ABIL - Home 404.949.8150 ABIL Contact Us
Alliance of Business Immigration Lawyers About Services Industries We Serve ABIL Lawyers Global Immigration News and Articles Resources
ABIL
 
   Back to Newsletters Download Newsletter   

 
1. USCIS To Accept FY 2018 H-1B Petitions Starting April 3 -

USCIS will begin accepting H-1B petitions subject to the fiscal year 2018 cap on April 3, 2017.

2. State Dept. Cable Calls for U.S. Embassies To Increase Scrutiny of Certain Visa Applicants -

The cable orders U.S. embassies to identify "applicant populations warranting increased scrutiny" and toughen their screening. The cable also orders a "mandatory social media review" for applicants who have ever been present in Islamic State-controlled territory.

3. Judge Extends Second Travel Ban Block, Trump Administration Appeals -

On March 29, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii ordered that the temporary restraining order against several sections of President Trump's second executive order issuing a travel ban be converted to a preliminary injunction. The Trump administration filed an appeal the next day.

4. USCIS Reaches H-2B Cap for FY 2017 -

USCIS has received a sufficient number of petitions to reach the congressionally mandated H-2B cap for fiscal year 2017.

5. State Dept. Reminds About Expiration of Two Employment Visa Categories -

The Department of State's Visa Bulletin for the month of April 2017 includes reminders about the possible expiration in late April of two employment-based immigrant visa categories, and an update on Special Immigrant Visa availability.

6. USCIS Will Accept CW-1 Petitions Beginning April 3 -

On April 3, 2017, USCIS will begin accepting CW-1 petitions subject to the FY 2018 cap. Employers in the Northern Mariana Islands use the CW-1 program to employ foreign workers who are otherwise ineligible to work under other nonimmigrant worker categories. The cap for CW-1 visas for FY 2018 has not been set, but it must be less than the FY 2017 cap, which is currently set at 12,998.

7. USCIS Updates Report of Medical Exam and Vaccination Record -

Beginning April 28, 2017, civil surgeons must use the 02/07/17 edition of Form I-693 (which shows an expiration date of 02/28/2019 at the top right corner of page 1).

8. Putin Launches 'Make Russia Great Again' Campaign on April 1 -

Some of this article constitutes fake news and alternative facts.

9. ABIL Global: Netherlands -

This article offers comments from a Dutch perspective on the new European Union Directive on intracorporate transferees.

10. New Publications and Items of Interest -

New Publications and Items of Interest

11. ABIL Member/Firm News -

ABIL Member/Firm News

12. Government Agency Links -

Government Agency Links

 

 
 
1. USCIS To Accept FY 2018 H-1B Petitions Starting April 3
 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that it will begin accepting H-1B petitions subject to the fiscal year 2018 cap on April 3, 2017. All cap-subject H-1B petitions received before April 3, 2017, for the FY 2018 cap will be rejected.

Congress set a cap of 65,000 H-1B visas per fiscal year. An advanced-degree exemption from the H-1B cap is available for 20,000 beneficiaries who have earned a U.S. master's degree or higher. The agency said it will monitor the number of petitions received and notify the public when the H-1B cap has been met.?

USCIS also recently announced a temporary suspension of premium processing for all H-1B petitions starting April 3 for up to six months. While H-1B premium processing is suspended, petitioners will not be able to file Form I-907, Request for Premium Processing Service, for a Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker that requests the H-1B nonimmigrant classification. While premium processing is suspended, any I-907 filed with an H-1B petition will be rejected, USCIS said. If the petitioner submits one combined check for both the I-907 and I-129 H-1B fees, both forms will be rejected.

USCIS reminded H-1B petitioners to follow all statutory and regulatory requirements as they prepare petitions to avoid delays in processing and possible requests for evidence. The I-129 filing fee has increased to $460, and petitioners no longer have 14 days to correct a dishonored payment. If any fee payments are not honored by the bank or financial institution, USCIS will reject the entire H-1B petition without the option for the petitioner to correct it.

The USCIS announcement about the April 3 start date for FY 2018 H-1B petitions.

The announcement about the suspension of premium processing for H-1B petitions.

Detailed information on how to complete and submit an FY 2018 H-1B petition.

More information on the H-1B nonimmigrant visa program and current I-129 processing times.

