The purpose of the briefing was to educate stakeholders on the use of the redesigned ETA 9035 (LCA) and ETA 9089 (PERM). At the briefing, the DOL emphasized that the changes made to the forms are simply changes in the way data is collected; they do not constitute changes in policy.
The DOL announced that there will now be a new OFLC Visa portal know as iCERT System for both LCAs and PERM applications. On April 15, 2009, OFLC will begin receiving new LCA forms for processing through iCERT; on July 1 the same will be true for the new PERM form. In the case of both forms, there will be a 30 day transition period after the “go live” date; during this time employers can still file using the old system, and can get ready for the new system by creating new iCERT accounts and subaccounts and eliminating old T cases (in the case of PERM).
The biggest advantage of the new system is that it will permit users to track the status of applications across visa programs through a single visa account. It will also “pre-populate” certain aspects of the forms related to information on the particular employer and foreign national, thereby saving time.
Numerous changes were made to both forms. These changes can be reviewed in the attached material provided by the DOL at the briefing. Below is a list of a few highlights with respect to each form:
PERM Form
1) The space for the foreign worker’s name has now been moved to the top of the form. Completing this field will pre-populate other parts of the form.
2) Additional work location options have been added and there is “open space” to elaborate on the work location.
3) Space has been added so that the employer can explain the business necessity for a particular job requirement.
LCA Form
1) It will take up to 7 days to receive a response; LCAs will no longer be approved instantaneously. This change was made so that the DOL would be more likely to detect fraudulent submissions.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Economic Downturn: Immigration Issues for Layoffs, Terminations, Mergers, Acquisitions, Restructurings and How These Impact Foreign National Workers.
As our economy continues in its downward spiral, company mergers, acquisitions and restructurings (“transactions”) are likely to continue. In general, since a merger, acquisition or restructuring is a “corporate transaction”, the immigration issues often get left in the dust. For this reason, it is important that immigration repercussions that arise from a merger, acquisition or restructuring are considered and that Business Immigration Counsel is brought into the “deal” or arrangement at the appropriate time – earlier rather then later. This is especially the case since Business Immigration Counsel may be able to save money for the parties to the transaction.
Immigration regulations closely tie the employer's identity, location and ownership structure; any change from the merger/acquisition may immediately invalidate an alien employee’s non-immigrant visa. The loss of non-immigrant visa validity could immediately affect an employee’s work status in the U.S. For example, if a transaction is undertaken and the successor party fails to amend the H-1B petition and/or the underlying Labor Condition Application (the “LCA”) then the H-1B nonimmigrant may be out of status. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Citizenship and Immigration Service (“CIS”) has made it clear that there is no “grace period” and that once an H-1B non-immigrant is no longer employed with the H-1B sponsor then the individual is deemed to be out-of-status.
It is for this very reason that Business Immigration Counsel advise employers who are involved in a transaction to be sure to annotate the Public Access File (“PAF”) prior to the transaction so that the successor organization clearly assumes the liabilities of the H-1B nonimmigrants. This “assumption” can be added to the PAF prior to the closing of the transaction and this way there is no requirement that there be amendments to the H-1B be submitted. However, amendments to H-1Bs may be desired by H-1B employees if they will be traveling outside the U.S.
Depending upon an individual’s progress in the green card process, Immigrant Visa Petitions may also be affected. A determination will need to be made as to whether or not the new company owner would be considered to be a “successor-in-interest”. If the organization’s new owner has assumed all of the past owner’s liabilities, then the new owner may qualify as a “successor-in-interest”. If the new company is a “successor-in-interest” then the green card process can be continued by the successor organization. Hence, the new employer would continue with the green card process on behalf of the foreign national employee without having to start the green card process/labor certification/PERM from the beginning.
The third and one of the most important issues with which a business owner or transferor should be concerned is the Form I-9. A “successor-in-interest” can assume the I-9 liabilities of the organization. Failure to comply with I-9 requirements may result in serious sanctions. Therefore, before a transaction is undertaken, an examination of the Forms I-9 of the organization should be conducted through either an audit or a review. If the successor organization does not assume the Forms I-9 of the prior organization then new I-9s can be done for each of the organization’s employees. Such Forms I-9 should be prepared for all employees to avoid any allegation of an unfair immigration-related employment practice such as document abuse or discrimination on the basis of citizenship or nationality.
