Our latest blog post:

When the Executive Order now known as “Buy American and Hire American” was issued in April of 2017, the reaction among businesses and employment based immigrants was one of distress and a sense of hopelessness. Business immigration Practitioners knew the new policy was at best ambiguous and at worst, the harbinger of a complete and total departure from long established service policy. Particularly disheartening was the directive that was specifically directed at the immigration laws of the country:

(b)  Hire American.  In order to create higher wages and employment rates for workers in the United States, and to protect their economic interests, it shall be the policy of the executive branch to rigorously enforce and administer the laws governing entry into the United States of workers from abroad, including section 212(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(5)).

The Executive further went on to state:

(b)  In order to promote the proper functioning of the H-1B visa program, the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall, as soon as practicable, suggest reforms to help ensure that H-1B visas are awarded to the most-skilled or highest-paid petition beneficiaries.

The sweeping call for reform within administrative agencies, without the involvement of Congress and a change in the statute, was viewed as an attempt to stifle immigration and build an invisible wall. For the most part, this is true. However, within this challenging climate of doom and gloom, were signs of a willingness to view some petitions more favorably than others.

For instance, we have seen an uptick in the approval of EB-1A petitions for business and finance professionals. Recently, the Office filed an Immigrant Petition (SRC1923750062) for an Analyst. The petition was filed on August 2nd and approved on August 9th!

This petition was prepared meticulously and included evidence of the leading and critical role played by the employee within the organization. While peer reviewed publications and memberships proved tricky and were perhaps, not immediately relevant in this case; we believe a case could be made to show evidence that may be more appropriate to the occupation in the EB1 context. In this case, the analyst’s reports to shareholders and investors was used to show comparable evidence to satisfy this prong. Individual reports and analysis were presented as evidence of original business-related contributions of major significance. The matter of salary was self-evident. The Service accepts comparable evidence where the regulatory prongs don’t readily apply to a given situation.

While this approval is not proof of how the Service may adjudicate your case, it does show that a well-prepared petition that satisfies the regulatory criteria for EB1A would be readily approvable. We highly recommend discussing your options with one of our Attorneys to evaluate your chances of immigrating under the employment based first preference category today!