USCIS Proposed Fees for Employers

How the Proposed Fee Increase Hurts Employers

If you are an employer that files immigration petitions, especially H-1B and L-1 petitions, you might have noticed that there was an additional fee levied upon certain employers on file H-1B and L-1 petitions. That was in December. DHS is proposing to increase its filing fees for all of its petitions by a weighted average of 21%. These are what the proposed fees are likely to look like:

E, H, L, O, P, Q, R Petitions – $325 becomes $460

Immigration Petition Fee – $580 becomes $700

Premium Processing Fee – $1225 still, but USCIS would like an increase

USCIS has maintained its fees since 2010. The primary reason for increasing the fees, DHS claims, is that current fees are not generating enough revenue to fund their operations.

The timing of the fee increase seems particularly unfortunate. USCIS is well-behind their stated goals in adjudicating many of the aforementioned petitions. Change and extension of status petitions are taking over 6 months for H and L petitions. O and P petitions are usually adjudicated within two weeks. They are currently approaching three months. Because the timing of adjudication is lengthy, it is causing problems for many employers and employees. Premium processing requests are being foisted because of issues with driver’s licenses, among others. A 240 day extension for employment authorization goes into effect once the employee hits her final day of work authorization on her visa. The extension only goes into effect if the extension is timely filed. The lengthy adjudications have been problematic for months.

The Administrative Procedures Act gives 60 days for comments. July 5, 2016 is the final day to comment. The link to comment is here.

USCIS to Increase Filing Fees

Get Out Your Checkbooks: USCIS to Increase Filing Fees by An Average of 21%

 

DHS is proposing to increase USCIS filing fees by a weighted average of 21%. USCIS receives congressionally appropriated funds, but they are insufficient to cover the costs of its operations. Most applications that you file with USCIS require a filing fee that must be paid in whole. For example, if you are filing an employment-based petition for an employee, you are subject to a $325 filing fee. An application for citizenship bears a $680 filing fee currently. Premium processing, which is available for select employment-based petitions, is currently $1,225.

DHS is publishing a proposed a rule and is soliciting comments about the proposed adjusted fees. If you are going to be affected by these price increases, you can follow the links to explain why or why not you agree with the proposed changes. As per the rules, DHS is required to consider each comment before it publishes its final rule.

Here are some reasons pulled out of the proposed rule for why DHS needs this increase in filing fees:

USCIS completed a biennial fee review for FY 2016/2017 in 2015. The results indicate that current fee levels are insufficient to recover the full cost of activities funded by the IEFA. USCIS calculates its fees to recover the full cost of USCIS operations, which do not include the limited appropriated funds provided by Congress. USCIS anticipates if it continues to operate at current fee levels, it will experience an average annual shortfall of $560 million between IEFA revenues and costs. This projected shortfall poses a risk of degrading USCIS operations funded by IEFA revenue. The proposed rule would eliminate this risk by ensuring full cost recovery. DHS proposes to adjust fees by a weighted average increase of 21 percent. The weighted average increase is the percentage difference between the current and proposed fees by immigration benefit type.

In addition to ensuring that fees for each specific benefit type are adequate to cover the USCIS costs associated with administering the benefit, the weighted average increase of 21 percent also accounts for USCIS costs for services that are not directly fee funded. For instance, DHS proposes certain changes to how USCIS funds the costs for fee-exempt benefit types through IEFA fee collections received from other fee-paying individuals seeking immigration benefits.6 DHS also proposes to fund the costs of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program (to the extent not recovered from users),7 and the Office of Citizenship8 through the use of fees. The proposed fee schedule also accounts for increased costs to administer refugee processing. Revenues under the proposed rule would accommodate an anticipated increase in the refugee admissions ceiling to 100,000 for FY 2017. This is an increase of 30,000, or 43 percent, over the FY 2015 refugee admissions ceiling.

H-1B Lottery Complete

USCIS Announces H-1B Lottery Is Finished: 85,000 Cases Eligible for H-1B Visas Picked

H1b 2016

USCIS announced yesterday that it is has completed the computer-generated lottery system it employs for selecting H-1B petitions. Accepted cases have been receipted, but USCIS mentions that not all cases have been returned – receipt or not. A petitioner will not know for sure whether the case was accepted or not for the lottery until it receives the receipt notice or the checks uncashed in the mail with the unselected petition.

