Nation of Immigrators - A public policy blog on America’s dysfunctional immigration system

[Bloggers Note:  This post is authored jointly by Brandon Meyer and Angelo A. Paparelli] 

Some scandals raise eyebrows; others cause real economic harm.  The one we're about to reveal -- known as "tenant occupancy" -- does both.  It makes the GSA's Las Vegas cavorting pale in comparison. (Immigration lawyer alert:  For those with prurient interests [you know who you are], "tenant occupancy" is not legalese for the recently reported transactions involving the oldest profession as allegedly occurred with the Secret Service at the Hotel Caribe in Cartagena, Columbia.)

Readers of Nation of Immigrators are familiar with the opaque, contradictory, and frequently inane ways in which the Homeland Security Department's immigration-benefits bureau, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), has interpreted America's immigration laws. Over many years, USCIS, like the legacy Justice Department agency, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), burnished its well-deserved reputation for flouting the rule of law and frequently changing legal interpretations and procedures, often without prior notice, let alone stakeholder input. As an early blog post, an open letter to the USCIS Ombudsman, noted in May, 2004, the prior “Notice and Comment” procedures set up by the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) have typically been honored in the breach and ignored in the observance.

Stakeholders and the public just had to swallow whatever bitter vittles the U.S. immigration bureaucracy served up, even though, when the direction of the dishing is reversed and petitioners seek immigration benefits, the agency has expected immaculate hygiene and punctilious compliance with its recipes, i.e., USCIS's spare, ambiguous and outdated regulations. Under the leadership of Director Alejandro Mayorkas, however, USCIS has shown a commendable spirit of openness and engagement with the public and the stakeholder community.

Still, old habits die hard. The APA requires USCIS to publish proposed regulations after vetting by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).  Instead, the agency posts proposals on USCIS.gov.  Each mode of public notice allows for stakeholder comment and engagement.  But the tried-and-true APA requires the agency to publish a reasoned analysis of the commentary, whereas the USCIS's web postings only offer revisions of the posted document without detailing the identity of the commenters, the substance of their remarks and reasons why public comments have been incorporated into the revised posting or rejected.

Stakeholders might understand that minor changes could appropriately be offered through web postings seeking public response but that substantive rules involving topics of public significance should instead go through formal APA rulemaking. The public and Congress might also expect that when laws are enacted setting deadlines for the publication of formal regulations, and suspending agency authority to reject immigration petitions until the regulations are finalized, simple web bulletins are wholly inadequate.  

Take for example legislation enacted in 2002 addressing such subjects of wide interest and concern as foreign investment and job creation, topics that remain important in our still frail economy during the months leading up to November's elections.  In particular, we speak of the EB-5 employment-creation investor green card program. Section 11033 of Public Law 107-273, the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Act of 2002, required INS to publish regulations within 120 days of enactment on how a group of long-unresolved investor cases would be decided.

Even cynical observers of immigration bureaucracy might imagine that USCIS would publish final rules by now. As will be seen, the cynics continue to have reasons aplenty to remain jaundiced. In 2011, USCIS finally published proposed regulations interpreting portions of the 2002 law without addressing rules to interpret job-creation calculations. Even the partial proposed rules, however, have not been made final. 

Predictably, the failure of formal rulemaking has produced disastrous results. For several months, many new I-924 Regional Center Designation applications seemed to have disappeared into a black hole. Applicants and their attorneys following up with USCIS were met with either a wall of silence or given the run-around about the reasons for lengthy USCIS inaction on their respective Regional Center applications.

What was going on? USCIS fessed up in a January 2012 EB-5 stakeholders meeting that certain Regional Center designation applications were placed on "hold" at the headquarters level while "issues" remained to be resolved. What precipitated the hold? What were these ominous “issues?” The EB-5 stakeholder community was left to their often vivid imaginations to figure out what was happening.

Another suspenseful month passed before USCIS released a bulletin on February 17, 2012 on “Tenant Occupancy” stating:

The “tenant-occupancy” methodology seeks credit for job creation by independent tenant businesses that lease space in buildings developed with EB-5 funding. USCIS continues to recognize that whether it is economically reasonable to attribute such “tenant-occupancy” jobs to the underlying EB-5 commercial real estate project is a fact-specific question. USCIS is now moving forward with the adjudication of certain pending I-924 Applications For Regional Centers under the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program that are supported by the “tenant-occupancy” economic methodology.

