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

Joel Stewart on PERM Labor Certification

PERM: I-360 Religious Workers, PERM and 245-i

Rating: 8 votes, 5.00 average.

Many persons applied for immigration benefits in April 2001, to meet the deadline under 245-i. Employers and family members filed petitions and labor certifications in favor of aliens to obtain permanent residency in the U.S. The law, which never came back after 2001, fell victim to post 9/11 anti-alien frenzy.


The history of the administration of the 245-i law is a series of inconsistencies.  The American Immigration Lawyers Association has 245-i listed as a Featured Topic, and for good reason, with approximately 40 documents listed and categorized with sundry titles as Agency Memos Cables and Letters, AILA Publications, AILA / AIC Announcements, Amicus Briefs, Analyses and Summaries, BIA / AG Decisions, Circuit Courts, Congressional Updates, Enacted Legislation, FR Regulations and Notices, Government News, Liaison Activity, Memo and Regulatory Comments, Practice Assistance, Press Releases and Statements, Proposed Legislation, Reports and Studies, and Testimony and Correspondence.


Some of these official documents, especially more recent ones, are contradictory of earlier documents, and serve only to worsen the plight of those would would seek benefits of adjustment of status by claiming grandfathering under 245-i.


245-i began as a way for undocumented aliens who were subject to a 10 year bar because of their unlawful presence to apply for residency, either by family or employment based applications or petitions, and pay a fine of $1,000.00 which permitted them to apply for adjustment of status.


Since April 1, 1997, undocumented persons, whose authorized status expired for six months or more cannot apply for residency in the US through adjustment of status, but for a few exceptions involving close relatives of United States citizens and certain abused spouses, government informants, victims of trafficking and others, for whom unauthorized status (also known as unlawful presence) is waived.


245-i seemed very straightforward when it was first legislated. Applicants had to prove that petitions and applications for alien labor certification filed on their behalf were not frivolous and were properly filed no later than April 30, 2001. Except for applicants who applied before January 14, 1998 (when the window of opportunity for the first 245-i law ended before being renewed in 2000), applicants also had to prove that the principal applicant was in the US (physically present) on December 21, 2000. Large numbers of persons paid filing fees and sought legal counsel to file petitions or apply labor certifications before the deadline.


Because no regulations were ever issued, the legacy INS, and then the USCIS (DHS), issued policy "guidance" in the form of opinions as to the privileges available to the principal grandfathered alien and family members. As Immigration Lawyers know, under the Chevron doctrine,  "policy guidance" is given great deference in the federal courts, even though the guidance does not rise to the legitimacy of a properly issued regulation.


Unanswered questions about 245-i abound: Can the principal person acquire a spouse or child after being grandfathered?  Can the principal person or derivative spouse or child apply after 2001 with a new petition or application? Could a 245-i protected person leave the US and return or would that person be subject to exclusion? Can a principal alien "port" under AC-21 to a new employer, and if so, what would be the effect of a withdrawal and/or denial of the original petition on the alien's status after porting? Can aliens port to their own companies?  What kind of occupations or job offers are similar to the original for purposes of porting?


Although 245-i was a bonanza for undocumented aliens, many applications filed before April 30, 2001, were necessarily prepared quickly to comply with the deadline (the window of opportunity was only open from December 21, 2000, until April 30, 2001).


As a result, many applications and petitions were prepared hurriedly, with minimal documentation. Years later, the Service now tries to disqualify persons from 245-i eligibility whenever possible.


For example, in a case that came to my attention recently, the alien applied for religious worker status on April 30, 2001 through an I-360 filed by a church. The I-360 was ultimately denied, in 2002, because the church did not provide detailed documentation about persons working in the church due to concerns about privacy interests.


At some later date, the alien applied for certification through PERM to work for an employer in a non-religious occupation. Both the PERM and the I-140 petition were approved, and the alien then applied to adjust status to work for the non-religious employer based on 245-i grandfathering from the I-360.


The adjustment of status was denied by the USCIS, because it claimed that the I-360 did not grandfather the alien. The USCIS argued that since the petition was ultimately denied, the alien could not claim that the I-360 was properly filed.


Of course, the term "properly filed" is a term of art. In the case of a grandfathered alien, and unless the application or petition were fraudulent, as long as it was signed, meritorious in fact, and accompanied by the filing fee it was approvable when filed.


Some Service decisions have held that if the Employer did not have the funds available to pay the alien, the petition could not have been approved. However, the issue of proving funds depends on many financial details which are not generally understood and may require the intervention of certified public accountants.


Interestingly, if the employer had filed an application for alien labor certification in 2001, instead of an I-360, the application might have been approved, because the Department of Labor would have processed the application for labor certification, not the USCIS, and the inquiry would have concentrated on the availability of US workers and not on the Employer's financial structure. The job, to work in a religious capacity for a Brazilian congregation, would not have been likely to attract qualified US workers, and the application for labor certification would have been approved.


Unfortunately, many employers, including churches, do not realize that I-360's are an option, not a requirement, and both religious and lay positions may be certified through the Department of Labor for churches by filing an application for alien labor certification. An approved labor certification, filed on or before April 30, 2001,  should be acceptable evidence that the alien is 245-i eligible.


The requirements for I-360's stiffened in 2008, when regulations were issued that require on-site visits and substantial scrutiny to prevent fraud. These visits may have a chilling effect on some religious organizations. While the on-site visits are only supposed to be for information gathering, church elders report that they have been subjected to questioning without having an attorney present and often receive admonitions or advice that is inaccurate and unauthorized as part of the purpose of the visit.


Current interpretations of 245-i have contradicted previous guidance regarding eligible family members and spouses. The purpose of laws should be to provide stable, dependable and predictable standards upon which citizens may rely, and not to confuse them with constantly changing, arbitrary interpretations and decisions.


The question of I-360 v. PERM and I-140 requires a thoughtful analysis of the employer and alien's qualifications, as well as a balance of the advantages and disadvantages of each kind of application.


For 245-i applicants, who applied more than 10 years ago, it is too late to reapply, but an in depth understanding of I-360 petitions, labor certification filings and the history of 245-i is required to establish the right of many aliens to apply for adjustment of status as grandfathered aliens.


 


 


 

Submit "PERM: I-360 Religious Workers, PERM and 245-i" to Facebook Submit "PERM: I-360 Religious Workers, PERM and 245-i" to Twitter Submit "PERM: I-360 Religious Workers, PERM and 245-i" to Google Submit "PERM: I-360 Religious Workers, PERM and 245-i" to StumbleUpon Submit "PERM: I-360 Religious Workers, PERM and 245-i" to Reddit Submit "PERM: I-360 Religious Workers, PERM and 245-i" to Digg Submit "PERM: I-360 Religious Workers, PERM and 245-i" to del.icio.us

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags

Comments

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: