Lin Walker 6/1/24 Lin Walker 6/1/24

Alternatives to the H-1B: O-1A Visa - Alternative Criterion 8 (High Remuneration)

For those of you considering viable options to the H-1B cap (because you were not selected in this year’s lottery), I will be doing a deep-dive into the O-1A criteria over the next couple of weeks.

When determining whether someone is qualified for O-1A classification, I cannot emphasize enough how essential it is to read the regulations and the requirements in their totality.

What does this mean? Read the regulations and the requirements in their totality. This means literally reading each and every single word – do not summarize or abbreviate the criterion because this is where you get into trouble.

If you do not possess evidence of receipt of a major, internationally recognized award (on the level of a Nobel Prize), in your field of endeavor, you can still qualify for O-1A classification by providing documentary evidence in at least three (3) out of eight (8) alternative criterion, which we will address in the coming weeks.

It is important to note that the vast majority of O-1A recipients that I have worked with (more than 99%) do not have a major, internationally recognized award. These incredibly talented individuals qualify for O-1A classification because they are able to meet at least three of the alternative criterion.

O-1A Deep Dive - Alternative Criterion 8

The regulations state that the beneficiary of an O-1A petition may provide evidence they “[have] either commanded a high salary or will command a high salary or other remuneration for services, evidenced by contracts or other reliable evidence.” 8 CFR §214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(8).

Problem

What’s so difficult about this criterion? Why do so many people get it wrong? To satisfy this criterion, you must make a two part showing:

The beneficiary has commanded (in the past) a high salary or other substantial remuneration for services in relation to others, OR
The beneficiary will command (in the future) a high salary or other substantial remuneration for service in relation to others.

Pro Tips

First, when evaluating high remuneration or salary, it is essential to determine whether the beneficiary is paid hourly or annually. If you are assessing paystubs, it is really important to determine whether the beneficiary is paid every week, bi-weekly (every other week, 26 paychecks per year) or semi-monthly (twice a month, 24 paychecks per year).

Second, whether a beneficiary is earning a high salary or other remuneration requires a comparison by geography and their peers. I have found that a very useful tool is the wage data provided by the DOL’s Foreign Labor Certification Data Center. In order to satisfy the high salary or other remuneration, the hourly or annual salary must exceed the Level 4 wage for the occupational classification most closely related to the beneficiary’s field of endeavor in the geographic location where all services have been performed or will be performed.

Third, read the Regulations and USCIS Policy Manual, in particular, “Appendix: Satisfying the O-1A Evidentiary Requirements” carefully and ensure that you are providing documentary evidence that satisfies the entirety of the criterion, not just a summary of what you think it means (or worse, only what you have evidence to show).

Fourth, work with a qualified business immigration attorney who is experienced in representing, preparing and filing O-1A petitions. It is essential to understand the changing definitions, regulatory interpretations and adjudicative priorities of USCIS in order to present the strongest possible petition.

Lin Walker 5/25/24 Lin Walker 5/25/24

Alternatives to the H-1B: O-1A Visa - Alternative Criterion 7 (Employment in a Critical or Essential Role)

For those of you considering viable options to the H-1B cap (because you were not selected in this year’s lottery), I will be doing a deep-dive into the O-1A criteria over the next couple of weeks.

When determining whether someone is qualified for O-1A classification, I cannot emphasize enough how essential it is to read the regulations and the requirements in their totality.

O-1A Deep Dive - Alternative Criterion 7

The regulations state that the beneficiary of an O-1A petition may provide evidence they have been “employed in a critical or essential capacity for organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation”. 8 CFR §214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7).

Problem

What’s so difficult about this criterion? Why do so many people get it wrong? To satisfy this criterion, you must make a two part showing:

The beneficiary has been (in the past, but can also include the present) employed in a critical or essential capacity; and
For organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation.

Pro Tips

First, many petitions use the terms “critical” or “essential” interchangeably, when these mean different things. For USCIS, a critical role means that the beneficiary has contributed in significant ways to the organization or establishment’s goals or activities. An essential role is one where the beneficiary is or was integral to the organization.

I know, this is very confusing but you can think of it this way: a critical role is one that impacts goals or activities (e.g., an engineer who contributes to the design and development of a highly successful product for a company), where an essential role is one that impacts the organization as a whole (e.g., a high-level executive or manager who creates policies or priorities that determine the company’s growth/trajectory).

Second, many petitions do not establish that the organizations and establishments have a distinguished reputation. To establish that an organization or establishment has a distinguished reputation, look at media reports about the company, including positive reputation, receipt of awards/accolades, significant press, and recognition as a leader in the field.

What evidence can be used to satisfy this criterion? Evidence may include but is not limited to: testimonial letters from people employed by the company with first-hand knowledge of the beneficiary’s critical or essential role; receipt of grants/funding for research and development; and media reports.

Lin Walker 5/18/24 Lin Walker 5/18/24

Alternatives to the H-1B: O-1A Visa - Alternative Criterion 6 (Authorship of Scholarly Articles)

For those of you considering viable options to the H-1B cap (because you were not selected in this year’s lottery), I will be doing a deep-dive into the O-1A criteria over the next couple of weeks.

When determining whether someone is qualified for O-1A classification, I cannot emphasize enough how essential it is to read the regulations and the requirements in their totality.

O-1A Deep Dive - Alternative Criterion 6

The regulations state that the beneficiary of an O-1A petition may provide evidence of their “authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional journals, or other major media”. 8 CFR §214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(6).

Problem

What’s so difficult about this criterion? Why do so many people get it wrong? To satisfy this criterion, you must make a two part showing:

The beneficiary written scholarly articles; and
Those articles have been published in professional journals or other major media.

Pro Tips

First, it is critical to note that this criterion DOES NOT require the beneficiary to be the sole or first/principal author of the article. So long as the beneficiary is listed as an author or one of the authors, the first prong is satisfied.

Second, the article must be published in a relevant professional journal (for the specific or allied field) or major media, which can include conference proceedings, major newspapers, and even well-established websites with a large viewership. In order to establish that the publication meets this criterion, it is essential to provide media kit(s) or circulation/readership/viewership data, impact factor (for scientific or academic journals), acceptance rates (for scientific or academic journals, and rankings in the specific field (for scientific or academic journals).

Lin Walker 5/11/24 Lin Walker 5/11/24

Alternatives to the H-1B: O-1A Visa - Alternative Criterion 5 (Original Contributions of Major Significance)

For those of you considering viable options to the H-1B cap (because you were not selected in this year’s lottery), I will be doing a deep-dive into the O-1A criteria over the next couple of weeks.

When determining whether someone is qualified for O-1A classification, I cannot emphasize enough how essential it is to read the regulations and the requirements in their totality.

O-1A Deep Dive - Alternative Criterion 5

The regulations state that the beneficiary of an O-1A petition may provide evidence of their “original scientific, scholarly, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field”. 8 CFR §214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5).

Problem

What’s so difficult about this criterion? Why do so many people get it wrong? To satisfy this criterion, you must make a two part showing:

The beneficiary has made original contributions; and
Those contributions are of major significance to their field.

Although many O-1As can meet this criterion, it takes strategic planning and organization because many different types of documentation serve as the “ingredients” to show original contributions of major significance.

Pro Tips

First, a beneficiary must show that they have made original contributions. An original contribution, which can include but is not limited to: establishing a cause for a certain phenomenon; developing a new technology, tool, process or method to investigate a phenomenon or resolve an important issue in society; creating a new method to identify and combat fraud and/or cybersecurity issues; and developing a new model to investigate disease or illnesses.

USCIS will consider a contribution to be original if it resulted in obtaining grants/funding, publishing articles, or receiving a patent. Note, however, that evidence of the a patent, alone, is not enough.

Second, the beneficiary must establish that the original contribution is of major significance to the field. USCIS will consider an original contribution to have major significance if: it has received significant attention from others in the field; if publications based on the contribution received significant citations; and/or if it has been licensed or utilized in a specific product.

What evidence can be used to satisfy this criterion? Evidence may include but is not limited to: testimonial letters from experts in the field discussing the originality and significance of the beneficiary’s work (more evidentiary weight is given to independent expert letters); citations reports and/or citations analyses showing that the beneficiary’s work has received numerous citations from recognized organizations/experts in the field; patents that have been licensed; or evidence of the commercial application/use of the contribution.

Lin Walker 5/4/24 Lin Walker 5/4/24

Alternatives to the H-1B: O-1A Visa - Alternative Criterion 4 (Judge of the Work of Others)

For those of you considering viable options to the H-1B cap (because you were not selected in this year’s lottery), I will be doing a deep-dive into the O-1A criteria over the next couple of weeks.

When determining whether someone is qualified for O-1A classification, I cannot emphasize enough how essential it is to read the regulations and the requirements in their totality.

O-1A Deep Dive - Alternative Criterion 4

The regulations state that the beneficiary of an O-1A petition may provide evidence of their “participation on a panel, or individually, as a judge of the work of others in the same or in an allied field of specialization to that for which classification is sought”. 8 CFR §214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(4).

Problem

What’s so difficult about this criterion? Why do so many people get it wrong? To satisfy this criterion, you must make a two part showing:

The beneficiary has served, either individually or as part of a group, as a judge of the work of other individuals AND
The work being judged is in the same or related field of specialization/endeavor.

Pro Tips

First, let’s cover what USCIS does not accept as satisfying this criterion. I have never seen USCIS accept service as the leader of a high school science club, mentoring of high school students, judging an elementary or high school writing or essay contest, or judging high school students as satisfying this criterion. While such work is commendable, in order to satisfy this criterion, the work being judged must be produced by individuals at a professional level.

Second, an invitation to judge by itself is not sufficient. The beneficiary must actually participate in the judging of the work of others.

Third, the work being judged must be in the O-1A beneficiary’s field of endeavor or a related field. If the beneficiary is applying for an O-1A as biomedical engineer, and participating as a judge for a food competition, such work would not satisfy this criterion.

So, what would work? Evidence may include but is not limited to: serving as a review of manuscripts, abstracts or articles submitted for presentation at scholarly conferences or publication in scholarly journals; serving as a member of a doctoral dissertation committee; serving as a reviewer for a government research program to determine the allocation of grants or funds; and/or serving as a member of the editorial board of a journal or publication.

Fourth, read the Regulations and USCIS Policy Manual, in particular, “Appendix: Satisfying the O-1A Evidentiary Requirements” carefully and ensure that you are providing documentary evidence that satisfies the entirety of the criterion, not just a summary of what you think it means (or worse, only what you have evidence to show).

Fifth, work with a qualified business immigration attorney who is experienced in representing, preparing and filing O-1A petitions. It is essential to understand the changing definitions, regulatory interpretations and adjudicative priorities of USCIS in order to present the strongest possible petition.

Lin Walker 4/27/24 Lin Walker 4/27/24

Alternatives to the H-1B: O-1A Visa - Alternative Criterion 3 (Published Materials About You & Your Work)

For those of you considering viable options to the H-1B cap (because you were not selected in this year’s lottery), I will be doing a deep-dive into the O-1A criteria over the next couple of weeks.

When determining whether someone is qualified for O-1A classification, I cannot emphasize enough how essential it is to read the regulations and the requirements in their totality.

O-1A Deep Dive - Alternative Criterion 3

The regulations state that the beneficiary of an O-1A petition may provide evidence of the “published material in professional or major trade publications or major media about the [Beneficiary], relating to [their] work in the field for which classification is sought”. 8 CFR §214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3).

Problem

What’s so difficult about this criterion? Why do so many people get it wrong? To satisfy this criterion, you must make a two part showing:

There are published materials WRITTEN ABOUT the beneficiary and their achievements AND
That material is published in major newspapers, trade journals, magazines or other publications.

Pro Tips

First, let’s cover what USCIS does not accept as satisfying this criterion. Social media posts such as those appearing on LinkedIn, X, Facebook, Threads, and Instagram do not count as major media. Photos in tabloids or links to videos appearing online do not count. Citations to a beneficiary’s published articles also do not satisfy this criterion (although such evidence can be used to satisfy another criterion which will be discussed in the coming days).

However, if the beneficiary was interviewed for a major broadcast network or related media outlet (which can include major podcasts) and transcripts are provided, such evidence is usually satisfactory. It is important to remember that the article must mention the beneficiary and discuss their recognition, achievement(s) or work in the field.

Second, in addition to providing a printed copy of the article (which must be in English or accompanied by a certified English translation) that shows the name and date of the publication, you must include media kit(s) or circulation/readership data to establish that the media qualifies as major media. Yes, there are adjudicators who will issue an RFE claiming that they cannot determine whether The Wall Street Journal or The New York Times qualifies as “major media” without media kits.

Lin Walker 4/20/24 Lin Walker 4/20/24

Alternatives to the H-1B: O-1A Visa - Alternative Criterion 2 (Memberships)

For those of you considering viable options to the H-1B cap (because you were not selected in this year’s lottery), I will be doing a deep-dive into the O-1A criteria over the next couple of weeks.

When determining whether someone is qualified for O-1A classification, I cannot emphasize enough how essential it is to read the regulations and the requirements in their totality.

O-1A Deep Dive - Alternative Criterion 2

The regulations state that the beneficiary of an O-1A petition may provide evidence of the “membership in associations in the field for which classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields”. 8 CFR §214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(2).

Problem

What’s so difficult about this criterion? Why do so many people get it wrong? To satisfy this criterion, you must make a three part showing:

You must be a member of an organization in the field of endeavor;
Outstanding achievement is a prerequisite for membership in that organization; and
Your achievements have been judged as outstanding by nationally or internationally recognized experts in their field.

Pro Tips

First, let’s cover what USCIS does not accept as satisfying this criterion: memberships based solely on a fee or subscription to a publication/service; membership based solely on experience in the field; and membership that is required for employment (such as union memberships). In my experience, being a member of a board of directors does not satisfy this criterion.

Second, to meet this criterion, you must show that your achievements or contributions to the field have been judged or otherwise recognized as outstanding. This requires documentation about the organization, the different levels of membership (if applicable), the criteria for membership, and evidence that your specific level of membership is one that requires outstanding achievement.

In my experience, most organizations do not meet this criterion, however, there are more organizations in the science and engineering fields that may qualify than there are in the business and education fields. According to USCIS’ Policy Manual, some memberships that may qualify include being a Fellow of IEEE or Fellow of AAAI. I’ve also had clients experience success with other organization memberships as well, and the key to success is providing the documentation showing that outstanding achievement is required.

Lin Walker 4/13/24 Lin Walker 4/13/24

Alternatives to the H-1B: O-1A Visa - Alternative Criterion 1 (Lesser Known Awards)

For those of you considering viable options to the H-1B cap (because you were not selected in this year’s lottery), I will be doing a deep-dive into the O-1A criteria over the next couple of weeks.

When determining whether someone is qualified for O-1A classification, I cannot emphasize enough how essential it is to read the regulations and the requirements in their totality.

O-1A Deep Dive - Alternative Criterion 1

The regulations state that the beneficiary of an O-1A petition may provide evidence of the “receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor”. 8 CFR §214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(1).

Problem

What’s so difficult about this criterion? Why do so many people get it wrong?

You must have received awards or prizes for excellence in your field of endeavor. A nomination for an award is not enough.
The award or prize must be recognized either nationally (in one specific country) or internationally (at least two countries).

Pro Tips

First, let’s cover what USCIS DOES NOT accept as satisfying this criterion: academic scholarships, poster awards, travel awards, and employment based awards (e.g. employee of the month/year). Keep in mind that patents and trademarks are not considered awards. In addition, awards/prizes granted solely for payment of an entry fee, obviously do not count.

Second, USCIS will consider certain grants/funding awards, doctoral dissertation awards, and awards and prizes received in recognition for excellence in the field of endeavor that are based on a competitive selection process. That is, if you are seeking to satisfy this criterion, you must show:

The reputation of the organization granting the award/prize;
Evidence regarding the significance of the award/prize such as media materials;
The eligibility and selection criteria for the award/prize; and
The number of recipients for the award/prize.

One such dissertation award that was previously recognized for a client of mine was the SPEC Kaivalya Dixit Distinguished Dissertation Award. According to the SPEC Research Group’s website, the award “aims to recognize outstanding doctoral dissertations in the field of computer benchmarking, performance evaluation, and experimental system analysis in general.” (https://research.spec.org/awards)

Keep in mind if eligibility for the award/prize is limited to the employees of a specific company or students of a specific school, such award/prize will most likely not meet this criterion. For example, if a dissertation award is only open to students of a particular university, such award will not meet this criterion.

Lin Walker 4/6/24 Lin Walker 4/6/24

Alternatives to the H-1B: O-1A Visa

For those of you considering viable options to the H-1B cap (because you were not selected in this year’s lottery), I will be doing a deep-dive into the O-1A criteria over the next couple of weeks.

When determining whether someone is qualified for O-1A classification, I cannot emphasize enough how essential it is to read the regulations and the requirements in their totality.

What does this mean? First, read the regulations and the requirements in their totality. This means literally reading each and every single word – do not summarize or abbreviate the criterion because this is where you get into trouble.

Second, remove your ego from the assessment. This means you must look at your evidence objectively and see things with an outsider’s perspective. This is particularly true with the first criterion: Major Awards.

A lot of prospective O-1A beneficiaries waste substantial resources (time, money and labor) trying to convince immigration attorneys that they qualify for O-1A classification with evidence that clearly does not meet the criterion, sometimes based on truly bad advice they have read online or received from individuals who are not immigration attorneys.

O-1A Deep Dive - Criterion 1

The regulations state that the beneficiary of an O-1A petition may provide evidence of the “receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, such as the Nobel Prize”. 8 CFR §214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A).

Problem

Satisfying this one criterion is sufficient to establish eligibility for O-1A classification. But let’s be honest–the vast majority of O-1A beneficiaries (and people in general) cannot satisfy this criterion.

What’s so difficult about this criterion? Why do so many people get it wrong?

First, for major, internationally recognized awards, it is not enough to be nominated or make it to the final round of panelists. You must receive the award.

Second, the award must be a major, internationally recognized award in the field, meaning it must satisfy three elements.