Our newly-hired economists and business analysts will be bringing expertise to these new adjudications, and requests for evidence will be issued to certain applicants and petitioners to address any questions or issues we have about the economic methodologies employed in their specific cases.

For readers unsteeped in immigration patois, the USCIS bulletin foretold an interpretation that new EB-5 jobs are not created when existing employees of a business are merely moved by an employer that changes worksites and reassigns existing workers to newly leased space in a building financed by EB-5 investor funds.  This is presumably the new expertise that USCIS's "newly-hired economists and business analysts" would bring to the analysis of job-counting methodology. 

The 2002 EB-5 legislation, however, already provides the proper analytical framework.  In a Congressional note to Section 11037 (amending 8 U.S.C. § 1153 note): 

A regional center shall have jurisdiction over a limited geographic area, which shall be described in the proposal and consistent with the purpose of concentrating pooled investment in defined economic zones. The establishment of a regional center may be based on general predictions, contained in the proposal, concerning the kinds of commercial enterprises that will receive capital from aliens, the jobs that will be created directly or indirectly as a result of such capital investments, and the other positive economic effects such capital investments will have. (Emphasis added.)

Thus, Congress dictated that "general predictions" on "jobs . . . created directly or indirectly as a result of [EB-5] capital investments" should suffice.  So what did USCIS do (besides issuing a puzzling bulletin on job-creation calculations and failing to publish final regulations)?

Lawyers and petitioners who've filed Regional Center applications containing tenant-occupancy calculation methods soon found out.  Their mailboxes were hit with a “blizzard of blue” Requests for Additional Evidence (“RFEs”), symbolic of both the color of RFE cover sheets and the seasonal affective disorders triggered in individuals receiving these cerulean missives this past winter.

Requiring documentary responses almost as thick as Tolstoy’s War and Peace, these RFE’s expressed concern that allowing EB-5 investors to claim job-creation credit for the employees of future building tenants was not based on the ‘reasonable methodologies” required by the regulations (as published before Public Law 107-273 was enacted), and thereby foreclosing the possibility that “verifiable detail” of the subsequent job creation could be provided. In essence, after accepting the tenant-occupancy model for over two decades, USCIS disqualified it without further folderol. 

Although USCIS's RFEs do not “foreclose the possibility that [a Regional Center] might present evidence to demonstrate an economically acceptable nexus between the EB-5 investment and . . . the job creation asserted,” the agency requires evidence showing “excess demand for the specific types of tenants” envisioned in the business plan and economic analysis in order to find the required link between EB-5 investment and job creation.

The agency's RFEs also ask whether prospective tenants (as if the Regional Center operator can predict that far into the future) are “constrained” in their current space or cannot expand their business because of a lack of “specialized business space.” The economic illiteracy of the RFEs is on full display in their requests for evidence of “congestion externalities as demonstrated by a low vacancy-unemployment ratio pursuant to specific space and businesses seeking to expand.” Also, evidence is sought showing “upward wage and rental pressure in specific regional sectors that are likely to be attracted to the proposed project space.”

These categories of evidence presumably advocated by USCIS’s newly hired economists and business analysts show little understanding of basic economic theory and private-sector operations. Excess demand for rental space and upward wage pressures are generally only found in tight job markets, economic booms, or in periods of high inflation. Given that the whole point of the Regional Center program is to encourage job creation in high-unemployment or rural areas, requiring proof of “excess demand” or “upward wage pressures” in these areas as a precondition for construction projects is akin to preventing asthmatics from carrying inhalers until they prove they can function without them.

If fact-based adjudications matter, economists and business analysts should know that the leading reason businesses go through the time, effort, and expense of relocating to a new facility is because employment growth is constrained by current space. Thus, if USCIS’ new tenant-occupancy theories take root, the agency will be responsible for preventing job creation by artificially limiting the number of new construction projects that can be developed using EB-5 capital. (Ironically, by limiting construction projects, USCIS will then be responsible for creating the ‘excess demand’ and ‘upward wage pressures’ that it is now demanding.)

