- Voice:469.916.7900
- Facsimile:469.916.7901
- Toll-Free:888.849.9104
Badmus
- Voice:469.916.7900
- Facsimile:469.916.7901
- Toll-Free:888.849.9104
"...I was very impressed with their professionalism, responsiveness and approach. Whenever I emailed them an inquiry, they always had the reply on the same day, even after my case was completed..."- Xing Li Wang, M.D., Ph.D., Texas
- Blogroll
- Employer Compliance
- Employment Immigration
- Family Immigration
- Firm News
- General
- Immigration Litigation and Removal
- Legislation and Policy
- Medical Professionals
Sign up for our Newsletter.
H-1B Cap Count
- USCIS updated its count of FY2011 cap-subject H-1B petitions and advanced degree cap-exempt petitions receipted. As of July 9, 2010, approximately 24,800 H-1B cap-subject petitions were receipted. USCIS has receipted 10,600 H-1B petitions for aliens with advanced degrees.
- AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 10042368.
Categories: Employment Immigration, General |
DOL Assures Confidentiality for Workers
Department of Labor
Statement by US Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis
WASHINGTON — Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis today issued the following statement regarding the unauthorized public dissemination of confidential information collected by state agencies in Utah:
“Recent news reports about the dissemination of confidential information about a worker’s legal status are highly disturbing. I am deeply concerned about these reports, and assure the public that the U.S. Department of Labor will closely follow and work to support the investigation that has been launched by the state of Utah. No one, regardless of race, gender or ethnic background, should fear that by applying for government benefits or programs, he or she is at risk of having personal information revealed. The unauthorized release of such information is against the law, and the perpetrators should be punished.”
Categories: Legislation and Policy, Employment Immigration, Blogroll, General |
Perspectives on Immigration - Why Immigrants Can Drive the Green Economy
From the Immigration Policy Center
June 23, 2010
Washington D.C. - The 2000 Census found that immigrants, while accounting for 12 percent of the population, made up nearly half of the all scientists and engineers with doctorate degrees in the United States. Nearly 70 percent of the men and women who entered the fields of science and engineering from 1995 to 2006 were immigrants. So it should come as no surprise that immigrants will help drive the green revolution. America’s young scientists and engineers, especially the ones drawn to emerging industries like alternative energy, tend to speak with an accent. Yet, the connection between immigration and the development and commercialization of alternative energy technology is rarely discussed.
In IPC’s lastest Perspective on Immigration piece, Why Immigrants Can Drive the Green Economy, Richard T. Herman and Robert L. Smith explain how policymakers envision millions of new jobs as the nation pursues renewable energy sources, like wind and solar power, and hightlight the voices that warn that much of the clean-technology talent lies overseas, in nations that began pursuing alternative energy sources decades ago.
To read this Perspective see:
- Why Immigrants Can Drive the Green Economy (IPC Perspectives, June 23, 2010)
Categories: Legislation and Policy, Blogroll, General |
Defining Roles: Federal vs. State Immigration Authority - Closing the Floodgates and Reasserting the Constitution
From the Immigration Policy Center
June 22, 2010
Washington D.C. - Today, the small town of Fremont, Nebraska is in the headlines after passing an ordinance that requires, among other things, that renters apply for an occupancy license - which also requires a legal immigration status check - before renting an apartment or home.
Although Fremont, Nebraska, and Arizona are the latest localities to propose measures designed to control and manage immigration, there have been many more attempts over the past seven years to pass similar bills. Like the other efforts before them, there will be rationalizations for their passage and legal challenges to their implementation. Millions of dollars will be spent as these laws are battled in state houses, city halls, and the courts. However, the larger question is whether the federal government will continue to sit idly by as a patchwork of legislation proliferates around the country or will it finally assert its role, as defined by the Constitution, and delineate local authority with respect to federal immigration law?
States have always played a role in federal immigration enforcement. While the inherent authority of the states was historically limited to criminal violations of immigration law, the federal government could delegate broader authority to the local level. Programs like 287(g) have formalized this delegation process, while still maintaining some level of federal oversight. However, with laws like SB 1070 and local ordinances taking root, the states are taking it one step further in deciding for themselves what role they will play in federal immigration law. In other words, the authority that what was once given by the federal government is now being taken by the states. What we are also losing in this process is the ability of the federal government to establish a uniform immigration policy that they can then be held accountable for. In the current environment it is unclear who is responsible for setting immigration enforcement priorities and who is responsible for their success or failure.
