Hitting the Big Time: Winning Immigration Strategies for Sports and Entertainment

Jon Velie

Jon Velie

Free Webinar. TOPIC: Hitting the Big Time: Winning Immigration Strategies for Sports and Entertainment

Why should you attend?

The sports and entertainment industries thrive in the United States. Few countries rival America for success stories as an athlete or entertainer; that’s why the best in the world come here to take a shot. This webinar will illustrate the various pathways to obtain a visa to perform, play, coach, administer, support, or hire someone to do it for your organization.

Ascentis welcomes back award winning immigration attorney, Jon Velie, who has represented clients in the NHL, NFL, and NBA, as well as Wimbledon champions, Olympians, major ski resorts, national and international sports teams, universities, Hollywood actors, directors, award winning musicians, dancers, amateurs and non-profits. Jon will utilize common situation fact patterns, regulations and winning strategies for the sports and entertainment industries to perform, coach, administer or gain residence in the United States.

And just for you…

Just by signing up for this webinar, you’ll automatically be entered into a drawing to win a FREE copy of Jon’s DVD, Does Immigration Make You Want to Stick Your Head Through A Wall?

You’ll learn more about:

  • EB-1-1 Extraordinary Ability Green Card
  • EB-2 Advanced Degree Professionals, Exceptional Ability
  • EB-3 Skilled Workers Green Card
  • H1-B Specialty Occupation for coaches and administrators
  • H-2B Temporary or Seasonal Workers
  • P1 exceptional ability Athlete or Entertainment group Visa
  • O-1A Visa for extraordinary ability in sports O-1B visa for extraordinary ability in entertainment
  • TN1 Visa for Canadian and Mexican Citizens B-1 visa for various, specific, short term purposes
  • Support personnel, family and other related issues
  • And much, much more!

In addition, you will have the chance to ask Jon your most pressing questions in the live Q&A session following the presentation.

Who will benefit?

  • HR personnel
  • Payroll personnel
  • Legal counsel
  • Paralegals
  • Management
  • Agents
  • Athletes
  • Coaches
  • Administrators
  • Performers
  • Support Staff
  • Executives

 

Date: Thurs. June 13 Time: 10am PDT/1pm EST
Location: Online Cost: Free
Duration: 1 hour RCH: Submitted*
Presenter: Jon Veile

 Click here to register.

FREE WEBINAR: Winning Strategies for Employment-Based Green Cards

WEBINAR TOPIC: Winning Strategies for Employment-Based Green Cards

Date: Tues. May 28 Time: 10am PDT/1pm EST
Location: Online Cost: Free
Duration: 1 hour RCH: Submitted*
Presenter: Jon Veile

Registration now open!

Why should you attend?

Award winning Immigration attorney, Jon Velie, will utilize common situation fact patterns, regulations and winning strategies for employers and employees to gain permanent residence in the United States.

We’ll learn more about:

  • EB-1-1 Extraordinary Ability
  • EB-1-2 Outstanding Professor or Researcher
  • EB-1-3 Multinational Executive or Managers
  • The Labor Certification Process
  • EB-2 Advanced Degree Professionals, Exceptional Ability
  • EB-3 Skilled Workers
  • And much, much more!

In addition, you will have the chance to ask Jon your most pressing questions in the live Q&A session following the presentation.

Who will benefit?

  • HR personnel
  • Legal counsel
  • Paralegals
  • Management
  • Executives or owners of international companies or companies seeking to open offices in and out of the U.S.

 Register now!

How to Reform Immigration an Open Letter to the President and Congress

Dear Mr. President, Senator McCain, Senator Schumer and Congressional Leaders:

Please accept this letter on behalf of American companies that compete to be the best in the world by being able to hire the best in the world, Americans seeking to unify their families including those from foreign lands, those that selected Amimmigration-reform_rallyerica to pursue their education and now simply want to put their American education to work and permit us to benefit from the education we provided them, instead of kicking them out to make another nation stronger. Let’s go back to being the home of the dream where those that have the desire, passion and drive can invest their energy, skill and money into our rich soil of opportunity, bettering themselves while bettering us.

Immigration is not the problem, it’s the solution. In a few years our highest producers and purchasers, the Baby Boomers will go offline. Who will replace them? Who will drive the economy? Why have we capped the number of professionals that can enter each year? why do our permanent residency visas take seven years for professionals? why can laborers only work in resort towns or for temporary stints?

The solutions are actually fairly simple. The regulations are there to protect American jobs and not under pay foreign labor, but the processes take to long, are inconsistent and the overall approach is too restrictive.

Please accept this letter as a common sense approach to make a more user-friendly efficient process to reform immigration.

It is a great step that the bi-partisan group of Senators known as the Gang of Eight have introduced the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013.  It is a good step, unfortunately we know this is a starting point and that the political wrangling and delay tactics will likely result in something that may differ than the proposed bill.

We believe the following issues should be considered in shaping Comprehensive Immigration Reform and what elements should be included in the Immigration Reform Bill.

1. Green Card applications take to long.     The visa bulletin report published monthly by the Dept of Labor for March 2013 states that Immigration Officials are adjudicating cases filed in March 2007. Six years are not efficient, it ties employees to employers creating a virtual involuntary servitude. Nobody benefits from this. The solution is simple hire more people to adjudicate the cases. We have increased unemployment and a need for more case workers. Pay for the increased labor with increased fees. Immigration offers expedited processing of numerous visas for a 15 day turnaround. The adjudication of an EB-3 Green Card is analyzing an already approved labor certification case by DOL and whether a foreign national meets the minimum requirements of education and employment requested. Easy to do in two weeks, these cases are sitting in stacks for years gathering dust. combine the desire to create jobs for Americans and hire them to process the visa applications for the next batch of Americans together we will work to restore our economy now and for generations to come. Please create a requirement that Homeland Security hire more adjudicators and place firm time limits on the processing of the visas.

2. Eliminate arbitrary numerical limits (caps). One of the most common and most needed temporary or non-immigrant visas is the H-1b for specialty occupations.  This means jobs that require college degrees for college graduates. However, there is an arbitrary cap of 65,000 per year. The visa has capped every year since it was inexplicably lowered including the dreary years of 2008 and 2009 during the worst of the recession. Now employers apply in April for jobs that won’t start until October. And those who actually have jobs open in October and for the rest of the 12 month fiscal year have to wait a year to hire a foreign national, with certain exceptions.

Solution is to eliminate the cap and let the market control the need. The H-1b has built-in protections of requiring the prevailing wage for the county and state be paid and evaluating  degrees to be equivalent to US universities.

The H-2b visa which permits lower level employees, also contains arbitrary caps is mired in mechanical issues, litigation and only permitted for seasonal employees. Will the new W visa resolve these issues? We hope so, but why have a numerical cap especially on the building industry which is reliant on immigrant labor. Allow the market to determine the need. Don’t shackle US employers or force good laborers to be employed illegally. It isn’t good for anyone and makes no sense.

3. Make the process easier for investors. Our government borrows money from other governments, we are in massive debt. Investment by international individuals that infuse capital into American companies and create jobs for Americans is a good idea. Lets increase these investments not make them more difficult.

A. The EB-5 investor permanent residency visa provides a narrow process for obtaining a green card, must be one million dollars or half a million for high unemployment or rural locations and must create 10 jobs for Americans or Permanent Residents. However, the adjudication of these petitions has been inconsistent and the investors are placed in precarious positions. The concept is a good one, but reducing the buy in cost or permitting loans would flow more money and create more jobs for Americans. Incentivize the  purchase of the large stock of commercial or residential properties that were foreclosed. Count building jobs instead of exempting them to incentivize more projects.

B. The E-2 Treaty Investor Visa is a stop-gap as it permits the investor to obtain a visa based upon a loan not just a capital investment. It also does not have a finite investment amount, instead it is a substantial investment in the business. This has been accepted in the range of $50,000 by USCIS for professional businesses like consulting, accounting, law and other similar service based companies or $100,000 by Consulates. However, its limited to countries with treaties with the US and is temporary in nature. Therefore, the visa holder has to file extensions every few years. An easy fix would be to create a permanent residency (Green Card) with the E-2 requirements for all nations.

C. The proposed Start-Up Visa may be a fix, it will be interesting to see how the regulations are written for this visa. Technology is one of the US strongest industries, we are the cradle of creativity for technology and only hampered by the lack of funding. This is a great move to increase investment into the next Microsoft, Google or Facebook. Remember to not hamstring these companies by making it more difficult to hire the best talent in the world. Eliminating the H-1b caps are easier adjudication of L-1 multinational transferees or EB-1 Multinational Executives could accomplish this.

We applaud removing annual numerical limits on employment-based immigrants: derivative beneficiaries of employment-based immigrants; aliens of extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business or athletics; outstanding professors and researchers; multinational executives and managers; doctoral degree holders in any field; and certain physicians.

On behalf of the 11 million undocumented people residing in America, thank you for providing a pathway to become legal. We understand the new bill to provide the following two tracks:

One based on the number of points immigrants could accumulate, with a fixed annual numerical cap, and another for immigrants who had been legally employed and living in the United States in good standing for 10 years or more. The second track would not have a cap.  Formerly, undocumented immigrants would be eligible to apply for initial adjustment of status named “Registered Provision Immigrant” (RPI) legal status following the filing of the Notice of Commencement of Completion by (DHS) for each of the border security and fencing strategies.

Only undocumented immigrants who arrived in the country before Dec. 31, 2011, would be eligible for RPI status.   After 10 years, aliens in RPI status may adjust to Lawful Permanent Resident (Green Card) Status through the same Merit Based System everyone else must use to earn a green-card.  They must also wait until all people currently waiting for family and employment Green Cards have been cleared through the system.

The border security programs would be required to evidence a 90% effectiveness rate before any immigrants who had been here illegally would be able to apply for permanent resident green cards, achieving a series of border-security benchmarks that would require the Department of Homeland Security to spend as much as $5.5 billion over 10 years to increase enforcement and extend fencing along the Southwest border.

Undocumented immigrants would be ineligible if they have been convicted of a felony, aggravated felony, three or more misdemeanors, an offense under foreign law or unlawfully voted.

Undocumented immigrants who were deported for non-criminal reasons would be able to apply to re-enter the country if they are the spouse or parent of a child who is a citizen or lawful permanent resident, or they arrived during childhood and are eligible for the DREAM Act.  People in DREAM Act Status and the Agricultural Program can get their green cards in 5 years and DREAM Act kids will be eligible for citizenship immediately after they get their green cards.

We support you in tackling this important issue. The last election showed that Immigrants are important to voters and still the backbone of our nation. The term illegal alien should be stricken from our collective vocabulary. America is still the best nation in the world because it fosters opportunity to those with the imagination, work ethic and desire to make a better life for themselves. We are a collective nation of people with the same beliefs in freedom, justice and the American way. Immigration reform is the right move that fuel our economy create jobs for Americans, legitimize over 10 million otherwise lawful people in our workforce, create a system for propelling our economy foreward while maintaining our universal belief in the American Dream. The debate must change from fear to how are we going to keep our economy strong as our producers leave the employment arena. Lets just really fix this problem now, before another country replaces us as the greatest nation in the world.

Sincerely,

 

Jon Velie

Immigration Attorney

Editor, ImmigrationMagazine.com

Bi-partisan Senators file Immigration Reform Bill: Introducing the “Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013″

mccain w schumerA Senate bill sponsored by the bi-partisan Senators Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) is designed to provide long awaited Immigration reform was filed today.  

The bill creates pathways to previously illegal aliens, creates more visas for the tech industry, establishes permanent residency visa for investors of start-ups and creation of a new W visa for unskilled workers, known as guest workers. Highlights of the proposed bill are as follows:

 Undocumented Immigrants

Two tracks: one based on the number of points immigrants could accumulate, with a fixed annual numerical cap, and another for immigrants who had been legally employed and living in the United States in good standing for 10 years or more. The second track would not have a cap.  Formerly, undocumented immigrants would be eligible to apply for initial adjustment of status named “Registered Provision Immigrant” (RPI) legal status following the filing of the Notice of Commencement of Completion by (DHS) for each of the border security and fencing strategies. 

Only undocumented immigrants who arrived in the country before Dec. 31, 2011, would be eligible for RPI status.   After 10 years, aliens in RPI status may adjust to Lawful Permanent Resident (Green Card) Status through the same Merit Based System everyone else must use to earn a green-card.  They must also wait until all people currently waiting for family and employment Green Cards have been cleared through the system.

The border security programs would be required to evidence a 90% effectiveness rate before any immigrants who had been here illegally would be able to apply for permanent resident green cards, achieving a series of border-security benchmarks that would require the Department of Homeland Security to spend as much as $5.5 billion over 10 years to increase enforcement and extend fencing along the Southwest border.

 Undocumented immigrants would be ineligible if they have been convicted of a felony, aggravated felony, three or more misdemeanors, an offense under foreign law or unlawfully voted.

 Undocumented immigrants who were deported for non-criminal reasons would be able to apply to re-enter the country if they are the spouse or parent of a child who is a citizen or lawful permanent resident, or they arrived during childhood and are eligible for the DREAM Act.  People in DREAM Act Status and the Agricultural Program can get their green cards in 5 years and DREAM Act kids will be eligible for citizenship immediately after they get their green cards.

 High Skilled Visas

The legislation would give employers in technology and science fields tens of thousands of new temporary and permanent resident visas annually, which they have been urgently seeking for tech workers and foreign graduates with advanced degrees from American universities. It immediately raises current annual caps on temporary high-skilled visas, known as H-1B, to 110,000 from 65,000, while adding 5,000 more of those visas for the foreign graduates. The cap would gradually rise to 180,000 annually.

 Start-Up Visa

 The legislation would create a “start-up” visa for foreign entrepreneurs who want to come here to establish companies that employ Americans.

 Two New Guest Worker Programs

 The bill also responds to the demands of American farmers and other employers of seasonal workers by creating two new guest-worker programs, one for farmworkers and another for low-wage laborers.

 One major overhaul is the new classification for low-skilled workers. Called the W-visa, a new independent statistical agency is created — the Immigration and Labor Market Research Bureau — which is to be headed by a commissioner appointed by the president and with the consent of the Senate. The new bureau would get $20 million to devise a method to calculate the low-skilled worker visa cap, determine worker shortages, survey the unemployment rate of construction workers every three months and give annual recommendations on how to improve the programs. Employer fees and other fees for hiring undocumented workers will also be used to fund the bureau.

 The number of low-skilled visas available starts at 20,000 in its first year, followed by 35,000 in the second, 55,000 in the third year and 75,000 the following year. Employers must hire W-visa holders at the same wage of other employees of similar experience, or at the prevailing wage. The bill also requires that companies have not laid off an employee 90 days prior to or after hiring a guest worker.

The program also singles out the construction industry, saying no more than 33 percent of the W-visa positions would be granted to the construction industry, capping it at 15,000 per year.

 Mandatory Employer Verification System

 A significant change for employers would be a mandatory employer verification system to check the immigration status of their employees. With a five-year phase-in period based on size of the business, employers would be required to certify that non-citizen workers presented a “biometric green card” that matches a photo stored in an e-verify system.

Compromises

 The bill would reduce the Green Card categories of family members, eliminating siblings of United States citizens and limiting sons and daughters of citizens to those under 31 years of age. It would also cut the Green Card lottery that has distributed 55,000 visas each year. The reasoning was that the adjudicators working on this visas would be shifted to the new influx. Also Republicans have sought to limit what they call family chain migration and to accomplish changes without increasing the overall number of visas.

