With less than two weeks until the H-1B Cap opens, USCIS announced some important rule changes. Click on a link below to jump to the relevant document.

• USCIS Announces Interim Rule on H-1B Visas Rule
• Fact Sheet: Changes to the FY2009 H-1B Program
• Interim Final Rule on Duplicate H-1B Petitions
  1. A. Final Receipt Date When Cap Numbers Are Used Up Quickly.
  2. B. Elimination of Multiple Filings.
  3. C. Denial of Petitions After Cap Numbers Are Used.

USCIS Announces Interim Rule on H-1B Visas Rule Modifies Selection Process and Prohibits Multiple Filings

WASHINGTON ─ U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) transmitted an interim final rule to the Federal Register today that prohibits employers from filing multiple H-1B petitions for the same employee. These changes will ensure that companies filing H-1B petitions subject to congressionally mandated numerical limits have an equal chance to employ an H-1B worker. To ensure a fair and orderly distribution of available H-1B visas, USCIS will deny or revoke multiple petitions filed by an employer for the same H-1B worker and will not refund the filing fees submitted with multiple or duplicative petitions.

This rule does not preclude related employers (such as a parent company and its subsidiary) from filing petitions on behalf of the same alien for different positions, based on a legitimate business need. The interim final rule becomes effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

Last August, President Bush announced that the Administration would be undertaking a series of immigration and border security reforms. The changes to the H-1B filing process under this rule are an important part of that initiative.

On April 1, 2008, employers may file petitions requesting H-1B workers for fiscal year 2009 employment starting on October 1, 2008. For fiscal year 2009, Congress has set a limit of 65,000 for most H-1B workers. Additionally, the first 20,000 H-1B workers who have a U.S. master’s degree or higher are exempt from the cap. Under current procedures, which are not changed by this rule, once USCIS receives 20,000 petitions for aliens with a U.S. master’s degree or higher, all other cases requesting the educational exemption are counted toward the 65,000 cap. Once the 65,000 cap is reached for a fiscal year, USCIS will announce that the cap has been filled and reject further petitions subject to the cap.

This rule also stipulates that if USCIS determines the number of H-1B petitions received meets the cap within the first five business days of accepting applications for the coming fiscal year, USCIS will apply a random selection process among all H-1B petitions received during this time period. If the 20,000 advanced degree limit is reached during the first five business days, USCIS will randomly select from those petitions ahead of conducting the random selection for the 65,000 limit. Petitions subject to the 20,000 limit that are not selected in that random selection will be considered with the other H-1B petitions in the random selection for the 65,000 limit.

The rule further clarifies that USCIS will deny petitions that incorrectly claim an exemption from any H-1B numerical limits. Those filing fees will not be returned.
Return to Top ↑.

Fact Sheet: Changes to the FY2009 H-1B Program

WASHINGTON ─ U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued an interim final rule today that prohibits employers from filing more than one petition for an H-1B visa for a single employee in a fiscal year. The change is intended to promote a fair and systematic process for H-1B petitioners. This rule ensures that companies filing H-1B petitions that are subject to numerical limits will have an equal chance to receive consideration for an H-1B worker.

The interim final rule will become effective upon publication in the Federal Register and may be accessed via the related links section of this page.

Background

U.S. businesses utilize the H-1B program to employ foreign workers in fields that require theoretical and practical expertise in specialized occupations requiring a bachelor’s degree or higher (or its equivalent), such as scientists, engineers, or computer programmers. By law, USCIS cannot grant more than 65,000 new H-1B visas per fiscal year, subject to certain limited exceptions. The first 20,000 H-1B petitions filed on behalf of aliens with U.S.-earned masters’ or higher degrees are exempt from the H-1B numerical limitation of 65,000. USCIS administers a separate “20,000 cap” for such exempt petitions.

USCIS will use a random selection process for all the master’s degree or higher cap-exempt cases received on the first five business days available for filing H-1B petitions for a given fiscal year, if necessary. In the event that the U.S. master’s exemption limit is reached on the first five business days, USCIS will first conduct the random selection process for such petitions before it begins random selection for petitions to be counted toward the 65,000 cap. Petitions eligible for the U.S. master’s degree or higher exemption that are not selected to receive an H-1B visa number from the 20,000 cap will be considered with the other H-1B petitions in the random selection for the 65,000 cap filed on the first five business days.

Cap-Exempt Petition

USCIS also notes that petitions for new H-1B employment are exempt from the cap if the aliens will work at the defined institutions of higher education or a related or affiliated nonprofit entities, or at nonprofit research organizations or governmental research organizations. Thus, employers may continue to file petitions for these exempt H-1B categories regardless of H-1B visa number availability.
Cap Procedures

USCIS will use the following process for handling H-1B petitions subject to the FY 2009 cap:

• April 1, 2008 is the first day petitions may be received for an October 1, 2008 start date. When it is determined that the numerical limitations have been reached, USCIS employs a random selection process to choose among the petitions received on the “final receipt date.” If the “final receipt date” falls within any one of the first five business days, the random selection will be run using all the cap-subject petitions received on those five days.
• USCIS will reject and return the filing fee(s) for all cap-subject H-1B petitions that are not selected in the process described above. The new rule clarifies that this provision only applies to petitions that indicate they are cap-subject. If a petitioner claims to be exempt from the cap and is later found to be subject to the cap, USCIS will not refund or return fees and that petition will be denied if no cap numbers are available.
• Petitions for the FY 2009 cap received before April 1, 2008 will be rejected. A petition is considered received when USCIS takes possession of and stamps the petition as received, not by the date the petition is postmarked.

In order to fully utilize its data entry and initial processing capacity, USCIS may choose to distribute filings received at one service center to other service centers for data entry. In the event that USCIS exercises this option, petitioners may receive receipt notices or other correspondence from a service center other than the one to which their H-1B petition was mailed.

Premium Processing

Cap-subject petitions requesting premium processing that are received on the “final receipt date,” or during the initial five business day period mentioned above, cannot be processed until after the random selection has been completed. The premium processing 15-day adjudication period (processing deadline) will not begin until such time as USCIS has completed the random selection process.

The number of master’s exemption cases received cannot be determined until all the petitions have been sorted and counted. The same holds true for the master’s exemption premium processing cases. In accordance with established guidelines, USCIS will refund premium processing fees for any filings for which it cannot meet processing deadlines. Even if USCIS issues a refund of the premium processing fee, it will continue to provide premium processing for these filings until completion.
Current H-1B Workers

Petitions filed on behalf of current H-1B workers do not count towards the congressionally mandated H-1B cap. Accordingly, this rule does not affect USCIS processing of petitions filed to:

• Extend the amount of time a current H-1B worker may remain in the United States;
• Change the terms of employment for current H-1B workers;
• Allow current H-1B workers to change from one cap-subject position to a different cap-subject position with a different employer; or
• Allow current H-1B workers to work concurrently in a second H-1B position.

Return to Top ↑.

Interim Final Rule on Duplicate H-1B Petitions

Full Rule in PDF Format (Summary Below)

A. Final Receipt Date When Cap Numbers Are Used Up Quickly.

This rule provides that USCIS will include petitions filed on all of those first five business days in the random selection process if USCIS receives a sufficient number of petitions to reach the applicable numerical limit (including limits on exemptions) on any one of the five business days on which USCIS may accept petitions. This will eliminate filing problems resulting from a rush of filings made on the first day on which employers may file petitions for the upcoming fiscal year. See revised 8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(ii)(B). USCIS has determined that a filing period of five business days is sufficient to account for a wider range of mail delivery times offered by the various mail delivery providers available to the public.

