By Angelo A. Paparelli and Dawn Lurie

Globe-hoppers of the world, too long cabined and constrained by the pandemic, are exhilarated at the prospect of imminent foreign travel.  Many have received the vaccine and are poised to fly far away for business or pleasure.  The vaccinated among us, however, should not buy that airline ticket just yet – unless you know before you go how you will be treated at your foreign destination upon arrival, and upon departure.

Entry and Exit

Increasingly, as multiple variants of COVID-19 are identified, national governments worldwide have tightened entry protocols, and some have imposed exit restrictions.  France, for example, has announced new requirements when departing the country. See “[What is:] Can I leave France?”  – a Jeopardy-style question whose answer is: “You can only travel from France to a country outside the European space if you have pressing grounds for travel, or if you are travelling to your country of origin or residence.”
Continue Reading Hey, Immigration Lawyer: Get Me a Coronavirus Passport

By Angelo A. Paparelli

The English nursery rhyme was wrong.  Not only do sticks and stones break our bones, but words can also hurt us.  A lot.  This is the lesson recently imparted by Tracy Renaud, the Acting Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).  In a recent internal memorandum, Renaud is insisting on a new set of descriptors for the foreign citizens whom her agency serves, banishing into exile the word, “alien,” and the phrase, “illegal alien.” Henceforth, USCIS will use more inclusive language such as “noncitizen,” “undocumented noncitizen,” or “undocumented individual.” See the reports in Axios and BuzzFeed News.

This is a welcome change.  For far too long, the exhausting and fearsome journey of U.S. immigration has been made more difficult by the hurtful taunt, “alien,” a word employed throughout the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).  Reportedly, the Biden Administration in its comprehensive reform bill would likewise excise the offensive word, and substitute “noncitizen” at every point where  “alien” now appears in the INA, the U.S. Code, uncodified statutes, and all agency regulations and executive branch communications (something California did in 2015, while opting instead for “foreign national,” rather than “noncitizen”).  In addition, we understand that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers have likewise received instructions to remove the word, “alien,” from its template notices to employers that, following a Form I-9 (Employment Eligibility Verification)  investigation, “unauthorized aliens” have been found on the employer’s payroll.
Continue Reading Inclusive Immigration: USCIS Nixes “Alien” Terminology But Much More Must Be Done

Update to our previous Blog Post:

Readers will be pleased to learn that the DHS did not submit its scaled-back “H-1B Strengthening” rule by the expiration of the deadline for final rules issued by the Trump Administration.  As a result, the H-1B Strengthening rule is subject to a comprehensive freeze on Trump-era late-filed and

Please review our recent update regarding the content of this blog post.

By Angelo A. Paparelli and Gabriel Mozes

In its waning hours, the Trump Administration announced comprehensive, burdensome changes to H-1B visa requirements for multiple firms across virtually all industries.  Fortunately, however, the changes are set to detonate on a long fuse, i.e., by July 14, 2021, unless the Biden Administration, Congress or the Courts sooner intervene.  The effects of these changes will be felt by every company that allows H-1B workers to perform services in specialty occupations at its worksite through a contractor, staffing company, or professional employer organization (PEO).

Presently, the obligation of compliance with H-1B requirements affecting required wages, working conditions, benefits and other labor protections under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) is imposed solely on the entity directly employing and paying the noncitizen worker and submitting an H-1B visa petition with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
Continue Reading Trump Administration Midnight H-1B Changes Purport to Impose New Burdens on Staffing Firms, Service Providers, and Their Corporate Customers

By: Angelo A. Paparelli  

Microscopic view of Coronavirus, a pathogen that attacks the respiratory tract. Analysis and test, experimentation. Sars. 3d render

With the COVID-19 pandemic still in full force, nonimmigrants traveling to the United States should expect no lifting of visa and entry bans as the Biden Administration comes to

By: Angelo A. Paparelli

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) last week affirmed the truth of the Upton Sinclair maxim on just how hard it is get someone “to understand something, when his [or her] salary depends on . . . not understanding it.”

