Perhaps it has been too long since USCIS has truly been held accountable for its actions that it has become desensitized to the legal constraints under which it is permitted to operate. The USCIS is not given carte blanche to make whatever changes or interpretations it wants to long-standing immigration law, without first complying with the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). Yet, twice in the last two months the USCIS has issued “memos” that so dramatically change the framework under which these key programs operate, that it has clearly violated the APA.
What Happens When USCIS Breaks The Law?
USCIS has taken ignoring Federal Law to a new level with its recent actions. Of course we all know that the USCIS has been illegally changing the rules as they apply to individual cases for the last several years by engaging in “rulemaking by RFE;” making ridiculous requests for evidence, not based on any legal requirement, but rather, based upon someone’s bizarre notion of what they think the law should be, not what it really is. Now, however, with the two newest “Neufeld Memos” the USCIS has simply gone too far.
The Neufeld memo on the EB-5 program, essentially makes that job creation program unworkable, and the Neufeld Memo on the H-1B program, literally changes decades of established policy on the most important visa allowing U.S. companies to hire foreign nationals. The USCIS, without any input from the users of the program (really, there was no input), has broken the camel’s back. Absent an immediate withdrawal of these memos, it is quite clear that in order to keep these programs workable, additional action will have to be taken. AILA USCIS HQ Liaison Committee has sent to USCIS Chief Counsel Roxana Bacon a detailed letter explaining how the USCIS has fundamentally eviscerated the H-1B program, and has clearly violated the APA. I strongly urge you to read it, to understand the depths to which the USCIS has delved in its war on the H-1B program.
I have no doubt that the USCIS’s intention in issuing these law-altering memos is to somehow curry favor with certain Senators who share a concern about the H-1B and the EB-5 programs, in regards to the fraud that exists in them. No one disputes that fact that some bad users have abused this program; some intentionally, others ignorantly. But, changing the rules to prohibit the legal and correct use of the program to catch bad actors is not the way to make a program work effectively. Enforcing existing laws against fraud, and not classifying legitimate industries as evil, is the way to go about cleansing the program of inappropriate users. The USCIS’s own failure to police the programs cannot justify what they have just done.
Here is a simple request to Director Mayorkas. When the your agency is going to issue a major policy change, perhaps you might want to ask users of your “service” whether what you want to do accomplishes its true purpose. I can assure you, that these two recent memos do not accomplish what you think they do, nor what you may have been told they will do. There is only one solution to the crisis caused by the recent pronouncement. To paraphrase President Ronald Reagan: Mr. Mayorkas, Withdraw Those Memos!
Very accurate analysis! As a software consulting owner who been twice denied H1B petition this year I am curious why you Immigration lawyers so much afraid of USCIS? Every time I suggest suing them, you get your tails between your legs and start explaining to me how impossible it is. Don’t you guys actually thankful to them for providing job for you?
Anybody has guts here?
I would like to sue them for damages: I am loosing lots of $$ daily because they didn't let me bring so much needed consultants.
Besides the money, I want some main parasites to be fired and forever forbidden from taking any government job: Napolitano, Aytes, Neufeld, California Center Director, and Mayorkas. They should go back to school to learn how business works. This idiots' attack on consulting businesses apparently orchestrated by some higher ranked individuals who hate our businesses, hate our country, and are determined to destroy both, but I can only guess who they are.
If interested, shoot me email at nemo1@comcast.net
I cannot pay much, thanks to them my business isn't doing very well now, but I can work with you on % of damages. Besides we can discuss class action and ask other business owners to join. I myself will join any class action against the SOBs, so please let me know if you know of one.
Regarding the Dec 11, 2009 Neufeld guidance memo, what kinds of "changes" are contemplated by USCIS that may warrant filing a new I-526 petition? I realize you don't have to file "new" I-526 petition if you don't want to. New petition would lead to age-outs and 2 more years of CPR period. Why couldn't USCIS have allowed a true "amendment" of underlying facts of already approved I-526 petition, so that 2 more years of CPR is not imposed on petitioner? I realize that some projects might need two more years to create requisite jobs.
Chuck, I agree that the Jan. 8 H-1B memo embodies not only substantive errors but also major process foul, violating APA and trampling on President Obama's elegant early statements about government transparency and cooperative rulemaking, and I have said so directly to USCIS.
But the Dec. 11 EB-5 memo is a practical and huge solution to a longstanding problem: it lets regional centers apply for approval of a commercial project. Before, business developers could only have individual investors file petitions, and USCIS would express concerns about the underlying project to the wrong people at the wrong time. The memo also recognizes the possibility of new I-526 petitions by investors with approved petitions for projects that fall apart early. This was the product of numerous semi-annual EB-5 stakeholder discussions and is a good example of taking sensible, helpful action by memo that would take forever by regulation.
Granted, an earlier EB-5 memo of June 17, 2009, mis-read USCIS regulations and instituted a new restrictive "two year" rule for regional center investments without using notice-and-comment rulemaking and without even clearly identifying a legal basis for the new "rule," and maybe that's the one you meant.
While AILA advocacy with USCIS on the H-1B memo is afoot, AILA's memo to Ms. Bacon is a good roadmap for lawsuits that may be necessary. That memo is about H, L, O etc. for business owners. Members with good analysis on the third party employer issue (the main thrust of the USCIS January 1 memo) should send it to Sharon Mehlman for the USCIS liaison committee.
Robert Divine
Chair, AILA Inter-Agency Committee
None yet, I believe we will have one forthcoming.
Although I have my own ideas on why the Neufeld's guidance memo was issued and how it attempts to change the current EB-5 law, it would definitely help to see AILA's position paper. However, I am concerned just providing the position paper will not change things.
Is there an AILA position paper or analysis on the Neufeld's Dec. 11, 2009 guidance memo?
Chuck, please make the links to the memos go to the URLs on the USCIS website, open to all, rather than to the InfoNet versions, available only to AILA members. Thank you, Dan Kowalski.