Badmus

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Adopts Legal Action Center’s Arguments
Washington D.C. - In a decision issued today, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals adopted the arguments of the Legal Action Center (LAC), of the American Immigration Council, that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) unlawfully imposed extra-regulatory requirements on a petition for a worker of “extraordinary ability” (EB-1). The case in question, Kazarian v. USCIS, involves a theoretical physicist whose employment-based visa was denied because he did not demonstrate “the research community’s reactions to his [scholarly] publications” - an arbitrary requirement with no justification in the law.

In today’s decision, the Ninth Circuit amended its previous ruling and reversed the agency’s interpretation. The court held that “neither USCIS nor an [Administrative Appeals Office] may unilaterally impose novel substantive or evidentiary requirements beyond those set forth [in the regulations].” The Ninth Circuit also found that the agency impermissibly added another unlawful criteria as well.

The case stems from a 2009 Ninth Circuit Court ruling in favor of USCIS. Following that ruling, the LAC and NAFSA submitted an amicus brief in support of rehearing Kazarian’s case. The LAC argued that USCIS erred by adding an additional requirement that did not exist under the law. Kazarian was represented pro bono in the rehearing petition by Wolfsdorf Immigration Law Group.

Today’s decision sends a clear message that USCIS must follow the law and provide a fair process. Unfortunately, this case is not an isolated incident and not the first time the LAC has successfully challenged the policies and practices of the agency. The LAC will continue to challenge similar attempts by the government to operate outside of the law.

“Immigration law is complicated enough without the immigration agency imposing additional requirements and burdens of proof that aren’t in the statute or regulations and that ultimately undermine the goal of attracting the best and brightest to our shores,” said Benjamin Johnson, Executive Director of the American Immigration Council.

To read the decision in its entirety visit: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/03/04/07-56774.pdf -

Legal Action Center press release

Categories: Employment Immigration, Immigration Litigation and Removal, General |

Washington D.C. - As Congress works on bills to extend unemployment benefits and create jobs, they are likely to face considerable pressure to include E-Verify amendments. E-Verify is a federal, web-based, employment verification program. As the latest IPC fact check explains, those who claim that E-Verify will prevent unauthorized workers from gaining employment ignore the fact that the program harms U.S. citizen and legal immigrant workers who will be ensnared by database errors and forces U.S. businesses to bear additional costs associated with the program. Small businesses - which employ approximately 50% of the U.S. workforce - would be disproportionately affected. At a time when the U.S. economy is still struggling to recover from recession and the national unemployment rate hovers around 10%, expanding E-Verify before improving it would be a costly and chaotic mistake.

To read the fact sheet in its entirety see:  

• How Expanding E-Verify Would Hurt American Workers and Business (IPC Fact Check, March 2, 2010) 
  

Also see, from our Repairing our Broken Immigration System series:

• Employment Verification: Repairing our Broken Immigration System   (IPC Fact Check, November 12, 2009)

Categories: Legislation and Policy, Employer Compliance, General |

Washington D.C. - Every 10 years, as required by the U.S. Constitution, the federal government undertakes a massive nationwide effort to count the residents of the United States, who now number more than 300 million.  The results form the basis for the apportionment of congressional districts and the distribution of hundreds of billions of dollars in federal funds, as well as serving to guide a wide range of community-planning decisions across the country. The Census is, however, no stranger to controversy, such as the suggestion by some activists that immigrants sit out the Census this year to protest the federal government’s failure to enact comprehensive immigration reform. Yet, among immigrants, ethnic minorities and other demographic groups who are typically under-counted in the Census, a boycott would be self-defeating. The Immigration Policy Center has prepared a fact check that explains what’s at stake and how anyone living in an area afflicted by a large under-count stands to lose out on political representation and access to economic and educational opportunities. To read the fact check in its entirety see: 

Categories: Legislation and Policy, General |

The Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) has announced that it will audit the I-9 forms of thousands of businesses in the coming years. With potential fines of $110 to $1100 for each violation found on an I-9 form, no matter how innocent, companies must ensure that their I-9 forms are error-free. Here are the 10 most common mistakes employers make that can costs thousands if left uncorrected.

