2011 ocean.jpgAs the ocean of time washes 2011 away, the eyes of the immigration world turn once again in heady anticipation to the annual IMMI Awards.  Although not as hyped or well-known as the EMMYs or OSCARs, or as festive as the Golden Globes, this annual offering of plaudits or pickles to the year’s best and worst in U.S. immigration provides a Visa-Bulletin‘s worth of oversubscribed nominees. Our ceremony, however, omits the usual red-carpet strutting, and the sartorial post-mortems by the likes of Joan Rivers and Kelly Osbourne.

Full disclosure: There is no IMMI nominating committee. These are my personal choices. If you disagree or believe I’ve missed an obvious awardee, feel free to comment below or Tweet me here. All rants, with expletives deleted, of course, are welcome. If you want other takes on the year just concluded, check out The Christian Science Monitor‘s “Top 10 immigration stories for 2011,” New America Media‘s “Top 10 Immigration Stories of 2011” or The New York Law Journal‘s “The Year-End Immigration Roundup for Employers,” co-authored by Ted Chiappari and me.

If the year in immigration is not intriguing, then an appointment with a mental-health professional may be overdue, or perhaps Time Magazine‘s “The Top 10 Everything of 2011” and Fast Company‘s “The Best And Worst Of Everything In 2011: A Mega, Meta Mashup” will entice (my Fast Company favorite:  “Political Comedian” Will Durst’s, “Top Ten Comedic News Stories of 2011“).

The 2011 IMMI Awardees

Absentee Executive. President Obama, a two-time (er, two-timing?) IMMI awardee, wins in a new category this year.  He’s chanted “We Can’t Wait” yet is nowhere to be found on immigration reform.  A summer speech on the El-Paso/Tijuana border where he joked of alligators and moats is this year’s only sighting. He’s been absent at the helm, unwilling to wield the immense authority of his office to craft executive orders and issue regulations that would improve the functioning of the legal immigration system, help create jobs and enhance our economic competitiveness.

GOP Worst Idea of 2011. A host of contenders vied for this IMMI:  Sen. Lindsay Graham (proposals to abolish “birth tourism,” the new euphemism for the discredited “anchor baby”); Rep. Steve King (who spots unauthorized immigrants by their “clothing . . . shoes . . . accidents [accents]” and “grooming“); Herman Cain (the I’m-kidding/I’m-not-kidding suggestion of an electrified border fence); and Michele Bachmann (“the immigration system in the United States worked very, very well up until the mid-1960s,” i.e., until the laws changed the ethnic makeup of immigrants to allow more non-Europeans). The not-too-surprising winner is Newt Gingrich who espoused a system of local community boards that would choose which undocumented would stay or be forced to go.  Any idea that causes such polar opposites on the immigration spectrum as Chuck Kuck and Mark Krikorian to agree in rightly calling it hare-brained surely entitles its professorial proponent to an IMMI win. 

Posturing-Impasse-and-Blockage Non-Legislator. With a bicameral legislature of 535 potential nominees who voted that pizza is a vegetable, the choice for this year’s IMMI was especially daunting.  Sen. Charles Grassley takes the award hands down. He placed a hold on the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act — a House-passed bill designed to avoid an expensive brain drain of foreign students from America that would have relieved persons born in India or China of the up-to-70 years wait for a green card.  (This is the senator’s second IMMI — last year he won the “I-See-Immigration-Fraud-Everywhere” award.)

Inflated Immigration Rhetoric. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano wins the IMMI for her over-the-top defense of Secure Communities — the voluntary/mandatory means of netting far more small-time immigration violators than dangerous felons — and her empty promises of job creation through legal immigration (which since the Secretary’s August proclamation have borne no tangible fruit).

Most Tasteless Poaching.  The animal-rights group PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) takes the IMMI cake for its misappropriation of the opposition to Alabama’s illegal immigration law, the 72-page HB56, which among the law’s many faults turns elementary school teachers into illegal immigration census-takers.  PETA mounted a “No One Should Need Papers—Adopt an ‘Undocumented’ Mutt Today!” billboard campaign. Frankly, PETA, Fido comes nowhere close on the suffering scale to unauthorized immigrant families.

Why Are We Unwelcoming? This IMMI is conferred jointly on two awardees. The U.S. Consulate in Chennai receives it for lawlessly refusing work visas en masse to applicants from the world’s largest democracy and that nation’s ultra-hot economy. The second recipient is U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), whose poorly kept records, according to the General Accountability Office, suggest that “more than 4,000 [CBP] officers have not completed the [required] immigration fundamentals, and immigration law . . . courses (emphasis added).” 

Digital Dysfunction. The award might have gone to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the agency that missed a self-imposed end of year deadline for beginning its pilot Transformation program, or, to the Labor Department’s Office of Foreign Labor Certification for its frequent system outages that hurt users of its Labor Condition Application software.  But the doozy of IT screw-ups this year goes to the State Department for squelching the dreams of 22,000 foreigners who foolishly believed the Department’s notices that they had won the Diversity Green Card Lottery only to learn of a computer error that required a do-over.  

Best Immigration Video.  Although two DREAMers’ close-up-and-personal challenge to since deposed Arizona politician, Russell Pearce (“Russell Pearce Freaks Out When Confronted by DREAM Activists“), came near the mark, the IMMI goes to COLORLINES for its 2011 in Review—in 90 Seconds. Don’t let the title mislead, this fast-paced collage of video snippets demonstrates vividly and viscerally how racial justice and immigration justice are two facets of the same set of bedrock civil rights:  

Industry Immigration Champions. The IMMI goes in vivo jointly to the entreprenuerial job creators (the “Immigrant Founders and Key Personnel in America’s 50 Top Venture-Funded Companies“) and to America’s farmers who staunchly opposed federal and state legislative proposals and laws that have frightened away undocumented farm laborers and caused our precious fruits and vegetables to go unharvested.  The posthumous IMMI goes to Steve Jobs who urged President Obama to “let ‘any foreign student who earned an engineering degree’ stay in the USA on a visa.“

Fearless Immigration Hero. The IMMI could have gone to any of the courageous millions who braved family separation, ethnic and racial profiling, detention and the threat or reality of deportation this year.  The most high-profile and pro-active of these, no doubt, is Jose Antonio Vargas, a Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist who outed himself as an undocumented DREAMer in a New York Times Magazine article, formed an immigration-reform organization, Define American, and silently protested when Mitt Romney’s handlers prevented him from asking a question at a campaign rally.  

Insistent Inner Voice. The IMMI goes to January Contreras, the USCIS Ombudsman, and her ever-vigilant team of pleasingly squeaky wheels who respectfully turned an array of spotlights on the foibles and shenanigans of USCIS.  Ombudsman Contreras launched the first annual national Ombudsman’s conference on immigration in Washington, convened a small business and start-ups listening session in Los Angeles, provided hands-on help in individual cases, and issued a slew of important recommendations that, if fulfilled, would jumpstart job creation and measurably improve the lives and well-being of Americans and would-be citizens for decades to come. 

Dollars for Immigrant Detention.  This IMMI goes to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) for successfully urging a spate of anti-immigration state laws that grow profits for ALEC members in the private detention and bail-bonds industries while detainees are mistreated.

