USCIS has just submitted a proposal to amend and add to its regulations regarding highly skilled worker. Below is a summary of the provisions of this proposed rule. Before discussing the proposed rule, however, let me be clear – this is proposed at this point, so it is not currently law. The provisions may or may not be adopted as is (USCIS could also choose to make changes depending on the comments they receive). Once we have any information relating to the adoption of these rules, we will certainly let you know.
I have divided the summary into two parts: those provisions that I feel make major changes to current law and those provisions that, while they do make changes, the changes are not as major.
First, lets look at the major revisions, the ones that will make major changes to current practices:
H-1B Cap Exemptions: USCIS will clarify and codify its definition for two cap-exemptions. First, it will define who qualifies for a cap-exemption when they are working “at” a cap exempt location even though the employer for who they work is not cap-exempt. The new regulation will state that the H-1B is cap exempt if the employee is performing a majority of their duties at the cap-exempt location and such job duties directly and predominately further an essential purpose, mission, objectives or functions of the cap-exempt organization.
Second, USCIS would codify its definition of “related or affiliated nonprofit entity” plus add one additional ground (currently only institutions that are connected or affiliated with an institute of higher education through shared ownership, that are operated by an institute of higher education, or that are attached to an institute of higher education as a member, branch, cooperative or subsidiary). The new definition would also include entities that have entered into a formal written affiliation agreements with institutes of higher education. The agreement must establish an active working relationship with the institution of higher education for the purposes of research or education, and it must establish that one of their primary purposes is to directly contribute to the research or education mission of the institution of higher education.
Revocation of Approved I-140s: USCIS is proposing to amend its regulations so that I-140 applications that have been approved for 180 days or more will no longer be subject to automatic revocation because the employer requests it, or because the employer goes out of business. Those I-140s will remain valid for priority date retention and for extending H-1Bs past the six year maximum. However, unless the I-485 was filed and remained pending for at least 180 days before the withdrawal request or the employer went out of business, the I-140 cannot be used to file an I-485 or have it approved as the underlying offer of employment is no longer valid. If the I-485 had already been filed and remained pending for 180 days prior to the withdrawal request or the company going out of business, the applicant can still use the I-140 for 204(j) portability purposes (showing an offer of employment that is in the same or similar category). If that is not possible, a new I-140 would have to be filed in order to obtain an adjustment of status.
Retention of Priority Dates: As stated above, USCIS would change its regulations relating to retaining the priority date of an I-140. For those applications that require a labor certification, the filing date of the labor certification (or the I-140 in the case of Schedule A case) is the priority date for those I-140s. USCIS would clarify that the priority date for all other I-140s is the date it is properly filed with USCIS. Furthermore, USCIS would clarify that the priority date could be retained on any I-140 except if the I-140 is denied (or otherwise not approved), or if the approval is revoked based upon fraud/misrepresentation. If the employer subsequently withdraws the application or if the employer goes out of business, the priority date will be retained. This is true regardless of how long ago the I-140 was approved (i.e. it applies if it was approved yesterday or 2 years ago). In other words, the 180 day rule above does NOT apply to priority date retention.
Non-Immigrant Grace Periods: USCIS already has in place a provision that allows for a person entering the US on an H-1B to come up to 10 days before the start date, and to get an additional 10 days after the expiration of their H-1B (it is important to remember that currently, these extra 10 day periods MUST be included on the I-94 when you enter, they are not automatic). This will be extended to L-1, E-1, E-2, E-3 and TN visa statuses as well. In addition, these statuses would also receive a one-time, up to 60 day grace period if the employment is terminated prior to the end date on the I-94. The actual grace period time would be the SHORTER of 60 days, or the amount of time left until the expiration of the current I-94. During this period the person would still be considered in status and could file a new H-1B, L, E or TN applications (as listed above) or an application to change status. The above grace periods are also extended to dependent family members.
Eligibility for EAD in Compelling Circumstances: USCIS will amend its regulations to allow EAD issuance to certain non-immigrants (those who have an approved I-140 and are in the US in E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, O-1 or L-1 status) if there exists compelling circumstances. The EAD would be valid for 1 year, and could be renewed as long as the compelling circumstances remained, and the priority date is within 1 year of the current cut-off date. In addition, if the person has a priority date that has already passed (so there is an immigrant visa available) and is more than 1 year beyond the posted date, they would be ineligible for either an initial or renewed EAD. In terms of defining compelling circumstances, USCIS will not do so. They do give certain examples, however. The four examples give are: Serious illness or disability that significantly changes employment circumstances (has to move to a new area for treatment, etc.), employer retaliation, other material harm to worker (such as on an H-1B in a industry specific job, company goes out of business, industry does not exist in home country, so lack of job would cause hardship), or Significant Disruption to Employer.
H-1B licensing Requirements: USCIS will amend the regulation to reflect that, those applying for an H-1B in an occupation that requires licensing will be able to get the H-1B approved (for up to 1 year) prior to receiving the license if they can show that they have the application pending, or the application has been denied because they do not have a social security number or employment authorization and that the ONLY reason they cannot get the license is because they cannot get a social security number and/or they do not have employment authorization. USCIS will also allow approval in cases where the applicant does not have a license if the state in which they are practicing allows such persons to work under the supervision of a licensed practitioner. However, USCIS will review these cases to ensure that the duties will still be specialty in nature.
