December 2009 Special Edition
Immigration Compliance Bulletin — Vol. 2, No. 12
GOVERNMENT RULES, NOTICES AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
- ICE Announces I-9 Audits of 1,000 Employers Pending
ICE announced on November 19, 2009 that notices of inspection (NOIs) were sent to 1,000 Employers. Names and locations of such employers have not been released at this time. (86 IR 2860; November 23, 2009)
- New Bill Introduced to Require Employers to Certify No layoffs before Hiring Foreign Workers
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) introduced S.2840 which is a bill that requires employer to certify they will not lay off a large number of their present employees before being allowed to hire foreign workers. (86 IR 2862; November 23, 2009)
- USCIS Revises Form I-601
USCIS announced the issuance of a revised Form I-601, Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility, dated April 6, 2009 with expiration date of April 30, 2011. Prior versions will not be accepted. (86 IR 2639; October 26, 2009)
- DHS Issues New System for ICE Visa Security Investigations
DHS has announced its intention to create a new system called DHS/ICE-012 Visa Security Program Records (VSPR) to track, manage, investigate and document visa security reviews of US visa applicants and document ICE visa recommendations to the US Department of State. (86 IR 2493; October 5, 2009)
- DHS Issues Memo on Worksite Enforcement Strategy
DHS has determined that, despite the rescission of the No-Match Rule, employers are advised to resolve discrepancies in their records upon receipt of a no-match letter and to give the employees a reasonable amount of time to resolve the discrepancy. Employers should consult the ICE Best Practices Guidelines regarding immigration law compliance and to consult with an immigration attorney if they receive such letters. (14 BIB 1351; November 1, 2009)
- Columbia Farms Enters into Deferred Prosecution and Global Settlement Agreement
The Greenville, S.C., poultry processing plant, Columbia Farms, Inc. entered into a deferred prosecution and global settlement agreement with the federal government to settle all of the pending criminal charges and any civil and administrative violations regarding the company's alleged hiring of illegal aliens. The investigation of Columbia Farms began in December 2007 and was followed by the October 2008 search of the Greenville plant. The investigation resulted in the criminal prosecution of 21 supervisory employees who were in possession of false work documents as well as the administrative deportation of more than 300 employees who were found to be undocumented workers. Under the terms of the agreement, the criminal case will be continued for 24 months allowing the company to improve their internal hiring procedures and controls at each of its processing plants in the states of South Carolina, North Carolina, and Louisiana.
- DOS Proposes Increase of Non-Immigrant Visa Application Fees
On December 14, 2009, DOS proposed an increase of certain Non-Immigrant Visa application Fees. For instance, for H,L,O,P,Q and R visas the application fee will be approximately $150. B1/B2 visas' and student visas' application fee will be $140. The fee for a K visa will be $350 while the fee for E visas will be $390. (AILA Infonet Doc. No. 09121465; December 14, 2009)
AGENCY and COURT DECISIONS
- BALCA – Job Order – Decision Against Employer
The Employer filed an application for permanent labor certification on behalf of a foreign national as a child monitor which was denied because the job recruitment procedures were not completed at least 30 days before the filing of the application pursuant to 20 CFR §656.17(e). On appeal, the employer argued reversal based on the fact that the deficiency was not material since there had been no other applicants. The Board affirmed denial citing other case law that supports the reading that the 30 day-rule must be followed especially when the avoidance of compliance was purely attributable to the actions of the employer. [86 IR 2366; September 21, 2009; Matter of Blanca Schines, 2009-PER-00277 (BALCA Sept. 10, 2009)]
- BALCA – Prevailing Wage – Decision in Favor of Employer
Employer filed an application for permanent labor certification on behalf of alien to be hired as a religious teacher. The salary listed in the ETA 9089 was $16.48 while the salary listed in the job order was $16.20. The SWA prevailing wage offer was $16.20. Certification was denied due to this discrepancy. The Employer appealed claiming that such discrepancy was clearly a typographical error. On appeal, the Board agreed with the Employer and returned the matter to the CO for the issuance of the labor certification. [86 IR 2367; September 21, 2009; Matter of Jesus Covenant Church, 2008-PER-00200 (BALCA Sept. 14, 2009)]
- BALCA – Roaming Employees – Decision Against Employer
Employer filed two applications for labor certification for the position of computer programmers. In the Form ETA 9089, the Employer indicated that the aliens would work in its headquarters. The CO denied the application based on the conclusion that the location listed in the ETA 9089 was a "virtual location used to file labor certifications where the test for US worker availability in the technology field would be slim to none." On appeal, the Board disagreed that this was a "virtual office" case since the Employment and Training Administration Field Memorandum 48-94, §10 indicates that when it cannot be anticipated all the work sites where an alien will work, then the employee should file an application with the local employment service office having jurisdiction over the location where the company's headquarter is located. However, the Board affirmed the CO's denial, because the Employer failed to indicate in its application that the job may have involved roaming employees. [86 IR 2368; September 21, 2009; Matter of MSU Software Consultants, 2007-INA-00273 (BALCA Sept. 14, 2009)]
Sources
IR-Interpreter Releases; IB-Bender’s Immigration Bulletin; American Immigration Lawyers Association Monthly Journal; AILA - American Immigration Lawyer’s Association
The articles published in this newsletter are intended only to provide general information on the subjects covered. The contents should not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion. Readers should consult with legal counsel to obtain specific legal advice based on particular situations.