In this case, federal immigration bureaucrats have had three decades to comprehend the delicate legislative balance of business needs and labor protections that produced the H-1B visa category for workers in specialty occupations.  For most of the ensuing years they seemed to appreciate that balance.  Yet, now, with the fate of their Executive Branch leader and paymaster up for a plebiscite in three weeks, their comprehension has (unsurprisingly) failed.  As this blog post will explain, because the needs and best interests of employers and workers (citizen and noncitizen alike) are intertwined, changing the rules of play late in the game without fair notice in order to favor one team over others will only hurt everyone.
Continue Reading Immigration Rush to Judgment – No Good Cause for New H-1B Rules in a Hurry

The trend of recent months to curtail employment-based immigration, purportedly prompted by the coronavirus pandemic, continues unabated. On August 3, 2020 President Trump issued yet another executive order, this one entitled, “Executive Order on Aligning Federal Contracting and Hiring Practices With the Interests of American Workers” (“EO” or “Executive Order”). The new EO focuses on federal contractors (and their subcontractors) who employ H-1B and other nonimmigrant foreign workers. While the Executive Order itself imposes no new entry or other immigration restrictions, it instructs the Department of Labor (“DOL”), Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), and other agencies and departments to take steps that undoubtedly will lay the groundwork to limit H-1B employment in the near future.
Continue Reading Another Day, Another Immigration Executive Order: Now Federal Contractors are Targeted

This blog was updated on July 8th to reflect the Harvard and MIT lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced a policy change on July 6 that will substantially disrupt higher education for the fall semester. This major change in policy was issued without any opportunity for notice and comment by the public.

Despite the resurgent COVID-19 pandemic, ICE announced that it will no longer continue to allow 100% online studies programs for F-1 (academic) and M-1 (vocational) students. ICE has directed international students who presently participate in 100% online studies programs must either (1) transfer to an ICE-approved educational institution that allows hybrid (online and in-person) or fully on-campus, in-person courses, or (2) leave the U.S. or (3) remain in the U.S. without the underlying support of the school and suffer the possible initiation of removal (deportation) proceedings. ICE also indicated that it would publish a temporary or interim final regulation to a similar effect.
Continue Reading ICE Gives the Cold Shoulder to Foreign Students

We’ve seen this movie before.

Scene 1: The President issues a proclamation in reliance on his authority to restrict the entry of certain noncitizens under Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 212(f) so long as he asserts that allowing them in would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

Scene 2: The proclamation creates exceptions to the entry bans based on the national interests of the United States (among other grounds).

Scene 3:  Affected parties apply for exceptions; their requests are ignored or denied under opaque or nonexistent administrative procedures; and they sue in federal court.

This was the plot of the three travel-ban proclamations issued in 2017, the last of which the Supreme Court upheld in its 2018 decision, Trump v. Hawaii. After the Supreme Court’s  ruling, litigation ensued because plaintiffs in several suits alleged that the government’s actions (refusing visas under 22 CFR §§ 41.121 and 42.81) conflicted with the proclamation and the statutory authority of the Secretary of State in INA § 104. The litigation continues, having survived a government motion to dismiss, which a federal judge denied on June 5 in Emami v. Nielsen [and] Pars Equality Center v Pompeo (Pars Equality).
Continue Reading Pursuing a National Interest Exception to the Presidential Entry Bans on Economic Grounds — Not A Fool’s Errand


On June 16, 2020, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) once again announced a 30-day extension of flexibility for the remote completion of Form I-9 (Employment Eligibility Verification), and a dispensation from the usual rule requiring an in-person review of original documents of an employee’s identity and employment eligibility within three days of hire. The flexibility now runs until July 18th.
Continue Reading ICE Extends Virtual I-9 Flexibility for 30 Days: Announcement Does Not Address Increasing Employer Questions