Highlights Regarding Legal Immigration

 The bill repeals the availability of immigrant visas for siblings of U.S. citizens once 18 months have elapsed since the date of enactment;  amends the definition of “immediate relative” to include a child or spouse of an alien admitted for lawful permanent residence; amends the existing category for married sons and daughters of citizens of the United States to include only sons and daughters who are under 31 years of age.

For Employment Green-Card Categories:  The bill exempts the following categories from the annual numerical limits on employment-based immigrants: derivative beneficiaries of employment-based immigrants; aliens of extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business or athletics; outstanding professors and researchers; multinational executives and managers; doctoral degree holders in any field; and certain physicians.

 The bill will allocate 40 percent of the worldwide level of employment-based visas to :

 1) members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent whose services are sought in the sciences, arts, professions, or business by an employer in the United States (including certain aliens with foreign medical degrees) and

 2) aliens who have earned a master’s degree or higher in a field of science, technology, engineering or mathematics from an accredited U.S. institution of higher education and have an offer of employment in a related field and the qualifying degree was earned in the five years immediately before the petition was filed.

 The bill increases the percentage of employment visas for skilled workers, professionals, and other professionals to 40 percent, maintains the percentage of employment visas for certain special immigrants to 10 percent and maintains visas for those who foster employment creation to 10 percent.

VELIE LAW FIRM WINS BEST OVERALL SMALL COMPANY

Korey McMahon, Jon Velie, Rob Garibay

Korey McMahon, Jon Velie, Rob Garibay

The 2013 Americas Business Excellence Forum, sponsored by ActionCOACH, named Velie Law Firm of Norman, Oklahoma, the winner of the Best Overall Company under 10 employees at this year’s Business Excellence Awards, held in Las Vegas, Nevada, at the Red Rock Resort and Casino.

The Business Excellence Awards honor the “best of the best” results in small and medium sized businesses from around the world, and showcases exceptional results for business owners, entrepreneurs, their teams and their companies.

ActionCOACH Founder and Chairman, Brad Sugars, presented Velie Law Firm with the Best Overall Company Under 10 Employees trophy because of the exceptional results they produced for their extraordinary clients in 2012.

“I was honored to select the Velie Law Firm as the winner this year. They exemplify an outstanding small business and produced outstanding results,” said Brad Sugars.
Velie Law Firm has built an amazing culture that is attracting incredible team members and clients to join them in achieving their business vision of delivering the American Dream to Wimbledon Champions, NFL players, NHL All-Stars, Millionaire entrepreneurs, Fortune 500 Companies, Silicon Valley Tech companies and leaders in the Medical, Higher Education, Energy and Sports/ Entertainment fields.

“Winning this award is such an honor.  I am humbled by my team’s hard work over the last year,” said attorney and owner Jon Velie, whose been nicknamed Jonny Visa.

“We innovated the delivery of legal services in the late 1990′s when we launched the ABA award winning www.OnLineVisas.com that gave away information on our practice area. Today we seek to reduce the pain of hiring international employees by investing in our clients first with free strategies and written legal option to determine upfront whether we can obtain a visa, then provide a flat fee price and a time estimate. Finally, we have skin in the game by guaranteeing approval or we re-file the case,” noted Mr. Velie. “We understand we are in the service industry and we utilize the best process in the industry coupled with top legal strategy for a flat reasonable fee.”

Velie Law Firm is a privately owned company with over two decades of immigration expertise and has established itself as the extraordinary provider of immigration legal services in the United States.

For more information about the Velie Law Firm visit them at www.onlinevisas.com or call Jon Velie at (405) 310-4333. To learn more about the Business Excellence Awards, and to see the list of the winners, visit: http://www.actioncoach.com/businessforum2013.

Powerpoint Presentation: China Doing Business in America

Immigration MagazineJon Velie often travels to China and other countries and helps facilitate discussions about helping corporations, investors and individuals, establish business, invest in US companies, start their own companies, merge or acquire interests in international companies or work, study or visit in America. Hundreds of Chinese business owners have listened at seminars and conferences to learn from one of the most recognized immigration attorneys on the subject.

Immigration Magazine presents a powerpoint presentation by Jon Velie highlighting some of the advantages for using the United States to conduct business in America. The presentation includes fact patterns of how Chinese Companies and people utilize various laws to come to America. Click here to view the presentation.

Obama v. Romney on Immigration and what the issue means to America

With the election next week, the political football we call immigration, is a major issue, as several swing states like Colorado and Nevada with heavy Latino populations could be the difference in who wins.

Immigration Magazine - Jon VelieSo, where do the candidates stand on immigration issue?

Arizona’s controversial immigration law author Kris Kobach is a campaign advisor to Governor Romney, and Mr. Romney stated, and although he modified his statement in the third presidential debate to some extent, he was quoted stating “I think you see a model here in Arizona.” Further, Paul Ryan has stated he would oppose the Dream Act . The Dream Act was a piece of legislation that would have given permanent residency or green cards to children who came to the US, prior to 16 years of age and either went college or joined the military. However, Mr. Romney said, he would staple a green card to foreign college graduates.

President Obama said his biggest failure was not passing more comprehensive immigration reform. This was primarily due to the lack of bills being passed by Congress for his signature. One bill that had supported initially, but died in the Senate, was the Dream Act. However, on June 15, 2012, the President circumvented Congress and passed an executive order to stop deportations of illegal immigrants under 30 years old who have lived in the United States for five years. It also provided work authorization for the applicants.

Critics have claimed Obama favors illegal aliens over American workers. Statistics disagree. The most prosecuted crime in America is illegal re-entry. As of the middle of 2012, the Obama administration was on track to prosecute 40,000 cases of illegal re-entry. This compared to approximately 20,000 under Bush in 2008, approximately 8,000 under Clinton in its highest year and between 1,000 – 2,000 under the Reagan and Bush I administrations. President Obama has been tough on illegal immigration to quell opposition to immigration reform, something that could not be accomplished with the current Congress.

Rhetoric aside, It appears that Hispanics are favoring Obama by about 70%, but the bigger question for our country is not about votes, it’s about what looms ahead for our economy and the need for workers.

For the short term, the Baby Boomers are the largest part of the population, they hold the most jobs, are the highest purchasers and earners, in the country and in history. The problem is that they are about to go offline. No more earning power, no more working power, no more purchasing power. Who is going to take their place in the workplace? There are simply not enough Americans to do it. So why are our current politicians deporting those working here, living here and creating existences here. They are planting roots, learning how to work and survive in American. Why has immigration, the backbone of our society and the answer to our employment issues since inception become such a negative issue? Why are those attempting to lead, pushing the current administration into a negative stance and trying to go even further, building walls increasing enforcement, discussion further and harsher penalties against American employers?

The rallying cry has been that illegal aliens are taking jobs from Americans. But that is simply not supported by evidence.

Dan Fastenburg’s article, “Are Illegal Immigrants Really Taking Our Jobs” in AOL Jobs, states that “for every 10% increase in the share of foreign-born workers in a specific area there’s less than 1% change in the average wage of legal residents, including for low skilled workers.”

FactCheck.Org’s article by Viveca Novak goes even further, explaining that numerous studies show “immigrants grow the economy, expanding demand for goods and services that the foreign-born workers and their families consume, and thereby creating jobs.” What is more, the article says that economists have found strong evidence that immigrants as a whole “increase average wages for American-born workers.” Simply because our economy is in shambles and jobs scarce does not mean we should jump to the conclusion that illegal immigrants are in any way adding to the problem.”

As with many issues, talk is cheap and many times political speeches do not adequately address the heart of the matter, neither candidate is looking to the immediate or future impact anti-immigration policy would have on our economy and both are stating to the Hispanic population that they support legal immigration.

However, our analysis indicates that Obama has passed immigration policy to assist children brought to the United States despite Congress’ failure to pass similar legislation, has brought suit against Arizona for its attempt to prosecute under its Immigration law and has been tougher on illegal immigration than any President in history. Mr. Romney has selected the author of the Arizona law as an advisor and stated he would drop the suits against Arizona currently pending in Federal Court. The polls of Latino voters also strongly favor the President over the challenger. These factors heavily favor Obama over Romney on immigration issues.

