United States – Settlement Reached between H1-B IT Employers and USCIS
US–Settlement Reached between H1-B IT Employers & USCIS
A settlement agreement has been reached between a nonprofit organization that represents the interests of IT companies and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS). As per the settlement, USCIS will rescind two guidance memoranda and one regulation that the agency had relied upon for years when adjudicating H-1B petitions. The court found that USCIS did not have the authority to issue its own guidance without going through proper rule-making procedures. This is significant for IT companies and other consulting firms that offer employment at a third-party worksite.
A settlement agreement has been reached between a nonprofit organization that represents the interests of IT companies and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS). As per the settlement, USCIS will rescind two guidance memoranda and one regulation that the agency had relied upon for years when adjudicating H-1B petitions.
WHY THIS MATTERS
The settlement agreement, which must be implemented within the next ninety (90) days, is significant for IT companies and other consulting firms that offer employment at a third-party worksite.
USCIS is not required to re-open all previously denied petitions. H-1B employers who have had similar denials based on the USCIS memos mentioned above may wish to consider taking steps that could help overturn past denials or approvals of short duration.
Court Decision and Settlement in Brief
The settlement follows nearly two years of litigation, wherein the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia had found that the USCIS guidance memos in question imposed additional burdens on employers within the IT industry, and were inconsistent with immigration laws, lawfully passed by Congress.1 The court found that USCIS did not have the authority to issue its own guidance without going through proper rule-making procedures. Further, the court noted in its Opinion that these adjudication memos “caused the H-1B approval process to slow dramatically and resulted in a high level of rejected visa petitions from employers in the IT industry.”2
More Details
Specifically, the U.S. District Court invalidated the following USCIS policy memos:
- January 8, 2010 Memo, entitled “Determining Employer-Employee Relationship for Adjudication of H-1B Petitions, Including Third-Party Site Placements memo”3
This memo requires a petitioner to establish that an employer-employee relationship exists and will continue to exist throughout the duration of the requested validity period. According to this 2010 policy memo, employers are required to show actual control over the H-1B beneficiary. The court stated that the “control test” required by USCIS to determine whether the employer-employee relationship exists, goes beyond the agency interpretation and amounts to a legislative rule.
The court confirmed that USCIS does not have the authority to adopt legally binding regulations without going through the rule-making process.
- February 22, 2018 Memo, entitled “Contracts and Itineraries Requirements for H-1B Petitions Involving Third-Party Worksites”4
This policy memo requires that the petitioner demonstrate that it has specific and non-speculative qualifying assignments for the beneficiary for the entire duration sought within the petition. Such assignments must be documented by contracts, statements of work, etc. Following the issuance of this memo, USCIS began to shorten the validity of many H-1B visas to less than the standard three-year period and forced employers to file new petitions if they were unable to comply with this requirement.
The court found that it was irrational, arbitrary, and capricious to require contracts or other corroborated evidence of dates and locations of temporary work assignments for three future years.
- The INS 1991 Itinerary Regulation requires an employer to submit dates and locations of services on Form I-129, when an H-1B employee is performing work at multiple locations. However, without rule-making, USCIS requires contracts or other corroborated evidence of dates and locations of temporary work assignments for three future years. This was also invalidated by the district court.
To comply with the settlement order, USCIS will not issue approvals for H-1B petitions with validity periods shorter than the time period requested by the H-1B petitioner, unless such decisions include or are accompanied by a brief explanation as to why the validity period has been limited.
FOOTNOTES
1 ITSERVE Alliance, Inc. v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. See the March 10, 2020 decision.
2 Ibid.
3 The January 8, 2010 USCIS memo.
4 February 22, 2018 Policy memorandum “Contracts and Itineraries Requirements for H-1B Petitions Involving Third-Party Worksites.”
* Please note that KPMG LLP (U.S.) does not provide any immigration services. However, KPMG Law LLP in Canada can assist clients with U.S. immigration matters.
The information contained in this newsletter was submitted by the KPMG International member firm in Canada.
VIEW ALL
SUBSCRIBE
To subscribe to GMS Flash Alert, fill out the subscription form.
We respectfully acknowledge that KPMG offices across Turtle Island (North America) are located on the traditional, treaty, and unceded territories of First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.
© 2024 KPMG LLP, an Ontario limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG global organization of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Limited, a private English company limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.
For more detail about the structure of the KPMG global organization please visit https://kpmg.com/governance.
GMS Flash Alert is a Global Mobility Services publication of the KPMG LLP Washington National Tax practice. The KPMG name and logo are trademarks used under license by the independent member firms of the KPMG global organization. KPMG International Limited is a private English company limited by guarantee and does not provide services to clients. No member firm has any authority to obligate or bind KPMG International or any other member firm vis-à-vis third parties, nor does KPMG International have any such authority to obligate or bind any member firm. The information contained herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavor to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation.