New Administration Halts Implementation of Pending Regulations, Withdraws Travel Ban

The incoming administration has issued an order halting the implementation of all proposed rules that are not yet final for 60 days (so until March 20, 2021). This includes the DOL wage change rules as well as the USCIS changes to the H-1B process (see a description of these rule changes here). Hopefully, the rule changes will be withdrawn, but we will keep you updated on that.

Another USCIS change in terms of H-1B’s is now withdrawn. USCIS had a proposed amendment that had not yet been published in the Federal Register, which would have changed the rules in terms of the employer-employee relationship and third party placements (a description of the rule can be found here). However, the executive action by the Biden administration has automatically withdrawn all rules not yet published. Hence, this rule will not be implemented.

Additionally, through an executive order, the Biden administration has withdrawn the executive order and Proclamations that banned the entry of people from certain countries (mostly Muslim) and allowed for heightened scrutiny in many cases. In addition, the order has also included a provision requiring the Embassies to re-open cases denied because of these Executive orders and re-adjudicate them as well as ordering the Embassies to clear out their backlogs quickly. However, as of yet, the ban on issuance of immigrant visas and some temporary visas because of the Covid pandemic is still in place, as are the travel restrictions from Europe and other countries with high infection rates. If you have any specific questions about whether a particular order affecting your immigration or a family member is still in effect please contact me and I am happy to help.

Please remember, as always, this blog does not offer legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult with a lawyer instead of a blog. Thank you.

Executive Orders relating to Limiting the entry of Immigrants and Non-immigrants Extended through March 31, 2021

Yesterday, on the last day that the executive orders limiting the entry of Immigrants and Non-immigrants were in force, the President extended both orders through March 31, 2021.

The orders limited US Consulates and Embassies’ ability to issue immigrant visas and certain non-immigrant visas, including H-1Bs, some J-1s, and other visa types (See this article for a full discussion).

Those who were waiting for the orders to expire so that Parents and others could get immigrant visa interviews or so that they could enter the US on an H-1B or another non-immigrant visa will have to wait a little longer. The hope is that the Biden administration will revoke the executive order upon getting sworn in, but we will have to see. Hopefully, the orders will be rescinded by the end of the month. We will keep you posted.

Please remember, as always, this blog does not offer legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult with a lawyer instead of a blog. Thank you.

Biden wants to Roll Back the Immigration Policy changes made by Trump. Will that be possible in his first four years?

There was a recent, very interesting article published by NPR that highlighted the problems that may be faced by the Biden administration (if he wins the election) in rolling back the changes implemented by the Trump administration. You can read the full article here.

While there were several possible barriers raised by the article that could stand in Biden’s way of changing such immigration policies, the biggest, and hardest barrier to break through, in my mind, is the culture that has been created at USCIS, ICE, CBP and other related agencies. According to the article:

“That isn’t something that’s a light switch. You can’t change culture within an organization that vast overnight,” says Angela Kelley, senior adviser to the American Immigration Lawyers Association. “So I agree that it’s going to be a long, long road.” 

CBP produced an ominous, fictionalized video on the Border Patrol’s YouTube channel that depicts a Latino migrant who had just escaped from agents, attacking and knifing a man in a dark alley. The video was released at a time when Trump has been stoking fears about violent immigrants at his campaign rallies. For an example of how the Border Patrol is marching lockstep with the White House, look to a video titled “The Gotaway,” posted earlier this month. 

NPR inquired why the video was made and why it was removed a week later before being re-posted. Border Patrol Chief Rodney Scott said in a statement that the video was produced “to enhance awareness that effective border security helps keep all Americans safe,” and it was briefly pulled because they misused copyrighted materials.

NPR, Morning Edition, September 14, 2020

Changing such a culture will take time. While changing those at the top will help change the policies the officers act under, getting those changes to be implemented by officers, and getting them to change their attitudes will take quite a while, especially at ICE and CBP. USCIS may be somewhat easier to crack as the officers there are not dealing with deportation or apprehending people on a daily basis and are not necessarily as hard lined (although, most likely, some are as well). Changing the policies at USCIS may be enough to allow officers to change the way they adjudicate cases without to much time passing.

Again, according to the article:

“I don’t think it’s realistic that Biden in four years could unroll everything that Trump did,” says Sarah Pierce, a policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington, D.C. 

“Because of the intense volume and pace of changes the Trump administration enacted while in office, even if we have a new administration, Trump will continue to have had an impact on immigration for years to come,” Pierce says.

NPR, Morning Edition, September 14, 2020

While, overall, it may take a long time to affect all these changes, I do think, that there are some basic policies that could be changed much quicker (in terms of USCIS). First, the requirement of an interview for all cases – that could be changed very quickly. In addition, some of the more hardline looks at H-1Bs could also be changed rather quickly, as could the removal of harmful Executive Orders that limit immigration. So there is a lot that could be done relatively quickly as well.

We must also remember, that, if Biden is able to get Congress on his side as well, and a new immigration law is passed, that could significantly increase the rate at which changes can be made both inside USCIS as well as inside ICE and CBP (if such a law limits their jurisdicition and ability to act inside the law).

Overall, it could take longer for many changes, especially those at the border to be fully put in place. While some changes, those that primiarily are implemented by USCIS, may be able to be implemented earlier. We shall see what happens in November and what happens in January, should there be a change of administration.

New Executive Order and Possible Furloughs at USCIS

executive_order__1_The US President issued a new executive order on Monday evening.  The order did several things.  First, it extended the April 22, 2020 order limiting the ability for those overseas to get immigrant visas.  Second, it expanded that order to include certain non-immigrant visas as well.  Lastly, it required USCIS and DOL to review processes and procedures regarding EB-2 and EB-3 cases.    Before providing a summary of the provisions, there are a couple points to highlight.

First, and most importantly, the non-immigrant visa suspensions affect only those NOT IN THE United States.  This is also true of the immigrant visa suspension.  Second, the J-1 visa suspension does NOT include all categories of J visas.  For example, the Research Scholar category, and the Visiting Scholar categories are NOT included in the suspension.  Lastly, those outside the US with a currently VALID H-1B visa may still be able to return on that visa as the suspension only halts the issuance of new visas.  Here is a slightly more expansive summary of the provisions:

On June 20, 2020, President Trump has issued a proclamation that suspends the entry of foreign nationals on certain employment-based nonimmigrant visas into the United States.

This Proclamation also extends, effective immediately, Presidential Proclamation 10014 issued on April 22, 2020 which suspended the entry of certain immigrants into the United States.

The Proclamation suspends the issuance of visas for those seeking entry pursuant to a(n):

  • H-1B visa and any foreign national accompanying or following to join them;
  • H-2B visa and any foreign national accompanying or following to join them;
  • J visa, to the extent the foreign national is participating in an intern, trainee, teacher, camp counselor, au pair, or summer work travel program, and any foreign national accompanying or following to join them; and
  • L visa, and any foreign national accompanying or following to join them.

The Proclamation will only apply to an individual identified above if they are:

  • Outside the United States on the effective date of the Proclamation;
  • Do not have a nonimmigrant visa that is valid on the effective date of the Proclamation; and;
  • Do not have an official travel document other than a visa (such as a transportation letter, boarding foil, or advance parole document), valid on the effective date of the Proclamation or issued thereafter permitting the individual to be admitted to the United States.

Exemptions:

The Proclamation will not apply to the following individuals:

  • lawful permanent residents;
  • spouse or child of a U.S. citizen;
  • any individual seeking entry to provide temporary labor essential to the U.S. food supply chain;
  • any individual whose entry would be in the national interest as determined by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or their respective designees.

For the purposes of determining who is covered under the “national interest” exemption, the Proclamation directs the Secretaries of State, Labor, and Homeland Security to determine standards for those to whom such an exemption would be available, including any individuals who:

  • are critical to the defense, law enforcement, diplomacy, or national security of the United States;
  • are involved with the provision of medical care to individuals who have contracted COVID-19 and are currently hospitalized;
  • are involved with the provision of medical research at U.S. facilities to help the United States combat COVID-19;
  • are necessary to facilitate the immediate and continued economic recovery of the United States; or
  • are children who would age out of eligibility for a visa because of this proclamation or Proclamation 10014.

Discretion: The consular officer has discretion to determine if an individual is within one of the exempted categories outlined above.

Asylum Seekers: Asylum seekers are not included in the ban. The Proclamation states that it does not limit the ability of individuals to apply for asylum, refugee status, withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture.

