Interim L1B Memo Published For Feedback

[Spectator]

You can find it here (http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Outreach/Draft%20Memorandum%20for%20Comment/2015-0324-Draft-L-1B-Memo.pdf).

Implementation

Revisions to AFM Chapter 32.6(e) will be included upon issuance of the final memorandum.

To provide sufficient time for training of USCIS employees, USCIS intends to make this memorandum effective on August 31, 2015.

PS Not sure where to post this - there is no L1 section in the forum.

[qesehmk]

You can find it here (http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Outreach/Draft%20Memorandum%20for%20Comment/2015-0324-Draft-L-1B-Memo.pdf).

Implementation

Revisions to AFM Chapter 32.6(e) will be included upon issuance of the final memorandum.

To provide sufficient time for training of USCIS employees, USCIS intends to make this memorandum effective on August 31, 2015.

PS Not sure where to post this - there is no L1 section in the forum.

I scanned it quickly Spec. So basically they have lowered the standard for L1 which means we should expect to see more and more L1 approvals. Is that correct?

[Spectator]

I scanned it quickly Spec. So basically they have lowered the standard for L1 which means we should expect to see more and more L1 approvals. Is that correct?Q,

Interesting question.

I haven't really compared the new Memo to the previous guidance.

I'm sure more L1B approvals is what Companies would want. Indian MNCs are by far the highest users of L1B. They are 2.5 times higher than the next highest (Canada, who shares a border with the USA) and 10 times higher than any other Country.

My impression of the Memo was that it brings greater clarity to what "specialized knowledge" might look like and the type of evidence that might prove it.

At the same time , the Memo makes it clear that, if an L1B is placed at a 3rd party site, they must be applying that "specialized knowledge" of their employing company's product or processes. It is not sufficient to have the knowledge, but not be using it and that knowledge of the end clients systems was not specialized knowledge (at least not in isolation).

My impression is that the vast majority of L1B are placed at 3rd party client sites for MNCs that are in the consultancy/outsourcing business.

Whether it actually makes it easier to get an L1B petition approved is an open question.

Personally, I find it difficult to see how an employee of a consulting/outsourcing company would have that "specialized knowledge" as defined in the Memo (at least in the numbers that are applied for) and be applying it. However, I'm sure the MNCs and their lawyers will twist it to their advantage.

The rise in rejections over the years for L1B is perfectly understandable IMO. The rise started in 2005, when the "anti jobshopping" provisions of the L1 Visa Reform Act came into effect. The big rise in rejections came from FY2008 onwards when the first H1B lottery was necessary.

MNCs sought to bring in people under L1B as an alternative to H1B, even when they did not meet the requirements for L1B. In some respects, I am surprised the denial rate was (and is) not even higher than it is.

If I sound cynical, it is because I am.

[qesehmk]

Q,

Interesting question.

I haven't really compared the new Memo to the previous guidance.

I'm sure more L1B approvals is what Companies would want. Indian MNCs are by far the highest users of L1B. They are 2.5 times higher than the next highest (Canada, who shares a border with the USA) and 10 times higher than any other Country.

My impression of the Memo was that it brings greater clarity to what "specialized knowledge" might look like and the type of evidence that might prove it.

At the same time , the Memo makes it clear that, if an L1B is placed at a 3rd party site, they must be applying that "specialized knowledge" of their employing company's product or processes. It is not sufficient to have the knowledge, but not be using it and that knowledge of the end clients systems was not specialized knowledge (at least not in isolation).

My impression is that the vast majority of L1B are placed at 3rd party client sites for MNCs that are in the consultancy/outsourcing business.

Whether it actually makes it easier to get an L1B petition approved is an open question.

Personally, I find it difficult to see how an employee of a consulting/outsourcing company would have that "specialized knowledge" as defined in the Memo (at least in the numbers that are applied for) and be applying it. However, I'm sure the MNCs and their lawyers will twist it to their advantage.

The rise in rejections over the years for L1B is perfectly understandable IMO. The rise started in 2005, when the "anti jobshopping" provisions of the L1 Visa Reform Act came into effect. The big rise in rejections came from FY2008 onwards when the first H1B lottery was necessary.

MNCs sought to bring in people under L1B as an alternative to H1B, even when they did not meet the requirements for L1B. In some respects, I am surprised the denial rate was (and is) not even higher than it is.

If I sound cynical, it is because I am.
Spec - I always love to have your perspective - although we may not always agree.

I believe in true American spirit of freedom - corporations should be free to hire whoever from whichever country as long as they pay them 120% of market wage for that job. This whole quota system is useless because it holds the corporations back, hurts economy, increases bureaucracy and encourages economic slavery of hundreds of thousands of H1B and L1B workers.

I think having quota on GCs is a good idea but I do not like country quotas.

I also think that the government should use tax policies to avoid misuse of H1 and L1. e.g. disincentivize those who hire foreign workers. In other words have a foreign worker tax on payroll. Putting that tax on payroll is the only way to make such tax policy effective because otherwise the tax code has too many loopholes. Anyway that's my morning rant !!