NEW FORM I-765 WILL ALLOW APPLICANTS TO APPLY FOR SOCIAL SECURITY CARD

USCIS recently announced its collaboration with the Social Security Administration (“SSA”).[1] Certain Applicants will now be able to request a Social Security Number (“SSN”) while applying for work authorization with the new Form I-765. The form includes the option to allow the SSA to create an SSN and issue a Social Security Card (“SSC”) pursuant to the adjudication of the I-765.

By allowing USCIS to transfer their information to the SSA, Applicants will no longer be required to present documentation in-person at their local SSA office to obtain an SSN. With the new form, USCIS will automatically transmit the data to the SSA for processing. Upon receipt of the approved EAD Card, Applicants should receive their SSC from SSA within two (2) weeks.

If you would like our office to process an I-765 application for you, please contact us via the message board, located here: http://www.raminenilaw.com/?page_id=258.

 

[1] https://www.uscis.gov/news/news-releases/new-uscis-form-streamlines-process-obtain-work-authorization-document-and-social-security-number-simultaneously

Were you arrested for DUI/DWI, think twice before travelling if you are a nonimmigrant

By Srinivas Ramineni, Esq. [1]

Were you recently arrested or convicted for driving under the influence, popularly referred to as DUI or DWI? Even though it may look like a simple traffic violation, there could be far reaching consequences to your stay in or entry into United States. Pursuant to Foreign Affairs Manual and Handbook (“FAM”) a consular officer does not have the authority to revoke a visa based on a suspected ineligibility.[2] Further, a visa cannot be revoked after a visa holder commences an uninterrupted journey to the U.S.[3] This makes it look like once a visa issued, it is almost impossible to revoke it as the standard of proof is high. However, there are two exceptions to these prohibitions. In the interest of keeping this article short, we will focus on the arrest for DUI/DWI exception. If you have been arrested for DUI/DWI within the past 5 years, the Consular Officer is directed to revoke your visa as it could be indicative of possible inadmissibility and visa can be revoked even if you are currently living in the U.S.[4] According to the Department of State:

“The Department takes seriously drunk driving/driving under the influence, driving while intoxicated, and similar arrests (“DUI” arrests). It is both a public safety issue and evidence of a possible visa ineligibility. DUI arrests are sufficient cause for a referral to a panel physician. Because such an arrest is indicative of a possible visa ineligibility, as of November 5, 2015, the Visa Office instructed consular officers to prudentially revoke the visas of visa-holders with a DUI arrest that has occurred within the past five years, unless that arrest has already been addressed within the context of a visa application”[5]

If you or someone you know has been arrested for DUI/DWI, we can assist you in various ways. You may contact me or any one of our experienced team at (617) 830 4545 or ramineni@raminenilaw.com.

 

[1] About the author: Attorney Srinivas Ramineni is the Managing attorney of the greater Boston law firm of Ramineni Law Associates. He assists employers with Business Immigration and Labor and Employment Law compliance. He can be reached at ramineni@raminenilaw.com or (617) 830 4545.

[2] See 9 FAMe 403.11-3(B)(U(a).

[3] See 9 FAMe 403.11-3(B)(U(b).

[4] See INA 212(a)(1)(A(iii) and AILA/DOS Liaison Meeting (Apr. 7, 2016) at Qs. 4-10

[5] See AILA/DOS Liaison Meeting (Apr. 7, 2016) at Q. 6

USCIS is Highly Scrutinizing I-140 Petitions filed by IT Consulting Companies Involving “Roving Employees”

By Dayna Lally[i] and Srinivas Ramineni[ii]

USCIS recently issued a Request for Evidence (“RFE”) on an I-140 petition questioning the unanticipated work locations of an I-140 “roving employee.” A roving employee is a mobile worker who is not restricted to a specific work location. IT consulting engagements that involve technical implementation generally require the physical on-site placement of roving employees as a condition of employment.

In the RFE, USCIS writes:

… although the petitioner indicates on the Form I-140 that the beneficiary will only work in [State A]; the labor certification indicates otherwise. Under Section H (14) of the labor certification, the petitioner indicates that the beneficiary “must be willing to travel and relocate for long and short-term assignments.” This indicates the beneficiary will be working at the petitioner’s location as well as various client sites throughout the U.S.

