Source: http://www.abilblog.com/us-blog/archives/11-2017
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 05:59:18+00:00

Document:
The U.S. is recognized for the various opportunities available, giving those from other countries the freedom they are seeking and the ability to become successful. Perhaps those are the two main reasons why so many foreign nationals want to immigrate here from other countries. While some may have to go through an extensive process so they can receive the clearance to enter, others have family living in the country who can petition for them to obtain lawful permanent status here in the U.S.
What does it mean to have lawful permanent status?
Being a lawful permanent resident of the U.S. means a person was granted permission to enter the U.S. and they meet all the requirements to either live and work here permanently. There are two ways you can help them obtain the necessary documentation that would permit them to be a lawful permanent resident, however, the process and the timeline to receive these documents varies based on your current status.
If you are 21 years of age or older, you can file a petition for your parents or siblings.
You would be required to file Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in order to get this process initiated. This form is used to prove you have a qualifying relationship with this person.
[Source: USCIS].While a spouse, single children under 21, and parents are able to receive permission to enter and live in the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident after the required documentation is filed and approved, other relatives are subject to waiting an extended period of time before they can be granted the same permission.
If you would like to learn more about how you can help your family member enter into the U.S. or have their current status adjusted to a permanent resident, the Atlanta immigration lawyers at Kuck Immigration Partners are available to help you. There is a process you must go through involving filing detailed paperwork and our immigration and green card attorneys want to be sure you submit everything in a timely manner, free from errors.
If you weren’t aware, family unification is one of the key principles found in the U.S. immigration policy. According to the Congressional Research ervice, 990,553 foreign nationals were admitted into the U.S. in 2013 of which 649,763 were admitted based on family ties. That is 66% of the individuals who entered. Although immigration law is currently changing and new laws are taking effect, you should be aware of the laws that can help you get a relative of yours into the U.S. or have their current status changed to a more permanent one.
​President Donald Trump preached throughout his campaign speeches that he would have a wall built that would prohibit individuals from crossing into the U.S. at the Mexican border, however, it may no longer be necessary. According to Newsweek, the number of immigrants apprehended by U.S. Customs Border and Protection(CBP) has already decreased from 31,582 in January to 11,125 in April. The fact is, with all the efforts being put into motion, immigrants, both undocumented and legal, have become fearful of might happen to them. And many aren’t willing to take the risk of entering illegally which is why these numbers have fallen.
What are some of the things the Trump Administration has been able to accomplish so far?
Round up tens of thousands of undocumented immigrants regardless of their age or criminal history.
Expand detention space in private for profit prisons and step up workplace audits.
Restrict the number of refugees permitted to enter the country.
Sadly, many individuals living in the U.S. who have yet to obtain their green card or work visa are worried about their status and some avoid coming out of their homes when they know CBP Officers are out in their area.
But, the number of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. is still fairly high. According to the Pew Research Center, there were approximately 11.3 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. in 2016. With the way things are going, it would appear that if the President cannot get Congress on board with building the wall he promised would go up, he will continue with his efforts to remove and restrict individuals from entering the U.S. Unfortunately, this could mean many families won’t be given the opportunity to reunite or make a living if they cannot obtain the proper documentation required to do so.
The Trump administration decided to change a long-standing policy and start doing interviews for employment-based cards on October 1, 2017. Few immigration lawyers or applicants have gone through this process in recent years because about 15 years ago the Bush Administration realized that it was a gigantic waste of time to interview employment-based green card applicants, absent some indicia of fraud in their application. For the last 15 years, there have been relatively few interviews for these employment and investment based applications. Yet, interviews for family-based green cards have consistently been conducted, particularly those based upon marriage.
The officer is NOT the applicant’s friend. Their job is to look at every aspect of the law that allows them to deny a green card, and see if there is something in the applicant’s background that fits the bill.
Most clients are MUCH more calm with a lawyer at their side, as it gives them a feeling of security knowing that someone has their back during a very stressful time, and the attorney has the complete file at their fingertips; whereas the individual may not be prepared to produce something the officer asks for.
Some officers are VERY aggressive, and we have seen interviews go “off the rails,” resulting in I-140 revocations when an attorney was not present.
The Immigration Officers are like police officers. Everyone knows NOT to talk to a police officer about important facts without a lawyer present. This is completely true with immigration too. There is no harm in having a lawyer present, but the downsides are immense, including have a hard-fought case denied because of a misunderstanding or a lack of communication skills.
When you have to make a choice to have a lawyer at your for your employment-based immigration interview, make the right choice. Bring a lawyer with you, and ensure your rights and your green card protected. The attorneys at Kuck Immigration Partners are part of a nationwide network of immigration law firms who can represent you at your immigration interviews across the United States. If you need help in preparing for and attending a green card or naturalization interview, call us.
On November 13 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling allowing the Trump administration’s travel ban to proceed in part. A Hawaii federal judge had previously blocked the newest travel ban from going into effect, but the 9th Circuit held that the Trump administration could limit the issuance of visas to individuals from six countries: Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen. However, the decision would allow for individuals from those countries who have a “bona fide relationship” to the United States to still be allowed into the country. This means a person must have a relative or business ties in the United States in order to be exempted from the travel ban. Without one of those, individuals from those countries cannot currently travel to the United States.
The travel ban has been through extensive litigation since the first executive order was issued on January 27. The Trump administration has attempted to issue the travel ban three different times, and each time it has been enjoined by a federal court, preventing it from going into effect. However, between the bans being issued and a court holding them unconstitutional, the Department of Homeland Security would begin to implement the bans. A recent report showed that DHS actually violated the court orders on several occasions when Customs and Border Protection would instruct airlines to prevent passengers from the original banned countries from flying to the United States. The DHS Inspector, who keeps an eye on what DHS does and doesn’t do, has been unable to release the report because of DHS executives.
The most recent travel ban, issued on September 24, places permanent restrictions on travel for citizens of Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Chad, and North Korea. It also blocks travel of certain Venezuelan government officials and their families. This travel ban has been in litigation since it was issued and was blocked by federal judges in two states. The case involving this ban is before the Supreme Court. On November 20 the government attorneys asked the Supreme Court to allow the full ban to take affect while the case is in litigation. The parties have until November 28 to respond to the request.
Until the Supreme Court rules on the government’s request, the travel ban remains limited to the lower courts’ rulings, which allows persons from the affected countries with bona fide relationships to the United States to obtain visas and enter the country. We will continue to monitor the case for updates.
On November 20, 2017, Acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Elaine Duke announced her decision to terminate Temporary Protected Status (“TPS”) for Haitians. The decision will take effect 18 months before the Haitian TPS designation terminates on July 22, 2019.
DHS made its decision to terminate TPS for Haiti after reviewing the conditions upon which TPS was based, finding that the temporary conditions caused by the 2010 earthquake no longer exist. Acting Secretary Duke’s action follows an announcement in May 2017 by then-secretary John Kelly announcing a limited extension for Haiti’s TPS designation. In his announcement, then-secretary Kelly stated that Haiti’s recovery from the 2010 earthquake indicated that TPS may no longer be warranted past January 2018.
Acting Secretary Duke has delayed the implementation of her decision for 18 months to allow time for those with TPS to arrange for their departure or seek alternative immigration status in the United States. The delay will also allow time for Haiti to prepare for the return and reintegration of Haitian citizens currently in the United States on TPS.
Haitians with TPS will still need to reapply for employment authorization to legally work in the United States until the end of the termination period.
I have just returned from 2 weeks in China. Not surprisingly, there was not a lot of interest in discussing new EB-5 projects. Especially since the publication of the DHS Ombudsman’s report, the word is out that the waiting list for EB-5 is in excess of 10 years…and getting longer. The word is also out that a solution is not likely to come from EB-5 legislation.
There is some interest in EB-5 (a small percentage of previous demand) on the part of investors who are willing to wait as long as necessary for their numbers to be reached. These investors generally have pre-teen children.
There is keen interest in the option of investment in a “set aside” area (a rural or urban distressed project). New legislation likely will set aside 3,000 of the 10,000 visas for investments in these areas, which might enable investors to eliminate or significantly shorten the waiting period. Investors interested in this option include new EB-5 investors and EB-5 investors who are already on the waiting list and who are at least considering making a further investment in order to achieve their U.S. immigration goals, which often involve the education of their children.
EB-1C is the employment-based green card category for multinational managers. There is presently no quota waiting list for Chinese nationals. However, only a limited number of would be EB-5 investors would likely qualify. It may well be a good option for the investor who manages a very sizable company in China and will acquire a very sizable company in the U.S. and actively manage that company. This is not a good option for a Chinese national who wants to start up a company or who has a small company in China. Those of us who practice all aspects of immigration law know that EB-1C adjudications by USCIS have been unprecedentedly restrictive in recent times. Many investors who pursue this option will likely be disappointed.
Grenada citizenship/E-2 visa is the hot topic in China. Within about 6 months, this option can result in an investor obtaining an E-2 visa that is good for 5 years and renewable indefinitely. This E-2 visa enables the children to go to public or private schools or universities; enables the investing spouse to actively manage the business in the U.S. or hire a manager; enables the non-investing spouse to work anywhere he or she wants in the U.S.; enables the investor to spend as much or as little time in the U.S. as he wishes; and, if he spends a smaller amount of time in the U.S., enables him to avoid taxation on worldwide income. The total investment amount to accomplish this result – – between Grenada and U.S. – – can be as little as $400,000. The U.S. investment can be a down payment on a direct EB‑5. With the EB-5 investment amount likely to increase to in excess of $1 million for most investors in 2018, this becomes an even more attractive option. For those investors interested in this option, we have put together a turnkey solution that includes introduction to a Grenadian agent, introduction to various business opportunities that qualify for E-2 visas, preparation of the E-2 business plan and all immigration legal services relating to preparation of the E-2 visa application and preparation for the E-2 visa interview.
For some EB-5 investors, the last ray of hope is the possibility of federal court litigation challenging the U.S. Department of State’s counting of family members against the EB-5 quota rather than issuing visas to 10,000 investors per year as the law seemingly provides. Scores of EB-5 investors are in the process of providing seed funding for this litigation with many agents, regional centers and developers prepared to add financial support to the litigation. Although the legal arguments are strong, the chances of success are highly speculative given the federal courts’ reluctance to overturn a longstanding, unchallenged government action unless the government position is clearly incorrect. Many in the EB-5 community agree with me that, even if the chances of success are not high, the potential benefits are so significant that the litigation is very much worth pursuing.
Yes, it is a transition time for Chinese investors wishing to immigrate to the U.S. These options that we discussed during the last 2 weeks in China provide some hope.
The law generally recognizes that petitioners control their visa petitions. See 8 CFR 103.2(a)(3). A beneficiary cannot force a petitioner to pursue or maintain a visa petition. Therefore, USCIS communicates only with petitioners, not the beneficiaries, with respect to notifications such as Requests for Evidence, approvals, and even a Notice of Intent to Revoke (NOIR) of an approved petition. A beneficiary is not considered an affected party with legal standing with respect to filing appeals and motions. See 8 CFR 103.3(a)(1)(iii)(B).
However, the traditional distinction between a petitioner, beneficiary and affected party breaks down when the law allows the beneficiary to leave the original petitioner and port to a same or similar job under INA 204(j) that was enacted via the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000 (AC21). Although the intent of the original employer who filed the petition to employ the beneficiary may cease to exist, the original petition still remains valid when the beneficiary ports to a same or similar job with a new employer.
The Appeals Administrative Office (AAO) has adopted Matter of V-S-G- Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-06 (AAO Nov. 11, 2017), which now recognizes that beneficiaries who have ported to a same or similar to the job under INA 204(j) are entitled to receive notices pertaining to the potential revocation of their approved employment-based I-140 visa petition. The USCIS also issued accompanying guidance in the form of a Policy Memorandumon November 11, 2017. We previously advocated for this outcome here, here and here, and welcome the AAO’s recognition that beneficiaries who have ported are entitled to notification and the opportunity to be heard when their approved I-140 petitions are in jeopardy.
The ability for a foreign national worker to move to a new job is crucial when there is a delay in the adjudication of the I-485 application for adjustment of status. If an I-485 application has been pending for more than 180 days, under INA 204(j), the I-140 petition shall remain valid with respect to a new job if it is in the same or a similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed. Some I-485 applications have been pending for more than a decade, such as those in the class of July 2007, after the employment second (EB-2) and third preferences (EB-3) for India became current and then retrogressed. Even in the Trump era, I-485 applications filed are likely to remain pending for over 180 days as the beneficiary will be scheduled for personal interviews at the local USCIS office. This means that so long as the worker “ports” to a same or similar job, the validity of the underlying labor certification and the I-140 petition is kept intact. The new employer is not required to restart the green card process on behalf of this worker who is the beneficiary of the approved I-140 petition filed by the former employer. INA 204(j) job portability is a great blessing, although it can also have pitfalls. If the USCIS chooses to revoke the already approved I-140 petition because it suspects that the employer committed fraud, but the worker has now moved onto a new job, who should get notice of the USCIS’s intent to revoke?
Matter of V-S-G-Inc. recognizes that a beneficiary who has ported is within the statute’s zone of interests following the Supreme Court’s decision in Lexmark Int’l Inc. v. Static Control Components, which held that a plaintiff has the ability to sue when his or her claim is within the zone of interests a statute or regulation protects. Courts have agreed that the original employer should not be the exclusive party receiving notice when the worker has ported to a new employer. Beneficiaries who have ported to new employers fall within INA 204(j)’s zone of interests and have standing to participate in visa revocation proceedings. See Mantena v. Johnson and Kurupati v. USCIS. The original employer no longer has any stake in the process and may also be antagonistic toward the beneficiary of the I-140 petition who has already left the employment many years ago. The beneficiary in addition to porting off the I-140 petition provided the adjustment application has been pending for 180 or more days, can also recapture the priority date of the original I-140 and apply it to a new I-140 petition filed by the new employer. Thus, a worker who was sponsored by the original employer in the EB-3 can potentially re-boot into EB-2 through a new employer, and recapture the priority date applicable to the original I-140 petition. While the EB-2 may also be backlogged for India, it is not as dire as the EB-3. If the USCIS chooses to revoke the original I-140 petition, not only will the I-485 adjustment application be in jeopardy, but also the recaptured priority date, thus setting back the foreign worker by many years in the EB-3 green card backlog. It is thus imperative that someone other than the original employer get notification of the I-140 petition who will have no interest in challenging it, and may have also possibly gone out of business.
​We so hold because Congress intends for a nonimmigrant worker’s new employer to adopt the visa petition filed by his old employer when the worker changes employers under the statutory portability provision. Thus, to give effect to Congress’s intention, the new employer must be treated as the de facto petitioner for the old employer’s visa petition. As the de facto petitioner, the new employer is entitled under the regulations to pre-revocation notice and an opportunity to respond, as well as to administratively challenge a revocation decision.
​In a prior blog, I had argued against the holding in Musumuru that there is nothing in INA 204(j) that makes the new employer the de facto petitioner. Once the foreign national worker ports under INA 204(j), the pending green card process ought to belong to him or her. The whole idea of providing job mobility to workers caught in the EB backlog is to allow them to easily find a new employer in a same or similar field, on the strength of an employment authorization document (EAD) ensuing from the pending I-485 application, and not to oblige the new employer to adopt the old petition. This could potentially pose an obstacle to much needed job mobility for the beleaguered EB worker who is trapped in the backlog.
I am glad that the AAO in Matter of V-S-G- agrees with this position. The AAO correctly noted, “The new employer did not pay for the filing, is not responsible for maintaining the petition, is not liable for the original petitioner’s compliance or malfeasance associated with it, and cannot withdraw the petition if it no longer requires the beneficiary’s services. Nor can the new employer prevent the beneficiary from porting to yet another employer (as happened here).” The fact that the new employer has to sign an I-485J Supplement Jdoes not give it more interests in the original employer’s petition. The new employer would in any event need to provide a letter confirming the new job offer. Form I-485J merely captures the same information that the new employer would provide in a letter relating to the job offer.
While the outcome in Matter of V-S-G- is positive for beneficiaries who have ported and who are entitled to notification, it did not go far enough. Matter of V-S-G- only recognized the beneficiary as an affected party in cases where he or she has exercised portability under INA 204(j). The AAO disagreed with the Sixth Circuit’s holding in Patel v. USCIS, which held that the beneficiary of an I-140 petition even outside the porting context had standing because he or she suffered injury that was traceable to the USICS, namely, the loss of an opportunity to become a permanent resident. INA 203(b), according to the Sixth Circuit in Patel, makes the visa available directly to the immigrant, and not the employer, which suggests that Congress gave the beneficiary a stake in the outcome of the I-140. While a pending I-485 may bolster the beneficiary’s interest in an I-140, it is not necessary. There exist old decisions that provided standing to the beneficiary of a labor certification, in the absence of a subsequent I-140 petition or an I-485 adjustment of status application. In Ramirez v. Reich, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals recognized the non-citizen’s standing to sue, but then denied the appeal since the employer’s participation in the appeal of a labor certification denial was essential. While the holding in Ramirez was contradictory, as it recognized the standing of the non-citizen but turned down the appeal due to the lack of participation of the employer, the employer’s essentiality may have been obviated if the employer had indicated that the job offer was still available. Still, an even older 1984 case, Gladysz v. Donovan, provides further basis for non-citizen standing even if there is no pending I-485 application. In Gladysz, the non-citizen sought judicial review after the employer’s labor certification had been denied, rather than challenged his ability to seek administrative review, and the court agreed that the plaintiff had standing as he was within the zone of interests protected under the Administrative Procedures Act.
The final Retention of EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3 Immigrant Workers and Program Improvements Affecting High-Skilled Workers rule (“High Skilled Worker Rule”), which took effect on January 17, 2017, did not address notice and standing for I-140 beneficiaries under INA 204(j). Matter of V-S-G- now fills this gap. 8 CFR 205.1(b) and 205.2(b) and (c), which provide that automatic and notice-based revocations go solely to the petitioner, are no longer applicable when beneficiaries have pending I-485 applications under INA 204(j). The USCIS has instructed that revocation notices be sent to both the petitioner and beneficiary. The USCIS, however, does caution that when sending notification, certain non-public information cannot be shared with both parties such as the petitioner’s non-public financial information, including federal tax returns or information about I-140s being filed on behalf of multiple beneficiaries. Under these circumstances, the beneficiary is supposed to get more generalized information. Whether this will be advantageous to the beneficiary who is provided modified information for purposes of rebutting an intention to revoke an I-140 petition remains to be seen. However, it would be a ground for appeal to the beneficiary whose I-140 was denied because he or she did not get sufficient information in order to provide an effective rebuttal. Still, the examples given in the Policy Memorandum under which the USCIS can revoke an approved I-140 are broad and under the following headings: material error in approving the petition; fraud or willful misrepresentation of material fact; lack of a bona fide job offer; adverse new information (from a site visit or adjustment interview; and invalidation of a labor certification. One can see this as an invitation for USCIS examiners to issue more NOIRs of approved I-140 petitions especially under the Trump administration, which has sought to curb or slow down legal immigration by imposing mandatory adjustment interviews and increasing site visits.
Matter of V-S-G and the accompanying policy guidance only deal with notification to beneficiaries who have approved I-140 petitions, which the USCIS seeks to revoke. It does not deal with beneficiaries who are porting off unadjudicated I-140 petitions and concurrently filed pending I-485 applications. 8 CFR 245.25 of the High Skilled Worker Rule clarifies and codifies long standing policies regarding how a beneficiary may port under INA 204(j). With respect to porting off an unadjudicated I-140 petition, 8 CFR 245.25(a)(2)(ii)(B) clearly provides for this by stating that the I-140 must still ultimately be approved by demonstrating that it was approvable at the time of filing and until the I-485 was pending for 180 days. The rule insists that it must still be demonstrated that the original petitioner had the ability to pay the proffered wage at the time of filing the I-140 petition, but the original petitioner need not continue to show its ability to pay after filing and until the beneficiary obtains permanent residency. This makes sense since once the beneficiary has ported, the original petitioning employer should not be required to demonstrate its continued ability to pay the proffered wage after the filing of the I-140 petition and once the 180 days since the filing of the I-485 have passed.
Unfortunately, Matter of V-S-G- and the accompanying guidance fail to instruct USCIS on how to notify beneficiaries when the I-140 has not yet been approved, but the beneficiary has exercised portability under INA 204(j). Pursuant to Matter of V-S-G, the beneficiary has a legitimate interest in an unadjudicated I-140 too, and must be notified through a Request for Evidence (RFE) that is usually only sent to the employer. Accordingly, beneficiaries who have ported off an unadjudicated I-140 must insist on being notified regarding any RFE that may be sent to the employer and to be given the opportunity to respond to the RFE. If the relationship has not become antagonistic, the original employer may still respond to the RFE, even if the employer does not intend to employ the beneficiary upon acquiring permanent residency, and notify the USCIS that the beneficiary has or may be porting under 204(j) but is seeing to have the I-140 approved pursuant to 8 CFR 245.25(a)(2)(ii)(B). If the original employer has decided to not respond to the RFE, the USCIS must still give the beneficiary an opportunity to respond to the RFE in the same was as it has been instructed to do under Matter of V-S-G- with regards to an NOIR of an approved I-140 petition.
Beneficiaries have not been provided the same rights as employers in the I-140 petitioning process. Matter of V-S-G- following court decisions now recognize that an AC 21 beneficiary must be given an opportunity to be heard when the approved I-140 petition is in jeopardy. At the same time, the guidance accompanying Matter of V-S-G- could also incentivize USCIS officers to issue more NOIRs of approved I-140 petitions, although such notices would have to be provided to the original petitioner and to the beneficiary. While this is a significant first step, beneficiaries of employer-filed petitions must continue to advance their legitimate right to be heard even in other contexts, such as when the I-140 is still not yet approved or even when there is no pending I-485 application under INA 204(j).
It’s no secret that Thanksgiving 2017 comes at a time of great challenge and incredible distress for many immigrants and their families. The anti-immigrant rhetoric and scapegoating continually flowing out the Trump Administration is matched by its harsh and restrictive policies. The president cancelled DACA and Dreamers are now left counting the days until their protection against deportation expires. Those who have long legally resided in the U.S. with TPS are now seeing that status canceled and being instructed to prepare to leave the country. Employment-based green card applicants are now requiredto go to an in-person interview, which will further delay the already-backlogged processing of other types of applications. Employment-based visas which in the past would have been approved as a matter of course are being subjected to onerous requests for additional evidence with the apparent goal being to dissuade companies from using visa programs authorized by Congress. The Attorney General instructs immigration judges working under him that asylum claims are largely fraudulent while refugee admissions have been cut to historic lows. People who have long been allowed to stay in the United States with regular ICE check-ins are now being arrested and deported. And the list goes on and on.
Against this backdrop, I am more thankful than ever for past, present, and future immigrants in the United States. The talents, cultures, and drive of wave after wave of immigrants have made this country what it is. I’m more thankful than ever for the Dreamers, whose selfless activism provides daily inspiration. I’m more thankful than ever for a free and independent press, which regularly exposes the anti-immigrant voices pushing policy in this administration. I’m more thankful than ever for my fellow immigration and civil rights attorneys around the country battling and winning in court against the unlawful excesses of this administration. And I’m more thankful than ever to be able to come to work every day with a group of talented and dedicated colleagues committed to passionately and aggressively fighting for every one of our clients’ rights under the law.
The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) recently adopted a decision, Matter of G- Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017), providing important guidance to U.S. employers who transfer function managers under the L-1 intracompany visa. The L-1 visa allows a U.S. employer to transfer an executive or manager (L-1A) or a worker with specialized knowledge (L-1B) from a foreign subsidiary or affiliate.
(1) To support a claim that a beneficiary will manage an essential function, the petitioner must establish that the function is a clearly defined activity and is core to the organization.
(2) Once the petitioner demonstrates the essential function, it must establish that the beneficiary’s position meets all criteria for “managerial capacity” as defined in 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. Specifically, it must show that the beneficiary will: primarily manage, as opposed to perform, the function; act at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and exercise discretion over the function’s day-to-day operations.
Under its prior decision in Matter of Z-A-, the AAO held that an L-1A intra-company manager who primarily manages an essential function can also be supported by personnel outside the United States within an international organization who perform the day to day administrative and operational duties. This is possible in the internet age where communications can take place online and through Skype rather than face to face in a physical location. The foreign national manager seeking an L-1A visa extension in Matter of Z-A-, was the President and Chief Operating Officer of the U.S. Petitioner whose parent company was in Japan. The USCIS Service Center denied on the ground that only a small number of employees who worked in the U.S. would support the manager and relieve him from performing the duties of the function. The key issue on appeal was whether the Petitioner established that this manager would be employed in a qualifying “managerial capacity” pursuant to INA § 101(a)(44)(A). The AAO reversed the Service Center’s decision, noting that the Beneficiary would continue to rely on the support of eight staff abroad and two in the U.S. to relieve him of day-to-day operational and administrative activities. The AAO stated that despite the fact that the Beneficiary “may be required to perform some operational or administrative tasks from time to time, the Petitioner established by a preponderance of evidence that the Beneficiary will primarily manage an essential function, while day-to-day, non-managerial tasks will be performed by a combined staff of 10 employees of the Petitioner and its parent company, located in the United States and Japan, respectively.” Matter of Z-A-, at 7.
In its most recent decision in Matter of G-, the AAO further elaborates upon the contours of the “function manger.” Although Matter of G- was decided within the context of INA § 203(b)(1)(C) (where a U.S. employer can petition to permanently transfer a qualified foreign employee to the United States to work in an executive or managerial capacity), the AAO stated in its decision that the function manager analysis equally applies to L-1A function managers. Matter of G-, at 2, note 6.
The foreign manager seeking immigrant classification under INA § 203(b)(1)(C) in Matter of G- was the Director, Financial Planning and Analysis (FP&A) at a large multinational technology corporation. The company first transferred the Beneficiary to the U.S. on an L-1A visa to seek business opportunities and foster growth of the company in the U.S. markets. After a few years of success, the company decided to petition for the worker to permanently reside in the U.S. under INA § 203(b)(1)(C). The Petitioner explained in their I-140 petition that the Beneficiary would continue to direct and develop revenue forecasts and analysis for the entire company, lead mergers and acquisitions, and oversee strategic pricing analyses, among other managerial duties. However, the USCIS denied the Form I-140, finding that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial role. It is not unusual for one Service Center of the USCIS to approve the L-1A visa and another Service Center to deny the I-140 petition. Upon review, the AAO reversed, and sought to clarify the role of a function manager.
(iv) exercises discretion over the day- to-day operations of the activity or function for which the employee has authority. A first-line supervisor is not considered to be acting in a managerial capacity merely by virtue of the supervisor’s supervisory duties unless the employees supervised are professional.
In its decision, the AAO noted that “essential function” is not defined anywhere in the INA. Instead, it relied on the Merriam-Webster Dictionary definitions of “essential” and “function” in proceeding with their analysis, concluding that an essential function must be a core activity of a petitioning organization. Relying on these definition, the AAO first found that the Petitioner must “(1) describe with specificity the activity to be manage, and (2) establish that the function is core to the organization.” Matter of G-, at 3. The AAO further recognized that an organization could have more than one core activity “such as the manufacture or provision of an end product or service, and research and development into other products or services.” Matter of G-, at 3, note 11.
Once the Petitioner can establish this essential function, it must then prove that the Beneficiary meets all of the four criteria of “managerial capacity” under INA § 101(a)(44)(A). The AAO held that in addition to defining with particularity the activity to be managed and establishing that it is a core function of the organization, the Petitioner must also show that the Beneficiary will primarily manage (and not perform) the function, that the Beneficiary will hold a senior level at the organization or with respect to the function managed, and that the Beneficiary will exercise discretion with the function’s daily operations. Matter of G-, at 4.
In applying their new function manager analysis to the case at bar, the AAO found that the FP&A Director was clearly a function manager under INA §101(a)(44)(A). First, it found that “financial planning and analysis” qualified as a function within the organization as it was clearly defined with specificity and indicated a clear goal of generating data to assess the company’s revenue. Second, the AAO found that the FP&A function was essential to the company, where the Beneficiary’s work would be relied upon by the company’s executives and board of directors in making strategic decisions in mergers and acquisitions. Third, the AAO found that the Beneficiary would primarily manage the function where he would “develop and direct revenue forecasts and analysis for the worldwide organization, lead mergers and acquisitions, and oversee strategic pricing analysis.” Matter of G-, at 5. The AAO continues that the Beneficiary will be supported by six direct and three indirect reports who will “perform the routine duties associated with the FP&A function.” Id. Critically, the AAO finds that even though the Beneficiary directly supervises some of his subordinates, he still primarily manages the function. Fourthly, the AAO found that the Beneficiary will act at a senior level within the organization and with respect to the function, where he reported only to the CFO and CEO and worked closely with other senior executives and managers. Finally, the AAO found that the Petitioner clearly established that the Beneficiary will have discretionary authority over day-to-day operations where the Beneficiary will establish policies, goals, and oversee mergers and acquisitions.
Matter of G- helps to further define the contours of the function manager, and can be used as a guide to U.S. petitioners seeking to establish that the foreign worker meets the criteria under INA § 101(a)(44)(A). While Matter of G- involved a function manager, the AAO’s interpretation of what constitutes a function within an organization could arguably also be deployed to executives under INA 101(a)(44)(B) who can qualify for an L-1A visa by directing a “major component or function of the organization.” The Petitioner in the instant matter was a large multinational corporation with over 8000 employees worldwide. The USCIS has historically been less receptive to function manager claims of smaller corporations. It may be more challenging for a smaller entity to establish that a function is a clearly defined activity and is core to the organization as well as to demonstrate that the manager is performing at a senior level. Still, petitioners should not fear making the argument that function managers of smaller corporations also meet the criteria. In Brazil Quality Stones, Inc. v. Chertoff, 531 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2008), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that although size is a relevant factor in assessing whether a company’s operations are substantial enough to support a manager, “an organization’s small size, standing alone, cannot support a finding that its employee is not acting in a managerial capacity.” See also INA § 101(a)(44)(C) (“[i]f staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial or executive capacity, the Attorney General shall take into account the reasonable needs of the organization, component, or function in light of the overall purpose and stage of development of the organization, component, or function.”). Notwithstanding this acknowledgement, the Ninth Circuit in Brazil Quality Stones affirmed the USCIS’s denial of the L-1A petition by agreeing that the petitioner did not meet its burden in primarily managing the essential function rather than performing the day to day duties, and the small size of the entity probably undermined the manager’s ability to meet this burden. Subsequent to Brazil Quality Stones, though, the AAO issued Matter of Z-A- as an adopted decision, which has also been acknowledged in Matter of G-. It is now possible to demonstrate that the function manager is being supported by personnel in the foreign organization who perform the duties of the function, and this could be particularly helpful in a small organization with few staff in the U.S. The AAO took pains to note that INA 101(a)(44)(A)(iii) is worded in the disjunctive, requiring a function manager to occupy “a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed.” Matter of G-, at 6, note 15. In a small organization, the function manager may establish seniority with respect to the function managed rather than within the organizational hierarchy. So long as petitioners clearly define the function, establish that the function is essential to the organization, explain how the beneficiary will primarily manage this function at either a senior level at the organization or with respect to the function managed, and that the beneficiary will act with wide discretion, the L-1A petition could stand a chance of being approved under Matter of G-.
Despite the economic benefits that accrue in fostering global corporate activities, the L-1 visa has been heavily criticized over the past few years, with opponents arguing that it threatens domestic employment and “floods the U.S with cheap foreign workers.” The Trump Administration has taken aim at the L-1 visa and has begun to publicly release data about companies who utilize the L-1 visa, increase site visits to companies that employ foreign workers, and has rescinded guidance instructing USCIS officers to give deference to previously approved petitions upon renewal. Under President Trump’s Buy American and Hire American Executive Order, there is an emphasis on hiring American workers over foreign workers and for corporations to have their operations in America. But the reality is quite the opposite. U.S. businesses can thrive, compete, prosper, create new jobs and benefit the American consumer through international operations, made that much easier with rapidly evolving internet technology and innovative organizational structures. It is thus refreshing that the AAO has recognized this reality by adopting Matter of G- and Matter of Z-A-. An adopted decision establishes policy guidance that applies to and binds all USCIS employees. USCIS personnel are directed to follow the reasoning in this decision in similar cases.
As most people are aware, on September 5, 2017 the Trump administration announced that DACA will be rescinded on March 5, 2018. Applicants with DACA had until October 5 to deliver their renewal applications to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
USCIS received reports that the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) has identified USPS mail service delays that affected many DACA renewal requests. Because the DACA policy has been rescinded and individuals can no longer request deferred action under DACA, and in light of the mail service delays identified by USPS, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Elaine Duke has directed USCIS to accept some DACA renewal requests. USCIS will accept those individuals who resubmit their DACA renewal request with individualized proof that the request was originally mailed in a timely manner and that the cause for receipt after the Oct. 5, 2017, deadline was the result of USPS mail service error. Affected applicants who do not have such proof may contact USPS, which will review the cases on an individual basis and provide a letter if appropriate.
USCIS will not accept requests that do not include individualized proof that the request was originally mailed in a timely manner to be received by the October 5 deadline, and that the cause for receipt after the Oct. 5, 2017, deadline was the result of USPS mail service error. In addition, USCIS discovered certain cases in which the DACA requests were received at the designated filing location (e.g., at the applicable P.O. Box) by the filing deadline, but were rejected. USCIS will proactively reach out to those applicants to inform them that they may resubmit their DACA request. If an applicant does not receive such a notification and believes that his or her DACA request was received at the designated filing location by the filing deadline, he or she may resubmit his or her DACA request with proof that the request was previously received at the designated filing location on or before the filing deadline.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 101
 § 203
 § 203
 § 203
 § 101
 §101
 § 101
 v. 
 § 101