USCIS’ efforts to regulate “excess demand” in the EB-5 program is gross government interference by web fiat. No entrepreneur sets out to develop anything if she believes that there will be insufficient demand for the contemplated project. The tenant-occupancy stratagem is just another example of how USCIS’s constant moving of the goalposts in the EB-5 game does nothing but create unease and uncertainty. Worse yet, the new demands ignore the Obama Administration's own statements acknowledging that counting jobs is not an exact science but instead requires "crude" measures that involve admittedly inexact presumptions.  See, e.g., "Estimates of Job Creation from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009," Executive Office of The President Council Of Economic Advisers, May, 2009. 

The opaque and secretive nature of how USCIS came to this decision is anything but a confidence-building measure. How will USCIS handle the indignation that is expected on the tenant-occupancy issue during the May 1, 2012 EB-5 stakeholders meeting? Presumably, the agency will have already reviewed the critical reactions of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) and the Association to Invest in the USA (IIUSA).

Will USCIS announce its intention to publish a proposed regulation on job-creation calculations (and meantime refrain from denying EB-5 petitions)?  Will the OMB step in to police these USCIS shenanigans? Will the DHS Office of Inspector General investigate USCIS's lawless disregard of its rulemaking duties under Public Law 107-273 (as the GSA's OIG has done of that agency's Vegas escapades)?  Will this USCIS scandal form the plot for The Hangover (Part III)? Apparently, AILA and the IIUSA must hire the GSA's mind reader to find out.

Who really wields power in Washington?  The December 3rd opening sketch of Saturday Night Live, featuring Fred Armisen as a chastened President Obama, offered an answer to the question. 

SNL's Obama shared his insight, gained over the last three years, that the presidency is not truly a powerful post, but merely a "ceremonial position . . . a majestic figurehead." Disabused of any pretensions of strength and influence, he groused that the President is not even among the top five power players, and well behind Grover Norquist, Oprah Winfrey and Tyler Perry.

Real-life House Republicans, however, see power inordinately vested in mostly anonymous bureaucrats. Last week, GOP stalwarts (along with a smattering of Democrats) approved two bills (whose enactment is improbable) that would drastically curtail the rulemaking authority of Executive-Branch agencies. 

Another Republican, perhaps America's highest paid historian, Newt Gingrich, suggested that immigration power -- the authority to pick the lucky individuals who can stay in the U.S. and identify the forlorn others who must leave -- should be vested in community boards, fashioned after the Selective-Service-System citizen boards of World War II vintage.  Given the difficulty of mustering jury panels, it's hard to see how Gingrich's boards might ever be staffed, unless the government were to hire the unemployed (something Newt would no doubt view as anathema).

Others, such as Yale law professor, Peter Schuck, have suggested that Adam Smith's invisible hand manipulate the levers of power, proposing that America "experiment with . . . new ways to improve visa allocation . . . [whereby the] government could auction some visas to the highest bidders."  Similar bunkum, which I have suggested would "amount . . . to a latter-day slave auction," has been proposed by Pia Orrenius, a research officer at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, and Madeline Zavodny, a professor of economics at Agnes Scott College.

A more serious suggestion of how the federal government should exercise power appeared in this weekend's Wall St. Journal in an Op-Ed ("Starting Over with Regulation [-] Why are government rules so complex? A guide to a radically simpler system"). The editorial's author, attorney Philip Howard, chairs the nonpartisan government-reform group, Common Good, which has posted a longer version of his Op-Ed. Howard proposes that the arcane minutia of "bureaucratic detail could be scrapped, and law would become understandable again."  He suggests that the "focus would shift from complicated rules to desired results: clean air, safe food, honest business."

I'm not sure I agree with Howard's proposal, but one thing he says strikes me as having the accuracy of a drone missile: 

The standard objection to such a simplified system is that people would take advantage of the leeway: Companies would ignore their obligations, and bureaucrats would abuse their powers. The only answer to these fears is accountability. There's no need to trust business: Give inspectors presumptive authority to decide whether or not a business is meeting its regulatory obligations. Nor do we need to trust officials. The system would need to include ways to overrule regulators who are unreasonable and to fire them if they consistently show bad judgment. (Bolding added.)

Under today's immigration procedures, however, there is no way for the public to pressure the administrative agencies to fire immigration adjudicators (power-wielders) who "consistently show bad judgment."  Whether from within the USCIS Administrative Appeals Office, the Regional Service Centers, or U.S. consulates or embassies abroad, power is exercised anonymously.  In the case of USCIS, decisions denying benefits are putatively "issued" in the name of the boss of the particular unit.  The particular decision-maker is almost never identified.  While consular officers deny visas in face-to-face fashion (albeit with officer and visa applicant separated by bullet-proof glass), the refusing officers' names are not revealed. 

I recognize, to be sure, the dangers that some immigration adjudicators might face if their identities were known. But just as in the recent debate in the New York Times ("Anonymity and Incivility on the Internet"), some degree of transparency and accountability is necessary if bad behavior is to be prevented and rogue officers disciplined. 

Perhaps, an official governmentally-maintained but secret registry of immigration adjudicator noms de plume can be established. I think that if someone must put one's own name on the decisions he or she makes, then the legal scholarship, application of law to facts, reasoning and justice of each decision will inevitably improve.  At the very least, the public would be able to spot the bad apples (through the good offices of reporting agencies such as Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse -- a data-distribution service of Syracuse University -- which has long provided information on decisions of individual immigration judges).  With metrics on trends of mistaken adjudications, the public could pressure the immigration agencies to re-educate wayward power-wielders, or if unrepentant, demand their removal (from the job, not the country).   

Are we a trustworthy nation?  The world waits to see if the American government becomes a deadbeat on August 2, when the debt ceiling is hit.  Will the country break faith with its creditors?  Will it stiff Social Security recipients, the ill and disabled, fallen warriors and others whose lives or fortunes depend on Uncle Sam's unflagging reliability.

The New York Times reported recently on a set of already broken American oaths. Many would-be "Special Immigrants" in Iraq who've worked for the U.S., are stranded there, facing death threats, living in stairwells, checking for car bombs underneath their vehicles, losing hope that their oft-promised yet long-delayed U.S. visas will ever arrive -- green cards that Congress ordered to be fast-tracked -- all the time chastising themselves for their gullible belief in America's words.

A letter writer commenting on the Times story bewailed our "exceptional[ly]" roguish behavior: 

What have we become? Our word means nothing now. We break our word to Iraqi friends who helped us. Do we think that those whom we’ve left dangling in the wind will remain our friends? We want to break our word on debts we’ve already accrued.

Do we think that our creditors will continue to invest in us because we are “exceptional”? . . . I despair for a country that I see becoming . . . more removed from what I once thought were our high moral standards. And a country that does not keep its word.

As these despondent Iraqis have come to realize, institutional word-breaking is endemic within the U.S. immigration ecosystem. One small example tells a tale.

Consider the H-1B visa available to nonimmigrant workers in "specialty occupations" who possess at least a university sheepskin or its equivalent in the workaday world.  For those who prefer their learning via chart rather than text, click here; otherwise, read the following indented paragraphs:

This visa started life in 1952 as the H-1 for employees of "distinguished merit and ability" -- a term later interpreted to refer to degreed or degree-equivalent "professionals." In 1990, however, Congress rebranded the visa the H-1B and added an array of worker protections to be enforced by the Department of Labor (DOL), including a requirement that foreign citizens in H-1B status receive at least the going rate (the "prevailing wage") in the local area. The process was designed to be speedy.  It would be "attestation-driven" with penalties applied only later if DOL were to investigate a complaint and find that an employer had violated the worker-protection duties of the law.  The employer's attestation, in the form of promises that must be kept, is made under oath on a form known as a "Labor Condition Application," or LCA. 

The DOL is obliged to "certify" an LCA unless it is "incomplete" or "obviously inaccurate."  The employer then submits the certified LCA to an agency of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), together with a work-visa petition. USCIS then determines if the job and the worker qualify as "specialty occupations," meaning that the job requires and the individual possesses that combination of theoretical and practical knowledge typically gained in a baccalaureate program or through equivalent work experience. Thus, the DOL protects H-1B workers, while USCIS confirms visa eligibility.  All was well with the world, or so we thought . . .

Because the prevailing wage is defined by geography (usually the wage considered prevalent in a particular metropolitan area), the DOL maintains listings of prevailing wages for locales around the country.  If an employer learns of an unforeseen business need to dispatch an H-1B worker to a worksite not listed in the LCA, the DOL requires the employer to file a new LCA and obtain DOL's certification.

USCIS's H-1B regulations, however, do not expressly require employers to submit a new or amended visa petition when the change merely involves a job relocation.  After all, there'd be no reason, in principle, why such a filing would be necessary, since the employee and the job itself would not have changed.  Both would still be the very same specialty occupations that USCIS had already screened and approved. 

To be sure, at one point in 1998, USCIS's predecessor, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), had proposed a rule that an amended petition be filed for such job changes, but never took final action.  Instead, INS twice issued policy guidance, the Hogan and Aleinikoff memos, that each confirmed there is no need to report such changes unless the change invalidated the LCA.  The problem for INS and now USCIS, however, is that the DOL regulations do not prescribe any situations which invalidate an LCA.  Under DOL rules, an LCA may only be withdrawn by the employer or allowed to expire.

The view that a "geographic move" by an H-1B worker is not a material change (presumably because such a move does not by itself invalidate the associated LCA) was then confirmed by a senior USCIS official, Efren Hernandez III, Director of the agency's Business and Trade Branch, in 2003 correspondence to the American Council for International Personnel.

Now comes the institutional word-breaking.  Recently, USCIS has begun to rule in numerous individual cases that the employer's failure to amend the H-1B petition (something only the employer can do) and secure the agency's okay for a worker's change of job location means that the H-1B worker -- merely by following her employer's instructions to appear at a new worksite -- has violated nonimmigrant status.  Failing to maintain status is no small matter.  It is a violation of law that can lead to the worker's and her family's removal from the United States and banishment for at least five years.  It can also cause the employer to be charged with continuing to employ the worker while knowing that the right to work has been terminated -- a felony  -- unless the employer immediately fires the worker. 

The bitter irony here is that by relying on the USCIS to keep its word the guileless, relocated worker (the supposed "beneficiary" of H-1B labor protections) and the trusting employer have been placed into a cauldron of hot immigration water. Also ironic is the notion that serious thought is given to "Rewarding Employers Who Play by the Rules," as the Migration Policy Institute recommends, when the agency conferring the reward has systematically failed to publish intelligible rules of play.

How could this happen?  Four plausible theories come to mind:

1. Failure to publish a final rule.  Legacy INS and its successor, USCIS, must be greater believers in "The Secret" (visualize intention and it will manifest) than in the notice-and-comment prescripts of the Administrative Procedures Act.  Just because the agencies float an idea publicly does not make it binding law.
2. Ignorance of DOL regulations.  When Messrs. Hogan and Aleinikoff issued policy guidance, it seems no one bothered to study the DOL regulations.  Had they done so, they would have understood that LCAs can never be "invalidated." Hence, they would not have referred to the "invalidation" of the LCA, but would have at least expressly stated in policy guidance (or better yet in a final regulation) that an H-1B worker's change in work site from one metropolitan area to another requires the filing of an amended H-1B petition.
3. Writing a letter does not make the letter binding law. USCIS and INS know the rules of procedure and precedent.  They should not have allowed the release of informal, non-binding letters that can only serve to mislead stakeholders.
4. USCIS's creeping mission.  As armies of USCIS Fraud Detection and National Security ("FDNS") investigators and contractors performing "site visits" have appeared at business doorsteps nationwide, some learned that the H-1B worker whose file was to be audited had moved to another job site.  To an unschooled investigator (see # 2 above), this "suspicious" conduct looks like either fraud or a technical violation of the H-1B rules (even if the employer proffers an LCA covering the new worksite). 

None of these reasons justify indifference to the unpaid debts of promises unkept.  The poet, Robert Service, whose surname is what USCIS should be all about, said: "A promise made is a debt unpaid." USCIS should heed the poet's wisdom and put "Services" rightly back into its own name by promptly paying its debts to the stranded Iraqis endangered by American loyalty and by repairing the damage it has caused to relocated H-1B workers and their employers falsely accused of violating U.S. immigration law.