Mistake #1 - The Employer and/or employee fails to sign and date the I-9 forms where indicated on the form.

Mistake #2 - The employee fails to complete section 1 of the I-9 Form on the first date of work.

Mistake #3 - The Employer does not examine the I-9 documents and fails to complete section 2 of the I-9 form with three business days of hire.

Mistake #4 - The Employer leaves the start date for work blank in the “certification” block of section 2.

Mistake #5 - The employee does not mark one of the four blocks in section 1 regarding his or her status or fails to provide the necessary information for the third and fourth blocks. The employee must indicate whether he is a U.S. citizen, noncitizen national, permanent resident, or otherwise authorized to be employed.

Mistake #6 - The Employer forgets to track the expiration date of work authorization and does not re-verify an employee’s employment authorization on or before the expiration date listed on the I-9 form.

Mistake #7 - The Employer over-documents and lists too many documents in section 2. This could lead to a discrimination charge against the Employer.

Mistake #8 - The Employer looks at photocopies rather than original verification documents. The employee must present original documents and the Employer should never accept photocopies of documents for verification.

Mistake #9 - The Employer fails to match the employee’s verification documents - the Employer should look for a match and consistency in the employee’s name and date of birth on the documents.

Mistake #10 - The Employer fails to consistently apply its photocopying policy. The law does not require Employer to make copies of verification documents; however, if the Employer does make copies, it must make copies for all employees, not just some. And, any copies of verification documents must be kept with the I-9 form and nowhere else.

An internal audit of your I-9 forms can uncover these mistakes and correcting them before a government audit can save you thousands!

Categories: Employment Immigration, Employer Compliance, Blogroll |

Badmus Law Firm will be closed on February 15, 2010 in observance of President’s Day. State and federal offices are closed as well.

Categories: Firm News |

Due to inclement weather (it’s snowing in Texas!), our office will open at 10:30 a.m. CST on February 12, 2010. 

Categories: Firm News |

February 1, 2010

Washington D.C. - Today, the Immigration Policy Center (IPC) releases the final in its series of “Solutions Papers,” Future Flow: Repairing our Broken Immigration System. The perennial question of how to regulate future employment-based immigration flows has been, by far, one of the greatest sticking points in the immigration reform debate. In 1986, lawmakers passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) in an attempt to reign in undocumented immigration through heightened worksite and border enforcement, combined with legalization of most undocumented immigrants already in the country. Unfortunately, IRCA failed to address the fact that immigrant workers would be needed in the future, and the lack of future flow mechanisms resulted in a large unauthorized immigrant population.

Policymakers now have the opportunity to realistically assess our future employment-based immigration needs. This includes permanent and temporary visas, high-skilled and low-skilled workers. Many people agree that our current legal immigration flow is drastically out of sync with America’s labor needs. If the U.S. is to thrive in the globalized 21^st century economy, employment-based immigration must be seen as a strategic resource that can both meet labor market needs and foster economic growth and competition while still protecting U.S. workers and improving wages and working conditions. This paper lays out the key principles for future employment-based immigration flows within the context of comprehensive immigration reform.

To read the paper in its entirety, see: 
Future Flow: Repairing our Broken Immigration System
(IPC Focusing on the Solution series, February 2, 2010)
 

To read other papers in the series, see:

Family Immigration: Repairing our Broken Immigration System 
(IPC Focusing on the Solutions series, January 15, 2010)

Enforcing Immigration Laws: Repairing our Broken Immigration System
(IPC Focusing on the Solutions series, December 8, 2009)

Naturalization and Integration: Repairing our Broken Immigration System
(IPC Focusing on the Solutions series, December 4, 2009)

Employment Verification: Repairing our Broken Immigration System
(IPC Focusing on the Solutions series, November 12, 2009)
 
Earned Legalization: Repairing our Broken Immigration System
(IPC Focusing on the Solutions series, November 5, 2009)

Breaking Down the Problems: What’s Wrong With our Current Immigration System
(IPC Special Report, October 21, 2009)
 

Categories: Legislation and Policy, Employment Immigration, Employer Compliance, General |

Shortly after a devastating earthquake destroyed the homes and lives of innumerable Haitians, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano announced the designation of Temporary Protective Status (TPS) for the roughly 100,000-200,000 eligible Haiti nationals currently in the United States as of January 12, 2010. As the world continues to respond with an outpouring of relief efforts, it is important to understand the facts on what TPS is, what it isn’t, how it works and who is eligible.

