize. I said I think there will be “growing pains” as the public and the border adjusts to such a significant change in Canadian law.

The hearing garnered significant attention in the Canadian media, with stories appearing in Global News, CBC, the Windsor Star, and many other outlets. I anticipate the border and legalization will continue to be a matter of public interest to both Canada and the United States, if Bill C-45 moves forward.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in General, Scott Railton |

USCIS Receives 190k H-1B Applications for 85k Spots

Thursday, April 12th, 2018 by W. Scott Railton

Demand continues to outpace supply for H-1B petitions. For this year’s cap lottery, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services received 190,098 applications for 85,000 spots. This is actually less applications than in some recent years. Of course, this is the full allocation of H-1B slots for the 2019 Fiscal Year, received in the first five days.

For those reading who do not know, H-1Bs are the United States’ professional temporary visa for high skilled workers. These include certain information technology workers, high skilled health care professionals, engineers, accountants, and the like. While there are other temporary and permanent work authorization categories, the H-1B is the typical work authorization category that foreign students might pursue upon completion of studies in the United States. Over half of the students in STEM graduate programs in the U.S. are foreign students.

We speak to many employers who want to hire these students, but run into issues with the H-1B cap. Increasingly, it seems that students who don’t get picked either look for other employers or go to other countries. In some cases, they can wait another year, and apply again, but eventually time runs out. There are other options, like continuing education, or finding employment with certain cap-exempt employers. Fundamentally, though, the current system has many flaws, based on our observations from working with employers and prospective employees.

Good luck to all who applied! Here is the excerpted announcement from USCIS:

On April 11, USCIS used a computer-generated random selection process to select enough H-1B petitions to meet the congressionally-mandated cap and the U.S. advanced degree exemption, known as the master’s cap, for fiscal year (FY) 2019.

USCIS received 190,098 H-1B petitions during the filing period, which began April 2, including petitions filed for the advanced degree exemption. USCIS announced on April 6, that it had received enough H-1B petitions to reach the statutory cap of 65,000 and the master’s cap of 20,000. USCIS will reject and return all unselected petitions with their filing fees unless the petition is a prohibited multiple filing.

USCIS conducted the selection process for the master’s cap first. All unselected master’s cap petitions then became part of the random selection process for the 65,000 cap.

USCIS will continue to accept and process petitions that are otherwise exempt from the cap. Petitions filed for current H-1B workers who have been counted previously against the cap, and who still retain their cap number, will also not be counted towards the FY 2019 H-1B cap.

USCIS will continue to accept and process petitions filed to:
• Extend the amount of time a current H-1B worker may remain in the United States;
• 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.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in General, Scott Railton |

« Older Entries Newer Entries »