• Hours & Info

    3233 E. Broadway,
    Long Beach, CA 90803
    (562) 495-0554
    M-F: 8:00am - 6:00 p.m.
    Sat: 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.

  • Past Blog Posts

  • https://api.whatsapp.com/send?phone=13104885414

What is the Prevailing Wage?

Posted on December 16, 2009 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney

Question: I am applying for the new PERM, but am having a very difficult time figuring out what is the prevailing wage and how to figure out what level it is. Can you please explain?

Answer: There are four levels to any job. Level 1 (entry) is for beginning level employees who have a basic understanding of the occupation. They perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment. The tasks provide experience and familiarization with the employer’s methods, practices, and programs. The employees may perform higher-level work for training and development purposes. These employees work under close supervision and receive specific instructions on required tasks and results expected. Their work is closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy.

Level 2 (qualified) wage rates are assigned to job offers for qualified employees who have attained – either through education or experience – a good understanding of the occupation. They perform moderately complex tasks that require limited judgment. A Level 2 wage determination would be a requirement for years of education and/or experience

Level 3 (experienced) wages are for job offers for experienced employees who have a sound understanding of the occupation and have attained either through education or experience special skills or knowledge. They perform tasks that require exercising judgment and may coordinate the activities of other staff. They may have supervisory authority over those staff.

Level 4 (fully competent) wage rates are for competent employees who have sufficient experience in the occupation to plan and conduct work requiring judgment and the independent evaluation, selection, modification, and application of standard procedures and techniques. Such employees use advanced skills and diversified knowledge to solve unusual and complex problems. These employees receive only technical guidance and their work is reviewed only for application of sound judgment and effectiveness in meeting the establishment’s procedures and expectations. They generally have management and/or supervisory responsibilities.

Question: Does the amount of the prevailing wage change with the level it is at.

Answer: Most definitively. The higher the level, the higher the wage. This new system is preferable to the older system which had only two levels which were no experience and expert. Here, we have a more realistic way of assessing the experience so that someone with some experience will not have a wage that is much higher than their actual experience.

Filed under: Immigration Law, immigration provisions, PERM, Prevailing Wage, USCIS | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »

Retrogression: What it really means.

Posted on December 16, 2009 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney

Question: I have a Perm Labor Certification that only took 3 months to get. However, now I am being told it will take years to actually get the Green Card. I am being told there is a “Quota Backlog” or “Retrogression“. What does this mean?

Answer: The Immigration and Nationality Act sets limits on how many green card visas may be issued each Fiscal Year (October 1 through September 30) in all visa categories. In addition, in the employment-based area where immigration is based on employment and not family relationships or investment, nationals of each country may obtain immigrant visas (i.e., a green card), in different preference categories (i.e., EB-1, EB-2, EB-3). The law further provides that no one country may have more than a specific percentage of the total number of visas available annually. If these limits are exceeded in a particular category, for a particular nationality, a waiting list is created and applicants are placed on the list according to the date of their case filing. This date is called a “Priority Date.” The priority date is the single, most important, factor in any immigration case.

Question: What are the EB categories of employment based visas?

Employment-Based First Preference (EB-1) includes: (1) Persons with extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business and athletics (persons who have risen to the top of their profession); (2) Outstanding professors and researchers; and (3) Multi-national executives and managers.

Employment-Based Second Preference (EB-2) includes: (1) Members of professions holding advanced degrees (Master’s or Ph.D.) (The position must be one that requires a Master’s or Ph.D. to perform the duties – the degree held by the individual does not determine whether or not it is an EB-2, rather it is the company’s job requirements. Additionally, the immigration regulations provide that a job which requires a minimum of a Bachelor’s degree PLUS a five years of progressively responsible experience will be considered equivalent to a Master’s level position and will qualify for EB-2.); and (2) Persons of exceptional ability in the sciences, art or business. Persons of exceptional ability are those who have a degree of expertise above that which is ordinarily expected.

Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3) includes: (1) Professionals and skilled workers (bachelor’s degree or two years of training). The position must require a minimum of a bachelor degree or two years of training.

Other Workers includes positions that require less than two years of experience.

Question: What is the “Priority Date”?

Answer: If your category is employment-based and requires a labor certification, the priority date is established on the date a labor certification is filed with the State Workforce Agency. If your category is employment-based but does not require a labor certification, then the priority date is established on the date the CIS receives the I-140 Immigrant Visa Petition. However, the priority date does not attach to your case until the I-140 has been approved.

In order for an individual to obtain an immigrant visa, a visa number must be available to you. This is referred to as the priority date being “current.” The priority date is current if there is no backlog in the category, or if the priority date is on or before the date listed as current in the State Department’s monthly Visa Bulletin.

Question: Is there anyway I can expedite the process?

Answer: There is no way to get ahead on the list, other than filing an Immigrant Visa Petition in a higher preference category, provided that the individual and/or their position meet the criteria to do so. Otherwise, the individual must wait until eligible to apply along with others on the list before proceeding with filing the last step in the green card process. The last step is accomplished by filing an application to adjust status to that of a lawful permanent resident in the U.S., or by obtaining an immigrant visa at a U.S. Consulate abroad.

Question: What does it mean to be “current”?

Answer: If there is a “C” in your employment-based category on the Visa Bulletin, then there is no quota backlog and you may proceed with your I-485 adjustment application or immigrant visa application.

Question: my spouse was born in a different country than I as. Since the I-485 is based on my employment, does my spouse’s country of birth help me?

Answer: Your spouse’s country of birth may also be used to determine chargeability. For instance, if you were born in India, but your spouse was born in France and there is a quota backlog for India, but no quota backlog for France in your preference category, you and your spouse may proceed with your immigrant process based on your spouse’s country of birth.

Filed under: Immigration Law, immigration provisions, PERM, Retrogression, USCIS | Tagged: , | Leave a comment »

What new Bills are on the Horizon?

Posted on December 16, 2009 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney

Question: I have heard that there are a large number of new immigration bills that are in Congress. Can you give a summary?

Answer: Yes, there are a significant number of bills. Whether they actually become law will only be determined by time. However, it does appear that there should be a significant number of changes in the coming year. Below are just a few of the bills introduced.

The Uniting American Families Act or the Permanent Partners Immigration Act: Introduced on June 21 by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), S. 1278 would provide a mechanism for U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents to sponsor their permanent partners for residence in the United States. S. 1278 defines the term “permanent partner” to mean an individual 18 years of age or older who (a) is in a committed, intimate relationship with another individual 18 years of age or older in which both parties intend a lifelong commitment; (b) is financially interdependent with that other individual; (c) is not married to or in a permanent partnership with anyone other than that other individual; (d) is unable to contract with that other individual a marriage cognizable under the INA; and (e) is not a first, second, or third degree blood relation of that other individual. The bill is companion legislation to H.R. 3006 below.

The Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2005: Introduced on January 24, 2005, by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), S. 119 would build upon the Homeland Security Act, which transferred the care and custody of unaccompanied alien children from the former INS to the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). Among other things, the bill would ensure that unaccompanied alien children have access to counsel; give ORR the authority to provide guardians to such children; establish minimum standards for the care and custody of unaccompanied alien minors; and strengthen policies for permanent protection of unaccompanied alien children. The bill is similar to legislation that Senator Feinstein introduced in the 108th Congress.

The Civil Liberties Restoration Act: Introduced on April 6 by Representative Howard Berman (D-CA), H.R. 1502 seeks to roll back some of the most egregious post-9/11 policies and strike an appropriate balance between security needs and liberty interests. Among other things, H.R. 1502 would secure due process protections and civil liberties for non-citizens in the U.S., enhance the effectiveness of our nation’s enforcement activities, restore the confidence of immigrant communities in the fairness of our government, and facilitate our efforts at promoting human rights and democracy around the world.

The Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act: Introduced on May 12 by Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and others, S. 1033 would comprehensively reform our immigration laws so that they enhance our national security and address the concerns of American businesses and families. Among other things, the bill would establish a break-the-mold new essential worker visa program (the H-5A visa) while also providing a mechanism by which eligible undocumented immigrants present in the U.S. on the date of the bill’s introduction could adjust to temporary nonimmigrant (H-5B) status; promote family unity and reduce backlogs; call for the creation and implementation of a national strategy for border security and enhanced border intelligence; create new enforcement regimes; and promote circular migration patterns. House companion legislation (H.R. 2330) was introduced on May 12 by Representatives Jim Kolbe (R-AZ), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), and Luis Gutierrez (D-IL).

The Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits, and Security (AgJobs) Act of 2005: Introduced on February 10, 2005 by Senators Larry Craig (R-ID) and Edward Kennedy (D-MA), S. 359 would create an earned adjustment program for undocumented farm workers who would be eligible to apply for temporary immigration status based on their past work experience, and could become permanent residents upon satisfying prospective work requirements. The legislation would also streamline the existing H-2A foreign agricultural worker program while preserving and enhancing key labor protections. Representatives Chris Cannon (R-UT) and Howard Berman (D-CA) introduced a companion measure in the House (H.R. 884). The bill is similar to legislation that the two Senators introduced in the 108th Congress.

The Save America Comprehensive Immigration Act of 2005: Introduced on May 4 by Representative Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), H.R. 2092 would, among many other things, increase the allocation of family-based immigrant visas; provide age-out protection for children; provide earned access to legalization; provide adjustment of status for certain children; update the registry provisions; and enhance border security.

We have fought long and hard to try to get reform of unfair immigration laws, and hopefully, this will be the year that much of the positive reform happens.

Filed under: Congress, Immigration, Immigration Law, immigration provisions, USCIS | Tagged: , | Leave a comment »

What does the REAL ID Act mean?

Posted on December 16, 2009 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney

Question: I have heard so much about the REAL ID Act, but do not really understand what it is. Can you explain?

Answer: The REAL ID Act made two changes to INA § 242(a)(2)(B), an INA subsection added by IIRIRA that precludes federal court jurisdiction over certain discretionary decisions. One of these changes purports to expand § 242(a)(2)(B) to non-removal cases.

Courts have only recently begun to interpret the REAL ID Act.

Question: What is INA § 242(a)(2)(B)?

Answer: INA § 242(a)(2)(B), entitled “Denials of Discretionary Relief,” restricts when federal courts have jurisdiction over certain types of discretionary decisions and action by the government in immigration cases.

INA § 242(a)(2)(B) includes two subparts. The first limits federal court jurisdiction over a “judgment regarding the granting of relief under section criminal and fraud waivers, cancellation of removal or adjustment proceedings. The second subpart restricts federal court jurisdiction over “any other decision or action … the authority for which is specified under this title [Title II] to be in the discretion or the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security.” Asylum decisions are specifically exempted from this bar on jurisdiction.

For § 242(a)(2)(B) to apply, a case must fall within one of these two subsections. Each subpart has been interpreted narrowly, in accord with the specific language chosen by Congress.

The REAL ID Act also expanded the scope of § 242(a)(2)(B) so that it now applies “regardless of whether the [discretionary] judgment, decision, or action is made in removal proceedings.” Prior to the REAL ID Act, some – though not all courts had held that § 242(a)(2)(B) was applicable only in removal cases. Presumably, this amendment was intended to reverse these earlier court decisions.

Question: Do these amendments eliminate all mandamus and other types of affirmative suits in non-removal cases?

Answer: No, these changes do not eliminate all jurisdictions over mandamus and other affirmative lawsuits in non-removal cases. To determine whether jurisdiction remains available in a particular case, a practitioner may carry out a several step analysis. This analysis is essentially the same as the analysis to determine whether jurisdiction exists in a removal case involving agency discretion. Consequently, court decisions interpreting § 242(a)(2)(B) in the removal context will be helpful in determining whether the provision applies in a non-removal case.

Question: What steps are involved in determining whether a court has jurisdiction under § 242(a)(2)(B) in a removal or non-removal case?

Answer: While there are several issues in such an analysis, the first issue will be looked at in this article. INA § 242(a)(2)(B) does not apply to every immigration-related case. Thus, the first step is to determine if the case is entirely outside the reach of § 242(a)(2)(B). There are at least four general categories of cases that arguably fall outside the reach of this section.

A. INA § 242(a)(2)(B) only limits jurisdiction over certain discretionary actions and decisions. Neither this section nor the REAL ID Act stripped federal courts of jurisdiction where the government has a nondiscretionary duty to act. In mandamus cases in particular, the existence of a mandatory, non-discretionary duty on the part of the government is an essential element of the claim. Thus, mandamus actions by definition generally should not fall within the restrictions of INA § 242(a)(2)(B).

B. INA § 242(a)(2)(B) does not apply to asylum decisions. Asylum is not one of the forms of discretionary relief specifically mentioned in § 242(a)(2)(B)(i), and thus this subsection does not apply to asylum cases. Additionally, asylum is specifically exempted from § 242(a)(2)(B)(ii), and thus this subsection also does not apply to asylum cases. Consequently, § 242(a)(2)(B) should never be an issue with respect to federal court jurisdiction over asylum cases, even if the challenged agency action is a discretionary one.

C. INA § 242(a)(2)(B) also does not apply to naturalization decisions. Additionally, § 242(a)(2)(B)(ii) states that it applies to agency decisions or action, “the authority for which is specified under this title” to be discretionary. Consequently, INA § 242(a)(2)(B) should never be an issue in federal court jurisdiction over a naturalization decision, even one involving discretion.

D. INA § 242(a)(2) should not apply to S, T and U visas. While generally, this provision contains definitions that do not authorize discretion, there are a few exceptions. For example, the definition of the non-immigrant “T” visa category includes as an eligibility requirement that the Attorney General determine if the individual “would suffer extreme hardship involving unusual and severe harm upon removal.” The determination of extreme hardship has been held to be a discretionary determination. Arguably, however, the exercise of the Attorney General’s discretion with respect to a T visa would not fall within the bar to jurisdiction in § 242(a)(2)(B)(ii) because the statutory authority for this discretion is found in Title I, not Title II. The definitions of the “S” and “U” visa categories contain similar grants of discretion that fall outside the scope of § 242(a)(2)(B).

Thus, the REAL ID Act did not completely eliminate federal court jurisdiction.

Filed under: asylum, Immigration Law, immigration provisions, REAL ID Act, USCIS | Tagged: , | Leave a comment »

Can I get review of my denied case under the REAL ID Act?

Posted on December 16, 2009 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney

Question: I have had my case denied in Immigration Court and I have heard about the REAL ID act and am very confused if I can get some type of judicial review of my case. Can you clarify?

Answer: The REAL ID Act did not change the language of either subpart (i) or (ii) of the statute giving/denying review. Rather, the Act made two changes to the paragraph preceding these subparts. First, it specified that the phrase “notwithstanding any other provision of law” applied to “statutory and nonstatutory” law and included the habeas corpus statute, the mandamus statute, and the All Writs Act. Second, the REAL ID Act also expanded the scope of § 242(a)(2)(B) so that it now applies “regardless of whether the [discretionary] judgment, decision, or action is made in removal proceedings.” Prior to the REAL ID Act, some – though not all – courts had held that § 242(a)(2)(B) was applicable only in removal cases. Presumably, this amendment was intended to reverse these earlier court decisions.

Question: Do these amendments eliminate all mandamus and other types of affirmative suits?

Answer: No, these changes do not eliminate all jurisdiction over mandamus and other affirmative lawsuits in non-removal cases. To determine whether jurisdiction remains available in a particular case, it is necessary to carry out a several step analysis. This analysis is essentially the same as the analysis to determine whether jurisdiction exists in a removal case involving agency discretion. Consequently, court decisions interpreting § 242(a)(2)(B) in the removal context will be helpful in determining whether the provision applies in a non-removal case.

Question: What steps are involved in determining whether a court has jurisdiction under § 242(a)(2)(B) in a removal or non-removal case?

Answer: There are several items that one must look at to determine if this section applies. 1. Does the issue/case fall completely outside the scope of INA § 242(a)(2)(B)? A. INA § 242(a)(2)(B) only limits jurisdiction over certain discretionary actions and decisions. B. INA § 242(a)(2)(B) does not apply to asylum decisions.

C. INA § 242(a)(2)(B) also does not apply to naturalization decisions and D. INA § 242(a)(2) should not apply to S, T and U visas.

Question: What if the case is one that appears to have fallen under the provision not permitting discretionary review?

Answer: Again, it is necessary to do an analysis. First, has there been an actual exercise of discretion? Even where there has been an actual exercise of discretion, is this exercise of discretion the issue in the case? Is the challenged action or decision discretionary? Is the decision or action specified by statute to be discretionary? Is the grant of discretion one of pure discretion unguided by legal principles? (9th Circuit cases.)

Thus, while the REAL ID Act may seem to completely limit judicial review of cases, if you fight the matter and analyze the case, there are different ways to still get judicial review of your case.

Filed under: Case Denied, Immigration Law, immigration provisions, REAL ID Act, USCIS | Tagged: , | Leave a comment »

H-1B’s

Posted on December 16, 2009 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney

The H-1B’s are about to close. Get the petition filed right now to have a realistic chance of still getting in.

Filed under: H-1B, Immigration, Immigration Law, immigration provisions, USCIS | Tagged: | 1 Comment »

I can get a temporary work permit?

Posted on December 15, 2009 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney

Question: An employer wants to petition me for the next 6 months because of my knowledge in his industry. I do not seem to qualify for any types of visas that I know about. Do you have any ideas?

Answer: Yes. You may qualify for the H-2B. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has just announced that, as required under the recently-enacted Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act of 2005 (“the Act”), the agency will begin to accept additional petitions for H-2B workers as of May 25, 2005. Under the Act, the USCIS has been granted a waiver of the normal requirement to issue regulations implementing the new law. Therefore, in order to implement these new provisions expeditiously, the USCIS has issued a Public Notice detailing filing requirements and procedures, and does not intend to supplement it with any further notice or regulation.

Question: Who Can Benefit From The Act?

Answer: Beginning on Wednesday, May 25, 2005, the USCIS started accepting filings for two types of H-2B workers: 1) For Fiscal Year 2005: Approximately 35,000 workers, who are new H-2B workers or who are not certified as “returning workers” (as explained further below) seeking start dates before October 1, 2005. 2) For Fiscal Year 2005 and 2006: All “returning [H-2B] workers,” meaning workers who were counted against the annual H-2B cap of 66,000 during any one of the three fiscal years preceding the fiscal year of the requested start date. In other words: (a) in a petition for a start date before October 1, 2005 (i.e., for FY 2005), the worker must have been previously approved for a start date in H-2B status between October 1, 2001 and September 30, 2004; (b) in a petition for a start date on or after October 1, 2005 (i.e., for FY 2006), the worker must have been previously approved for a start date in H-2B status between October 1, 2002 and September 30, 2005.

Question: What Is A Returning Worker?

Answer: If a previous petition for an H-2B worker was approved for an extension of stay, change in the terms of employment, or change or addition of employers, the worker was not counted against the annual cap at that time; therefore, that particular approval cannot in itself result in the worker being considered a “returning worker” for purposes of filing a new petition now. As a general rule, only previous petitions for a change of status or new employment that were filed during the requisite three-year period before the requested start date will qualify a worker as a “returning worker.” Any worker not certified as a “returning worker” will be subject to the numerical limitation for the relevant fiscal year.

Question: What Are The Filing Requirements?

Employers wishing to file petitions for H-2B workers who qualify under the Act should follow all current requirements, as well as the following additional requirements for returning workers: The petition must include a certification from the employer, signed by the same person who signs the I-129 form, stating, “As a supplement to the certification made on the attached I-129, I further certify that the workers listed below have entered the United States in H-2B status or changed to H-2B status during one of the last three fiscal years.” The list must set forth the full name of the worker(s). If the petition seeks a change of status, it must include evidence of previous H-2B admissions (i.e., a copy of each worker’s visa and I-94 admission record).

A single petition may be filed on behalf of multiple workers, including unnamed workers in “special filing situations” for business reasons. However, any returning workers must be listed in a certification as described above. For multiple-named workers, including returning workers, “Attachment 1” to Form I-129 must be included and completed. This is a supplement to the new I-129 form on which the names and other biographic information of multiple workers must be listed.

As usual, each petition must include a labor certification from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). The USCIS will accept a copy of the labor certification in those cases where the original labor certification has previously been filed with the USCIS. (Note that the USCIS and DOL both published proposed regulations in January 2005 that would substantially revamp the labor certification application process for H-2B workers and would replace the current procedure with a one-step, electronically-filed, attestation-based petition that would bypass the DOL and be filed directly with the USCIS.

Approval notices issued under the Act will include the names of all returning workers listed on the petition. Each worker must be prepared to show to the U.S. consulate abroad (when applying for an H-2B visa) or to the inspector at the port of entry (if the worker is exempt from the visa requirement) proof of his or her previous H-2B admissions (e.g., a previous H-2B visa in the worker’s passport, and a copy of a prior I-94 admission document). Although the Department of State will seek to confirm prior visas through its electronic system, an applicant for an H-2B visa under the returning worker provision who does not show these documents may be denied a visa and/or be denied admission when traveling to the United States.

Premium processing is available by including a Form I-907 and an additional $1,000 fee. Petitions for start dates of October 1, 2005, or later must include a new anti-fraud fee in the amount of $150.

Question: What New Sanctions Does the Act Include?

Answer: The Act contains new provisions including sanctions and civil monetary penalties (up to $10,000 per violation) for failure to meet any of the H-2B petition conditions for willful misrepresentation of a material fact. These new provisions become effective on October 1, 2005.

Question: What Happens When the Annual Cap is Reached?

Answer: Whenever the annual H-2B numerical limitation has been reached, the USCIS will reject any additional filings that are subject to the cap (i.e., other than for returning workers, extension of stay, change of employers, or change in terms of employment). For FY 2006 filings, the Act provides that the numerical limit for the first six months of the fiscal year shall be no more than 33,000, with the remaining 33,000 to be allocated on or after April 1, 2006. Employers may file H-2B petitions no more than six months in advance of the requested start date.

Filed under: H-2B, Immigration, Immigration Law, USCIS, Work Visa | Tagged: , | Leave a comment »

New Affidavit of Support Requirements.

Posted on December 15, 2009 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney

Question: I heard that there are new requirements for the affidavit of support requirements. Can you let me know what they are?

Answer: A person completing an Affidavit of Support (Form I-864) on behalf of an adjustment of status applicant is now only required to file one Federal income tax return, for the tax year that is most recent as of the date the Form I-864 was signed, rather than having to submit a Federal income tax return for each of the three most recent tax years.

Question: Can you clarify exactly what year you must now submit the tax returns?

Answer: For any Form I-485 filed on or after the date of this memorandum, the sponsor shall not be required to file any Federal income tax return for any year other than the tax year immediately preceding the sponsor’s signing of the Form I-864. For example, if the sponsor signed the Form I-864 after April 15, 2005, only the sponsor’s 2004 Federal income tax return would be required. However, the sponsor may file the three most recent returns if the sponsor believes that the additional returns will make it more likely that the Form I-864 will be found to be sufficient. This rule shall apply to petitioning sponsors, as well as substitute or joint sponsors signing a Form I-864 for an adjustment case.

Question: How does the officer determine the sufficiency of the I-864?

Answer: USCIS officers shall, as a general rule, determine the sufficiency of a Form I-864 based upon whether evidence shows that the annual income at the applicable threshold set forth in the Form I-864P, Poverty Guidelines, from the calendar year in which the Form I-864 was filed. Accordingly, adjudicators will determine whether the current income listed on Form I-864 is at least 125% (or 100% as applicable) of the governing threshold set forth in the Poverty Guidelines. Adjudicators will also determine whether the sponsor’s total income (line 22 on the 2004 IRS Form 1040, line 15 on the 2004 IRS Form 1040A), or adjusted gross income for those who filed IRS Form I040EZ (line 4 of the 2004IRS Form I040EZ), meets the Poverty Guidelines threshold. The adjudicator should request additional evidence (i.e., employment letter(s), pay stub(s), or other financial data) only if the tax return reflects income below the Form I-864P, Poverty Guidelines and the record does not already contain additional evidence that would establish the sponsor meets the current income requirements. The adjudicator should also request additional evidence (i.e., employment letter(s), pay stub(s), or other financial data) if there is a specific reason (other than the passage of time) to question the veracity of the income stated on Form I-864 or the accompanying document(s).

If the officer determines that the tax return and/or the evidence in the file do not establish that the sponsor meets the government Form I-864P, Poverty Guidelines threshold, the adjudicator shall request current year income information, not additional information from the year the sponsor signed Form I-864. In this situation, the sufficiency of the Form I-864 is determined based upon the additional evidence as it relates to the applicable threshold set forth in the Form I-864P from current year rather than the Form I-864P, Poverty Guidelines from the calendar year in which the Form I-864 was signed.

Question: Can each immigration office have a different policy than stated above?

Answer: Previously USCIS has permitted each local office to establish its own policy on whether to require submission of Form I-864 at the time of filing for adjustment or at the time of the adjustment interview. Effective as of now, all applicants are required to submit Form I-864 with their adjustment application.

Filed under: Affidavit of Support, Immigrant Visa, Immigration, Immigration Law, USCIS | Tagged: , | Leave a comment »

What exactly is the ‘Prevailing Wage’?

Posted on December 15, 2009 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney

Question: What changes to the prevailing wage process are caused by the H-1B Visa Reform Act of 2004?

Answer: The two changes to the prevailing wage determination process for foreign labor certification due to the H-1B Visa Reform Act (effective on March 8, 2005) are: The wage required to be paid shall be 100 percent of the prevailing wage; and where the Secretary of Labor uses, or makes available to employers, a governmental survey to determine the prevailing wage, such survey shall provide at least 4 levels of wages commensurate with experience, education, and the level of supervision.

Question: What changes to the prevailing wage process are caused by the publication of the Labor Certification for the Permanent Employment of Aliens in the United States, or PERM, regulation?

Answer: The PERM regulation (effective date of March 28, 2005) modified the prevailing wage determination process in three significant ways. (1) The use of Davis-Bacon or the McNamara-O’Hara Service Contract Act is no longer controlling for prevailing wage determinations although an employer may request that either be considered as an employer-provided wage source. (2) If an employer-provided survey does not contain an arithmetic mean, and only provides a median, the median wage figure can be used for determining the prevailing wage.

Question: When and where does the employer obtain prevailing wage information when filing a PERM application?

Answer: Prior to filing the Application for Permanent Employment Certification, ETA Form 9089, the employer must request a prevailing wage determination from the State Workforce Agency (SWA) having jurisdiction over the proposed area of intended employment. The employer is required to include on the ETA Form 9089 the SWA provided information: the prevailing wage, the prevailing wage tracking number (if applicable), the SOC/O*NET(OES) code, the occupation title, the OES skill level (if applicable), the wage source, the determination date, and the expiration date.

Question: How do employers get a prevailing wage if filing an H-1B, H-1B1, or E-3 Labor Condition Application?

Answer: The Immigration and Nationality Act provides that, unlike the other labor certification programs, the employer has the option of using one of three sources: (1) requesting a prevailing wage determination from the appropriate SWA; (2) using a survey conducted by an independent authoritative source; or (3) using another legitimate source of information.

Question: How do employers get a prevailing wage if filing an H-2B temporary nonagricultural labor certification application?

Answer: Employers have the option of using one of three sources: (1) requesting a prevailing wage determination from the appropriate SWA; (2) using a survey conducted by an independent authoritative source; or (3) using another legitimate source of information. Otherwise, the prevailing wage for an H-2B application is provided by the SWA as part of the standard processing of the application.

Question: Can wage information be obtained over the telephone?

Answer: No. Prevailing wage determinations will not be provided over the phone. All prevailing wage determinations provided by the State Workforce Agencies must be in writing.

Question: Where can an employer get a prevailing wage request form from the State Workforce Agency (SWA)?

Answer: Employers must request and receive the determination of the prevailing wage from the SWA having jurisdiction over the geographic area of intended employment. Many SWAs provide prevailing wage request forms electronically through their own websites. If the form is not available electronically, the employer should contact the SWA representative and request the form be faxed or mailed.

Question: What are the primary factors to be considered in making the prevailing wage determination?

Answer: Determining the appropriate wage level depends on full consideration of the experience, education, and skills required by the employer as indicators of the complexity of the job duties, the level of judgment required and the amount of supervision involved. The step-by-step process provided in the guidance is not intended to be an automatic process. The wage level assigned to a prevailing wage request should be commensurate with the wage level definitions.

Question: How does the SWA determine the prevailing wage?

Answer: If the SWA determines the job opportunity is covered by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) negotiated at arms length and a wage rate has been negotiated under the agreement as evidenced by information provided by the employer, than the CBA wage rate is the prevailing wage.

Question: Are the SWAs instructed to process prevailing wage determinations on a first in, first out (FIFO) basis?

Answer: SWAs generally process prevailing wage determinations on a FIFO basis.

Question: What is the average processing time for the SWA to respond to a prevailing wage request?

Answer: Although the time frames vary from state to state due to the number of requests pending at the time of submission, SWAs generally provide responses within 14 business days of the receipt of the request. If the employer provides its own survey, responses to such requests are generally done within 30 business days of the receipt of the request.

Question: How can an employer check the status of a prevailing wage request?

Answer: An employer can check the status of a prevailing wage request by contacting the SWA. However, an employer should take into consideration the fact that frequent calls to the SWA may result in more time responding to such requests rather than processing the request itself.

Question: Does the offered wage need to be included in the advertisement?

Answer: The offered wage does not need to be included in the advertisement for applications for permanent labor certification, but if a wage rate is included, it must be at or above the prevailing wage rate. The wage offer does need to be stated in the advertisements for H-2B applications.

Filed under: H-1B, Immigration, Immigration Law, immigration provisions, Prevailing Wage | Tagged: , | Leave a comment »

212(c) Deportation Relief Expanded.

Posted on December 15, 2009 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney

Question: I have been in the U.S. for the last 25 years and committed only 1 crime in 1996. However, I am in deportation now and they claim that I am an aggravated felon and not eligible for 212(c) relief and that I will be deported for the rest of my life. I committed the crime in August of 1996, and plead guilty the following October. Is there anything I can do to avoid deportation?

Answer: If you happen to live in the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit you are in luck. If you live elsewhere, I would get a good immigration attorney to fight for you up to the appellate level to make the same similar arguments that were made in the newly published 9th circuit case. First, it is necessary to have a little background. In 1996, Congress passed IIRAIRA which expanded quite considerably the definition of what crimes constitute an aggravated felony. It also repealed or took away 212(c) relief. This is a type of relief whereby if a person had a certain number of years in the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident and committed a crime that was not an aggravated felony (basically any crime that they received less than five years of jail time), they could apply for this relief in deportation proceedings. If they won, they would get their Green Card back and could remain in the U.S.

From 1996 until sometime in 2001, every court was denying 212(c) relief because it was repealed by IIRAIRA. However, the Supreme Court of the United States came out with a case called St… Cyr. Which essentially stated that it was unconstitutional to retroactively apply IIRAIRA to these people. It stated that if someone PLEAD guilty before April of 1996, that they could now apply for 212(c).

While St.. Cyr was a great case, it left a group of people out of its ruling that were similarly situated, but did not fall under the exact parameters of this case. It was those people who COMMITTED the crime before the passage of IIRAIRA, but were CONVICTED after the passage. In these cases, these people for all these years have not been eligible for 212(c) and have been deported for the rest of their lives.

Question: What did this new case rule?

Answer: Cordes v. Gonzales held that post-IIRIRA case law (namely INS v. St. Cyr) limiting the availability of §212(c) relief, to legal permanent residents who had not committed deportable offenses at the time of their conviction offends equal protection when §212(c) is available to similarly situated permanent residents who committed deportable offenses at the time of their conviction. The “only discernible difference” between the two groups, the court said, is that “those entitled to section 212(c) relief faced deportation at the time they entered their guilty pleas.” “This difference, however, is ‘irrelevant and fortuitous’ since the [immigrant in this case] quite obviously faces deportation now,” the court said. The court also found there is no rational basis for the disparate treatment of lawful permanent residents who are eligible for §212(c) relief under St. Cyr based on the “ironic fortune of facing the prospect of deportation at the time that they entered their guilty pleas” and permanent residents, like Petitioner, who are not eligible simply because their crime was not serious enough to render them deportable at the time they pled guilty. The court said:

“Allowing permanent residents who have committed worse crimes than Cordes to apply for section 212(c) relief, while denying the same opportunity to Cordes, does not achieve Congress’ express purpose behind the expanded definition of aggravated felony and its retroactive application: to expeditiously remove criminal aliens and make it more difficult for them to obtain relief from removal. Indeed, the disparate grant of section 212(c) relief here does not increase the total number of criminal aliens subject to removal, as Congress intended, but rather perversely increases only the number of less dangerous criminals subject to removal.”

Thus, this case now opens up the possibility of applying for 212(c) relief to those previously not eligible (at least in the 9th circuit court of appeals) and gives a much better fighting position to those in other jurisdictions to fight on this same basis.

Filed under: 212(c), Deportation, Immigration, Immigration Law, immigration provisions | Tagged: , | 2 Comments »

« Previous Page — Next Page »

  • Brian D. Lerner

    Immigration Lawyer

  • Blog Stats

    • 304,200 Visitors

  • Categories

  • Recent Posts