Category: US Immigration

Immigration Court Ruling

US Visa Ineligibility Findings and Waiver Option

US Immigration Advisor

Often times, foreign nationals are denied a visa or entry into the United States based on certain grounds. Such individuals who are found inadmissible and need a non-immigrant visa to enter the U.S. can apply for a waiver application at a U.S. consulate. The Immigration and Nationality Act (Section 212 (d)(3)) provides for a waiver (or pardon) for certain inadmissibility findings. The “212 (d) (3) waiver” can be used to overcome most grounds of ineligibility. One such very common ground is that of willful misrepresentation or fraud, the consequences of which are dire as it triggers a permanent or lifetime bar to entering the U.S However, all is not lost and this ground like many others can be challenged and overcome through a 212 (d) (3) waiver.

The INA 212 (d) (3) waiver, dubbed as the “Hranka Waiver,” although discretionary, can waive most grounds of inadmissibility, including willful misrepresentation or fraud, crimes involving moral turpitude, prostitution, smuggling, bars resulting from unlawful presence in the United States, health related grounds and a few others. There are certain grounds of inadmissibility that are excluded, such as espionage, participation in Nazi persecution and genocide. The waiver is available to NIV visa applicants, i.e., B-1, L-1, F-1, J-1, O-1, etc. visas and not to immigrant visa applicants.

The U.S. Department of State and consular officers are tasked with the discretionary authority of recommending these waivers for non-immigrant (NIV) visa ineligibilities to the Department of Homeland Security for approval.

Waiver Assessment Criteria

There are no prescribed criteria but the adjudicating officer will weigh the following factors in recommending a 212 (d)(3) waiver:

  1. Risk of harm to society if the foreign national is admitted;
  2. Seriousness of the foreign national’s immigration or criminal law violation;
  3. Foreign national’s purpose of travel to the United States;
  4. Whether there is a single, isolated incident or a pattern of misconduct; and
  5. Evidence of reformation or rehabilitation.

Application Procedure

The 212(d)(3) waiver application can be submitted to the U.S. consulate in the applicant’s home country (or country of residence) or in case of visa-exempt foreign nationals, at the U.S. port of entry (with Customs and Border Protection). Generally, one can submit the waiver application at the consulate at the same time that the person is applying for a non-immigrant visa; some consulates may require the waiver filing at a later time. If consular officers believe that the waiver should be granted, they are required to forward the case to the Customs and Border Protection’s Admissibility Review Office (ARO) with an affirmative recommendation. The consular officer is not obligated to accept the waiver application if he or she believes that the waiver has no merit and is required to reject it if the applicant is otherwise found ineligible for the underlying visa. However, consular officers are directed to refer the waiver request to the Department of State for review if the applicant requests, provided that the applicant’s case involves certain situation/s such as national security, foreign relations, significant public interest and/or urgent humanitarian or medical reason. The ARO’s decision is final pursuant to which the consular officer will adjudicate the underlying non-immigrant visa application.

The ARO/CBP generally grant a waiver in most visa cases for 5 years. The waiver processing can be lengthy at times ranging from few weeks to several months but is an inexpensive and relatively straightforward option to overcome certain ineligibility findings.

This article has been written by Zeenat Phophalia, Esq. Of Counsel, Davies & Associates, India Office.

Zeenat Phophalia is qualified to practice law in New York, United Kingdom and India. She practices in the area of U.S. immigration law with a focus on business immigration, and has represented corporate clients including large and medium sized companies and startups across sectors such as IT, consulting, consumer goods, manufacturing and telecommunications.

Looking for an US immigration lawyer? Request free consultation at Davies & Associates or find our closest location around the world.

US Visa Application

Can U.S. Citizenship be Revoked?

US Immigration Advisor

A naturalized United States citizen is someone who has voluntarily obtained U.S. citizenship based on certain grounds other than by birth in the U.S. The process by which they obtain U.S. citizenship is called naturalization. The U.S. citizenship of such individuals can be stripped away or revoked through what is known as the “denaturalization” process. U.S. citizenship of a person who is born on US soil cannot generally be revoked, but such a person can lose citizenship by engaging in certain explicit voluntary acts.

The U.S. government can rescind a naturalized person’s citizenship for a variety of reasons which are:

“Illegally” procuring citizenship

Procuring naturalization illegally simply means that the person was not eligible for naturalization, therefore any eligibility criterion that was not fulfilled can form the basis for revocation. This includes the requirements for residence, physical presence, lawful admission for permanent residence, good moral character, and attachment to the U.S. Constitution. This applies even if the person unintentionally made a mistake.

Non-Disclosure of Material Fact or Willful Misrepresentation

If a naturalized person misrepresented or hid a material fact deliberately which fact impacted his naturalization application, the citizenship in such cases may be revoked. This ground of revocation includes omissions as well as affirmative misrepresentations. Examples of such instances include failure to disclose an arrest or criminal conviction or lying about one’s marital status.

The misrepresentations can be oral testimony provided during the naturalization interview or can include details provided on the N-400. The materiality test is whether the misrepresentations or concealment had the ability to affect the grant of citizenship decision.

In 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court in the case, Maslenjak v. United States, 37 S. Ct. 1918 (2017), limited the grounds for revoking citizenship by holding that unless the underlying omission or false statement was significant to the acquisition of citizenship, citizenship cannot be revoked for a false statement that has no bearing on the decision.

Membership or Affiliation with Certain Organizations

A person is subject to revocation of naturalization if he or she becomes a member of, or affiliated with, the Communist party, other totalitarian party, or terrorist organization within five years of naturalization. There is an assumption that the person dd not have allegiance to the U.S. Constitution and was never well-disposed to the wellbeing of the United States.

Separation from the Military

Some people can obtain U.S. citizenship by serving honorably in the U.S. armed forces. The government can revoke citizenship obtained on this basis if the naturalized person separates from the armed forces under other than honorable discharge before serving five years of military service.

The Denaturalization Process

Unlike most other immigration matters that USCIS handles in an administrative setting, revocation of naturalization can only occur in federal court. A person’s naturalization can be revoked either by civil proceeding or pursuant to a criminal conviction. For civil revocation, the U.S. Attorney’s Office must file the revocation of naturalization actions in a Federal District Court. For criminal revocation of naturalization, the office files criminal charges in Federal District Court. The government holds a high burden of proof when attempting to revoke a person’s naturalization. For civil revocation, the burden of proof is clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence and for criminal revocation, it’s proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as required in every other criminal case.

Source: USCIS Policy Manual I Grounds for Revocation of Naturalization

This article has been written by Zeenat Phophalia, Esq. Of Counsel, Davies & Associates, India Office.

Zeenat Phophalia is qualified to practice law in New York, United Kingdom and India. She practices in the area of U.S. immigration law with a focus on business immigration, and has represented corporate clients including large and medium sized companies and startups across sectors such as IT, consulting, consumer goods, manufacturing and telecommunications.

Looking for an US immigration lawyer? Request free consultation at Davies & Associates or find our closest location around the world.

E-2 Visa approved for a Singaporean national during COVID-19

Guidance on Compelling Circumstances EADs

US Immigration Advisor

In June 2023, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) released an updated guidance on the employment authorization document (EAD) based on compelling circumstances for beneficiaries of an approved I-140 petition. The guidance clarifies the eligibility criteria for a compelling circumstances EAD.

A compelling circumstances EAD is a stopgap measure for non-immigrant visa holders, in the process of applying for their green cards, who have been lawfully residing in the US and are faced with unforeseen or sudden circumstances that would cause them to immediately depart the United States. The compelling circumstances EAD provision which came into effect in January 2017, provides a temporary benefit for eligible foreign nationals and their family members to continue to reside and work in the United States without interruption and accruing unlawful presence.

For an applicant to be eligible for an initial EAD based on compelling circumstances, they must meet the following eligibility requirements:

  • The principal applicant must be the beneficiary of an approved Form I-140 in either EB-1, EB -2 or EB-3 category;
  • The principal applicant must be in a valid non-immigrant status (E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, O-1, or L-1) or authorized grace period
  • The principal applicant must not have filed a I-485 adjustment of status application;
  • The applicant and their dependents have not been convicted of a felony or two or more misdemeanors ; and
  • An immigrant visa is not available to the principal applicant based on the applicant’s priority date according to the relevant Final Action Date in the U.S. Department of State’s Visa Bulletin in effect when they file Form I-765; and

Examples of Compelling Circumstances

The regulations do not define “compelling circumstances”, but in general, are situations outside one’s control that adversely affect their ability to continue working for their employer. USCIS exercises discretion on a case-by-case basis in assessing. Below are non -exhaustive examples that could justify the existence of compelling circumstances.

Serious Illness and Disability

A principal applicant or their dependent faces a serious illness or disability that substantially changes employment circumstances, such as requiring them to move to a different geographic area for their or a dependent’s treatment, or the illness or disability otherwise reduces or adversely affects the principal applicant’s ability to continue their previously approved employment.

Employer Dispute or Retaliation

A principal applicant is involved in a dispute regarding their employer’s alleged illegal or other forms of abusive conduct, which may take the form of a whistleblower action, litigation, or other documented dispute.

Other Substantial Harm to the Applicant

The principal applicant is unable to timely extend or otherwise maintain status, or obtain another nonimmigrant status, and would suffer substantial harm as a result. This harm may be financial or may be due to an inability to return to their home country due to conditions there.

Financial hardship to the principal applicant may rise to the level of compelling circumstances when coupled with circumstances beyond those typically associated with job loss, for example, loss of health insurance.

Significant Disruption to the Employer

If the applicant is unable to continue working due to failure of filing a timely extension of change of status, and as a result, the employer will suffer significant disruption of business or that the loss of the employee will negatively impact project and cause significant monetary loss, such situation could establish compelling circumstances.

USCIS generally does not consider unemployment or job loss, in and of itself, to be a compelling circumstance unless the principal applicant can show additional circumstances that compound the hardship ordinarily associated with job loss.

Impact on Non-Immigrant Status

While a discretionary relief, the compelling circumstances EAD is an alternative that allows one to continue to stay and work in the United States in an authorized period of stay. Note that this is not a substitute for a “non-immigrant” status. An applicant would not accrue unlawful presence during the EAD’s validity or during the pendency of a timely filed non-frivolous EAD application. Spouses and children of the principal EAD applicant may also receive EADs provided that they individually meet the compelling circumstances and filing requirements.

Resource: Chapter 3 – Certain Employment-Based Immigrants in Compelling Circumstances | USCIS

This article has been written by Zeenat Phophalia, Esq. Of Counsel, Davies & Associates, India Office.

Zeenat Phophalia is qualified to practice law in New York, United Kingdom and India. She practices in the area of U.S. immigration law with a focus on business immigration, and has represented corporate clients including large and medium sized companies and startups across sectors such as IT, consulting, consumer goods, manufacturing and telecommunications.

Looking for an US immigration lawyer? Request free consultation at Davies & Associates or find our closest location around the world.

Specialized knowledge

Guidance on L-1B “Specialized Knowledge” Standard

US Immigration Advisor

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (USCIS) Policy Memo of March 2015 (“Memo”) clarifies the L-1B visa “specialized knowledge” standard, providing an authoritative and consolidated guidance on the L-1B program.

“Specialized knowledge” under Statutory Laws and Regulations

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA 214(c)(2)(B)), an employee possesses specialized knowledge if he or she has: (1) a “special” knowledge of the company product and its application in international markets; or (2) an “advanced” level of knowledge of the processes and procedures of the company. The corresponding Code of Federal Regulations (8 CFR 214.2(l)(1)(ii)(D)) similarly defines specialized knowledge in terms of “special” or “advanced” knowledge: [S]pecial knowledge possessed by an individual of the petitioning organization’s product, service, research, equipment, techniques, management, or other interests and its application in international markets, or an advanced level of knowledge or expertise in the organization’s processes and procedures.

Statistically, most challenges in L-1B adjudications have centered around the “specialized knowledge” definition and how USCIS interprets and applies it, resulting in inconsistencies in adjudications and sometimes, high rates of denials. As reported by Forbes, over the past 7 years, across parts of three presidential administrations, the USCIS denial rate for L-1B petitions has averaged a very high 28.2%, according to a National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) analysis of government data.

The Memo attempts to clear the air surrounding the interpretation of “specialized knowledge” by giving guidance on what it takes to demonstrate specialized knowledge.

Key Points of the Memo

“Specialized Knowledge” Definition

The Memo provides that an individual seeking L-1B classification should have:

(i) Special knowledge which is knowledge of the petitioning employer’s product, service, research, equipment, techniques, management, or other interests and its applications in international markets that is distinct or uncommon in comparison to that generally found in the particular industry or within the petitioning employer; or (ii) advanced knowledge, which is knowledge or expertise in the organization’s specific processes and procedures that is not commonly found in the relevant industry and is greatly developed or further along in progress, complexity and understanding than that generally found within the employer.

Application of the “Specialized Knowledge” Standard

The Memo elaborately describes how adjudicators should determine whether an individual possesses “special” or “advanced” knowledge in a given case. It explains that such evaluation inherently requires a comparison of the beneficiary’s knowledge against that of others. The petitioner is required to demonstrate that that the beneficiary’s knowledge is not commonly held throughout the particular industry. For knowledge to be considered specialized, it need not be proprietary in nature or narrowly held within the petitioning organization. Furthermore, an L-1B employee does not require to have BOTH advanced and specialized knowledge to qualify for the classification.

In determining whether knowledge is advanced or special, essentially the same factors and criteria outlined in the Memo apply. The key distinction is whether the knowledge refers to the particular company’s product, service, research, equipment, techniques, management or other interests and its application to international markets or uncommon knowledge of the company’s processes and procedures.

The Memo outlines a list of non- exhaustive factors that USCIS may consider while determining whether knowledge is specialized, which include:

  • Whether the beneficiary possesses knowledge of foreign operating conditions that is of significant value to the petitioning organization’s U.S. operations.
  • Whether the beneficiary has been employed abroad in a capacity involving assignments that have significantly enhanced the employer’s productivity, competitiveness, image, or financial position.
  • Whether the beneficiary’s claimed specialized knowledge normally can be gained only through prior experience with the petitioning organization.
  • Whether the beneficiary possesses knowledge of a product or process that cannot be easily transferred or taught to another individual without significant economic cost or inconvenience (because, for example, such knowledge may require substantial training, work experience, or education).
  • Whether the beneficiary has knowledge of a process or a product that either is sophisticated or complex, or of a highly technical nature, although not necessarily unique to the firm.
  • Whether the beneficiary possesses knowledge that is particularly beneficial to the employer’s competitiveness in the marketplace.

USCIS also highlights the following points related to “specialized knowledge” when adjudicating L-1B petitions: (i) Specialized knowledge cannot be easily imparted to other individuals; (ii) Specialized knowledge need not be proprietary or unique to the petitioning organization; (iii) L-1B classification does not involve a test of the U.S. labor market; (iv) specialized knowledge need not be narrowly held within the petitioning company; (v) employees need not occupy managerial or similar positions or command higher compensation compared to their peers; and (vi) eligibility for another non-immigrant classification is not a bar to eligibility for L-1B classification

“Preponderance of the Evidence” Standard

The Memo confirms that the petitioning company must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the company meets each eligibility requirement of the L-1B visa category. It directs officers not to apply higher standards of review such as “beyond a reasonable doubt” or

by “clear and convincing evidence.” Instead, an L-1B petitioner will have satisfied the standard of proof if the evidence submitted leads to the conclusion that the claim is “more likely than not” or “probably” true.

This article has been written by Zeenat Phophalia, Esq. Of Counsel, Davies & Associates, India Office.

Zeenat Phophalia is qualified to practice law in New York, United Kingdom and India. She practices in the area of U.S. immigration law with a focus on business immigration, and has represented corporate clients including large and medium sized companies and startups across sectors such as IT, consulting, consumer goods, manufacturing and telecommunications.

Looking for an US immigration lawyer? Request free consultation at Davies & Associates or find our closest location around the world.

Biometric USCIS

Temporary Suspension of Biometrics Collection Extended for Certain Derivative Applicants

US Immigration Advisor

The USCIS (US Citizenship and Immigration Services) has extended the temporary suspension of the biometrics submission requirement for certain derivate applicants seeking L-2, E or H-4 extension of stay or change of status. Such applicants will generally will have to file Form I-539. The prior suspension was to be in effect until May 17, 2023 and has now been extended through September 30, 2023.

While the suspension is in effect, such derivative applicants will not be required by the USCIS to visit a facility for the collection of their biometric data. The agency, however reserves the right to require biometrics on a case-by-case basis. Extension of stay and/or change of status I-539 applicants who have already received a biometric appointment notice should attend their scheduled appointment and provide their biometrics at the designated support center. Often times, failure to attend a I-539 biometrics appointment can result in the application being deemed abandoned, which could have unintended adverse ramifications.

In their announcement, USCIS also confirmed that its plans to permanently exempt I-539 applicants from the biometric requirement. The suspension should likely help ease up processing times and backlogs.

Looking for an US immigration lawyer? Request free consultation at Davies & Associates or find our closest location around the world.

This article has been written by Zeenat Phophalia, Esq. Of Counsel, Davies & Associates, India Office.

Zeenat Phophalia is qualified to practice law in New York, United Kingdom and India. She practices in the area of U.S. immigration law with a focus on business immigration, and has represented corporate clients including large and medium sized companies and startups across sectors such as IT, consulting, consumer goods, manufacturing and telecommunications.

EB-5 Source of Funds for Italians Webinar

New Consular Fees for Non-Immigrant Visas

US Immigration Advisor

The US Department of State published a Final Rule on March 28 regarding an increase in fees for certain categories of non-immigrant visa applications. The fee increase will be effective May 30, 2023.

The consular fee for employment-based categories such as the H-1B, L-1, and O-1 will increase from $190 to $205, and for the E-1 trader and E-2 treaty investor visa categories, the fee will increase from $205 to $315.

Other consular fees are not affected by this rule, including the waiver of the two-year residency required fee for certain exchange visitors. Current fees will continue to apply until May 30.

Fee information can be found on the Bureau of Consular Affairs website, travel.state.gov, and on the websites of U.S. embassies and consulates

E-2 Visa approved for a Singaporean national during COVID-19

New Policy Guidance on Employer’s Ability to Pay in I-140 Filings

US Immigration Advisor

On March 15, the US Citizenship and Immigration Services issued a policy guidance addressing the analysis of an employer’s ability to pay the proffered wage for certain employment-based immigrant petitions. This guidance, contained in Volume 6 of the Policy Manual, is effective immediately and applies to I-140 petitions filed on or after March 15, 2023. The updated guidance discusses in more detail various types of evidence and explains how USCIS reviews all evidence relevant to the employer’s financial strength and the significance of its business activities.

US employers seeking to sponsor employees under EB-1, EB-2 and EB-3 employment-based immigrant classifications that require a job offer must demonstrate their continuing ability to pay the proffered wage to the employee as of the priority date of the immigrant petition. The employer’s/petitioner’s ability to pay the proffered wage stated on Form I-140 is one of the essential elements that USCIS considers in evaluating whether the job offer is realistic.

Regulations require an employer to submit annual reports, federal tax returns, or audited financial statements for each available year from the priority date. An employer can alternatively submit a financial officer statement attesting to its ability to pay the proffered wage if it has 100 or more workers. Additional evidence such as profit and loss statements, bank account records, or personnel records may also be submitted. Many employers satisfy the ability to pay requirement by also submitting payroll records demonstrating that, during the relevant time period, they have been paying the employee at least the proffered wage indicated on the Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Form I-140).

Here’s what the updated USCIS guidance provides:

  • USCIS reviews all evidence relevant to the employer’s financial strength and the significance of its business activities.
  • Employer must submit one of the three forms of initial required evidence listed in the regulation but may also include other types of relevant evidence.
  • Discussion of each form of initial required evidence listed in the regulation and several other forms of additional evidence employers might submit to establish their ability to pay the proffered wage.
  • Explains how USCIS analyzes evidence and issues relevant to an employer’s ability to pay the proffered wage, such as the petitioner’s current employment of the beneficiary, prorating the proffered wage for the priority date year, multiple beneficiaries, successors-in-interest, and non-profit organizations.
  • Addition of information about types of business structures to help officers better understand the types of petitioning employers and the evidence they may submit to establish their ability to pay the proffered wage

Reference Links

Chapter 4 – Ability to Pay | USCIS

20230315-AbilityToPay.pdf (uscis.gov)

EB1c Visa | EB1c US Lawyer | Davies & Associates (usimmigrationadvisor.com)

Merit Based EB-1A Visa | National Interest Waiver (usimmigrationadvisor.com)

EB3 Visa | Permanent Residency for Skilled Workers | Davies & Associates LLC (usimmigrationadvisor.com)

This article has been written by Zeenat Phophalia, Esq. Of Counsel, Davies & Associates, India Office.

Zeenat Phophalia is qualified to practice law in New York, United Kingdom and India. She practices in the area of U.S. immigration law with a focus on business immigration, and has represented corporate clients including large and medium sized companies and startups across sectors such as IT, consulting, consumer goods, manufacturing and telecommunications.

Looking for an US immigration lawyer? Request free consultation at Davies & Associates or find our closest location around the world.

EB-5 petitions visa

Immigration Implications Arising Out of Corporate Transactions

US Immigration Advisor

Whenever a corporate transaction involves a business whose employees include foreign nationals, an immigration due diligence is strongly recommended. Corporate transactions in the form of stock or asset acquisitions, mergers, consolidations, restructuring, etc. could trigger immigration implications. Most work visas for foreign nationals are employer specific, changes in an entity’s structure could jeopardize an employee’s work authorization and inadvertently violate immigration regulations. It’s important to ensure that employees are not rendered out of status and understand requirements and nuances of various work visas in order to analyze how a corporate transaction could affect foreign workers, and potentially the interests of a company.

In the United States, there are two separate visa categories for a foreign worker: (i) non-immigrant; and (ii) immigrant. Non-immigrant workers usually fall under the H-1B, 1, TN and E-2, E-3 visa categories, while immigrant workers are those who have obtained lawful permanent status or are in the process of doing so.

This article covers some of the implications of mergers and acquisitions on H-1B, L-1 and green card applications and I-9 compliance.

h1b visa, h1b visa means, h1b visa process, h1b visa status, what is h1b visa, h1b visa news

v Impact on H-1B Filings:

Arguably, the most popular and commonly used temporary work visa is the H-1B. For a company with H-1B employees, questions to consider are whether the merger and acquisition will result in a new employer and to what extent will the new entity assume the interests and liabilities of the target company. Where the new employer is a “successor-in-interest” that assumes the interests and obligations of the prior employer which includes the assertions the prior employer made on their labor condition application, filing a new H-1B petition is not necessary. This may therefore allow H-1B workers to continue employment without any interruption. That said, any material changes accompanying corporate changes will require action steps, for example, relocation of the employee and/or a substantial change in the employee’s duties will require filing a revised labor condition application (LCA) and an amended H-1B petition.

An issue likely to come up and affecting a small percentage of companies is the loss of eligibility of H-1B cap exempt status. Certain employers such as governmental research organizations, non- profits, certain colleges and universities are exempt from the H-1B cap quota. Depending on the corporate change, the cap-exempt status could be lost by the new employer, for example when a non-profit entity is replaced by a for-profit entity as a sponsoring employer. This loss of status could render an employee unauthorized to work going forward whose H-1B was granted on the basis of the cap-exempt status. Issues like these should be taken into account and addressed prior to closing.

h1b visa, h1b visa means, h1b visa process, h1b visa status, what is h1b visa, h1b visa news, h1b visa usa

v Impact on L-1 Visas:

For an L-1 visa, the law requires the existence of a qualifying relationship between the US entity and the foreign entity from which the employee will be transferring or has been transferred, and the relationship must be that of either a “parent, branch, affiliate or subsidiary.” A merger or acquisition resulting in change in the ownership structure of either entity could terminate the qualifying relationship as required under the regulations, thereby invalidating the L-1 status of an employee. It’s important to perform a thorough analysis of the transaction to determine whether the qualifying relationship has been terminated or retained. For example, if a US subsidiary of a Japanese parent is acquired by a US company, in this situation, the qualifying relationship will have terminated and the L-1 Japanese executive working in the US will have lost work authorization. In cases where it can be proved that the qualifying relationship remains intact, only an amended petition is required.

h1b visa, h1b visa means, h1b visa process, h1b visa status, what is h1b visa, h1b visa news, h1b visa usa

v Impact on Green Card Applications:

A lawful permanent residency (green card) application can be broken down into 3 steps in modt cases – labor certification, I-140 petition and adjustment of status application. Companies that fall within the successor-in-interest requirements generally are allowed to continue the green card application filed by the predecessor company.

For a labor certification that is filed by the former employer, as long as the new employer assumes all rights, duties, liabilities and obligations of the former employer, the labor certification will remain valid, provided the job position and/or location of the employee remain unchanged. However, if there are any changes in job position or location, or if the new employer does not qualify as a successor-in-interest, the pending labor certification will be invalidated and the new employer will have to file a new labor certification. This could affect the lawful status of a foreign worker who has relied on a pending labor certification in order to extend his or her H-1B visa. An employee could lose his priority date thereby significantly delaying the already lengthy green card process.

During the I-140 stage, if the I-140 is pending, but the adjustment of status application is not filed at the time of the corporate change, the new employer will have to file an amended I-140 demonstrating the successor-in-interest relationship. This would also be the case if the I-140 has been approved but no adjustment of status application has been filed yet.

On the other hand, when a corporate change comes into effect after the I-485 application is filed, an amended I-140 may not be required. This is because the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act (AC21) allows a foreign national to change employers if the I-140 has been approved and the adjustment of status application has been pending for 180 days or more, as long as the new position is in the “same or similar occupational classification.” The new employment must be in

the same or similar job category as the one initially sponsored and filing of an amended I-140 is not needed and neither is the demonstration of successor-in-interest relationship

h1b visa, h1b visa means, h1b visa process, h1b visa status, what is h1b visa

Key Concerns: I-9 Compliance

One of the most important (but often overlooked) factors that an employer should take into account at the time of a restructuring is the I-9 compliance. All employers in the U.S. are prohibited from hiring unauthorized employees. One of the fundamental reasons in creating the Form I-9 form was to get employees to establish that they are authorized to work in the U.S. (based on certain prescribed documentation) and to obligate employers to verify and confirm their work authorization. Under the I-9 compliance, each employer is required to verify the identity and employment authorization of all employees.

To ensure that employers comply with the above, the law imposes some harsh penalties. These penalties are not only restricted to employing unauthorized workers but also extend to the failure to properly execute and retain records of employees, whether U.S. citizens or not. These penalties can range from $110 – $1,100 per record for not maintaining proper documentation with additional sanctions that may include bars to filing for any immigration benefit.

h1b visa, h1b visa means, h1b visa process, h1b visa status, what is h1b visa

Immigration Due Diligence and Best Practices

Any immigration related issues should be addressed and incorporated into the representations and warranties of the key transaction documents. It is a good practice to identify all employees on non-immigrant visas or in the process of applying for green cards and understand future action steps if any to ensure continuation of their lawful status.

Corporates should adopt a best practice checklist for a corporate immigration program – immigration policies should be in writing and ensure that extension of visas and transfer of employees across borders is done in a timely manner. Tone from the top matters; corporate policy should state clearly that the company will remain compliant with all immigration laws, such as timely completion of employment verification and provision of appropriate employment benefits

Reference Links

L1 Visa Attorney | L1 Visa USA | L1 Visa (usimmigrationadvisor.com)

EB1c Visa | EB1c US Lawyer | Davies & Associates (usimmigrationadvisor.com)

EB3 Visa | Permanent Residency for Skilled Workers | Davies & Associates LLC (usimmigrationadvisor.com)

This article has been written by Zeenat Phophalia, Esq. Of Counsel, Davies & Associates, India Office.

Zeenat Phophalia is qualified to practice law in New York, United Kingdom and India. She practices in the area of U.S. immigration law with a focus on business immigration, and has represented corporate clients including large and medium sized companies and startups across sectors such as IT, consulting, consumer goods, manufacturing and telecommunications.

Looking for an US immigration lawyer? Request free consultation at Davies & Associates or find our closest location around the world.

L-1 Visa for Spouses

Can a spouse work on L1 Visa

US Immigration Advisor

Yes, the spouse of an L1 visa holder can work in the United States. An Employment Authorization Document used to be required, but USCIS has updated the guidance in the USCIS Policy Manual to address the documentation that certain E and L nonimmigrant spouses may use as evidence of employment authorization based on their nonimmigrant status.

On November 12, 2021, USCIS clarified that L spouses are now considered employment authorized based on their valid L nonimmigrant status. Since the November 2021 announcement, the Department of Homeland Security added new Class of Admission (COA) codes to distinguish between L spouses and children. As of January 30, 2022, USCIS and CBP began issuing Forms I-94 with L-2S code for L spouse. An unexpired Form I-94 reflecting one of these new codes is acceptable as evidence of employment authorization for spouses.

It’s important to note that the L1 visa holder’s spouse can only work in the United States for the duration of the L1 visa holder’s authorized stay in the United States.

To obtain an L1 visa to work in the United States, your employer outside the US must first have a qualifying relationship with a U.S.-based employer. This means that you must either be an executive, manager, or specialized knowledge employee of a multinational company that has a subsidiary, branch, affiliate, or parent company in the United States. Your employer must also file a petition on your behalf with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

State Department Plans to Offer Domestic Visa Renewals

usimmigrationadvisor

The US State Department will launch a pilot program this year that will offer L-1 visa and H-1B visa renewal options to those requiring to travel outside the United States, as reported by Bloomberg Law.  The stateside renewal option could eventually be expanded to other visa categories.

The Deputy Assistant Secretary for visa services in the Bureau of Consular Affairs has reportedly indicated that reinstating the visa renewal option which was discontinued in 2004 will cut down the workload of the consular posts abroad and will make it easier for visa holders to be able to travel abroad and return to the United States.

This is great news for employers and employees alike, particularly for foreign nationals of countries that are seeing very long visa wait times at the consulates such as India.

The L-1 is a dual intent non-immigrant visa category that allows for the transfer of managerial and executive personnel (L-1A visa) as also specialized knowledge employees (L-1B) from abroad to a related business in the United States.  The maximum stay permissible in the US on an L-1A is seven years, and five on the L-1B.

We at Davies & Associates will be monitoring the situation and provide updates as and when they become available.

By Zeenat Phophalia, Of Counsel, Davies & Associates

This article is published for clients, friends and other interested visitors for information purposes only. The contents of the article do not constitute legal advice and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Davies & Associates or any of its attorneys, staff or clients. External links are not an endorsement of the content.