Summary of USCIS “listening session” – March 19, 2015

[gcq]

Courtesy: Ron Gotcher

Summary of USCIS “listening session” – March 19, 2015

The USCIS held a Business-Focused Immigration Enhancements Listening Session today to discuss the administration’s upcoming executive actions. The highlights of the session included:

Kevin Cummings (Chief of the Business and Foreign Workers Division of USCIS) began the presentation. He said that the USCIS is working on drafting regulations on the following subjects:

• Parole in place for talented entrepreneurs
• Clarification of NIW requirements
• Amend regs to allow benefits to some workers with approved I-140s
• EADs for workers with I-140s approved for an unspecified period of time
• Clarify AC21 job portability standards
• Resolve L1B standards

He then asked questions for public comment.

The overall tenor of the USCIS questions seemed to indicate a restrictive mindset. They asked about wanting to hear the concerns that employers have about employee job portability. They also asked whether the USCIS should publish a form and require a filing fee to pre-adjudicate job transfers under AC21 before a transfer could take place.

It sounded as though they are getting pushback from employer groups concerning employee portability. While nothing specific was said, the overall tone sounded as if they are looking at making portability more restrictive.

Nothing was said about “pre-registration” of adjustment of status applicants. Rather, they are thinking about granting EAD cards to people with approved petitions after a specified interval (such as six months).

There were a lot of comments and questions, but nothing of substance came from the “listening” portion. One interesting comment came when someone asked about filing AOS without a current priority date, they said "We can't comment on that but we are considering a number of such issues and discussing them with the Department of State."

They said that they have been working on regulations since the President’s announcement (November 20, 2014). They reiterated that it takes a long time to promulgate regulations and that nothing will happen immediately. Still, if they will work diligently on the regulations, they can publish final rules this year (2015).

We will be discussing this on our immigration discussion forum at http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/


Global Immigration Partners
26775 Malibu Hills Road, Suite 150
Calabasas Hills, CA 91301

Inquiries@gotcherlaw.com

818-914-6482

[Spectator]

I listened to the whole event. I was very disappointed - to the point I thought it was complete waste of my time.

I thought we would be listening to USCIS telling us what they had in mind (if only in broad terms), not a further solicitation of comments.

I agree that "pre-registration" was never mentioned by USCIS. In fact, I was struck by the fact that, although many questions mentioned (and assumed) Advance Parole, USCIS only ever mentioned EAD. It struck me as a little strange.

I agree with a comment Ron Gotcher made:- The WH is driving this and USCIS are being dragged along kicking and screaming.

The event certainly did not give me a warm and fuzzy feeling about either the eventual content or the speed of implementation.

[qesehmk]

Thanks gcq and Spec. Very helpful for people to know that
a) USCIS is being dragged along (in other words they would prefer status quo over any reforms)
b) Employers are concerned about portability (Gee why would that be? Go figure)

I also wonder (perhaps Spec can explain) if there were ANY pro or anti immigration groups present there? Or was it meant only for lawyers?

Although the picture is dark - I think it still clarifies the picture by throwing a light on the lack of steam in immigration reform.

[Spectator]

Q,

I did not hear any anti immigration groups or sentiments at all. One question came from the head of a chapter of the organization I do not name. A lot of the questions were from individuals in the system rather than lawyers or other organizations. The time given to both seems quite balanced.

The concerns of the employers are probably understandable. Not all employers are bad (and not all employees are saints for that matter) and not all employers are in the IT consulting area, where job hopping is extremely prevalent. Many employers start the process fairly early - well before the 6th year of H1B starts. While those employers are probably likely to retain their employees anyway, too liberal an approach (from their point of view) might actually act as a disincentive to file as early in the employees career.

It doesn't seem unreasonable that there might be a balance of the competing interests in any regulations that are forthcoming, since the employees are not the only ones with a stake in the outcome. At the very least, all viewpoints have a right to be heard. I do believe that the final outcome is likely to be more employee focused.

USCIS were so tight lipped about anything they were considering, I didn't get any sense about what might be likely, including how the employer/employee balance was being tackled. The evaded talking about the timelines (other than the rule making process was complex and had many steps) and would not talk about any recommendations that might have already been passed to the WH.

It would be interesting to hear what other people who listened have to say about their impressions of the event. I have to admit that my concentration on listening did decline fairly quickly, when it became apparent that no useful information would be forthcoming and that USCIS were not actually going to answer any of the questions put to them.

[qesehmk]

Q,

I did not hear any anti immigration groups or sentiments at all. One question came from the head of a chapter of the organization I do not name. A lot of the questions were from individuals in the system rather than lawyers or other organizations. The time given to both seems quite balanced.

The concerns of the employers are probably understandable. Not all employers are bad (and not all employees are saints for that matter) and not all employers are in the IT consulting area, where job hopping is extremely prevalent. Many employers start the process fairly early - well before the 6th year of H1B starts. While those employers are probably likely to retain their employees anyway, too liberal an approach (from their point of view) might actually act as a disincentive to file as early in the employees career.

It doesn't seem unreasonable that there might be a balance of the competing interests in any regulations that are forthcoming, since the employees are not the only ones with a stake in the outcome. At the very least, all viewpoints have a right to be heard. I do believe that the final outcome is likely to be more employee focused.

USCIS were so tight lipped about anything they were considering, I didn't get any sense about what might be likely, including how the employer/employee balance was being tackled. The evaded talking about the timelines (other than the rule making process was complex and had many steps) and would not talk about any recommendations that might have already been passed to the WH.

It would be interesting to hear what other people who listened have to say about their impressions of the event. I have to admit that my concentration on listening did decline fairly quickly, when it became apparent that no useful information would be forthcoming and that USCIS were not actually going to answer any of the questions put to them.

Thanks Spec. That's very helpful - as always.

It looks like congratulations are in order to USCIS then - if for nothing else - at least for listening!

It is also understandable that if this was a listening session then they wouldn't be inclined to reveal too much information.

[Spectator]

Thanks Spec. That's very helpful - as always.

It looks like congratulations are in order to USCIS then - if for nothing else - at least for listening!

It is also understandable that if this was a listening session then they wouldn't be inclined to reveal too much information.

Q,

Like many others, I thought that we would be doing the listening, not the other way around.

The deadline for USCIS to submit comments to the WH is today, so "listening the day before is not of much use. They have already "listened" and apparently received 1300 comments.

I was expecting some "broad brush" outlines of initiatives that might be investigated, considered or pursued. Potentially, they could also have mentioned items that were outside the remit of USCIS or regulation.

Probably that was unrealistic, since their recommendations might not be taken further by the WH. It just begs the question as to why hold the event at all. It put USCIS in a worse light by doing so.

[qesehmk]

Q,

Like many others, I thought that we would be doing the listening, not the other way around.

The deadline for USCIS to submit comments to the WH is today, so "listening the day before is not of much use. They have already "listened" and apparently received 1300 comments.

I was expecting some "broad brush" outlines of initiatives that might be investigated, considered or pursued. Potentially, they could also have mentioned items that were outside the remit of USCIS or regulation.

Probably that was unrealistic, since their recommendations might not be taken further by the WH. It just begs the question as to why hold the event at all. It put USCIS in a worse light by doing so.

Yes Spec. It doesn't pass the smell test for "genuineness" if it was held a day before recommendations are due w WH.

[gcpursuit]

I listened to most of the session as well. I joined the call with the intention of "listening" and never expected that they would be asking for comments.

1. I felt USCIS was not prepared for this session. How would someone note down the questions ( I didnt catch much of it ) and comment on them immediately? If they had planned for asking comments, a teleconference is not the right place. It looked like we don't have anything to say so we are going to beat around the bush and ask for comments again.
2. I had a feeling that the inputs or comments from employees were not taken seriously and I also felt we did a poor job of communicating the comments.I really didnt understand why someone would talk about paying social security taxes on h1b in this USCIS teleconference.