Fraud: Individuals who circumvent the application of the Proclamation through fraud, willful misrepresentation or illegal entry will be prioritized for removal.

Additional Review: Within 30 days of this Proclamation’s effective date, and every 60 days after, while it and Proclamation 10014 are in effect, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretaries of Labor and State will make a determination as to any need to modify either proclamation.

COVID-19 Prevention: The Secretary of Health and Human Services will provide guidance to the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security concerning measures that will reduce the risk of those seeking admission to the United States introducing or spreading COVID-19 within the country. It is our understanding that this means individuals will be subject to a COVID-19 test before arrival.

Additional Measures:

  • Issue regulations or take additional actions to ensure that those who have already been admitted, or are seeking admission, on an EB-2 immigrant visa, EB-3 immigrant visa, or H-1B nonimmigrant visa do not limit opportunity for U.S. workers.

 

In addition to the above, USCIS announced that their revenues are down over 50% and that, unless Congress allocates more funding to the agency they will be required to furlough almost 70% of their staff, causing huge delays in adjudications if it were to occur.

If you have any questions, or wish to discuss the above, please do not hesitate to call or email me. And please remember, as always, this blog does not offer legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult with a lawyer instead of a blog. Thank you.

Additional Countries Added to Travel Ban

Immigration Lawyer in Houston New State Department 90-Day RuleOn January 31, 2020 President Trump issued a Presidential Proclamation expanding the Travel Ban enacted in 2018 to include certain foreign nationals of the following six countries: Burma (Myanmar), Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Nigeria, Sudan, and Tanzania.

According to the Department of Homeland Security, these additions were based on an assessment from the Department of Homeland Security after reviewing updated security assessment criteria first established after the first iteration of the travel ban.

It should be noted that restrictions have only been placed on those seeking immigrant visas from the newly added countries. Individuals from these countries seeking nonimmigrant visas should not be restricted. The effective date of the expansion is February 21, 2020 at 12:01AM EST.

It should also be noted that the restrictions are for those seeking immigrant visas ABROAD.  Those in the US, filing an adjustment application, should not face this restriction.

Updated List of Countries and Restrictions:

ERITREA:     Suspends the entry of immigrants, except as Special Immigrants who have provided assistance to the U.S.government.

KYRGYZSTAN:     Suspends the entry of immigrants, except Special Immigrants who have provided assistance to the U.S.government.

IRAN:     Suspends the entry of immigrants and all nonimmigrants, except F (student), M (vocational student) and J(exchange visitor) visas, though they are subject to enhanced screening.

LYBYA:     Suspends the entry of immigrants and temporary visitors on business or tourist visas (B-1/B-2).

MYANMAR:     Suspends the entry of immigrants, except Special Immigrants who have provided assistance to the U.S.government.

NIGERIA:     Suspends the entry of immigrants, except Special Immigrants who have provided assistance to the U.S.government.

NORTH KOREA:     Suspends the entry of all immigrants and nonimmigrants.

SOMALIA:     Suspends the entry of immigrants and requires enhanced screening of all nonimmigrants.

SUDAN:     Suspends the entry of Diversity Visa immigrants

SYRIA:     Suspends the entry of all immigrants and nonimmigrants.

TANZANIA:     Suspends the entry of Diversity Visa immigrants

VENEZUELA:     Suspends the entry of certain government officials and their family members on business or tourist visas(B-1/B-2).

YEMEN:     Suspends the entry of immigrants and temporary visitors on business or tourist visas (B-1/B-2).

Scope:

Unless an exemption applies or the individual is eligible for a waiver, the travel restrictions apply to foreign nationals of the designated countries who:

(i) are outside the U.S. on the applicable effective date;
(ii) do not have a valid visa on the applicable effective date; and
(iii) do not qualify for a reinstated visa or other travel document that was revoked under Presidential Executive Order 13769.

Exemptions:

The travel restrictions in the proclamation do not apply to:

• lawful permanent residents;
• foreign nationals who are admitted to or paroled into the U.S. on or after the applicable effective date;
• foreign nationals who have a document other than a visa (e.g., transportation letter, boarding foil, advance parole document) valid on the applicable effective date or issued on any date thereafter;
• Dual nationals of a designated country who are traveling on a passport issued by a nondesignated country;
• Foreign nationals traveling on a diplomatic visas, NATO visas, C-2/U.N. visas, or G-1, G2, G-3, or G-4 visa; or
• Foreign nationals who have been granted asylum in the U.S., refugees who have been admitted to the U.S.; or individuals who have been granted withholding of removal, advance parole, or protection under the Convention Against Torture.

Waivers:

A waiver may be granted if a foreign national demonstrates to the consular officer’s or CBP official’s satisfaction that:

(a) Denying entry would cause the foreign national undue hardship;
(b) Entry would not pose a threat to the national security or public safety of the U.S.; and
(c) Entry would be in the national interest.

• Waivers may not be granted categorically but may be appropriate in the following situations:

  1. The foreign national has previously been admitted to the U.S. for a continuous period of work, study, or other long-term activity, is outside the U.S. on the applicable effective date, seeks to reenter the U.S. to resume that activity, and the denial of reentry would impair that activity;
  2. The foreign national has previously established significant contacts with the U.S. but is outside the U.S. on the applicable effective date for work, study, or other lawful activity; o The foreign national seeks to enter the U.S. for significant business or professional obligations and the denial of entry would impair those obligations;
  3. The foreign national seeks to enter the U.S. to visit or reside with a close family member (e.g., a spouse, child, or parent) who is a USC, LPR or lawful nonimmigrant, and the denial of entry would cause undue hardship;
  4. The foreign national is an infant, a young child or adoptee, an individual needing urgent medical care, or someone whose entry is otherwise justified by special circumstances;
  5. The foreign national can document that he or she has provided faithful and valuable service to the U.S. Government;
  6. The foreign national is traveling for purposes related to an international organization designated under the International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA), traveling for purposes of conducting meetings or business with the U.S. Government, or traveling to conduct business on behalf of an international organization not designated under the IOIA;
  7. The foreign national is a Canadian permanent resident who applies for a visa at a location within Canada;
  8. The foreign national is traveling as a U.S. Government-sponsored exchange visitor; or
  9. The foreign national is traveling to the U.S. at the request of a U.S. Government department or agency, for legitimate law enforcement, foreign policy, or national security purposes.

For additional information regarding preparing and submitting a waiver on behalf of foreign nationals who are subject to Travel Ban please contact our office.

Please remember, as always, this blog does not offer legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult with a lawyer instead of a blog. Thank you.

USCIS Changes Adjudication Standard for I-129 Renewals

B61D08D2-1849-4FCD-9897-F0AC03874CFFMany of you may know that USCIS has had a policy in place that allowed those filing an application to renew their status (H-1B, L-1, E-1, etc.) to file a ‘bare bones’ application – an application with just new information and none of the initial documentation sent in with the first application to show that the person qualified for the status.  This policy stated that, assuming the underlying conditions were the same for the renewal (i.e. same employer, same position, etc.) then there was no real reason to totally re-adjudicate a case unless the officer felt that the initial approval was done in error.  Just this week, USCIS changed this policy.

Before going into the new policy, you maybe asking yourself “But when I filed a renewal, I filed it with substantial documentation, did I not need to do that?”.  The answer is technically no, but realistically yes.  While the above policy was in place, especially over the last year (but even before that) most officers did not follow this policy to the letter.  In most cases, we found that if we did not include substantial documentation, even for an H-1B renewal, showing that ALL the requirements were met, USCIS would issue a Request for Evidence.  So in practice, the above policy was more of a slight leaning in favor of approving the renewal rather than the intent of the policy, which was to lighten the load of officers and those filing the cases.

So what does the new policy say?  It rescinds the old policy and states that each application should be adjudicated according to its own merits regardless if it is an initial application or a renewal.  In practice, it simply means that there is no longer a slight bias in favor of approving a renewal, and, instead, you will need to be more careful and ensure that you provide documentation with the renewal to show that ALL qualifications are met, even if the documentation was given with the original application.  It also means that the fact that a case was approved in the past, does not mean that, if you file the same documentation, the case will be approved in the future, or that USCIS will not request additional evidence the second time around.

So while this may not change the rules as much as one may have thought on first glance, it still does change them to a certain degree.  That degree will depend on the strength of the underlying case.

Please remember, as always, this blog does not offer legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult with a lawyer instead of a blog. Thank you.