Shortest Stay Award. No this IMMI doesn’t go to the many would-be entrants to the U.S. who were issued CBP orders of expedited removal and turned back at once.  Rather, it goes to Allen Bersin who, with his resignation today, clocked just over 18 months’ tenure as head of CBP.

Nativist Enabler. Kris Kobach, Kansas Secretary of State, and ghostwriter for many of the state anti-immigration bills, dubbed by The Daily Beast as “the intellectual architect of the right’s fight against illegal immigration,” wins this ignominious IMMI.  

DREAMers Shelved But Not Deferred. John Morton, who heads up U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), earns half an IMMI for announcing a new policy of prosecutorial enforcement (on serious felons) and discretion (for DREAMers and other undocumented immigrants with favorable equities).  The policy, slow to be realized on the ground, falls woefully short in real-world practice. The other half of the award will be conferred when he amends the policy so that it automatically includes “deferred action” status — a legal basis for beneficiaries of prosecutorial discretion to obtain a work permit.

Nine, Nein and Now. This IMMI goes to the Supreme Court (laudably) for its rare unanimous (all-nine) vote chastening an immigration tribunal — the Board of Immigration Appeals — over the BIA’s extra-legal interpretations of immigration law in Judulang v. Holder and (regrettably) for its five-three declaration of “no” to federal preemption in Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, which sustained Arizona’s mandatory E-Verify law. Now, we wait for the eight-Justice decision (with Justice Kagan self-recused) on Arizona’s “papers please” SB1070 law to see if the High Court will receive a 2012 IMMI.   

Thumbnail image for Mutiny_HMS_Bounty.jpgI’m Not Captain Bligh. Alejandro Mayorkas, the well-intentioned lawyer’s-lawyer who directs USCIS, earns an IMMI for bringing tangible improvements to immigration-benefits administration.  Ali — as he prefers to be called — receives high marks for improving the process of public outreach, the stakeholder vetting of proposed agency policies and decisional templates, the initiation of an Entrepreneurs in Residence program, and the acceleration of naturalization and green-card processing times at the agency’s field offices.  His achievements are all the more laudable because he produced this bounty of immigration benefits despite the cadres of internal mutineers who have fought him tooth and nail over every innovation and improvement he proposed.

* * *

That’s it for the 2011 IMMIs.  There’s always the next 12 months for the coming crop of nominees.  Meantime, to government readers of this blog (you know who you are) angling to win in 2012, it’s time to consider an oldie-but-a-still-goodie Nation of Immigrators posting from December 30, 2008: New Year Resolutions for Immigration Officials.

[Blogger’s Note:  Today’s post comes to us courtesy of my colleague, Brandon Meyer, a prolific writer whose analysis and commentary cover a wide array of immigration law topics.   Brandon offers a spirited post on a troubling aspect of the EB-5 employment-creation immigrant investor green card category. Thanks to him for having allowed me to be in top holiday spirits, undiverted from the season’s pleasing diversions by the labor of love that is www.nationofimmigrators.com.]

What Are We Paying for? 

USCIS and the I-526 Exemplar Process

By Brandon Meyer 

Currency Tipsy Investor.jpg[Author’s Prescript]: In the spirit of fairness and open dialogue, I contacted the Community Relations Department of the California Service Center prior to publication to elicit their comment.  No reply was received. 

USCIS Director Alejandro Mayorkas deserves credit for trying to bring meaningful procedural and operational reforms to USCIS in general and to the EB-5 program specifically.  He has pushed for regulatory clarity, consistency of adjudications, and most notably, the introduction of premium processing for EB-5 petitions.  However, the Director’s hard work and good will are in danger of being wasted by his own organization.  A salient example of how the Director’s own agency actively undermines his initiatives is brought to the fore when considering the sham that is the I-526 exemplar process. 

USCIS Propaganda: 

The concept of the I-526 exemplar petition was introduced by the December 11, 2009 memo on “Adjudication of EB-5 Regional Center Proposals and Affiliated Form I-526 and I-829 Petitions; Adjudicators Field Manual (AFM) Update to Chapters 22.4 and 25.2 (AD09-38) (the “Neufeld Memo”).[1] 

The theory behind allowing qualifying Regional Center projects to file so-called “Exemplar Petitions” was to improve overall EB-5 processing.  If a project submitted a sample I-526 petition for prior USCIS review and the project did not materially change over time, then the subsequent I-526 petitions were supposed to be processed in a more consistent manner.  At first, exemplar processing was a courtesy provided free by USCIS.  An exemplar was filed and eventually USCIS would issue an approval notice.  Since there was no fee for an exemplar, USCIS did not issue an I-797 receipt notice upon filing.[2] 

Something changed around Fall 2010.  My office filed an I-526 exemplar petition in October 2010, just prior to the implementation of Form I-924 and the attendant $6,230.00 filing fee.  We received an I-797 receipt notice based on this exemplar filing in which the filing was deemed an amendment to the Regional Center’s designation.  Legally, this was not correct.  The exemplar filing neither asked for an expansion of the Regional Center’s area of geographic scope, nor was the filing asking for the addition of a new industrial focus.  The filing was simply requesting pre-approval of a new project in an area where the Regional Center was already established and in an industry for which it was likewise already approved.  So why was this exemplar classified as an amendment?  USCIS was gearing up for the money grab. 

In the intervening two years since the Neufeld Memo appeared, USCIS has said time and again that the exemplar process was meant to improve the adjudication of subsequently filed I-526 petitions. 

The Reality: 

Apologies to the late Edwin Starr and his classic 1969 anti-war song, “War,” but paraphrasing his lyrics provides us with a clear picture of the reality of the I-924 exemplar process as applied by USCIS.[3] 

            “Your Exemplar.  What is it good for?” 

            “Absolutely nothing!  Say it again!” 

            “Your Exemplar.  What is it good for?” 

            “Absolutely nothing!” 

It has become painfully obvious, despite Director Mayorkas’ public comments and USCIS written guidance to the contrary, that USCIS has no intention of honoring its numerous promises to give deference to an I-526 exemplar approval.  EB-5 stakeholders continue to receive Requests for Evidence (“RFEs”) for I-526 petitions based on approved exemplar petitions where there was no change to the project.  The RFEs are questioning aspects of the EB-5 projects, aspects that were reviewed (or were supposed to have been reviewed) during the exemplar process.  So why was the project good enough during the exemplar process, but now magically deficient when serving as the basis of an I-526 petition?  Did USCIS just cash the $6,230 check, put the filing on the shelf for months, then pick it up and send an approval without reviewing it? 

So why is USCIS issuing RFEs for I-526 petitions for project-related questions vetted and approved during the exemplar process?  The Neufeld memo quoted above states on page four: 

“A previously favorable decision may not be relied upon in later proceedings where, for example, the underlying facts upon which a favorable decision was made have materially changed, there is evidence of fraud or misrepresentation in the record of proceeding, or the previously favorable decision is determined to be legally deficient.”[4] 

The reasons outlined for not giving an exemplar approval deference are fair enough.  However, none of the RFEs for I-526 petitions based on an approved exemplar make of these assertions, nor has the exemplar petition approval been reopened for any of these reasons.  Therefore, USCIS is not following its own guidance. Is this intentional or does the left hand not know what the right hand is doing? 

