• Requests for Evidence (RFE's) for L-1B Petitions Based on "Specialized Knowledge"

• Department of State Issues October Visa Bulletin: The Third Preference Employment Category is Available (85 IR 2457; Sept. 15, 2008)
  
  
• Department of Labor Reissues Restatement of PERM Program Guidance Bulletin on PERM Rule (20 CFR § 656.10(b)(2))

 "Attorneys and agents may receive resumes and applications of U.S. workers who respond to the employer's recruitment efforts; however, they may not conduct any preliminary screening of applications before the employer does so, other than routine clerical or ministerial organizing of resumes which does not include any assessment of, or comments on, the qualifications of the applicants, unless the attorney or agent is the representative of the employer who routinely performs this function for positions for which labor certifications are not filed. The attorney or agent may not withhold from the employer any resumes or applications that it receives from U.S. workers."

"Attorneys and agents may not participate in the interviewing of U.S. worker applicants, unless the attorney or agent is a representative of the employer who routinely performs this function for positions for which labor certifications are not filed. Such involvement has resulted in an impermissible "chilling effect" on the interest of U.S. worker-applicants and the position."  20 CFR 656.10(b)(2)(85 IR 2417; Sept. 8, 2008)

• Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Rejects Challenge to Legal Arizona Workers Act
  
  The principal argument in the Ninth Circuit District Court which was rejected was that the Arizona statute was expressly preempted by the federal immigration provisions preempting state regulation other than through "licensing and similar laws."   The Appeals Court upheld the District Court ruling and noted that although an Arizona business license is a constitutionally protected property interest and that a statute allowing revocation must provide the employer an opportunity to be heard in the State proceeding to present rebuttal evidence but it concluded such opportunity was afforded by the Arizona statute  thereby affirming the District Court's decision that no deprivation of due process was inherent in the language of the law. (Arizona Contractors Ass'n, Inc. v. Candelaria, 534 F.Supp.2d 1036 (D. Ariz. 2008; 85 IR 2517; Sept. 22, 2008)
  
  
• District Director Decision Withdrawn by the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) Regarding H-1B Visa Sought by H-1B Candidate with Temporary License
  
  The public school district petitioned to employ the beneficiary as an elementary school teacher. The Director of the Service Center found the beneficiary lacked the licensure required by the State. In sustaining the appeal of the employer, the AAO withdrew the Director's decision and approved the petition for one year since evidence was in the record that the individual possessed a temporary and provisional license for 12 months (85 IR 2533; Sept. 22, 2008)
  
  
• Recapture of Time for H-1B Beneficiary
  
  The web database development and consultant company was ineligible for an extension of stay on a petition to renew H-1B status under the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act (AC-21) for failure to file the extension request prior to the beneficiary's departure from the U.S. before expiration of the current H-1B status of the beneficiary; the appeal was sustained with respect to the 158 days spent outside of the U.S. by the beneficiary for the period from when the applicant first entered the United States in H-1B status on April 17, 1999 until the time he departed the United States on March 21, 2005 (Matter of [Name Withheld], File No. EAC0518652938/AAO/March 10, 2008; 85 IR 2482; Sept. 14, 2008)
  
  
• The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) Upheld a Denial of the California Service Center for a L-1B Inter-company Transferee Petition Based Upon "Specialized Knowledge."
  
  The AAO upheld the Director's denial and noted the following evidentiary issues with respect to the proof of specialized knowledge capacity that (i) knowledge and experience are of complex products and two to three years experience are likely to be insufficient; (ii) it is not enough to equate special or advanced knowledge to "specialized knowledge" if the gap in experience can be closed by revealing such information to a similarly experienced or educated employee; (iii) the record must distinguish the beneficiary's knowledge as more advanced than the knowledge possessed by other people employed by the petitioner or by workers employed elsewhere (Matter of [Name Withheld], File No. WAC0727753214; July 22, 2008/AAo; 85 IR 2355; Aug. 29, 2009)

Sources: IR-Interpreter Releases; IB-Bender’s Immigration Bulletin; American Immigration Lawyers Association Monthly Journal; AILA - American Immigration Lawyer’s Association