Ramineni Law Associates, LLC successfully drafted a response to this RFE.

Many IT consulting companies require roving employees to travel or relocate to end-client sites for short-term and long-term projects. Therefore, these job opportunities are conditional on an employee’s willingness to travel to unanticipated locations throughout the U.S. for long and short-term client assignments. For many IT consulting companies, short-term and long-term projects are their principal source of income and having employees who can travel/relocate to unanticipated locations is an essential part of their business model. Furthermore, since it is hard to find qualified American workers who are willing to travel/relocate frequently, IT consulting companies hire qualified “high tech” workers. These workers, lacking stability, insist upon having, at least, an opportunity to secure their place in the line to permanently immigrate.

Longstanding case law permits IT consulting companies to recruit for these positions at their headquarters. Therefore, IT consulting companies rightly designated their main or headquarters office in the Form I-140 as the principle worksite for the purposes of identifying the location for determination of the prevailing wage and recruitment.

USCIS’ new position strikes at the heart of this business practice. However, we have successfully opposed this “new trend” of RFEs from USCIS, and we are confident that the law supports our position. Ramineni Law Associates, LLC has successfully responded to an array of complex I-140 RFEs. If you, or someone you know, needs legal assistance preparing a response to an I-140 RFE, please contact our office at 617-600-7201 or ramineni@raminenilaw.com.

 

[i] Dayna Lally, Esq. is an Associate Attorney in the I-140 Department at Ramineni Law Associates, LLC.  She can be reached at (617) 600-7201 or dayna@raminenilaw.com.  Ms. Lally earned her J.D. from New England Law | Boston and is admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the state of Michigan.

[ii] Attorney Srinivas Ramineni is the Managing attorney of the greater Boston law firm of Ramineni Law Associates. He assists employers with Business Immigration. He can be reached at ramineni@raminenilaw.com or (617) 830 4545.

White House Releases Details on a Merit Based Immigration System

By Paul Reifler Messenger, Esq.[1]

On October 8, 2017, the White House released details on their philosophy to make significant changes to U.S. Immigration Law and Policy.  While some of these ideas have been publicly discussed, the document released on October 8, shows the current mindset of the administration.  One of the major changes proposed is to end “chain-based-immigration.”  This refers to our current policy that allows U.S. Citizens to sponsor family members for permanent residence with high preference given to spouses of U.S. Citizens and the parents of U.S. Citizens.  The new proposal would still allow for U.S. Citizens to sponsor spouses and children, but it would eliminate the ability to petition for parents and siblings.  The White House claims that chain migration is responsible for 60% of Immigration over the past 35 years.[2]  The White House also asserts that only one out of fifteen immigrants enters the U.S. on the basis of skill.[3]

Another major proposal in the document is to eliminate the diversity visa program. Currently 50,000 immigrant visas are awarded on a lottery system.  The third proposed idea is to reduce the number of refugees permitted into the country.  Finally, the proposal would create a merit based point system.

These troubling ideas show a pattern from the White House that ignores principles of causality.  The documents asserts, “Decades of low-skilled immigration has suppressed wages, fueled unemployment, and strained Federal resources.”[4] While wages, unemployment and federal resources are concerning issues, there is no evidence to support that immigration is responsible for suppressing wages and raised unemployment.  The statement by the White House ignores several factors that have changed the U.S. economy, including globalization.  In fact, it is a proven fact recent immigration supports industries that cannot find U.S. workers.  Just this summer, businesses in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, could not recruit enough U.S. workers for temporary hospitality positions.[5]  In addition, it has been extensively written that immigrants fulfill agricultural positions that few U.S. workers are willing to do.[6]

While President Trump has signaled a willingness to make a deal with congress to enshrine DACA protections permanently into law, many political observers believe the Administration wants the principles above enshrined into law in order to make a deal on DACA.[7]  Our office will continue to monitor the developments of any proposed legislation.  If you have any questions about how the proposed legislation and what it could mean once implemented, please contact our office at (617) 500-9981, or at Paul@Raminenilaw.com.

 

[1] Paul Reifler Messenger, Esq. is an Associate Attorney in the Non-Immigrant Visa Department at Ramineni Law Associates, LLC.  He can be reached at 617-500-9978 or at Paul@raminenilaw.com.  He has been with Ramineni Law Associates since November of 2016.  He is licensed to practice in Massachusetts and is a 2010 graduate of Hofstra University School of Law.

[2] http://www.aila.org/infonet/wh-establishing-a-merit-based-immigration-system

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2017/06/23/shortage-of-visas-for-seasonal-workers-hits-cape.html

[6] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brookings-now/2017/08/24/do-immigrants-steal-jobs-from-american-workers/

[7] https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/8/trump-send-70-point-immigration-enforcement-list-c/

Premium Processing Service Resumes for All Types of H-1B Petitions

Today USCIS announced that Premium Processing is resumed for all types of H-1B Petitions. Accordingly, Petitioner may now upgrade or file H-1B Transfers, Extensions, Amendments, or New Not Subject to CAP Petitions under Premium Processing. Upon receipt of the request for Premium Processing, USCIS guarantees a fifteen (15) calendar day processing time.[1] If USCIS is unable to meet this deadline, the Service Center will refund the fee upon adjudication of the petition and continue in Premium Processing. If you would like our assistance in upgrading an H-1B Petition to Premium Processing, please contact your Sr. Paralegal and Associate Attorney who will initiate the case.

[1] https://www.uscis.gov/news/news-releases/premium-processing-now-available-all-petitioners-seeking-h-1b-visas

President Trump Rescinds DACA Protection

By Paul Reifler Messenger, Esq.[1]

On September 5, 2017 Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Program would be repealed.[2]  DACA was a program announced on June 15, 2012 by President Barack Obama as a way to protect a narrow category of undocumented immigrants from the threat of removal.

DACA was available to people who entered the U.S. before their 16th Birthday, were present prior to June 2007 and were currently enrolled in school or serving in the U.S. military.  It also required applicants to not have committed a felony or serious misdemeanor.[3] President Obama began the program due to a significant amount of undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children and have become productive members of their community.  DACA recipients were not in valid status through no fault of their own, due to decisions made on their behalf when they were minors.  President Obama instituted this rule using his power of Executive Action.  While many praised his effort, some believed this Executive Actions was an overreach of Executive Authority and impeded on Congress’ responsibility to pass immigration laws.

Approximately 800,000 people received DACA protection allowing recipients to join the work force.  Attorney General Sessions and the Trump Administration based their decision to repeal the DACA program on the grounds that President Obama lacked the authority to grant the protection in the first place.[4]  While there may be legitimate constitutional questions about President Obama’s authority as President and it’s limits, the Trump Administration has put a significant number of people in legal limbo.

President Trump has delayed the implementation of the repeal for six months to allow congress to pass a permanent solution. Ramineni Law Associates, LLC strongly condemns President Trump’s decision to use a large group of people to make a point.  DACA recipients are law abiding people and according to a recent figure 95% of the recipients are in the workplace.  Many economists have estimated that the economic loss of removing DACA recipients from the work place would be $215 Billion in lost economic output.  Further, the cost of deporting DACA recipients is estimated to be between $280 billion to $430 billion.[5]

By the very definition of DACA, the recipients of the program are people who did not choose to be undocumented and are living productive lives.  While it is vital to this country to enforce immigration laws, it cannot be ignored that there are people without valid status because of the actions of their parents. We urge congress to act on the recent proposal to pass DACA protections as law.[6]  It would go against established notions of fairness and justice to take away legal status to a large group of people after giving them protection against deportation.

Our office will be following developments on this issue and if you have any questions about the repeal of DACA, please contact our office at (617) 500-9981, or at Paul@Raminenilaw.com.

 

[1] Paul Reifler Messenger, Esq. is an Associate Attorney in the Non-Immigrant Visa Department at Ramineni Law Associates, LLC.  He can be reached at 617-500-9978 or at Paul@raminenilaw.com.  He has been with Ramineni Law Associates since November of 2016.  He is licensed to practice in Massachusetts and is a 2010 graduate of Hofstra University School of Law.

[2] https://www.uscis.gov/daca2017

[3] https://www.uscis.gov/archive/consideration-deferred-action-childhood-arrivals-daca#guidelines

[4] https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/09/05/memorandum-rescission-daca

[5] https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/05/daca-deportations-could-cost-us-economy-more-than-400-billion.html

[6][6] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/13/us/politics/trump-dinner-schumer-pelosi-daca-obamacare.html?mcubz=0

Porting a Beneficiary’s Priority Date Can Be a Document Intensive Procedure. Let RLA help you!