During the September 2010 EB-5 stakeholders meeting held at the California Service Center, USCIS officials told the audience that stakeholders were going to be happy with the November 2010 introduction of Form I-924, with its $6,230.00 filing fee, as well as the increase in the Form I-526 filing fee to $1,500.00.  How could this be, I asked?  The answer I received was that these astronomical fees would allow USCIS to raise headcount by hiring more adjudicators and more specialist business analysts and economists.  The logical outcome, of course, would be that not only would sluggish, slothful, or glacial processing times remarkably improve, but the quality of adjudications would also improve and become more consistent!  “What could be better?”  “How could you not like these fees?”  “We’re giving you want you want!” 

Well, I was skeptical about this bright-future propaganda that was being force-fed on the EB-5 stakeholder community then, and the events of the past 15 months have confirmed my initial pessimism.  Processing times have not budged one bit.  It still takes USCIS eight months to process an I-526 petition.[5] The quality and consistency of EB-5 adjudication has not improved either.  Stakeholders regularly receive RFEs for specious reasons based on shaky reasoning.  Thus, if these high fees were the solution to the problem of slow and inconsistent processing, the solution has failed. 

During the November 2011 AILA California Chapters Conference, my San Diego AILA colleague Kimberly Roubidoux noted wistfully that when she began her career in immigration law, H-1Bs cost $85.00 and were adjudicated in three weeks by the Vermont Service Center.[6]  Today, H-1Bs can cost up to $3,550.00 in filing fees and the Vermont Service Center now needs four months to make a decision on an H-1B.[7]  Yes, folks, you are paying 41 times more to get something 5 ½ times slower.  Now that’s value. 

As we know, USCIS is mostly funded by user fees and the agency must periodically justify to the U.S. Congress that its fees are appropriate.  Yet, as fees increase across the board, service fails to improve.  How can USCIS continue to justify its fees? Sadly, I would be willing to surmise that USCIS could raise I-526 filing fees to $5,000.00 and I-924 filing fees to $25,000.00 and we would still fail to see any the benefits promised by USCIS during the September 2010 EB-5 stakeholders meeting. 

Yet, despite the failure of increased fees to improve EB-5 processing times and service, Director Mayorkas wishes to implement premium processing for certain Form I-924 applications and possibly certain Form I-526 petitions.  The Director’s rationale is sensible and worthy of support.  Job creation and investment are often on hold while the Forms I-924 and I-526 remain stuck for almost a year each in the bowels of the USCIS California Service Center.  However, Director Mayorkas unfortunately misses the point.  Fees at any level would fail to solve the problem.  The problem is the perverse incentives that USCIS faces when trying to fund its own operations. 

I generally do not subscribe to conspiracy theories.  Conspiracy theories are best left to people who can spends weeks at a time camping out in parks and public squares, protesting whatever it is they’re protesting (these people would benefit immensely from the job creating stimulus of a functional EB-5 program). I will nonetheless offer my own conspiracy theory.  EB-5 stakeholders have noticed an upswing in EB-5 related RFEs (although USCIS would probably dispute this assertion, they always do until the true numbers eventually leak out) and another slow down in processing times that coincides with the Director’s initial announcement that he wished to introduce premium processing into EB-5.  Coincidence?  I don’t think so. 

Another factor driving this upsurge in EB-5 RFEs is also too coincidental to be anything but deliberate.  As referenced above, the EB-5 unit has seen an upsurge in headcount funded by these skyrocketing fees.  The RFEs that question the basis of exemplar approvals tend to be focused on the business plans and economic studies included as part of the approved exemplar petition.  Therefore, I surmise this trend is also intentional as a way for USCIS to justify expanding its headcount in this area, under the “look, just look at these bad business plans and economic studies.  Good thing we hired all these people.  Let’s give ourselves a pat on the back for our foresight.” 

For years, the EB-5 stakeholder community has had to listen to a series of unconvincing excuses as to why premium processing was inappropriate for EB-5.  “Impossible.”  “EB-5s are too complex.”  “We can’t guarantee that we can process in 15 days.”  And my favorite, usually offered in a dismissive manner, “nothing is a priority if everything is a priority.” 

By pushing premium processing, Director Mayorkas, knowingly or otherwise, is offering a direct challenge to these years of accumulated dismissals of the idea that premium processing could work for EB-5. 

Therefore, my conspiracy theory is that this upsurge in EB-5 related RFEs and a slow down in processing times is part of a deliberate bureaucratic counterattack to delay and hopefully kill off Mr. Mayorkas’ EB-5 premium processing idea once and for all.  How sad would that be?  While USCIS career bureaucrats protect their turf and reputations, job creation and investment in the U.S. remain stalled.  Yes, indeed.  The American people are being held hostage.  USCIS can hire as many “Entrepreneurs in Residence,” and bring in as many business process consultants as they want.  The underlying problem will not change. 

Don’t get me wrong.  Obtaining an exemplar approval is not entirely useless.  It continues to serve as a mechanism for new projects affiliating with existing Regional Centers to show that USCIS recognizes this affiliation.  With the Regional Center marketplace becoming more crowded and fake Regional Center projects popping up from time to time, an exemplar approval can be useful in marketing to show potential investors that the project is real.  However, providing Regional Center projects with marketing credibility was not, and should not be the intention of the exemplar process. 

While the theory behind the exemplar process is exemplary, the reality of the situation has become an absolute joke, a shameless money grab.  So the next time you feel like filing an exemplar and paying the $6,230 I-924 filing fee, do something more useful with that money.  Put the money pile in a fireplace and light it on fire. You’ll get more out of it, such as keeping warm on a cold winter’s night or possibly toasting some marshmallows if you’re motivated. 

Brandon Meyer is Principal of Meyer Law Group, a full service immigration law firm with offices in Stamford, CT and Solana Beach, CA.  His e-mail address is Brandon@meyerlawgroup.us.

[1] “Adjudication of EB-5 Regional Center Proposals and Affiliated Form I-526 and I-829 Petitions; Adjudicators Field Manual (AFM) Update to Chapters 22.4 and 25.2 (AD09-38), December 11, 2009.

[2] I asked the question during the March 2010 stakeholders outreach session, “well, if you won’t issue an I-797, how do we know you have the filing and are working on it?”  The answer I received was something to the effect of “trust us.”

[3] See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Starr, last accessed December 21, 2011.

[4] 2009 Neufeld Memo, page 4.

[5] See the latest California Service Center processing time report as of November 14, 2011, http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=37645, last accessed December 21, 2011.

[6] The principal blogger of www.nationofimmigrators.com, Angelo Paparelli, was also a panelist during Kimberly’s reminiscences.

[7] See the latest Vermont Service Center processing time report as of November 14, 2011, http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=37649, last accessed December 21, 2011.

From the first prehistoric evenings sitting around campfires, humans have been telling stories. Heroic myths, fairy-tale fables, oral histories — all have been seared into heart and memory through the power of narrative. Civil and criminal trials are merely stylized forms of storytelling.  Journalism’s hook, theatre’s Sturm und Drang, reality television’s sour and sweet confections — all are bottomed on stories.

Although I’ve mentored dozens of able and bright immigration lawyers, some new, some not so, I continue to be amazed at how few appreciate the power of telling stories (double entendre intended).  Sadly, the unscrupulous — the notarios, consultants and sleazebags with a law license — know too well the power of storytelling — but I’m talking about truthful, factual, accurate stories, not fabrications.