Imagine John Lennon was deported: The story of John Lennon’s Green Card.

October 9th is John Lennon’s birthday, it is also the day after the 37th anniversary (1975) he won his green card after five years of litigation and the day before Yoko gave birth to Sean Lennon. John Lennon was the face of the spirit of the counter culture, the voice of a generation that said, “all we are saying is give peace a chance” and “imagine there’s no countries it isn’t hard to do, nothing to kill or die for and no religion too.” These words have lost the impact and controversy that they possessed when they were launched through the airwaves, but they were not lost on the US Government at the time. The artist was not an American, but his impact John Lennon had on America and the social and generational war surging through this nation was profound. When New York attorney, Leon Wildes took the Lennon’s immigration situation, he did not even know who he was. Five years later, Mr. Wildes accomplished an amazing and wonderful feat, winning one of the most extraordinary people in history, permanent residence in America. Lennon’s immigration case was as complex and interesting as he was. He was under investigation by Nixon for enabling the radical left to vote in the 1972 election, he had a conviction for cannabis resin that was planted on him. Yoko was fighting for custody for her daughter against her American ex-husband. But my summation cannot do it justice. So for John and Sean’s birthday present to you, I am posting the story from the voice of the lawyer who handled it, Leon Wildes.

“Not Just Any Immigration Case” by Leon Wildes

republished by permission of Mr. Wildes from http://www.cardozo.yu.edu/life/spring1998/john.lennon/.

Leon Wildes represented John Lennon and Yoko Ono from 1972 through 1976 and secured lawful permanent residence for them, despite much contrary legal authority, Lennon v. United States 527 F. 2nd 187 (1975).

Each year, Professor Wildes has students in his Immigration Law class study the case, and at the end of the semester, he delivers a lecture that contains many personal anecdotes. The following article comes from one of those lectures.

I received a call in mid-January 1972 from Alan Kahn, who had been a classmate of mine at law school. He was house counsel to Apple Records–the recording company used by the Beatles and John Lennon. Kahn said, “Leon, I think that you’ll have a very interesting day if you have some time. We have real heavyweights here, John Lennon and his wife, Yoko Ono, who have some immigration problems, and I thought of calling you.” What he didn’t tell me was that he probably had called a number of other immigration lawyers, because when I met John Lennon and Yoko Ono later that day, their questions were so informed that it was quite clear that I wasn’t the first lawyer being consulted.

I’m embarrassed to say that I said, “Alan, tell me, who is John Lennon?”

He said, “Leon, never admit that you asked me that question.”

On the way down to the Lennons’ Village apartment, he showed me a 1968 Certificate of Conviction issued by a British court, in which Lennon was convicted of possession of cannabis resin. I had no idea what cannabis resin was.

We arrived at a quaint apartment on Jane Street. In the back was a kitchenette, beyond which was a door leading into a bedroom, which I later learned was two stories high and was furnished with a huge TV set that was on all the time, with the sound turned off. Most of the Lennons’ business was done in and around that great big bed. There I was to meet many of their newfound American friends.

Yoko was the first to emerge–a diminutive woman, obviously very bright–and she started telling me her situation. She explained that she had come to the United States to find and get custody of her nine-year-old daughter, Kyoko, from a previous marriage (to Tony Cox, an American citizen). She had sought the girl for some time and had twice been on the verge of receiving court orders awarding her custody, only to have Cox abscond with Kyoko each time.

She also found time to tell me that she was a rather well known conceptual artist–”con” art, it was called at the time. It seemed important to her to get across to me that she was somebody. Maybe that was a result of her living in the shadow of a very important person.

John emerged from the bedroom. He was fidgety and nervous, but warm and nice at the same time. He brewed tea for us all and started telling me his story.

The Case

He said that he had come to the United States on a waiver of inadmissibility, which was available for temporary trips. He cited the humanitarian reason of accompanying his wife to testify in the custody proceedings for Kyoko. He also told me of his conviction for possessing marijuana. He said, “The first thing I want you to know, Leon, is that I didn’t do anything wrong. I had no drugs in my possession. The police planted them on me just as they planted them on Mick and George.” I was supposed to know who Mick and George were.

He also told me that he had been tipped off that the police were going to raid the apartment where he was staying, although he hadn’t known exactly when. He had cleaned the apartment, which belonged to some other musicians, and was no 1000 t on drugs at the time and did not have any around, so he felt at ease.

When the police did come, they broke the door in and charged John with possession of cannabis and obstructing justice. Obstructing justice, he explained to me, was “trying to get your trousers on so you can get to the door.” He didn’t get there fast enough, and they believed that he was using the time to hide something. They came with the dogs–and also with the drugs–conducted their search, and arrested everybody.

John was advised by his counsel to plead guilty to possession of cannabis and pay the fine. I said, “Just a moment. You were told to plead guilty?” He said, “That’s what they told me, and I had good counsel. Of course, Leon, lawyers always give you the right advice, right?”

I registered that, although he obviously had told the lawyer he wasn’t guilty of anything, the lawyer had told him to plead guilty. Perhaps there was something unusual about the British statute.

I asked, “What is cannabis?”

He replied, “Cannabis is a plant.”

Then I asked, “What is cannabis resin?”

“Oh,” he said, “that’s hash.”

“Is that marijuana?”

“Oh no,” he said, “much better than marijuana!”

I recalled some criminal cases in which people were charged with possession of one drug and succeeded in getting the indictments dismissed because they were actually in possession of another. There was, to my mind, some distinction between the two, and I kept that fact in the back of my mind.

Finally, he said, “You know, they’re passing a new law in England now, the Uniform Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, which says that if five years go by without a reconviction for the same type of offense, that’s it! They erase the conviction for British purposes.” He was referring to a legislative removal of a conviction, but I realized that such a removal does not generally have the same effect under US immigration law. However, there was little law on the subject, and the issue could be an interesting one.

After hearing John’s and Yoko’s stories, I knew that they really weren’t asking for too much. Yoko said that they were trying to stay for just a couple of more months, but would require an extension to do so. They had less than two weeks before they would have to leave the country or face deportation.

I said, “If all you’re looking for is more time to stay and search for Kyoko–and I’ve never seen a more compelling reason for an extension than having two child custody cases pending and trying to locate your own child–I would be happy to look over the extension papers. I’m quite certain we can get you a couple of months.”

Then John said, “But Leon, that’s all I can hope for. I understand that I can never become a US resident, and if they deport me, I can never come back. That’s what happens when the charge is being deportable for conviction of a drug offense.” He seemed to be repeating advice received from other lawyers.

I said, “John, I’m not absolutely sure that you are unable to get residence. First of all, I see a question with respect to the substance that you were convicted of possessing. It’s possible that you might not have even needed a waiver of inadmissibility to come in temporarily. The statute says that ‘narcotic drugs or marijuana’ convictions cannot be overcome. Your conviction was for hash, which is not marijuana or a narcotic. Second, there’s something about this statute in England under which you were convicted that rubs me the wrong way. I can’t understand why a top criminal attorney in England advised you to plead guilty.” I also saw the Uniform Rehabilitation Act as having potential for a new determination because it was a new statute, and there would not yet have been a determination under American law. Eventually, these were the points that I cited in the Court of Appeals some five years later, when Chief Judge Irving R. Kaufman ruled that the conviction need not be recognized under US immigration law and ordered the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to adjudicate Lennon’s residence case without considering the conviction.

The Legal Strategy

I explained to the Lennons how I would handle their case. “If you are as important as everybody says you are, I may be able to put the government in a very embarrassing public posture. I could file two petitions, one for each of you, as ‘outstanding persons in the arts or sciences whose presence in the United States is deemed by the Attorney General to be in the national interest.’ The government might have to approve these petitions.” Yoko smiled immediately.

I continued, “Then I would apply for residence for both of you. Let the government deny John’s case and grant Yoko’s–since there seems to be no reason to deny her application. This would place the government in the uncomfortable position, perhaps, of forcing you, Yoko, to choose to stay here with your child or go back to England with your husband. They’re not going to look good doing that. Now, if all you need is a temporary extension, you don’t need me. Mr. Kahn can have me review any extension application he drafts.”

All of a sudden, the atmosphere in the room changed. And I will never forget that moment: they looked at each other and said in unison, “We need you!” That’s when I knew I was being retained.

From that point on, life was changed for me. I went down to see the INS district director, Sol Marks, and asked him about an extension application. I had known Sol for over 20 years. We commuted on the train together in the summers and he would solve half my immigration problems on the trip. He is a very knowledgeable, capable man who had been with the Service for 38 years.

He called me the next day and said, “Leon, because it’s you, you can get a one-month extension. Don’t ask me any questions. These people will never get another extension” (in haec verba–that’s what he told me). “And Leon, tell them to get out.”

I went back to Jane Street, where I soon would become a frequent visitor. I practiced immigration law in my own office from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. The Lennons would get up at 9 p.m. and stay up until dawn, often at the recording studio. I would go to their apartment after dinner to meet witnesses and go through papers, and, if I needed a secretary, they would have somebody available.

We decided to file two outstanding-artist petitions. We started contacting people for reference letters. By simply mentioning my clients’ names, I could get through to nearly everyone. Yoko said she would be happy to get letters from Andy Warhol, Clive Barnes, Jasper Johns, Stanley Kubrick, Elia Kazan, Claes Oldenburg, Leonard Bernstein, and Virgil Thomson. If you’re a collector of signatures, you would have valued my files at a million dollars!

I completed two magnificent applications and told Sol Marks that we were filing outstanding-artist petitions and that my clients had no intention of leaving the country. His immediate response was a letter enclosing Orders to Show Cause commencing deportation proceedings.

After filing the petitions, I received no adjudication. Two months later, under the Freedom of Information Act, I asked for permission to see all the government’s files on Lennon. I appeared at INS one day, and found a table full of files for my review, but my petitions were not there. I smelled a rat and began to make a lot of noise for a very quiet lawyer. The petitions finally showed up in a sealed manila envelope–totally untouched.

I knew that if I didn’t have an adjudication of those two petitions, I would not be able to apply for residence for my clients at the deportation hearing, which was coming up in a few days. So for the first of four occasions in this one case, I filed suit in Federal District Court for mandamus along with an application for an injunction against the deportation proceedings, pending adjudication of the two filed petitions. The preliminary injunction was granted and a court hearing scheduled.

Deportation as a Political Strategy

By the hearing date, I had still received no opposing affidavits from the government. It was strange, because in my affidavit requesting the injunction, I alleged that there was a government conspiracy to remove Lennon for political reasons.

Later, I uncovered documents, under the Freedom of Information Act, that showed that Lennon was being selectively prosecuted for political purposes by the Nixon administration. A memo dated February 4, 1972, was forwarded to former Attorney General John Mitchell and Bill Timmons of the White House by Sen. Strom Thurmond, describing Lennon as a threat to the US government and the reelection campaign of Richard Nixon because of Lennon’s affiliations with members of the Radical Left, which was then trying to stimulate voter registration of 18-year-olds. The presidential election in 1972 was the first one in which 18-year-olds could vote, making 18- to 20-year-olds a very important constituency. I also uncovered a memo in which Marks is advised by Washington to deny all applications, to revoke the Lennons’ voluntary departure privilege, and to schedule the deportation hearing for March 16, 1972–strong evidence of prejudgment of the case for political purposes.

At the hearing, Judge Whitman Knapp called both counsels forward and said that the United States Attorney had received a call from Sol Marks saying that he would adjudicate the papers that day. The judge said, “You know I can’t order him to either approve or deny. He still has discretion to rule on these petitions.” I was satisfied, and my suspicions of a government conspiracy were confirmed by the fact that the INS did not file affidavits in opposition to my claim of a government conspiracy to remove Lennon.

However, I said that I was unwilling to release the injunction against the deportation proceeding until “I see the decisions and until you, Your Honor, and I have original approvals or denials. At least with a denial, I know what my remedies are.” The judge agreed, and I got another adjournment of the deportation case. Later that day, both petitions were finally approved. John and Yoko had been declared “outstanding artists whose presence in the US was, in the opinion of the Attorney General, prospectively beneficial to the national culture”! It was truly ironic, because Attorney General Mitchell was one of the parties most active in attempting to deport John Lennon.

They could now apply for permanent resident status in their deportation proceeding. Even though the government thought that it would look bad denying those petitions, it still believed that it could proceed with deportation because in its estimation, no one with a drug conviction could qualify for permanent residence. If I 1000 could prove otherwise, I would be creating an unbelievable precedent.

The Hearings

My clients, like all clients, were very nervous about hearings. They didn’t know what to wear; they were afraid to testify; they were afraid of all the tricks the INS was capable of pulling.

Preparing for our first hearing in the deportation case, I called my opposing counsel, Vinnie Schiano at the Immigration Service, and told him how nervous John and Yoko were. He said, “Bring them up to my office, and we’ll calm them down before we go into the hearing.” They were soon very much at ease in the prosecuting attorney’s office, for he was quite an expert on Beatles music. Soon Vinnie whispered to me, “Leon, I don’t think they realize that I’m the prosecuting lawyer.” I said, “John, Yoko, it’s time to go into the hearing now, and you can feel relaxed because Vinnie here, he’s the prosecuting lawyer.” Lennon immediately grabbed a handkerchief from his pocket, dropped down on his knees, and started shining Schiano’s shoes!

It became my practice to choose their clothing for all court appearances. For one hearing, I got to their apartment at 6:30 a.m. and asked them: “What clothes do you have that look alike?” It took us a little while, but they both had black suits, black ties, and white shirts. I dressed them up like two matching dolls and I said, “I want you to hold hands in the courtroom. I don’t care who tells you not to do so. Sit together on one side of the table and don’t budge. I’ll sit on the other side of the table. If they say something about separating you, I want to see the saddest faces you can make.” We survived the government’s motion to sever the two deportation cases and try them separately; their cases were to be tried together.

At another hearing, I needed to prove that cannabis resin was not marijuana. I was told by my friend Alan Dershowitz that Dr. Lester Grinspoon of Harvard Medical School was one of the best doctors in the country and an expert on marijuana. I called Dr. Grinspoon and asked, “Is cannabis resin marijuana or what?”

“Oh,” he said, “cannabis resin is not marijuana. It’s hashish!”

“Dr. Grinspoon, name your fee. I need your testimony.”

He said, “I’m very sorry. You can cite my book, but I don’t testify anymore.”

I was very disappointed, and tried to reach some other doctors. Then I got a call from Dr. Grinspoon. “Mr. Wildes, I haven’t testified in years, but I have a special personal situation. I have a 12-year-old son who has terminal leukemia. Since we first spoke, I found out that he idolizes John Lennon. If you can get me some things autographed by John Lennon, I will be happy to testify at my usual rates.”

I promptly left my office and bought lots of Lennon paraphernalia and had John autograph it all. I met Dr. Grinspoon the next evening at the Plaza Hotel with the whole pile of autographed stuff in anticipation of his testimony.

The immigration judge allowed the testimony even though it was not customary in deportation proceedings, because Grinspoon was obviously such an important physician.

Working the Press

The case continued, hearing after hearing after hearing. Nearly every night, I’d meet with the Lennons at their apartment or recording studio, the Record Plant, to work on the case. I was about Yoko’s age, 42, and I bought my first pair of jeans and let my hair grow. John Lennon bought an “immigration suit”–it looked something like what I’m wearing now–and got a shorter haircut.

