What's Next?

 

As we wake up this morning after a tense night of watching the Presidential election returns, it is clear that we are entering a period of uncertainty relating to immigration policy in the United States.

When considering the numerous possible scenarios that might arise, it will be interesting to see how the bureaucracy – never to be accused of acting expeditiously – will respond to changes in federal law and regulations that are surely to follow in the next several years.

And yet, here on November 9, 2016, no one is certain what those changes will look like.  The candidates have offered various and sometimes inconsistent statements about what they would like to do, but when the reality of governance settles in, no one is certain about what the future will look like for those whose presence in the United States is dependent upon the immigration policies of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Department of State.

In the midst of this uncertainty, here is something to rely upon:  the immigration practice group at Hunter, Smith & Davis, LLP will be vigilant in keeping abreast of new developments in immigration law and policy that affect foreign nationals and their families, their employers and businesses seeking to remain compliant with immigration law.

There are already some significant developments in immigration law in process, so stay tuned to his Blog for concise explanations and comment on future developments in U.S. policy on immigration.

The 'STEM' bud is now showing...

Update on the STEM Extension

As discussed in our most recent post, there was concern that the deadline for the vacatur of the 17-month STEM OPT extension program would arrive without a new federal regulation to take its place.  [See our Blog of January 8, 2016]  The court's initial deadline was February 12, 2016.

Students concerned that they would have to relinquish their employment on that date can breathe a little easier.  The U.S. District Court for the District of Colombia recognized that the enormous volume of comments to the new proposed rule received by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security would require additional time for the Homeland Security to review the new proposed regulation.  Consequently, the Court set May 10, 2016 as the new deadline for vacating the previous regulation granting STEM students 17 months in OPT status.

Let's hope that a new regulation - basically providing the same benefits - is grafted into place by May 10, 2016.  

'Nipped in the Bud...

How Immigration Benefits for STEM graduates may get pruned

Because highly-sought H-1B visas are limited to only 65,000 each year, many highly-educated individuals seeking to work in the U.S. do not get a chance to secure work authorization in H-1B status.

Many of these applicants are foreign graduates of U.S. colleges and universities seeking work after graduation.

The greatest challenge for most of these graduates is a matter of timing. 

Here's why:

The allotment of 65,000 H-1B visas becomes available on the first day of the federal fiscal year, October 1.   However, one cannot apply for an H-1B visa more than 6 months ahead of time.  Thus, the first day someone can apply for an H-1B visa is April 1 of that same year.

Because of the intense demand for H-1B visas, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, ('USCIS') typically receives more applications for H-1B status than there are available.  A whole lot more.  In fact, this past year, in April 2015, USCIS received nearly 3 times more applications than available H-1Bs.  In the first 5 days. 

USCIS will then typically hold a 'lottery' and randomly choose which H-1B petitions it will process.

Consequently, if you haven't filed your H-1B petition by April 5th, you're out of luck.  (Of course, even those who do get their H-1B petitions filed by then still may be arbitrarily denied a chance for an H-1B visa if his or her petition is not randomly chosen during the lottery.)

For graduates of U.S. colleges and universities, this poses a huge problem since most students graduate in May or June.  By the time they graduate, the H-1B application process has already shut down.  And since you must provide evidence of your educational qualifications, (e.g., a diploma), to apply for an H-1B visa, students are typically prevented from seeking an H-1B visa until April 1 of the following year.

Foreign students typically are allowed into the U.S. to study at U.S. colleges and universities with a 'student visa' - also known as an 'F-1' visa.

The final piece of the puzzle - if you haven't already considered it - is that the F-1 visa is valid only so long as the student is in a full-time course of study at a U.S. college or university.  When the program ends, (e.g., when a student graduates), then the student's F-1 visa status expires and the student must return to his or her home country.

Fortunately, there is an Option for these students to remain in the U.S. after their graduation.  It's technically an extension of the F-1 visa that allows the graduate to gain experience working in his or her field of study for one year following graduation.  This is called Optional Practical Training, (or 'OPT'). 

With OPT, a student can remain in the U.S. long enough to have the opportunity to file an H-1B petition during the next April's filing season.

In an effort to promote the workforce of highly-skilled technical employees, particularly for the technology sector, USCIS published a regulation in 2008 that permits an additional 17-month extension of OPT for individuals who graduate with a degree in one of the STEM areas, (Science, Technology, Mathematics and Engineering).  This would ostensibly give STEM graduates two chances to file an H-1B petition.

What's the Problem?

When the Department of Homeland Security published the regulation granting an additional 17-month extension of OPT, it did so without the customary 'Notice and Comment' period required of agencies wanting to promulgate new federal regulations.  It's argument was that the need to issue the regulations was so important at that time of year that it constituted extraordinary circumstances permitting it to avoid the Notice and Comment period.

Not everyone was enamored with these new regulations.  The Washington Alliance of Technology Workers concluded that it was harmed by the regulations, so it challenged the legitimacy of the 17-month STEM OPT extension, by filing suit in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia.

The Federal Court ultimately agreed in August 2015 that the STEM OPT 17-month extension regulations were not properly promulgated and vacated the regulations - in effect saying that they should not be given any effect.  Nipped in the bud, if you will..

However, the Court also recognized the tumultuous consequence of instantly invalidating the work authorization of thousands of students working with STEM OPT 17-month extensions, so it stayed the vacatur of the regulations (postponed its effect) until February 12, 2016.

The Court stated:

     "The Court sees no way of immediately restoring the pre-2008 status-quo without    causing substantial hardship for foreign students and a major labor disruption for the technology sector.  As such, the Court will order that the 2008 Rule - and its subsequent amendments - be vacated, but it will order that the vacatur be stayed."   


It was anticipated that this delay would give the Department of Homeland Security enough time to go through a proper Notice and Comment period to validate these regulations.  However, on December 22, 2015, the Department of Homeland Security filed a Motion with the Court requesting additional time to complete the Notice and Comment period, train and educate personnel on the regulations.  The Motion requested that the stay remain in place until May 10, 2016.

As of today, the Court has not yet ruled on the Motion to extend the stay.  However, if the Motion is not granted, foreign graduates working under a 17-month OPT STEM extension may want to be prepared for the consequences on February 13, 2016.

Stay tuned for more information as it becomes available...

On Second Thought... (changes to the October 2015 Visa Bulletin causes confusion)

Changes to the October 2015 Visa Bulletin causes confusion...

On September 9, 2015, the U.S. Dept. of State surprised lots of people by publishing its October Visa Bulletin with 2 different columns and dates used to determine when a visa applicant can apply for lawful permanent residency.

(See previous blog on the new process for determining filing dates for lawful permanent residency.  In a nutshell, the new process allows applicants to file their applications prior to the actual 'Priority Date' being current.)

A mere 16 days later, it issued a mea culpa in the form of a new revised October 2015 Visa Bulletin with revised filing dates.  Evidently, erroneous information was used to determine the appropriate 'filing dates' for certain immigrant visa preference categories.

As a consequence, the October Visa Bulletin published on September 25, 2015 reflected revised filing dates - particularly for the EB-2 China and India categories - that were not nearly as generous as the original Visa Bulletin published on September 9.  (The EB-2 category for China moved backwards nearly 1 year; the EB-2 category for India moved backwards 2 years.  The EB-3 category for the Philippines moved backwards 5 years.)

Unfortunately, for prospective immigrants who were excitedly preparing their immigrant visa applications, the amended filing dates proved to be a huge letdown.  A lawsuit - Mehta v. DOS, in the Western District of Washington - sought class-action status to compel the U.S. Dept. of State to accept applications filed pursuant to the original October Visa Bulletin published on September 9, 2015. A motion for a Temporary Restraining Order ('TRO') - in effect restraining the implementation of the revised October 2015 Visa Bulletin - was denied, and the case is still pending.

Since then, the November 2015 Visa Bulletin has been published - with very little movement in those categories; and the December 2015 Visa Bulletin should be published in the next week or so -

for now... the wait continues...

Finding Your Place In Line For A 'Green Card'

For many foreign nationals living in the United States waiting to apply for a ‘green card’, a daily routine is to log-on to the U.S. Department of State website to check the status of their ‘priority date’ on the State Department’s ‘Visa Bulletin’.  Those who logged in yesterday were surprised to see the publication of the October 2015 Visa Bulletin with an extra Priority Date table.  But what does it mean? 

It’s a fairly significant new development.

But to grasp its significance, let’s take a step back to look at the big picture.

The U.S. Department of State regulates the issuance of ‘green cards’ based upon the distribution of immigrant visas around the world.  Since the demand for ‘green cards’ by natives of some countries (such as China, Mexico and India) is greater than the demand from other countries, there are not enough immigrant visas to supply the demand from these oversubscribed countries.  Consequently, there is a backlog of ‘green cards’ for these natives.

 Foreign nationals who originate from these countries must therefore ‘stand in line’ to wait to apply for their ‘green card’.  Their place in line is determined by the date the person either filed an immigrant visa petition – or an employer filed a labor certification application on this person’s behalf.  This date is known as a ‘Priority Date’.

Each month the U.S. Department of State publishes a ‘Visa Bulletin’ that charts the Dates of ‘green card’ applications being processed.  If a foreign national’s own ‘Priority Date’ is a date that precedes the ‘Priority Date’ published in the Visa Bulletin, that person is then eligible to file an application for a ‘green card’.  For example, if a foreign national has a ‘Priority Date’ of October 3, 2011, and the Priority Date shown on the Visa Bulletin for that person’s category shows January 1, 2012, then that foreign national may then apply for a ‘green card’.

Until the individual’s Priority Date precedes the Priority Date published in the Visa Bulletin, one could not file an application for a ‘green card’.   Until now…

The October 2015 Visa Bulletin offered a pleasant surprise for many:  a new, second chart known as a ‘Filing Date’ Chart.  Under this new provision, the U.S. Department of State will allow foreign nationals to file a ‘green card’ application based upon a new ‘Filing Date’ – rather than waiting for the date previously referred to simply as the ‘Priority Date’.  For most visa categories, the ‘Filing Date’ is more recent than the older ‘Priority Date’ (which is now also referred to as the ‘Final Action’ Date).

What this means is that the ‘Final Action Date’ is the date that the U.S. Department of State will actually process the ‘green card’ application.  This generally corresponds with the previous ‘Priority Date’ charts to which we were accustomed.  In other words, the U.S. Department of State will still wait until the foreign national’s ‘Priority Date’ is current before making a decision on the application – but the individual may now file the application well beforehand – based upon the new ‘Filing Date’ chart.

 Why is this important?  Because when a foreign national gets to file an Application for a ‘green card’, she may also concurrently file an application for Employment Authorization and Advance Parole (the ability to travel while the ‘green card’ application is pending).  In other words, ‘green card’ applicants from the oversubscribed countries may get some of the benefits that accompany a ‘green card’ application while still waiting in line for their ‘green card’ application to be processed.

So for example, this is how it might work: a foreign national from China in the EB-2 category (professional holding an advanced degree) may have a ‘Priority Date’ of June 12, 2013 based upon a Labor Certification Application filed on her behalf.  The ‘Priority Date’ / (Final Action Date) published in the October 2015 Visa Bulletin shows the Priority Date for that category to be January 1, 2012.  In previous months, this person would have to continue waiting until the Visa Bulletin shows a Priority Date in that category after June 12, 2013, before she could file an application – which may be a year or more away.  However, the new Visa Bulletin now shows a second ‘Filing Date’ chart that shows a date of May 1, 2014.  Since the foreign national’s ‘Priority Date’ precedes this new ‘Filing Date’, she is eligible to go ahead and file the ‘green card’ application.  Even though it still will not be processed until her June 12, 2013 Priority Date becomes current under the ‘Priority Date / Final Action Date, she can nonetheless go ahead and file the application and get Employment Authorization and Advance Parole for a family member(s) while they continue to wait in line for her Priority Date to become current.

The U.S. Department of State also asserts that allowing these foreign nationals to apply ahead of time will allow the State Department to more accurately predict the future availability of immigrant visas that will need to be processed.  Based upon the recent wild fluctuations in the Priority Dates for some of these categories in the past year, this can only be a good thing.

So, at the end of the day, these foreign nationals will still have to wait in line, as before – but at least they get to snack on some fairly significant benefits while standing there.

Is There a Doctor In The House…or Senate?

 

A long-term patient known as ‘Conrad’ is about to expire on September 30, 2015 unless Congress can resuscitate it and provide a permanent cure.

The ‘Conrad 30’ Program, named after former North Dakota Senator Kent Conrad - the law’s original sponsor, is a program for foreign physicians who come to the U.S. with a J-1 visa to complete their medical residency.  The J-1 visa permits foreign medical graduates to receive education and training in a Residency program in the U.S.  However, one of the terms of the J-1 visa – also known as an ‘exchange-visitor’ visa – is that it requires the visa holder to return to his or her home residence for 2 years before being eligible to adjust status or change to another type of visa that permits her to practice medicine in the U.S.  In other words, the newly-trained physician must return home for 2 years before being able to practice medicine in the U.S… unless….

…the physician is able to get a ‘waiver’ of the 2-year home residency requirement found in §212(e) of the Immigration & Nationality Act.

There are several ways in which any J-1 visa holder may request a ‘waiver’ of the 2-year home residency requirement; among these are ‘subject to persecution’ if she were to return to her home residence, exceptional hardship, and other scenarios with very high standards that not everyone can meet.  But physicians have a friend in ‘Conrad’.

The ‘Conrad 30’ program is designed specifically for physicians who desire a waiver of the 2-year home residency requirement.  Each state runs its own ‘Conrad 30’ program with its own set of guidelines, but there are a few fundamental terms that all ‘Conrad 30’ programs share; among those are that a physician must be willing to serve at least 3 years in H-1B visa status working at least 40 hours/week in a federally-designated medically underserved area providing primary care – and sometimes specialty care – to the underserved population.   You already know why it’s named ‘Conrad’; the ‘30’ stands for the number of slots available in each state for physicians willing to serve in these medically underserved areas.

Although there are some other programs that provide ‘waivers’ for physicians in J-1 visa status, (for example, Appalachian Regional Commission, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, etc.), these other programs have narrow restrictions that limit their availability.  It is recognized that the Conrad 30 program is likely the most useful waiver program for physicians in J-1 status.

However, the original Conrad 30 program had a ‘sunset’ date that has been extended by Congress to keep the program alive for years.

Unless you’ve been in a coma for the past several years, you must recognize that the volatility and rancor of our elected leaders in Congress make the prognosis of their cooperation on an immigration bill anything but certain.

 This year presents a risk that the program will die due to the negligence – and perhaps the intentional refusal of care - of our politicians.

The good news is that Senators Klobuchar of Minnesota and Heitkamp of North Dakota have introduced a Bill in the Senate, (S. 1189) that not only extends the life of the Conrad 30 program, but makes it a permanent federal law by removing the ‘sunset’ provisions.

Known as the ‘Conrad State 30 and Physician Access Act’, this bill would also clarify certain elements of the National Interest Waiver for physicians and permitting the spouses of H-1B visa-holding physicians to change status to other types of visas besides the ‘H-4’ derivative visa, among other things.

The ‘Conrad State 30’ Program is a powerful incentive for healthcare systems in rural, urban and other medically underserved areas to attract and keep physicians to care for communities in need of primary care medical services.  Many healthcare systems rely heavily upon the benefits of the Conrad 30 program to staff their hospitals and facilities - and foreign medical graduates recognize the valuable benefit it provides for them; its demise would impact these communities disproportionately.

So if you were waiting for the right opportunity to contact your U.S. Senator or Representative on an issue that overwhelmingly affects the health of small, rural communities, this would be a good time to ask for their support of Senate Bill 1189 – before it’s too late.

Immigration by Executive Order

Last night, President Barack Obama announced a new Executive Order designed to address several (of many) immigration issues facing our country.  The first understatement is to acknowledge that his use of an Executive Order has drawn considerable controversy.

First, let's address the Executive Order issue.  President Obama, like Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush before him, has used an 'Executive Order' to address the problem of undocumented persons in the United States - but that doesn't necessarily make it a desirable approach.  I think everyone would agree that a well-considered, bi-partisan Congressional bill reflecting joint compromise would be a more acceptable and supportable approach to dealing with this issue.  Most people have forgotten, but a mere 16 months ago, the U.S. Senate was able to overwhelmingly pass such a comprehensive bi-partisan immigration bill.  Unfortunately, it never made it into the House of Representatives for a vote, so it appears that the best chance of handling the immigration issue in a cooperative legislative fashion is in our past.
 It should also be noted that since the President cannot pass legislation on his own, he is actually fairly limited in what he can do from an Executive standpoint.  Taking this action does not create a new opportunity for legal status, it does not create a new law and does not change the law as it now exists; it does, however, change the way certain portions of the law, interpreted in the federal regulations, are carried out.  In doing so, however, it broadens and expands benefits that certain undocumented persons may secure.

The Executive Order addresses five different initiatives to address the immigration system.  Three of these initiatives are concrete proposals that have real impact on certain immigration procedures.  The other two statements are simply aspirational comments.

Briefly, here are 3 fundamental areas of immigration practice affected by the President's actions:



DEFERRED ACTION FOR PARENTS OF U.S. CITIZENS

What it does:  Under this provision, certain persons who are not lawfully present in the U.S. but have children who are U.S. citizens or Lawful Permanent Residents ('green card' holders) would be able to gain the benefit of not being removed from the country ('deported').  And while they are in the U.S., they are given permission to work, pay taxes and abide by the labor laws of this country.

Who is affected:  Only parents who have been in the U.S. since January 1, 2010 and whose children are U.S. citizens or Lawful Permanent Residents may apply for this benefit.

What this changes:  Presently, this benefit known as 'Deferred Action' is already available in certain cases, and by Executive Order in the summer of 2012, was expanded to specifically include children who were brought to the U.S. before the age of 16.  This prior Executive Order is referred to as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, (or 'DACA'). 
     Currently, U.S citizens over the age of 21 may sponsor a parent for Lawful Permanent Residency - but - typically the parent has accrued unlawful presence such that he or she would be barred from entering the U.S. for 10 years if the parent were to leave the U.S. to obtain his or her 'green card'.  
     The President's Executive Order of November 20, 2014 further extends 'Deferred Action' to allow these same parents the opportunity to remain in the U.S. and work based upon the presence of a son or daughter - regardless of age - who is either a U.S. citizen or a Lawful Permanent Resident.  It does not permit them an alternative opportunity to get Lawful Permanent Residency.

When it starts:  It is anticipated that this benefit will become available before the end of May 2015.



DEFERRED ACTION FOR CHILDHOOD ARRIVALS ('DACA')

What it does:  Under this provision, the population of eligible applicants for DACA (described above) is expanded by allowing more recent arrivals to apply, eliminates the age limit and extends work authorization to three (3) years.

Who is affected:  Persons who were brought here as children well before June 15, 1981 - as well as those who have arrived after June 15, 2007 but before January 1, 2010 -  may now apply for this benefit.  Current DACA recipients can take advantage of an additional 1 year of work authorization when they renew their request for DACA benefits.

What this changes:  Presently, one of the criteria for DACA is that the person was under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012; this leaves out persons born before June 15, 1981 and who came to the U.S. as children.  Now, the age limit is eliminated and anyone meeting the rest of the criteria is eligible to apply.  In addition, the present policy requires that an applicant also prove that he or she has resided in the U.S. continuously since June 15, 2007.  The new provision extends that date to January 1, 2010, so that more recent arrivals may now also apply for this benefit.
     Finally, the original DACA Executive Order permits work authorization to a successful applicant for two (2) years.  That period of work authorization will now be extended to three (3) years.

When it starts:  It is anticipated that these extended benefits will become available before the end of February 2015.



PROVISIONAL WAIVERS OF UNLAWFUL PRESENCE

What it does:  Under this provision, the population of eligible applicants for a Provisional Waiver, ('601A' Waiver), is expanded to include sons and/or daughters of U.S. citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents.

Who is affected:  Older children of U.S. citizens - as well as children of Lawful Permanent Residents - who are now permitted to apply for a Provisional Waiver.

What this changes:  An individual who has remained in the U.S. unlawfully for 180 days - and leaves the U.S. - is subject to a 'bar' of returning to the U.S. for 3 years.  If the individual is in the U.S. unlawfully for 1 year or more, the 'bar' is 10 years.  A 'Waiver' of the 3 or 10 year bar is available for an individual who is subject to the 'bar' - but is nonetheless eligible to get a 'green card' at a U.S. Consulate abroad - if the person can show that it would create an 'extreme hardship' to a U.S. citizen spouse or parent of the applicant.  The 'Waiver'  gives this applicant the ability to return to the U.S. immediately without having to wait for the end of the 3 or 10 year 'bar'.  Normally, one applies for the 'Waiver' after he or she has left the country (thus triggering the 'bar') to interview for the 'green card' at the U.S. Consulate abroad. 
     Through executive action in 2013, President Obama created a 'Provisional' or '601A' Waiver that permitted an individual who is a spouse or child of a U.S. citizen to take advantage of the Waiver before the individual left the country for a 'green card' - thus giving certainty to the applicant that he or she could immediately return to the U.S. after the 'green card' appointment. 
     Under the new provisions of the November 20, 2014 Executive action, persons eligible to take advantage of the '601A Provisional Waiver' program will be expanded to include adult children of U.S. citizens as well as spouses and children of Lawful Permanent Residents, as well.
     Finally, the term 'extreme hardship' will be more clearly defined and, presumably, less restrictive, than before (although this remains to be seen).

When it starts: Unknown; generally whenever new regulations are issued.


Finally, there are several aspirational statements committing the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government to work towards refining, expanding and expediting the process for the Labor Certification Applications ('PERM'), employment authorization for certain dependents of H-1B visa holders, the immigration visa issuance process and others.

Over the next several weeks, we will be exploring in more depth the significance and practicalities of these new initiatives so that you can gain a better understanding of what may lie ahead.