Immigration repercussions should be considered early on in any transaction. Initially, an analysis of the immigration status of all of the organization’s alien employees and a determination of the form of the corporate change on their status should be considered. Following this analysis, filings of any applications necessary to maintain the employees’ status can be appropriately considered.
In an ongoing attempt to keep HR professionals up-to-date with business immigration law rules and regulations, our office continues to forge strategic alliances with various professional organizations that are able to obtain and provide important information to their members.
When traditional immigration approaches do not work, our knowledgeable and skilled legal team offers many visa options to meet immigration goals. Please feel free to contact us at any of our several office locations, and speak to a member of our staff in one of the 15 languages spoken, English, Spanish, French, Japanese, Korean, Slovak, Czech, Polish, Tagalog, Hindi, Tamil, Italian, Russian, Chinese, and German.
To meet a growing demand for Canadian Immigration Law Services, Nachman & Associates formed a Canadian Division in 2005. Managed by licensed Canadian legal staff and with offices in Montreal and Toronto, as well as New York and New Jersey, our Canadian Division attorneys are in the unique position to assist with cross-border issues.
Nachman & Associates, P.C. is also proud to announce the 2007 formation of a Global Immigration Division to assist clients with immigration services to countries such as the UK, China, New Zealand, Australia, and more. Our Global Division staff is fully equipped to assist with international transfers to and from the United States. If you, or any member of your staff, are interested in receiving more information about with regard to changes in the corporate structure or in connection with a merger or acquisition or layoff or termination. please contact us at 201-670-0006 (x100) or at info@visaserve.com. Feel free to visit us on the web at www.visaserve.com.
Immigration regulations closely tie the employer's identity, location and ownership structure; any change from the merger/acquisition may immediately invalidate an alien employee’s non-immigrant visa. The loss of non-immigrant visa validity could immediately affect an employee’s work status in the U.S. For example, if a transaction is undertaken and the successor party fails to amend the H-1B petition and/or the underlying Labor Condition Application (the “LCA”) then the H-1B nonimmigrant may be out of status. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Citizenship and Immigration Service (“CIS”) has made it clear that there is no “grace period” and that once an H-1B non-immigrant is no longer employed with the H-1B sponsor then the individual is deemed to be out-of-status.
It is for this very reason that Business Immigration Counsel advise employers who are involved in a transaction to be sure to annotate the Public Access File (“PAF”) prior to the transaction so that the successor organization clearly assumes the liabilities of the H-1B nonimmigrants. This “assumption” can be added to the PAF prior to the closing of the transaction and this way there is no requirement that there be amendments to the H-1B be submitted. However, amendments to H-1Bs may be desired by H-1B employees if they will be traveling outside the U.S.
Depending upon an individual’s progress in the green card process, Immigrant Visa Petitions may also be affected. A determination will need to be made as to whether or not the new company owner would be considered to be a “successor-in-interest”. If the organization’s new owner has assumed all of the past owner’s liabilities, then the new owner may qualify as a “successor-in-interest”. If the new company is a “successor-in-interest” then the green card process can be continued by the successor organization. Hence, the new employer would continue with the green card process on behalf of the foreign national employee without having to start the green card process/labor certification/PERM from the beginning.
The third and one of the most important issues with which a business owner or transferor should be concerned is the Form I-9. A “successor-in-interest” can assume the I-9 liabilities of the organization. Failure to comply with I-9 requirements may result in serious sanctions. Therefore, before a transaction is undertaken, an examination of the Forms I-9 of the organization should be conducted through either an audit or a review. If the successor organization does not assume the Forms I-9 of the prior organization then new I-9s can be done for each of the organization’s employees. Such Forms I-9 should be prepared for all employees to avoid any allegation of an unfair immigration-related employment practice such as document abuse or discrimination on the basis of citizenship or nationality.
Immigration repercussions should be considered early on in any transaction. Initially, an analysis of the immigration status of all of the organization’s alien employees and a determination of the form of the corporate change on their status should be considered. Following this analysis, filings of any applications necessary to maintain the employees’ status can be appropriately considered.
In an ongoing attempt to keep HR professionals up-to-date with business immigration law rules and regulations, our office continues to forge strategic alliances with various professional organizations that are able to obtain and provide important information to their members.
When traditional immigration approaches do not work, our knowledgeable and skilled legal team offers many visa options to meet immigration goals. Please feel free to contact us at any of our several office locations, and speak to a member of our staff in one of the 15 languages spoken, English, Spanish, French, Japanese, Korean, Slovak, Czech, Polish, Tagalog, Hindi, Tamil, Italian, Russian, Chinese, and German.
To meet a growing demand for Canadian Immigration Law Services, Nachman & Associates formed a Canadian Division in 2005. Managed by licensed Canadian legal staff and with offices in Montreal and Toronto, as well as New York and New Jersey, our Canadian Division attorneys are in the unique position to assist with cross-border issues.
Nachman & Associates, P.C. is also proud to announce the 2007 formation of a Global Immigration Division to assist clients with immigration services to countries such as the UK, China, New Zealand, Australia, and more. Our Global Division staff is fully equipped to assist with international transfers to and from the United States. If you, or any member of your staff, are interested in receiving more information about with regard to changes in the corporate structure or in connection with a merger or acquisition or layoff or termination. please contact us at 201-670-0006 (x100) or at info@visaserve.com. Feel free to visit us on the web at www.visaserve.com.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
FREE Live Webinar
FREE Live WebinarWhere: Link here - Register anytime . . .
https://visaserve.webex.com/mw0305l/mywebex/default.do?siteurl=visaserve&rnd=0.17398043227002624
Date: February 26, 2009Time: 12:00 pm - 1:00 pm
Topics Discussed: H-1B’s: Practical Advice for EmployersDescription:This program will provide information for employers regarding H-1B visas including what to do if there are gaps in employment eligibility, extending Employment Authorization Documents under the OPT STEM Program, and alternatives to the H-1B visa. There are many nuances in the preparation and filing of the H-1B nonimmigrant process that need to be observed or it can be a minefield for the unsuspecting employer.
Speaker: Victoria A. Donoghue, Esq., Nachman & Associates, P.C.For more information, please contact Nachman & Associates, P.C. at info@visaserve.com or 201-670-0006 ext. 110.
https://visaserve.webex.com/mw0305l/mywebex/default.do?siteurl=visaserve&rnd=0.17398043227002624
Date: February 26, 2009Time: 12:00 pm - 1:00 pm
Topics Discussed: H-1B’s: Practical Advice for EmployersDescription:This program will provide information for employers regarding H-1B visas including what to do if there are gaps in employment eligibility, extending Employment Authorization Documents under the OPT STEM Program, and alternatives to the H-1B visa. There are many nuances in the preparation and filing of the H-1B nonimmigrant process that need to be observed or it can be a minefield for the unsuspecting employer.
Speaker: Victoria A. Donoghue, Esq., Nachman & Associates, P.C.For more information, please contact Nachman & Associates, P.C. at info@visaserve.com or 201-670-0006 ext. 110.
How to Win the War When Working With Wal-Mart:
Americans across the country are familiar with Wal-Mart for their “roll-back” prices and friendly service. What most people don’t know is that, after their immigration scandals in 2001 and 2003, Wal-Mart has lead the country in enforcing employer compliance with requirements of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (“IRCA”). Since paying a record-setting $11 million to the United States Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division (“ICE”), Wal-Mart has become the reluctant leader in employer compliance programs. As anyone trying to sign a contract with Wal-Mart will tell you, it’s no walk in the park to meet their strict demands, but it is the way of the future for employment verification procedures.
By way of history, in 2001, 100 illegal immigrant janitors were arrested at Wal-Mart stores in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri and New York, and an additional 245 were arrested in October 2003 at 60 stores across 21 states. The allegation that Wal-Mart knew the janitors were illegal was denied by Wal-Mart’s top executives; nevertheless they admitted that they should have been keeping a more watchful eye over what their sub-contractors were doing. In a statement from Washington, federal officials announced that 12 janitorial contractors that worked for Wal-Mart had agreed to forfeit $4 million to the government and to plead guilty to criminal charges of employing illegal immigrants. The workers came from nearly 20 countries, including Mexico, Brazil, the Czech Republic, China, Poland and Russia.
As part of the $11 million settlement, Wal-Mart was permanently barred from hiring illegal immigrants and was ordered to establish a mechanism to make sure that its contractors "are taking reasonable steps to comply with immigration laws" within 18 months from the settlement date. Wal-Mart has since pledged to train all of its store managers to avoid “knowingly hiring” or “continuing to employ” illegal immigrant workers. Wal-Mart also agreed to continue cooperating with federal officials investigating its contractors. It’s no surprise that the regulations Wal-Mart has since built into their sub-contractor agreements are very rigid.