“The federal government needs to act swiftly to reassert its authority over immigration law and policy,” said Benjamin Johnson, Executive Director of the American Immigration Council. “This is why a legal challenge by the Department of Justice against Arizona’s SB1070 is relevant and necessary. A federal lawsuit isn’t meant to discount the frustration with our broken immigration system, it’s meant to define and then protect the federal government’s Constitutional authority to manage immigration. The Administration can and should also withdraw a hastily crafted and politically motivated 2002 White House Office of Legal Counsel opinion that opened the floodgates for state involvement in enforcing the civil provisions of federal immigration law.”
At the end of the day, a lawsuit alone will not end the vacuum created by the lack of workable immigration laws. While the Department of Justice takes up the legal challenge, the Obama Administration and Congress must put the immigration issue squarely back where it belongs - in the halls of Congress and on the desk of the President of the United States.
Categories: Legislation and Policy, Blogroll, General |
Employer Compliance and Enforcement is a Top Priority in ICE’s Five Year Strategic Plan
According to a recent report from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), between fiscal years (FY) 2010 and 2014, ICE will prioritize its efforts on the first three homeland security missions identified in the 2010 Quadrennial Homeland Security Report: (1) preventing terrorism and enhancing security; (2) securing and managing our borders; and (3) enforcing and administering our immigration laws. One top priority in this plan is to “create a culture of employer compliance.” According to ICE:
The opportunity to work in the United States motivates many to seek illegal entry. Therefore, enforcing the immigration-related employment laws is a critical component of border security. To create a culture of compliance among employers, ICE will use the following two-pronged strategy: (1) aggressive criminal and civil enforcement against those employers who knowingly violate the law; and (2) continued implementation of programs, such as E-Verify and ICE’s IMAGE program, to help employers comply. Criminal investigations will increasingly focus on employers who abuse and exploit workers or otherwise engage in egregious conduct. To support a meaningful civil audit program, ICE will hire additional auditors and centralize some auditing functions. Through the “I E-Verify” campaign, ICE will work with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to increase public support for companies that use compliance tools. Finally, ICE will seek better statutory tools to address illegal employment.
Categories: Employer Compliance, Blogroll, General |
Ending Birthright Citizenship - Unconstitutional, Impractical, Expensive, Complicated and
From the Immigration Policy Center
Washington D.C. - The legislator behind Arizona’s restrictive new immigration law, SB 1070, is continuing his crusade against immigrants with calls to restrict birthright citizenship. This is not the first time efforts have been made to diminish the Fourteenth Amendment. Several bills have been introduced over the years that would deny U.S. citizenship to children whose parents are in the U.S. illegally or on temporary visas.
The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution - the cornerstone of American civil rights - affirms that, with very few exceptions, all persons born in the U.S. are U.S. citizens, regardless of the immigration status of their parents. Following the Civil War and the emancipation of the slaves, the Fourteenth Amendment restated the longstanding principle of birthright citizenship, which had been temporarily erased by the Supreme Court’s “Dred Scott” decision that denied birthright citizenship to the U.S.-born children of slaves. The Supreme Court has upheld birthright citizenship several times since then.
In the past few years, renewed efforts to restrict birthright citizenship have surfaced in several states, including Texas, California, and now Arizona. While proponents understand that states cannot repeal birthright citizenship, it is their hope to advance the national debate and mount a challenge to the Fourteenth Amendment in the Supreme Court. To date, none of these proposals have advanced very far, but the divisiveness of the current immigration debate and Congress’ failure to reform the system is resulting in extreme laws being introduced in a great number of states.
To view the fact sheet and blog post on Birthright Citizenship, see:
-
Ending Birthright Citizenship: Unconstitutional, Impractical, Expensive, Complicated and Would Not Stop Illegal Immigration (IPC Fact Check, June 15, 2010)
- Ending Birthright Citizenship Won’t Solve Our Immigration Problems (ImmigrationImpact.com blog post, June 15, 2010)
Categories: Legislation and Policy, Blogroll, General |
Online Tutorial Required for E-Verify Users after June 13
According to the USCIS, big changes are coming to E-Verify on June 13 that will enhance its usability, security, accuracy and efficiency. The newly redesigned E-Verify features a clean and modern design, easy and intuitive navigation, and clear and simple language. Users must complete a new online tutorial to use E-Verify for new employer verification after June 13. For more information and to register for the tutorial, click here.