New Rule – All Employment Based I-485 application will have Interviews

Recently USCIS issued a new rule stating that all employment based green card applications will be subject to interview starting on October 3, 2017.  Just this week AILA members and the Ombudsperson for USCIS had a Stakeholder Call to discuss the new rule. Here are the details that came out of this call:

  •  All EB applications are subject to the new rule INCLUDING NIW and EA applications.
  • Any I-485 filed prior to March 6, 2017 (the date of the EO “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” the root of this new requirement) are NOT subject to the new rule.  Those cases will still be subject to random interviews, but only about 5% of cases are so selected.
  • The Service Centers will still adjudicate the I-140’s and the local offices have been instructed not to readjudicate the I-140s however they are allowed to evaluate the evidence used to support the I-140 for accuracy and credibility.  We will have to see how this plays out in real life.
  • Once the Service Center adjudicates the I-140, the file will be sent to the National Benefits Center (NBC) to determine if all documents for the I-485 are present.  If there is no medical, this is when an RFE will be sent out for the medical (and, considering that there will be longer processing times for everything, it may be wise to not submit the medical until an RFE is issues).
  • Surprisingly, USCIS does not feel that timelines will be significantly lengthened due to this requirement.  According to USCIS employment based I-485s are only about 17% of the Field offices caseload.  We will have to see how this plays out in the real world.
  • The top field offices that will be most affected are: San Jose, San Francisco, Newark, New York, Houston, Seattle, Chicago, Dallas, Atlanta and Los Angeles.
  • In most cases families will be interviewed together.

As we learn more information we will certainly let you know.  Please do contact us with any questions on how you may be impacted.

Please remember, as always, this blog does not offer legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult with a lawyer instead of a blog. Thank you.

President Issues New Travel Restrictions

imagesOn September 24, 2017, the President issued a new Executive Order (“EO”) entitled “Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry into the United States by Terrorists or other Public Safety Threats”.  This new EO builds upon the last order, which was only valid for 90 days.  However, part of the old EO directed DHS to do a worldwide review to determine what additional information is needed from each foreign country to assess whether foreign nationals who seek to enter the United States pose a security or safety threat.  DHS completed that review and gave the President a list of seven countries that had “inadequate” information sharing practices.  The new EO implements certain types of restrictions against nationals of these seven countries (plus one additional country that the President felt posed security risks) in terms of their ability to get certain visas.

Who Does the Ban Affect?

The countries that are part of this new Executive Order are:

  1. Chad
  2. Libya
  3. Iran
  4. North Korea
  5. Syria
  6. Venezuela
  7. Yemen
  8. Somalia

As stated, the restrictions are not uniform for all the above countries.  The following table lays out what restrictions are placed on immigrant and non-immigrant visas for each country:

Country Non-Immigrant Visas Immigrant Visas
Chad No B-1, B-2 or B-1/B-2 visas No Immigrant or diversity lottery visas

 

Iran No non-immigrant visas except the F, M and J student visas No Immigrant or diversity visas

 

 

Libya No B-1, B-2 or B-1/B-2 visas No Immigrant or diversity lottery visas

 

North Korea No nonimmigrant visas No Immigrant or diversity lottery visas

 

Syria No nonimmigrant visas No Immigrant or diversity lottery visas

 

Venezuela No B-1, B-2 or B-1/B-2 visas of any kind for officials of the following government agencies: Ministry of Interior, Justice, and Peace; the Administrative Service of Identification, Migration and Immigration; the Corps of Scientific Investigations, Judicial and Criminal; the Bolivarian Intelligence Service; and, the People’s Power Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and their immediate family members.

 

No Restrictions

 

Yemen No B-1, B-2 or B-1/B-2 visas No Immigrant or diversity lottery visas

 

Somalia No nonimmigrant visas No Immigrant or diversity lottery visas

 

Dual Nationals:  Dual nationals can still travel and get visas based upon another nationality besides the ones listed above (So, for example, a national of both Iran and Canada can still get any nonimmigrant visa or immigrant visa based upon their Canadian Nationality).

Those in the US at the time the travel ban takes effect:  They are not affected by the travel ban as they are already in the US.

Those Outside the US with valid visas:  Exempt from the restrictions

Permanent Residents of the US:  These people are exempt from the Travel Ban

There are other certain exemptions as well, please make an appointment if you feel you may be affected by the travel ban and we can review the waivers and exemptions with you.

When will the Ban take effect?

From 3:30 pm on September 24, 2017, until 12:01 am on October 18, 2017, Nationals of Iran, Libya, Syria Yemen and Somalia will remain under the previous Travel Ban (i.e. only those with close family ties can get visas).  Sudanese national will no longer be subject to any ban as of that date and time.

From 12:01 am on October 18, 2017, forward the above travel restrictions will be in force and will replace the previous Executive Order Travel Ban.

If you feel you may be affected by the new travel ban, please do call our office.  We can assess your case and let you know if the travel ban does affect you, and if you are eligible for any of the waiver/exemptions.

Please remember, as always, this blog does not offer legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult with a lawyer instead of a blog. Thank you.

Supreme Court partially lifts Travel Ban Injunction

images-1Today the Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal from the US Government arguing that the injunction placed on the Executive Order that banned travel from 6 majority muslim countries was should be lifted.  In agreeing to take the case, the Supreme Court also looked at whether the current temporary injunction should stay in effect.  The Court determined that the injunction on the travel ban and the refugee ban should stay in effect insofar as it affected people who were similarly situated as the Plaintiff’s in the case – that is to say foreigners with familial or other ties to the US (through organizations or companies).  However the Supreme Court lifted the injunction (allowing the travel ban to be put into place) for everyone else, that is to say those with NO such ties to the US.  Why did the Court lift the ban in certain cases? Basically, the Court weighted the harm to persons affected by the travel ban and refugee ban with the interests of our Government as described by the current administration.  The Court agreed with the lower Courts that the interests of the Plaintiff’s and those similarly situated to the Plaintiff’s, outweighed the interests of the Government.  But for those with no ties to the US, the Court found that the interest of our Government outweighed the interests of those individuals.

I think that there are two additional questions to ask here:  First, what does the above mean and how will it be implemented?  The second question is, does this ruling allow for any indication of how the Court will rule on the injunction itself?

To answer the first question, it is a little hard to say how the Department of Homeland Security will read the decision, however it appears that the Court only meant to narrowly lift the injunction.  Anyone who has relatives in the US or a job in the US, or a job offer, or other relationship with an organization or business in the US is still covered by the injunction.  It is only those people who have no relationship with any person or organization for whom the Ban can now be put into place.  This is a narrowly drawn exception to the injunction currently in place, and many people will not be covered by the Travel Ban.

In terms of whether or not this tips the hand of the Court in terms of  how they may rule on the case when it comes before them, I think it shows that a majority of the Court will, most likely, uphold the injunction.  But this is just my opinion, and we will have to see what happens.

Lastly, for those who are from one of the six named countries, please, please, please, call your immigration attorney before traveling outside the US so that they can discuss any potential issues with you.

Please remember, as always, this blog does not offer legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult with a lawyer instead of a blog. Thank you.

New Presidential Executive Order “Buy American, Hire American”

Many of you know that yesterday President Trump signed a new executive order.  The idea of this order was to ensure that Federal grants and procurements go, first and foremost, to American companies and that the government focuses on ensuring that qualified Americans are hired prior to foreigners.  In terms of Immigration consequences, the executive order says the following:

Sec. 5. Ensuring the Integrity of the Immigration System in Order to “Hire American.” (a) In order to advance the policy outlined in section 2(b) of this order, the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall, as soon as practicable, and consistent with applicable law, propose new rules and issue new guidance, to supersede or revise previous rules and guidance if appropriate, to protect the interests of United States workers in the administration of our immigration system, including through the prevention of fraud or abuse.

(b) In order to promote the proper functioning of the H-1B visa program, the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall, as soon as practicable, suggest reforms to help ensure that H-1B visas are awarded to the most- skilled or highest-paid petition beneficiaries.

In other words, at this time there is no effect on the H-1B program.  However, in the future, after the proposed suggested changes are given to the President, there is the possibility that some changes could be made.

It is important to keep in mind, however, that most changes would require congressional approval, meaning that it could take a while, if they are approved at all.  Changed that do not require congressional approval would need to go through the rule making process, meaning that they would take several months  for those to be sent out and to go through the rule making process.  We will keep you updated on any proposed changes.

Please remember, as always, this blog does not offer legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult with a lawyer instead of a blog. Thank you.