Source: https://www.klaskolaw.com/article/employer-violations-and-the-impact-on-the-employees-h-1b-status-3/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 02:37:19+00:00

Document:
There are many ways in which an employer can violate the Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) ACWIA regulations governing the H-1B program.
— The employer could bench the alien.
In each of these examples, the employer may be subject to monetary and other penalties as specified in the DOL regulations. However, do these employer violations render the H-1B alien out of status? It is the position of the authors that these employer violations should have no impact on the H-1B status of the foreign national.
language and even the agencies’ internal memoranda to establish beyond any doubt that issues relating to wages and hours are material only to the DOL.
The employer filing an H-1B petition must attest in the labor condition application to paying the higher of the actual or prevailing wage, to providing working conditions that will not adversely affect the working conditions of workers similarly employed, that there is no strike or lockout in the course of a labor dispute in the occupational classification at the place of employment, that the employer has provided appropriate notice to bargaining representatives or employees and that the employer has completed and made available a file for public examination. None of these issues are issues over which USCIS has jurisdiction or over which USCIS would even have knowledge in the H-1B petition process. Section 212(n) provides the enforcement mechanism for failure of an employer to pay proper wages, which enforcement mechanism involves a hearing before the DOL. No role in the enforcement of these provisions is provided to USCIS other than USCIS being precluded from approving further petitions where the DOL notifies USCIS of a violation that results in the DOL debarring the employer.
Unlike Section 212(n), Section 214 makes clear that USCIS has jurisdiction over the admission and status of the alien. Specifically with respect to H-1B aliens, Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) requires USCIS to determine whether the alien will be employed in a specialty occupation as defined in Section 214(i) and requires the Secretary of Labor to certify that the employer has filed the labor condition application with the Secretary of Labor.
The regulations are completely consistent with this division of responsibility in the statute. DOL has promulgated unusually complete and detailed regulations regarding labor condition applications and specifically regarding wages and hours. These regulations can be found at 20 C.F.R. §655.700 through §655.855. USCIS is not knowledgeable of the details of these regulations because it does not enforce these regulations, and the issues in determining whether proper wages are paid are not material to any USCIS adjudication.
— The Immigration and Nationality Act “establishes an enforcement system under which DOL is authorized to determine whether an employer has engaged in misrepresentation or failed to meet a condition of the LCA, and is authorized to impose fines and penalties.” 20 C.F.R. §655.700(a)(4).
— “DOL administers the labor condition application process and enforcement provisions… The Wage and Hour Division of the Employment Standards Administration (ESA) is responsible…for investigating and determining an employer’s misrepresentation in or failure to comply with LCAs in the employment of H-1B nonimmigrants. … INS determines whether the petition is supported by an LCA which corresponds with the petition, whether the occupation named in the labor condition application is a specialty occupation… and whether the qualifications of the nonimmigrant meet the statutory requirements for H-1B visa classification.” USCIS is responsible for denying H-1B petitions filed by an employer found by DOL to have engaged in misrepresentation or failure to meet conditions of the labor condition application. 20 C.F.R. §655.705(a) and (b).
— DOL makes a decision whether to certify the labor condition application. If certified, the certified labor condition application is filed with USCIS. USCIS then determines “whether each occupational classification named in the certified labor condition application is a specialty occupation….” 20 C.F.R. §655.740(a)(1).
— If there are any issues regarding the labor condition application, they must be referred to DOL’s Employment Standards Administration to be processed as a complaint. 20 C.F.R. §655.740(b).
— “Before filing a petition for H-1B classification in a specialty occupation, the petitioner shall obtain a certification from the Department of Labor that it has filed a labor condition application in the occupational specialty in which the alien will be employed. Certification by the Department of Labor of a labor condition application in an occupational classification does not constitute a determination by that agency that the occupation in question is a specialty occupation. The director [USCIS] shall determine if the application involved is a specialty occupation… The director shall also determine whether the particular alien for whom H-1B classification is sought qualifies to perform services in this specialty occupation….” 8 C.F.R. §214.2(h)(4)(i)(B).
— If the Secretary of Labor notifies USCIS that the employer has misrepresented any material fact in the labor condition application, USCIS will not approve petitions for that employer for a period of at least one year. 8 C.F.R. §214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(5).
In fact, the Adjudicator’s Field Manual emphasizes that “it is extremely important to apply ONLY the H-related regulations in adjudicating these petitions.” (At 693).
made clear that USCIS cannot engage in “exploration” of concepts that are not set forth as areas for USCIS concern in either the statute or the regulations.
— Legal opinion of the INS Office of the General Counsel dated April 12, 1994: “The language of the Act, as well as the accompanying legislative history, assigns all investigatory and adjudicatory responsibilities under §212(n) of the Act to the DOL… Nowhere in this language is the INS provided an adjudicatory role.” The only role of the INS is to implement debarment of an employee when DOL makes a finding of a material misrepresentation.
1 In addition to this letter, there are also various other written guidances regarding examples of changes in employment that the INS considers material so as to require an amended petition. See, e.g., Memorandum from James J. Hogan, Executive Associate Commissioner, Operations, INS, dated October 22, 1992; see also, INS Adjudicator’s Field Manual. In none of these guidance memoranda that provide examples of material changes that require amendments by the employer is there any mention of a change in wages or hours.

References: §655
 §655
 §655
 §655
 §655
 §655
 §214
 §214
 §212