SHYMIA-HALL-large.jpgSome stories tell themselves, like the saga of my pro bono client, Shyima Hall.  Born in Alexandria, Egypt as Shyima Hassan, one of 11 children in a poor family, she is sold by her mother at age 9, and smuggled into America a year later to work for a wealthy Egyptian couple in my town, Irvine, California, a ‘burb often rated, ironically, one of the most crime-free cities in America. After three years of captivity, working night and day for the couple and their five children, sleeping in their unheated, unlighted garage, washing her clothes in a bucket, she is spotted by a suspicious neighbor who tips off the police. The couple is convicted and Shyima is taken to Orangewood orphanage, then adopted by a foster couple, and along the way befriended by a compassionate agent of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).  

Shyima obtains a green card as a Special Immigrant Juvenile.  After high school, she travels around the country with ICE to speak about the dangers of human trafficking and urge trafficked victims to be brave and come forward. She volunteers with the Public Law Center, the Orange County Human Trafficking Task Force, and other anti-slavery groups such as the Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking. 

Years later, serendipity leads me to Shyima (who is now a young adult).  It prompted me on a whim to pop into the office of an ICE communications officer to say hello at the close of a USCIS California Service Center Stakeholders Meeting. The officer tells me about Shyima and her goal to become an ICE officer, but also of this amazing woman’s preliminary need to find pro bono counsel who’ll help her become a naturalized American. Asked to find Shyima pro bono counsel, I volunteer myself and my firm. The media have followed Shyima’s story, since she was first released from captivity, and again just last week in this Los Angeles Times piece and this AP article as well as the following video, shot on the day of her oath-taking and embrace of American citizenship.

Not all immigration stories flow naturally with such a dramatic arc. Some are hidden and must be teased out and coaxed to appear. Immigration lawyers who can do this, in my view, “are worth their weight in gold,” as another immigration-agency communications officer, Karen Kraushaar, once told the Washington Post (before she moved on to another federal job and later joined other women accusing Herman Cain of sexual misconduct  — a totally different story in itself).

In truth, Ms. Kraushaar was referring to Immigration law’s complexity (“[It’s] a mystery and a mastery of obfuscation”). While surely the ability to traverse code sections, regulations, policy interpretations and institutional history matters (as the Supreme Court unanimously demonstrated this week in the Judulang case), that’s not the whole story. 

Green Card Stories.jpgTelling immigration stories matter(s) just as much, sometimes more. Good immigration stories entice.  Unlike the physical imprisonment of Shyima’s Irvine garage, they create emotional captivity. They have the power, as in Shyima’s case, to melt the (too-often) frozen heart of ICE. Take for instance the 50 real-life biographies depicted so well, with vivid photos and eloquent word pictures, in a new book, Green Card Stories. These stories, however, did not tell themselves.  They required worth-their-weight-in-gold immigration lawyers (mostly members of the Alliance of Business Immigration Lawyers) to bring them to life.

Immigration lawyers, paralegals, U.S. citizen spouses and families of the foreign born, employers of non-citizens, and would-be Green Card holders:  Read this book! It will inspire you to make your clients’, families’, employees’ and your own Green Card stories a reality. These stories, like all well-told immigration biographies, humanize the demonized and prove that they are worthy of welcome. These dramatically revealed tales of truth and hardship, often extreme and exceptional, unmask the lies of the nativists and the naïve, who make or believe the make-believe memes about immigration, legal and illegal. They help us “Define American.”

These immigration stories are not woven of mere gossamer words that violate immigration law [INA § 274C(f)]; stories that break the law are “false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement[s] or material representation[s], or [have] no basis in law or fact, or otherwise fail . . . to state a fact which is material to the purpose for which it was submitted.” Rather, the stories of which I speak are knitted with the strong, resilient threads of lawyerly due diligence and probing curiosity It also helps to have a liberal arts education and to embrace the inquisitive Socratic method. Contrary to the Gingrich who stole Christmas, it is not limited to one in 11 million and does not require 25 years of physical presence in this country.
These recountings are best backed by documentary proof, powerful visual images and the sound of a ringing, truthfully spoken tale. As Rod Stewart (himself a naturalized American) might wail, EVERY IMMIGRANT TELLS A STORY!
 

President Obama had a macho moment this week when he suggested, rhetorically, a poll of ghosts. “Ask Osama Bin Laden” and the “22 out of 30 top al-Qaeda leaders who’ve been taken off the field,” he proposed, “whether I engage in appeasement.”  The storied bugaboo of foreign-policy appeasement, best typified by the flaccidity of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in the face of Nazi aggression, was the GOP charge that the President debunked so handily.

 

Would that he were so forceful against Republicans on the immigration front, where a foreign policy challenge morphs into a domestic concern, one that starts at both the water’s edge and the nation’s earthly boundary.  This time his use of drones and boots on the ground to fortify and defend America’s borders successfully has produced nothing but a failed effort at GOP appeasement. 

The President probably won’t ask the 80 or so U.S. citizens held illegally from a day to four years in just two immigration detention centers if he engages in appeasement.  He’d probably also decline to float a survey of the statisticians who count border crossings, for they would say that illegal inbound migration is at its lowest in over four decades. The rhetorical flourish this time won’t work because he knows these responders would surely say “yes” to the appeasement charge. No poll is necessary because he already knows the answer. He told us so last summer: “Maybe [the Republicans will] need a moat. (Laughter.) Maybe they want alligators in the moat. (Laughter.) They’ll never be satisfied. And I understand that. That’s politics.”

plastic straws.jpgThumbnail image for peas 4.pngPresidential swagger would be more impressive if he used his clout to circumvent GOP-erected gridlock in Congress.  Imagine if he decided to eschew drones and troops and went low tech.  Imagine if he looked back among the weapons of his and every American boy’s childhood and pulled out his lowly pea shooter.  Rather than appease, he could shoot peas — fresh green orbs of power in the form of executive orders that he alone propels from the White House. 

No more appeasement but fusillades of executive (made-to-) order peas that would sprout the jobs he so desperately needs created pronto to save his presidency. 

Some might argue that he’s already begun the effort by authorizing ICE and USCIS to exercise prosecutorial discretion (PD) more frequently in favor of leniency for low level immigration violators. But that effort has yet to fire off enough salvos to hit the target. It would be better to accelerate PD reviews, expand them to include all the unauthorized among us rather than the current triage of only 300,000 deportation cases, begun as a timid six-week pilot project in Denver.  Moreover, he should order the agencies to grant the formal status of “deferred action” (which includes the right to a work permit) rather than just PD (which merely prolongs the individual’s agony by preventing them from progressing in their lives and pursuits, but only allowing them to wait to the unknown day when the grim deporter returns for them).

He could also aim his shots at the legal immigration system.  Nothing but his own policy of GOP immigration-appeasement prevents him.  He seems to understand the concept, as his “We Can’t Wait” campaign addresses housing, student loans, energy efficiency and health care. There are gobs of jobs he could create if he turned his sights to tweaking the employment-based immigration laws, as I suggest in this post, “Executive Craftsmanship: Job Creation through Existing Immigration Laws,” and video:

Why is President Obama so un-macho on immigration?  Alas, maybe he’s just too wim-pea.

