ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily




The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
© 1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

All Blog Entries

  1. Company and Owner Sentenced for Knowingly Hiring Unauthorized Workers

    By: Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law PLLC

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	dryw.jpg 
Views:	79 
Size:	3.5 KB 
ID:	1079

    A Washington company, DJ Drywall, Inc., and its owner, David L. Jones, were sentenced in U.S. District Court in Seattle, Washington for repeated violations of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986. Previously, in February 2016, DJ Drywall and David Jones pleaded guilty to knowingly encouraging and inducing a Mexican national to reside in the United States in violation of law. The guilty plea followed two civil penalties imposed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) regarding the companyís practice of illegally hiring undocumented workers.

    In both 2008 and 2011, DJ Drywall was audited by ICE and paid fines of $32,316 and $27,405, respectively, for violating immigration law, including the hiring of 21 known undocumented workers. Additionally, in 2013, ICE found a pattern of DJ Drywall hiring unauthorized workers and paying them Ďoff the books,í or encouraging them to submit false I-9 documents.

    Under the terms of the plea agreement, David Jones forfeited $25,000 to the United States and received two years of probation. The company will be on probation for five years and will pay a $75,000 fine. While on probation, DJ Drywall will be required to verify the work authorization of all newly hired employees through the E-Verify system.
  2. The Obama Administration has Nothing but Contempt for the Judicial Branch

    by , 06-08-2016 at 02:03 PM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
    Via immigration lawyer Bryan Johnson:

    At 11 pm this past Friday, the Obama administration filed a trove of documents with U.S. District Court Judge Dolly Gee to defend against allegations that their continued detention of thousands of children has ďÖconsistently violated the Settlement since the summer of 2014 and this Courtís Orders since August 2015ÖTheir conduct is lawless and contemptuous.Ē

    Ironically, the most recent disclosure emphatically shows the Obama administration has nothing but contempt for the Judicial branch. Leon Fresco, Obamaís lead family detention lawyer, claimed that the attorneys for the children ďmake claims that are inaccurate, misleading, or an attempt to improperly substitute their judgment regarding the operations of ICE family residential centers in place of the judgment of those authorized by Congress to administer these facilitiesĒ

    Fresco must have had a Freudian slip because the evidence his client submitted proves the only misleading party to the lawsuit is the Obama administration.

    This will be the first in several articles that analyzes the Fedsí voluminous evidence dump and shows that the Obama administration is committing an elaborate, systematic fraud on the Court, the Plaintiffs, Congress, and the U.S. public.

    To defend allegations regarding Family Detention Centers or Family Residential Centers (FRC) and border patrol holding cells, the DHS submitted 29 exhibits.

    Each declaration from ICE addresses distinct subject. This article will address to ICEís specific allegations regarding the conditions of detention at the Berks County Residential Center.

    However, every declaration ICE submitted with respect to family detention centers alleges overlapping facts to defend prolonged detention of families.

    Click here to read Mr. Johnson's analysis.
  3. FSBPT RAISING PT EDUCATION STANDARDS

    by , 06-08-2016 at 11:04 AM (Chris Musillo on Nurse and Allied Health Immigration)
    by Chris Musillo

    The evolution of Physical Therapy educational continues. The profession had long been governed by a Bachelors degree standard until the late 1990s when universities raised their first degree to a master’s degree. State licensing boards and the FCCPT followed and by the early 2000s the minimum entry degree into the profession was officially a master’s degree. In the early part of the decade the minimum educational standard evolved again. It is now a Doctorate of Physical Therapy (DPT).

    In concert with the evolution, FCCPT is also evolving their Course Work Tool to their sixth updated version (CWT-6). The CWT-6 is the tool by which educational evaluators equate foreign-educated Physical Therapists.

    From the FCCPT May 2016 News Brief:

    The FSBPT Coursework Tool is used by credential review agencies to determine if a non-CAPTE educated PT’s education is substantially equivalent to a CAPTE-educated PT. The CWT was revised to reflect the new CAPTE standards for PT and PTA programs taking effect January 1, 2017. Changes in the CWT 6 include an increase in total credits required from 150 to 170 credits and an increase in clinical hours from a minimum of 800 to 900 hours.

    Post-graduate work will be considered in the evaluation. Again from their May 2016 News Brief:

    Based on the Framework, the CWT 6 Guidelines for Interpretation will be revised to allow credential review agencies to consider clinical, direct patient care, work experience that meets certain criteria towards the CWT 6 required 900 clinical education hours. There are a number of parameters and limitations included in the Framework to ensure that the practice experience meets a minimal level of quality. Post-graduate clinical experience hours requirements for physical therapists:

    1. Completed an average of at least 20 hours per week for a minimum of 1,000 hours.
    2. Completed 1,000 hours in direct patient care.
    3. Completed the hours within the most recent three years preceding the application.
    4. Completed the hours within a hospital, rehabilitation center, or other facility that employed a minimum staff of at least three (including the applicant) practicing PTs during the applicant’s clinical experience hours. Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy Page 3
    5. PTs employed at the facility with the applicant must have been available for consultation.
    6. At least one of the PTs employed at the facility with the applicant must have at least two years experience practicing as a PT.
    7. Verification that the applicant was eligible to practice in the country in which the experience was completed.
    8. Verification that the applicant has had no disciplinary action against any professional license held for at least two years.
    9. Notarized verification of the work experience provided by a supervisor such as the department head of the physical therapy practice or the director/head of the facility

    Additionally, any university externship conducted under the supervision of a university PT program, credentialed residency or fellowship would be an acceptable option to meet a deficit of clinical education hours. These are rarely available, especially outside of the US, but are an acceptable option. Typically, within the US, a participant in a residency/fellowship must be licensed and due to the licensure requirement, a US residency/fellowship would most likely be unavailable.

    Please read the Musillo Unkenholt Healthcare and Immigration Law Blog at www.musillo.com and www.ilw.com. You can also visit us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

    Updated 06-08-2016 at 11:09 AM by CMusillo

  4. BALCA Overturns Denial Resulting from Inconsistencies in 9089 Instructions and Form

    The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (ďBALCAĒ) recently determined that a typographical error resulting from inconsistencies between the labor certification form and its instructions could not serve as a basis for a denial. In Matter of UBS Securities LLC, the employer submitted a labor certification for a Director, Derivative Business Control Group. In the Form 9089, the employer listed that the positionís primary requirements were a Bachelorís degree and 60 months of experience. The employer also stated that it would accept an alternative requirement of a Masterís degree and 36 years of experience. Per the federal regulations, primary and alternative requirements must be equivalent. The Department of Labor has historically found that a Bachelorís degree and five years of overall progressive experience and a Masterís degree and three years of experience are equivalent. The Certifying Officer denied the case because it found that a Masterís degree and 36 years of experience is not equivalent to a Bachelorís degree and 60 months of experience. In response, the employer argued that the Form 9089 ďasks for primary experience requirement in terms of months, while the alternate experience requirement must be entered in terms of years.Ē Thus, the employer listed a requirement of 36 years in the alternate requirement section when it only required 36 months of experience. In reviewing the case, BALCA determined that the Form 9089 instructs applicants to state the number of years of experience. In contrast, the instructions to the Form 9089 directs employers to enter the number of months of experience. Since there was a discrepancy between the form and the instructions, BALCA found that ďsuch inconsistencies Ďmust be construed against the promulgator of the form and / or instructions, not the applicant.íĒ Consequently, the denial was overturned. It is critical that employers carefully read the requirements of every form submitted to the U.S. government. However, this case does assist employers who are faced with inconsistent requests in a form and its instructions. This post originally appeared on HLG's Views blog by Cadence Moore. http://www.hammondlawgroup.com/blog/
  5. The Asylum Office Scheduling Bulletin, Explained (Sort of)

    The purpose of the Asylum Office Scheduling Bulletin ("AOSB") is to give asylum applicants "an estimate for when they might expect their interview to be scheduled." At best, though, it's a very rough estimate. The problem is that the AOSB tells only part of the story, and not even the most important part. Let me explain.
    For two bits, Madame Blavatsky can predict when your interview will be. And I'll bet she's more accurate than the AOSB.
    First, what is the AOSB? It is a chart that lists the eight main Asylum Offices. For each office, we can see the filing date of the cases that that office was interviewing in March 2016 (the most recent month listed on the chart). We can also see the two previous months (January and February 2016), which gives some idea about how quickly (or not) the office is moving through its case load.

    So, for example, if you look at the Arlington, Virginia Asylum Office, you will see that as of March 2016, it is interviewing people who filed their cases in October 2013. In January and February 2016, Arlington was interviewing people who filed their cases in September 2013. The Chicago office has made the most progress during this period, advancing from May to August 2013. San Francisco is also making steady progress, moving from January to March 2014. Other offices--Houston, Los Angeles, Miami--have moved not at all. But again, this is only part of the story.