If you’re unfortunate enough to have seen the addendums to the Wal-Mart contracts, you are aware that there are stipulations which require all sub-contractors and sub-sub-contractors to follow the ICE “10 Best Practices for Employers”, which is a component of ICE’s IMAGE (“Ice Mutual Agreement between Government and Employers”) Program. Such practices include registering with the E-Verify Program, conducting training programs for all staff related to I-9 compliance, annual internal and third party I-9 audits, implementing an internal tip line, and full cooperation with government officials from the Department of Homeland Security. Not only are these required for the general contractor, but also for all sub-contractors and sub-sub-contractors. Needless to say, it has become burdensome for many small employers who wish to partner with a company such as Wal-Mart.
Nachman & Associates, P.C. is a Global Immigration Law Firm that has successfully helped companies become compliant with the regulations pushed down by Wal-Mart. In fact, other large employers such as Verizon have also been adopting the Wal-Mart compliance plan and requiring it for their own contractors, sub-contractors and sub-sub-contractors. In this era of compliance, it is important that employers can not only be in compliance with the law (as it will most likely only get tougher on violators), but also be able to handle the demands of both the government and large corporations who are pushing down these mandates. As Managing Attorney David H. Nachman says, “when we look into the crystal ball, we can see what’s coming down the pike and it means that employers need to be more vigilant.”
Mr. Nachman and his staff have been training employers about proper employment verification procedures for over a decade and most recently, pursuant to a federal training grant from the US Department of Justice, Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (“OSC”), the Nachman & Associates team has been traveling across the tri-state area, and across the country via webinar, to help employers overcome the confusion in this “age of enforcement.” To contact Nachman & Associates for more information on compliance programs or to attend or schedule free training on employment verification procedures, anti-discrimination, E-Verify and IMAGE, please feel free to visit their website www.visaserve.com.
By way of history, in 2001, 100 illegal immigrant janitors were arrested at Wal-Mart stores in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri and New York, and an additional 245 were arrested in October 2003 at 60 stores across 21 states. The allegation that Wal-Mart knew the janitors were illegal was denied by Wal-Mart’s top executives; nevertheless they admitted that they should have been keeping a more watchful eye over what their sub-contractors were doing. In a statement from Washington, federal officials announced that 12 janitorial contractors that worked for Wal-Mart had agreed to forfeit $4 million to the government and to plead guilty to criminal charges of employing illegal immigrants. The workers came from nearly 20 countries, including Mexico, Brazil, the Czech Republic, China, Poland and Russia.
As part of the $11 million settlement, Wal-Mart was permanently barred from hiring illegal immigrants and was ordered to establish a mechanism to make sure that its contractors "are taking reasonable steps to comply with immigration laws" within 18 months from the settlement date. Wal-Mart has since pledged to train all of its store managers to avoid “knowingly hiring” or “continuing to employ” illegal immigrant workers. Wal-Mart also agreed to continue cooperating with federal officials investigating its contractors. It’s no surprise that the regulations Wal-Mart has since built into their sub-contractor agreements are very rigid.
If you’re unfortunate enough to have seen the addendums to the Wal-Mart contracts, you are aware that there are stipulations which require all sub-contractors and sub-sub-contractors to follow the ICE “10 Best Practices for Employers”, which is a component of ICE’s IMAGE (“Ice Mutual Agreement between Government and Employers”) Program. Such practices include registering with the E-Verify Program, conducting training programs for all staff related to I-9 compliance, annual internal and third party I-9 audits, implementing an internal tip line, and full cooperation with government officials from the Department of Homeland Security. Not only are these required for the general contractor, but also for all sub-contractors and sub-sub-contractors. Needless to say, it has become burdensome for many small employers who wish to partner with a company such as Wal-Mart.
Nachman & Associates, P.C. is a Global Immigration Law Firm that has successfully helped companies become compliant with the regulations pushed down by Wal-Mart. In fact, other large employers such as Verizon have also been adopting the Wal-Mart compliance plan and requiring it for their own contractors, sub-contractors and sub-sub-contractors. In this era of compliance, it is important that employers can not only be in compliance with the law (as it will most likely only get tougher on violators), but also be able to handle the demands of both the government and large corporations who are pushing down these mandates. As Managing Attorney David H. Nachman says, “when we look into the crystal ball, we can see what’s coming down the pike and it means that employers need to be more vigilant.”