 
Back to Top

 
2. State Dept. Cable Calls for U.S. Embassies To Increase Scrutiny of Certain Visa Applicants
 

Reuters recently published a March 17, 2017, cable marked "sensitive" from Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on screening and vetting of visa applicants. The cable orders U.S. embassies to identify "applicant populations warranting increased scrutiny" and toughen their screening. The cable also orders a "mandatory social media review" for applicants who have ever been present in Islamic State-controlled territory. Also, notwithstanding the fact that Iraqis are exempt from the travel ban order (which is temporarily suspended by court order), the cable states that President Donald Trump "contemplate[s] additional screening for Iraqi nationals in addition to the robust vetting already in place." According to Reuters, two former U.S. officials said the effort would constitute a broad, labor-intensive expansion of screening procedures.

Among other things, the cable states that "all visa decisions are national security decisions," and notes that the measures being taken now are "preliminary" and that "[a]dditional screening measures will be introduced."

TEXT OF THE CABLE

REUTERS ARTICLE

 
Back to Top

 
3. Judge Extends Second Travel Ban Block, Trump Administration Appeals
 

On March 29, 2017, Judge Derrick K. Watson, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, ordered that the temporary restraining order against sections 2 and 6 of President Trump's second executive order issuing a travel ban, "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States," be converted to a preliminary injunction. The Trump administration filed an appeal the next day, to be decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

Among other things, the Hawaii court noted that the Trump Administration urged the court not to look beyond the four corners of the Executive Order and to defer to the President in the national security context. The court noted that where the historical context and sequence of events leading up to the adoption of the challenged executive order are "as full of religious animus, invective, and obvious pretext as is the record here, it is no wonder that the Government urges the Court to altogether ignore that history and context." The court declined to do so, stating, "The Court will not crawl into a corner, pull the shutters closed, and pretend it has not seen what it has. The Supreme Court and this Circuit both dictate otherwise, and that is the law this Court is bound to follow." The court said the requested nationwide relief from the executive order was appropriate in light of the likelihood of success of the plaintiffs' Establishment Clause claim, since "the entirety of the Executive Order runs afoul of the Establishment Clause" where the available information supports "a commonsense conclusion that a religious objective permeated" the order.

Following the court's ruling, Douglas Chin, Hawaii's Attorney General, said, "This is an important affirmation of the values of religious freedom enshrined in our Constitution’s First Amendment. With a preliminary injunction in place, people in Hawaii with family in the six affected Muslimmajority countries—as well as Hawaii students, travelers, and refugees across the world—face less uncertainty. While we understand that the President may appeal, we believe the court's well-reasoned decision will be affirmed."

Sean Spicer, Press Secretary for the Trump administration, said after the ruling that the Department of Justice is reviewing the ruling and "is considering the best way to defend the President's lawful and necessary order. This ruling is just the latest step that will allow the administration to appeal. Just a week ago, the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Virginia upheld the President's order on the merits. The White House firmly believes that this order is lawful and necessary, and will ultimately be allowed to move forward."

MR. CHIN'S STATEMENT, to which is appended the entire court order.

SECOND EXECUTIVE ORDER that was the subject of the court action

 
Back to Top

 
4. USCIS Reaches H-2B Cap for FY 2017
 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced on March 16, 2017, that it has received a sufficient number of petitions to reach the congressionally mandated H-2B cap for fiscal year 2017. March 13, 2017, was the final receipt date for new H-2B worker petitions requesting an employment start date before October 1, 2017. The H-2B visa category is for temporary non-agricultural workers.

Except as noted below, USCIS said it will reject new H-2B petitions received after March 13 that request an employment start date before October 1, 2017. USCIS will continue to accept H-2B petitions that are exempt from the congressionally mandated cap. This includes the following types of petitions:

  • Current H-2B workers in the U.S. petitioning to extend their stay and, if applicable, change the terms of their employment or change their employers;
  • Fish roe processors, fish roe technicians, and/or supervisors of fish roe processing; and
  • Workers performing labor or services from November 28, 2009, until December 31, 2019, in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and/or Guam.

USCIS ANNOUNCEMENT

 
Back to Top

 
5. State Dept. Reminds About Expiration of Two Employment Visa Categories
 

The Department of State's Visa Bulletin for the month of April 2017 included the following reminders about the possible expiration in late April of two employment-based immigrant visa categories, and an update on Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) availability.

Employment Fourth Preference Certain Religious Workers (SR) category. The non-minister special immigrant program expires on April 28, 2017. No SR visas may be issued overseas, or final action taken on adjustment of status cases, after midnight April 27, 2017. Visas issued before that date will only be issued with a validity date of April 27, 2017, and all individuals seeking admission as non-minister special immigrants must be admitted into the United States by midnight April 27, 2017.