By Dayna Lally[i]

Ramineni Law Associates, LLC has received numerous requests from Petitioners seeking to port the priority date of earlier filed I-140 petitions. The priority date for employment-based immigration petitions is either:

  • The date the labor certification (“PERM”) is filed with DOL (for EB-2 and EB-3 petitions); or
  • The date the I-140 petition is filed with USCIS (for EB-1 petitions).

Retaining the priority date of an earlier filed I-140 petition is critical for EB preference immigrants who have long waiting periods.

USCIS provides the following tip for preparing a request to port an earlier priority date:

If the beneficiary may be entitled to an earlier priority date based on a previously approved Form I-140, please provide a statement about it. Include a copy of the approval notice (Form I-797) for the previous Form I-140.[ii]

The process seems simple, based on the above instructions. What the above instructions fail to indicate is that when requesting to port an earlier priority date, Petitioners must also demonstrate the ability to pay the beneficiary’s proffered wage from the priority date as well as the relevant offered wages to all other I-140 beneficiaries until each beneficiary obtains lawful permanent residence.

This is a document-intensive procedure which involves analyzing corporate tax returns, calculating net income and/or net current assets, comparing Form W-2 wages to proffered wages, and many other financial considerations.

USCIS further complicated the procedure to port earlier priority dates by issuing Requests for Evidence (“RFEs”) asking Petitioners to demonstrate the ability to pay the proffered wage to all Form I-140 and Form I-129 beneficiaries. We at RLA strongly believe that such requests are not in conformity with current regulations. An employer need not establish ability to pay nonimmigrant workers, however, not responding to concerns raised by USCIS in an RFE could ultimately result in a denial.

If you are interested in porting the priority date of a beneficiary’s previously approved I-140 petition, please contact our office at 617-600-7201 or dayna@raminenilaw.com.

[i] Dayna Lally, Esq. is an Associate Attorney in the I-140 Department at Ramineni Law Associates, LLC.  She can be reached at 617-600-7201 or dayna@raminenilaw.com.  Ms. Lally earned her J.D. from New England Law | Boston and is admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the state of Michigan.

[ii] https://www.uscis.gov/forms/petition-filing-and-processing-procedures-form-i-140-immigrant-petition-alien-worker

Consular visa denial, what to do when your visa application is denied

By Srinivas Ramineni, Esq.[1]

 Most of us have come across, whether personally or through a friend, a situation where a visa application is denied by a Consular officer. Very little help is out there when a visa application is denied. So, let’s examine the procedure for applying for visas, visa denials and options available for applicants after visa denial.

Procedure for applying for a nonimmigrant visa at a U.S. Consulate: We will not delve in to requirements of each consulate here, but only discuss the process at a high level in the interests of keeping this article short.  Unless you are visa exempt, you must go through the consular review process. Generally, the process begins when an applicant completes from DS-160 and submits it with a request for an interview date. On the date of the interview, you will be first asked to have your fingers scanned.[2] Generally, you are required to apply for a visa at a Consulate that has jurisdiction over the place of your residence.[3] However, this does not limit a person from applying at any consulate as consulates cannot refuse applicants solely on the basis that applicant was an out-of-district applicant.[4][5] Consular officers are allowed to consider all available information to establish a reasonable belief to deny a visa. While Consular officers are required to act upon every visa application, there have been instances of delay where courts have gotten involved to speed up the process. Consular officer will have already have gathered information regarding your eligibility or may do so during the interview. Upon considering all evidence, if an Consular officer issues a visa, an electronic version is created for access by DHS officers at the port of entry and a machine-readable visa is issued to the applicant.

Visa denials: When a visa denied, Consular officers are required to provide to the applicant a timely written notice of the denial. The denial must state the basis for the denial and list all the specific provisions of the law.[6] Specifically, before denying a visa the Consular officer should (a) give the applicant an opportunity to be interviewed in person with every reasonable opportunity to establish eligibility to receive a visa (b) refer to the specific section of law under which visa is being refused and the underlying factual basis (unless facts are classified or secrets) and (c) explain the refusal in person.[7]  All visa refusals are reviewed by a consular supervisor on the same day or as soon as possible to ensure compliance with all applicable laws and procedures.[8]

Options available when a visa application is denied: First, Applicants are allowed a period of one year to submit additional evidence and seek reconsideration.[9] After such additional documents are presented to the Consular officer, they are allowed 120 days to review the additional information provided.[10] Second, while factual assertions of a consular officer are not subject to review, the applicant or the applicant’s counsel may seek an advisory opinion from Department of State on any legal issue.[11]Third, an Applicant may ask for judicial review. This option is available under limited circumstances. Even though Consular decisions are not reviewable by a Court there are several exceptions to this rule. As evident from above, seeking a reconsideration of a visa denial or challenging it in a court could be costly and laborious. Applicants and/or Employers can avoid the many pitfalls of immigration laws by retaining a knowledgeable counsel.

If you or your employee has received a visa denial, we can assist you in various ways, including, but, not limited to, challenging the denial in a Court. You may contact me or any one of our experienced team at (617) 830 4545 or ramineni@raminenilaw.com.

[1] About the Author: Srinivas Ramineni is the Founding and Managing Attorney of Ramineni Law Associates a Business Immigration Law Firm. His practice focuses on Employment Based Business Immigration Law.  Attorney Ramineni graduated from Suffolk University of Law School and is licensed as an attorney in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Attorney Ramineni would be happy to hear from you at (617) 830 4545 or ramineni@raminenilaw.com.

[2] There are exceptions, if you are diplomat, under the age of 14 or over the age 80 unless you are from Mexico or Yemen (all citizens of these two countries must submit fingerprints irrespective of their age), physically unable to go to the consulate on medical grounds or physically unable to have their fingerprints taken

[3]See 22 CFR §41.101

[4] See 9 FAMe 403.2-4(B(2)(a)-(b)

[5] NIV overstays must return to their country of nationality for visa stamping

[6] INA §212(b)

[7] See 78 No. 26 Interpreter Releases 1145-47

[8] 22 CFR §41.121(c)

[9] 22 CFR §41.81(e)

[10] 22 CFR §41.113(i)

[11] See 9 FAMe 103.4-2

Making Your Case with USCIS: Tips on Presenting Your Petition

By: Taimoor Choudhry, Esq.[1]

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the Applicant or Petitioner, whichever is applicable, bears the evidentiary burden. This entails two things: (1) satisfying the burden of production, by putting forth documentary evidence in support of the petition and (2) meeting the standard of proof, convincing the fact finder that the evidence produced supports the matter being asserted to a certain degree. Under current immigration law, this standard is “preponderance of the evidence.” According to this standard:

If Petitioner submits relevant, probative, and credible evidence that leads the director to believe that the claim is “probably true” or more likely than not, the applicant or petitioner has satisfied the standard or proof.”[2]

In other words, the action sought should be granted if the probability of it occurring is more than 50 percent. Unfortunately, this standard is difficult to apply and generally should be administered by someone who has obtained a standard legal education or its equivalent in significant legal experience. In civil proceedings, it is generally a judge that administers this standard of proof to evidence produced. Under certain immigration proceedings—i.e., adjudication of an H-1B Petition—the standard is applied by officers who may or may not possess a standard legal education or extensive legal experience. Consequently, special thought should be placed on how a matter is presented in an immigration proceeding. Or it may be the case that an Applicant or a Petitioner may have met the burden of production, but, failed because it could not persuade an untrained set of eyes.

Therefore, significant time and effort must be placed on how an Applicant or Petitioner presents evidence to the USCIS. Inserting a footnote to explain Beneficiary’s living arrangement at an offsite work location or adding circumstantial evidence, i.e., prior purchase orders to bolster the long-term nature of a project, could mean the difference between an Approval and a Request for Evidence.[3] At Ramineni Law Associates, our experienced attorneys, and adequate resources permit us to focus on the minutest of details. Our quality is never comprised, as we strive to help applicants and petitioners meet their evidentiary standard and prove more likely than not the truth of the matter asserted. If you would like to receive a carefully tailored application/petition for a variety of different visa categories, please contact our office for a consultation. Our talented and diverse set of attorneys can carefully craft an application/petition whether it is for a simple or the most complex of cases. We can be reached at (617) 500-9981, or Taimoor@raminenilaw.com.

 

[1]Taimoor J. Choudhry, Esq. is an Associate Attorney in the Non-Immigrant Visa Department at Ramineni Law Associates, LLC.  He has been with Ramineni Law Associates, LLC since July of 2016. He graduated from Penn State Law and is licensed to practice in the State of New York and Massachusetts. He can be reached at Taimoor@raminenilaw.com or (617) 300-8134

[2]See Memorandum to Regional Directors, William R. Yates, Assoc. Director of Field Operations, HQ 70/33.1 (Jan. 11, 2006) at 2.

[3] “Request for Evidence is  made when an application/petition is lacking required documentation/evidence (initial evidence) or the officer needs more documentation/evidence (additional evidence) to determine an applicant’s eligibility for the benefit sought.” See https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/Dashboard/CaseStatus/BucketDescriptions.do

Requests for Evidence – The H-1B Specialty Occupation Requirement

By Daniel Carpenter, Esq.[1]

The Buy American, Hire American Executive Order, issued by the Trump administration to, “promote economic growth, create good jobs at decent wages…create higher wages and employment rates for workers in the United States…”[2] has brought with it a shift in adjudicatory scrutiny of H-1B and similar non-immigrant petitions. This increased scrutiny has carried with it a heightened level of complexity in Requests for Evidence (“RFE”) issued by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (“USCIS”).

Our team of attorneys have seen an increase in RFEs questioning whether an H-1B position, that an employer is hiring the foreign national for, actually qualifies as a “specialty occupation.” Among other requirements, which are not explored in the context of this article, one requirement for an employer who wishes to hire a foreign national under the H-1B visa program is, the petitioning employer must show that the position qualifies as a specialty occupation. Regulations define a specialty occupation as,

…theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent as a minimum requirement for entry into the occupation in the United States, and who is qualified to perform services in the specialty occupation because he or she has attained a baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent in the specialty occupation.[3]

The petitioning employer must be able to prove to USCIS, by a preponderance of the evidence[4], that;

  1. The position they intend to hire the beneficiary of an H-1B petition for requires at a minimum a bachelor’s degree, or equivalent;
  2. It is common in the industry for that particular type of position to require a bachelor’s degree; and
  3. The job duties to be performed are so specialized and complex that the knowledge gained through obtaining a bachelor degree or higher prepares the beneficiary to perform those specialized skills.[5]

For example, if a petitioning company is attempting to hire a computer systems analyst to work at an end-client location under the H-1B program, the company must be able to prove to USCIS that the job duties that the employee will be performing for the end-client are specialized and complex for that specific position. The job duties must not be broad or generic duties performed by computer systems analysts. In addition, the company must be able to show that they have a practice of hiring computer systems analysts only with a bachelor’s degree or higher and that it is common for most computer systems analysts to have at a minimum a bachelor’s degree.

When responding to these complex RFEs our team of attorneys at Ramineni Law Associates work closely with petitioning employers to craft a response to attempt to overcome the burden of an RFE and produce a positive outcome. Our team provides comprehensive responses to specialty occupation issues raised by USCIS and creates specialized arguments to establish that the position that an H-1B employer is hiring for is in fact a specialty occupation position as defined by current regulations.

When creating a response to an RFE, it is important that the documentation that will be submitted along with an RFE response is provided to our office as soon as possible upon receipt of an RFE. This will allow our attorneys suitable time to review the documentation and provide a thorough response to questions raised by USCIS in a RFE such as specialty occupation issues among other issues. If you, or your employer, have been issued a RFE of would like a consultation regarding an RFE, please contact our team of Attorneys at (617) 500-9981 or daniel@raminenilaw.com.

 

[1] Daniel Carpenter, Esq. is an Associate Attorney of the greater Boston law firm of Ramineni Law Associates. He assists employers, nonimmigrants, and their dependents, with business immigration and related matters. He can be reached at daniel@raminenilaw.com or (617) 500-9981. He has been with Ramineni Law Associates, LLC since 2016. He is licensed to practice in the State of Massachusetts, and a 2016 graduate of Suffolk University Law School.

[2] Exec. Order No. 13788, 82 Fed. Reg. 18,837(Apr. 18, 2017) available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/04/21/2017-08311/buy-american-and-hire-american.

[3] 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(i)(A)(1).

[4] See U.S. v. Cardoso-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987) (defining “more likely than not” as a greater than 50 percent probability of something occurring).

[5] 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A).