Annie Banerjee, a Houston-area immigration lawyer, offers some of her insight about the legal dilemma facing a dentist named Mahadeep Virk.

The case arose under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). A man named Oshmi Dutta filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division contending that his employer Mahadeep Virk had violated the INA. After an investigation and a three-day hearing in January 2007, Wage and Hour’s administrator determined that Dutta’s complaint was indeed valid. To sum up the story quickly, Virk is a dentist and a partner in Avenue Dental Care clinic in Puyallup, Washington, with affiliated clinics which were added by the same appellative in neighboring Clackamas and Gresham, Oregon. Oshmi Dutta is also a dentist. In June 2002, Virk hired Dutta to work at the clinic in Washington, pursuant to the INA’s H-1B nonimmigrant worker program. At the time of the January 2007 hearing, Dutta worked at both Oregon locations.

To hire Dutta, Virk filed a Labor Condition Application (LCA) on May 7, 2002 to employ Dutta from June 1, 2002 to May 31, 2005 at $108,000 to $150,000 per year. Virk signed the LCA as “Owner Dentist President.” But by June 2003, while the LCA remained in effect, Virk and Dutta established as equal partners “Avenue Dental Care” clinics in Gresham and Clackamas, Oregon. Virk and Dutta agreed that Dutta would be responsible for day-to-day operations of these clinics. In July 2003, Dutta left Washington to work in Oregon. He drew money from the clinics to compensate himself; as of July 1, 2003, the Puyallup, Washington, clinic no longer paid Dutta his H-1B wages. Two years later, in June 2005, “Avenue Dental Care,” Puyallup, Washington, filed a second LCA to employ Dutta from June 12, 2005 to June 11, 2008, in Clackamas, Oregon, at $108,000 per year. Virk signed the LCA as “Owner Dentist President.”

In 2005, conflicts developed between Dutta and Virk. Dutta complained to Virk that Virk had not compensated him as they had agreed and that Virk had not addressed cash flow and management problems at the Oregon clinics. Dutta sought to sell Virk his fifty-percent interest in each Oregon clinic, or alternately to negotiate a new compensation agreement. Virk balked.

“I can see precisely where this is going,” said Houston-area immigration lawyer Annie Banerjee, “hard feelings were engendered. As H-1B wages are stipulated in the LCAs, and they stem from signed agreements, they must be paid.”

To learn more, visit http://www.visatous.com.

From one perspective, Arizona’s controversial new immigration law is not that different from the federal version. But the federal government says treating all 11 million of the nation’s illegal immigrants as criminals would overwhelm the system.

On its face, Arizona’s controversial new immigration law is very similar to the federal version. There’s a key discrepancy, however. Arizona wants every illegal immigrant caught and deported. Considering that an estimated 11 million immigrants may have already entered the U.S. illegally, this is likely to be too tall an order and according to the Feds, will overwhelm the system.

In its recent lawsuit challenging the Arizona law, the Justice Department says its policy is to focus on dangerous immigrants: gang members, drug traffickers, threats to national security. Otherwise law-abiding immigrants without documentation would largely be left alone.

Homeland Security officials say the government cannot possibly find, arrest and deport everyone who is here illegally, and trying to do so would also upset a balance crafted by Congress which takes into account humanitarian interests and foreign relations.

Proponents of the Arizona solution insist that’s no reason not to try and say the state’s toughest-in-the-nation law is a reasonable way to start.

“If it’s really the case that they don’t have enough resources to enforce the laws that Congress has passed, it would seem it’s incumbent on them to go back to Congress and ask for more resources,” said Steven Camarota, research director at the center for Immigration Studies, a group that favors stricter enforcement of immigration laws. “But since they don’t do that, it sort of undermines the argument.”

Arizona’s new law is nearly identical to federal immigration law. At issue is how it is enforced. The federal government says the state law is unconstitutional because it usurps federal authority to protect U.S. borders and American citizens. Arizona counters that the federal government is not doing its job, which forces state officials to step in.

State lawmakers argue that the federal government already enlists local authorities to identify illegal immigrants who have been arrested for other crimes. The new law, they say, just extends that to police patrols.

The federal government says the law goes too far by making it a state crime to be in Arizona illegally and requiring police to question the immigration status of anyone they encounter who is believed to be undocumented.

A. Banerjee is a Houston immigration lawyer in Texas. Before selecting an immigration lawyer in Houston Texas, contact the Law Offices of Annie Banerjee by visiting their information filled web site at http://www.visatous.com.

The Nebraska Service Center Liaison Committee assisting AILA has received several reports of denials on I-140 petitions for third preference professionals.

The Nebraska Service Center Liaison Committee has received several reports of denials on I-140 petitions for third preference professionals. These denials resulted when attorneys failed to properly distinguish the required qualifications between professionals and skilled workers on the new Form I-140 which was introduced on January 6, 2010. Prior versions of Form I-140 had only one box to check for bachelor degreed professionals and skilled workers, and did not make a distinction between the two classifications. Similarly, there is no distinction in the availability of visas as both are classified in the employment-based, third preference category. Thus, the differences between the professional with a Bachelor’s degree and a skilled worker were without a distinction prior to the introduction of the new form earlier this year.

This new form requires the petitioner to distinguish between a professional with a Bachelor’s degree and a skilled worker. Professional means a qualified alien who holds at least a United States Baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree and who is a member of the professions.

The application of this definition by NSC has resulted in the strict review of whether or not a foreign degree is the equivalent of a U.S. Bachelor’s degree and does not recognize experience as a degree’s equivalent. The ETA 9089 may establish alternative requirements that equate a pre-determined level of experience as a substitute for a degree.

This standard is similar to the second preference regulation which also requires a specific degree that is the academic equivalence to meet the requirements of the second preference (EB-2).

A denial on this issue will not preclude the filing of a second I-140 petition using the same approved PERM application but classified as a skilled worker. The cover letter and materials with a second I-140 petition should reference the first petition, include a copy of the denial, and advise NSC that the original PERM Application Form ETA 9089 can be located in the original file. The cover letter should also explain why the second petition has corrected the deficiency upon which the first petition was denied. The expiration of the Certified ETA-9089 should not preclude filing a second petition provided the first petition was filed prior to the 180-day expiration date.

A. Banerjee is a Houston immigration lawyer in Texas. Before selecting an immigration lawyer in Houston Texas, contact the Law Offices of Annie Banerjee by visiting their information filled web site at http://www.visatous.com.

The fees for most CIS applications are astronomical. For instance the fee for N-400 to become a US Citizen is $675/- The fee for adjusting status to become a permanent resident is $1010/- Many people simply cannot afford that. However previously there were no forms and no guidelines to filing anything without fees with the CIS. If anyone filed a form and could not afford a fee, they had to write a letter. But the mailroom personnel at CIS either does not read or perhaps cannot read. So the form used to be returned asking us to send the check. You could go back and forth and in the mean time loose time or even status.

Even more egregious were fees paid due to CIS’ mistake. For instance if the CIS in clear cut error denied your case, you had to file a motion to reopen for $585/- We even had a case once where the CIS collected a fee for a I-765 (EAD) filing for $340/- and lost the file. When we traced and send them the check, the reply was that my bank should ask for the money back. My bank, Bank of America, did not know how to. So we simply paid again and refiled.

Now the CIS is proposing a form: I-912 which will establish clear guidelines for fee waivers. Hopefully the form in its approved version will have no fee requirements for CIS’ mistakes along with applications for applicants below the poverty level.

Don’t just start spending the money that you were saving for the CIS fees yet though. Sometimes these forms take years to come to fruition. As for me, I will believe it when I ultimately see it.

For more information contact Houston Immigration Lawyer or Houston Immigration Attorney, Annie Banerjee

There are only 65,000 visas given for regular H-1Bs and 20,000 for holders of US Master’s Degree. As of July 09, only 24,800 regular petitions were filed and 10,600 US Master’s petition were filed. The reason for this slow filing is two fold.

Heading into a deeper recession, the economy is definitely a factor. Unlike what most people think, Companies would rather hire US workers, and not pay the $2320/- filing fees plus attorney’s fees.

However there are some professions which have a shortage in the US. That is true of computer professionals. But the computer professional market has been bruised by a poorly conceived and legally impermissible memo that CIS promulgated on January 08, 2010. The CIS is their infinite wisdom deemed that professionals need to be “controlled” directly by the petitioning company.

The IT business typically have contracts that go through tiers— from the petitioning company to the end user. The CIS thinks that this creates “job shop” a four letter word to them.

The Jan 08 memo is startling in how unconstitutional it is—- how it totally disregards the rule of law. The class action lawsuit against it will hopefully see the end of the memo. Meanwhile software companies are outsourcing their business elsewhere.

However if there is a contract using an intermediary, control can be shown if another employee of the same H-1B employer works for the end user and actually supervises the H-1B beneficiary.

For instance if Company A, the H-1B employer has a contract with Company F and Company F has a contract with the end user, Company Bigshot. If Company A has employee X who works for Big Shot too, who supervises employee Y, who is the beneficiary, then control can be established under the January 08 memo. Of course all companies have to provide a ton of document to prove the case.

For more information contact Houston Immigration Lawyer or Houston Immigration Attorney, Annie Banerjee