The final action date for this category has been listed as Current for April for all countries except El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico, which are subject to a July 15, 2015, final action date for April. If there is no legislative action extending this category for FY 2017, the Department said, the final action date would immediately become Unavailable for April for all countries effective April 28, 2017.

Employment Fifth Preference (I5 and R5) categories. This immigrant investor pilot program had been extended by a continuing resolution until April 28, 2017. The I5 and R5 visas for EB-5 immigrant investors may be issued until the "close of business" on April 28, 2017, and may be issued for the full validity period. No I5 or R5 visas may be issued overseas, or final action taken on adjustment of status cases, after April 28, 2017.

The final action dates for the I5 and R5 categories have been listed as Current for April for all countries except China-mainland born, which is subject to a May 22, 2014, final action date. If there is no legislative action extending them for FY 2017, the final action dates would immediately become "Unavailable" for April for all countries effective April 29, 2017.

SIV availability. The Department expects to exhaust the SIV numbers allocated by Congress under the Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009, as amended, by June 1, 2017. As a result, the Final Action Date for the SQ category for certain Afghan nationals employed by or on behalf of the U.S. government in Afghanistan will become Unavailable effective June 2017. No further interviews for Afghan principal applicants in the SQ category will be scheduled after March 1, 2017, and further issuances will not be possible after May 30, 2017.

The SQ category for certain Iraqi nationals employed by or on behalf of the U.S. government in Iraq is not affected and remains Current, although the application deadline was September 30, 2014.

The FY 2017 annual limit of 50 SIVs in the SI category was reached in December 2016 and the final action date remains Unavailable. As noted in the January 2017 Visa Bulletin, further issuances in the SI category will not be possible until October 2017, under the FY 2018 annual limit, the Department explained.

VISA BULLETIN FOR APRIL 2017

 
Back to Top

 
6. USCIS Will Accept CW-1 Petitions Beginning April 3
 

On April 3, 2017, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will begin accepting CW-1 petitions subject to the fiscal year 2018 cap. Employers in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) use the CW-1 program to employ foreign workers who are otherwise ineligible to work under other nonimmigrant worker categories. The cap for CW-1 visas for FY 2018 has not been set, but it must be less than the FY 2017 cap, which is currently set at 12,998.

For the FY 2018 cap, an extension petition may request a start date of October 1, 2017, even if that worker's current status will not expire by that date. USCIS said it encourages employers to file a petition for a CW-1 nonimmigrant worker up to 6 months in advance of the proposed start date of employment and as early as possible within that time frame. The agency will reject a petition if it is filed more than 6 months in advance.

USCIS reminds employers to submit all required documentation, including evidence that the job vacancy announcement was posted on the Department of Labor website.

USCIS also reminds employers that the new base filing fee for a CW-1 petition is $460. A petitioning CNMI employer must also pay the required education fee ($150 per year) for each requested CW-1 worker. A biometric service fee of $85 per beneficiary is also required if the beneficiary is present in the CNMI when filing for an initial grant of CW-1 status.

Employers must submit the latest version of Form I-129CW, which has an edition date of 12/23/16.

USCIS ANNOUNCEMENT

ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTINOS AND THE FORM

 
Back to Top

 
7. USCIS Updates Report of Medical Exam and Vaccination Record
 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) recently announced that beginning April 28, 2017, civil surgeons must use the 02/07/17 edition of Form I-693 (which shows an expiration date of 02/28/2019 at the top right corner of page 1). USCIS will not accept any previous editions (with an expiration date of 03/31/2017 or earlier) that a civil surgeon signed and dated on or after April 28, 2017.

UPDATED FORM AND INSTRUCTIONS

LIST OF UPDATES TO FORMS CHRONOLOGICALLY, along with a brief explanation of the update

 
Back to Top

 
8. Putin Launches 'Make Russia Great Again' Campaign on April 1
 

With much fanfare, President Vladimir Putin of Russia announced on April 1, 2017, a new "Make Russia Great Again" program. The new program has multiple far-reaching prongs, or tongs:

  • Build a great, great wall made of borscht, stroganoff, chicken kiev, knishes, Trump steaks, pirogies, and zakuski, all held together with industrial-strength Rusak No. 2 oil-based and vegan hair pomade for maximum control, and force people to eat their way through
  • Provide no Pepto Bismol on the Russian side of the wall
  • Issue travel bans against NATO members and allies, citizens of democracies, separatist Ukrainians, and Hillary Clinton and her descendants, friends, and supporters
  • Double down on a strategy of "dominant aggression," with PR campaigns featuring colorful assassinations, bloodthirsty rallies, false accusations, topless men with small hands riding horses, and guest appearances by The Flying Toupée
  • Send out thousands of trolls and bots to spread "alternative facts," fake news, disinformation, bad hair, shiny ties, tuberculosis, typhoid fever, and measles/mumps/diphtheria

President Putin celebrated the launch of the new program by using a pair of Golden Tongs to set the first knish in the great wall. The jury is still out on the ultimate success of this new program. Pay no attention to the man in front of the curtain.