    One thing the numbers do not tell you is that many of the cases filed prior to December 26, 2014 have already been interviewed. Extrapolating from our own case load, for example, I estimate that in my local Asylum Office (Arlington), approximately 60% of cases filed between October 2013 (the date listed on the AOSB) and December 2014 have already been interviewed. That's because there was a policy change on December 26, 2014 affecting how the Asylum Offices handle their cases.


    What happened is this: In the Good Old Days (and the dates for "the Good Old Days" differ depending on your Asylum Office), asylum cases were filed and interviewed relatively quickly. At my local office, most interviews took place two or three months after filing. Then, starting in 2012 or 2013, and continuing until today, the number of people arriving at our Southern border increased significantly. These migrants are mostly young people from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. They are fleeing violence and poverty. Some are attempting to reunite with family members already in the United States.


    At the border, the migrants ask for asylum. They are generally detained and subject to a credible fear interview ("CFI"). A CFI is an initial evaluation of eligibility for asylum. It is easier to "pass" a CFI than to win asylum, and a large majority of applicants pass the interview. They are then permitted to present their asylum cases to an Immigration Judge or an Asylum Officer. Applicants who do not pass the CFI are deported.


    This mass migration (often called "the surge") affects the affirmative asylum process in a few ways. First, CFIs are conducted by Asylum Officers. These are the same officers who conduct asylum interviews at the various Asylum Offices. If the officers are spending time on CFIs, they obviously are not spending time interviewing applicants at the Asylum Offices. And since most of the people arriving at the Southern border are detained, which costs the U.S. government money, CFIs get priority over the Asylum Officers' other work. Another way the surge has affected asylum seekers is that the Asylum Offices are prioritizing unaccompanied minors over other applicants. A large percentage of "surge" asylum applicants are minors, and thus their interviews receive priority over "regular" asylum seekers.


    When DHS diverted resources away from the Asylum Offices, affirmative cases started piling up. This began in our local office in 2013. About 60% of the case we filed during this period were interviewed in the normal time frame; the other 40% disappeared. The disappeared cases came to be known as "the backlog."


    Once it became apparent that the backlog was not going away, the Asylum Division changed its policy. Starting on December 26, 2014, cases would be interviewed on a first-in/first-out basis. This meant that the Asylum Offices started interviewing the cases in the order received, starting with the cases that had disappeared into the backlog. The AOSB was first published in about July 2015, and since then, there has not been a whole lot of progress. In Arlington, for example, since July 2015, the Asylum Office has only advanced from August to October 2013. Los Angeles is worse. Back in July 2015, they were interviewing cases filed in August 2011. Today, they are still interviewing cases filed in August 2011. Ugh.


    The U.S. government has been trying to improve the situation. The Asylum Division has hired more staff, including officers devoted exclusively to CFIs. We now have a system--limited to be sure--to process refugees in-country in Central America and bring them to the U.S. More controversially, we seem to have convinced Mexico to crack down on migrants passing through its territory, and we have prioritized the deportation of "surge" applicants, sometimes at the expense of our international obligations and due process of law. But if the AOSB provides any indication, these efforts have done little to reduce the backlog.


    The most important factor impacting movement at the Asylum Offices still appears to be the number of people arriving at the Southern border. As long as these numbers remain high, I am not optimistic that the Asylum Offices will make much progress on the backlog. And the prospects for improvement in the near-term do not look good: Preliminary reports from the border indicate that we can expect more asylum seekers than ever, as migrants seek to enter the U.S. before our increasingly-hostile political climate makes conditions for asylum seekers at the border even more dire.


    All these factors, and more (like, how cases and CFIs are distributed between Asylum Offices, how many Asylum Officers are detailed overseas to process refugees, etc.), contribute to movement on the AOSB. Because there are so many unpredictable factors at play, I don't see how the AOSB can claim any accuracy as a long-term predictor of when an individual asylum interview will be held. To me, it's kind of like looking at the weather report a month before your vacation. It doesn't tell you much, but since it's all you've got, you pay attention anyway.


    In the end, there is some value to the AOSB: Once you see that your asylum filing date is coming up, you know to prepare for your interview. Also, for applicants, I suppose it is helpful to know that they are not alone in Backlogistan. But as far as predicting interview dates, the AOSB is a mirage in the desert--it may encourage you to keep walking, but it tells you nothing about when you might get your next drink of water.

    Originally posted on the Asylumist: www.Asylumist.com.
    Tags: asylum, backlog, delay Add / Edit Tags
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: