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



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

View RSS Feed

Recent Blogs Posts

  1. IER Settles Immigration-Related Discrimination Claim Against Rose Acre

    By: Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law



    The Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER), a part of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, has reached a settlement with Rose Acre Farms Inc, one of the largest egg producers in the United States. The settlement resolves a long-standing lawsuit filed by the IER and the Justice Department alleging Rose Acre violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) by discriminating against work-authorized non-U.S. citizens when verifying their work authorization.

    The Department’s amended complaint alleged that from at least June 2009 to December 22, 2011, Rose Acre routinely required work-authorized non-U.S. citizens to present a Permanent Resident Card or Employment Authorization Document to prove their work authorization but did not require specific documents from U.S. citizens. All work-authorized individuals, whether U.S. citizens or non-U.S. citizens, have the right to choose which valid documentation to present to prove they are authorized to work. Employers may not dictate which document(s) may be presented. The anti-discrimination provision of the INA prohibits employers from subjecting employees to unnecessary documentary demands based on employees’ citizenship or national origin.

    Under the settlement, Rose Acre will pay a civil penalty of $70,000 to the U.S. government; train its human resources personnel on their legal obligations to not discriminate by viewing a free online IER webinar presentation; revise any existing employment policies so that they prohibit discrimination based on citizenship, immigration status, and national origin in the hiring processes; and be subject to departmental monitoring for two years.

    For answers to many other questions related to the IER and immigration compliance, I invite you to read The I-9 and E-Verify Handbook, a book that I co-authored with Greg Siskind, and is available at http://www.amazon.com/dp/0997083379.
  2. USCIS CREATES NEW NTA POLICY

    by , 08-07-2018 at 09:24 AM (Chris Musillo on Nurse and Allied Health Immigration)
    by Maria Schneider

    On June 28, 2018 the USCIS issued a memo regarding Notices to Appear (NTA) in a wider range of cases. On July 30, 2018, the USCIS indicated this memo’s implementation would be delayed until further guidance regarding its administration can be issued.

    Under the new memo, USCIS Officers are now mandated to issue (NTAs for cases where the individual is removable because there is evidence of fraud, criminal activity, or where an applicant is denied an immigration benefit and is unlawfully present in the US. An NTA initiates deportation proceedings and instructs the foreign national to appear before an Immigration Judge. Even if issuance of the NTA is erroneous, there is a five year ban to re-entering the US if the foreign national departs the US while deportation proceedings are on-going. NTAs will be sent to the employee’s last known address and not to the H-1B attorney.

    Unlawful presence accrues if the previous I-94 card has expired from the date of denial of the new immigration petition forward. For example, an H-1B worker is considered unlawfully present when the request for an H-1B extension is denied and the prior H-1B has already expired.

    o 180 days to 364 days of unlawful presence results in 3 year bar of return to US

    o 365 days+ results in 10 year bar of return to the US

    This would most commonly apply to cases where the foreign national’s I-94 has already expired and their extension case denied. For example: the employee’s I-94 expires on May 1; extension filed February 1, but is pending for 9 months until November. In November the H-1B extension is denied. The employee now has an expired I-94 card and is deportable.

    Appealing the H-1B denial is generally not advised as the Appeals Office has a 90%+ rate of upholding the USCIS denials and a pending appeal does not stop accrual of unlawful presence or protect the worker from deportation.

    MU recommends the following in light of this new policy:

    o File extension petitions as early as possible

    o Use premium processing service to ensure a quick decision

    o Employees who are porting from one H-1B employer to the next may want to wait until the new H-1B case is approved to resign and begin work with the new employer

    o F-1 to H-1B applicants should maintain their underlying OPT, including STEM OPT, until H-1B approval

    o Those applying for green card through adjustment of status (AOS) should maintain their underlying status until AOS is approved

    o Foreign nationals should keep their address up-to-date with USCIS, even when leaving the US

    Finally, this policy is expected take the focus of USCIS from adjudicating petitions and to create lengthier delays. MU will alert clients once the memo has been implemented.

    _________
    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, Twitter, and LinknedIn.
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: