DHS Issues Final Rule to Restrict H-1B Visa Classification Requirements

On October 8, 2020, the U.S. Division of Homeland Safety (DHS) printed its long-speculated interim last rule, “Strengthening the H-1B Nonimmigrant Visa Classification Program.” In accordance with the interim last rule’s abstract, the aim of the brand new rule is to “strengthen the integrity of the H-1B program in the course of the financial disaster brought on by the COVID-19 public well being emergency to extra successfully make sure that the employment of H-1B staff is not going to have an opposed influence on the wages and dealing circumstances of equally employed U.S. staff.”

The brand new rule will grow to be efficient on December 7, 2020, 60 days following its publication date within the Federal Register. Typically, DHS could be topic to the usual notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures below the Administrative Process Act (APA), which requires a interval of public commentary on a rule earlier than its implementation. DHS has justified bypassing common notice-and-comment rulemaking by arguing that such procedures would defeat the aim of the rule, which is to supply quick safety to U.S. staff amid the coronavirus pandemic.

Beneath is a abstract of essentially the most notable adjustments to the H-1B visa program included within the DHS interim last rule.

The Definition of “Specialty Occupation”

What’s new?

The brand new rule amends the definition of a “specialty occupation” to make clear that there have to be a direct relationship between the required diploma fields and the duties of the place. The rule additional clarifies {that a} place wouldn’t qualify as a specialty occupation if the place required solely a normal diploma (equivalent to a level in enterprise administration) with out additional specialization (equivalent to a extra slender specialization in enterprise analytics).

What’s modified?

The prior regulatory definition of “specialty occupation” didn’t particularly require that there be a direct relationship between the proffered place and the duties of the place, nor did it require {that a} normal diploma have an additional specialization. Fairly, the prior definition merely acknowledged {that a} “specialty occupation” was one which “require[d] the attainment of a bachelor’s diploma or greater in a particular specialty, or its equal, at least for entry into the occupation in the US.”

What’s the influence?

These adjustments largely codify the administration’s present insurance policies with respect to H-1B adjudications. The adjustments monitor a lot of the language and tenor which were in use by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Companies (USCIS) and infrequently seen in requests for proof difficult a beneficiary’s academic background or the appropriate fields of research for the proffered place.

The Regulatory Standards for “Specialty Occupation” Positions

What’s new?

The brand new rule amends the regulatory standards for specialty occupation positions to make clear that it’s now not adequate for employers to point out {that a} diploma is “usually,” “generally,” or “often” required so as to meet the burden of proof in establishing {that a} place is a specialty occupation. Fairly, the brand new rule now requires that employers present {that a} diploma is “all the time” required so as to qualify below the brand new regulatory definition of “specialty occupation.”

Accordingly, below the brand new rule, a petitioner should set up {that a} bachelor’s diploma in a particular specialty or its equal is a minimal requirement for entry into the occupation in the US by exhibiting that that is all the time the requirement for the occupation as an entire; all the time the occupational requirement throughout the related business; all the time the petitioner’s particularized requirement; or as a result of the place is all the time so specialised, advanced, or distinctive that it’s essentially required to carry out the duties of the precise place.

The brand new rule additionally adjustments the language that precedes the regulatory standards, changing the phrase, “[t]o qualify as a specialty occupation,” with the phrase, “[a] proffered place doesn’t meet the definition of specialty occupation except it additionally satisfies ….”

What’s modified?

The prior regulatory normal for establishing a specialty occupation acknowledged the next:

To qualify as a specialty occupation, the place should meet one of many following standards:

A baccalaureate or greater diploma or its equal is usually the minimal requirement for entry into the actual place;

The diploma requirement is frequent to the business in parallel positions amongst comparable organizations or, within the different, an employer might present that its specific place is so advanced or distinctive that it may be carried out solely by a person with a level;

The employer usually requires a level or its equal for the place; or

The character of the precise duties are so specialised and complicated that data required to carry out the duties is often related to the attainment of a baccalaureate or greater diploma.

(Emphasis added.)

What’s the influence?

By changing the phrases “usually,” “generally,” or “often” with the time period “all the time,” DHS has dramatically narrowed the definition of what roles might qualify as specialty occupations. In accordance with the interim last rule, employers can now not present that, typically, a bachelor’s diploma or the equal is required for the position. Beneath the brand new rule, the usual has grow to be {that a} bachelor’s diploma is required in all events and with out exceptions.

Additional, by altering the phrasing that precedes the regulatory standards, the brand new rule makes it clear that even when an employer makes a exhibiting below one of many 4 qualifying standards, it might not be sufficient for approval of a petition. DHS particularly states within the last rule that this transformation clarifies that “assembly one of many regulatory standards is a vital a part of—however not essentially adequate for—demonstrating {that a} place qualifies as a specialty occupation.”

New Regulatory Definitions for “Worksite” and “Third-Celebration Worksite”

What’s new?

The brand new rule defines “worksite” as “the bodily location the place the work is definitely carried out by the H-1B nonimmigrant.” The brand new rule defines “third-party worksite” as “a worksite, apart from the [H-1B] beneficiary’s residence in the US, that’s not owned or leased, and never operated, by the petitioner.”

What’s modified?

The prior rule didn’t embody particular definitions for “worksite” or “third-party worksite.”

What’s the influence?

The addition of those regulatory definitions helps to make clear the that means of those phrases, that are used extensively within the new rule, particularly in sections that take care of third-party placements and web site visits, as defined beneath.

Third-Celebration Placement Eventualities

What’s new?

The brand new rule addresses adjudication points with respect to third-party placement eventualities by making the next adjustments with respect to the definition of “United States employer”:

the brand new rule replaces the phrase “contractor” with the phrase “firm” within the present definition of “United States employer” so as to keep away from the misguided interpretation {that a} contractor would typically qualify;

elaborates upon the necessities for participating an H-1B beneficiary to work in the US by clarifying {that a} petitioner should set up nonspeculative employment for the beneficiary on the time of submitting (i.e., there’s a bona fide job provide and precise work accessible as of the requested begin date); and

elaborates upon the necessities for establishing if a qualifying “employer-employee relationship” will exist between the petitioner and the H-1B beneficiary.

With respect to its elaboration on the necessities for establishing an “employer-employee relationship” for H-1B functions, the brand new rule additionally consists of the next record of nonexhaustive elements to be thought-about by USCIS in a totality-of-circumstances evaluation:

[w]hether the petitioner supervises the beneficiary and, if that’s the case, the place such supervision takes place;

[w]right here the supervision just isn’t on the petitioner’s worksite, how the petitioner maintains such supervision;

[w]hether the petitioner has the precise to regulate the work of the beneficiary on a day-to-day foundation and to assign tasks;

[w]hether the petitioner offers the instruments or instrumentalities wanted for the beneficiary to carry out the duties of employment;

[w]hether the petitioner hires, pays, and has the power to fireside the beneficiary;

[w]hether the petitioner evaluates the work-product of the beneficiary;

[w]hether the petitioner claims the beneficiary as an worker for tax functions;

[w]hether the petitioner offers the beneficiary any sort of worker advantages;

[w]hether the beneficiary makes use of proprietary info of the petitioner so as to carry out the duties of employment;

[w]hether the beneficiary produces an end-product that’s instantly linked to the petitioner’s line of enterprise; and

[w]hether the petitioner has the power to regulate the way and means wherein the work product of the beneficiary is completed.

The brand new rule additionally clarifies the varieties of corroborating proof petitioners should submit in third-party placement instances so as to set up that the proffered place is a specialty occupation. Such proof might embody copies of “contracts, work orders, or different comparable proof (equivalent to an in depth letter from a certified official on the third-party worksite) to determine that the beneficiary will carry out providers in a specialty occupation on the third-party worksite(s), and that the petitioner could have an employer-employee relationship with the beneficiary.”

What’s modified?

The prior regulation outlined “United States employer” utilizing the phrase “as indicated by the truth that it could rent, pay, hearth, supervise, or in any other case management the work of any such worker.” The brand new rule strikes this phrase utterly and replaces it with a separate definition of “employer-employee relationship” based mostly on frequent legislation doctrine. The brand new rule’s definition of employer-employee relationship now consists of the aforementioned nonexclusive record of things that USCIS can think about as proof of the connection. It additional clarifies that USCIS will assess and weigh all related features of the connection in a totality-of-the-circumstances evaluation, and that nobody issue is decisive.

What’s the influence?

Third-party placements (i.e., the place an H-1B beneficiary works at a facility, apart from his/her house, which isn’t owned, leased, or operated by the petitioner) have lengthy been a spotlight of H-1B coverage. Till not too long ago, USCIS adjudicated third-party placement instances in accordance with steerage within the 2010 USCIS Coverage Memorandum, “Figuring out Employer-Worker Relationship for Adjudication of H-1B Petitions, Together with Third-Celebration Website Placements,” generally known as the “Neufeld Memo.” The interpretations of the employer-employee relationship requirement contained throughout the Neufeld Memo had been not too long ago overturned when a federal decide discovered them to be inconsistent with present laws and would have required conventional discover and remark rulemaking procedures. The brand new H-1B rule seeks to codify and make clear by way of rulemaking processes the long-standing employer-employee relationship interpretation and necessities that had been launched within the Neufeld Memo.

Most H-1B Validity Interval for Third-Celebration Placements

What’s new?

The brand new rule units a one-year most validity interval for all H-1B petitions wherein the beneficiary will likely be working at a third-party worksite.

What’s modified?

The prior rule allowed third-party placement petitions to be authorised in increments of as much as three years. In apply, nonetheless, USCIS had usually shortened the validity interval of authorised third-party placement petitions to align with the period of the contract or assertion of labor that ruled the position.

What’s the influence?

Beneath the brand new rule, employers will now not be allowed to request a three-year validity for H-1B petitions the place the beneficiary will likely be employed at a third-party worksite. This can necessitate that such employers file H-1B extensions every year, versus each three years, which in flip will enhance the burden and price of using H-1B beneficiaries at third-party worksites.

DHS Website Visits

What’s new?

The brand new rule formally authorizes DHS to carry out H-1B web site inspections and addresses the results of a petitioner’s or a 3rd social gathering’s refusal or failure to cooperate absolutely with these inspections. The brand new rule clarifies that inspections might embody, however aren’t restricted to, the next:

an onsite go to of the petitioning group’s headquarters, satellite tv for pc areas, or the situation the place the beneficiary works or will work, together with third-party worksites;

interviews with its officers;

assessment of its data associated to compliance with immigration legal guidelines and laws; and

interviews with some other people or assessment of some other data that USCIS might lawfully receive and that it considers pertinent to confirm details associated to the adjudication of the H-1B petition, equivalent to details referring to the petitioner’s and beneficiary’s H-1B eligibility and compliance.

The brand new rule additional grants USCIS the authority to disclaim or revoke an H-1B petition the place it’s unable to confirm the details associated to that petition, or compliance with H-1B necessities, “as a result of failure or refusal of the petitioner or a third-party to cooperate with a web site go to.”

What’s modified and what’s the influence?

The brand new rule has formalized DHS’s present insurance policies and procedures with respect to web site visits. DHS has carried out these web site visits for a while now for the needs of making certain post-filing compliance with H-1B program necessities. The brand new rule clearly establishes the company’s authority to carry out these onsite inspections, in addition to the potential penalties of noncompliance with H-1B program necessities or refusals to cooperate with inspecting officers. The rule additionally makes it clear that DHS is allowed to conduct web site visits at third-party worksites, if relevant, and that third-party worksite employers are anticipated to cooperate with the inspecting officers.