It's Not Too Late! Developing a Backup Plan for Your Foreign Workers
As H-1B cap subject petition receipt notices begin to trickle in, and employers are being notified as to whether their foreign employees will obtain…
July 25, 2019 at 10:32 AM
5 minute read
As H-1B cap subject petition receipt notices begin to trickle in, and employers are being notified as to whether their foreign employees will obtain an H-1B visa this cap season, it is a necessity to think about other viable options to continue to maintain and even grow your international workforce.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced that it had received 201,011 H-1B petitions during the filing period, which began April 1, including petitions filed for the advanced degree exemption. USCIS received approximately 10,000 more H-1B cap subject petitions this year than last, and the obvious demand for H-1B visas remain. Each fiscal year, 65,000 H-1B visas are available with an additional 20,000 H-1B visas available for individuals holding a master's degree or higher from a U.S. university.
In light of this, employers are strongly encouraged to analyze alternate visa options in the event their employees are not selected for the H-1B cap this year.
- An F-1 student who is still in status and has no other options might consider pursuing another level of study in F-1 status in order to continue to remain in the U.S.
- Students working under the Optional Practical Training (OPT) in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields are eligible for an extended (now 24-month) period of OPT. The longer period of STEM OPT will allow some former students another chance to be sponsored for “capped” H-1B employment next year, but it comes with increased reporting, training and monitoring obligations for the employer and student.
- L-1A or L-1B status may be available for individuals who have qualifying experience in a specialized knowledge or managerial position with a related entity. Employers could pursue a strategy in transferring an employee abroad for one year and then back to the U.S. as a multinational business transferee.
- H-4 dependent spouses of H-1B workers may be eligible for work authorization if the H‑1B spouse is the principal beneficiary of an approved I-140 immigrant petition or is in H‑1B status beyond the normal six-year maximum under the “AC21″ law.
- Canadian or Mexican nationals may be able to pursue TN, or nonimmigrant, classification.
- Australians can pursue E-3 classification for specialized occupations requiring a bachelor's degree.The E visa often allows companies to manage global mobility and meet hiring needs. The E-1 and E-2 categories comprise treaty traders and treaty investors entitled to be in the U.S. under a bilateral treaty of commerce and navigation between the U.S. and the country of which the investor/trader is a citizen or national. In essence, these visa options allow for foreign organizations which maintain subsidiaries in the U.S., of which the foreign organization owns more than 50 percent, to sponsor essential workers, specialized skills workers, and professional employees in the U.S.
- The B-1 in lieu of H-1B visa is an often-overlooked option for international talent transfers to the U.S. on a short-term basis. The B-1 visa category traditionally permits foreign individuals to enter the U.S. for temporary, business-related activities. B‑1 business visitors may not engage in productive work while in the U.S. A hybrid visa called the “B-1 in lieu of H-1B” recognizes that in some situations an individual who would otherwise qualify for an H-1B may more appropriately be classified as a B-1 visa applicant when the applicant is coming to the U.S. temporarily to perform professional duties related to their overseas employment, will not enter the U.S. labor market, and will remain on their overseas payroll.
- Concurrent or Cap Exempt employment may be permitted in very specific circumstances. Some employers are not subject to the limitations of the FY Cap — these can include colleges or universities, nonprofit entities “affiliated or related” to a university, nonprofit research organizations, governmental research institutions, and workers employed “at” such entities (even if not “by” such entities) if the worker spends a majority of their work time performing duties that directly further the purpose/objectives of the cap-exempt organization. As long as an employee does not “cease to be employed” with the cap-exempt employer, he or she can concurrently work for an employer who would otherwise be subject to the cap. The cap-subject employer would be required to file a separate H-1B petition and provide evidence of the ongoing concurrent cap-exempt employment, but this can be a feasible option for individuals who can find cap-exempt employment.
Even those employers with workers selected for H-1B cap subject processing should remain open to considering alternate visa options as well. The current administration has tightened the reins on U.S. immigration, and enhanced review and scrutiny of H-1B petitions has led to a tremendous spike in Requests for Evidence and even denials. Employers continue to face increasing hurdles when petitioning for foreign employees and must dedicate more time and resources to respond to detailed requests for evidence and seek alternative and creative immigration options for those foreign nationals whose petitions are denied.
Dilnaz Saleem is of counsel in the Houston office of Baker Donelson and a member of the firm's Labor and Employment Group. She focuses her practice on corporate immigration and employment matters. She can be reached at [email protected].
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-61
- 2Decision of the Day: School District's Probe Was a 'Sham'; Title IX Administrator Showed Sex-Based Bias
- 3US Magistrate Judge Embry Kidd Confirmed to 11th Circuit
- 4Shaq Signs $11 Million Settlement to Resolve Astrals Investor Claims
- 5McCormick Consolidates Two Tesla Chancery Cases
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250