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. 

anonymous adjudicator.jpgPerhaps, 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).   

Magnet.jpgThe recent CNN GOP debate on foreign policy surprised many for what it included and excluded.  Amazingly, nothing was said of the European debt crisis that threatens to create severe financial blowback in America.  The surprise by inclusion came from Republican flavor of the month, Newt Gingrich, who responded to a domestic policy question on immigration, specifically, what America should do with the large population of unauthorized immigrants among us:

“If you’ve come here recently, you have no ties to this country, you ought to go home, period. If you’ve been here 25 years and you got three kids and two grandkids, you’ve been paying taxes and obeying the law, you belong to a local church, I don’t think we’re going to separate you from your family, uproot you forcefully and kick you out.”

This prompted an attractive or repellant response (depending on one’s views) concerning magnets. Candidates Bachmann and Romney chided Gingrich on the magnet of amnesty and the magnet of taxpayer-subsidized college tuition for DREAMers — although post-debate reporting and opposition research revealed that both Willard Mitt and Michele Marie have espoused positions on legalization similar to Newton Leroy McPherson (Newt’s name at birth).

However much they differ or align on legalization, there is one consensus magnet on which all 2012 candidates (including President Obama) agree — the magnet of jobs.  It’s not so much our freedoms of press, religion and assembly, our right to bear arms, our purple mountain majesties, or people like Steve Jobs, but rather, jobs — the candidates opine — are what impels foreigners to America.  Take away the attraction of unscrupulous employers looking the other way, identity thieves vending new impersonations, and accommodating document forgers doing a bustling trade.  Demagnetize them in the slammer, and then otherwise desperate non-natives willing to cross burning deserts and fortified borders will instead pursue opportunities elsewhere or stay put abroad.  Or so the theory goes.

In reality, however, the problem of dysfunctional immigration policies is not one of a jobs magnet, or an amnesty magnet, but rather the very program inaugurated in 1986 with President Reagan’s signing of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) to punish employers who violate the law. Our immigration system remains broken today because it was fundamentally flawed in concept from the outset.  Congress has consistently declined since 1986 to mandate that everyone — American citizens and foreigners alike — carry a national identity document and present this ID when applying for work. 

Instead, lawmakers copped out, or rather, outsourced the function of immigration cop to the private sector. By privatizing immigration enforcement as a date-of-hire requirement foisted on employers, but not making identity verification essentially foolproof through the creation and distribution of a national ID card, Congress doomed IRCA to fail. In effect, federal lawmakers forced the nation’s employers and their human resource representatives to choose one of three options: Lawbreaker, Naïf or Stooge.  None of these choices attract, magnetically or otherwise.  An extended stay at Club Fed is not desirable.  Neither is naive ill-preparedness or the prospect of serving as Congressional whack-a-mole at the IRCA carnival.

As the Obama Administration mounts its ever-increasing silent raids on American businesses, demanding to see Forms I-9 (Employment Eligibility Verifications), payroll records and other required documentation, employers have had little choice but to prepare for the enforcement juggernaut. Increasingly, as explained here and in the video below, employers must ready themselves for the likely, if not quite inevitable, visit by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or another federal immigration law enforcer:     

                             

Some may think that the problem of job magnets will be solved once E-Verify, the federal employment verification database, becomes mandatory, as House Judiciary Committee Chairman, Lamar Smith (R. TX) has proposed.  It will not — because E-Verify suffers from the law of GIGO.  The database is debased because it depends on the doubtful accuracy of Social Security Administration and Homeland Security Department records.  Moreover, although E-Verify has recently (and rather quietly) gained access to Department of State records on American citizens who’ve received a U.S. passport or passport card (I for one don’t remember giving permission), and Mississippi DMV records, the e-system remains incomplete.  It still cannot catch identity theft and citizen impersonators.  It will not be foolproof until every American, not just every foreigner, is in the database.

red hand print.jpgThat’s not likely to happen anytime soon.  Witness the strange bedfellows of immigration who have opposed the REAL ID Act and encouraged states to drag their feet or demand waivers of the requirement that states satisfy federal standards for issuing new drivers licenses.  Opposition is also growing over a similar identification requirement, the Voter ID laws cropping up across the country. 

Politicians skirmishing for debating points will not solve our immigration dysfunctions.  The solution can only begin when the citizenry participates in a dialogue about the loss of privacy and creeping totalitarianism that a national work ID card might spawn.  We take our shoes off and allow ourselves to be irradiated or groped just to catch a plane.  Are we ready to be biometrically identified in a digital dossier to get a job?

Russia2.jpgOne of the most durable historical myths, Potemkin’s villages, involves the trompe-l’œil hamlets purportedly created at the direction of Grigory Potemkin to impress Catherine II during her 1787 trip to Crimea. If director James Cameron of Avatar fame were to reimagine and modernize the fable of Potemkin’s villages, he might well place the story, in 3D no doubt, at the Frances Perkins Building on Constitution Avenue in Washington DC. 

There a unit of the Department of Labor (DOL), the Employment Training Administration (ETA), maintains its Office of Foreign Labor Certifications (OFLC) whose mission, in part, is the administration of the nation’s permanent labor certification program.  This ETA program, bearing the acronym, PERM (Program Electronic Review Management), is a veritable Potemkin village of black-box bureaucracy featuring repeatedly non-functional technology, secret algorithms and surreptitious data mining. 

For the uninitiated, a labor certification, as DOL has structured it, is a recruitment exercise imposed on employers to see if there are any able, willing, qualified and available American workers in a particular U.S. metropolitan area.  If the recruitment is conducted under DOL-mandated steps, yet fails to find a suitable U.S. worker, the Secretary of Labor will certify the failure. Thus, the Secretary’s certification acknowledges that the grant of permanent residence to a sponsored foreign citizen will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed workers in the United States.

DOL inaugurated PERM in 2005 for two stated reasons: (1) to use automation to winnow a backlog of paper-based applications for labor certification that went back five years in many cases, and (2) to address the concern of the DOL’s Office of Inspector General (OIG), expressed in a 2004 report, about “the vulnerability of DOL’s foreign labor certification programs to fraud by non-traditional, transnational organized crime groups.”  Perhaps more than owing to worries over global crime syndicates, DOL seems to have devised PERM because it had been hoodwinked and humiliated by a Virginia lawyer, Samuel Kooritzky, into approving hundreds of bogus labor certifications, the same lawyer who had defeated the agency in federal court and thus secured an order that preserved the (now-extinct) practice of substituting one foreign national for another on an approved labor certification.  

DOL’s worries about fraud in the PERM program persist. Listed among the “2011 Top Management Challenges Facing the Department of Labor” is the need to “maintain the integrity of the foreign labor certification programs”:

ETA is challenged to ensure the integrity of the [Foreign Labor Certification] programs it administers. OIG investigations continue to uncover schemes carried out by immigration attorneys, labor brokers, and transnational organized crime groups. OIG investigations have repeatedly revealed that fraudulent applications filed with DOL on behalf of fictitious companies, as well as schemes wherein fraudulent applications were filed using the names of legitimate companies without the companies’ knowledge.

To address the apparently widespread incidence of labor certification fraud, DOL is piloting a “new risk management model [which] allows ETA to assign risk ratings to individuals applying to its PERM program and spend the appropriate amount of time reviewing the higher risk applications and reducing overall reviewing timeframes.” (Source: DOL “Agency Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2011,” p. 181.)

The evidence DOL cites, however, does not back up its exuberant claims of a PERM program rife with fraud.  The Highlights of the DOL OIG’s Semiannual Report to Congress mention only two, admittedly egregious, cases: a family that used 11 staffing companies to import over 1,000 H-2B nonimmigrants; and an attorney employed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement convicted of a slew of federal crimes including labor certification fraud. Another report, the DOL’s “Permanent Labor Certification Debarment List,” names only nine entities and individuals who are prohibited, by virtue of serious regulatory violations, including fraud, under 20 CFR 656.31(f), from participating in the PERM program. To place these reported incidents of fraud in context, consider that, according to the notes of an October 5, 2011 OFLC Stakeholders Meeting  (AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 11102768), DOL has adjudicated year to date a total of 73,000 PERM applications.

Despite the absence of evidence from DOL showing that PERM fraud proliferates, ETA is developing a new and growing backlog.  The new queue is attributable to the increasing number of DOL audit requests (which extend the life of the average PERM case from three to eight months, according to DOL’s published processing times) and orders for “supervised recruitment” — the pre-2005 system of agency-micro-managed recruitment that PERM was devised to replace. This back-to-the-future backlog requires the hiring of third-party contractors and their newly recruited workers. It also creates lengthy processing timespans that DOL declines to publish.

No one suggests that fraud is non-existent or that ETA’s Fraud Detection and Prevention unit (oh heavens, another FDNS!?) should not try to maintain PERM program integrity.  Rather, DOL should tone down its group defamation and burdening of law-abiding lawyers and businesses by lumping them in with unnamed “immigration attorneys, labor brokers, and transnational organized crime groups”.  Instead, if DOL wants to make real strides at fraud prevention in 2011, it should finally do what lawyers proposed in 2005 and at last prohibit notarios and consultants from representing employers and foreign nationals in PERM applications: 

Despite two detailed comments suggesting that [non-lawyer] agents should no longer be allowed to represent the parties to a labor certification because their conduct constitutes the unauthorized practice of law and is prohibited in all 50 states, the DOL [has] allowed agents to continue practicing before the agency. The DOL reasoned that the agency has always allowed agents to file labor certification applications and to bar them now ”may have serious consequences” for individuals serving as agents. 69 Fed. Reg. at 77,336 (supplementary information).

Source: Angelo A. Paparelli, “Policy Choices Driving the Labor Department’s New PERM Rule,” 10-5 Bender’s Immigr. Bull. 1 (May 1, 2005).

help wanted 2.jpgThe DOL’s preoccupation with unsubstantiated fraud is not merely an academic concern.  As reported in a recent poll by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), over 50% of organizations are finding it difficult to recruit “skilled workers for specific job openings, with engineering, medical, technical and executive positions especially hard to fill.”

As Mark Schmit, SHRM’s vice president for research, observed: 

American businesses are facing a paradox — high unemployment and the inability to fill key jobs in their organizations. Our research shows that gaps between unemployed American workers’ skills and those required for open jobs in the United States are a major reason for this seemingly unlikely contradiction. It follows logically that if key jobs cannot be filled in organizations, then other less critical jobs requiring less skill cannot be created either because the organizations’ growth potential is stunted. Thus, the cycle of low or no job growth continues.

The requirement to secure a DOL labor certification as a prerequisite to an employment-based green card was established by Congress to protect U.S. workers. Yet, ironically, the Department charged with the duty to protect U.S. workers and certify job shortages has erected a false front of supposedly virulent, but unproven fraud, an apparition worthy of Potemkin, to mask its maladministration of the DOL’s dubiously conceived and backlog-regenerating PERM program.

Europe is at a tipping point.  Will the European Union be dashed on Greek or Italian shores.  Will France follow Greece and Italy in losing the esteem of bondholders? Will the EU revert to an Uncommon Market and again suffer its historic curse, a mash-up of competing and warring states whose citizens must proffer passports to cross borders and each time frequent the local moneychangers to buy or sell. 

As this is written, European pols, especially those of the Teutonic variety, may well be mulling the words of Emerson, the American transcendentalist, in his essay on Self-Reliance:

skeleton_eyes.jpgA foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. . . . Speak what you think now in hard words, and tomorrow speak what tomorrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said today.

America, however, learned the value of consistency in its infancy, first from Ben Franklin on signing the Declaration of Independence (“We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately”) and then in drafting a national constitution after the failure of the Articles of Confederation. Latin scholars and law students are taught consistency in the principle of stare decisis et non quieta movere: “to stand by decisions and not disturb the undisturbed.” 

Judging from the surfeit of GOP presidential debates, the party of Lincoln is not too sure about consistency’s value. Inconstancy is not solely a character trait of multiple-personality Mitt, the likely consensus nominee.  Rather, it informs each Republican candidate for the presidency of the 50 “united” states who, irreconcilably, proclaims the national freedom to bear arms yet encourages the states to go their separate ways on abortion and immigration. 

President Obama is no less immune to criticism.  The Deporter-in-Chief campaigned for a first term on comprehensive immigration reform.  When challenged for nonfeasance, however, he pleaded that he could not “wave a magic wand and make it happen“. Yet by allowing Homeland Security officers to exercise prosecutorial discretion in immigration matters and issuing executive orders to ease the housing crisis, the burden of student loans, and soon healthcare deficiencies, he has acted unilaterally, saying “[w]e can’t wait” for Congress to act.

So when is consistency a virtue and when is it foolish?  In matters migrational, consistency is virtuous when it leads to predictable and uniformly equitable results, when it achieves harmony and a general perception of even-handedness among stakeholders. It is folly when mistakes, consistently arising, are not recognized as such or are left to fester uncorrected.

PERM labor certifications should not take three months in one case and 27 in another (even if an audit ensues) — the current range of DOL processing times, as I learned yesterday at the AILA California Chapters Conference in San Francisco.  A blanket L-1 visa applicant in Chennai should be just as deserving of her visa if an identically qualified blanket L-1 applicant is approved at a U.S. consulate elsewhere. An H-1B work visa petition for a small business approved at the USCIS Vermont Service Center should not be denied on virtually identical facts at the VSC’s California counterpart (likewise the general consensus of panelists describing the regional-service-center status quo at the San Francisco AILA conference). 

The scheduling of merits hearings in removal cases should not take four years in Chicago and considerably less, sometimes mere months, in other U.S. cities (another AILA SF factoid). U.S. citizen spouses who enter the U.S. under the Visa Waiver program should not be welcomed with a green card throughout California, except in San Diego where the local field office facilitates their expedited removal (yet one more data point from AILA conference speakers).  A nationwide policy of prosecutorial discretion should be applied consistently to like cases nationwide, but regrettably they are not, as Julia Preston of The New York Times reports today (“Deportations Under New U.S. Policy Are Inconsistent“).

Intellectually disingenuous nitpickery, moreover, should not be allowed to override the principle of consistency: If USCIS on five occasions recognizes an O-1 nonimmigrant as a person of extraordinary ability he or she should not be denied a first preference extraordinary-ability green card when the legal requirements to be classified as “extraordinary” are identical. 

Consistency creates what we lawyers call a “reliance interest.”  Inconsistency in the rule of law creates unreliable, unpredictable chaos and loss of confidence in the future — precisely the worst outcomes when economies worldwide are foundering.  As Google’s CEO, Eric Schmidt said at a November 12 White House press briefing: “What business needs is predictability.” So too do the American people, and the would-be Americans who seek uniformly interpreted and consistently applied decisions in like requests for immigration benefits.

ghoul.jpgWorse still is the foolish inconsistency practiced by the most ghoulish hobgoblins, the guardians of our immigration adjudications — the distracted Executive Branch, the blind or indifferent overseers in Congress and the respective Secretaries and headquarters officials of the U.S. Departments of Homeland Security, State, Justice, Labor and Commerce — who countenance the pervasiveness of their charges’ deviant decisions.  Whether the problem is caused by overlooked insubordination below or deliberate insouciance above, immigration inconsistency is terrifying this Nation of Immigrators.    

Bangalore immigration.jpgAt least when it comes to India, Yogi Berra had it wrong. It’s not déjà vu all over again. 

Blogging this weekend from my hotel room in Mumbai, I vividly recall my first trip to India in 1993. Invited as part of an American Bar Association delegation, I spoke in New Delhi on “Nonimmigrant Visa Options for Computer Software Professionals.”

My talk took place at LEXPO ‘93, a gathering of about 800 business leaders, accountants and lawyers sponsored by the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. Embassy. Audience members sat in rapt attention as tax and corporate attorneys explained the legalities of doing business in America and I outlined an array of temporary work visa categories readily available to Indians in the new field of computer software.  The World Wide Web had been conceived a scant three years earlier — the same year Congress enacted and the first President Bush signed the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT) in order to “open the ‘front door’ to increased legal immigration.”  Given the liberalization of the closed Indian economy that began in 1991, Lexpo ’93 attendees seemed giddy about the prospects for U.S.-India business collaborations and binational entrepreneurial adventures. 

In 1993, Indian managers, executives and employees with specialized knowledge could easily come to the U.S. as L-1 intracompany transferees. Likewise that year, university-educated entrepreneurs from the world’s largest democracy could incorporate a U.S. entity and arrange for the startup to petition the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to grant an H-1B visa petition.  Since IMMACT eliminated the previously daunting requirement of proving that L-1 and H-1B visa applicants maintained an unrelinquished permanent residence in India to which they would return, U.S. consular posts in India readily issued these two categories of visas to Indian applicants.

Although the intent-to-return-to-India requirement made the prospect of receiving a B-1 business visitor visa somewhat uncertain, business visas were still “doable” in 1993 for qualified applicants.  More difficult yet likewise quite attainable was the B-1 in lieu of H-1B (BILOH) business visitor subcategory for temporary professionals, established in a 1982 INS ruling involving an Indian citizen, one Mr. Srinivasan. 

Woman with hand stop.jpgOh how the odds of Indians receiving U.S. business-based visas have worsened in 18 years.  Last week, in Bangalore, I again addressed an audience of Indian executives and entrepreneurs who this time were far more glum than giddy. The title of my presentation (“U.S. & Global Enforcement of Immigration and Employment Laws – Best Practices for Indian Companies“) and accompanying slides show that America’s immigration agencies have moved from enabling enterprises to opposing entrepreneurship and empowering enforcers. 

Panel after panel of speakers (all with many years of experience submitting approvable and ultimately approved cases for reputable companies) described how the visa doors have slammed almost completely shut for most Indian firms, entrepreneurs and employees who want to grow businesses or create or fill jobs in the United States: 

  • They described perfunctory 90-second applicant interviews at U.S. consular posts followed by peremptory visa refusals.  (This is likely, in part, a staffing and resource issue attributable to the State Department and Congress.)
  • They asked why the standards for B-1, L-1 and H-1B visa eligibility had become so much more restrictive than in years past. 
  • They pleaded for more transparency and less subjectivity from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the State Department when articulating the legal and factual criteria for visa issuance. 
  • They wanted to know why U.S. consuls discounted as just so run-of-the-mill the extraordinary creativity and innovation of their IT professionals and businesses, even though the same talents are in high demand from American corporate customers. 
  • They asked why the consular attitude at the interview had changed from 1993 (old vibe: “show me why you are eligible”) to 2011 (new vibe: “defend yourself against my all but certain refusal of your visa”).
  • They perceived a consular strategy of denying L-1 visas (especially of the blanket variety) and pushing applicants to apply for H-1Bs even though the quota for that category will soon be depleted, leaving Indians to wonder which fortunate few can clear U.S. ports of entry in BILOH status given that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials often believe that the BILOH is a dead letter. (Channeling visa applicants to the H-1B and away from their preferred L-1 contravenes State’s Foreign Affairs Manual [9 FAM 41.11 N3.2, “Choice When More Than One Classification Possible”]).
  • They wondered why business and work visa refusal rates are so much higher for Indian applicants than for the Chinese, Japanese, Europeans and South Americans.
  • They asked aloud what message the U.S. government is sending to India when entry to America is so often barred.

Indian angst over discriminatory U.S. immigration policies is neither apocryphal nor paranoid. As Stuart Anderson of the National Foundation for American Policy recently reported.  Citing State Department data, his research reveals that “[t]he number of L-1 visas issued at U.S. posts in India declined by 28 percent from 2010 to 2011 while L-1s “issued in the rest of the world rose by 15 percent.” I share the inference that Mr. Anderson, former INS Executive Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning and Counselor to the Commissioner, drew from this wide divergence in L-1 approval rates:

This shows an enormous gap in visas issued as well as, it must be assumed, approval/denial rates between posts in India and the rest of the world, raising policy questions as to whether this great disparity is the result of a conscious policy at U.S. posts in India. This confirms what many observers have believed: an increase in denials over the past 12 to 18 months is making it far more difficult for employers to transfer employees based in India into the United States on L-1 visas. Employers say this is having a negative impact on growth, projects, and product development in the United States.

My colleague, Greg Siskind, recharactizes more bluntly Mr. Anderson’s genteel questioning of the federal government’s anti-Indian visa policy:

India has one of the hottest economies on the planet and we are slamming the door on entrepreneurs from those countries expanding operations in the US which very often result in hiring of US employees. Exactly the wrong policy for our times.

Indian man.jpgNo kidding that India’s economy is sizzling, as the U.S. Commerce Department reports in its 2011 Country Commercial Guide for India:

India is a story of growth and opportunity. India’s sustained growth of around 8.0% in 2009-10 and growing dynamism in several of its regional markets have created wide and diverse business prospects for U.S. exporters and investors. With 2011 growth estimates hovering at around 8.6%, India remains one of the fastest growing, dynamic economies in the world. . . . U.S. multinationals are sold on India and are expanding and deepening their market penetration. . . .

Economic growth in India today is being rewritten by India’s highly entrepreneurial and rapidly globalizing private sector. Indian firms are investing in infrastructure projects, growing their advanced manufacturing capabilities, and investing in new volume-based business models that tap into rising incomes and consumption in towns and rural economies across the country. . . . Indian firms are bullish about their economy and are eager for U.S. commercial and joint venture partnerships, technologies, brands, services, and know-how. . . . In 2010, U.S. exports to India amounted to $19.2 billion.

The State Department, although in cahoots with USCIS and CBP in their sub rosa efforts to deny visas or entry to Indian entrepreneurs and employees, surprisingly agrees with Commerce’s assessment, as shown in the “Read Out on Secretary of State’s [July 2011] trip to India“:

On . . . trade and investment, both [governments] remarked on the real dynamism now in our trade and investment partnership. It was remarked that trade has gone up by 30 percent just this year alone, and investment also is growing very rapidly. In terms of the deliverables, I think you know we announced that we’ve agreed to resume technical discussions on a bilateral investment treaty [BIT] in August. And again, I think that’s important because there’s increasing flows of investments not only by the United States into India, but also by Indian companies into the United States [bolding added].

The technical discussions on a new U.S.-India BIT, which presumably would include the standard Treaty Investor [E-2] visa provision, apparently did not commence in August.  As Secretary Clinton noted in her October 14 speech on “Economic Statecraft” to the Economic Club of New York reported:

The State Department and the U.S. Trade Representatives Office will also lead negotiations on next-generation of bilateral investment treaties, the so-called BITs that protect and encourage investment. And I am pleased to announce we will soon resume technical level discussions on a new BIT with India [bolding added].

While technical talks have yet to start, U.S. immigration impositions on Indians persist. The latest burden imposed by State on Indian companies is the closure of four U.S. consular posts (New Delhi, Hyderabad, Kolkata and Mumbai) to blanket L-1 visa applicants and the insistence that all such applicants apply only at the consulate in Chennai.  India is a large country, covering some 1.27 million sq. mi., roughly a third the size of the United States.  The costs of travel to Chennai, hotel accommodations and absence from work unnecessarily burden Indian companies and visa applicants.  The official explanation for this change is phrased in a way that would make George Orwell smirk: 

This change is in order to streamline the blanket L visa issuance process, and is part of the U.S. Government’s ongoing effort to provide efficient visa services throughout India. [Bolding in original.]

I guess it’s hard to kickstart economic statecraft and negotiate a mutually beneficial BIT with India when one awkward “technical” obstacle stands in the way.  Federal immigration bureaucrats must first get rid of the Indians-unwelcome mat.

Light at the end of the tunnel.jpgThe Occupy Wall Street movement began with a poster, a word cloud, a QR Code and three lines of text:

#OCCUPYWALLSTREET

September 17th. Bring tent.

www.occupywallst.org. 

Steve Jobs launched his massively successful “Think Different” rebranding campaign for Apple in 1997 with a TV commercial and this script:

Here’s to the Crazy Ones. The misfits. The rebels. The trouble-makers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They’re not fond of rules, and they have no respect for the status-quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify, or vilify them. About the only thing you can’t do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world…are the ones who do!

Alejandro Mayorkas, the Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), recently announced with the flourish of a press release an ingenious “Think Different” initiative that may well transform this vexed and vexing immigration agency.  His announcement heralded the new Entrepreneurs in Residence Program (EIR), an experiment that will tap the wisdom and experience of seasoned startup veterans to inject fresh air and fresh insights into USCIS.

The EIR, as the press release explained, “will utilize industry expertise to strengthen USCIS policies and practices” affecting foreign “investors, entrepreneurs and workers with specialized skills, knowledge, or abilities.” As Director Mayorkas explained, the “initiative creates additional opportunities for USCIS to gain insights in areas critical to economic growth . . .  [with the] introduction of expert views from the private and public sector [which] will help [USCIS] to ensure that our policies and processes fully realize the immigration law’s potential to create and protect American jobs.”  A two-stage effort, the EIR begins as a “series of informational summits with industry leaders to gather high-level strategic input” and then the heavy lifting follows with the assembly of a “tactical team comprised of entrepreneurs and experts, working with USCIS personnel, to design and implement effective solutions.”

The EIR occupation of USCIS cannot come a millisecond too soon.  Just like a Dream Act kid who keeps getting blamed for the mistakes of her undocumented parents, USCIS, only nine years old, keeps receiving many of the same brickbats that bombarded its ancestor, the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).  Unlike the DREAMers, however, USCIS has magnified INS’s peccadilloes and committed new more egregious ones of its own.  Ted Chiappari and I describe the venial and mortal sins of USCIS at length in our article, published last week in the New York Law Journal, “Intubation and Incubation Two Remedies for an Ailing Immigration Agency” (link courtesy of ALM Enterprises).

Whether intended or inadvertent, EIR is a deft stratagem, even more artful than Clintonesque triangulating.  Cleverness taken to the fourth degree, EIR, captured in one word, is all about quadrangulation.  If it is to succeed, EIR must task its occupiers to infiltrate and attack from within the four-sided challenge that is USCIS today: (1) the immigration stakeholder community and the USCIS Ombudsman clamoring for more user-friendly enhancements to fusty USCIS interpretations of work-visa eligibility, (2) the ever-campaigning President saying “we can’t wait” for the enactment of job-creating legislation, (3) Socialism-incliningRepublicans in Congress, led by GOP commissars Smith and Grassley, who seem, counter-intuitively, to embrace immigration regulation more than job creation, and (4) the agency’s anti-business, unionized adjudicators who prefer chaos theory over customer service.

Who will Director Mayorkas tap as the EIR’s movers and shakers to prod, awaken, reeducate and redirect USCIS? As noted in the NYLJ  “Intubation/Incubation” article, ideally they should be “industry leaders” with just the right background:

[Entrepreneurs who] harbor a strong interest in an expansive reading of the employment-based immigration laws. Their likely interpretation would view the immigration laws as offering many opportunities to grow startup and established businesses in the U.S. by harnessing the innovations and skills of bright, energized and talented non-citizens. Prospective EIR participants with such interests and perspectives probably will have already used and intend to use again the employment-based immigration laws to secure USCIS’s permission to hire foreign workers.

As the EIR experiment in intramural administrative sport begins, an October 29-30 Wall Street Journal editorial (“The Other Jobs Crisis“) captured spot-on the immigration dysfunctions that beset America today. Migrant farm workers flee Alabama and Georgia, two states with nativist laws that cause produce to rot in the field. With few Americans willing to descend to back-breaking stoop labor, “incarcerated criminals” are dragooned to “work the fields.” Republicans in Congress, the supposed “champion[s of] deregulation and business-led growth” focus on “immigration control” as “one of their main passions,” while continuing “to ignore the economic costs” and the need “to overhaul the guest worker program to widen avenues for legal immigration.”  Meantime, ironically on www.WSJ.com, GOP Presidential front-runner and pizza-chain turnaround artist, Herman Cain, callously rebukes the Occupy Wall St. protestors: “If you don’t have a job and you’re not rich, blame yourself! … It is not a person’s fault if they succeeded, it is a person’s fault if they failed.”

Like his Chief of Staff, Herman Cain is just blowing smoke.  He should know that not everyone can find a job in a nation with a 9.1% unemployment rate (but if Cain is truly “counter-factual” on the cause of U.S. joblessness, he is manifestly unfit for the presidency).  America desperately needs more job creators, the salutary byproducts of a functioning, business-friendly immigration system.  Since Congress will not act, and the President can’t wait, my hope is that Director Mayorkas will install “demented” entrepreneurial occupiers of USCIS, “Crazy Ones” who “are crazy enough to think they can change” America by occupying his benighted agency.