USCIS Revises Q&A re Jan. 8, 2010 Neufeld Memo on H-1B Employee-Employer Relationship
Questions & Answers: USCIS Issues Guidance Memorandum on Establishing the "Employee-Employer Relationship" in H-1B Petitions; Published Jan. 13, 2010; revised Aug. 2, 2011 and March 12, 2012.
Business Immigration Law E-BLAST:
- APPLY NOW?: DHS Announces Pre-Travel Authorization Program for U.S.-Bound Travelers from Visa Waiver Countries
- USCIS Reaches H-1B (Non-Advanced Degree) Cap for FY 2007
- Social Security No-Match Letter Process Gets An Overhaul
- [03/29] Drownings along Rio Grande spike after enforcement surge
- [03/25] Appeals court sets April hearing on Obama immigration action
- [03/19] Judge:sSanctions possible in Obama immigration action
- [03/11] Ruling allows Missouri woman to avoid deportation
- [03/10] Judge orders hearing on allegations in immigration lawsuit
- [03/08] Immigration ruling shows lawyers playing venue shopping odds
- [03/04] States ask judge not to lift stay in immigration lawsuit
- [03/03] Deadline looms for states to respond in immigration suit
Employment Law - Employer Articles
Municipal employers are considered part of the "state" under the U.S. Constitution. Thus, action taken by a municipal employer is often considered "state" action, and therefore must conform to certain Constitutional requirements.
What Do Employers Need to Know about the ADA?
There are a number of legal requirements and prohibitions an employer must take into consideration when evaluating a job applicant and extending an offer of employment, as well as throughout the course of the employee's career. When an applicant or an employee has a disability, an employer also must comply with federal and state statutes designed to protect disabled individuals in the workplace. Two of the major areas where an employer must be cognizant of the rights of disabled individuals are the hiring process and the provision of reasonable accommodations.
Immigration Law Case Summaries
[03/27] Maldonado v. Holder
Petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing petitioner's appeal of an immigration judge's (IJ) denial of his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) is granted and the case is remanded to the BIA for further proceedings, where: 1) although the IJ found that petitioner testified credibly that he was tortured by corrupt Mexican police offices after he was deported in 2000, the BIA concluded that petitioner was not "eligible for deferral of removal under CAT because he failed to establish that internal relocation within Mexico was impossible; 2) Hasan v. Ashcroft and Lemus-Galvan v. Mukasey, on which the government relied, are overruled as inconsistent with 8 C.F.R. sections 1208.16(c)(2) and 1208.16(c)(3) because they improperly place the burden on the petitioner to prove that internal relocation is impossible; 3) Singh v. Gonzalez is overruled because it departs from section 1208.16(c)(3) as the regulation does not specify that the inability to relocate safely is an element of the claim for deferral of removal for which a petitioner bears the burden of proof; 4) Perez-Ramirez v. Holder is overruled, as it improperly applied to the CAT context the burden-shifting scheme for internal relocation applicable to asylum claims; and 5) neither the petitioner nor the government bear the burden of proof as to internal relocation, and such evidence, if relevant, must be considered in assessing whether it is more like than not that petitioner would be tortured if removed.
Employment Law - Employer Frequently Asked Questions
Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.
How Can We Help?
Our staff of immigration law professionals are sensitive to the needs of our clients and the members of their families. We can clearly explain the immigration process in Spanish, French, Japanese, Korean, Tamil, Hindi, Slovak, Czech, Russian, Chinese, German and English.
Bold labels are required.