In March 1973, Immigration Judge Ira Fieldsteel finally reached a decision in the case. I got a call from my old friend Sol Marks, who said, “Leon, I’m having a press conference at which the decision will be read. We’re inviting you and Mr. Schiano, the prosecuting attorney, to be there and comment on the decision.” In his 38 years with INS, Sol Marks had never held a press conference. Did he know something that I didn’t?

Needless to say, I didn’t trust the district director as much as I once had. I called my clients and asked them to round up journalists from the music and underground press. I wanted to feed each friendly reporter a question to be asked of Sol Marks at his press conference.

For the press conference, John and Yoko sent Sol a big bouquet of yellow roses. He was never so flustered. Nobody had ever sent this guy roses! All my new friends from Rolling Stone and the other journalists started asking their questions.

The decision of the immigration judge was announced. Yoko was granted permanent-resident status, and John’s application was denied because of his conviction.

“Mr. Marks, did you have to bring this deportation proceeding?” “Oh yes. I’m required by law to do it.” “Is there a procedure by which you might have avoided doing so, called the ‘non-priority’ program?” “No, there’s no such procedure.” “Were you told or encouraged by Washington to do this for any political reason?” “Oh no, it was my own idea.” He lied through his teeth! When I examined him in a federal court deposition, he admitted that his answers to those questions were untruthful.

Later that week, we held our own press conference because it was time to file our appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). I arranged for it to be held at the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. Many high-profile people from the arts spoke. I gave a presentation on the law, what had been going on, and what we knew.

John and Yoko, full of surprises, as ever, asked me to stop the proceedings for just a moment. They took out tissues and started waving them, and declared in unison that they were hereby declaring the state of “Nutopia,” a state with no borders, no laws, no exclusionary proceedings, no deportation proceedings, and no immigration lawyers! (I wasn’t so sure that I was happy about the last part of the declaration.)

Today, if you visit Yoko at the Dakota, you will see a sign on the back entrance to her apartment that reads, “Embassy of the State of ‘Nutopia.’ ”

Federal Court Times Four

This case took me to federal court on four occasions, during the five-year period of its litigation. The first lawsuit (Lennon v. Marks, 1972) resulted in securing the approval of the Lennons as “outstanding artists.”

The second (Lennon v. Richardson, 73 Civ 4476, 1973) was under the Freedom of Information Act, in which I had requested documentation relating to the “non-priority program,” a humanitarian program that was not a part of the statute or regulations, and simply a matter of secret law. In discovery proceedings, I was successful in learning about the existence of the program, by which aliens who were fully deportable–including those with multiple convictions for serious drug offenses, murder, and rape–were nevertheless permitted to remain in this country because of extreme hardship. As a result of the suit, I was successful in obtaining such “non-priority” status for John Lennon, and the program was made available to other aliens who 1000 might wish to apply.

The third Federal District Court action (Lennon v. United States, 73 Civ 4543, 1973) was the one in which I sued Attorney General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Kleindienst, Immigration Commissioner Farrell, District Director Marks, and others, alleging selective prosecution.

Finally, I appealed the Deportation Order to the Board of Immigration Appeals and argued Lennon’s case in Washington. The BIA affirmed the Deportation Order and I appealed their decision to the US Court of Appeals (Lennon v. United States 527 F. 2nd 187, 1975).

About two weeks before the Court of Appeals entered its decision, reversing the BIA decision to deport Lennon, we won our application for “non-priority” classification, so that John would be permitted to remain in the United States, even without obtaining permanent residence. We went to federal court four times, winning each case on the basis of a strategy conceived at my first meeting with John and Yoko more than five years earlier.

Lennon Gets His Green Card

You can imagine my feeling after five years of almost daily work on this case. I called John and said, “John, you remember I told you we’re probably not going to win this case, but that we might survive long enough for the law to be changed? I’m now calling to tell you that we actually won it!” Lennon was astonished: “Leon, what do you mean, won? Yoko is in the hospital about to give birth, and tomorrow is my birthday, and now you tell me we won?! Please stay at your desk, and Yoko will call you when I get to New York Hospital and you can explain it all to her.”

I had been explaining things to Yoko all along. She was my veritable co-counsel in the case. She understood every nuance of every case I ever cited. John was brilliant; but when it came to these technical things, he relied upon Yoko completely.

Yoko called and said, “Oh, that’s wonderful, Leon! Why don’t you and your wife come over to the hospital as soon as you get the actual decision, and we’ll read it together.” She was interested in every word.

We went to the hospital and spent about two and a half hours there. They were elated. After asking Yoko’s permission, John finally said, “Leon, did you know that all this time big lawyers like Edward Bennett Williams have been trying to get this case? Do you know why we stuck with you? You’re the best immigration lawyer in the world. You’re the only lawyer I understand and the only lawyer my wife is crazy about. You know, Yoko fires lawyers all the time. We also stayed with you because her tarot-card reader said ‘Stay with Leon. He’s going to win the case for you.’ ”

To which I replied, “Thank God for tarot-card readers.”

My wife and I didn’t get home until about 2 a.m., and I was bleary. It was about 5:30 a.m. when the phone rang and the voice on the other end said, “This is John.”

I was half asleep and asked, “John who?”

“John Lennon, and I have a beautiful boy!” He said it just the way he wrote it in his song, “Beautiful Boy,” which is one of my favorite Lennon songs. We had become very close, and although he wasn’t my normal kind of friend, and I wasn’t his normal kind of friend, we had a very warm relationship.

The next day, I went to buy John a present. It was his birthday. It was also his child’s birthday. He had just become a father. He had won his case. He would have his final hearing, get a green card, and be able to travel an 5e1 d perform again! He would be free again.

I stopped at Mark Cross, not far from my office. What do you get for John Lennon? As I walked into the store, I saw in the showcase a passport cover emblazoned with the great seal of the United States. “I’ll have that passport case,” I said.

Sometime later, I visited John and Yoko–they had moved from Jane Street to the fancier Dakota. I was waiting for them in their magnificent living room, where the furniture and carpeting are all white, as is the grand piano. When John and Yoko came in, I was at the piano playing a “beginner” piano song that I had recently learned from my kids’ piano teacher.

John said, “Leon, I didn’t think you knew how to play the piano. You know, I don’t know how to play. All I can do is pick out chords.”

I answered, “I wouldn’t feel too badly about it–you’re doing fine.”

When Yoko walked in, John turned to her and said, “When Sean gets old enough to learn how to play the piano, I’m going to take lessons, too, just like Leon.”

Can you imagine, if that beautiful man had lived more than five years after he had gotten his green card, what magnificent music he would have continued to bless us with?

Just imagine!

Holy Cap: What do I do when H-1b visas run out?

Immigration Magazine

Despite the prolonged recession and chronic job problems in the United States, the H-1b visas for the fiscal year starting October 1, 2012 has filled before the year even started. That means no employee can start on a new H-1b visas until Oct. 1, 2013. So what visa options are available to employers to file on behalf of those who would have met the H-1b visa regulations?

H-1b visas for those that already have an H-1b. Employees may file for a new employer if they have any time remaining in the six year period since applying for an initial H-1b. These employees may also recapture time for days spent out of the US during the six year stint. The six years are day for day not a running clock.

H-1b visas for employees of institutes of higher education and affiliated entities. This exception is for colleges and companies affiliated with colleges, the affiliation has become narrower over the years. It can apply to resident doctors of research hospitals and researches to name a few.

H-1b visas for employees from Singapore and Chile. Citizens of Singapre and Chile are not subject to the numerical cap under a free trade agreement.

TN visas for Mexican and Canadian professionals. NAFTA exempts these professionals in certain specific professionals. Most must be employees except for management consultants who must be contractors.

E-3 visas for Australian professionals. Very similar to the H-1b except spouse can obtain work authorization, extensions without limitation.

H-3 trainee visas. These can be issued up to 2 years but anything longer than one and a half years cannot change status. Employers can pay trainee for training and there is no prevailing wage issue. There must be a training plan that describes classroom and practical training. Strategy is to develop the trainee pursuant to a training plan.