The Immigration Policy Center (IPC) released a fact sheet which provides background information vital to understanding TPS, including:

• Temporary Protected Status (TPS) is a temporary, humanitarian form of relief from deportation that does not include granting permanent residence or “amnesty” to unauthorized immigrants in the United States.
• The 100,000-200,000 Haitian immigrants whom the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) estimates are now in the United States on a temporary basis or without authorization will not be subject to removal as long as there is no functioning country to which they can return, and provided that they do not have criminal records.
• The Secretary of Homeland Security, “in consultation with the Secretary of State, can issue TPS for periods of 6 to 18 months and can extend these periods if conditions do not change in the designated country.”
• Major requirements for TPS include compliance with nationality and physical presence criteria (such as evidence of a passport issued by the designated country), continuous physical presence in the United States since the date TPS went into effect, timely registration, and being otherwise admissible as an immigrant.

To view the fact sheet in its entirety, see:

• Granting Refuge: Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitians in the United States

Categories: Legislation and Policy, Immigration Litigation and Removal, Family Immigration, Blogroll, General |

The American Immigration Council applauds today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision ensuring that immigrants facing deportation have fair process in the review of their cases. The Court ruled that individuals who seek to reopen their deportation orders have the right to appeal to the federal courts if the immigration court refuses to hear the appeal. The Court’s decision protects immigrants’ access to federal court review and affirms the role of the courts in our system of checks and balances on government power.

The case, Kucana v. Holder, was brought by an asylum seeker who filed a motion to reopen his removal proceedings because of changed circumstances in his request for asylum. A motion to reopen is a procedural mechanism that allows individuals to present new evidence to an immigration judge.    “The Supreme Court’s decision reaffirms that immigrants are entitled to fair process” said Beth Werlin, Attorney at the American Immigration Council’s Legal Action Center. “Given the stakes involved in immigration cases, federal court review is an important check on the executive branch and is a necessary layer of protection for individuals who are facing removal from the United States.”    

Read more about the Supreme Court’s decision at the Legal Action Center’s Supreme Court Update webpage.

Categories: Legislation and Policy, Immigration Litigation and Removal, General |

Last week the Immigration Policy Center, together with the Center for American Progress, released a report conducted by Dr. Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda of UCLA titled, Raising the Floor for American Workers: The Economic Benefits of Comprehensive Immigration Reform. The report finds that comprehensive immigration reform that includes a legalization program for the roughly 12 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. and enables a future flow of legal workers would benefit U.S. workers and generate much needed economic growth.

• Immigration reform would increase U.S. GDP by at least 0.84%.  This would translate into at least a cumulative $1.5 trillion in added GDP over 10 years, which includes approximately $1.2 trillion in consumption and $256 billion in investment.
• The benefits of additional GDP growth would be spread broadly throughout the U.S. economy,but immigrant-heavy sectors such as textiles, electronic equipment, and construction would see particularly large increases.
• The higher earning power of newly legalized workers would mean increased tax revenues of $4.5 billion to $5.4 billion in the first three years.
• Higher personal income would also generate increased consumer spending-enough to support 750,000 to 900,000 jobs in the U.S. in the first three years.
• Experience shows that legalized workers open bank accounts, buy homes, and start businesses, further stimulating the U.S. economy.

Conversely, mass deportation would reduce U.S. GDP by 1.46 percent, amounting to a cumulative $2.6 trillion loss in GDP over 10 years, not including the actual costs of deportation.  The Center for American Progress has estimated that mass deportation would cost $206 billion to $230 billion over five years.

Download the Factsheet: The Economic Benefits of Immigration Reform (January 14, 2010)
Download the Report: Raising the Floor for American Workers: The Economic Benefits of Comprehensive Immigration Reform (January 7, 2010)

Categories: Legislation and Policy, General |