Posts Tagged ‘Medical Technologist’

The TN Status and the New US-Mexico-Canada Agreement

Monday, October 1st, 2018 by W. Scott Railton

The United States, Canada, and Mexico have announced that they have reached an agreement to supplant the longstanding North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).  The new agreement will be entitled the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).  For now, the TN professional status will remain largely unchanged.

The immigration provisions of the new Agreement are housed in Chapter 16, as was the case with NAFTA.  For side by comparison, click on the links in the last sentence.

The USMCA’s Chapter 16 adopts much of the old NAFTA language for “Business Visitors,” “Traders and Investors,” “Intra-Company Transfers,” and “Professionals.” “Professionals” is what we commonly refer to as the TN category, and the issue I will highlight here.

Here’s one new thing:  Article 1602, Paragraph 3, of the USMCA includes language not in the NAFTA, leaving the door open for future restrictions via regulation by any Party:

3. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent a Party from applying measures to regulate the entry of natural persons of another Party into, or their temporary stay in, its territory, including those measures necessary to protect the integrity of, and to ensure the orderly movement of natural persons across, its borders, provided that those measures are not applied in a manner as to nullify or impair the benefits accruing to any Party under this Chapter.

Side by side, the lists of Professionals in Appendix 1602.D.1 of the USMCA and Appendix 160-3.D.1 of NAFTA are basically the same.  However, it is not a complete copy and paste:

  • The USMCA Appendix includes an additional Footonote 7 to the Medical Laboratory Technologist/Medical Technologist category, which states that “A businessperson in this cateogry must be seeking temporary entry to perform in a laboratory chemical, biological, hematological, immunologic, microscopic, or bacteriological tests and analyses for the prevention of disease.”
  • The USMCA Appendix also includes an additional Footnote 8 to the Biologist category, which states, “In accordance with the NAFTA 1994 Commission decision of October 7, 2003, the term “Biologist” included the profession Plant Pathologist.” This Footnote obviously reflects the 2003 adjustment to the list.
-
The new Article 1606 covers a “Working Group,” which meets once per year to consider administration of the Chapter. The Working Group was already in existence with NAFTA, but the USMCA adds an additional review responsibility for the Group, concerning technologies:
 -
(e) Issues of common interest related to temporary entry of business persons, such as the use of technologies related to processing of applications, that can be further explored among the Parties in other fora.
 -
Many thought any agreement would include numeric restrictions for TNs.  Not present. In fact, the original restrictions on Mexico’s TNs are stricken from the Appendix 1603. The countries are expected to collect and share data on entries, as per the Article 1605 Provision of Information requirements.
 -
The Agreement also does not include a revision of the TN list. Experts seem to agree that the list of eligible occupations needs to be updated. Many new professions have come into existence over the last 25 years.  The Information Technology sector is full of new occupations, such as web developers, database administrators, architects, and software engineers.  Medical science and health care professions have similarly evolved–nurse practitioners are filling a vital role for hospitals, and sometimes are denied TNs for being more than a Registered Nurse. Nonetheless, any attempt at re-doing the occupation codes may have led to a more restrictive outcome, with less categories, numeric restrictions, and tighter qualifications. The U.S. has been limiting immigration in all other areas, and such would’ve reasonably be expected here.
 -
One question going forward is what do we call the TN now?  TN is short for Treaty NAFTA, but with the change of name to the trilateral treaty, perhaps the work authorization category may change in name too. The White House has been intent on doing away with NAFTA, and so perhaps the TN name might do the same way, in time.
 -
My impression is the negotiators had their reasons on each side to avoid a major rewrite on Chapter 16.  Other trade issues probably carried more weight, and fast advancing deadlines set by the White House may have ended up leaving this chapter for later. The U.S. Office of Trade Representative held hearings on the mobility issues, and so it is not like the issues were overlooked.
-
My greatest concern for the next year is that the U.S. may continue to use regulation to alter the TN category further. The Administration has been very effective at limiting immigration through restrictive regulation and categorical interpretations. One possibility is that DHS may try to move TN adjudications away from the border and to USCIS Service Centers. They are already testing this idea with L adjudications, but the process only seems to slow things down for businesses.  I attended a meeting at the Blaine Peace Arch earlier this year concerning the L-1 Pilot Program where the USCIS Director speculated on the possibility of TN adjudications at the Service Centers. Also, as with all immigration applications, I expect the cost of TN applications to rise for employers, as the government paperwork becomes more demanding.
 -
This is very fresh news, and so other developments and interpretations may arise.  We will continue to follow this closely.
-

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