This rule also provides that, if both the 65,000 and 20,000 caps are reached within the first five business days available for filing H-1B petitions for a given fiscal year, USCIS must first conduct the random selection process for petitions subject to the 20,000 cap on master’s degree exemptions before it may begin the random selection process of petitions to be counted towards the 65,000 cap. See revised 8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(ii)(B). After conducting the random selection for petitions subject to the 20,000 cap, USCIS then must add any non-selected petitions to the pool of petitions subject to the 65,000 cap and conduct the random selection process for this combined group of petitions. Therefore, those petitions that otherwise would be eligible for the master’s degree exemption that are not selected in the first random selection will have another opportunity to be selected for an H-1B number in the second random selection process. This rule also clarifies that those petitions not selected in either random selection will be rejected. See id.

B. Elimination of Multiple Filings.

To ensure the fair and equitable distribution of cap numbers, this rule precludes a petitioner (or its authorized representative) from filing, during the course of any fiscal year, more than one H-1B petition on behalf of the same alien beneficiary if such alien is subject to the 65,000 cap or qualifies for the master’s degree exemption. See new 8 CFR 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G). This preclusion applies even if the petitions are not duplicative.

USCIS recognizes that, by statute, multiple filings of H-1B petitions are contemplated. See INA sec. 214(g)(7), 8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(7). Nevertheless, USCIS finds that this rule’s preclusion of duplicative H-1B filings is consistent with the statute. Section 214(g)(7) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(7), states that “[w]here multiple petitions are approved for 1 alien, that alien shall be counted only once.” USCIS interprets this statutory language as applying to an alien who has multiple petitions filed on his or her behalf by more than one employer. Therefore, an alien who will be performing H-1B duties on behalf of two separate petitioners will be counted only once against the cap. USCIS does not believe that the statutory language at section 214(g)(7) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(7), was intended to allow a single employer to file multiple H-1B petitions on behalf of the same alien. Such a broad interpretation would undermine the purpose of the H-1B numerical cap since multiple filings can result in the misallocation of the total available cap numbers.

USCIS recognizes that, on occasion, an employer may extend the same alien two or more job offers for distinct positions and therefore have a legitimate business need to file two or more separate H-1B petitions on behalf of the same alien. This rule precludes this practice if the alien beneficiary is subject to the numerical limitations or qualifies for the master’s degree exemption. First, allowing multiple filings by one employer on behalf of the same alien could create a loophole for employers that seek to exploit the random selection process to the competitive disadvantage of other petitioners. Such employers could file multiple petitions on behalf of the same alien under the guise that the petitions are based on different job offers, when the employment positions are in fact the same or only very slightly different.

Second, requiring USCIS adjudicators to distinguish between multiple petitions filed by one employer for one alien based on different job offers and duplicative petitions for one alien for the same, single position would require a significant expenditure of limited USCIS adjudicative resources. USCIS could not make such determinations on the face of the petition, but would need to substantively examine and compare the merits of the petition and any other petition filed by the same employer on behalf of the alien. This would defeat the purpose of the random selection process, which is not intended to be a decision on the merits, but instead, an expeditious way for USCIS to determine which petitions are eligible for consideration on the merits.

Finally, prohibiting employers from filing multiple petitions on behalf of the same alien should have no impact on the unusual situation where an employer may have the same alien in mind for materially distinct employment positions. Once an alien is allocated an H-1B number based on one petition, the employer is able to file an amended petition or a petition for concurrent employment to reflect the different nature of the duties that are associated with the beneficiary’s second employment position. Since the alien would have already been counted against the cap, such amended or additional petition would not be affected by the prohibition on multiple petition filings. See INA sec. 214(g)(7), 8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(7).

For these reasons, USCIS believes that it must curtail both duplicative and multiple petition filings by the same employer in order to prevent future fairness problems similar to those USCIS experienced with its administration of the FY 2008 random selection process for the 65,000 cap. Accordingly, this rule provides that USCIS will deny all the petitions filed by an employer (or authorized representative) for the same fiscal year with respect to the same alien subject to the 65,000 or 20,000 caps. See new 8 CFR 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G). In cases where USCIS does not discover that duplicative or multiple petitions were filed until after approving them, this rule also provides that USCIS may revoke all such petitions if they were approved after this rule becomes effective. Id.

This rule does not, however, preclude related employers from filing petitions on behalf of the same alien. USCIS recognizes that an employer and one or more related entities (such as a parent, subsidiary or affiliate) may extend the same alien two or more job offers for distinct positions and therefore have a legitimate business need to file two or more separate H-1B petitions on behalf of the same alien.

For example, a Fortune 500 company may be the parent company of numerous U.S.-based subsidiaries whose business is to engage in either the food, beverage or snack industries. Each line of business may, in turn, be divided into several business units and operate distinct companies (restaurant, bottled beverage plant, cereal manufacturer, etc) with different EIN numbers, addresses, etc. Although all the subsidiaries are ultimately related to the parent company through corporate ownership, this rule does not prohibit different subsidiaries from filing one H-1B petition each on behalf of the same alien so long as each employer/subsidiary has a legitimate business need to hire such alien for a position within that subsidiaries’ corporate structure. Thus, in this example, if the bottled beverage plant owned by the Fortune 500 company and the cereal manufacturing company owned by the same Fortune 500 company are each in need of the services of a Chief Financial Officer, both may file one petition each on behalf of the same alien. A subsidiary should not file an H-1B petition for an alien just to increase the alien’s chances of being selected for an H-1B number where that subsidiary has no legitimate need to employ the alien and is, instead, only filing a petition to facilitate the alien’s hiring by a different, although related, subsidiary.

USCIS may issue a request for additional evidence or notice of intent to deny, or notice of intent to revoke for any or each petition if it determines that the employer and related entity(ies) filed a duplicate petition as defined in this regulation. See 8 CFR parts 103 and 214.2(h)(11). The burden rests with the employer to establish that it has alegitimate business need to file more than one H-1B petition on behalf of the same alien. If the employer does not meet its burden, USCIS may deny or revoke each petition, as appropriate. Without such authority, a loophole would exist for related employers to file multiple petitions on behalf of the same alien under the guise that the petitions are based on different job offers, when the true purpose of filing the petitions is to secure employment for the alien with a single employer seeking his or her services. As an example, one target of this provision is the unscrupulous employer that establishes or uses shell subsidiaries or affiliates to file additional petitions on behalf of the same alien in order to increase the alien’s chances of being allotted an H-1B number. USCIS believes that these consequences are warranted in order to deter unfair filing practices and further ensure the integrity of the H-1B cap counting process.

To date, USCIS has identified the problems resulting from multiple filings only in the context of H-1B petitions. For this reason, this rule limits the bar on multiple petition filings to H-1B petitions.

C. Denial of Petitions After Cap Numbers Are Used.

Over the past few years, USCIS has received a significant number of petitions that claim to be exempt from the 65,000 cap, but are determined after the final receipt date or after all cap numbers have been used to be subject to the cap. The current regulations do not specifically address treatment of such petitions. This rule amends the regulations to clarify that such petitions will be denied rather than rejected. See revised 8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(ii)(B) and (D). USCIS has determined that denial of these petitions is appropriate because USCIS must adjudicate them in order to make a determination on whether the alien beneficiary is subject to the numerical cap. USCIS only rejects filings before an adjudication takes place. See 8 CFR 103.2(a)(7). Because USCIS must adjudicate these petitions, it will not return the petition and refund the filing fee.
Return to Top ↑.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that effective today it will begin consolidating biometrics collection when employment-based adjustment of status applications and employment authorization requests are filed at the same time at one of the Service Centers.

Applicants who concurrently file Form I-485 (Application to Register Permanent Status or Adjust Status) based upon the approval of an employment based petition and Form I-765 (Application for Employment Authorization) will receive one biometrics appointment letter to appear at a designated Application Support Center (ASC). [Read more →]

USCIS Update :: Revised Processing Procedures for I-485 Applications.
WASHINGTON—U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that, beginning immediately, it will accept employment-based applications to adjust status (Form I-485) filed by aliens whose priority dates are current under the July Visa Bulletin, No. 107. USCIS will accept applications filed not later than August 17, 2007. [Read more →]

Neufeld Memo :: Removal of the Standardized Request for Evidence (RFE) Processing Timeframe

On April 17, 2007, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) published “Removal of the Standardized Request for Evidence Processing Timeframe” in the Federal Register (FR) as a final rule. 72 FR 19100. This rule will become effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register, on June 18, 2007.

Aytes Memo Dec. 5, 2006.
Guidance on Determining Periods of Admission for Aliens Previously in H-4 or L-2 Status; Aliens Applying for Additional Periods of Admission beyond the H-1B Six Year Maximum; and Aliens Who Have Not Exhausted the Six-Year Maximum But Who Have Been Absent from the United States for Over One Year.

(1) Time spent in H-4 status will not count against the 6 year limit;
(2) Extensions of status are available even if outside the U.S. and not in H-1B status; and
(3) H-1B visa holders who leave the US before expiration of the 6 year limit and stay outside the US more than one year have the option of reentering for the remainder of the time left on the 6 year limit (and avoiding the “Cap“) or applying for a new six years and being subject to the Cap. [Read more →]

Aytes Memo :: June 6, 2006.

Guidance on the Requirement of a “Permanent Offer of Employment” for Outstanding Researchers and Researchers.

Aytes Memo :: May 2, 2006 :: US Masters Exemption.

H-1B Cap Exemption for Aliens Holding a Master’s or Higher Degree from a U.S. Institution.

Aytes Memo :: May/December 2005.

Interim guidance for processing I-140 employment-based immigrant petitions and I-485 and H-1B petitions affected by the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) (Public Law 106-313).
[Read more →]

Aytes Memo :: November 23, 2005.

Guidance on Evaluating a Request for the Rescheduling of an Interview and Handling the Failure of an Applicant, a Petitioner, a Sponsor, a Beneficiary, or other Individual to Appear for a Scheduled Interview.

State Department Wire :: March 24, 2005
INA 214(b), Basis of Refusal Not Equivalent to Inadmissibility or Immigrant Intent

Yates Memo :: March 9, 2005 :: Approvable When Filed

Clarification of Certain Eligibility Requirements Pertaining to an Application to Adjust Status under Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

O’Reilly Memo :: January 10, 2005
IF the only reason for potentially denying an I-539 filed for V-2 or V-3 extension is that the alien has tuned 21, the application shall be approved and the period of admission shall be in accordance with 8 CFR 214.15(g)(1) (granted a period of admission not to exceed two years). The alien shall continue in such status unti such status is terminated pursuant to 8 CFR 214.15(j).

Yates Memo :: April 2, 2004
Adjudication of Benefit Applications Involving NSEERS Registrants.

Guidance for Processing H-1B Petitions as Affected by the Twenty-First Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act (Public Law 107-273); Adjudicator’s Field Manual Update AD 03-09

-Yates Memo :: April 24, 2003 (.pdf)

Interpretation of “Period of Stay Authorized by the Attorney General” in determining “unlawful presence” under INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(ii).

-Authorized Stay :: Cook Memo :: March 27, 2003 (.pdf)

Approved H-1B petitions remain valid until they either expire or are revoked by the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

-Hernandez Letter (to Sheela Murthy) :: Apr. 24, 2002 (.pdf, 4 pgs)

The Purpose of this memorandum is to provide field offices with guidance on the adjudication of H-1B petitions where the beneficiary is unable to obtain a state license because he or she is not in possession of a social security card.

-Cook Memo :: November 20, 2001(.pdf)

H-1B AC21 Guidance :: Pearson Memo :: June 19, 2001.

Initial Guidance for Processing H-1B Petitions as Affected by the “American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act” (Public Law 106-313) and Related Legislation (Public Law 106-311) and (Public Law 106-396).

Revision of March 14, 2000 Dual Intent Memorandum

-Cronin Memo :: May 25, 2000 (.pdf)

Period of stay authorized by the Attorney General after 120-day tolling period for purposes of section 212(a)(9)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

-Period of Stay :: 120-day tolling :: Pearson Memo :: March 3, 2000 (.pdf)

To: District Directors Service Center Directors
Officers-in-Charge
Regional Directors

From: Office of Programs

Effective immediately, the Service will accept adjustment of status applications from aliens who are subject to the 2-year foreign residence requirement of section 212(e) of the INA provided that the United States Information Agency (USIA) has recommended a waiver of such foreign residence. A copy of the USIA recommendation must be attached to the alien’s application for adjustment of status.

In order to be eligible to apply for adjustment of status, an alien who has participated in an exchange visitor program and is subject to the 2-year foreign residence requirement must, among other things, either have complied with the foreign residence requirement or have been granted a waiver of that requirement. 8 CFR 245.1(c) (2). An alien who has received a USIA recommendation for a waiver of the foreign residence requirement is deemed to have met the requirement of 8 CFR 245.1(c)(2) and may submit an application for adjustment of status. Nevertheless, Service Officers should adjudicate the waiver request first, as the decision will determine the alien’s eligibility for adjustment of status.

The waiver request is considered properly filed with the Service only at such time as the Service receives a favorable recommendation from the United States Information Agency (USIA).

The statute permits waivers of the foreign residency requirement in four possible circumstances. Waivers may be based on (1) a request by an interested U.S. Government agency; (2) a request by a State Department of Public Health (or its equivalent) on behalf of a foreign medical graduate who will practice medicine for 3 years in a medically underserved area; (3) a statement by the government of the country of the applicant’s nationality or legal foreign residence that it has no objection to a waiver in the applicant’s case (this is statutorily unavailable for foreign medical graduates); or (4) the claim that the exchange visitor’s compliance with the foreign residence requirement would (a) impose exceptional hardship on the applicant’s United States citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse or child, or (b) subject the applicant to persecution on account of race, religion, or political opinion.

Waiver applications based on requests by a U.S. Government agency or State Department of Public Health, or based on no-objection statements, do not involve the filing of a specific form or fee. In these types of cases, USIA mails the favorable recommendation to the Service, with a copy to the applicant. It is, however, the Service adjudicator who has final responsibility for approval or denial of the waiver request. If the adjudicator decides that the Service should concur in the USIA’s favorable recommendation, a notice of approval should be prepared and issued to the applicant and/or the applicant’s legal representative, if applicable. A copy of the notice of approval should be placed in the applicant’s A-file, and the adjudicator should proceed to adjudicate the adjustment application.

Waiver applications based on a claim of hardship or persecution are filed with the Service on Form I-612 (Application for Waiver of the Foreign Residence Requirement of Section 212(e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act). When the Service finds that the applicant has established the requisite hardship or persecution, the Service prepares Form I-613 for submission to USIA. USIA returns Form I-613 to the Service with its views and a recommendation as to whether or not the waiver should be granted. The waiver may be granted only if the USIA recommendation is favorable. If the USIA recommendation is unfavorable, the waiver application must be denied, despite such initial finding of hardship or persecution. In view of these considerations, Service officers should accept the filing of an I- 485 by an applicant with a pending 212(e) waiver application based on exceptional hardship or persecution only after the issuance of a favorable USIA waiver recommendation. In such cases, a copy of the USIA recommendation must be attached to the alien’s I-485.

Paul Virtue
Executive Associate Commissioner