It must be an award or prize.
It must be internationally recognized. This means that the award is recognized the world over, not just in one country.
It must be in your field of endeavor.

Pro Tips

First, read the Regulations and USCIS Policy Manual, in particular, “Appendix: Satisfying the O-1A Evidentiary Requirements” carefully and ensure that you are providing documentary evidence that satisfies the entirety of the criterion, not just a summary of what you think it means (or worse, only what you have evidence to show).

Second, include relevant evidence to this specific criterion. Do not include evidence such as academic scholarships, research grants/funding, poster/presentation awards, travel awards, academic awards (regardless of age or institution), employment based awards (e.g. employee of the month/year), memberships in associations (this is its own criterion) and age-related awards (e.g., 30 under 30).

There are very few awards that will meet this criterion, some of which may include, in addition to a Nobel Prize: the Fields Medal (mathematics); Turing Award (computer science); and IEEE Medal of Honor (electrical engineering)

Third, work with a qualified business immigration attorney who is experienced in representing, preparing and filing O-1A petitions. It is essential to understand the changing definitions, regulatory interpretations and adjudicative priorities of USCIS in order to present the strongest possible petition.

Lin Walker 2/10/24 Lin Walker 2/10/24

New USCIS Fees on April 1, 2024

On January 31st, USCIS published a new fee schedule, which will take effect on April 1, 2024, and significantly impact most employment-based petitions. Most notably, the new fee schedule will add a mandatory Asylum Program Fee to every Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker, and Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, filed by for-profit employers.

What is the Asylum Program Fee?

It is an additional fee that USCIS is charging to U.S. employers in order to “fund part of the cost of administering the entire asylum process” which are estimated by the Agency to cost over $400 million per year. (89 FR 6208).

USCIS “determined that the Asylum Program Fee is an effective way to shift some costs to…petitioners who have more ability to pay”--in other words, U.S. employers who wish to sponsor foreign nationals for temporary (I-129) or permanent (I-140) employment in the United States. (89 FR 6208).

In other words, because Congress cannot figure out how to effectively fund the asylum process so that USCIS can properly administer and manage it, which has resulted in a backlog of more than 3 million cases, USCIS has in turn decided to tax U.S. employers in order to fund the asylum program.

What does this mean for U.S. employers?

Below is a chart of the new USCIS filing fees, by process, that must be paid beginning April 1, 2024.

If Employers have H, L, O, E, TN or I-140 petitions that can be filed before April 1, 2024, then they should do so in order to save hundreds, if not thousands of dollars.

Any cases that will be filed with USCIS on or after April 1, 2024, must include the new filing fees. Failure to file with the proper filing fees will result in the case being rejected.

Employers should take particular care in ensuring the proper filing fees with this year’s H-1B cap petitions, which must be filed after April 1, 2024. USCIS is often delayed in issuing receipt notices for cap cases, and it can take 6 weeks or longer to receive confirmation that a petition has been accepted or rejected. If the wrong filing fees are used and the H-1B cap petition is rejected, the Employer may not find out until after the filing period has expired, which means that the prospective employee will lose their opportunity for an H-1B in Fiscal Year 2025 and will need to be entered into the lottery for Fiscal Year 2026.

Lin Walker 9/3/23 Lin Walker 9/3/23

The Relationship Between Unauthorized Practice of Law and Unauthorized Employment

There are people who confuse being entrepreneurial with being parasitic. Where an opportunity arises and there is significant demand and desperation, there are people who will, and have, taken advantage of those who wish to obtain such an opportunity.

Take for example this year’s H-1B lottery debacle, wherein more than 408,000 H-1B registrations were filed for the same 96,000 beneficiaries, leading USCIS to conclude that “several dozen small technology companies” colluded to submit multiple registrations to increase their odds of selection in the H-1B lottery. USCIS has been actively engaged in investigating these companies and beneficiaries.

We are now seeing this with the sudden increase of O-1, NIW and EB-1A consultants offering immigration coaching and mentoring services on LinkedIn, specifically focusing on how to “build a profile” to be eligible for an O-1, NIW or EB-1A. What are their qualifications? Simply one circumstance: being the beneficiary of their own O-1, NIW or EB-1A petition, which in most instances was prepared and filed by a qualified and experienced immigration attorney. These individuals are taking advantage of the concern and desperation being experienced by individuals who were not selected in the H-1B lottery, and/or otherwise subject to the extensive delays in the availability of immigrant visa numbers because of the per-country restrictions.

Why do I take issue with this? First and foremost, these individuals are not trained, licensed or experienced business immigration attorneys and are clearly engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. Second, in some instances the unauthorized practice of law can result in unauthorized employment.

What is unauthorized practice of law?

According to the American Bar Association (ABA), unauthorized practice of law (UPL) “manifests in a non-attorney who establishes a business to offer immigration and other legal services” which includes guiding people “on what actions to take to resolve their immigration matters,” instructions “on which immigration form or process they should utilize”, completion of “the form, possibly even suggesting specific answers” and advising “on what they could expect.”

Furthermore, the ABA states that the “practice of immigration law is defined by federal regulation as an "act or acts of any person appearing in any case, either in person or through the preparation or filing of any brief or other document, paper, application, or petition on behalf of another person or client before or with [the Department of Homeland Security]...Preparation, an essential element of the practice of immigration law, is ‘the study of the facts of a case and the applicable laws, coupled with the giving of advice and auxiliary activities, including the incidental preparation of papers’.

USCIS recognizes the following individuals as being qualified to offer immigration advice and representation: (1) attorneys; and (2) non-attorney representatives who are accredited by the Board of Immigration Appeals. Someone whose only experience with the O-1, NIW or EB-1A is having their own petition approved is not recognized nor qualified to offer any legal advice.

These O-1, NIW and EB-1A consultants are engaged in UPL, regardless of the disclaimers they post on their LinkedIn profiles and websites. The moment an O-1, NIW, or EB-1A consultant advises a foreign national how to “build” their profile and brand, and meet USCIS criteria, they are engaged in providing legal advice. One particular non-attorney consultant wrote a book that they claim “demystifies” the EB-1A process, which they sell for approximately $150 in addition to offering their services to “coach” foreign nationals to create an EB-1A profile. Although they claim repeatedly that they are not offering legal advice, their book includes: distinctions between the different EB-1 categories with their opinion that the “bar is definitely lower in comparison” for certain categories [erroneous legal assessment]; the EB-1C requires employment as a multinational manager abroad for two years [erroneous legal interpretation]; that the EB-1A takes a shorter period of time to qualify than the other EB-1 categories; offers sample filing letters; and a claim that the final merits determination is based on establishing that a foreign national’s work benefits the U.S. economy [erroneous legal interpretation]. Contrary to their disclaimers, their book is filled with erroneous legal advice and standards.

So, assuming an O-1, NIW or EB-1A consultant offers legal advice that is more cost-effective than an immigration attorney (which is not accurate in many instances), what is the problem?

First, because such individuals are not trained, licensed and experienced immigration attorneys, they do not understand the intricacies of immigration law, which is filled with nuanced terms of art. As clear from above, this particular EB-1A consultant has misinterpreted the regulations or otherwise made-up standards that simply do not exist in the statute, regulations or case law. Their only experience with the EB-1A category is the approval of their own petition, which was prepared and filed by a qualified U.S. immigration attorney.

Second, a foreign national’s immigration record is forever–meaning mistakes made not only remain a permanent part of a foreign national’s record, but can have severe consequences. At best, a mistake made by one of these non-attorneys will result in lost fees and a rejected or denied petition. At worst, a mistake can result in the foreign national being subjected to additional scrutiny for misrepresentation or fraud, losing significant money, violating or otherwise failing to maintain the nonimmigrant status, or being subjected to removal proceedings.

Third, by convincing a foreign national who is not qualified for the O-1, NIW or EB-1A to file a petition with USCIS, they are only adding to the significant caseload and backlogs that are plaguing our immigration system. Each case filed with USCIS must be adjudicated and in comparison, to other types of petitions, O-1, NIW and EB-1 petitions are very document-heavy, meaning that there is significant evidence that must be reviewed. When a petition is filed with the skewed standards as interpreted by an O-1, NIW or EB-1A consultant that do not meet the regulatory criteria, valuable USCIS resources are misused, adding to delays and costs.

How does UPL trigger unauthorized employment?

According to USCIS, unauthorized employment is: “any service or labor performed for an employer within the United States by a noncitizen who is not authorized by the INA or USCIS to accept employment or who exceeds the scope or period of the noncitizen’s employment authorization.”

USCIS generally approves nonimmigrant petitions for employment (such as an H-1B, O-1A or O-1B) with a specific employer, for a specific role, with specific job duties, for a specific period of time. A foreign national may engage in unauthorized employment by working for a company other than the one listed on their USCIS approval notice, by performing duties or services not approved by USCIS in the petition filed by their employer, or working beyond the date authorized by USCIS regulations.

How does UPL trigger unauthorized employment? There are a number of individuals present in the U.S. in O-1A status who have now jumped into the immigration coaching and mentoring area, by writing books offering legal advice and by providing coaching/mentoring services for immigration.

For example, two individuals who recently received approved O-1A petitions held a LinkedIn webinar offering O-1A preparation, planning and mentoring advice to other professionals in the Information Technology (IT) industry. Both individuals stated that they received their O-1As for Product Manager roles through very well-known tech companies (their profiles confirmed this information) and now they were offering immigration advice to help other Product Managers qualify for the O-1A including: whether the foreign national needed to work in the sciences or research; whether the foreign national required an advanced degree; what kind of evidence is required; and that foreign nationals can change from F-1 to O-1.

Here is the problem, it is highly likely, given their detailed job descriptions posted online, that their UPL exceeds the scope of their Product Manager employment as petitioned by the IT employers and approved by USCIS. That is, unless their respective IT employers included in their job description that they would be required to engage in providing legal advice and mentoring other Product Managers on their immigration qualifications and how to prepare and qualify for an O-1, such activities would likely constitute unauthorized employment. [Note: it is unlikely that USCIS would have approved an O-1 petition for an IT Product Manager that also included the job duty of UPL – such a duty falls outside what is normally required of an IT Product Manager.]

Engaging in unauthorized employment can result in severe consequences for foreign nationals. First, foreign nationals who engage in unauthorized employment are deemed to have violated their nonimmigrant status and failed to maintain status. Second, it makes a foreign national ineligible to extend or change their status in the United States. Third, it makes a foreign national ineligible to adjust their status to lawful permanent resident in the United States unless there is an exemption or other provision of law available. Fourth, it makes a foreign national subject to deportation or removal proceedings. Fifth, it could result in their nonimmigrant visa being revoked or a future application denied.

Keep in mind, the test for unauthorized employment is NEVER just about receipt of payment. A very common misconception held by foreign nationals is that if they don’t get paid for the work, then they are volunteering. Engaging in unpaid work is not the same as volunteering and where USCIS is concerned, if a foreign national is engaging in work that is usually performed for payment, then the foreign national must: (a) hold the proper visa classification and (b) be paid.

How would USCIS even find out about unauthorized employment? In this case, very easily – through social media. Nearly each one of these O-1A IT professionals have advertised their books and immigration mentoring services on LinkedIn, which can easily be found by searching the “#O1visa”. In addition, if these individuals are receiving payment for their immigration mentoring services, such payment must be reported on the U.S. tax returns, which must be provided if the foreign national seeks a greencard in the United States. USCIS is increasingly becoming social media savvy and many of these individuals have been very public in offering their services. It is a shame that they did not speak with their immigration attorneys before engaging in these activities, which can potentially jeopardize their immigration status in the U.S.

Conclusion

I’m not looking to denigrate anyone’s work or ability to make a living. However, providing the wrong legal advice can and does cause harm that can be permanent, place people in legal jeopardy and cause them to lose thousands of dollars.

These O-1, NIW and EB-1A consultants are providing erroneous legal advice and engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, which can have significant consequences for themselves and the foreign national consumers who use them.

If you want legal advice on immigration law, hire an immigration attorney with experience. If you have any questions about an O-1, NIW or EB-1, please schedule a consultation with us. If you are in the U.S. and seek to engage in services beyond the scope of your employment, you must speak with an immigration attorney before commencing such activities because you could be violating your nonimmigrant status.

Lin Walker 8/14/23 Lin Walker 8/14/23

The Art and Science of Architecture

This past weekend we had the privilege of attending a fundraising Soiree at Frank Lloyd Wright’s Fallingwater, the iconic vacation home built on a waterfall.

In the early 1930s the department store magnate Philip Kaufmann asked the very famous modern architect, Frank Lloyd Wright, to build his family a permanent vacation residence in the woods just outside of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Wright, who was already famous for turning his back on the compartmentalized architectural style of the Victorian era, was one of the first innovators of what would become the open plan Mid-Century Modern home that we are familiar with today. Recognized as an innovator and rule-breaker, Wright built the Kaufmann’s vacation home on top of a waterfall to coexist with the flow of the water, rather than build at the base of the waterfall where the natural feature would be visible to the inhabitants of the structure.

The house, with its daring cantilevered balconies jutting out over the rushing water (technologically innovative for the time) is sculpturally stunning. Once inside Fallingwater, you cannot see the waterfall, but you can hear it. Wright wanted the inhabitants of this modern structure to live with the waterfall rather than treat it as a pretty postcard view.

But it is the intimate nooks and crannies everywhere throughout the structure that reveal the genius of Wright. There are so many spaces, inside and out, cozy or expansive, that invite rest and contemplation. No matter whether you are inside Fallingwater, or enjoying one of its many balconies, there is a unique feeling of harmony between the structure and the environment.

Architecture in general is something that is close to our hearts and is a great topic for a deeper dive into O-1s, something equally near and dear to us. And architecture is one of those rare professions that is both art and science and therefore gives us the flexibility to decide what kind of O-1 Visa best suits the petitioner.

More than any other structure we’ve seen, Fallingwater embodies the practical blended with the fanciful, the functional joined with the spiritual in a way that really brings home the notion that architecture is a unique discipline that can cross over the lines of categorization when petitioning for an O-1 Visa.

Because architecture embodies both art and science, that gives us the flexibility to decide whether the architect has a better chance of getting an O-1A or an O-1B petition approved. In other words, applying as a kind of engineer or scientist, in the case of the O-1A. Or would it be better to petition as an O-1B, wherein the architect is presented as an artist? For this profession, we have a choice.

Architecture as Art

To make the argument that architecture is art one can begin by emphasizing the beautiful, graceful, aesthetic and sculptural aspects of the structure. We can also talk about the “feel” or the “soul” of a place, which some would define as the “spiritual” component of a structure.

Generally speaking architecture, as opposed to engineering, is rooted more firmly in the world of artistic expression, requiring a variety of artistic expertise in addition to considerable technical building skill.

The visual, sculptural aspects of the design of buildings are easy to appreciate. The spiritual might not be as easy to define, but often when speaking of the “feeling” of a space people use words like serenity, energy, peacefulness, atmosphere and mood.

An architect who is able to evoke these emotions with their buildings is certainly operating in the world of art.

Very often an architect will push the artistic aspect of a structure even further and prioritize the aesthetic over the functional, creating seemingly impractical design details meant to evoke awe, wonder or contemplation, much like the flying cantilever balconies of Fallingwater or the more contemporary metallic curvilinear surfaces of the Walt Disney Concert Hall by Frank Gehry.

Some of the best examples of architects emphasizing the artistic over the functional to evoke a contemplative or reverent mood can be seen in designs of places of worship. With these structures the artistic and sculptural elements of designed spaces for humans to inhabit are raised to the highest level.

So, taking this into account, how do we show that an architect qualifies as an artist for O-1B classification?

In order to qualify as a person of “extraordinary ability” in the arts, a beneficiary must have “sustained national or international acclaim or distinction, which USCIS defines as possessing “a high level of achievement in the field of arts, as evidenced by a degree of skill and recognition substantially above that ordinarily encountered to the extent that a person described as prominent is renowned, leading, or well-known in the field of arts.”

In our experience, some of the criteria that an architect could satisfy for O-1B classification includes, but is not limited to:

Evidence that the architect has achieved national or international recognition for their achievements;
Evidence that the architect has performed, and will perform, in a lead, starring, or critical role for organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation;
Evidence that the architect has received significant recognition for their achievements from organizations, critics, government agencies, or other recognized experts in the field; or
Evidence that the architect has either commanded a high salary or will command a high salary or other substantial remuneration for services in relation to others in the field.

Architecture as Science

Viewed from the purely technical side, architecture is the science of designing buildings and other structures to meet functional, technical and aesthetic requirements. It is a discipline that bridges the theory of design with the practice of construction, taking into account landscape and environmental considerations as well as naturally occurring (wood and stone) and human-made (steel and concrete) materials.

In order to qualify as an architect of “extraordinary ability” in the sciences, an individual must have “sustained national or international acclaim or distinction”, which USCIS defines as possessing a level of expertise indicating that the person is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor.

In our experience, some of the criteria that O-1A architects typically meet include:

Evidence of that they received a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in architecture, such as the Pritzker Architecture Prize, AIA Gold Medal, or American National Design Award, to name a few;
Evidence of their membership in architectural associations that require outstanding achievements of their members as judged by recognized national or international experts in the field, such as AIA Fellow membership;
Published materials in professional or major trade publications or major media about them and their architectural work;
Evidence of their original architectural contributions of major significance in the field;
Evidence that they have written scholarly articles about architecture, that have been published in professional journals, or other major media;
Evidence that they have been employed in a critical or essential capacity for organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation; or
Evidence that they have either commanded a high salary or will command a high salary or other remuneration for their architectural services.

Architecture is one of those incredible fields, where accomplishments can be stunning, both artistically and technically, qualifying an individual to be extraordinary in the arts and sciences. If you ever have an opportunity to visit Fallingwater, or any other structure created by Wright, we highly recommend doing so.

This article was co-written by Mike Pulcinella of The Pulcinella Agency (https://www.pulcinellaagency.com/). Mike is an incredibly talented artist in his own right as well as a very skilled immigration agent. To learn more about Mike, visit The Pulcinella Agency or Mike’s LinkedIn page (https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-pulcinella-3860502/).