Over 236,000 H-1B cap-subject petitions were filed in the first five business days in April, meaning that over 150,000 petitions will not even be considered for adjudication. Plenty of commentators have harked on Congress to increase the cap because the large volume of H-1B filings means that it is evident employers need this visa. Regardless, the cap has remained steadfast since 2003 and legislation proposing its increase has not made progress.

USCIS also announced that some cases will be transferred from the Vermont Service Center to the California Service Center for adjudication. Both service centers have been lagging behind their stated goal times for adjudications in adjudicating H-1B transfer and extension cases. USCIS did not announce when it expects regular processing cases to be adjudicated. It has announced that it will begin adjudicating premium processing cases on May 12.

Employee Portability

Section 204(j) Portability

Section 204(j) provides that an approved Form I-140 petition for certain classifications remains valid for adjustment of status when an applicant switches jobs or employers if:

  • The adjustment of status application has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more, based on an employment-based immigrant visa petition AND
  • The new job is in the “same or a similar occupational classification” as the job for which the petition was filed.

 

A new policy memorandum has been issued to assist immigration officers in determining what qualifies as a same or a similar occupational classification and which evidence should be used in making that determination. They are instructed to examine the job duties of the former and new job and skills, experience, education, training, licenses, and certifications required. Wages can also be important. The policy memorandum also repeats that a preponderance of the evidence standard is to be utilized.

Immigration officers are supposed to treat evidence favorably if the applicant establishes that the previous and new job are within the same broad occupation code in determining whether the two positions are similar. The memo gives the example of Computer Programmers, Software Developers Applications, Software Developers Systems Software, and Web Developers being found within the same broad occupational group of Software Developers and Programmers. It also gives warning: just establishing that the two jobs are described within the same broad occupation may not be enough for the two jobs to be in similar classifications for a preponderance of the evidence.

Of note, the memo dedicates analysis to career progression. It continues the analysis under the totality of the circumstances and preponderance of the evidence guidance. The analysis may be more straightforward when the promotion is to a more senior position that does not involve managerial or supervisory duties. The analysis becomes complicated when that transition is to a position that involves a managerial or supervisory role.

For that second scenario, the memo instructs that if the applicant establishes in the new job that she will be “primarily responsible for managing the same or similar functions of their original jobs or the work of individuals whose jobs are in the same or similar occupational classification(s) as the applicants’ original positions, the immigration officer can treat that evidence in the applicant’s favor for determining similar occupational classifications. The example used is a cook advancing to a food service manager. A food service manager supervises restaurant cooks and other individuals in similar positions.

There may also be situations where a normal career progression does not involve managing persons in jobs that in the same or similar occupational classification as the applicant’s original position. The example used is a cook that becomes a food service manager, while retaining many of the original job duties. That position may be devoid of supervisory duties, but the applicant would be able to demonstrate similar occupational classifications based on functions.

The memorandum is lengthy and detailed, delving into many scenarios that immigration officers encounter as they adjudicated portability petitions. Portability is an important provision of the AC21 law enacted in 2000. The express purpose of that law was to increase job flexibility for foreign workers who are stuck in delays and backlogs in the employment-based immigrant visa process.

Prevailing Wage Delays

Prevailing Wage Delays: DOL Says Expect 75 Days Plus for Prevailing Wage Determination

 

Continue to expect delays in receiving Prevailing Wage Requests from the Department of Labor. The Department of Labor held a meeting and addressed the delay in returning Prevailing Wage Determinations. The Prevailing Wage Determination is the important first step for an employer to take in sponsoring for a permanent position. The Department of Labor has a stated goal of 60 days to analyze the Prevailing Wage Request and made a determination. The wage that it determines is necessary for the position is the minimum wage that the position can pay.

The Department has announced that stakeholders should expect determinations to take at least 75 days. The online system is supposed to speed up the process, but the increase in prevailing wage requests versus the stagnation of funding and resources, according to the Department of Labor, has forced the return times to lengthen.