Some of this article constitutes fake news, best enjoyed by the fire with a glass of Stolichnaya® Premium Vodka, the world's most original vodka. Stay tuned, and Happy April Fool's Day!

 
Back to Top

 
9. ABIL Global: Netherlands
 

This article offers comments from a Dutch perspective on the new European Union Directive on intracorporate transferees.

The European Union (EU) has introduced an EU-wide permit scheme for intracompany transfers. Directive 2014/66, in force since November 29, 2016, offers excellent options for mobility of intracorporate transferees throughout EU territory—at least in theory. Another interesting feature: it's obligatory.

EU Directive 2014/66 of May 15, 2014, on the entry and residence of third-country nationals in the framework of an intra-corporate transfer (ICT Directive) was implemented in the Netherlands on November 29, 2016, the last day of the transition window. The ICT Directive is a landmark regulation in the sense that it introduces—compared to existing EU directives on labor migration—an exceptional level of harmonization across the EU. What does this directive mean, and how does it function?

Main Features of the ICT Directive Scheme

The ICT Directive applies to third-country nationals (i.e., non-EU/EEA nationals) who are temporarily transferred for occupational or training purposes to a Member State and who, at the time of the residence permit application, reside outside the territory of the Member States. It provides for a residence permit valid for a maximum of three years (for managers and technical specialists) or one year (for trainees). The main benefit of the permit is that it allows the transferee to travel from the EU Member State that has granted the permit to an establishment of the same group of undertakings in another Member State, without the need for a new test on fulfillment of the conditions. Thus, the ICT permit opens important new mobility options within the EU. Note that the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Denmark have opted out of the ICT Directive.

ICT Mobility

The ICT permit allows the transferee to move to other Member States for periods of time not exceeding 90 days (short-term mobility) and for periods longer than that (long-term mobility). For short-term mobility, the Member States have two options: they may simply allow the transferee to move and work in their territory on the basis of the valid ICT permit issued in the first Member State, or they might opt for a (rather complex) notification procedure. For long-term mobility, the Member States have three options. They may: (1) allow such longer stays on the basis of the ICT permit issued in the first Member State; (2) provide for a notification system; or (3) opt for an extra application procedure. Much will depend on which of these options the Member States will choose when implementing the Directive. Many still have not done so yet. In theory, the EU could effectively become a single area in which intracorporate transferees can move and work as if there were no Member States. The Netherlands has taken a conservative approach and chosen a notification system for short-term mobility and a permit system for long-term mobility. However, the applicant can work from the moment of application and with fewer conditions than for a first-entry application.

Concerns Raised by Corporations

As is often the case, the new rules were met with enthusiasm but also raised some concerns. Indeed, the residence permit obtained on the basis of the ICT Directive has certain limitations vis-à-vis existing permit schemes, both national schemes and EU schemes (such as the EU Blue Card scheme), or, at any rate, from a Dutch perspective. For example, the Dutch knowledge migrant permit (kennismigrantenvergunning, KMR) is granted for up to five years (depending on the employment contract) and can be renewed without limitation. The ICT residence permit can be granted for a maximum of three years (for managers and technical specialists) or one year (for trainees), as noted above, but cannot be renewed. It is true that a new ICT permit might be obtained subsequent to the first one. However, depending on the Member State's implementation, the transferee first must leave EU territory for a period ranging from one day to six months. The latter is the case in the Netherlands, so an ICT residence permit based on the Directive effectively cannot be renewed, and a new posting for the same employee in the Netherlands is possible only after an interruption of at least six months.

This would not be problematic, of course, if the application of the Directive were not obligatory. It should be noted that the Dutch KMR scheme can be used for local hires, as well as for intra-corporate transferees who remain on a foreign contract and payroll. The KMR scheme is generally preferred to other schemes, not only for the length of the permit but also for its procedural swiftness (two weeks' processing time) and the rights associated with it (e.g., full spousal labor market access).

But the ICT Directive has now changed all of this, as it does not leave the Member States an option. If a transferee falls within the scope of the Directive (mainly foreign contracts and payroll), national permit schemes may not be applied and the Member State must apply the ICT Directive scheme.

In addition to the ICT permit being limited in duration and renewability, the entry conditions are in some cases more onerous than those of national schemes, so that where the national permit might successfully be applied for, the ICT permit application must be refused. For example, the ICT Directive requires that the transferee have three months' prior employment in the group of undertakings (the Directive leaves Member States the option to choose for prior employment of up to six months), whereas the KMR scheme allowed for hiring and immediate transfer to the Netherlands. Thus a newly hired employee will now, as a result of the Directive, effectively have to wait three months before being able to move to the Netherlands. Another potential obstacle is the qualification requirement (a bachelor's degree or higher, whereas the Dutch KMR scheme requires no formal education level).

When corporate employers began to realize these aspects of the ICT Directive, a certain anxiety started to build. It didn't help that the immigration authority in the Netherlands (IND) did not take a sufficiently clear position on the issues of non-renewability of the ICT permit and its obligatory character. The lack of clarity revolved around the definition of the scope of the ICT Directive—when is an applicant within the scope of the ICT Directive so that national schemes fall away?

Scope and Definitions of the ICT Directive

Article 2 of the ICT Directive limits its scope to third-country nationals who reside outside the territory of the EU Member States at the time of application, or who are residing in a Member State under the ICT Directive already. This means that for every person who does not meet one of those two criteria, the ICT Directive does not apply. For these employees, the regular KMR scheme can still be used.

The scope is further limited (via article 2 and 3 of the ICT Directive) by the fact that it must concern intra-company transfers. If it is not "intra-company," the ICT Directive does not apply. Also, if it is not a transfer because the employee gets a contract and payroll in the Netherlands (local hire), the ICT Directive does not apply.

Permit Requirements

If the ICT Directive applies, the employee must meet the requirements of article 5 of the ICT Directive to obtain the permit. As mentioned, it is important to distinguish between the scope of the ICT Directive and the requirements for a permit. The first step is the scope: Does the ICT Directive apply to this employee? If not, then other schemes like the KMR scheme might be used. If yes, then step two is to check whether the transferee meets the requirements for the ICT permit. If not, then no permit can be issued. To solve the issue, the person must be brought outside of the scope of the ICT Directive so the KMR scheme can be used (e.g., by moving the contract and payroll to the Netherlands).

Frequently Asked Questions

While initially the IND did not take a sufficiently clear position, most issues have now been clarified. The outcome is that the ICT permit can be transferred into a national permit, even if the employee remains on a foreign contract and payroll. The process that led to this conclusion is interesting.

Since November 2016, the IND has published two new documents: the ICT Directive Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) in Dutch dated December 8, 2016, and a translation of these FAQs into English. Although these texts have no formal legal status, it seems that the IND has chosen the form of FAQs to communicate its guidelines for the implementation of the ICT Directive scheme. The IND has never used this method before.

When the English version of the FAQs was published on February 16, 2017, the IND gave no indication that it was anything other than a literal translation. Surprisingly, however, this version differed significantly from the Dutch version of December 2016, namely on the most contested point: the renewability of the ICT permit. The Dutch version suggested that after the maximum duration of an ICT permit, the permit holder must return to his or her foreign employer: "The idea behind the ICT Directive is that after the stay in the Netherlands the employee returns to the foreign employer or goes to another EU-based undertaking of the organisation." In the English version, however, the following sentence was added to this paragraph: "However, the employee can apply for a national residence permit after the maximum period of residence."

As if to leave no room for interpretation, a whole new question-and-answer was inserted that explained that after three (or one) year(s), a transferee falls out of scope of the Directive and is therefore entitled to apply and obtain a KMR permit, even if he keeps his labor contract and payroll with the employer outside the EU.

This argument might certainly be refuted, as article 2 of the Directive reads: "This Directive shall apply to third-country nationals who reside outside the territory of the Member States at the time of application and apply to be admitted or who have been admitted to the territory of a Member State under the terms of this Directive."

The question is whether the European Commission is likely to take any action on this, as their main priority is currently to chase those Member States that have not transposed the Directive at all, which is a much bigger threat to the well-functioning of this new EU-wide permit scheme.

Conclusion

The ICT Directive is a very interesting new permit scheme that applies throughout (most of) the EU. Multinational corporations will certainly benefit from its mobility options, although it will still take time before the practices in all Member States will be sufficiently clear and interchangeable for the EU to "feel" as one area. In terms of a new permit scheme that reinforces the options of an intracompany transfer to the EU, the Directive must be compared to local permit schemes—a test that in the Netherlands turns out negatively. The Dutch government has found a way around the obligatory character, but the solution does not seem compliant with the wording of the ICT Directive. The future will show whether such national disobedience eventually jeopardizes the success of the ICT scheme and, if so, how the European Commission will get the Member States back on the same page.

 
Back to Top

 
10. New Publications and Items of Interest
 

How to safeguard your data from searches at the border is the topic of several recent articles and blogs. EXAMPLE

Airport Lawyer is a free Web app that is intended to help ensure that immigrants are treated fairly at airports. Arrivals information can be securely passed along to large groups of volunteer attorneys who have been organized to monitor arrivals. AIRPORT LAWYER

Listings and links to cases challenging executive orders, and related available pleadings, are available HERE.

What 60 Minutes got wrong about outsourcing, published by the Daily Caller, is HERE.

An updated E-Verify handbook for employers is now available. The handbook gives employers detailed guidance for completing the Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, and reflects revisions to the latest I-9 edition dated 11/14/2016. TABLE OF CHANGES TO THE HANDBOOK

The latest E-Verify webinar schedule from USCIS is available HERE.

The latest edition of the Global Business Immigration Practice Guide has been released by LexisNexis. Dozens of members of the Alliance of Business Immigration Lawyers (ABIL) co-authored and edited the guide, which is a one-stop resource for dealing with questions related to business immigration issues in 30 immigration hotspots around the world.

The latest edition adds chapters on Malta and Romania. Other chapters cover Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Costa Rica, the European Union, France, Germany, Ghana, Hong Kong, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Peru, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Latchi Delchev, a global mobility and immigration specialist for Boeing, called the guide "first-rate" and said the key strong point of the book is its "outstanding usability." She said she highly recommends the book and notes that it "is helpful even to seasoned professionals, as it provides a level of detail which is not easily gained from daily case management."

Mireya Serra-Janer, head of European immigration for a multinational IT company, says she particularly likes "the fact that the [guide] focuses not just on each country's immigration law itself but also addresses related matters such as tax and social security issues." She noted that the India chapter "is particularly good. The immigration regulations in India have always been hard to understand. Having a clear explanation of the rules there helps us sort out many mobility challenges."

Charles Gould, Director-General of the International Co-operative Alliance, said the guide is "an invaluable resource for both legal practitioners and business professionals. The country-specific chapters are comprehensive and answer the vast majority of questions that arise in immigration practice. Its clear and easy-to-follow structure and format make it the one volume to keep close at hand."

This comprehensive guide is for:

  • Human resources professionals and in-house attorneys who need to instruct, understand, and liaise with immigration lawyers licensed in other countries;
  • Business immigration attorneys who regularly work with multinational corporations and their employees and HR professionals; and
  • Attorneys interested in expanding their practice to include global business immigration services.

This publication provides:

  • An overview of the immigration law requirements and procedures for over 20 countries;
  • Practical information and tips for obtaining visas, work permits, resident status, naturalization, and other nonimmigrant and immigrant pathways to conducting business, investing, and working in those countries;
  • A general overview of the appropriate options for a particular employee; and
  • Information on how an employee can obtain and maintain authorization to work in a target country.

Each chapter follows a similar format, making it easy to compare practices and procedures from country to country. Useful links to additional resources and forms are included. Collected in this Practice Guide, the expertise of ABIL's attorney members across the globe will serve as an ideal starting point in your research into global business immigration issues.

An excerpt of the book is on the ABIL website.

Contact your Lexis/Nexis sales representative; call 1-800-833-9844 (United States), 1-518-487-3385 (international); fax 1-518-487-3584.

ABIL on Twitter. The Alliance of Business Immigration Lawyers is on Twitter: @ABILImmigration. Recent ABIL member blogs.

 
Back to Top

 
11. ABIL Member/Firm News
 

A recent ABIL press release, "The Public Benefits: Two Prestigious Ranking Services Say Several Members of the Alliance of Business Immigration Lawyers Are Top Global Mobility Attorneys."

The following ABIL members/colleagues and firms were listed in Chambers Global 2017. Several members/colleagues were noted in the editorial portion:

INDIVIDUALS

Robert Aronson

Sophie Barrett-Brown

Laura Devine

Charles Foster

Mark Ivener

Ronald Klasko

Charles Kuck

Cyrus Mehta

Angelo Paparelli

Julie Pearl

Gregory Siskind

William Stock

Russell Swapp

Anastasia Tonello

Bernard Wolfsdorf

Stephen Yale-Loehr

FIRMS

Barrios Fuentes Abogados

Bener Law Office

Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners, PLLC

Foster, LLP

Fredrikson & Byron, P.A.

Ivener & Fullmer, LLP

Kingsley Napley

Klasko Immigration Law Partners, LLP

Kuck Immigration Partners LLC

Laura Devine Solicitors

Miller Mayer, LLP

Pearl Law Group

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Siskind Susser, PC

Veirano Advogados

Wolfsdorf Rosenthal LLP

The following ABIL members and firms were listed in Chambers Canada:

INDIVIDUALS

Barbara Jo (BJ) Caruso

Avi Gomberg

FIRMS

Corporate Immigration Law Firm

Gomberg Dalfen

ABIL members/colleagues highlighted in the editorial portion of Who's Who Legal include:

U.S. THOUGHT LEADERS

Top 8 out of 10 (ranked in order):

Bernard Wolfsdorf

Ronald Klasko

Cyrus Mehta

William Stock

Charles Kuck

Gregory Siskind

Angelo Paparelli

Stephen Yale-Loehr

 EUROPE THOUGHT LEADERS

Top 9 out of 10 (ranked in order):

Marco Mazzeschi

Laura Devine

Kehrela Hodkinson

Gunther Mävers

Nicolas Rollason

Jelle Kroes

Karl Waheed

Bernard Caris

Bettina Offer

"BEST OF THE BEST"—U.S. Individuals

Steve Clark

Philip Curtis

Laura Danielson

Elise Fialkowski

Charles Foster

Avi Friedman

Kehrela Hodkinson

Mark Ivener

Ronald Klasko

Charles Kuck

Vincent Lau

Robert Loughran

Cyrus Mehta

Angelo Paparelli

Julie Pearl

William Reich

Gregory Siskind

William Stock

Lynn Susser

Bernard Wolfsdorf

Stephen Yale-Loehr

"BEST OF THE BEST"—Global Individuals

Enrique Arellano

Sophie Barrett-Brown

Bernard Caris

Maria Celebi

Natasha Chell

Eugene Chow

Ilda de Sousa

Laura Devine

Ana Garicano Sole

Avi Gomberg

Jelle Kroes

Gabriele Mastmann

Gunther Mävers

Marco Mazzeschi

Bettina Offer

Ariel Orrego-Villacorta

Nicolas Rollason

Maria Luisa Soter

Karl Waheed

Chris Watters

"BEST OF THE BEST"—U.S. Firms

Foster, LLP

Klasko Immigration Law Partners, LLP

Seyfarth Shaw, LLP

Siskind Susser, PC

Wolfsdorf Rosenthal LLP

"BEST OF THE BEST"—Global Firms

Kingsley Napley

Laura Devine Solicitors

Vic Goel was interviewed for "The Gig Is Up: Immigration Implications for the New Workforce," published on March 29, 2017, by Bloomberg BNA.

Avi Gomberg, Seth Dalfen, and Genevieve Hénault are listed in the 2017 edition of the Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory.

Klasko, Rulon, Stock & Seltzer, LLP will hold its annual spring seminar for professionals involved in employment-based immigration on Wednesday, April 19, 2017, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. For more information or to register.

Jelle Kroes was interviewed on CGTN America.

Vincent Lau will be a panelist at the following events:

  • "PERM—Latest Program Issues & Particular Circumstances," AILA Upper Midwest Chapter Immigration Law Conference (May 19, 2017)
  • "Immigration Impact in the Age of a New Administration," National Association of Social Workers CORE Conference (May 5, 2017)
  • "Continuing Blanket L Challenges," AILA Rome District Chapter EMEA Immigration Law Conference (May 4, 2017)

Mr. Lau was a panelist at the following events:

  • "Top PERM Issues in 2017," AILA Midwest Regional Immigration Law Conference (March 13, 2017)
  • "Perennial PERM Issues," AILA New England Chapter Immigration Law Conference (March 3, 2017)

Robert Loughran was interviewed on Austin's Fox 7 Good Day Austin on March 16, 2017. He explained President Trump's second "travel ban" executive order, how it differed from the first order, and the strong likelihood that federal courts would issue injunctions to prevent implementation.

Cyrus Mehta was interviewed by Tucker Carlson on Fox News in a segment entitled, "Violent Crimes Spark Calls for Immigration Reform." He also wrote a blog entry related to this.

Mr. Mehta has published several new blog entries. "Immigrants Are Not Undesirable Criminals" "Employer Not Always Obligated To Pay Return Transportation Cost Of Terminated H-1B Worker" "Protesting Trump's Muslim Ban Through Art: An Immigration Lawyer's Perspective"

David Isaacson of Cyrus D. Mehta and Associates, PLLC, has authored a new blog entry. "Destroying the Case in Order to Save It: Why Returning Asylum Applicants to Contiguous Territory Under INA 235(b)(2)(C) Would Often Violate Both Law and Common Sense"

Cora-Ann Pestaina of Cyrus D. Mehta and Associates, PLLC, has authored a new blog entry. "Is There a Hidden Agenda? Suspension of Premium Processing for All H-1B Petitions"

Angelo Paparelli was quoted in "3 Things To Watch For As Congress Takes Up EB-5 Renewal," published by Law360 on March 27, 2017. Among other things, remarking on various EB-5 proposals made in December 2016 by former President Barack Obama and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, he said, "They have a sort of zombie existence. They are now apparently among some staffers being reviewed as possibly a conversation starter. Or a document to compare against the evolving further iterations of the latest bill."

Mr. Paparelli spoke on KNX 1070, the CBS radio affiliate in Los Angeles, with Muzaffar Chishti of the Migration Policy Institute on March 27, 2017. They commented on Attorney General Sessions' statement that the federal government would withhold federal funds from states and localities that refuse to cooperate in notifying U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement when undocumented immigrants are held in state or municipal custody. The discussion included constitutional law and public policies on immigration law, public safety, and the need to support community policing by eliminating the fear in immigrant communities of coming forward as victims or witnesses of crime.

Wolfsdorf Rosenthal LLP has published several new blog entries. "New Standard for EB-5 Regional Center Terminations?" "Rights of Green Card Holders at Ports of Entry" "Five Things EB-5 Regional Centers Need to Know about Compliance Audits" "Update on Proposed Increase of Minimum EB-5 Investment Amount from $500,000 to $1,350,000" "Federal Judge Blocks President Trump’s New Trump Travel Ban" "[UPDATE] Revised Executive Order Imposing Travel and Refugee Ban" "10 Things to Know About President Trump's New Travel Ban" "Department of State (DOS) Answers 8 Questions on Visa Revocations Following President Trump's Travel Ban" "Immigration Enforcement—Part 3—The Hammer Falls" "5 Things U.S. Citizens and Others Need to Know about Border Searches" "Federal Court Gives President Trump Another Loss on Immigration"

Lynn Susser was awarded the 2017 Memphis Business Journal's Best of the Bar Award in the Small Firms category.

Stephen Yale-Loehr spoke on "The Impact of President Trump's Immigration Executive Orders on Employers and Employees" at a free webinar on March 16, 2017.

Mr. Yale-Loehr recently co-authored a blog entry for students and schools. "Tips for Surviving in a Time of Immigration Uncertainty"

Mr. Yale-Loehr was quoted on the front page of the New York Times on March 5, 2017, and his quote was noted as the quote of the day: "People who have been ordered deported and who are still here are the low-hanging fruit. [President] Trump has said he has wanted to deport more people. The easiest way to get those numbers up are to take those people who've been ordered deported and go after them."

Mr. Yale-Loehr was quoted in "Trump's Fast-Track Deportations Face Legal Hurdle: Do Unauthorized Immigrants Have a Right to a Hearing Before a Judge?" He noted that two Supreme Court rulings, due by June, may clarify constitutional protections for immigrants, but that would just be a start. "These executive orders [concerning expedited removal] have not received the same media attention as the president's travel bans. But they will eventually impact millions of more people. Many more people will be detained and deported. And we will be litigating this for years."

Mr. Yale-Loehr was recently quoted in the following media regarding recent immigration-related developments:

 
Back to Top

 
12. Government Agency Links
 

Follow these links to access current processing times of the USCIS Service Centers and the Department of Labor, or the Department of State's latest Visa Bulletin with the most recent cut-off dates for visa numbers:

USCIS Service Center processing times online

Department of Labor processing times and information on backlogs

Department of State Visa Bulletin

Visa application wait times for any post

 
Back to Top