Mr. Nachman and his staff have been training employers about proper employment verification procedures for over a decade and most recently, pursuant to a federal training grant from the US Department of Justice, Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (“OSC”), the Nachman & Associates team has been traveling across the tri-state area, and across the country via webinar, to help employers overcome the confusion in this “age of enforcement.” To contact Nachman & Associates for more information on compliance programs or to attend or schedule free training on employment verification procedures, anti-discrimination, E-Verify and IMAGE, please feel free to visit their website www.visaserve.com.
IMMIGRATION-RELATED AUDITS: WHAT EMPLOYERS NEED TO KNOW.
There are three potential “hot spots” for audits and investigations for the government related to the immigration and nationality laws. The first has to do with the documentation that the employer is required to maintain in connection with the H-1B nonimmigrant professional and specialty and occupation worker visa. The second area of potential audit concerns the employer’s obligations under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (“IRCA”) [Pub. L. No. 99-603, 100 Stat. 3359] (known to HR Professionals as the “I-9 Process”). The third, and one more recent, area of audit surrounds the new Labor Certification Application Program called “Permanent Electronic Review Management” (“PERM”). Each of the foregoing government programs anticipates compliance through “audit”. Even a rudimentary understanding of the complex documentary requirements for each of these programs can help and employer to avoid potential liability.
First, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) regulations that govern the maintenance of professional and specialty foreign national worker require an organization to develop and produce certain documents concerning the wages and the working conditions of an H-1B nonimmigrant. These documents are referred to as the Public Access File (“PAF”). The PAF documents are required to be maintained at the H-1B worksite immediately after the employer files the Labor Condition Application (“LCA”) with the DOL. The employer is well-situated to ensure they maintain PAF documents and be sure that they continue to pay the H-1B nonimmigrant the specified wage on the LCA. Under the American Competitiveness and Workplace Improvement Act (“ACWIA”), an H-1B nonimmigrant must be offered the same company benefits as those offered to “similarly situated” non-H-1B employees in the organization.
DOL audits can arise as a result of a complaint by a disgruntled employee or as a result of a randomly conducted investigation. Upon a DOL audit (normally undertaken by the Wage and Hour Division) an employer may be found not to be in compliance with (1) paying the H-1B nonimmigrant the specified wage (which pursuant to the H-1B Reform Act of 2004 became effective on March 8, 2005 must be 100% of the federally mandated prevailing wage); and/or (2) maintaining PAF documents; and/or (3) providing the H-1B nonimmigrant with the same benefits as those provided to all other “similarly situated” non-H-1B employees. Any failure to comply with DOL requirements can result in an employer being liable to pay back wages to an H-1B employee, debarment from the use of the H-1B program and/or other potential civil and/or criminal liabilities. Also, if the employer is a government contractor, the failure to comply may result in the debarment from the government contacts.
A second potential audit area for audit and investigation of an employer concerns employment verification and employer sanction law (referred to as the “Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986” or “IRCA”). As every HR Professional knows, IRCA is an integral aspect of every hire. Under IRCA, every employer is required to properly verify the eligibility of an employee to work in the U.S. on the Form I-9. The I-9 Form is a deceptively simple document. The I-9 Form is only one page in length but it continues to raise issues about proper preparation and retention.
Since the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) absorption of the Legacy-INS, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division (“ICE”) has been charged with worksite inspections and audits of I-9 documents. The “good news” for employers is that the number of I-9 inspections has been on the decline. The “bad news” for employers is that ICE Officers are not inclined to be lenient and educate employers about their responsibilities but are more likely to impose sanctions.
Given the present focus on “security” and “identity” in the workplace, it is likely that ICE Officials will be more active in their investigations in the future. ICE is not required to wait for a specific lead. The investigative authorities of the DHS have implemented a "General Administrative Plan" (the “Plan”). The Plan identifies employers from a national database and it targets specific industries that have developed a reputation for hiring unauthorized workers (e.g., restaurant, meat-packing, commercial cleaning, textile and garment). The Plan also provides for “random” audits. For example, due to national security concerns, great efforts continue to be placed on identifying those individuals who have access to the nation’s “critical infrastructures” such as airports, wastewater facilities, and highways.
