o   This petition allows U.S. citizens to bring their foreign national fiancées to the United States for marriage.

  o   Family based permanent residence can be applied for based on a foreign nationals marriage to a U.S. citizen, marriage to a U.S. permanent resident; having U.S. citizen children, or having U.S. citizen parents.

  o   Conditional permanent residence is typically given to individuals who receive permanent residence through marriage to a U.S. citizen and have been married less than two years when permanent residence is granted.

  o   U visas give victims of certain crimes temporary legal status and work eligibility in the United States.

Since Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986, employers have been prohibited from knowingly hiring or continuing to employ non-U.S. workers who are not authorized to work.  "Knowing" includes not only actual knowledge of unauthorized alien status but also "constructive" knowledge. 
 
In August 2007 the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a rule defining new circumstances in which employers may have constructive knowledge that an employee is an unauthorized alien, including receipt of a letter from the Social Security Administration (SSA) saying that the name and social security account number submitted to the SSA for an employee does not match SSA records (so-called "no-match letters") or notices from DHS that call into question work eligibility information provided by employees.  The rule also established "safe harbor" procedures that employers could follow upon receipt of no-match letters or DHS notices to avoid liability for knowingly employing authorized aliens.   
 
The rule was blocked by court order shortly after issuance and has never taken effect, and DHS has now announced that it will propose a new regulation rescinding the rule altogether. 
 
However, employers that received no-match letters prior to the publication of the rule may still be considered to have constructive knowledge of an employee's unauthorized status if they failed to inquire into the possible causes for a no-match and take steps to resolve it at that time.  Therefore, having a no-match policy and procedure in place and enforcing such a policy can still serve as a protection against liability for knowingly employing unauthorized aliens.  
 
Employers should contact our office if they are interested in taking steps to adopt or revise their no-match policies and procedures.

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano recently announced the Obama Administration's support for a regulation that will award federal contracts only to employers that use E-Verify to check employee work authorization.
 
E-Verify, a free web-based system operated by DHS in cooperation with the Social Security Administration, compares information from the I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification Form against government databases to verify workers' employment eligibility. 
           
The policy requiring use of E-Verify by federal contractors was the subject of an Executive Order by President Bush, and regulations were then promulgated by FAR (the Federal Acquisitions Council). The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and several other organizations filed a federal lawsuit in December 2008 challenging the legality of the Executive Order, but enforcement of the regulations was stayed by the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland to give the Obama Administration time to review the rules. 
           
However, since the Obama Administration has announced its intent to apply the rule to federal solicitations and contract awards government-wide starting on September 8, 2009, the Court has lifted the stay and announced a briefing schedule, culminating in a hearing on August 28, 2009.
 
The regulations could also be affected by the DHS 2010 appropriations bill (H.S. 2892) passed by the Senate in July.  The bill contains an amendment which would require all federal contractors to use E-Verify without any exceptions for contract value, type, or duration.

Attorneys are used to dealing with conflict.  Conflict is usually what drives lawsuits, and it can make for great courtroom drama.  However, lawyers do everything they can to avoid conflicts with their own clients.  As corporate immigration attorneys, we have two sets of clients, the company and the foreign national, who usually have the same interests.  The company wants to hire the foreign national, and the foreign national wants work authorization to take a job with the company.  We then continue to work with both parties to maintain the employment relationship.  But when that employment relationship breaks down, our clients' interests can diverge, and if a law firm gets stuck in the middle, a conflict of interest can arise.
 
Conflicts of interest are explicitly prohibited by attorneys' ethical rules.  With some exceptions, an attorney cannot represent a client if the representation of that client will be directly adverse to another client.  For example, an attorney usually cannot represent both parties in a divorce.  However, there are some exceptions, such as when the representation will not adversely affect the relationship with the other client and each client consents in writing.  Grzeca Law Group represents both the company and the foreign national in immigration matters because there is usually no conflict of interest and we can zealously advocate for both of their interests at the same time. 
 
However, there can be a conflict of interest if, for example, an employee calls us and tells us that they plan on leaving the company and want to know how to "port" or transfer their immigration classification to another employer.  Or, there can be a problem if the company contacts us and says that a particular foreign national employee is about to be laid off and wants to know how this will affect the employee's legal status in the U.S.  Once we know this information, we cannot keep it from the other party because of another ethical obligation - to communicate with our clients about information that could harm them. 
 
That doesn't necessarily mean that we instantly pick up the phone to tell the other party this information, however.  Upon hearing something that could cause a conflict of interest, we encourage the parties to talk to each other about it immediately.  Once the employer has been told that the employee will be resigning or the employee learns that he or she will be terminated, Grzeca Law Group is happy to have a conference call with all parties to discuss immigration options.  In the worst case scenario, if the company or employee refuses to discuss this information with the other party, we could be forced to withdraw from representing both parties.
 
Another solution for avoiding a conflict of interest is to ask general information.  If a company contacts us for hypothetical information about what happens when a H-1B employee is laid off, there is no conflict of interest because this information does not directly affect the interests of one of our specific clients.  Therefore, Grzeca Law Group is happy to provide this information as needed.
 
Please do not hesitate to contact Grzeca Law Group if you should have any questions about a potential conflict of interest.

The U.S. Consulate in Ciudad Juarez recently implemented new procedures which allow an intending immigrant to re-file an Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility (I-601) subsequent to an initial denial.  This new procedure provides the intending immigrant the chance to reunite with his/her family much sooner than previous procedures allowed.  Most waiver applications are required to be filed to waive a foreign national's accumulation of more than one year of out-of-status time in the U.S.  If a foreign national accumulates out-of-status time of ore than one year and departs the U.S., even for an interview at a U.S. Consulate, s/he is inadmissible for ten years unless the foreign national is eligible to file a waiver.  The I-601 waiver, or "pardon" as it is commonly known, must be approved before the foreign national can return to the United States and reunite with his/her family. 
 
Prior to filing the new waiver application the foreign national first must be found eligible for the waiver by an immigration officer.  Once this eligibility is established it typically takes another 4-8 weeks to obtain an appointment to file the waiver.  Re-filing the waiver does not guarantee its approval.  The immigration officer at the U.S. Consulate in Ciudad Juarez will review the new waiver application and its supporting evidence, and make a decision based upon the evidence presented. 
 
Please contact attorney John Sesini for assistance in this extremely complicated area of immigration law.  In addition to preparing the forms, Attorney Sesini writes a legal argument in support of the waiver application and helps the family obtain all relevant documentation to submit, or re-submit, with the waiver application.