Categories: Employment Immigration, Employer Compliance, General |
Complaint Filed Challenging Employer-Employee/Third-Party Placement Memo
Broadgate, Inc., et al v. USCIS, et al
Case number: 1:10cv00941
This Application for Preliminary Injunction and Complaint filed on June 8, 2010 by Greenberg Traurig LLP in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia, challenges USCIS’s application of the January 8, 2010, Neufeld Memorandum’s definition of employer-employee relationships, resulting in the denial of H-1Bs filed by IT staffing firms. Judge Gladys Kessler will be hearing the case.
AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 10060830 (posted Jun. 8, 2010)
Categories: Employment Immigration, Employer Compliance, Immigration Litigation and Removal, Blogroll, General |
TechServe Alliance Sues Feds; Challenges Policy Restricting IT Staffing Firms Access to H-1B…
ALEXANDRIA, Va., June 8 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ —
The five count Complaint charges that the government improperly and without any valid legal basis altered long-standing policy that has allowed IT staffing firms to obtain H-1B visas on the same basis as other companies. In an abrupt reversal of its policy without any notice or opportunity for comment and contrary to well settled law, the government now erroneously contends IT staffing firms are not “U.S. employers” and are therefore ineligible to serve as petitioners for H-1B visas. Since implementing this new policy, the agency has been improperly denying petitions of IT staffing firms on that basis. Along with the complaint,
“USCIS’s actions are a thinly veiled attack on the IT staffing industry and its business model,” observed Mark Roberts, CEO of
In a Memorandum dated January 8, 2010 by Donald Neufeld, Associate Director of Service Center Operations at USCIS (”Neufeld Memo”), USCIS reversed well settled policy, determining that IT staffing firms are not “U.S. employers” under U.S. immigration law and are therefore ineligible to access the H-1B visa program. USCIS arrived at this erroneous determination by arguing that IT staffing firms fail to exercise control over their consultants; summarily concluding there is no employer-employee relationship–an element of the definition of U.S. employer. In doing so, USCIS ignores the fact that IT staffing firms hire, fire, pay and supervise; activities which the applicable regulation as well as other areas of law have long recognized as establishing an employer-employee relationship.
In Count I of the Complaint,
“IT staffing is a lawful business model that greatly benefits the U.S. economy, U.S. businesses and U.S. workers. The government should not be allowed to attack the industry by circumventing the rulemaking process and reversing long-standing policy by decree. Because of their vast power to destroy lives and businesses, government institutions should be required to rigorously comply with applicable law and process. USCIS, DHS and its leadership failed to meet the most minimal standards of compliance with the law. Despite wide spread objection and outrage over the policy enunciated in the Neufeld Memo on both substantive and procedural grounds, USCIS and DHS have failed to rescind this policy. Accordingly, we were left with no choice but to defend the industry against these unfair, ill-conceived, and unauthorized actions and seek equitable relief from the Courts,” stated Roberts.
Categories: Employment Immigration, Employer Compliance, Immigration Litigation and Removal, Blogroll, General |
Attorney General announces $2.5 million judgment against Colorado Springs immigration-services business
From the Attorney General of Colorado
Colorado Attorney General John Suthers announced that an El Paso County District Court has issued orders barring a Colorado Springs business, the Immigration Center, and its owners and operators, Charles Doucette, Deborah Stilson and Alfred Boyce, from defrauding consumers in search of assistance in obtaining or completing federal immigration forms.
The Office of the Attorney General filed a lawsuit against Doucette and the Immigration Center in August 2009 and alleged that the business had engaged in deceptive trade practices, including posing as or claiming an affiliation with the federal government.
According to the complaint, Doucette’s business advertised itself as being able to help immigrants obtain and complete various immigration forms in exchange for fees ranging from $300 to $700. The Immigration Center’s non-refundable fees were identical to the fee the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services would charge for filing the forms, which were available free of charge from the federal government. The Immigration Center also did not provide consumers with assistance from attorneys or anyone with expertise in immigration law.
Under the court’s order against the Immigration Center, the business will be barred from engaging in immigration-assistance services and will be required to pay the state a total of $2.5 million in restitution and civil penalties.
The court also approved a settlement between the state and Doucette. Under the settlement Doucette and Stilson will pay $85,000 in fines and restitution and will not be allowed to engage in the business of selling government forms or assistance with those forms. Doucette and Stilson also will be required to desist any marketing associated with any immigration-assistance business, including taking down any Web sites associated with their businesses.
The Immigration Center also did business under the names U.S. Immigration Center, ImmigrationHelpLine.org, U.S. Government Help Line, Liberty Legal Services, Maydene Media, Immigration Forms & Services, and Immigration Forms & Documents.
Categories: Legislation and Policy, Blogroll, General |