J-1 Training visa. This visa can be issued up to 18 months pursuant to a plan. Watch out for the skills list, an employee may be subject to a 2 year home residency requirement. Not all countries or professions are treated equally.

O-1, extraordinary ability employees in business, arts, science and athletics may be of a level that has risen above the others in an industry. Must also meet three of a number of criteria including national or international awards, memberships in associations requiring outstanding achievement as judged by experts, media in major publications or trade journals about the individual, published materials in major media or scholarly publications, major contributions, high salary and serving on a panel or individually to judge the work of others.

L-1 for executives, managers or specialized employees of companies with offices in and outside the United States. Must have been employed in one of the aforementioned capacities for one year within the last three years and the company must have a qualifying relationship as affiliate or subsidiary. Can be used to set up a US office of the international company.

E-1/E-2 Traders and Investors of certain countries with treaties with the US can invest in and oversee the operation of companies in the US pursuant to certain parameters. These companies can employ other internationals in management and essential personnel roles.

So, there are options. Not for everyone, but the road may not be completely closed for professionals to work in the United States for the next year.

Want to learn more? Click here for free access to a powerpoint presentation with more information about H-1B Visas.

Send Your Questions

Contact an Immigration Attorney today by phone at 405-310-4333, or email: information@velielaw.com

 

I-9 Webinar: How to Keep Immigration Enforcement From Knocking at Your Door Q&A

Jon Velie recently hosted a webinar with Ascentis on the subject of I-9′s. There was over 500 attendees from around the globe to learn from one of the most recognized immigration attorneys on the subject. This article highlights many of the questions that were asked during the webinar. You may also click here to download the presentation.

Compliance Alert: How to Keep Immigration Enforcement From Knocking at Your Door

Have you received a letter from Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) that your company must produce I-9 forms for inspection? If so, you are not alone. The U.S. government has taken immigration enforcement to historic new levels with record-breaking numbers of I-9 audits, fines and the increased criminal prosecution of employers. In 2011 alone, ICE conducted I-9 audits of almost 2,500 U.S. employers, criminally arrested 221 of them, and ordered more than $10.5 million in fines. (Source: ice.gov – Nov. 4, 2011 press release).

In order to increase the pressure on U.S. businesses to ensure they are hiring only those legally eligible to work in the U.S., ICE has stated that employers of all sizes and in every industry will be targeted by their inspectors, with stepped up resources that will support more auditors and more prosecutions. More than ever, compliance is critical. Don’t let your company face an ICE investigation unprepared.

I-9 Webinar Q & A Sheet

Q: When will the new version of the I9 form be available? The current one expires on 8/31/12. Thanks!

A: Use Current form until USCIS releases new version.

 

Q: What should I do with term I-9s? Can they just go in a term I-9 file?

A: Yes. All I-9s must be kept 3 years from date of hire or 1 year after termination, whichever date is later.

 

Q: What service can we use to verify SSNs for new hires to ensure their papers are genuine?

A: USCIS E-Verify Program and Social Security Number Verification System (SSNVS) online

 

Q: What do we do when identification documents expire? Do we have to ask for new documents?

A: As long as ID documents were unexpired at time of hire there is no need to update

 

Q: What do you do when the HR team is located at HQ (Boston) and we hire someone in a remote office (San Francisco) – do we have to see hard copies or can we validate a photo copy?

A: A hard copy of the id must be seen by an employee in the San Francisco office and they must sign the I-9 as well.

 

Q: If we hire an employee who fills out an I9 and then leaves and comes back, do they fill out a new I9 form and throw out the older one on file?

A: If the employee is rehired within 3 years, the employer must update section 3 of I-9

 

Q: What about employees who were hired prior to the effective date of the I-9 requirements. Do hey need to complete an I-9?

A: If employee was hired before Nov. 6, 1986 then he/she does not need to complete the I-9.

 

Q: We rehire co-ops and interns; do we need a new I-9 every time they return to work?

A: If an employee is rehired within three years of the date on the I-9 was originally completed and the employee is still authorized to be employed on the same basis as previously indicated on this form (updating), complete Block B and the signature block….If the employee’s work authorization has expired or is about to expire (recertification), complete Block B and 1. Examine any document that reflects the employee is authorized to work (List A or C) 2.Record the document title, number and expiration date in Block C. 3. Complete the signature block. For recertification employer has option to complete new I-9 instead of completing section 3.

 

Q: We recently had an employee state that he DOES NOT have to provide us his S.S. Number for employment, and then went on to provide us a Driver’s License and Birth Certificate for I-9 verification, but did not include his S.S. Number on the I-9 form. Could we legally hire him, or because he couldn’t complete the I-9 fully, have the ability to use that as a reason to NOT hire him?

A: Employers cannot specify which document(s) listed on the last page of Form I-9 employees present to establish identity and employment authorization. Employees may present any List A document or a combination of any List B and C document, but a social security number is required for the W-4

 

Q: We recently had a situation where an employee married and decided she wanted to hyphen her last name and change her name without making a change with Social Security. I said no since she would need to change her name with social security first. This person is our chief legal counsel and the GM said to just change it. HR went ahead and changed it… Did we open our selves up for a miss-match? If so what can I do now? I am payroll in finance dept and HR made the change.

A: There is no need to update if the information on the I-9 was correct at the time it was filled out.

 

Q: We recently fired an employee for providing false documentation on immigration status. The employee worked 3 days for us before they were terminated, are we in any legal trouble?

A: No, that is the timeframe to have the List documents reviewed.

 

Q: We had a recent new hire that lost his social security card but had a receipt from ssn office stating they had requested a new ssn card and it would be mailed to the employee within 2 weeks. Is this receipt ok to use as a document for I-9 until the actual replacement card is received?

A: Yes, employee may present a receipt for the application for replacement of any List A, B or C document. Receipt is valid for 90 days. Replacement document must be shown by that time.

 

Q: Can we accept expired documents?

A: No. All list documents must be unexpired.

 

 

Q: What do you do with I-9′s that have white out on them and person who did adjustment no longer works for you? Attach a note with possible explanation? Do a new one?

A: A new one can be attached to the old one for audit purposes.

 

Q: Where do we find out more about I-9 exceptions for employee from places such as Micronesia?

A: List A Document specific to them would be Federated States of Micronesia or Republic of the Marshall Islands Passport with Form I-94/I-94A indicating nonimmigrant admission under one of the compacts of free association.

 

Q: The employer handbook states an employer CAN use a previous I9 for a rehired employee if the employee is rehired within three years and the documents are still current – can you explain your answer that we must have a rehired employee complete a new I-9 as if they had never worked before – is this your best practice opinion or legal opinion?

A: If an employee is rehired within three years of the date on the I-9 was originally completed and the employee is still authorized to be employed on the same basis as previously indicated on this form (updating), complete Block B and the signature block….If the employee’s work authorization has expired or is about to expire (reverification), complete Block B &: 1. Examine any document that reflects the employee is authorized to work (List A or C) 2.Record the document title, number and expiration date in Block C. 3. Complete the signature block. For revierification employer has option to complete new I-9 instead of completing section 3.

 

Q: Someone told me that if you enlarge a more recent Social Security Card to 400% the line under the signature says something in tiny print and that can help to verify it’s a real SS Card. Is that true and do we have any obligation to do that?

A: Micro-print does make up the signature line, but you aren’t required to examine that.

 

Q: My Company employs independent contractors and we keep I-9s on them. Do we not have to maintain I-9s for Independent Contractors?

A: You do not have to keep I-9s for contractors, only for employees.

 

Q: If we continue to maintain them, is this against the law?

A: No need to have them in the first place but do not believe it is against the law.

 

Q: Is it a technical violation if a new employee signs the I-9 above the actual sign line?

A: No. However if the employee has signed in the wrong place, have them sign in the correct location, as well as date and initial the form. Make a note in their file.

 

Q: If you have not been consistent in copying all documents can you remove copied documents that have been attached on all?

A: No need to remove. But if photocopies are made, they must be made for all new hires. So it must be consistent one way or the other.

 

Q: Are you required to fill out new I-9 when an outdated I-9 form was filled out?

A: If not a Feb. 09 Rev. or Aug. 09 Rev. Form then yes but retain the old form for audit purposes.

 

Q: If you have not been consistent in copying all supporting documents can you remove copied documents that have been attached on all in order to be consistent?

A: Moving forward it must be consistent, one way or the other, but no need to remove copied documents.

 

Q: If the I-9s are stored electronically do the acceptable documents need to be completely visible? (For example the picture on an ID or passport.)

A: Employers may, but are not required to, photocopy the document(s) presented. If photocopies are made, they must be made for all new hires. Photocopies maybe used for the verification process and must be retained with Form I-9. Copies must be complete.

 

Q: If someone presents us an ID that looks to be a fraud what should the employer do?

A: Reject it and ask for another document off List A, B or C.

 

Q: I-9 forms signed by employee after date of hire…employer thought it had 3 days after hiring. They are doing it correctly now…any advise on how to explain this if audited.

A: 3 day window is for presentation of List document(s) by employee. While not advised, this isn’t a violation.

 

Q: I have long term employees that filled the I-9 out 10 years ago. Do we need to refresh the I-9 form?

A: Employers must retain completed Form I-9s for three years after the date of hire or one year after the date employment ends, whichever is later. No need to refresh unless work eligibility status has changed for any of the employees.

 

Q: I had a new hire turn in an ss card that was clearly a fake. I check on all of my employee’s with the ss admin. It came up not a match. I told the employee to bring in another from of documentation and to contact the ss admin department. He never came back. Did I violate anything?

A: You acted correctly

 

Q: Hired in the U.S. or other countries?

A: All Employees (Citizen or non) hired after Nov. 1986 and working in the US must complete an I-9

 

Q: For employees that are confused and have questions – How do you help without opening yourself up to violations?

A: You may help an employee who needs assistance in completing section 1 of the I-9. You must also complete the “Preparer/Translator” certification block and have the employee sign the document, if you or your team is translating into another language.

 

Q: Earlier in the presentation it was stated to keep term’d I-9s for a certain period of time. What do you do with the I-9s that a company no longer needs to keep on file?

A: Destroy forms in such a manner to remove all sensitive information. (Shred)

 

Q: We hire a lot of temporary employees through staffing companies, are we still liable for I-9 fraud?

A: If employee is hired and kept on by your company then an I-9 is needed. If they are under the employment of the temp agency and placed in your office then you are not required to have their I-9.

 

 

Q: Will the I-9 form change August 31?

A: USCIS is in the process of updating the I-9, however it has not yet been approved. Continue using current I-9 form (Rev. 08/07/09)

 

Q: If using E-verify do you still need to use I-9 form?

A: Yes. All Employees (Citizen or non) hired after Nov. 1986 and working in the US must complete an I-9

 

Q: Do you have to keep copies of the support from column a or b and c?

A: Employers may, but are not required to, photocopy the document(s) presented. If photocopies are made, they must be made for all new hires. Photocopies may be used for the verification process and must be retained with Form I-9.

 

Q: Do you have to have an I-9 for each and every employee. If we had one and it was misplaced do we need to fill out another form?

A: Yes every employee hired after Nov. 1986 must have an I-9 on file.

 

Q: Do you have any information on the new form I-9 that will be in use following the expiration of the current form at the end of the month?

A: Continue to use current form until USCIS releases the new version.

 

Q: Could an employer keep an additional copy of the I-9 documents in the personnel file (to make sure the name is spelled correctly and the number is keyed correctly in the payroll system)?

A: The form will be kept by the employer so it can be made available for inspection by authorized officials

 

Q: Can you store the photocopies of I9 documents along with the I9 itself? We have been storing them separately.

A: Employers may, but are not required to, photocopy the document(s) presented. If photocopies are made, they must be made for all new hires. Photocopies may be use for the verification process and must be retained with Form I-9. The most common practice is to keep copies of supporting documents in the I-9 file.

 

Q: When an employee’s documentation has expired, should we re-verify?

A: If the employee’s work authorization has expired or is about to expire (reverification), complete Block B and 1. Examine any document that reflects the employee is authorized to work (List A or C) 2.Record the document title, number and expiration date in Block C. 3. Complete the signature block. For revierification employer has option to complete new I-9 instead of completing section 3.

 

Q: Can you please clarify the retention of the I-9 document – 3 years after hire or 1 yr after separation, whichever is later.

A: That is correct. The form must be kept for as long as the employee is working for the company. If an employee is hired and terminated in less than 2 years, the form would be kept for 3 years after the hire date. If an employee is hired and works longer than 2 years, the I-9 would need to be kept until 1 year after that employee’s separation.

 

Q: Is the e-verify considered a part of the I-9 form, kept with it and destroyed same as I-9 form, or can is be a part of the personnel file?

A: E-verify is an optional service. In that case you could do either.

 

Q: DO they have to input the start date in the middle section of the i-9 form?

A: Section 2 to be filled by Employer

 

Q: Should potential WOS candidates be I-9′d? (Without salary)

A: If anything of value is given in exchange for labor or services rendered by an employee, including food and lodging, an I-9 would be required.

 

Q: What if a person’s name is entered incorrectly and the e-verify comes back confirmed. Should you re-verify using corrected information or contact e-verify and take a verbal ok?

A: Re-verify using correct information

 

Q: Can you go over I-9 requirements for individuals who join your organization on different visas (ex: L-1, H-1B, Business Visa, etc.)

A: All Employees (Citizen or non) hired after Nov. 1986 and working in the US must complete an I-9. The Visas you’re referring to are Nonimmigrant (temporary) Visas. The correct box in section 1 of the I-9 pertaining to residency must be checked. Must recertify the I-9 at renewal of visa or work authorization. Green Card holder would select “Lawful Permanent Resident”

 

Q: Can you as an employer request a copy of a new hires SS card?

A: Employers cannot specify which document(s) listed on the last page of Form I-9 employees present to establish identity and employment authorization. Employees may present any List A document or a combination of any List B and C document.

 

Q: Can request document the document within 24 hours

A: Must be presented by the 1st day of work.

 

Q: Does the I9 have to be on site, or could it be in storage?

A: Either, I-9 must be able to be produced.

 

Q: Can INS take our notebooks for audits?

A: Yes

 

Q: Do we include the IDs with the Notebook?

A: Yes if the employer has them

 

Q: Are there any organizations that are exempt from completing I-9s? Such as churches or other religious organizations?

A: No. All Employees (Citizen or non) hired after Nov. 1986 and working in the US must complete an I-9

 

Q: An employee with and H2A visa do they need to complete an I9 form?

A: Yes. They must mark correct the box in the residency portion of section 1 on the I-9.

 

Q: An employee could not find their birth certificate but supplied me with documentation that he applied for a duplicate (on his date of hire). Can I use this until he provides me with his replacement document?

A: Yes, employee may present a receipt for the application for replacement of any List A, B or C document. Receipt is valid for 90 days. Replacement document must be shown at that time.

 

Q: Also, if it is a re-hire, you said they need a new I9. But is there a time frame where the ‘old one’ can be used – say within 3 months or 6 months- between termination and rehire?

A: If an employee is rehired within three years of the date on the I-9 was originally completed and the employee is still authorized to be employed on the same basis as previously indicated on this form (updating), complete Block B and the signature block….If the employee’s work authorization has expired or is about to expire (reverification), complete Block B and 1. Examine any document that reflects the employee is authorized to work (List A or C) 2.Record the document title, number and expiration date in Block C. 3. Complete the signature block. For revierification employer has option to complete new I-9 instead of completing section 3.

 

Q: What about seasonal staff…. a new I9 each season?

A: Not unless the staff consists of different employees or the employment authorization of any of the rehires has changed.