EAD Processing: USCIS is making two proposals here. First, they will allow automatic extension of EADs (up to 180 days) and work authorization incident to status in cases where the applicant is seeking renewal of their EAD, files the application prior to the expiration of the old EAD, files the application in the same category in which it was initially granted AND either they continue to be employment authorized incident to status beyond the expiration period or they are applying for renewal in a category that does not first require adjudication of an underlying application. In addition, for I-9 purposes, they would amend the regulations to show that an expired EAD and an I-797 receipt notice would be sufficient to show employment eligibility. USCIS states that this would apply to those seeking to renew their EAD based upon: refugee or asylum status; a grant TPS; a pending I-485, as well as additional categories. It specifically does NOT apply to H-4s applying for work authorization – as their grant depends upon the maintenance of H-1B status of the underlying H-1B Principal. The second proposal would eliminate the 90 day processing period for EADs now required in the regulations for I-485 applicants.
Next are the provisions that, while important, do not represent as much of a change to existing policy.
3 and 1 year extensions of H-1B: First, USCIS will codify a couple of long standing USCIS policies in relation to AC21 and the granting of additional H-1B time past the six year maximum. For the three year renewals (allowed to those with an approved I-140 who are unable to file an I-485 based upon visa backlogs) USCIS is codifying that the three year extension can be renewed in three year increments for as long as the visa backlog exists. They are also codifying that the extension is available to those both in the US and outside the US, and to those currently in H-1B status and those not in H-1B status but who previously held H-1B status.
They are also codifying that any employer (not just the one who filed the I-140) can request the extension and that the extension is ONLY available to the principle beneficiary of the I-140, not dependents. For the 1 year renewals, available to those whose green card process has been ongoing for 1 year or more, they are codifying similar provisions (available to those currently in the US and those outside the US and those in and not in H-1B status at the time the renewal is filed and it is only available to principle beneficiary). In addition, they would codify that the denial or revocation of an underlying petition is not considered a final action (thus stopping the ability to get the 1 year renewals) until the time for appeal has elapsed, or, if an appeal is filed, the appeal is finalized – but an expired PERM would not be grounds to get an extension.
Lastly, a beneficiary must seek to get their permanent residence within 1 year of the visa becoming available or the extension is not longer available to them.
Job Portability: USCIS will codify that, once the I-140 is approved and the I-485 has been pending for at least six months, the adjustment of status can be approved if the underlying employer continues their sponsorship OR if you provide a new letter of employment from a new employer (or through self-employment) in a same or similar occupation.
In addition they are extending this to cases where the old employer has gone out of business. USCIS will also define “same” and “similar” in a manner consistent with their latest memo on this issue.
H-1B Portability: USCIS would codify that those in H-1B status can begin working for a new employer upon the filing of the new H-1B application, that such ability is ONLY available to those in the US in H-1B status, and that you can file subsequent H-1B portability applications and begin working for those employers prior to approval of the other underlying H-1B application.
Counting H-1B time: USCIS will codify the ability to recapture time outside the US. Anytime spent outside the US, regardless of the reason or the amount of time, can be recaptured at the end of the six year H-1B period. The burden of proof is on the applicant to show that they were out of the US during that period (passport stamps, etc.)
Whistleblower Protections: USCIS will institute certain protections for whistleblowers (those who alert the government to certain to illegal activities of their employers).
Again, once the above provisions are adopted (or if changes are made) we will post an update on this blog. Please do let me know if you have any specific questions.
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.
Under the new rules that went in effect on May 10, 2016, all students seeking STEM extensions for additional OPT time must have a training plan that is developed by them and their employer. Below are some important points to keep in mind about the new training plan requirement
First, employers and students must develop the plan together. It is a collaborative process that, as stated below, must take into account the students education, and how the employer can help enhance that education through training and working.
The intent of the plan is to show how the program the employer has developed for the student will help he student “achieve” their objectives for work-based learning. Basically showing how the work is related to the STEM major of the student and how it will help them get real world experience in that area. Each plan will be different as it is based on the Student’s major and future plans as well as by the employer’s business and the position that the student will be placed in.
There must be a mechanism in place to evaluate the progress of the student in meeting the goals of the training plan. The student prepares a self-assessment and the employer must sign off on this assessment. The assessment must then be given to the DSO within the applicable timelines (10 days of the deadline). An evaluation must be done at the 12 month mark in the training and the 24 month mark of the training.
Part of the application process requires the employer and student to affirm under oath that they will alert the DSO to any material change in the training plan or material deviation from the training plan as soon as possible. What would this include? Changing the position or duties of the trainee most likely would fall within this definition as would changes to compensation, and changes in the employer or employer structure. There are certainly other changes that would be considered material (as well as deviations) in general this may be an area in which it is better to inform the DSO of a chance rather than trying to explain after the fact why you feel it was not a material change.
There are two relevant updates to discuss.
With the publishing of the new STEP OPT rule just last month, many thought that this could be the end of the lawsuit brought against USCIS over this issue. The Court overseeing this case found that USCIS had violated procedures surrounding the rule making of that last OPT extension, which lead to USCIS redoing the rule making process and the new rules.
As we reported previously (see this post), USCIS was sued by a group of individuals who claimed that the STEM OPT extension rules (granting an additional 17 months of OPT) where illegal. The Courts have already found that rule making provisions of Federal Law were not followed and required USCIS to undertake a new rule making by February 16, 2016. While everything seems on track so far (Just recently the Office of Management and Budget finished their review of the proposed rule, the last step before publication), the question still remains whether USCIS will be able to get the new rule in place by then, whether the Court will accept the new rule and USCIS efforts and what happens to the people already on STEM OPT extensions once that deadline passes.