Finally, the third area of interest for employers from an audit perspective is the new PERM process for Labor Certifications Applications (the “Green Card”). After pending for over two (2) years, in December 2004, the PERM regulations became “Final” and on March 28th, 2005, the old Labor Certification Application process was replaced by PERM. While PERM promises faster green card processing, the application process is much more complex. The DOL seems to be sending a message that it is easier to audit the employer as opposed to processing an Application.
The new PERM process requires an employer to obtain a Prevailing Wage Determination (the “PWD”) from the State Workforce Agency (the “SWA”) (e.g. The NJDOL, Alien Labor Certification Unit) in the State where the position has been offered. The PWD area of the law is constantly evolving. Once the PWD is obtained, an employer must undertake a rigid “recruitment process”. Recruitment consists of placing a job order with the SWA and placing two (2) Sunday advertisements in an appropriate newspaper. The recruitment process needs to be completed within six (6) months of the filing of the PERM Application.
PERM requires meticulous preparation and a thorough understanding of the Regulations. The PERM process is analogous to the administrative process that surrounds the filing of a U.S. tax return. When the return is filed, the filer makes representations, declarations, and attestations about annual income and expenses. The filer does not submit evidence about annual income and expenses. Such information is only provided if the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) sends the filer a notice for an audit. The PERM program is similar. A PERM Application is filed by making attestations on the new DOL Form 9089. The Form 9089 is submitted to the DOL. DOL can either certify the Form without receiving documentation, or DOL can send out an audit letter.
The new PERM Regulations state that the DOL can request an audit of any pending Labor Certification Application for cause or in the DOL’s discretion. In the event that a prospective employer is noticed for an audit, the employer will receive an audit letter that lists the documents that will have to be submitted. The audit letter shall set a date that is thirty (30) days from the date of the letter for submission of the additional documents and shall advise the employer that the Labor Certification Application will be denied if the information is not received in a timely manner. If the employer does not respond, the PERM Labor Certification Application will be denied.
It appears clearly to be the case that immigration-related programs that are undertaken by employers may be subject to either directed and/or random government audits from the DHS and/or the DOL. Failure to adequately comply with government regulations can result in penalties. The employer’s familiarity with the intricacies of the auditing and compliance are likely to save a considerable amount of both time and money.
David H. Nachman, Esq. is the Managing Attorney at Nachman & Associates, P.C. with offices located in Ridgewood, New Jersey, New York City and in Canada (and having corresponding offices in the Netherlands Antilles and California). David Nachman received his BS from Georgetown University and his JD from Case Western Reserve University where he also received a Master’s Degree in Business Administration.
Nachman & Associates, P.C. provided counsel throughout the U.S. and the world on a full array of immigration law issues. Visit us at http://www.visaservecom%20.com/ .
E-mail to us with any questions at info@visaserve.com
First, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) regulations that govern the maintenance of professional and specialty foreign national worker require an organization to develop and produce certain documents concerning the wages and the working conditions of an H-1B nonimmigrant. These documents are referred to as the Public Access File (“PAF”). The PAF documents are required to be maintained at the H-1B worksite immediately after the employer files the Labor Condition Application (“LCA”) with the DOL. The employer is well-situated to ensure they maintain PAF documents and be sure that they continue to pay the H-1B nonimmigrant the specified wage on the LCA. Under the American Competitiveness and Workplace Improvement Act (“ACWIA”), an H-1B nonimmigrant must be offered the same company benefits as those offered to “similarly situated” non-H-1B employees in the organization.
DOL audits can arise as a result of a complaint by a disgruntled employee or as a result of a randomly conducted investigation. Upon a DOL audit (normally undertaken by the Wage and Hour Division) an employer may be found not to be in compliance with (1) paying the H-1B nonimmigrant the specified wage (which pursuant to the H-1B Reform Act of 2004 became effective on March 8, 2005 must be 100% of the federally mandated prevailing wage); and/or (2) maintaining PAF documents; and/or (3) providing the H-1B nonimmigrant with the same benefits as those provided to all other “similarly situated” non-H-1B employees. Any failure to comply with DOL requirements can result in an employer being liable to pay back wages to an H-1B employee, debarment from the use of the H-1B program and/or other potential civil and/or criminal liabilities. Also, if the employer is a government contractor, the failure to comply may result in the debarment from the government contacts.
A second potential audit area for audit and investigation of an employer concerns employment verification and employer sanction law (referred to as the “Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986” or “IRCA”). As every HR Professional knows, IRCA is an integral aspect of every hire. Under IRCA, every employer is required to properly verify the eligibility of an employee to work in the U.S. on the Form I-9. The I-9 Form is a deceptively simple document. The I-9 Form is only one page in length but it continues to raise issues about proper preparation and retention.
Since the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) absorption of the Legacy-INS, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division (“ICE”) has been charged with worksite inspections and audits of I-9 documents. The “good news” for employers is that the number of I-9 inspections has been on the decline. The “bad news” for employers is that ICE Officers are not inclined to be lenient and educate employers about their responsibilities but are more likely to impose sanctions.
Given the present focus on “security” and “identity” in the workplace, it is likely that ICE Officials will be more active in their investigations in the future. ICE is not required to wait for a specific lead. The investigative authorities of the DHS have implemented a "General Administrative Plan" (the “Plan”). The Plan identifies employers from a national database and it targets specific industries that have developed a reputation for hiring unauthorized workers (e.g., restaurant, meat-packing, commercial cleaning, textile and garment). The Plan also provides for “random” audits. For example, due to national security concerns, great efforts continue to be placed on identifying those individuals who have access to the nation’s “critical infrastructures” such as airports, wastewater facilities, and highways.
Finally, the third area of interest for employers from an audit perspective is the new PERM process for Labor Certifications Applications (the “Green Card”). After pending for over two (2) years, in December 2004, the PERM regulations became “Final” and on March 28th, 2005, the old Labor Certification Application process was replaced by PERM. While PERM promises faster green card processing, the application process is much more complex. The DOL seems to be sending a message that it is easier to audit the employer as opposed to processing an Application.
The new PERM process requires an employer to obtain a Prevailing Wage Determination (the “PWD”) from the State Workforce Agency (the “SWA”) (e.g. The NJDOL, Alien Labor Certification Unit) in the State where the position has been offered. The PWD area of the law is constantly evolving. Once the PWD is obtained, an employer must undertake a rigid “recruitment process”. Recruitment consists of placing a job order with the SWA and placing two (2) Sunday advertisements in an appropriate newspaper. The recruitment process needs to be completed within six (6) months of the filing of the PERM Application.
PERM requires meticulous preparation and a thorough understanding of the Regulations. The PERM process is analogous to the administrative process that surrounds the filing of a U.S. tax return. When the return is filed, the filer makes representations, declarations, and attestations about annual income and expenses. The filer does not submit evidence about annual income and expenses. Such information is only provided if the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) sends the filer a notice for an audit. The PERM program is similar. A PERM Application is filed by making attestations on the new DOL Form 9089. The Form 9089 is submitted to the DOL. DOL can either certify the Form without receiving documentation, or DOL can send out an audit letter.
The new PERM Regulations state that the DOL can request an audit of any pending Labor Certification Application for cause or in the DOL’s discretion. In the event that a prospective employer is noticed for an audit, the employer will receive an audit letter that lists the documents that will have to be submitted. The audit letter shall set a date that is thirty (30) days from the date of the letter for submission of the additional documents and shall advise the employer that the Labor Certification Application will be denied if the information is not received in a timely manner. If the employer does not respond, the PERM Labor Certification Application will be denied.
It appears clearly to be the case that immigration-related programs that are undertaken by employers may be subject to either directed and/or random government audits from the DHS and/or the DOL. Failure to adequately comply with government regulations can result in penalties. The employer’s familiarity with the intricacies of the auditing and compliance are likely to save a considerable amount of both time and money.
David H. Nachman, Esq. is the Managing Attorney at Nachman & Associates, P.C. with offices located in Ridgewood, New Jersey, New York City and in Canada (and having corresponding offices in the Netherlands Antilles and California). David Nachman received his BS from Georgetown University and his JD from Case Western Reserve University where he also received a Master’s Degree in Business Administration.
Nachman & Associates, P.C. provided counsel throughout the U.S. and the world on a full array of immigration law issues. Visit us at http://www.visaservecom%20.com/ .
E-mail to us with any questions at info@visaserve.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
